From: "Milissa" Subject: Re: Notice: Mild Usenet annoyance, Fred "Baha'i in *Perfectly* Good Standing" Gleysher, STILL at it! Date: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 9:51 AM Hi Susan-- Not to ask about Fred specifically, but just the process in general. > No, it is not a disciplinary measure. Fred was removed from the rolls because > it was determined he did not meet the criteria of membership as given by Shoghi > Effendi. My reading of SE is that this determination is to be made at the time one signs the card and is not a blanket permission for the LSA/NSA/UHJ to remove someone later, even years later. Now I understand the logic....if a body can determined an individual's qualifications before the card signing they are capable of it afterwards. But since Baha'i is supposed to be a "textually based" religion I would feel a lot more comfortable about this if SE had explicity said somewhere that this could be done. As it is, I read SE to give the AO only two options: either administrative sanctions or CBhood. Can you point me to the Writings where any level of the AO can summarily removed someone from the rolls after they have signed the card? Thanks Peace, MilissaFrom: "Randy Burns" Subject: Re: Notice: Star Chamber in session Date: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 12:05 PM Susan said: Fred was removed from the rolls because > it was determined he did not meet the criteria of membership as given by Shoghi > Effendi. In other words they had a star chamber hearing and Fred was convicted and sentenced to Baha'i death. Cheers, Randy -- Susan Maneck wrote in message news:20020102052228.26239.00001175@mb-mk.aol.com... > > > >That National determined on expelling Fred, obviously as a > >disciplinary measure, > > No, it is not a disciplinary measure. Fred was removed from the rolls because > it was determined he did not meet the criteria of membership as given by Shoghi > Effendi. Had they wished to discipline Freddy they would have removed his > voting rights. When that happens one is informed. > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > From: "Curious" Subject: Re: Internet Crackdown Date: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 12:52 PM Rick Schaut wrote in message news:a1f0g501nv2@enews3.newsguy.com... > > "Curious" wrote in message > news:3c3ac2dc@dnews.tpgi.com.au... > > Leads him to conclude that it is perfect, can do no wrong, requires no > > reform and is under attack by miscreants who seek no more than > > division and strife. > > Hello, Rod. It's nice to see you too. Internet Rick, you cant see me at all. > > For those who've only recently come to these newsgroups, I have the distinct > honor of being the very first Baha'i Rod ever insulted, Correction....Consciously, deliberately, deservedly insulted. >and Rod has the > distinct honor of being the first Baha'i to respond with insults to a > question I had asked in all sincerity. Rubbish. You had been repeatedly insulted by others who had long tired of your obfuscation, filibuster and evasion. The question you asked was repeatedly answered, you chose to ignore the answer and continually repeat the question, I chose to insult you for doing so. >To be perfectly honest, I don't know > if Rod has ever given a straightforward answer to that question. Ok Rick....here it is again...you asked "What did I expect the community to do" when one member of the community was being abusive towards another. The answer then, now and always is "Ask them to stop" That was for starters...if they don't stop..."Impose minor sanction" > Much of > what Rod has had to say to me ever since then has been peppered with > personal invectives. You earned them. > And, for the record, no. I do not believe the Baha'i Administrative Order > is perfect in every way, that it can do no wrong nor that it requires no > reform. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. I have been quite > willing to entertain reform from those who have demonstrated sufficient > knowledge of the issues about which they propose reform. Your post history demonstrates a willingness to perform the most remarkable contortions in defense of inadequate and dysfunctional Baha'i proceedings... up to and including blaming the victim. You have been quite 'entertaining' in your obfuscation. > So, Rod, your issue is due process. I have asked you a rather simple > question regarding who the "accuser" is in the due process right to face > one's accuser. Do we begin the dance again Rick? The one in which you hold up the dim light of theoretical Baha'i due process against the dark contemporary western legal systems due process? Why bother? It was and remains a evasion of your own devising. The accuser (within the Baha'i community) is the individual/s who present the accusation. Fair due process would entail knowing 'who' has raised the allegation, on what basis and the right to present a defense against the allegations. Play it anyway you like Rick....fact is...Baha'is can be subject to serious allegations and denied the knowledge of who, why and the opportunity to respond. > While you've made several rather obnoxious attempts to > answer that question, you still haven't answered it correctly. 'Correctly'? LOL... You play semantic games with western legal principles Rick. The 'accuser' is the individual who openly alleges I have used a government agency against him. The 'accuser' is the person who proposes that I have organized secret meetings to his exclusion. The 'accuser' is the individual who colludes with the chair of an NGO to draft a letter to himself (chair of NGO) alleging I have engaged in "immoral" and "illegal" activities. So enlighten me Rick.....'correct' my erroneous understanding that the accuser is the one who brings the allegation. > Can you put personalities aside long enough to actually discuss the meaning of the terms > you've used? I do not object to your personality Rick...that is a far too insubstantial target. I object to your persistent, blatant and ethically repugnant evasion and distortion of the core issues. That certainly would be the most Baha'i thing to do. The "Baha'i thing to do"?.....What an interesting turn of phrase Rick....Would that be a reference to Baha u llahs "thing to do" (Justice).......Or a reference to 'the communities' "thing to do" (Denial, evasion, platitude and sanctimonious blaming)? Rod. From: "Ron House" Subject: Re: Not to criticise? Date: Thursday, January 10, 2002 2:04 AM Dave Fiorito wrote: > > Ron House wrote in message news:<3C3BA222.50FEDC57@usq.edu.au>... > > Robert Little wrote: > > > > > > Well then, it is my understanding that this approach you advocate goes > > > against the teachings of Baha'u'llah, which generally and specifically call > > > for Baha'is to NOT publicly criticize, and severely limits, if that is the > > > proper expression, even private criticism. > > > > Please tell us which specific passages from Baha'u'llah's pen you are > > referring to. > > From the Writings: I asked about the claim regarding the teachings of _Baha'u'llah_, not others after him. Deleting those that don't respond to my question, we are left with: > This Wronged One hath forbidden the people of God to engage in > contention or conflict and hath exhorted them to righteous deeds and > praiseworthy character. > > -- Tablets of Bahá'u'lláh p.88 > > Should anyone, in the presence of the Manifestation, discover an evil > intention on the part of any soul, he must not oppose him, but must > leave him to God. > > -- Bahá'u'lláh, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf p.110 Neither of these say anything whatsoever about limiting people's freedom of speech. The conflation of reasoned verbal criticism with 'contention' is a seriously debilitating mistaking of concepts. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au https://www.sci.usq.edu.au/staff/houseFrom: "Milissa" Subject: excommunication Date: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 3:51 PM Hi Susan (and Dave)- I've been going through the quotes the last couple of days, comparing the text in the UHJ's constitution with those of Shoghi Effendi's. The text of the UHJ constitution is, well, pretty broad. Basically, you are only a Baha'i if they say you are. Gone is 'Abdu'l-Baha's idea that a man can be a Baha'i even if he hasn't heard of Baha'u'llah! It is still hard for me to see how the UHJ got to take over all this from a textual point of view. It seems that the UHJ can take over any function of the Guardian, not as Guardian of course, but as "Head of the Faith".... This brings me to a question I haven't had before......is there a distinction to be made between Shoghi Effendi as Guardian and SE as "head of the Faith?" Susan wrote: > Yes, the text in question here would be the Constitution of the Universal House > of Justice. > > "The Baha'i community shall consist of all persons recognized by the Universal > house of Justice as possessing the qualifications of Baha'i Faith and > practice." Of course, I was hoping for a text the UHJ didn't write itself! ;) Also, I was hoping for a text that would specifically address the issue of what to do once the recognition has been given and the House wants to take it away. In addition to the lack of balance in all this, as I noted to Dave, another thing concerns me. I can't find textual support for the idea that this recognition can be taken away as a *punishment* for infractions of Baha'i Law. This is all so very befuddling. I just have a hard time accepting the idea that Baha'u'llah would create such a powerful Institution yet leave the individual believers so powerless. Peace, MilissaFrom: "ROBIN M PETERS" Subject: Re: Internet Crackdown Date: Friday, January 11, 2002 11:30 AM "Rick Schaut" wrote in message news:3c3e429b$1@news.microsoft.com... > (snip) > One problem with a direct threat is how to convey such a threat without > impinging upon the individual's right of conscience. I don't think I have a > solution to that one. > > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > > Hi. The way I see it, the threat can be conveyed in this way: "You have a choice. Either you agree to our way of doing things or you will no longer be a member." In other words, the person is free to choose between membership on the leadership's terms or nonmember status. There are two problems with that IMHO. The first is that at least in the circles in which I travel, all of my peers recognize that this is truly a threat rather than a choice and react accordingly. If they are afraid of losing a valued peer group, they will do anything they are told because to do otherwise would mean loss of the valued peer group (in this case, they'd lose the right to practice a beloved religion if they didn't do it the Administrative Order's way). If they think the Faith as it's currently practiced is so much bull guano (pardon the indelicacy), they'll tell the AO "up yours" and actually brag about being declared a CB or having their administrative rights denied. I have also noted that at times, it is easy to paint a choice in such a way as to make the listener not even realize a choice is being offered; I'm not referring to the aforementioned threat, but to a situation in which the speaker is so gifted at using words that he or she can "veil" a choice behind a curtain of words. Therefore, the listener will not even know he or she is being put in a position of choosing between two alternatives (in this case, choosing what to do about one's Baha'i membership status). Psychics do something similar all the time, veiling requests for information so thickly that not even they are recognizing that they are asking for information (preferring to believe that they are psychic). You are also at least a little bit right, Rick, in acknowledging that there are really no easy answers here. Communicating something like this is tricky at best because the speaker means to say something one way and the listener hears what the speaker says in the listener's own way. Robin Peters From: "Randy Burns" Subject: Re: Internet Crackdown Date: Sunday, January 13, 2002 4:07 PM Paul Unity is the new "false God" of Baha'i. We have raised it to an altar far above its station. As you say below: >everyone else is entitled to their own > interpretations, but must never speak them We have of course sacrificed our personal opinions and the right of expression on the false altar of "Unity." Unity is our Golden Calf. Unity, to be effective, must occur in the diversity of many opinions freely expressed. Roy A. Medvedev, the Soviet dissident scholar, once commented: "It is safe to say that if by some miracle Marx, Engels, and Lenin were to appear among us, most of the works they might write analyzing our social conditions would not be passed for publication." I wonder if the same might not be true for "our" Central Figures? This problem of following after false gods can be corrected but only if the Faith is willing to avail itself of some self examination, i.e. uncensored self examination. A sure step of approach to this path would be to end review once and for all. Cheers, Randy -- Paul Hammond wrote in message news:3c41db30@212.67.96.135... > SNIP > > And, in the same document, did not Abdu'l Baha define and limit > the sphere of expertise of the elected UHJ to be "legislation", and > then specify that the two new authorities of the Faith - the UHJ > and the Guardian, would not stray into each others territory. > > So, do you consider that with the ending of Guardians, the UHJ > can now interpret, and everyone else is entitled to their own > interpretations, but must never speak them? > > Or, does this phrase rather refer to the false interpretations > of individuals with judicial authority contradicting the rulings of > the authoritative body of the Faith? > > Besides, there's no call for low blows to the sincerely held > religious beliefs of others, even ex-Baha'is - whatever happened > to associating in the spirit of radiance? > > Paul > > From: "Milissa" Subject: Re: excommunication Date: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 12:55 PM Hi Susan-- > Well, it would be pretty hard to have an organized religion on that basis. :-) Just a rhetorical question but I wonder why God has to have His/Her religion organized in the first place. Philosophers can and have had as large an impact. oh well........ > But during 'Abdu'l-Baha's time people were called Baha'is and counted on our > rolls who showed the least amount of sympathy towards the Faith, even if they > didn't consider themselves to be such. Yep..things have definitely changed. > But obviously I think Baha'i means two different things in this context. > 'Abdu'l-Baha is using Baha'i in the sense of a spiritual state not exclusive to > us as believers, while the House is speaking of membership in a specific Faith > community. The problem here is that the message I get from the House is that these things really can't be separated. Have I misinterpreted them? Are you really saying that I could refer to myself as a Baha'i in the spiritual state and have the UHJ accept this as legitimate? I certainly hope so, as it would be a way for me to deal with all this stuff. It would be nice if there could be an *officially* recognized category of "independent" or "unaffiliated" Baha'is.....Baha'is who can't for whatever reason sign the card, yet are included in the community at a deeper level than just any non-Baha'i can. This is just a thought and will probably go over like a lead balloon. (snippage) > I'm not sure why you would consider membership status to be a function of the > Guardian. It strikes me as an administrative task. I know it is primarily the responsibility of the LSA to determine this and, in his lifetime, Shoghi Effendi could be appealed to. > >This brings me to a question I haven't had before......is there a > >distinction to be made between Shoghi Effendi as Guardian and SE as > >"head of the Faith?" > > In practice, no. But then the Guardian and the House never co-existed. Yea and this is why I know there can never be a clear answer to me. Because his two roles were so close, it is hard (for me) to see where the UHJ can take up tasks SE performed in his lifetime, tasks that he performed not as Guardian but as "head of the Faith"......For example, the UHJ confirms that they cannot appoint another Guardian because only the current Guardian could do that. Yet, Shoghi Effendi was just as explicit that only the Guardian can declare some a CB, yet the UHJ did take over this function. I don't understand, from a textual point of view, why they could take over one function and not the other. > >Of course, I was hoping for a text the UHJ didn't write itself! ;) > > LOL. But keep in mind that it wasn't something they made up because of the > present crisis. This was written a generation ago. Yes and I do appreciate this. Of course, like you said, disenrollment/excommunication like what happened to McKinney and Marshall are new developments. It is very troubling to me that the UHJ is not confined by *any* standard practices or procedures and the individuals themselves have no guarantees of protection. The House itself admitted that there is no due process in the Faith. >I can't find textual support for the idea > >that this recognition can be taken away as a *punishment* for > >infractions of Baha'i Law. > > Except in cases of declaring someone a Covenant breaker it isn't. Are you serious? You don't think being kicked out of a religion you love and have worked hard for is not a punishment? you quote the letter to the wife (parts I have snipped) > "The mission that has been laid by Baha'u'llah on those > who recognize and would follow Him is the promotion of the > unification of the earth's peoples in one global society guided by > Divine principle. In order for the Baha'i community to discharge > this responsibility, it must itself remain united. It must > demonstrate to a skeptical age that human beings, in all their > diversity, can learn to live and work as a single people in one > global homeland. I know this will sound very cynical, but I can't help it. If the UHJ cannot tolerate a few misguided people who send them emails or post book reviews on the web, then how the hell can I really expect them to lead us into a global homeland where diversity is honored? I know this message is not the one Baha'is want to give to the world, but it does appear that everything is sacrificed to this concept of unity. If the UHJ *really* wants to demonstrate to a *very* skeptical age that the Baha'is have even the remotest chance of uniting a very diverse world while at the same time honoring differences, then disenrolling people is not the way to do it. I'm sorry, but to the outside world it looks cultic and all the talk about how membership is voluntary is not going to be impressive. > "The means by which Baha'u'llah has chosen to preserve the unity > of Baha'i society is the institutions established in the Covenant > which He made with those who accept Him. His Writings make it > indisputably clear that the spiritual and social teachings thus set > forth cannot be separated from the institutional means their Author > has provided for their promotion. This is where they have conflated the spiritual status of Baha'i with membership in a community. The distinction 'Abdu'l-Baha made in 1912 is gone. :( Particularly is this true of the > interpretive functions with which the Guardianship has been endowed > and the ultimate decision-making power invested in the Universal > House of Justice, both of which are assured of unfailing Divine > guidance. I don't think I will ever be able to tell the difference between "interpretive functions" and "ultimate decision-making power"....but that is just me. > One is entirely free to accept or reject the system of belief > Baha'u'llah teaches. The Baha'i Faith is a religion which believes > ardently in freedom of spiritual choice. No one is -- or can ever > be -- compelled to be a Baha'i, nor does any discredit attach to > one who, having decided, for whatever reason, that he or she cannot > continue to accept the Teachings, may decide to renounce them. What > one cannot properly do is to behave in a way that undermines the > unity of the Baha'i community, by challenging the institutional > authority that is an integral part of the Faith one professes to > have accepted." But now there is a new question, isn't there? Sure, no one can be compelled to be a Baha'i. But apparently they can be compelled to not be a Baha'i. Why is one considered an action of spiritual choice and the other not? > To put in a single word, the key issue here was the Covenant. Now the > consequence to opposing the Covenant is, as you well know, being declared a > Covenant breaker. But in the cases of those who were removed from the rolls, > the determination of the House of Justice was, as they put it in regards to > Michael, > " the Universal House of Justice reached the conclusion that he > neither understands the basic implications of Baha'i membership nor has any > real desire to do so." What I have never understood is how it can determine what Michael does or does not desire? Unless he flat out said "I don't desire to understand" how would it know? This is the kind of decision I don't think the House can make since it involves something only God knows. > As such he could neither be expected to abide by the provisions of the > Covenant, nor punished for failing to do so. gee, I guess that is big of them. > Perhaps we are not as powerless as you imagine. It certainly feels that way. >But we are a religion, not simply members of a social or political movement. >As such we attempt to respond to the revelation given by God, not make God in >our own image. The problem is that Baha'u'llah promised a world where we can respond to God in our own way with freedom and not have some heavy authority figure come around and tell us that our feeble attempts are selfish (you are just trying to make God in your own image) or evil (you are trying to destroy the Covenant). Peace, and thanks for taking the time to respond. MilissaFrom: "Alma Engels" Subject: Re: Internet Crackdown Date: Thursday, January 17, 2002 1:35 AM An audit sounds great -- if it were feasible, Susan. But the treasurer on a LSA, like others may be an amateur at keeping books, etc. And the books may be meaningless. Think this doesn't happen? Some years ago the treasurer for the LSA where I live managed to 'appropriate' something like $90,000 over a few years. The LSA hadn 't a clue. It was members of the treasurers family who became suspicious and forced the treasurer to confess to the LSA. In peace, Alma Susan Maneck wrote in message news:20020115001217.23567.00002502@mb-md.aol.com... > > > >I'm asking you to Role Play, one step at a time. > >I'm asking what your responses and expectations would be > >under the circumstances described. > > Well my first response would be to ask him what the heck he is talking about. > > Is that what you are looking for? > > >Are you asking for an audit? > > I'm suggesting that an audit would have already been done routinely on a yearly > basis. > > >"An audit wont do any good , the money disappears > >between donation and banking, It's been doing on for some time now." > > I would tell him this is a very serious charge and demand he present his > evidence. > > warmest, > > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > > From: "Rebecky" Subject: Re: Open Letter to Susan Date: Thursday, January 17, 2002 12:05 PM "Mavaddat" wrote in message news:... > Hey Becky, > > It's sad to hear that you chose to leave the Faith that you love so much. I > just wanted to point out that it isn't against Bahai law to read Covenant > breakers' writings. In fact, there are many Bahais who are hold the > responsibility of talking with these people. Basically, Bahais believe that > Covenant breakers have the power to destroy this Cause, however only if we > allow ourselves (Bahais) to be mislead by them. By speaking with a Covenant > breaker, we are testing our own Faith in the Words of Baha'u'llah; and since > we do not know the strength of our Faith in the Covenant, we may be testing > ourselves beyond our ability. (Kinda like those guys in the gym who try to > bench press WAAAY too much and end up popping a vein.) Baha'u'llah says, > "Purge your sight, that ye may perceive its glory with your own eyes, and > depend not on the sight of any one except your self, for God hath never > burdened any soul beyond its power." This means that only tests given by God > can be assuredly overcome. Anyway, this is what the Universal House of > Justice has to say about the matter: > > "To read the writings of Covenant-breakers is not forbidden to the believers > and does not constitute in itself an act of Covenant-breaking. Indeed, some > of the Baha'is have the unpleasant duty to read such literature as part of > their responsibilities for protecting the Cause of Baha'u'llah. However, the > friends are warned in the strongest terms against reading such literature > because Covenant-breaking is a spiritual poison and the calumnies and > distortions of the truth which the Covenant-breakers give out are such that > they can undermine the faith of the believer and plant the seeds of doubt > unless he is fore-armed with an unshakable belief in Baha'u'llah and His > Covenant and a knowledge of the true facts." > Letter from the Universal House of Justice, dated October 29, 1974 > > If you want to know more about the matter, please check out The True Seeker > library result on the subject or just check the site yourself. > The True Seeker library result on the subject: > https://www.ibiblio.org/bahai-bin/true-seeker.pl?word=Covenant&within=2&direc > tion=either&word2=Breaker&context=5&book=abl&book=adj&book=aro&book=ba&book= > sb&book=bne&book=bp&book=bwf&book=bk&book=cf&book=be&book=142-2&book=sch&boo > k=142-4&book=db&book=dnd&book=dg&book=esw&book=fwu&book=fn&book=gwb&book=gpb > &book=ahw&book=phw&book=he&book=aqd&book=jap&book=iqa&book=lanz&book=ldg1&bo > ok=ldg2&book=mf&book=ma&book=mc&book=mbw&book=pt&book=pm&book=pb&book=pwp&bo > ok=pdc&book=pup&book=prh&book=sdc&book=sab&book=swb&book=svfv&book=saq&book= > taf&book=tab&book=tb&book=tdp&book=tn&book=ud&book=wt&book=wob&submit=Search > check the site yourself: > https://www.ibiblio.org/Bahai/TrueSeeker/ > Thanks for the kind response. I had erroneously presumed the "rules" would be the same for the internet as snail mail, but I can appreciate the difference in personal correspondence (via snail mail or e-mail), which we were strongly asked NOT to engage in, and public message boards. The whole "shunning" issue is too hard for us. Being inquisitive types, my husband and I asked "too many questions" not only concerning CB's, but also UHJ doctrinal positions which seemed, to us, contradictory to the writings. We asked what would happen to us if WE were declared CB's because of our questioning and desire for fair-minded open discussion of Bahai doctrine -- discussions which could NOT be terminated by the old "UHJ infallibillity dead end". In answer to our questions about CB, it was confirmed to us that if we ended up getting ourselves declared CB's, none of our Bahai friends could ever associate with us again -- no phone calls, no correspondence, no picnics, nothing. All contact severed. Understandably concerned, we did further research on our own, and read of cases where families had been close for years in the Bahai community, children grew up together, then when the UHJ declared one family CB, all ties were severed. Children were forcibly removed from contact with their lifelong friends. (This social pressure was apparently used to force the CB to "repent" and rejoin the orthodox fold.) Some of these CB cases occurred over nothing more than a request for public discussion and open debate of textual interpretation -- a person, in some cases a respected university scholar, questioned the UHJ's official interpretation of texts and offered carefully researched evidence for consideration of another point of view. But because of the "UHJ infallibility" issue, they were declared CB's. When we read these cases, it struck us like a Scopes Monkey Trial or a Stalinist "counter-revolutionary enemy-of-the-state" or a Goebbels' book-burning scenario. What a shame -- some of the CB's were repected authorities in Arabic language and Islamic culture and the Sufi literature from which Baha'ullah clearly borrowed. How much light they MIGHT have shed on the traditions preceeding the Bahai writings, had they only been allowed to share their knowledge. KNOWLEDGE is not poison -- IGNORANCE is poison. (I personally gained a much deeper understanding and appreciation of Baha'ullah's "Valleys" after I read Attars' "Parliament of the Birds" and other Sufic literature). I apologize for being so confrontational and argumentative. I really have no right -- my husband reminds me that I need to stop visiting Baha'i message boards. After all, he points out, the Baha'i organization is behind us -- we are Quakers now. The Quaker community openly welcomes Baha'ullah's writings and insights, and we can discuss them freely in that setting without fear of censure. So I will heed his wisdom and go my way in peace (I can't promise to stop reading -- but I will refrain from posting). Thanks again for your kind response. BeckyFrom: "Randy Burns" Subject: Re: Internet Crackdown Date: Saturday, January 19, 2002 2:50 PM Paul Hammond wrote in message news:3c437ee5@212.67.96.135... > > No - I don't see the parallel. Liberal Baha'i thought suspects that > the UHJ's aim *was* precisely what you say - to shut up the critics > by engendering a vague and widespread fear of expulsion. However, > I don't think the cop would get away with shooting the robber and > then saying "he was warned - didn't he read in the news where > a bank robber got shot last week in Boston?" I think this is essentially the case here Paul. The UHJ wants to command the faithful to respect, love and fear them _but_ they insist that the respect, love and fear is natural and unfeigned and even unasked for. So they spread around a large number of broad hints and hope that everyone responds. They refuse to issue a direct command and then kick someone out for refusing to obey. This serves two purposes (engenders mucho respect among the faithful for the House that isn't afraid to use its power) and further reinforces the unspoken and indirect command itself. Someday soon there will be 300 million pages of letters and elucidations from the UHJ that all Baha'is will have to live in fear of, for breaking the commandment of even one line of one letter might merit an expulsion. In the final analysis, Absolute Power corrupts absolutely, and the UHJ answers only to God and Baha'u'llah, and as we all know, neither if those two is taking phone calls from the faithful right now. Cheers, Randy From: "Jeremiah" Subject: Re: Danger to the Charter of this newsgroup Date: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 7:12 AM Hi Brian > > I may have got this wrong, but are you referring to our Fred? Halloooooo > !!! are you there? Same universe as the rest of us?? Fred certainly did > start this whole shebang, but have you seen how he has behaved? The man > is an advert for miscommunication. Yes and no. Many times he is right on the money and and I can vouch for that!!! Other times he becomes a joke and keeps everyone thinking and tied up in semantics...he does bring up lots of topics for everyone to think about that need airing....a hell of a lot better than under the carpet. Sometimes the topics he introduces wins out against his intention...so that is good in its own way. I figure since he was our benefactor why not look to his good points instead of gang banging him to death with his shortcomings. One time on SRB somebody told him not to get his knickers in a twist, and he replied in a most serious tone to the person "Madam I wish to inform you I do not wear knickers". So he is good for some information, topics, persistance, proactiveness, and good for a laugh now and then. Little was trying to hurt the guy with the panopticon effect - and I don't respect that in the least.... > Perhaps I should ask you in another language, maybe you have problems in > understanding what has been going on. He must be the only founder of a NG > who has been systematically ignored by the vast majority of participants > due to his cretinous behaviour. Knowing this Little didn't have to be so little, did he? > > And if you had searched the archives or been a regular reader, you will > find that no-one asserts he is not a Baha'i. Simpy that he is not a > Baha'i in good standing. Personal beliefs are personal, after all. Little did and I don't like that damn judgementalism that is so inappropriate...as if Little is a Baha'i and Fred isn't - get real...enrollment doesn't make a person a Baha'i and even Baha'u'llah said his worst enemies are those that bear his name and don't follow the Teachings....we see a lot of that on TRB! Joy to ya Brian - Jeremiah > > Brian > > > In article <3bf0bb0d.0201282030.12638327@posting.google.com>, "Jeremiah" > wrote: > > > All this doesn't mean he does not have Bahai Faith - sorry to see you > > act like this to the man who started this list and made it possible for > > you to be here on your perch of righteousness - shame on you. Jeremiah. > >From: "Jeremiah" Subject: Re: Danger to the Charter of this newsgroup Date: Monday, January 28, 2002 11:30 PM All this doesn't mean he does not have Bahai Faith - sorry to see you act like this to the man who started this list and made it possible for you to be here on your perch of righteousness - shame on you. Jeremiah. Doctor Electron wrote in message news:... > Long, long ago in far off talk.religion.bahai, "Brian Walker" > transmitted: > > >I am on a linux system, well firewalled > > Sounds good to me! > > >Decent people hack, criminals crack) > > Yes, if we could only get the news media to learn the hack/crack > difference. > > >The one who calls himself BIGS is most > >certainly not in good standing. He has lied about his status, and posts > >an invalid ID to underline the point that he is a liar. > > Reminds me of some one I once knew who had the theory they could make > statements without supporting data and even better, that whatever a > person says, the opposite is true. It seems this person has been > fairly successful in life, but I am not sure if it is because of, or > in spite of, these theories. > > >We have CBs here, > >non-Baha'is, Moslems, disenchanted Baha'is, disenrolled Baha'is, and - a > >few - Baha'is in good standing. > > Sounds like something for a FAQ. > > >So doc. Meet me. I am Brian Walker, from Hong Kong. I sail, do medicine, > >keep fit and enjoy films. > > Pleased to meet you. > > globalservices1_at_yahoo.com using @ instead of _at_. > > ===PEP [Pretty Excellent Privacy] encrypted message=== > The bytes above contain both the key and the message.From: "Milissa" Subject: Re: Danger to the Charter of this newsgroup Date: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 11:35 AM Hi Karen and Dermod-- YOu know the practice of review always bothered me, not just because it is not effective anyway or that it really burdens an individual author unnecessarily and hampers independent investigation of truth. Its just so damn embarrassing. When I was an undergrad, I used to think the religion professors were just biased. Now bias certainly exists against new religions so I am not saying it wasn't a factor, but lets be brutally honest. Whether Baha'is like it or not or think its fair, the practice of "review", as long as it continues, will keep Baha'i in "cult" status not only in the eyes of academics, but the public at large. Anyway, I once had a discussion with one of my religion professors and when this issue came up he actually laughed at me. He laughed at me! And said, "Milissa I thought you were smarter than to join a group like that." I'm sorry, but the practice of review makes Baha'is look like a joke. And it makes Baha'u'llah look soooo bad. What doesn't the UHJ understand this??? Peace, Milissa "Karen Bacquet" wrote in message news:... > > > > > > So you are saying that those who might be best informed as to the > facts you are > > > dealing with were automatically excluded. Interesting. > > > > Even more pissed off by the fact that outside editors know and accept > > the fact that BIGS are biased and incapable of being objective about a > > piece sent for review.<< > > Yep, word is getting around. And that has happened only quite recently, > between the time Juan's article was rejected, and I contacted them. >From: "Randy Burns" Subject: Re: Danger to the Charter of this newsgroup Date: Thursday, January 31, 2002 12:11 AM Milissa wrote in message news:df0d6959.0201300835.23b1f793@posting.google.com... > > YOu know the practice of review always bothered me, not just because > it is not effective anyway or that it really burdens an individual > author unnecessarily and hampers independent investigation of truth. > Its just so damn embarrassing. When I was an undergrad, I used to > think the religion professors were just biased. Now bias certainly > exists against new religions so I am not saying it wasn't a factor, > but lets be brutally honest. Whether Baha'is like it or not or think > its fair, the practice of "review", as long as it continues, will keep > Baha'i in "cult" status not only in the eyes of academics, but the > public at large. Actually it isn't the policy itself, it is more the application of it. The application is immature and self serving in the extreme. I was probably in college years before you and the attitude of the professors was much the same. In general, religions are something that only happened in the distant past and not in historical times. There is a strong desire to address everything more recent in psychological terms or sociological terms only. The assumption is that Jesus or Mohammed or Buddha would not have held up in the light of the modern day as a "geniune" religious phenonenon. That is what they are really saying. What the Faith has done to its scholars (even if they were young and immature) is shameful and obviously makes Baha'i seem Cult like in the extreme, but I would doubt that this is a key issue for Professors of Religion. > > Anyway, I once had a discussion with one of my religion professors and > when this issue came up he actually laughed at me. He laughed at me! > And said, "Milissa I thought you were smarter than to join a group > like that." This is an old line, Milissa, one used by Professors probably since the time of Voltaire. Cheers, Randy > From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Repost: pusallanimity of Baha'i administration Date: Friday, February 01, 2002 1:08 PM Hey Pat, I know that you try to be fair, and thus hope that you might come to see how unfair some of your remarks are: > > > But some possibilities is that the > > lettter he saw may have been designed to make him seem in error and there > > was no real intention of that letter ever being sent out. > > I would consider that to be .6 likely. > So better than 50/50 odds that he was a victim of deliberate disinformation in this case? Why pile on further when the person has already been victimized by the AO? The NSA > would have had to been monitoring this group - before the fact - to recall the > directive it had sent out to the American community - preposterous! > You think it preposterous that the NSA is monitoring Baha'i discussion in cyberspace? > > Definitely. There is a good chance that his spy in Wilmette was a double spy > and fed him poison, or that the folks at the BNC were sick and tired of being > ratted out by Juan's spy and gave Juan's spy the poison. > And all this reflects badly on Juan and well on the AO? How? > The take-away here, regardless of how Juan's spy gave him the poison > (unknowingly or knowingly), Juan got poisoned because A) people could predict > that he was looking for dirt in Wilmette, And he's looking for damaging information because he knows there is a lot there, correct? and B) people knew he does not bother > checking the veracity of his dirt, Wait a minute. How would you recommend the NSA's public enemy number one to check the veracity of damaging information? Call Henderson and say "I've been given this information by someone on your staff, and just want to check to make sure it's accurate? This is not a matter of "not bothering" but being in a position where checking it is impossible, as far as I can tell. he just runs with it - he "wants to > believe". Sadly, this calls into question all of his smearing of the AO. His > opinions are _not_ those of an unbiased academic, but someone with an agenda > adverse to the AO. This is outrageously unfair. To say that Juan *wants to believe* bad things about the AO as if that were some condition that just rose up in him, independently of bad things he found out about the AO, is just wrong. I only met him once, in early 1996 (or late 1995), and at that point he thought that the AO was privately supportive of the liberal scholars in their struggles with fundamentalist attackers online. He said so to me and expressed trust for some characters that I didn't trust a bit. If, now, Juan is *inclined* to believe bad things about the AO, it's not because of *wanting to* but because its behavior towards him and many others has been so abominable. And this inclination is a *consequence* of its behavior from 1996 on, as my observation establishes. But my main point is that your distinction between an "unbiased academic" and someone with an "agenda averse to the AO" is untenable and unrealistic in general, and terribly unfair in this instance. Juan is incontestibly an academician. No one is unbiased, so of course Juan isn't. He's simply trained to set aside his biases in his academic work, and has done so to the point of getting more recognition from non-Baha'is than any other Baha'i scholar. But scholars who can work around their biases when doing history or Middle East studies are not therefore immune from having political agendas. Especially not when they've been outrageously attacked by the institutions against which they develop an agenda. So that's the untenable and unrealistic part-- the thing you are disillusioned with Juan for not being does not exist. The unfair part is that the reason he has an "agenda averse to the AO" is because to his surprise and dismay, the AO demonstrated repeatedly an agenda averse to him and all independent scholarship about the Faith. Moreover it has done so in the cruelest and most relentless way. So you are taking the outrage of a victim as proof that he wasn't really a victim at all. And then adding insult to injury by furthermore arguing that the victim's anger is proof that *everything* he has ever said about his persecutors, at any time, whether or not it involves his own case, can be dismissed. There are obvious reasons for *you* to "want to believe" something-- that the institutions to which you pledge loyalty are in fact behaving in a way that merits such loyalty. Whereas Juan, as I know full well from our one personal encounter, absolutely did *not* "want to believe" ill of the AO, and in fact until it shafted him kept on believing it to be far better than it really is. Cheers, PJFrom: "Dr. Herbert West" Subject: And don't forget this... Date: Saturday, February 09, 2002 1:12 PM "Juan Cole" wrote in message news:619f1452.0202090922.304a629b@posting.google.com... > And, could we please know what "assistance" the National Spiritual > Assembly has given any of the victims? Or any non-Baha'is a all? Or > any Baha'is, for that matter, in the United States? They have an > annual budget of $25 million a year or so. What percentage of that > does the US NSA spend on "assisting" people in need? "In November the National Spiritual Assembly announced with deep regret our decision to close the Baha'i Home, which has provided sheltered elder care for 43 years as a dependency of the House of Worship. After consulting Baha'is with expert knowledge of elder care, we concluded that the Home would have to be enlarged to enhance resident accomodations and make its operation economically feasible. The financial challenges we currently face render us unable to expand and improve the Home, or to continue its operation in the current state. ..." [Dec. 31, 2001, NSA Letter] Not much to say about this. Poor planning? Mismanagement? Short-sightedness? Who the hell knows. It sure seems to me they could save the Home if they were inclined to. This plus the 43 jobs cut and some other cutbacks amounted to a $2.5 million reduction in their budget. I didn't see anything about selling RHs mansion though, so they must have a ways to go before being really broke (never mind the old people). John Oh, and don't forget that donating cash isn't the only way to contribute to the National Fund. Securities will gladly be accepted. And please do consider naming the USNSA primary benificiary of any life insurance you might have. From: "Milissa" Subject: Re: Cowardice of the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States Date: Friday, February 08, 2002 9:50 AM Hi Juan-- Thanks for posting this, as it saves me the effort of asking. All I can say is damn. Regardless of the Prayer for America issue, this document is embarrassing. It just screams CONTROL CONTROL CONTROL CONTROL I do appreciate their concern for sensitivity, but one part really puzzles me: > * Bahá'ís are free to write letters to the editors of publications to > express their personal views if they do not identify themselves as > Bahá'ís, > imply that they represent the Faith or a Bahá'í community, or discuss > the > Bahá'í Faith. Why should Baha'is have to stay in the closet? This is really weird....we have an opinion on what is probably the most significant event in recent American history and we can't share *spontaneous* expressions of religious sentiment without getting it preapproved? To me this is the issue and not whether a particular prayer was banned. damn review is embarrassing. Peace, MilissaFrom: "Freethought110" Subject: Nature of the Beast: UHJ Letter To An Individual Baha'i Date: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 6:39 AM FYI August 1999 Transmitted by email: XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX U.S.A. Dear Baha'i Friend, The Universal House of Justice has reviewed the letter of 8 May 1999 to the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United States, signed by you on behalf of VVVVV Press and copied for the House of Justice, on the subject of the manner in which VVVVV has promoted to Baha'is Juan Cole's book, Modernity and the Millennium. We have been asked to write as follows. A good deal of the work of VVVV Press, which you have ably directed during the twenty or so years of the firm's existence, has constituted a significant contribution to the advancement of the Cause we all love and seek to serve. It is clear, too, that, beyond the administration of VVVVV's activities, this valued contribution owes a great deal to your own creativity and professional talents. These circumstances move the House of the Justice to share with you candidly the deep concern it feels regarding your relationship with the Baha'i Faith. As you are aware, such concern prompted earlier efforts, including those made by Counsellor Stephen Birkland and Dr. Pierre-Yves Mocquais, a member of the Auxiliary Board, in their interview with you and your wife, Dr. GGGGGGGG, in May of 1996, to draw to your attention the serious dangers of the course you have long been following. At that time, you expressed to Mr. Birkland your deep regret over actions on your part that were seen by the House of Justice to be clearly in conflict with the beliefs you profess as a follower of Baha'u'llah, as well as your firm assurance that your actions would not again give cause for such intervention. It is impossible to reconcile professions of this kind with the arguments made by you in the 8 May letter. The inappropriateness of the promotional statements and of the approach taken in the letter serves as an illustration of the attitude and behavior on your part that have long been a source of difficulty. It is these personal elements that the House of Justice has asked us to address. Clearly, no one would dispute the right of Dr. Cole to write and publish whatever work a publisher is prepared to handle. Nor has anyone questioned the right of a Baha'i who is interested in such a book to purchase it. To suggest that the House of Justice is saying otherwise would be to seriously misconstrue the nature of its concern. The book itself is incidental to the problem of Mr. XXXXXXX 3 August 1999 Page 2 attitude on your part that the National Assembly was asked to raise with you. As a participant in various Internet discussion groups over the past five years, and particularly in the last year or two, you cannot but be aware from these exchanges that Dr. Cole has embarked on a deliberate assault against the Baha'i Cause, in which he has not hesitated to attack its institutions, to misrepresent its fundamental teachings, and to abuse the trust of Baha'is who had been led to believe that they were engaged with him in a detached and scholarly search for the truth. These same Internet exchanges exposed you, like other participants, to a flood of calumny and invective against a great many of your fellow believers, on the part of Dr. Cole, that is scarcely credible in rational discourse. Had such a book as Modernity and the Millennium been written by a disinterested non-Baha'i scholar, its misconception of the nature of Baha'u'llah's Mission and its other shortcomings would have represented no more than understandable weaknesses of an honest attempt to explore a religious phenomenon as yet little understood in the West. Indeed, in this context, such an attempt to make the Baha'i Faith comprehensible to the Western academic mind, however inadequate it might appear to knowledgeable Baha'i scholars, would surely have earned its author a measure of genuine Baha'i appreciation for the writing and research skills deployed in devising it. As you -- like other participants in certain Internet discussion groups -- are well aware, however, the book's author is not a disinterested scholar. Rather, he is a deeply embittered individual who, as his book was in preparation, had just denounced in the most intemperate language an apparent twenty-year allegiance to Baha'u'llah, in the wake of a failed attempt on his part to impose his private ideological agenda on the Baha'i community's study of Baha'u'llah's Message. Modernity and the Millennium represents an effort to provide the current stage of this long-running scheme with the underpinnings of scholarly rationalization. What is this rationalization? Although distorted by its evasion of Baha'i Texts that contradict its main assertions, and blurred by reliance on speculations peculiar to its author's purpose, the thesis appears to run somewhat as follows: Baha'u'llah's work and Writings represent essentially one of several efforts by Middle East thinkers to work out a "response" to the challenges posed by European modernity in the form of rationalism, revolution, nationalism, economic upheaval, feminism and other contemporary developments. Although Oriental in origin, this particular "response", in contrast to various others, was unusually "progressive", "liberal", "idealistic", even "radical". Because it "grew up" in a congenial modernist era, its Author was able gradually to adjust and revise the ideas with which He had been "grappling", through benefiting (in a manner generally insinuated rather than explicitly stated) from successive interactions with other thinkers and movements. By 1862, apparently in order to deal with the problem of religious exclusivity in the Muslim world, and in response to some form of "private mystical experience", He "decided to make a prophetic claim of his own". As mentioned above, if such a view had represented the interpretation of Baha'u'llah's Mission arrived at by a non-Baha'i as the result of his objective study of the sources, no Baha'i institution could have an objection. Its relevance to the concern of the House of Justice about your behavior arises rather from your long-standing and widely recognized involvement with a few present and former members of the Faith who seek to foist this caricature of Mr. XXXXXX 3 August 1999 Page 3 the Cause on the Baha'i community, and your perceived identification with their purpose. The Covenant, the distinguishing feature of Baha'u'llah's Revelation, has been made the central target of this effort (a maneuver that Dr. Cole's book is at particular pains to shore up). Although forced to acknowledge the appointments of `Abdu'l-Baha and the Guardian as Interpreters of Baha'u'llah's Message, every effort has been made to call such authoritative interpretation into question wherever it presents a problem for the notions being promoted. Similarly, although ostensibly acknowledging that the Universal House of Justice is Head of the Baha'i Faith today, this opposition has tried by every means possible to undermine the broad authority conferred in Baha'u'llah's own words and emphasized in the Master's Will and Testament. (In Dr. Cole's book, this agenda makes its appearance in the conclusion: namely, that the Faith founded by Baha'u'llah has failed in its mission because, like "the Khomeinist state in Iran", it has been somehow captured by "fundamentalists", by which term Dr. Cole has repeatedly characterized the members of the Universal House of Justice.) Why would a Baha'i or a Baha'i publisher who is genuinely devoted to advancing Baha'i scholarship and to encouraging confirmation of believers in Baha'u'llah's Covenant seek to persuade his Baha'i readers that a device intended as the mainspring of an attack on their Faith is "an indispensable book for any serious student of Baha'i history"? How could an effort to represent to the Baha'i community such a work as "a brilliant, scholarly analysis of the life and teachings of Baha'u'llah" serve the Cause of God? What moral benefit do you imagine a Baha'i reader could conceivably derive from taking seriously the theories of an individual whose apparently ungovernable malice has made his activities the focal point of contention and disharmony among any believers unwise enough to be influenced by him? Indeed, what relevance do Dr. Cole's academic credentials, so strongly emphasized in your letter of 8 May, have to the moral and spiritual issue raised in the letter from the National Spiritual Assembly? Clearly, no reader, Baha'i or otherwise, would be interested in reading a supposedly scholarly study whose author lacked the relevant scholarly qualifications. Nor, presumably, would any publisher, Baha'i or otherwise, promote a work from such an unqualified source. It is both meaningless and disingenuous to argue that these qualifications, however valid in themselves, assure that a publication meets the moral and spiritual standards that are made explicitly clear in the Writings of the Faith whose interests VVVVV's activities are ostensibly designed to serve. The assumption of Baha'i institutions is that the purpose motivating a group of believers to create a publishing house that enjoys privileged access to the Baha'i community is in order to promote the advancement of the Baha'i Cause. The House of Justice has always assumed -- as is no doubt the case with Baha'is generally -- that this was the desire that motivated you and your associates to create VVVV Press. If some different conception of purpose underlies the VVVVV enterprise, then it is essential that you advise the United States National Spiritual Assembly of the facts of the situation, frankly, unequivocally, and without delay. Mr. XXXXXX 3 August 1999 Page 4 The House of Justice calls on you to meditate profoundly on the questions raised in the foregoing, as these issues bear directly on the relationship that binds you to your Lord. Does not the Master in His Will and Testament itself, specifically warn: "According to the direct and sacred command of God we are forbidden to utter slander, are commanded to show forth peace and amity, are exhorted to rectitude of conduct, straight-forwardness and harmony with all the kindreds and peoples of the world"? Does He not, in that same foundation document of the Cause, counsel all of us: "O ye beloved of the Lord! Strive with all your heart to shield the Cause of God from the onslaught of the insincere, for souls such as these cause the straight to become crooked and all benevolent efforts to produce contrary results"? The impressive services that you have rendered the Faith, with GGGG's loving support, represent for you a spiritual treasure. God forbid that so precious a capital should be squandered. While there is yet time, the House of Justice earnestly appeals to you to turn away from the course on which you have long been set, a course that has been marked by steady spiritual deterioration and that will lead to grievous loss in both this world and the next. As you will recall, because the matter was of direct concern to her, GGGG asked urgently to be included in your discussion with Mr. Birkland and Dr. Mocquais. Because these issues continue to bear so immediately on the well-being of your family, you need to recognize your moral obligation to take her fully into your confidence also on the contents of this present letter. In the past, you have expressed bewilderment that your actions should have required the intervention of senior Baha'i institutions. The House of Justice expects that you have now understood clearly what is at stake and that you will resolve, unambiguously and at once, to abandon the course you have, alas, been pursuing. The House of Justice will pray ardently at the Holy Threshold that you will be granted the courage and will to meet the spiritual challenge you face. With loving Baha'i greetings, Department of the Secretariat From: "Alma Engels" Subject: Re: Cowardice ... Date: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 2:30 PM We disagree here. There is a lot of evidence where there is a lack of justice in how things were handled and this has neither been acknowledged by the AO or rectified. BTW I do know of one and only one incidence in the last few years where it was corrected and an apology issued. I could site instances going back to at least the 1980s but I won't for I don't want to start another long thread like the women on the UHJ. None of us know all the facts. And some we can never know. I sometimes wonder if in some of these cases there was lack of Divine Guidance over the action taken because the consultation was faulty. You say there are a 'handful' of complaints. Isn't even one enough if nothing has been done to rectify it? Moreover, I am aware of many more complaints where the wronged party does not want to make it public knowledge. There are also outside indicators that something is wrong. Why can't the Baha'is get many declarations more than 150 years after the start of the Faith. Why is there such a money crunch? And why do you separate the disaffected from the lovers of Baha'u'llah and the lovers of God. This division is correct for two but even there there were things that triggered it. Most, however, believe in God and most of them are still lovers of Baha'u'llah. In peace, Alma Robert Little wrote in message news:9fsa8.17991$dx6.4993490@twister.socal.rr.com... > Alma, this is tantamount to asking "When did you stop beating your wife?" > > First, *handful* of complaints, repeated interminably, with lots of evidence > that the institutions DID handle the situation in the best interests of the > Faith. > > Do you know all the facts about "the many incidents" you talk about? Don't > think so. > > Does the Baha'i administrative order work perfectly. Don't think so. > > But, before you blindly accept the words of the disaffected over the lover, > you might talk to the lover a bit. > > And, why do you feel you have to decide whether or not the complaints are > justified and the administrative order unjustified, or the other way? > > What is your duty, according to Baha'u'llah? > > Robert A. Little > > "Alma Engels" wrote in message > news:Ewoa8.4031$qt6.330436@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > > Jay -- I know that I have faults and that saying would be fine if the > > Baha'is were not 'team' members. And if there was real consultation and > > then if the consensus were followed and it didn't work another way would > be > > found to achieve the results. Unfortunately all too often that doesn't > > happen. I am sure you have the many incidents cited here where the > > Administrative Order did not act in the best interests of the Faith and > > nothing was done to correct the situation. Why? > > > > In peace, > > Alma > > Jay Paine wrote in message > > news:u6ju7ttb3mtl67@corp.supernews.com... > > > Alma Engels wrote in message ... > > > The > > > >person who taught me did so online (I think you would recognize the > > name.) > > > >He did a good job but at the end he warned me there were problems. He > > said > > > >not with the Faith but with the Baha'is themselves. I didn't > understand > > > >then but I do now. > > > > > > Me too Alma. > > > > > > I understand now that the Baha'i who gives me the most problems in my > > life, > > > is myself. > > > > > > 66. O EMIGRANTS! > > > > > > The tongue I have designed for the mention of Me, defile it not with > > > detraction. If the fire of self overcome you, remember your own faults > and > > > not the faults of My creatures, inasmuch as every one of you knoweth his > > own > > > self better than he knoweth others. > > > > > > (Bahá'u'lláh, The Hidden Words of Baha'u'llah, p. 45 ) > > > > > > Jay > > > > > > "Me, Myself, I" Joan Armatrading > > > > > > PS. Still getting acquainted with myself. It can take a while. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Robert, Since I read what these 'disaffected' write in lists, etc., snd not just here, it is possible that I have a better picture of them than you do. There are reasons why they are disaffected. As individuals most of them have had personal experience of ways that the Administrative Order tries to manage and most of them have experienced this in far more detrimental way than I did. Prior to email, email lists, web sites and usenet groups, etc., most thought it was an isolated experience -- something that just happened to that person. Here they have found that this happens to many others and in most parts of the world. You are correct that some have lost belief and love of God. Who knows if they hadn't been tested so severely what they would have done. But the majority still love God and believe that Baha'u'llah was sent from God. And they, like me, try to reconcile this with what is happening in the Faith under the Covenant. I think that we see what we want to see. Thus I find it far more important that the Administrative Order would subtly threaten someone with being declared a CB because of his business enterprise promoted a book the AO disapproved of, then the question of how many copies someone received and why cuts were made. (BTW the cuts were made to protect the receiver of this original email. Most I know like this person and appreciate his occasional remarks in group email. BTW2 -- he was at one time a member of my community, before my time of course, but we have a common friend who has told me about him. As for the enemies within -- I didn't know of the Abdu'l Baha reference I did know that Shoghi Effendi used that term in connection with a post WW2 group of Germans who refused to accept his role after his grandfather died. I think it is being used now out of context. This is getting long so will stop after saying that not all of the disaffected use the same approach (and this is true too of those who are not disaffected). I think anger and name-calling is mostly ineffective. Others don't and use it as a means of making a point. And even more occasionally react too quickly to a message that angers them. Well I stop as my isp has twice tried to disconnect me because of inactivity. In peace, Alma Robert Little wrote in message news:btqa8.17970$dx6.4943693@twister.socal.rr.com... > Dear Alma > > In Stars Of The West, 'Abdu'l-Baha' is quoted as saying that the worst > enemies of the Faith are in the Faith, and call themselves friends. He says > that despite the fact that they break the twin laws of love and unity, they > call themselves friends. He also says that one day "...they will be attacked > with a madness." > > Never allow a mere human being to interfere with your love of God. > > If you think on this, you will perhaps see that every one of these > disaffected have allowed that to happen. God has not hurt them, nor lost > perfection, nor have we humans acquired perfection either, so we hurt each > other from time to time. There will be a reckoning for us all, for all that > we have done, and all that we have not done. > > Hmm, I'd better pray. > > Robert A. Little > > "Alma Engels" wrote in message > news:UY4a8.862$P21.96370@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > > Robert, I am with you. But we have to remember that we are human and > > sometimes do things in anger. I have seen backbiting and ad hominums from > > those I call liberal and those I call conservative. When the reaction is > > angry, and engages in name calling, I think it hurts the sender of the > > message more than it hurts the object of the anger. 'Doctor Electron' > comes > > to mind. S/he might have some valid points but they are lost in the vile, > > bitter verbiage. > > > > BTW what do you think of the Administrative Order backbiting? There are > > incidents of that. And do you consider it backbiting if no names are used > > but it is obvious who is being talked about? > > > > It is a strange world -- one I didn't expect when I became a Baha'i. The > > person who taught me did so online (I think you would recognize the name.) > > He did a good job but at the end he warned me there were problems. He > said > > not with the Faith but with the Baha'is themselves. I didn't understand > > then but I do now. > > > > In peace and to a better tomorrow. > > Alma > > Robert Little wrote in message > > news:crI98.3449$o%6.2342688@twister.socal.rr.com... > > > Hi Alma > > > > > > I concur, agree and stand behind your hope for unity. > > > > > > We can agree, I therefore assume, that anyone who shares that desire > will > > of > > > course heneceforth refrain from ad hominum attacks, backbiting, verbal > > > abuse, rumormongering and the like. They will strive to achieve both the > > > search for truth, and an increase in love amongst all they come in > contact > > > with. They will prayerfully respond, even if what they are responding to > > is > > > mean spirited. > > > > > > Let's see where this goes, eh? > > > > > > Robert A. Little > > > > > > "Alma Engels" wrote in message > > > news:hxC98.25539$Hb6.2332049@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > > > > You are preaching to the choir, Doctored. Those you mention have been > > > > posting here for a long time and have a conservative, fundamentalist > > > > understanding of the Faith -- which is ok. Those you don't mention on > > the > > > > other hand are the more liberal Baha'is and assorted friends. > Wouldn't > > it > > > > be hunky dory if all could get along together -- unity in diversity, > you > > > > know. But rather I think it represents the biblical Tower of Babal > for > > > the > > > > very words have different meanings, depending on who is speaking. > > > > > > > > In peace, > > > > Alma who does not hide behind an alias though her account is named > > Aelyria > > > > or Thirinel depending how she is replying. Those names go back a > dozen > > > > years to my online role-playing days. > > > > Doctor Electron wrote in message > > > > news:gbmd6ugff8f2giecpdp1squ9ra10lc8vu9@4ax.com... > > > > > Long, long ago in far off talk.religion.bahai, Pat Kohli > > > > > transmitted: > > > > > > > > > > >Allahu Abha! > > > > > > > > > > > >Doctor Electron wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> It's almost like this was some sort of deliberate act of > martyrdom > > > for > > > > > >> some (unknown) principle. > > > > > > > > > > > >I have been asking him to come by and explain the matter. I am > > unhappy > > > > > >with his explanation, but my inistence on an explanation arose from > > my > > > > > >discovery of contradictions. Though I suspect Juan may be unable > to > > > > > >provide an explanation to my satisfaction, I would like to > favorably > > > > > >acknowledge the fact that he has appeared, even after these several > > > > > >months. It is better, in my eyes, than never appearing. > > > > > > > > > > > >Though I am angered by what he did, his presence here for a few > days > > > may > > > > > >aid me in accepting his behavior in October, and helping me to > > restore > > > my > > > > > >sense of balance. So, even though you may be disturbed by his > > > > appearance, > > > > > >I see it as a positive sign. > > > > > > > > > > > >Blessings! > > > > > >- Pat > > > > > >kohli@ameritel.net > > > > > > > > > > Glad to hear it. And I see from posts by many -- Robert, Brian, > Rick, > > > > > Dave, yourself -- that you have already begun to analyze and respond > > > > > to the content of Dr. Cole's missives and that many are more able > than > > > > > myself to do so, with the pertinent information at hand and with > > > > > highly relevant angles or perspectives on this story. > > > > > > > > > > globalservices1_at_yahoo.com using @ instead of _at_. > > > > > > > > > > ===PEP [Pretty Excellent Privacy] encrypted message=== > > > > > The bytes above contain both the key and the message. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Baloney. Though I do agree Juan was intemperate in his choice of words. He was mad. If I remember correctly you have been known to post when mad too. Such is the fraility of humans. I agree that leaving Fred alone won't shut him up. But neither is jumping on his back going to make him shut. And jumping on his back draws attention to him. For instance, I don't killfile anyone but neither do I read all the posts. And I ignore Freds unless there is a reply to it. Then I do read it. And Pat proved nothing with his posts. He, like you, missed the main point that something was wrong in the AO. I don't expect either of you to change your near-sighted focus. I have seen so many posts from about how we need to consult and refer things up the adminisrative ladder with the same quotes that I merely skim your posts much of the time. This reminds me of another children's story about the emperor's new clothes. Everyone praised him though he wore nothing because they thought that only the good could see the clothes and they weren't about to be called not good. It took a small voice from a child to state the obvious. I can understand that you probably think similar things about me and others posting here. The real problem is that we cannot fragment the Faith as Christians have Christianity, for instance. So we need to learn how to get along despite our different interpretations. I see little progress here. Alma Dave Fiorito wrote in message news:f0853486.0202130908.9d0aa93@posting.google.com... > Alama, > > > Or we can leave Fred alone. We should accept even if we don't imitate those > > who follow Baha'u'llah. I know of a Baha'i in my community who thought that > > consultation should have a leader - him. What the assembly did was set up a > > time for him to hold consultation. Nobody came. But noone tried to make > > him leave the Faith. > > Fred left alone is not going to stop the inflamatory spamage. Nor is > it going to stop him from dragging others into the fray. > > > Actually Juan Cole engages in conversations with others over what he writes > > all the time. And people often disagree with him. Sometimes they have more > > information and he is glad to get it. What was happening here was the > > villianization of Juan Cole with vile name calling and misrepresenting his > > position. I wouldn't accept that either. His way of replying is not mine. > > But that doesn't matter. > > Look - Pat pointed out that Juan's entire condemnation was based on > _nothing_. Juan was heaping condemnation on an institution with no > evidence of wrong doing. In fact the evidence that was presented had > nothing at all to do with that institution. Juan blew it, but rather > than apologize he compounded the problem by insulting Pat and > insisting that he was blameless. > > Come on Alma - Juan is just being vidictive. The posts he has > produced on this topic are far from accurate and even further from > civil. > > > > As I posted elsewhere this whole business reminds me of the childrens game > > of 'pin the tail on the donkey' only it is 'pin the tail on the devil'. If > > you will call the children's game -- the donkey was highly stylized and > > didn't much resemble a real donkey. It was also tailless. And the picture > > and game was supplied by someone, generally an adult. The players were > > blindfolded and pinned the tail in rather odd places. Draw your own > > parallels with what is happening here. > > > There aren't any that I can see. Juan is not some innocent victim. > This is a reaction to a wrong that he has deliberately perpetrated. I > think Pat saw through his blindfold and pinned the tail right where it > belongs. > > Cheers, > > Dave > From: "John R MacLeod" Subject: re asking for donations Date: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 7:03 PM > > Baha'u'llah is obviously referring to the fact that He personally isn't trying > to get rich off of people. It has nothing to do with fund raising. I think if you read the quote more carefully you'll find it has little to do with getting rich. Baha'u'llah is emphasising that he did not even mention let alone ask for donations even when He and His entourage desperately needed them. It is true that He is referring to Himself rather than the Baha'i Faith but was there much difference between the two at the time? Also it is soliciting 'in the name of the one true God'. There really is nothing in the quote to say that Baha'u'llah would find an organisation soliciting 'in the name of the one true God' any more acceptable. Personally, I would have thought the Faith as an organisation would want to follow the example of it's Founder on this and never solicit funds, which is indeed what I understand the rule is. I thought it was one of our proud boasts that nobody was ever directly asked for contributions. I'm not sure I agree with Alma that providing an envelope is actually crossing the boundary but on the whole I think we as a Faith should err on the side of caution because one thing that is sure is that anyone who feels pressured about money is going to feel alienated from the Faith and that is surely more important than money. By the way, I know the quotes from Baha'u'llah about Huquq; I know the quotes referring to zakat (spelling?), but the one I quoted here is the only one I know which refers to voluntary donations. Do you know any others? Let us hope that the UHJ clarify the zakat soon and we can all revert to a sensible donation pattern based on a clear rule . One thing I can tell from personal experience. I know at least one person who, having become a Baha'i made a reasonably generous arrangement for regular payments and cancelled it after the first begging letter. I wonder if in the longer term the incessant financial appeals actually work. From: "John R MacLeod" Subject: re asking for donations Date: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 7:03 PM > > Baha'u'llah is obviously referring to the fact that He personally isn't trying > to get rich off of people. It has nothing to do with fund raising. I think if you read the quote more carefully you'll find it has little to do with getting rich. Baha'u'llah is emphasising that he did not even mention let alone ask for donations even when He and His entourage desperately needed them. It is true that He is referring to Himself rather than the Baha'i Faith but was there much difference between the two at the time? Also it is soliciting 'in the name of the one true God'. There really is nothing in the quote to say that Baha'u'llah would find an organisation soliciting 'in the name of the one true God' any more acceptable. Personally, I would have thought the Faith as an organisation would want to follow the example of it's Founder on this and never solicit funds, which is indeed what I understand the rule is. I thought it was one of our proud boasts that nobody was ever directly asked for contributions. I'm not sure I agree with Alma that providing an envelope is actually crossing the boundary but on the whole I think we as a Faith should err on the side of caution because one thing that is sure is that anyone who feels pressured about money is going to feel alienated from the Faith and that is surely more important than money. By the way, I know the quotes from Baha'u'llah about Huquq; I know the quotes referring to zakat (spelling?), but the one I quoted here is the only one I know which refers to voluntary donations. Do you know any others? Let us hope that the UHJ clarify the zakat soon and we can all revert to a sensible donation pattern based on a clear rule . One thing I can tell from personal experience. I know at least one person who, having become a Baha'i made a reasonably generous arrangement for regular payments and cancelled it after the first begging letter. I wonder if in the longer term the incessant financial appeals actually work. From: "Giangiacomo" Subject: Faith Hate Crime Date: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 7:59 PM In a thread on *Kazemzadeh, Semple and al-Qaida* a certain Doctor Electron recently mentioned: *explicit and veiled threats by apparently unbalanced people already clearly supporting faith hate activities* Perhaps he was talking about this earlier example of an individual whom he may consider an unbalanced person indulging in what he may call 'faith hate crime': "Each time that Most Mighty Instrument hath come, and that Light shone forth from the Ancient Dayspring, He was withheld by ignorant physicians who, even as clouds, interposed themselves between Him and the world. It failed therefore, to recover, and its sickness hath persisted until this day. They indeed were powerless to protect it, or to effect a cure, whilst He Who hath been the Manifestation of Power amongst men was withheld from achieving His purpose, by reason of what the hands of the ignorant physicians have wrought." For is not Dr Cole accused of loudly voicing his fears that the current leaders of the Baha'i Faith are behaving in ways that are unmistakably those of the ignorant physicians of the past? And are not Dr Cole and his friends accused of fomenting discord? Our Witness continues: "Consider these days in which He Who is the Ancient Beauty hath come in the Most Great Name, that He may quicken the world and unite its peoples. They, however, rose up against Him with sharpened swords, and committed that which caused the Faithful Spirit to lament, until in the end they imprisoned Him in the most desolate of cities, and broke the grasp of the faithful upon the hem of His robe. Were anyone to tell them: `The World Reformer is come,' they would answer and say: `Indeed it is proven that He is a fomenter of discord!'..." And perhaps Doctor Electron (as indeed all parties to these disputes) should instead remember the admonition of the Wronged One he professes to follow: "Revile ye not one another. We, verily, have come to unite and weld together all that dwell on earth. Unto this beareth witness what the ocean of Mine utterance hath revealed amongst men, and yet most of the people have gone astray. If anyone revile you, or trouble touch you, in the path of God, be patient, and put your trust in Him Who heareth, Who seeth. He, in truth, witnesseth, and perceiveth, and doeth what He pleaseth, through the power of His sovereignty. He, verily, is the Lord of strength, and of might. In the Book of God, the Mighty, the Great, ye have been forbidden to engage in contention and conflict." It is true, we have sinned on all sides. But does Dr Electron really expect those whom he considers the enemies of his Faith to set a shining example and show him every kindness, while he who follows the true teachings growls like the son of a wolf? Perhaps he should consider the imminent danger of he and his companions repeating the errors of the past. Our Witness warns: "O Hádí! Suffer not thyself to become the instrument for the dissemination of new superstitions, and refuse to set up once again a sect similar to that of the Shí'ihs. Reflect how great the amount of blood which hath been spilt. Thou amongst others, who hast laid claim to knowledge, and likewise the Shí'ih divines, have, one and all, in the first and ensuing years, cursed the True One, and decreed that His most holy blood be shed. Fear God, O Hádí! Be not willing that men be again afflicted with the vain imaginings of former times." "The dissemination of new superstitions" - isn't that what we see is happening? "A sect similar to that of the Shí'ihs" - isn't that what we fear the Baha'i Faith is becoming? "The vain imaginings of former times" - isn't that the black cloud we see descending on the luminous Faith of God? O Electron! Beware that you do not betray your Beloved in your fanatical devotion to His cause!Desist from your dangerous folly! A Grand Inquisitor can curse the True One while still whispering His name, can oppress His loved ones while still singing His praises, can persecute His children while still mouthing the syllables of His Most Holy Book. And what awful judgement awaits the Inquisitor in this world or the next? ------------------------- Oh dear, I've done it again: more 'explicit and veiled threats by apparently unbalanced people already clearly supporting faith hate activities'. I should never have opened those Holy Books ;-) Wishing you all infinite illuminations, Your humble servant, Giangiacomo il Guercio Knight Bannaret of the Order of the Inner Light From: "Giangiacomo" Subject: Re: Faith Hate Crime Date: Thursday, February 14, 2002 6:01 PM Dear Susan, > Hmmm. And Juan Cole thinks he's the Good Doctor? Sorry, I'm afraid I don't know what Juan thinks of himself. I haven't developed telepathy yet. I can only give you my opinion. Juan Cole is a very nice man who has been treated very badly by people he once trusted, and by an organisation to which he devoted the best part of his youth. I also recognize that he's quite an impulsive person and I find his tendency to jump to unwarranted conclusions more than a little disconcerting, but I don't think that's a characteristic of his published work. We all say dumb things from time to time on these forums, and Juan has never claimed to be infallible anyway. He also has a mischievous sense of humour, which not everybody seems to appreciate. > >"Revile ye not one another. We, verily, have come to unite > >and weld together all that dwell on earth. > > You mean like this Dr. Cole describing Dr. Kazemzadeh as "a world-historical > ingrate" and "hypocrite"? ... Or how about comments like this? > " I am tired of having my community run like a fucking Mafia > and I'm mad as hell and I am not taking it any more." > "Doug Martin and Farzam Arbab don't have to ever say they are sorry, because > they are tinpot dictators." What did Baha'u'llah say about the leaders of religion, the mullahs of Persia, the people who were persecuting him? Was Juan Cole not driven out of the Faith by the above-named people or people like them for expressing opinions of which they didn't approve? I don't like the lapse into bad language but I can understand the feelings. Can't you? I think the first and last comments can be understood in view of the one in the middle. That's a subjective impression. Yours may be different. But Juan has a right to feel what he feels and to express what he believes. And we all have duty to understand why he feels that way and what we can do to help him feel better. I'll try looking at it from your point of view, which is also the perspective of the people with the power in your religion. There is a problem with this Dr Cole who has somehow got the idea that we are evil and corrupt. What do we do? Do we go and threaten him with all sorts of nasty consequences if he doesn't shut up (the spiritually blind solution)? Or do we take counsel with him, which actually means listening to him until we can understand what he is saying and how he has acquired this distorted idea of us and then humbly explain ourselves to him (the spiritually enlightened solution)? And I'm not talking specifically about Dr Cole here, as if he were someone special who merited any more attention than anyone else. I often think of Gandhi and the story of how he heard that some English official had sworn to shoot him the next time he had the chance. So the next morning Gandhi got up early and walked the several miles to the man's house, knocked on the door and said "I've heard that you have sworn to kill me so I have come here to make things easier for you. But before you shoot me I would like you to explain to me what I have done to you to make you hate me so much". And the two men talked for many hours and became the best of friends. (As far as I can remember - I read the story years ago). Now that's spiritual strength. That's the kind of sign of spiritual understanding we are waiting to see from the men of the Universal House of Justice. But what do we get? Just an endless string of symbolic fatwas, it seems to me. Or should that be takfir(s)? [snipped other examples of Dr Cole's angry buzzing] > This is the kind of reviling you were talking about wasn't it? Or perhaps it is > just what the House described as 'ungovernable malice." Or maybe just paranoid > delusions. No, I think we all have a right and duty to oppose religious obscurantism, even when it's only in an embryonic form. You carefully avoided addressing the question of the failure of your religious leadership to heal the ills of the world, and have ignored Baha'u'llah's command that you should 'refuse to set up once again a sect similar to that of the Shí'ihs'. And you seem not to have noticed that the main point of my message was that it is up to the party that considers itself more spiritually healthy to make peace: 'If anyone revile you, or trouble touch you, in the path of God, be patient, and put your trust in Him Who heareth, Who seeth.' I can't see any 'ungovernable malice' in honestly feeling that the Baha'i Faith is losing its way and is no longer the light of the world, whereas I do get a strong sense of ungovernable malice in Dr Electron's crusade to drum Dr Cole out of his job. A despicable development worthy of the most ignorant physicians of Iran's recent past, which I hope you will join me in publicly condemning in the most emphatic terms. Best wishes, Giangiacomo A Baha'i who was often on the Far Right spectrum of things -- like the position articulated by the various online Baha'i Fundamentalists, which itself is a reflection of the Fundamentalist Ideology of the current Baha'i authorities --, has recently resigned from the Baha'i faith due primarily because as a scientist he can no longer accept the positions laid out by 1) `Abdu'l-Baha on the question of evolution and 2) that `Abdu'l-Baha's pronouncements on such questions are to be taken as infallible in all respects without question. Below is a copy of his correspondence with the Baha'i Universal House of Justice regarding the matter. It would seem that when religious faith gets stuck with the material and theoretical evidence proving religious hypotheses on scientific questions such as evolution wrong, the believer whose formerly blind faith has now been shattered by his findings is left with two choices by religious authorities: 1) accept the pronouncements of scripture blindly and unequivocally regardless of scientific findings or 2) leave! -- Freethought110 Message: 3 Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 13:26:33 -0500 From: Juan Cole To: Subject: Letters to the Editor - March 1, 2002 - A Response to Baha'i Ad Date: Friday, March 01, 2002 8:36 AM Letters to the Editor Wayne Peal Clarion-Eccentric 400 Water St., #203 Rochester, MI 48307 wpeal@oe.homecomm.net In response to the paid half-page ad by my fellow Baha'is in your February 28 issue, which offers a website link "for more information," I believe Professor Juan Cole, of the University of Michigan's Department of History, has a webpage of extensive and disturbing documentation that anyone interested in the Baha'i Faith should be aware of: https://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bhdoc.htm In his book Modernity and the Millennium, published by Columbia University Press in 1998, Professor Cole observes the Baha'i administration has increasingly come under the control of fundamentalists, "stressing scriptural literalism . . . theocracy, censorship, intellectual intolerance, and denying key democratic values (196)." For numerous other views in balance to the paid ad O&E ran, I also recommend the over 50 megabytes of documentation on my own website, The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.fortunecity.com/bahaicensorship/ Frederick Glaysher Rochester Hills 668 Bolinger Rochester Hills, MI 48307 248-608-6424 FG@comcast.net Appeared in O & E ½ page ad on February 28, 2002: ---- The Destiny of America and the Promise of World Peace A Statement from the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'í of the United States At this time of world turmoil, the United States Bahá'í community offers a perspective on the destiny of America as the promoter of world peace. More than a hundred years ago, Bahá'u'lláh, the founder of the Bahá'í Faith, addressing heads of state, proclaimed that the age of maturity for the entire human race had come. The unity of humankind was now to be established as the foundation of the great peace that would mark the highest stage in humanity's spiritual and social evolution. Revolutionary and world-shaking changes were therefore inevitable. The Bahá'í writings state: The world is moving on. Its events are unfolding ominously and with bewildering rapidity. The whirlwind of its passions is swift and alarmingly violent. The New World is insensibly drawn into its vortex. . . . Dangers, undreamt of and unpredictable, threaten it both from within and from without. Its governments and peoples are being gradually enmeshed in the coils of the world's recurrent crises and fierce controversies. . . . The world is contracting into a neighborhood. America, willingly or unwillingly, must face and grapple with this new situation. For purposes of national security, let alone any humanitarian motive, she must assume the obligations imposed by this newly created neighborhood. Paradoxical as it may seem, her only hope of extricating herself from the perils gathering around her is to become entangled in that very web of international association which the Hand of an inscrutable Providence is weaving. The American nation, Bahá'ís believe, will evolve through tests and trials to become a land of spiritual distinction and leadership, a champion of justice and unity among all peoples and nations, and a powerful servant of the cause of everlasting peace. This is the peace promised by God in the sacred texts of the world's religions. Establishing peace is not simply a matter of signing treaties and protocols; it is a complex task requiring a new level of commitment to resolving issues not customarily associated with the pursuit of peace. Universal acceptance of the spiritual principle of the oneness of humankind is essential to any successful attempt to establish world peace. Racism, one of the most baneful and persistent evils, is a major barrier to peace. The emancipation of women, the achievement of full equality of the sexes, is one of the most important, though less acknowledged, prerequisites of peace. The inordinate disparity between rich and poor keeps the world in a state of instability, preventing the achievement of peace. Unbridled nationalism, as distinguished from a sane and legitimate patriotism, must give way to a wider loyalty, to the love of humanity as a whole. Religious strife, the cause of innumerable wars and conflicts throughout history, is a major obstacle to progress. The challenge facing the world's religious leaders is to contemplate, with hearts filled with compassion and the desire for truth, the plight of humanity, and to ask themselves whether they cannot, in humility before their God, submerge their theological differences in a great spirit of mutual forbearance that will enable them to work together for the advancement of human understanding and peace. Bahá'ís pray, "May this American Democracy be the first nation to establish the foundation of international agreement. May it be the first nation to proclaim the unity of mankind. May it be the first to unfurl the standard of the Most Great Peace." During this hour of crisis, we affirm our abiding faith in the destiny of America. We know that the road to its destiny is long, thorny and tortuous, but we are confident that America will emerge from her trials undivided and undefeatable. —National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of the United States For more information and for a free copy of the booklet "The Promise of World Peace" please visit our web site at Www.us.bahai.org or call us toll free at 1-800-22-UNITE Local Phone 248-737-4006 -- https://www.us.bahai.org/world_peace/amers_destiny.html From: "Larry Rowe" Subject: Re: General question about Fred G. and the like... Date: Saturday, March 02, 2002 6:44 AM Hello all , The Universal House of Justice is wrong when it breaches the following keynote of the Cause of God in its interactions with believers . "Lets us bear in mind that the keynote of the Cause of God is not dictatorial authority but humble fellowship , not arbitrary power , but the spirit of frank and loving consultation ."~Shoghi Effendi~ That the Universal House of Justice has breached this keynote of the Cause of God is clear to all who have looked into their treatment of Alison Marshall concerning her removal from Bahai' membership . They have behaved in a very unBaha'i like manner and instead of "humble fellowship" they used "dictatorial authority" instead of "frank and loving consultation" they used arbitrary power . Infallibilty means never having to say your sorry . The thesis of the infallibilty of the Universal House of Justice needs to be examined . Yours Larry Rowe From: "John R MacLeod" Subject: Re: General question about Fred G. and the like... Date: Saturday, March 02, 2002 6:34 AM "Mavaddat" wrote in message news:GQUf8.27419$0C1.2269744@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > > I don't understand one thing about the movement which Fred Glaysher The movement which Fred considers he belongs to is the Baha'i Faith. The US Baha'i authorities apparently disagree but there is no other movement involved. > and the > people who support him are a part of... I don't believe Fred has or would want to have a personal following. I agree with him about some things and disagree with him about others and I would imagine that is typical. > I assume that Fred believes in > (follows) at least Bahá'u'lláh and 'Abdu'l-Bahá. I believe so, though Fred is one of the very view people on this newsgroup (or in the Faith for that matter) honest enough to admit when he has doubts. He posted here once wondering aloud whether the evil he sees in current practices might actually represent evil in the teachings of the Founders. His 'in your face' honesty is one of the most refreshing things about this newsgroup. > It is not possible, or at > least I can't think of a way it could be, that a person would consider > themselves a Bahá'í and not believe in (accept) Bahá'u'lláh. It is possible to be a follower of someone without believing that person to be always right. I don't think that applies to Fred but I know others who take that view. You might like to consider whether a 'Marxist' for instance would be prepared to disagree with Marx. Now as far as I know the vast majority of people who consider themselves Baha'is would not disagree with Baha'u'llah but there are always exceptions and I believe we should respect their different viewpoints. >Although, I > guess it could be (logically) possible that a person quote the source of a > theology to support an argument, and not believe in that theology. > > Irregardless, here is the second premise to my question: > If a person believes in Bahá'u'lláh, then he or she must, by virtue of > Bahá'u'lláh's own Will and Testament (Kitáb-i-Ahd), also follow (obey) every > ordinance and guidance of 'Abdu'l-Bahá regarding the Faith. That is the common understanding but not the only one. For example it is possible to believe that Abdul Baha was given authority but for His lifetime only. I'm also not sure that Baha'u'llah uses the term 'obey' in relation to Abdul Baha though in my view it is implied. > If a person > obeys 'Abdu'l-Bahá, then, it follows that he or she also believes that there > needs to exist the institution of the Universal House of Justice (and other > Houses of Justice); I believe the Houses of Justice are based on Baha'u'llah's own writings not Abdul Baha's. > also, such a person would acknowledge Shoghi Effendi as > the Guardian of the Faith As a historical fact that was what he was known as and appointed as. However it is worth noting that he never actually functioned as a Guardian in terms of the way the role is defined in the Will and Testament. In fact, I can't see any significant difference in the roles Shoghi and Abdul Baha actually performed. >and as the one who worked so hard to bring about > this divine Institution by establishing the necessary NSA's to elect its > members. > > So now my question. What exactly is the ultimate goal of the Religious > Freedom of Conscience? What I mean is, they must support the UHJ as an > institution if they are Bahá'ís, so it would be illogical that they are > simply trying to prove the UHJ wrong. I believe Fred's goal is to draw attention to what he sees as abuses within the Faith. He probably thinks that if they are publicly aknowledged they will eventually be fixed. He has stated publicly many times (Fred states everything many times) that the UHJ is the legitimate Head of the Faith but disagrees with the current policies and wants them changed. > > (Let it be known that (the only reason) I am posting this because I can not > understand the position of Fred and his supporters.) I am glad to see you making the effort to understand Fred's position. The more we understand the more we love. > > From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: WARNING - Psychological WAR ZONE - WARNING - Psychological WAR ZONE -WARNING - Psychological WAR ZONE - WARNING - Psychological WAR ZONE -WARNING - Psychological WAR ZONE - WARNING - Psychological WAR ZONE - Date: Monday, March 04, 2002 7:14 PM Dear Brian Your message is such excellent proof of the original point-- that trb is a psychological war zone, that I will delurk to remark on it. "Brian F. Walker" wrote in message news:... > I am sorry I ruined your morning, That's not believable in light of the further insults and aggression you heap on me below. and I am also sorry you feel compelled to > withdraw from the discussion. Compelled is not the word. Abused, insulted and harassed are the words. How odd, and yet how perfect, that you should go so over the top in being abusive to someone who posted here only to say that yes indeed, "true Baha'is" can be warlike! > > > > That is precisely what is said, about Mike, Alison, and many others, > > by the AO, without calling them covenant-breakers. But you know this, > > why make me repeat the obvious? > > Again, no Paul. That is not what Anon said, nor is it what Anon meant. How do you know? "There are only Baha'is and non-Baha'is, and not more than one kind of Baha'i" is precisely the formulation that has been used precisely as I state it above. Th is is an example of you putting your agenda on top of another missive and > compounding it into one composite whole. Later you ask what my agenda is. Here, you presume to know that I have one. Did Juan take lessons from you, o > vice versa? Purely abusive and insulting, serving no purpose other than to prove that trb is a psychological war zone-- i.e. to intimidate into silence anyone who isn't willing to be a punching bag. > > >> like to put across, but the vast majority of ordinary Bahá'ís do not see > >> a liberal-fundamental divide. > > > > It's rather presumptuous to speak for several million people you don't > > know. In this country, they certainly do *see* it, whether or not they are > > willing to call it that. Not one fundamentalist in a thousand is > > willing to acknowledge being one, because they have a sense that it's > > a term of opprobrium without any sense of what it actually means. > > (And I don't mean this just in Baha'i context.) > > It is presumptious for me to speak for a large number of unknown people, With no knowledge whatsoever... > but it is not presumptious of you to speak for a large (but smaller) number > of unknown people? I see. As to what American Baha'is *see*-- they see an administration that is warning of a "campaign of internal opposition"-- so they certainly *see* the divide and it requires no presumption to know that. snip > > > > Precisely, and that is the UHJ and its supporters. Who declared > > Alison and Michael "not Baha'is?" Who relentlessly defends that > > action? > > The ground rules were laid down by the Central figures of the BF. No such ground rules allowing what was done to them were known to exist until the AO discovered them a few years ago. You > chastise the UHJ for upholding the Central figures of the BF? Oh, please. > > > Saying that these folks troll Internet discussion looking for fights > > is not a conclusion, it's an observation. And anyone can see abundant > > evidence right here. Your above statement is nothing more than > > unfounded aggression intended to, as you so eloquently put it, shut me > > up. > > You are right that it takes two to fight. So, you've been insulting and abusing me all this time over my asserting something that you finally come around to openly admitting? Would you rather that opposition > to the BF be unopposed? And right after admitting that indeed you AO defenders *are* on the warpath, indeed *showing* it to be so, you change the subject from 1) are "true Baha'is" devoid of aggression towards others here? to 2) shouldn't they be aggressive, isn't it right for them to be? That's really cheating, especially in the circumstacnes. Would you rather that the lies spread by ... say > ... Juan in his disgraceful illusion of a non-existent letter to spread FUD > be unopposed? I would rather know the truth behind all this which it doesn't seem that you ranting AO defenders are any more likely to reveal than Juan is so a pox on both your houses. You think *he* is more out to land blows and tarnish reputations than to find the truth? LOOK IN THE DAMN MIRROR. > What is your agenda? What makes you think there is one? Well, OK, then, to keep up to date with the Baha'i wars while avoiding more than the most minimal involvement, so as to avoid being caught up in the hostilities. Attack the AO of the BF? Change the AO > of the BF to suit secular purposes? Little else seems to make sense, Maybe if you would think about interpreting someone in terms of his own priorities instead of yours, a lot would make sense. I have no interest in either attacking the AO, or changing it, just in speaking the truth occasionally when the mood strikes. but > then again, I am perhaps myopic and naive. So, in your opinion, we should > lie back and enjoy being assaulted, even be thankful for the assault by > such luminaries of knowledge and justice. Do what you like but if you are aggressive, insulting, and abusive to those you perceive as being in league with the "assaulters" of your religion, DON"T DENY THAT BAHA'IS IS DOING SO which is an insult to everyone's intelligence. Or turn towards your opinion, and > support the campaign against the AO. A crusade to reform the UHJ? > > What is your agenda? Mostly, at this point, to stay the hell away from relentless cultist crusaders like you. snip > That is what you implied. Implication - the same technique you use to > suggest Anon said what he did not say, to prove the point you wanted to > make. Anon was saying a line that has been said before, in contexts where the meaning was absolutely clear and absolutely what I was explicating it to be. If that is _not_ what you implied, then I heartily apologize, and > state that you agree that the so-called liberals are not always sweetness > and light, nor are they reason personified. Thanks. > > A pile of bricks? Looking at your words and examining them for meaning is a > bad thing for you? Insults, abuse and aggression are bad things for me. > Identifying content, and looking at issues raised is a > bad thing? Insults, abuse and aggression are bad things. Identifying the statements you made, and finding context is a > bad thing? Insults, abuse and aggression are bad things. I do apologize for being harsh, but I also try to find > substance, not smoke, within words. Apologies that come packaged with further abuse and aggression don't amount to much. snip > Ah yes. The old denial thing. You assert a thing is so, and if I reject it > I am in denial. A convenient ploy to divide and rule. > It's not because *I* assert it but because dozens of your fellow Baha'is who are far better informed than I, and because of *how* you reject it, that it is so easy to see you being in denial. > > I should apologize for being intemperate, and can only agree that this has > indeed been the case for years. You will readily admit, I hope, that you > have contributed to this polarization by perpetuating the divide You just were arguing that it doesn't exist! between > so-called liberals and so-called fundies (and who thought to give that > atrocious abbreviation to their opposition, and what was the intended > effect? - or am I blind?) No, I have done nothing to perpetuate the divide. I reported it, 5 years ago, and that's it. > snip > > Your reply stands, the case is clear, but it is perhaps awkward for you to > answer, so you turn the point around. Let it rest as a testament, for those > who wish to perceive what the true realities are. Precisely. I said that "true Baha'is" were not above getting involved in wars of words here, you proved it over and over and finally admitted it outright, but only after abusing me a lot for having said it. Asking for proof of something so patently obvious is in itself intellectually dishonest. Bottom line: the only thing that helps me make sense of your and Pat's behavior here and all the other Baha'i aggression I've experienced is Peck's People of the Lie. PJFrom: "Paul Atreides" Subject: Re: Cultic Studies Journal article Date: Monday, March 04, 2002 3:06 PM Oh, that thousands have come in and thousands have gone out is unquestionable-ble, and our NSA's own numbers show it without any trouble. Whether gone out thru drift or thru high dudgeon makes but wee distinction. It isn't a weak part of any thesis that this be so. I make me living by maths, and can bear witness that a poll (even a pole) of 110,000 for a country the size of the U.S.A. is as close to God as cleanliness. > > > I > > >knew someone who worked in Wilmette for a bit. Said that two of the > > >reasons most frequently given for resigning were 1.- objections to > no > > >women on the Universal House of Justice and 2.- inability to live > up > > >to the stratospheric demands placed on personal conduct. >In spite of that > she rejects out of hand your well sourced anecdotal evidence. rejecting out of hand is the mark of a bombast, who has not a whit to offer the converse, but would make a show of empty wit. So much rejecting out of hand is done that some are out of hands with which to prestidigitate their legerdemain. Make it go away--Belize! > > I doubt if most Baha'is find the > > demands placed on their personal conduct 'stratospheric.' > > No evidence is proffered for this opinion. 'Tis easier to contradict than argue a case. Yes it is. No it ain't. But me mate did work at the BNC, and he did report to me as despatched, and a Mr. McMullen has said similar. > > > As for women not > > being allowed to serve on the House, I'm willing to bet there aren't > ten > > withdrawals a year for that reason. > > Having given up on evidence the DST has now gone to the casino for > support for her assertions. All I can's say is what was told me.It be one of the bonmots they mumble as they puts on their fur wraps and stomps out the door. > > >Inactivity is a much larger problem. Inactivity if prolonged for a sufficient number of earthly rotations may become indistinct from withdrawal. Mrs. Karen has explained why many rotate into such oblivions.Nothing she said has been shown untoward by warrant of any proof of reason or evidence. eternally - PaulFrom: "Alma Engels" Subject: Re: WARNING - Psychological WAR ZONE - WARNING - Psychological WAR ZONE -WARNING - Psychological WAR ZONE - Date: Friday, March 08, 2002 3:11 AM Pat, I think Freddy is belittling just as Patty or Paddy would be for you unless you decided to call yourself that. I realize that there is a lot of name-calling and much of it is from the dissidents or liberals. But I don't do it and I would hope that Susan would be above that. In peace, Alma Pat Kohli wrote in message news:3C869CF5.AD60D394@ameritel.net... > > Alma Engels wrote: > > > Dear Susie-Q, > > > > Since when has it been Freddy and not Fred? > > Allahu Abha > > I get the sneaking suspicion that you missed out on some suspensions of > formalitities. > https://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=tcmvkcbgrpbu11%40corp.supernews.c om > https://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=tcojg8df6kpa34%40corp.supernews.c om > > I don't think that Fred ever went by Fred. It looks like he's Frederick > Glaysher, or Patrick Henry, or Bahai In Good Standing, etc. > > > > From: "Steve Scholl" Subject: Re: Article in American Family Foundation's Cultic Studies Journal by Karen Bacquet Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 12:55 PM Several people on this forum have fwd to me Susan Maneck's comments on the inner workings of my mind. Susan has a history of telling the world what I really mean and what my true motives were in relation to events surrounding my exodus from the Baha'i community. At one point she informed the world that it was my belief that the Baha'i covenant went null and void in 1921 with the passing of Abdu'l-Baha, which was a rather outrageous lie on her part. She also claimed that she was serving as my confidant and guide in the rocky days leading up to my resignation of membership and that she was counseling me in some way. In short, she has lied and made misleading statements about me in the past and this recent statement of hers is just another example of her lack of honesty. She writes: > > The real reason that Steve Scholl was so concerned is that at the > time he received this letter from a Counselor he had already planned to do > this big expose in the press (the Rankin article.) Steve was well aware that > such an attack on the Faith after having received such a warning from the > Counsellor would assuredly result in his being declared a Covenant breaker. > If he had not been so determined to go forward with this, there > would not have been a problem. Let me emphasize that Susan Maneck has never been privy to the real reasons for my concerns and actions. That said, I am not even clear what she is trying to say here. The statement of mine that Karen B. quotes in her excellent article was a simple look back at one aspect of my thinking about the internal Baha'i culture wars a few years after the fact. I think the statement indicates clearly that there was no big concern on my part about possibly being declared a Baha'i covenant breaker, that the problems associated with such a move against me would land more on my family and friends than on me. At that point I could have cared less what the UHJ or NSA did re: my Baha'i rights since they had already trampled on them for years and had acted duplicitously and in violation of their own stated administrative principles in handling my "case". Furthermore, I had gone on record in my correspondence with the UHJ and Counsl Birkland that I would not hesitate to discuss their actions with "people of capacity" outside of the Baha'i community and with the media, and I had already passed on information to several religion writers for major newspapers about what was going on inside the Baha'i community. This was not something I was trying to hide from them. I don't know what Maneck's last sentence is referring to. Couns. Birkland's threatening letter to me made it clear that if I said or did *anything* he or his handlers disapproved of then I would be declared a CBer. The list of my Baha'i crimes included theological deviations and not accepting EVERY WORD from the pen of Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha as true. Birkland made it clear in his letter to me that he did not think I was a Baha'i and that he would not hesitate to recommend my removal from the community. What I understand Maneck to be saying here is that my big sin was to talk with the media about internal Baha'i crackdowns on intellectuals and scholars, and that if I had not planned to spill the beans to the media "there would not have been a problem." If this is what she is implying, then she is dead wrong. First, if I had not resigned, I believe I would have been declared a CB because I had no intentions of changing my beliefs based on the fundamentalist rants of the members of the UHJ. But what is telling in this line of Maneckian cult thinking is what she is really saying: The problem in her cult view of the world is the "dissident act" of shining a light on internal Baha'i affairs so that outsiders (and insiders) can learn about what really takes place in the Baha'i world. The great sin is ignoring the Baha'i taboo against speaking out against internal injustices because to do so is to tarnish the reputation of the Baha'i institutions. Good Baha'is are expected to take their abuse in silence. If they speak out against abuse, they are regarded as internal opposition and come under investigation from the Baha'i Inquisition. They are villified and threatened, even told that their status in the afterlife is threatened if they don't change their ways. And, yes, this was a key element the little drama that played out between the Baha'i leadership and myself. What I told the UHJ and Birkland was something like this: I know you are all excited about emerging from obscurity and taking a larger role on the world stage. Well, that means you are also going to be examined more closely. Your financial misdeeds, your cover ups of sexual exploitation by Baha'i leaders, your fundamentalist leanings, your sexist views, your 1950s view on homosexualty, are all going to be opened up for public scrutiny. Your days of a free ride in the media are over. Susan can try to nip at Karen's heels and claim that Karen's article is flawed this way and that. But such partisan harping is only preaching to the fundamentalist Baha'i choir. Outsiders and many insiders will read Karen's article as a clear and honest attempt to discuss recent Baha'i events. Susan can try to attack Karen's lack of "methodology" or that Karen's work is not serious scholarship. But this is laughable when one looks at Dr. Maneck's publishing career. She has penned a few Baha'i articles of marginal value published by internal Baha'i agencies. In short, she has one of the weakest publishing histories I have ever seen in academics and her academic profile is nearly nonexistent. Maneck has attempted (unsuccessfuly) to discredit the work of Juan Cole and now Karen with her Baha'i blather. Yet it is Juan and Karen who are publishing in refereed academic journals, and Karen has done this as a freelance writer rather than as a trained academic. Susan, if you think you really have something to say, write it up and submit it to a non-Baha'i publisher and see if they will accept YOUR methodology and YOUR use of sources. Steve SchollFrom: "Dermod Ryder" Subject: Re: Article in American Family Foundation's Cultic Studies Journal by Karen Bacquet Date: Monday, March 11, 2002 4:23 PM "Susan Maneck " wrote in message news:20020311031041.14637.00000887@mb-fc.aol.com... > >I've found Ms. Bacquet's quotation of Steven Scholl > >is particularly disturbing. > > The real reason that Steve Scholl was so concerned is that at the time he > received this letter from a Counselor he had already planned to do this big > expose in the press (the Rankin article.) Steve was well aware that such an > attack on the Faith after having received such a warning from the Counsellor > would assuredly result in his being declared a Covenant breaker. > > If he had not been so determined to go forward with this, there would not have > been a problem. Hey Maneck, You're a goddamn liar! Would somebody be so kind as to forward this so that there can be no excuse for her not responding to it. I'll repeat the messageso that she understands it loud and clear - Maneck is a liar about this as so much else like the phantom Covenant Breaker makers on Zuhur. From: "Ron House" Subject: That's what we've been trying to tell you all along Date: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 9:08 PM Doctor Electron wrote: > Consider the possibility, in the consultation process, that the > majority could be "wrong" and in fact, a single person has the best > idea, which if expressed might then be accepted by all. It follows > then that the loss of even a single Baha'i enrollment might result, at > some future time, in the loss of a "best idea." This can only hurt > the Faith. So to protect the Faith, it may be more advantageous to > simply ignore variants or non-mainstream thinking, in the hope that > the person might wind up with the "best idea" in an important > situation. This is what Juan Cole and many others have been doing quietly for years. Just sitting on obscure email lists such as the original Talisman and asking obscure questions like "I wonder if the UHJ was infallible in their choice of marble for the UHJ building?". But the cowardly powers that be sent inquisitors around, hounded some out of the faith at threat of turning them CB, threatened the eternal spiritual well-being of at least one other, and summarily turfed others out of the faith. *THAT* is why there are so many "opponents" to these bozos here today; the fools created the very thing they feared out of their own cowardice and hypocrisy. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au https://www.sci.usq.edu.au/staff/house They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- Carl SaganFrom: "Steve Scholl" Subject: Maneck/Scholl correspondence Date: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 11:25 AM Dear TRBers, Susan Maneck feels that the archives of our public and private e-mails will bolster her case that she has been nothing but a paragon of virtue and honesty in describing my views of Baha'i issues. So I thought I would begin by posting remnants of our past conversations for the amuesement and edification of anyone brave enough to venture into this quagmire. I realize this is a bit of a monster to digest and I suspect many readers will tire of the debate before getting through it all. But, hey, for the record, here it is. I have inserted my current commentary in capitals in a way that I hope will make sense. So sit back kids and get ready to be amazed at Dr. Maneck's astoundning powers of interpretation! Steve _______________ MANECK POST TO TRB >>At one point >> she informed the world that it was my belief that the Baha'i covenant >> went null and void in 1921 with the passing of Abdu'l-Baha, which was >> a rather outrageous lie on her You know this statement is rather amusing. When Steve Scholl initially said he never said any such thing, I went looking through past posts so I could find the one where he said this. When I couldn't find it I was just about ready to issue a retraction, since I don't like saying things I can't back up. Then Steve sent me a private post where he essentially said the same thing I had said above, as part of his denial! All I can figure is that Steve was unaware of the implications of what he was saying. I AM GOING TO FOCUS ON THIS ASPECT OF THE DEBATE BETWEEN MANECK AND MYSELF BECAUSE TO GO INTO EVERY DISTORTION ON HER PART WILL LEAD TO ENDLESS AND POINTLESS NIT PICKING. HERE COMES A DIALOGUE BETWEEN MANECK AND SCHOLL FROM DAYS GONE BY. ** MANECK'S ORGINAL POST ON MY COVENANT VIEWS >>>2)He believed that the Cause of God had been mutilated by the absence of a >>living Guardian. I believe Dr. Cole presently takes this position as well. >>This is of course, the same argument the Remeyites, make. Unlike the >>Remeyites however, Mr. Scholl, however takes this position to its logical >>conclusion. He believed that the Covenant was basically became null and >>void after 1921 because the Guardian and the House of Justice never >>co-existed. This is tantamount to suggesting that the Guardian himself >>mutilated the Cause, a position I believe which Avirih and Ahmad Sohrab >>took. SCHOLL'S ORIGINAL RESPONSE >Now we are getting into ugly territory. First, my view on the mutilation of >the Baha'i administrative order is based on Shoghi Effendi's clear >statement that without a living Guardian the Baha'i faith is "mutilated." >Those are not MY words, they are the words of Shoghi Effendi. > >What I find extremely offensive is Susan's offhand toss that anyone who >takes seriously Shoghi Effendi's statement on the mutilation of the Baha'i >faith, and who seeks to understand current Baha'i events in light of this >warning, is tainted with the Remyite virus. . . . . > >Let me say this very clearly. I have never stated nor do I believe that the >Baha'i covenant became null and void in 1921 or that Shoghi Effendi >mutilated the Baha'i cause. For Susan to state that this is what I >believe, and by giving the impression that I said this to her or wrote this >to her in private correspondence is simply untrue. My position is actually >identical to Amin Banani's, who has observed that the loss of the Guardian >is simply a historical fact that has to be dealt with by the Baha'is. My >personal opinion is that the Baha'is, and especially the UHJ, have dealt >with this unexpected and serious problem very poorly by freezing the faith >in the year 1957. In doing so, the UHJ has elevated Shoghi Effendi's >correspondence to a status that is problematic, in that letters written on >behalf of Shoghi Effendi can overrule Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha. In >private correspondence, Susan has admitted that this is a problem in her >mind, at least it was several years ago. Her position seems to have >dramatically shifted as of late. NOW LET US TURN TO THE PRIVATE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN MANECK AND SCHOLL ON THIS POINT: On Jan. 26, 1999 Maneck wrote >Dear Steve, > >While I have located all the other correspondence, I've not yet >located the one where you mention about the Covenant never really >operating after 1921. I'll keep looking for that one and forward what I >have as soon as I have the chance. But Juan does not intend to >allow me to make any response on the list. > >Susan SHE DID NOT FIND THIS DOCUMENT BECAUSE I HAVE NEVER EVER SAID ANYTHING REMOTELY TO THIS EFFECT. I RESPONDED TO HER AS FOLLOWS: >Susan, > >I will be happy to forward to talisman your posts on this subject, including any of my old e-mails you find that you think make your case. I think you have made a big leap. What I most likely said to you in private and what I know I said in public on talisman and irfan is really quite simple: there are continuity issues with each leadership change in Baha'i. Baha'u'llah's Aqdas has some holes that Abdu'l-Baha tries to remedy with the creation of national houses of justice, for example. Abdu'l-Baha clearly envisions a line of Guardians, not forseen by Baha'u'llah, that should continue at the head of the faith. Shoghi Effendi also expected a successor, at least up until the late 40s or early 50s, as seen in his mutilation analysis. So what I was saying is that it is hard to find an ideal Baha'i system and, more problematic, the ideal that Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi hoped for never turned out in the real world. We had a Guardian w/o a House and now a House w/o a Guardian. I have never felt that Shoghi Effendi was not the legitimate leader of the faith, and, despite my disagreement with him on several matters (but then I do not agree with Baha'u'llah on all things, such as the punishment of criminals, dowerys, kingship, inheritance laws, and other minor points), I do admire his labors in creating a framework for the future of the religion. > >As you know, I am more concerned by the leadership of the House than that of Shoghi Effendi. I would say that I think Shoghi Effendi exhibited erratic behavior at times and that he seemed emotionally fragile. Since it is documeted by his wife and others that he essentially had several nervous breakdowns that forced him into seclusion for R&R, I don't think I am saying anything scandalous. However, I think that since the plan was for there to be future Guardians who could then expand his ideas or isolate his idiosyncricies, then we begin to see why he thought the faith would be mutilated without a living Guardian at its head. My point that there are problems with the way the UHJ has frozen the faith in 1957 and that there are problems in having Shoghi Effendi's correspondence overrule Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha goes to the heart of the mutilation issue. What I would like to see coming out of Baha'i scholarship is some serious grappling with the mutilation language of Shoghi Effendi. The only thing I have seen on the topic is Brent Poirer's effort, which I found unconvincing, to put it in polite language. > >You now seem to be talking like Burl [Barer], that the House will always be morally infallible in all they do because of something Baha'u'llah says in the Aqdas or Abdu'l-Baha says in his W&T. What I am saying is that the ideal system, at least as envisioned by Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi has never existed and can never exist; that there is a small fissure in the foundation of the edifice. What it means is that human nature in all its glory and its depravity will be working within the Baha'i administration, including the UHJ. From my experience, it seems clear that the UHJ has made some disastrous moral errors in judgment, in policy and in their behavior toward individuals they deem dangerous. In doing so I believe that they have violated fundamental Baha'i teachings, values, and their own administrative policies. I know you and they disagree. And as I said in my exit letter to the NSA, I am content to let God and history judge the matter. > >What any of this has to do with the covenant being null and void in 1921 or in agreeement with Sohrab and Avarih, well, I am mystified. > >Hope this helps clear things up. > >Steve TO THIS SUSAN RESPONDED TO ME PRIVATELY AS FOLLOWS: Dear Steve, I think it would be good for you to forward this exchange right here, both your letter and mine en toto. I think you make your position very clear and it is an excellent good restatement of what I remembered you to be saying earlier and upon which I based my statements. I think the readers of Talisman would be able to discern for themselves if my analysis of the covenental implications of your statements was correct. In the absence of the post in question, you almost had me thinking I was hallucinating. But this what I remember. Except for the business of your withdrawal,. . . . > I have never felt > that Shoghi Effendi was not the legitimate leader of the faith, And I have not suggested you did say this. But you did suggest that the provisions of the Will and Testament did not really amount to much because the House and the Guardian never coexisted. NOW, HERE IS WHERE SHE GOES LOONEY TUNES. HER ACCUSATION IS, REMEMBER, THAT I CLAIMED THAT THE BAHA'I COVENANT WAS "NULL AND VOID" IN 1921. WHAT I SAID WAS MERELY THE OBVIOUS. NAMELY, THAT THE PROVISIONS OF ABDU'L-BAHA'S WILL & TEST. NEVER CAME TOGETHER SINCE WE HAD A GUARDIAN WITHOUT A UHJ AND THEN A UHJ WITHOUT A GUARDIAN SITTING AT ITS HEAD. FROM THIS STATEMENT OF HISTORICAL FACT I BECOME IN HER EYES IN THE SAME KIND OF BAHA'I HOUSE WRECKER AS AVARIH, AHMAD SOHRAB AND JULIE CHANDLER!!! I SHOULD EMPHASIZE THAT I HAVE NEVER SUGGESTED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE W&T DID NOT REALLY AMOUNT TO MUCH. IT IS BECAUSE I TAKE THEM SERIOUSLY, AS DID SHOGHI EFFENDI, THAT I BELIEVE THAT THE CURRENT BAHA'I ADMINISTRATION IS "MUTILIATED." Scholl> As you know, I am more concerned by the leadership of the House than that > of Shoghi Effendi. Maneck>Of course you are. They are the *present* authorities. Had you lived fifty years ago it would have been the Guardian you would have been bucking. Can you honestly say this isn't so? YES, SUSAN, I CAN SAY THIS ISN'T SO. THIS IS SUCH A LOAD OF CRAP. IF WE FOLLOW YOUR LOGIC, I WOULD HAVE OPPOSED ALL AUTHORITIES. IN FACT, FOR MOST OF MY BAHA'I LIFE I WAS A VERY ACTIVE SUPPORTER OF THE UHJ. I WENT ON PILGRIMAGE TWICE AND HAD SEVERAL IMPORTANT CONTACTS WITH UHJ AND ITS MEMBERS AND THESE MEETINGS WERE VERY INFLUENTIAL TO MY BAHA'I LIFE. DAVID RUHE AND CHARLES WOLCOTT ESPECIALLY WERE IMPORTANT FIGURES IN MY BAHA'I LIFE AND THE EARLY HOUSE OF JUSTICE WAS AN INSPIRING GROUP. BUT IF WE FOLLOW MANECK'S LOGIC, IT IS SOMEHOW INEVITABLE THAT I OPPOSE ANY AND EVERY AUTHORITY FIGURE. WHY STOP WITH 1921. WHY NOT SUGGEST THAT I WOULD HAVE OPPOSED ABDU'L-BAHA AND SIDED WITH HIS HALF-BROTHER. DURING BAHA'U'LLAH'S DAY I WOULD HAVE BEEN AN AZALI, ACCORDING TO MANECK. IN THE GARDEN OF EDEN I WOULD HAVE SIDED WITH THE SNAKE, IN THE HEAVEN OF PREXISTENCE I WOULD HAVE BEEN SATAN HIMSELF. THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS AND DISPLAYS MANECKIAN DUALISM (THERE ARE GOOD COVENANT LOVING LOYALISTS AND EVIL CONVENANT ATTACKING LIBERTARIAN DEMOCRACY LOVING INTERNAL ENEMIES). Scholl>However, I think that since the plan was > for there to be future Guardians who could then expand his ideas or > isolate his idiosyncricies, then we begin to see why Shoghi Effendi > thought the faith would be mutilated without a living Guardian at its > head. Maneck>He didn't say there had to be a *living* Guardian, only that the two institutions were inseparable. Your presuming that that *meant* there would be a living Guardian, and certainly that is what Shoghi Effendi anticipated. But if the Cause was not mutilated in the absence of a presently elected House of Justice at the time Shoghi Effendi wrote, it would not logically be mutilated in the absence of a living Guardian. THIS IS A VERY VIOLENT FORM OF INTERPRETATION BY MANECK. AND SHE ACCUSES ME OF DISTORTING BAHA'I FUNDAMENTALS!!?? LET'S LOOK AT THE FAMOUS PASSAGE FROM SHOGHI EFFENDI (from The Dispensation of Baha'u'llah) ONCE AGAIN: "Divorced from the institution of the Guardianship the World Order of Baha'u'llah would be mutilated and permanently deprived of that hereditary principle which, as 'Abdu'l-Baha has written, has been invariably upheld by the Law of God. "In all the Divine Dispensations," He states, in a Tablet addressed to a follower of the Faith in Persia, "the eldest son hath been given extraordinary distinctions. Even the station of prophethood hath been his birthright." Without such an institution the integrity of the Faith would be imperiled, and the stability of the entire fabric would be gravely endangered. Its prestige would suffer, the means required to enable it to take a long, an uninterrupted view over a series of generations would be completely lacking, and the necessary guidance to define the sphere of the legislative action of its elected representatives would be totally withdrawn." MANECK, LIKE MANY BAHA'IS, FEELS THAT THIS STATEMENT DOES NOT MEAN THERE NEEDS TO BE A LIVING GUARDIAN IN TANDEM WITH THE UHJ AT THE HEAD OF THE SYSTEM, THAT WE HAVE THE INSTITUTION OF THE GUARDIAN IN THE BODY OF SHOGHI EFFENDI'S WRITINGS AND LETTERS. SHE IS PRESUMING THAT HIS WARNING OF MUTILATION DOES NOT AMOUNT TO A SERIOUS CHALLENGE TO THE ONGOING EVOLUTION OF THE BAHA'I COMMUNITY. BUT LET ME EMPHASIZE THAT THIS IS A VERY STRANGE AND VIOLENT FORM OF INTERPRETATION ON HER PART. THE PASSAGE QUOTED ABOVE DOES INDICATE THAT THERE IS A NEED FOR A LIVING GUARDIAN WORKING IN HIS UNIQUE SPHERE OF AUTHORITY IN TANDEM WITH THE UHJ. PHRASES LIKE "PERMANENTLY DEPRIVED" AND "THE MEANS REQUIRED TO ENABLE IT TO TAKE A LONG, AN UNINTERRUPTED VIEW OVER A SERIES OF GENERATIONS WOULD BE COMPLETELY LACKING" STRONGLY SIGNAL TO THER READER THAT SHOGHI EFFENDI MEANT EXACTLY WHAT HE SAID. NAMELY, THAT THERE WAS CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER THAT THE BAHA'I ADMINISTRATION COULD GO OFF COURSE IF SOONER OR LATER THE ENVISIONED IDEAL DID NOT COME ABOUT. THIS IS ALSO WHY DURING SHOGHI EFFENDI'S LIFETIME, HE WAS EAGER TO CREATE THE NECESSARY FOUNDATION FOR THE ELECTION OF THE UHJ AND EARLY IN HIS MINISTRY THERE WAS HOPE THAT THE FIRST ELECTION WOULD TAKE PLACE IN THE NEAR TERM. THE DANGER EXISTS, SAYS SHOGHI EFFENDI, BECAUSE THE UHJ WOULD LACK GUIDANCE TO DEFINE ITS SPHERE OF LEGISLATIVE ACTION AND THAT THE UHJ COULD THEN GO MARCHING INTO AREAS OF "INFALLIBLE" GUIDANCE WHERE THEY HAVE NO BUSINESS GOING. WE ARE ALSO WARNED BY SHOGHI EFFENDI AND ABDUL-BAHA THAT INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE UHJ COULD ALSO TURN CORRUPT. THE GUARDIAN, IN THE PERSON OF A LIVING INDIVIDUAL SITTING AT THE HEAED OF THE UHJ, WAS TO SERVE AS PROTECTION AGAINST THAT POSSIBILITY. NOW, MANY WOULD SAY, AND I WOULD BE AMONG THEM, THAT THE WARNINGS PENNED BY SHOGHI EFFENDI HAVE SADLY COME TRUE. THE CHECKS AND BALANCES OF THE IDEAL BAHA'I SYSTEM ARE INOPERATIVE AND SERIOUS PROBLEMS ARE EMERGING WITHIN THE BAHA'I COMMUNITY. AGAIN, LET ME EMPHASIZE THAT NOWHERE IN ALL OF THIS AM I SAYING THAT THE COVENANT BECAME NULL AND VOID IN 1921. I AM SIMPLY TAKING A VERY COMMON SENSE APPROACH TO WHAT THE W&T SAYS AND WHAT SHOGHI EFFENDI WROTE. Scholl: What I > am saying is that the ideal system, at least as envisioned by Abdu'l-Baha > and Shoghi Effendi has never existed and can never exist; that there is a > small fissure in the foundation of the edifice. Maneck: I think this tantamount to saying that the Covenant is not really workable, or null and void, as I suggested in my original post. That is a Covenental issue, no two ways about it. ONCE AGAIN MANECK USES THE MOST WEIRD FORM OF INTERPRETATION TO DISTORT MY MEANING AND MY VIEWS. HERE SHE FINDS THE KEY TO MY WHOLE COVENANT BREAKING MINDSET. BECAUSE I TAKE SERIOUSLY THE MUTLIATION LANGUAGE OF SHOGHI EFFENDI, BECAUSE I STATE QUITE SIMPLY THE HISTORICAL REALITY THAT THE IDEAL BAHA'I SYSTEM HAS NEVER EXISTED AND CAN NEVER EXIST, THEN THIS MEANS THAT I AM ATTACKING THE COVENANT AND DECLARING THE WHOLE SYSTEM NULL AND VOID. THAT IS FAR FROM THE TRUTH. WHAT I SAID AS A BAHA'I WAS THAT WE HAVE TO FACE UP TO REALITY, LOOK AT THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE CARDS HISTORY HAS DEALT THE COMMUNITY, AND THEN MOVE FORWARD WITH MORE HUMILTY, CARE, AND WITH MORE EMPHASIS ON OPENNESS IN THE CONDUCT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS. THIS IS WHY I WAS ACTIVE IN BAHA'I PUBLISHING, BOTH ACADEMIC WORKS AND JOURNALISM IN THE FORM OF DIALOGUE. SINCE THE IDEAL SYSTEM CANNOT EXIST, WE NEED TO LOOK AT FUNDAMENTAL BAHA'I VALUES AND PRINCIPLES TO GUIDE THE COMMUNITY INTO THE POST-GUARDIAN ERA. THE UHJ IN ITS CURRENT CONFIGURATION OF MEMBERSHIP HAS TAKEN EXTREME POSITIONS AND ACTED IN WAYS THAT MANY BAHA'IS AND EX-BAHA'IS FEEL PROVES EXACTLY THE POINT THAT SHOGHI EFFENDI WAS MAKING. THEIR ATTACKS ON BAHA'I SCHOLARS, INTELLECTUALS, AND NOW PHD CANDIDATES WORKING IN SCIENCE ARE THE TRUE BLOWS AGAINST THE COVENANT AS ESTABLISHED BY THE CENTRAL FIGURES. WE HAVE COME TO THE POINT THAT THE FUNDAMENTALIST AND NARROW ORTHODOXY OF HAIFA, THAT REQUIRES BAHA'IS TO NEVER QUESTION ANY ASPECT OF THE WRITINGS AND BAHA'I TEACHINGS AS THEY SO VIEW THEM, HAS LED THE UHJ TO PROMOTE THE DEADEND VIEWS OF OTHER CULT AND SECTARIAN RELIGIOUS LEADERSHIPS. Scholl: > What it means is that > human nature in all its glory and its depravity will be working within the > Baha'i administration, including the UHJ. Maneck: And that is in direct contradiction to what the Will and Testament says. NO, IT IS MERELY IN CONTRADICTION TO SUSAN MANECK'S FUNDAMENTALISM. ABDU'L-BAHA SAID OVER AND OVER THAT THIS IS NOT THE WORLD OF PERFECTION AND HE GAVE MANY WARNINGS ABOUT POTENTIAL CORRUPTION WITHIN THE BAHA'I SYSTEM. BAHA'U'LLAH REPEATEDLY WARNED AGAINST THE CORRUPTION OF LEADERS OF RELIGION. THEY BOTH WERE VERY AWARE OF THE PROPENSITY FOR EGO TO CORRUPT ESPECIALLY WHEN EGO WAS SERVING RELIGIOUS POWER. MANECK, LIKE MANY BAHA'IS, WANTS A PERFECT WORLD WITH A PERFECT AND INFALLIBLE UHJ. THIS IS THE DREAM OF ALL FUNDAMENTALISTS: TO HAVE AN AUTHORITY FIGURE TO TELL THEM RIGHT FROM WRONG AND HOW TO THINK AND ACT. IT IS A VIEW THAT BAHA'U'LLAH HOPED TO PUT TO REST. SADLY, IT IS NOW THE OFFICIAL VIEW OF THE UHJ. Scholl: > What any of this has to do with the covenant being null and void in 1921 > or in agreeement with Sohrab and Avarih, well, I am mystified. Maneck: That is exactly what it means, Steve! I'm mystified as to why you can't see this. You've read Julie Chandler's papers haven't you? She argues along almost exactly the same lines you are. In short, we remember the same thing. But we obviously have different "takes" on what the covenental implications of this are. MY GOODNESS, SUSAN IS MYSTIFIED WHY I CANNOT SEE HOW CLEAR AS THE NOON DAY SUN MY COVENANT BREAKING VIEWS ARE. YES, SUSAN, WE OBVIOUSLY SEE THINGS VERY, VERY DIFFERENTLY. IN YOUR FUNDAMENTALIST VIEW, THE BAHA'I WORLD MUST FOLLOW THE DIVINE BLUEPRINT, EVEN IF THE BLUEPRINT WAS LAID OUT IN A MANNER THAT COULD NEVER BE IMPLEMENTED. SINCE IT CANNOT BE IMPLEMENTED, BAHA'IS MUST SEE THAT EVERYTHING THE UHJ SAYS AND DOES AS INFALLIBLE, SINCE THEY ARE THE SOURCE OF ALL GOOD AND FREE FROM ALL ERROR, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE MISSING A FUNDAMENTAL ELEMENT (A GUARDIAN) THAT IS SUPPOSE TO PROVIDE THEM WITH PROTECTION AGAINST GOING ASTRAY. SUSAN, CAN'T YOU SEE THE COVENANTAL IMPLICATIONS HERE. I AM MYSTIFIED THAT YOU JUST DON'T GET IT. NOW TO DR. MANECK'S TRB POST FROM MARCH 14 2002 Scholl: >not accepting EVERY WORD from the pen of Baha'u'llah >> and Abdu'l-Baha as true. Maneck: In other words Birkland's letter included the quotation from the Guardian on the qualifications of membership which we have all seen. SO, SUSAN, YOU ACCEPT THIS RADICAL AND EXTREME FORM OF BAHA'I FUNDAMENTALISM THAT BIRKLAND AND THE UHJ ARE DEMANDING OF BELIEVERS? WHEN I WAS A BAHA'I I DID NOT ACCEPT EVERY WORD FROM THE PEN OF BAHA'U'LLAH AND ABDU'L-BAHA AS TRUE. I DON'T BELIEVE IN THE ETHER SPHERE, THAT THERE ARE CREATURES ON EVERY PLANET, THAT THE UNITED STATES DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN WW I, NOR DID I BELIEVE IN PARALLEL EVOLUTION AS DESCRIBED BY ABDU'L-BAHA IN SOME ANSWERED QUESTIONS. THE BAHA'I CENTRAL FIGURES MADE MANY MISTAKES AND THEY SOMETIMES HELD VIEWS THAT TODAY ONE CAN ONLY CRINGE AT WHEN READING. FOR EXAMPLE, WE ALL KNOW THAT ABDU'L-BAHA WORKED HARD TO PROMOTE RACE UNITY, YET HE ALSO MADE STATEMENTS THAT MANY TODAY MIGHT SEE AS RACIST. FOR EXAMPLE: "If man himself is left in his natural state, he will become lower than the animal and continue to grow more ignorant and imperfect. The savage tribes of central Africa are evidences of this. Left in their natural condition, they have sunk to the lowest depths and degrees of barbarism, dimly groping in a world of mental and moral obscurity. If we wish to illumine this dark plane of human existence, we must bring man forth from the hopeless captivity of nature, educate him and show him the pathway of light and knowledge, until, uplifted from his condition of ignorance, he becomes wise and knowing; no longer savage and revengeful, he becomes civilized and kind; once evil and sinister, he is endowed with the attributes of heaven. But left in his natural condition without education and training, it is certain that he will become more depraved and vicious than the animal, even to the extreme degree witnessed among African tribes who practice cannibalism. It is evident, therefore, that the world of nature is incomplete, imperfect until awakened and illumined by the light and stimulus of education."  The Promulgation of Universal Peace p309, "Hence, the members of the human race all possess the capacity of attaining to the highest station, and the proof they adduce therefor is this: "The inhabitants of a country like Africa are all as wandering savages and wild animals; they lack intelligence and knowledge; all are uncivilized; not one civilized and wise man is to be found among them. On the contrary, consider the civilized countries, the inhabitants of which are living in the highest state of culture and ethics, solidarity and inter-dependence; possessing, with few exceptions, acute power of comprehensions and sound mind. Therefore, it is made clear and evident that the superiority and inferiority of minds and comprehensions arises from education and cultivation, or from their lack and absence. A bent branch is straightened by training and the wild fruit of the jungle is made the product of the orchard."  Tablets of Abdu'l-Bahá `Abbás p. 576 SIMILAR STATEMENTS ARE MADE BY ABDU'L-BAHA ABOUT THOSE SAVAGE NATIVE AMERICANS. I THINK SUCH VIEWS, EVEN FOR HIS TIME AND PLACE, ARE JUST DEAD WRONG AND THAT BAHA'IS MUST HAVE THE COURAGE TO RECOGNIZE THEM AS SUCH. AS HANS KUNG NOTED, THE HARDEST THING FOR BELIEVERS IS TO RECOGNIZE THAT TRUTH AND UNTRUTH RUNS THROUGH ALL RELIGIOUS TRADITIONS, EVEN THEIR OWN! ABDU'L-BAHA HELD TO A BELIEF IN EVOLUTION THAT IS NOW RECOGNIZED BY SCIENTISTS AS WRONG. ACCORDING TO ABDU'L-BAHA, IF SCIENCE AND RELIGION DISAGREE ON SCIENTIFIC MATTERS, RELIGION MUST YIELD TO SCIENCE. OTHERWISE RELIGION BECOMES SUPERSITITIOUS. BUT THAT NOBLE AND ENLIGHTENED VIEW HAS NOW BEEN STOOD ON ITS HEAD BY THE UHJ. THIS FUNDAMENTAL BAHA'I PRINCIPLE, ACCORDING TO THE UHJ, DOES NOT APPLY TO THE BAHA'I CENTRAL FIGURES. AS WAS REPORTED ON THE TALISMAN LIST THE OTHER DAY, THE UHJ NOW UPHOLDS ABDU'L-BAHA'S QUESTIONABLE VIEWS ON EVOLUTION AS PART OF HIS DIVINE INFALLIBILTY. THE UHJ COUNSELED A BAHA'I DOING PHD RESEARCH IN THE SCIENCES WHO QUESTIONED THE MASTER'S TEACHINGS ON EVOLUTION TO VOLUNTARILY RESIGN FROM THE FAITH. THE BAHA'I SCIENTIST DID RESIGN, BUT HAD HE STUCK AROUND I AM SURE HE WOULD HAVE BEEN SUMMARILY DISENROLLED BY THE SO CALLED INFALLIBLE UHJ. HERE I WOULD SAY THAT THE CURRENT UHJ AGAIN SHOWS US JUST WHAT DANGERS SHOGHI EFFENDI WAS WARNING US ABOUT. THE UHJ IS NOT SUPPOSE TO ACT AS INTERPRETER OF THE REVELATION, THAT IS OUTSIDE ITS SPHERE OF LEGISLATIVE ACTION, TO USE THE GUARDIAN'S PHRASE. HERE WE SEE HOW THE CURRENT UHJ IS BECOMING MORE AND MORE OUT OF TOUCH WITH THEIR PROPER ROLE AND IS INFRINGING ON THE GUARDIAN'S SPHERE OF AUTHORITY AS INTERPRETER OF THE REVELATION. THIS IS PERHAPS INEVITABLE IN THE ABSENCE OF A LIVING GUARDIAN, WHICH, AGAIN, IS THE WHOLE POINT OF SHOGHI EFFENDI'S MUTILATION COMMENTS. AND SO THE DANGER WE NOW SEE IN THE BAHA'I COMMUNITY IS NOT WHAT EVILS LURK IN THE HEARTS OF THOSE DAMN LIBERALS BUT HOW MUCH DAMAGE IS BEING DONE TO THE BAHA'I FAITH BY A UNIVERSAL HOUSE OF JUSTICE THAT IS IN VIOLATION OF ITS OWN CONSTITUTION, THE WRITINGS OF SHOGHI EFFENDI ON SPHERES OF AUTHORITY IN THE BAHA'I SYSTEM AND THE W&T OF THE MASTER. AND SO SUSAN I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU, DO YOU AGREE WITH THE UHJ THAT AS A CARD CARRYING BAHA'I YOU MUST ACCEPT ABDU'L-BAHA'S VIEWS ON EVOLUTION OR RESIGN YOUR MEMBERSHIP? DO YOU SHARE BAHA'U'LLAH'S VIEWS ON THE TRANSMUTATION OF ELEMENTS? DO YOU SHARE THE VIEW OF BAHA'U'LLAH THAT SOCRATES MET WITH THE JEWISH PROPHETS AND THAT HIS PHILOSOPHY IS BASED ON ISRAELITE TEACHINGS? DO YOU BELIEVE THAT EVERY PLANET IN THE UNIVERSE HAS ITS OWN CREATURES LIVING ON THEM? IF NOT, I SUGGEST YOU MAKE AN APPOINTMENT WITH YOUR LSA AND HAND IN YOUR CARD. AND FINALLY, SUSAN ATTEMPTS TO DEFEND HER STERLING ACADEMIC REPUTATION As though Steve knows anything about my publication record. Come on, Steve, don't talk in generalities. How many articles and books do i have? Be precise now. Name all my publishers. WELL, GEE, SUSAN. I AM SURE THAT I HAVE PROBABLY MISSED SEVERAL OF YOUR OUTSTANDING CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE FIELD OF RELIGIOUS STUDIES AND BAHA'I STUDIES. AND I AM CERTAIN YOU CAN FILL US IN ON ALL OF THE WORK YOU HAVE DONE. I ONLY KNOW OF THE FOLLOWING PUBLICATIONS FROM YOU MIGHTY PEN: 1. The Death of Ahriman: Culture, Identity and Theological Change Among the Parsis of India (Bombay: K. R. Cama Oriental Institute, 1997) 2. "Cross-Cultural Contacts and the Advancement of Women within the Baha'i Community," in Women and Religion in India (Bombay: Oxford University Press, upcoming.) 3. "Women and the Baha'i Faith" in Women and Religion. SUNY Press, 1994, pp. 211-27. 4. "The Presbyterians and the Parsis" in Fides et Historia. Vol XXI, No. 2 June, 1989, pp. 51-60. 5. "Tahirih: A Religious Paradigm of Womanhood" in The Journal of Baha'i Studies Vol. 2, No. 2, 1989, pp. 35-48. 6. "Early Zoroastrian Conversions to the Baha'i Faith in Yazd, Iran" in Juan Cole ed. From Iran East and West (Los Angeles: Kalimat Press 1984) pp. 67-93. 7. "A Question of Gender: Women in the Kitab-I Aqdas" Dialogue Vol. 2, No. 1. Fall, 1987, pp. 17-18. 8. "The Conversion of Religious Minorities to the Baha'i Faith in Iran: some Preliminary Observations" in The Journal of Baha'i Studies, Vol. 3, No. 3, 1991, pp. 39-54. 9. "Wisdom and Dissimulation" in Baha'i Studies Review, Vol. 6, 1996, pp. 11-23. NOW, SUSAN, I COUNT 9 PUBLICATIONS TO YOUR NAME. AS NOTED ABOVE, I AM SURE I HAVE MISSED SOME IMPORTANT ARTICLES, MONOGRAPHS, AND BOOKS THAT YOU WILL NO DOUBT WANT TO SHARE WITH US. BUT WHEN I LOOK OVER THE ABOVE ITEMS IT DOES SEEM RATHER SLIM. NOS. 2, 3, 4, 5 AND 7 COVER ROUGHLY THE SAME TOPIC FROM A COUPLE OF VANTAGE POINTS. THE TRIED AND TRUE PRACTICE OF INFLATING ONE'S CV BY RECYCLING SOME BASIC RESEARCH TO DIFFERENT PUBLICATIONS. OF THE NINE ABOVE, ONLY THREE ARE PUBLISHED BY NON-BAHA'I PUBLISHERS IN REFEREED ACADEMIC JOURNALS. ON YOUR PERSONAL WEB SITE YOU LIST A FEW OTHER TALKS AND PAPERS ALL OF WHICH APPEAR TO BE UNPUBLISHED AND PROBABLY UNPUBLISHABLE. LIKE THE PAPER "Conversion Movements within Hindu Village Culture". THIS ARTICLE APPEARS TO BE WRITTEN IN THE TRADITION OF THE STEPHEN AMBROSE SCHOOL OF ACADEMIC PLAGARISM, BEING A RIP OFF OF BILL GARLINGTON'S PHD DISSERTATION--BILL'S WORDS AND IDEAS ARE NOT CLEARLY CITED AND ONLY GENERAL AMBROSIAN ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ARE GIVEN IN THE COURSE OF THE PAPER. IN SHORT, SUSAN, YOUR ACADEMIC PUBLISHING RECORD SPEAKS VOLUMES. For anyone who has made it this far, my thanks for your patience and perseverence. SteveFrom: "Freethought110" Subject: Formerly Fundamentalist Baha'i Resigns from the BF over Question of Evolution Date: Friday, March 22, 2002 11:56 PM A Baha'i who was often on the Far Right spectrum of things -- like the position articulated by the various online Baha'i Fundamentalists, which itself is a reflection of the Fundamentalist Ideology of the current Baha'i authorities --, has recently resigned from the Baha'i faith due primarily because as a scientist he can no longer accept the positions laid out by 1) `Abdu'l-Baha on the question of evolution and 2) that `Abdu'l-Baha's pronouncements on such questions are to be taken as infallible in all respects without question. Below is a copy of his correspondence with the Baha'i Universal House of Justice regarding the matter. It would seem that when religious faith gets stuck with the material and theoretical evidence proving religious hypotheses on scientific questions such as evolution wrong, the believer whose formerly blind faith has now been shattered by his findings is left with two choices by religious authorities: 1) accept the pronouncements of scripture blindly and unequivocally regardless of scientific findings or 2) leave! -- Freethought110 > > >Message: 3 > > Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 13:26:33 -0500 > > From: Juan Cole > >Subject: Jump or Be Pushed > > > > > >A Baha'i I knew in cyberspace who had relatively conventional views has > >recently left the Faith. A Ph.D. student in Europe, he discovered that > >parallel evolution was impossible. He wrote the Research Department, who > >gathered up the quotes on parallel evolution and sent them back to him, > >saying this is what `Abdu'l-Baha says. Then he wrote the House saying he > >could no longer accept infallibility and could he remain a Baha'i > >anyway. They said no, turn your membership card into your Local Spiritual > >Assembly. He did, and now says he no longer believes in religion at all. > > > >It is to weep. > > > >cheers Juan > > > >------------------------- > >THE UNIVERSAL HOUSE OF JUSTICE > >DEPARTMENT OF THE SECRETARIAT > >Bahá'í World Centre o P.O. Box 155 o 31 001 Haifa, Israel > >Tel: 972 (4) 835 8358 o Fax: 972 (4) 835 8280 o Email: secretariat@bwc.org > > > >17 February 2002 > > > > > >Transmitted by email: > > > >Dear Bahá'í Friend, > > > >We have been asked to respond to your email letter of 6 February 2002, > >raising questions > >about your relationship to the Cause. As a member of the Bahá'í community, > >you are of course > >aware that the Bahá'í Faith is a religion, the source of whose teachings > >and institutions is the > >Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh. It is in this context, therefore, that your > >questions can be most > >helpfully addressed. > > > >You will be familiar with many of the passages in the Writings of > >Bahá'u'lláh that set > >out in detail His Station as the Manifestation of God for this Day and the > >implications of His > >mission f r the development of the soul and the organization of > >society. While the precise > >nature of any individual's response to the Revelation can only be > >determined by the person in > >question, Shoghi Effendi spelled out its irreducible elements, in the > >excerpt from his writings > >cited on page two of your letter: > > > >``Full recognition of the station of the Forerunner, the Author, and the > >Ture Exemplar of the Baha'i Cause, as set forth in Abdu'l-Baha's Testament; > >unreserved acceptance of, and submission to, whatsoever has been revealed > >by their Pen; loyal and steadfast adherence to every clause of our > >Beloved's sacred Will; and close association with the spirit as well as the > >form of the present day Baha'i administration throughout the world--these I > >conceive to be the fundamental and primary considerations that must be > >fairly, discreetly and thoughtfully ascertained before reaching such a > >vital decision." > > > >So far as the seeker himself is concerned, such a decision can be arrived > >at only through > >independent investigation, a principle that the Faith teaches is > >fundamental to all spiritual and > >intellectual advancement. The position to which your own researches have > >led you, as > >described in your letter, is clearly irreconcilable with the intent of the > >Bahá'í Writings, as > >reflected in the Guardian's statement. If you cannot in good conscience > >reconcile yourself with > >the fundamental conditions of Bahá'í membership, your wisest and most > >appropriate course > >will be to submit your resignation to the Local Spiritual Assembly in your > >community. > > > >17 February 2002 > >Page 2 > > > > > > > >Hereafter, whatever statements you may choose to make about the Faith's > >teachings > >and programmes will be merely those of a sympathetic observer. There are > >many people > >who, although not themselves religiously inclined, find inspiration--or > >even, as you say, > >"transforming power"--in the Bahá'í principles. It is clear from your > >letter that your intention > >is not to discourage or interfere in some fashion with the equally sincere > >efforts of others to > >explore Bahá'u'lláh's Message. > > > >We trust that these comments respond to the concerns you raised in your > >letter, and will > >be helpful to you in arriving at a decision regarding your relationship > >to the Cause. > > > >With loving Bahá'í greetings, > >Department of the Secretariat > > > > > > > >--------------------- > > > >This letter came in response to the following question, mainly about > >`Abdu'l-Baha's wrong views of evolution: > > > >[ E-mail to the House of Justice; a question about whether > > one can reject the infallibility of the Central Figures and still > > remain a Baha'i. ] > >--------------------------- > > > >Allah'u'abha, > > > >Some time ago I wrote to the House of the Justice asking about various > >apparent mistakes of Abdu'l-Baha, and asking for comment on His > >infallibility and on the separate question of whether the House thought it > >inadvisable for me to promote the view that Abdu'l-Baha was not infallible. > > > >I received a reply from the Research Department, enclosing quotes to the > >effect that Abdu'l-Baha was infallible. > > > >The purpose of my present e-mail is to ask the position of the House of > >Justice on the extent to which one can reject ``core'' Baha'i teachings on > >issues such as infallibility, express one's views to others, and still > >remain a member of the Baha'i Faith. > > > >It seems to me at the moment that in the light of various alleged mistakes > >by Abdu'l-Baha, the notion that Abdu'l-Baha was infallible is very open to > >question. Moreover, once one starts questioning Abdu'l-Baha's > >infallibility one has to wonder about alleged mistakes by Baha'u'llah, and > >whether we are justified in accepting Him at His word on unverifiable > >issues such as the afterlife. On the other hand, since there seem to be > >some quite remarkable instances of prophetic insight by both Baha'u'llah > >and Abdu'l-Baha, and since the Baha'i Faith as an organisation has some > >unique qualities, I am reluctant to disregard the Faith as simply being of > >no value. Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi seem to work on the assumption > >that the infallibility of the Manifestation is the whole basis of revealed > >religion; also, Abdu'l-Baha maintained that if the designated successors of > >the Manifestation were not infallible the foundation of the religion of God > >would be overturned [SAQ p172]. But the question is-- what if they were > >wrong? If Baha'u'llah and His successors were not infallible, and there is > >no way we can rule this out, it does not lead inexorably to the conclusion > >that the Faith has no value. It seems to me that the possibility that the > >Faith may have some vital importance even though some or all of its Central > >Figures may be fallible, is one which is worth exploring. > > > >The question I am putting to the House of Justice is not, ``Is Abdu'l-Baha > >infallible?'' In my opinion the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi > >have only a slight bearing on the question anyway, since we can only rely > >on them if Abdu'l-Baha is known to be infallible. I am not even taking for > >granted the infallibility of Baha'u'llah, so for me personally even a > >statement from Him would not be conclusive. I am asking what the attitude > >of the House of Justice is towards the discussion of these ideas, and > >whether it considers that to bring these beliefs into question (if done in > >a measured way, and without courting dissension) would be a kind of > >Covenant-breaking, or at any rate forbidden. Put another way, does the > >House of Justice consider itself bound to uphold the basics of Baha'i > >belief as currently understood by Baha'is (including the infallibility of > >Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi) or is it willing to allow > >individual Baha'is to disagree with core teachings under certain > >circumstances; and if so, under what circumstances? > > > >More generally, the question is about a different paradigm of Baha'i > >scholarship which does not start from the assumption that the Baha'i > >teachings are true, but from the much looser assumption that they are > >worthwhile studying and may give us important insights, but may or may not > >be true as a body. This is quite distinct from the approach which accepts > >infallibility but merely seeks to redefine it: such an approach makes the > >implicit assumption that the ``core'' teachings (for example, on > >infallibility) are right if correctly interpreted. Is the paradigm of > >Baha'i scholarship described here compatible with remaining a member of the > >Baha'i Faith? I understand that if we accept the following statement of > >Shoghi Effendi, the answer to that question would appear to be ``no'': > > > >``Full recognition of the station of the Forerunner, the Author, and the > >Ture Exemplar of the Baha'i Cause, as set forth in Abdu'l-Baha's Testament; > >unreserved acceptance of, and submission to, whatsoever has been revealed > >by their Pen; loyal and steadfast adherence to every clause of our > >Beloved's sacred Will; and close association with the spirit as well as the > >form of the present day Baha'i administration throughout the world--these I > >conceive to be the fundamental and primary considerations that must be > >fairly, discreetly and thoughtfully ascertained before reaching such a > >vital decision [on membership in the Faith].'' [BA p90] > > > >However, in the light of knowledge that has come to light only recently it > >seems to me that such a view of the Faith is not tenable any more. I > >refer, for instance, to new scientific evidence relating to the evolution > >of mankind; recent observations of problems with Baha'u'llah's statements > >about the Greek philosophers having gained their knowledge from particular > >Jewish prophets (which Abdu'l-Baha stated in a Tablet to Ethel Rosenberg to > >be the historical truth); discoveries about the nature of matter which make > >some of Baha'u'llah's assertions about transmutation of elements (e.g., > >copper to gold after 70 years) seem more unlikely than before; discoveries > >which appear to belie Baha'u'llah's assertion that there are creatures on > >all planets; and increasing numbers of alleged errors, mostly trivial, in > >the Baha'i Writings. Abdu'l-Baha's apparent insistence on His own > >infallibility, and on the infallibility of Baha'u'llah even on historical > >matters, makes the theological implication of these errors more serious > >than it would otherwise have been. > > > >I hope that my willingess to question the soundness of certain Baha'i > >teachings will not be interpreted merely as hubris, but as reflecting the > >availability to us of new evidence and trends of thought which were not > >available during the formative period of the Faith. It seems to me that > >unless we find a world-view which we ourselves can accept without the need > >to explain some serious discrepancies away, we can hardly hope to convince > >others to accept our beliefs. And we Baha'is can hardly claim to be immune > >from the danger of convincing ourselves to believe unreasonable things and > >then attributing our faith to the justice of God and our own worthiness. > >Such willingness to believe, though regarded by Baha'is as a sign of faith > >and of humility towards the accepted authorities of the Baha'i Faith, seems > >to me to be equally well explained as a kind of foolishness-- after all, we > >must first make a decision to accept these Authorities as infallible, and > >to make such a decision on any other basis than an assessment of whether > >Their statements, where verifiable, are correct, is surely a mistake. Even > >if the verifiable statements were all found to be correct, and some of them > >appeared to require supernatural knowledge, we could still not be quite > >sure about the unverifiable ones, although it would perhaps be reasonable > >to work on the assumption that the unverifiable statements were also true. > >The ability to make remarkable prophecies, raise up great institutions, and > >motivate people to acts of sacrifice can hardly be said to imply > >infallibility, unless we accept the Baha'i world-view at the outset. To do > >that would be a kind of circular thinking. To accept such circular > >arguments is of course accepted by adherents of the more modern religions > >as a normal act called ``faith.'' But it seems to me that this kind of > >faith is more in the nature of a logical error than anything else; > >certainly nothing like a mystic transformation or anything similarly > >laudable. > > > >Of course, a certain amount of inductive reasoning is quite justified-- to > >say, ``this individual has shown great insight and influence; therefore his > >assertions, even if unsupported and unverifiable, ought to be considered > >carefully and perhaps provisionally accepted in the absence of evidence to > >the contrary''-- but to go further than that and state that the assertions > >of that individual and a number of other individuals as well all ought to > >be considered the truth, and thereby create a body of doctrine, seems to me > >to be a great mistake, at least in the present case. It is certainly not > >warranted on the basis of logic and common sense alone, and especially not > >if there is any evidence to the contrary. > > > >To relax the insistence on a body of doctrine and allow Baha'is to come to > >their own conclusions even against currently accepted Baha'i authority > >would of course bring problems, but diversity of opinion might not prove as > >harmful as Abdu'l-Baha seemed to think it would, and in any case it would > >be foolish to try to insist on a set of beliefs which is at variance with > >the evidence. It seems to me that it would do a disservice to the spirit > >and transforming power inherent in the Teachings of Baha'u'llah (assuming > >that such spirit exists), if we were to insist on an intellectual framework > >conceived a century ago and within an Islamic context; a framework which in > >my opinion is not very much more reasonable than that of Shi'ih Islam > >itself. > > > >The views expressed here might seem quite extreme, and opposed to Baha'i > >belief. Unfortunately it seems to me that there is no middle ground which > >I could take, since Abdu'l-Baha's apparent insistence on His own > >infallibility and on the infallibility of Baha'u'llah even on historical > >matters, and Shoghi Effendi's support of that view, make the question of > >infallibility in the Baha'i Faith inherently polarising. One has to either > >accept or reject it, and questions of translation and authorial intent > >appear to me not to allow sufficient room for maneuver. Of course, there > >is no basis in the Baha'i teachings for the views expressed here; the > >appeal is to logic and common sense. It is not clear to me whether the > >House of Justice will consider that such views should be allowed to be > >aired within the Baha'i community. This question is the purpose of my > >enquiry. > > > >Eagerly awaiting your response, > > > > > > > > > >________________________________________________________________________ > A Baha'i who was often on the Far Right spectrum of things -- like the position articulated by the various online Baha'i Fundamentalists, which itself is a reflection of the Fundamentalist Ideology of the current Baha'i authorities --, has recently resigned from the Baha'i faith due primarily because as a scientist he can no longer accept the positions laid out by 1) `Abdu'l-Baha on the question of evolution and 2) that `Abdu'l-Baha's pronouncements on such questions are to be taken as infallible in all respects without question. Below is a copy of his correspondence with the Baha'i Universal House of Justice regarding the matter. It would seem that when religious faith gets stuck with the material and theoretical evidence proving religious hypotheses on scientific questions such as evolution wrong, the believer whose formerly blind faith has now been shattered by his findings is left with two choices by religious authorities: 1) accept the pronouncements of scripture blindly and unequivocally regardless of scientific findings or 2) leave! -- Freethought110 Message: 3 Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 13:26:33 -0500 From: Juan Cole Subject: Who can be a Baha'i Date: Sunday, March 24, 2002 11:58 PM Doctor Electron wrote: > As least we see your fair mindedness to post something where the House > is obviously correct to the extent that almost any Baha'i on the > street could have said the same thing, namely, "Be honest, dude, if > you don't believe in the revelation of Baha'u'llah -- even the most > simplest of things -- you're not a Baha'i." In His tablet to Auguste Forel, 'Abdu'l-Baha said nothing remotely of the sort. In fact, He gave an answer which a much wiser UHJ than the current one imitated quite closely in one of their letters to me. Forel said that he was an atheist, and asked if he could be a Baha'i. 'Abdu'l-Baha did not say no. He gave many reasons for believing in God, but did not say no. Forel remained a Baha'i. The earlier and wiser UHJ, in response to my letter informing them of my conviction that no one at all, ever, is or was infallible and asking the direct question whether I could remain a Baha'i, gave some reasons why they thought Baha'u'llah was, but did not answer no to my question. The current UHJ would appear to have interpreted Shoghi Effendi's list of criteria as saying that absolute literal belief in every last word penned by the central figures is an essential teaching of the religion. If they had the power to make such stupid interpretations, they would have thereby made the Baha'i religion false, pure and simple. Luckily they have no such right, and their present stupidity is of no effect. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au https://www.sci.usq.edu.au/staff/house They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- Carl SaganFrom: "Paul Atreides" Subject: Re: Maneck/Scholl correspondence Date: Friday, March 29, 2002 2:29 AM "Karen Bacquet" wrote in message news:... > > I've never called you a fundamentalist, Susan, and I think you know that. A > few other choice things, I'll admit, but never a fundamentalist. Until now. I have only been following this group for a few months, but I have concluded that Mrs. Maneck is altogether not being honest. 'Twouldn't matter a tittle or a jot if ye called her a fundamentalist or ye called her a naughahyde sofa.As with many a perfesser, her purpose in life is to make what is simple seem complex, to make what is clear seem vague. If the Universal House of Justice instructs a laddie to exit the Crimson Ark pronto because he can't accept parallel evolution, the mrs. says it was only because he cannot accept infallibility.But he cannot accept infallibility in the first place because of the parallel evolution bit. So it comes to the same thing but she's insisted it's two pence, not a tuppence. Then she endeavours to pick at details as to whether the questions were about evolution or about infallibility. But the one was provoked by the other, so what difference do it make?She's saying, don't look at the elephant, look over here, and the elephant isn't really an elephant, just a pachyderm.No elephants aroun' here madame. It stuns me that our Universal House of Justice would be so eager to be shut of the lad.My guess is he must be in Eastern Europe, where we need Baha'is. I dunna personally care if he believes in the Loch Ness monster. Then the Mrs. libels and slanders poor Mr. Scholl, whose White Cloud books I rather enjoy, except for the overly sentimental Gibran tomes.And when we get to see the correspondence it is not at all as she characterized it. More making the clear muddy. No doubt the public would not pay the salary of perfessers if the good doctors did not convince them that perfectly obvious matters were in fact obscure. Mr. Scholl has not been among us here, and I can only guess that she gunned for him on instructions from her case officers in the Bahai admin., for whom it has been alleged she does intelligence work. Then she seems not to know about `Abdu'l-Baha's famous letter to Auguste Forel, an entomologist who really bugs me (he should have asked if it were all right to be a racialist and yet remain Bahai).Then she does not know that the American legal tradition is common law, or that precedents in common law can be taken from anywhere (the Commonwealth courts often cite UK and American precedents). Between her baldfaced denials of what is obviously true, her excuses for the inexcusable, her slander and libel of innocent persons, and her profound fund of ignorance, she seems to me a perfect entertainer for us Usenet blokes. But 'twouldn't be useful to characterize her one way or another.A wasp is not a fundamentalist.It will sometimes sting a wee beastie and lay its eggs in it while it yet lives. eternally, Paulkpauljohnson 3/27/02 5:42 PM 1 out of 2 Folks, Back when I was a Baha'i it always seemed weird and paranoid that the totally innocuous (anodyne) American Baha'i was clearly labeled "for Baha'is only." 30 years later, I find it odd that the "Dissenting Baha'is" section here is likewise labeled. If I won't be allowed to post there, nothing can stop me from reading it. And it happens that I can shed some light on one contributor's comments about the expulsion of David Langness. At the time the Talismanites were shown the door, David Langness had gotten a very high number of votes for the NSA at a recent national convention. Thus the reason he was targeted for the roughest treatment is that he was a threat, a liberal who might actually rock the boat and work for reform from within if elected. That was *absolutely the last thing they could tolerate.* Paul bacquet 3/27/02 7:56 PM 2 out of 2 Dear Paul, I agree that separating out non-Baha'is for certain areas of the board is rather silly -- especially in the case of very knowledgeable non-Baha'is. What you've brought up seems to me an internal matter that would be entirely appropriate for the Dissenting Baha'is board. What do you think, Brent and WC? My latest information on David Langness is that he was not expelled from the faith. He lost his administrative rights, and still holds that status. He *was* threatened with being named CB, first for his Talisman posts, and then was later told that his own correspondence with the House was evidence enough against him. There's no doubt in my mind that they *really* wanted this guy nailed. The NSA told him he had to retract a statement in the Talisman post over his story concerning what had happened with Dialogue. After a period of correspondence and clarification with the institutions, he retracted, and lost his voting rights anyway. Then, not two weeks later, he got a call from Counsellor Birkland telling him he had made "statements against the Covenant". (Paul, you were on Talisman for some of this, weren't you?) Anyway, I was really quite shocked to discover that even removing his rights wasn't enough for them -- they had to kick him when he was already down. In fact, I also think the sanction applied to the Dialogue editors, that of being denied pilgrimage, was aimed squarely at David, who was actually en route to pilgrimage at the time. Love, Karen From: "Freethought110" Subject: Re: bahai - Why I Don't Respond to bahai Fundamentalists bahai - Why I Don't Respond to bahai Fundamentalists Date: Friday, April 12, 2002 1:25 AM "Pat Kohli" wrote in message news:3CB62D18.E3198D8E@ameritel.net... > Someday? The truth is there for all to see. No need to wait for surfacing. Amazing how Fred does not cease to send you fundamentalist baha'i cultists into uncontrolable caniptions. If Fred was such the joke as you make him out to be, you wouldn't be spending every spare moment on USENET answering his "regurgiposts" as you call it. The proof is in the puddin, as they say ;-) LOL :)) -- Freethought110 From: "Alma Engels" Subject: Re: bahai - Hoda Mahmoudi - Coercion of Conscience - bahai - Hoda Mahmoudi - Coercion of Conscience - Date: Saturday, April 13, 2002 12:27 AM Hi Brian, I see we meet again on TRB. and a bit off the subject, after taking me to task you end with 'All the best' and Pat ends with 'Blessings'. These may well be standard signatures but they don't seem friendly to me under the circumstances. Almost like my favorite prayer (not): God bless you, God damn it. As for the role of JC, I think he is being demonized by the Haifan loyalists. And you are playing a game I call 'pin the tail on the devil'. If you remember the childhood game, the donkey was tailless, the players were blindfolded and pinned the tail in the darndest places. I don't expect there ever to be a true meeting of minds here on TRB. It is more like a game of chess to be watched by the world. But time will tell and I bet that in one hundred years or so, the work of JC will be remembered and praised though it is early and probably elementary in what it does. Anyway I am grateful that he provides food for thought and meditation that supplements what is 'officially' offered to us. Alma Brian Walker wrote in message news:a9633e$j5b$1@hfc.pacific.net.hk... > > Hi Alma, > > Alma Engels wrote: > > > Might I suggest you follow your own advice and stop beating the dead horse > > of the so-called lies of JC about a message he posted because he thought > > the info he had was true. > > Pat Kohli wrote in message > > news:3CB64274.7527664B@ameritel.net... > > Well, it is not a dead horse at all, because: > > 1. The lies are not so-called, they _are_ lies, and > 2. These lies are part of a general tactic to spread FUD, and > 3. This spread of FUD is active, on-going and persistent. > > So, when JC and his ilk are caught at it, it needs to be pointed out again > and again, lest it be forgot in the FUD of distraction and attack. > > I wish JC would simply post his evidence - one at a time, so we are not > snowed under in pulling the pieces together and identifying falsification > or tampering - so that we can see with our own eyes. Who knows, it might > even persuade someone like me that he is not a lying shite, and I will be > able to retract my words and eat humble pie. At the moment, it very much > appears as if his aim is to muddy waters, not seek clarity. > > All the best, > > Brian > > (Headers snipped) > > -- > Brian F. Walker > Registered Linux User 270078 > From: "Steve Marshall" Subject: Re: Fundamentalist symptoms Date: Sunday, April 14, 2002 1:39 AM Hi Pat, I don't plan to hang around here. The signal to noise ratio just isn't good enough, although you've usually got something thoughtful or interesting to say. I usually drop in only when I hear something is going down. As you've figured out, I've said my piece and will probably keep a watch on TRB for a few days, out of curiosity. By the way, Alison has filed with the High Court in NZ to have her expulsion declared null and void, so that process should simmer away over the next year or so. The Privacy Commission is also actively investigating Alison's privacy complaint right now, so life's interesting. ka kite SteveFrom: "Freethought110" Subject: Re: "fundamentalist Bah??" and other oxymorons Date: Thursday, April 25, 2002 8:06 PM "Dave Fiorito" wrote in message news:f0853486.0204251209.3bc2a479@posting.google.com... >(heck you even smiled when Fred compared the Baha'i Faith to > al Qaeda within hours of the horrific incidents of Sept.11th). Because he is right. > Forget it Nima - life is too short to carry so much hate. Forget it Dave - life is too short to be such a sucker. -- Freethought110 From: "Randy Burns" Subject: Re: "fundamentalist Bah??" and other oxymorons Date: Friday, May 10, 2002 11:32 AM Review based on what? Making sure that books and papers are accurate? or making sure that they conform to a fantasy that is not factual? This is proof that the UHJ believes that the End justifies the Means and that breaking the spiritual laws of Baha'u'llah are fair game if that is what it takes to achieve the End that they desire. You said: >Abdu'l-Baha placed the review of Baha'i > publications squarely in the realm of "state" as a temporary measure. > The Gaurdian institutionalized the practice Review based on what concept: that the End justifies the Means? or to make sure that publications represent the truth as best we know? Review based on deliberate misrepresentation? or review based on eliminating untruths and misconceptions? You said: >Review is not coercion - it is the legitimate exercise of authority Agreed but only if the review process actually FOLLOWS Baha'i law and spiritual processes. A review process which breaks Baha'i law and spiritual process is not legitimate exercise of authority. It's legit only as long as they follow the proper Baha'i course. They have failed to do that. The UHJ is not exempt from Baha'i law. Cheers, Randy -- Dave Fiorito wrote in message news:f0853486.0205100549.67dcc9f4@posting.google.com... > Randy, > > The AO has been charged by Baha'u'llah to exert its control over > affairs of state. Abdu'l-Baha placed the review of Baha'i > publications squarely in the realm of "state" as a temporary measure. > The Gaurdian institutionalized the practice. Now the UHJ is the > institution responsible for the application and eventual end of > review. > > In one of the quotes from Abdu'l-Baha that Fred posted we see: > > "In the religion of God there is no freedom of deeds. No one can > transgress the divine law, even if in so doing he harms no one." > > Abdu'l-Baha placed the review of Baha'i > publications squarely in the realm of "state" as a temporary measure. > The Gaurdian institutionalized the practice. > > Cheers, > > Dave From: "Ron House" Cc: "Juan Cole" Subject: Re: Individual conscience... Date: Monday, May 13, 2002 11:06 PM Juan Cole wrote: > > Anytime any group of people tells you that 1) you are not allowed > publicly to criticize their power elite and 2) that you must give up > your individual ability to reason ethically and just fall lockstep > behind whatever the infallible leaders decide--then you are dealing > with a cult. > > Any time a person buys into propositions 1) and 2), he or she has > become a cultist. Any time he or she buys into all this and then > tries to hide the fact, or obscure it for others, or engage in > misdirection by launching stock accusations at anyone who won't go > along, then that person has him or herself become a cultist. That is > only one step away from the People's Temple in Guyana or the > Koreishites at Waco. Once someone gives up the right to use his or > her individual conscience, there is no reason not to drink the poison > coolaid, or not to set the children on fire. > > It is for this reason, to protect the Cause of God from slipping into > cultism, that Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha so heavily praised seeing > with your own eyes and not with the eyes of others (i.e. not with the > eyes of the NSA or the house of justice), and that they so heavily > praised freedom of conscience and forbade Baha'i institutions to > interfere with it. > > Douglas Martin wants to repeal that part of the Revelation that > sanctifies the conscience of the individual believer. He wants to do > so because he gets more power and possibly more wealth that way. > Trying to repeal part of the Revelation for your own selfish purposes > is a form of treason to the Faith. I 100% applaud your sentiments above, Juan. The worst of it is, we have seen (most notably in the letter to the individual concerning your book) behaviour by the UHJ that can only be described as satanic. Cultists (as you rightly term them and their thoughtless supporters) must justify to themselves the "rightness" of the UHJ's threats and calumnies, or else face the destruction of their simplistic religious picture of the world. Thus their own ethics are compromised and they expose themselves to the verdict of God against them in eternity; they lose the very thing they make such compromises to retain. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au https://www.sci.usq.edu.au/staff/houseFrom: "Ron House" Subject: Re: Doug Martin, member of bahai universal house of justice - "Dangerous Delusion from Christianity" = Individual Conscience Date: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 10:50 PM Freethought110 wrote: > > Ron, > > You once stated here (or was it talisman9) that Peter Khan said something > similar to you. Indeed. I don't doubt at all that Doug Martin expressed sentiments along the lines of those reported. I just doubt that he used those _exact_ words in expressing them. In other words, whilst I think that criticism of the general viewpoint is justified, I don't agree that it is valid to make an argument that hinges on the precise words in the passage (unless we can get verification that it was transcribed from a tape, thus eliminating an important source of error). I know most commentary here isn't doing that, but the one comment seemed to do so (to my mind, at least). Likewise, I am prepared to testify in any court that Peter Khan expressed that same viewpoint (very forcefully, in fact), but I cannot testify to the precise words he used when he did so. For the record, the general thrust of Khan's statement was: 1) When you become a Baha'i, that is the end of your independent search for truth; (shortly after, in response to a question on conscience:) 2) (Repeated the question, then responded) In the Baha'i Faith, the writings are our guide, and the directions of the House take precedence over our consciences. (Explained further at some length.) Now the above is ONLY the general thrust of the discussion; the words used are mine, as this was two decades ago, except that I am close to certain he used the phrase "end of your independent search for truth" or something almost identical to it. That phrase stuck because it was quite theatrical the way he did it, leaving it hanging there some seconds for maximum shock value before proceeding. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au https://www.sci.usq.edu.au/staff/house "Every time you manage to close the door on Reality, it comes in through the window." - (Unknown).From: "Dr. Herbert West" Subject: Re: It's a FACT - More Hits than USA bahais - 28,000+ The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience Date: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 1:57 AM "Pat Kohli" wrote in message news:3CFD5E82.F7F23C21@ameritel.net... > > 1. The number of people recorded on the rolls at Wilmette. > > Around 133,000 This is from the Pluralism project's statistics page: "...Numbers do offer some perspective on the diversity. The number of Baha'is in the U.S. is accurately counted using a very strict definition. Ellen Wheeler, Assistant Director of the Office of Public Information for the Baha'is of the United States, offers the following statistics: There are 1,152 local Spiritual Assemblies in the US, of at least 9 people each. The total number of Baha'is in the US is 142,245 as of July 2000, and of these 7,403 are youth and 7,434 are children. Her statistics are based on a signed declaration card which is sent to the national center in Chicago. Other sources that offer larger numbers (the 2000 Britannica Book of the Year estimates 753,000) are surely using a less strict definition of who is Baha'i, possibly including all those who attend Baha'i fireside gatherings. Both estimates have validity, and their discrepancy points to the significance of how one defines an adherent to a tradition. Who is being counted?..." From my own community, over half of the adult Baha'is are inactive. We have two adults (unrelated) that have been Baha'is for at least 25 years and have refused all contact with the LSA for the decade and a half I have resided here. Another family that I am unfamiliar with moved in a couple of years ago and also refuses contact. I would consider all to be hostile to at least the administration, as all have been asked to not be contacted in any way. We have had two declarations in my time here. Each attended functions for less than three months before returning to a Christian form of worship. I have no way of knowing for certain whether any of these people still believe in the founder of the Faith. I do know that they've all rejected the administrative faith, yet they are still on the Wilmette rolls. I believe the statistics for the youth and children provided above are probably fairly accurate (about 15,000). I would guess that the number of active adult Baha'is is somewhere between 50 and 75 thousand based on my own experiences with the Faith. Not that it matters. Even taking Britannica Book's ridiculous number, it's a piddly and insignificant proportion of the American population and that's not likely to change until some serious changes take place with the leadership of this most ineffective organization. There's disillisionment out there in the rank and file believers in a big way. Somebody is screwing this Faith up and it's not those pesky liberals. The Salvation Army is by far the most effective organization in the US. --Peter Drucker John From: "Randy Burns" Subject: Re: uhj members - spunk funk Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 9:36 PM John R MacLeod wrote in message news:ahn0kj$uedjc$1@ID-73584.news.dfncis.de... > The only quote I could find along these lines is: > "The Lord hath ordained that in every city a House of Justice be > established wherein shall gather counsellors to the number of Baha, and > should it exceed this number it doth not matter" (Baha'u'llah: The > Kitab-i-Aqdas, page 29) Right that is the main quote and certainly gives no indication of excluding women from election to anything. A second quote is on p38 where Baha'u'llah says "O ye Men of Justice! Be ye, in the realm of God, shephers unto His sheep, etc..." as if this passage somehow excludes women from election! Personally I have no idea where the ineligibility of women came from, save that the Persian who came to the US told the believers that only men could be elected based on the idea of 'rijal', something common in Iran. > Is that what you had in mind? If so it clearly refers to a local level > House of Justice 'in every city'.. Also the use of 'counsellors' is > interesting. I'm assuming it's Shoghi's translation because I would imagine > a modern translator would avoid a word that now has a meaning specific to > Baha'i context. But what is the word behind 'counsellors'? Is it 'rijal' do > you know? I don't think the word for counsellors is rijal, some other word. It's the second passage that is used and the others you have cited. > If so I imagine the translator is reading the later > interpretation that local level is open to all sexes back into the text and > avoiding translating 'rijal' by a male term. Anyway as I'm asking for a > passage that specifically excludes non-rijal from the Universal House of > Justice this doesn't count because its local. Well it seems that Abdu'l-Baha simply confused everyone including Shoghi Effendi on this. If you've read the paper on Women then you probably realize that that paper is confusing as well. My take is that AB never really made any final decision on this and Shoghi Effendi simply bowed to current practice of allowing women on the local and nationals assemblies. There is no evidence that Abdu'l-Baha allowed women to serve on any form of House of Justice, but as long as it had a different title then women were okay. > The arguable cases I can find are ones where Baha'u'llah assigns specific > tasks to the 'men' of the House of Justice. > .I give a fairly full list below but the one I find most interesting is: > "According to the fundamental laws which We have formerly revealed in the > Kitab-i-Aqdas and other Tablets, all affairs are committed to the care of > just kings and presidents and of the Trustees of the House of Justice. > (Baha'u'llah: Tablets of Baha'u'llah, page 93)" > > Now, I have been informed but can't confirm that the 'kings' in this > sentence is a masculine word in the original as in the English. Does that > mean monarchs must be male in Baha'u'llah's view? I believe not. He never > criticised Queen Victoria for being female and as far as I know no Baha'i > has ever defended the view that monarchs must be male. The straightforward > answer is that in a cultural context where monarch's and members of > consultative bodies were almost always male, in Arabic and English it was > natural to use the male for the generic without implying exclusion. Monarchs don't have to be male but the male line is given preference to the female when selecting the Monarch. Shoghi Effendi further affirms the nature of male superiority to the female when he comments on the 'right of the first born' since that first born must be male to be significant. This to my mind is further proof that women should be allowed on the House of Justice, since they are also allowed to be monarchs. No question in my mind that Baha'u'llah recognized Queen Victoria as a monarch and therefore of equal status to the male, so you can assume that any distinguished female would be elegible to be elected in Baha'u'llah's mind, otherwise he would have stated so. > > The alternative view - that Baha'u'llah/the revelatory process couldn't > express such a simple rule clearly - seems unthinkable to me as a Baha'i. Exactly right. Was Abdu'l-Baha given the right to add things to the revelation? It's a question of interpretation vs addition and one could easily suggest that making the UHJ male only was an "addition" to the revelation and not an interpretation of Baha'u'llah's intentions. > One argument I have heard suggests that where Baha'ullah left something > vague, He was expecting His successors to complete the law. I don't think > this is supported by the text. For example on another constitutional > question - the relationship between monarchs and Assemblies, He says: > "Although a republican form of government profiteth all the peoples of the > world, yet the majesty of kingship is one of the signs of God. We do not > wish that the countries of the world should remain deprived thereof. If the > sagacious combine the two forms into one, great will be their reward in the > presence of God. > (Baha'u'llah: Tablets of Baha'u'llah, page 28)" (note again kingship not > monarchship) > Note how Baha'u'llah defines His preference but leaves it to the sagacious > in general to work out the details. I don't think 'the sagacious' can > possibly mean just the Baha'i authorities. My guess is it could mean both, both the UHJ and/or the leaders of the world in a general sense. But clearly Baha'u'llah didn't mean to 'impose' something on mankind but rather expected us to work it out for ourselves, and I think the reason for this is that there is no absolutes in human terms about these matters, thus Baha'u'llah has no absolutes to give us and I doubt that there is any absolute on which sex can be elected to the UHJ either. > In similar vein, surely Baha'u'llah seems to have clearly expressed His > preference for Consultative Assemblies but left the membership, > constitution, and method of choosing them up to humanity. > Abdul Baha was, of course, in the early 1900s handling a very hot potato > indeed with this issue. Of course He spoke with His usual absolutism and > hyperbole but His choices were sound in the political climate. To suggest > that Baha'u'llah would have believed that that decision made in 1900 + a few > was the final decision for the dispensation beggars belief. I think there is evidence that while Abdul-Baha frequently talked with a certain manner, he was indeed very flexible when he had to be, so the way he said things was just a manner that was probably expected by the audience. Cheers, Randy From: "Dermod Ryder" Subject: Bios of the Grumpies Date: Friday, July 19, 2002 9:45 PM Hi Guys, Here it is - straight from the horse's mouth or some other orifice - the Research Department nestled somewheres among the marble splendours of Haifa : - Brief biographies of current and past members of the Universal House of Justice Current members Dr. Farzam Arbab: Born 27 October 1941, Tehran, Iran. First elected to the Universal House of Justice in 1993. Farzam Arbab was born into a Baha'i family in Iran. He holds a BA from Amherst College, Massachusetts (1964), a doctorate in elementary particle physics from the University of California, Berkeley (1968), and an honorary doctorate in science from Amherst College (1989). He served as president of Fundacion para la Aplicacion de las Ciencias (FUNDAEC), a nongovernmental development agency in Colombia, from 1974 to 1988, and continues to serve on its board of directors. Dr. Arbab was Chairman of the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of Colombia from 1970 until 1980, when he was appointed to the Continental Board of Counsellors for the Protection and Propagation of the Baha'i Faith in the Americas, on which he served for eight years. In 1988, he was named to the Baha'i International Teaching Centre, which has its seat in Haifa, Israel, and was a member of that body until 1993, when he was first elected to the Universal House of Justice. Mr. Kiser Barnes: Born 13 January 1943, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A. First elected to the Universal House of Justice in 2000. Kiser Barnes holds a BA (Political Science) from Morgan State University (1965), a Juris Doctor's degree from the University of Maryland School of Law (1974), and a Masters in the Philosophy of Law from Obafemi Awolowo University, Ife, Nigeria (1984). Prior to residing in West Africa, Mr. Barnes practiced law in Maryland. Mr. Barnes was a Senior Lecturer in the Faculty of Law at Obafemi Awolowo University in Nigeria from 1980 to 1993, where he taught the Law of Business Associations, Law of Contracts, and International Economic Law. Mr. Barnes was a member of the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of Benin from 1977 to 1979. His various appointments to Baha'i advisory positions include membership on the Auxiliary Board for the Propagation of the Baha'i Faith in Nigeria (1981-1990), the Continental Board of Counsellors for the Protection and Propagation of the Baha'i Faith in Africa (1990-1993), and the International Teaching Centre (1993-2000). He was elected to the Universal House of Justice in 2000. Mr. Hooper Cameron Dunbar: Born 30 March 1937, Los Angeles, California, USA. First elected to the Universal House of Justice in 1988. Hooper Dunbar worked as an actor on stage and screen, making films with Columbia, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer and Twentieth Century-Fox studios, and was a member of the Screen Actors' Guild of America. In 1958, he left Hollywood for what became a 15-year residence in Central and South America, where he taught arts and English as a second language, and set up a graphic design business. However, his primary interest during those years was volunteer work as a teacher and lecturer for the Baha'i Faith. Mr. Dunbar served as a member of the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of Nicaragua from 1961 to 1963. Subsequently, he was appointed to advisory positions, including the Auxiliary Board for the Protection of the Baha'i Faith in the Americas (1963-68) and the Continental Board of Counsellors for the Protection and Propagation of the Baha'i Faith in the Americas (1968-73). He took up residence in Israel in 1973 when he was named as one of the founding members of the International Teaching Centre. Mr. Dunbar served as a member of that institution for fifteen years, until he was first elected to the Universal House of Justice in 1988. Mr. Hushmand Fatheazam: Born 8 January 1924, Tehran, Iran. First elected to the Universal House of Justice in 1963. Hushmand Fatheazam was born into a Baha'i family in Iran. He received master's degrees in arts from Tehran University, Iran (1945), and from Wiswa Bharati University in Shantiniketan, India (1954). He served as curator at the Library of the Faculty of Arts, Tehran University (1950-52), as lecturer of Persian literature at the Punjab University in New Delhi, India (1959-63), as staff artist of All-India Radio in New Delhi (1955-63), and as managing director of the Baha'i Publishing Trust, New Delhi (1955-63). Mr. Fatheazam served as secretary of the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of India from 1955 to 1963. He was elected to the Universal House of Justice in 1963. Dr. Peter Jamel Khan: Born 12 November 1936, New South Wales, Australia. First elected to the Universal House of Justice in 1987. Peter J. Khan received his BSc (1956), his BE (1959), and his doctorate in electrical engineering (1963) from the University of Sydney. From 1963 to 1967, he was a Fulbright postdoctoral fellow and later professor of electrical engineering at the University of Michigan in the United States. When he returned to Australia, he was visiting professor at the University of New South Wales (1975) and associate professor at the University of Queensland (1976-83). Dr. Khan served first as a member of the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of Australia (1958-63). Subsequently he was appointed to advisory positions, including membership of the Auxiliary Board for the Propagation of the Baha'i Faith in the United States (1967-76), the Continental Board of Counsellors for the Protection and Propagation of the Baha'i Faith in Australasia (1976-83), and the International Teaching Centre (1983-87). He was first elected to the Universal House of Justice in 1987. Mr. James Douglas Martin: Born 24 February 1929, Ontario, Canada. First elected to the Universal House of Justice in 1993. J. Douglas Martin holds a bachelor's degree in business administration from the University of Western Ontario (1949), and a master's degree in history from the University of Waterloo, Ontario (1967). Before devoting himself exclusively to Baha'i administration and scholarship, Mr. Martin pursued a professional career as a consultant in advertising and public relations. Mr. Martin was as a member of the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of Canada from 1960 to 1985, serving as its general secretary from 1965 to 1985. In 1985, he was appointed director-general of the Baha'i International Community's Office of Public Information at the Baha'i World Centre in Haifa. He served in that capacity until 1993, when he was elected to the Universal House of Justice. Mr. Glenford Eckleton Mitchell: Born 3 March 1935, Jamaica, West Indies. First elected to the Universal House of Justice in 1982. Mr. Glenford Mitchell received a BA Bus Ed from Shaw University (1960), a master's degree in journalism from Columbia University (1962) and a Lit.D. (hon) from the National College of Education in Evanston, Illinois (1980). In 1962-63, he was assistant editorial director of Maryknoll Publications and executive secretary of the Maryknoll Book Club in New York. He later served as assistant editor of "Africa Report" magazine (1963-67) and as managing editor of "World Order Magazine"(1967-82). He was an instructor in English and journalism at Howard University (1966-67). In 1968, Mr. Mitchell was first elected to the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United States. That same year he became its secretary, a post he held until his election to the Universal House of Justice in 1982. Mr. 'Ali-Yullah Nakhjavani: Born September 1919, Haifa, Israel. First elected to the Universal House of Justice in 1963. 'Ali Nakhjavani was born into a Baha'i family and reared in Haifa, Israel. He received his Bachelor of Arts degree with distinction from the American University of Beirut in 1939. In the early 1940s, Mr. Nakhjavani returned to Iran, his ancestral home, residing first in Tehran, then in Tabriz and finally in Shiraz. He was a member of the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of Iran from 1950 to 1951. In 1951, Mr. Nakhjavani and his family moved to Uganda, where he worked as a teacher and lecturer. He was a member of the Auxiliary Board for the Propagation of the Baha'i Faith in Africa (1954-61) and chairman of the National Spiritual Assembly of Central and East Africa (1956-61). In 1961, Mr. Nakhjavani was elected to the Baha'i International Council and served as its president. He was elected to the Universal House of Justice in 1963. Mr. Ian Chalmers Semple: Born 2 December 1928, New Barnet, England. First elected to the Universal House of Justice in 1963. After doing his national service in the British Army from 1947 to 1949, during which period he earned a commission in the Royal Corps of Signals, Ian Semple studied at Pembroke College, Oxford, obtaining a BA in German and French Language and Literature in 1952, and an MA in 1955. He subsequently studied accounting in the City of London, qualifying as a Chartered Accountant in 1955 and becoming a Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. Mr. Semple became a member of the Baha'i Faith in 1950 and was first elected to the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the British Isles in 1956. He served on that body, latterly as its secretary, until he moved his residence to Haifa upon his election in April 1961 to the International Baha'i Council, on which he served as assistant secretary. During the years from 1957 to 1961 he also served as a member of the Auxiliary Board for the Propagation of the Baha'i Faith in Europe, with particular responsibility for the north of England, Scotland, Norway and Sweden. In 1963 he was elected to the Universal House of Justice. Retired members Mr. David Hofman: First elected to the Universal House of Justice in 1963. Retired in 1987. David Hofman was trained as a Shakespearean actor. He was a BBC television announcer between 1937 and 1948 and also worked in radio and theatre, appearing in several West End shows in the 1930s. In 1937 he founded George Ronald Publisher. Mr. David Ruhe: Born 3 January 1914, Allentown, Pennsylvania, USA. First elected to the Universal House of Justice in 1968. Retired in 1993. David Ruhe received a BS from Michigan State College in 1936, an MS in 1937, and an MD from Temple University in 1941, where he was awarded an honorary Doctor of Sciences degree in 1956. He began as an intern at USPHS in 1941 and advanced to become senior surgeon in 1956. He served on the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United States from 1963 to 1968, when he was elected to the Universal House of Justice. Deceased members Dr. Lutfu'llah Hakim: Born 1888, Iran. Died 1968. First elected to the Universal House of Justice in 1963. Dr. Lutfu'llah Hakim was born into a family of distinguished Jewish medical doctors. His grandfather, Hakim Masih, was the first Jew to embrace the Faith of Baha'u'llah. In 1910 he went to London to study physiotherapy and was among the friends who met 'Abdu'l-Baha there. Soon after, 'Abdu'l-Baha called him to Haifa to serve at the World Centre of the Faith. In 1920, 'Abdu'l-Baha asked Lutfu'llah Hakim to accompany Shoghi Effendi to England. Dr. Hakim was in Haifa when 'Abdu'l-Baha passed away in November 1921. In 1924 he returned to Persia and in 1950 he moved again to England. Later the Guardian summoned him to the World Centre and he was appointed to the first International Baha'i Council. He was elected to the first Universal House of Justice in 1963. Mr. Amoz Gibson: Born 3 August 1918, Washington, D.C., USA. Died 1982. First elected to the Universal House of Justice in 1963. Amoz Gibson received a BS in Education from Miner Teachers College (now the University of the District of Columbia) in 1940 and an MS in Geography from Mexico City College (now University of the Americas) in 1951. He was inducted into the US Army in 1944 and served in Europe and the Pacific. He returned to Washington in 1946 and continued his work in the educational field as a teacher. In the mid-1950s he pioneered to the Navajo Indian Reservation, where he taught for four years. In 1959 he was appointed to the Auxiliary Board for protection, and in 1960 he was elected to the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United States. He was elected to the Universal House of Justice in 1963. Mr. H. Borrah Kavelin: Born 16 March 1906, Russia. Died 1988. First elected to the Universal House of Justice in 1963. H. Borrah Kavelin was born to a distinguished Jewish family in Russia. When he was three years old, the family immigrated to the United States and settled in Denver, Colorado. His love of music drew him to New York, where his debut as an operatic tenor occurred on the stage of Carnegie Hall. During the Great Depression he was forced to leave his musical career and became secretary to the director of a real estate firm. His ability and diligence were soon recognized. He became a partner in the firm, and later became executive vice president and partner of the distinguished realty firm Durand Taylor and Company for 20 years. From 1941 to 1950, Mr. Kavelin served on the local Spiritual Assembly of New York City. In 1950 he was elected to the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United States, where he served for 13 years until his election to the Universal House of Justice. Mr. Charles Wolcott: Born 29 September 1906 in Flint, Michigan, USA. First elected to the Universal House of Justice in 1963. Died 1987. Charles Wolcott moved to Holywood, California in 1937 and soon began working at Walt Disney Studios writing music for cartoon shorts, then feature films such as Pinocchio and Bambi. By 1944 he had become General Musical Director at Disney Studios. In 1950 he transferred to MGM Studios as Associate General Musical Director, and in 1958 became General Musical Director. In 1953 he was elected to the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United States. In 1960, when he was elected secretary of the National Assembly, he resigned from his position at MGM Studios and moved to Wilmette, Illinois. In 1961 he was elected to the International Baha'i Council and moved to Haifa, Israel. In 1963 he was elected to the Universal House of Justice. Mr. Hugh Chance: Born 28 December 1911, Winfield, Kansas, USA. Died 1998. First elected to the Universal House of Justice in 1963. Hugh chance received a BA from Cornell College, Iowa, in 1933 and a JD from the State University of Iowa in 1935. He served on the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United States from 1961 until 1963, when he was elected to the Universal House of Justice. Mr. Adib Taherzadeh: Born 1921, Yazd, Iran. Died 2000. First elected to the Universal House of Justice in 1988. Adib Taherzadeh was born into a Baha'i Family in Yazd, Iran. He studied electrical engineering at the University of Tehran, pursued advanced studies in Coventry, England, and worked as the chief engineer of an industrial concern from 1950 until 1984. Mr. Taherzadeh served on the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the British Isles from 1960 to 1971. He was elected to the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the Republic of Ireland when it was formed in 1972 and was appointed in 1976 to the European Continental Board of Counsellors, a senior advisory body. He was first elected to the Universal House of Justice in 1988. From: "Randy Burns" Subject: Re: "I think shunning is a human rights abuse. It may be legal (in non-tort situations), but then, lots of Date: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 4:44 PM Quite right, Paul H. Most of the "dissidents" have simply acted in a normal human manner when they felt they were wronged and betrayed by Institutions that they loved and admired. It actually was for many of them a decade long effort to face the apparent fact that the Institutions don't really care for the valuable principles of Baha'u'llah anymore, at least not when expediency calls for something else. If the "dissidents" did anything wrong, it was taking the Institutions words at face value. They failed to take note of the Nixonian commandment "watch what we do, not what we say," and that has left them in dire straits. Cheers, Randy Paul Hammond wrote in message news:3d7eb5f9@212.67.96.135... > > Anyhow, I don't see that it's the language that the dissidents > use that's causing the problems here. Like I said, most > of the dissidents started out as loyalists until they were > pushed to the extremes by the intransigence of the AO. > NetsOfWonder 10/2/02 11:53 AM 2 out of 10 To understand better the significance of Fred's work, I recommend visiting his home page. "My object in living is to unite My avocation and my vocation As my two eyes make one in sight." --Robert Frost Fred writes poetry. One reviewer describes his work as ". . . a poetry of connectedness, which asks us to bring together broken parts of our cultures (both East and West) and search for a new identity, perhaps a new world order." I see Fred's work on what he calls "Baha'i censorship" as a part of that, a unification of vocation and avocation. Fred, as I've said before, I think you're performing a valuable service, and I see some marvelous innovations in the way you weave your tapestry. Have you started a file yet on Rod's experiences? Jim fglaysher 10/6/02 4:18 PM 10 out of 10 Jim wrote: Fred writes poetry. One reviewer describes his work as ". . . a poetry of connectedness, which asks us to bring together broken parts of our cultures (both East and West) and search for a new identity, perhaps a new world order." I see Fred's work on what he calls "Baha'i censorship" as a part of that, a unification of vocation and avocation. -- Jim, thanks for saying so. I hope that someday I might truly achieve such a unification of intent and purpose. Alas, so much of it is out of my control.... requires an intelligence, rare, like yours, that understands what is at stake, on the OTHER side. I grieve, to report, no EVIDENCE yet.... The bahai wars have long been my refining fire.... my descent into Hell. Jim wrote: Fred, as I've said before, I think you're performing a valuable service, and I see some marvelous innovations in the way you weave your tapestry. -- You encourage me so, I can't find the words to express it.... Six years, you know, six years.... Thirty, really, in other terms. I don't mean any of that as self-pity, either, just facts, sobering, demanding. So few, rare, and precious to me, are those who can even begin to see and consider the antinomies involved, so few on both sides of the chasm I'm trying to bridge.... I fear the tapestry, to use your metaphor, has grown to so many megabytes, so many websites even, that few can now follow the thread.... Incidentally, the latest filament, by the way, I regard as such, is my new book The Bower of Nil. Michael McKenny reviewed recently on talk.religion.bahai, or those interested can link to it off the bottom right corner of my webpage. Thanks again for your good words. Frederick Glaysher From: "Ron House" Subject: Re: Professor Maneck's welcome wagon Date: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 11:22 PM Susan Maneck wrote: > >You are overlooking the fact that he is talking about people who > >poisoned Baha'u'llah or tried to get 'Abdu'l-Baha executed by telling > >lies to the Ottoman government - > > We have people on this list who are trying to get Baha'is executed by > associating them with zionists, etc. and they haven't even been declared > Covenant breakers! Another of your 'creative interpretation'? For the benefit of readers who don't know how this piece of work operates, let's look at the above. Some allegations have been posted here concerning involvement of the Baha'i admin in events in Iran etc. So this specimen attaches her own interpretation that this came from ones "who are trying to get Baha'is executed". And she'll surely give you a long string of her _own_ deductions "explaining" why whatever the original posters said is the same as "trying to get Baha'is executed". But the fact is that the original posters were discussing an _issue_, and this one has attached her own opinion to it as if it were a factual and verified statement about the original posters' intentions. If the casual reader were to believe her, they might well think that somewhere there is someone gleefully anticipating the next murder in Iran. But of course, no one here has said "Gee I hope a few Baha'is get murdered this week", and I'll bet she doesn't have any evidence, such as a recording from a bugged phone, that gets the goods on anyone. No, she made this little "gem" up, entirely of her own accord, to denigrate certain persons whose names will be known to many posters here. If this were the the first, or a rare, occasion on which this specimen had got up to this shenanigan, we might let it pass. But it is, in my experience, her typical pattern of "debate": take something from another poster, think out some uncharitable 'consequence' that she thinks follows from it, and then assert as factual that the original posters were in favour of her uncharitable interpretation. It is, imho, a fundamentally malicious and dishonest way to conduct debate. I don't think I'll spoil my day by answering any of your specific comments about this subject. As others have said much the same thing, I'll answer them instead. > warmest, Susan As for the warmest Susan, if you keep going like this, in the next world that may well be the case. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au https://www.sci.usq.edu.au/staff/houseFrom: "Peter" Subject: Query on world religious history from a Baha'i perspective - East Asian and classical history Date: Thursday, October 24, 2002 11:25 PM I'm doing some research on Buddhism and Asian religious history and was wondering if anyone new of any scholars or information sources on these fields from a Baha'i perspective. I've read and am well acquainted with Fozdar's works (The God of Buddha, etc.), but need to go into further depth. I'm interested in investigating the unity of religion, the divine source of world religions and the evolution of religion(s) from a Baha'i perspective. East Asian history provides an interesting challenge because it has such a rich religious heritage, which is not all attributable to any connection with a Manifestation of God. Buddhism spread eastward from about 100 AD, and the spread of Buddhism continued for several centuries. Prior to that, as far as a I can discern, the major religious/philosophical influences were Taoism and Confucianism (and more primitive religions like Shinto). China had many very sophistocated social and religious philosophers in ancient times. Confucious was a philosopher who developed a beautiful ethical system, but lacked a theology and religious framework. (With the influence of Buddhism, an imitation Confucian religion was developed later, but philosophical Confucianism was merely a moral teaching by a good man). Most historical references say that Confucious and Lao-Tzu lived at roughly the same period, though I don't know how that conclusion is arrived at. Lao-Tzu's Tao de Ching certainly had a spiritual message, and religion was a significant feature of life when Confucious lived. So there was an ancient, prexistent religion in China. But we don't know much about it or its source. There certainly is no manifestation in China that brought a religious message that we know of prior to the time of Confucious and Lao-Tzu. So where did these religious beliefs come from, what formed the basis of religion during the times of Confucious and Lao-Tsu, and what formed the spiritual basis of Chinese, pre-Buddhist philosophers? The Baha'i position is that God sent a succession of messengers, each with a specially tailored, and more advanced, message to humanity. That is quite neat and evident in the evolution of "occidental" religion; ie. Abraham,(Zoroaster), Moses, Jesus, Muhummad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah. The succession of prophethood and the relationship between divine revelation and socio-historical development in the Far East isn't so clearly discernable. One might think that there was no known manifestations of God or divine revelation which touched the ancient far east prior to Buddha. Yet a tremendously sophistocated society emerged, and the religious and philosophical ideas that came out of that region were stupendous. Personally, I think the Taoist teachings, the works of Confucious and the Chinese philosophers like Mencius and Mo-Tzu were really quite stupendous. I'd take the Confucian concept of unity in the family, community, nation, and world, or Mo-Tzu's belief in unconditional love, over the Judaic wrath of Yaweh any day. These developments took place during parallel historical periods. The (primitive) ancient Judaic beliefs came from a Manifestation. The (sophistocated - granted, my bias) Chinese beliefs emerged from an environment where there doesn't seem to be any trace of a Manifestation of God. This doesn't fit with the Baha'i concept of progressive revelation. I know there's a lot we don't know about history, and there have really been many more Manifestations that we are familiar with in history today. But I wish I could find out how to approach the study of religious evolution in Asia from a Baha'i perspective. I noticed in the Analects a reference to great teachers of humanity who occassionally come to the world (I can't remember the exact phrasing). Confucious (who supposedly wrote the Analects) did say that he had never known such a teacher, and I believe they had existed in the distant past - well, it's been years since I read the passage - but I thought he might be referring to the idea of a Manifestation. However, he may have also just fabricating his idea of a great golden age of the past which he idealized. That's the only hint of a possibility I've found that anyone at that time might have remotely known of a Manifestation of God. And it may be a long shot. After 100 AD, continuing through 900 or so, the influence of a Manifestation of God in the Far East becomes clearer. Does anyone know a Baha'i scholar who is knowledgable about Asian history and religion? Or does anyone have any insight. I either need a framework to investigate this field from a Baha'i perspective, or I'm going to have to do a lot of work to find some clues. I've just started to use the internet for Baha'i purposes, so I really don't know my way around. Actually, the same problem exists in the examination of classical history. At different times, there were some good and relatively true aspects of Roman, Greek and Egyptian religions. How did these religions evolve? What is the relationship between the Manifestations and classical civilization. I refuse to believe that great civilizations emerged out of religious foundations which were 'wrong, stupid, and bad', until Yahweh came along to whip everybody into shape. I understand there was a relationship between Judaic teachings and Greek philosophy, but it would be nice to get some information on how that relationship and interaction occurred historically. Pythagorus had a profound teaching; perhaps there is a clue there. If the Greek philosophers were influenced by the Judaic revelations, it would be interesting to find historical works that document this process. I've read about both modern, ancient and primitive religions, and certainly one can find strong parallels and commonalities of religions throughout the ages. I'd just like to know better how this process took place. The Baha'i writings on progressive revelation just provide a clue to what actually happened. It will no doubt take historians a long time to detail the actual process. Joseph Campbell argues that religion and culture began in the middle east and spread east and west, to the far east and beyond, ultimately to the Americas. There is archeological evidence for this theory. He proposes that high civilization in the middle east preceeded the Chinese, and there is strong evidence for sea travel across the Pacific. That could explain the flow of ancient religious ideas. Maybe the Far East had been influenced is the distant, pre-Confucian past by a Manifestation, or Manifestations, and religious thought underwent an evolution, as it does everywhere. The other alternative is that it emerged naturally out of primitive shamanic/animistic religion without the influence of a Manifestation. The problem is that one would have to conclude that Manifestations of God are not essential for the higher evolution of religion and culture (and therefore aren't essential), which undermines Baha'i theology altogether. I'm interested in finding a valid historical basis supporting the Baha'i view of history. But it is harder in Asia (Rome, Greece, the pre-Columbian Americas, etc.).From: "Steve Marshall" Subject: Re: Letters of Negation Date: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 2:20 AM >Alison does do a service of pointing out inconsistencies of yearbook with stated purposes, in >her critique. However, it does seem that she makes comments which are critical of the >Universal House of Justice, such that to me, it seemed like she was crossing them. The article is available for you to quote from, Pat. https://www2.h-net.msu.edu/~bahai/reviews/marshal1.htm I suggest you put up or shut up - find those passeages you feel "are critical of the Universal House of Justice, such that to [you], it seemed like she was crossing them" and quote them to us. Then we'll have something other than unsubstantiated opinion to go on. And don't forget to Name one incident where Alison disobeyed the House, or failed to recognise it as the final temporal authority. ka kite Steve >> Name one incident where Alison disobeyed >> the House, or failed to recognise it as the final temporal authority. > >Perhaps I've misinterpreted these remarks, but that was my read, > >"This decision shows just how sensitive the House of Justice is to criticism of its own >publications. >... >As we can see from the above letter, the Baha'i administration assumes the right to >define "scholarship" for its members and to set it within very narrow parameters, placing >emphasis on intangibles like tone." >https://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=38E08AC2.FB4885D%40usq.edu.au > >The conclusion that the failure of review was due to the sensitivity of the House of >Justice, looks to me to be an insistence that she is right and they are wrong. Did I >misunderstand her? You're bringing notions of right and wrong into the equation. Alison sets out her understanding of what happened, based on the information conveyed to her by the Baha'i Studies Review folks. I don't see what other conclusion could have been reached. It's an entirely reasonable understanding of the situation and it AVOIDS laying blame or saying the House is wrong. You're dreaming if you think this constitutes disobedience to the House. In fact, your interpretation of Alison's statement could be said make you the disobedient one, if you want to go there. But this is all a red herring. Alison posted the article to Talisman about a week before she was expelled, but she was being secretly investigated for a couple of years before that (we found that out after Alison's expulsion, thanks to NZ's strong privacy laws). The article probably had nothing to do with her expulsion. ka kite Steve On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 04:20:01 GMT, Corax wrote: >I have known other scholars in quite >unrelated fields who likewise were miffed when their invited review articles >did not pass muster at the editorial level. Reality check: The review did pass muster at the editorial level. "Everything that is written by a Baha'i about the Baha'i Faith or related matter and all Baha'i publications must pass through what is called "Baha'i review". Baha'i review is administered by the Baha'i administration. This review procedure is promoted by the administration as a peer review process, in which the item is checked for accuracy, tone and so forth. The Baha'i Studies Review, therefore, has a two-tier review process: first the articles are peer reveiwed, in other words, circulated among a number of Baha'is. Then, if the item passes this stage, it is passed on to an institutional review committee. This committee gives the final co-ahead for items to be published in the journal. My book review passed through the first, peer review, process, without any comment from any of the reviewers. It was then sent to the institutional review committee." https://home.clear.net.nz/pages/alisonz/critical.html >The Will and Testament prohibits us from 'opposing' the Universal House of >Justice no simply disobeying them or failing to reccognize them as final >temporal authority. The House tells Baha'is to leave us dissenters to our own devices while it deals systematically with the problem. You're disobeying the House. Bad Susan. "The effect of continued exposure to such insincerity about matters vital to humanity's well-being is spiritually corrosive. When we encounter minds that are closed and hearts that are darkened by evident malice, Baha'u'llah urges that we leave such persons to God and turn our attention to the opportunities which multiply daily for the promotion of the truths which He teaches. In words written at the direction of the Guardian, regarding a situation similar to, though much less serious than, the present one, " ... the friends should be advised to just leave these people alone, for their influence can be nothing but negative and destructive...." The enclosed material is being sent to your Assembly less out of concern over the immediate situation, which is being systematically addressed, than because of longer-term considerations to which it lends perspective." (UHJ, 7 April 1999) https://www.geocities.com/baahith/April7letter.html ka kite Steve >No, my understanding is that these efforts were taken. They simply tried a >softer approach than the direct confrontation which hadn't worked with >Birkland. And on this point, I do have inside information. I asked your >Auxiliary Board Member almost immediately after Alison was removed from the >rolls. Did the auxiliary board member (Xxxx) happen to mention that the approach was so "soft" and indirect that the auxiliary board member herself was unaware of the nature of the efforts? "Xxxx reiterated that the letter [of 7 April] has created concern among the believers. She has seen this in her travels around the South Island. Believers have asked her if there are any members in the South Island that are a part of the internal opposition. She has reassured them that she is not aware of there being any problems in New Zealand." (From minutes of a meeting held in Dunedin in late 1999) Following this consultation with the community and the auxiliary board member, the local assembly posted the following in the local newsletter: "The LSA does not feel that any of the issues raised in the UHJ 7th April letter are relevant to Dunedin at this time." This newsletter covers the period November 23 to December 12 1999. So there is solid evidence that the ABM and local assembly had no knowledge of the House's concerns. They could not, therefore, have contacted Alison about them. Reality check Susan. The Baha'i administration can't assure people there isn't a problem in New Zealand while it secretly investigates a couple of New Zealanders - not once telling them there's a problem with their views - then summarily expel one and say "Efforts have been made to clear up her misunderstandings, but these have been unsuccessful, hence the Supreme Body's decision." https://home.clear.net.nz/pages/alisonz/news.html Is this Kafkaesque? I'm not well-read. ka kite Steve >Yes, they did. They said it was because of her internet postings over the last >couple of years. Hi Susan, my fellow negator, Here's the only information from the House that I've been able to locate: "Under normal circumstances, an erroneous understanding of the Baha'i Faith and its Teachings would be regarded as a personal spiritual challenge for the individual involved, which would hopefully be met in due course through loving nurturance, deepening and encouragement by the Baha'i Institutions or their representatives. However, in this case, Mrs. Marshall has chosen to aggressively promote her misconceptions in defiance of efforts to provide her with essential Baha'i teachings which correct them. She has made a series of statements that stand totally in contradiction to the authoritative texts of the Baha'i writings. These assertions, which she disseminated to an international audience, were of such concern to a number of Baha'is that the matter was brought to the attention of the Universal House of Justice." https://home.clear.net.nz/pages/alisonz/19-4-00.html Note that there's no mention of Internet postings, but I'm pleased to say that your assumption matches ours. Do you actually have any hard evidence, or is this another case of great minds at work? :-) The real problem with the House's statement is that it contains errors of fact. Alison was not personally counselled, or warned at all before being expelled. She cannot be characterised as defying non-existant "efforts to provide her with essential Baha'i teachings". I'm sure there were "efforts", but like most Baha'i administrative projects, they didn't get past the planning stages before being overtaken by events. I don't have a huge problem with the Baha'i administration removing people from membership, but I strenuously object when it is done without following the rules laid out by the central figures and set out in civil statutes (The by laws and constitution of each national spiritual assembly). There is a process to be followed, and it is not to be abused. That's why Alison and I are taking judicial review proceedings in the New Zealand civil court. ka kite SteveFrom: "Steve Marshall" Subject: Re: Letters of Negation Date: Thursday, December 12, 2002 3:09 AM >Maybe, the protests that they got from New Zealand, which >affected poor sensitive Peter Khan so much, had something >to do with the dropping of this tactic? Yeah, but we've only got Peter's word for it that these letters exist. The only protest letter from a NZ Baha'i that I've read is so mild that a "damn" would look out of place in it. You'd think these incensed NZ Baha'is would send us copies, wouldn't you? "The House of Justice has been appalled in recent weeks to receive vitriolic, nasty, vicious letters from New Zealand Baha'is concerned about actions the House of Justice took with regard to a believer from the South Island. I'm sure you are aware of it. These letters are not many, there are a few of them, but they're probably the worst letters I have ever seen written to the House of Justice and they came from people who are part of the New Zealand Baha'i community. That, if nothing more, is an indication of the need for a far greater attention to this issue in this country as well as in other countries. New Zealand surely doesn't want to go down in Baha'i history as the community that has produced such nasty correspondence. Correspondence of such a kind that I am embarrassed to have my secretary see it because of the kind of language that it uses. Anyhow, be that as it may, it's their spiritual problem and they will deal with Baha'u'llah as they wish." "Next question concerns my reference to a situation that had occurred in the South Island of New Zealand, which seemed to elicit some rather um, some rather condemnatory responses to the House of Justice from some friends down there. And the question points out that most people don’t know what the devil I’m talking about or what on earth I mention and why don’t I tell them, and obviously I’m not going to do anything like, the laws of backbiting still apply to all of us. But there is nevertheless an important point to be made and that is: the reason I raised it is that it relates to our approach to the covenant. It relates to an extreme form of behaviour where a few individuals felt they had the right to judge the House of Justice’s actions on the basis of an incorrect piece of information that they received from heaven knows where. Now, this you might say, here we are sitting in this lovely room with the sun shining - which I think is pretty rare for this country as far as I can tell - here we are sitting in this lovely room in this nice setting and all and saying: how would anybody in their right mind do that? Well, people do it not because they’re malicious or bad or evil or anything like that, but simply because they’re mislead by emotion. And what we need to do is get a sufficiently clear understanding of the covenant that we can resist the temptations of emotion, so we feel very clearly about the authority of the central body of the Cause and our understanding is not diverted by the heat and the passion of emotion at the moment. And it is for this reason that I mention this example. It doesn’t particularly matter to the House if other people write all kinds of sort of unsavoury letters to them, it bounces off our back. Particularly in my case, I was trained in factory floors in Australia as an engineer so anything you say to me, I’ve probably already heard it many times before." https://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai/2001/khannz.htm Sounds like a FUD-spreading exercise to me. >The Baha'i Faith does not extend to any believer the right to defend >themselves against any accusations whatsoever. Golly, you make them sound like tyrants (to unspiritual people of course). ka kite Steve >The people removed from the rolls were not the ring-leaders as you know. I >don't think the House was willing to declare people CB that were merely playing >supporting rolls when the principles had been allowed to freely leave the >Faith. Nice Freudian slip - You meant to say principals, but you ended up telling the truth. Based on past action of the House, there's nothing to stop the principals from being declared cb's. Pauline Smith of New Zealand was declared a covenant breaker AFTER she had resigned from the Baha'i faith. ka kite Steve On 11 Dec 2002 12:50:12 GMT, smaneck@aol.com (Susan Maneck ) wrote: >I do not consider you malicious, Steve. Do you think I should? But I see you >don't have an answer to the fact that opposing the Universal House of Justice >is as contrary to the Will and Testament as explicitly disobeying it or denying >its authority. I know you're not stupid enough to believe such a simplistic notion. Besides, commenting about a House decision in such a way as to understand it better - which is what Alison did, and what you characterise as opposing the House - is for the NSA/house to decide is "opposing the House". In which case the onus is on the NSA/House to communicate that concern to Alison and set in motion a process of consultation with her, leading to an administrative decision. It's not for you to play assemblies over. In case it's not clear to you, I declare that I oppose the House's actions in summarily expelling Alison Marshall. You now have clear evidence that you should leave me to my own devices. regards Steve >Oh, she knew what she and the Counselor were doing and why. If you're going to talk about your conversations with her, then you might as well release the documents. I assume you emailed her rather than phoning? > >So there is solid evidence that the ABM and local assembly had no >>knowledge of the House's concerns. > >Are you sure we are talking about the same ABM? The ABM for propagation was marginally involved - she came with the abm for protection to one community meeting, largely I suspect because she has extensive classroom experience. I'm talking about the abm for protection at the time M*** ***yy**. She's the only abm who has had an email correspondence with me or paid me a social call. >> They could not, therefore, have >>contacted Alison about them. > >I am not suggesting that anyone approached Alison privately. In fact, my >understanding is that they avoided that. The deepings were offered to the >community as a whole. And I'm asking you to do a reality check on what you've been told. If "study classes conducted in her area" means the same thing as "efforts have been made to clear up her misunderstandings", which means the same thing as "prolonged efforts by the Institutions of the Faith to assist her to rectify this deficiency" then we're all under investigation. Baha'is are always having study classes conducted in their area. There were no "personal discussions with Alison" unless you count relentlessly positive and chatty discussions with absolutely no counselling or warnings. Here are the emails I got from the abm. Remember, until alison got thrown out I was under as much, if not more investigation than Alison was - mainly because Alison couldn't be bothered with the abm's prattle. I'm joking, of course. From: "m***" To: "Steve Marshall" Subject: Interesting ideas Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 14:11:20 +1200 Hi Steve It was very nice to hear from you. Sorry about the attached document to my previous e-mail message to you! The story is that when I went to save that document in Word 97 a little paper clip with two big eyes appeared on the screen asking me if I would rather save it in Word 95 so that it would be accessible to those with older programmes. For some reasons I assumed that you had the latest software programmes and didn't bother to save it as a Word 95 document. My apologies for that. I guess I should not assume things and independently investigate for facts at all times! Anyway, the reason I am writing to you today is to ask you if you would forward to me any interesting ideas for teaching and development of the Faith which you might come across with through your browsing of the Internet. You told me that you take part in various discussions by the Baha'is all around the world and get to hear ideas regarding various aspect of the Faith. I am interested in those ideas and activities which have worked for a particular community or individual and is new, interesting, inspiring and which leads to growth. I am not interested in those ideas which looks good on paper ( or should I say on the computer screen!) and are not practical, those which begin with words and end with words, but those with creative power which result in progress and deliver good to the society. If you come across such ideas and if you have time to share them with me I very much appreciate it. Lots of love to Alison and Zohar M*** From: "m***" To: "Steve Marshall" Subject: Meeting with the Spiritual Assembly Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 21:52:26 +1200 Hi Steve I believe there has recently been a joint meeting of the Spiritual Assembly with the community in Dunedin to consult on the development of the Faith in that city. I am interested to hear your thoughts on that meeting as a member of the Dunedin Baha'i community. Also I like to thank you for sending me the addresses of those sites on Internet to look for interesting ideas. I haven't had a chance to check them out yet but I will do that in the near future. I also very much appreciated your open and honest views on teaching and Baha'i community development. Please convey my love to Alison and Zohar. Hope you are all well and happy. Warmest regards M*** From: "m***" To: "Steve Marshall" Subject: Fw: Authority of Universal House of Justice! Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 11:24:11 +1200 Hi Steve A copy of the attached letter of UHJ was sent to me some time ago and I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. I thought you might like to have a look at it. You might already have a copy in which case you can delete this copy. I found this letter very educative and my favourite pieces are the following two paragraphs: "... When these issues are approached with an understanding of the unity underlying all the Teachings, clarification results. Should the seeker, however, be influenced by a spirit of mistrust and conflict, then unending problems appear." "... they should recognise that the resolution of differences of opinion on such fundamental questions is not to be found by continued discussion, but in referring to the Universal House of Justice itself,... Prolong unresolved public discussion of these fundamental questions can do nothing but breed confusion and dissension." I receive a copy of the minutes of Dunedin Spiritual Assembly and am very delighted to hear that you have become involved in consultation to develop the functioning of that institution and the community. May Blessed Beauty confirm you in your services to His Cause. Warmest Baha'i love From: "m***" To: "Steve Marshall" Subject: Dunedin Newsletter Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 22:42:58 +1200 Dear Steve I read in the last newsletter that you are not going to continue putting together the Dunedin's newsletter any more. As a faithful reader of this newsletter I wish to acknowledge your talent, skills and enthusiasm in creating interesting newsletters over the years. I have enjoyed reading them. Regards M*** ******* From: "m***" To: "Steve Marshall" Subject: Visit to Dunedin Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 16:38:17 +1200 Dear Steve and Alison I am coming to Dunedin on a routine visit to meet with the Assembly and the community. If you wish to see me personally I can arrange a time for us to meet. I arrive on Friday afternoon, September 13th and fly back on Sunday the 15th at noon. regards M*** From: "m***" To: "Steve Marshall" Subject: Theosophical society Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 00:18:38 +1200 Dear Steve Thank you so very much for providing information on Theosophical Society. I found the information fascinating, and I'm going to look into this subject further. One thing I admire about you is your resourcefulness and your prompt response to any request. It was good to see you and Alison at the meeting. Warmest regards M*** P.S. At the bottom of your e-mail you mentioned that you felt "Shoghi Effendi assertion that one could not be a Theosophist and a Baha'i because Theosophists believed in reincarnation was no longer pertinent". I will be interested to know why you think Shoghi Effendi's assertion is no longer pertinent. From: "m***" To: "Steve Marshall" Subject: ITC letter Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 22:19:39 +1300 Hi Steve Thank you for the letter. Yes, I did receive a copy after my visit to Dunedin. I enjoyed reading the letter and found it extremely useful in relation to my work for the Faith. What did you think of it? Are you still concerned regarding the 7th of April letter or the issue has been resolved for you? I will be interested to know if you have received a reply from the House yet. My love to Alison. Warmest regards M*** From: "m***" To: "Steve Marshall" Subject: Open Space Conference Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 21:44:31 +1300 Hi Steve I got a copy of D****'s report on open space teaching conference in Herbert last w/end and was happy to hear that it went very well. Derek had mentioned a few names of the friends who were there but yours was not among them. Did you go? You expressed a lot of enthusiasm and passion for this type of conference on our e-mail discussion group and I thought you participate for sure. Anyhow, you might have been busy like me. Life is quite hectic for me right now. My final exams are approaching fast and after than I have only one week to organise our move to *********. There are lots to be done and not enough time to do them. Please give my love to Alison. I'll write to her soon as I have been thinking of her in the past few days. If you and Alison ever come to Wellington, you are most welcome to stay with us. I don't promise a lot of space, but I do promise a warm welcome and a Persian meal! Warmest regards M*** From: "m***" To: "Steve Marshall" Subject: Visit to Dunedin Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 11:02:16 +1300 Dear Steve Long time no talk! ABM *** ****** and I are coming to Dunedin to conduct a study of the compilation "Issues Related to the Study of the Baha'i Faith" and I thought you and Alison might be interested to attend. The meeting is on Saturday 12th of Feb at 7:30 P.M. You might need to check the details I.e. venue and time with the secretary of the Assembly. Hope to see you there. Regards M*** ******* ...and then it went all quiet. ka kite Steve >I was a secret from most everyone initially. The only way it became public >knowledge is that someone contacted the NSA and asked. It was a US administrative hiccup, not a House-inspired (and I use the term very loosely) warning shot. Let's just leave Fred's case out and concentrate on the other two cases. But I've enjoyed the banter :-) ka kite Steve From: "Ron House" Subject: No due process. Was: Letters of Negation Date: Sunday, December 15, 2002 9:30 PM Steve Marshall wrote: > >Okay. So Alison chose to ignore the special invitation given her by the ABM to > >attend the deepening class in question. > She didn't get one. I got an invitation, but it wasn't "special" - as > you can see it was yet another chatty message saying "I'm coming down > to do a study, hope to see you and Alison there." Or words to that > effect. Hi Steve, I'd suggest you give up, were it not for the need to show other readers that there is no truth in the accusations against Alison. The one you are dealing with in this thread is a true follower of the nine faithless ones, who have made a mockery and a laughing stock of the holy and life-giving ideals brought by Baha'u'llah. Let's get this straight: the reason you and she are going round and round this vicious circle is that no one knows what is being talking about! When she produces documents that are claimed to contain outrageous remarks by Alison, she too is only guessing, because the judge, jury, and executioner has never released the evidence! Heck, they can't even get straight whether Alison did her crimes in one year or two! The problem here is the entire medieval mindset that finds in reasoned argument an outrage. It is they, not you, who must entirely and radically change their views to see the inside of heaven. Keep up the good work, and please pass on my love and esteem to Baha'u'llah's true follower, Alison. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au https://www.sci.usq.edu.au/staff/house