Justice
kas...@my-deja.com
Curious.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Patrick Henry
http://users5.50megs.com/fglaysher/To-UHJ1.htm
http://users5.50megs.com/fglaysher/UHJ2.htm
http://users5.50megs.com/fglaysher/UHJ1.htm
--
Frederick Glaysher
www.fglaysher.com
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
http://users5.50megs.com/fglaysher/index.htm
<kas...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8q4agq$e3s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
kas...@my-deja.com
Still and all...the question stands.
What are the processes to ensure justice within the Baha'i community?
Still curious.
dfio...@my-deja.com
Criminal justice? Social justice? Some other form? Are you talking
about relationships between individual community members? Between
members and the Faith's administration?
Cheers,
Dave
In article <8q4ulv$4bd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
patk...@my-deja.com
In article <8q4agq$e3s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
kas...@my-deja.com wrote:
> What are the processes to provide justice within the Baha'i community?
We try to practice consultation in conducting our affairs. Ideally,
the meeting chair tries to solicit input from all participants. The
friends might refer to the Baha'i writings, share opinions,
observations, ideas; the matter gets discussed and one or more courses
of action are identified and followed.
If there is some concern that the decided course might actually be
adverse, it can be appealed to a higher level. For example, if a Local
Spiritual Assembly directs one of the community members to stop
cheating on their spouse (i.e. break off an extra-marital affair) and
if someone were to find that guidance to be contra-indicated, they
could appeal that to the National Spiritual Assembly. If the deicision
comes from the National Spiritual Assembly, it could be appealed to the
Universal House of Justice.
This may not answer your question, but I hope it is a start.
> Curious.
I might even have some curiousity regarding your curiousity. My guess
is that as you get clarification on the answer, my curiousity may get
satisfied.
Blessings!
- Pat
ko...@ameritel.net
kas...@my-deja.com
patk...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Good question, goodonya mate, welcome to arb,
>
> In article <8q4agq$e3s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> kas...@my-deja.com wrote:
community?
>
attempt to respond to both here if that is not a breach of netiquette(?)
New to this game,pray forgive spelling and grandma.
Consultation? A round table chat? Informal or Formal?
> For example, if a Local
> Spiritual Assembly directs one of the community members to stop
> cheating on their spouse (i.e. break off an extra-marital affair)
Oh!Sex!Good example. Walk me though it if you will (the 'process' Pat).
A member of the community suggests/infers/asserts/alleges/accuses that
I have committed such an offense. Is there an informal consultation or
a formal process? Who decides and how? Does the accusation require
substantiation? Do I get to present a defense? Question the individual
presenting the charge? Question or present witnesses? Is the accused
availed of the time,environment and opportunity to defend themselves?
> This may not answer your question, but I hope it is a start.
> It's a great start and I am thankfull for it.I pray the length and
number of questions are not a burdon.
> > Curious.
>
> I might even have some curiousity regarding your curiousity. My guess
> is that as you get clarification on the answer, my curiousity may get
> satisfied.
Hmmmm....some itchy recollection at the back of my bonce...some distant
race memory euphemism...........some thing about......cats?
> Blessings!
> - Pat
> ko...@ameritel.net
dfio...@my-deja.com
> Consultation? A round table chat? Informal or Formal?
Its a skill we are still learning but in my experience it can be both
formal and informal. The key feature is that no one person controls
the conversation though someone may be asked to be sure it stays on
topic. Each participant in the consultation is expected to speak their
mind but ownership of those ideas is given up to the group dynamic for
analysis and discusssion. The atmosphere needs to be prayerful and
reverent. My wife and I use this all the time to go over issues that
could become contentious. It really works well and arguements are few
and far between in our home.
I am sure there are details that I am leaving out but I will let others
fill them in.
> Oh!Sex!Good example. Walk me though it if you will (the 'process'
> Pat).
> A member of the community suggests/infers/asserts/alleges/accuses that
> I have committed such an offense. Is there an informal consultation or
> a formal process? Who decides and how? Does the accusation require
> substantiation? Do I get to present a defense? Question the individual
> presenting the charge? Question or present witnesses? Is the accused
> availed of the time,environment and opportunity to defend themselves?
Yes this is a good example. It is a delicate issue to which an LSA can
not take sides yet must take the alegation seriously.
Their is no presumption that either party is telling the truth or
lying. Because the alegation is made it must be considered. In this
case a consultation should be set up with the one accused. In my
experience I have seen good results where the consultaion was one on
one, rather than the whole LSA conulting with one person. That kind of
consultation can wait for later after the initial emotion of the moment
has difused a bit. The consultation should be Frank and open. It
should be clear that the goal is to reach an understanding of the
objective facts. My wife who is a litigation attorney is amazed by the
process because she is so used to the adversarial system of US
Justice. Anyway ... every attempt should be made to bring the two
parties together and to urge them to reconcile if possible, and seek
counceling if need be.
As for presenting a defense ... you may present your side in a
consultation and their are no limits on what you can and cannot say.
As for witnesses, I guess if there was an individual who could be used
to verify your story than it would be prudent to consult with them as
well. Because this is not an adversarial system you do not get to
cross examine or otherwise confront anyone in the legalistic sense.
Consultation is all about honesty and objectivity.
Once the LSA feels it has gathered enough fact then the nine members
consult among themselves continually praying for and seeking guidence
in their deliberations. They do a lot of research and praying. They
ofetn consult with the Auxiliary Board and even the NSA if need be.
After they are in agreement on a course of action they inform the
parties of their decision. If the parties do not agree with the
decision they may approach higher authority for a review of their
case. If that review reaches the Universal House of Justice the
results of consultation with them are final and the decision is
unerring and assured of Divine guidence.
Does this help?
Cheers,
Dave
kas...@my-deja.com
dfio...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Kashani,
>
> > Consultation? A round table chat? Informal or Formal?
>
> Its a skill we are still learning but in my experience it can be both
> formal and informal.
moral not criminal offense I'm going to assume it becomes formal.
> The key feature is that no one person controls
> the conversation though someone may be asked to be sure it stays on
> topic.
No designated chair/facilitater/mediator? Just one person delegated
to keep things on track? No other powers/responsibilities?
Capacity/obligation to keep order,curb vitriol/interjection,
insult/attack? (If I was accused of infidelity I might get stroppy)
Aggenda? Set timelines/oportunity to speak?
Each participant in the consultation is expected to speak their
> mind but ownership of those ideas is given up to the group dynamic for
> analysis and discusssion. The atmosphere needs to be prayerful and
> reverent. My wife and I use this all the time to go over issues that
> could become contentious. It really works well and arguements are few
> and far between in our home.
Pleased to hear it works for you Dave. My wife just informs me of the
real nature of things and I comply (path of least resistance). No
contentious issues just subservience...works for me.
> I am sure there are details that I am leaving out but I will let
others
> fill them in.
>
> > Oh!Sex!Good example. Walk me though it if you will (the 'process'
> > Pat).
>
> > A member of the community suggests/infers/asserts/alleges/accuses
that
> > I have committed such an offense. Is there an informal consultation
or
> > a formal process? Who decides and how? Does the accusation require
> > substantiation? Do I get to present a defense? Question the
individual
> > presenting the charge? Question or present witnesses? Is the accused
> > availed of the time,environment and opportunity to defend
themselves?
>
> Yes this is a good example. It is a delicate issue to which an LSA
can
> not take sides yet must take the alegation seriously.
>
> Their is no presumption that either party is telling the truth or
> lying. Because the alegation is made it must be considered.
Yes, this seems fair, a serious alegation must be taken seriously.
Who decides if the alegation is serious or not? The community? The
accuser? The accused.
In this
> case a consultation should be set up with the one accused.
And who else?
In my
> experience I have seen good results where the consultaion was one on
> one, rather than the whole LSA conulting with one person.
One on one?...the accused and the accuser? The accused and ?
If this is a preliminary inquiry who is present/involved?
Please tease it out for me Dave...I'm seeking the 'structure'
and 'process' rather than the broad principals.
That kind of
> consultation can wait for later after the initial emotion of the
moment
> has difused a bit. The consultation should be Frank and open. It
> should be clear that the goal is to reach an understanding of the
> objective facts.
Lets assume that both the initial 'one on one' and the
subsequent 'community consultation' remain emotionaly charged.
Who keeps order? With what authority/powers?
If I, as the accused (and I'm going to plead innocence Dave),become
disorderly,loud,won't stop screaming "It wasn't me it was the one armed
man"!.....Who is empowered to curb my behaviour with what sanctions?
In the persuit of the 'objective facts' and abiding by non advesorial
principals would the accused be granted the oportunity to to get
explination/substantiation from the individual/s bringing the charge?
The accused will be given oportinity to, not interogate, but ask
pertinent questions? Seek clarification? Establlish the facts?
My wife who is a litigation attorney is amazed by the
> process because she is so used to the adversarial system of US
> Justice. Anyway ... every attempt should be made to bring the two
> parties together and to urge them to reconcile if possible, and seek
> counceling if need be.
You married a litigation attorney?...your a brave bunny Dave.
I concur with the sentiment "every attempt should be made to bring the
two parties together" ....now....if love is the glue...what is the
proceedural G clamp?
> As for presenting a defense ... you may present your side in a
> consultation and their are no limits on what you can and cannot say.
None Dave? In this hypothetical I'm accused of infidelity...I'm upset
(more so because I'm innocent), my wife is realy upset (more so because
shee's not sure I'm innocent). There's a lot at stake here,
family,friends,reputation,community functioning.....no limits on what I
can say or when and for how long I can say it?
No limits on what others can say to me?
Welcome to my powder keg......any one care for a smoke?
> As for witnesses, I guess if there was an individual who could be used
> to verify your story than it would be prudent to consult with them as
> well. Because this is not an adversarial system you do not get to
> cross examine or otherwise confront anyone in the legalistic sense.
> Consultation is all about honesty and objectivity.
Hmmmmm....I can think of lots of instances where questions may need to
be asked of all parties involved. In the absence of a litigation
atourney how can the accused gain information from his/her accuser if
questions cannot be asked?
> Once the LSA feels it has gathered enough fact then the nine members
> consult among themselves continually praying for and seeking guidence
> in their deliberations. They do a lot of research and praying. They
> ofetn consult with the Auxiliary Board and even the NSA if need be.
> After they are in agreement on a course of action they inform the
> parties of their decision. If the parties do not agree with the
> decision they may approach higher authority for a review of their
> case. If that review reaches the Universal House of Justice the
> results of consultation with them are final and the decision is
> unerring and assured of Divine guidence.
>
> Does this help?
Yes...it does...thank you.....can I have some more please?
> Cheers,
>
> Dave
All the best
dfio...@my-deja.com
kas...@my-deja.com wrote:
<SNIP>
> No designated chair/facilitater/mediator? Just one person delegated
> to keep things on track? No other powers/responsibilities?
> Capacity/obligation to keep order,curb vitriol/interjection,
> insult/attack? (If I was accused of infidelity I might get stroppy)
> Aggenda? Set timelines/oportunity to speak?
In an LSA setting their is a Chair but she is supposed to spark the
consultation and make sure it stays on topic and that everyone has had
a chance to speak. It is always assumed that Baha'i laws of personal
conduct will be followed and thus avoid an ugly scene. Many times when
things get tense someone will suggest reading a prayer or two to re-
center the group.
But consultation does not require a Chair to function well. I have
seen it work in some very freeform settings like among a group of kids
at a Baha'i camp who are working on a project of some kind.
<SNIP>
> Pleased to hear it works for you Dave. My wife just informs me of the
> real nature of things and I comply (path of least resistance). No
> contentious issues just subservience...works for me.
My wife would love that kind of arrangement :-) Unfortunately I
decided that I wanted to have input on all sorts of things. We even
planned our wedding together. It was a little rough at first but now
we make a pretty good team.
<SNIP>
> > There is no presumption that either party is telling the truth or
> > lying. Because the alegation is made it must be considered.
>
> Yes, this seems fair, a serious alegation must be taken seriously.
> Who decides if the alegation is serious or not? The community? The
> accuser? The accused.
Again in an LSA setting any accusation must be examined if the peace
and unity of the community is to be maintained. If someone were to
continuously bring one accusation after another that proved to be
groundless then that in and of itself would be a topic for consultation.
> > In this case a consultation should be set up with the one accused.
>
> And who else?
In the few cases I have been involved with (only one was a marital
issue) the LSA consults and appoints one or two people to meet with
both parties to talk about the issue and its implication and hear what
the person has to say. They bring that information back to the full
LSA and consult on the issue. Then the whole LSA can meet with the
parties involved. This is not an official model just one that I have
seen in action and that has been effective.
<SNIP>
> Lets assume that both the initial 'one on one' and the
> subsequent 'community consultation' remain emotionaly charged.
> Who keeps order? With what authority/powers?
> If I, as the accused (and I'm going to plead innocence Dave),become
> disorderly,loud,won't stop screaming "It wasn't me it was the one
> armed man"!.....Who is empowered to curb my behaviour with what
> sanctions?
If the LSA can not control the consultation they can ask for help from
the Auxiliary Board or they can suggest the two parties seek
counselling. Or the LSA can continue to meet the individuals until the
feel the time is right to all meet together. The only real power an
LSA has is the power of persuasion.
> In the persuit of the 'objective facts' and abiding by non advesorial
> principals would the accused be granted the oportunity to to get
> explination/substantiation from the individual/s bringing the charge?
> The accused will be given oportinity to, not interogate, but ask
> pertinent questions? Seek clarification? Establlish the facts?
That would seem fair as long as it does not cross the line of Baha'i
law.
> > My wife who is a litigation attorney is amazed by the
> > process because she is so used to the adversarial system of US
> > Justice. Anyway ... every attempt should be made to bring the two
> > parties together and to urge them to reconcile if possible, and seek
> > counceling if need be.
>
> You married a litigation attorney?...your a brave bunny Dave.
Yes well I was kind of blined at the time :-) But seriously, she is no
longer practicing as she has been disabled by a chronic illness (CFIDS)
for the last 5+ years.
> I concur with the sentiment "every attempt should be made to bring the
> two parties together" ....now....if love is the glue...what is the
> proceedural G clamp?
The "G clamp" is the desire of the parties to remain true to the Laws
of the Baha'i Faith. For example in the case of divorce (perhaps the
most intense issue an LSA ever has to deal with) the incentive to work
through the process in a civil fashion is the desire to get the
approval of the LSA so that the year of waiting can begin. In the case
of divorce in Baha'i law a couple who wants a divorce must wait one
year from the time their petition is accepted to the time the divorce
is granted. During that time the couple is encouraged to reconcile and
seek counselling to resolve their differences. If they have relations
during that time (or even co-habitate) the year is ended and if they
wish to continue with the divorce they need to start the process all
over again. During that year neither party may re-marry even if they
have completed the civil divorce. That is pretty big incentive to
stick with the process.
> > As for presenting a defense ... you may present your side in a
> > consultation and their are no limits on what you can and cannot say.
>
> None Dave? In this hypothetical I'm accused of infidelity...I'm upset
> (more so because I'm innocent), my wife is realy upset (more so
> because shee's not sure I'm innocent). There's a lot at stake here,
> family,friends,reputation,community functioning.....no limits on what
> I can say or when and for how long I can say it?
> No limits on what others can say to me?
> Welcome to my powder keg......any one care for a smoke?
Yes ... that is what makes these cases very tense and there is a great
need for patience, tact, and wisdom on the part of the LSA. The hope
is that the focus on a prayerfull attitude and a lot of one-on-ones
will creat the environment where good consultation is possible. And
again help is always there if the promblem becomes too much for the LSA
to handle.
> > As for witnesses, I guess if there was an individual who could be
> > used to verify your story than it would be prudent to consult with
> > them as well. Because this is not an adversarial system you do not
> > get to cross examine or otherwise confront anyone in the legalistic
> > sense. Consultation is all about honesty and objectivity.
>
> Hmmmmm....I can think of lots of instances where questions may need to
> be asked of all parties involved. In the absence of a litigation
> atourney how can the accused gain information from his/her accuser if
> questions cannot be asked?
Questions are allowed so long as they are for the discovery of fact.
Often in the one-on-one consultation the questions a party may have are
passed on to the LSA and they ask the questions for the party. It is
important to understand that the parties should not be brought together
until such a time as they are ready to consult in civil manner.
Hope this also helped.
Cheers,
Dave
Curious
dfio...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <8q9ii5$jhj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> kas...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
<snip>
> In an LSA setting their is a Chair but she is supposed to spark the
> consultation and make sure it stays on topic and that everyone has had
> a chance to speak. It is always assumed that Baha'i laws of personal
> conduct will be followed and thus avoid an ugly scene. Many times
when
> things get tense someone will suggest reading a prayer or two to re-
> center the group.
I am familiar with the Baha'i 'principals' on personal conduct...but
the laws you refer to are exactly the kind of thing I am after. 'Play
fair-Be a good sport' are principals, 'no hiting below the belt-no high
tackles' are the rules/laws that define the principals (backed by
proceedures and sanctions for breaking the rules).
> But consultation does not require a Chair to function well. I have
> seen it work in some very freeform settings like among a group of kids
> at a Baha'i camp who are working on a project of some kind.
No doubt. Would this kind of open/free form consultation ever be
attempted in cases like the hypothetical we have been dealing with?
>
> > > There is no presumption that either party is telling the truth or
> > > lying. Because the alegation is made it must be considered.
> >
> > Yes, this seems fair, a serious alegation must be taken seriously.
> > Who decides if the alegation is serious or not? The community? The
> > accuser? The accused.
<snip>
> Again in an LSA setting any accusation must be examined if the peace
> and unity of the community is to be maintained. If someone were to
> continuously bring one accusation after another that proved to be
> groundless then that in and of itself would be a topic for
consultation.
There are laws/proceedures to garuantee this? An individual could not
(in forums of free and unfettered consultation) get away with making
repeated serious allegations?
> <snip>
> In the few cases I have been involved with (only one was a marital
> issue) the LSA consults and appoints one or two people to meet with
> both parties to talk about the issue and its implication and hear what
> the person has to say. They bring that information back to the full
> LSA and consult on the issue. Then the whole LSA can meet with the
> parties involved. This is not an official model just one that I have
> seen in action and that has been effective.
The appointed representative/s meet with 'both parties' together or
seperatly?...Say the whole thing is a misunderstanding, crossed wires,
misinformation...Is the accused entitled under Baha'i proceedural law
to have the opportunity to meet with the individual bringing the
complaint? Can an accused person gain access to such a forum even if
the accuser does not desire to meet? What if the Assembly
cant/wont/decides not to adress a serious alegation or provide a
meeting of the parties?
> <snip>
> If the LSA can not control the consultation they can ask for help from
> the Auxiliary Board or they can suggest the two parties seek
> counselling. Or the LSA can continue to meet the individuals until
the
> feel the time is right to all meet together. The only real power an
> LSA has is the power of persuasion.
Ok...If you will forgive me introducing religion into the discussion
I'll go back to my sport analogy to sumerise...
We are all on the footy field, there may or may not be an umpire, the
decision to have an umpire is arbitary/depending on the decision of (9?)
elected players. The umpire and/or the 9 can only 'persuade' players
to 'play fair' and remind them that this is Baha'i ball. There is no
code that defines foul play only undefined principals of fair play.
An injured or agrieved player (or the front 9) may call on the AFL (Aux
Board)but no one is empowered to make on field calls of foul, hold up
warning cards, or send a player off for the duration of the match?
Back to the infidelity hypothetical...The community/players are going
to attempt to resolve this volitile situation armed with no more than
the powers of persuasion and appeals to good sportsmanship?
> > In the persuit of the 'objective facts' and abiding by non
advesorial
> > principals would the accused be granted the oportunity to to get
> > explination/substantiation from the individual/s bringing the
charge?
> > The accused will be given oportinity to, not interogate, but ask
> > pertinent questions? Seek clarification? Establlish the facts?
>
> That would seem fair as long as it does not cross the line of Baha'i
> law.
What is 'Baha'i law' in this instance Dave?
<snip>
if love is the glue...what is the proceedural G clamp?
>
> The "G clamp" is the desire of the parties to remain true to the Laws
> of the Baha'i Faith.
<snip>
I'm suggesting thats the glue Dave. The 'love' of the faith, the love
of the friends, the 'desire'-consequent to/flowing from that love to be
true to the laws. What are the laws? The interpersonal code of
conduct...administrative proceedures...that will bind people together
in the safety of 'fair due process' untill the glue has a chance to
heal and set the wounds.
<snip>
No limits to what can be said in consultation...
> Yes ... that is what makes these cases very tense and there is a great
> need for patience, tact, and wisdom on the part of the LSA. The hope
> is that the focus on a prayerfull attitude and a lot of one-on-ones
> will creat the environment where good consultation is possible. And
> again help is always there if the promblem becomes too much for the
LSA
> to handle.
I could be accused of infidelity and say anything I like?
Some one could believe I had committed infidelity and say anything they
liked? No holds bared, no M of Q rules, no gloves, no referee?
Into the ring with patience pads? Onto the field with a tact truss?
There is wisdom in this? This works? Baha'is (general body) have
attained sufficient spiritual development to consult/resolve the most
contentious/heated/sensitive issues free form?
> Questions are allowed so long as they are for the discovery of fact.
> Often in the one-on-one consultation the questions a party may have
are
> passed on to the LSA and they ask the questions for the party. It is
> important to understand that the parties should not be brought
together
> until such a time as they are ready to consult in civil manner.
If my hypothetical accuser...will 'Fred' do?...If Fred believes I am
having an affair with his wife...and he's new to the faith...has not
spiritualy evolved sufficiently for self restraint and civility...
cant there fore be brought into an invironment/forum in which there are
no proceedural restraints.........Then I....with my mariage at stake,
my (former) friendship with Fred and spouse at stake, the functioning
of the community at stake (if both couples are on the LSA and the
community is not much bigger)..........Let me get this right Dave...
I am intitled to ask the LSA to ask Fred....and he is entitled to ask
the LSA to ask me....and then I can ask the LSA to as Fred....
This will speedily defuse a serious/sensitive situation?
Inuendo, rumor and misinformation will not grow in the interim?
It is not within the bounds of Baha'i law and Admin proceedure for the
accused to be entitled (as a matter of natural justice)...a/To have
Fred substantiate the allegation.b/To be granted the opportunity to set
the record straight?
> Hope this also helped.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave
Yes...helpful Dave......but to be honest......also disturbing.
Prayers of health and healing to you and the missus.
All the best
Curious.
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
--
Curious
dfio...@my-deja.com
dfio...@my-deja.com
Curious <kas...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> I am familiar with the Baha'i 'principals' on personal conduct...but
> the laws you refer to are exactly the kind of thing I am after. 'Play
> fair-Be a good sport' are principals, 'no hiting below the belt-no
> high tackles' are the rules/laws that define the principals (backed by
> proceedures and sanctions for breaking the rules).
Certainly the ultimate extension of this line of reasoning would be a
loss of administrative rights. This would only be used in the case of
flagrant persistant violations of Baha'i law.
> There are laws/proceedures to garuantee this? An individual could not
> (in forums of free and unfettered consultation) get away with making
> repeated serious allegations?
If someone were to make repeated false accusations they could be
violating the prohibition on gossip and back biting. There is no
specific law on this issue but many different laws could certainly
apply.
> The appointed representative/s meet with 'both parties' together or
> seperatly?...Say the whole thing is a misunderstanding, crossed wires,
> misinformation...Is the accused entitled under Baha'i proceedural law
> to have the opportunity to meet with the individual bringing the
> complaint? Can an accused person gain access to such a forum even if
> the accuser does not desire to meet? What if the Assembly
> cant/wont/decides not to adress a serious alegation or provide a
> meeting of the parties?
Wow. This is a tough one. I would say that it is very much case
dependent and no two cases will be identical. In the case of marital
difficulties there is specific guidence that the parties should
eventually meet together with the full body of the LSA.
> Ok...If you will forgive me introducing religion into the discussion
> I'll go back to my sport analogy to sumerise...
> We are all on the footy field, there may or may not be an umpire, the
> decision to have an umpire is arbitary/depending on the decision of
> (9?) elected players. The umpire and/or the 9 can only 'persuade'
> players to 'play fair' and remind them that this is Baha'i ball.
> There is no code that defines foul play only undefined principals of
> fair play. An injured or agrieved player (or the front 9) may call on
> the AFL (Aux Board)but no one is empowered to make on field calls of
> foul, hold up warning cards, or send a player off for the duration of
> the match?
Ah football my second religion :-)
The rules of the game are Baha'i Law. The system of officials (ref,
linesman, and fourth official) are the LSA and possibly the Auxiliary
Board. The NSA is the national FA and the UHJ is probably equal to
FIFA in this analogy except the UHJ actually functions ;-). The
ref/LSA controls the tone of the match and it is expected that the two
sides will cooperate and play fair. The LSA has the power to call
fouls and temporarily stop the match to give the two sides time to cool
down. They can consult with the linesman/Aux. Board if need be.
Where this model falls down is that there is no winner and loser.
Instead the two teams are supposed to be objectively getting to the
truth of the matter at hand. I guess they are playing for a tie so
they can each advance into the next round.
> Back to the infidelity hypothetical...The community/players are going
> to attempt to resolve this volitile situation armed with no more than
> the powers of persuasion and appeals to good sportsmanship?
In the end the LSA is the local adjudicator of Baha'i law and it has
the power to refer the matter to higher authority.
> > > In the persuit of the 'objective facts' and abiding by non
> > > advesorial principals would the accused be granted the oportunity
> > > to to get explination/substantiation from the individual/s
> > > bringing the charge? The accused will be given oportinity to, not
> > > interogate, but ask pertinent questions? Seek clarification?
> > > Establlish the facts?
> >
> > That would seem fair as long as it does not cross the line of Baha'i
> > law.
>
> What is 'Baha'i law' in this instance Dave?
There are many laws on personal conduct - almost too many to mention
but I would say the laws on consultation would be most apropos here.
Or are you looking for some very specific laws.
> <snip>
>
> if love is the glue...what is the proceedural G clamp?
> >
> > The "G clamp" is the desire of the parties to remain true to the
> > Laws of the Baha'i Faith.
>
> I'm suggesting thats the glue Dave. The 'love' of the faith, the love
> of the friends, the 'desire'-consequent to/flowing from that love to
> be true to the laws. What are the laws? The interpersonal code of
> conduct...administrative proceedures...that will bind people together
> in the safety of 'fair due process' untill the glue has a chance to
> heal and set the wounds.
I am in 100% agreement that love is the glue and yes the system of
administration is there to act as the splint until love does its work.
> I could be accused of infidelity and say anything I like?
> Some one could believe I had committed infidelity and say anything
> they liked? No holds bared, no M of Q rules, no gloves, no referee?
> Into the ring with patience pads? Onto the field with a tact truss?
> There is wisdom in this? This works? Baha'is (general body) have
> attained sufficient spiritual development to consult/resolve the most
> contentious/heated/sensitive issues free form?
We are trying to. It is a difficult process and the key is reliance on
the power of the Holy Spirit and the guidence of our faith in the
Revealed Word to help us though thes tough freeform consultations.
Laws like the role of the chairperson, the nature of consultation, and
laws of personal conduct along with prayer and reverence often turn the
most contentious of confrontations into great consultations. I have
seen it work and I have seen it fail. But as time goes by I see it
work more times than not.
> > Questions are allowed so long as they are for the discovery of fact.
> > Often in the one-on-one consultation the questions a party may have
> > are passed on to the LSA and they ask the questions for the party.
> > It is important to understand that the parties should not be brought
> > together until such a time as they are ready to consult in civil
> > manner.
>
> If my hypothetical accuser...will 'Fred' do?...If Fred believes I am
> having an affair with his wife...and he's new to the faith...has not
> spiritualy evolved sufficiently for self restraint and civility...
> cant there fore be brought into an invironment/forum in which there
> are no proceedural restraints......Then I....with my mariage at stake,
> my (former) friendship with Fred and spouse at stake, the functioning
> of the community at stake (if both couples are on the LSA and the
> community is not much bigger)..........Let me get this right Dave...
> I am intitled to ask the LSA to ask Fred....and he is entitled to ask
> the LSA to ask me....and then I can ask the LSA to as Fred....
> This will speedily defuse a serious/sensitive situation?
> Inuendo, rumor and misinformation will not grow in the interim?
> It is not within the bounds of Baha'i law and Admin proceedure for the
> accused to be entitled (as a matter of natural justice)...a/To have
> Fred substantiate the allegation.b/To be granted the opportunity to
> set the record straight?
When the alegation is made, from my undersanding of the system, some
immediate judgement would need to be made about how to move the process
forward. In addition Fred would be givrn a summary of Baha'i law that
is applicable to the situation. If after consulting with Fred he still
wanted to move forward and press his allegation then the situation
would need to come to a resolution while staying within the guidence
provided by the writing of the Faith.
> > Hope this also helped.
<snip>
> Yes...helpful Dave......but to be honest......also disturbing.
Why disturbing?
Cheers,
Dave
Curious
Thanks again.
Must also plead for short delay.
Am being taken, against will, into metropolitan area, school holidays-
Melbourne Show.
Still on thread...there is no justice in this....just compliance with
the domestic AO.
Will either perform 'full monty' (revealing depth,degree and cause
of 'disturbance') shortly or upon return.
In interim I invite others to contribute to Justice thread or respond
to 'How Come'.
All the best.
--
Curious
Curious
>
> > > Hope this also helped.
>
> <snip>
>
> > Yes...helpful Dave......but to be honest......also disturbing.
>
> Why disturbing?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave
>
>
Dear Dave
Before I reveal the level and cause of my 'disturbance' I would like to fill
in a few blanks and put forward a bit of a preface.
I've been a member of the Baha'i community for nearly two decades and
served, as best I could, in a range of elected and appointed positions.
During the past ten years I, and other members of the local community, have
been subject to a range of offensive and abusive behaviors. These include-
Lengthy loud and aggressive harangue, vitriolic tirade, incessant
interruption, thinly veiled innuendo, unsubstantiated accusation,
confiscation of property and obstruction of free passage.
Now Dave, I expect to find rude, disturbed, ego centric, nutters in every
walk and sphere of life...Lord knows there's a few in and around here. The
behavior of one or two individuals is not what disturbs me. Behaviors
recognised but put aside, I have never met a Baha'i that I didn't like...nor
do I have any complaint against any Baha'i institution.
My difficulty, my disturbance and objection, rests with the repeated failure
of the Baha'i community to respond to and address the abusive behaviors.
In a nutshell, I suggest-
There is an abundance of 'principal' and a dearth of 'process'.
There is a 'culture' that advocates 'unity' at the expense of 'justice'.
There is a pattern of denial and an aversion to facing and addressing
difficult issues.
Bold claims perhaps, but ones that I am prepared to substantiate.
Over the past decade I have been accused of a number of offences by a fellow
Baha'i...
'the utilization of a government agency as a tool/ weapon against a
community member'...'holding secret Baha'i functions/meetings'... 'acting in
an illegal and immoral manner'.
These are serious allegations especially considering the latter was taken
into the public realm.
On no occasion, despite repeated requests, was I ever provided with a forum
in which I could fairly address these allegations nor was the other party
ever required to substantiate them. Those 'consultations' and 'mediations'
that did take place (three? over eight years) became platforms for my
accuser to launch another harangue and make further accusations. Every
attempt to respond was met with incessant interruption, no one *ever*
intervened in the interests of 'a fair go'. There has never been anything
akin to 'fair due process'.
Dave, I take no joy in airing this, especially in such a forum as this. I
know quite well that some bunny with their own barrow to push will likely
leap on it and attempt to utilize it to their own ends. Be that as it may, I
have exhausted all other options.
Years of advocating for a review of conflict resolution procedures has been
entirely fruitless.
The consistent and overwhelming response has been "Just ignore it, hold
hands, pray for unity, hope it all goes away"...or "It is all just a
reflection of the spiritual immaturity of individual Baha'is and Baha'i
institutions".
I posted in this forum, initially, in the hope that someone in the community
might be forthcoming with the rules, by-laws and procedures that govern the
pursuit of justice within the Baha'i community. Justice...the best beloved
of all things...is obviously not an exciting enough thread to incite much of
a response...I am neither surprised nor disappointed.
I am grateful for your efforts Dave, you have given a fair and reasonable
outline of the principals of Baha'i consultation on contentious issues and
disputes. Unfortunately, from my perspective, there is little reassurance
and no 'procedural substance' in what you have told me.
I remain deeply disturbed and saddened by the 'culture' that pervades the
Baha'i community.
I believe it to be a culture of avoidance, pretence and denial.
With regret....I remain.....perplexed and...though diminishing....still....
Curious.
Rick Schaut
"Curious" <Kas...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:%%wC5.18304$O7.2...@ozemail.com.au...
> I am grateful for your efforts Dave, you have given a fair and reasonable
> outline of the principals of Baha'i consultation on contentious issues and
> disputes. Unfortunately, from my perspective, there is little reassurance
> and no 'procedural substance' in what you have told me.
I suppose that's understandable. On the other hand, the Austrailian
National Spiritual Assembly publishes a very fine manual as a guide for
local spiritual assemblies. I believe in it you will find all the
procedural substance you're looking for.
If you don't have a copy, or find it difficult to get your hands on one, ask
your nearest Auxiliary Board Member for Protection.
As for your particular situation, I think you'd do best to raise the entire
issue with your National Spiritual Assembly.
Regards,
Rick Schaut
Curious
Curious <Kas...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:...
> outline of the principals of Baha'i consultation on contentious issues and
> disputes. Unfortunately, from my perspective, there is little reassurance
> and no 'procedural substance' in what you have told me.
>
Curious
Rick Schaut <RSSc...@email.msn.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
news:8recm...@news1.newsguy.com...> news:%%wC5.18304$O7.2...@ozemail.com.au...
> > I am grateful for your efforts Dave, you have given a fair and
reasonable
> > outline of the principals of Baha'i consultation on contentious issues
and
> > disputes. Unfortunately, from my perspective, there is little
reassurance
> > and no 'procedural substance' in what you have told me.
>
> National Spiritual Assembly publishes a very fine manual as a guide for
> local spiritual assemblies. I believe in it you will find all the
> procedural substance you're looking for.
Something else?
I appreciate the advice Rick, I've had eight years to examine everything I
could get my hands on. I can find nothing that guarantees a member of the
community the right to have an allegation made against them substantiated.
Nor can I find any procedural outline that ensures 'fair due process' and
the guarantee of a 'Just' open forum.
It is probably a moot point. Such guarantees and procedures are basic-not
complex. They ought be well within the authority of any assembly to
establish (see 'How Come'; re second prerequisite...powers/responsibilities
of chair, establishment of by-laws etc).
In the end will to address contentious issues and the desire to establish
the mechanisms to do so that is absent.
> If you don't have a copy, or find it difficult to get your hands on one,
ask
> your nearest Auxiliary Board Member for Protection.
>
> As for your particular situation, I think you'd do best to raise the
entire
> issue with your National Spiritual Assembly.
>
> Regards,
> Rick Schaut
>
> Yes Rick...have done so...at least two or three pages twice a year since
1994. They must be just as tired of hearing from me as I am of writing. I
have nothing but admiration for the efforts they (and others) have made.
Still,the problem and my objection (allegation?) remains.
There is abundant good will, divine principal and dedicated golden
hearts....there is also a dearth of 'process' and 'disinterest' in filling
the void. There is a broad prevailing culture within the Baha'i community
that places the principals of 'unity' and the semblance of 'spirituality'
above the establishment of those basic procedures that would ensure
*justice*.
I base this assertion not on one or two isolated incidents but rather on a
repetition of events over almost a decade.
Thanks again
Curious.
dfio...@my-deja.com
My off-forum email address is bighapp...@yahoo.com
I would like to help as much as I can because it sounds to me like you
are dealing with some institution which is not playing its role well.
The institutions are there to help and reach the truth even if that
truth hurts. Far too often we find that we have an imature idea of
just what unity really is.
It is not a facade of calm and peace, rather it is an environment where
all members of the community are in actual harmony. It sound to me
like your situation is not one of real unity.
I offer my assistance. Please do not hesitate to contact me via email
if you would feel uncomfortable addressing these issues in a public
space.
Cheers,
Dave
patk...@my-deja.com
In article <74DC5.18489$O7.2...@ozemail.com.au>,
"Curious" <Kas...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
I'm assuming that your slanderer is in another community. If that is
not the case, replace "NSA" w/ your local "LSA".
>
> Yes Rick...have done so...at least two or three pages twice a year
since
> 1994. They must be just as tired of hearing from me as I am of
writing. I
> have nothing but admiration for the efforts they (and others) have
made.
> Still,the problem and my objection (allegation?) remains.
> There is abundant good will, divine principal and dedicated golden
> hearts....there is also a dearth of 'process' and 'disinterest' in
filling
> the void. There is a broad prevailing culture within the Baha'i
community
> that places the principals of 'unity' and the semblance
of 'spirituality'
> above the establishment of those basic procedures that would ensure
> *justice*.
> I base this assertion not on one or two isolated incidents but rather
on a
> repetition of events over almost a decade.
>
Curiousjaan, it sounds like you've finally lost your appetite for being
slandered. If this is the case, you might consider (note I
wrote "Consider" not "Execute") civil remedy such as might be worked
out w/ solicitors, barristers, or whatever you call lawyers in Oz.
Likely this might entail chatting w/ one or two lawyers you might know
to get a feel if you have a legal/civil case. Then you might consider
advsing that your NSA that you are a) fed up w/ being slandered, b)
dissatisfied w/ previous 'resolution attempts' which seem to be
platforms for further slander, and c) considering legal/civil action
against the slanderer.
My guess is that one of two things might happen: 1) the NSA might
identify other alternative courses of action; or 2) they don't identify
alternative courses of action. In case 1, maybe you could see if it
works, in case 2, consider if the discomfort the slandering has caused
you might exceed the major headaches of a legal dispute (money, time,
reputation, etc.); then proceed accordingly.
I got publicly slandered on the job six months ago by a customer. I
was hot; in my years on this and similar jobs I had never seen such a
sour example of ingratitude. I wrote a memo to my supervisor and I was
going to send it to the slanderer's boss for them to sit on over the
contingency that the party pursue the complaints.
My boss dissuaded me by correctly pointing out that 1) there was a
reason the slandere was being terminated by their employer and it was
likely related to their outburst, 2) the slanderer had absolutely no
credibility whatsoever. Her audience had all seen my work and could
see for themselves that she was mistaken. My response, even on a
contingency basis, would only dignify their nonsense.
Possibly your friends down under see no credibility whatsoever to the
allegations against you and consequently can't accept it as the slander
it plainly is. Perhaps, pressing your complaints is the only bit if
attention the slander gets. In some courts, you might find that if the
slander is incredible, there are no damages.
Blessings!
- Pat
ko...@ameritel.net
rlit...@my-deja.com
management problems. When I asked him about that, he gave me a bit of
his philosophy. I asked: What if an employee steals something? A
manager hired that employee. What if there is an earthquake? A manager
decided to put the plant in that spot.
He said that, for example, when General Motors sits down with General
Electric to sign a 30 billion dollar contract, it is really only two
individuals sitting down together. He said that there is really no such
thing as a company, just people. Made me think.
In this case, the institution is a collection of people, and it may be
that the people you are dealing with are not dealing with the situation
properly. It should not drag on this long, whatever the problem. Pat
had some suggestions which I thought were worthy, but I wondered if you
have spoken to an Auxiliary Board member?
Whatever happens, it is important that you don't allow the negativity
to drive you away from active participation in your community. Consider
this as an opportunity, both for you and for your community.
Opportunity for growth.
Baha'i love,
Robert
In article <8rfeks$uig$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Rick Schaut
> Rick Schaut <RSSc...@email.msn.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
> news:8recm...@news1.newsguy.com...
> > National Spiritual Assembly publishes a very fine manual as a guide for
> > local spiritual assemblies.
> I can find nothing that guarantees a member of the
> community the right to have an allegation made against them substantiated.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that people shouldn't be
allowed to raise concerns with their Local Spiritual Assembly if they think
something ontoward is happening within the community? Do people have to
have proof in hand before they can alert the LSA that they might want to
investigate a certain matter?
> Nor can I find any procedural outline that ensures 'fair due process' and
> the guarantee of a 'Just' open forum.
Then I'm really wondering what you're looking for. There is a rather
clearly defined form of due process within Baha'i Administration. It
doesn't look anything like due process that's been established under the
various descendants of English Common Law, but, then, I'm not sure why we
should expect it to look the same. The Baha'i system isn't adversarial.
It's built, from the ground up, on the principle of consultation.
There is a rather lengthy letter on application of Baha'i Law at
http://bahai-library.org/uhj/law.html. You've probably read it, but it's
worth another read. Note that there are several procedural principles
outlined in that letter. The section under "Investigating Allegations"
seems particularly relevant.
Perhaps what you're seeing is an Assembly's struggle to find that "balance
specified by Baha'u'llah Himself." I don't know. Based on what you've
said, it's difficult to tell whether the Assembly isn't facing the situation
or you're expecting them to take an action that they feel they ought not
take.
[Regarding the specific circumstances outlined, I suggested contacting the
National Spiritual Assembly.]
> Yes Rick...have done so...at least two or three pages twice a year since
> 1994. They must be just as tired of hearing from me as I am of writing. I
> have nothing but admiration for the efforts they (and others) have made.
Then, perhaps it's time to sit down and write a rather lengthy letter to the
Universal House of Justice.
Regards,
Rick Schaut
Randy Burns
The really smart thing to do is to become an inactive Baha'i, remove
yourself from your Baha'i community all together and thus solve your whole
problem.
Have you every considered this: that perhaps your community is trying to
tell you something here? Like perhaps go the hell away we don't like you?
Not that I think there is anything wrong with you, most likely it is the
other way around.
Perhaps you would be a lot better off without your local Baha'i community!
Best regards and good luck!
Randy Burns
--
Rick Schaut <RSSc...@email.msn.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
news:8rg6m...@news2.newsguy.com...
Curious
Rick Schaut <RSSc...@email.msn.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
news:8rg6m...@news2.newsguy.com...
>
> "Curious" <Kas...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:74DC5.18489$O7.2...@ozemail.com.au...
> > Rick Schaut <RSSc...@email.msn.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
> > news:8recm...@news1.newsguy.com...
> > > On the other hand, the Austrailian
> > > National Spiritual Assembly publishes a very fine manual as a guide
for
> > > local spiritual assemblies.
>
> > I can find nothing that guarantees a member of the
> > community the right to have an allegation made against them
substantiated.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that people shouldn't
be
> allowed to raise concerns with their Local Spiritual Assembly if they
think
> have proof in hand before they can alert the LSA that they might want to
> investigate a certain matter?
No.
I'm saying that any individual who is the object of a serious allegation (in
this case a series of serious allegations) ought have the right to defend
themselves as a matter of natural justice.
I'm saying that in my experience people are repeatedly permitted to make
allegations in the absence of evidence let alone proof. I'm saying that the
community (local and further afield) has never provided a forum in which the
allegations might be heard or a defense presented.
> > Nor can I find any procedural outline that ensures 'fair due process'
and
> > the guarantee of a 'Just' open forum.
>
> Then I'm really wondering what you're looking for. There is a rather
> clearly defined form of due process within Baha'i Administration. It
> doesn't look anything like due process that's been established under the
> various descendants of English Common Law, but, then, I'm not sure why we
> should expect it to look the same. The Baha'i system isn't adversarial.
> It's built, from the ground up, on the principle of consultation.
I'm looking for the Baha'i Administrative Law that delineates the procedures
for fair due process.(off the top of my head)- ie1: Any member of the Baha'i
community who believes the laws or core principals of the faith have been
breached is entitled to raise the matter in a fair hearing. 2: Any member of
the Baha'i community subject to serious allegation is entitled to a fair
hearing. 3: Any serious allegation brought against a community member is to
be investigated, substantiated or withdrawn....etc...
From there you could get down to procedures to ensure that all parties get
an equal opportunity to speak, free of interruption, insult or innuendo....
There are dispute resolution models and procedures for formal consultation
to be found within the Conflict Resolution Network or amongst any of the
many Mediation programs.
They are not adversarial nor authoritarian, they are basic and effective.
To be honest Rick, what I'm looking for is a Baha'i community (even a
Baha'i) that is not of the opinion that the system we have is complete and
fully functional. Some one who is as keen to investigate and embrace
contemporary secular developments in conflict resolution as they are to
acquire a mobile phone and a P.C.
> There is a rather lengthy letter on application of Baha'i Law at
> http://bahai-library.org/uhj/law.html. You've probably read it, but it's
> worth another read. Note that there are several procedural principles
> outlined in that letter. The section under "Investigating Allegations"
> seems particularly relevant.
Thank you, close but not quite, still more 'principal' than 'process'.
> Perhaps what you're seeing is an Assembly's struggle to find that "balance
> specified by Baha'u'llah Himself." I don't know. Based on what you've
> said, it's difficult to tell whether the Assembly isn't facing the
situation
> or you're expecting them to take an action that they feel they ought not
> take.
I'm suggesting there is a reluctance, 'broadly' within the Baha'i
community, to take any action that permits an open/fair hearing. I'm
suggesting that people will witness all kinds of interpersonal abuse, insult
and attack and say little or nothing. I'm suggesting that there is a
'culture' in the community that somehow equates 'pacivity and inactivity'
(quietism?) with 'spirituality'. It is, it seems, almost 'bad manners, bad
form, unclean, unholy', to get down into the earthy muck of conflict
resolution.
> [Regarding the specific circumstances outlined, I suggested contacting the
> National Spiritual Assembly.]
>
> > Yes Rick...have done so...at least two or three pages twice a year since
> > 1994. They must be just as tired of hearing from me as I am of writing.
I
> > have nothing but admiration for the efforts they (and others) have made.
>
> Then, perhaps it's time to sit down and write a rather lengthy letter to
the
> Universal House of Justice.
>
>
> Regards,
> Rick Schaut
>
Rick, mate......the incongruence in our community was going on for six years
before I arrived and had been driving people out of the area and out of the
faith. It has been going on for the eight-nine years that I have been here.
'Everybody' has made a contribution at some point.
At what point do we begin to review our processes?
If my local school needs a crossing or lights to protect kids from speeding
cars I don't want to spend twenty years putting the case to Sydney or
Haifa.(They are going to be busy enough as it is and more so in the
future).
I want to see a local community that is encouraged and empowered to deal
with these issues as they arise. I want to see the local community provided
with the procedural tools and training to do so.
Too big an ask?
Curious.
Curious
<patk...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8rfnh4$703$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Allahu Abha!
>
> In article <74DC5.18489$O7.2...@ozemail.com.au>,
> "Curious" <Kas...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> I'm assuming that your slanderer is in another community. If that is
> not the case, replace "NSA" w/ your local "LSA".
>
> >
> since
> > 1994. They must be just as tired of hearing from me as I am of
> writing. I
> > have nothing but admiration for the efforts they (and others) have
> made.
> > There is abundant good will, divine principal and dedicated golden
> > hearts....there is also a dearth of 'process' and 'disinterest' in
> filling
> > the void. There is a broad prevailing culture within the Baha'i
> community
> > that places the principals of 'unity' and the semblance
> of 'spirituality'
> > above the establishment of those basic procedures that would ensure
> > *justice*.
> > I base this assertion not on one or two isolated incidents but rather
> on a
> > repetition of events over almost a decade.
> >
> Curiousjaan, it sounds like you've finally lost your appetite for being
> slandered. If this is the case, you might consider (note I
> wrote "Consider" not "Execute") civil remedy such as might be worked
> out w/ solicitors, barristers, or whatever you call lawyers in Oz.
> Likely this might entail chatting w/ one or two lawyers you might know
> to get a feel if you have a legal/civil case. Then you might consider
> advsing that your NSA that you are a) fed up w/ being slandered, b)
> dissatisfied w/ previous 'resolution attempts' which seem to be
> platforms for further slander, and c) considering legal/civil action
> against the slanderer.
Dear Pat....When Alexander Solven??yt?? zen (Oh you know! The nice Russian
bloke?)
Anyway....When Alexander S exited the U.S.of A... he offered one parting
observation...
"America is a nation in grave danger of litigating itself to death"...
actually...I think he might have said "entertaining itself to
death"....either way...no lawyers please.
Hmmmm.....could be Pat....but it is not just on my own behalf that I
advocate reviewed and enhanced procedures. Others, in and outside the Baha'i
community, are effected by these abuses and moreso by the absence of a fair
and effective response. I would argue (have done so consistently) that the
perpetrator of abuse (serial allegation, insult) deserves to be advised of
the effect of his/her behavior on others. We do them no favors by ignoring
it.
I have heard all kinds of rationalizations for ignoring or avoiding such
issues...."individual and institutional immaturity","forgive and forget","be
patient","it's a test from God", "pay no attention and it will stop/go
away", "maintain unity"......and my personal favorite.............
"Let's all hold hands and visualize the healing white light of the love of
God".
What perplexes me Pat is that I have never, ever, in all these years, heard
the quiet firm voice that says..."This is unacceptable behavior",
"Substantiate or withdraw the allegation", "It is not permissible to shout
at or insult a fellow member of the Baha'i community", "You may not
incessantly interrupt a community member during formal consultation", "There
are minor sanctions for these behaviors and they will be imposed if the
abusive behavior continues".
Never,ever.
Curious.
Curious
<rlit...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8rfv8c$ead$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> A former boss had a framed statement that said that all problems were
> management problems. When I asked him about that, he gave me a bit of
> his philosophy. I asked: What if an employee steals something? A
> manager hired that employee. What if there is an earthquake? A manager
> decided to put the plant in that spot.
>
> He said that, for example, when General Motors sits down with General
> Electric to sign a 30 billion dollar contract, it is really only two
> individuals sitting down together. He said that there is really no such
> thing as a company, just people. Made me think.
I'm not sure Robert, corporations/institutions/organizations develop
'cultures' (personalities?)
peculiar to themselves. Often more potent and pervasive than any 'Mission
Statement'.
The Culture (conscious or unconscious, civil or otherwise) can encourage or
inhibit certain behaviors with hardly a word spoken.
> In this case, the institution is a collection of people, and it may be
> that the people you are dealing with are not dealing with the situation
> properly. It should not drag on this long, whatever the problem. Pat
> had some suggestions which I thought were worthy, but I wondered if you
> have spoken to an Auxiliary Board member?
I've had a word to just about everyone from God down to the family cat.
I'm drawn to the conclusion that God does miracles not magic and certainly
not the work assigned to us. I think we deem 'Conflict Resolution' to be
'dirty work', beneath 'truly spiritual' people. A recognition that it is not
'all a beautiful unified rose garden'. I propose that this is part of our
'culture' and that this is an attribute/symptom of denial.
> Whatever happens, it is important that you don't allow the negativity
> to drive you away from active participation in your community. Consider
> this as an opportunity, both for you and for your community.
> Opportunity for growth.
>
> Baha'i love,
>
> Robert
Too late mate....I would not work in a factory with unguarded machinery,
drive on a road without speed limits, stop signs and lights or let my
children go to school with unrestrained free range bullies. I am inactive
and will remain so until the most basic safety equipment is installed in the
Baha'i community and its members encouraged to use it.
Thanks for the advice and assistance.......still haven't met a Baha'i I
didn't like.
Curious
> In article <8rfeks$uig$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> dfio...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > I too am very disturbed by the situation you have described.
> >
> > My off-forum email address is bighapp...@yahoo.com
> >
> > I would like to help as much as I can because it sounds to me like you
> > are dealing with some institution which is not playing its role well.
I have no criticisms of any individual or Baha'i institution. I honestly
think they all (we all) try really hard to do the right thing. I just don't
think we have the tools or training for the job. I believe that in the
absence of the necessary tools and training the resultant 'failures'
promotes a reluctance to get our hands dirty again.
> > The institutions are there to help and reach the truth even if that
> > truth hurts. Far too often we find that we have an immature idea of
> > just what unity really is.
> >
> > It is not a facade of calm and peace, rather it is an environment
> where
> > all members of the community are in actual harmony. It sound to me
> > like your situation is not one of real unity.
Yes Dave...yes, yes,yes...this is what I wanted to get down to.
It is not real unity, it is not 'True Community'.
I would invite, encourage, cajole all members of the Baha'i community to
take a long hard look at M Scott Pecks work on Community Building ('The Road
Less Traveled, A Different Drum, or the Foundation for Community
Encouragement web site).
In part, he defines 'community' as... "a group of people that has learnt to
fight gracefully'.
'Pseudo Community' is, he believes, the initial stage...the facade of calm
and peace.
It is followed, inevitably, by 'Chaos'-incongruence, conflict and
strife....the group retreats back into the safety of 'pseudo community' and
the pattern becomes cyclic/repetitious.
(This is a precise description, in my experience, of the pattern of behavior
within the Baha'i community).
If the community can create/permit/facilitate an environment of
'Vulnerability'-the speaking of the heart-recognition of 'brokenness'...then
it may move into True Community.
Tis a lousy synopsis....but I beg all....investigate it...have a look at
Stage Developmental Theory in relation to the growth of a community. Run it
through the filter of the writings...see if makes sense, is useful, (has
parallels to the Four and Seven Valleys?)...
And if and as you do....please ask yourself why...as a community...we are so
quick to adopt the masculine/hard science developments (telecommunications
etc) and so dam averse/blind/ disinterested in the feminine/soft science
developments? - Conflict Resolution, Mediation, Active Listening, Community
Building.......
What is it about the culture within the Baha'i community that says "If it
doesn't come in a box and require electricity...and if its authorship
cannot be traced directly to God....then it's of no use or interest to us.
(Dismounts high horse and departs).
> > I offer my assistance. Please do not hesitate to contact me via email
> > if you would feel uncomfortable addressing these issues in a public
> > space.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Dave
Thanks Dave
You have been the essence of patience and forbearance.
I appreciate the offer and will email to arrange child minding details for
three kids......kidding.
dfio...@my-deja.com
your NSA because that is the only way any of them are going to know
there is a problem. Here in the US we have a number of training
systems for LSAs but the best one is being faced with a situation we
have yet to encounter and having to do the research to find out how to
handle it.
I am doing some offline study on the LSA consultaion rules and will get
back to you when I can.
Dave
P.S. I am always here to help should you need any.
patk...@my-deja.com
"Curious" <Kas...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> <patk...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8rfnh4$703
$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Dear Pat....When Alexander Solven??yt?? zen (Oh you know! The nice
Russian
> bloke?)
> Anyway....When Alexander S exited the U.S.of A... he offered one
parting
> observation...
> "America is a nation in grave danger of litigating itself to death"...
> actually...I think he might have said "entertaining itself to
> death"....either way...no lawyers please.
Yes, I think Al was spot on about us. I think William Shakespeare also
wrote something to the effect that first we should kill the lawyers.
Involving lawyers is something one might do to preclude a burning
passion to physically assault one's perpetrator; a last recourse of
sorts. I think it is useful to look at last recourses in weighing
available options.
>
> Hmmmm.....could be Pat....but it is not just on my own behalf that I
> advocate reviewed and enhanced procedures. Others, in and outside the
Baha'i
> community, are effected by these abuses and moreso by the absence of
a fair
> and effective response. I would argue (have done so consistently)
that the
> perpetrator of abuse (serial allegation, insult) deserves to be
advised of
> the effect of his/her behavior on others. We do them no favors by
ignoring
> it.
For some time now readers of alt.religion.bahai have been subjected to
unwarranted allegations of a conspiracy to commit murder. Progress is
slow. Apparently the US NSA disenrolled the source of this and other
gross exaggerations but due to odd circumstances the source of the
stories still protests they are a Baha'i. Bottom line, though steps
can be taken about and against someone who refuses to behave, they will
still be themselves for as long as they wish. Yes, the AO can counsel
them and in same cases, perhaps loss of admin priveleges might be
appropriate so that feasts, conventions, etc. can proceed w/o the
distraction of giving audience to a slander and disruption.
> I have heard all kinds of rationalizations for ignoring or avoiding
such
> issues...."individual and institutional immaturity","forgive and
forget","be
> patient","it's a test from God", "pay no attention and it will stop/go
> away", "maintain unity"......and my personal favorite.............
> "Let's all hold hands and visualize the healing white light of the
love of
> God".
The ignoring is a first response. Check out my recent outburst of "You
racists, you!", w/in a few hours I realized it was an extreme response
and not appropriate to the current situation. "Ignore it" is a great
first response, because you don't have the embarassment of a subsequent
retraction. Ignoring must be viewed only as a first response, a chance
for the other party to come to their senses.
> What perplexes me Pat is that I have never, ever, in all these years,
heard
> the quiet firm voice that says..."This is unacceptable behavior",
> "Substantiate or withdraw the allegation", "It is not permissible to
shout
> at or insult a fellow member of the Baha'i community", "You may not
> incessantly interrupt a community member during formal
consultation", "There
> are minor sanctions for these behaviors and they will be imposed if
the
> abusive behavior continues".
>
Well, typically by the time I get to labelling unacceptable behaviour
as such, I'm no longer quiet about it.
If the party is generally disruptive, some escalation of consequences
should be imposed so that they do not disrupt the meetings. I think in
Robert's Rules of Order the chairman is responsible for conducting the
meeting, and Baha'i or otherwise, I would not run a meeting which
regularly featured slanderous disruptive outbursts. So, I agree that
there are standards of behavior that are acceptable and standards that
are not and I do believe that Baha'i meetings should have standards.
I also believe in channels. Though us chatting will allow an exchange
of ideas, hopefully something that can relieve your problem, in order
for order to be restored, someone needs to remind the powers that be to
impose order. Sadly, to date, the AO has been filled w/ people, many
of whom seem to forget things at times, or may have been unaware of
their duties to begin with. If the crackpot has been something of a
fixture in the area, they may have been taken for granted by those now
in the AO, following the mistakes of their predecessors who tolerated
the abusive conduct.
Is there anything else I can do to help?
Khoda Negahdar,
- Pat
ko...@ameritel.net
rlit...@my-deja.com
I have come to feel that the growth of the Baha'i Faith has been
outward, horizontal for nearly the entirety of its life. It became a
Faith in which isolated groups of people were spread all over the
planet, a truly remarkable method of growth never seen before, and one
which, not incidentally, ensured that no single culture or people would
format the future.
Starting with the Four Year Plan, that pattern of growth has begun to
change to one of vertical development, where community building is more
important than bigger numbers. What you seem to have experienced has
happened in myriads of communities, where a subtle, almost unnoticed
threshhold has been crossed, or stumbled over <g>.
"Our" community is no longer something we trot out once every 19 days
to look at, then put back on the shelf. It is becoming part of the real
world, and is having to cope with real world situations, the mud in
which the bird is mired. This is not an easy task: it is a progression
from a study of medicine to the application of it on a sick patient who
may not like needles.
You have not described a roadblock, but rather the next step in the
inevitable process of growth and development of a dream of something
tangible into something that creates change. Pain is the steed in this
phase, so to speak.
In my community, our entire Spiritual Assembly was removed by the
National Spiritual Assembly for several years, due to a failure on our
part to address certain fundamental issues, such as, for example, the
oneness of mankind. That was a painful time, but out of it has come a
community which is now much more aware that it not enough to read a
prayer about how things ought to be, it is necessary to BE the way one
ought to be. This process seems almost spontaneous, one heart at a
time, rather than as a result of some large meeting, or a letter from
the Spiritual Assembly, although we have certainly gotten those.
Here, the difference between fifteen years ago and today are
astounding, and the Baha'i Faith is now rapidly becoming a force for
change within the greater community.
I don't think any of us noted the moment when we crossed (or rather,
were pushed) over that threshhold, but it is now obvious, looking back,
that we did. Your community seems to be there now, and so are you. I
respectfully suggest that you take a new look at what is happening to
your community, and to the tests you have been facing. You are in the
midst of a process, and if you look at what is happening from that
standpoint, and know what the result of that process ought to be, you
can then view what you see as happening TO you as rather happening FOR
you and your community.
There is a mysterious purpose to our lives, and although we decide to
take the step, the path, and the rocks strewn upon it are placed there
by God.
If 'Abdu'l-Baha' could smile upon the face of the man who hated him for
17 years, and eventually break through the wall of hatred, can you not
try to emulate Him just a bit longer, knowing the end at the beginning?
Robert A. Little
In article <JS_C5.19462$O7.2...@ozemail.com.au>,
patk...@my-deja.com
As I understand it there are problems in general and your case of the
recurrent slanderer in specific.
As I understand it, we should study and implement some technique as
outlined my Scott Peck.
So far so good.
Can any improvments be made _before_ the vast majority of us are
familiar w/ the Peck technique?
Should the day come when the vast majority are familiar w/ the Peck
technique, should we send a message to the inactive to that effect, or
will they discover on their own cadence?
Blessings!
- Pat
ko...@ameritel.net
Rick Schaut
> I'm saying that any individual who is the object of a serious allegation
(in
> this case a series of serious allegations) ought have the right to defend
> themselves as a matter of natural justice.
Addressing your concerns is complicated in the sense that we rather have two
different sets of issues here. One set of issues involves the general
notions of justice and how best to uphold justice under a broad array of
circumstances. The other set of issues involves your particular case. I'll
try to address them separately moving from the general to the specific.
It seems as though you're equating an "open" forum with one's right to
defend oneself against serious allegations. Perhaps I'm wrong on this, but
that seems like what you're seeking:
> I'm saying that in my experience people are repeatedly permitted to make
> allegations in the absence of evidence let alone proof. I'm saying that
the
> community (local and further afield) has never provided a forum in which
the
> allegations might be heard or a defense presented.
Within the Baha'i Faith, the Local Spiritual Assembly _is_ that forum. It
is both the forum in which allegations are to be presented and the forum in
which one is able to exercise one's right to present a defense. The
difference, of course, is that it's not _open_ in any sense that would
resemble the manner in which conflicts are resolved in current society.
I remain unconvinced, however, that the degree of openness in a forum
actually conduces to justice. An allegation is made. The Assembly
investigates the allegation, and is unable to find any substance to the
allegation. At that point, the Assembly takes no action whatsoever.
Because the forum is closed, however, the allegation never goes beyond the
Assembly. If the forum were more open about it, then the accused would have
the accusation known beyond the forum. Indeed, if the Assembly finds no
substance to an allegation, it's not even necessary to notify the accused.
All of the above is predicated on a circumstance where the Assembly has
received an allegation, investigated it, and not acted on it. What about
the case where an Assembly receives and allegation, and acts on it wouth
receiving adequate substantiation for the allegation? That's precisely what
the appeal process is all about. And, I would argue that this is even more
reason for the process to remain closed as opposed to open. I've known of
specific instances where a Local Spiritual Assembly recommended that
someone's administrative rights be removed, but hadn't adequately considered
all the relevant principles. In each of those cases, no one in the general
community was ever aware that the rights of the accused individuals were
even under question.
Lastly, the general cases where this process can get quite complicated is
when either the accusor, the accused or both are on the Local Spiritual
Assembly. In these cases, it's possible to bring the issue to the National
Spiritual Assembly, and ask that the case be assigned to some other Local
Spiritual Assembly. Even so, the question of the openness of the forum
remains orthogonal to the principle of justice.
You spoke of the concept of a "fair hearing." Again, I'm not entirely sure
what you mean by that. "Fair hearing" can refer to the already existing
right every Baha'i has to address the Local Spiritual Assembly on any issue,
or it can refer to a particular procedure associated with resolving disputes
of all kinds. If you mean the latter, then I guess I remain somewhat
confused, as I don't see how such processes conduce to the realization of
justice any better than the current principles that govern how a Local
Spiritual Assembly is to consider accustions. If, for example, a Local
Spiritual Assembly finds that there is no substance to a particular
allegation, why is it necessary for the Local Spiritual Assembly to provide
an opportunity for the accused to present a defense?
Or, take the converse. Should the Local Spiritual Assembly be required to
allow someone to present a defense of the facts even under those
circumstances where all salient facts are known? For example, suppose the
civil criminal courts find that a Baha'i is guilty of fraud. Should the
Assembly be required to hold any kind of "fair hearing" in order to decide
how Baha'i law should be applied to the facts of that case? I wouldn't
think so.
This leads me to your specific case which involves someone making prepeated,
yet unsubstantiated, accusations. I'll assume that these accusations have
never been voiced outside the Assembly (that would constitute backbiting
which is, itself, a serious violation of Baha'i law). There is a pattern of
behavior here that might or might not warrant administrative sanctions
against the accusor depending upon circumstances. It does sound as though
this individual is in need of some form of counselling either by
professionals or by the Local Spiritual Assembly itself. According to
`Abdu'l-Baha, truthfulness is a rather important virtue, and the Local
Spiritual Assembly should be taking steps to guide this individual to a
realization of this basic principle of Baha'i Life.
I'm not sure I can say much more about your particular case without having
been involved. You have, however, mentioned the fact that there is a
pattern of behavior, and it appears as though you consider this pattern to
be an important aspect of your understanding of how justice is to be served
in Baha'i Administration. Clearly, you feel as though you've been wronged
in a particular way and that you've been denied adequate opportunity for
redress. Unfortunately, I really have too few facts to be able to discuss
it any more than this.
I will close by saying that I am, in no way, opposed to the general idea of
adopting ideas from the various fields of conflict resolution. Great care,
however, must be exercised lest we adopt administrative patterns that run
contrary to important Baha'i principles. Where such conflict arises, I
believe Baha'i principles need to take precedence.
Regards,
Rick Schaut
patk...@my-deja.com
"Randy Burns" <randy....@gte.net> wrote:
>
> The really smart thing to do is to become an inactive Baha'i, remove
> yourself from your Baha'i community all together and thus solve your
whole
> problem.
>
You might consider resignation. This way you don't have that nagging
sense that you, as a Baha'i, should be attending feasts and district
conventions which you'd rather not go to. Write a letter to the NSA;
it is easy.
If you are simply inactive waiting for the community to grow-up, when
do you become active? You wouldn't know when the community "grew up".
Another possibility is taking the concern to the next feast, or to the
LSA, and work the issues until they are resolved or one accepts the
difficulties of a personally satisfactory resolution. Of course, this
notion of work or acceptance may be unacceptable to some. It would
involve the individual in stressing the community to stimulate
maturation, this is not easy; it is hard. That goes back to John
Kennedy's man on the moon pledge.
Blessings!
- Pat
ko...@ameritel.net
dfio...@my-deja.com
> yourself from your Baha'i community all together and thus solve your
> whole problem.
Yes, if we all take your advice then the problem just goes away. Not.
We need to face difficulties if we are ever going to learn from them.
If we shrink away from every challenging situation in our lives we will
never grow.
A problem avoided is not a problem solved.
Solutions is what its all about.
Curious
Randy Burns <randy....@gte.net> wrote in message
news:5PUC5.2288$uB4.4...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
>
> The really smart thing to do is to become an inactive Baha'i, remove
> yourself from your Baha'i community all together and thus solve your whole
> problem.
>
> Have you every considered this: that perhaps your community is trying to
> tell you something here? Like perhaps go the hell away we don't like you?
> Not that I think there is anything wrong with you, most likely it is the
> other way around.
>
> Perhaps you would be a lot better off without your local Baha'i community!
>
> Best regards and good luck!
>
> Randy Burns
> --
>
Perhaps they don't like me? Well...there's a lot to not like...but that's
not the point.
Story time?
There is a case in the records of Australian legal history (true story) in
which 'Eric' was charged with sheep rustling (serious offence around here).
When the jury emerged the judge asked the foreman if they had reached a
verdict..."Yes your honor" replied the foreman "We find Eric not guilty as
long as he returns the sheep".
The judge was not impressed and instructed them to reconsider their verdict.
In less than a minute they emerged again. "Have you reached a reasonable
verdict Mr forman"?..........
" Yes, your honor, Eric is not guilty and he doesn't have to return the
sheep".
I think it's cute, typical of Oz humor and sense of mateship. Eric was
obviously a popular bloke, whoever owned the sheep may well have been an
unpopular creep.
It might be funny, but it aint justice. Justice is supposed to be blind to
factors such as popularity. And yet, within the Baha'i community, when a
dispute arises people quite often align themselves in accord with 'preferred
personalities' rather than 'principals' or the pursuit of a just outcome.
The other dilemma (for me) has been friends in the community wishing to
indicate their support by 'demonizing the individual who brought the
allegation against me. The tendency is for people to focus on personalities,
align with some, attack others or see it all as a "personality clash" that
they wish to ignore/ stay out of. From day one I have resisted and rejected
all of these tendencies- consistently arguing that it is a 'process' not a
'people' problem. This has led to the paradox of finding myself obliged to
argue that the person bringing the allegation against me was not treated
fairly in the absence of due process.
Yes I'm inactive.
No I'm not better off.
I've worked in factories, prisons, with the psych disabled and street kids.
I've never encountered a tougher environment to deal with than the Baha'i
community.
Alll the best....
Curious.
Curious
<rlit...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8ridrr$e8s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
I appreciate and agree with the general thrust of your post. From a distance
it is fair 'spiritual' advice.
It is also indicative of and consistent with the response of vast majority
of Baha'is whether local witnesses to the abusive behaviors or AO reps from
further afield. It is the accumulative weight of responses/advice along
'spiritual resilience lines in circumstances of abuse and absence of fair
due process that has led me to conclude that the is a serious problem
regarding 'culture' within the community.
Please forgive.... but if I am subject to attack, verbal/physical, I do not
require those who witness the attack to provide me with psycho/spiritual
advice. I do require that they do their utmost to ensure that the assault is
restrained and that I have recourse to defense.
Yes..."there is a mysterious purpose to our lives"....Yes... "God places
rocks in our path".
But if some one picks up one of these God given rocks and biffs you on the
head with it then I... witnessing the assault, as a Baha'i and fellow
human, gain no spiritual points by advising you that you are currently
undergoing a formative experience. Nor would you benefit or I fulfill my
duty if I encouraged your understanding that repeated attack is something
that is happening "For" you and not "To" you.
I'm sorry Robert, I credit you with the very best of intentions and I do
appreciate the effort..
but for nigh on ten years I've been hearing the same kind of response and I
believe the majority of it to be inappropriate.
When someone has been subject to repeated abuse (physical/emotional) one of
the worst things a counselor or friend can do is advocate 'forgiveness' or
'forget and move on'. Very often the victim is already feeling guilty,
wondering how they contributed to the abuse, believing they did something to
provoke or justify the assault. To encourage forgiveness, moving on, looking
at the bigger (divine) picture in the early stages following abuse only
serves to compound the existing sense of guilt...the victim is not ready,
cant do it. May not be able to do it for years. A counselor may pursue an
empathetic understanding and pursuit of justice but not forgiveness, that is
invariably counter productive.
I do not claim to be debilitated by the abuse I have witnessed within the
Baha'i community..
but I am astounded and outraged when people witnessing abusive behavior
respond with spiritual principals and platitudes. Forgiveness is my
responsibility, the communities responsibility is justice.
Can I emulate Abdul-Baha?
"...if one person assaults another, the injured one should forgive
him. But the communities must protect the rights of man.
So if someone assaults, injures, oppresses and wounds me,
I will offer no resistance, and I will forgive him. But if a
person wishes to assault Siyyid Manshadi,(1) certainly I
will prevent him. Although for the malefactor noninterference
is apparently a kindness, it would be an oppression
to Manshadi." Abdul-Baha
So far I can forgive the individual responsible for the abusive
behavior......
But I'm really having trouble with a community that permits, nay encourages,
noninterference with the malefactor........
Curious.
Randy Burns
Dear Curious,
I have seen some odd problems thru the years related to Baha'is. It seems
to be generally small and isolated problems in small communities, conflicts
of personality perhaps, or something else almost inexplicable.
The problem I think is that most of the people in the community would rather
ignore the problem then attempt to deal with it head on. There are a lot of
reasons for that: number one in a small community there is a dearth of
people qualified to deal with personal problems. Number two the amount of
time it would take to deal with the problem would probably overwhelm any
other activity that the community would wish to engage in. Number three the
problem has a tendency to submerge for long periods of time often in the
same mysterious way that it appeared (often to come back again later of
course).
You can probably realize yourself how much time and energy it must take to
deal with this sort of thing if you have worked with people with problems.
I don't imagine there are many tougher jobs around. It's not something I
would want to do.
When you take the problem to a higher level, as everyone here suggested, you
indicate that the results are pretty much the same as at the local level.
That is unfortunate but sounds very believable to me. Unfortunately that is
the way the Baha'i Faith operates today, and it seems funny when you
consider how important Baha'u'llah seemed to consider the idea of "Justice."
I don't think that the community at the National or Regional level has the
same excuses as the local community might. They do have access to qualified
professionals, and as Roger Reini has so ablely pointed out they also have
the legal right to make decisions concerning the constituting elements of
the community under their command. These people have no excuse before God
if they are shirking their duties. But your complaint I don't think is
unusual.
> There is a case in the records of Australian legal history (true story) in
> which 'Eric' was charged with sheep rustling (serious offence around
here).
>snip<
>
> I think it's cute, typical of Oz humor and sense of mateship. Eric was
> obviously a popular bloke, whoever owned the sheep may well have been an
> unpopular creep.
Not unlike American humor to some extent. I think Aussie's and American's
share a few traits.
> It might be funny, but it aint justice. Justice is supposed to be blind to
> factors such as popularity. And yet, within the Baha'i community, when a
> dispute arises people quite often align themselves in accord with
'preferred
> personalities' rather than 'principals' or the pursuit of a just outcome.
This is not what you expected when you became a Baha'i, but it would seem
that if this is the norm in the wider community then it is bound to be the
norm in the Baha'i community.
> The other dilemma (for me) has been friends in the community wishing to
> indicate their support by 'demonizing the individual who brought the
> allegation against me. The tendency is for people to focus on
personalities,
> align with some, attack others or see it all as a "personality clash" that
> they wish to ignore/ stay out of. From day one I have resisted and
rejected
> all of these tendencies- consistently arguing that it is a 'process' not a
> 'people' problem. This has led to the paradox of finding myself obliged to
> argue that the person bringing the allegation against me was not treated
> fairly in the absence of due process.
Unfortunately the people who suggested that such a process that you are
looking for does not exit in the Baha'i Faith appear to be correct, there is
no process of normal law in the Faith. We depend on an ecclesiastical
organization which does not appear to want to do it's job. Do other
religions have this problem? Witness the continuing saga of the pedophile
priesthood in the Roman Catholic Church and you will see that it is a common
problem in religious organizations. What is Justice to religions who think
they have the absolute truth and are willing to kill anyone with a different
opinion who stands in their way. That has been the historical norm.
It is true that Baha'i teachings indicate that it is people and not process
that counts. I used to believe that myself but I am beginning to wonder
now. Baha'u'llah teaches that he can transform society by transforming not
institutions but people. Well I say let the transforming begin! Maybe we
in the Baha'i community are forgetting to throw the old transforming switch
when we get up everyday.
>
> Yes I'm inactive.
> No I'm not better off.
I think that too many Baha'is let the extent of their Baha'i existence be
dictated to them by the legal Baha'i authorities. In fact Baha'u'llah
invested much power and blessing in the local community, every local
community, especially ones with an assembly (ie a legal one). It's up to
you to make the best of that if you can, if you can find people who want to
share common religious interests with you.
Otherwise you can always become a Unitarian, I hear it is a good one!
Cheers and keep writing.
Randy
Randy Burns
but what is your solution for Mr. Curious? Just sorry but I tried and
failed to solve your problem, now please go away. His problem is the
problem of the faith, it is all our problems. Justice must exist for
everyone or else it exists for no one.
--
> Yes, if we all take your advice then the problem just goes away. Not.
> We need to face difficulties if we are ever going to learn from them.
> If we shrink away from every challenging situation in our lives we will
> never grow.
>
> A problem avoided is not a problem solved.
>
> Solutions is what its all about.
>
Oh, I forgot. Your solution is to teach and spread the faith and then by
some miracle far in the future all the real problems that we have ignored
for years will simply disappear because obviously problems will not exit in
a Baha'i world. Pure deductive logic.
Cheerio (to everyone at Dave's Solutions "We Love Your Problems" There's
nothing that Growth by large numbers can't solve!)
Randy
Randy Burns
This really doesn't get to the solution either Pat. What does Mr. Curious
do? As for myself I have no nagging senses, must have been blunted by
Doritos Chips, Rams football and the St. Louis Cardinals!
Inactivity is the honorable way out, practiced already by several
generations of loyal Baha'is! I wouldn't waste my time resigning but if the
authorities want to waste their time in hunting me down and kicking me out
then fine by me.
--
<patk...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8rio7j$nm5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> You might consider resignation. This way you don't have that nagging
> sense that you, as a Baha'i, should be attending feasts and district
> conventions which you'd rather not go to. Write a letter to the NSA;
> it is easy.
>
> If you are simply inactive waiting for the community to grow-up, when
> do you become active? You wouldn't know when the community "grew up".
I'm not missing anything as this won't happen in my or anyone now living
lifetimes.
> Another possibility is taking the concern to the next feast, or to the
> LSA, and work the issues until they are resolved or one accepts the
> difficulties of a personally satisfactory resolution. Of course, this
> notion of work or acceptance may be unacceptable to some. It would
> involve the individual in stressing the community to stimulate
> maturation, this is not easy; it is hard. That goes back to John
> Kennedy's man on the moon pledge.
I assume that you have actually been an active Baha'i. If so then you know
full well what a fatuous answer the above is, but if doing such things is
how you get your jollies then so be it. See you on the outside soon, fellow
ex-Baha'i!
Wake me up when I begin to sound like Nima.
Randy
you buy.
rlit...@my-deja.com
only someone present on the occasion of an "attack" could be helpful,
according to my understanding of your post.
I have found over the years that when I was able to understand
something of the motives, or understand something of the thoughts and
emotions underneath the surface, it aided me greatly in deciding what
action to take, or not take. I don't recall you saying anything about
the possible "why" here, so I have no insight to offer.
If the only help that would be effective could come from someone
present at the time of the attack, whether physical or otherwise, then
your far-flung readers here are going to be of very limited help, no
matter how desirous they might be of aiding you.
Finally, you mention "sources" of abuse, so I don't know if there are
more than one individual in the mix, and I don't know what your
Spiritual Assembly has decided, or what actions it has taken, and I
don't know what your Auxiliary Board member has said or done, and I
don't know what your National Spiritual Assembly has said or done.
I don't think that this forum is the place for presenting this
information, and apparently you agree. One suggestion would be to
contact one of us (Rick is a good bet) privately, and detail what is
happening.
I hope it is clear to you that everyone who has responded to you cares
deeply, and will do whatever possible to help.
I encourage you to write privately if you wish.
Robert
In article <yicD5.20487$O7.2...@ozemail.com.au>,
panopti...@my-deja.com
In a few idle moments last evening, in between hijacking and burning
cars at the barricades, I had occasion to turn to ARB/TRB. I noticed
that you had returned from your vacation. Were you away sailing by
any chance? Did you get to Kerama Retto?
I trust you enjoyed your holiday on which you went unannounced in mid
April, owing me an answer to a post on the Expulsion of Alison
Marshall. Was this holiday, by any chance, connected with a certain
letter sent by me to your superiors in Haifa, copy circulated to
Wilmette?
It seems in light of later words from the people in Haifa that the
correct procedures were followed in reporting your encounter with the
Covenant! Obviously you were able to convince them that it was all a
horrid mistake or probably just the malign actions of that ill
conceived rascal who goes under the title of the Grim Reaper.
Incidentally as you seem to have had a reply from them giving you the
all-clear, any chance of your writing to them to remind them that, in
the interests of good manners, they owe me a substantive reply to my
correspondence?
I think we should be told.
Yours Aye!
Dermod Ryder
In article <8riiq...@news1.newsguy.com>,
fragrant
No.. Our solution is the teach and spread the Faith and then by some
miracle, not so far in the future, all the real problems that are
occurring will be solved by those who have come into the Faith and
have the understanding and spiritual development to assist and teach
us ignorant people how to solve the problems. If, as it seems, there
is no current solution, then the answer it to go out and find an
expert in this sort of conflict resolution. Whether that person is a
Baha'i or not is not an issue. The problem in this case seems to be to
get others to recognise that there is a problem and to resolve it.
Of course as soon as we have solved all the current problems then
others will come along just as serious. :-) All part of the tests we
have to bear.
--
Graham Sorenson 2 CD-ROMs now Available at
http://bahai-library.org/cdrom
Web sites to visit http://www.bahai.org/ --
http://bahai-library.org
http://www.fragrant.demon.co.uk/bahai.html --
http://www.onecountry.org/
http://www.bcca.org/~cvoogt/ -- http://www.bahai.org.uk
Curious
<patk...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8rifja$fpo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <JS_C5.19462$O7.2...@ozemail.com.au>,
> "Curious" <Kas...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >
>
> As I understand it there are problems in general and your case of the
> recurrent slanderer in specific.
Yup Pat....Macro culture of denial/avoidance of contentious issues reflected
in micro absence of due process.
> As I understand it, we should study and implement some technique as
> outlined my Scott Peck.
If any one has time and inclination I would highly recommend it. A basic
grounding in a subject/field is a good start if we are going to advocate
something. Baha'is tend to proclaim 'community' as if they have it and fully
understand its principals. Owning a donkey and understanding its needs does
not make me a valuable resource on 'transport'.
> So far so good.
>
> Can any improvements be made _before_ the vast majority of us are
> familiar w/ the Peck technique?
I'm not sure whether what Peck and the crew at FCE developed is as much a
'technique' as an understanding of the stage development, dynamics and
characteristics of community.
Knowing how groups act and inter-react at particular stages of development
is, to my mind, as valuable as knowing what stages my children are likely to
go through. Care to raise a child without forewarning/understanding of the
pitfalls of adolescence? No? Why try to raise up a 'community' without
investigating (from as many sources as possible) what it might mean or
involve.
Step one? I'd suggest actively encouraging a culture of interest and
investigation...see what's out there in that murky decrepit secular realm
that might be of use to the new wold order. Much of it is free and freely
available (Conflict Resolution and Mediation material) some of it costs (FCE
workshops do). Either way it can be taken, adapted to need and dispersed.
> Should the day come when the vast majority are familiar w/ the Peck
> technique, should we send a message to the inactive to that effect, or
> will they discover on their own cadenc
No Pat! On that grand but distant day when the vast majority of Baha'is
have ceased trying to convert each other to the Faith and, in exhausted
desperation, cast their attention towards developments in secular social
science,......I am certain that all five of them will notify 'we the
inactive'.
> Blessings!
> - Pat
> ko...@ameritel.net
Peck recognized that 'True Community' comes about in one of two ways- by
Accident or with Intent. Many of us are familiar with community by
accident...fire,flood,natural disaster, war will all bring out a spirit of
self sacrifice (even in regard to total strangers). Invariably the sense of
community dissipates as the disaster passes. Some groups, for whom the
disaster is 'ever pending' (A.A., psych disabled, returned servicemen,
apocalyptic churches) can develop the same sense of community/mutual
support/sacrifice.
Peck (now retired from FCE) advocates that community can be encouraged/
facilitated. It takes at least three days for a group to move through
various stages:-
1/ Pseudo Community-A stage of pretence. The group pretends it already is a
community. That the participants have only superficial individual
differences and no cause for conflict. The theme is covering up of
individual differences. The primary means it uses to maintain this pretense
is through a set of unspoken common norms we call manners. It is polite, in
authentic, boring, sterile and unproductive.
2/Chaos-where profound individual differences emerge. The predominant theme
of the stage of chaos is the attempt to obliterate such differences. This is
done as the group members try to convert, heal or fix each other or else
argue for simplistic organizational norms. It is irritable and irritating,
thoughtless, rapid-fire and often noisy win/lose type of process that gets
nowhere.
3/Emptiness- If the group can hang together through chaos and not retreat
into Pseudo community it begins to do the hard, hard work. Where members
begin the work to empty themselves of everything that stands between them
and community. That is usually a lot. Many of the things that must be
relinquished or sacrificed with integrity are virtual human universals:
Prejudices, Snap judgements, fixed expectations, the desire to convert, heal
or fix. The urge to win.The fear of looking like a fool. The need to
control.
4/Community-The shift into community is often sudden and dramatic. The
change is palpable. A spirit of peace pervades the room. There is more
silence, yet more of value gets said. The people work together with an
exquisite sense of timing, as if they were a finely tuned orchestra. If
this is an organization it is now ready to go to work- making decisions,
planning, negotiating and so on- often with phenomenal efficiency and
effectiveness.
(From -Foundation for Community Encouragement)
The first two stages sound like the Baha'i community to me. Anyone care to
change the smaller 'Justice' thread header to 'Community' and discuss?
Curious.
Curious
>huge snip<
By 'open forum' I meant/desired the avoidance of much of the drawn out too
and fro that goes on when all parties involved are members of the LSA...the
LSA ceases to function...and the various 'upline' arms become involved. As
described in an earlier post...you can end up with this 'investigative'
process where A consults B, then C, then D, then etc... reports to
NSA....rings round to confirm particulars, reports back to NSA, New Year
comes round...hell freezes over....the allegation/rumor spreads....broader
community divides on relationship preferences and it just goes on and on.
I don't mean 'open' as in 'all and sundry', I just mean not so discreet,
pussy footing, behind closed doors that it takes for ever and the
opportunity to resolve is lost.
>
> You spoke of the concept of a "fair hearing." Again, I'm not entirely
sure
> what you mean by that.
saying with a another point/idea....that's fair. But if there is a serious
issue of contention between us (our LSA is inoperative) and we are invited
to a "Mediation Session"....and at this session there are senior members of
the AO but no clearly designated chair/facilitator...and it is 'open' to the
degree that a number of my friends have come to speak at length about what a
good bloke I am...and there is no agenda nor designated timelines for each
speaker....and the first hour and a half are lost in general chat...and I
speak at great length with pointed innuendo and fresh allegation...and you
sit waiting for your turn...then my wife has her tern...then I have another
one...and when you find a gap in the tirade big enough to get a word in...I
cut you off and talk for another 15-20 mins...and you get another sentence
out ...and me and my buddy interrupt and have another half hour burst...and
someone else dares speak up...gets cut down and leaves in tears....and every
time you go to say something I interrupt...............
It's not complicated Rick.
It's just not fair.
And it sure aint 'Mediation'
And the obscene thing about it is that everyone...everyone.....just sits
there being quiet and spiritual.
> If, for example, a Local
> Spiritual Assembly finds that there is no substance to a particular
> allegation, why is it necessary for the Local Spiritual Assembly to
provide
> an opportunity for the accused to present a defense?
Because information, especially hot rumor, leaks from an LSA like water
through a sieve...not a good thing but current reality.
Because it's not just about what an LSA deems to be without
substance....marriages can be at stake, a host of personal and professional
relationships, individual and collective standings in the broader community,
the reputation of the faith.....the potential for damage is as broad and
deep as the range of allegations.
If a member of the community is entitled to make any allegation they
wish.....why on earth is the target of that allegation not equally entitled
to rebuff, refute and clear their name or the reputation of those effected?
> Or, take the converse. Should the Local Spiritual Assembly be required to
> allow someone to present a defense of the facts even under those
> circumstances where all salient facts are known? For example, suppose the
> civil criminal courts find that a Baha'i is guilty of fraud. Should the
> Assembly be required to hold any kind of "fair hearing" in order to decide
> how Baha'i law should be applied to the facts of that case? I wouldn't
> think so.
No, nor should the LSA be entitled to debar or decline the opportunity to
present *any* salient facts.
>
> This leads me to your specific case which involves someone making
prepeated,
> yet unsubstantiated, accusations. I'll assume that these accusations have
> never been voiced outside the Assembly (that would constitute backbiting
> which is, itself, a serious violation of Baha'i law).
The initial allegation spread far and wide by word of mouth.
The most recent was taken into the public domain via a letter to two local
NGOs
(The letter was drafted by two Baha'is in the company and with the
assistance of one of the heads (chairperson) of one of the NGOs.........I
believe that's called 'collusion' Rick.
The letter was sent (by its authors) to these organizations and to the NSA.
The letter caused great personal and professional distress.
It caused a great deal of stress and concern amongst the local indigenous
community.
It was deemed, at all levels within the Baha'i AO, to be unworthy of a
hearing, substantiation or withdrawal.
Assume nothing Rick.
> There is a pattern of
> behavior here that might or might not warrant administrative sanctions
> against the accuser depending upon circumstances. It does sound as though
> this individual is in need of some form of counseling either by
> professionals or by the Local Spiritual Assembly itself. According to
> `Abdu'l-Baha, truthfulness is a rather important virtue, and the Local
> Spiritual Assembly should be taking steps to guide this individual to a
> realization of this basic principle of Baha'i Life.
> I'm not sure I can say much more about your particular case without having
> been involved. You have, however, mentioned the fact that there is a
> pattern of behavior, and it appears as though you consider this pattern to
> be an important aspect of your understanding of how justice is to be
served
> in Baha'i Administration. Clearly, you feel as though you've been wronged
> in a particular way and that you've been denied adequate opportunity for
> redress. Unfortunately, I really have too few facts to be able to discuss
> it any more than this.
For me Rick, the individual concerned is irrelevant, the particulars,
details, specific issues are also irrelevant.....they are all variables,
subject to change. Counsel, sanction or shoot the individual
concerned...ignore or (accidentally) resolve a host of specific issues.....
Doesn't matter.....more people and problems will replace them.
My concern is the Baha'i culture of denial and the absence of due process.
> I will close by saying that I am, in no way, opposed to the general idea
of
> adopting ideas from the various fields of conflict resolution. Great
care,
> however, must be exercised lest we adopt administrative patterns that run
> contrary to important Baha'i principles. Where such conflict arises, I
> believe Baha'i principles need to take precedence.
>
>
> Regards,
> Rick Schaut
>
Agreed Rick, In my experience Baha'i 'principals' take precedence over every
thing.
We will 'forgive' anything.
We will 'Trust' anything.
We will 'Endure' anything.
(just as long as it's not happening to us)
Curious.
Curious
<rlit...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8rjt4c$kpn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Your reply suggests my response was not helpful, and indeed it appears
> only someone present on the occasion of an "attack" could be helpful,
> according to my understanding of your post.
My apologies for any apparent dismisiveness Robert. It is not a prerequisite
to helpfulness that one be present to the "attack"...it is that Baha'is
(generally, please don't personalize), whether they are present or become
subsequently appraised of what took place....all tend to respond with
advice/encouragement along similar lines. The distinct impression is that
the object/victim of the attack would be well served or better off if they
made some philosophical adjustment or strove for some spiritual growth or
attribute. It is as if the one assaulted has failed as a Baha'i for the
weakness of experiencing injustice. I have heard a great deal of advice over
the last few years on how to 'adjust to' or become 'detached from' abusive
behavior. I have never seen or heard those responsible for the abuse receive
any 'instruction' or 'admonishment'.
> I have found over the years that when I was able to understand
> something of the motives, or understand something of the thoughts and
> emotions underneath the surface, it aided me greatly in deciding what
> action to take, or not take. I don't recall you saying anything about
> the possible "why" here, so I have no insight to offer.
My motives are not complex, I am not pleading victim or seeking healing.
My concern is not with the abusive behavior or those responsible for it.
The 'why', for me, is because I am deeply concerned about the 'culture' that
prevails within the Baha'i community...I don't think its healthy...I am
questioning it and challenging it.
> If the only help that would be effective could come from someone
> present at the time of the attack, whether physical or otherwise, then
> your far-flung readers here are going to be of very limited help, no
> matter how desirous they might be of aiding you.
Don't believe that's what I said Robert, certainly not what I intended.
Help, could be provide by any Baha'i anywhere. The help I seek is not a
personal emotional, spiritual, philosophical band aid. I desire to help the
community address the gaps and flaws in it's dispute resolution procedures.
Does it sound arrogant Robert?...The problem isn't in me, it's not a
personal adjustment that is required or a wound to be healed. There is a
problem 'out there', in the Baha'i community, it is a problem of 'process'
and 'procedure that needs to be addressed.
> Finally, you mention "sources" of abuse, so I don't know if there are
> more than one individual in the mix, and I don't know what your
> Spiritual Assembly has decided, or what actions it has taken, and I
> don't know what your Auxiliary Board member has said or done, and I
> don't know what your National Spiritual Assembly has said or done.
Can I invite you to read right back through the thread?
> I don't think that this forum is the place for presenting this
> information, and apparently you agree. One suggestion would be to
> contact one of us (Rick is a good bet) privately, and detail what is
> happening.
Nuh...its not about specific people or particular events...its broad and
general and best in the open air.
> I hope it is clear to you that everyone who has responded to you cares
> deeply, and will do whatever possible to help.
>
> I encourage you to write privately if you wish.
>
> Robert
>
Understood and gratifying, many thanks, God bless.
Curious.
dfio...@my-deja.com
"Randy Burns" <randy....@gte.net> wrote:
> sure
>
> but what is your solution for Mr. Curious? Just sorry but I tried and
> failed to solve your problem, now please go away. His problem is the
> problem of the faith, it is all our problems. Justice must exist for
> everyone or else it exists for no one.
If Mr. Curious were in my local community and an institution of the
Faith was doing what he has described I would do whatever I could do to
make sure the situation was truly resolved. The LSA he describes is
not functioning properly and I would encouagre him to take the steps
required to reach justice.
If that meant contacting the Auxiliary Board or the NSA I would help
him do just that. If that is what he wanted.
> --
>
> > Yes, if we all take your advice then the problem just goes away.
> > Not. We need to face difficulties if we are ever going to learn
> > from them. If we shrink away from every challenging situation in
> > our lives we will never grow.
> >
> > A problem avoided is not a problem solved.
> >
> > Solutions is what its all about.
> >
>
> Oh, I forgot. Your solution is to teach and spread the faith and then
> by some miracle far in the future all the real problems that we have
> ignored for years will simply disappear because obviously problems
> will not exit in a Baha'i world. Pure deductive logic.
That is not my solution and never has been. My solution is to not be
afraid of the friction and heat that causes that spark of truth to
occur and do something about the problem. Action is my favored means
to an end.
Dave
dfio...@my-deja.com
"Curious" <Kas...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
<snip>
> Yes I'm inactive.
> No I'm not better off.
> I've worked in factories, prisons, with the psych disabled and street
> kids.I've never encountered a tougher environment to deal with than
> the Baha'i community.
Our community does present us with our biggest challenge and it always
will. Its alot like a marriage in many ways. We must take the bad
with the good but we must always work on the bad parts to get past
them. The Baha'i Faith challenges us to live in a way that may be very
different from the life we had before encountering Baha'u'llah. That
adjustment can cause lots of problems. But they are problems that can
be overcome. And contrary to Randy's assertion I feel those problems
must be overcome through taking action to see that they are dealt with.
I hope that you find a good solution to your problem and if there is
any way I can lend you aid you know where to reach me.
Cheers,
Curious
>
Hi Randy
>
> I have seen some odd problems thru the years related to Baha'is. It seems
> to be generally small and isolated problems in small communities,
conflicts
> of personality perhaps, or something else almost inexplicable.
Yep, true...I still believe that any good peer mediation program (backed by
prayer and held with bailing twine) will stifle interpersonal flame wars.
> The problem I think is that most of the people in the community would
rather
> ignore the problem then attempt to deal with it head on. There are a lot
of
> reasons for that: number one in a small community there is a dearth of
> people qualified to deal with personal problems. Number two the amount of
> time it would take to deal with the problem would probably overwhelm any
> other activity that the community would wish to engage in. Number three
the
> problem has a tendency to submerge for long periods of time often in the
> same mysterious way that it appeared (often to come back again later of
> course).
No argument buddy.
> You can probably realize yourself how much time and energy it must take to
> deal with this sort of thing if you have worked with people with problems.
> I don't imagine there are many tougher jobs around. It's not something I
> would want to do.
No mate, I'm not trying to be funny here...but conducting Conflict
Resolution programs with psych disabled adolescents or Mediation amongst
street kids is a breeze compared with dealing with the Baha'i community. I
think there are a few myths about the disabled and dysfunctional, one is
that they are special people another is that you have to be a special person
to work with them. I've worked in rough places with tough people, but the
only time I've ever felt really uneasy was in a staff meeting (or an LSA).
> When you take the problem to a higher level, as everyone here suggested,
you
> indicate that the results are pretty much the same as at the local level.
> That is unfortunate but sounds very believable to me. Unfortunately that
is
> the way the Baha'i Faith operates today, and it seems funny when you
> consider how important Baha'u'llah seemed to consider the idea of
"Justice."
Well if we can manage to turn "Thou shalt not kill" into "Die, heretic die"
we should have no problem with "Justice...the best forgotten of all
things".
> I don't think that the community at the National or Regional level has the
> same excuses as the local community might. They do have access to
qualified
> professionals, and as Roger Reini has so ablely pointed out they also have
> the legal right to make decisions concerning the constituting elements of
> the community under their command. These people have no excuse before God
> if they are shirking their duties. But your complaint I don't think is
> unusual.
I don't know mate, I'm still inclined to credit everyone with good
intentions doing their best.
I think we all get 'blindsided', so focused on one thing that we become
oblivious to another.
>
> I think Aussie's and American's share a few traits.
Oh...We have lots in common....the U.S. is an empire in decline...Oz is an
empire ascending!:-)
(Come on...every one else has had a turn. The most redeeming feature of Oz
Global Dominance will be that the average Australian wont know until 200
years after the event)
> And yet, within the Baha'i community, when a
> > dispute arises people quite often align themselves in accord with
> 'preferred
> > personalities' rather than 'principals' or the pursuit of a just
outcome.
>
> This is not what you expected when you became a Baha'i, but it would seem
> that if this is the norm in the wider community then it is bound to be the
> norm in the Baha'i community.
(snip)
> > This has led to the paradox of finding myself obliged to
> > argue that the person bringing the allegation against me was not treated
> > fairly in the absence of due process.
>
> Unfortunately the people who suggested that such a process that you are
> looking for does not exit in the Baha'i Faith appear to be correct, there
is
> no process of normal law in the Faith. We depend on an ecclesiastical
> organization which does not appear to want to do it's job. Do other
> religions have this problem? Witness the continuing saga of the pedophile
> priesthood in the Roman Catholic Church and you will see that it is a
common
> problem in religious organizations. What is Justice to religions who
think
> they have the absolute truth and are willing to kill anyone with a
different
> opinion who stands in their way. That has been the historical norm.
Hmmmm...Psychic synchronicity Randy. I was thinking about this all day...
People go to church and get the 'spiritual buzz, should any disputes arise
amongst the community there are priests, bishops, leaders to deal with it.
We come into the LSA or Feast and there is often no buzz, conflict occurs
and we are required to be a 'group of all leaders'.
I believe it can and will work but not until we relinquish the dependence on
'rescue from above. The idea that these kinds of local abusive behaviors are
dependant upon resolution provided by national or international bodies
strikes me as absurd. Empower and train the local community...the scriptural
authority is there to do so.
There is, for me, a parallel with the Catholic Church and the Baha'i AO....
I can grasp an individual being disturbed enough to commit child abuse...
But I cannot grasp an institutional response that 'removes' the problem by
transferring the offender to another school. In like manner I am less
offended by the individual abuse within the Baha'i community as I am by the
institutional response.
> It is true that Baha'i teachings indicate that it is people and not
process
> that counts.
In general, yes, it is laden with principal, but I've always held that
putting it into practice with effective process was our job. God tells us
what needs doing and we set out to find the best way of doing it. Always
felt it was a balance between principle and process, not a choice between
one or the other.
>I used to believe that myself but I am beginning to wonder
> now. Baha'u'llah teaches that he can transform society by transforming
not
> institutions but people. Well I say let the transforming begin! Maybe we
> in the Baha'i community are forgetting to throw the old transforming
switch
> when we get up everyday.
Hey...speak for yourself Randy, I'm transformed. I used to be a really nice
patient gentle guy...
now I'm a grumpy old fart..........ask my kids.
> >
>
>
> I think that too many Baha'is let the extent of their Baha'i existence be
> dictated to them by the legal Baha'i authorities. In fact Baha'u'llah
> invested much power and blessing in the local community, every local
> community, especially ones with an assembly (ie a legal one). It's up to
> you to make the best of that if you can, if you can find people who want
to
> share common religious interests with you.
>
> Otherwise you can always become a Unitarian, I hear it is a good one!
Hmmm....I was contemplating becoming a Rasta......no......for the music.
All the best.
Curious.
Randy Burns
Hi Curious
Curious <Kas...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:4qkD5.20945$O7.3...@ozemail.com.au...
>
> Hmmmm...Psychic synchronicity Randy. I was thinking about this all day...
> People go to church and get the 'spiritual buzz, should any disputes arise
> amongst the community there are priests, bishops, leaders to deal with it.
> We come into the LSA or Feast and there is often no buzz, conflict occurs
> and we are required to be a 'group of all leaders'.
> I believe it can and will work but not until we relinquish the dependence
on
> 'rescue from above. The idea that these kinds of local abusive behaviors
are
> dependant upon resolution provided by national or international bodies
> strikes me as absurd. Empower and train the local community...the
scriptural
> authority is there to do so.
I agree completely. We don't do enough at the local level and the authority
is there no question, but I don't think the higher ups are willing to
relinquesh the control. They enjoy it too much and the local community both
suffers and languishes because of it. It takes more than just a few
training institutes as well. At some point the community has to either sink
or swim and it has to be up to them to do it as well.
I really think this question of the local community is the biggest stumbling
block in the faith today. The National organization here in the US seems to
enjoy quashing any local initiative. In fact a local assembly should have a
lot of power both hierarchically and spiritual but they don't know how to
use it and they are often afraid to even try.
Perhaps you have had the experience of a new proposal coming before the
assembly and many members response is that they don't think National would
approve or they don't know if they have the power to do such a thing. It is
a negative and self defeating attitude.
>
> There is, for me, a parallel with the Catholic Church and the Baha'i
AO....
> I can grasp an individual being disturbed enough to commit child abuse...
> But I cannot grasp an institutional response that 'removes' the problem by
> transferring the offender to another school. In like manner I am less
> offended by the individual abuse within the Baha'i community as I am by
the
> institutional response.
Parallel things have happened in the Baha'i Faith as well. I have heard a
few stories that are beyond belief and I have heard them direct from the
victims involved, but there is a tendency to that in any institution I
believe. The BF I don't think is as bad as the Catholic hierarchy appears
to be, but won't any heirarchy tend towards the same actions as another?
SNIP!
> Hey...speak for yourself Randy, I'm transformed. I used to be a really
nice
> patient gentle guy...
> now I'm a grumpy old fart..........ask my kids.
Yeah, I'm getting there myself!
> Hmmm....I was contemplating becoming a Rasta......no......for the music.
>
Rasta good! I like the music too. There are lot's of good things in the
world, too bad the Baha'is don't know how to share.
Best to you,
Randy
>
Curious
Hi Randy
> >
> > Empower and train the local community...the scriptural authority is
there to do so.
>
> I agree completely. We don't do enough at the local level and the
authority
> is there no question, but I don't think the higher ups are willing to
both
> suffers and languishes because of it. It takes more than just a few
> training institutes as well. At some point the community has to either
sink
> or swim and it has to be up to them to do it as well.
elect a chairman and lay down guide-lines and by-laws for their meetings and
discussions...." Abdul-Baha
(See How Come? thread)
> I really think this question of the local community is the biggest
stumbling
> block in the faith today. The National organization here in the US seems
to
> enjoy quashing any local initiative. In fact a local assembly should have
a
> lot of power both hierarchically and spiritual but they don't know how to
> use it and they are often afraid to even try.
We, during our troubles, tried to lay down some guide-lines and by-laws...a
four page document identifying unacceptable behaviors (no shouting etc).
The AO response..."It' too long....It's unnecessary if people just adhere to
Baha'i principals".
> Perhaps you have had the experience of a new proposal coming before the
> assembly and many members response is that they don't think National would
> approve or they don't know if they have the power to do such a thing. It
is
> a negative and self defeating attitude.
Yea...some of us wanted to introduce 'minor sanction' to curb abusive
behavior...i.e.
If you shout or scream at another community member the chair be embowered to
issue a "conduct unbecoming" warning...three or more of these and the
matter is passed on to NSA.
Resisted, rejected at all levels. Seems that it's more spiritual to wait
until the offender really screws up then hit them with big stick loss of
voting rights. That works well, especially if the poor bunny isn't sure (in
absence of due process) what they did to deserve it.
> >
> > There is, for me, a parallel with the Catholic Church and the Baha'i
> AO....
> > I can grasp an individual being disturbed enough to commit child
abuse...
> > But I cannot grasp an institutional response that 'removes' the problem
by
> > transferring the offender to another school. In like manner I am less
> > offended by the individual abuse within the Baha'i community as I am by
> the
> > institutional response.
>
> Parallel things have happened in the Baha'i Faith as well. I have heard a
> few stories that are beyond belief and I have heard them direct from the
> victims involved, but there is a tendency to that in any institution I
> believe. The BF I don't think is as bad as the Catholic hierarchy appears
> to be, but won't any hierarchy tend towards the same actions as another?
Uh Oh..sorry...gotta go......Just received orders from domestic AO....
(Did you snip my legitimate claim to Oz Imperium Global Dominance?.....
That will be remembered Randy........:-(
Talk to you again soon mate.
All the best.
Curious.
Rick Schaut
<panopti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8rjvcu$n83$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I noticed
> that you had returned from your vacation. Were you away sailing by
> any chance? Did you get to Kerama Retto?
For a good amount of the time, yes, though we only got as far as Port
Orchard. I can't say as though going any further would have been necessary.
Breakfeast at Sluy's Bakery was rather sufficient.
> I trust you enjoyed your holiday on which you went unannounced in mid
> April, owing me an answer to a post on the Expulsion of Alison
> Marshall.
Now, there's a nice way to ask a question.
> Was this holiday, by any chance, connected with a certain
> letter sent by me to your superiors in Haifa, copy circulated to
> Wilmette?
Nope. It had to do with having shipped a product. Where I work, it's
rather customary for employees to have the opportunity to work very quietly
in their offices without being disturbed by anyone checking on their
attendance.
> I think we should be told.
Ok. I hereby declare Mr. Ryder to be quite a capable writer of fiction. He
almost ranks right up there with Mr. McKenny.
Regards,
Rick Schaut
Rick Schaut
> I don't mean 'open' as in 'all and sundry', I just mean not so discreet,
> pussy footing, behind closed doors that it takes for ever and the
> opportunity to resolve is lost.
Thanks for the clarification, but now I'm not clear on how adding procedures
will make the process go any faster, will obviate the extent to which
individuals do or do not backbite (which they shouldn't be doing at all
regardless of the process) or will, in any way, conduce to greater justice.
> > You spoke of the concept of a "fair hearing." Again, I'm not entirely
> sure
> > what you mean by that.
[Snip]
Rick Schaut
> I don't mean 'open' as in 'all and sundry', I just mean not so discreet,
> pussy footing, behind closed doors that it takes for ever and the
> opportunity to resolve is lost.
Thanks for the clarification, but now I'm not clear on how adding procedures
will make the process go any faster, will obviate the extent to which
individuals do or do not backbite (which they shouldn't be doing at all
regardless of the process) or will, in any way, conduce to greater justice.
> > You spoke of the concept of a "fair hearing." Again, I'm not entirely
> sure
> > what you mean by that.
[Snip]
> It's not complicated Rick.
> It's just not fair.
> And it sure aint 'Mediation'
Nor is it consultation, for that matter. Looks to me like the problem isn't
any lack of procedures. Rather, it looks like the problem is the failure to
understand and properly implement the procedures that have been proscribed.
> And the obscene thing about it is that everyone...everyone.....just sits
> there being quiet and spiritual.
The following was written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi. You've probably read
it. It appears on p. 17 of "Lights of Guidance".
"..There is a tendency to mix up the functions of the Administration and try
to apply it in individual relationships, which is abortive, because the
Assembly is a nascent House of Justice and is supposed to administer,
according to the Teachings, the affairs of the community. But individuals
toward each other are governed by love, unity, forgiveness and a
sin-covering eye. Once the friends grasp this they will get along much
better, but they keep playing Spiritual Assembly to each other and expect
the Assembly to behave like an individual...."
(From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual
believer, October 5, 1950: Living the Life, p. 17)
Is this not relevant to the circumstances you've described?
> > If, for example, a Local
> > Spiritual Assembly finds that there is no substance to a particular
> > allegation, why is it necessary for the Local Spiritual Assembly to
> > provide an opportunity for the accused to present a defense?
> Because information, especially hot rumor, leaks from an LSA like water
> through a sieve...not a good thing but current reality.
It also happens to be a violation of Baha'i Law. It's called backbiting,
and more than one person has been subject to administrative sanctions
because of it. Baha'u'llah condemns it in the harshest of language.
If, indeed, we are talking about allegations that have gone outside the
confines of the appropriate institutions, then the problem isn't the lack of
procedures. Rather, the problem is the failure to follow existing
procedures and to adequately uphold existing Baha'i law and principles.
> No, nor should the LSA be entitled to debar or decline the opportunity to
> present *any* salient facts.
I know of nothing that entitles any Assembly to debar or decline the
opportunity to present any salient facts. Again, if an Assembly is doing
this, then the problem is the failure to uphold existing procedures,
principles and laws.
> > I'll assume that these accusations have
> > never been voiced outside the Assembly...
> The initial allegation spread far and wide by word of mouth.
Again, that's _very_ contrary to Baha'i Law. If the National Spiritual
Assembly hasn't done something about this, then it really is time to sit
down and write a lengthy letter to the Universal House of Justice.
> It was deemed, at all levels within the Baha'i AO, to be unworthy of a
> hearing, substantiation or withdrawal.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. "Unworthy" to me would imply that no
institution in the Baha'i Faith found much by way of substance to the
allegations. Is that correct?
> Assume nothing Rick.
Given the lack of details, it's rather difficult to discuss this in any form
without making some assumptions. Regardless of the assumptions made, there
remains the question of ontology. Is this a flaw in the Baha'i system, or
have you described circumstances that have arisen due to a failure to adhere
to existing procedures? It now appears to be very much the latter.
> My concern is the Baha'i culture of denial and the absence of due process.
But what you've described is a distinctly _non_ Baha'i culture and the
failure to adhere to existing principles of due process. It would seem that
your concern is very misplaced.
Regards,
Rick Schaut
patk...@my-deja.com
"Rick Schaut" <RSSc...@email.msn.NOSPAMcom> wrote:
>
> > I think we should be told.
>
fiction. He
> almost ranks right up there with Mr. McKenny.
>
(tattled? informed-on? sorry, Dermod, I seem to be stuck w/ American
slang here). Either he did or he didn't, and you might or mightn't
know. If the Asst. ABM (prot) to Asstants, ABM (Prot) didn't ask you
about it, you might not know. Of course, if the AAP to AAPs did come
calling, its only our business if you choose to make it so.
Possibly the matter might best be handled by the high office of Self-
flagellation, Head-smiting, Thumb-twiddling, Insipidity and
Contradiction (SHTIC)?
Blesssings!
- Pat
ko...@ameritel.net
Curious
Rick Schaut <RSSc...@email.msn.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
news:8rnsd...@news1.newsguy.com...> news:GaiD5.20776$O7.2...@ozemail.com.au...
> > I don't mean 'open' as in 'all and sundry', I just mean not so discreet,
> > pussy footing, behind closed doors that it takes for ever and the
> > opportunity to resolve is lost.
>
procedures
> will make the process go any faster, will obviate the extent to which
> individuals do or do not backbite (which they shouldn't be doing at all
> regardless of the process) or will, in any way, conduce to greater
justice.
offices discussing it on the phone the further it spreads and 'spot fires'
emerge in the community. In this case I was the object of a serious
allegation and the individual bringing that allegation was 'on fire'. I had
information that would have doused and extinguished the suspicion. In the
usual informal consultative environment of the LSA there was no opportunity
for me to present that information. What I sought then, what I seek now...is
the establishment of simple formal procedures in which such cases can be
speedily resolved.
The right to have the allegation heard. The right to present a defense
without interruption. Some minor sanction should incessant interruption take
place. Given this I believe the initial conflagration would have been out in
twenty minutes....in the absence of these basics it has spread and burnt for
years.
(snip)
> > And it sure aint 'Mediation'
>
isn't
> any lack of procedures. Rather, it looks like the problem is the failure
to
> understand and properly implement the procedures that have been
proscribed.
my experience.
There is a prevailing culture in which people expect that all will behave in
accord with Baha'i principals. When some one doesn't, when someone is rude,
aggressive, intimidating, loud, accusatory...the community resorts to a
'spiritual quietism'...they just let it happen.
There is no formal process that ensures a fair hearing, there is no
enforceable code of conduct.
If you advocate either you are consistently referred back to Baha'i
principal....'play fair, be nice'
> > And the obscene thing about it is that everyone...everyone.....just sits
> > there being quiet and spiritual.
>
> The following was written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi. You've probably
read
> it. It appears on p. 17 of "Lights of Guidance".
>
> "..There is a tendency to mix up the functions of the Administration and
try
> to apply it in individual relationships, which is abortive, because the
> Assembly is a nascent House of Justice and is supposed to administer,
> according to the Teachings, the affairs of the community. But individuals
> toward each other are governed by love, unity, forgiveness and a
> sin-covering eye. Once the friends grasp this they will get along much
> better, but they keep playing Spiritual Assembly to each other and expect
> the Assembly to behave like an individual...."
> (From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an
individual
> believer, October 5, 1950: Living the Life, p. 17)
>
> Is this not relevant to the circumstances you've described?
Yes Rick....most pertinent....at every turn and at every level the response
to the conflagration has been incessant calls for love, unity, forgiveness
and a sin covering eye. There has never been any interest in justice
(nascent or otherwise).
> > > If, for example, a Local
> > > Spiritual Assembly finds that there is no substance to a particular
> > > allegation, why is it necessary for the Local Spiritual Assembly to
> > > provide an opportunity for the accused to present a defense?
>
> > Because information, especially hot rumor, leaks from an LSA like water
> > through a sieve...not a good thing but current reality.
> > No, nor should the LSA be entitled to debar or decline the opportunity
to
> > present *any* salient facts.
>
> I know of nothing that entitles any Assembly to debar or decline the
> opportunity to present any salient facts.
Easy done Rick...it just deems the allegation to be without substance and
asks the same question you have "why is it necessary for the assembly to
provide an opportunity for the accused to present a defense"?
> Again, if an Assembly is doing
> this, then the problem is the failure to uphold existing procedures,
> principles and laws.
A procedure (in this case) would be a step by step process governed by
enforceable regulations.
I still (in all this thread) have not seen one delineated.
> > > I'll assume that these accusations have
> > > never been voiced outside the Assembly...
>
> > The initial allegation spread far and wide by word of mouth.
>
> Again, that's _very_ contrary to Baha'i Law. If the National Spiritual
> Assembly hasn't done something about this, then it really is time to sit
> down and write a lengthy letter to the Universal House of Justice.
Dear UHJ, I'm ten thousand miles away and subject to a serious allegation,
everyone is talking about it, please stop them?
> > It was deemed, at all levels within the Baha'i AO, to be unworthy of a
> > hearing, substantiation or withdrawal.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by that. "Unworthy" to me would imply that no
> institution in the Baha'i Faith found much by way of substance to the
> allegations. Is that correct?
That's right Rick, they deemed it all (on each occasion) to be piffle,
without substance, not worthy of responding to, will only give the
'attention seekers' more attention, forgive and forget, move on.....and
another of my favorites....."If the worlds economic problems can be solved
by spiritual means then so to can this incongruence".
Very reassuring. Meanwhile my life and the lives of many others are
profoundly affected and diminished.
> > Assume nothing Rick.
>
> Given the lack of details, it's rather difficult to discuss this in any
form
> without making some assumptions. Regardless of the assumptions made,
there
> remains the question of ontology. Is this a flaw in the Baha'i system, or
> have you described circumstances that have arisen due to a failure to
adhere
> to existing procedures? It now appears to be very much the latter.
I still haven't seen any procedures Rick, not in action, not on paper.
All I've seen is well intentioned knee jerk reactions motivated by the best
of principals.
It's all conducted by lovely people who desperately want to help and
heal.....and they are attempting surgery without having studied medicine.
>
> > My concern is the Baha'i culture of denial and the absence of due
process.
>
> But what you've described is a distinctly _non_ Baha'i culture and the
> failure to adhere to existing principles of due process. It would seem
that
> your concern is very misplaced.
Your right Rick, it is not the culture most middle class metropolitan
Baha'is encounter, they are generally not subject to such attack and have
difficulty comprehending or responding to it. But it is my reality and the
reality of my small rural community over more than fifteen years now.
I say there is a prevailing culture of denial.
You respond that my "concern is very misplaced".
I will attempt restraint Rick. My response is general (not personal)...to
the community at large.
The culture that prevails within the Baha'i community (from my geography,
experience and perspective) is one of 'spiritual masturbation'.....in the
parlance of the kids I work with...."It's a Wank".
It has no interest in justice and will sacrifice that notion on the alter of
'Pseudo Unity in Pseudo Community' at every opportunity.
I'm regard to the most basic rules and procedures pursuant to ensuring
justice the Baha'i communities record is abhorrent, repulsive and repugnant.
I would invite any and all to start at the beginning of this thread and
crawl down through...If any one can find the Baha'i legislation that ensures
an accused member of a fair hearing...by all means please post it.
I think I should have just stuck with "It's a Wank".
My Baha'i I.D. No is 9255, I'm going feral, I'm the immortal words of Ned
Kelly.... "Come and bloody get me Coppa"
Curious no more.
Randy Burns
I just pulled out an old Leonard Cohen LP and put it on my stereo. It's an
oldie but a good one, probably from 1970.
Sorry about taking out the Aussie Empire note, I'm sure there will be so
many people wanting to emigrate to your country now that you will have to
lock the doors to keep them out! Watching the olympics was a lot of fun.
By the way, re Assemblies. Most assemblies are incorporated and have normal
by-laws just like any corporation. If you have a small community or a
relatively new assembly you may not have gotten around to it as yet, but the
older ones have. This is a necessary structure in order to own property and
things like that.
The National Assembly usually provides a boilerplate set of by-laws to the
assembly for use, but all by-laws are first of all subject to ratification
by the local members and are subject to amendment at any time. For obvious
reasons, mostly lack of experience, rarely are any special changes ever
made. But they could be at any time, as long as all requirements for doing
so are met.
Of course having by-laws and using them are two different things. Meetings
always seem to fluctuate from the very informal to semiformal and only
become formal when absolutely necessary (if then)! It often takes extreme
duress for this to occur.
Of course as you also have pointed out, most of the Baha'is seem to think
that if they just wait it out everything will return to normal eventually.
The problem is that the problem may seem to disappear for awhile but always
comes back again. It's possible that the other person involved simply needs
mental help and may never be any different. But as I said before I have
seen this thing almost exactly as you describe it happen in two different
small communities here in the US. Everyone sits around mystified by it but
no one does anything about it.
On the other hand, living in a large city can be a much different
experience. Less likely to happen there, though most large communities will
have a few persons with problems, those problems rarely infect the whole
community.
...
> (Did you snip my legitimate claim to Oz Imperium Global Dominance?.....
> That will be remembered Randy........:-(
Not this time! But when will Patrick Rafter get back his form and win
Wimbledom and the U.S. and Australian Open?
That Russian guy who beat Sampas here in the US looks pretty good.
Gook luck to you, and remember us poor Americans when you look down on us
from on high!
Sincerely, Randy
panopti...@my-deja.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <patk...@my-deja.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai
> Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2000 7:02 AM
> Subject: Re: Justice
>
>
> In article <8rnp6...@news1.newsguy.com>,
> "Rick Schaut" <RSSc...@email.msn.NOSPAMcom> wrote:
> >
> > > I think we should be told.
> >
> fiction. He
> > almost ranks right up there with Mr. McKenny.
> >
> Somewhere in the mix I thought Dermod wrote that he snitched you out
> (tattled? informed-on? sorry, Dermod, I seem to be stuck w/ American
> slang here). Either he did or he didn't, and you might or mightn't
> know. If the Asst. ABM (prot) to Asstants, ABM (Prot) didn't ask
you
> about it, you might not know. Of course, if the AAP to AAPs did
come
> calling, its only our business if you choose to make it so.
>
> Possibly the matter might best be handled by the high office of
Self-
> flagellation, Head-smiting, Thumb-twiddling, Insipidity and
> Contradiction (SHTIC)?
Pat,
The message sent by me to the High House of Haifa informing it of
covenantly challenging statements by "Smokescreen Schaut" was posted
to this august forum and is attached below for convenience. I thought
it was high moral conduct to inform Assemblies of errant behaviour by
individuals - if not, I was a "snitch," "tout," whatever.
He has no intention of ever stating anything on this matter for no
ABMs or other of the multitude of Assistants ever approached him about
his statements. Alison Marshall was "shafted" for her alleged
comments, Juan Cole was threatened, I have been awarded the honorary
title of Covenant Breaker by our local yokels (I have applied to have
the title made official) etc. etc.but "Smokey" goes on holiday whilst
the bandits sort out the matter for him.
It pays to know people in high places! Incidentally neither the High
House of Haifa nor the National Etereal Assembly of the US had the
courtesy or manners to reply to my communication and subsequent
reminder. Not that I would expect other than that from people whose
previous behaviour has convinced me that they have neither manners nor
brains.
As ever,
Dermod
>
> Blesssings!
> - Pat
> ko...@ameritel.net
>
Come to our Brave New World.
A Vision of how it is to be.
The Facts, All the Facts and Nothing but the Facts
http://www.bahai.us.com/
ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO THE HIGH HOUSE OF HAIFA
----- Original Message -----
From: Dermod Ryder
To: UHJ Haifa
Cc: NSA USA
Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2000 12:26 AM
"To The Members of The Universal House of Justice,
Gentlemen,
In relation to the dismissal from membership of the Bahai Faith by the
National Spiritual Assembly of New Zealand, acting on instructions
from you, of Mrs Alison Marshall, a Mr Rick Schaut, whom I understand
to be a Bahai in good standing from Seattle, Washington, USA,
published or caused to be published the following statement, on an
Internet Discussion Forum: -
On 11 April 2000 CE the following point having been put -
>>"You are defending a situation that you have shown no sign of
questioning - you support >>this action 100%
the said Mr Schaut replied:-
>"While I'm certainly defending a situation against arguments that are
faulty, I don't recall >ever lending my support to the decision.
Indeed, given that I have no knowledge of the >factors that went into
the decision, one wonders how I can either support the decision or
>reject it."
The import and gravity of this statement was pointed out to the said
publisher yet it was not publicly withdrawn and, a full and
unequivocal acceptance of his obligations under the Covenant,
published
The following exchange took place on 12 April last: -
>> This is a less than total support of the institutions of the faith
of
>> which you are an adherent. I had thought that loyal Beehives were
>> supposed to render total allegiance to their institutions, in
unity, to
>>support them and not to register any disapproval.
To which, Mr Schaut replied, in an evasive fashion, failing to address
the issue and failing to clarify his stance on support of the
Institutions in accordance with the requirements of the Covenant: -
>This would, of course, explain the myriad letters that have been
written to
>the Universal House of Justice asking for clarification of a number
of
>issues. Many of them can be found on the web if one looks. It never
does
>cease to amaze me how people will latch on to certain bits of
evidence in
>support of a forgone conclusion while failing to consider contrary
evidence.
The above statements from Mr Schaut represent much less than a full
and complete acceptance of the Covenant, as required from Bahais in
good standing. It seeks to distance the publisher from full and
unqualified acceptance and support of the decision to expel Mrs
Marshall, made by a duly and properly constituted Institution within
the Faith, of which he is a member. This is contrary to Bahai law and
contrary to his obligations thereunder, to faithfully accept and
uphold, without any qualification whatsoever, any decision made by
such Institution and not to publicly, or in any other forum, other
than as provided for in Bahai Law, express any form of dissent.
Moreover the consequences of the first statement have been clearly
pointed out to him to allow of his correcting any initial
misunderstanding which might have occurred. He was given a fair chance
to correct his errant behaviour and he has failed so to do.
I trust and anticipate that appropriate disciplinary action shall be
executed forthwith in accordance with established precedent.
Please acknowledge receipt of this message.
Dermod Ryder
Cc NSA of the Bahais of the United States of America
Pat Kohli
I see.
Possibly the recipients understood your message to be a joke. Failing to
dream up anything comparable, they've tacitly acknowledged your
superiority in humor.
My read is that "much less than a full
and complete acceptance of the Covenant, as required from Bahais in
good standing. It seeks to distance the publisher from full and
unqualified acceptance and support of the decision to expel Mrs
Marshall, made by a duly and properly constituted Institution within
the Faith, of which he is a member. This is contrary to Bahai law and
contrary to his obligations thereunder, to faithfully accept and
uphold, without any qualification whatsoever, any decision made by
such Institution and not to publicly, or in any other forum, other
than as provided for in Bahai Law, express any form of dissent." was the
punch line.
Yes, in general, if a Baha'i supposes that the LSA or NSA has made a
mistake, they appeal the matter to the NSA or UHJ, or perhaps request
reconsideration, rather than complain about it among the friends. In this
case, someone asked him and he answered - your casting him as having
reservations regarding the covenant - for answering a question, does seem
funny.
Still no carport? (not sure if I'm utterly outclassed by your wit, I
thought I'd give it a try)
Please accept my apologies for not replying, though I did appreciate
hearing from you.
Blessings!
- Pat
ko...@ameritel.net
"Not for London or for Rome"
panopti...@my-deja.com
>
> Dia dhuit Dermod,
Dia's Muire Duit a Phadraig
> I see.
I somehow don't think that you do!
>
> Possibly the recipients understood your message to be a joke.
Failing to
> dream up anything comparable, they've tacitly acknowledged your
> superiority in humor.
Surely not! Old Smokey makes comments that are "covenantly
challenging". That is no joke in Bahai/Bandit circles. After all
dear Alison and Michael had been done in for failing to understand the
Covenant and this glype spouts forth stuff AGAINST it and gets away
with it - no apology for the comment, no retraction, no clarification
that his comments were "covenantly challenging." He retreats and goes
AWOL for a month or so hoping that it will all die down. Did he do
this on instruction or of his own volition?
I would certainly acknowledge my "superiority in humour" but as most
of these AO types have the sense of humour of a piranha fish (which
behaviour they emulate most faithfully), I have no delusions as to my
capabilities in that field.
>
> My read is that "much less than a full
> and complete acceptance of the Covenant, as required from Bahais in
> good standing. It seeks to distance the publisher from full and
> unqualified acceptance and support of the decision to expel Mrs
> Marshall, made by a duly and properly constituted Institution within
> the Faith, of which he is a member. This is contrary to Bahai law
and
> contrary to his obligations thereunder, to faithfully accept and
> uphold, without any qualification whatsoever, any decision made by
> such Institution and not to publicly, or in any other forum, other
> than as provided for in Bahai Law, express any form of dissent." was
the
> punch line.
'Twas the punch line for sure but, most assuredly, no joke! More of a
test to see how the AO would treat a favoured one. I was not
disappointed. Old Smokey retired for a month to allow its being
forgotten and then emerges as pompous and pedantic as before. Do note
Pat, he hasn't given any detail - no substance in his answer but isn't
that normal for him? Sure the poor fellow wasn't born Irish and you
can't expect too much effort or ability from him!
> Yes, in general, if a Baha'i supposes that the LSA or NSA has made a
> mistake, they appeal the matter to the NSA or UHJ, or perhaps
request
> reconsideration, rather than complain about it among the friends.
In this
> case, someone asked him and he answered - your casting him as having
> reservations regarding the covenant - for answering a question, does
seem
> funny.
He made the comments on a public forum - he has neither retracted not
withdrawn them. Instead he disappeared for a month. Who advised that
course of action? After all on Talisman it is very common for members
to note in a post that they will be away for a few days on holiday or
whatever if they have to terminate their participation in a thread.
Old Smokey didn't do this - he just disappeared in the middle of a
good thread. You can draw your own conclusions!
As for appealing a matter to the NSA/UHJ I think old Smokey's appeal
in this matter was quite simple- "Help! How the hell do I get out of
this? Help!"
>
> Still no carport? (not sure if I'm utterly outclassed by your wit,
I
> thought I'd give it a try)
I don't get that! "Carport"???? Do you mean "Carpark"???? Do I
take from this some hint that you associate me with that scurrilous
and scandalous "Brave New World"????? I should be so lucky! I think
we should be told!
>
> Please accept my apologies for not replying, though I did appreciate
> hearing from you.
As we say here in NI - "Nay bother!"
>
> Blessings!
> - Pat
> ko...@ameritel.net
> "Not for London or for Rome - probably Dublin, but only in the
off-season, when it's much less expensive"
As ever,
Dermod
PS I assume the good Irish part of you is on your mother's side. Which
part of the "ould sod" did the family come from? Of course Ireland is
not as the exiles remember it but then, of course, it never was. Much
like the BF!
panopti...@my-deja.com
> > I noticed
> > that you had returned from your vacation. Were you away sailing
by
> > any chance? Did you get to Kerama Retto?
>
> For a good amount of the time, yes, though we only got as far as
Port
> Orchard. I can't say as though going any further would have been
necessary.
> Breakfeast at Sluy's Bakery was rather sufficient.
But nowhere near as good as "Arnies's" in Belfast - mountains of eggs,
bacon, sausages, tomatoes, mushrooms, potato bread and soda bread -
but then you don't have those latter delicacies in Seattle or its
environs, so your breakfast would only be "rather sufficient" whilst
mine is "truly scrumptious" and most satisfying.
>
> > I trust you enjoyed your holiday on which you went unannounced in
mid
> > April, owing me an answer to a post on the Expulsion of Alison
> > Marshall.
>
> Now, there's a nice way to ask a question.
>
> > Was this holiday, by any chance, connected with a certain
> > letter sent by me to your superiors in Haifa, copy circulated to
> > Wilmette?
>
> Nope. It had to do with having shipped a product. Where I work,
it's
> rather customary for employees to have the opportunity to work very
quietly
> in their offices without being disturbed by anyone checking on their
> attendance.
Oh! I geddit now! You had to ship a product so you took it in the
boat on a sailing holiday taking advantage of the fact that whilst
everybody thought you were very quietly (Did nobody notice? Says a
lot for your "presence") in your office you were off in the sunset
having breakfast at "Sluy's".
"How many people work at Microsoft?"
"Oh! About half of them!"
>
> > I think we should be told.
>
> Ok. I hereby declare Mr. Ryder to be quite a capable writer of
fiction. He
> almost ranks right up there with Mr. McKenny.
Ah do declare! The man confuses fact and fiction! Fact that he made
the comments - fact that they were reported to the reptiles of the
AO - fact that he disappeared from the lists immediately thereafter.
Fiction that the ABMs and other piranhas descended upon him! Fact
that they would have descended upon any other poor misguided clot in
the BF had he made such comments. Fact that Old Smokey gets away with
it. Fact that the AO is a home for all of the assorted drones that
inhabite this planet. Fiction that the AO is about any kind of
justice or fair dealing!
No wonder the passengers are jumping ship at a phenomenal rate with
Captain Smokey and his ilk at the helm!
>From Tir na nOg
Dermod Ryder
Curious
Dear Randy
>
> I just pulled out an old Leonard Cohen LP and put it on my stereo. It's
an
> oldie but a good one, probably from 1970.
healed!
> Sorry about taking out the Aussie Empire note, I'm sure there will be so
> many people wanting to emigrate to your country now that you will have to
Forgiven. Now, despite prohibition on confession of sins, here's one.
Having been raised on Rin Tin Tin, The Mouse Club, Mr Ed.....oh God I can't
go on....
I, in my eager adolescence, awaited the opportunity to revenge this
outrageous cultural imperialism....I lay in wait for an American tourist or
immigrant upon whom I might vent my spleen. Many of your countrymen have
crossed my path and all have been both witty and charming, none deserving of
my righteous wrath. All part of some cunning Yankee plot no doubt, why don't
you send over some creeps, rednecks and Disney executives so we can get it
all off our chest? Just remember, Crocodile Dundee and Pricilla QOTD are the
very least of what we are capable of in terms of cultural
retaliation.........................live in fear!
(snip)
Yup...incorporated....homogenized....pasteurized....
>
> Of course having by-laws and using them are two different things.
Meetings
> always seem to fluctuate from the very informal to semiformal and only
> become formal when absolutely necessary (if then)! It often takes extreme
> duress for this to occur.
Haven't seen a formal meeting Randy. Have asked for some, begged for
one...have given up friend....it's just not going to happen. Perhaps it's
not in our culture (Oz)...we seem to prefer the informal 'Kangaroo Court'
free for all bun fight.
> Of course as you also have pointed out, most of the Baha'is seem to think
> that if they just wait it out everything will return to normal eventually.
> The problem is that the problem may seem to disappear for awhile but alway
s
> comes back again. It's possible that the other person involved simply
needs
> mental help and may never be any different.
Yes mate, cyclic incongruence. I still resist analysis or diagnosis of
personalities...
even if they are 'bull goose loonies' a loving 'system/procedure'
could/should handle it.
> But as I said before I have
> seen this thing almost exactly as you describe it happen in two different
> small communities here in the US. Everyone sits around mystified by it
but
> no one does anything about it.
The great American proponent of modern counseling Carl R Rogers has made
reference to the healing that takes place when an individual believes they
have been "heard and understood".
I thank you for the hearing and understanding. I't takes the edge off the
otherwise collective inactivity, apologetics and denial.
> On the other hand, living in a large city can be a much different
> experience. Less likely to happen there, though most large communities
will
> have a few persons with problems, those problems rarely infect the whole
> community.
> ...
> > (Did you snip my legitimate claim to Oz Imperium Global Dominance?.....
> > That will be remembered Randy........:-(
>
> Not this time! But when will Patrick Rafter get back his form and win
> Wimbledom and the U.S. and Australian Open?
>
> That Russian guy who beat Sampas here in the US looks pretty good.
Sorry Randy, I'm not going to be drawn into discussing religion. (Remind me
about the Olympics next time)
> Gook luck to you, and remember us poor Americans when you look down on us
> from on high!
A geographical improbability Randy:-)
Wishing you all light, love, laughter....
Curious no more.
"Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty
stream"
Amos 5:24
>
>
>
>
>
>
Rick Schaut
<patk...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8ro31l$oi6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8rnp6...@news1.newsguy.com>,
> "Rick Schaut" <RSSc...@email.msn.NOSPAMcom> wrote:
> >
> > > I think we should be told.
> >
> > fiction.
> Somewhere in the mix I thought Dermod wrote that he snitched you out
> (tattled? informed-on? sorry, Dermod, I seem to be stuck w/ American
> slang here). Either he did or he didn't, and you might or mightn't
> know.
Actually, I was referring to Mr. Ryder's penchant for making rather wild
inferences based on a very limited set of facts. That's the stuff of great
fiction writers, and, in accordance with the manner in which `Abdu'l-Baha
has instructed us to behave, I have endeavored to see his qualities in the
most favorable light.
It does seem clear, however, that Mr. Ryder will interpret whatever I say in
accordance with his already forgone conclusions. There isn't much point in
attempting to set the record strait.
Nonetheless, I have received no notice from anyone regarding any concerns
about my loyalty to Baha'u'llah's Covenant. Indeed, any attempt to reach
some conclusion about my loyalty to Baha'u'llah's Covenant based upon the
remarks I've made in these fora reveals nothing but ignorance regarding the
full implications of that Covenant.
> Possibly the matter might best be handled by the high office of Self-
> flagellation, Head-smiting, Thumb-twiddling, Insipidity and
> Contradiction (SHTIC)?
I think I'd replace "possibly" with "probably".
Regards,
Rick Schaut
rlit...@my-deja.com
phenomenal rate with Captain Smokey and his ilk at the helm!" I have
the following comment to make: The Baha'i Faith has as its intended
goal, or one of its goals, the creation of a spiritually mature human
society which reflects the qualities and attributes of God.
The key word in the quoted phrase above is "passengers." The Baha'i
Faith is not a cruise ship with a small crew and a large number of
paying passengers: That piece of symbology may well be better
representative of previous phases in God's unfolding Revelation, where
you had a select few with spiritual and temporal authority - a
priesthood - who stoked the boilers and piloted the ship, whilst the
majority of people aboard went along for the ride, or, umm, sail.
In the Baha'i Faith, to continue the analogy, everyone is crew, and
there are no deck chairs upon which passengers may view the lovely
sunsets, and no stewards to bring a tasty meal.
Those who are jumping ship may have done so because they have finally
realzed that nobody is going to serve them lunch, and they are
unwilling to make their own, or their neighbors.
Robert A. Little
In article <8rs4qo$k53$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
panopti...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>
> > > I noticed
> > > that you had returned from your vacation. Were you away sailing
> by
> > > any chance? Did you get to Kerama Retto?
> >
> > For a good amount of the time, yes, though we only got as far as
> Port
> > Orchard. I can't say as though going any further would have been
> necessary.
> > Breakfeast at Sluy's Bakery was rather sufficient.
>
> But nowhere near as good as "Arnies's" in Belfast - mountains of eggs,
> bacon, sausages, tomatoes, mushrooms, potato bread and soda bread -
> but then you don't have those latter delicacies in Seattle or its
> environs, so your breakfast would only be "rather sufficient" whilst
> mine is "truly scrumptious" and most satisfying.
>
> >
> > > I trust you enjoyed your holiday on which you went unannounced in
> mid
> > > April, owing me an answer to a post on the Expulsion of Alison
> > > Marshall.
> >
> > Now, there's a nice way to ask a question.
> >
> > > Was this holiday, by any chance, connected with a certain
> > > letter sent by me to your superiors in Haifa, copy circulated to
> > > Wilmette?
> >
> > Nope. It had to do with having shipped a product. Where I work,
> it's
> > rather customary for employees to have the opportunity to work very
> quietly
> > in their offices without being disturbed by anyone checking on their
> > attendance.
>
> Oh! I geddit now! You had to ship a product so you took it in the
> boat on a sailing holiday taking advantage of the fact that whilst
> everybody thought you were very quietly (Did nobody notice? Says a
> lot for your "presence") in your office you were off in the sunset
> having breakfast at "Sluy's".
>
> "How many people work at Microsoft?"
>
> "Oh! About half of them!"
>
> >
> > > I think we should be told.
> >
> > Ok. I hereby declare Mr. Ryder to be quite a capable writer of
> fiction. He
> > almost ranks right up there with Mr. McKenny.
>
> Ah do declare! The man confuses fact and fiction! Fact that he made
> the comments - fact that they were reported to the reptiles of the
> AO - fact that he disappeared from the lists immediately thereafter.
> Fiction that the ABMs and other piranhas descended upon him! Fact
> that they would have descended upon any other poor misguided clot in
> the BF had he made such comments. Fact that Old Smokey gets away with
> it. Fact that the AO is a home for all of the assorted drones that
> inhabite this planet. Fiction that the AO is about any kind of
> justice or fair dealing!
>
> No wonder the passengers are jumping ship at a phenomenal rate with
> Captain Smokey and his ilk at the helm!
>
> >From Tir na nOg
>
> Dermod Ryder
>
Rick Schaut
> Rick Schaut <RSSc...@email.msn.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
> news:8rnsd...@news1.newsguy.com...
> > "Curious" <Kas...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:GaiD5.20776$O7.2...@ozemail.com.au...
> > > I don't mean 'open' as in 'all and sundry', I just mean not so
discreet,
> > > pussy footing, behind closed doors that it takes for ever and the
> > > opportunity to resolve is lost.
> > Thanks for the clarification, but now I'm not clear on how adding
> > procedures will make the process go any faster, will obviate the extent
> > to which individuals do or do not backbite (which they shouldn't be
> > doing at all regardless of the process) or will, in any way, conduce
> > to greater justice.
> Perhaps it's a bit like a bushfire Rick, the longer people spend in their
> offices discussing it on the phone the further it spreads and 'spot fires'
> emerge in the community.
The only way such a brushfire can spread is if members of the community
spread it. That is a most serious vioation of Baha'i law that no amount of
procedure is going to forestall. If there is a culture within the Baha'i
community that one might want to arrest, then the culture that accepts
gossip as an appropriate behavior would be a great place to start.
> The right to have the allegation heard. The right to present a defense
> without interruption. Some minor sanction should incessant interruption
take
> place. Given this I believe the initial conflagration would have been out
in
> twenty minutes....in the absence of these basics it has spread and burnt
for
> years.
Well, let's consider a similar set of facts within the context of civil law.
Suppose someone accuses you, without substance, of breaking some law. They
take this accusation to the police who then arrest you and notify the
district attorney's office. The DA's office investigates the matter, and
decides that there is no substance to the allegation. You are set free
without any trial or any sanctions.
In the mean time, news of your arrest has spread throughout the community
via rumor. Yet, because the DA's office has already decided there is no
substance to the allegations against you, you have not been accorded any
opportunity to address those allegations directly. The allegations have
spread, and have affected your personal and professional life.
How do these circumstances differ from the experience you've described here?
> Sorry Rick...but it is consultation as practiced in the Baha'i community
in
> my experience.
Again, I fail to understand your point. This is demonstrably not
consultation as is described in the Baha'i Writings. How does adding
various due process procedures change the fact that we have yet to fully
understand and implement Baha'i consultation?
If the Baha'i community has a bloody nose, why tie a tourniquet around it's
neck?
> There is a prevailing culture in which people expect that all will behave
in
> accord with Baha'i principals.
I'm not sure I agree with this, but that's beside the point. What does this
have to do with the presence of specific provisions for due process?
> When some one doesn't, when someone is rude,
> aggressive, intimidating, loud, accusatory...the community resorts to a
> 'spiritual quietism'...they just let it happen.
What do you expect the community to do?
> There is no formal process that ensures a fair hearing, there is no
> enforceable code of conduct.
Now you have me completely confused. The mere fact that there are
individuals who are presently under administrative sanctions is sufficient
evidence to show that there most certainly is an enforceable code of
conduct. It's entirely possible that the existing code of conduct hasn't
been apropriately upheld, but I don't think we have sufficient facts upon
which to base such a conclusion.
> > The following was written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi. It appears
> > on p. 17 of "Lights of Guidance".
[Snip]
> > Is this not relevant to the circumstances you've described?
> Yes Rick....most pertinent....at every turn and at every level the
response
> to the conflagration has been incessant calls for love, unity, forgiveness
> and a sin covering eye. There has never been any interest in justice
> (nascent or otherwise).
Now, that's revealing. At every level, the institutions of the Faith have
instructed _individuals_, such as yourself, to behave exactly as Shoghi
Effendi has instructed us to behave. This, frankly, seems entirely
appropriate.
The question, then, is upon what do you base the conclusion that "There has
never been any interest in justice?" Is it because none of these
institutions have filled you in on what they've done in the interest of
justice? Is it because you deem their efforts to not conform with your own
notions of justice? Do you honestly know for a fact that these institutions
have not attempted to stem the tide of gossip that lies at the heart of this
whole issue?
It seems that all you know is you didn't quite get the forum you expected to
receive. It's not clear that your expectations are reasonable even within
the context of civil law where the due process provisions you seek exist.
> > I know of nothing that entitles any Assembly to debar or decline the
> > opportunity to present any salient facts.
> Easy done Rick...it just deems the allegation to be without substance and
> asks the same question you have "why is it necessary for the assembly to
> provide an opportunity for the accused to present a defense"?
Go back to the example I cited above. Would you expect the DA to bring
charges just so you can present a defense?
Answering that question with indignation doesn't resolve the problem.
> > > The initial allegation spread far and wide by word of mouth.
> > Again, that's _very_ contrary to Baha'i Law. If the National Spiritual
> > Assembly hasn't done something about this, then it really is time to sit
> > down and write a lengthy letter to the Universal House of Justice.
> Dear UHJ, I'm ten thousand miles away and subject to a serious allegation,
> everyone is talking about it, please stop them?
I would expect "lengthy" to be somewhat longer than a single sentence.
> I still haven't seen any procedures Rick, not in action, not on paper.
You haven't seen the specific procedures you're looking for. It remains
rather unclear as to whether or not what you're looking for would solve the
general problem that exists.
> > But what you've described is a distinctly _non_ Baha'i culture and the
> > failure to adhere to existing principles of due process. It would seem
> > that your concern is very misplaced.
> Your right Rick, it is not the culture most middle class metropolitan
> Baha'is encounter, they are generally not subject to such attack and have
> difficulty comprehending or responding to it.
We haven't been there, so we can't understand. If you believe that, then
don't ask me to try to help resolve the problem.
> The culture that prevails within the Baha'i community (from my geography,
> experience and perspective) is one of 'spiritual masturbation'.....in the
> parlance of the kids I work with...."It's a Wank".
That may well be true. On the other hand, proposing a solution that doesn't
solve the real problem is also just a wank. It would also be just a wank if
we all sat around and patted you on the back and said, "You're right. We
need more procedures and policies and less real spirituality in our
community."
Regards,
Rick Schaut
panopti...@my-deja.com
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <rlit...@my-deja.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai
> Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 5:58 AM
> Subject: Re: Justice
<snip>
Shiver me timbers! The boy believes what he has been told!
Let me explain it more clearly to you. Now as you note it "The Baha'i
Faith has as its intended goal, or one of its goals, the creation of a
spiritually mature human society which reflects the qualities and
attributes of God". That's what is on the brochure enticing the
passengers on board. (The poor fools are also told that they will have a
vital part to play in the running of the ship)
What they board is a rust bucket, coal burning, tramp steamer
disgorging large gouts of black smoke as it wilfully plys the trade
routes seeking its prey. At the helm is Captain Bligh (the Hollywood
variety) wielding his lash over passengers and crew alike; indeed what
distinguishes passengers and crew is the colour of the probiscus.
Those of the passengers are pearly white - those of the crew a darker
shade from the brown-nosing of authority which has landed them in
their blessed position. At an early stage of the cruise the
"passengers" are taken below and shackled to the oars for use when the
engines break down as they invariably do when they encounter a storm
(the Marshall, McKenny, Cole etc variety). In the storm the
"passengers", by now slaves, are displayed on deck as examples of how
wonderful this ship is and how happy and contented all on board are.
Of course, with Captain Bligh in attendance, ready to shove a cattle
prod where the sun never shines, who would dare argue with that!
Like most of the BIGS I know, you have suspended your critical faculty
and swallowed the BS in its entirety. Beats me how a religion
supposedly catering to mankind, having attained its maturity, treats
its adherents like snotty nosed children who are still in diapers and
need taken to the potty every so often.
You're welcome to your illusions - just don't patronise one who
mantains the right to think for himself and can see through
supercilious, self appointed, superior scions of a New World Order
which is looking increasingly ramshackle, despite protestations to the
contrary. They're jumping ship because they see through the lies your
spin doctors spun to get them on board. They 're jumping ship because
they see through the masquerade - at least those who have a working
brain between their ears.
> As to the remark "No wonder the passengers are jumping ship at a
> phenomenal rate with Captain Smokey and his ilk at the helm!" I have
> the following comment to make: The Baha'i Faith has as its intended
> goal, or one of its goals, the creation of a spiritually mature
human
> society which reflects the qualities and attributes of God.
>
> The key word in the quoted phrase above is "passengers." The Baha'i
> Faith is not a cruise ship with a small crew and a large number of
> paying passengers: That piece of symbology may well be better
> representative of previous phases in God's unfolding Revelation,
where
> you had a select few with spiritual and temporal authority - a
> priesthood - who stoked the boilers and piloted the ship, whilst the
> majority of people aboard went along for the ride, or, umm, sail.
>
> In the Baha'i Faith, to continue the analogy, everyone is crew, and
> there are no deck chairs upon which passengers may view the lovely
> sunsets, and no stewards to bring a tasty meal.
>
> Those who are jumping ship may have done so because they have
finally
> realzed that nobody is going to serve them lunch, and they are
> unwilling to make their own, or their neighbors.
>
> Robert A. Little
----------------------------------------------
Come to our Brave New World.
A Vision of how it is to be.
The Facts, All the Facts and Nothing but the Facts
http://www.bahai.us.com/
----------------------------------------------
> In article <8rs4qo$k53$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> panopti...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > I noticed
> > > > that you had returned from your vacation. Were you away
sailing
> > by
> > > > any chance? Did you get to Kerama Retto?
> > >
> > > For a good amount of the time, yes, though we only got as far as
> > Port
> > > Orchard. I can't say as though going any further would have
been
> > necessary.
> > > Breakfeast at Sluy's Bakery was rather sufficient.
> >
> > But nowhere near as good as "Arnies's" in Belfast - mountains of
eggs,
> > bacon, sausages, tomatoes, mushrooms, potato bread and soda
bread -
> > but then you don't have those latter delicacies in Seattle or its
> > environs, so your breakfast would only be "rather sufficient"
whilst
> > mine is "truly scrumptious" and most satisfying.
> >
> > >
> > > > I trust you enjoyed your holiday on which you went unannounced
in
> > mid
> > > > April, owing me an answer to a post on the Expulsion of Alison
> > > > Marshall.
> > >
> > > Now, there's a nice way to ask a question.
> > >
> > > > Was this holiday, by any chance, connected with a certain
> > > > letter sent by me to your superiors in Haifa, copy circulated
to
> > > > Wilmette?
> > >
> > > Nope. It had to do with having shipped a product. Where I
work,
> > it's
> > > rather customary for employees to have the opportunity to work
very
> > quietly
> > > in their offices without being disturbed by anyone checking on
their
> > > attendance.
> >
> > Oh! I geddit now! You had to ship a product so you took it in
the
> > boat on a sailing holiday taking advantage of the fact that whilst
> > everybody thought you were very quietly (Did nobody notice? Says
a
> > lot for your "presence") in your office you were off in the sunset
> > having breakfast at "Sluy's".
> >
> > "How many people work at Microsoft?"
> >
> > "Oh! About half of them!"
> >
> > >
> > > > I think we should be told.
> > >
> > > Ok. I hereby declare Mr. Ryder to be quite a capable writer of
> > fiction. He
> > > almost ranks right up there with Mr. McKenny.
> >
> > Ah do declare! The man confuses fact and fiction! Fact that he
made
> > the comments - fact that they were reported to the reptiles of the
> > AO - fact that he disappeared from the lists immediately
thereafter.
> > Fiction that the ABMs and other piranhas descended upon him! Fact
> > that they would have descended upon any other poor misguided clot
in
> > the BF had he made such comments. Fact that Old Smokey gets away
with
> > it. Fact that the AO is a home for all of the assorted drones
that
> > inhabite this planet. Fiction that the AO is about any kind of
> > justice or fair dealing!
> >
> > No wonder the passengers are jumping ship at a phenomenal rate
with
> > Captain Smokey and his ilk at the helm!
> >
> > >From Tir na nOg
> >
> > Dermod Ryder
> >
panopti...@my-deja.com
> <patk...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8ro31l$oi6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <8rnp6...@news1.newsguy.com>,
> > "Rick Schaut" <RSSc...@email.msn.NOSPAMcom> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think we should be told.
> > >
> > > Ok. I hereby declare Mr. Ryder to be quite a capable writer of
> > > fiction.
>
> > Somewhere in the mix I thought Dermod wrote that he snitched you
out
> > (tattled? informed-on? sorry, Dermod, I seem to be stuck w/
American
> > slang here). Either he did or he didn't, and you might or
mightn't
> > know.
>
> Actually, I was referring to Mr. Ryder's penchant for making rather
wild
> inferences based on a very limited set of facts. That's the stuff
of great
> fiction writers, and, in accordance with the manner in which
`Abdu'l-Baha
> has instructed us to behave, I have endeavored to see his qualities
in the
> most favorable light.
>
> It does seem clear, however, that Mr. Ryder will interpret whatever
I say in
> accordance with his already forgone conclusions. There isn't much
point in
> attempting to set the record strait.
>
> Nonetheless, I have received no notice from anyone regarding any
concerns
> about my loyalty to Baha'u'llah's Covenant.
There isn't any point in setting the record straight but nonetheless
Old Smokey will set the record straight by saying that he has
"received no notice from anyone regarding any concerns about [his]
loyalty to Baha'u'llah's Covenant." This is a lie - he has received
notice from me about my concerns.
Now we could explain this all away by citing "hikmat" or that other
word that explains that Bahais can tell "wee whites" when it can be
thought to be in the best interests of the Faith. Alternatively we
could opt for your explanation that the lads in the High House thought
it was all a great laugh. Charged with the onerous responsibility of
protecting the Covenant, ever ready to sanction any poor sod in New
Zealand who merely hangs out with relatives of the Guardian, they
decide to do nothing about my turning in an offender.
Or we can opt for the opinion that Old Smokey's friends in high places
assured the lads in the High House that Old Smokey was one of the
staunchest supporters they had on the Internet but best that he go on
holiday for a month or so until it all died down. This, if true, just
goes to show that in the old AO it pays to know the best - so all the
wee BIGS should learn that, for the protection of their best
interests, they should all bow down and brown nose the AO.
>Indeed, any attempt to reach
> some conclusion about my loyalty to Baha'u'llah's Covenant based
upon the
> remarks I've made in these fora reveals nothing but ignorance
regarding the
> full implications of that Covenant.
Which just goes to show that what he says on these lists is all piss
n' wind, or a smokescreen if you wish to be quite polite, if we can
draw no conclusions therefrom about his loyalty to the Covenant.
> > Possibly the matter might best be handled by the high office of
Self-
> > flagellation, Head-smiting, Thumb-twiddling, Insipidity and
> > Contradiction (SHTIC)?
>
> I think I'd replace "possibly" with "probably".
Of course he would - he owns and operates SHTIC so he can be sure of a
favourable treatment.
As ever,
Dermod
rlit...@my-deja.com
See, there you go again, wanting someone else to row your boat.
I live in the largest Baha'i community in North America. Have done so
for years, off and on. Have seen it grow from a business building next
to Beverly Hills, to a huge center next to Baldwin Hills, with a very
large community center in the San Fernando Valley, a completely
remodeled two-story Unity (non-profit, dedicated to the victims of
the '93 LA riots) Center, and a beautiful office in California State
University, Northridge. No mortgages in sight.
Some rustbucket.
The community center is not a Baha'i center (you can only have one in a
community), although some Feasts are held there. It appears that it
will be running at capacity within one year, so additional facilities
are already envisioned, mainly a school.
The Spiritual Assembly has four councils working underneath it, and
they in turn have numerous committees, and I don't recall any form of
shackles other than a letter of appointment, or more probably, an
acceptance of an offer of service.
One of the goals of the Four Year Plan was a doubling in the number of
active believers, and LA had exceeded that goal sometime around the
third year. Jumping ship indeed.
The chair of the Spiritual Assembly is a black woman, born in her
mother's bedroom in the US south, because the hospital wouldn't permit
a black to enter by the front door. The Secretary is white, one member
is a latino, and several are Persians. Oh, one is an actor.
We have volunteers working in the office from Bulgaria and Australia. A
previous Year of Service youth from North Carolina lived with me and my
sons for a bit, and after completing his tour, returned home, went to
school for one semester (4.0), and came back to live with us again. He
is 22, and now is head of the IS dept. of a prestigious design company.
He is currently trying to get my son to move in with him, the bum.
La has sent travel teachers to Russia for twelve years running, and
those trips account for approx. half of all Russian Baha'is and LSA's.
The city is now also sending large contingents (youth workshop, which
orginated in LA in '74) to Bulgaria, and these trips are meeting with
great success. LA has also recently sent a gospel choir to Africa, and
other places.
Intercultural and/or interracial marriages are common in LA, and make
for interesting naming conventions. The Baha'i youth that my sons have
grown up with are routinely academic high achievers, and stand out for
their spirituality and their high standards of ethical conduct. They
even talk to us adults! Recently, I talked to a group of youth who went
to Disneyland prior to returning to school. Five of them came from
three families where one parent was a Baha'i, and one not: in all cases
the children (all) became Baha'is at the age of 15, and all are very
active, despite severe pressure to be otherwise.
Jumping ship perhaps, but they're jumping into it, rather than out of
it.
Robert A. Little
In article <8rufhp$g93$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Rick Schaut
<panopti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8rufkt$g9j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
[Big Snip]
> Of course he would - he owns and operates SHTIC so he can be sure of a
> favourable treatment.
See, Master Kholi. Mr. Ryder really is a very good fiction writer.
Regards,
Rick Schaut
Curious
Gee Rick....
You snipped the best bit.....(Posts 50-53, the Justice thread)
"I will attempt restraint Rick. My response is general (not personal)...to
the community at large.
The culture that prevails within the Baha'i community (from my geography,
experience and perspective) is one of 'spiritual masturbation'.....in the
parlance of the kids I work with...."It's a Wank".
It has no interest in justice and will sacrifice that notion on the alter of
'Pseudo Unity in Pseudo Community' at every opportunity.
I'm regard to the most basic rules and procedures pursuant to ensuring
justice the Baha'i communities record is abhorrent, repulsive and repugnant.
I would invite any and all to start at the beginning of this thread and
crawl down through...If any one can find the Baha'i legislation that ensures
an accused member of a fair hearing...by all means please post it.
I think I should have just stuck with "It's a Wank".
My Baha'i I.D. No is 9255, I'm going feral, I'm the immortal words of Ned
Kelly.... "Come and bloody get me Coppa"
Curious no more."
(big snip)
> > When some one doesn't, when someone is rude,
> > aggressive, intimidating, loud, accusatory...the community resorts to a
> > 'spiritual quietism'...they just let it happen.
>
> What do you expect the community to do?
On the basis of experience? I expect nothing Rick. Absolutely nothing.
> > There is no formal process that ensures a fair hearing, there is no
> > enforceable code of conduct.
>
> Now you have me completely confused. The mere fact that there are
> individuals who are presently under administrative sanctions is sufficient
> evidence to show that there most certainly is an enforceable code of
> conduct. It's entirely possible that the existing code of conduct hasn't
> been appropriately upheld, but I don't think we have sufficient facts upon
> which to base such a conclusion.
That makes at least two of us Rick. Did I mention that there are
"individuals presently under administrative sanction" or are you utilizing
psychic powers in this realm that are intended for the next? Do you now
desire that I take up (again) the absence of fair due process in their case
as well as my own....been there, done that....fruitless. Suffice to say that
in their case the local community complained of "reckless interpersonal
traffic, speeding and overtaking across double lines"....the evidence of the
enforceable code of conduct is that they get quietly taken out the back and
kneecaped in the voting rights. No local LSA ever advocated that, I and
other victims of the reckless driving argued against it, and they (the
drivers) plead to this day that they have not been specifically advised of
the charges against them. In their anger and frustration they continue to
assume that I was a central player in their administrative demise and
continue to make allegations, publicly and privately, against me. But all
that should not merit getting the parties together in a forum in which the
facts can be heard and the air cleared...hell no.
(snip)
> > Yes Rick....most pertinent....at every turn and at every level the
> response
> > to the conflagration has been incessant calls for love, unity,
forgiveness
> > and a sin covering eye. There has never been any interest in justice
> > (nascent or otherwise).
>
> Now, that's revealing. At every level, the institutions of the Faith have
> instructed _individuals_, such as yourself, to behave exactly as Shoghi
> Effendi has instructed us to behave. This, frankly, seems entirely
> appropriate.
No Rick. Principals become mere platitudes if they are the _only_ and
_consistent_ response to abusive behavior. Ignoring due process or shooting
the offender without fair hearing only serve to compound the abuse.
> The question, then, is 1/upon what do you base the conclusion that "There
has
> never been any interest in justice?" 2/ Is it because none of these
> institutions have filled you in on what they've done in the interest of
> justice?3/ Is it because you deem their efforts to not conform with your
own
> notions of justice? 4/ Do you honestly know for a fact that these
institutions
> have not attempted to stem the tide of gossip that lies at the heart of
this
> whole issue?
1/ Upon a decade of experience facing these issues within the Baha'i
community.
2/ I don't believe that anyone has been "filled in"....fed up....but never
involved/appraised.
3/Most defiantly. The efforts to date do not accord with any reasonable
standard of justice, fair play, due process.
4/The attempts to "stem the tide" can best be likened to the "Help the
bombardier" scene in Catch 22........poke the guts back into the flack
jacket and (in the absence of morphine) repeat
"There, there.....there,there".
> It seems that all you know is you didn't quite get the forum you expected
to
> receive. It's not clear that your expectations are reasonable even within
> the context of civil law where the due process provisions you seek exist.
That's right Rick, I expected at some stage to be granted the opportunity to
relieve my accusers of their misguided suspicions...to address the serious
allegations that had such a detrimental effect on so many people...to be
able to do so in an environment that did not submit to constant
interruption, vitriol and further unsubstantiated
allegation................silly me.
("It seems that all you know......" .....no Rick....I know this.....I know
that I have met you over and over again within the Baha'i community.....
that same voice of denial and aversion....steeped in a prevailing culture
of "There's nothing wrong with the way things are.... If you have a
complaint.....there must be something wrong with you".
> > > I know of nothing that entitles any Assembly to debar or decline the
> > > opportunity to present any salient facts.
>
> > Easy done Rick...it just deems the allegation to be without substance
and
> > asks the same question you have "why is it necessary for the assembly to
> > provide an opportunity for the accused to present a defense"?
>
> Go back to the example I cited above. Would you expect the DA to bring
> charges just so you can present a defense?
Ohhhh Rick....I'm so tired of this. I don't know the US system but from
twenty+ years in Welfare dealing with Conflict Resolution amongst street
kids, Peer Mediation in schools and Consultation/Dispute resolution amongst
the psych disabled..... throw in advocacy in courts, guardianship review ,
case and custody panels...........................give me the -worst- of the
Oz secular system (and Lord it can be bad) over the _best_ of contemporary
Baha'i practice .....
ANYDAY. I'm not going to pursue a comparative analysis of the two (or three)
systems.
Suffice to say that in my experience and estimation there is a better chance
of due process outside the Baha'i community.....at least there someone
bringing incessant unsubstantiated allegations can be dealt with as a
'Persistent Litigant' and restrained thereby.
> Answering that question with indignation doesn't resolve the problem.
Ignoring the problem does not diminish the indignation.
> > >If the National Spiritual
> > > Assembly hasn't done something about this, then it really is time to
sit
> > > down and write a lengthy letter to the Universal House of Justice.
>
> > Dear UHJ, I'm ten thousand miles away and subject to a serious
allegation,
> > everyone is talking about it, please stop them?
>
> I would expect "lengthy" to be somewhat longer than a single sentence.
Oh give me a break bud. It is an absurd proposition unworthy of more than a
single dismissive line.
> > I still haven't seen any procedures Rick, not in action, not on paper.
>
> You haven't seen the specific procedures you're looking for. It remains
> rather unclear as to whether or not what you're looking for would solve
the
> general problem that exists.
That's right, no due process, and we will never know if such a thing would
have any effect on Justice issues and outcomes within the Baha'i
community.....we wont even establish the basics to find out.
> > > But what you've described is a distinctly _non_ Baha'i culture and the
> > > failure to adhere to existing principles of due process.
Rick.......there are enough people floating around this site alone
(inside,outside and fringe to the community) to support the proposition that
there are serious issues to be addressed in regard to culture and practice
within the faith.....not to mention the other sites or even begin to
consider the people one meets out in the real world..... lapsed Baha'is,
inactive Bahai's, Ex and disillusioned Bahai's.....burnt out broken down and
buggered Bahai's
I have no further questions Sir, nor any interest in pursuing discussion and
debate....if....after all that has been presented and proposed you are drawn
to conclude....
>>> It would seem that your concern is very misplaced.
It would seem that I am wasting your time and mine.
I wish you well and proffer this parting honorific....that line was this
dromedaries final straw.
Curious no more.
panopti...@my-deja.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <rlit...@my-deja.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai
> Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 6:10 PM
> Subject: Re: Justice
>
>
> Shiver yer own timbers, matey <g>.
Firstly, I am no "matey" of yours. Secondly, the "timbers" are
between the ears of you and your fellow adherents of the AO - the only
"timbers" near me are securely fixed and incapable of being "shivered"
by you or any reptile in the AO.
>
> See, there you go again, wanting someone else to row your boat.
Thirdly, I do not recall asking you, any of your ilk, or any
civilised member of the species to row my boat - I wouldn't share a
boat with Old Smokey if his expertise in seafaring is comparable to
his prowess in breakfasts.
So there were two "Active" believers and you doubled that to four -
well done! Of course you may well have trebled the "inactive" ones
and perhaps not retained a large proportion of those you recruited.
The figures in those areas might be interesting. With many spheres of
human activity there are lies, damn lies and statistics - with Bahai
number games, it's best to exclude the last of those categories.
Thirdly one swallow doth not a summer make! Let's look at this. LA
has a population of how many millions and about 1400 Bahais. Begorrah
and sure isn't that less proportionately than Ireland - and its Bahai
community is moribund. The Assembly area in which I reside hasn't a
centre and hasn't had a declaration in well over ten years. It has
had a marvellous record of success in the One Year Plan - a copy of
"Hidden Words" was given to an enquirer who hasn't been seen since.
The Mormons who came here at the same time as the Bahais have a number
of Churches in Northern Ireland with flourishing communities - the
Bahais had three centres but sold two and lost land from the third
because the "experts" in the AO disregarded advice to register the
land until it was too late. Most of the Bahais here are "blow-ins" -
in other words, the natives are not impressed by strange people coming
in, saying one thing but doing another! Indeed this assembly has lost
more of the natives (3) in ten years than it has attracted by
declaration (nil, correction, minus 1, as they blew a potential
declaration by their grubby conduct) or by "blow-in" (2)!
All those lovely buildings in prestigious areas (probably with large
carparks) and not a mortgage in sight - just goes to show that the BF
attracts the right sort of social class with loadsamoney to donate to
lovely buildings - Er! Thats it! Enough said about the snobbery and
the supercilious arrogance - you prove my point!
Didn't LA lose its assembly status at one time recently and didn't LA
blow out its real academic achievers - you know the ones who actually
do a bit of original thinking and look towards orientating things
towards the future rather than the past? So it's not as rosey in the
garden as you try to make out.
>
> Intercultural and/or interracial marriages are common in LA, and
make
> for interesting naming conventions. The Baha'i youth that my sons
have
> grown up with are routinely academic high achievers, and stand out
for
> their spirituality and their high standards of ethical conduct. They
> even talk to us adults! Recently, I talked to a group of youth who
went
> to Disneyland prior to returning to school. Five of them came from
> three families where one parent was a Baha'i, and one not: in all
cases
> the children (all) became Baha'is at the age of 15, and all are very
> active, despite severe pressure to be otherwise.
And aren't you Bahais just the most wonderful people in the world -
high academic achievers and all and sure not one of you could unblock
a sewer. Such trades are most unbecoming for a member of the master
religion.
As for intercultural and/or inter-racial marriages, well, they happen
here as anywheres else without a Bahai in sight. My daughter thinks
you are a right bunch of plonkers - apart from that display of natural
intelligence, she's also an academic high achiever, Open Scholarship
winner (only 6 out of 2,000 students) to the University of her choice.
There's not a Bahai kid here can match her in that field of activity.
This type of one-upmanship seems important to you as it is to all
fundamental religionists - you all seem to have this notion in your
pates that God rewards you and your kind with all sorts of financial,
social, material and intellectual prowess because you belong to the
right religious club. Trouble is that when you try it on, you do meet
people who can better your self assumed prowess and make no claim as
to divine beneficence or membership of the approved religion. Those
who tout their own prowess are usually those who don't have any.
Where Bahais are concerned very many are skilled tradesmen but very
few are educated - normally the educated leave or are driven out.
>
> Jumping ship perhaps, but they're jumping into it, rather than out
of
> it.
That's certainly not what the numbers game indicates! You know you
really need to recruit a few sewer unblockers and shit shifters cos
there's a powerful load of it around the AO and its cling-ons and
nobody of a suitable social class or academic standing, not to mention
level of spirituality, to shift it.
Dermod "Grim Reaper" Ryder
"And I looked and beheld a pale horse: and his name that sat on him
was Death and Hell followed with him" - Revelation - Chapter 7 Verse
8.
PS. Next time try accompanying your epistle with sobbing violins - it
might lessen my laughter but don't rely on it.
Rick Schaut
> Gee Rick....
> You snipped the best bit.....(Posts 50-53, the Justice thread)
My apologies if you felt it needed to be posted more than once.
> > What do you expect the community to do?
> On the basis of experience? I expect nothing Rick. Absolutely nothing.
How about on the basis of the Writings of Baha'u'llah, `Abdu'l-Baha', Shoghi
Effendi and the Universal House of Justice?
The central question remains quite unanswered: is there a flaw in the system
such that new procedures are required or is there a significant need for
greater education and maturation of the people who are trying to implement
that system? Frankly, I'm rather certain it's the latter, in which case
adding more procedures and processes is precisely the _wrong_ thing to do no
matter how expedient it may seem now.
> > Now you have me completely confused. The mere fact that there are
> > individuals who are presently under administrative sanctions is
sufficient
> > evidence to show that there most certainly is an enforceable code of
> > conduct.
> That makes at least two of us Rick. Did I mention that there are
> "individuals presently under administrative sanction" or are you utilizing
> psychic powers in this realm that are intended for the next?
No. You said that there is no enforceable code of conduct. The general
observation that there are people who are under administrative sanction for
violating Baha'i law demonstrates conclusively that there is a code of
conduct and that it's enforceable.
> Do you now
> desire that I take up (again) the absence of fair due process in their
case
> as well as my own....been there, done that....fruitless.
Fascinating. If I understand you correctly, these would be the same folks
who are known to have raised unsubstantiated, indeed unsubstantiatable,
accusations. You believe there wasn't a "fair due process" in their case?
Exactly how have you come to know that they weren't sent a letter from the
National Spiritual Assembly notifying them of the consequences of their
behavior? Is this based on the word of the same folks who are known to have
raised unsubstantiatable accusations?
> > The question, then, is
> >1/upon what do you base the conclusion that "There has
> > never been any interest in justice?"
> >2/ Is it because none of these
> > institutions have filled you in on what they've done in the interest of
> > justice?
> >3/Is it because you deem their efforts to not conform with your own
> > notions of justice?
> >4/ Do you honestly know for a fact that these institutions
> > have not attempted to stem the tide of gossip that lies at the heart of
> > this whole issue?
> 1/ Upon a decade of experience facing these issues within the Baha'i
> community.
Frankly, I was hoping for an answer with a bit more detail.
> 2/ I don't believe that anyone has been "filled in"....fed up....but never
> involved/appraised.
> 3/Most defiantly. The efforts to date do not accord with any reasonable
> standard of justice, fair play, due process.
> 4/The attempts to "stem the tide" can best be likened to the "Help the
> bombardier" scene in Catch 22....
Your answer to question 2 obviates your ability to answer questions 3 and 4.
If you don't know what they've done, then how can you say that their efforts
"do not accord with any reasonable standard of justice?" How can you
characterize what they've done when no one has kept you apprised of the
steps that these institutions have taken?
> That's right Rick, I expected at some stage to be granted the opportunity
to
> relieve my accusers of their misguided suspicions...
And how, precisely, would the "fair due process" for which you've called
been able to grant you that opportunity? I'm particularly interested in
that answer, because the civil courts, where the very provisions you seek do
exist, would not have granted you that same opportunity given the same
general set of facts that you've laid out.
> ("It seems that all you know......" .....no Rick....I know this.....I know
> that I have met you over and over again within the Baha'i community.....
Yes, of course. We're all wrong and in denial. You're the only one who
really sees the whole truth.
> that same voice of denial and aversion....steeped in a prevailing culture
> of "There's nothing wrong with the way things are.... If you have a
> complaint.....there must be something wrong with you".
But you've done more than simply register a complaint. You've demanded a
particular solution. I'm still not convinced that your solution actually
solves the problem. Your indignation and accusations of denial, no matter
how justified, really don't help.
> > Answering that question with indignation doesn't resolve the problem.
> Ignoring the problem does not diminish the indignation.
Taking exception to your proposed solution to the problem isn't the same
thing as ignoring it. Nor, for that matter, is wondering whether or not you
sufficiently understand the extent and nature of the problem.
> > You haven't seen the specific procedures you're looking for. It remains
> > rather unclear as to whether or not what you're looking for would solve
> > the general problem that exists.
> >>> It would seem that your concern is very misplaced.
> It would seem that I am wasting your time and mine.
Frankly, I think I'm perfectly capable of deciding whether or not I'm
wasting my time. If you feel this is a waste of your time, then so be it.
But there's a substantial difference between saying that someone's concern
is misplaced and saying that someone's concern is invalid.
Regards,
Rick Schaut
Rick Schaut
<panopti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8s0bid$330$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> You know you
> really need to recruit a few sewer unblockers and shit shifters cos
> there's a powerful load of it around the AO and its cling-ons and
> nobody of a suitable social class or academic standing, not to mention
> level of spirituality, to shift it.
Nothing like a little "snobbery and supercilious arrogance" to start your
day. Supposedly Mr. Ryder is an expert on breakfast, but I prefer mine with
a little less cholesterol.
But all of this really does leave one to wonder, if the ship really is
sinking, why is it so necessary for the folks flogging about in the water to
throw so much flotsam at it?
> Dermod "Grim Reaper" Ryder
Actually, I think "Black Knight" would be a more appropriate charicature.
Regards,
Rick Schaut
panopti...@my-deja.com
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Rick Schaut <RSSc...@email.msn.NOSPAMcom>
> Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai
> Subject: Re: Justice
>
Pat,
>
> <panopti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8rufkt$g9j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> [Big Snip]
>
> > Of course he would - he owns and operates SHTIC so he can be sure
of a
> > favourable treatment.
>
> See, Master Kholi. Mr. Ryder really is a very good fiction writer.
And Old Smokey really does hide behind that smokescreen his verbiage
generates. His particular talent is to ignore that which he cannot
ripost to and repeat his pathetic attempts at humour. He hides behind
a BIG SNIP as effectively as he hides behind the smokescreen generated
by the rest of his posts.
I understand now why he enjoys sailing - when the wind dies down all
he has to do is talk to get the boat back to harbour.
As ever,
Dermod
Rick Schaut
<panopti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8s2u3n$6tm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > See, Master Kholi. Mr. Ryder really is a very good fiction writer.
> And Old Smokey really does hide behind that smokescreen his verbiage
> generates.
Looks like it's time to post the argument sketch.
Regards,
Rick Schaut
panopti...@my-deja.com
>
> Nothing like a little "snobbery and supercilious arrogance" to start
your
> day.
Indeed yes! And lucky you to have it first thing when you look in the
mirror!
>Supposedly Mr. Ryder is an expert on breakfast, but I prefer mine
with
> a little less cholesterol.
You need a lot less cholesterol - the arteries supplying blood to your
vestigial brain are desperately clogged - that's why it doesn't work
too well.
>
> But all of this really does leave one to wonder, if the ship really
is
> sinking, why is it so necessary for the folks flogging about in the
water to
> throw so much flotsam at it?
Who's flogging in the water? I'm on the rescue boat but really in no
great mood to pick up the gobshites on the sinking boat. Mind you I
gotta lot of time for the folks who have managed to jump off.
>
> > Dermod "Grim Reaper" Ryder
>
> Actually, I think "Black Knight" would be a more appropriate
charicature.
Do you really? Well I'm ever open to compliments like that ... even
from you. Guess I'll just have to add it to the old name from now on.
What greatly cheers me is that the wee Beehives hate all of this
"negativity" like "Grim Reaper" and "Black Knight," cos I just love
it. My only concern is to find a spot in Hades in an AO-free zone.
It's gonna be very difficult as they have a near monopoly on the
place.
Dermod "Black Knight" "Grim Reaper" Ryder
rlit...@my-deja.com
panopti...@my-deja.com
> > And Old Smokey really does hide behind that smokescreen his
verbiage
> > generates.
>
> Looks like it's time to post the argument sketch.
Guess I was right about the cholesterol - he can't even write his own
jokes and his addled brain goes back to memories of his youth and
Monty Python. Things have moved on since then.
Puff! Puff! Puff! Old Smokey further increases the environmental
pollution but he still hasn't cleared the hurdle that he made remarks
that were "covenantly challenging" and, per his own account, didn't
even get asked about them. Just goes to show that the AO looks after
its own - which was the point of the whole exercise. If one kow-tows
and is attached to the fundament (arslickan - you have to explain
these simple things to Old Smokey) then all is well. If, on the other
hand, you dare to think for yourself, you get shafted. Any wonder I
don't pick these people off the sinking ship!
Dermod "Black Knight" "Grim Reaper" Dark Force" Ryder
panopti...@my-deja.com
> I think he paid for the other "service."
Paid for what "service"?
Mr Lyttle is yet another glype who ignores everything of substance.
Is it any wonder the AO is in such a mess when it relies on the likes
of ye to be its apologists? As Peter de Rosa put it, with a little
amendment (pun intended) - "Lord, when are You going to send a Messiah
to save us from Religion and apologists for the AO who can distinguish
not their arses from their mouths?"
"Grim Reaper," "Black Knight," "Sperm of the Devil," etc. etc.
>
> Robert A. Little
>
> In article <8s326...@news2.newsguy.com>,
> "Rick Schaut" <RSSc...@email.msn.NOSPAMcom> wrote:
> >
> > <panopti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:8s2u3n$6tm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > > See, Master Kholi. Mr. Ryder really is a very good fiction
> writer.
> >
> > > And Old Smokey really does hide behind that smokescreen his
verbiage
> > > generates.
> >
> > Looks like it's time to post the argument sketch.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Rick Schaut
Bruce
panopti...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>
> > I think he paid for the other "service."
>
> Paid for what "service"?
>
> Mr Lyttle is yet another glype who ignores everything of substance.
> Is it any wonder the AO is in such a mess when it relies on the likes
> of ye to be its apologists
But he doesn't see that there is a mess. There cannot be, for the AO is
a divinely ordained thingie, so it cannot be a mess. It runs a great
deal deeper than simply ignoring what in front of his face.
Bruce
> "Grim Reaper," "Black Knight," "Sperm of the Devil," etc. etc.
Dear Mr Reaper,
You have put poor Bobert at a serious disadvantage. He has no idea what your
religious affliation is so he cannot luanch his usual ad hominem attack
against you by using your religious affliation, telling us how bad you are
at being whatever are, but do be afraid: he can still love-bomb you with
cloyingly precious stories about his boys.
rlit...@my-deja.com
Clinic. At the beginning of the sketch, the visitor entered the Abuse
office by mistake. Monty Python has been discussed in this thread, so
the reference was germane, if only barely. If, now that I have
explained the remark, you feel that I have offended you, I apologize.
Hmm, as to content: my surname is "Little", not "Lyttle"; your
description of me as a "glype" is in error, the term you most probably
meant to use is "glyph" (of the several definitions, the only one that
might be applicable is 2. symbolic figure or character); I am not a
part of the administrative order in the sense you indicate, although of
course, ALL Baha'is are by definition part of the community, the heart
of which is the House of Justice; I believe that were I an apologist,
you would be correct in your assessment of my abilities.
It is my belief that the Baha'i Faith needs no defense from enemies
from without - it is only those who proclaim themselves to be Baha'i,
and who violate the twin laws of love and unity who can damage this
divinely ordained Faith (adapted from a talk given by 'Abdu'l-Baha',
quoted in Stars of the West, vol. 9, pg. 45). He was clear that
throwing shadows at light served to illumine the difference between
them, rather than extinguish the flame of love.
As you appear to be a lover of both content and Baha'u'llah, do you
find any textual support for the conclusion that one may publicly
demean, diminish or otherwise belittle another through the use of
scatological comments? Or, put another way, how would 'Abdu'l-Baha'
have responded?
Robert A. Little
In article <8s446r$484$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
panopti...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>
> > I think he paid for the other "service."
>
> Paid for what "service"?
>
> Mr Lyttle is yet another glype who ignores everything of substance.
> Is it any wonder the AO is in such a mess when it relies on the likes
> of ye to be its apologists? As Peter de Rosa put it, with a little
> amendment (pun intended) - "Lord, when are You going to send a Messiah
> to save us from Religion and apologists for the AO who can distinguish
> not their arses from their mouths?"
>
> "Grim Reaper," "Black Knight," "Sperm of the Devil," etc. etc.
>
> >
> > Robert A. Little
> >
> > In article <8s326...@news2.newsguy.com>,
> > "Rick Schaut" <RSSc...@email.msn.NOSPAMcom> wrote:
> > >
> > > <panopti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > news:8s2u3n$6tm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > > > See, Master Kholi. Mr. Ryder really is a very good fiction
> > writer.
> > >
> > > > And Old Smokey really does hide behind that smokescreen his
> verbiage
> > > > generates.
> > >
> > > Looks like it's time to post the argument sketch.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Rick Schaut
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
Bruce
> As you appear to be a lover of both content and Baha'u'llah, do you
> find any textual support for the conclusion that one may publicly
> demean, diminish or otherwise belittle another through the use of
> scatological comments? Or, put another way, how would 'Abdu'l-Baha'
> have responded?
As Ronald once said: There you go again. Again, taking the argument to
the man via his supposed religious beliefs rather than addressing the
points he is making. What you are doing is even more scatological that
than what you are replying to. You are, indeed, a hypocrite, Robert.
At least you spared us your cloyingly precious kid stories.
rlit...@my-deja.com
Your statement demonstrates a fairly profound lack of understanding of
how Baha'is relate to their own community, and it also runs counter to
the understanding that Rick Schaut and Pat Kohli and others have
attempted to convey to you.
The term "Baha'i Faith" describes, in a sense, two things: it describes
the revelation of Baha'u'llah, and it also describes a human community,
composed of of people of vastly differing backgrounds, understandings
and levels of maturity. The former is free from error, according to my
understanding of the writings of Baha'u'llah, whereas the latter is
free from perfection.
The Baha'i community is a composed organism, that is, it had a birth in
the past, and is presently in the process of development towards a
future goal which Baha'u'llah affirms is preordained. Process, process,
process. Baha'u'llah affirms repeatedly that human society will attain
its destiny, but I know of no passage which says that His nascent Faith
will not stumble from time to time along the way.
If a college freshman could look forward to his graduation, he would
see, perhaps, numerous instances where he could have studied, or
studied better, and gotten a better grade on a particular test, but he
would also see that his failures were actually beneficial, for they
taught him valuable lessons which would serve him throughout his entire
life, not merely his college career. He would see, on one level, a
beginning and an end, but on another level, he would see neither.
For you, Majnun is just getting dirty, but Baha'is see that he is in
the process of finding Layli.
I have seen problems in every community I spent any time in, from the
jungle to the asphalt jungle. In every single case, the community
learned a positive lesson, and became better, just as you and I have
become better for the life tests we have passed.
Los Angeles was fairly large 30+ years ago when you first encountered
the Baha'i Faith. It is larger now, much larger, but more importantly,
it is much more, umm, complex. I mean by that that it is a composed
organism, and has developed not only in size, but in complexity, and in
the ability to cause change. The Los Angeles Baha'i community faces
huge problems, and as has been pointed out here recently, has suffered
problems in the past. The question you ought to be asking, is not
whether there are problems in the Baha'i community, but rather, how is
the community responding to those problems? Additionally, what is it
like, living in the Los Angeles Baha'i community?
I think it fair to say that any Baha'i who posts here would be able to
call to mind any number of problems in his or her own community -
indeed, as that community is composed of individual Baha'is, it is
possible to say that we ARE the problems. However, because Baha'is now
have a 150+ year history of growth and progress, despite every effort
to the contrary, they tend, overwhelmingly, to believe that whatever
problem(s) are presently underfoot, they will be resolved. Process,
process, process. Again, it is important to restate that Baha'u'llah
affirms, time and again, that His Faith will triumph, despite all
obstacles, and that would include triumph over those obstacles both
within and without. Living in the Los Angeles Baha'i community is
mostly exhilerating, frequently exhausting, sometimes frustrating.
Baha'is focus on the exhilerating, mostly.
Your "mess" is our paradise, Bruce, a paradise which must be traveled,
one step at a time.
Robert A. Little
In article <8s4dvg$bmn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Bruce <brb...@mailbag.com> wrote:
> In article <8s446r$484$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> panopti...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > > I think he paid for the other "service."
> >
> > Paid for what "service"?
> >
> > Mr Lyttle is yet another glype who ignores everything of substance.
> > Is it any wonder the AO is in such a mess when it relies on the
likes
> > of ye to be its apologists
>
> But he doesn't see that there is a mess. There cannot be, for the AO
is
> a divinely ordained thingie, so it cannot be a mess. It runs a great
> deal deeper than simply ignoring what in front of his face.
>
Bruce
> Your "mess" is our paradise, Bruce, a paradise which must be traveled,
> one step at a time.
>
> Robert A. Little
It is, thank gawd, not my mess and you are welcome to it. Call it
paradise if that makes you feel better, but it is obviously not what it
pretends to be, and that is the problem.
Bruce
<rlit...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8s5jkg$e3c$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Bobert?
A sort of informal address.
rlit...@my-deja.com
In article <8s4dfu$ruf$1...@grandprime.binc.net>,
"Bruce" <brb...@mailbag.com> wrote:
> >
> > "Grim Reaper," "Black Knight," "Sperm of the Devil," etc. etc.
>
> Dear Mr Reaper,
>
> You have put poor Bobert at a serious disadvantage. He has no idea
what your
> religious affliation is so he cannot luanch his usual ad hominem
attack
> against you by using your religious affliation, telling us how bad
you are
> at being whatever are, but do be afraid: he can still love-bomb you
with
> cloyingly precious stories about his boys.
>
>
panopti...@my-deja.com
Thank you so much for this information. I had not realised poor Mr
Bobbitt was at such a disadvantage and really must take steps to
rectify that.
> You have put poor Bobert at a serious disadvantage. He has no idea
what your
> religious affliation is so he cannot luanch his usual ad hominem
attack
> against you by using your religious affliation, telling us how bad
you are
> at being whatever are,
Well now, my religious affiliation is somewhat difficult to deal
with - at times in the First Belfast Church of the God fearing
Atheist, then to the Church of the Seven Day Fornicators, afterwards
on pilgrimage to the Blessed "Stables" Happy Hour with Beer at a pound
a pint and sacred consultation on the likely prospects for Kempton
Park Racecourse (Race amity being a byword amongst us), back to the
Church of Administrative Affairs to fulminate on the assorted enemies
(excise duties on the Holy Guinness Water), etc etc. Where do you
think he will start?
>but do be afraid: he can still love-bomb you with
> cloyingly precious stories about his boys.
Are these no-warning bombs or does he telephone in advance giving
theusual codeword to indicate that a "love bomb" has been placed on
TRB/ARB? Of course I can always bore him with "cloyingly precious
stories about my girls."
You needn't worry about "Love Bombs", Bruce. In my neck of the woods
we have had a lot of real bombs, which make his "love-bombs" so much
piss'n' wind!
As ever,
"Grim Reaper," "Evil One", "Depraved Dermod"
panopti...@my-deja.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <rlit...@my-deja.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai
> Sent: Friday, October 13, 2000 6:16 AM
> Subject: Re: Justice
>
>
> The "service" was a reference to a Monty Python routine, the
Argument
> Clinic. At the beginning of the sketch, the visitor entered the
Abuse
> office by mistake. Monty Python has been discussed in this thread,
so
> the reference was germane, if only barely. If, now that I have
> explained the remark, you feel that I have offended you, I
apologize.
I am aware of Monty Python - it was current some years ago but humour
has progressed since then. Is your citation of this series indicative
of a crystallisation of civilisation in the past? Would you not
acknowledge that the world has moved on somewhat and that Monty Python
as the epitome of humour is as outdated a concept as your
visualisation of the BF and its associated AO of which you are a part
as a voting participant and supporter. You cannot offend me - do not
flatter yourself!
>
> Hmm, as to content: my surname is "Little", not "Lyttle"; your
> description of me as a "glype" is in error, the term you most
probably
> meant to use is "glyph" (of the several definitions, the only one
that
> might be applicable is 2. symbolic figure or character);
I can read, I am aware as to the form of letters you arrange to spell
your name. A pun is a figure of speech which works on similarity of
spelling or sound.
The description of you as "glype" is accurate - the meaning of that
word may also be expressed as "gulpin" or "gunterpake." Websters is
not an infallible source for all words in use throughout the English
speaking world.
>I am not a
> part of the administrative order in the sense you indicate, although
of
> course, ALL Baha'is are by definition part of the community, the
heart
> of which is the House of Justice; I believe that were I an
apologist,
> you would be correct in your assessment of my abilities.
See above
> It is my belief that the Baha'i Faith needs no defense from enemies
> from without - it is only those who proclaim themselves to be
Baha'i,
> and who violate the twin laws of love and unity who can damage this
> divinely ordained Faith (adapted from a talk given by 'Abdu'l-Baha',
> quoted in Stars of the West, vol. 9, pg. 45). He was clear that
> throwing shadows at light served to illumine the difference between
> them, rather than extinguish the flame of love.
You said it! It is the enemy within who tears your Faith apart. And
there are a lot of them doing a lot of damage! Shame is that you all
meekly accept it without for one minute ratcheting your brains into
gear and actively questionning what goes on. You were misnamed - like
all BIGS it ought to be ROBOT. Alison Marshall got expelled and Old
Smokey and the rest of the has beens fall into line and give full
support to the High House without even knowing the reasons behind the
expulsion - Old Smokey's cholesterol enhanced words. Not even now,
could he, or you, cite reason and cause for that other than to parrot
"The House Said so and it must be right because it is infallible!"
(Sounds like another bad Python sketch - the "House of Silly
Decisions" or "Fawlty Towers" set in the Apartment Block in Haifa,
with Manuel in charge of the ITC and Basil in charge of
disenrollments).
There is no love in your Faith - just monkeys (wired up the kazoo)
programmed to do and say what the High House decrees. Were there any
real Love, all of the BIGS would have assailed Haifa asking WHY?,
demanding JUSTIFY IT!, crying out IS THIS JUSTICE? But they didn't
because they are spineless uppity snobs and cowards!
> As you appear to be a lover of both content and Baha'u'llah, do you
> find any textual support for the conclusion that one may publicly
> demean, diminish or otherwise belittle another through the use of
> scatological comments? Or, put another way, how would 'Abdu'l-Baha'
> have responded?
Your opening assumption is ungrounded and unsafe. My religious
affiliation has been posted already and is one which I doubt you would
be familiar with. I infer that you consider there is no "textual
support for the conclusion that one may publicly demean, diminish or
otherwise belittle another through the use of scatological comments."
If that is indeed correct I suggest you acquaint the local Bahai
community of this and advise that it (and its scions) cease and desist
from utilising "scatological comments" to describe me. You may also
wish to suggest that the National Assembly reply to correspondence
addressed to it about these "scatological comments" . But you won't,
because that course of action would bring you into conflict with the
covenant, for it entails querying a "divinely ordained institution".
Personally I think that, faced with the current crew of gombeen men in
the AO and the spineless "bungalows" that fawn on them, Abdul Baha
would have puked and then kicked ass!
The Grim Reaper
"And I looked and beheld a pale horse: and his name that sat on him
was Death and Hell followed with him" - Revelation - Chapter 7 Verse
8.
> In article <8s446r$484$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> panopti...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > > I think he paid for the other "service."
> >
> > Paid for what "service"?
> >
> > Mr Lyttle is yet another glype who ignores everything of
substance.
> > Is it any wonder the AO is in such a mess when it relies on the
likes
> > of ye to be its apologists? As Peter de Rosa put it, with a
little
> > amendment (pun intended) - "Lord, when are You going to send a
Messiah
> > to save us from Religion and apologists for the AO who can
distinguish
> > not their arses from their mouths?"
> >
> > "Grim Reaper," "Black Knight," "Sperm of the Devil," etc. etc.
> >
> > >
> > > Robert A. Little
> > >
> > > In article <8s326...@news2.newsguy.com>,
> > > "Rick Schaut" <RSSc...@email.msn.NOSPAMcom> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > <panopti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:8s2u3n$6tm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > > > > See, Master Kholi. Mr. Ryder really is a very good
fiction
> > > writer.
> > > >
> > > > > And Old Smokey really does hide behind that smokescreen his
> > verbiage
> > > > > generates.
> > > >
> > > > Looks like it's time to post the argument sketch.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Rick Schaut
> > > >
> > > >
Randy Burns
Here is a summary of the "Justice" thread in response to the questions of
Mr. Curious.
The question was "is there a way to achieve Justice in the Baha'i Faith?"
The short answer was "no".
The more in depth answer was "well, maybe".
The final answer was "not in your bloodly lifetime, mate!"
For more information follow the "Justice" thread.
Cheers,
Randy
--
Rick Schaut <RSSc...@email.msn.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
news:8s20s...@news1.newsguy.com...
Curious
SPLASH! (wot, no cry....."Man
overboard"?)............paddle,paddle,paddle.................
"AHOY"......."Sloop 'Grim Reaper'!!............."Be that a Jolly Roger ye
fly"?
Tis Seaman Gobshite here...adrift astern....can ye point me landward?
Oh eye, I was aboard His Majesties vessel....eye indeed....ten plus years I
served man'nboy...
swabbin mainsails....hoistin poopdecks...as commanded...loyal to the Crown I
be.
Howzat?.......How come I to this briny Sargasso
Sea?.......Mutiny?....Desertion?......
Belay ya blasphemy ya scurvy dog!
I was seconded to the good ship 'The Promise' and fine she was indeed....but
ten leagues out of port the name plate rusts and falls away to reveal
'Kulture De Nile'.....a foreign name me thinks.
Not long there after I goes ashore with a party of men, upon my return
alone I am confronted by Sgt. Shouts of His Majesties Marines....he does
inquire assertively...
"Where be your Buccaneers"!?!
I says "Under me Buccanhat......Sir"
Sgt. Shouts does throw me in the brig for..."insyboardandnation"...eye...I
did protest....but e said I ad bin "the recipient of fair due process".....I
says "When woz that Guv"....an he says "Never you mind....your concerns are
very misplaced".
So I takes me chances and jumps mate.
ere......you wouldn't have a towel about ya would ye?
The Baha'i formerly known as
Curious
rlit...@my-deja.com
panopti...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <rlit...@my-deja.com>
> > Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai
> > Sent: Friday, October 13, 2000 6:16 AM
> > Subject: Re: Justice
> >
> >
> > The "service" was a reference to a Monty Python routine, the
> Argument
> > Clinic. At the beginning of the sketch, the visitor entered the
> Abuse
> > office by mistake. Monty Python has been discussed in this thread,
> so
> > the reference was germane, if only barely. If, now that I have
> > explained the remark, you feel that I have offended you, I
> apologize.
>
> I am aware of Monty Python - it was current some years ago but humour
> has progressed since then. Is your citation of this series indicative
> of a crystallisation of civilisation in the past? Would you not
> acknowledge that the world has moved on somewhat and that Monty Python
> as the epitome of humour is as outdated a concept as your
> visualisation of the BF and its associated AO of which you are a part
> as a voting participant and supporter. You cannot offend me - do not
> flatter yourself!
Monty Python has been mentioned in several threads here recently, thus
the mention by another poster to which I made reply. I do not believe
that age necessarily makes something less funny, and judging by the
number of Marx Brothers movies one is able to purchase, I am not alone.
There was no attempt or desire to offend you, but the evidence suggests
that you are mistaken in believing you cannot be offended.
>
> >
> > Hmm, as to content: my surname is "Little", not "Lyttle"; your
> > description of me as a "glype" is in error, the term you most
> probably
> > meant to use is "glyph" (of the several definitions, the only one
> that
> > might be applicable is 2. symbolic figure or character);
>
> I can read, I am aware as to the form of letters you arrange to spell
> your name. A pun is a figure of speech which works on similarity of
> spelling or sound.
>
> The description of you as "glype" is accurate - the meaning of that
> word may also be expressed as "gulpin" or "gunterpake." Websters is
> not an infallible source for all words in use throughout the English
> speaking world.
I'm going to go out on a limb and disagree with your description.
Your hurt and your pain are apparent.
The faith of Baha'is is, or ought to be, grounded in Baha'u'llah, not
in the actions, or inactions of other people, either Baha'i or
otherwise. You rage at Baha'is for the loss of your faith, yet He says
that His followers must live in Him, must offer up their hearts to God.
Having done that, they become immune to the changes and chances of this
world, just as Mona was immune to the threats of her murderers.
Baha'u'llah says that all pain comes from this world.
If you believe in Baha'u'llah:
Send me (privately) copies of your correspondence. If I think you have
been wronged, I'll write my first ever letter to the Universal House of
Justice. If I think otherwise, I'l tell you privately.
>
> Personally I think that, faced with the current crew of gombeen men in
> the AO and the spineless "bungalows" that fawn on them, Abdul Baha
> would have puked and then kicked ass!
Strongly disagree. He did not respond thusly when His own life was
threatened, or when face with (for 17 years) hatred. He responded with
love, the perfect love bomber, and His love changed those He came in
contact with. I figure if He can give away His own pants, I can give
you a promise.
Robert A. Little
panopti...@my-deja.com
> Monty Python has been mentioned in several threads here recently,
thus
> the mention by another poster to which I made reply. I do not
believe
> that age necessarily makes something less funny, and judging by the
> number of Marx Brothers movies one is able to purchase, I am not
alone.
>
> There was no attempt or desire to offend you, but the evidence
suggests
> that you are mistaken in believing you cannot be offended.
Yet another assumption that is ungrounded and unsafe. One
qualification to that - I indeed can be offended but not by the AO or
its adherents.It requires a particular type of expertise, which it
has not, to achieve that end.
> > The description of you as "glype" is accurate - the meaning of
that
> > word may also be expressed as "gulpin" or "gunterpake." Websters
is
> > not an infallible source for all words in use throughout the
English
> > speaking world.
>
> I'm going to go out on a limb and disagree with your description.
I have a chainsaw!
> >
> > Your opening assumption is ungrounded and unsafe. My religious
> > affiliation has been posted already and is one which I doubt you
would
> > be familiar with. I infer that you consider there is no "textual
> > support for the conclusion that one may publicly demean, diminish
or
> > otherwise belittle another through the use of scatological
comments."
> > If that is indeed correct I suggest you acquaint the local Bahai
> > community of this and advise that it (and its scions) cease and
desist
> > from utilising "scatological comments" to describe me. You may
also
> > wish to suggest that the National Assembly reply to correspondence
> > addressed to it about these "scatological comments" . But you
won't,
> > because that course of action would bring you into conflict with
the
> > covenant, for it entails querying a "divinely ordained
institution".
>
> Your hurt and your pain are apparent.
At being conned by the AO into believing the crap it puts out - at one
time maybe, but no more. My only expectation of the AO now is that it
will continue to indulge its penchant for mendacity - "my object all
sublime, I will achieve in time, is to make the punishment fit the
crime."
> The faith of Baha'is is, or ought to be, grounded in Baha'u'llah,
not
> in the actions, or inactions of other people, either Baha'i or
> otherwise. You rage at Baha'is for the loss of your faith, yet He
says
> that His followers must live in Him, must offer up their hearts to
God.
Another unsafe assumption - do you really think I am such a weakling
that the assorted glypes, gulpins and gobshites in the AO can cause my
loss of whatever Faith I subscribe to. Don't flatter them! I deal
with the AO when it intrudes on my space, when it has not the manners
to remove itself from my orbit - the belief system I subscribe to (if
any) is not affected in any way by the aforementioned societal
detritus.
> Having done that, they become immune to the changes and chances of
this
> world, just as Mona was immune to the threats of her murderers.
> Baha'u'llah says that all pain comes from this world.
He was right - this is the world we inhabit! Wonder what he thinks
about the way his Faith has been distorted? Do you think the Stones
should be rolled out - or maybe they have been?
>
> If you believe in Baha'u'llah:
> Send me (privately) copies of your correspondence. If I think you
have
> been wronged, I'll write my first ever letter to the Universal House
of
> Justice. If I think otherwise, I'll tell you privately.
Already been to the High House - got the reply I expected, "Feck
Off!". It hasn't replied to my last three communications, as
expected. The local ABM hasn't replied to any of the letters sent to
him, the Local Assembly ruminated and carminated, but it was all hot
noxious gas and the National Assembly spouted platitudes and then
studiously ignored the rest. What makes you think that you would have
any success in having the various organs deal with the great Covenant
Breaker and Enemy of the Faith as I am so succinctly described by
those Guardians of the local community?
By now you ought to be realising that you are dealing with a vicious
bastard who is an unmitigated enemy of the Faith who ought to be (and
is) shunned by the community. Such is my worthy reputation locally
and, since it is, I must live up to it, for none may question the
divinely ordained precepts of the AO and its organs. In offering to
deal with the enemy you are engaging in covenantly challenging
behaviour and should be reported to your local ABM for counselling
about your understanding of the covenant.
> > Personally I think that, faced with the current crew of gombeen
men in
> > the AO and the spineless "bungalows" that fawn on them, Abdul Baha
> > would have puked and then kicked ass!
>
> Strongly disagree. He did not respond thusly when His own life was
> threatened, or when face with (for 17 years) hatred. He responded
with
> love, the perfect love bomber, and His love changed those He came in
> contact with. I figure if He can give away His own pants, I can give
> you a promise.
Never believe your own propaganda (it's only for the suckers) - have a
look at what E.G. Browne thought of him (the full version) and then
take a look at how he dealt with Kheiralla. I think you'll find the
man was a lot more decisive and complex than the "love bomber" image
you delude yourself with. He chose his weapons to suit the person and
situation he was dealing with, all the better to achieve his
objective.
The Grim Reaper and Covenant Breaker(Presumptive)
"And I looked and beheld a pale horse: and his name that sat on him
was Death and Hell followed with him" - Revelation - Chapter 7 Verse
8.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Brian F. Walker
quoting rlittle:
>> The faith of Baha'is is, or ought to be, grounded in Baha'u'llah,not
>> in the actions, or inactions of other people, either Baha'i or
>> otherwise. You rage at Baha'is for the loss of your faith, yet He says
>> that His followers must live in Him, must offer up their hearts to God.
>
>
>Another unsafe assumption - do you really think I am such a weakling
>that the assorted glypes, gulpins and gobshites in the AO can cause my
>loss of whatever Faith I subscribe to. Don't flatter them! I deal
>with the AO when it intrudes on my space, when it has not the manners
>to remove itself from my orbit - the belief system I subscribe to (if
>any) is not affected in any way by the aforementioned societal
>detritus.
Well, the AO was not cited here - but the command of Baha'u'llah. To live
in the faith of Baha'u'llah.
Weakling? Difficult to say. A really strong person has no need of strong
words. So far I have seen hot air and bluster from you. Wit too, but not
enough of it. Too much bother with your concerns on AO.
> snip
>Already been to the High House - got the reply I expected, "Feck
>Off!". It hasn't replied to my last three communications, as
>expected.
And why should they? From what I have seen of your correspondence, I would
see no purpose.
>The local ABM hasn't replied to any of the letters sent to him,
ditto - waste of his time.
>the Local Assembly ruminated and carminated, but it was all hot
>noxious gas and the National Assembly spouted platitudes and then
>studiously ignored the rest. What makes you think that you would have
>any success in having the various organs deal with the great Covenant
>Breaker and Enemy of the Faith as I am so succinctly described by
>those Guardians of the local community?
But you are not a covenant breaker. You may be an enemy of the faith, but I
think we have had better men do worse.
>By now you ought to be realising that you are dealing with a vicious
>bastard who is an unmitigated enemy of the Faith who ought to be (and
>is) shunned by the community. Such is my worthy reputation locally
>and, since it is, I must live up to it, for none may question the
>divinely ordained precepts of the AO and its organs. In offering to
>deal with the enemy you are engaging in covenantly challenging
>behaviour and should be reported to your local ABM for counselling
>about your understanding of the covenant.
Well, it does not bother me, so if you want you can report me to the
Spiritual Assembly of Hong Kong. The point is, you are not a CB, so no
problem. Even if you were, I would be able to "deal" with you if I wanted
to, and the choice is mine.
The chainsaw bit? Now that is wit.
All the best,
Brian
Bruce
>
> But you are not a covenant breaker. You may be an enemy of the faith,
but I
> think we have had better men do worse.
Yes, and they are BIGS.
Brian F. Walker
brb...@mailbag.com (Bruce) wrote in <8se4u6$nq1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
(quoting me to Dermod, bless you Dermod)
>> But you are not a covenant breaker. You may be an enemy of the
>>faith,but I think we have had better men do worse.
>
>Yes, and they are BIGS.
By definition, incorrect. A BIGS will not be classified as an enemy of the
faith unless s/he does something to justify that general pejorative. (Help
me out on this one people ... is "enemy of the faith" a term used in the
Baha'i Faith? Never come across it as applicable in the BF yet ... )
I suppose you mean by this to cast a stone at the AO in general, as is your
wont. I would have used more descriptive language in a poor emulation of
the Monty Python sketch humour pejoratives. Or Blackadder. Something like
..."you are a pimple on the face of religious reality", or "Buddhism 1:
Baha'i 0 and our enemies are more benign than your enemies, sucks ya boo."
Anyway, may your karma suit ya, or if not, may you kama sutra.
All the best,
Brian
Bruce
dr.w...@fsandp.remove.com (Brian F. Walker) wrote:
> Good afternoon Bruce
>
> brb...@mailbag.com (Bruce) wrote in <8se4u6$nq1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
>
> (quoting me to Dermod, bless you Dermod)
> >
> >Yes, and they are BIGS.
>
of the
> faith unless s/he does something to justify that general pejorative.
(Help
> me out on this one people ... is "enemy of the faith" a term used in
the
> Baha'i Faith? Never come across it as applicable in the BF yet ... )
>
> I suppose you mean by this to cast a stone at the AO in general, as
is your
> wont.
I don't give a rat's ass about the Baha'i apparatchiks, and it is not
what I was referring to; rather, it is the well meaning fundy types who
manage to make Baha'i look bad, very bad, worse than anything any
supposed enemy of Baha'i could manage. When I was on Compuserve in the
mid 80's there was a fundy that made Baha'i look stupid, idiotic, and
otherwise moronic, and since then I have seen this happen with
regularity on various forums.
patk...@my-deja.com
In article <8FCFA5322drwa...@202.76.4.10>,
dr.w...@fsandp.remove.com (Brian F. Walker) wrote:
> Good afternoon Bruce
>
(snips)
> By definition, incorrect. A BIGS will not be classified as an enemy
of the
> faith unless s/he does something to justify that general pejorative.
(Help
> me out on this one people ... is "enemy of the faith" a term used in
the
> Baha'i Faith? Never come across it as applicable in the BF yet ... )
>
I have seen/heard it in use. I consider it an oxymoron, though there
are individuals who seem to habitually exhibit enmity toward the
faith. I say it is an oxymororn because the Master teaches us we have
no enemies. Consider MrMahdi, for example: he seems to exhibit a
habitual enmity toward the faith, yet, he busies himself with starting
discussions which seem crafted to make the BF look good. He is a
friend of the faith.
Blessings!
- Pat
ko...@ameritel.net
rlit...@my-deja.com
Baha'is over the years. If nothing else, I owe you for that.
I recall a certain, um, drunkenness in my first couple of months. I was
walking around, practically grabbing people to tell them excitedly
about Baha'u'llah. I was astounded that so many people would think I
was nuts, or that they would not see His beauty. Amazed.
Then, after a few months I noticed that Baha'is aint poifect. It really
shocked me. I absented myself from them for a month, and thought about
it. It came to me gradually that Baha'is were totally, completely,
absolutely, unimportant to the great question: is Baha'u'llah truth? I
searched His writings again, and came anew to my previous answer, Yes!
I then recommenced my participation in the Baha'i community, which I
promptly changed to one which had less than 15. I went progressively to
more spiritually rewarding places and after six years had completely
destroyed my high tech career, and partially destroyed as my health,
but on the other hand, I had practiced being a Baha'i and had learned a
great deal, albeit at the carpenter level, rather than the architect
level.
I spent a number of years after that having a very tough time dealing
with what I had come to see as a very materialistic, very superficial,
very violent society. A change from difficulty with Baha'is to a
difficulty with everyone/thing else.
Finally, I came full cycle. I came to a place where I was able to work
in both worlds, live in the spiritual reality of the world Baha'u'llah
envisions, yet at the same time live in this world of ghettos and
beautiful sunsets, of guns and warm embraces.
Sitting here now, and looking over the last few years I cannot think of
one single thing another Baha'i has done to me that was not good, or
that hurt.
I think that my treatment has to do with me, more than, or at least as
much as, with others. I am older and wiser now, so I am more apt to
spot poor/mixed motives where I was formerly blind, but I also respond
to them differently than I might have earlier. Baha'is in my community
seem to treat me with a lot of love, and I enjoy trying to give it
back. Hard to explain in only a few minutes, but I once again thank you
for bringing this up.
Frankly, methinks thou dost protest too much.
Robert A. Little
In article <8s9lh7$h71$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
panopti...@my-deja.com
> Subject: Re: Justice
>
>
> Your post set me to thinking about my (perceived) treatment by other
> Baha'is over the years. If nothing else, I owe you for that.
I'll send the bill.
> I recall a certain, um, drunkenness in my first couple of months. I
was
> walking around, practically grabbing people to tell them excitedly
> about Baha'u'llah. I was astounded that so many people would think I
> was nuts, or that they would not see His beauty. Amazed.
>
> Then, after a few months I noticed that Baha'is aint poifect. It
really
> shocked me. I absented myself from them for a month, and thought
about
> it. It came to me gradually that Baha'is were totally, completely,
> absolutely, unimportant to the great question: is Baha'u'llah truth?
I
> searched His writings again, and came anew to my previous answer,
>Yes!
This is not original thinking - this is AO crap the "if mistakes are
made they are made by individual Bahais who "ain't poifect" but the
system is "poifect" just embryonic etc etc" The sign of maturity is
the ability to recognise mistakes, apologise for them and overcome the
adverse effects - in other words achieve unity in a diverse community
by reconciling opposing factions and having them live peacefully
together. You can't do that! You can only deal with those who agree
with you totally! You go into shock because people can't see what you
see - what gives you the right to be superior to them?
> I then recommenced my participation in the Baha'i community, which I
> promptly changed to one which had less than 15. I went progressively
to
> more spiritually rewarding places and after six years had completely
> destroyed my high tech career, and partially destroyed as my health,
> but on the other hand, I had practiced being a Baha'i and had
learned a
> great deal, albeit at the carpenter level, rather than the architect
> level.
You have learned nothing - when the world rejected your POV on the
Bahai Faith you retreated back to the confortable circles where Bahais
congratulate themselves on their perceptiveness and lament the poor
ignorant sods outside.
> I spent a number of years after that having a very tough time
dealing
> with what I had come to see as a very materialistic, very
superficial,
> very violent society. A change from difficulty with Baha'is to a
> difficulty with everyone/thing else.
>From my own experience there is no more materialistic, superficial and
vacuous society than the Bahai introspection.
>
> Finally, I came full cycle. I came to a place where I was able to
work
> in both worlds, live in the spiritual reality of the world
Baha'u'llah
> envisions, yet at the same time live in this world of ghettos and
> beautiful sunsets, of guns and warm embraces.
Bahais live in that external inferior world only to the extent that
they find their lucre there. Again from mine own experience, they
know nothing of the world of ghettoes, discrimination, hatred etc for
they make it their business to live in their own isolated and superior
society. They want nothing to do with the disadvantaged - they
certainly don't want them within the Faith. Of course they also don't
want people like me but, there again, people like me aren't going back
into it. And that ultimately is your loss - without the "spark" you
are going nowhere fast. Without constructive opposition and question
it's all too easy to realise just how perfect things are! You make
enemies and some of those enemies are a lot smarter than you - the
effort of opposing the enemies then draws resources off what you
should be doing and your society gets even more introspective making
it a lot easier for all of those enemies out there to do more and more
damage.
> Sitting here now, and looking over the last few years I cannot think
of
> one single thing another Baha'i has done to me that was not good, or
> that hurt.
You have led a sheltered life. I, on the other hand have seen your
precious AO shaft people. I've seen that up close and personal and
seen the hurt that was dished out by people who were totally
indifferent and insensitive to others. They have tried to shaft me by
sheltering their precious adherents from the evil one in their midst -
by warning the wee BIGS not to associate with him, to avoid him and
most certainly never to discuss anything pertaining to the Faith with
him. They really are sad people and quite pathetic. They are a
source of constant amusement to me. Great fun to be in the same
supermarket as a local BIGS stalwart and know he is doing his best to
avoid meeting you in the aisles - that or causing another one to
hastily consume his cofffee and flee because he has seen you coming up
a road you ain't supposed to be on.
> I think that my treatment has to do with me, more than, or at least
as
> much as, with others. I am older and wiser now, so I am more apt to
> spot poor/mixed motives where I was formerly blind, but I also
respond
> to them differently than I might have earlier. Baha'is in my
community
> seem to treat me with a lot of love, and I enjoy trying to give it
> back. Hard to explain in only a few minutes, but I once again thank
you
> for bringing this up.
That's your problem in a nutshell - Bahais love Bahais and hate
everybody else as too ignorant, blind or stupid to see the wonderful
aspect of their cosy society. Scorn is of course especially reserved
for those who have caused "trouble" within that society and have
removed themselves from it or been removed.
> Frankly, methinks thou dost protest too much.
You're entitled to your opinion - remember however it is just that and
naught else. Don't ever confuse it with fact! As it is based on
little experience I don't think it counts for much - for opinion to be
valid it has to add something new, it has to cast fresh light on a
subject. Your posts frankly do not do that - they are apolgetic and
polemical in tone. They have neither caused one hint of change in
mine opinion nor excited further thought. On the other hand as you
stated at the beginning .... Now take a further step and start
looking not for what is right in the AO but for what is wrong. When
you have identified some of that, when you have analysed why people do
not flock to your beloved AO, when you understand why people like me
despise people like you not for what you are but for what you think
and how you treat people like me, when you can proffer fresh
approaches to these problems - then you will have an opinion that is
worth something, that will cause the spark of conflict out of which
solutions come.
Methinks thou dost not protest enough!
The Grim Reaper.
PS The title was honourably bestowed upon me for action in the field
of battle and is much beloved for that and the fact that the local
yokels hate it. Of course I also revel in the titles they have
bestowed upon me - "next best thing to a Covenant Breaker" and "Enemy
of the Faith".
panopti...@my-deja.com
Certainly the Declaration Card for the UK requires acceptance of
Baha'u'llah AND the AO. In the view of the AO if you reject the latter
you are deemed to reject both. To live in Faith does not require
membership of that which will draw one down into a cesspit. I think
Abdul Baha stated that to be a Bahai it was only necessary to live the
life and that was before the onset of the AO as a blot on the
landscape Jesus said nothing about membership of the Church - any
Church. These are the man made concretions that dampen the ardour and
inhibit the spirit. I live my life as I see fit and reject
categorisation or identification with any religious organisation - to
me they are all the same, donkey's rectums each trying to make more
noise than the other and convince a cynical world that they alone are
the only way to Salvation.
>
> Weakling? Difficult to say. A really strong person has no need of
strong
> words. So far I have seen hot air and bluster from you. Wit too, but
not
> enough of it. Too much bother with your concerns on AO.
Well I' 6' 4", built like a brick thunderbox and I scare the s*** out
of the local yokels, some of whom go to great lengths to avoid contact
with me. If "hot air and bluster" can achieve that, it sure says a
lot about the calibre of these people who present themselves or are
presented as the leaders of the religion for the new age - not the
stuff martyrs are made of. You could put it down to human weakness
but I think it's more likely the reaction of a typical smartass caught
out doing something wrong! He has no grounds for being brave not like
somebody standing on high moral ground.
> > snip
> >Already been to the High House - got the reply I expected, "Feck
> >Off!". It hasn't replied to my last three communications, as
> >expected.
>
> And why should they? From what I have seen of your correspondence, I
would
> see no purpose.
>
> >The local ABM hasn't replied to any of the letters sent to him,
>
> ditto - waste of his time.
Alternative view - they really can't reply as they or their minions
have slandered me to such a degree that they know their only possible
ways of exit are either to apologise or ignore the bugger in the hope
he'll go away and leave them alone. We know that the AO doesn't
apologise so it works according to its precedent of ignoring that it
does not feel able to answer. (BTW I have internal sources which
confirm that is the policy adopted with me). Now this little local
problem isn't going to go away of its own accord - indeed, it's going
to get worse. The real fun bit is coming - I'm a patient sadist!
> >the Local Assembly ruminated and carminated, but it was all hot
> >noxious gas and the National Assembly spouted platitudes and then
> >studiously ignored the rest. What makes you think that you would
have
> >any success in having the various organs deal with the great
Covenant
> >Breaker and Enemy of the Faith as I am so succinctly described by
> >those Guardians of the local community?
>
> But you are not a covenant breaker. You may be an enemy of the
faith, but I
> think we have had better men do worse.
I am an enemy of no true faith but I am an enemy of those who
corruptly exploit one for their own ends, especially if they try to do
that at my expense.
> >By now you ought to be realising that you are dealing with a
vicious
> >bastard who is an unmitigated enemy of the Faith who ought to be
(and
> >is) shunned by the community. Such is my worthy reputation locally
> >and, since it is, I must live up to it, for none may question the
> >divinely ordained precepts of the AO and its organs. In offering
to
> >deal with the enemy you are engaging in covenantly challenging
> >behaviour and should be reported to your local ABM for counselling
> >about your understanding of the covenant.
>
> Well, it does not bother me, so if you want you can report me to the
> Spiritual Assembly of Hong Kong. The point is, you are not a CB, so
no
> problem. Even if you were, I would be able to "deal" with you if I
wanted
> to, and the choice is mine.
Send me the address post haste! Don't forget to include that for the
ABM!
> The chainsaw bit? Now that is wit.
I'm failing - that was the serious bit!
As ever,
Dermod.
Brian F. Walker
panopti...@my-deja.com wrote in <8sgb25$in4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
>Certainly the Declaration Card for the UK requires acceptance of
>Baha'u'llah AND the AO.
The relevant passage is in Gleanings:
II. The beginning of all things is the knowledge of God, and the end of all
things is strict observance of whatsoever hath been sent down from the
empyrean of the Divine Will that pervadeth all that is in the heavens and
all that is on the earth.
> snip ... I think Abdul Baha stated that to be a Bahai it was only
>necessary to live the life
Well yes certainly. Perhaps we can so far as to say that anyone who
believes in Baha'u'llah is a Baha'i, and has nothing to do with
administration whatsoever. To be a member of the Baha'i community is
something else altogether. What precisely is implied by "living the life"
is the key.
As the AO had not been established in the time of Abdu'l-Baha, He could not
really have made any comments about the practicalities.
>and that was before the onset of the AO as a blot on the landscape
It is not perfect, true, but it is a lot better than other organisations
around. I would far prefer to deal with the AO than our triads in HK, or
reason with an IRA/UVF idiot in the full flow of hemibrainectomied blood
lust.
>Jesus said nothing about membership of the Church - any Church.
Indeed. In fact Jesus made quite clear that a Christian is to be known by
one and one thing only - the extent to which the believer manifests true
love. By that measure there are not a lot of Christians around.
>These are the man made concretions that dampen the ardour and
>inhibit the spirit. I live my life as I see fit and reject
>categorisation or identification with any religious organisation - to
>me they are all the same, donkey's rectums each trying to make more
>noise than the other and convince a cynical world that they alone are
>the only way to Salvation.
True. It is the Bible which unites Christians, and churches which divide
them. Or so I used to say in my earlier ardour.
>> Weakling? Difficult to say. A really strong person has no need of
>strong
>> words. So far I have seen hot air and bluster from you. Wit too, but
>not
>> enough of it. Too much bother with your concerns on AO.
>
>Well I' 6' 4", built like a brick thunderbox and I scare the s*** out
>of the local yokels, some of whom go to great lengths to avoid contact
>with me.
:) I always found that a length of lead pipe filled with sand does a great
deal of damage to softer body parts ... etc. But then we Celts are not
particularly amenable to bullies.
>If "hot air and bluster" can achieve that, it sure says a
>lot about the calibre of these people who present themselves or are
>presented as the leaders of the religion for the new age - not the
>stuff martyrs are made of.
Ah, but which of us really knows if we are the stuff of martyrs until we
are in the situation?
>You could put it down to human weakness but I think it's more likely the
>reaction of a typical smartass caught out doing something wrong! He has
>no grounds for being brave not like somebody standing on high moral
>ground.
Very true. What was it that happened to piss you off so mightily? (private
email if you prefer ...)
>I am an enemy of no true faith but I am an enemy of those who
>corruptly exploit one for their own ends, especially if they try to do
>that at my expense.
Sounds fine by me
>snip
>Send me the address post haste! Don't forget to include that for the
>ABM!
ABM? No idea ... they would pass it on for sure.
>> The chainsaw bit? Now that is wit.
>
>I'm failing - that was the serious bit!
Ooops .... sorry about that!
All the best,
Brian
Curious
> As the AO had not been established in the time of Abdu'l-Baha, He
could not
> really have made any comments about the practicalities.
>
> >and that was before the onset of the AO as a blot on the landscape
>
> It is not perfect, true, but it is a lot better than other
organisations
> around. I would far prefer to deal with the AO than our triads in HK,
or
> reason with an IRA/UVF idiot in the full flow of hemibrainectomied
blood
> lust.
>
Oh....Great....Dealing with the AO preferable to dealing with the
Triads, IRA/UVF(UDF?)......how long have you been in advertising?
Gangsters are at least familiar with 'rough justice', which is often
preferable to 'none at all'.
--
Curious