Darrick declared a Covenant-Breaker?
Darrick Evenson
I keep on getting emails from people saying that they were told by someone in their Community
or LSA that I was declared a "Covenant-Breaker"! This is certainly news-to-me.
Could someone please call the Baha'i National center and ask. I'm curious, and
they probably won't tell me.
Darrick Evenson
NSAUS
(847) 869-9039
Dean Martineau
informed than they need to be. There is no way that Derek can be a
Covenant-breaker, since, as a non-member of the Baha'i Faith, he is not a
party to the Covenant. YOu can't break what you haven't agreed to abide by.
Pat Kohli
Dean Martineau wrote:
Prior to resigning from the faith, Darrick had joined the faith; he had agreed
to abide by the lesser covenant. Prior to the online campaign to reform the BF
(to be more like the LDS) Darrick had re-declared. However this was declined by
the US NSA. The possibility does exist that Darrick is a Baha'i, though
unenrolled.
Darrick's fallacy is more likely along the lines of starting the rumors
_himself_. If he were a covenant breaker, who would be sending him
emails???????????
Darrick, could you clue us in as to which chapters of the "Qayyumu'l Asma"
discuss abortion? Perhaps we could look in those chapters and maybe get a
translation of those parts of the "Qayyumu'l Asma"?
Blessings!
- Pat
ko...@ameritel.net
Nima Hazini
"Pat Kohli" <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message
news:3B0C5BA1...@ameritel.net...
>Darrick, could you clue us in as to which chapters of the "Qayyumu'l Asma"
>discuss abortion? Perhaps we could look in those chapters and maybe get a
>translation of those parts of the "Qayyumu'l Asma"?
While you're at it make some 'pasta razool' ;-)
cheers,
Nima
Pat Kohli
Nima Hazini wrote:
This is an easy recipe.
Go to your local Arabic English dictionary and get some words. Let them
marinate until you can not pronounce them or transliterate them without drawing
laughs. Stir them counterclockwise while reciting these disjointed letters,
"Lam, Dal, Sin", repeating 114 times (if you forget the letters, use Ell, Dee,
Ess as in "Later Day Saints"). Pepper with racist and sexist preconceptions
and add, with hopeless self piousness, "'Abdu'l Baha agrees with me". Stir in
a lot of nonsense, such as the BCCA is censoring the cook, and top with
paranoid rumors about what folks who don't email you are not saying. Garnish
with fabrications of Baha'i doctrine.
Serve to a news group - manifest nonsense.
Nima Hazini
Frank Schlatter
Darrick,
Surely there must be some mistake. According to the book "The
Covenant--Its Meaning and Origin and Our Attitude Toward It",
published by the American NSA in 1988: "A Baha'i who violates the
Covenant is declared a Covenant-breaker only after 'every effort is
made to help that person see the illogicality and error of his
actions.' The decision whether or not to expel or reinstate (if a
Covenant-breaker sincerely repents) is made by the Hands of the Cause
residing in the Holy Land subject to the approval of the Universal
House of Justice."
Perhaps you need to contact the national body and repent, for surely
every effort was made to help you see the illogicality and error of
your actions.
Right?..........
No, it is not right. And if you have indeed been identified as a
Covenant-breaker without any attempt to help you to see the error of
your ways, you are not alone. Others have experienced the same kind
of treatment.
Sincerely,
Frank
Saman Ahmadi
Frank Schlatter wrote:
>
> No, it is not right. And if you have indeed been identified as a
> Covenant-breaker without any attempt to help you to see the error of
> your ways, you are not alone. Others have experienced the same kind
> of treatment.
>
> Sincerely,
> Frank
Who has been declared a covenant-breaker without notice?
-saman
Randy Burns
What you said might make sense, except that it is well known that Darrick is
a former Baha'i and therefore could be declared a Covenant Breaker at any
time by the UHJ or the American NSA even though he has left the faith many
years ago. What could prevent either of these two bodies from taking this
action if they desired to?
Cheers, Randy
--
Dean Martineau <medi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:LyXO6.15001$9D5.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Saman Ahmadi
Covenant-Breaker. An NSA can remove the administrative rights
of a Baha'i for violation(s) of Baha'i Law.
Of course, in all likelihood, the UHJ will consult the members of
the Continental Board of Counsellors and/or the NSA of a country
when deciding whether or not a Baha'i has broken the Covenant.
What would be the status of a person who never declared himself
to be a Baha'i but decided to follow a Covenant-Breaker? I don't
know - I'm sure the question has been asked and hopefully someone
here has the answer.
-saman
BIGS - Bahai In *Perfectly* Good Standing
declared covenant breakers. I believe Juan Cole
discusses cases in New Zealand on my website
somewhere.
--
Frederick Glaysher
www.fglaysher.com
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/fglaysher/index.htm
"Saman Ahmadi" <s.ah...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3B0D3D7D...@worldnet.att.net...
Roger Reini
Standing" <patric...@liberty.com> wrote:
>FACT is non-bahais and ex-bahais have been
>declared covenant breakers. I believe Juan Cole
>discusses cases in New Zealand on my website
>somewhere.
If I recall the circumstances of those correctly, I think at least one
of those cases involved descendants of the family of Baha'u'llah, who
as we know had all been declared Covenant breakers for one reason or
another. Now these descendants were, in all likelihood, never
enrolled believers, but I believe the Universal House of Justice still
warned believers to shun them because they were too close to the ones
who had actually broken the Covenant. Somebody didn't shun them after
being warned and thus was expelled.
I might have something in my files on this; let me look through them.
Frank Schlatter
was, for one. So were most of those who became Orthodox Baha'is at the
same time as I.
More recently, some friends of mine in the Chicago area were deemed
Covenant-Breakers without any notice. In fact, when the male member
of the married couple decided to leave the Wilmette/Haifa
organization, he was not only identified as a Covenant-breaker but so
too was his wife (and, as I recall, she wasn't even a Baha'i.) I
guess she was identified as a Covenant-breaker simply because she was
married to the Baha'i who decided to join the Orthodox Faith.
I don't get the impression that some of my friends in Australia were
given any notice recently that they were going to be declared
Covenant-breakers. Indeed, it seems to be the pattern of the
sans-Guardian organization to announce purported Covenant-breakers in
newsletters but not to notify the so-called Covenant-breakers of the
action. One would at least feel that, in all justice, the individuals
who have been deemed Covenant-breakers would be given a "bill of
particulars", but I don't get the impression that that is the mode of
operation in the sans-Guardian organization.
I suppose that followers of the sans-Guardian UHJ find it hard to
believe that there often is no warning given to individuals by anybody
that they are going to be classified as Covenant-breakers. And in all
likelihood, they won't believe it until someone close to them, or they
themselves, have the label affixed to them.
Saman Ahmadi
Obviously, if a Baha'i were to one day decide that
Mason Remey was the Guardian of the Baha'i
Faith after Shoghi Effendi, there would not be a need
for a notice since Mason Remey was expelled from the
Faith.
Many years ago Shoghi Effendi forbade Iranian Baha'is
from coming to the United States and were told that if
they did, they would be expelled. Some did and were
expelled.
That is different than when a person attempts to undermine
the authority of the Universal House of Justice. In that case,
he/she is warned, as the letter to the author of the majunun post
clearly states, and then, if the person persists, the UHJ declares
that person to be a Covenant-Breaker.
(Note: as far as I know, the author of the majnun post withdrew
from the Baha'i Faith.)
-saman
Randy Burns
Roger Reini <ro...@rreini.com> wrote in message
news:cFwNO9MjXjEU5=LbG1xbt...@4ax.com...
> If I recall the circumstances of those correctly, I think at least one
> of those cases involved descendants of the family of Baha'u'llah, who
> as we know had all been declared Covenant breakers for one reason or
> another. Now these descendants were, in all likelihood, never
> enrolled believers, but I believe the Universal House of Justice still
> warned believers to shun them because they were too close to the ones
> who had actually broken the Covenant. Somebody didn't shun them after
> being warned and thus was expelled.
In other words the UHJ has created a class of Untouchables who must now be
shunned by Baha'is on a worldwide basis. I wonder how a policy like this
goes over in India and among the Untouchables there? Is it true that
descendents of Covenant Breakers must be shunned by Baha'is in perpetuity?
That creates a permanent class of outcasts.
I have also heard that many Persian believers state that people who have
been expelled from the Faith are in an even worse class of outsiders than
Covenant Breakers. How can that be? What can be worse than breaking the
Covenant?
Food for thought,
Randy
Nima Hazini
uhj?? The context of the discussions which prompted the letter, as should be
apparent without even being privy to the discussions, was about the nsa of
the US not the uhj. Boy, does AF paranoia have a life of its own or what!
You guys make the mullahs in Iran look good by comparison.
And, yes, the author of the majnun post has since withdrawn.
khar mote'aseb o moghrez o paranoid nabaashid
Nima
"Saman Ahmadi" <s.ah...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3B0DC734...@worldnet.att.net...
Saman Ahmadi
There was, of course, a broader context - that is
obvious to anyone reading the Talisman posts.
Following your reminder to me some months ago
regarding Baha'u'llah's abrogation of the Islamic
practice of "amr be ma'roof va nahy az monkar", I
have attempted not to tell anyone what to do and
what not to do.
har chi mikhad bashid bashid
-saman
Nima Hazini
>There was, of course, a broader context - that is
>obvious to anyone reading the Talisman posts.
BS
>har chi mikhad bashid bashid
shomaa-ham dar khaab-e gheflat bemanid
cheers,
Nima
Roger Reini
wrote:
>Dear Roger
>
>Roger Reini <ro...@rreini.com> wrote in message
>news:cFwNO9MjXjEU5=LbG1xbt...@4ax.com...
>
>> If I recall the circumstances of those correctly, I think at least one
>> of those cases involved descendants of the family of Baha'u'llah, who
>> as we know had all been declared Covenant breakers for one reason or
>> another. Now these descendants were, in all likelihood, never
>> enrolled believers, but I believe the Universal House of Justice still
>> warned believers to shun them because they were too close to the ones
>> who had actually broken the Covenant. Somebody didn't shun them after
>> being warned and thus was expelled.
>
>In other words the UHJ has created a class of Untouchables who must now be
>shunned by Baha'is on a worldwide basis. I wonder how a policy like this
>goes over in India and among the Untouchables there? Is it true that
>descendents of Covenant Breakers must be shunned by Baha'is in perpetuity?
>That creates a permanent class of outcasts.
Speculation: I would imagine that at some point, the descendents of
CB's will be so far removed from the Covenant-breaking activity of
their ancestors that they would not be subject to sanction. What that
point is, I do not know. It's not for me to determine. As for those
closer in time to their CB relatives, if they demonstrate the
willingness to detach themselves completely from the CB's in the
family, then they would be able to be admitted to membership in the
Faith.
I don't see this as a permanent class of outcasts at all.
>
>I have also heard that many Persian believers state that people who have
>been expelled from the Faith are in an even worse class of outsiders than
>Covenant Breakers. How can that be? What can be worse than breaking the
>Covenant?
I have never heard this sentiment expressed. To me, the two
conditions are synonymous. More than that, they are identical. The
only way one is expelled from the Faith is by breaking the Covenant.
Note that I don't consider removal from the rolls of the believers a
la Mike McKinney to be the same as expulsion.
Michael McKenny
Many thanks for your comments.
Would this be before, after or at the same time as the exclusion of
women from the UHJ is understood as clearly as the sun at noon? Since the
sun at noon quote is stated to be "Soon", and the other, as far as I know,
has no such qualification, my guess is that the UHJ, if it then exists,
will provide a clear understanding for the exclusion of women before it
allows association with the descendants of Covenant Breakers.
However, the future is very unclear. Here we are in the year 2001,
undeniably beyond the end of 20th Century and predicted rise of Baha'i
in the world, the emergence of world peace and even, possibly, the full
existence of the Arc failed to occur in that century. The very narrow
fundamentalist vision has not materialized and is being re-defined.
What actually happens later may be even more significantly different
than what surprised us in the past. This includes the potential for the
influence of Baha'u'llah to overcome this whole nonsense of outcasts at
all. A people who shun others is medieval and not a part of any future
or present worthy of the world-embracing vision of the Founders of the
religion. It is possible at any time for those who have cast themselves
out of this vision to opt in and join the 21st Century. That can happen
at any time.
To the Future,
Michael
Roger Reini (ro...@rreini.com) writes:
>
> Speculation: I would imagine that at some point, the descendents of
> CB's will be so far removed from the Covenant-breaking activity of
> their ancestors that they would not be subject to sanction. What that
> point is, I do not know. It's not for me to determine. As for those
> closer in time to their CB relatives, if they demonstrate the
> willingness to detach themselves completely from the CB's in the
> family, then they would be able to be admitted to membership in the
> Faith.
>
> I don't see this as a permanent class of outcasts at all.
>
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
Saman Ahmadi
Regarding family of Covenant-Breakers: I know from
personal experience that the family of those who are
declared Covenant-Breakers are not automatically
Covenant-Breakers.
I am distantly related to Jamshid Maani who made a claim of
Manifestationhood after the death of the Shoghi Effendi. Some,
but not all, of his close relation followed him.
-saman
Saman Ahmadi
Nima Hazini wrote:
> "Saman Ahmadi" <s.ah...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:3B0E460A...@worldnet.att.net...
>
> >There was, of course, a broader context - that is
> >obvious to anyone reading the Talisman posts.
>
> BS
The context was direct opposition of the teachings of
the Faith (based on the writings of Abdul Baha) on the
issue of women on the Universal House of Justice, and
direct opposition of the teachings of the Faith (based on the
writings
of Shoghi Effendi and letters on his behalf) on the issue
of homosexuality - a point which you felt was against the
scheme of things since everything is in pairs but on which
you are now neutral.
The Universal House of Justice's refusal to interpret the
Writings to accommodate these views was dismissed over
and over again with irreverence . The majnun post was
a summation of how to approach the acceptance of
individual interpretations by a systematic and concerted
effort.
The argument that the post was misunderstood, may be
due to the style of writer and use of historical metaphors -
the same apology, by the way, which some have made
regarding the Baha'i-authored Modest Proposal - is
difficult to understand. Surely, professional authors are
aware of the connotations of their written words - the
Regan Syndrome of "ozr bad tar az gonAh"; knowing that a
missile
could not be recalled and lying versus not knowing that
a missile could be recalled and saying so is apropos.
The third issue was pre-publication review, which, with the
advent of the internet, was, for all practical purpose,
beginning
to be phased out - a fact to which Talisman was a witness.
Some of those days will remain the most intellectually
stimulating
time of my life.
>
> >har chi mikhad bashid bashid
>
> shomaa-ham dar khaab-e gheflat bemanid
As Juan might chime in, that all depends on your standpoint
epistemology, but, like I said, it's none of my busineess how
long you want to stay awake or if you never go to sleep again.
-saman
BIGS - Bahai In *Perfectly* Good Standing
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/tarc1196.htm
--
Frederick Glaysher
www.fglaysher.com
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/fglaysher/index.htm
"Saman Ahmadi" <s.ah...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3B0E9B21...@worldnet.att.net...
Roger Reini
McKenny) wrote:
>Hi, Roger.
> Many thanks for your comments.
> Would this be before, after or at the same time as the exclusion of
>women from the UHJ is understood as clearly as the sun at noon? Since the
>sun at noon quote is stated to be "Soon", and the other, as far as I know,
>has no such qualification, my guess is that the UHJ, if it then exists,
>will provide a clear understanding for the exclusion of women before it
>allows association with the descendants of Covenant Breakers.
As I said and/or implied, I will not presume to speak for the
Universal House of Justice on the matter of when someone who had been
associated with Covenant breakers may be admitted or re-admitted into
the Faith. I just said I can envision circumstances where the
connection or association may be so tenuous that it is effectively
non-existent.
> However, the future is very unclear. Here we are in the year 2001,
>undeniably beyond the end of 20th Century and predicted rise of Baha'i
>in the world, the emergence of world peace and even, possibly, the full
>existence of the Arc failed to occur in that century. The very narrow
>fundamentalist vision has not materialized and is being re-defined.
Au contraire; the unity of nations, mentioned by 'Abdu'l-Baha in His
"seven candles of unity" talk or Tablet, was indeed securely
established in the just-concluded century. This was not the same as
unity in the political realm, which would be the Lesser Peace.
Darrick Evenson
"false rumor" started by someone and is spreading all over the American
Baha'i Community.
So much for "not gossipping"....ha!
Darrick Evenson
darrick...@yahoo.com (Darrick Evenson) wrote in message news:<4ac0bf57.01052...@posting.google.com>...
Pat Kohli
Randy Burns wrote:
>
> I have also heard that many Persian believers state that people who have
> been expelled from the Faith are in an even worse class of outsiders than
> Covenant Breakers.
I read just that thing today on usenet! Could it be so, then?
> How can that be? What can be worse than breaking the
> Covenant?
>
Well, racism, rumour-mongering and hypocrisy don't sound so good, but at least
someone will rib you when you are treading thin ice in those areas, eh?
>
> Food for thought,
My guess would be: horse apples from one nitwit, assigned by another nitwit
to a whole ethnicity.
Blessings!
- Pat
ko...@ameritel.net
Nima Hazini
>The context was direct opposition of the teachings of
>the Faith (based on the writings of Abdul Baha) on the
>issue of women on the Universal House of Justice,
BS
>and direct opposition of the teachings of the Faith (based on the
>writings
>of Shoghi Effendi and letters on his behalf) on the issue
>of homosexuality
BS
> The majnun post was a summation of how to approach the acceptance of
>individual interpretations by a systematic and concerted
>effort.
Absolute BS.
>The argument that the post was misunderstood, may be
>due to the style of writer and use of historical metaphors -
>the same apology, by the way, which some have made
>regarding the Baha'i-authored Modest Proposal - is
>difficult to understand. Surely, professional authors are
>aware of the connotations of their written words - the
>Regan Syndrome of "ozr bad tar az gonAh"; knowing that a
>missile
>could not be recalled and lying versus not knowing that
>a missile could be recalled and saying so is apropos.
Party-line regurgitation. Total BS.
>Some of those days will remain the most intellectually
>stimulating
>time of my life.
Intellectually stimulating? LOL :) With the kind of drivel you've written
above I am questioning whether you even know what the word means...
>As Juan might chime in, that all depends on your standpoint
>epistemology, but, like I said, it's none of my busineess how
>long you want to stay awake or if you never go to sleep again.
No it's none of your business, but it is my prerogative if I say 'dar
gharaz-e khod o khaab-e gheflat-e mahz gharghi o dar bi-ensaafi yek-taa'.
You are worse than the hezbollahis of Iran!
cheers,
Nima
Randy Burns
Darrick
Darrick Evenson <darrick...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4ac0bf57.01052...@posting.google.com...
> I've discovered that I have NOT been declared a Covenant-Breaker, but this
was a
> "false rumor" started by someone and is spreading all over the American
How do you know? Did you call someone and ask? Did they pretend to check a
register of all declared Covenant Breakers? Kind of like calling
information and asking for a phone number and they tell you there is no such
number. Do you accept their statement? Do you have it in writings with the
signature of someone you respect?
If they have declared you a Covenant Breaker and told Baha'is to shun you,
how will you ever know for sure unless the names of all such CB's are
published somewhere publicly for inspection. Something to think about.
Cheers, Randy
Proud to be a member of the BACK to BAHA'U'LLAH folks!
--
Michael McKenny
Which Sliders' world do you hail from? As I said, "Being re-defined".
Now, you define it as the Lesser Peace not being predicted for the 20th
Century and that the nations are united. There may be others reading this
who recall that Abdu'l Baha was quoted by the press as predicting world
peace by the end of the century. This was widely mentioned by Baha'i
missionaries (er, pioneers and teachers) throughout the 20th century.
I'm told several years back Doug Martin guaranteed we'd have world peace
by the end of the Century. What was the point of the UHJ extending the
borders of time so that January 1, 2001, contrary to common opinion, was
taken as the beginning of the 21st Century, except to delay expectations
by those who didn't regard the prophecies fulfilled in 1919 or 1945?
To Honesty,
Michael
Pat Kohli
Nima Hazini wrote:
> "Saman Ahmadi" <s.ah...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:3B0E9B21...@worldnet.att.net...
>
>
> > The majnun post was a summation of how to approach the acceptance of
> >individual interpretations by a systematic and concerted
> >effort.
>
> Absolute BS.
It is not about manifesto making; that is for sure. If it is _not_ about
orchestration of acceptance of individual intepretations, please do tell how
_you_ read it; that, I suspect would be an authoritative intepretation.
"1. *Any* sort of an organization is an absolute nonstarter at this point.
That is the one thing that will not in any way be tolerated. There is a clear
precedent in the Guardian's handling of the New History Society. It will just
get us all thrown out on our ears, force the decent people to back the
scoundrels, and in all likely push the Faith back into the intellectual
ghetto, much like happened after the expulsion of Sohrab. Let's forget it and
erase the messages suggesting it.
2. Ditto *Modest Proposal II*. It didn't work last time and it won't work
this time. It will just polarize the situation.
3. Ditto direct attacks on individuals. Leave them to dig their own
graves; they have, after all, staff to help them. Attacks on members of the
NSA by organized or perceived-to-be-organized agitators, particularly members
of the notorious ex-West LA crowd, will force the House to rally to the
defence of the NSA.
4. Let us remember that we have won three rounds recently: Talisman was
not strangled in its cradle; the NSA seems to have backed down on attacking
****--according to rumor because they feared that Indiana University would
sue them, I am gratified to say; and the NSA is standing its ground against
the House on the issue of the Baha'i encyclopedia.
5. We have hit on a winning strategy, I think:
a) Avoid direct confrontations whenever possible.
b) If attacked, as in ****'s case, indicate that we are prepared to stand
our ground and make trouble.
c) Get information and ideas into circulation.
d) Keep the heat on whenever it can be done without direct
confrontations.
e) Do not allow ourselves to be painted as bad Baha'is.
f) Give the powers-that-be a graceful way out of their problems.
They're starting to eat their horses inside the fortress; let's stay
safely in the trenches and not jump up and charge the cannons. This means
that we need to keep doing what we are doing: no committees, manifestos, or
unnecessary martyrs.
In particular, now is the time to lay on earnest charm.
And, ****, as for you, I do not want any more of these inflammatory
statements. You have no independent clout yet apart from whatever your family
connections might be, and we will need you for the next generation's fights.
There is no point in your getting thrown out now.
So lay off the manifesto-making and work on your Arabic verb tables, or I
will drop you from Talisman. What is the 8th form feminine plural imperative
of Q-R-B"
Khoda Negahdar!
- Pat
ko...@ameritel.net
Paul Hammond
Darrick Evenson wrote in message
<4ac0bf57.01052...@posting.google.com>...
>I've discovered that I have NOT been declared a Covenant-Breaker, but this
was a
>"false rumor" started by someone and is spreading all over the American
>Baha'i Community.
>
>So much for "not gossipping"....ha!
>Darrick Evenson
>
>
There's a lot of it about.
It seems to have happened to Nima, and some guy came onto
Beliefnet shouting about how he considered virtually everyone that
had posted stuff he didn't like to be a covenant breaker, and he
personally was going to shun us all without waiting for the judgement
of the UHJ.
Put it down to human failings, and hope that the AO has the guts
to kill these false rumours when they come along.
You *could* write to the US NSA and ask them to make a public
statement confirming this fact. Maybe some of it's members don't
like you, but it would be the fair thing to do.
Paul
Nima Hazini
There's a saying colloqial Persian you may wish to ask Saman about: to yeki
*dareto bezaar*!
cheers,
Nima
"Pat Kohli" <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message
news:3B101DB8...@ameritel.net...
Pat Kohli
Paul Hammond wrote:
>
> There's a lot of it about.
>
> It seems to have happened to Nima, and some guy came onto
> Beliefnet shouting about how he considered virtually everyone that
> had posted stuff he didn't like to be a covenant breaker, and he
> personally was going to shun us all without waiting for the judgement
> of the UHJ.
>
> Put it down to human failings, and hope that the AO has the guts
> to kill these false rumours when they come along.
>
> You *could* write to the US NSA and ask them to make a public
> statement confirming this fact. Maybe some of it's members don't
> like you, but it would be the fair thing to do.
It sure would be nice if there were consequences for folks who perpetrate these
vicious stories, like the guy who started this thread.
- Pat
ko...@ameritel.net
Saman Ahmadi
people should shut your trap".
I could be wrong though - I've not heard that one
before.
-saman
Randy Burns
Here's an idea for ya!
Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message
news:3B1126DD...@ameritel.net...
> Greetings!
>
> It sure would be nice if there were consequences for folks who perpetrate
these
> vicious stories, like the guy who started this thread.
Why don't you get the UHJ to put little stars on these "folks" so that we
will all know who they are? Like the "guy who started this thread" for
example, shouldn't he be tagged with something? Isn't this the solution you
are looking for?
Cheers, Randy
Steve Marshall
The New Zealand case (Pauline Smith) concerned a Baha'i who was taught
by "covenant breaker" descendants of the family of Baha'u'llah, in
Europe. She returned to New Zealand, where she contacted the Baha'is,
not knowing that she had been taught by "covenant breakers". The NZ
Baha'i administration accepted her application to be a member, and at
some point realised she had links with "covenant breakers". The admin
tried to re-educate her and get her to shun her friends but she
naturally wasn't keen on this, and resigned. The House apparently
decided that her resignation was a ruse to avoid being declared a
"covenant breaker" and declared her one.
I may not have that 100% right, but this is arb/trb, right? :-)
Individual Baha'is occasionally do seem to think they can declare
people to be "covenant breakers". Someone naming himself SeekerAlpha,
and apparently hailing from Texas, told me I was one, on BeliefNet. He
didn't last long.
ka kite
Steve
Nima Hazini
one day under a Baha'i theocracy you see cbs compelled to live in ghettoes,
or schtetls (sp?), wearing yellow nine-pointed stars to distinguish them as
the "spiritually diseased and leprous" covenant breakers. The rest of us
will probably just be sent off to the gulags and psychiatric hospitals -
they'll call them Institutes for the Reformation of the Spiritually Sick -
or just shot.
cheers,
Nima
"Randy Burns" <randy....@gte.net> wrote in message
news:Z4dQ6.4961$pa4.5...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
Roger Reini
<lotu...@wxc.com.au> wrote:
>Gee, Randy, don't put ideas into their heads now ;-) Don't be surprised if
>one day under a Baha'i theocracy you see cbs compelled to live in ghettoes,
>or schtetls (sp?), wearing yellow nine-pointed stars to distinguish them as
>the "spiritually diseased and leprous" covenant breakers. The rest of us
>will probably just be sent off to the gulags and psychiatric hospitals -
>they'll call them Institutes for the Reformation of the Spiritually Sick -
>or just shot.
Do be surprised, for it's not going to happen. First of all, there
really aren't all that many CB's in the world. I've never definitely
encountered one in the flesh -- only on the Net. There was one
individual I met that I wasn't sure about; haven't seen him in 5-6
years, though, so I'm not too concerned.
Second of all, the things you describe go completely against the
teachings of Baha'u'llah. I'm not even going to dignify them further
with continued comment.
Pat Kohli
Soup NAZI
Steve Marshall wrote:
> Hi Roger,
>
> The New Zealand case (Pauline Smith) concerned a Baha'i who was taught
> by "covenant breaker" descendants of the family of Baha'u'llah, in
> Europe. She returned to New Zealand, where she contacted the Baha'is,
> not knowing that she had been taught by "covenant breakers". The NZ
> Baha'i administration accepted her application to be a member, and at
> some point realised she had links with "covenant breakers". The admin
> tried to re-educate her and get her to shun her friends but she
> naturally wasn't keen on this, and resigned. The House apparently
> decided that her resignation was a ruse to avoid being declared a
> "covenant breaker" and declared her one.
>
> I may not have that 100% right, but this is arb/trb, right? :-)
Close enough for government purposes
>
>
> Individual Baha'is occasionally do seem to think they can declare
> people to be "covenant breakers". Someone naming himself SeekerAlpha,
> and apparently hailing from Texas, told me I was one, on BeliefNet. He
> didn't last long.
I saw it. My guess is that SA could not last long precisely because they
sank into a pulpit of hypocrisy.
It is _not_ the place of an individual Baha'i to declare someone else a
Covenant Breaker. This sort of things smacks of precisely the egotism
which Covenant Breaking supposedly entails.
- Pat
ko...@ameritel.net
Soup NAZI
Saman Ahmadi wrote:
> Something to the effect of "shut up" - literally, "you of all
> people should shut your trap".
>
> I could be wrong though - I've not heard that one
> before.
>
> -saman
Thanks Saman. I might have guessed something along the line of "loose lips lose
ships".
I don't think the Majnun post was the beginning of an effort to undermine the UHJ,
but an effort to steer discussion which might be construed as such an effort. I
would suppose that it was all well intentioned - like friend Yorgos's lawsuit.
Blessings!
- Pat
ko...@ameritel.net
Randy Burns
Cheers, Randy
Soup NAZI <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message
news:3B1283AB...@ameritel.net...
Nima Hazini
>Second of all, the things you describe go completely against the
>teachings of Baha'u'llah.
And when did the teachings of Baha'u'llah ever matter to you people?? 99.9%
of everything else you people say or do goes completely against the
teachings of Baha'u'llah!
cheers,
Nima
Randy Burns
star! Star-pooper Pat.
Randy
--
Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message
news:3B11B6E9...@ameritel.net...
Pat Kohli
This thing about little stars was fabricated right here in the course of the
thread. Are the problems with the AO so many and so common, or are they not?
If it is time to resort to on the spot fabrications based on thin ice, so much
for the latter hypothesis.
Crikey!!!!!!
The thread got started by Darrick reporting that Baha'is email him to ask him
if he is a CB. How come Joel B. doesn't get these emails???? Did you believe
it?
Then, Randy offers little stars. Just nonsense.
Go ahead, get worked up about Randy's idea of a little star for someone who
starts rumours about themselves being a CB.
KN!
- Pat
ko...@ameritel.net
Nima Hazini
don't they ;)
cheers,
Nima
"Pat Kohli" <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message
news:3B15AFF5...@ameritel.net...
Randy Burns
You're right, it's not really about little stars, is it? (Are you sure the
UHJ doesn't have a little star program already in place?)
It's not really about Darrick, either, is it? It's more like what you said
about who has the right to call whom a Covenant Breaker, or, as we like to
spit it out, CB!
I guess as long as we leave it up to the UHJ to make that decision, and we
all agree that all the fundie-loonies running around calling people they
don't like CB's!, that they don't really have the right to do that, then
everything is hunkie-dory!
One thing for sure, logic is not your strong point, and don't expect Nima to
buy into this.
Randy
--
Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message
news:3B15AFF5...@ameritel.net...
Saman Ahmadi
Soup NAZI wrote:
The discussion was being carried out in private - the only reason others found out
about it, as I understand, was because the author mistakenly posted it to Talisman.
Why would the author feel that Baha'i Institutions would construe the discussion as
something wrong if it was going to be just a *private* discussion?
I don't know what the main purpose of Majnun list was - there was a list called
Tarjuman which was a smaller group of those on Talisman who wanted to consult of
translation of the various texts.
I think it is reasonable for someone reading the Majnun post, who was aware of the
then discussions on Talisman, to wonder why a smaller email list was created in the
first place (the point holds even if you assume that the author was attempting to
steer others from doing something objectionable).
If people had a problem with how the NSA was handling scholarship, they should have
contacted the Auxiliary Board Members or Members of the Continental Board of
Counselors - but I don't any of those appointed individuals were trusted by people on
the Majnun list. They could also have contacted the UHJ directly - but they didn't
like the answers they were getting from House either.
So we are left with a group individuals, most whom are academics in various areas of
Middle Eastern Studies, whose interpretations are not sanctioned by Universal House
of Justice, which, by the admission of these same individuals (even after the
withdrawal of some from the Baha'i Faith) is the rightful final authority in the
Faith as prescribed by Baha'u'llah, Abdul Baha and Shoghi Effendi.
Radiant acquiescence anyone?
-saman
Nima Hazini
cheers,
Nima
"Saman Ahmadi" <s.ah...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3B15BC01...@worldnet.att.net...
<snip>
>Radiant acquiescence anyone?
-saman
Paul Hammond
Saman Ahmadi wrote in message <3B15BC01...@worldnet.att.net>...
>
<snip>
Well, there's also this thing where you might want to have a more detailed
discussion with friends you made on the list, or even, hell, I don't know,
chew the fat about Star Wars, or American politics, or Californian
Universities, or any number of things that would be off topic on the
list.
I reckon it was more likely to be a group of friends bitchin' about
stuff. Why should people leap to the conclusion that these people
getting together was sinister?
I know that lots of people in private criticise the police, but there exists
a recognised official complaints procedure. Some folks might want
to moan about getting a ticket, or they may even think that something
the police did was not in accord with procedure, but not bad enough
to make an official complaint about.
Of course, for an official complaints procedure to work, people generally
have to have confidence in the system.
The fact that the NSA apparently takes over 19 months to acknowledge
the receipt of a complaint may lead some people to conclude that
complaining to the appropriate authorites is about as constructive as
banging your head on a brick wall.
Paul
Saman Ahmadi
Paul Hammond wrote:
[some deletions]
>
> Well, there's also this thing where you might want to have a more detailed
> discussion with friends you made on the list, or even, hell, I don't know,
> chew the fat about Star Wars, or American politics, or Californian
> Universities, or any number of things that would be off topic on the
> list.
>
> I reckon it was more likely to be a group of friends bitchin' about
> stuff. Why should people leap to the conclusion that these people
> getting together was sinister?
I am assuming that you've read the email in question - it is obvious that some
people on the list were suggesting things, which the author himself thought to
be out of line and might warrant expulsion by the UHJ.
>
>
> I know that lots of people in private criticise the police, but there exists
> a recognised official complaints procedure. Some folks might want
> to moan about getting a ticket, or they may even think that something
> the police did was not in accord with procedure, but not bad enough
> to make an official complaint about.
Everybody says things in private that may be taken out of context or expressed
in the heat of the moment . While the discussion was in private, I will
venture a guess that the feelings of those individuals are even more against
the Institutions of the Faith than they were at that time. It is obvious to me
that they felt there were several things wrong with the manner in which the
Baha'i Faith was administered, they wanted to change it and they could not do
it through the available channels. They were trying to figure out how to get
to the ends of their wishes regardless of the means.
>
> Of course, for an official complaints procedure to work, people generally
> have to have confidence in the system.
>
> The fact that the NSA apparently takes over 19 months to acknowledge
> the receipt of a complaint may lead some people to conclude that
> complaining to the appropriate authorites is about as constructive as
> banging your head on a brick wall.
Timely response is an entirely different issue. If a person feels that an
unreasonable amount of time has passed since submitting a request, he/she can
send a reminder, can contact a member of the Auxiliary Board or can take the
issue to the UHJ. Of course a person could also take to the streets but I
think if the motive is to resolve an issue, one should persistently work within
the system - it may take longer but the resolution of the complaint may also
lead to the smoothing out of the process.
I can tell you from personal experience that it has taken me from a week, to
weeks, to 18 months to get responses to various questions from various levels
of the Baha'i Administration. It would be wrong to assume that because I am
defending the system, I have always had my way or I have not had folks upset
with my comments. In the Kitab-i-Aqdas, Baha'u'llah guarantees that I will not
understand everything . . . "for the love of My Beauty" (K4).
-saman
Nima Hazini
al-haqq keh moghrezi.
"Saman Ahmadi" <s.ah...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3B16C499...@worldnet.att.net...
Pat Kohli
Starting rumours that so and so is a CB, is tres gauche.
Do you get it?
Randy Burns
RB
--
Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message
news:3B16E237...@ameritel.net...
Pat Kohli
Randy Burns wrote:
> What I don't get is you.
>
> RB
> --
I am happy about that, very happy; if you had ever had me, you'd wish you'd
never got me. So, trust me: it is for the best.
Blessings!
- Pat
ko...@ameritel.net