authors of "The Service of Women" - What bahai Fanatics * DID * to them
***** Bahai Censorship *****
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/SWomen.htm
--
Professor Juan R. I. Cole, University of Michigan,
"Fundamentalism in the Contemporary U.S. Baha'i Community,"
Religious Studies Review, Vol. 43, no. 3 (March, 2002):195-217:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai/2002/fundbhfn.htm
In his book Modernity and the Millennium, published by Columbia
University Press in 1998, Professor Cole observes the Baha'i
administration has increasingly come under the control of
fundamentalists, "stressing scriptural literalism . . . theocracy,
censorship, intellectual intolerance, and denying key
democratic values (196)."
Frederick Glaysher
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/
Susan Maneck
>authors of "The Service of Women" - What bahai Fanatics * DID * to them
>http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/SWomen.htm
>
The link says nothing about anything being done to them.
http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st
Jim Habegger
>>
>>authors of "The Service of Women" - What bahai Fanatics * DID * to them
>>http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/SWomen.htm
>>
>
>The link says nothing about anything being done to them.
"Probably the most sensitive datum of information awaiting Baha'is
is that the all-male Universal House of Justice censored the academic
paper written by leading Baha'i scholars in the late 80s which showed
that the reservation of seats on the Universal House of Justice
exclusively for men was based on the mistranslation and inadequate
understanding of Scripture."
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Mckenny6.htm
I've been having trouble finding substatiation, or even a precise
description, of the censorship of that paper by the Universal House of
Justice. All I've ever seen have been statements like "They were told
. . ." "They were forbidden . . ." "Someone was sent to Australia to
make sure it never happened again."
It does seem to be well documented that some time after Michael wrote
to the Universal House of Justice about women's service on the House
of Justice, it decided that he was not qualified for membership, and
he was removed.
Some people say he was removed because of his letter to the House of
Justice. According to information posted on Michael's Web site, here
is the reason given by the House of Justice, for its decision:
"Had the situation continued at this level, Michael's confusion would
have remained his personal spiritual problem. That it did not remain
at this level was the result solely of his deliberate decision to
continue a series of open Internet postings in which he challenged the
authority of Baha'i institutions in language alternating between
conventional professions of respect and contemptuous reflections on
the integrity and actions of those institutions. As had been made
clear during review with him by the advisor mentioned above, of the
relevant passages from the Will and Testament of `Abdu'l-Baha, such
deliberate contention is entirely unacceptable in one who claims to
believe in Baha'u'llah. Indeed, as a general rule, it would raise a
question about the loyalty to the Covenant of an individual behaving
in this fashion. In Michael's case, the Universal House of Justice
reached the conclusion that he neither understands the basic
implications of Baha'i membership nor has any real desire to do so.
His subsequent behaviour will doubtless be read by most dispassionate
observers as confirming the accuracy of this assessment."
http://www.geocities.com/solarguard/bahai/cw.html
Jim
Susan Maneck
The link you put up is different from the one Freddie posted. You wrote:
>I've been having trouble finding substatiation, or even a precise
>description, of the censorship of that paper by the Universal House of
>Justice. All I've ever seen have been statements like "They were told
>. . ." "They were forbidden . . ." "Someone was sent to Australia to
>make sure it never happened again."
The authors of the paper were asked not to distribute it any further, and the
problem with it arose in New Zealand, not Austalia. The paper can hardly be
described as an 'academic paper' however. It was more of a position paper and a
petitition than anything else. The reason I say that is the paper does not
limit itself to merely critiquing the historical background of the exclusion of
women, it goes on to make arguments in favor of women's future service.
Whatever the merits of such an argument, this goes beyond the academic
investigation into the realm of political advocacy. The reason I call it a
petition is that when the paper was sent around in its early stages all who
agreed with it were invited to add their name to the paper. Originally there
was much longer list of 'authors' than is currently mentioned in the version on
Freddie's website, essentially making it into a petition. I think that points
up the political, rather than academic nature of the article.
>
>It does seem to be well documented that some time after Michael wrote
>to the Universal House of Justice about women's service on the House
>of Justice, it decided that he was not qualified for membership, and
>he was removed.
That had nothing to do with Michael's writing to the House *per se.* Michael
had been spaming various lists including Baha'i Studies with long, repititious
posts insisting that women should be allowed on the House and excluding them
only proved the House wasn't infallible. When an Auxiliary Board Member met
with Michael they agreed that the proper course for him would be to write the
House about the issue directly rather than campaign against their policy this
way. Accordingly, Michael agreed to write such a letter and quit making these
posts on the internet. However, as soon as Michael received a response from the
House of Justice which failed to change their position, he resumed that
campaign. It was because he resumed this activity, not because of letters he
wrote to the House that he was removed from the rolls.
So yeah, what the House wrote to Michael's wife is correct. I think folks
started this rumor about him being removed *because* of his letters to the
House got started in order to discourage people from writing to the House. When
I was contemplating writing my second letter to the House, which was right
after Michael had been removed from the rolls some of the dissidents tried to
use this to terrorize me into not writing.
warmest, Susan
Jim Habegger
>Dear Jim,
>
>The link you put up is different from the one Freddie posted. You wrote:
>
>>I've been having trouble finding substatiation, or even a precise
>>description, of the censorship of that paper by the Universal House of
>>Justice. All I've ever seen have been statements like "They were told
>>. . ." "They were forbidden . . ." "Someone was sent to Australia to
>>make sure it never happened again."
>
>The authors of the paper were asked not to distribute it any further,
Asked by whom?
Jim
Jim Habegger
>Dear Jim,
>
>The link you put up is different from the one Freddie posted. You wrote:
>
>>I've been having trouble finding substatiation, or even a precise
>>description, of the censorship of that paper by the Universal House of
>>Justice. All I've ever seen have been statements like "They were told
>>. . ." "They were forbidden . . ." "Someone was sent to Australia to
>>make sure it never happened again."
>
>The authors of the paper were asked not to distribute it any further,
Was there a decision of the House of Justice, forbidding them to
distribute it?
Jim
Jim Habegger
>I think folks
>started this rumor about him being removed *because* of his letters to the
>House got started in order to discourage people from writing to the House. When
>I was contemplating writing my second letter to the House, which was right
>after Michael had been removed from the rolls some of the dissidents tried to
>use this to terrorize me into not writing.
Yes. I've seen them doing that, too.
Jim
Susan Maneck
>
>Asked by whom?
My recollection is that Tony Lee received a letter from his NSA not to
distribute it. But you can ask him.
Jim Habegger
>>>The authors of the paper were asked not to distribute it any further,
>>
>>Asked by whom?
>
>My recollection is that Tony Lee received a letter from his NSA not to
>distribute it. But you can ask him.
Was there any decision from the House of Justice, restricting the
circulation and publication of the paper?
Jim
Susan Maneck
>Was there any decision from the House of Justice, restricting the
>circulation and publication of the paper?
Dear Jim,
I'm under the impression that the NSA wrote this letter at the request of the
House of Justice. The paper in question was presented in New Zealand, after
all, and it is difficult to see how it would have even come to their attention
otherwise.
warmest, Susan
Mr. Bad Judgement
Jim Habegger wrote:
> On 19 Mar 2004 01:23:39 GMT, sma...@aol.com (Susan Maneck ) wrote:
>
>
>>>authors of "The Service of Women" - What bahai Fanatics * DID * to them
>>>http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/SWomen.htm
>>>
>>
>>The link says nothing about anything being done to them.
>
>
> "Probably the most sensitive datum of information awaiting Baha'is
> is that the all-male Universal House of Justice censored the academic
> paper written by leading Baha'i scholars in the late 80s which showed
> that the reservation of seats on the Universal House of Justice
> exclusively for men was based on the mistranslation and inadequate
> understanding of Scripture."
>
> http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Mckenny6.htm
For what it's worth, here is a link to the paper which is allegedly
being censored:
http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/docs/vol3/wmnuhj.htm
Okay, maybe it isn't being censored; it just isn't being distributed in
official or 'endorsed' channels.
>
>(snip)
- Mr. Bad