Internet Crackdown
Paul Atreides
on the Internet? How would it be accomplished?
Paul
Pat Kohli
Paul Atreides wrote:
> What are these rumors of a crackdown by the Insitutions on dissidents
> on the Internet?
Rumors.
Someone likes to pretend he has spies in high places. He claims to see
what the US NSA is doing. He claims to hear the UHJ when it meets.
Oooops. He _used_ to do that. On 20 October he claimed to have seen a
letter that did not exist, which was being sent to the American Baha'i
community. He was pressed to produce it while we waited by our mail
boxes. The anthrax scare is gone, and I still did not get this letter
from the US NSA. He still has not produced it, nor explained that he
won't produce it, nor zippo!
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9qt2to%241uh%241%40gnamma.connect.com.au
He seems to have disapeared.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=tvu6tm70j6ti69%40corp.supernews.com
> How would it be accomplished?
>
Rumors.
If I ever do catch up with him, he'll wish there is a crackdown, all
right!
Welcome to arb/trb. I like all your novels, btw.
Blessings!
- Pat
ko...@ameritel.net
Timothy Casey
news:f6eba217.02010...@posting.google.com...
> What are these rumors of a crackdown by the Insitutions on dissidents
> on the Internet? How would it be accomplished?
>
> Paul
Good question!
There have always been rumors about crackdowns on "internet dissidents", and
the rumours have only ever been on the internet.
The key issue here is plausible deniability and the claim that one is being
flamed (impersonated in an offensive or denigrating manner) fulfils this
requirement completely.
So, short of overstepping the bounds of justice, I think not. I don't doubt
that there will be much looking and learning, but curiosity is a sign of a
healthy mentality.
=~=
Timothy Casey
South Australia
wor...@iprimus.com.au
Formerly:
ca...@smart.net.au
Read faster, comprehend more, enjoy reading:
http://home.iprimus.com.au/timothycasey/fieldcraft/10.htm
"Incoming love! Take cover"
(Anonymous Baha'i Dissident: "The Flamewars")
Karen Bacquet
> Paul Atreides wrote:
>
> > What are these rumors of a crackdown by the Insitutions on dissidents
> > on the Internet?
>
> Rumors.<<
> Someone likes to pretend he has spies in high places.<
Dear Pat,
Juan is not the source of this particular rumor, who, if anything tends to
discourage them. Last summer there was a similar rumor about prominent
liberals being declared covenant-breakers, and he basically passed it off as
the kind of stuff that flies around cyberspace and never happens.
However, it has been a while since the UHJ took action against anybody; it
would not surprise me if they decided they were about due. Where I am
skeptical is when rumors start pinpointing who, what, when, and how.
Love, Karen
Matt Menge
> What are these rumors of a crackdown by the Insitutions on dissidents
> on the Internet? How would it be accomplished?
>
> Paul
Well, I know the the US NSA sent out a warning on Darrick Evenson, who
used to frequent this site.
Best Regards,
Matt
Pat Kohli
Karen Bacquet wrote:
> >
> > Paul Atreides wrote:
> >
> > > What are these rumors of a crackdown by the Insitutions on dissidents
> > > on the Internet?
> >
> > Rumors.<<
>
> > Someone likes to pretend he has spies in high places.<
>
> Dear Pat,
>
> Juan is not the source of this particular rumor, who, if anything tends to
> discourage them.
How is Juan? I don't get to see him here, in person, so often any more.
Does it matter who is the source of this particular rumor? My guess is the
thing keeps bouncing around like a bad penny. For all I know, when someone
figured out that Rod had focused me on cleaving Pithy/Effy/Freddie B. from knave
to chaps. - that was the internet crackdown. The thing is, it is a rumor.
Another thing is, THERE IS NOTHING TO BE DONE ABOUT IT, even if it were printed
in the front page of the "Amercian Baha'i".
> Last summer there was a similar rumor about prominent
> liberals being declared covenant-breakers, and he basically passed it off as
> the kind of stuff that flies around cyberspace and never happens.
>
More importantly, how many thousands of allegedly liberals were declared
covenant breakers during that round up?
____
Thank you!
>
> However, it has been a while since the UHJ took action against anybody; it
> would not surprise me if they decided they were about due.
Do they have a quota now? (WRETCHED SARCASM) I've got a friend in Haifa, you
know, who says that every five years, they try to make up their quota, much like
traffic cops writing speeding tickets at the end of the month. (/WRETCHED
SARCASM)
> Where I am
> skeptical is when rumors start pinpointing who, what, when, and how.
It is a bunch of nonsense. Folks discredit themselves. There is no need for
any action against anyone.
Thanks for pointing out that Juan was not behind this one. However, I do
suspect that the basic mechanism remains the same - someone poses as they know
more than the next guy - they don't, but to show they do, they start a rumor.
I saw it with the government and anthrax.
knowitall1: It's a crude treatment of anthrax. Such a good thing it was not
weapons grade; lots of folks could have been hurt.
Next day ->
knowitall1: The fact that the anthrax was weapons grade will make it easier for
investigators to determine its source.
Blessings!
- Pat
ko...@ameritel.net
Pat Kohli
Matt Menge wrote:
>
> Well, I know the the US NSA sent out a warning on Darrick Evenson, who
> used to frequent this site.
>
Where is this warning? I thought that was a rumor that Darrick started. Will the smoking man be in this one?
Darrick still hangs at arb. Hmmmmm, I wonder who is in _your_ killfile.
Blessings!
- Pat
ko...@ameritel.net
Randy Burns
Those Love offensives are so ugly, don't you think?
Cheers, Randy
--
Paul Atreides <krys...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f6eba217.02010...@posting.google.com...
Pat Kohli
Matt Menge wrote:
> Well, I know the the US NSA sent out a warning on Darrick Evenson, who
> used to frequent this site.
Let me clarify. I did see an informational statement on the internal web page. It contains information that most
of the Baha'is on the newsgroups are well aware of. It offered no advice in any direction on dealing with
Darrick. It just says he is not a Baha'i and his opinions are his opnions.
"The National Spiritual Assembly has received a number of
inquiries about Mr. Darrick Evenson who has made frequent
postings on the Internet about various Bahá’í -related subjects.
Mr. Evenson was formerly a Bahá’í . He withdrew his
membership in the Bahá’í Faith several years ago. The views
expressed by Mr. Evenson are his personal opinions and should
not be taken as the official position of the Bahá’í Faith."
(posted 01/04/2002)
In October of 2000 Darrick circulated a rumor around usenet that he was being declared a covenant breaker. This
was just nonsense. I wouldn't want Darrick to think there is any substance to any "warning" about him.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8re23c%24shc%241%40nnrp1.deja.com
He repeated in May 2001
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=4ac0bf57.0105231322.38e026fc%40posting.google.com
... I guess he'll be doing it again, now that there is some WARNING (not) out on him! (sigh)
Paul, care to guess, why I get annoyed at these requests to substantiate your rumor. Maybe you could say what
_you_ _heard_ and _when_ and _where_.
Blessings!
- Pat
ko...@ameritel.net
Karen Bacquet
> > > Rumors.<<
> >
> > > Someone likes to pretend he has spies in high places.<
> >
> > Dear Pat,
> >
> > Juan is not the source of this particular rumor, who, if anything tends
to
> > discourage them.
>
> How is Juan? I don't get to see him here, in person, so often any more.<<
Dear Pat,
Juan is not anywhere in person much anymore. The 9/11 disaster not only
added practically another full-time job to his schedule, but he has also
been quite stressed -- and, as we know, cyberspace is not exactly the most
restful place in the world.
>
> > Last summer there was a similar rumor about prominent
> > liberals being declared covenant-breakers, and he basically passed it
off as
> > the kind of stuff that flies around cyberspace and never happens.
> >
>
> More importantly, how many thousands of allegedly liberals were declared
> covenant breakers during that round up?<<
Well, that's how I feel about it. Yes, there is always the possiblity that
the UHJ will sanction, disenroll, or excommunicate an individual, or a group
of people, but I'm not going to agonize over it until they actually do
it.(When I will scream long and loudly.) So far, they've never done
anything to anyone who has left the Faith voluntarily, no matter how
critical they have been. Those most at risk are active liberal posters who
are still enrolled, and they know the risk they are taking.
This comes on up on my list once in a while, and what I tell people is that
there is cause for concern, but paranoia can be overdone. I can't guarantee
that someone won't be reported, and I tell them that if they are really
worried about it, they should post under a pseudonym.
> >
> > However, it has been a while since the UHJ took action against anybody;
it
> > would not surprise me if they decided they were about due.
>
> Do they have a quota now? (WRETCHED SARCASM) I've got a friend in Haifa,
you
> know, who says that every five years, they try to make up their quota,
much like
> traffic cops writing speeding tickets at the end of the month. (/WRETCHED
> SARCASM)<<
As I've said before, I have no idea how those guys think -- I don't
understand why they've done the cracking down they've already done. If
their concern is criticism in liberal Baha'i cyberspace, that has not
stopped, so I think the likelihood is that they will still continue to take
somebody out once in a while, and it has been two years since they booted
Alison. No one would be more pleased than I to see that prediction proved
wrong.
Love, Karen
Susan Maneck
>Well, I know the the US NSA sent out a warning on Darrick Evenson, who
>used to frequent this site.
Dear Matt,
They didn't send out a warning. They posted a message on the Administrative
website saying that he was not a Baha'i and his views didn't represent the
Baha'i Teachings. I expect they were receiving a lot of inquiries about him and
his views from people who thought he was a Baha'i. Here is the message:
"The National Spiritual Assembly has received a number of inquiries about Mr.
Darrick Evenson who has made frequent postings on the Internet about various
Bahá’í -related subjects. Mr. Evenson was formerly a Bahá’í . He
withdrew his membership in the Bahá’í Faith several years ago. The views
expressed by Mr. Evenson are his personal opinions and should not be taken as
the official position of the Bahá’í Faith."
warmest,
Susan Maneck
Associate Professor of History
Jackson State University
"And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time
left to start again . . "
Don McLean's American Pie
http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
Robert Little
You have absolutely nothing to fear. There is no crackdown, no impending
crackdown, no crackdown contemplated on dissidents who participate on the
internet.
Excuse for a moment, someone is knocking on my front door. I'll be right ba
"Paul Atreides" <krys...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f6eba217.02010...@posting.google.com...
Rick Schaut
"Karen Bacquet" <karenb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u3foc9m...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > However, it has been a while since the UHJ took action against
> > > anybody; it would not surprise me if they decided they were
> > > about due.
> > Do they have a quota now?
> As I've said before, I have no idea how those guys think -- I don't
> understand why they've done the cracking down they've already done.
Perhaps if you spent more time reading and digesting what they've actually
said and less time trying to read between the lines, it will make much more
sense.
> If
> their concern is criticism in liberal Baha'i cyberspace, that has not
> stopped, so I think the likelihood is that they will still continue to
take
> somebody out once in a while, and it has been two years since they booted
> Alison.
And, if their concern is not about criticism in "liberal Baha'i cyberspace,"
what, then, might we conclude?
Regards,
Rick Schaut
Randy Burns
How's your boss, the big felon?
Cheers, Randy
--
Rick Schaut <rssc...@email.msn.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:3c3a20b3$1...@news.microsoft.com...
> SNIP
>
Karen Bacquet
>
> > As I've said before, I have no idea how those guys think -- I don't
> > understand why they've done the cracking down they've already done.
>
> Perhaps if you spent more time reading and digesting what they've actually
> said and less time trying to read between the lines, it will make much
more
> sense.<<
And just what the hell does that mean?
>
> > If
> > their concern is criticism in liberal Baha'i cyberspace, that has not
> > stopped, so I think the likelihood is that they will still continue to
> take
> > somebody out once in a while, and it has been two years since they
booted
> > Alison.
>
> And, if their concern is not about criticism in "liberal Baha'i
cyberspace,"
> what, then, might we conclude?<<
That they're a pack of arbitrary tyrants.
Karen Bacquet
--
> How's your boss, the big felon?<<
It looks like the news has gotten around that Dermod and Nima, the two
biggest ass-kickers in Baha'i cyberspace, have now retired from the ring, so
the creeps who crept away are creeping back -- much according to Dermod's
prediction btw.
Unfortunately, I'm not much of an ass-kicker, and so I'm going to have to
leave it mostly in your capable hands, Randy. My own list is busy, and the
most important thing that I do in Baha'i cyberspace is help the people whose
hearts and lives have been shattered by the administration put themselves
back together. That's top priority. Second on the list is my own writing.
Fundy-fighting comes after that, when I have time.
Love, Karen
Pat Kohli
Randy Burns wrote:
> (snip)
> How's your boss, the big felon?
Why don't you say so for yourself, directly?
Oh, I see, it's a reference to the noted paralegal software pirate, not
to the owner of the nuclear power plant on "the Simpsons". Some of us
might forget that Rick works in Redmond.
Rick, welcome back. I guess the sailing season has subsided. I'm sure
a lot of lines can be read between on this.
- Pat
Pat Kohli
Robert Little wrote:
> Hi Paul
>
> You have absolutely nothing to fear. There is no crackdown, no impending
> crackdown, no crackdown contemplated on dissidents who participate on the
> internet.
>
> Excuse for a moment, someone is knocking on my front door. I'll be right ba
No crypto-crackdown, no pseudo-crackdown, no plain-vanilla crackdown, but,
since I'm not in charge of these things, I wouldn't know.
Robert, if you ever want to eat a chocolate brownie again ....
Certainly no "read between the lines" crackdown. Oh my!
Matt Menge
> Allahu Abha!
>
> Matt Menge wrote:
>
> >
> > Well, I know the the US NSA sent out a warning on Darrick Evenson, who
> > used to frequent this site.
> >
>
> Where is this warning? I thought that was a rumor that Darrick started. Will the smoking man be in this one?
>
> Darrick still hangs at arb. Hmmmmm, I wonder who is in _your_ killfile.
>
Darrick is not on my killfile. I don't usually visit arb, however.
Not that I couldn't be persuaded to.
Best Regards,
Matt
Rick Schaut
"Randy Burns" <randy....@gte.net> wrote:
> Oh boy the little felon is back!
Gee, Randy, it's nice to see you too. Nice, also, to see that you've
managed to acquire absolutely no more knowledge about law and justice than
the last time we had a discussion in this newsgroup.
Regards,
Rick Schaut
Rick Schaut
Bacquet" <karenb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Perhaps if you spent more time reading and digesting what they've actually
>> said and less time trying to read between the lines, it will make much
> more
>> sense.<<
> And just what the hell does that mean?
After all the discussions we've had, and you still don't get it? Wow.
>> And, if their concern is not about criticism in "liberal Baha'i
> cyberspace,"
>> what, then, might we conclude?<<
> That they're a pack of arbitrary tyrants.
Is that the only alternative you can think of?
Regards,
Rick Schaut
Rick Schaut
Bacquet" <karenb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> It looks like the news has gotten around that Dermod and Nima, the two
> biggest ass-kickers in Baha'i cyberspace, have now retired from the ring, so
> the creeps who crept away are creeping back -- much according to Dermod's
> prediction btw.
Actually, with the two blowhards gone, I thought it might be possible to
actually have a well-reasoned discussion around here. Thank you for
demonstrating quite the opposite.
Regards,
Rick Schaut
Brian Walker
<kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote:
Chocolate brownies! Yes please ...
Brian
Rick Schaut
Well, technically, I work in Bellevue. The campus has sprawled somewhat,
though some might take that as yet another sign of Microsoft hegemony.
> Rick, welcome back. I guess the sailing season has subsided.
Somewhat. The death march for Office v. X was rather intense only then to
be followed up by an opportunity to put out a "Test Drive" version of Office
that required still further design work in order to satisfy the beagles. By
the time I was able to catch my breath, the last thing I wanted to do with
my free time was sit in front of a computer. I have to say, however, that
the press coverage has been gratifying. Even PC Mag was relatively glowing
in its praise, particularly for a group of Mac applications.
If you have a Mac and are running OS X, you can download the test drive
version from Microsoft's Mactopia website. I did the watermark for Word.
Anyway, thanks for the warm welcome.
Regards,
Rick Schaut
Randy Burns
Cheers, Randy
--
Rick Schaut <rssc...@msn.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:B85FB0A1.1290%rssc...@msn.NOSPAM.com...
Robert Little
If Baha'u'llah came with a purpose, would you suppose that part of that
purpose is learning to love those you disagree with? Would you not actually
have to accept that diversity is a necessity to the achievement of unity?
Would it not be important to learn to love Mr. Schaut in order to
demonstrate your love for God?
Rick was blunt with you, but there is meaning to his words - they were not
written to piss you off. Unfortunately, it appears that he felt you probably
_would_ get pissed off, no matter what he said, and you appear to have done
so.
Rick is not an Administration, he is an individual, with experience and
knowledge and devotion to his chosen Faith. You utilize labels to categorize
people, victims over here, fundies over there. But, there is just you and me
and Rick and Pat. You can talk to Rick and Robert and Pat, or you can talk
to labels, but I believe you'll find that talking to Rick and Pat and Robert
will gain you more than talking to your labels.
Friends for example. People who would like to love you.
Robert A. Little
"Karen Bacquet" <karenb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u3kk8ur...@corp.supernews.com...
Robert Little
pitiable milk chocolate ones, but real, manly dark chocolate, double
chocolate, plutonium 238 chocolate chips.
I believe it possible that 'Abdu'l-Baha's visit to Stanford University, and
Leland Stanford, had as it's ultimate purpose, the acquisition of some
Ghiardeli chocolate.
I could be mistaken.
Robert A. Little
"Brian Walker" <bfwa...@net-yan.com> wrote in message
news:a1dtm1$56p$1...@hfc.pacific.net.hk...
Rick Schaut
"Randy Burns" <randy....@gte.net> wrote in message
news:Sfw_7.1443$9c5.1...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
> Bring back Dave!
Or Bruce!
But, I'm curious as to the origins of the "little felon" epithet. Frankly,
it sounds just like something one of your compatriots would have cooked up
and shared during one of those few discussions about me on the various
e-mail lists to which I don't belong. Snippets of those comments do tend to
find their way into my hands--there still being a few individuals who call
themselves Baha'i and who happen to think that backbiting is wrong. So,
tell me, to whom do I owe the honor? Do be honest and forthright with me,
or I'll have to inform the nice friends at gte.net that you've been given to
posting libelous remarks.
Regards,
Rick Schaut
Curious
Robert Little <rlit...@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ahx_7.9539$O54.2...@typhoon.socal.rr.com...
>
> If Baha'u'llah came with a purpose, would you suppose that part of that
> purpose is learning to love those you disagree with?
Yup. And 'love' in 'action' would be to make sure that there was justice for
all...
even those disagreed with or disliked.
>Would you not actually
> have to accept that diversity is a necessity to the achievement of unity?
Yup. And that justice cannot be sacrificed on the altar of 'unity'.
> Would it not be important to learn to love Mr. Schaut in order to
> demonstrate your love for God?
Quite possible to love Mr Schaut. Impossible to 'love' what he does.
("love the child,castigate the behavior")
> Rick was blunt with you,
The consequence of being none to 'sharp'?
>but there is meaning to his words
A first?
> - they were not written to piss you off.
Attempting to break obsessive old habits?
> Unfortunately, it appears that he felt you probably
> _would_ get pissed off,
No doubt a daily experience.
>no matter what he said, and you appear to have done
> so.
Maintaining a uniform human revulsion to insincerity and double standards.
> Rick is not an Administration, he is an individual, with
an attitude reflective of the prevailing Baha'i culture- When injustice
occurs
and the victim complains....blame the victim.
>experience and knowledge and devotion to his chosen Faith.
Leads him to conclude that it is perfect, can do no wrong, requires no
reform
and is under attack by miscreants who seek no more than division and strife.
>You utilize labels to categorize people, victims over here, fundies over
there.
Labels are essential to day to day functioning...paying your bus fare to the
milk man
wont get you far. If there is to be an objection to a label it must rest
with its accuracy.
Thus far you have raised no objection to accuracy.....no doubt with good
cause.
> But, there is just you and me
> and Rick and Pat. You can talk to Rick and Robert and Pat, or you can talk
> to labels, but I believe you'll find that talking to Rick and Pat and
Robert
> will gain you more than talking to your labels.
So I/we should abandon labels? 'Cheat'? 'Liar'? 'Thief? 'Rapist'? and just
deal
with the soul before us?
I don't think so, a label is often well deserved by the behavior observed.
To label abhorrent behavior is essential.
> Friends for example. People who would like to love you.
Friends are people who like you even though they know you
I have met and come to know Mr Shauts quite well on the net...
I neither like nor love the way he conducts himself...
It is a manner well deserving of the label/warning 'fundamentalist'.
Rod Wicks
Michael McKenny
You asked:
"Rick Schaut" (rssc...@email.msn.NOSPAM.com) writes:
> And, if their concern is not about criticism in "liberal Baha'i cyberspace,"
> what, then, might we conclude?
That they don't want those who are not yet in liberal Baha'i cyberspace
to be exposed to liberal Baha'i thought, and information that is available
in liberal Baha'i cyberspace.
To a Better Future,
Michael
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
Rick Schaut
"Curious" <Curio...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c3a...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Leads him to conclude that it is perfect, can do no wrong, requires no
> reform and is under attack by miscreants who seek no more than
> division and strife.
Hello, Rod. It's nice to see you too.
For those who've only recently come to these newsgroups, I have the distinct
honor of being the very first Baha'i Rod ever insulted, and Rod has the
distinct honor of being the first Baha'i to respond with insults to a
question I had asked in all sincerity. To be perfectly honest, I don't know
if Rod has ever given a straighforward answer to that question. Much of
what Rod has had to say to me ever since then has been peppered with
personal invectives.
And, for the record, no. I do not believe the Baha'i Administrative Order
is perfect in every way, that it can do no wrong nor that it requires no
reform. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. I have been quite
willing to entertain reform from those who have demonstrated sufficient
knowledge of the issues about which they propose reform.
So, Rod, your issue is due process. I have asked you a rather simple
question regarding who the "accusor" is in the due process right to face
one's accusor. While you've made several rather obnoxious attempts to
answer that question, you still haven't answered it correctly. Can you put
personalities aside long enough to actually discuss the meaning of the terms
you've used? That certainly would be the most Baha'i thing to do.
Regards,
Rick Schaut
Karen Bacquet
> Rick is not an Administration, he is an individual, with experience and
> knowledge and devotion to his chosen Faith. You utilize labels to
categorize
> people, victims over here, fundies over there. But, there is just you and
me
> and Rick and Pat. You can talk to Rick and Robert and Pat, or you can talk
> to labels, but I believe you'll find that talking to Rick and Pat and
Robert
> will gain you more than talking to your labels.
> Friends for example. People who would like to love you.
Dear Robert,
If you've followed my posts for very long, Robert, you ought to know that I
don't talk to just labels. I've spent a lot of time here talking to Dave,
and Susan, and other defenders of the administration. But I don't believe
I've ever yet run into a human being quite as hard as Rick is. It's like
he's carved from cold, white Haifa marble with no heart in him at all. I
believe that you are sincere, but I don't believe for one fraction of a
second that Rick "would like to love" me.
And I meant what I said earlier -- arguing here about this stuff is not the
most important thing I do, and right now I don't very much feel like it's
worth the aggravation. You speak of love, Robert -- love is a verb, an
action, what you do. There are way too many Baha'is who have been treated
in a much less than loving way by their community, and if they complain
about it, then it is seen as all their fault. The reactions I get when I
tell their stories are so predictable that it's hardly even worth going down
that road anymore. What it boils down to is that the Baha'i community is
willing to throw them in the trash, and I'd rather spend my time helping
them out. And when my own resources are stretched, you are more likely to
see short, snippy answers from me than long, thought-out ones.
Love, Karen
Dave Fiorito
>
> Cheers, Randy
Quick someone flashed the Baha'i Signal! Quick Robin off to the Baha'i Cave!
<engine roar - burning rubber - off shoots the Baha'i Mobile>
You called?
Cheers,
Dave
Dave Fiorito
break Baha'i law to avoid all forms of punishment? Justice is not
mercy.
Those that have been elected to serve on LSAs, NSAs, and the UHJ are
the ones tasked with the enforcement of Baha'i law. They make the
determination that punishment is required - not us. We are just
individuals.
If we do not agree with a decision then we have two options: a) appeal
the decision to the next highest body, or b) accept the decision and
support our institutions.
Cheers,
Dave
Michael McKenny
Nous pouvons commencer.
Salut,
Michael.
Rick Schaut (rssc...@msn.NOSPAM.com) writes:
> Actually, with the two blowhards gone, I thought it might be possible to
> actually have a well-reasoned discussion around here. Thank you for
> demonstrating quite the opposite.
>
>
> Regards,
> Rick Schaut
>
Michael McKenny
Many thanks for your comments.
Well, I still want to get that review of THE BOOK OF DEDE KORKUT up
on my geocities web page, but you can read it at my freenet page, anyway,
and, I guess Michel can wait another day or so for me to get the rest of
his Canadian bibliography of archaeology added to the Amerindian section
of my web page; he's doing it proper for his own page, but he agreed I'd
put it up now on mine as is, So, I guess I've got some time to check out
what Rick posts. I've always maintained personality is irrelevant; it's
content that's valid.
I'd like to thank you for your presence and role here.
Thrive Ever,
Michael.
"Karen Bacquet" (karenb...@hotmail.com) writes:
> --
>> How's your boss, the big felon?<<
>
> It looks like the news has gotten around that Dermod and Nima, the two
> biggest ass-kickers in Baha'i cyberspace, have now retired from the ring, so
> the creeps who crept away are creeping back -- much according to Dermod's
> prediction btw.
> Unfortunately, I'm not much of an ass-kicker, and so I'm going to have to
> leave it mostly in your capable hands, Randy. My own list is busy, and the
> most important thing that I do in Baha'i cyberspace is help the people whose
> hearts and lives have been shattered by the administration put themselves
> back together. That's top priority. Second on the list is my own writing.
> Fundy-fighting comes after that, when I have time.
>
> Love, Karen
Michael McKenny
Michael McKenny
Michael McKenny
Well, here's one where the ad hominem is followed by the expression
of personal opinion. I do hope, monsieur, that you agree it's your own
viewpoint, your thought, your opinion that is being expressed. It's a
bit, how do we say, discouraging of the Baha' attitude of open mindedness
to read your references to others having no more knowledge now, or of not
answering your questions "correctly". Your opinions are valid, as your
opinions, but the views of others are equally valid, and what is incorrect
is any effort to squelch others' views, such as by trying to crackdown on
the Internet, by defining people as non-Baha'is, etc.
Merci, Monsieur, for stating that there are imperfections in the way
those holding power in Baha'i have been and are doing things. We are
very much in agreement on that point. The principle flaw in Baha'i, in
my opinion, is the notion, the idealogical idol, to use Abdu'l Baha's
concept (He's the guy who said that at least if you pray to a stone, the
stone has existence, as a stone, but when you worship something in your
mind, that has no concrete reality) that there's perfection in Baha'i
administration. This has reached the level that President Bush has the
capacity and authority to admit he was wrong on something anytime he
likes, but the guys running the Baha'i show have to pretend they're
better than the Wizard of Oz. I like the answer the Wizard of Oz gave,
"Oh, no; I'm not a bad man, just a bad wizard."
The Baha'i Faith contains the perspective that there is no positive
evil, that there is a deficiency of good, just as poverty means not that
there is something, but rather a lack of something, money. So, the guys
in charge, the men at the top, being, as is quite common in organizations,
not easy in handling change, not eager to hand over power to successors,
not enthusiastic with allowing the led to perceive them as all too human,
(Oh, I know that any man on the UHJ is just a man, but the mental idol is
that when all nine human males decree something, it's not human), have
compounded their imperfect leadership, by taking actions that contradict
the raison d'etre of the organization they head.
In my opinion, anyone truly serious about exploring imperfection
and it's remedy will eagerly explore this issue of the idol of perfect
leadership at the top. It has been posted here that the quote which has
been rendered in English "Infallible" means something like, "Pure", and
also, the concept has been posted here that there are admonitions to
leaders in such expressions as "Wellspring of Guidance" and "Source of
All Good", that is, "Endeavour to rule, as if you were, strive to be,
have as your goal," etc.
Bien, Monsieur, do you agree that one major step in acknowledging
this problem and in seeking to remedy it is for Baha'is, especially the
guys at the top to admit to themselves and openly that imperfection,
even mistakes came from the top and now is as good a time as any to
act so as to rectify the consequences of these, not evil, so much as
impoverished previous decisions.
I await with keen interest your response.
Au Revoir,
Michael
Curious
Rick Schaut <rssc...@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
news:a1f0g...@enews3.newsguy.com...
>
> "Curious" <Curio...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3c3a...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> > Leads him to conclude that it is perfect, can do no wrong, requires no
> > reform and is under attack by miscreants who seek no more than
> > division and strife.
>
> Hello, Rod. It's nice to see you too.
Internet Rick, you cant see me at all.
>
> For those who've only recently come to these newsgroups, I have the
distinct
> honor of being the very first Baha'i Rod ever insulted,
Correction....Consciously, deliberately, deservedly insulted.
>and Rod has the
> distinct honor of being the first Baha'i to respond with insults to a
> question I had asked in all sincerity.
Rubbish. You had been repeatedly insulted by others who had long tired
of your obfuscation, filibuster and evasion.
The question you asked was repeatedly answered, you chose to ignore the
answer
and continually repeat the question, I chose to insult you for doing so.
>To be perfectly honest, I don't know
> if Rod has ever given a straightforward answer to that question.
Ok Rick....here it is again...you asked "What did I expect the community to
do"
when one member of the community was being abusive towards another.
The answer then, now and always is "Ask them to stop"
That was for starters...if they don't stop..."Impose minor sanction"
> Much of
> what Rod has had to say to me ever since then has been peppered with
> personal invectives.
You earned them.
> And, for the record, no. I do not believe the Baha'i Administrative Order
> is perfect in every way, that it can do no wrong nor that it requires no
> reform. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. I have been quite
> willing to entertain reform from those who have demonstrated sufficient
> knowledge of the issues about which they propose reform.
Your post history demonstrates a willingness to perform the most remarkable
contortions in defense of inadequate and dysfunctional Baha'i proceedings...
up to and including blaming the victim. You have been quite 'entertaining'
in
your obfuscation.
> So, Rod, your issue is due process. I have asked you a rather simple
> question regarding who the "accuser" is in the due process right to face
> one's accuser.
Do we begin the dance again Rick? The one in which you hold up the dim light
of theoretical Baha'i due process against the dark contemporary western
legal systems due
process? Why bother? It was and remains a evasion of your own devising.
The accuser (within the Baha'i community) is the individual/s who present
the accusation.
Fair due process would entail knowing 'who' has raised the allegation, on
what basis and
the right to present a defense against the allegations.
Play it anyway you like Rick....fact is...Baha'is can be subject to serious
allegations and
denied the knowledge of who, why and the opportunity to respond.
> While you've made several rather obnoxious attempts to
> answer that question, you still haven't answered it correctly.
'Correctly'? LOL...
You play semantic games with western legal principles Rick.
The 'accuser' is the individual who openly alleges I have used a government
agency against him.
The 'accuser' is the person who proposes that I have organized secret
meetings to his exclusion.
The 'accuser' is the individual who colludes with the chair of an NGO to
draft a letter to himself (chair of
NGO) alleging I have engaged in "immoral" and "illegal" activities.
So enlighten me Rick.....'correct' my erroneous understanding that the
accuser is the one who brings the
allegation.
> Can you put personalities aside long enough to actually discuss the
meaning of the terms
> you've used?
I do not object to your personality Rick...that is a far too insubstantial
target.
I object to your persistent, blatant and ethically repugnant evasion and
distortion of the core issues.
That certainly would be the most Baha'i thing to do.
The "Baha'i thing to do"?.....What an interesting turn of phrase
Rick....Would that be a reference to
Baha u llahs "thing to do" (Justice).......Or a reference to 'the
communities' "thing to do" (Denial, evasion,
platitude and sanctimonious blaming)?
Rod.
Milissa
(snip)
> If we do not agree with a decision then we have two options: a) appeal
> the decision to the next highest body, or b) accept the decision and
> support our institutions.
Just as long as you are willing to suffer the consequences of a wrong
decision right along with them, I guess you are right.
Can I assume that the corollary to this is that, in the event of a
very wrong decision, Baha'u'llah will only hold the Institutions
responsible and not you? Only seems fair when you are only given the
right to obey or else.
Peace,
Milissa
Michael McKenny
Logically, and according to the Baha'i principles of consultation and
seeing through our own eyes, rather than through the eyes of others, the
concept of unthinking obedience may be assessed on its own merrits, devoid
of personalities.
Morality and ethics do not correspond to such a concept. Each human
being is personally responsible for ethical action; if ordered to perform
unethical action, the orders, not ethical action, are to be jetisoned. If
one performs unethical action, one is acting unethically, the authorship
of any inciters to such action being irrelevant.
Here's to decent human beings rising above the impoverishment of doing
or tolerating unethical deeds on account of the idol of obeying anything
at all. In the words of the officer ordered to take out Yeltsin, during
the coup, "I am not a robot."
To a Decent Future,
Michael
Rick Schaut
> Rick Schaut <rssc...@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
> news:a1f0g...@enews3.newsguy.com...
> Internet Rick, you cant see me at all.
Figurative, Rod. The same sense that Baha'u'llah seems to have used the
word when he stated that through the aid of justice we might "see" with our
own eyes and not through the eyes of another.
> >To be perfectly honest, I don't know
> > if Rod has ever given a straightforward answer to that question.
> Ok Rick....here it is again...you asked "What did I expect the community
to
> do" when one member of the community was being abusive towards another.
Actually, I had asked what you expected a particular Spiritual Assembly to
have done in your particular circumstances. I had hoped to get an answer
that didn't amount to little more than saying "Do something!"
Moreover, as I recall, it seems that your National Spiritual Assembly did
precisely what you would have them do. They instructed a Local Spiritual
Assembly to conduct the Baha'i equivalent of a hearing on the issue. The
rules and procedure for that meeting (the "due process" if you will)
consisted of the general rules and procedures governing Baha'i consultation.
Certain participants in that meeting refused to abide by those rules and
procedures, at which point the Local Spiritual Assembly did the only thing
they could do, which is bring a halt to the proceedings and advise the
National Spiritual Assembly that the offending party should be subject to
administrative sanctions.
Now, I may be missing a minor detail here or there, but that pretty much
sums up the circumstances, does it not?
> The answer then, now and always is "Ask them to stop"
> That was for starters...if they don't stop..."Impose minor sanction"
Which, according to just about everything you've said, is precisely what
your National Spiritual Assembly did. There really isn't much more that any
Spiritual Assembly can do regardless of the notions of due process we might
deem necessary to impose on the system.
Courts of law and boards of arbitration have far more tools at their
disposal by which they might compell individuals to play by the rules. A
Spiritual Assembly doesn't have, for example, an armed bailiff who can take
a miscreant into custody nor does it have the ability to consign that
miscreant to a night in the county accomodations so that said miscreant may
contemplate his or her behavior. They can only go so far, and it would seem
that as far as they could possibly have gone simply wasn't enough for your
liking.
> > Much of
> > what Rod has had to say to me ever since then has been peppered with
> > personal invectives.
> You earned them.
Whether I've earned them or not isn't the point. They've contributed
absolutely nothing to the discussion, and _that's_ the point. Either put
them aside long enough to talk about the issues, or put me in a kill file.
That would be the _Baha'i_ thing, and, I might add, the _just_ thing, to do.
> > So, Rod, your issue is due process. I have asked you a rather simple
> > question regarding who the "accuser" is in the due process right to face
> > one's accuser.
> Do we begin the dance again Rick?
That depends entirely on you, Rod. See my above remarks about your insults.
> The accuser (within the Baha'i community) is the individual/s who present
> the accusation.
That's a rather vague answer, Rod. Are you talking about the individual who
contacts the Spiritual Assembly and lodges the initial complaint? Are you
talking about the Spiritual Assembly itself? Are you talking about the
"individual" who investigates the complaint and presents the evidence to the
Spiritual Assembly? What if the Spiritual Assembly has conducted the
investigation itself?
The only "individual" who would be involved at any point in this process
under all circumstances is the person who first contacts the Spiritual
Assembly and lodges the complaint. However, in terms of the due process
right to face one's accusor, the person who first lodges the complaint is
_not_ the person to whom that right refers. Indeed, it's not at all
uncommon for people to have been convicted of a crime without ever having
faced the person who first lodged the complaint. (This fact can be
demonstrated via a rather straightforward example by which a criminal is
convicted based on hard evidence that's been discovered subsequent to the
initial complaint--i.e. circumstances where someone is convicted wihtout
ever "facing" the complainant or even knowing who the complainant was.)
The "accusor" referred to in the adversarial rights of due process occupies
an official position within the system itself. In the United States, that
"person" is the district attorney (or a proxy of the district attorney).
The right itself stems back to medieval methods and concepts of "trial" and
"accusor".
Within the Baha'i system, there is no such person. The Baha'i system is not
an adversarial system, and the right to face one's accusor stems directly
from the existence of an _adversary_ to the accused. That's why it's called
the _adversarial_ system.
The adversarial system is not the only means of administering justice. In
fact, there are a number of countries, most notably Germany, that employ a
system that's generally referred to as "inquisitorial". Under such systems,
the judge does not play a strictly impartial role (indeed, one might argue
that judges in adversarial systems are not, in practice at least, strictly
impartial). Rather, the judge is charged with discovering the truth of a
matter, and is generally given wide powers designed to allow the judge to
accomplish that end.
The Baha'i Faith is far more similar to the inquisitorial system than the
adversarial system. One notable exception, however, is that the "judge"
consists of a Spiritual Assembly whose members are elected via democratic
process that's noted by the absence of any campaigning. There are likely
others, but, frankly, I'm not familiar enough with existing systems to be
able to discuss differences and similarities at any but the most superficial
level.
There are a number of internet sights one can browse for further information
on different systems of administering justice. The following seem rather
informative, but you should conduct your own search.
http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/reform/courtreform.htm
http://www.sla.purdue.edu/people/soc/mdeflem/zcompcj.htm
http://www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/papers/00/000301-01.html#P12_155
The last one is particularly relevant to the present discussion because it's
about some of the issues that the European Community is facing given the
disparate legal systems among the member countries. The discussion centers
on the various issues that arise when trying to resolve disputes between
citizens of member countries, and one of those issues is whether or not it's
even possible to meld the adversarial and inquisitorial systems into a
system that's reasonably coherent.
The point of my asking this question isn't merely to engage in some
philosophical discussion about different theories of justice. I had hoped
that in trying to grapple with an answer to that question, you might come to
realize the complexity of the issues involved and the utter inability of the
vast majority of Baha'is to even discuss these issues with a modicum of
intelligence, let alone try to come up with a solution.
Who knows? Perhaps it's time we did develop some more concrete forms of due
process within the Baha'i Faith. That isn't going to happen, however, by
you and I engaging in spite-filled exchanges of ignorance. Which is
precisely why I suggested that you sit down and write a letter to the
Universal House of Justice raising these issues. Indeed, were I to write
such a letter myself, I'd probably suggest that it would be a good idea to
gather Baha'i legal scholars together for the purposes of considering the
very question of due process within the Baha'i Faith (and, by the way, Dr.
Udo Schaffer would be at the top of my personal list of invitees).
The one thing I would _not_ do is go about the community grousing about the
absence of due process as I understood it, particularly given the
limitations of my understanding of the subject, and accusing of assuming the
ostrich posture anyone who would deign to admit that they are woefully
unqualified to address the issues involved.
Regards,
Rick Schaut
Rick Schaut
"Michael McKenny" <bn...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:a1fa6m$kr9$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> Greetings, Rick.
> Merci, Monsieur, for stating that there are imperfections in the way
> those holding power in Baha'i have been and are doing things. We are
> very much in agreement on that point.
Frankly, Michael, my remarks were substantively different from what you say
above. If you really do want to address the issues, then please do take
greater care in restating my points. Otherwise, I'll thank you to not use
my remarks as a soap-box for rather verbosely pontificating upon that which
you have verbosely pontificated before. If you want to discuss your pet
issues, then start your own thread.
Regards,
Rick Schaut
Michael McKenny
This thread's appropriately titled enough. You said you wanted to
converse politely about issues. Now you're not so keen. Well, if I got
your point of view inexact, then how exactly do you see imperfection
in Baha'i, or did you not mean what you said? Ponificate is a nice
word. I invite you to pontificate, to express your own opinion, have
your say, as I thought you wanted. Were you serious or not?
To the Future,
Michael
Michael McKenny
What do you mean when you say that it's figurative that we see
through our own eyes and not through the eyes of others? Do you mean
we think with our own minds and not as dictated to by others, or do
you mean that we don't think and accepted the dictated thoughts?
To the Future,
Michael
"Rick Schaut" (rssc...@email.msn.NOSPAM.com) writes:
>
> Figurative, Rod. The same sense that Baha'u'llah seems to have used the
> word when he stated that through the aid of justice we might "see" with our
> own eyes and not through the eyes of another.
--
Michael McKenny
You are correct, in my opinion, that not the accusor, necessarily,
but the accusation and all its details are deserving of being seen by
any accused. In other words, if you accuse me of X, it is possibly an
ad hominem and hence irrelevant as to who you are. What has merrit,
validity and relevance is X. If X is that I broke into your house, it
is irrelevant, in my opinion whether you, your neighbour or President
Bush made the accusation. The charge is I broke into your house and I
may defend myself accordingly, regardless of who says I did.
In this case, I suspect I may never have been in your state. Case
dismissed.
Now, if it's a charge such as "I heard Michael say X", first off,
I'm open in what I say, so if I really said it, I'll admit it, but, if
the only evidence for something is the word of a witness, I don't think
the case can proceed. I don't even like several witnesses, and much
prefer more substantial evidence (fingerprints, DNA, etc.), but if you
are going to go with eyewitness testimony then the reliability of the
witness comes up -- ad hominem and problematic.
However, the bottom line is, in general, in my opinion, I count
the accusation as significant, and the accusor as irrelevant. Of course,
if the accusation is that "Michael McKenny had sex with me" I don't
need to know who the accusor is, but I do need to know with whom I'm
supposed to have had sex. If it's one of your neighbours, then I was
likely never in the state.
Within a Baha'i context, one very serious problem is that some
folks are being accused of expressing opinions not in favour among the
hierarchy. That is a serious injustice.
To the Future,
Michael
Rick Schaut
> But I don't believe
> I've ever yet run into a human being quite as hard as Rick is. It's like
> he's carved from cold, white Haifa marble with no heart in him at all.
Except that, for some inexplicable reason, I'm always profoundly moved
whenever I hear Carlos Santana play "Samba Pa Ti".
Regards,
Rick Schaut
Dave Fiorito
> > If we do not agree with a decision then we have two options: a) appeal
> > the decision to the next highest body, or b) accept the decision and
> > support our institutions.
>
> Just as long as you are willing to suffer the consequences of a wrong
> decision right along with them, I guess you are right.
I can't find the quote at the moment but my recolection is that it is
better to be united in error than divided and right. The right way
will be found through unity whereas error is the only outcome of
division.
> Can I assume that the corollary to this is that, in the event of a
> very wrong decision, Baha'u'llah will only hold the Institutions
> responsible and not you? Only seems fair when you are only given the
> right to obey or else.
I would tend to think so. Look at the Bab and his response to his
executioner:
"To the Christian Sám Khán--the colonel of the Armenian regiment
ordered to carry out the execution--who, seized with fear lest his act
should provoke the wrath of God, had begged to be released from the
duty imposed upon him, the Báb gave the following assurance: 'Follow
your instructions, and if your intention be sincere, the Almighty is
surely able to relieve you of your perplexity'"
-- Shoghi Effendi, God Passes By p.52
Baha'u'llah spoke of the effect of following His laws. In the
Kitab-i-Aqdas He wrote:
"Give ear unto the verses of God which He Who is the sacred Lote-Tree
reciteth unto you. They are assuredly the infallible balance,
established by God, the Lord of this world and the next. Through them
the soul of man is caused to wing its flight towards the Dayspring of
Revelation, and the heart of every true believer is suffused with
light. Such are the laws which God hath enjoined upon you, such His
commandments prescribed unto you in His Holy Tablet; obey them with
joy and gladness, for this is best for you, did ye but know."
It seems to me that what is best for us is to follow Baha'u'llah's
laws, one of which is obedience to our elected institutions. I do not
think He would hold their decisions against us. Also remember that He
did not want us to blindly follow either. There is a balance.
Cheers,
Dave
Dave Fiorito
What is the standard to judge what is ethical and what is not?
Cheers,
Dave
Rick Schaut
> You are correct, in my opinion, that not the accusor, necessarily,
> but the accusation and all its details are deserving of being seen by
> any accused.
I'm glad that we agree on a relatively inconsequential point designed to
illustrate the larger scope of the general problem. However, you haven't
discussed the larger scope of the general problem at all. Do you have any
thoughts in the depth of the issues that arise when one endeavors to
incorporate notions of "due process" from disparate systems of administering
justice into a single, coherent system.
> Within a Baha'i context, one very serious problem is that some
> folks are being accused of expressing opinions not in favour among the
> hierarchy. That is a serious injustice.
Actually, with in the Baha'i context, a far more serious problem is people
accusing the Universal House of Justice of perpetrating injustices not based
upon a review of all the relevant facts but based upon their own inability
to imagine alternative, yet equally reasonable, explanations for those facts
that are known. When we know that we don't know all the relevant facts,
then the only just thing to do is to refrain from voicing a judgement.
Regards,
Rick Schaut
Rick Schaut
> This thread's appropriately titled enough. You said you wanted to
> converse politely about issues.
Again, Michael, you misqute me. I was keen on discussing the issues that
are actually the substance of controversy. I'm not at all keen on repeating
a discussion you and I have already had way too many times before without
any hope of increased understanding and/or mutual admiration or agreement.
Where you and I are concerned, perhaps the only polite thing for us to do is
agree to disagree.
Regards,
Rick Schaut
Rick Schaut
> What do you mean when you say that it's figurative that we see
> through our own eyes and not through the eyes of others? Do you mean
> we think with our own minds and not as dictated to by others, or do
> you mean that we don't think and accepted the dictated thoughts?
Seeing, Michael, has to do with the quality of discernment. It goes beyond
merely thinking for oneself.
As for how this might related to the thinking and acceptance of "dictated
thoughts," well, that depends on precisely what you mean in your use of the
word "dictated".
Regards,
Rick Schaut
Curious
Dave Fiorito <bighapp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0853486.02010...@posting.google.com...
> Ok, justice. What does that mean?
Let's start with 'The right to a fair hearing'.......Hmmmmm?
> Is it just to allow those who
> break Baha'i law to avoid all forms of punishment?
Straw man argument.....No one has advocated that Dave.
> Justice is not mercy.
No...nor is it pretense, excuse, platitude or 'spiritual advice' or any of
the other alternatives
that are offered in its stead within the community.
>
> Those that have been elected to serve on LSAs, NSAs, and the UHJ are
> the ones tasked with the enforcement of Baha'i law. They make the
> determination that punishment is required - not us. We are just
> individuals.
"I vas just followink da orders"...no Dave, it failed at Nuremberg it will
fail here.
We, Bahai's, collectively are responsible to see that the internal system is
'Just'.
It aint.....no excuses.
> If we do not agree with a decision then we have two options: a) appeal
> the decision to the next highest body, or b) accept the decision and
> support our institutions.
And when the 'First Option' fails....and the 'Second Option' proves to be a
denial of
the Best Beloved of All Things.....then we are entitled and obliged to
advocate, argue
and encourage the 'Third Option'.......REFORM.
And while we do so we wonder........."Why so much resistance to what is
fair"?
Rod.
Randy Burns
accused and what they are accused of are kept secret but even the results
and decisions are kept secret, who really cares?
It ain't Justice till its Justice!
Randy
--
Rick Schaut <rssc...@email.msn.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:3c3b6db5$1...@news.microsoft.com...
Curious
>
> "Curious" <Curio...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3c3b...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> > Rick Schaut <rssc...@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
> > news:a1f0g...@enews3.newsguy.com...
> > > Hello, Rod. It's nice to see you too.
>
> > Internet Rick, you cant see me at all.
>
> Figurative, Rod
Joke Rick, wry humor.
Snip
> Actually, I had asked what you expected a particular Spiritual Assembly to
> have done in your particular circumstances.
And I answered you....you cut the answer... ignored it and reposed the
question.
> I had hoped to get an answer
> that didn't amount to little more than saying "Do something!"
You evaded, distorted and obfuscated the answer, just like you are doing
now.
"Do something" came at the end of a string of desirable responses to abuse
beginning with "Ask them to stop". I will repost the posts here and you may
pick the bones of your prior obstruction of the issue and evasion of an
ethical
position....at your leisure.
> Moreover, as I recall, it seems that your National Spiritual Assembly did
> precisely what you would have them do.
Your 'recollection is a distortion of the facts aimed only to support your
false
assessment of what took place. The NSA did nothing of the kind.
> They instructed a Local Spiritual
> Assembly to conduct the Baha'i equivalent of a hearing on the issue.
Crap. This is total fantasy. All you do is make up rubbish to support a
false
assumption. The NSA gave no such advice, the LSA conducted no such
hearing. This is tired old ground over which you continue to plant your own
wishful thinking weeds in a crop of clearly established facts.
> The rules and procedure for that meeting (the "due process" if you will)
> consisted of the general rules and procedures governing Baha'i
consultation.
We have covered this issue Rick and I have covered it a hundred plus times
with other
Bahai's.....No one has been able to show me the due process that is claimed
to exist
and the NSA itself advises that there is none (as I have previously advised
you).
Are you contradicting the Oz NSA Rick? Why, if due process exists, has the
LSA been
instructed to implement it? (Two years ago.....they, like you, turn a blind
eye).
> Certain participants in that meeting refused to abide by those rules and
> procedures, at which point the Local Spiritual Assembly did the only thing
> they could do, which is bring a halt to the proceedings and advise the
> National Spiritual Assembly that the offending party should be subject to
> administrative sanctions.
Do you just run your own internal scrip/dialogue in spite of the information
presented
Rick? What you put forward bares no relation whatsoever to what took place.
It is fantasy, imagination, crap and evasive filibuster.
You remind me of Blanche (?, Streetcar Named Desire)..."My fantasy is
preferable to
your reality"
> Now, I may be missing a minor detail here or there, but that pretty much
> sums up the circumstances, does it not?
Bwahahahahahahahah!!! I don't think you touched base with reality once!
Instead of 'cutting and running' from the issues/information put before you
why don't you try reading, considering and responding to what is presented.
> > The answer then, now and always is "Ask them to stop"
> > That was for starters...if they don't stop..."Impose minor sanction"
>
> Which, according to just about everything you've said, is precisely what
> your National Spiritual Assembly did.
Crap. I challenge you to cite such a statement.
> There really isn't much more that any
> Spiritual Assembly can do regardless of the notions of due process we
might
> deem necessary to impose on the system.
Your incapacity to conceive of fair due process is only exceeded by your
incapacity
to get the facts straight.
> Courts of law and boards of arbitration have far more tools at their
> disposal by which they might compel individuals to play by the rules. A
> Spiritual Assembly doesn't have, for example, an armed bailiff who can
take
> a miscreant into custody nor does it have the ability to consign that
> miscreant to a night in the county accommodations so that said miscreant
may
> contemplate his or her behavior. They can only go so far, and it would
seem
> that as far as they could possibly have gone simply wasn't enough for your
> liking.
As predicted....back to irrelevant comparisons with secular confrontational
justice systems.
An LSA is empowered to establish forums of Mediation and Conflict Resolution
and
impose minor sanction on an 'accuser' who refuses to present substantiation.
All that stands in the way of such basic justice is your kind of blind
obstruction.
> > > Much of
> > > what Rod has had to say to me ever since then has been peppered with
> > > personal invectives.
>
> > You earned them.
>
> Whether I've earned them or not isn't the point.
You raised the issue.
You behaved like a "Prat"......I called you a "Prat"
As advised...I will put up the posts so all can see why.
>They've contributed
> absolutely nothing to the discussion, and _that's_ the point. Either put
> them aside long enough to talk about the issues, or put me in a kill file.
> That would be the _Baha'i_ thing, and, I might add, the _just_ thing, to
do.
I had.....you raised the issue. Still wounded after all this time from the
observation that you
had behaved like a Prat? As previously advised....now you are behaving like
a "Wet Prat".
"Issues"?......You cut, run and ignore them...then return with total
fantasy.
> > > So, Rod, your issue is due process. I have asked you a rather simple
> > > question regarding who the "accuser" is in the due process right to
face
> > > one's accuser.
>
> > Do we begin the dance again Rick?
>
> That depends entirely on you, Rod. See my above remarks about your
insults.
I was referring to your propensity to engage in evasion and semantic
quibble.
See your response below.....perfect example.
> > The accuser (within the Baha'i community) is the individual/s who
present
> > the accusation.
>
> That's a rather vague answer, Rod. Are you talking about the individual
who
> contacts the Spiritual Assembly and lodges the initial complaint?
Yes
>Are you talking about the Spiritual Assembly itself?
No, unless the accusation originates with its members.
>Are you talking about the
> "individual" who investigates the complaint and presents the evidence to
the
> Spiritual Assembly? What if the Spiritual Assembly has conducted the
> investigation itself?
No and as above
snip
(This fact can be
> demonstrated via a rather straightforward example by which a criminal is
> convicted based on hard evidence that's been discovered subsequent to the
> initial complaint--i.e. circumstances where someone is convicted without
> ever "facing" the complainant or even knowing who the complainant was.)
Back to the criminal court system as predicted hey Rick? You cannot conceive
of or
discuss any alternative can you?
From my previous post....(cut and restored;-)
............................................................................
.....................................................................
"Do we begin the dance again Rick? The one in which you hold up the dim
light
of theoretical Baha'i due process against the dark contemporary western
legal systems due process? Why bother? It was and remains a evasion of your
own devising.
The accuser (within the Baha'i community) is the individual/s who present
the accusation.
Fair due process would entail knowing 'who' has raised the allegation, on
what basis and
the right to present a defense against the allegations.
Play it anyway you like Rick....fact is...Baha'is can be subject to serious
allegations and denied the knowledge of who, why and the opportunity to
respond."
............................................................................
.............................................................
(Snip predicted tripe about US legal system)
> The adversarial system is not the only means of administering justice.
Indeed...so why do you persist in dragging the issue back to an examination
of adversarial systems?
(snip)
> The Baha'i Faith is far more similar to the inquisitorial system than the
> adversarial system.
The 'Baha'i Inquisition'!?! LOL ! Accurate but not funny Rick.
> One notable exception,
Oh the exceptions are 'multiple' Rick.
The Baha'i Inquisition can operate in total secrecy. An accusation can be
made,
openly or secretly, and and individual never know "who", "why", "what" or
"when".
An Inquisition can be conducted without an individual ever having been
availed of the
opportunity to know the charges or present a response.
Further, a Baha'i can be subject to sanction without ever being advised of
the charges.
This is the reality you refuse to consider or discuss.
Snip
> The point of my asking this question isn't merely to engage in some
> philosophical discussion about different theories of justice. I had hoped
> that in trying to grapple with an answer to that question, you might come
to
> realize the complexity of the issues involved and the utter inability of
the
> vast majority of Baha'is to even discuss these issues with a modicum of
> intelligence, let alone try to come up with a solution.
Rick I have been presenting Mediation and Conflict Resolution as
alternatives to adversarial systems
since this discussion began. To my knowledge this is the first post in which
you have
raised such alternate options.
The 'vast majority of Baha'is' proffer the same obstructionist denial as you
have
presented here. The pretense that 'due process' exists, the delusion that
secret inquisition
equates with non adversarial alternatives.
"Complexity"? There is no complexity involved in the provision of basic
justice Rick.
An accused is entitled to know the origin and nature of an accusation.
To be present during any hearing of such an accusation and availed of the
opportunity
to respond.
There is no such basic, simple, justice provision within the Baha'i
community.
And all the filibuster in the world don't change that.
> Who knows? Perhaps it's time we did develop some more concrete forms of
due
> process within the Baha'i Faith.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! After 'years' of squeezing Rick the Rock for recognition
of the screamingly obvious........he concedes a 'perhaps'!!
> That isn't going to happen,.....
Because your evasion, denial and obstruction is broadly reflected within the
Baha'i community.
Snip
>Which is
> precisely why I suggested that you sit down and write a letter to the
> Universal House of Justice raising these issues.
If I need to go all the way to go GMH headquarters to get the brakes on my
car fixed......there is something seriously wrong with the organization.
> Indeed, were I to write
> such a letter myself, I'd probably suggest that it would be a good idea to
> gather Baha'i legal scholars together for the purposes of considering the
> very question of due process within the Baha'i Faith (and, by the way, Dr.
> Udo Schaffer would be at the top of my personal list of invitees).
You go for it Rick....I pray you do not encounter the same denial and
obstruction
of the core issues you have put before me.
> The one thing I would _not_ do is go about the community grousing about
the
> absence of due process as I understood it, particularly given the
> limitations of my understanding of the subject, and accusing of assuming
the
> ostrich posture anyone who would deign to admit that they are woefully
> unqualified to address the issues involved.
Well.....you will pull your head out of the sand long enough to present a
fantasy,
misrepresent the information previously provided, cut and run from the core
issues,
proffer evasive and irrelevant obfuscation and plead deep wound over being
designated
a "Prat"
Who knows what further devices you might prove capable of ? ;-)
Rod.
(As the "Prat" designation is of such concern to you, I will establish a
thread so that you
may review the manner in which you earned it.....wouldn't leave a fellow
Baha'i subject to an
unfounded and unsubstantiated allegation;-)
Curious
>
> "Michael McKenny" <bn...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:a1fa6m$kr9$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> > Greetings, Rick.
> > Merci, Monsieur, for stating that there are imperfections in the way
> > those holding power in Baha'i have been and are doing things. We are
> > very much in agreement on that point.
>
> Frankly, Michael, my remarks were substantively different from what you
say
> above. If you really do want to address the issues, then please do take
> greater care in restating my points.
The alternative Michael, as demonstrated here once again, is to cut the text
and ignore
what has been said.
Rick, being a sea going fellow, is well aquatinted with Nelsons 'blind eye'
declaration...
"I see no ships"! ;-)
>Otherwise, I'll thank you to not use
> my remarks as a soap-box for rather verbosely pontificating upon that
which
> you have verbosely pontificated before. If you want to discuss your pet
> issues, then start your own thread.
Should he, as you have done, construct a total fantasy and pontificate there
upon?
You have long since abandoned any right to claim the high ground in
respecting the views
expressed by others Rick.....you obliterate the text and context of others
posts and then
respond to nothing more than your own internal dialogue.
Your double standards and hypocrisy are showing.
Rod.
Curious
>
> "Michael McKenny" <bn...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:a1fnog$bsj$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> > You are correct, in my opinion, that not the accusor, necessarily,
> > but the accusation and all its details are deserving of being seen by
> > any accused.
>
> I'm glad that we agree on a relatively inconsequential point designed to
> illustrate the larger scope of the general problem. However, you haven't
> discussed the larger scope of the general problem at all. Do you have any
> thoughts in the depth of the issues that arise when one endeavors to
> incorporate notions of "due process" from disparate systems of
administering
> justice into a single, coherent system.
If the objective is no more than to 'prosecute' or defend the 'accusation'
then the absence
of the individual bringing the accusation may be merited.
But this is all too often not the case or 'all that is at stake'.
In all these exchanges, despite repeated attempts, Rick refuses to consider
the
potential or need for 'Healing' incongruence or misunderstanding between
parties.
In a system in which an accusation can be made, an investigation conducted
in secret,
no opportunity for the accused and accuser provided to resolve or reach
mediated understanding...
both justice and the potential for healing are denied.
The 'Inquisition' promotes disharmony and disunity by maintaining a drawn
out, secretive and
dysfunctional approach.
Mediation and Conflict Resolution BRING PEOPLE TOGETHER.
They are processes that provide opportunity for both Justice and Healing.
They create safe open and fair forums in which the
issues/concerns/allegations
may be heard and addressed.
Nothing of this ilk exists within the Baha'i community nor is there any
significant interest.
Rod.
Paul Hammond
> > > > However, it has been a while since the UHJ took action against
> > > > anybody; it would not surprise me if they decided they were
> > > > about due.
>
> > > Do they have a quota now?
>
> > As I've said before, I have no idea how those guys think -- I don't
> > understand why they've done the cracking down they've already done.
>
> Perhaps if you spent more time reading and digesting what they've actually
> said and less time trying to read between the lines, it will make much
more
> sense.
>
Wow, Rick!
Can you digest what they said without any translation at all?
You must be a member of Mutant X with *those* stomach capabilities!
Paul
Paul Hammond
Well, you know, sauce for the goose and all that...
Paul
Curious
>
> > > If we do not agree with a decision then we have two options: a) appeal
> > > the decision to the next highest body, or b) accept the decision and
> > > support our institutions.
> >
> > Just as long as you are willing to suffer the consequences of a wrong
> > decision right along with them, I guess you are right.
>
> I can't find the quote at the moment but my recolection is that it is
> better to be united in error than divided and right. The right way
> will be found through unity whereas error is the only outcome of
> division.
You cannot continually sacrifice 'Justice' on the altar of 'Unity'.
If the injustice and dysfunction of the system is seen 'once' or 'twice'
and the friends 'bite the bullet' and maintain unity while the system is
reformed.....then that is one thing.
But if the 'systems failure' is repeated, over and over again, for a decade+
and the only response is "Maintain Unity"....that is an altogether different
matter.
Such 'platitudes' only serve to compound and exacerbate the abuse
experienced
at the hands of a dysfunctional system.
And 'that' Dave is profoundly 'unethical' behavior....by any standards.
Rod
Pat Kohli
Milissa wrote:
> Hi Dave--
>
> (snip)
> > If we do not agree with a decision then we have two options: a) appeal
> > the decision to the next highest body, or b) accept the decision and
> > support our institutions.
>
> Just as long as you are willing to suffer the consequences of a wrong
> decision right along with them, I guess you are right.
I didn't move to Canada in December 2000. Shrub ... cold ... cold ...
shrub. You pays your money and you takes your chances.
Did you want paradise in the AO, really? Milissa!
Blessings!
- Pat
ko...@ameritel.net
Rick Schaut
> It ain't Justice till its Justice!
Except when "Justice" is nothing more than a culturally determined notion of
"justice". Then it's not justice at all. It's just parochialism.
Regards,
Rick Schaut
Karen Bacquet
> So, I guess I've got some time to check out
> what Rick posts. I've always maintained personality is irrelevant; it's
> content that's valid.
> I'd like to thank you for your presence and role here.<<
Dear Michael,
I don't believe I've ever been so gently and charmingly corrected. I think
you're an absolute darling, and I'll check out your website soon -- I've
been busy with some writing of my own, which I'll tell everybody about soon.
Love, Karen
> Thrive Ever,
> Michael.
>
>
> "Karen Bacquet" (karenb...@hotmail.com) writes:
> > --
> >> How's your boss, the big felon?<<
> >
> > It looks like the news has gotten around that Dermod and Nima, the two
> > biggest ass-kickers in Baha'i cyberspace, have now retired from the
ring, so
> > the creeps who crept away are creeping back -- much according to
Dermod's
> > prediction btw.
> > Unfortunately, I'm not much of an ass-kicker, and so I'm going to have
to
> > leave it mostly in your capable hands, Randy. My own list is busy, and
the
> > most important thing that I do in Baha'i cyberspace is help the people
whose
> > hearts and lives have been shattered by the administration put
themselves
> > back together. That's top priority. Second on the list is my own
writing.
> > Fundy-fighting comes after that, when I have time.
> >
> > Love, Karen
Curious
Rick Schaut <rssc...@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
Strange....One of the most frequent explanations/excuses proffered for the
absence of
due process within the Baha'i community is that it must be "culturally
determined" and appropriate to the needs/expectations of each region. Thus,
the story goes, there can be no universal due process
and each LSA/region is obliged to devise their own.
The timetable for this endeavor seems to be anytime just prior to the next
Manifestation.
'Parochialism' Rick is the cornerstone of (future;-) Baha'i due
process.....in the interim...there
aint no justice.
Rod
Michael McKenny
make one ethical, as is demonstrated by the shoddy treatment these nine men
have rendered Baha'i.
Michael McKenny
I will try to reply to your questions and I invite you to be very
specific in expressing your opinion and to underline wherever you feel
I have failed to state my opinion on an issue. I may do the same. You
have invited a polite exchange of views. I have repeatedly said that any
and all remarks directed at the person are irrelevant, and any and all
comments I direct at you rather than your points are equally irrelevant.
In my opinion, it doesn't cut water to maintain that dictatorships
can keep information secret and then say our dictatorship cannot be
assessed because you lack information. Release all the information and
demonstrate why obvious injustice isn't injustice, due to specific and
exceptional circumstances or be assessed as any other dictatorship.
To the Future,
Michael
Michael McKenny
You may do a web search for "michael mckenny" and "brehon law" to
see that I have considered legal systems. Somewhere out there is the
site where my review of Fergus Kelly's A GUIDE TO EARLY IRISH LAW is
rated Five Star and "Excellent". This is not the system of law I advocate
as superior to the existing (Old World Order) one. However, I have
considered the point you mention. In a way, the Old World Order system
we're used to in Perry Mason, if nowhere else, is based on a combination
of things such as the Justinian code, the evolution of the Anglo Saxon
and Norman and Biblical ideas, etc. It's not perfect, but I'll take the
Magna Carta and trial by jury any day over the nine kings in Haifa can
do anything at they please, with no consideration of individual rights
and freedoms at all, with no restraints, with no trial, with no jury,
with no need to produce evidence, without even allowing someone to know
that even a kangaroo court is being held.
On a dispassionate basis, purely on the issues and devoid of all
reference to personality, which is preferable, the flawed Old World
Order system of justice, imperfect as it is, or the non-existence of any
system at all within the current Baha'i Faith, where leadership simply
decrees and defines what is right and what is wrong and there is no due
process at all. By all means, take the admirable features of Justinian
and Cicero, of the pagan Celts, of the bible, of Islamic jurisprudence,
of Napoleon, of ancient China, not to forget Baha'u'llah (who said the
best thing was justice -- and this is not a word meaning the decrees of
the guys in charge -- of anyone else you like, and allow a full and
democratic input, and what you have, flawed as it is will likely do a
lot more to bring justice and harmony than the lack of due process
currently inflicting such serious harm on the Baha'i Faith.
To the Future,
Michael
>
> I'm glad that we agree on a relatively inconsequential point designed to
> illustrate the larger scope of the general problem. However, you haven't
> discussed the larger scope of the general problem at all. Do you have any
> thoughts in the depth of the issues that arise when one endeavors to
> incorporate notions of "due process" from disparate systems of administering
> justice into a single, coherent system.
> ...
>
> Regards,
> Rick Schaut
Michael McKenny
By all means, I very much invite you to restate your words, if I
get them wrong. In my opinion, you have pontificated, which is fine,
when it is pointed out. You speak as if your point of view is the only
one and, of course, you mean, in your opinion, in your view, you think
that the mistakes made by the nine guys running the show and the idol
that these nine guys can do no wrong is not an issue. Perhaps it is not
an issue for you. However, to return to an accurate quote, "The substance
of controversy," unless you actually agree that the nine guys running the
show have made mistakes and that the requirement now within Baha'i is to
follow the advice of Abdu'l Baha and overcome the idol worship of the
concept of the perfection of the decrees emanating from the nine men in
charge -- "The substance of controversy" very much is that there are
those within Baha'i worshipping this idol and the nine men in charge
are not seen as having the authority to admit honestly their imperfect
and incorrect decrees, a preliminary step to rectifying the mess into
which their very much fallible leadership has resulted in.
If you agree and all others agree, then let this admission and this
correction of past impoverished decrees begin. If, as I suspect, you do
not agree with me, then this very much is, "The substance of controversy."
To facing facts, admitting truth, following the advice of Abdu'l
Baha and the harmonious consultation on and resolution of all thorny and
difficult issues. The human being has been endowed with a very remarkable
capacity to overcome obstacles, figure out solutions to problems, solve
complex issues, on the condition that effort to do so is undertaken, and
honest and sincere facing up to issues, consulting on such problems with
an open and unbiased mind and heart, listening to others very deeply
takes place.
May you and all within Baha'i, especially those who hold positions of
responsibility honestly, sincerely, prayerfully open your minds and your
hearts and really observe the situation as it exists, really assess what
is going on, really listen to the diverse rainbow of opinions that can be
embraced by the Revelation of Baha'u'llah, really consult on the substance
of controversy, really listen to all viewpoints, really reach for answers,
resolutions, decisions that address the real issues, and really promote
the world embracing, world encompassing, world harmonizing potential of
the Revelation of Baha'u'llah.
To the Future,
Michael
Michael McKenny
In what way does "Discernment" go beyond "Merely thinking for yourself".
Do you mean that there are sub-categories of "Dictated" that you approve?
Most important, are you willing to admit honestly that there may be times
when the dictates coming from the nine men at the top of the Baha'i AO are
wrong. Have you that capacity of discernment? Can you admit that there may
be dictates coming from the nine men at the top of the Baha'i AO are in
conflict with ethics to the point that these dictates cannot be obeyed?
I await an honest answer very attentively.
To the Future,
Michael
>
> Seeing, Michael, has to do with the quality of discernment. It goes beyond
> merely thinking for oneself.
>
> As for how this might related to the thinking and acceptance of "dictated
> thoughts," well, that depends on precisely what you mean in your use of the
> word "dictated".
>
> Regards,
> Rick Schaut
>
>
Michael McKenny
Such "Parochialism", if it is the parochialism that stems from the
Magna Carta, the jury system, British common law, etc., for all its warts,
blemishes and imperfections is much to be preferred to that
Non-Parochialism" which needs no trials, no juries, no presentation of
evidence, no opportunity for defence at all, simply the decree by the
men running the show that such a penalty has been rendered, and indeed
the penalty may even be decreed without notification.
Here's to Parochialiam.
Michael
Dave Fiorito
The community, the institutions, heck - our whole faith, is in a state
of evolution. Prioities are set and the work procedes. There are
many things that we are called to do that we are not doing. So we are
addressing now and some will be addressed later. All of them are
important. For now the institutionalization of a codified system of
due process is not at the top of the priority list. Some day it will
be.
You will just have to wait.
Cheers,
Dave
Dave Fiorito
> If the injustice and dysfunction of the system is seen 'once' or 'twice'
> and the friends 'bite the bullet' and maintain unity while the system is
> reformed.....then that is one thing.
>
> But if the 'systems failure' is repeated, over and over again, for a decade+
> and the only response is "Maintain Unity"....that is an altogether different
> matter.
I have seen no system failure repeated over decades.
Cheers,
Dave
Paul Hammond
Yeah, I guess I'd say "tried and tested" beats "pie in the sky"
every time.
However "parochial" English/American, European justice is, its
the kind of thing oppressed peoples all over Africa, the Middle
East and the old Soviet Union cry out for while groaning under
the arbitrary injustice of their various oppressors.
Paul
Michael McKenny <bn...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:a1hk1g$52j$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
Dave Fiorito
> news:f0853486.02010...@posting.google.com...
> > Ok, justice. What does that mean?
>
> Let's start with 'The right to a fair hearing'.......Hmmmmm?
Justice in its purest form is found in the Word of God - in this day
the Writings of Baha'u'llah. Is the right to a fair hearing contained
in His Writings? If so, what form does it take? Who determines its
fairness?
> > Is it just to allow those who
> > break Baha'i law to avoid all forms of punishment?
>
> Straw man argument.....No one has advocated that Dave.
Nonsense. The UHJ who is the Center of the Covenant determined that
certain individuals no longer met the criteria to remain Baha'is yet
voices on this forum call in to question their right to do so. In
essence people are saying that the UHJ should not punish anyone for
breaking Baha'i law when it is withing their purview to do just that.
> > Justice is not mercy.
>
> No...nor is it pretense, excuse, platitude or 'spiritual advice' or any of
> the other alternatives that are offered in its stead within the community.
Justice is manifest in the Laws of God and the body with the authority
to apply those laws is the UHJ. They set the tone and the pace of the
laws application - not us.
> > Those that have been elected to serve on LSAs, NSAs, and the UHJ are
> > the ones tasked with the enforcement of Baha'i law. They make the
> > determination that punishment is required - not us. We are just
> > individuals.
>
> "I vas just followink da orders"...no Dave, it failed at Nuremberg it will
> fail here.
Who said anything about following orders? The institutions enforce
Baha'i law - not individuals.
> We, Bahai's, collectively are responsible to see that the internal system is
> 'Just'.
> It aint.....no excuses.
... and how do we do that? Through consultation with the institutions
and through our vote.
> > If we do not agree with a decision then we have two options: a) appeal
> > the decision to the next highest body, or b) accept the decision and
> > support our institutions.
>
> And when the 'First Option' fails....and the 'Second Option' proves to be a
> denial of the Best Beloved of All Things.....then we are entitled and obliged
> to advocate, argue and encourage the 'Third Option'.......REFORM.
Incorrect. In the context of Baha'u'llah's exhortation to be obedient
to assemblies individuals cannot supercede the institutions by
insisting on reforms just because we do not percieve the presence of
justice. Part of the Covenant is our agreement that we will recognize
the authority of the institutions and obey their decisions. We are
assured that their decisions will be freed from error. We have been
given the right to consult with the institutions and we have the right
to appeal. We do not have the right to demand anything.
> And while we do so we wonder........."Why so much resistance to what is
> fair"?
Your perception of "fair" is not the one that matters, neither does
mine. What does matter is the consultative decisions of our
institutions. In this faith individual voices have no authority -
only the decisions of elected bodies hold authority. If you say that
something is unfair and the UHJ says that it _is_ fair then the UHJ is
the voice the Baha'is are to follow.
Cheers,
Dave
Rick Schaut
<Curio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Rick Schaut <rssc...@email.msn.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
> news:3c3b5360$1...@news.microsoft.com...
>> "Curious" <Curio...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:3c3b...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>> Rick Schaut <rssc...@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
>>> news:a1f0g...@enews3.newsguy.com...
>>>> Hello, Rod. It's nice to see you too.
>>
>>> Internet Rick, you cant see me at all.
>>
>> Figurative, Rod
> Joke Rick, wry humor.
To which I took the opportunity to remind all of us that there's more than
one sentence in the Hidden Word about "The best beloved of all things in My
sight..." Perhaps I was being too subtle.
> Snip
>> Actually, I had asked what you expected a particular Spiritual Assembly to
>> have done in your particular circumstances.
> And I answered you....you cut the answer... ignored it and reposed the
> question.
If by "answered" you mean to say that you typed in some text in response to
a question, then, yes, you did, indeed, "answer" the question. One of those
responses was a fictional story. Another response was:
"Yes, in the most ad hock, ill advised, kangaroo court, drawn out, covert,
ineffective, ill prepared, shambling stuff up that one could imagine. More
recently they have become complicate in and party to the abusive behaviors."
Nearly all of them expressed little more than your outrage. Well, Rod, we
get the fact that you're outraged, but, in the absence of facts, there's not
much more the rest of us can discuss.
I went and tracked down the one of the few messages where you actually
discussed facts, and I have to say that it wasn't easy. I had to scour
Google to find it. The link is here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_ugroup=talk.religion.bahai&as_umsgid=Oa0r
7.2083%24cu4....@ozemail.com.au&hl=en
I'll refer back to this later in the post.
>> I had hoped to get an answer
>> that didn't amount to little more than saying "Do something!"
> "Do something" came at the end of a string of desirable responses to abuse
> beginning with "Ask them to stop".
Yes, it did, but none of it was all that relevant to the point: Spiritual
Assemblies are limited in what they can do in the sense that there is only
so far they can go to change people's behavior. That we might find a
hundred things they might do between "nothing" and "apply full
administrative sanctions" doesn't change the fact that they cannot go beyond
their ability to apply full administrative sanctions.
You have certainly tried to make the point that a number of intermediate
steps between "nothing" and "apply full sanctions" might well have changed
the outcome in your particular case, but that's not at all obvious from the
facts you've recounted so far.
It seems that what you wanted, and didn't get, was an opportunity to
convince those who accused you of wrong doing that the allegation was false.
It seems to carry with it the assumption that had you been given that
opportunity none of the subsequent ugliness would have happened. You've
made that speculative assertion a number of times, but the repetition
doesn't change the speculative nature of that assertion.
More importantly, however, there is no conception of "due process" anywhere
that would have provided you with that opportunity in your particular case.
This leads to a fundamental communication problem when you start talking
about due process in this context.
When you first began talking about this, a number of people here thought you
were talking about circumstances under which you had personally been subject
to administrative sanctions. That's largely because the vast majority of
concepts of due process don't obtain unless someone is subject to sanctions.
That's why Charles started quoting from the U.S. Constitution. That's why
Dermod took the "right to face one's accuser" and started running with it in
a direction completely opposite of where you were headed.
After a while, it became clear that what you meant by "due process",
involved something far more analogous to the rules that govern the
presentation of arguments before an appellate court: appellant gets X number
of minutes to present arguments, respondent gets X number of minutes, and so
on. The terms "procedural rules" and "due process" are not synonymous,
though you seem to use the term "due process" to mean "procedural rules".
I say that you "seem" to use that term, because you do come back, from time
to time, to due process right to face one's accuser, and that only serves to
confuse the issues. When you do this, it immediately gives rise to
questions about how such a right would fit within the context of the Baha'i
system of administering justice.
>> Moreover, as I recall, it seems that your National Spiritual Assembly did
>> precisely what you would have them do.
> Your 'recollection is a distortion of the facts aimed only to support your
> false assessment of what took place. The NSA did nothing of the kind.
Well, having gone back to the one post of yours I could find that actually
discusses the facts, it doesn't appear to me that my recollection is a
distortion of the facts at all. About the only thing I seem to have gotten
wrong is the idea that the Assembly shut the meeting down. My apologies,
but that is a rather immaterial issue.
Well, there is the fact that you had three meetings and not just one, though
beyond the initial sentence in which you state that you'd been to three
meetings your remarks appear to refer to a single meeting, presumably the
last of the three. Again, my apologies, but this, too, doesn't seem to be
all that material an issue. There certainly was at least one meeting.
Did the National Spiritual Assembly instruct a Local Spiritual Assembly to
conduct a meeting? Given that both a member of the National Spiritual
Assembly and a member of the Continental Board of Counselors were present,
that's not a bad inference. As a rule, members of the Continental Board of
Counselors don't show up at a meeting unless the National Spiritual Assembly
or an agency of the National Spiritual Assembly has tendered the invitation.
Was the meeting the Baha'i equivalent of a hearing? Based on what you wrote
in the article quoted above, that seems as accurate a description of the
meeting as anything else. The issue seems to be whether or not it was
"fair", not whether or not it constituted a form of "hearing".
Are there procedural rules that govern the conduct of participants in a
consultative meeting? Sure there are. You can find a listing of some of
them in section 4 of the U.S. National Spiritual Assembly's current
guidelines for local spiritual assemblies. One particularly pertinent rule
is that one has the courtesy to allow others at the meeting an opportunity
to present their views.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by an absence of structure for that
meeting, but it would seem that you mean to say that there was no statement
of the basic ground rules for the meeting at that meeting. Given that there
had been two other meetings prior to this one, I find it hard to believe
that the complaining couple had not been informed, in any way, of how they
were expected to behave. In any event, if this is what you're talking about
when you refer to "due process", then the issue isn't the absence of rules.
Rather, the issue would be the presumption that participants already
understand the rules.
Did some of the participants to that meeting fail to abide by the rules? If
you were never able to get out more than six words at a time without being
interrupted, then clearly those who interrupted you broke the rules that
govern consultation.
Did the National Spiritual Assembly impose sanctions on those individuals
who broke the rules? They lost their voting rights. And, yes, I've
inferred that they lost their voting rights because of their conduct at that
meeting. This, too, seems like a reasonable inference. The only "fact"
that we have to counter this is their assertion, relayed through you, that
they don't know why they had their voting rights removed. Given that these
are the same people who voiced unsubstantiated allegations in a number of
ways, I think one would be completely justified in giving precisely zero
weight to their assertion.
>> The rules and procedure for that meeting (the "due process" if you will)
>> consisted of the general rules and procedures governing Baha'i
>> consultation.
> Are you contradicting the Oz NSA Rick?
No, Rod, you're merely being equivocal. See my remarks above regarding the
differences in meaning given to the phrase "due process" by nearly everyone
else who reads or hears it and what you think it should mean.
>> Now, I may be missing a minor detail here or there, but that pretty much
>> sums up the circumstances, does it not?
> I don't think you touched base with reality once!
Well, I went back and found your own account of the facts, meager as it is,
and have pointed out how my recollection appears to be not all too far from
your own account of those facts. If I haven't "touched base with reality
once," then what you acclaim to be "clearly established fact" is not quite
so "clearly established" as you say.
> Back to the criminal court system as predicted hey Rick? You cannot conceive
> of or discuss any alternative can you?
Sure I can. The problem, however, is you keep talking about the right to
face one's accuser as if that right exists in a vacuum. It doesn't. You
can't bring it into my office and make it do stupid pet tricks.
> "Complexity"? There is no complexity involved in the provision of basic
> justice Rick.
> An accused is entitled to know the origin and nature of an accusation.
> To be present during any hearing of such an accusation and availed of the
> opportunity to respond.
What makes this a "provision of basic justice" other than the fact that Rod
Wicks says so? As a "provision" the only place where it exists, the only
place where it acquires any meaning, is within the context of those systems
of administering justice in which the right to face one's accuser is
defined. What does it mean to extract that right from those systems in
which it's defined and plug it into another system that operates under a
different set of premises? I've asked you those questions so many times and
in so many ways, I'm beginning to think that your accusation of evasion is
simple projection.
What's really amazing is that I can provide references to documents written
by some rather adept legal minds who point out that engaging in this sort of
cross-systemic pollenization is fraught with a variety of pitfalls. I also
point to systems of administering justice, systems existing and operational
in countries generally considered to be "civilized" today, in which that
right doesn't exist. Yet you perform the same "cut and run" of which you
accuse me, and fail to address what is the fundamental issue in this entire
discussion: what does "justice" mean?
You are proposing the equivalent of taking a DIP memory module and plugging
it into a SIMM socket. Well, those of us who know something about the
differences between dual inline packages and single inline memory modules
would rather like to know how you intend to make that work.
So far, the most compelling justification you've given for incorporating
some notion of the right to face one's accuser--you've defined that right in
relatively vague terms which appear to be very different from the way it's
defined everywhere else--into Baha'i methods of conflict resolution and
administering justice is your _speculation_ that it would have drastically
altered the outcome in your particular case.
Yes, the fact remains that individual Baha'is can be subject to a wide
variety of allegations without ever knowing who, why or wherefore. Baha'is
are as capable of calumny as anyone else. It's equally true that in the
vast majority of such cases the institutions recognize calumnious
allegations for the bullocks they are, and might even go so far as to impose
sanctions on the individuals who've perpetrated such calumny because Baha'i
law very strictly forbids it. What's not clear is how, in cases where the
institutions recognize the calumny for what it is, justice requires the
institutions to provide a forum under which the accused might attempt to
disabuse the calumniator of his or her false ideas.
Indeed, under such circumstances, the secrecy--i.e. the spiritual assembly's
obligation to maintain strict confidentiality--that you decry serves as a
protection for the accused. The only way such allegations are even known
outside the institution is if someone starts backbiting. That, too, is as
against Baha'i law as perpetrating calumny.
As long as there are people who don't abide by Baha'i law, there will be
some element of injustice we simply can't fix. It's not at all different
from the fact that no matter what society does to a murderer, the injustice
of the murder itself cannot be undone. Should someone voice allegations
anywhere else but to an appropriate Spiritual Assembly, the injustice and
the harm of that particular violation of Baha'i law can't be undone.
Now, if the existence of Baha'u'llah's most vehement and passionate
condemnations of calumny isn't enough to keep some Baha'is from voicing
unsubstantiated allegations anywhere but to an appropriate Spiritual
Assembly, why on earth would we believe that a set of procedural rules
established for the conduct of a hearing designed to investigate such
allegations would be any more effective at preventing the very same
injustice and harm from continuing? It simply doesn't follow.
That leaves but one rather minor issue to be clarified:
>> Who knows? Perhaps it's time we did develop some more concrete forms of
>> due process within the Baha'i Faith.
> After 'years' of squeezing Rick the Rock for recognition
> of the screamingly obvious........he concedes a 'perhaps'!!
I've said exactly as much at least a year ago. Shall I post a link to the
article on Google?
Regards,
Rick Schaut
Michael McKenny
Many thanks for your kind words. Actually, the web page on geocities
is still under construction, and I was aiming at formally announcing it
on Imbolc (February 2nd). It's mainly focused on topics of special
interest to me, and Baha'i is a small part of that, as anyone who checks
it out will see. Also, the Baha'i material is deficient; it's missing my
responses to at least two, probably more, letters of the UHJ, and it's
missing the links I want to put in to other Baha'i sites of interest. If
I don't have a link to your site by February 2nd, don't hesitate to give
me a gentle reminder.
I think it is truly great to be providing the service you are of
helping those wronged within Baha'i. I tend to be too preoccupied with
other things to be able to contribute much to e-lists. And, I feel that
what time I can spend in Baha'i cyberspace is most constructively spent
here, in the open, where so many have been so unjustly made fearful to
be seen. However, feel free anytime to share any comments I post here
with any one.
Thrive Ever,
Michael
"Karen Bacquet" (karenb...@hotmail.com) writes:
>> So, I guess I've got some time to check out
>> what Rick posts. I've always maintained personality is irrelevant; it's
>> content that's valid.
>> I'd like to thank you for your presence and role here.<<
>
> Dear Michael,
>
> I don't believe I've ever been so gently and charmingly corrected. I think
> you're an absolute darling, and I'll check out your website soon -- I've
> been busy with some writing of my own, which I'll tell everybody about soon.
>
> Love, Karen
>
--
Milissa
> Did you want paradise in the AO, really? Milissa!
Well.........
I'd settle to come across an oasis now and then. Paradise can wait.
Peace,
Milissa
Milissa
(snip)>
> It seems to me that what is best for us is to follow Baha'u'llah's
> laws, one of which is obedience to our elected institutions. I do not
> think He would hold their decisions against us. Also remember that He
> did not want us to blindly follow either. There is a balance.
This is the basic issue: balance. Please ignore those posters who
might say this merely to pull your chain, but I am saying/typing this
in all sincerity. Where is the balance? The UHJ has declared people
"not Baha'i" for disobedience......where is the balance on the other
side? The UHJ stated in a previous letter that there were no set
procedures in place (ie no due process) for these kinds of issues.
When I ask Baha'is in person, all I get are these vague and general
quotes about the UHJ being free from all error and quotes about how
the AO is suppose to be nice to the individual believers. But I don't
see a balance....on one side I see a body with absolute power and no
specific boundaries and on the other side I see an individual who has
to obey or be at the mercy of the other side. I honestly don't see
the balance so I hope you can point it out.
It is nice that God won't hold it against us in the event that the UHJ
makes a very bad mistake.....because I think everyone else would!
Thanks for taking the time to respond.
Peace,
Milissa
Rick Schaut
> news:a1gk9...@enews4.newsguy.com...
> > "Randy Burns" <randy....@gte.net> wrote in message
> > news:kBM_7.379$gt2.1...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
> > > It ain't Justice till its Justice!
> > Except when "Justice" is nothing more than a culturally determined
notion
> > of "justice". Then it's not justice at all. It's just parochialism.
> Strange....One of the most frequent explanations/excuses proffered for the
> absence of
> due process within the Baha'i community is that it must be "culturally
> determined" and appropriate to the needs/expectations of each region.
Does that preclude the development of a broad set of guidelines and a survey
of particular rules and procedures used in various systems of administering
justice?
Seems to me you'd welcome such a development. On the other hand, perhaps
you'd find that information to merely "obfuscate" the issues rather than
illuminate them.
Regards,
Rick Schaut
Rick Schaut
"Paul Hammond" <paha...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:3c3c...@212.67.96.135...
> Yeah, I guess I'd say "tried and tested" beats "pie in the sky"
> every time.
When you see a "pie in the sky" system, let me know. I prefer to deal with
ones that exist, warts and all. Of course, I don't expect different systems
to have exactly the same warts.
> However "parochial" English/American, European justice is, its
> the kind of thing oppressed peoples all over Africa, the Middle
> East and the old Soviet Union cry out for while groaning under
> the arbitrary injustice of their various oppressors.
Unless I've misread the articles to which I posted links not too long ago,
this parochailism is precisely the issue that's vexing attempts to develop a
common legal system in the European Community. It would seem the Germans,
who have a legal system that doesn't incorporate at least one right that has
been bandied about in this forum, don't want an adversarial system and are
resisting attempts to turn their system into one.
Regards,
Rick Schaut
Rick Schaut
> news:3c3b6db5$1...@news.microsoft.com...
> > "Michael McKenny" <bn...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> > news:a1fnog$bsj$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> > > You are correct, in my opinion, that not the accusor, necessarily,
> > > but the accusation and all its details are deserving of being seen by
> > > any accused.
> > I'm glad that we agree on a relatively inconsequential point designed to
> > illustrate the larger scope of the general problem.
> If the objective is no more than to 'prosecute' or defend the 'accusation'
> then the absence of the individual bringing the accusation may be merited.
Ah! So the right to face one's accusor might not acutally be necessary for
the administration of justice within Baha'i society.
> But this is all too often not the case or 'all that is at stake'.
But, within any system of justice, this is all that an institution charged
with administering justice has the authority to do: ascertain the validity
of the accusation, and take apropriate action based their ascertation of the
validity of the accusation. If you're talking about doing something other
than merely ascertaining the validity of the accusation, then any use of the
term "due process" is equivocal, because that usage necessarily diverges
from the meaning that obtains under any other circumstance.
> In all these exchanges, despite repeated attempts, Rick refuses to
consider
> the potential or need for 'Healing' incongruence or misunderstanding
> between parties.
Sorry. I haven't "refused to consider" these things. They simply lie
outside the realm of discussion regarding "due process". If you want to
discuss these things, then stop banging on the drum of "due process".
> The 'Inquisition' promotes disharmony and disunity by maintaining a drawn
> out, secretive and
> dysfunctional approach.
I just knew you were going to take the reference to "inquisitorial" systems
of administering justice and twist that through word play to come up with
"Inquisition". Monty Python was wrong. I did expect it, and you didn't let
me down.
That said, the Inquisition wasn't unjust because it employed an
inquisitorial system of administering justice. Rather, it was unjust
because the methods employed to investigate and ascertain the truth included
hideously inhumane practices. Had you read the articles and papers to which
I posted links, you'd likely have read the following:
"At first sight, the extension of human rights into relations between
citizens and the administration seems a wholly benign development. If the
universality of human rights is accepted as axiomatic, then their extension
and co-ordination must surely be a "levelling up". This is, however, a
dangerous simplification. An impugned procedure may not be inferior; it may
simply be different. There is, for example, no absolute advantage of
adversarial over inquisitorial procedure; one is not inevitably more
independent or inherently less arbitrary than the other; each can operate
fairly."
This from
http://www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/papers/00/000301-04.html#TopOfPage.
> Mediation and Conflict Resolution BRING PEOPLE TOGETHER.
> They are processes that provide opportunity for both Justice and Healing.
Yes. And, as a matter of fact, the inability of large numbers of Spiritual
Assemblies to carry out these functions has been on the Baha'i community's
agenda for some time. It falls under the general rubric of "strengthening
Local Spiritual Assemblies". At this time, much of that effort consists of
training members of local spiritual assemblies in some of the more basic
concepts of Baha'i Administration.
You know, I've met members of local spiritual assemblies who didn't know the
difference between a member of a Regional Baha'i Council and a member of the
Continental Board of Counselors. Many Local Spiritual Assemblies have
difficulty just planning the next feast. When it comes to mediation and
conflict resolution, the issue is not the absence of any rules. The issue
is the absence of capacity within the Baha'i community. The most
well-designed set of rules is completely useless if we don't have people who
have the capacity to implement them properly.
Regards,
Rick Schaut
Rick Schaut
> Rick Schaut <rssc...@email.msn.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
> news:3c3a20b3$1...@news.microsoft.com...
actually
> > said and less time trying to read between the lines, it will make much
> > more sense.
> Wow, Rick!
> Can you digest what they said without any translation at all?
Yes. For some reason I have the ability to read the English language, and I
look with much askance upon anyone's efforts to "translate" them for my
benefit. Indeed, whenever someone purports to state a "translation", I'm
inclined to believe that my benefit is the very last thing they have in
mind.
Regards,
Rick Schaut
Rick Schaut
> In my opinion, it doesn't cut water to maintain that dictatorships
> can keep information secret and then say our dictatorship cannot be
> assessed because you lack information. Release all the information and
> demonstrate why obvious injustice isn't injustice, due to specific and
> exceptional circumstances or be assessed as any other dictatorship.
Well, so long as the argument begs the question, there's no response one
can, nor need, make.
Regards,
Rick Schaut
Rick Schaut
> Greetings, Rick.
> On a dispassionate basis, purely on the issues and devoid of all
> reference to personality, which is preferable, the flawed Old World
> Order system of justice, imperfect as it is, or the non-existence of any
> system at all within the current Baha'i Faith, where leadership simply
> decrees and defines what is right and what is wrong and there is no due
> process at all.
Let's see, I get to choose within a false dichotomy between one system and a
charicature of another. Don't I have a third option?
Regards,
Rick Schaut
Rick Schaut
> In what way does "Discernment" go beyond "Merely thinking for
yourself".
Is that a question?
> Do you mean that there are sub-categories of "Dictated" that you approve?
I'm afraid I can't answer that question without knowing which meaning of the
word "Dictated" you have in mind.
> Most important, are you willing to admit honestly that there may be times
> when the dictates coming from the nine men at the top of the Baha'i AO are
> wrong.
Absolutely. And, whenever such time as that might happen, I will cease to
call myself a Baha'i. To do otherwise is to be a manifestation of
hypocrisy.
Regards,
Rick Schaut
Michael McKenny
My wife was looking over my shoulder when I read this, and she said
that you're communicating that you agree with me.
Thanks,
Michael
Michael McKenny
Yes, it is. How do you perceive "Discernment" going beyond "Merely
thinking for yourself".
"Rick Schaut" (rssc...@email.msn.NOSPAM.com) writes:
> "Michael McKenny" <bn...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:a1hhrc$27f$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>> In what way does "Discernment" go beyond "Merely thinking for
> yourself".
>
> Is that a question?
--
Michael McKenny
We are exchanging views. Always feel quite free to clarify any point
that's unclear, to state as precisely as you can what you wish to say,
especially if you feel I'm not comprehending. By all means. How do you
differentiate precisely the "caricature" from existing Baha'i practise?
To the Future,
Michael McKenny
Are there sub-categories of the word "Dictated" of which you approve
according to meanings of this word you have in mind? If so, could you
kindly specify which meanings these are.
To the Future,
Michael
"Rick Schaut" (rssc...@email.msn.NOSPAM.com) writes:
>
>> Do you mean that there are sub-categories of "Dictated" that you approve?
>
> I'm afraid I can't answer that question without knowing which meaning of the
> word "Dictated" you have in mind.
>
Michael McKenny
Many thanks for your frank and honest reply. In your opinion, at
this time, you think that it is possible for you to come to the
conclusion that the decrees from the nine men at the top could be seen
as so unethical that obedience could not be rendered. You further, it
seems to me, very strongly hold the view that ethically you would then be
bound to declare yourself a non-Baha'i.
That is, in my view, one very valid viewpoint.
It is not the only viewpoint possible. As on many issues, humans were
not created as clones; there is a rainbow of perception possible, and, on
this issue it is conceivable that an individual could conclude that the
Revelation of Baha'u'llah consists in more than merely obeying any decree
so ever that comes from the nine guys in charge. Were you yourself to
express this opinion some time in the future, I would not say anything
against you. As Baha'u'llah said, human opinions are varied and even the
same individual will modify his views and change his mind over the course
of time.
What is contrary to my understanding of the Revelation of Baha'i is
to accuse others of hypocrisy for holding a viewpoint at variance to your
own. In my opinion, the Faith Baha'u'llah intended to harmonize the human
species calls on individuals to focus on personal spiritual development,
to plow one's own line as straightly as one kind without calling others
names.
In my opinion, the Baha'i Faith may be perceived in a rainbow of
varied ways, but, personally, I believe it was meant to be more than a
group of people obeying anything at all that may be decreed from HQ. I
applaud all those who have the spiritual fortitude to live a life that
is based on spiritual principles transcending decrees to ignore or
repudiate such spiritual principles. I think there are a vast number
of understandings believers may have and still very much be believers.
I applaud your forthright statement of your opinion today concerning
your right to call yourself a Baha'i. I will not say a word against you,
if in the course of time you change your mind. I certainly do not say
a word against, or criticize anyone who has not made your so emphatic
statement, and may have another understanding.
To the Future,
Michael
"Rick Schaut" (rssc...@email.msn.NOSPAM.com) writes:
>
>> Most important, are you willing to admit honestly that there may be times
>> when the dictates coming from the nine men at the top of the Baha'i AO are
>> wrong.
>
> Absolutely. And, whenever such time as that might happen, I will cease to
> call myself a Baha'i. To do otherwise is to be a manifestation of
> hypocrisy.
>
>
> Regards,
> Rick Schaut
>
>
Rick Schaut
> Greetings, Rick.
> My wife was looking over my shoulder when I read this, and she said
> that you're communicating that you agree with me.
Tell your wife that I think she's funny.
That said, do you mind explaining how one can admit to lacking sufficient
information to claim that a thing is injust and also claim that the same
thing is an obvious injustice?
Regards,
Rick Schaut
Rick Schaut
> We are exchanging views. Always feel quite free to clarify any point
> that's unclear, to state as precisely as you can what you wish to say,
> especially if you feel I'm not comprehending. By all means. How do you
> differentiate precisely the "caricature" from existing Baha'i practise?
The caricature is a thing you've manufactured for the sake of rhetorical
argument. The general term for such a beast is "straw man". Existing
Baha'i practice is, well, far closer to reality.
Give me an accurate description of existing Baha'i practice, and then I'll
tell which one I choose.
Regards,
Rick Schaut
Rick Schaut
> Greetings, Rick.
> Yes, it is. How do you perceive "Discernment" going beyond "Merely
> thinking for yourself".
Then the absence of a question mark is merely a typo, and there is no
intended word play on the shades of meaning between "perceive" and
"Discernment"?
Regards,
Rick Schaut
Rick Schaut
> Greetings, Rick.
> Are there sub-categories of the word "Dictated" of which you approve
> according to meanings of this word you have in mind? If so, could you
> kindly specify which meanings these are.
You chose the word, Michael. Why are you asking me what I think it means?
Why don't you explain what you meant when you first used the word?
Regards,
Rick Schaut
Randy Burns
refuse to follow these guidelines it would help if a higher authority took
notice. When the higher authority fails to take notice it would be nice to
have somewhere to appeal to. When there is no where to appeal to you have
the Baha'i system operating in perfection! No need to improve on that.
Cheers, Randy
--
Rick Schaut <rssc...@email.msn.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:3c3cb414$1...@news.microsoft.com...
Curious
Rick Schaut <rssc...@email.msn.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:3c3cb414$1...@news.microsoft.com...
>
> news:3c3b...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> > Rick Schaut <rssc...@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
> > news:a1gk9...@enews4.newsguy.com...
> > > "Randy Burns" <randy....@gte.net> wrote in message
> > > news:kBM_7.379$gt2.1...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
> > > > It ain't Justice till its Justice!
>
> > > Except when "Justice" is nothing more than a culturally determined
> notion
> > > of "justice". Then it's not justice at all. It's just parochialism.
>
> > Strange....One of the most frequent explanations/excuses proffered for
the
> > absence of
> > due process within the Baha'i community is that it must be "culturally
> > determined" and appropriate to the needs/expectations of each region.
>
> Does that preclude the development of a broad set of guidelines and a
survey
> of particular rules and procedures used in various systems of
administering
> justice?
Certainly not...what precludes and obstructs such a development is the
endless denial,
obstruction and 'obfuscation' encountered within the Baha'i community.
It is the continuos loop of excuses..."We need time, we need troops, we need
individual
maturity, we need institutional maturity, we have due process, we don't need
due process,
we will get due process one day (perhaps), everything is ok stop
complaining, unity is
preferable/more important than justice, if we all just loved each other we
wouldn't need
road rules, police or courts....."
And when you have knocked down all these straw men they loop back to the
beginning and
pretend the prior discussion never took place.
> Seems to me you'd welcome such a development.
Certainly I would...but such a development is not on the horizon....in fact
it is still being met
with open resistance and, at times, hostility.
>On the other hand, perhaps you'd find that information to merely
"obfuscate" the issues rather than
> illuminate them.
What 'information'?
You have informed me of nothing...you present the possibility of the
"development of a broad set of guidelines and a survey of particular rules
and procedures used in various systems of administering
justice?" and it is posed as a question.
That's not information Rick.....that's an inquiry and it "illuminates"
nothing.
Rod
Curious
>
> The community, the institutions, heck - our whole faith, is in a state
> of evolution.
Think it will loose a tail or develop opposable thumbs?;-)
> Prioities are set and the work procedes.
March em in as treasure....watch them wander off/ throw em out as trash?
>There are many things that we are called to do that we are not doing.
Some of them are important.......some of them are "Best Beloved".
>So we are addressing now and some will be addressed later.
Some of them we could have done yesterday afternoon but we was busy
putting up arguments about why we can't.
>All of them are important.
Only one of them "Best Beloved".
>For now the institutionalization of a codified system of
> due process is not at the top of the priority list.
Funny, I was told two years ago (by an NSA member) that it was -quote-
"A matter of high priority" and then they sent a letter to the LSA echoing
this and advocating review of due process and procedure as a matter of
"urgency".
Subsequently........NOTHING HAPPENED......AT ANY LEVEL...
just words.....no deeds.......worse.....resistance and hostility to the
need.
So......what are we dealing with here Dave? One more 'valid reason' why
nothing
is done?........Or just another hollow excuse that gets shot down only to
make room
for the next hollow excuse.
> Some day it will be.
Next year Jerusalem?!
Not at this rate.....the excuses seem inexhaustible.
> You will just have to wait.
You will have to do better than that Dave.
Justice cannot "wait".
You might as well be a factory Rep telling me that Management has "other
concerns...
higher priorities....and that OH&S, a First Aid Kit and Safety Guards on the
machinery
will have to wait"
It is an obscene and abhorrent proposition Dave....a horrid hollow excuse.
I have worked death trap factories.
I have served in the Baha'i faith.
I would rather take my chances in the former.
At least there you only risk loosing a limb....loosing faith is far more
serious.
And at least in the factory....decent mates stood up for what was right,
fair and just...
and they were rough as guts foul mouthed drunkards who thought religion was
a wank...
Go figure.
Rod.
Curious
>
> "Michael McKenny" <bn...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:a1hhrc$27f$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> > Most important, are you willing to admit honestly that there may be
times
> > when the dictates coming from the nine men at the top of the Baha'i AO
are
> > wrong.
>
> Absolutely. And, whenever such time as that might happen, I will cease to
> call myself a Baha'i. To do otherwise is to be a manifestation of
> hypocrisy.
> Regards,
> Rick Schaut
The proposition put to me recently was that the UHJ operates on 'limited
Infallibility...that is-
it is capable of making mistakes but those mistakes will "inevitably" be
corrected.
Perhaps it's time to go already Rick?;-)
(I would have called you 'master' rather than 'manifestation' of
hypocrisy;-)
Rod.
Curious
>
> "Curious" <Curio...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3c3b...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> > Rick Schaut <rssc...@email.msn.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
> > news:3c3b6db5$1...@news.microsoft.com...
>
> > > "Michael McKenny" <bn...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> > > news:a1fnog$bsj$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
'accusation'
> > then the absence of the individual bringing the accusation may be
merited.
>
> Ah! So the right to face one's accusor might not acutally be necessary
for
> the administration of justice within Baha'i society.
Rick....I never advocated hard and fast rules to be universally applicable
in every
circumstance. I advocated a range of proceedings and an arsenal of tools and
the
establishment of some 'basic fair due process'. There may well be times and
occasions
when the individual bringing an accusation requires the 'protection of
anonymity.
I have no encountered such circumstances as yet...and certainly no
conditions that
would explain or justify denial of knowledge of the origin, nature and
substance of
an allegation or the opportunity to defend against it.
> > But this is all too often not the case or 'all that is at stake'.
>
> But, within any system of justice, this is all that an institution charged
> with administering justice has the authority to do:
If this is your limited conception of the role, function, responsibility and
capacity
of an LSA.........I am sad for you.
>ascertain the validity
> of the accusation, and take appropriate action based their ascertation of
the
> validity of the accusation.
And how...pray tell...can this objective be achieved if the object of an
accusation is denied
knowledge of who, what, why when and the opportunity to respond?
Come on Rick....I answer you point by point....at least respond to that
one...how can the "validity
of the accusation" be determined "appropriate action" taken when the
entire investigation is conducted
in secret or worse does not take place at all?
> If you're talking about doing something other
> than merely ascertaining the validity of the accusation, then any use of
the
> term "due process" is equivocal, because that usage necessarily diverges
> from the meaning that obtains under any other circumstance.
Says you...based on your 'Old Word' tunnel vision that can only conceive of
'due
process' in the context of adversarial legal systems and objectives.
I'm a practitioner of Family Mediation Rick....Fair Due Process is a core
practice.
So too within Conflict Resolution procedures.
> > In all these exchanges, despite repeated attempts, Rick refuses to
> consider
> > the potential or need for 'Healing' incongruence or misunderstanding
> > between parties.
>
> Sorry. I haven't "refused to consider" these things. They simply lie
> outside the realm of discussion regarding "due process". If you want to
> discuss these things, then stop banging on the drum of "due process".
There is an opinion deeply rooted in ignorance and bigotry.
You have a copy right on due process Rick? Exclusive and total cognizance
of its definition, meaning and application?
The discussion has never been confined to 'due process' alone, nor will it
be
constrained and circumvented by your particular (eronious/inadequate)
definition.
Your attempts to confine and inhibit the discussion of the issues within
your
(particular and limited) understanding of confrontational 'legal systems' is
tiresome
and fruitless.
I have, from the very outset and repeatedly throughout, advised that I was
not interested
in a comparative analysis of Old World legal systems and the
embryonic/theoretical Baha'i
system......yet you persist in nothing else.....or engage in hair spliting
semantics upon a single
word (what's next......Latin roots?)
You are like a man who argues that a donkey provides superior transportation
to walking
and refuses to consider any alternate vehicle.
You are like an advocate of surgery who refuses to concede there might be
any other valid
form of medical practice.
"Banging the drum" of due process?...yea Rick.....tell me again about the US
legal system.
Mediation and Conflict Resolution, Rick....Get off your 'Ass' and get a car.
> I just knew you were going to take the reference to "inquisitorial"
systems
> of administering justice and twist that through word play to come up with
> "Inquisition". Monty Python was wrong. I did expect it, and you didn't
let
> me down.
'Retrospective prophecy' aint worth dog shit Rick....you only establish
prophetic credentials when you declare "Time to cut and run Rick"...and he
does;-)
> That said, the Inquisition wasn't unjust because it employed an
> inquisitorial system of administering justice. Rather, it was unjust
> because the methods employed to investigate and ascertain the truth
included
> hideously inhumane practices.
False accusations? No appraisal of who made them? No knowledge of their
nature/substance?
No opportunity to defend the charge?
Hideously inhumane and horribly familiar.
> Had you read the articles and papers to which
> I posted links, you'd likely have read the following:
I read them
snip
> > Mediation and Conflict Resolution BRING PEOPLE TOGETHER.
> > They are processes that provide opportunity for both Justice and
Healing.
>
> Yes. And, as a matter of fact, the inability of large numbers of
Spiritual
> Assemblies to carry out these functions has been on the Baha'i community's
> agenda for some time.
So the 'fact' we have established is that they have been meaning to do
something
about it for some time?
This does not strike you as a fundamental ground shift from your
original-"There
is due process within the Baha'i community and everything is hunky dory so
stop
whinging" position?
We now have the "inability of large numbers of Spiritual Assemblies to
carry out these functions"?
> It falls under the general rubric of
Backpedaling on the previous bullshit?;-)
>"strengthening Local Spiritual Assemblies". At this time, much of that
effort consists of
> training members of local spiritual assemblies in some of the more basic
> concepts of Baha'i Administration.
Ohhhhh......The Yhahooie Institutes? ;-)
If not for the Divine prohibition on gambling I would safely and confidently
"Bet
my balls" that this entails no examination/implementation of Mediation,
Conflict
Resolution or fair due process....I'll bet it is an examination of
'existing' Baha'i
'Administrative PRINCIPLES' and that nothing will change.
Snip
>When it comes to mediation and conflict resolution, the issue is not the
absence of any rules.
Oh yea...we don't need to consider these developments....We don't need to
discuss these developments...
We certainly don't need to implement these
developments.......Because?????....
>The issue is the absence of capacity within the Baha'i community.
BINGO! Hollow excuse No 9!....We are building better Baha'is! Individuals of
greater 'capacity'!
More 'mature'.....'spiritually mature'....'more loving'...this will lead to
more 'spiritually mature loving
institutions of greater capacity'....everything will (eventually) be
great.....the lamb will literally lay
down with the lion just like in the 'Watchtower' illustrations....we won't
need silly rules or stupid
social science developments......we will be in Baha'i Utopia.
Rick...you might as well try to tell me that 'all' we need to do is increase
the skills and capacities of
the individual driver so that we can abandon road rules, fire police, close
courts and ignore developments
in road and automotive safety.
The 'developing the capacity of individuals and institutions' is a complete
fantasy crock of crap...unless and
until it begins to examine and incorporate contemporary secular developments
in the conflict resolution field.
> The most
> well-designed set of rules is completely useless if we don't have people
who
> have the capacity to implement them properly.
And the most capable competent mature Baha'i drivers will continue to fall
prey to speeding sociopaths
and their own dysfunctional administrative system if they neglect to put
some basic rules in place.
I have never argued one position against the other....I have consistently
advocated that the implementation
of fair procedures and individual/institutional development go hand in hand.
You say the rules are of little value without developed
capacity..........(I'm going to shout here Shauts;-)...
IT IS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF FAIR RULES AND PROCEDURES THAT DEVELOPS
INDIVIDUAL
AND INSTITUTIONAL 'CAPACITY'.
Shit Rick.....What did they do first....free the slaves through Just
legislation, resulting in -a Civil War-ongoing
integration and interconnection-understanding and mutual regard.....
Or did they wait until everyone had the 'capacity' to tolerate Justice?
Rod