something Fred posted on Beliefnet

9 views
Skip to first unread message

Dave Fiorito

unread,
Sep 14, 2001, 2:01:38 PM9/14/01
to
Little Better Than the Terrorists

fglaysher
9/14/01 7:51 AM 1 out of 2

Sad fact, sad fact.... Having betrayed the moderation
articulated in the Writings....

fglaysher


-----------------------------------

To: Fred
From: the white hot ball of anger in my gut.


In the past you were just a pain. I welcomed your voice as proof that
the First Amendment works. I never did agree with you but that is the
way of this world. I never wanted you to go away. You are the
negative to the Baha'i positive.

Not now. Not after that comment above. You are a fucking asshole.
You are a egomaniacal sociopathic shit head of the highest order.
This is not character assasination because you have no character to
assassinate. You are worthless.

How dare you compare people who are at this moment gathering their
resources to help rescue their fellow world citizens from the twited
wreckage left in the wake of that horrifically evil deed. Baha'is in
NYC and in New Jersey have gone to Manhatten to volunteer. Others are
gathering goods and money for the tough task of recovery. Baha'is are
working to heal the wounds.

All you want to do is inflict more pain.

You are evil.

You are a fucking coward.

You make me sick.

Randy Burns

unread,
Sep 14, 2001, 2:24:48 PM9/14/01
to
Dave

I think you need some counseling help.

Sincerely, Randy

--

Dave Fiorito <bighapp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0853486.0109...@posting.google.com...


> Little Better Than the Terrorists
>
> fglaysher
> 9/14/01 7:51 AM 1 out of 2
>
> Sad fact, sad fact.... Having betrayed the moderation
> articulated in the Writings....
>
> fglaysher
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------
>
> To: Fred
> From: the white hot ball of anger in my gut.
>
>

Snip
make me sick.


BIGS - Bahai in *Perfectly* Good Standing

unread,
Sep 14, 2001, 3:51:08 PM9/14/01
to
Thanks, Randy, for having the courage to stand up to such
fanaticism. It's certainly one of the most important lessons we
must all re-learn from the abominable attack on New York that
we ignore and tolerate evil only at our ultimate peril....

--
Frederick Glaysher
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
http://www.angelfire.com/mi3/bahai/


"Randy Burns" <randy....@gte.net> wrote in message
news:QXro7.287$UY3....@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...

Kathy Cole

unread,
Sep 14, 2001, 3:27:27 PM9/14/01
to
In article <QXro7.287$UY3....@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>, "Randy says...

>
>Dave
>
>I think you need some counseling help.

For being pissed off that Fred elected to slam the members of
the Universal House of Justice by comparing them to terrorists?
Methinks you're pointing the need for counseling help in the
wrong direction.

NightShadow

unread,
Sep 14, 2001, 4:57:46 PM9/14/01
to
There was someone named "BIGS - Bahai in *Perfectly* Good Standing"
<patric...@liberty.com> who once said...:

>Thanks, Randy, for having the courage to stand up to such
>fanaticism. It's certainly one of the most important lessons we
>must all re-learn from the abominable attack on New York that
>we ignore and tolerate evil only at our ultimate peril....
>
>--
>Frederick Glaysher
>The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
>http://www.angelfire.com/mi3/bahai/


Fanaticism? Is THAT the only basis of your argument? Percieved
fanaticism? How good is your education in Quanum Mechanics, Fred? Ever
hear of the Theory of Relativity? In a nutshell:

A train is going by and someone drops a stone out of one of the
passing cars. From the outside perspective the stone seems to be going
at a rate of speed consistent with the train; from another
perspective, the stone seems to slow down almost immediately as the
train maintains its speed.

Point illustrated: the truth of a thing is not necessarily verifiable
when two perspectives are involved.

From where a lot of other people stand, Fred, your comments that the
Baha'i Faith is equal in status as "little better than the terrorists"
who attacked New York makes the claim of fanaticism seem trite. Your
commet was abusive, calloused, shallow, cruel, invictive, generalized,
hateful, spiteful, opportunistic and prejudiced- at least, from my
perspective and most assuredly from Dave's.

This is about the most vitriolic I will ever get with you: Shut up for
a while, please. There is a LOT I would like to say along the same
vein as Dave, but I won't. All I can do is ask you to be more
considerate in your use of words. The Baha'i Faith, despite your
perceptions of it, WOULD NEVER KILL MORE THAN 5,000 HUMAN LIVES, LET
ALONE ALLOW ONE OF ITS MEMBERS TO COMMIT SUCH AN ATROCIOUS, VILE ACT
IN ITS NAME!!!!

Slander, Fred, is not justice nor is it honorable.

An unfathomable number of people have been hit hard by the attack
Tuesday and you have deigned to make the cuts even more unkind by
associating an entire body of people, the Baha'is, with an act of
terror that is unthinkable to them. I suggest that you get
professional psychological help soon... before you go off the deep end
and start insinuating that terrorism is a quality to be attributed to
the Faith which it most certainly, absolutely, categorically, far be
it from Godly, sincerely is NOT.

What could have been going through your mind to make such an
association? You, who professes love for the Faith?

Dave Fiorito

unread,
Sep 14, 2001, 5:06:00 PM9/14/01
to
"Randy Burns" <randy....@gte.net> wrote in message news:<QXro7.287$UY3....@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>...
> Dave
>
> I think you need some counseling help.
>

Why? Because Fred pissed me off? Are you defending his obvious
attack on the Baha'i Community? Do you agree with him that Baha'is
are little more than terrorists?

Come on man - Fred is being a prick and all I am doing is finally
calling him on it.

seegar

unread,
Sep 14, 2001, 8:10:27 PM9/14/01
to
On Fri, 14 Sep 2001 18:24:48 GMT, "Randy Burns" <randy....@gte.net>
wrote:

>Dave
>
>I think you need some counseling help.
>
>Sincerely, Randy
>

No randy, you need counseling for encouraging Fred who is mocking the
suffering of all Americans and the whole civilized
world!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Get a clue.

Peace and love,

Chris


Dermod Ryder

unread,
Sep 14, 2001, 8:28:55 PM9/14/01
to

"Kathy Cole" <kc...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:9ntlm...@drn.newsguy.com...

To the first part - Yup!
To the second part - Nope!

>


Dermod Ryder

unread,
Sep 14, 2001, 8:35:22 PM9/14/01
to

"NightShadow" <seal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ba117e0.633221828@news...

<SNIP>


. The Baha'i Faith, despite your
> perceptions of it, WOULD NEVER KILL MORE THAN 5,000 HUMAN LIVES, LET
> ALONE ALLOW ONE OF ITS MEMBERS TO COMMIT SUCH AN ATROCIOUS, VILE ACT
> IN ITS NAME!!!!

Well not yet, anyway! But give it time! After all, it's still in its
infancy as religions go!

>
> An unfathomable number of people have been hit hard by the attack
> Tuesday and you have deigned to make the cuts even more unkind by
> associating an entire body of people, the Baha'is, with an act of
> terror that is unthinkable to them. I suggest that you get
> professional psychological help soon... before you go off the deep end
> and start insinuating that terrorism is a quality to be attributed to
> the Faith which it most certainly, absolutely, categorically, far be
> it from Godly, sincerely is NOT.

It seems to me about time that you started to realise that all organised
religions with aspirations to wielding temporal power (which, let's face it,
is what they are all about) are a specialised form of terrorism. How many
poor buggers have been lured into acts to serve the religion by threats of
hell fire or a YOS at Haifa, which amounts to the same thing? Ain't that a
form of terrorism?


Randy Burns

unread,
Sep 14, 2001, 9:27:54 PM9/14/01
to
Hi Seegar!

Let's show our unity by lining up in two separate lines and counseling each
other!

Cheers, Randy

Oh, by the way, I find Davie's posts just as gratuitous as Fred's.

--

seegar <cal...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:3ba34498...@news-server.optonline.net...

Randy Burns

unread,
Sep 14, 2001, 9:31:55 PM9/14/01
to
You've been calling him for at least two years on this. Why don't you just
killfile the guy and ignore him? If he gets to you, why is that?

Randy

--

Dave Fiorito <bighapp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:f0853486.01091...@posting.google.com...

seegar

unread,
Sep 14, 2001, 10:40:15 PM9/14/01
to
>On Sat, 15 Sep 2001 01:31:55 GMT, "Randy Burns" <randy....@gte.net> wrote:
>You've been calling him for at least two years on this. Why don't you just
>killfile the guy and ignore him? If he gets to you, why is that?

Randy,

Why don't you lend a voice on the side of fairness and justice when
you know someone is wrong, instead of just being condescending to
those who are provoked with outrageous comparisons?

Peace and Love,

Chris

Randy Burns

unread,
Sep 14, 2001, 11:02:20 PM9/14/01
to
Is the jury trial over already? We already know which is the side of
"fairness and justice" do we? And how did "we" arrive at this decision?
Open trial? Fair judge and jury? Right to face the accuser?

Why doesn't the Baha'i Faith work for "fairness and justice" for a change?
Isn't that what they are supposed to be doing all along? I'm not making the
AO act like idiots, they don't seem to need any help at all in doing that!
I'm not declaring people Covenant Breakers like some of you want so badly to
do here on TRB!

I happen to enjoy being condescending, it's one of the last really good
things in my life! Thank God you aren't depriving me of my chances to enjoy
that.

Thanks, Randy


--
seegar <cal...@optonline.net> wrote in message

news:3ba2bf4e...@news-server.optonline.net...

seegar

unread,
Sep 14, 2001, 11:02:49 PM9/14/01
to
On Sat, 15 Sep 2001 01:28:55 +0100, "Dermod Ryder"
<Grim_Re...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> For being pissed off that Fred elected to slam the members of
>> the Universal House of Justice by comparing them to terrorists?
>> Methinks you're pointing the need for counseling help in the
>> wrong direction.
>
>To the first part - Yup!
>To the second part - Nope!

Not suprising this statement coming from you Dermod,

You only display that your reasoning powers are as miniscule as
Fred's.

Of course it's all in the continuing tradition of your unreasoned, one
sided attack dog type ranting.

Chris

seegar

unread,
Sep 14, 2001, 11:08:33 PM9/14/01
to
>On Sat, 15 Sep 2001 03:02:20 GMT, "Randy Burns" <randy....@gte.net> wrote:
>>I happen to enjoy being condescending,

Yes, that is very clear

Chris

Adelard R

unread,
Sep 14, 2001, 11:31:49 PM9/14/01
to

"Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Re...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9nu7mn$a2haa$1...@ID-84503.news.dfncis.de...

>
> "NightShadow" <seal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3ba117e0.633221828@news...
>
> <SNIP>
> . The Baha'i Faith, despite your
> > perceptions of it, WOULD NEVER KILL MORE THAN 5,000 HUMAN LIVES, LET
> > ALONE ALLOW ONE OF ITS MEMBERS TO COMMIT SUCH AN ATROCIOUS, VILE ACT
> > IN ITS NAME!!!!
>
> Well not yet, anyway! But give it time! After all, it's still in its
> infancy as religions go!

Hi Dermod,

Dermod, it's true that in some previous religions that there are some laws
which may incite violence. All those laws which incited violence have been
abrogated by the revelation of Baha'u'llah.

I believe that it was in the first day of Ridvan, when Baha'u'llah,
proclaiming his revelation to his followers who were in his presence,
abolished the laws of the "sword" which were or are still being practiced
by some few Muslims fundamentalists using their own interpretations of
some qu'ranic verses like those below :

al-Baqarah 2:190-191
"And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not
exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits
And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they
drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight
with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they
do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers"


Those kind of verses above have been abrogated by the revelation of
Baha'u'llah as you see below.

Gleaning from the writings of Baha'u'llah page page 303-329-330

"Thus hath it been decreed by Him Who is the All-Powerful, the Almighty. He
that wisheth to promote the Cause of the one true God, let him promote it
through his PEN AND TONGUE, rather than have recourse to SWORD OR VIOLENCE .
We have, on a previous occasion, revealed this injunction, and We now
confirm it, if ye be of them that comprehend."

"Know thou that We have ANNULED the RULE of the SWORD, as an aid to Our
Cause, and substituted for it the power born of the utterance of men. Thus
have We irrevocably decreed, by virtue of Our grace. Say: O people! Sow not
the seeds of discord among men, and refrain from contending with your
neighbor, for your Lord hath committed the world and the cities thereof to
the care of the kings of the earth, and made them the emblems of His own
power, by virtue of the sovereignty He hath chosen to bestow upon them. He
hath refused to reserve for Himself any share whatever of this world's
dominion. To this He Who is Himself the Eternal Truth will testify. The
things He hath reserved for Himself are the cities of men's hearts, that He
may cleanse them from all earthly defilements, and enable them to draw nigh
unto the hallowed Spot which the hands of the infidel can never profane.
Open, O people, the city of the human heart with the key of your utterance.
Thus have We, according to a pre-ordained measure, prescribed unto you your
duty."


Adelard

Randy Burns

unread,
Sep 14, 2001, 11:40:09 PM9/14/01
to
Is this clear also?

>Is the jury trial over already? We already know which is the side of
>"fairness and justice" do we? And how did "we" arrive at this decision?
>Open trial? Fair judge and jury? Right to face the accuser?

>Why doesn't the Baha'i Faith work for "fairness and justice" for a change?
>Isn't that what they are supposed to be doing all along? I'm not making
the
>AO act like idiots, they don't seem to need any help at all in doing that!
>I'm not declaring people Covenant Breakers like some of you want so badly
to
>do here on TRB!

Cheers, Randy

Love and Peace to seegar

Sugar and spice to tweedledum! Oh and don't forget to arrogate to
yourselves the responsibilities of the administrative order! It's the least
you can do for your fellow Baha'is. (With loving Baha'i regard...)

--

seegar <cal...@optonline.net> wrote in message

news:3ba2c5e2...@news-server.optonline.net...

seegar

unread,
Sep 15, 2001, 3:11:52 AM9/15/01
to
>On Sat, 15 Sep 2001 03:40:09 GMT, "Randy Burns" <randy....@gte.net> wrote:
> It's the least
>>you can do for your fellow Baha'is. (With loving Baha'i regard...)

enjoying being condescending again I see:)

Curious

unread,
Sep 15, 2001, 8:32:58 AM9/15/01
to

seegar <cal...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:3ba2bf4e...@news-server.optonline.net...

May I borrow the question?
Because when the invitation/challenge to discuss what 'fairness' might
actually mean...or how 'justice' might actually be realized (in 'practice'
not 'principle') within the Baha'i community.......The Baha'is ignore
or turn away from the issue. As NightShadow has disengaged from and ignored
the issue in this forum, as Rick S has cut and run from it.....there is no
preparedness to discuss or examine 'fairness', 'due process' or 'justice'
once it has been established that these 'principles' have no 'practical'
application within the Baha'i community.

It is easier, though weaker, to play the man rather than the ball.

Rod.


Curious

unread,
Sep 15, 2001, 8:36:59 AM9/15/01
to
Hearty AMEN! to all that follows!

"Your a brick Randy"!
SOLID;-)

Love ya
Rod.

Randy Burns <randy....@gte.net> wrote in message

news:0xzo7.899$UY3.1...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...

Curious

unread,
Sep 15, 2001, 8:40:16 AM9/15/01
to

seegar <cal...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:3ba2fedb...@news-server.optonline.net...

Why not 'stoop' to answering the question and charge?

>Is the jury trial over already? We already know which is the side of
>"fairness and justice" do we? And how did "we" arrive at this decision?
>Open trial? Fair judge and jury? Right to face the accuser?

>Why doesn't the Baha'i Faith work for "fairness and justice" for a change?
>Isn't that what they are supposed to be doing all along? I'm not making
the
>AO act like idiots, they don't seem to need any help at all in doing that!
>I'm not declaring people Covenant Breakers like some of you want so badly
to
>do here on TRB!

Curious Rod.


BIGS - Bahai in *Perfectly* Good Standing

unread,
Sep 15, 2001, 9:46:48 AM9/15/01
to
http://www.angelfire.com/mi3/bahai/hate15.htm

--
Frederick Glaysher
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
http://www.angelfire.com/mi3/bahai/

"Dave Fiorito" <bighapp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:f0853486.01091...@posting.google.com...

NightShadow

unread,
Sep 15, 2001, 8:57:45 AM9/15/01
to
There was someone named "Curious" <Curio...@hotmail.com> who once
said...:

Excuse me? Simply because I do not contribute to the conversation does
not mean that I am not mindful of it or paying attention. I read every
single post that shows up here. If I do not respond, it's for only a
handful of reasons, but usually because I'm 1) considering the opinion
expressed; 2) agree with the majority of it and if there's something I
DON'T agree with, it's probably so minor a point that it's not worth
arguing over; 3) someone else has responded before me with similar
thoughts and therefore makes any commentary by me a waste of time.

Do not mistake silence for ingorance. Silence CAN be thoughtful.

BIGS - Bahai in *Perfectly* Good Standing

unread,
Sep 15, 2001, 10:16:08 AM9/15/01
to
"Curious" <Curio...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:UYHo7.6144$iH4.4...@ozemail.com.au...

>
The Baha'is ignore
> or turn away from the issue. As NightShadow has disengaged from and
ignored
> the issue in this forum, as Rick S has cut and run from it.....there is no
> preparedness to discuss or examine 'fairness', 'due process' or 'justice'
> once it has been established that these 'principles' have no 'practical'
> application within the Baha'i community.
>
> It is easier, though weaker, to play the man rather than the ball.
>
> Rod.

Ignoring the issues and ad hominem are indeed the games played by
the fundamentalists now for years....

Kathy Cole

unread,
Sep 15, 2001, 9:00:22 AM9/15/01
to
On Sat, 15 Sep 2001 01:31:55 GMT, "Randy Burns" <randy....@gte.net>
wrote:

> You've been calling him for at least two years on this. Why don't

> you just killfile the guy and ignore him?

This is very good advice.

Dermod Ryder

unread,
Sep 15, 2001, 1:02:57 PM9/15/01
to

"seegar" <cal...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:3ba2c2f3...@news-server.optonline.net...

> On Sat, 15 Sep 2001 01:28:55 +0100, "Dermod Ryder"
> <Grim_Re...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >> For being pissed off that Fred elected to slam the members of
> >> the Universal House of Justice by comparing them to terrorists?
> >> Methinks you're pointing the need for counseling help in the
> >> wrong direction.
> >
> >To the first part - Yup!
> >To the second part - Nope!
>
> Not suprising this statement coming from you Dermod,
>
> You only display that your reasoning powers are as miniscule as
> Fred's.

Which still makes them greater than yours.

>
> Of course it's all in the continuing tradition of your unreasoned, one
> sided attack dog type ranting.

A technique learned from fundie BIGS and similar dross!

Timothy Casey

unread,
Sep 16, 2001, 1:30:51 AM9/16/01
to
The whole world is threatened by criminals:
As we wave our little tribal flags while sitting on a time bomb, trying
terribly hard to ignore the tick, tick, tick,...

The clock is ticking and we need to recognise the world as one country, and
we need to consider terrorists not as any form of nation/state, but as
nothing more than dangerous criminals who must be hunted down and contained
before they do any more damage. Tick, tick, tick,...

Instead we try to muffle the tick tick ticking of the time bomb we so
comfortably sit on - with flag waving for ideology, tribe, religion,
country, and/or sect, hoping and praying that if we drown out the tick tick
tick, that time will never run out. Tick, tick, tick...

We are sitting on a time bomb and what do we do when we feel threatened by
its tick, tick, tick? We start flag waving for ideology, tribe, religion,
country, and/or sect, just like a screaming gorilla thumping his chest to
drown out a challenger. What tragic evidence for evolution! Tick, tick,
tick,...

This problem is not new, and yet we tolerated the unregulated existence of a
mind control cult, and while it went about its genocidal business, we waved
our flags all the harder to drown out the tick tick tick...

The mind control cult then pulled off the most devastating single crime in
history, and within a week we are trying to drown out the tick tick tick
with the flapping of our ragged little flags.

The Taliban for example, have infiltrated Pakistan, and have sufficient
assets there to alarm that government. May God forbid the Taliban nuclear
weapons with which to bring even greater terror beyond the dissenters, women
and children inside their borders. But such is but a meagre a coup de tete
away... ...Tick, tick, tick,...

This cannot be solved by any less than the entire world acting in unity. We
must get up off our comfortable time bomb chair and stand as one and
together reap the fruits of our history, and together diligently plant the
seeds of a new history. Tick, tick, tick...

But we who know, commit a most heinous crime, as we busily hide our
knowledge beneath a myriad of little flags all divided in opinion about the
bearers of this knowledge of ours.

Tick, tick, tick,...

--
Timothy Casey
South Australia
wor...@iprimus.com.au

Formerly:
ca...@smart.net.au

[SNIP]


Curious

unread,
Sep 15, 2001, 6:22:26 PM9/15/01
to

NightShadow <seal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ba1fd05.691892012@news...

> There was someone named "Curious" <Curio...@hotmail.com> who once
> said...:
>
> >
> >seegar <cal...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> >news:3ba2bf4e...@news-server.optonline.net...

Snip
> Excuse me?
Did you fart?;-)

> Simply because I do not contribute to the conversation does
> not mean that I am not mindful of it or paying attention.

Oh.....I will remember that....next time there is discussion of a
substantive issue, the respondent ceases to respond, and then
pops up in a 'deep and meaningful' about what a naughty boy
Fred is.

> I read every
> single post that shows up here.

Then you have way too much time on your hands;-)
How about responding to those that are adressed to you?

> If I do not respond, it's for only a
> handful of reasons, but usually because I'm 1) considering the opinion
> expressed; 2) agree with the majority of it and if there's something I
> DON'T agree with, it's probably so minor a point that it's not worth
> arguing over; 3) someone else has responded before me with similar
> thoughts and therefore makes any commentary by me a waste of time.

Ah yes.....my psychic abilities picked up that this was the case;-)
Not for one moment did I suspect that you just might be another
Baha'i who had buggered off unannounced mid debate when confronted
with the embarrassing reality that there is no 'due process' or 'justice'
within the community;-)
1/ You could be thinking about it? What's there to think about? Whether
or not you as a Baha'i want justice in the community?
2/ You agree with the majority of what I posted? Hmmmmmm;-)?
3/ Somebody beat you to the punch? I must have blinked....who, has ever,
responded to the issue and clearly delineated due process?

> Do not mistake silence for ingorance.

I don't, in this context I take it to be rudeness.
If I am called out or over to discuss an issue and, having engaged the
subject,
simply turn away without word or explanation....I would consider that
a lapse in good manners and a failure of intellectual integrity.
(At least Rick tells me he is going to cut and run before he does so....then
he will even come back to tell me he is going to do it again;-)

>Silence CAN be thoughtful.

In the context of this discussion...am I to take it that the Baha'i
community
has been 'thinking' about whether or not it wants the procedures that will
facilitate justice for over two decades?!?......For it has certainly been
'silent'
on the issue;-)

Silence CAN be thoughtful. It CAN also be rude, evasive, a sign of
embarrassment,
intellectual and moral defeat and confusion.

If the sudden silence is never preceded or followed by an explanation....who
would
know?;-)

Rod.


NightShadow

unread,
Sep 16, 2001, 4:16:55 AM9/16/01
to
There was someone named "Curious" <Curio...@hotmail.com> who once
said...:

>Snip


>> Excuse me?
>Did you fart?;-)

I do from time to time, but I try to keep it personal and not expose
my biological faux pas to others whenever possible.

>SNIP<

>Then you have way too much time on your hands;-)
>How about responding to those that are adressed to you?

Actually, I have just enough time on my hands to read most of what's
posted here. Replying is not always an option due to time contraints.
I DO have a life outside of the Internet, ya know? If you'll notice,
my replies have been fairly short these past few days- there's a
reason for that. Work to do, bills to pay, stomach to feed, friends to
help and other minutae. Most of the time I will try to respond to
messages addressed to me, but if I smell bait, I try to shy away- I
don't like hooks getting caught in my mouth. In some of your responses
I smelled bait, so I didn't respond. In other portions, I simply
haven't had the time to. Even now, I'm exhausted and my feet hurt like
hell- I'm not in the mood for long discussions these days. Perhaps
later, I'll have more time on my hands, when my life starts getting
back to normal.

>Ah yes.....my psychic abilities picked up that this was the case;-)
>Not for one moment did I suspect that you just might be another
>Baha'i who had buggered off unannounced mid debate when confronted
>with the embarrassing reality that there is no 'due process' or 'justice'
>within the community;-)

Please don't be condescending with me. I have not been so with you. I
am an individual. Despite the "fundie" mudslinging that goes on here,
and sometimes in my general direction, you will find that I am content
to listen to rational commentary as long as it isn't personally
insulting or repugnant.

I do not find evidence of a lack of due process, according to your
wishes, to be embarrassing. I DO find it unfortunate, and I am
investigating some stories on my own, but I don't do it out of
embarrassment. I am learning- which takes audacity and patience.

>1/ You could be thinking about it? What's there to think about? Whether
>or not you as a Baha'i want justice in the community?

Don't try to bait me, please. "It" is to be applied in the general
sense. Put your ego aside for a moment, as well as your crusade, and
realize that your commentary isn't the ONLY discussion in town. I also
DO contribute to other newsgroups from time to time. Of course I want
justice in the Baha'i community- any sane Baha'i would. That is not to
say that I think justice is overwhelmingly lacking, but I concede that
is HAS lacked at times. Don't presume that I haven't thought about it-
I am also investigating on my own, to make sure that my thoughts are
valid. I go at my own pace. And forgive me if it *sounds* insulting,
but I'm not likely to take anyone else's word for anything without
backchecking their info- that includes you, so posting anecdotes of
other people's experiences is mere conjecture to me... heresay.

>2/ You agree with the majority of what I posted? Hmmmmmm;-)?

Agreement is not necessarily to be equated with belief. I agree that
there *might* be potential for the Baha'i AO to blunder unjustly-
which, I believe, is at the heart of your concerns... not that the AO
*has* been unjust so much that it might become more so if things don't
change or at least get acknowledged. Of course, I understand your
concern that the AO *has* been unjust in the past- who wouldn't be?-
but each case is unique and should be looked at with a spiritually
discerning eye. To make blanket accusations, that the Baha'i AO is
categorically unjust, is an unjust statement in and of itself, IMHO.
There is a fine line between what I agree with and what I believe.

>3/ Somebody beat you to the punch? I must have blinked....who, has ever,
>responded to the issue and clearly delineated due process?

I told you already, that I have no answer for that question as I am
unqualified. That should suffice, should it not? Who knows what
someone else's answer might be in the future? All I can tell you is
what *I* know- and I know that I can't answer that question. In
regards to due process, I am abdicating any supposition on what should
be done in favor of more educated minds. Perhaps YOU could answer it
better than I.

>> Do not mistake silence for ingorance.
>
>I don't, in this context I take it to be rudeness.

It is nice to know that there are people out there who can judge, from
silence, the intentions of another person's mind. Perhaps your crystal
ball isn't as broken as you think. When I am rude, you'll know it-
it'll be as clear as day-glo.

>If I am called out or over to discuss an issue and, having engaged the
>subject,
>simply turn away without word or explanation....I would consider that
>a lapse in good manners and a failure of intellectual integrity.
>(At least Rick tells me he is going to cut and run before he does so....then
>he will even come back to tell me he is going to do it again;-)

It's refreshing to meet someone who doesn't always want the last word.
But, sometimes, you should be grateful for it. Furthermore, you've
given me food for thought. Let me chew on it and stop rushing me! You
don't want me to get the spiritual/mental equivalent to acid
indigestion, do you?

>>Silence CAN be thoughtful.
>
>In the context of this discussion...am I to take it that the Baha'i
>community
>has been 'thinking' about whether or not it wants the procedures that will
>facilitate justice for over two decades?!?......For it has certainly been
>'silent'
>on the issue;-)

No. In the context of MY reply, you are to take it that *I* prefer to
remain silent when I have nothing to respond with. I am not perfect in
this, but I do not like to engage in discussions when I KNOW what I
*don't* know. I can't answer what's on the mind of the entire Baha'i
community, or the AO- I'm simply not that perceptive. I'm all for
justice, man, but I cannot mete out justice on the scale which would
suit you because I am one amongst many.

>Silence CAN be thoughtful. It CAN also be rude, evasive, a sign of
>embarrassment,
>intellectual and moral defeat and confusion.

It's all a matter of perspective- yours or mine... and I'm kinda
partial. Attribute whatever views you wish to me, but in the end only
I know what's going on with me. Judge not, lest ye be judged.

>If the sudden silence is never preceded or followed by an explanation....who
>would
>know?;-)

I dunno. Next time, try asking politely and you might get an answer.
This is not to say that you haven't asked me politely... you haven't
asked me at all, before now. You merely drew your own conclusions
about me and my thoughts before being armed with information about me.
It is not my responsibility to tell you what's going on in my own head
ALL the time- and it's not your right to know all the time, either.
But if you'll ask, I'll generally answer- especially if I am able. If
I don't respond fast enough for you, it's safe to ask me why.

Jay

ROBIN M PETERS

unread,
Sep 16, 2001, 12:38:06 PM9/16/01
to

Might I ask, in all seriousness, how is the entire world going to act in
unity here?

There are specific action steps to be taken here - police have
investigational procedures. Please - spell out exactly what actions steps
you feel police around the world should take to act in unity.

What is the goal? To catch the people who did this? To take away the time
bomb? What is the ticking time bomb - our hatred of others, our propensity
for war? What?

You sound like so many of the UHJ messages I read in my time as a Baha'i -
unwilling to give us specifics and unwilling to cause disunity by expecting
action based on those specifics.


Robin Peters
http://www.abouttransplantation.com/report1001.html
http://www.ethicalexits.com/report1001.html

"Timothy Casey" <wor...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:3ba4...@news.iprimus.com.au...

Curious

unread,
Sep 17, 2001, 1:32:44 AM9/17/01
to

NightShadow <seal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ba302b8.758896975@news...

> There was someone named "Curious" <Curio...@hotmail.com> who once
Snip

>. Most of the time I will try to respond to
> messages addressed to me, but if I smell bait, I try to shy away- I
> don't like hooks getting caught in my mouth. In some of your responses
> I smelled bait, so I didn't respond. In other portions, I simply
> haven't had the time to.

You feel 'baited'? Apprehensive that someone/me is out to 'hook' you?
Mate, I have been 'fishing' for explanations and answers for years.
The initial 'lure' I cast within the community- "What constitutes Baha'i
due process" was ignored, over and over again, for years.
So, eventually, I came here, onto the net. Changed fishing hole, changed
questions, lures and baits.....same response.....nothing.

Yes, I am baiting the Baha'i community, independently fishing for the truth.
Nobody is prepared, willing or able to answer basic questions.
"Why are the fundamentals of due process denied to members of the Baha'i
community".
There is no 'hook'.......just a question that deserves an answer.

> Please don't be condescending with me. I have not been so with you.

No, you have been evasive or absent in response to the questions...
and I have been patient with the Baha'i community too long. If Baha'is,
as a community or as individual representatives on the net cannot, over
a prolonged period, 'condescend' to explain, justify or rectify the absence
of fair due process.....then yes.....my indignation inclines me to
condescending
and demanding language.

> I
> am an individual. Despite the "fundie" mudslinging that goes on here,
> and sometimes in my general direction, you will find that I am content
> to listen to rational commentary as long as it isn't personally
> insulting or repugnant.

I have not called or inferred that you are a "fundie".
If am unaware of anything that might be considered 'insulting' or
'repugnant'...
......a fart reference perhaps?;-). By all means, cite or repost any such
behavior.

> I do not find evidence of a lack of due process, according to your
> wishes, to be embarrassing.

In a community that proclaims Justice to be the best beloved of all things?
The absence of due process is not embarrassing?
I'm a Baha'i.....I find it profoundly embarrassing, repulsive and un
necessary.

> I DO find it unfortunate, and I am
> investigating some stories on my own, but I don't do it out of
> embarrassment. I am learning- which takes audacity and patience.

With respect....How long does it take to determine, as I believe you have
conceded, the absence of due process? What further 'learning' is required?
Why is there such 'audacious' silence on the issue?
What stands in the way of simple action and implementation?
(Beyond the current 'culture of denial and avoidance ;-)

> >1/ You could be thinking about it? What's there to think about? Whether
> >or not you as a Baha'i want justice in the community?
>
> Don't try to bait me, please.

What makes the above question 'bait' mate? It is honest, open, simple and
straightforward.......no 'hooks', no secret or hidden agendas.....I want to
know.....so I ask.....you infer something unpalatable or deceptive about the
questions.....you take the time to talk about and around the questions.....
but....in accord with all my previous experience....you do not address or
answer
the questions.
Why?

Snip


>Of course I want
> justice in the Baha'i community- any sane Baha'i would. That is not to
> say that I think justice is overwhelmingly lacking, but I concede that
> is HAS lacked at times.

No Baha'i, over a ten year period, has been able to delineate the
'processes'
(not 'principles') by which Justice is determined and achieved within the
faith.
In those circumstances it must be concluded that any justice achieved has
been the happenstance consequence of 'good luck' and 'good will/intention'.
We have no statistics on outcomes, only the growing number of disillusioned,
disenfranchised and ex Baha'is who object to the absence of fair due
process.
Why equivocate, why not act?

>Don't presume that I haven't thought about it-

I don't, I presume-on the basis of your posts- that there is something
more that needs to be known or determined or some passage of time
that needs to transpire before some basic action can take place.
I reject all the rationales, excuses, explanations and justifications that I
have heard thus far.

> I am also investigating on my own, to make sure that my thoughts are
> valid. I go at my own pace. And forgive me if it *sounds* insulting,
> but I'm not likely to take anyone else's word for anything without
> backchecking their info- that includes you, so posting anecdotes of
> other people's experiences is mere conjecture to me... heresay.

Then I invite you to rely upon and examine no more than the administrative
procedure handbooks themselves....there you will find no reference to
the basics of fair due process. That is not 'conjecture' or 'hearsay'...that
is
examination of determinable facts. There is nothing in the Baha'i procedures
that ensures the provision of a fair hearing.

> >2/ You agree with the majority of what I posted? Hmmmmmm;-)?
>
> Agreement is not necessarily to be equated with belief. I agree that
> there *might* be potential for the Baha'i AO to blunder unjustly-
> which, I believe, is at the heart of your concerns...

No, that is not the "heart of my concerns". It is far from a case of *might*
be "potential" for the AO to "blunder unjustly"....It is that in the absence
of due process the AO *must* and unavoidably *has* blundered *repeatedly*.
How could it possibly be otherwise?
You might as well tell me that a Surgeon who never follows the procedure of
washing his hands or instruments before operating *might* expose *some*
patients
to infection. I don't care how well intentioned or prayerful he might
be....no
sane/modern person would.....it is dangerous neglect....pure and
simple....and the
cause of hearty and reasonable concern.

>not that the AO
> *has* been unjust so much that it might become more so if things don't
> change or at least get acknowledged. Of course, I understand your
> concern that the AO *has* been unjust in the past- who wouldn't be?-
> but each case is unique and should be looked at with a spiritually
> discerning eye.

With all the respect and restraint I can muster.....this is bunk, piffle,
crap.
I cannot express sufficiently my dismay and disgust for the propensity
of Baha'is to invoke 'Spiritual Principles' in response to the absence
of 'Procedural Safeguards'. It is offensive in the extreme.
In the past I have gone so far as to deem such behavior as constituting
no more than 'Spiritual Masturbation' and I do so again here.

Here is the "core" of my concern....played out again as it has been so many
countless times before....I speak to you of broad fair due process-and you
evoke
the need for a case specific "spiritually discerning eye".
There in a nutshell is the core of 'Baha'iThink'...."if there is something
wrong it
must be a 'spiritual' problem requiring a 'spiritual' investigation and the
application
of an individual 'spiritual' solution...................SPIRITUAL
MASTURBATION.

From day one, years ago, when I first experienced a serious unsubstantiated
allegation from a fellow Baha'i...found myself surrounded by 'spiritual
people'
who embraced 'quietude' in the face of abuse of a fellow member....found
myself denied the opportunity to respond to the allegation...found my self
in
a community that immediately reached for the 'spiritual solution' and
invited
all, aggressor and victim, to "Hold hands and visualize the purifying white
light of the love of God".......................and then watch the abuse
take place
again...............and again.

I hold the application of such 'spirituality', then and now, to be
contemptible.

>To make blanket accusations, that the Baha'i AO is
> categorically unjust, is an unjust statement in and of itself, IMHO.
> There is a fine line between what I agree with and what I believe.

Again......I never made such a 'blanket accusation' and I am prompted
to wonder why you might have abundant time and energy to respond to
statements that I have not made and so little time for the questions I have
asked?
I state, 'categorically' that there is nothing within Baha'i procedures to
ensure basic fair due process. That renders the pursuit of justice to be
a matter subject to chance and good intentions....any organization operating
on such a basis can only be described as derelict in its duty of care.


> >3/ Somebody beat you to the punch? I must have blinked....who, has ever,
> >responded to the issue and clearly delineated due process?
>
> I told you already, that I have no answer for that question as I am
> unqualified. That should suffice, should it not? Who knows what
> someone else's answer might be in the future? All I can tell you is
> what *I* know- and I know that I can't answer that question. In
> regards to due process, I am abdicating any supposition on what should
> be done in favor of more educated minds. Perhaps YOU could answer it
> better than I.

And I have already answered that question....and....ignored as it is, time
and
again....I invite any 'sane' Baha'i to turn their 'spiritual eye' to the
obvious absence
of procedures that would ensure fair due process AND BEGIN TO ACTIVELY
ADVOCATE THEIR IMPLEMENTATION!!!!
Starting with...."No Baha'i shall be subject to an unsubstantiated
allegation or be
denied the opportunity to know the nature or origin of a charge nor denied
the
opportunity to a fair and open hearing".

These basics require no more than the *will* to implement...
That will is obviously absent.


> >> Do not mistake silence for ingorance.
> >
> >I don't, in this context I take it to be rudeness.
>
> It is nice to know that there are people out there who can judge, from
> silence, the intentions of another person's mind.

As I advised Rick....my assessments and predictions are based on observed
behavior not on psychic ability. The pattern of denial, silence, obfuscation
and platitude is, as far as I am concerned,.......rude.

> Perhaps your crystal
> ball isn't as broken as you think. When I am rude, you'll know it-
> it'll be as clear as day-glo.

Have you considered the possibility that you have already been rude
and that 'you' did not know it?
Can you endeavor to grasp just how offensive the notion of "turning
a spiritual eye" to a basic procedural issue is? Is it conceivable, that
in the context of this issue and discussion and in the light of the prior
objections, to utter and evoke the 'spiritual eye' is a denial of Baha' u'
llahs
call to 'Justice'?.............Potentially as 'insulting' as a response
could be?

> >If I am called out or over to discuss an issue and, having engaged the
> >subject,
> >simply turn away without word or explanation....I would consider that
> >a lapse in good manners and a failure of intellectual integrity.
> >(At least Rick tells me he is going to cut and run before he does
so....then
> >he will even come back to tell me he is going to do it again;-)
>
> It's refreshing to meet someone who doesn't always want the last word.

I never requested the "last word"....I would have been content with
advisement
of other obligations or the end of conversation.

> But, sometimes, you should be grateful for it. Furthermore, you've
> given me food for thought. Let me chew on it and stop rushing me! You
> don't want me to get the spiritual/mental equivalent to acid
> indigestion, do you?

Yes.....I want your, and every Baha'is, gut to burn with righteous
indignation
and outrage. People are leaving the faith almost as fast as they come
in...often
as a consequence of the absence of basic justice procedures.
HURRY UP.......there is no reason to delay or time to waste.

> >>Silence CAN be thoughtful.
> >
> >In the context of this discussion...am I to take it that the Baha'i
> >community
> >has been 'thinking' about whether or not it wants the procedures that
will
> >facilitate justice for over two decades?!?......For it has certainly been
> >'silent'
> >on the issue;-)
>
> No. In the context of MY reply, you are to take it that *I* prefer to
> remain silent when I have nothing to respond with. I am not perfect in
> this, but I do not like to engage in discussions when I KNOW what I
> *don't* know. I can't answer what's on the mind of the entire Baha'i
> community, or the AO- I'm simply not that perceptive. I'm all for
> justice, man, but I cannot mete out justice on the scale which would
> suit you because I am one amongst many.

"Mete out justice on the scale which would suit me"? Again we are dealing,
not with what I have said, but with what is 'projected' upon what I have
said.
I would be satisfied if I could find 'one' Baha'i....in the community or on
the net
...who would take a stand for or active role in the implementation of the
'basics'
that precede the dispensing of justice.
"One amongst many"? Jay.....each 'one' I speak to is reflective of the
'whole body'
in common preparedness to evocke the 'spiritual' in place of the practicle,
pragmatic
and essential.
(What do Baha'is do when their car runs out of petrol? Pray for mobility
none the less?;-)

> >Silence CAN be thoughtful. It CAN also be rude, evasive, a sign of
> >embarrassment,
> >intellectual and moral defeat and confusion.
>
> It's all a matter of perspective- yours or mine... and I'm kinda
> partial. Attribute whatever views you wish to me, but in the end only
> I know what's going on with me. Judge not, lest ye be judged.

I 'judge' the inadequacy and dysfunction of current procedures, I 'judge'
the collective denial, silence, obfuscation and platitude, I 'judge' each
individual response to be either reflective of the culture of denial or
indicative
of a desire for change, a fair go and justice. Thus far I have found no
Baha'is
active and satisfied within the faith who are prepared to seriously take on
board the need for reform or willing to advocate same. Yet many on the
fringe, inactive or ex who hold the issue to be obvious, urgent and
consistently
denied from within. I 'judge' that to be a matter of profound sorrow.

> >If the sudden silence is never preceded or followed by an
explanation....who
> >would
> >know?;-)
>
> I dunno. Next time, try asking politely and you might get an answer.
> This is not to say that you haven't asked me politely... you haven't
> asked me at all, before now. You merely drew your own conclusions
> about me and my thoughts before being armed with information about me.

Did I? Or did I offer a range of potential explanations for and readings of
the absence of response? Did I draw a conclusion about you or have you
extrapolated that from the 'potential range'? Feel free to cite;-)

The last word is yours;-)

Rod.

Curious

unread,
Sep 17, 2001, 3:05:28 AM9/17/01
to

ROBIN M PETERS <ROBINM...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:Oz4p7.39324$tD5.139...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...

>
> Might I ask, in all seriousness, how is the entire world going to act in
> unity here?
Sarcasm On.
By all holding hands together and using our 'spiritual eyes' to visualise
the
radient multi hued light of the love of God.
Sarcasm Off


> There are specific action steps to be taken here - police have
> investigational procedures. Please - spell out exactly what actions steps
> you feel police around the world should take to act in unity.

(Note, no buttons)
You have evoked the notion of 'investigational procedures' Robin...the
forthcoming reply, should you get one, must be couched in terms of
'spiritual
principle'. You have asked for specifics....I predict generalizations.

> What is the goal? To catch the people who did this? To take away the time
> bomb? What is the ticking time bomb - our hatred of others, our propensity
> for war? What?

I suspect the goal is to 'sound spiritual'.

> You sound like so many of the UHJ messages I read in my time as a Baha'i -
> unwilling to give us specifics and unwilling to cause disunity by
expecting
> action based on those specifics.

Proposition....
If the Baha'i community was empowered to pursue and prosecute recent events
with current procedures.....
The 'investigation' would be conducted with complete 'discretion'...no one
would
know what (if any) evidence had been gathered...'suspects' would not know
the
basis of the inquiries...if 'charges' are laid they need not be
specific....nor would
their origin or basis need be revealed...'hearing' would be conducted on a
'consultative'
basis (preferably preceded by a workshop on Unity)....this event might be
called
'Mediation' and seek to reconcile aggrieved or hostile parties but it would
bare no
resemblance to mediation as commonly practiced- no agenda, no designated
facilitator,
no defined opportunity for either party to speak, no consequence for
interrupting,
no opportunity to question, no structure, no fair due process, no
evidence/substantiation called for or required, no recognition that such ad
hock proceedings do nothing for the interests of justice. Following these
'proceedings' some one may be punished (denied rights) and remain
oblivious/uninformed as to the specific nature of the charge or its origin.
Throughout, there will be abundant reminders of and calls for love,
patience, tolerance,
unity and steadfastness.

Now......some will claim that I exaggerate, employ sarcasm or report
isolated incidents.

For each of the points made above I stand prepared to substantiate with
'two' examples
(time,date and location) from my own experience and, if necessary a further
two reported
by other disenfranchised Baha'is.

And I can't be fairer than that;-)

Rod..........ready when you are;-)


BIGS - Bahai in *Perfectly* Good Standing

unread,
Sep 17, 2001, 8:20:49 AM9/17/01
to
Thank you for sharing your views on the lack of due process
within the bahai faith. Even though I too have experienced
these things and read of many others who have, I find it
refreshing to hear again from a different person, another
corroboration of the injustices so many have endured....

--
Frederick Glaysher
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
http://www.angelfire.com/mi3/bahai/

"Curious" <Curio...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:xQfp7.703$pk3....@ozemail.com.au...

NightShadow

unread,
Sep 17, 2001, 8:48:46 AM9/17/01
to
There was someone named "Curious" <Curio...@hotmail.com> who once
said...:

>You feel 'baited'? Apprehensive that someone/me is out to 'hook' you?
>Mate, I have been 'fishing' for explanations and answers for years.
>The initial 'lure' I cast within the community- "What constitutes Baha'i
>due process" was ignored, over and over again, for years.
>So, eventually, I came here, onto the net. Changed fishing hole, changed
>questions, lures and baits.....same response.....nothing.
>
>Yes, I am baiting the Baha'i community, independently fishing for the truth.
>Nobody is prepared, willing or able to answer basic questions.
>"Why are the fundamentals of due process denied to members of the Baha'i
>community".
>There is no 'hook'.......just a question that deserves an answer.

As a member of the community you have been "baiting", yes, I feel
baited. You've succeeded in your attempt to bait at least one of us.
Sorry, but I'm all out of Scooby Snacks... too broke to afford them
right now. But I have some pocket lint, which looks quiet interesting
in the right light. I'm happy to share.... =D

>No, you have been evasive or absent in response to the questions...
>and I have been patient with the Baha'i community too long. If Baha'is,
>as a community or as individual representatives on the net cannot, over
>a prolonged period, 'condescend' to explain, justify or rectify the absence
>of fair due process.....then yes.....my indignation inclines me to
>condescending and demanding language.

I have been evasive and absent in response for a very simple reason: I
am not in a position, officially, to change squat. I can lodge
questions and start independent investigations, but for me to do so
too fervently might seem, in the eyes of others, as dissention and I
would prefer not to have any heat come down on me by people who would
likely jump to conclusions. I am no longer a member of an LSA and am
not considered to be an "active" Baha'i within the community- in my
personal life, I undertake *every* opportunity to teach the Faith,
however, and try to live my life as a "good Baha'i." So, for me to
come out of the woodwork and ask questions that some might perceive as
contentious, I could easily be met with resistance. As in, "He hasn't
come to Feast in 2 years and all of a sudden he's interested in the
AO's policies. I smell a rat." For my own safety I prefer to be a
little less demanding. If you don't like it, you can sod off. I'm no
good to anyone, including myself, if I get kicked out of the Faith for
making waves. I will investigate and draw my own conclusions over a
long period of time in order to keep my status as a Baha'i secure- and
that of my family.

>SNIP<

>In a community that proclaims Justice to be the best beloved of all things?
>The absence of due process is not embarrassing?
>I'm a Baha'i.....I find it profoundly embarrassing, repulsive and un
>necessary.

If I am responsible for poor behavior, then I am embarrassed. If I
find someone else, within the Faith, that is guilty of poor behavior,
I am disappointed- but not embarrassed. Their mistakes and problems
are not a reflection of MY character. No more so than I believe that
Islam is responsible for the attacks at the WTC last week. If I was
Muslim, I would not be embarrassed over that insanity- I would be
angry, upset, dismayed and concerned... but not embarrassed. The
Faith, just like Islam, stands on its own. I believe in the Baha'i
Faith and in the writings of Baha'u'llah- there is absolutely nothing
to be embarrassed about them. I am equally concerned about what
individual believers within the Faith have done in the past, but to
feel embarrassed would be to take on responsibility for another
person's actions... and I will never do that. I have a responsibility
to my OWN actions without having to worry about the deeds (or
misdeeds) of other people.

>With respect....How long does it take to determine, as I believe you have
>conceded, the absence of due process? What further 'learning' is required?
>Why is there such 'audacious' silence on the issue?
>What stands in the way of simple action and implementation?
>(Beyond the current 'culture of denial and avoidance ;-)

It takes as long as it does- for me. I will not put my own status as a
Baha'i in jeapordy for asking questions too insistently when it might
get me into trouble, as has apparently been the case for others. I
WILL ask questions, but I will do it slowly and methodically and
without baring my teeth at anyone. If it seems like I'm biting the
tail, then the animal might bite back- I won't be "bit" if I can help
it, so I will be cautious... and audacious. An oxymoron, I know, but
in this case I feel it's apt. Audacious caution... hmmm.... I suddenly
feel like "Steve" on Animal Kingdom.

>> >1/ You could be thinking about it? What's there to think about? Whether
>> >or not you as a Baha'i want justice in the community?
>>
>> Don't try to bait me, please.
>
>What makes the above question 'bait' mate? It is honest, open, simple and
>straightforward.......no 'hooks', no secret or hidden agendas.....I want to
>know.....so I ask.....you infer something unpalatable or deceptive about the
>questions.....you take the time to talk about and around the questions.....
>but....in accord with all my previous experience....you do not address or
>answer
>the questions.
>Why?

The question was loaded with the insinuation that I might not be
genuinely considering your question- that I am showing "too much"
altruism and not enough genuine concern. Considering a question's
answer is just as important as considering the question. I TRY to put
some thought into my answers instead of giving knee-jerk responses
like "yes" and "no."

>No Baha'i, over a ten year period, has been able to delineate the
>'processes'
>(not 'principles') by which Justice is determined and achieved within the
>faith.
>In those circumstances it must be concluded that any justice achieved has
>been the happenstance consequence of 'good luck' and 'good will/intention'.
>We have no statistics on outcomes, only the growing number of disillusioned,
>disenfranchised and ex Baha'is who object to the absence of fair due
>process.
>Why equivocate, why not act?

I would love to act. I would love to address these questions within
the body of an LSA. But I am not a member of any LSA, so bringing up
these questions to them, as I have already stated, might seem like an
attack to them and I will not put myself in that position. Believe me,
if I *were* on an LSA I would make some suggestions/get some real
answers from people who could make a difference. Being that I am on
the outside, though, I stand little chance of doing diddly/squat-
except getting my ass handed to me.

>>Don't presume that I haven't thought about it-
>
>I don't, I presume-on the basis of your posts- that there is something
>more that needs to be known or determined or some passage of time
>that needs to transpire before some basic action can take place.
>I reject all the rationales, excuses, explanations and justifications that I
>have heard thus far.

Consider this: if I was serving on an LSA and a serious problem came
to the table I most definitely *would* (and have, take note) encourage
my fellow LSA members to do things differently than such as you have
delineated in your experiences.

The LSA I was serving on had this problem brought to them: two Baha'is
(male) were friends and living together. Roommate One ("John") decided
that he wanted to move out because he couldn't live with his roommate
anymore (personal reasons). Roommate Two ("Larry") felt that "John"
was being unreasonable and stiffing him on rent/utility bills, with no
time to find a replacement. Dissention arose between the two
roommates, leading to a physical fight and animosity. They came to us
to seek either a solution or ruling on who was right. The LSA didn't
do any metaphysical crap or hold hands in a circle and attempt a
"love-in." We told "Larry" that he had no right to restrict "John"
from making his personal choices and that if "John" wanted to move, it
was his right- and that "Larry" should, as a friend FIRST, encourage
"John" to do what is best for himself. We then told "John" that it
would be respectful and considerate to wait a short period (perhaps
two weeks) before completely leaving and make good on his incurred
debts in living expenses- as a point of personal honor and respect to
the prior agreement made with "Larry".

The above case was handled with patience, justice, consideration and
resolve. There WAS a lot of shouting, finger-pointing and harsh words
said by both parties involved, but in the end both walked away with
the LSA's ruling and with a little less emnity. As I understand it,
THAT is how an LSA functions. N'est pas? There was no secrecy, no
behind-the-doors meetings, no prevarication and no indecision.

That other LSA's do things differently is no surprise- they are
different people with different ways of doing things. Each community
is unique. The Winston-Salem community, for instance, was very
resillient to change when I was there. Changing something in that
community was like running into a wall of jell-o... just when you
thought you were making progress to effect a minor change, you got
bounced out and nothing's changed. Believe me, I've seen it happen. It
bothered the hell out of me, but since I wasn't serving on that LSA,
there was very little I could do to change it... and to bring it to
their attention would have seemed like a personal attack to them. As
harsh as it may seem, I decided that letting them stagnate, and
hopefully clue-in on their own at a later date, was all I could do.
When a community refuses to change, evolve, adhere to the writings or
act then they become stagnant and inactive, like a sleeping animal
that breathes, but only just barely.

>Then I invite you to rely upon and examine no more than the administrative
>procedure handbooks themselves....there you will find no reference to
>the basics of fair due process. That is not 'conjecture' or 'hearsay'...that
>is
>examination of determinable facts. There is nothing in the Baha'i procedures
>that ensures the provision of a fair hearing.

I understand that- and I've seen (or not seen) what you're referring
to. IMHO, when something in the guidebooks isn't spoken to, then it is
up to the LSA to determine the proper course of action. It's up to the
LSA to employ justice. If the LSA isn't doing that, then it isn't the
fault of the NSA or the AO in general- it is the fault of that
particular LSA for slacking off. On the other hand, it IS the
responsibility of the NSA/AO to inform ALL LSA's that action, not
inaction or reaction, is necessary to resolve problems within the
community- and that action must be carried out with justice in mind,
not emotion or opinion, but reasonable, justifiable and *honorable*
decisiveness. In order to do that, however, it must be understood that
each case is unique and should be handled in a manner that fits the
situation.

>SNIP<

>With all the respect and restraint I can muster.....this is bunk, piffle,
>crap.
>I cannot express sufficiently my dismay and disgust for the propensity
>of Baha'is to invoke 'Spiritual Principles' in response to the absence
>of 'Procedural Safeguards'. It is offensive in the extreme.
>In the past I have gone so far as to deem such behavior as constituting
>no more than 'Spiritual Masturbation' and I do so again here.

To carry out justice, a keen eye must look at all the facts and
discern what is honorable and just. Such an eye must be spiritually
driven. A man shoots and kills an intruder into his home, the intuder
was in the process of raping this man's 13-year-old daughter at
knife-point. The man, who was protecting his family and home, is then
prosecuted for murder/manslaughter. Is this justice? Or is this
adherence to the letter of the law, which is the bane of every judge's
existence? If the Baha'i AO had presided over the case, do you think
that the man, who was defending his daughter and home, would have been
imprisoned- or would the *spirit* of the law have prevailed?

>Here is the "core" of my concern....played out again as it has been so many
>countless times before....I speak to you of broad fair due process-and you
>evoke
>the need for a case specific "spiritually discerning eye".
>There in a nutshell is the core of 'Baha'iThink'...."if there is something
>wrong it
>must be a 'spiritual' problem requiring a 'spiritual' investigation and the
>application
>of an individual 'spiritual' solution...................SPIRITUAL
>MASTURBATION.

Perhaps you are right- perhaps you are wrong. The LSA *I* served on
discussed this matter, years ago, and came up with this: If there is
something wrong, there should be an eye towards resolving it
spiritually as well as physically because, let's face it, this is a
physical world and it requires physical action. "God helps those who
help themselves"- that implies action. Like the physician's motto:
First, do no harm, we undertook it in our community to resolve
conflicts/problems both spiritually AND physically- and in a manner
that all parties could agree with. Compromise on all parts was often
required, but eventually- with persistence- compromise was
forthcoming. Not *every* LSA cranks its wank.

>From day one, years ago, when I first experienced a serious unsubstantiated
>allegation from a fellow Baha'i...found myself surrounded by 'spiritual
>people'
>who embraced 'quietude' in the face of abuse of a fellow member....found
>myself denied the opportunity to respond to the allegation...found my self
>in
>a community that immediately reached for the 'spiritual solution' and
>invited
>all, aggressor and victim, to "Hold hands and visualize the purifying white
>light of the love of God".......................and then watch the abuse
>take place
>again...............and again.

I am sorry to hear that. Sounds to me like they weren't fully prepared
or deepened enough to deal with the physical realities of
administering a community's business. I pray that future generations
of LSA's will be.

>I hold the application of such 'spirituality', then and now, to be
>contemptible.

That was not spirituality. That was dunder-headed inadequacy. Those
people, if your account is accurate, apparently were afraid of making
a decision that might be viewed as unfavorable in one or both party's
eyes. Instead, they chose inaction, which is fully more harmful than
doing the wrong thing. I am sorry you went though that. They were not
administrators- they were coddlers, trying to placate people who had
serious problems. Administrators *administrate*, be their decisions
good or bad. In order to administrate one must make a decision and
effect action.

>Again......I never made such a 'blanket accusation' and I am prompted
>to wonder why you might have abundant time and energy to respond to
>statements that I have not made and so little time for the questions I have
>asked?

Because I didn't have to be at work until 5PM today and figured I
could sleep in a little later than usual- just like tonight (morning,
actually. It's 6:15AM where I am and I haven't been to sleep yet).

>I state, 'categorically' that there is nothing within Baha'i procedures to
>ensure basic fair due process. That renders the pursuit of justice to be
>a matter subject to chance and good intentions....any organization operating
>on such a basis can only be described as derelict in its duty of care.

There is nothing to ensure basic and fair due process- as a written
code of strict adherence- because, as stated previously, each case is
unique- and the members of an LSA are presumed to have justice and
fairness in mind at all times, otherwise why were they elected to
their positions? It is impossible to delineate a course of action for
unforseen problems that can be applied to *every* case- to do so would
undermine justice. It is implied and hoped that each LSA, when faced
with a problem, would listen to all parties involved, consider the
real-world effects of the problem and deliberate over a solution that
would exemplify justice. The reason for this is that, hopefully, an
LSA would know its community better than the NSA/AO and therefore
better determine a proper course of action that suits each case. If a
community elects officials onto an LSA and those elected officials
lack the finesse to act with justice and equinimity, who is really at
fault? People bitch all the time about corrupt politicians in the US
government, but the answer keeps coming back: "Well, YOU (in the
collective sense) put them there!"

>And I have already answered that question....and....ignored as it is, time
>and
>again....I invite any 'sane' Baha'i to turn their 'spiritual eye' to the
>obvious absence
>of procedures that would ensure fair due process AND BEGIN TO ACTIVELY
>ADVOCATE THEIR IMPLEMENTATION!!!!
>Starting with...."No Baha'i shall be subject to an unsubstantiated
>allegation or be
>denied the opportunity to know the nature or origin of a charge nor denied
>the
>opportunity to a fair and open hearing".
>
>These basics require no more than the *will* to implement...
>That will is obviously absent.

And I say, again, that it is not absent in ALL LSA's. There ARE other
LSA's (not just the one I served on) that DO act in accordance to the
above quote. I've lived in such communities. If you wish this problem
to stop, then I would encourage you to look to the future (ie, your
children) and raise them to be Baha'is that have justice at the
forefront of their every choice and decision. Teach them to be active
in the community so that they will receive the attention of their
peers and possibly get elected to positions where they can make a
difference. The people who behave in dunder-headed ways and serve on
LSA's now are not likely to change- as you should know by now, most
adults have a hard time learning "new" tricks. If the current LSA
administrations seem unequal to the task of meting out justice, then
encourage future generations of potential administrators to not make
the same mistakes.

>As I advised Rick....my assessments and predictions are based on observed
>behavior not on psychic ability. The pattern of denial, silence, obfuscation
>and platitude is, as far as I am concerned,.......rude.

Quick and funny (and apt):

A student approaches his wise and venerable teacher and says, "Master,
I look around me and see nothing but enemies. What should I do?"
The wise teacher thinks for a moment and says, "Look for friends."

>Have you considered the possibility that you have already been rude
>and that 'you' did not know it?

If I have been rude to you, I am sorry for it. It is never my
intention to be rude or abusive- unless that is clearly and
unavoidably called for, which it hasn't been where you are concerned.
You don't know me that well, so I ask you take that on faith.

>Can you endeavor to grasp just how offensive the notion of "turning
>a spiritual eye" to a basic procedural issue is? Is it conceivable, that
>in the context of this issue and discussion and in the light of the prior
>objections, to utter and evoke the 'spiritual eye' is a denial of Baha' u'
>llahs
>call to 'Justice'?.............Potentially as 'insulting' as a response
>could be?

No, I can't. The reason I can't is because "turning a spiritual eye"
to a problem is the first step. The step that follows, however, is
"turning the outward eye" to the problem and acknowledging how the
problem can be resolved with action. I find it dismaying that some
people have not taken step two, but I do not find it insulting. Insult
implies malice- and I don't believe true malice is the intention of
the Baha'i AO. I DO believe that the lack of step two implies
ignorance, which is abhorrent, but not insulting because, again,
ignorance is not usually inspired by malice so much as stupidity is
the culprit for ignorance.

>I never requested the "last word"....I would have been content with
>advisement
>of other obligations or the end of conversation.

Then be advised: I will not post my work schedule, but suffice it to
say that as the week progresses I will have less free time on my
hands. If I seem "silent" it is not for any other reason, now, than
that I have to keep a roof over my head and food in my stomach.

>Yes.....I want your, and every Baha'is, gut to burn with righteous
>indignation
>and outrage. People are leaving the faith almost as fast as they come
>in...often
>as a consequence of the absence of basic justice procedures.
>HURRY UP.......there is no reason to delay or time to waste.

From Bob Kane, author/creator of the Batman comic series: "Even Batman
has to sleep, sometime." I am but one man, one believer amongst many.
Even if I end up agreeing with you entirely, my actions are limited.
If I end up catching hell for stirring up mischief, get my membership
within the Faith revoked, come under fire, get called a CB or anything
else, I become- effectively- useless to any "right-thinking" Baha'i on
the face of this Earth because anything I say, whether it's true or
not, becomes suspect. It's a sad, harsh reality, but it's true. I will
NOT go around stomping on people's toes when I'm such a small fish in
a very big pond. I know my limits. I would no more use up what few and
minor resources I have available than Batman would stay up for a month
solid until some criminal, who's had more rest, gets the drop on him.
(I am suddenly astonished that I have somehow managed to slip a comic
book reference into a religious discussion- what's next? Star Wars
references? I need more sleep, dammit)

>"Mete out justice on the scale which would suit me"? Again we are dealing,
>not with what I have said, but with what is 'projected' upon what I have
>said.
>I would be satisfied if I could find 'one' Baha'i....in the community or on
>the net
>...who would take a stand for or active role in the implementation of the
>'basics'
>that precede the dispensing of justice.
>"One amongst many"? Jay.....each 'one' I speak to is reflective of the
>'whole body'
>in common preparedness to evocke the 'spiritual' in place of the practicle,
>pragmatic
>and essential.
>(What do Baha'is do when their car runs out of petrol? Pray for mobility
>none the less?;-)

The concept that I am representative of the entire community is flawed
in this regard, I believe. Imagine, for instance, what good it would
do to ask an auto mechanic why the US Government would finance so many
Middle Eastern countries and supply them with weapons, knowing that
those same weapons and monies could end up biting us in the ass later
on. The mechanic would probably be stumped. He might throw off any one
of a hundred "possibles" but the truth is that he doesn't know because
he wasn't involved in making those decisions. He can get up and ask
questions of his alderman, then mayor, then governor, then
Congressman, then Senator, then (if he's REALLY lucky and REALLY
persistent) President... in the end, however and if he sticks to his
line of questioning, he might get told to stop making waves "or else."
Even IF he makes it that high up the food chain, the people who were
originally responsible for those decisions are long gone and enjoying
retirement. Does that make Mr. Mechanic any less concerned? Nope. It
just makes him limited in his ability to do anything about it- unless
he gets actively involved enough so that it won't happen again, under
his administration. But barring that, the damage in the past is
already done.

I can sit here and spew off a hundred, thousand different
possibilities for any number of cases/problems within the Baha'i
Faith, but in the end... you're asking a mere mechanic to spell out
the machinery of an entire engine that he's never worked with- except
once, for a short period of time and nowhere near enough to justify
"expert knowledge."

If this were a legal battle, I'd be a shitty witness for EITHER party.

>I 'judge' the inadequacy and dysfunction of current procedures, I 'judge'
>the collective denial, silence, obfuscation and platitude, I 'judge' each
>individual response to be either reflective of the culture of denial or
>indicative
>of a desire for change, a fair go and justice. Thus far I have found no
>Baha'is
>active and satisfied within the faith who are prepared to seriously take on
>board the need for reform or willing to advocate same. Yet many on the
>fringe, inactive or ex who hold the issue to be obvious, urgent and
>consistently
>denied from within. I 'judge' that to be a matter of profound sorrow.

No argument there.

>SNIP

>The last word is yours;-)

Your turn. =D

>Rod.


Jay

Dave Fiorito

unread,
Sep 17, 2001, 10:50:10 AM9/17/01
to
"Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Re...@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:<9nu7mn$a2haa$1...@ID-84503.news.dfncis.de>...
> "NightShadow" <seal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3ba117e0.633221828@news...
>
> <SNIP>
> . The Baha'i Faith, despite your
> > perceptions of it, WOULD NEVER KILL MORE THAN 5,000 HUMAN LIVES, LET
> > ALONE ALLOW ONE OF ITS MEMBERS TO COMMIT SUCH AN ATROCIOUS, VILE ACT
> > IN ITS NAME!!!!
>
> Well not yet, anyway! But give it time! After all, it's still in its
> infancy as religions go!


Dermod,

I expected better from you.

Dave

Dave Fiorito

unread,
Sep 17, 2001, 10:54:06 AM9/17/01
to
"Randy Burns" <randy....@gte.net> wrote in message news:<ecyo7.820$UY3.1...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>...

> You've been calling him for at least two years on this. Why don't you just
> killfile the guy and ignore him? If he gets to you, why is that?
>
> Randy


Randy,

The only thing I have ever done to Fred in the past two years is to
point out that he is not a Baha'i in good standing as he claims to be.
This outburst was the result of an anger that I have felt since
September 11th. Fred went too far. Maybe I went to far too, but that
does not excuse Fred.

Cheers,

Dave

Dave Fiorito

unread,
Sep 17, 2001, 10:58:25 AM9/17/01
to
"Randy Burns" <randy....@gte.net> wrote in message news:<0xzo7.899$UY3.1...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>...
<SNIP>

> Why doesn't the Baha'i Faith work for "fairness and justice" for a change?

It does and will continue to do so.

> Isn't that what they are supposed to be doing all along? I'm not making the
> AO act like idiots, they don't seem to need any help at all in doing that!
> I'm not declaring people Covenant Breakers like some of you want so badly to
> do here on TRB!

No one is declaring anyone to be a Covenant breaker here.

> I happen to enjoy being condescending, it's one of the last really good
> things in my life! Thank God you aren't depriving me of my chances to enjoy
> that.

Randy - Fred was so far out of line and all you want to do is defend
him? Are you letting you own little vendetta get in the way of your
judgement?

Dave

Dave Fiorito

unread,
Sep 17, 2001, 11:20:32 AM9/17/01
to
Rod and Fred,

The AO has due process as defined by Baha'u'llah. It also uses
justice as defined by Baha'u'llah. No dodge - no bobbing and weaving.
There is your answer.

Now. If you would like to go to the Writings and show me where I am
wrong I would appreciate it. By Writings I am referring to
specifically the works of Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha.

Cheers,

Dave

Dave Fiorito

unread,
Sep 17, 2001, 11:23:14 AM9/17/01
to
"BIGS - Bahai in *Perfectly* Good Standing" <patric...@liberty.com> wrote in message news:<9nviii$9oik9$1...@ID-75545.news.dfncis.de>...
> http://www.angelfire.com/mi3/bahai/hate15.htm


Fred,

You do not have my permission to reproduce that post. You are
violating my copyright and you must remove it from your website or you
will be hearing from my lawyer.

Dave

Dave Fiorito

unread,
Sep 17, 2001, 11:27:36 AM9/17/01
to
"Randy Burns" <randy....@gte.net> wrote in message news:<u8yo7.817$UY3.1...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>...
> Hi Seegar!
>
> Let's show our unity by lining up in two separate lines and counseling each
> other!
>
> Cheers, Randy
>
> Oh, by the way, I find Davie's posts just as gratuitous as Fred's.


Oh it was? I had a good friend who was on the phone with a associate
of his when he heard the explosion and the phone went dead.

Another friend has lost more than 700 of his co-workers.

Another friend rushed to his roof when he heard of the first crash in
time to witness the second.

Then to have Fred rub salt in the wounds with that kind of post is too
much. It is incomprehensible that you can even vaguely defend him.

Dave

Kathy Cole

unread,
Sep 17, 2001, 1:03:18 PM9/17/01
to
In article <u8yo7.817$UY3.1...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>, "Randy says...

>
>Oh, by the way, I find Davie's posts just as gratuitous as Fred's.

Fred's posting was a cheap shot, deliberately worded to provoke a
response like mine (and I'm not even Baha'i), and like Dave's.

It is utterly wrong to kick people when they are down, and that is
my objection to Fred's posting. I hope you can understand, and
maybe sympathize, with that.

Timothy Casey

unread,
Sep 17, 2001, 4:35:56 PM9/17/01
to
I am not trying to tell you what to think
(like some fundies I have known)
The idea is for you to think for yourself.

Moreover it is an exercise in lateral thinking: Try looking at context (both
local _and_ global), symbols, and structure.
Creative writing is not falsifiable science either :^)
If your interpretation is silly, then it is your interpretation that is
flawed rather than the original material.

Take the folloing poem of mine as an example of this kind of exercise:

Tetraclasticon
The plain lieth beneath the mountain above
As the god of the chosen is surely love
The great mountains form a ring
In their midst a legend to sing
The great mountains are the cup
Filled to the brim, filled right up
Filled with a lake of pure emerald green
Of the cleanest water any one hast seen
And on the shores a forest dense
To hide it better than any fence
In the lake riseth a mountain refuge
Surrounded by great sheer cliffs so huge
And the mountain's heart of rubies made
Supports upon its top the castle bade
Oh Ruby Castle, the capital hidden!
A shelter for every refugee bidden.
And at the pinnacle a lone shrub flowers
A sweet rose, blossomed above all towers
Hidden by chalcedony clouds from all at play
Set before the sapphire blue sky of the day
Surely a land of treasures untold.
But of which realm? Be brave! Be bold!

(Conceptualised and committed to writing diachronously
By Timothy Casey
On the first and third days of Mashiyyat 157BE)

Complete nonsense without a lateral approach!
Wouldn't you agree?

--
Timothy Casey
South Australia
wor...@iprimus.com.au

Formerly:
ca...@smart.net.au


"ROBIN M PETERS" <ROBINM...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:Oz4p7.39324$tD5.139...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
>

Timothy Casey

unread,
Sep 17, 2001, 4:35:59 PM9/17/01
to
The aim of the game is reflection.
Is it not silly to use a mirror to scrutinize others?
I've a poem that could be related to this:

Biclasticon
As the butterfly's wing
Such a beautiful thing
Of colours a-fling
In patterns to sing

Beats upon the still morning air
Oh creatures distant do beware!
For as one last straw broke the camels back
One last wing beat sent the weather on attack

Starting as a whisper of delicate charm
And passed from place to place with no great harm
The kind word ere long became unflattering
And gathered rain and ice a battering

And each new embellishment adding force
To the ever hardening wing-beat's course
Until at last a world away
The original message has been set astray

The deadly blast of the hurricanes might
Tells us nought of the butterfly's flight
Who's graceful and gentle charm
Is not disclosed in deadly harm.

(Committed to writing by Timothy Casey
this Third Day of Masail in the year 157BE)

What can I say?
How easily we stand religion on its head!

--
Timothy Casey
South Australia
wor...@iprimus.com.au

Formerly:
ca...@smart.net.au

"Curious" <Curio...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:C3jp7.873$pk3....@ozemail.com.au...

Dermod Ryder

unread,
Sep 17, 2001, 6:00:53 PM9/17/01
to

"Dave Fiorito" <bighapp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0853486.01091...@posting.google.com...

Dave,

When fanatics seize a plane full of women and children and fly it into a
building where there are innocent people in furtherance of uncertain
objectives yet motivated by a belief in martyrdom and their attaining
paradise thereby, I just have to conclude that organised religion is gone
plain crazy. Of course many reasonable people would not agree - after all
the plain sacred texts do not, in their opinion, lend any credence to this
but the plain fact, IMO, is that as some people argue the plain sacred texts
do allow of this, they actually do and will therefore motivate even more
crazy events in the future.

Now no doubt you will tell me that such vile interpretations could not
happen within the BF but the fact is that these things have happened.
People have been expelled, contrary to the plain sacred text IMO. So that's
just the start of the corruption. I earnestly expect Bahaism to climb to
even higher peaks of corruption as it matures - just as every other religion
has. It is an undying source of hatred - Jew hates Muslim, Catholic hates
Protestant, Muslim kills Jew, Protestant kills Catholic and vice versa for
all throughout the ages. Has anybody heard of atheists killing agnostics?

Dermod.

Randy Burns

unread,
Sep 17, 2001, 10:01:14 PM9/17/01
to
Dave

Your response would have been more meaningful to people if you hadn't spent
the last two years attacking Fred about the BIGS claim. Those are the posts
I find gratuitous, and still do. Doesn't it occur to you that Fred may
enjoy getting your goat so easily?

Let's face it, two wrongs don't make a right. Just as true today as when
first stated (whenever that was). Isn't the best and only way to help the
faith simply to be the best Baha'i you can be?

Cheers, Randy

--

Dave Fiorito <bighapp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0853486.01091...@posting.google.com...
>

NightShadow

unread,
Sep 17, 2001, 11:11:43 PM9/17/01
to
There was someone named "Dermod Ryder"
<Grim_Re...@btinternet.com> who once said...:

You tell me where, in the Quran, it says, "The blood of the innocents,
shed in the name of Allah for any reason, is a goodness in the eyes of
your Lord." Show me where it says that women, children and innocent
people are worthy of extermination for the cause of Islam. If you can
do this, I'll go out next week, buy the biggest gun with the fastest
yield of firepower, and wait in my home readily for the onslaught from
every Muslim on the face of the earth. Short of THAT kind of religious
evidence or justification, I will continue to agree that Islam itself
is not the responsible party for acts of terrorism visited upon ANY
country.

Secondly, Baha'u'llah made it VERY clear, even during his proclamation
at Ridvan, that the followers have been forbidden to make war upon one
another. He also made it clear that defending one's nation, defending
one's family and defending one's self is NOT the same as making war as
long as justice and self-preservation are the motivating factors. As
well, I think it has been mentioned a few times in the writings that
martyrdom is not something to *seek* so much as it is something to
accept and not run away from. Anyone who *seeks* martyrdom is merely
choosing another form of suicide. A person who is asked, "Are you a
Baha'i?" and gets killed for answering "Yes" is a martyr- there is a
difference between what those animals did Tuesday and the example of
true martyrdom shown by countless Baha'is in Iran.

There is simply NO sane justification for what happened Tuesday, from
a religious perspective, that is. Islam was NOT at fault. If it would
make you happier to be angry at merely *anyone*, then that is your
failing in reason and your choice to be prejudiced. But do not sit
there and tell me or anyone else that you expect the Baha'i Faith, in
its entirety, to act in the same fashion as those animals who bring
terror to everyone's front door- such supposition shows that you
clearly have no idea what the foundation of the Faith is rooted in.

Baha'is do NOT make war. Get that through your skull by reading the
writings and looking around.

Matt Menge

unread,
Sep 17, 2001, 11:56:33 PM9/17/01
to
>
>
> "ROBIN M PETERS" <ROBINM...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:Oz4p7.39324$tD5.139...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > Might I ask, in all seriousness, how is the entire world going to act in
> > unity here?
> >
> > There are specific action steps to be taken here - police have
> > investigational procedures. Please - spell out exactly what actions steps
> > you feel police around the world should take to act in unity.
> >
> > What is the goal? To catch the people who did this? To take away the time
> > bomb? What is the ticking time bomb - our hatred of others, our propensity
> > for war? What?
> >
> > You sound like so many of the UHJ messages I read in my time as a Baha'i -
> > unwilling to give us specifics and unwilling to cause disunity by
> expecting
> > action based on those specifics.
> >
> >

This is called micro-management and I for one am glad the House doesn't do it.

Best Regards,

Matt

Curious

unread,
Sep 17, 2001, 10:32:42 AM9/17/01
to
My turn to wander off and
......think?....no......work?....no....wait?.....no....
I have a thousand trees to plant.

Soon.

Rod.

NightShadow <seal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:3ba4784b.854546343@news...

Nima Hazini

unread,
Sep 18, 2001, 12:59:17 AM9/18/01
to

There was someone named NightShadow" <seal...@hotmail.com> who wrote in
message news:3ba5648f.915039983@news:

>You tell me where, in the Quran, it says, "The blood of the innocents,
>shed in the name of Allah for any reason, is a goodness in the eyes of
>your Lord." Show me where it says that women, children and innocent
>people are worthy of extermination for the cause of Islam.

One name: the Jewish Banu Qaynuqah! This is *exactly* what Muhammad did in
Medina. A wholesale massacre of men, women and children. Go buy that gun
now, and while you're at it check out the following websites:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ibn_al-rawandi/review.html

http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca

cheers,
Nima

Timothy Casey

unread,
Sep 18, 2001, 1:44:56 AM9/18/01
to

"Matt Menge" <mspm...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:dc19cfc5.01091...@posting.google.com...

Ditto.
I can't honestly say I'd tolerate it very long myself

Curious

unread,
Sep 18, 2001, 3:13:45 AM9/18/01
to

Dave Fiorito <bighapp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0853486.01091...@posting.google.com...
> Rod and Fred,
>
> The AO has due process as defined by Baha'u'llah. It also uses
> justice as defined by Baha'u'llah. No dodge - no bobbing and weaving.
> There is your answer.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
That's Classic Dave!
God I needed a laugh and I thank you for that one!!!
Hysterical:-) Loved the bobbing and weaving bit about not bobbing and
weaving;-)

Now.....let's cut the comedy and not 'dodge' the longstanding central
issue...
Baha'u'llah has provided 'Divine Principles' upon which and through which
Baha'i
'Processes' and 'Procedures can (and must) be built.

I invite you Dave.....I encourage, plead, beg, pray and challenge.....CITE
the definition
of 'Due Process' provided by Baha'u'llah....or at very least...provide
volume and
page reference.

Failing this.....be prepared to stand as living proof of that which Fred so
tenaciously and persistently bemoans......'The Baha'i Technique;-)


> Now. If you would like to go to the Writings and show me where I am
> wrong I would appreciate it. By Writings I am referring to
> specifically the works of Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha.

You want me to go to the writings, all of them, to prove that I cannot find
what you claim to exist!!!!????
And how do you propose that I do that Dave?.....When I don't find it...not
post it?
You are referring specifically to the works of Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha?
Great mate!!;-) That really narrows it down!!!;-)

Come on buddy.....get a grip.
This kind of dodge, bobbing and weaving does not serve the interests of the
faith nor protect it's public image. If you have a delineation of 'due
process'
from the writings.....then put it up.....but don't muck about pretending you
are
Rick Shauts.....it's unbecoming;-)

> Cheers,
I think you have had enough to drink already;-)

Rod


BIGS - Bahai in *Perfectly* Good Standing

unread,
Sep 18, 2001, 8:08:38 AM9/18/01
to
Despite the slander of many fundamentalists among my
fellow bahais, I have been a member of the bahai faith since
1976. My ID Card may be found on my main bahai page. I have
never been contacted by the uhj or any of its underlings to the
contrary.

The reason the uhj allows and encourages fundamentalists
among my fellow bahais to backbite and slander me
on talk.religion.bahai, alt.religion.bahai, AOL, BeliefNet,
and elsewhere may be discovered in the four messages below:

To the Universal House of Justice - March 31, 1997
http://www.angelfire.com/mi3/bahai/To-UHJ1.htm

To the Universal House of Justice - July 24, 1998
http://www.angelfire.com/mi3/bahai/UHJ72498.htm

To uhj 12-10-1999
http://www.angelfire.com/mi3/bahai/uhj12-10-99.htm

Open Petition for Baha'i Reformation February 8, 2001
http://www.angelfire.com/mi3/bahai/Reformation.htm

My Request Not to Receive the American Bahai 1996
http://www.angelfire.com/mi3/bahai/nsa1996.htm

--
Frederick Glaysher
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience

http://www.angelfire.com/mi3/bahai/index.htm


"Dave Fiorito" <bighapp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0853486.01091...@posting.google.com...

BIGS - Bahai in *Perfectly* Good Standing

unread,
Sep 18, 2001, 8:24:54 AM9/18/01
to
So you want to malign, slander, and harass people with impunity,
concealing your treachery from the eyes of honest, decent men and
women....

"The Bahai Technique":
http://www.angelfire.com/mi3/bahai/technique.htm

--
Frederick Glaysher
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
http://www.angelfire.com/mi3/bahai/

"Dave Fiorito" <bighapp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0853486.01091...@posting.google.com...

NightShadow

unread,
Sep 18, 2001, 7:42:43 AM9/18/01
to
I wonder if the UHJ or the NSA ever got back to him?

Who else has read the messages he sent to the UHJ? The copy of the
message sent to him by Mr. Mahmoudi is referred to as "threatening and
coercive." I read the thing 5 times and for the life of me couldn't
find a single threatening or coercive thing about the message.

Maybe Fred just finds human contact threatening and coercive, hmm?

Fred... do you need a hug?

Incidentally, the back of your Baha'i membership card says that it's
"the property of the *National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of
the United States* with whom rests final decision as to its validity."
There is no mention of the UHJ. Perhaps expecting to hear from them
regarding your membership within the Faith is misdirected... hearing
from the US NSA, however, might prove more insightful.

When was the last time you called them? I can't seem to recall you
ever mentioning that.

NightShadow

unread,
Sep 18, 2001, 7:54:51 AM9/18/01