{bahai} Re: New Email List (Zuhur19)
patric...@bigfoot.com
> > "Only partially be moderated": absurd, really.
<nima_...@my-deja.com> wrote
> No, Fred. What it means is that I personally screen all subscribtions
> before letting anyone come aboard. Once you're on, you can post to your
hearts content.
And God's given you the prescience to decide who
should be allowed to speak their minds and who
shouldn't.... That's the thinking of the uhj.... not
the Central Figures.
> > Talisman and its incarnations have been and are
> > censored when it suits the agendas of the bahai
> > liberals and academics, who are just as prone to
> > do so as the fanatics....
>
> You only say this because those same liberals and academics will not allow
you to subvert their lists by drawing it into silly flame wars or
provide you with your own personal soap-box.
Ha, ha, ha.... Repeating their deceptions and
slurs will not deceive fair-minded observers who can
read the EVIDENCE for themselves on my website.
> >The truly unmoderated
> > bahai newsgroups on Usenet are the only ones
> > they and the fundamentalists are unable to distort
> > for their various purposes.
>
> The reason I put together Zuhur19 is so that people who share a
> common view will not have to worry any longer about Big Brother watching
them and can dialogue as among friends without having to be accosted by the
assaults of religious fundamentalists.
Free speech and real democracy allow people
of all opinions to state their views openly without
fear of harassment and recrimination, unlike the
distorted system the uhj has created....
--
Frederick Glaysher
www.fglaysher.com
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
patric...@bigfoot.com
create your own little list for like-minded people;
rather, it's that all such lists that I have known
of or participated in are inevitably manipulated
and controled by bahais to suit their own biased
interpretations, including those by the "liberals."
Your attempt to characterize me as "crazy," etc., is
precisely the kind of tactic I would expect from the
worst fundamentalists.
I have no interest in participating in your or anyone
else's email list on the bahai faith since I know quite
well discussion always ends up being distorted and
censored. I'm sure yours won't be any different given
the nature of your response.
To non-bahai observers it should again be obvious why
bahais opposed the creation of alt.religion.bahai and
talk.religion.bahai, neither of which they could nor can
fiddle with.
Please note also the ad hominem approach used against
me here, as though it were addressing the issues....
nima_...@my-deja.com
forum should have some monopoly over the discourse in cyberspace or
something? You are crazy just for thinking it. And your response proves
it. Whereas before I mistakenly thought you had something worthwhile to
say and did defend you occasionally as the underdog here, now I am
convinced more than ever that you are nothing but a twisted and
befuddled fool in need of serious psychiatric help. From hereon welcome
to my ignorelist, chump!
Nima
In article <shdb1k...@corp.supernews.com>,
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
nima_...@my-deja.com
Frederick Glaysher elicits such bizarre and visceral reactions from him.
As such it is the "technique" of the attention hungry.
cheers,
be...@livingston.com
nima_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Please note that anything that specifically draws attention away from
> Frederick Glaysher elicits such bizarre and visceral reactions from
him.
> As such it is the "technique" of the attention hungry.
>
> cheers,
> Nima
Actually it is not a "technique" but a "bug" in Fred's latest OS.
Again you folks have mistaked Fred _The Whiner_ Glaysher with a
living, breathing human ..he, or more accurately, it is just a simple
computer. The bug is in this area of his scheduler code. Look:
post_articles_again_and_again()
{
if ( anyone creating new list ) {
if (asked for permission from me ) {
give_blessing();
add_to_my_web_site( new_list);
return(GOOD_BOY);
}
else {
condemn_the_new_list();
nag_nag_nag_nag();
whine_whine_whine_whine();
return(BAD_BOY);
}
else {
reost_old_particles_again();
return(BORED_TO_DEATH);
}
}
I will contact Fred's engineers tomorrow morning and meanwhile
please ignore his nonsense,
Sincerely,
Cyrus (Fred's Quality Assurance engineer)
patric...@bigfoot.com
nima_...@my-deja.com
this exchange as well. Oh, well...
To unbiased observer it should be evident that Fred Glaysher
re-posts the same old stuff when he does not have a decent comeback.
cheers,
Nima
In article <shfsrb...@corp.supernews.com>,
Mark Elderkin
, now I am
> convinced more than ever that you are nothing but a twisted and
> befuddled fool in need of serious psychiatric help. From hereon welcome
> to my ignorelist, chump!
>
Oh my GOSH! Does this mean that you aren't friends anymore? Is Fred
getting on your nerves? Is our Superhero really changing his mind? Stay
tuned to the next episode when........... Nima befriends Fred again and they
plot to overthrow fundamentalist religions.
Sam Ghandchi
It seems like you are one of the BahAollAhis who is not
in my Message Filter and I happened to read your post
being cute about Nima Hazini's post.
Why do you BahAollAhis sound so much like hezbollAhis?
At least Nima and Fred are comfortable expressing their
differences? What about you guys? You guys always have that
99% agreement on everything reminiscient of Stalin
and Khomeini?
The point is not to have disagreements for the sake of
disagreements, like teenagers or agreements for the sake
of agreements like Stalinists. The point is to hold the
Promethous torch of knowledge and whatever can stand
up to it, then let it be, whether that means to agree or disagree.
I am afraid in the case of dealing with hezbollAhi and
BahAollAhis, instead of torch of knowledge, one may
need to use a khar-mohreh as suggested by one
of the Soc.Culture.Iranian contributors.
- Sam
"Mark Elderkin" <m...@tsn.cc> wrote in message
news:ER0S4.30$W%2.1...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...
Nima Hazini
"khar-mohreh-ha" hay goftam ;) Thanks, dude!
cheers,
Nima
Sam Ghandchi <ghan...@home.com> wrote in message
news:G98S4.46728$k5.13...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com...
Saman Ahmadi
Sam Ghandchi wrote:
[some deletions]
>
> Why do you BahAollAhis sound so much like hezbollAhis?
[some deletions]
Dear Sam,
With all due respect, I'm going to jesArat a little.
Someone with your knowledge knows full well that Baha'is
who may seem "fundamentalists" by the standards of some,
are in no way "hezbollAhis".
When someone of your stature coins this kind of pejorative, it
gives license to others go further.
regards,
-saman
Sam Ghandchi
Saman Ahmadi wrote:
>
> Sam Ghandchi wrote:
>
> [some deletions]
>
> >
> > Why do you BahAollAhis sound so much like hezbollAhis?
>
> [some deletions]
>
> Dear Sam,
>
> With all due respect, I'm going to jesArat a little.
I also respond with all due respect for your personal
preseverance although I do not want to continue much
in the Baha'i thread discussion as what I write is
repeating the same thing, as what you folks write is
also repeating the same thing and Behad said it
best when he resembled Baha'i practices to "Amway".
>
> Someone with your knowledge knows full well that Baha'is
> who may seem "fundamentalists" by the standards of some,
> are in no way "hezbollAhis".
On the contrary I know full well that they are the
same with the only difference that Baha'is are not in
power. When Khomeini was not in power, Islamist hezbollAhis
were not much different from current Baha'i funadmentalists.
Basically Baha'is practices are a lot based on deceit.
When I criticized persecution of Baha'is by IRI, many
Baha'is called me friend, but when I criticized Baha'is,
some of the same Baha'is, who used to praise me,
started insulting me. The same ones who post history
of SCI, but do not say they are Baha'i, and pretend
as an independent professor, and this is what I call
deceitfulness of Baha'i practices.
Frankly I have added most Baha'i poster to my Message Filter
without pronouncing it, as I see it a waste of my time
to discuss something with a cultish individual. I think
Baha'i practices are basically like a cult, although just
like Scientology, although they are now a religion than
a cult but they have kept their cultishness practices.
Same has been true of some other religions at some
periods of history when although they could hardly be
called a cult, but they practiced their faith as
such.
I hope you do not get offended that I will not continue this
exchange as I know you are not going to change your view
and frankly I think people like Behdad Forghani,
Fred, Nima Hazini, and Juan Cole can respond a lot
better to the issues you raise than me.
>
> When someone of your stature coins this kind of pejorative, it
> gives license to others go further.
As I said I am not pejorative. if you want to see what
pejorative means, start criticizing Baha'i Faith and
see how your old buddies will respond to you.
I actually use my Message Filter not because I disrespect
you and these folks personally, but because I think there
is already enough said by people like Juan Cole and
Behdad and Nima and Fred and if you guys really were
interested in learning from a discussion, then you
would not be a card carrying Baha'i anymore, so it
all means that you really are discussing just for a polemic
and I really do not see value in it.
Thanks,
- Sam
>
> regards,
> -saman
Saman Ahmadi
I'm not sure if you will see this but . . .
I assume you have read something of the writings of
Baha'u'llah on your own and have read what those
who have decided to leave the Baha'i Faith have to
say about how the Baha'i Faith is administered.
You are free to come to whatever conclusion you
like.
The fact remains, and I would like to see Nima or
Juan to challenge it, that the Baha'i Faith is not
a cult.
Language is a powerful tool and when those who
have the gift of articulation use it to gloss over
ideas of substance, they do a disservice not only
to themselves but to others. This is especially
so when venomous words are used to characterize
the honor of others.
Over the last 7 years or so, I have tried, in my own
small way, to defend the name of the Baha'i Faith.
I have also tried to defend the name of Islam. The
SCI archives are there for anyone to see. I have never
tried to hide my identity. I've tried to to be as forthright
as possible. I've poked fun at those who deserved it and
have engaged those who have been civil.
My conscience is clear as I am sure yours is.
-saman
Sam Ghandchi
news:47581F4F587A5F0E.38562673...@lp.airnews.net...
...
>The SCI archives are there for anyone to see. I have never
> tried to hide my identity. I've tried to to be as forthright
> as possible.
...
Saman,
You either know who I am talking about and pretend that
I was talking about you, or you do not. If it is the first case,
then I hope your conscience is still clear. But I tend to believe
it is the latter, as I find you to be a very honest believer in
Baha'i Faith, and you believe in something innocent that
you call baha'i Faith that may never have existed, and
certainly does not exist today.
Baha'i Faith is *not* the newest religion. There has
been others like Dianetics and Scientology, and
others after them, although Baha'i leaders may tell you
that they are not "ahl-e ketAb":-)) and their religion
is the last.
Personally I hold no grudges about you. I think you are like
those honest Stalinists and honest Islamists who believed in
some real Communism and real Islam that never was and
never is and may never be. If you care, I suggest you
read a book by Eric Hoffer entitled "True Believers".
I just do not want to discuss Baha'i Faith and its
issues with you. I think the dream of innocence
you have built for yourself and you call it Baha'i
Faith has really nothing to do with the real
Baha'i Faith but I know you are going to tell
me the reverse and it will go on and on ...The
same type of discussion I had with some honest
members of the MKO cult and I am not writing
this as an insult.
I hope you continue your discussion with Juan Cole
and Behdad and Nima others who have more direct
experience and knowledge in this area.
Take Care,
- Sam
nima_...@my-deja.com
You are indeed a forthright, sincere, righteous, sweet and honest
person, and I can personally vouch for it, having met you. Now you know
that I maintain the highest love, admiration and respect for
Baha'u'llah, and if anyone deserves to be universally recognized as a
Manifestation of God, it most certainly is he. Yet the actions of those
who are ostensibly his representatives and believers these days is so
far removed from the ideals he enunciated, that under the weight of
cognitive dissonance and the absence of a real Baha'i civil society, it
has left no choice to some of us but to speak out.
You said:
> The fact remains, and I would like to see Nima or
> Juan to challenge it, that the Baha'i Faith is not
> a cult.
That is not the point, as you well know, and I for one have never called
the Baha'i faith a cult tout court. Notice the duration I have been
in pitched battle with Islamic fundamentalists who have done so. What I
have taken issue with and will characterize as such is the 'current'
*cult-like* behavior and mentality of the Baha'i offiocracy and that of
individuals in the community who blindly and uncritically follow these
*cult-like* policies unquestioningly. Authoritarianism, internal
repression and especially bogus categorizations of thought-crimes by
offiocrats and the arbitrary expulsion of individuals from the religion
for expressing their views in cyberspace at variance with certain
organizational party-lines, and their shunning, branding and systematic,
internal character assassination, is most certainly cult-like behavior
and tactics by any definition. What else can it be called?
> Language is a powerful tool and when those who
> have the gift of articulation use it to gloss over
> ideas of substance, they do a disservice not only
> to themselves but to others. This is especially
> so when venomous words are used to characterize
> the honor of others.
My dear Saman, do you not see the UHJ's April 7th 1999 letter in this
light? Were you not paying attention when offiocrats began their
ideological witch-hunt, inquisition and smeer-campaign of certain
academics, intellectuals and liberals for their expressed views on an
academic email list in 1996: tali...@indiana.edu? Would you not
characterize the behavior of the US NSA, and especially Messrs. Firuz
Kazemzadeh and Robert C. Henderson, at the 1988 Baha'i National
Convention, where the editors of the then Dialogue Magazine were roundly
denounced on the floor of the national convention (and in their absence,
I might add) as covenant breakers for an unpublished article entitled "A
Modest Proposal" which dared to modestly propose minor structural
reforms to the American Baha'i community, as such? Would you not
characterize the libellous letter the Secretary-General of the US NSA,
Robert C. Henderson, wrote about me to the Australian NSA in this light?
Ad nauseum, ad infinitum (where does one stop)! Many people's honor
(including my own) have been most venemously and maliciously attacked by
the Baha'i institutions in the past four-and-a-half years, and it is a
pattern of behavior on their parts that goes back decades. This sort of
consistent behavior by the administration is as far removed from the
ideals of Baha'u'llah and the Baha'i faith as anything can get, so I
submit to you it has absolutely nothing to do with the true Baha'i Faith
in the first place, but rather that of cult-like entrenched power elite
and the unwitting community which credulously believes in their every
whim.
> Over the last 7 years or so, I have tried, in my own
> small way, to defend the name of the Baha'i Faith.
And as the evidence supports, I and others have also done the same, in
our own way.
> I have also tried to defend the name of Islam. The
> SCI archives are there for anyone to see. I have never
> tried to hide my identity. I've tried to to be as forthright
> as possible. I've poked fun at those who deserved it and
> have engaged those who have been civil.
>
> My conscience is clear as I am sure yours is.
My conscience is most definitely clear, and if I were not speaking out,
I doubt I would be able to live with myself.
cheers,
Nima
Saman Ahmadi
Dear Nima,
Thank you for the kinds words. Lets take your points one
at a time in the following order:
1. Cult vs. cultish
I remember in the late seventies in Iran, there was an outbreak of a
disease which resembled cholera. I distinctly remember a cartoon
in "zane rooz" (which my mom bought regularly) of the words
"vabA" and "shebhe vabA" - the punch line read: "they look the
same to me".
My point is that when you, who were born in a Baha'i family and
declare our belief in Baha'u'llah, make such a statement, people
like Sam Ghandchi, who see no value in reading the source material,
do not see a difference between the two. In essence you are making
a distinction without a difference and others who base their views
on the views of prolific posters get the wrong impression of the
Baha'i Faith.
2. "A Modest Proposal"
I was not present at the 1988 U.S. Baha'i National Convention and
have never read "A Modest Proposal" - I *have* read the original
"Modest Proposal" in junior high. It is a famous tongue-in-cheek
essay criticizing British rule in Ireland, if memory serves - it suggests
that England could kill the Irish babies and eat their bodies like
potatoes.
I have also read, ad infinitum, the explanations of the 1988 essay by
the authors, by those who signed it and by their apologists. Stripped
of hyperbole, it was a shot across the bow - a point that was not
lost by the authors, those who signed it and the institutions and
individuals towards whom it was directed.
You may say the essay had merit. I say that while it probably did not
smell of "ghormeh sabzi', for me, the title gave enough of an aroma
of "khoreshe karafs" for me to not want to read it.
3. Talisman
I was on Talisman during most of its first run. I was present when
the list owner determined that a subscriber, who worked at the Baha'i
National Center, violated the list rules by passing along a message
on the forum, regarding "A Modest Proposal", to the National Spiritual
Assembly. Because
there were several subscribers who worked at the National Center
and the list owner did not know who had forwarded the article, he
summarily expelled all the subscribers with email addresses identifying
as working at the National Center. Those who wanted to get back on
the list had to prove their innocence. This included the head of
U.S. Baha'i Research Center who received his degree from the same
Ivy League University as the list owner. What did you think of this
collective
punishment?
Note that by Sam Ghandchi's count, economies of scale and arguments of
apples and oranges do not matter. Because of the ambiance that
has been created on the internet, the only reason that I have not kidnapped
you, murdered your father and raped your sister, is because I am not
in power.
4. As for your dealings with Baha'i Institutions: I have not seen the
letter of which you speak. That is between you and them.
5. The lack of irreverent public criticism of my part should not be
confused with understanding every decision of Baha'i Institutions.
I have chosen to ask my questions and make my suggestions in
manners which I see as appropriate and if Fred thinks that that makes
me a "true, blue Iranian", well then cladden me with turquoise from
Khorasan.
These are, of course, ruminations of a naive Stalinist mind - though for my
money,
I would have rather been compared to Hitler since not only was he Aryan,
he slaughtered only about a third of what Stalin did and could also paint a
little.
-saman
P.S. Did you figured out what we're supposed to do will all this soap?
Sam Ghandchi
Why are you dragging my name every other line in your discussion
with Nima? If you are not interested in polemic and want to discuss
the topic, I wrote Behad, Nima, or Juan Cole, are more knowledgeable
than me to discuss with you, and please focus on the topic rather than
dragging my name. If you are after polemic, go find somebody
else instead of dragging my name.
How did you come up with the words that I have not read the
the source material? elm-e gheib dAri? Why do you lie?
Bye,
- Sam
"Saman Ahmadi" <sa...@ticnet.com> wrote in message
news:94BC5D22B1A076BE.39F95052...@lp.airnews.net...
Saman Ahmadi
Sam Ghandchi wrote:
[deleted]
You want to throw stones and then run away.
Jesus turned his cheek once, he turned his cheek twice. As the former
U.S. Senator from Texas might observe: I, sir, am no Jesus Christ.
I tossed you a slow softball and instead you came at me with your
bush-league aluminum bat.
If you don't like what I'm writing, filter me out.
-saman
nima_...@my-deja.com
For you, this is pretty below the belt, dude. What gives with this sort
of visceral reaction towards Sam?
Moghrez Nabashid!
cheers,
Nima
Sam Ghandchi
I think you know better than nybody else that this is not
a personal issue.
The Baha'i cult is now worse than theCommunist cults that
had hidden themselves under the cloak of opposing the Shah.
Baha'i cult, under the banner of resisting the persecution
of Islamic republic, has created the worst police state
among its members and former members.
I think the ones like Fred Glaysher, who have the guts to
speak up, are not letting the silence to whitewash the
atrocities of the Baha'i cult. I think the ones who have
been inside this cult, and have experienced the terror
have the duty to speak up and say the truth. I admire
you, Fred, Juan Cole and others who are risking your
life and well-being to challenge them.
There was a time that many, who had seen the atrocities
of Communism justified it as a personal case here and
there, and were scared to be called CIA if they exposed the
atrocities of Communism. The moment that they saw it
was a flawed ideology, and started to speak up, that
was the time that Communism finally collapsed.
I think this is the case with Baha'i cult now. If Communism
used the excuse of its enemy, US Imperialism, to justify
its ill-existence, the Baha'is are using the excuse of
Islamic Republic of Iran to justify their police state
inside their organization.
What Marx said or was may have had something to do with
what Communism was and is, and what Bahaollah had
said or was, may have something to do with what
Baha'i Faith was or is today but the issue is not about
textbooks of those founders.
The issue is that the Communism of our times and Bahaism
of our times, whether defended under thick books of Marx
or Bahaullah, makes no difference to the reality, that
they are merely cultish police organizations that are as bad
as their persecutors.
All the Best,
- Sam
<nima_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8fqnph$5cq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
nima_...@my-deja.com
You wrote:
> Thank you for the kinds words.
qaabeli nadaarad :)
>Lets take your points one
> at a time in the following order:
Yes, let's...
> 1. Cult vs. cultish
> I remember in the late seventies in Iran, there was an outbreak of a
> disease which resembled cholera. I distinctly remember a cartoon
> in "zane rooz" (which my mom bought regularly) of the words
> "vabA" and "shebhe vabA" - the punch line read: "they look the
> same to me".
I notice that you haven't actually addressed my initial point and have
thereby resorted to a straw-man completely unrelated to the point in
question. If you check any of the contemporary literature in the social
sciences on NRMs (New Religious Movements), and especially what
definitionally constitutes a "cult" strictly speaking, then, yes, the
current Baha'i Faith community does not fall under its general rubric
(as I've said before -- at least not yet!). However, "cultish" is an
adjective, hence is attributive, and as such describes certain traits
and processes exhibited within and by a given dominant subculture of the
Baha'i community (namely the offiocracy and its defenders, i.e.
fundamentalist Baha'is or the dominant nomenclature of Baha'i
fundamentalism currently prevalent within official organs and channels
of the Baha'i organization) which very much can be predicated as such,
i.e. "cultish."
> My point is that when you, who were born in a Baha'i family and
> declare our belief in Baha'u'llah, make such a statement, people
> like Sam Ghandchi, who see no value in reading the source material,
> do not see a difference between the two.
Another straw-man and a red herring to boot. As Sam himself said, unless
you have knowledge of the unseen (`ilm-e ghayb), how can you make such a
claim? Trust me, Sam has read some of the Baha'i sources and texts, and
knows his Babi/Baha'i history and teachings fairly well for someone who
is not a Baha'i. And as far as I'm concerned, I am here testifying to
the truth, not to demonstrate my solidarity with some bogus party-line,
especially since I am no longer part of the Panopticon system of
self-censorship and doublethink which the Baha'i organization fosters
within its community and among a majority of its flock.
>In essence you are making
> a distinction without a difference and others who base their views
> on the views of prolific posters get the wrong impression of the
> Baha'i Faith.
Well, I made the distinction above and I would encourage you to read the
literature in the social sciences as well. And as far as wrong
impressions go, it has been a consistent policy of the Baha'i
administration to project a liberal and progressive image of itself,
while unbeknownest (until recently) to most of the outside world it has
been anything but. Also, you might wish to take note that it is
prominent Baha'is such as Mr. Firuz Kazemzadeh and the like who are
generating wrong impressions about the Baha'i faith to the world at
large when they publically take sides with the Christian fundamentalists
and far-right Republicans in the US Congress on such manifestly
politically partisan issues as China's most favored nation status; an
action which recently witnessed the public resignation of a now
ex-Baha'i from the Baha'i faith who had spent several years in a
professional capacity fostering good relations between the Chinese
government, society and the Chinese Baha'i community (a community which
perhaps will not be as safe in the PRC anymore, alongside Falon Gong and
other groups, as it once was). Therefore, given this and a host of other
issues, it would stand to reason that it is the Baha'i organization who
is continually generating the bad press for itself, not outsiders nor
its much maligned cyberspace dissidents burned by its authoritarian
praxis.
> 2. "A Modest Proposal"
> I was not present at the 1988 U.S. Baha'i National Convention and
> have never read "A Modest Proposal" - I *have* read the original
> "Modest Proposal" in junior high. It is a famous tongue-in-cheek
> essay criticizing British rule in Ireland, if memory serves - it
>suggests
> that England could kill the Irish babies and eat their bodies like
> potatoes.
>
> I have also read, ad infinitum, the explanations of the 1988 essay by
> the authors, by those who signed it and by their apologists. Stripped
> of hyperbole, it was a shot across the bow - a point that was not
> lost by the authors, those who signed it and the institutions and
> individuals towards whom it was directed.
> You may say the essay had merit. I say that while it probably did not
> smell of "ghormeh sabzi', for me, the title gave enough of an aroma
> of "khoreshe karafs" for me to not want to read it.
Another red herring and straw man. Firstly, "A Modest Proposal" is on at
least two websites at the moment, and in full public view: Fred
Glaysher's and Juan Cole's:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/modest.htm
and
http://www2.h-net.msu.edu/~bahai/docs/vol2/modest.htm
As such IMHO it behooves you to read what it actually says instead of
making such subjectively biased, visceral and red herring-esque
statements such as "...while it probably didn't smell of 'ghormeh
sabzi,' for me, the title gave enough of an aroma of 'khoreshe karafs'
for me not to want to read it." If you haven't even read it, as you
claim, then how are you even able to make such a blanket assertion or
make such sweeping judgements as to the quality of its content or
integrity of its argument??? Also, you might wish to note that "A Modest
Proposal" was passed through the very same process of institutional
review (read: "censorship") that later derailed its publication as well
as that of the magazine it was meant to appear in: Dialogue. The point
that eventually ruffled the feathers of the Baha'i administration and
its whips was not so much the article per se, but the bogus claim
publically put forth by Robert C. Henderson and Firuz Kazemzadeh on the
floor of the convention that the article was distributed to 1988
convention delegates before the convention as a form of negative
campaigning. This was an outright lie, no less, since the only delegates
who had actually seen it and its several drafts were two members of the
Dialogue Magazine editorial board, not the entire body of delegates! You
may wish to peruse Steven Scholl's "Crisis of Faith" letter (the former
editor-in-chief of Dialogue Magazine) which details the whole fiasco:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Scholl.htm
> 3. Talisman
> I was on Talisman during most of its first run. I was present when
> the list owner determined that a subscriber, who worked at the Baha'i
> National Center, violated the list rules by passing along a message
> on the forum, regarding "A Modest Proposal", to the National Spiritual
> Assembly.
In complete contravention of the list rules, I might add.
> Because
> there were several subscribers who worked at the National Center
> and the list owner did not know who had forwarded the article, he
> summarily expelled all the subscribers with email addresses
>identifying
> as working at the National Center.
The perpetrator never did own up, and under the circumstances, I
would've done exactly the same (and probably sooner), given that those
very posts were being used at the time by the US NSA to threaten and
then later impose administrative sanctions (tard-e edari) upon the said
poster for his expressed views on an academic email list. You know who
I'm talking about, Saman, so please don't play "naneh man gharibam"!
You're above this sort of thing.
> Those who wanted to get back on
> the list had to prove their innocence. This included the head of
> U.S. Baha'i Research Center who received his degree from the same
> Ivy League University as the list owner. What did you think of this
> collective punishment?
Again, given the circumstances, and given the threats made and punitive
measures that were about to be taken on the poster whose messages were
being forwarded to Baha'i authorities, John Walbridge (the then
listowner) did the only thing he could do to protect the best interests
of the list and listmembers. I supported his action then, as I do now,
and in fact I have made it quite clear that if anyone should subscribe
to Zuhur19 under false pretenses and procede to forward subscribers'
posts without their expressed permission to Baha'i authorities, and were
the Baha'i authorities to take retaliatory measurers against a
subscriber, the matter then will be between attorneys for egroups and
the Baha'i authorities to deal with. John was most gracious, to say the
very least, in that he *did not* pursue the matter with the provost or
attorneys for Indiana University-Bloomington. I would have. But I have
taken preventive measures with my list (which John should have) in that
I do not approve the subscribtion of any person to begin with whom I
suspect would act disingenuously, especially since all subscriber's
lists and archives are closed (archives are open only to list members).
> Note that by Sam Ghandchi's count, economies of scale and arguments of
> apples and oranges do not matter. Because of the ambiance that
> has been created on the internet, the only reason that I have not
>kidnapped
>
> you, murdered your father and raped your sister, is because I am not
> in power.
Go figure...
> 4. As for your dealings with Baha'i Institutions: I have not seen the
> letter of which you speak. That is between you and them.
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Nima2.htm
> 5. The lack of irreverent public criticism of my part should not be
> confused with understanding every decision of Baha'i Institutions.
> I have chosen to ask my questions and make my suggestions in
> manners which I see as appropriate and if Fred thinks that that makes
> me a "true, blue Iranian", well then cladden me with turquoise from
> Khorasan.
As you may note, I have taken issue with Fred's shennanigans and
publically expressed anti-Iranian sentiments on more than one occasion
now.
<snip>
cheers,
Nima
rlit...@my-deja.com
source is easily and readily demonstrated by simply reading and praying.
These teachings spell out in clear and simple language what our
behavior ought to be, that love of God must be the foundation of a love
which connects us to every single human being on the planet.
I suggest that these teachings are the divine Standard by which we may
judge the behavior of ourselves and others. It is essentially the same
standard revealed by Muhammad, and before Him, by Christ.
You have a personal standard by which you judge others, and I would
hazard a quess that it is essentially similar to that of Baha'u'llah:
you desire to treat others with love and justice, and desire that
others treat you in a like fashion.
Who would you prefer to invite into your home to share a cup of coffee
or tea with, someone whose heart is filled with love for something you
do not believe in, but who is nonetheless commanded to treat you with
courtesy, humility and respect despite your differences, or someone who
would turn on you with a vengeance if they felt it would further their
own personal goals?
By the way, the Baha'is in Iran have obeyed the law of the land, have
not "resisted" the Islamic Republic, with the sole exception of
choosing to be executed rather than disavow their love for Baha'u'llah.
Robert A. Little
In article <BJ6U4.55362$k5.15...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com>,
Saman Ahmadi
nima_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Saman jan,
>
> For you, this is pretty below the belt, dude. What gives with this sort
> of visceral reaction towards Sam?
>
> Moghrez Nabashid!
>
> cheers,
> Nima
I say it was right on the chin - Sam is messing with the wrong
"sag-Baha'i".
-saman
Ron House
>
> Dear Nima,
>
> I think you know better than nybody else that this is not
> a personal issue.
>
> had hidden themselves under the cloak of opposing the Shah.
> Baha'i cult, under the banner of resisting the persecution
> of Islamic republic, has created the worst police state
> among its members and former members.
This is pure rubbish. You might be aware that I have been severely
critical of many of the foolish and intolerant decisions of the UHJ;
however, there is absolutely no comparison of their behaviour to that of
the "Islamic" republic, which has engaged in murder and torture of
innocent people in contravention of the instructions of Muhammad.
> I think the ones like Fred Glaysher, who have the guts to
> speak up, are not letting the silence to whitewash the
> atrocities of the Baha'i cult.
When someone makes insinuations of guilt without the tiniest fragment of
evidence (such as the _totally_ unsubstantiated claim that the Baha'i
administration was involved in the tragic murder of Danial Jordan), then
everything they say becomes suspect; whether I agree with something they
say or not, I cannot trust them because I know they are motivated by
malice, not by a love for the truth. This isn't "speaking out", it's
slander and libel.
> I think the ones who have
> been inside this cult, and have experienced the terror
> have the duty to speak up and say the truth. I admire
> you, Fred, Juan Cole and others who are risking your
> life and well-being to challenge them.
Well I now know whether to consider _you_ honest or malicious. Juan
writes his material from UMich, under the very noses of the ones you
think he is in danger from. Now let's see you pop over to the "Islamic"
republic of Iran and insult the Ayatollah.
--
Ron House ho...@usq.edu.au
http://www.sci.usq.edu.au/staff/house
Goodness trumps ideologies.
nima_...@my-deja.com
>
> I say it was right on the chin - Sam is messing with the wrong
>*** "sag-Baha'i".***
Geez Louise!? A little objectivity is in order. Did Sam call you that or
hurl such pejorative deprecations at you? No. Hello!? Who is
personalizing the discussion now? And why are you implicitly making poor
Sam into some object of derision a la the obnoxious hezbollahi trolls
here? I didn't agree with subtle points of his criticism any more than
you did. But if you wish to address Sam's use of hyperbolic language or
exagerrated criticism, then do that, for pete's sake, instead of this!
cheers,
Nima
Saman Ahmadi
Nimaye man,
Lets take your Thesis, chapter by chapter:
>
>
> I notice that you haven't actually addressed my initial point and have
> thereby resorted to a straw-man completely unrelated to the point in
> question.
You said that the actions of the current membership of the Institutions
of the Baha'i Faith were "cultish". I'll repeat my self: it is a
distinction
without a difference because the word "cult", whatever its dictionary
meaning (I remember Juan saying that a dictionary meaning is not
always useful), has a negative connotation. It is different than, say,
calling a decision of a Republican, Democratic, since no offense
is necessarily intended by the latter adjective.
Again when you, who is knowledgeable about the Baha'i Faith, uses
the term, you confuse the lay reader - Baha'u'llah says that you have
to know your audience.
>
>
> Another straw-man and a red herring to boot. As Sam himself said, unless
> you have knowledge of the unseen (`ilm-e ghayb), how can you make such a
> claim? Trust me, Sam has read some of the Baha'i sources and texts, and
> knows his Babi/Baha'i history and teachings fairly well for someone who
> is not a Baha'i. And as far as I'm concerned, I am here testifying to
> the truth, not to demonstrate my solidarity with some bogus party-line,
> especially since I am no longer part of the Panopticon system of
> self-censorship and doublethink which the Baha'i organization fosters
> within its community and among a majority of its flock.
I said that he sees no value in reading the source material - he may have
read it. When Sam Ghandchi calls the Baha'i Faith a cult, it is obvious
that he sees no merit in Baha'u'llah's writings and bases his judgment of
the religion on the vociferous outbursts of a few. You say the Baha'i
Faith is not a cult - what have you read?
As for ilm-e-ghayb: I plead innocent. ilm-e-ghayb would be if I,
notwithstanding paragraph 107 of the Kitab-i-Aqdas, suggested that
Baha'u'llah envisioned same-sex marriage.
>
>
> >In essence you are making
> > a distinction without a difference and others who base their views
> > on the views of prolific posters get the wrong impression of the
> > Baha'i Faith.
>
> Well, I made the distinction above and I would encourage you to read the
> literature in the social sciences as well. And as far as wrong
> impressions go, it has been a consistent policy of the Baha'i
> administration to project a liberal and progressive image of itself,
> while unbeknownest (until recently) to most of the outside world it has
> been anything but.
I said this before, Baha'u'llah made no characterization of liberal or
conservative or anything else. He was the one who coined the
term "hezbollah", if memory serves - a word that has been stolen
and robbed of its original intent.
It is the idea that all the elements of Western liberal culture can
be juxtaposed on the World of Baha'u'llah which is, in my view,
misplaced.
> Also, you might wish to take note that it is
> prominent Baha'is such as Mr. Firuz Kazemzadeh and the like who are
> generating wrong impressions about the Baha'i faith to the world at
> large when they publically take sides with the Christian fundamentalists
> and far-right Republicans in the US Congress on such manifestly
> politically partisan issues as China's most favored nation status; an
> action which recently witnessed the public resignation of a now
> ex-Baha'i from the Baha'i faith who had spent several years in a
> professional capacity fostering good relations between the Chinese
> government, society and the Chinese Baha'i community (a community which
> perhaps will not be as safe in the PRC anymore, alongside Falon Gong and
> other groups, as it once was). Therefore, given this and a host of other
> issues, it would stand to reason that it is the Baha'i organization who
> is continually generating the bad press for itself, not outsiders nor
> its much maligned cyberspace dissidents burned by its authoritarian
> praxis.
I am not aware of what you describe, I will look into it.
>
>
> Another red herring and straw man.
O.K. - they didn't let us set them on fire during "chArshambe soori",
so there is a lot left over.
> Firstly, "A Modest Proposal" is on at
> least two websites at the moment, and in full public view: Fred
> Glaysher's and Juan Cole's:
>
> http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/modest.htm
>
> and
>
> http://www2.h-net.msu.edu/~bahai/docs/vol2/modest.htm
I think it was Einstein who said that it is stupid to do the same
thing over and over and expect a different result.
>
>
> As such IMHO it behooves you to read what it actually says
Ahem . . . you did not address my point: the title is the equivalent of
a slap in the face. Anyone who doesn't see that, should read
the original by Swift.
> instead of
> making such subjectively biased, visceral and red herring-esque
> statements such as "...while it probably didn't smell of 'ghormeh
> sabzi,' for me, the title gave enough of an aroma of 'khoreshe karafs'
> for me not to want to read it." If you haven't even read it, as you
> claim, then how are you even able to make such a blanket assertion or
> make such sweeping judgements as to the quality of its content or
> integrity of its argument???
Every single point was hashed, rehashed, made into hash browns on
a bi-weekly basis on Talisman for the duration of my subscription.
> Also, you might wish to note that "A Modest
> Proposal" was passed through the very same process of institutional
> review (read: "censorship") that later derailed its publication as well
> as that of the magazine it was meant to appear in: Dialogue. The point
> that eventually ruffled the feathers of the Baha'i administration and
> its whips was not so much the article per se, but the bogus claim
> publically put forth by Robert C. Henderson and Firuz Kazemzadeh on the
> floor of the convention that the article was distributed to 1988
> convention delegates before the convention as a form of negative
> campaigning .This was an outright lie, no less, since the only delegates
> who had actually seen it and its several drafts were two members of the
> Dialogue Magazine editorial board, not the entire body of delegates! You
> may wish to peruse Steven Scholl's "Crisis of Faith" letter (the former
> editor-in-chief of Dialogue Magazine) which details the whole fiasco:
>
> http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Scholl.htm
I think Steve's concerns were addressed in a letter to him from the
Universal House of Justice which outlined the problems with some
the articles of the magazine.
>
>
> > 3. Talisman
> > I was on Talisman during most of its first run. I was present when
> > the list owner determined that a subscriber, who worked at the Baha'i
> > National Center, violated the list rules by passing along a message
> > on the forum, regarding "A Modest Proposal", to the National Spiritual
> > Assembly.
>
> In complete contravention of the list rules, I might add.
Give me a little credit Nima jAn: did I say otherwise?
However, why anyone would think that what they said on the
forum was anything other than public is beyond me.
>
> > Because
> > there were several subscribers who worked at the National Center
> > and the list owner did not know who had forwarded the article, he
> > summarily expelled all the subscribers with email addresses
> >identifying
> > as working at the National Center.
>
> The perpetrator never did own up, and under the circumstances, I
> would've done exactly the same (and probably sooner), given that those
> very posts were being used at the time by the US NSA to threaten and
> then later impose administrative sanctions (tard-e edari) upon the said
> poster for his expressed views on an academic email list. You know who
> I'm talking about, Saman, so please don't play "naneh man gharibam"!
> You're above this sort of thing.
>
The person in question lost his administrative rights, if memory serves,
because his recollection of the events did not jive with the recollection
of the
NSA. When this was pointed out to him and was told to retract his
statement, he did so conditionally "if the NSA is right, then I am wrong".
Upon which the Universal House of Justice left it up to the discretion of
the US NSA to remove his rights. It was not, again if memory serves,
because of his ideas about the administration but disagreement about the
"history".
Now we're delving into personal matters of people who are not present
here. I know that if said nothing, I would be accused of covering up but
I think this line of discussion is inappropriate.
[talking about the list]
> But I have
> taken preventive measures with my list (which John should have) in that
> I do not approve the subscribtion of any person to begin with whom I
> suspect would act disingenuously,
ilm-e-ghayb ham khoob cheezieh ;-)
What happened to a market places of ideas?
> especially since all subscriber's
> lists and archives are closed (archives are open only to list members).
>
> > 4. As for your dealings with Baha'i Institutions: I have not seen the
> > letter of which you speak. That is between you and them.
>
> http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Nima2.htm
You mean Fred hasn't removed you from his website?!!
In all seriousness Nima, what the hell are we doing? I know in my
heart that those who have discovered the love for Baha'u'llah can not
deny it. I would rather be reading the newly translated mystical
works of Baha'u'llah which is due out soon - a suggestion for which
came out of the heights of Talisman. I would have liked to read
"Some Answered Questions" in eloquent English - something which may have
to wait for a few years.
I practically begged the folks on Talisman who felt slighted, some
of whom have since given up their membership, to ask for an
audience with the Universal House of Justice so that maybe
some understanding could be reached. There is something
in meeting others face to face that nothing can replace - you
and I are arguing with words that we would never use if we
were having some tea in a street cafe.
The radical optimist that I am, I still think it's not too late - what
could it hurt. Abdul Baha wrote that peace should be given
a chance and if we don't like it, we can always go back to war.
But, the more time goes by the more difficult it gets. Neither of us
has any doubts about the ultimate fortunes of the Cause of
Baha'u'llah - why should we delay it for the world?
Tell me if there is something that I can do.
-saman
nima_...@my-deja.com
<snip>
I'll reply to yor other points later, since I'm running out the door,
but this one caught my eye...
> In all seriousness Nima, what the hell are we doing?
You don't think I ask myself that question *every* waking moment (and
have been for almost five years now)??
> I know in my
> heart that those who have discovered the love for Baha'u'llah can not
> deny it.
Yes.
<snip>
> I practically begged the folks on Talisman who felt slighted, some
> of whom have since given up their membership, to ask for an
> audience with the Universal House of Justice so that maybe
> some understanding could be reached.
Saman-e aziz-e man, don't you think some of us actually followed through
with this idea, but had it dismissed out of hand, anyway. I did, and
they said as much to me, i.e. that there was no problem to begin with
which needed urgent addressing. Maybe the consensus has shifted since
1996, but summarily expelling people like Alison Marshall only two
months ago would most certainly not lead one to believe it has or
whether it would do any good with the current lot in power. Now if Pat
Kohli, Saman Ahmadi, Ron House or Adelard were to be on the UHJ, then
that would be an entirely different story. I would love nothing more in
the whole world than to stand corrected on this point...been waiting for
five years, in fact.
> There is something
> in meeting others face to face that nothing can replace - you
> and I are arguing with words that we would never use if we
> were having some tea in a street cafe.
Indeed, ditto!
> The radical optimist that I am, I still think it's not too late - what
> could it hurt. Abdul Baha wrote that peace should be given
> a chance and if we don't like it, we can always go back to war.
Tried it; didn't work the last time, but still willing to give it a shot
notwithstanding; if only however the proceedings are conducted with
mutual honor and not some attempt to humiliate one or the other side.
That's the basic ground rule. Peace can only be peace with honor!
> But, the more time goes by the more difficult it gets. Neither of us
> has any doubts about the ultimate fortunes of the Cause of
> Baha'u'llah - why should we delay it for the world?
You're telling me this?!
> Tell me if there is something that I can do.
>
Yes, there is much you and many others can do. Steve Scholl and I both
seperately suggested the idea of a "emergency summit conference" to the
House in 1996, and it was dismissed out of hand back then. Right now on
talisman9 there is a discussion going on between at least two
participants to this effect. If all of you sincere Baha'i in Good
Standing were to petition the House for something like this, then it
might actually transpire and would be the beginning steps towards the
right direction. Obviously these issues, on both sides, are not going to
away unless and until they are one and all addressed in some manner.
Got to run...
nima_...@my-deja.com
>
> Nimaye man,
Saman-e aziz-e man,
> Lets take your Thesis, chapter by chapter:
Let's do...
> You said that the actions of the current membership of the
>Institutions
> of the Baha'i Faith were "cultish". I'll repeat my self: it is a
> distinction
> without a difference because the word "cult", whatever its dictionary
> meaning (I remember Juan saying that a dictionary meaning is not
> always useful), has a negative connotation.
Two things here: 1) I did not invoke a "dictionary" meaning, I said look
at the definitions currently being presented in the literature in the
social sciences on the subject of NRMs (and specifically "cults"). 2)
Negative connotations or not, there are social/cultural phenomenon in
the world that are scientifically categorizable and definable as "cult"
or "cultish" irrespective of what individuals might 'feel' about the
terms being used or what immediate psychological associations are made
thereof.
> It is different than,
>say,
> calling a decision of a Republican, Democratic, since no offense
> is necessarily intended by the latter adjective.
There are a nuances of differences here that you are simply missing from
my intial argument. Without going into a tomic, hair-splitting
discussion, I would refer you to any academic journals dealing with the
sociology of religion on the subject of NRMs and cults.
> Again when you, who is knowledgeable about the Baha'i Faith, uses
> the term, you confuse the lay reader - Baha'u'llah says that you have
> to know your audience.
True. But would it not stand to reason also that it is incumbent upon
Baha'i authorities to also know their audiences before launching into
high profile internal smeer campaigns, character assassinations and
lying?
> I said that he sees no value in reading the source material - he may
>have read it.
Well, he either sees no value in reading the source material, or he may
have read it. If he may have read it, then he must have seen some value
in the source material, otherwise he wouldn't have read it and wouldn't
therefore have seen any value in reading it in the first place. Very
simple logic. I tend to wager on the side that he saw some value in the
Baha'i texts initially but as time went by was not overly impressed with
a) the "Amway" feel of the Baha'i collective, b) the sickening
over-prosletyzing of some Baha'i online and C) the artificiality of the
whole thing. Can't blame him there, I feel exactly the same way.
However, while saying this, I do at the same time take umbrage at such
polemical terms as "Baha'ullahi," since the issues faced are far, far
more complicated than to be reduced to such basic denominators.
> When Sam Ghandchi calls the Baha'i Faith a cult, it is
>obvious
> that he sees no merit in Baha'u'llah's writings and bases his judgment
>of
> the religion on the vociferous outbursts of a few.
Well, based on the vociferous outbursts of another bunch, you have done
nothing to dissuade him, either. In fact, I should say the opposite.
Indeed language is a powerful tool, and instead of blaming the
discontented, the contended should also look and see what realities
and paradigms their own language(-ing) has generated around them.
>You say the Baha'i
> Faith is not a cult - what have you read?
Practically all that's been lithographed and hence published, and then
some...
> As for ilm-e-ghayb: I plead innocent. ilm-e-ghayb would be if I,
> notwithstanding paragraph 107 of the Kitab-i-Aqdas, suggested that
> Baha'u'llah envisioned same-sex marriage.
For the 'enth time, and once again for the record, I plead complete and
total neutrality (one way or the other) on the "same-sex marriages and
the Baha'i faith" issue. Take it up elsewhere.
> I said this before, Baha'u'llah made no characterization of liberal or
> conservative or anything else.
What do you think the Kitab-i-Iqan was all about, then, and what do you
think he's talking about when he speaks of the appearance of Reason
(`aql) amongst men/women? Besides the issues, liberal/conservative, are
far, far more complex than to be reduced to crass Limbaugh-ian
dichotomizations.
> He was the one who coined the
> term "hezbollah", if memory serves - a word that has been stolen
> and robbed of its original intent.
Actually it's a Quranic term, but, yes, Baha'u'llah did also use it in
referring to the early Baha'i community. Robbed of its original intent
and meaning -- that's being nice and putting it mildly!
> It is the idea that all the elements of Western liberal culture can
> be juxtaposed on the World of Baha'u'llah which is, in my view,
> misplaced.
Why?
> I am not aware of what you describe, I will look into it.
Look into the talisman9 logs, it's all in there...
<snip>
> > Firstly, "A Modest Proposal" is on at
> > least two websites at the moment, and in full public view: Fred
> > Glaysher's and Juan Cole's:
> >
> > http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/modest.htm
> >
> > and
> >
> > http://www2.h-net.msu.edu/~bahai/docs/vol2/modest.htm
>
> I think it was Einstein who said that it is stupid to do the same
> thing over and over and expect a different result.
Gee, one could have said the same about the ao, especially after Michael
McKenney's disenrollment...didn't stop them from doing it again.
> Every single point was hashed, rehashed, made into hash browns on
> a bi-weekly basis on Talisman for the duration of my subscription.
And...Didn't you admit you haven't actually read it, so how would know
the difference??
>
> I think Steve's concerns were addressed in a letter to him from the
> Universal House of Justice which outlined the problems with some
> the articles of the magazine.
Yes, and the letter has gone down to posterity as the "Individual Rights
& Freedoms" letter; one of the scariest, Orwellian, unabashedly
authoritarian, anti-democratic documents to emanate from Haifa since its
inception in 1963.
> > In complete contravention of the list rules, I might add.
>
> Give me a little credit Nima jAn: did I say otherwise?
I'm sorry, but I felt you implied it.
> However, why anyone would think that what they said on the
> forum was anything other than public is beyond me.
Even worse. Baba, Saman, kharab kardi! Taking your point above and
leading it to its conclusion, to admit that the cyber-conversations of
talisman-1 somehow consituted thought-crimes because they were public is
to posit a double-standard between private Baha'i and public Baha'i
academic discourse and thereby equating public-criticism or dissent
towards policies with sedition tout court. All authoritarian governments
without exception think this way, Saman jan. Think about it for a
minute. Besides, no one among the liberals was yelling "fire" in a
crowded assembly, in fact if I recall it was the ao who was doing that.
> The person in question lost his administrative rights, if memory
>serves,
> because his recollection of the events did not jive with the
>recollection
> of the
> NSA.
Ditto! They did not jive, because the NSA and particularly its
Secretary-General had lied (period), and when the good gentleman at
first refused to go along with the ao's selective historical revisionism
regarding an incident pertaining to himself, he was first threatened,
then when compelled by the ao's heavy-handed arm-twisting to publically
apologize, he did so (to the changrin of many amongst his friends), but
got his rights taken away by the ao anyhow. So much for contrition (even
when half-hearted)...
> When this was pointed out to him and was told to retract his
> statement, he did so conditionally "if the NSA is right, then I am
>wrong".
Wrong! There was no such talk when he finally apologized publically on
all the points asked by the ao, even though he knew he was now being
pressured to lie as an act of public humiliation.
> Upon which the Universal House of Justice left it up to the discretion
>of
> the US NSA to remove his rights.
Ever heard of the expression someone taking the fall...
>It was not, again if memory serves,
> because of his ideas about the administration but disagreement about
>the
> "history".
Which given it related to himself directly, I am much more willing to
believe him than the ao, having dealt with the ao previously and
subsequently and knowing their modus operandi all too well.
> Now we're delving into personal matters of people who are not present
> here. I know that if said nothing, I would be accused of covering up
>but
> I think this line of discussion is inappropriate.
okey doke ;)
> > But I have
> > taken preventive measures with my list (which John should have) in
that
> > I do not approve the subscribtion of any person to begin with whom I
> > suspect would act disingenuously,
>
> ilm-e-ghayb ham khoob cheezieh ;-)
No, its called taking precautionary measures and asking for bios before
subscribing people, not after. Common sense really.
> What happened to a market places of ideas?
You tell me!? Seems like the ao is not overly enthusiastic about it. Who
was it that proposed letting a hundred flowers bloom in the community
back on talisman-1??
> > > 4. As for your dealings with Baha'i Institutions: I have not seen
the
> > > letter of which you speak. That is between you and them.
> >
> > http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Nima2.htm
>
> You mean Fred hasn't removed you from his website?!!
Who knows what Fred will add or remove these days? I've simply given up
trying to figure him out.
Your other points I addressed in a previous post in this thread.
But sufficeth to say that if you all good people can petition the ao to
intiate the much need processes of reform and reconciliation, I will be
the first person to come running.
Sam Ghandchi
news:8ftlo4$fkr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
...
> > I know in my heart that those who have discovered the love for
Baha'u'llah can not
> > deny it.
>
>
Dear Nima,
The above answer of yours to Saman shows exactly the point
I wrote about cults. See the ex-cult members even unconsciously
go to meeting places of their cult. You are getting dragged to
discussions of parliamentary positions of Baha'u'llah. That
position was common in the intellectual thought of that period
just like human rights is today, and is not anything special
in Baha'u'llah. Even if you go and read Marx's writings, he
supports parliamentary poistion in all his works, especially works
of 1848. But the crux of his ideology, as early as Communist
Manifesto of the same period, is against parliamentary system.
And I would say that it is the same with Baha'i Faith. The
elements of what you see now in your UHJ, has been in the original
thought, and as you drop your association with it, you will able to
truly see it and criticize it. I believe you are still criticizing it while
feeling within it, but I think people like you, Fred, and Juan Cole,
once truly throwing the shackles of Baha'i ideology,
will finally be the ones, who can truly criticize this ideology,
the same way that ones like Leszek Kolakowski were
the ones who had come from within the Marxist tradition,
but were able to get out of it, and criticize it from outside.
This is how Kolakowski approached Karl Popper and Daniel
Bell. But all along the way, Bertrand Russell and Karl Popper
who were always outside Marxism saw its falws a lot
better than the ones who tried to get out it.
Best Regards,
- Sam
Sam Ghandchi
The ones who I have never had a conversation with are added to my
Message Filter without a response. In your case, I am going to
make an exception and I would like to ask everyone to read
your post because it shows the Baha'i deceit at its highest,
especially your last paragraph shows how Baha'i cult attacks
anyone who disagrees with them. In my case, I have spoken
against the Shah and Khomeini when your cult was trying hard
to be accepted by them and I have risked my life condemning
the Baha'i persecution in Iran when you Baha'i organization
men in the U.S. were sitting in your laurels trying to see
what U.S. president will do for you. You are the mendacious
and malicious in all your practices and I have no respect
for any of you. So go to hell.
- Sam
"Ron House" <ho...@usq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:3921EA46...@usq.edu.au...
Saman Ahmadi
>
>
> Yes, there is much you and many others can do. Steve Scholl and I both
> seperately suggested the idea of a "emergency summit conference" to the
> House in 1996, and it was dismissed out of hand back then.
Can I see the letter that you wrote?
-saman
Sam Ghandchi
news:8ftb7u$3kq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>
> >
> > I say it was right on the chin - Sam is messing with the wrong
> >*** "sag-Baha'i".***
>
>
>
> Geez Louise!? A little objectivity is in order. Did Sam call you that or
> hurl such pejorative deprecations at you? No. Hello!? Who is
> personalizing the discussion now? And why are you implicitly making poor
> Sam into some object of derision a la the obnoxious hezbollahi trolls
> here? I didn't agree with subtle points of his criticism any more than
> you did. But if you wish to address Sam's use of hyperbolic language or
> exagerrated criticism, then do that, for pete's sake, instead of this!
>
Dear Nima,
Why are you bending in your conversation with these so-called
objective Baha'i cult *org* men. The difference between these
guys and the rest of the rest of the *org* men is like the
difference of Tarogh-Aziz and Saddam Hossein. They are
both *org* men, but one is a soft diplomat and the other
is the tough military guy. They are *not*independent
professors that they pretend to be. They are *org* men and are
here to support and save that *organization*, which is nothing
more than a cult. This is why I say this cult uses *deceit*.
Best Regards,
- Sam
Saman Ahmadi
nima_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> I said that he sees no value in reading the source material - he may
> >have read it.
>
> Well, he either sees no value in reading the source material, or he may
> have read it. If he may have read it, then he must have seen some value
> in the source material, otherwise he wouldn't have read it and wouldn't
> therefore have seen any value in reading it in the first place. Very
> simple logic.
Alright may be I was vague - what I meant is that if I read a book of
Baha'u'llah and then, in rebutting a Baha'i, called the Baha'i Faith
a cult, it sure does seem that I was not convinced by Baha'u'llah. When
I say it is idealistic and in practice something else, and I contribute to
the SCI on a regular basis
thoughtfully, someone who has not read the anything of Baha'u'llah
might see my conclusion as "truth" and not read the source material.
> I tend to wager on the side that he saw some value in the
> Baha'i texts initially but as time went by was not overly impressed with
> a) the "Amway" feel of the Baha'i collective, b) the sickening
> over-prosletyzing of some Baha'i online and C) the artificiality of the
> whole thing. Can't blame him there, I feel exactly the same way.
> However, while saying this, I do at the same time take umbrage at such
> polemical terms as "Baha'ullahi," since the issues faced are far, far
> more complicated than to be reduced to such basic denominators.
>
That is the pejorative that set me off and I gave Sam an oppurtunity
to retract it. Now he is onto a diatribe regarding how far
Communism and the Baha'i Faith have astrayed - implying that
originally they had equal merit?
It always amazed me how many books you read and it seems that
you can type just as fast - I think our differring positions are
clear at this point.
-saman
Mehrdad Mohseni
that all other organized religions such as Islam, Judaism,
Christianity or Buddhism. It sole purpose is to allow the domination
of masses by a selected few (Doesn't this remind you of Communism).
It is humorous to see that the so called believers arguing which
religion is full of deceit, and which one is ordained by god.
On Wed, 17 May 2000 14:53:15 GMT, "Sam Ghandchi" <ghan...@home.com>
wrote:
Sam Ghandchi
if anybody calls himself/herself baha'i but does
not carry membership in its org (as we know
they even have membership ID cards),
then i would say they are just baha'i in faith
but not an *org* member. the same way i think
if a muslim is not a member of various hezbollAhi
various, their faith is just a private matter for them.
I would say the same about communists. but if one
is a member of a communist organization,
which from the time of Communist Manifesto was
dedicated to statism and the implementation of
a state-owned economy and negating democratic
institutions, then i would not consider it just a simple
issue of personal faith and would differentiate it
from someone who just calls himself/herself as a
Christain or a Muslim with no affiliation with
any org.
- Sam
nima_...@my-deja.com
> Can I see the letter that you wrote?
>
Sure. Give me a few days to dig it up and the response.
patric...@bigfoot.com
I believe you are still criticizing it while
> feeling within it, but I think people like you, Fred, and Juan Cole,
> once truly throwing the shackles of Baha'i ideology,
> will finally be the ones, who can truly criticize this ideology,
> the same way that ones like Leszek Kolakowski were
> the ones who had come from within the Marxist tradition,
> but were able to get out of it, and criticize it from outside.
Kolakowski - one of my heros, along with Sidney Hook,
Robert Conquest, and many others.... I wrote a review
of Kolakowski's Religion many long years ago....
--
Frederick Glaysher
www.fglaysher.com
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
Sam Ghandchi
<patric...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:si8ll0...@corp.supernews.com...
If you like Kolakowski's book on "Religion", you may also find
Daniel Bell's article about the Realm of Sacred in his
collection entitled "The Winding Passage" of interest.
Also among authors who refer to their own thoughts, as religious,
rather than philosophical, I have found Krishnamurti and his
book entitled "Think on Those Things" a very worthwhile reading.
A friend of mine "Jack Li" who passed away a few years ago had
known him personally had also told me a lot about him and said
of him that he worked hard not to allow any cult to be created
around him, although even from childhood some had tried
to elevate him to the status of a prophet.
Frederick Glaysher
I have read a number of works by the authors you
mention, a few more than twenty-five years ago, and have
a high regard for Daniel Bell's works though I feel he's
limited by the prevailing mindset of modernism.
I believe Baha'u'llah is the Prophet of God for mankind in
this day and age. He Himself laid the foundation for the
Universal House of Justice, hampered though it is by the
loss of the Guardian. I trust that, in the long run of history,
He will not leave his institution to itself but will lead it
back, through perhaps the compelling Vision of his Writings
and the devoted consciences of his followers, to its humble
and balanced role as his legislative body.
I have never repudiated my belief in Baha'u'llah nor the
legitimacy of his institutions. That some benighted individual
Bahais have temporarily distorted the Bahai Faith into a hideous
form of fanaticism and fundamentalism does not negate the Truth
of his Revelation and its saving grace for this nihilistic desert.
http://www.fglaysher.com/LettersAmD1989-1994.htm
Frederick Glaysher
www.fglaysher.com
Adelard R
iranians and many people from my homeland. they all fail to recognize that
religions have their place in history and are essence of our world
civilizations.Who else if not Muhamad ,could change the heart and ignorance
of those who buried their daughters alive as to became Spiritual giants
whose scientific knowledge was far away in advance than that of others who
were not able to know the religion of Muhamad? Where are the names of those
people of knowledge , philosophers, ect , Scientists who were in time of
Muhamad? Had not their names been eclipsed
with time or their non-senses theories replaced by new ones?
With all due respect ,I invite Sam to have a scholary inderstanding of
Major religions like Christianity ,Islam,
Bahai faith,Buddhism, ect . A religion is like an organic body.Religion goes
through many steps , from its birth to puberty, from adolescance to
maturity.
And to be clear , those are believers who go through all those steps, not
the revelation of Baha'u'llah , for example.Let say that you are child of 10
years old , and your parents provide you a knife to use it for making
yourself some food . That knife can be used to cut some vegetables or you
can use it to hurt yourself. So religion is like a knife. And you should
understand that the child after reaching maturity will know how to use it .
So,Sam and Many people who share his views have failed to understand the
positive side of "knife" and much less the spiritual journey of the child
to maturity. They need to learn that man-made ideologies disapear with time,
only the Manifestation of God's teachings continue affecting the soul of
humakind.
I should point out to Sam to know that many people of good will like
Marx ,Krishnamurti ect,felt the need
for change to the society they lived in or understood the problems of the
world , but failed to prescribe a medecine for the sickness affecting
humanity.
But look Baha'u'llah's revelation how universal is his teachings, look
his all-embrassing new world order which will soon or later be the refuge of
humankind, look how his message transforms many of his followers as to
become the most loving people you have ever seen and the lovers of all
humankind.
In conclusion,I spent most of life time reading about ideologies,
philosophies ,religions ect ,but
I have never seen anything like this revelation of Baha'u'llah.It just
speaks to your heart.
I thing,in brief ,that is why he is called a Manifestation of God.
And this is an advise for Sam: Meditate and understand the positive side
of "a knife". That will give you a fresh understanding of religions and
their positive impact to the world throughout history.
Adelard R
Adelard....@unisys.com
Sam Ghandchi wrote in message ...
Sam Ghandchi
news:8gat9...@enews3.newsguy.com...
...
> But look Baha'u'llah's revelation how universal is his teachings,
look
> his all-embrassing new world order which will soon or later be the refuge
of
> humankind, look how his message transforms many of his followers as to
> become the most loving people you have ever seen and the lovers of all
> humankind.
>
Oh no, if what Baha'u'llah has achieved are the posters on this thread,
which you claim are the most loving people you have ever seen ,
then I do not wish this "love" and "loving" people, not even on my enemies.
Bye,
- Sam
P.S. As far as Baha'u'llah, even the critics like Fred and Nima, who
posted on this thread, are still under the influence of the cult teachings,
and they elevate Baha'u'llah to a status, in moral teachings, that I
certainly
do not think he deserves. He is not much different from many of
the more liberal Islamic leaders of his time.
But the above is beside the issue at hand, and this is why I do not
respond to Fred and Nima much on this topic. Also I think
demystifying the point of reverence of a cult they have left is
something for them to do for themselves by doing more and more
objective research.
The ex-followers of many other cults, even years after leaving the
cult, still for decades, had a hard time to look at their point of reverence
objectively, although they had left the cult organizationally, they
would still use literature that are so-called objective, but are
written to confirm the belief of the followers. In this case,
Henri Corbin is such quasi-objective literature repeatedly
noted by the cult.
Also as far as I am concerned, the development of Baha'i
religion, as a religion, is more important than whether
some individuals leave it or it. So in this light, I think the
reformers like Fred, Nima, and Juan Cole have a much
more significant role, even in their current outlook,
as they are the ones who can have a major impact on
transforming this obsolete Baha'i organization. They are
the Khatami's of Baha'i Faith.
But personally I cannot be of much value in those areas.
For me, Baha'u'llah is not much more moral than Marx,
and frankly I am not interested in either one, if I am
looking for a spiritual inspiration. Marx was a great
contributor to economic and social sciences but as
a founder of Communist Religion did not do any better
than other religions. Also Baha'u'llah may have been a
a great critic of Islamic fundamentalism, but as a founder
of a Baha'i religion did not do any better than other
similar religions. If I am looking for a source for
spiritual and inspirational writing, I would prefer to
read someone like Krishnamurti than Baha'u'llah
or Marx.
But I would definitely say to give justice, even being
against Marxist cults, I still do not negate the importance
of Marx's studies in areas of economic and social sciences, but
by no way would I adhere to their elevating Marx to
the infallible status. Marx is as guilty of promoting the
idea of "dictatorship of the proletariat" as Lenin and
Stalin, although in his time, that part of his teaching
did not have any applicable historical event like
the Russian Revolotion. At its best, it was a short-lived
Paris Commune. If Marx was alive during the Russian
Revolution, I have no doubt, he would take the side
of Lenin and "dictatorship of the proletariat" and
the current Marxist Humanists would have been
surprised how they are justifying that part of
Marx's teaching which is in his writing of the period
of Paris Commune, Critique of the Gotha Program,
and even in Communsit Manifesto (I have already
written on this topic at length, and there are enough
sources on the topic, including Kolakowski, if
one wants to read it and this is why I am not responding
much on this discussion either as I see the defenders
are more interested in saving a point of reverence
than real objective study of the theory).
I think the same about Baha'u'llah and the current
Baha'i reformers, as they try to justify the side of his
teachings which would end up with the current
Baha'i organization. Let's not forget that Baha'u'llah
confirmed all the teachings of Islam and Shia and
just like them, the politico-religious organization of these
teachings has proven not to be so moderate and
liberal.
BTW, I am not going to discuss back and forth on many
of these issues, and this does not mean I agree with
the ones who post. It is simply because I have already
said my view and I am tired of repeating mself.
Especially when my point is misreprested by
the ones who make strawman to hit, it is a headache
but I just stop reading it.
Saman Ahmadi
Sam Ghandchi wrote:
[deletions]
Have you given any thoughts to reprising the role
of Lt. Columbo . . . turning to leave, "there is
just one more thing . . . "
For someone who does not want to talk about
a cetain subject, you've got a lot to say.
- rafeegh Ahmadi
Saman Ahmadi
Ron House wrote:
>
> That article by Sam was wonderful. Full of incisive analysis - not that
> I agree with most of it, but it certainly could form the basis of an
> in-depth discussion. I for one would like to see more such articles. And
> Columbo always got his man, remember!
Touche - but why is it that Sam doesn't want to talk about the
subject?
-saman
Ron House
That article by Sam was wonderful. Full of incisive analysis - not that
I agree with most of it, but it certainly could form the basis of an
in-depth discussion. I for one would like to see more such articles. And
Columbo always got his man, remember!
--
Adelard R
>Oh no, if what Baha'u'llah has achieved are the posters on this thread,
>which you claim are the most loving people you have ever seen ,
>then I do not wish this "love" and "loving" people, not even on my enemies.
If you don't wish universal love, which love do you wish? Universal love
is the foundation of all moral or spiritual virtues a Human being can reach.
>P.S. As far as Baha'u'llah, even the critics like Fred and Nima, who
>posted on this thread, are still under the influence of the cult
teachings,
>and they elevate Baha'u'llah to a status, in moral teachings, that I
>certainly
>do not think he deserves.
What you call cult teachings can be viewed by someone else as they aren't .
Your saying doesn't provide any proof. We are all the products of
environment of where we grew up,with different beliefs.In fact we don't know
the truth. What we know is the truth we grew up with . That is why it is
very important to recognize the Manifestation of God in his Day and he is
the only one who has that truth. Sam is missing an important point.
He is not much different from many of
>the more liberal Islamic leaders of his time.
You really need to deepen yourself in the fundamental verities of the Bahai
faith.
>But the above is beside the issue at hand, and this is why I do not
>respond to Fred and Nima much on this topic. Also I think
>demystifying the point of reverence of a cult they have left is
>something for them to do for themselves by doing more and more
>objective research.
I am sure they all did ,and they are still here . When you have grasped the
truth of this faith, you can't leave.
You may be weak but you will always come back or still remember this faith.
There is not where to go , that is the power of this faith.
>The ex-followers of many other cults, even years after leaving the
>cult, still for decades, had a hard time to look at their point of
reverence
>objectively, although they had left the cult organizationally, they
>would still use literature that are so-called objective, but are
>written to confirm the belief of the followers. In this case,
>Henri Corbin is such quasi-objective literature repeatedly
>noted by the cult.
I think here you are right , but The Bahai faith is not at any rate a Cult,
may be according to your and your personal definition of it
>Also as far as I am concerned, the development of Baha'i
>religion, as a religion, is more important than whether
>some individuals leave it or it. So in this light, I think the
>reformers like Fred, Nima, and Juan Cole have a much
>more significant role, even in their current outlook,
>as they are the ones who can have a major impact on
>transforming this obsolete Baha'i organization. They are
>the Khatami's of Baha'i Faith.
Oh,no the Khatami of The Bahai faith are all bahais of Bahai community.Don't
you know that Baha'u'llah took away the power from leaders and gave it to
people . We do elect our Leaders every year.The power belongs
to people .It is them who elect their leaders . And not one individual can
take decision. Our decisions are made in Commitees , using the art of
Consultation .
What Fred ,Nima, Juan are doing is not right.They have such kind of
self-proclaimed liberal leadership behavior. This is a kind of
fundamentalism behavior in disguise, because they think they know the
truth.They don't know what they consider to be truth ,may be viewed by
someone else as not truth or a part of truth.
Baha'u'llah knew that all people can't reach same conclusion about the
truth, so he created the Covenant to unite us and went ahead abolishing
mullahood and priesthood in order that believers can speak freely in their
meetings and share ideas , using the art of consultation. At last Believers
can voice their concern ,but why do these people continue to act that way?
They should know that as Bahais , we do have something other religions or
any today political organisation don't have. Every 19 days, all bahai are
called to gather together and discuss the issues of their community.
Do you know any religion or an american citizen who attends regulary in a
meeting like that , to voice his concern about the issue of the community he
lives in?
Do you know Believers of any religion which elects its leaders every year or
five years to work on the issue of the community? Does Krishnamulti had
such thing in mind. Be fair and objective with yourself when investigating
the revelation of Baha'u'llah. They are a lot of jewels in it . You just
need to deepen yourself and you will find them.
>But personally I cannot be of much value in those areas.
>For me, Baha'u'llah is not much more moral than Marx,
>and frankly I am not interested in either one
If you are not interested , your future great children will be interested ,
if not the world will perish. The future of manking lies on implementing a
kind of same vision of "new world order" that Baha'u'llah created.
I
, if I am
>looking for a spiritual inspiration.
You can't be a true spiritual believer without acknowleging the universal
teachings of the Bahai faith and implementing them in the world. In this age
, we are all connected , and affected by whole world and what is happening.
We are not alone any more like the old age,now the world is like one body.
So you can't be spiritual without all world being spiritual. That is where
the universal teachings of Baha'u'llah and his "new world order" come to
play.
Marx was a great
>contributor to economic and social sciences but as
>a founder of Communist Religion did not do any better
>than other religions. Also Baha'u'llah may have been a
>a great critic of Islamic fundamentalism, but as a founder
>of a Baha'i religion did not do any better than other
>similar religions. If I am looking for a source for
>spiritual and inspirational writing, I would prefer to
>read someone like Krishnamurti than Baha'u'llah
>or Marx.
The true spiritual and inspirational life is based on "new world order" or
implementing the universal teachings of Baha'u'llah and if you read
Krishnamurti's wisdom , there is not where you can find saying on new world
order or mentioning universal teachings of Bahai faith. Remember this is a
day of telecommunication , we are all connected and we seem to be one like
one body . if something happens in different continent , we can be affected
easily. this truth will be more felt in future to come and this is where may
be you may understand the reason behind the universal teachings of
baha'u'llah.They do uplift the soul and give you a really sense of how
the whole world may realise its true eternal spiritual destiny.
>I think the same about Baha'u'llah and the current
>Baha'i reformers, as they try to justify the side of his
>teachings which would end up with the current
>Baha'i organization. Let's not forget that Baha'u'llah
>confirmed all the teachings of Islam and Shia
Confirmed all of the teachings of Islam and Shia !!!! Are you right of what
you said?
and
>just like them, the politico-religious organization of these
>teachings has proven not to be so moderate and
>liberal.
According to you maybe. It depend of someone's view . I see it as a mercy
from Allah to humanity.
Do you remember when you was a youth and thought your parents were wrong on
some issues
, but when you just grew up and became mature you began to understand that
your parent were right. It just takes time to understand the laws of God
sometimes.
>BTW, I am not going to discuss back and forth on many
>of these issues, and this does not mean I agree with
>the ones who post. It is simply because I have already
>said my view and I am tired of repeating mself.
>Especially when my point is misreprested by
>the ones who make strawman to hit, it is a headache
>but I just stop reading it.
But I hope you are reading mine though :-)
Adelard R
Adelard....@unisys.com
Ian McCarthy
Nima Hazini <lotu...@wxc.com.au> wrote in message
news:8g7jfe$bj$1...@gnamma.connect.com.au...
>
> Ditto! But you're talking about a phenomenon that is not all that
clear-cut
> vis-a-vis pristine Marxism, either. Show me where Marx presupposed the
> vanguard party, etc, that Lenin innovated in "What is to be Done?" & "The
> State and Revolution" as what Marx intended by "dictatorship of the
> proletariat." And the Gotha program or even the Communist Manifesto is far
> from the aberrant totalitarian monstrosity which Lenin's program
necessarily
> made Marxism out to be.
Hi Nima, you seem to have a soft spot for Marx (as well as for Baha'u'llah)!
But Mikhail Bakunin correctly predicted _even before 1870_ that Marx's
prescriptions would only lead to an aberrant totalitarian monstrosity:
*You can see quite well that behind all the democratic and socialistic
phrases and promises of Marx's programme, there is to be found in his State
all that constitutes the true despotic and brutal nature of all States,
whatever may be the form of their government and that in the final
reckoning, the People's State so strongly commended by Marx, and the
aristocratic-monarchic State, maintained with as much cleverness as power by
Bismarck, are completely identical by the nature of their objective at home
as well as in foreign affairs.
[...]
*The masses, without distinction of degree of culture, religious beliefs,
country and speech, had understood the language of the International when it
spoke to them of their poverty, their sufferings and their slavery under the
yoke of Capitalism and exploiting private ownership; they understood it when
it demonstrated to them the necessity of uniting their efforts in a great
solid, common struggle. But here they were being talked to about a very
learned and above all very authoritarian political programme, which, in the
name of their own salvation, was attempting, in that very International
which was to organise their emancipation by their own efforts, to impose on
them a dictatorial government, provisional, no doubt, but, meanwhile,
completely arbitrary and directed by a head extraordinarily filled with
brains.
*Marx's programme is a complete fabric of political and economic
institutions strongly centralised and very authoritarian, sanctioned, no
doubt, like all despotic institutions in modern society, by universal
suffrage, but subordinate nevertheless to a very strong government; to use
the very words of Engels, the alter ego of Marx, the confidant of the
legislator.
*To what a degree of madness would not one have to be driven by ambition, or
vanity, or both at once, to have been capable of conceiving the hope that
one could retain the working masses of the different countries of Europe and
America under the flag of the International on these conditions!
*A universal State, government, dictatorship! The dream of Popes Gregory VII
and Boniface VIII, of the Emperor Charles V, and of Napoleon, reproducing
itself under new forms, but always with the same pretensions in the camp of
Socialist Democracy! Can one imagine anything more burlesque, but also
anything more revolting?
*To maintain that one group of individuals, even the most intelligent and
the best intentioned, are capable of becoming the thought, the soul, the
guiding and unifying will of the revolutionary movement [Ian: read
*humanity*] and of the economic organisation of the proletariat [Ian: read
*people*] in all countries is such a heresy against common sense, and
against the experience of history, that one asks oneself with astonishment
how a man as intelligent as Marx [Ian: read *Baha'u'llah*?] could have
conceived it.
*The Popes had at least for an excuse the absolute truth which they claimed
rested in their hands by the grace of the Holy Spirit and in which they were
supposed to believe. Marx has not this excuse, and I shall, not insult him
by thinking that he believes himself to have scientifically invented
something which approaches absolute truth. But from the moment that the
absolute does not exist, there cannot be any infallible dogma for the
International, [.. Baha'i Faith..?] nor consequently any official political
and economic theory, and our Congresses must never claim the role of General
Church Councils, proclaiming obligatory principles for all adherents and
believers. [...]
*We do not understand that anyone could speak of international solidarity
when they want to keep States--unless they are dreaming of the Universal
State, that is to say, universal slavery like the great Emperors and
Popes--the State by its very nature being a rupture of this solidarity and
consequently a permanent cause of war. Neither do we understand how anybody
could speak of the freedom of the proletariat or of the real deliverance of
the masses in the State and by the State. State means domination, and all
domination presupposes the subjection of the masses and consequently their
exploitation to the profit of some minority or other. [Wow!]
*We do not admit, even as a revolutionary transition, either National
Conventions, or Constituent Assemblies, or so-called revolutionary
dictatorships; because we are convinced that the revolutionary is only
sincere, honest and real in the masses, and that when it is concentrated in
the hands of some governing individuals, it naturally and inevitably becomes
reaction. [Wow! - Enantropia!]
*The Marxians profess quite contrary ideas. As befits good Germans, they are
worshipers of the power of the State, and necessarily also the prophets of
political and social discipline, the champions of order established from
above downwards, always in the name of universal suffrage and the
sovereignty of the masses, to whom they reserve the happiness and honour of
obeying chiefs, elected masters.*
And all this [except my interjections] was written some time between 1867
and 1872! For more (much more!), see
http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/bakunin/marxnfree.html
And wasn't 1844 important for the Baha'i Faith too?
> Nima: But what exactly is it in the "original [Baha'i theory]" that is
> flawed precisely. As far as Baha'u'llah himself is concerned, the jury is
> still out on this one.
One thing at least, the totalitarian dream, the ideal of uniformity, what
William Blake called *Single Vision*:
*The first duty prescribed by God for His servants is the recognition of Him
Who is the Dayspring of His Revelation and the Fountain of His laws, Who
representeth the Godhead in both the Kingdom of His Cause and the world of
creation. Whoso achieveth this duty hath attained unto all good; and whoso
is deprived thereof hath gone astray, though he be the author of every
righteous deed. It behoveth every one who reacheth this most sublime
station, this summit of transcendent glory, to observe every ordinance of
Him Who is the Desire of the world. These twin duties are inseparable.
Neither is acceptable without the other. Thus hath it been decreed by Him
Who is the Source of Divine inspiration.* (Baha'u'llah, Kitab-i-Aqdas, 1.)
No pluralism there, not even the possibility of pluralism. Either you get it
or you don't. If you get it, you are SAVED, but if you don't, you've gone
astray. You are LOST. Even though you might be the author of every righteous
deed! That's chilling. There is no room for anyone to choose a different
path, to follow a different teacher, to reach enlightenment, find meaning,
or discover the Will of God in some other way. Can you have more of a
totalitarian vision than that? (And just in case anyone gets the wrong idea,
I'll add that it's almost as bad as some parts of the Koran and the Jewish
Scriptures).
Paraphrasing Bakunin: To what a degree of madness would not one have to be
driven by [ambition, or vanity - no that's too hard, how about: inspiration
or zeal?-] or both at once, to have been capable of conceiving the hope that
one could [unite the world] on these conditions!
Ian
>
Sam Ghandchi
thought State was going away. The former thought it immediate
and, the latter thought it would happen after a certian transition
period. Thus they both did not bother to contemplate on
*developing* the state as they thought this was a doomed
institution which was supposed to vanish. But in reality
they ended up below what the liberal theoreticians, such as
John Locke had already acheived, i,e. concepts such
as separation of power, checks and balances, etc.
More on the topic:
Anarchism
http://www.egroups.com/group/iranscope/294.html?
Marxist Thought & Monism
http://www.egroups.com/group/iranscope/304.html?\
Pluralism in the Western Thought
http://www.egroups.com/group/iranscope/305.html?
Regards,
- Sam Ghandchi
"Ian McCarthy" <ij.mc...@dtn.ntl.com> wrote in message
news:Q6YX4.970$si6....@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Ian McCarthy
> Actually both Bakunin and Marx had the same error. They both
> thought State was going away. The former thought it immediate
> and, the latter thought it would happen after a certian transition
> period. Thus they both did not bother to contemplate on
> *developing* the state as they thought this was a doomed
> institution which was supposed to vanish. But in reality
> they ended up below what the liberal theoreticians, such as
> John Locke had already acheived, i,e. concepts such
> as separation of power, checks and balances, etc.
> More on the topic:
I agree with you. As you said in one of your essays:
>I am saying that sweeping negations are good for a while. Just as the
adolescence is a necessary part of development. But if one stops in
that stage, i.e. negating for the sake of negating (total skepticism),
then it can develop into a disease which destroys a perspective that is
necessary to see the achievements of humanity in all realms of life.<
So Bakunin is useful as a perceptive critic of Marx, and also of traditional
theism. In this respect, see *God and the State*
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/bakunin/godandstate/godandstat
e_ch1.html in which he says:
*God being everything, the real world and man are nothing. God being truth,
justice, goodness, beauty, power, and life, man is falsehood, iniquity,
evil, ugliness, impotence, and death. God being master, man is the slave.
Incapable of finding justice, truth, and eternal life by his own effort, he
can attain them only through a divine revelation. But whoever says
revelation says revealers, messiahs, prophets, priests, and legislators
inspired by God himself; and these, once recognized as the representatives
of divinity on earth, as the holy instructors of humanity, chosen by God
himself to direct it in the path of salvation, necessarily exercise absolute
power. All men owe them passive and unlimited obedience; for against the
divine reason there is no human reason, and against the justice of God no
terrestrial justice holds. [...]
*With all due respect, then, to the metaphysicians and religious idealists,
philosophers, politicians, or poets: The idea of God implies the abdication
of human reason and justice; it is the most decisive negation of human
liberty, and necessarily ends in the enslavement of mankind, both in theory
and practice.
*Unless, then, we desire the enslavement and degradation of mankind, as the
Jesuits desire it, as the mômiers, pietists, or Protestant Methodists desire
it, we may not, must not make the slightest concession either to the God of
theology or to the God of metaphysics. He who, in this mystical alphabet,
begins with A will inevitably end with Z; he who desires to worship God must
harbor no childish illusions about the matter, but bravely renounce his
liberty and humanity.
*If God is, man is a slave; now, man can and must be free; then, God does
not exist.
*I defy anyone whomsoever to avoid this circle; now, therefore, let all
choose.
* Is it necessary to point out to what extent and in what manner religions
debase and corrupt the people? They destroy their reason, the principal
instrument of human emancipation, and reduce them to imbecility, the
essential condition of their slavery. They dishonor human labor, and make it
a sign and source of servitude. They kill the idea and sentiment of human
justice, ever tipping the balance to the side of triumphant knaves,
privileged objects of divine indulgence. They kill human pride and dignity,
protecting only the cringing and humble. They stifle in the heart of nations
every feeling of human fraternity, filling it with divine cruelty instead.
* All religions are cruel, all founded on blood; for all rest principally on
the idea of sacrifice - that is, on the perpetual immolation of humanity to
the insatiable vengeance of divinity. In this bloody mystery man is always
the victim, and the priest - a man also, but a man privileged by grace - is
the divine executioner. That explains why the priests of all religions, the
best, the most humane, the gentlest, almost always have at the bottom of
their hearts - and, if not in their hearts, in their imaginations, in their
minds (and we know the fearful influence of either on the hearts of men) -
something cruel and sanguinary.
* [...Our illustrious contemporary idealists....] wish God, and they wish
humanity. They persist in connecting two terms which, once separated, can
come together again only to destroy each other. They say in a single breath:
"God and the liberty of man," "God and the dignity, justice, equality,
fraternity, prosperity of men" - regardless of the fatal logic by virtue of
which, if God exists, all these things are condemned to non-existence. For,
if God is, he is necessarily the eternal, supreme, absolute master, and, if
such a master exists, man is a slave; now, if he is a slave, neither
justice, nor equality, nor fraternity, nor prosperity are possible for him.
In vain, flying in the face of good sense and all the teachings of history,
do they represent their God as animated by the tenderest love of human
liberty: a master, whoever he may be and however liberal he may desire to
show himself, remains none the less always a master. His existence
necessarily implies the slavery of all that is beneath him. Therefore, if
God existed, only in one way could he serve human liberty - by ceasing to
exist.
* A jealous lover of human liberty, and deeming it the absolute condition of
all that we admire and respect in humanity, I reverse the phrase of
Voltaire, and say that, if God really existed, it would be necessary to
abolish him.*
(Mikhail Bakunin, 1814-1876, *God and the State*, published in 1910)
Now I am not saying that I agree with Bakunin, and in fact, as a
contemporary idealist, (though not an illustrious one) my endeavor is to
find a convincing way to reply to him. But first this means acknowledging
the cogency of his critique. I think it is obvious, however, that what
Bakunin is attacking is an outdated image of God: the image of God as the
Cosmic Monarch, which is just a creation of the human mind: the clothing of
the infinite and unknowable with the finite and known. We have made an image
of God - we have made God in our own image - and it IS necessary to destroy
that image. It IS necessary to abolish that God, and to move on. But that
doesn't mean that we have to abandon the religious quest, the spiritual
vision, or that we have to reject all the traditions of the past. Instead, I
believe, we have to work within these traditions to establish a more
evolved, and more pluralistic, concept of the divine unity. This is what
Sufism was (and is) about, isn't it?
Best Wishes,
Ian
Organic Philosophy: Odoro ergo sum - I stink therefore I am.
nima_...@my-deja.com
> Hi Nima, you seem to have a soft spot for Marx
Yes, the "young" idealistic, radical Hegelian Marx of the _Grundisse_
and the _German Ideology_, yes. But only the young Marx, definitely not
the elder Marx of the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital. And it's not
a soft spot, just mere interest.
> (as well as for Baha'u'llah)!
Indeed.
> But Mikhail Bakunin
Who was an anarchist, fyi, in fact the great grand daddy of modern
systematic anarchist thought.
<Bakunin snipped>
> And wasn't 1844 important for the Baha'i Faith too?
Yes.
> > Nima: But what exactly is it in the "original [Baha'i theory]" that
> >is
> > flawed precisely.
Which is...??
<Kitab-i-Aqdas quote snipped>
But, tell me, how is this different than than the Christian "I am the
truth the life and the way...."
> No pluralism there, not even the possibility of pluralism.
Yes, if you decontextualize the passage from the rest of the corpus of
Baha'u'llah's writings, as the Baha'i fundamentalist project has been
want to do, most definitely.
>Either you get it or you don't.
Not so simple, I'm afraid. Especially in light of Baha'u'llah's Tablet
to Jamal Borujerdi and a whole host of others.
>If you get it, you are SAVED, but if you don't, you've gone astray.
That's what the fundamentalist project would have you buy, I simply
don't buy into it.
>You are LOST. Even though you might be the author of every
>righteous
> deed! That's chilling. There is no room for anyone to choose a
>different
> path, to follow a different teacher, to reach enlightenment, find
>meaning,
> or discover the Will of God in some other way. Can you have more of a
> totalitarian vision than that?
But you're missing something here, this is precisely what Shi'ism says:
i.e. that it is incumbent upon all to recognize the Imam of the Age. The
Imam of Age in Shi'ite mysticism = the Perfect Man who is the mystical
body of the universe like the Adam Kadmon of the Kabbalah. It is a
mystical doctrine, pure and simple, has nothing to do with a
totalitarian political blueprint.
<snip>
cheers,
Nima
--
What is the Matrix? - Neo
Sam Ghandchi
<nima_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8gr3po$jbj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> and the _German Ideology_, yes. But only the young Marx, definitely not
> the elder Marx of the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital. And it's not
> a soft spot, just mere interest.
>
>
>
>
> > But Mikhail Bakunin
>
> Who was an anarchist, fyi, in fact the great grand daddy of modern
> systematic anarchist thought.
>
> <Bakunin snipped>
>
>
>
>
> > > Nima: But what exactly is it in the "original [Baha'i theory]" that
> > >is
> > > flawed precisely.
>
>
> <Kitab-i-Aqdas quote snipped>
>
> But, tell me, how is this different than than the Christian "I am the
> truth the life and the way...."
>
>
> Baha'u'llah's writings, as the Baha'i fundamentalist project has been
> want to do, most definitely.
Dear Nima,
I think Ian is not decontextualizing. I think he is trying to show
how what you see in Baha'i org today follows from the original
theory itself and he has no choice but quoting from those
texts.
Best Regards,
- Sam
>
> >Either you get it or you don't.
>
>
> Not so simple, I'm afraid. Especially in light of Baha'u'llah's Tablet
> to Jamal Borujerdi and a whole host of others.
>
>
> >If you get it, you are SAVED, but if you don't, you've gone astray.
>
> That's what the fundamentalist project would have you buy, I simply
> don't buy into it.
>
>
> >You are LOST. Even though you might be the author of every
> >righteous
> > deed! That's chilling. There is no room for anyone to choose a
> >different
> > path, to follow a different teacher, to reach enlightenment, find
> >meaning,
> > or discover the Will of God in some other way. Can you have more of a
> > totalitarian vision than that?
>
Nima Hazini
>
> I think Ian is not decontextualizing. I think he is trying to show
> how what you see in Baha'i org today follows from the original
> theory itself and he has no choice but quoting from those
> texts.
>
> Best Regards,
> - Sam
Sam jan,
I don't buy into that sort of reductionistic analysis, even vis-a-vis
Marxism. Things are much more complicated than to say that totalitarianism
is implicit in the early writings. With the Baha'i figures (not the Babi
ones who were indeed theocrats), there is ample textual evidence to
demonstrate that they were adamantly against their religion becoming
authoritarian or exclusivistic, or to be interpreted as such. The problem,
as Gadamer has beautifully shown in regards to hermenuetics generally
speaking (see his _Truth & Method_), is the narrow, decontextualized
readings of texts which spawn counter-trends from originary intents and
become veritable dominant trends as time goes by. This is the history of
religion and politics, I'm afraid, but it doesn't mean that what exists
today is necessarily what was intended in the first place. Marx is another
story, obviously, but even there the jury is out imv. Have you read much of
Antonio Gramsci?
cheers,
Nima
---
Sam Ghandchi
>...Have you read much of Antonio Gramsci?
Yes, I have. Although more free thinking than many other leftists
of his time in his prison notes, and although challenged by
the Marxist Orthodoxy of the time, but basically not much
different in the fundamental theory. He was more like Iran's
Paknezhad. As I wrote before, trying to critic an ideology
from within is doomed. This means Lukacs, Gramsci,
Colleti, Korsch, Althusser, Adorno and even Medvedev,
Koestler, Della Volpe, Stojanovic, and Habermas and of
course not mentioning stuff like Kim Ill Song, Enver Hoxha,
and Mao. These are all varieties of one religion, simply
the Communist Religion. The Lukacs, Gamsci and the later
reformists even till Paul Sweezy were the Khatamists
of the Marxist movement. And the best critique from this
group came out of Rudolph Bahro. Frankly a waste of time
for one to read these. I would say the same about Ouspensky,
Gurdieff, and other semi-sufists of the time that were
understadable for that era. Although I see some value
in the educational thoughts of some like Steiner, which
has been absorbed by other thinkers like Ivan illich
and other educators. Of course, this is just my
opinion:-) I think better critique came from people
like Bertrand Russell and Karl Popper who either
were outside of it from the beginning (i.e. Bertrand Russell),
or left socialism and were independent thinker whe writing a critique
of Marxism (i.e. Karl Popper). Frankly I think one should
read works that are more outside these traditions
to be able to critique it rather than reading more
critiques that are from within it. I would say read
read ones like Michael Dummett, Hilary Putnam, Rorty,
Nelson Goodman, Quine, Aaron Sloman, and even
Wittgenstein, Derrida, and Gadmer, Gregory Batson and
Margaret Mead. I think scientist philosophers like
David Bohm, Illya Prigogine, Douglas Hoftadter, Rupert
Sheldrake, Richard Feynman, H. Pagels, Stephen Hawkings
have shown more fresh though. Even some works like
Ken Wilber are not bad but I prefer authors like Borris Berman
and Willis Harman when it comes to critique of science itself.
When going to social philospohy, I think works like John Rawl,
Toffler, Daniel Bell, Wassily Leontief, Galbriath, Gerard O'Neil
are more promising.
Take Care,
- Sam
Sam Ghandchi
of Marxsim, namely Leszek Kolakowski's three volume
encyclopedic work entitled "Main Currents of Marxism".
"Sam Ghandchi" <ghan...@home.com> wrote in message
news:NywY4.73242$k5.19...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com...
> "Nima Hazini" <lotu...@wxc.com.au> wrote in message
patric...@bigfoot.com
accredited participant the United Nations Millennium
Forum of civil society organizations. Some may be
interested in knowing that bahais were central to the event
which will produce a report to advise heads of state at the
Millennium Summit this September at the United Nations -
the first such gathering of leaders since WW II.
A few of the sessions can be viewed in RealPlayer
format by going to
http://www.un.org/millennium/summit1.htm
Let me mention Techeste Ahderom is the bahai
international community representative who did
much of the work putting the meeting together.
General info at
http://www.millenniumforum.org/index.html
--
Frederick Glaysher
www.fglaysher.com
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
"Michael McKenny" <bn...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:8gbqve$l76$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> Greetings, Nima.
> You wrote:
> > professional capacity fostering good relations between the Chinese
> > government, society and the Chinese Baha'i community (a community which
> > perhaps will not be as safe in the PRC anymore, alongside Falon Gong and
> > other groups, as it once was).
> As I posted a while back on Soc.culture.china, a western reaction is
> more effective, at least in the west. I can appreciate the concern going
> back to the Yellow Turbans and the Five Pecks of Grain that opponents of
> a dynasty use spiritual organizations to create disorder and seek to
> overthrow the existing order. And, at least here, in the West, the
response
> of allowing freedom of thought and expression has proved most effective in
> reducing the impact of those who would criticize the government. I believe
> also in a Baha'i context the fostering of the Baha'i principle of freedom
> of thought and expression would be a more beneficial thing for the
> perception of the spirituality and the augmented influence of Baha'i
> leadership than seeking to squelch through censorship and punitive
measures
> such expression. Opposition tends to fan the flames of what is being
> opposed.
> To the Future,
> Michael
>
> --
> "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
> (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
>
>
dfio...@my-deja.com
In article <sj77srq...@corp.supernews.com>,
<patric...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> I've just got back home from attending as an
> accredited participant the United Nations Millennium
> Forum of civil society organizations.
<SNIP>
rlit...@my-deja.com
of the author of the Baha'i Faith, whose name is Baha'u'llah. A Baha'i
is by definition a follower of Baha'u'llah, and out of respect to Him
one ought to make every effort to spell His name correctly, just
as "Millenium Summit", "September" and "United Nations" were in this
post.
Robert A. Little
In article <sj77srq...@corp.supernews.com>,
<patric...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> I've just got back home from attending as an
> accredited participant the United Nations Millennium