Jenifer Tidwell - Letter to the LSA.
Patrick Henry
http://www.mit.edu/~jtidwell/letter_lsa.html
Letter to the LSA. A long-winded explanation of why I am not a Baha'i
anymore.
--
Found the above in search engine. Thought some here
might find it interesting....
--
Frederick Glaysher
www.fglaysher.com
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
http://members.nbci.com/fglaysher/index.htm
Karen Bacquet
exact same day as mine, and her reasons were very similar. Reading her
eloquent statement was a bit like deja vu. It's so sad, that the
Administrative Faith so often leaves people so spiritually hungry.
Thank you, Fred, for posting this.
Love, Karen
--
"The essence of all that We have revealed for thee
is justice . . ." Baha'u'llah
http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/bigquestions/Bacquet.html
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Patrick Henry
Looks like we're online the same time tonight. It is
a quite poignant letter, isn't it? Such a pity that the
worst elements have a strangle hold on the faith....
Fred
"Karen Bacquet" <kala...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:94nulp$90e$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
darrick...@my-deja.com
Faith. Isn't the very purpose of religion 'equal pay for equal work' and
to make sure that everyone has an equal education and everybody sings
and holds hand? The Faith in the U.S. is an empty shell with no spirit.
IT is as a dead man. It is exactly as some Liberals (who call themselves
"Baha'is") wish it to be. It will remain powerless, just a small group
of people meeting in leeky basements to talk about the status of women
in Swaziland and not having the funds nor power to do a damn thing about
it. What a JOKE!
Darrick Evenson
In article <CzJb6.252151$hD4.60...@news1.rdc1.mi.home.com>,
Patrick Henry
Oh, on further thought, you might backup onto her
homepage. I think you would find her even more interesting.
She doesn't have a link on the Letter. You have to click on Address window
and backspace. You probably know that.... Sorry for being overly dumb and
obvious.... Ah, what am I thinking this late at night! Here she is
I always feel such grief that the fundamentalists in Haifa have
succeeded in driving out so many THOUSANDS upon
THOUSANDS of good decent souls like her, and you....
Fred
"Patrick Henry" <patric...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:anLb6.252450$hD4.60...@news1.rdc1.mi.home.com...
Patrick Henry
missed a very important letter back in 1999?
My apologies to all of you for not finding it earlier....
--
Frederick Glaysher
www.fglaysher.com
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
http://members.nbci.com/fglaysher/index.htm
"Patrick Henry" <patric...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:7uLb6.252454$hD4.60...@news1.rdc1.mi.home.com...
Karen Bacquet
"Patrick Henry" <patric...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> Karen,
>
> Oh, on further thought, you might backup onto her
> homepage. I think you would find her even more interesting.
> She doesn't have a link on the Letter. You have to click on Address
window
> and backspace. You probably know that.... Sorry for being overly dumb
and
> obvious.... Ah, what am I thinking this late at night!
Dear Fred,
Never assume that you are being dumb and obvious with me where computer
stuff is concerned! I only know as much as I know at the price of many
amateurish mistakes, and there are still many things I don't know.
(Haven't mastered cut and paste yet, for example.) There's nobody
around to show me, so I just learn by trial and error.
Here she is
>
> http://www.mit.edu/~jtidwell/
>
> I always feel such grief that the fundamentalists in Haifa have
> succeeded in driving out so many THOUSANDS upon
> THOUSANDS of good decent souls like her, and you....
Me too. This letter brings back a lot of old feelings. How could they
do this to His Faith? How could they do this?
Later on tonight, if I can, I'd like to look at the issues raised in
her letter in more detail. I agree with you that we missed an
important letter back in 1999.
Love, Karen
patk...@my-deja.com
darrick...@my-deja.com wrote:
(nothing new)
She quit because there wasn't enough mystery and ritual.
This is why I joined.
- Pat
ko...@ameritel.net
seegar
Peace and Love,
Chris
Jay Paine
>
>She quit because there wasn't enough mystery and ritual.
>
>This is why I joined.
LOL Pat! We've all got our reasons. I joined because I was an atheist.
cheers, jay
Patrick Henry
Bahai Faith has become I'm entering it
into the record.
http://www.mit.edu/~jtidwell/letter_lsa.html
--
Frederick Glaysher
www.fglaysher.com
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
http://members.nbci.com/fglaysher/index.htm
March 21, 1999
The Local Spiritual Assembly of the
Baha'is of Arlington. Massachusetts
My dear Baha'i friends,
I hope this year's Fast found you happy and healthy. This special season,
which seems to arrive sooner every year, always makes us slow down and
reflect upon spiritual matters -- why we go through this physically
exhausting fasting process, what we expect from it, and what we believe
about God's laws and our obligation to follow them. The Fast is a test, but
it's also a time of spiritual rejuvenation, and I have always looked forward
to it.
But this year was different for me. I was not fasting with the rest of you.
This year, I am observing Lent instead; and at the end of it, I will
celebrate Easter, for the first time in my entire adult life.
You see, I've been going through a crisis of faith over the past several
months. The problem is this: I love the Baha'i Faith dearly, but there are
some doctrinal and spiritual issues in it that I can no longer accept.
Since I began attending an Episcopal church last year, many of those issues
have been thrown into sharp relief. Seeing them "from the outside" has
helped me understand the latent problems I've had with being a Baha'i all
these years.
What it ultimately comes down to is that, now, I feel closer to God and to
my fellow human beings than I did while I was an active Baha'i. That's the
only factor that really counts, I think. Everything else either contributes
to it, or is secondary to it.
I think I should explain some of my reasons for making this rather unusual
move (I don't personally know of anyone who has gone from being a Baha'i to
being a Christian, let alone an Episcopalian). This letter is my
apologetic. I hope that it will also help some Baha'is and Baha'i
communities understand some of the factors that I think are causing them
problems, at least in the United States; some of these points, while
controversial, should at least spark some good discussion or soul-searching.
* * *
1. Our Feasts are not spiritually nourishing. They must be for some
Baha'is, but for me, they don't even come close to a good church service, or
a private meditation, or even a walk in the woods.
The big problem is the content. It's limited to readings and prayers from
the Baha'i Writings (which truly are a wonderful source of wisdom), and
sometimes instrumental music or singing. Nothing else. There's no
spontaneous prayer, or personal reflections, or creative praise. There's no
ritual, either; even though the Writings don't actually rule out the
creation of new rituals for short-term use, they discourage ritual use over
the long term (such for Feasts and for marriage ceremonies), and Baha'is as
a rule stay away from ritual altogether.
I think that's a sad loss. Ritual is a "door to the sacred" -- the familiar
repetition of a ritual, combined with one's periodic reinterpretation of the
traditions and symbolic meanings attached to it, really do help open one's
mind and heart to God. It lends focus and framework to our worship, gives
rhythm to our spiritual lives, connects us to our history, and constantly
reminds us of what's important in our chosen faith. Yes, it has the
potential to mechanize worship (I'm sure many churchgoers have this problem)
and to distract us from our core beliefs, but that's something each person
can learn to rise above. Besides, Baha'is already have individual rituals
such as the 95 repetitions of the Greatest Name. Why are community rituals
so much worse?
(Incidentally, I didn't understand these truths about ritual when I was
growing up in the Christian faith. At the time, it just seemed repetitive
and boring. I readily believed what Baha'is told me about ritual -- that it
calcifies the faith of a community, and becomes an end in itself,
supplanting a living and creative worship. This is not at all true in the
church I now attend, which is as vital and creative a faith community as
I've ever been in. Maybe I needed to be deprived of the blessings of ritual
for a while to appreciate it!)
Another problem is that I need music when I worship, and Baha'is do not have
a strong musical tradition yet. There are a few well-known songs here in
the United States -- other countries may have more -- but not nearly enough
to provide a source deep enough to dip into at every Feast. Of course, it's
not fair to expect that a 150-year-old religion will have a musical
tradition as large as the 2000-year-old church! But the Faith is culturally
so diverse. It has so much talent in its ranks. Baha'is all know each
other and travel everywhere. Countless wonderful songs should be flowing
all over the Baha'i world by now! Where are they? And lacking those, why
don't Baha'is reach into the musical traditions of other faiths more often?
Finally, I am saddened by the exclusion of non-Baha'is from Feasts. I
understand that people who have not chosen to be a member of the Baha'i
Faith shouldn't take part in the business-meeting part of the Feast, but why
can't they merely observe? And why should they be excluded from the worship
aspect of the Feast? I'm sure it must be discouraging for people looking
into the Faith, who want to experience how we worship. Their presence may
enhance the Feast in unexpected ways, too. I will have more to say about
this exclusion later.
In short, it seems like different people simply have different needs with
regard to worship. Many people I know (including some Christians) honestly
don't like church services. Some need different kinds of rituals, some need
private meditation, some need to get out into the woods and mountains. To
each their own. Unfortunately, the Baha'i Faith doesn't allow much choice
in how to conduct Feasts, and what it does allow doesn't work for me.
2. There's no clergy. I find this issue difficult to discuss because it's
a core doctrine of the Baha'i Faith, but I really think the Faith has
"thrown the baby out with the bathwater" -- there are good reasons to have
clergy, and the lack of clergy causes problems for individual believers and
for the community.
It's my understanding that the Baha'i Faith does not have a priesthood
partially to avoid the trouble that an overly-powerful clerical class can
cause (witness the history of the Faith in Iran), and partially to drive
home the point that each one of us is responsible for our own spiritual
life, with no intercessors necessary between us and God. Both are valid
arguments. However, many Protestant denominations (among other groups) have
solved both problems, through theology and church structures that have
evolved over time. They do fine. I think it's healthier to meet such
problems head-on than to do away with the priesthood altogether.
I've also sensed a naivete on the part of some lifelong Baha'is about what
clergy actually do, especially Christian clergy. In mainline Protestant
churches, which is all I have any real experience with, a priest's or
rector's job includes these roles:
Facilitator for worship. They act as sort of a "living center" for sacred
rituals, or they preach, or they are simply responsible for planning and
executing the regular worship services. This is not a bad thing, and
Baha'is might do well to have knowledgeable people responsible for planning
and carrying out Feasts, for instance.
Teacher. They've spent years learning about history, theology, other
faiths, and so on. In sermons, in Bible studies, in Sunday school classes,
and in private conversations, they teach us all this.
Spiritual advisor. Since priests are trained in theology, and sometimes
also in such things as psychotherapy, marriage counseling, or conflict
resolution, they are people you know you can go to when you need guidance.
In fact, that's their job. Thus, there's a higher level of responsibility
that you can't get from volunteers or from random members of a Baha'i
community. (Just before I got married, I really needed someone like this to
talk to. I did not find such within the Baha'i communities that I knew, and
since I wasn't living in a town that had an LSA, I didn't "have" an
institution available to talk to either. It was a terribly lonely time, at
a point when I feel like I should have had loving support from a religious
organization.)
Community leader. Each church has its own personality, and some of it
(though not by any means all of it) comes from its priest. They are
partially responsible for the health of a community, and again, that's part
of their job. No one in a Baha'i community has its health and happiness as
their primary concern, day in and day out.
Of course, Baha'is have their Local Spiritual Assemblies to take care of
administrative and spiritual matters. But it's much harder to run things
effectively with a committee. And you know what? If I have a real crisis,
I don't want to talk to a nine-member LSA, even if it does have God's
blessings. I want to talk to a single human being. I want to talk to
someone one-on-one, someone who has experience and knowledge that may help,
someone with whom I have an ongoing personal relationship, someone whom I
know will find time for me. Yes, I know no priest is perfect. But I'll
take my chances with a trained priest who has chosen to make serving God his
or her life's work, rather than go before an LSA with its nine volunteer
members, all of whom I know socially and are probably tired, pressed for
time, distracted by their "real" jobs, and woefully untrained in difficult
personal issues.
As much as I love my fellow LSA members, I have never felt comfortable going
before them with anything personal. It wasn't their fault; nine people is
just too many, and their time was always in such short supply that I didn't
want to add one more thing to their agenda. Even while I was on the LSA, I
never felt we were fully qualified to deal with other people's problems that
came before us, even though our ranks did include professional therapists!
In general, I'm hard-pressed to believe that the Baha'i Faith can throw out
a role as old as the oldest religions, and not suffer the consequences. The
role of priest / elder / shaman / teacher probably exists for good social
and psychological reasons (not to mention spiritual ones), and it's present
in every other religion that I know. It does not have to be incompatible
with the Baha'i tenets of personal spiritual responsibility, the independent
investigation of the truth, or anything else.
3. Chronic community fatigue and "burnout." The Baha'i Faith seems to
attract more than its share of responsible, intelligent overachievers. This
is wonderful, up to a point -- the Faith's small numbers in the Boston area
belies the huge amount of activity that goes on! But this takes an enormous
toll on people. I think the typical active Baha'i works a 50-hour week
(either in a job or at home), serves on at least two committees or an LSA,
gets lots of Faith-related email every day, goes to talks and deepenings and
Feasts, and maybe somehow finds time for daily prayers in the midst of it
all. Then they're asked to host a talk or a party or something. Or to make
something for a potluck. Or to serve on one more committee. And they
cannot say "no" to the Faith they want to serve, until they are just too
tired to say "yes" anymore.
After all, the Faith's needs are so great; who are we to decline the
opportunity for service?
I've thought about this issue for a long time. I now believe that the
Baha'i Faith in the United States is simply too demanding of its active
members. Except in the really big urban areas, everything is done by
volunteers, who all have their own lives to deal with. (Hired
administrators and secretaries and such would help, but there's never enough
money for such luxuries.) Furthermore, service to the Faith is implicitly
expected of its members -- and active teaching is explicitly expected.
There's always so much that we're being asked to do, to fulfill teaching
plans and meet fund-raising goals. Plans are made by LSAs, Regional
Councils, National Spiritual Assemblies, the World Center, the Universal
House of Justice, and so on and so on. We constantly overreach ourselves,
often fall short of our goal, then set the next goal higher. Sometimes
victories are won, but at a high human cost: people who were once
enthusiastic "burn out," or just get too discouraged to keep going.
I think a religion should allow for more balance. We should all have time
for contemplation and reflection. Time to be with our families, time to do
our jobs really well without being tired, time to allow spontaneous things
to happen like talking to a friend or taking a walk. Can we be spiritually
whole without that? When we're so busy serving and running around, we can't
hear the "still small voice" of God whispering into the ears of our souls.
And that's so important.
Why do we have an endless conflict between taking the time we personally
need, and giving the Faith the time and energy it needs? Faith and sacrifice
go hand in hand, but does God want us to sacrifice our spiritual well-being
for the immediate needs of the Faith? I just can't believe that.
4. The pressure to teach. This is directly linked to the burnout problem:
if we had more people, the work would be spread out more, but at the same
time, teaching is the reason we spend so much time and effort and money in
the first place! Sometimes it seems that the Baha'i Faith's whole purpose
is to spread itself. In fact, this is probably a sound theological point --
if the Faith's only ultimate purpose is to bring about the Kingdom of God on
earth, then growth to a "critical mass" is exactly what it should be trying
to do.
But is this what religion is all about? No, of course not. A religion is
also about an individual's relationship with God and the rest of humanity.
It's about seeking truth, and it's about learning how to love other people
beyond love for one's self. The Christian denominations that I grew up in
keep these things paramount; growth is secondary (though it's certainly
wonderful when it happens). That comes closer to matching what I know, deep
in my soul, to be true.
Now, if I truly believed that the Baha'i Faith is the right answer for
everyone else, then teaching it would come naturally. But I don't. I know
that many of my closest friends and family are spiritually content where
they are; or maybe they're not interested in religious topics, and would be
bored or put off by my constantly mentioning the Faith. Love and
consideration for the people in my life should take precedence over teaching
them.
In a more sinister vein, the Faith sometimes encourages us to use friendship
as a means to the end of teaching. A recent letter from the Regional
Council for the Northeastern States recommends that we choose a single
seeker to take under our wing, and make friends with them -- with the
express purpose of opening their heart through kindness and friendship, so
that they will be more receptive to the Faith. Isn't this putting the horse
before the cart? If I were that seeker, I would be offended if I found out
that such a "friendship" was built on the other person's drive to teach, not
on a genuine liking and respect for each other.
Finally, I think the emphasis on teaching pulls energy and resources away
from non-teaching-oriented service and charity efforts. Perhaps if Baha'is
were less focused on teaching, and less overwhelmed by the weight of all
their other activities, they could do more in the way of community service,
which they are enjoined to do by the Writings. Then again, maybe what's
really needed is a change of heart -- away from growth as a primary goal,
and towards love and compassion for all people regardless of their beliefs.
(Mind you, individual Baha'is are among the most loving and compassionate
people I've ever met; here I'm talking about the Baha'i Faith as an
institution.)
5. An uncomfortable split between Baha'is and non-Baha'is. We talk about
unity this and unity that, but we still use that declaration card to draw a
sharp dividing line between who can attend Feast and who can't, who can read
certain letters and who can't, who can give money and who can't, and so on.
It creeps into our language -- "I'm inviting a non-Baha'i to this deepening,
is that OK?" "We had six non-Baha'is and ten Baha'is come to this event."
It affects our social lives -- we draw a cozy circle around "us Baha'is" and
occasionally widen it to include a new declarant or an enthusiastic seeker.
It subtly alters the way we view humanity, so that we no longer see one
world, but two: Baha'i and non-Baha'i.
This is a particularly thorny problem for those of us who have spouses who
are not Baha'is. For instance, if there's a special event coming up that my
husband and I want to go to, I have to ask if we can both go, or if only I
can go. Yet we both enjoy the company of our beloved Baha'i friends (not to
mention each other's company), so tension is the result. Another side of
this issue came up a few months ago, when I told a Baha'i group that I was
willing to loan or give them a large amount of money, but I had to discuss
it with my husband first to make sure it was financially feasible at that
point in time. Even though it would ultimately have been my own money, I
was turned down flat, because he was not a Baha'i and shouldn't be involved
with giving money to the Faith!
In contrast, the church we now attend welcomed us right from the beginning,
regardless of where we were in our spiritual journeys. Nothing was barred to
us before officially becoming members, except for voting rights in the
annual meeting. In fact, we didn't even know there was such a thing as
officially signing up, until just before that annual meeting. No one made a
big deal out of it. Even Vestry meetings (the Vestry being the lay
governing committee of an Episcopal church, roughly the equivalent to the
administrative aspect of an LSA) are open to anyone who wants to observe.
Overall, I felt much more welcome there than I probably would have if I had
visited Baha'i events as a non-Baha'i.
Isn't this Revelation for everyone? What are Baha'is afraid of? Why can't
we welcome people into our events and lives with open arms and no prejudices
based on whether or not they've signed a card? Maybe in some countries
there's a security issue, but here in the United States, there's no
political reason to fear outsiders! Are we afraid people will laugh at us,
or that they'll think we're foolish or naive? Are we afraid they won't
approve of us if they see how we talk to each other or conduct our community
business? Surely the Faith is stronger than that.
This kind of insularity can only hurt the Faith. Worse, it undermines our
belief in unity, and borders on hypocritical. I can't imagine Abdu'l-Baha'
making a big deal out of whether or not someone has signed a declaration
card; on the contrary, I think he would welcome everyone, without even
pausing to ask whether they were technically Baha'is or not.
6. An uncertain intellectual foundation. I've been fighting against this
one for years, afraid to look too hard at some of the belief structures
given to us in the Writings. I still can't force myself to study some of
the more pedantic works, like "Some Answered Questions," because I can't
reconcile myself to believing what's in them.
For example, the unity of all religions is a wonderful idea, and for ten
years, I truly wanted to believe it. Guided by the Baha'i Writings, I tried
my best to make myself believe in it. There are some assertions in the
Writings about other faiths that I never could believe, though. One is
about the resurrection of Christ being strictly symbolic. Yes, a physical
resurrection is hard to understand and accept, but isn't that the whole
point of the ends of the Gospels? Over and over again (in three of them,
anyway), they emphasize that he really did physically return, wounds and
all, to the shock of his friends and disciples; the letters in the rest of
the New Testament keep coming back to that point. It's so fundamental to
Christian doctrine that to reinterpret it as "only symbolic" is to dismiss
nearly the entire history of Christian theology, not to mention the obvious
meaning of the Gospels. In my opinion, it's intellectually dishonest for
Baha'is to claim unity with a theological construct that most Christians
never believed in the first place.
But that isn't the half of it; that doesn't address the central core of
beliefs that the Baha'i Faith says is common among all the revealed
religions, like a belief in a monotheistic God. Buddhism does not
necessarily teach this belief. Some individual Buddhists do believe in God,
which may be OK within the tenets of some Buddhist schools (I don't know
this for sure), but the earliest Buddhist writings we have -- the Pali
texts -- apparently indicate that Buddha himself did not teach monotheism at
all! Yet Abdu'l-Baha' claims he did. Again: how can Baha'is honestly
claim unity with this religion whose doctrine they have changed to be
something different from what was historically taught, and against all
evidence found by historians and scholars?
The Baha'i counterargument I have heard most often is that Baha'u'llah and
Abdu'l-Baha' had direct knowledge from God about these other religions, and
therefore we should believe them and not what the other religions currently
teach. That may be so; we can't prove or disprove such a claim, at least
not in this world. But in a sense, this is a false unity -- the theological
sleight-of-hand may help Baha'is feel like they're standing on a firmer
foundation, but it does nothing to help them find genuine common ground with
modern-day Christians and Buddhists and others. If anything, it hinders any
such efforts, because it tends to put people of other faiths on the
defensive by essentially telling them they've been wrong all this time.
I've seen that happen on the Net, and it's not pretty.
Besides, at some point, our own common sense has to kick in and decide
whether or not a revelation is correct, or else we'd be blindly following
every nut case who claims direct revelation from God. We chose to believe
in Baha'u'llah not just because he told us to, but because his teachings
resonated with us at some level; either logically or intuitively, we already
believed most of what we heard him teaching. Now if Abdu'l-Baha' had
seriously told us that the moon was made of green cheese, and that in the
year 2000 we'd all follow the cow in jumping over it in order to bring about
the lesser peace, wouldn't a rational person begin to question the
fundamental correctness of the Writings? At some point, credibility
vanishes and one ceases taking everything on faith. I have reached that
point.
7. A lack of open intellectual discussion. This isn't entirely true, of
course; since the spark of truth comes from the clash of differing opinions,
open discourse is fine, as long as it stays within certain bounds. But
those bounds have felt awfully constricting lately. Personally, I haven't
wanted to be accused of not being "firm in the Covenant," so I have avoided
certain topics that I'd really have liked to talk openly about. This
includes many of the issues I've brought up in this letter. (Even if my
dear Baha'i friends didn't explicitly accuse me of anything, I know they
would still be saddened and disturbed to hear me bring up these topics, and
they would probably feel torn between their friendship with me and their
loyalty to the Faith. I'd hate to put them through that.)
I did a Web search a few months ago and ended up on Frederick Glaysher's Web
site. While exploring there, I found an article called "A Modest Proposal,"
written by a handful of Baha'is in 1987 for the now-defunct "Dialogue"
magazine. It was an excellent article, well-written, insightful, and full
of courageous and loving suggestions for revitalizing the Baha'i Faith in
the United States. But the National Spiritual Assembly did not allow its
publication. Personally, I could see nothing in it that might be considered
blasphemous, or disrespectful of the Covenant, or even disunifying; to this
day, I have no idea why its publication was prevented.
That got me wondering why it's still necessary to review articles written by
Baha'is before publication. Is it really just to make sure the Faith is
presented in a dignified manner, and to guarantee factual accuracy? If so,
why wasn't the Dialogue article corrected and then published? Or is it
because certain ideas are considered dangerous, even when they don't
directly conflict with the Writings? That frightens me. If the Faith is
true and from God, it should be strong enough to remain standing in spite of
all our questions and reinterpretations. Eternal truth is like that. If
all serious Baha'i discourse has to be vetted for intellectual acceptability
before publication, that belies a deep insecurity on the part of the Baha'i
institutions.
In relation to this incident, the Talisman email list incident, and other
things, I have heard many anecdotes that indicate that academics engaged in
Baha'i studies feel ignored, belittled, or distrusted because of their work.
Add to this the May 1997 correspondence between the Universal House of
Justice and Susan Maneck, and I'm almost certain there's an anti-academic
undercurrent running through the Faith, in America and elsewhere. (This
letter implied that traditional, non-religious methods of analyzing
religious texts and histories by Baha'is are less worthy than a faith-based
approach, in which the basic tenets of the Faith are already accepted as
truth by the investigator.) Again, one wonders what the UHJ is afraid of.
Shouldn't we be eager to learn more about the historical context of our
Faith, regardless of the source of the knowledge? Why would a dispassionate
analysis of the Faith, done by methods widely accepted by the world at
large, be worth less than those done from the perspective of faith? It
seems to me that we need both, for balance.
Finally, there's the matter of Covenant-breakers. We're not supposed to
talk with them, nor read what they write. Why not? We're adults, not
children; for the most part, we're not so fragile that we can't hear bad
things about our Faith and not be seduced into believing them. We might
believe on an individual basis that we're not prepared to read such stuff,
or that we just don't want to, but that should be a personal decision, not
one imposed upon us. For the most part, I bet their arguments against the
Covenant couldn't stand up to logical analysis or spiritual wisdom. (The
few I've read aren't worth the electrons they're printed on!) If they can,
well, maybe it's good for us to argue against them, up to a point -- we
could learn from the experience, and grow spiritually and intellectually.
Maybe we could even bridge the chasm between us, and view them as human
beings deserving of respect and empathy. But sticking our heads in the sand
gets us nowhere. Once again, it indicates a fundamental insecurity about
the truth of the Faith -- or, even worse, a lack of trust in the faith of
individual Baha'is. Either way, it's very authoritarian, and I can't bring
myself to agree with it anymore.
8. An overemphasis on unity as an ultimate good. Unity is wonderful, of
course, but odd things happen when it becomes the highest ideal that we try
to attain. I'm not sure that it ought to be.
When I began looking into the Episcopal Church a few months ago, they had
just held the Lambeth Conference, a worldwide bishop's conference which
happens every ten years. I read the news stories. Boy, did they have unity
problems! There were conservative factions, and liberal factions, and harsh
words, and behind-the-scenes politicking, and a near meltdown of the
Anglican Communion -- all over the single issue of the Scriptural
acceptability of homosexual behavior. I found myself thinking, "How awful.
This would never, ever happen in the Baha'i Faith."
Later I thought, "Maybe it should."
Look at what brought about the conflicts at Lambeth: many different
interpretations of Scripture, to be sure (which Baha'is aren't supposed to
have), but also a love for God, for the truth, and for the Church's
spiritual direction. And, importantly, a knowledge that they could express
their opinions freely, even if those opinions were unpopular with other
bishops or were a break with the past. Now wouldn't it be wonderful if they
ever do find unity, given these circumstances? That would be a hard-won,
genuine unity. That would be a unity based not on an order that "Thou shalt
be unified!", but on care and respect, forged in the furnace of real
conflict. On love, not on law.
I think this "difficult unity" is ultimately better and stronger than one
that tends to subsume the search for truth in the name of unity. This
happens among Baha'is, like during LSA meetings -- for instance, someone may
want to keep discussing a point they know is right, but according to
consultation rules, shuts up in the name of unity. It also happens in
public discourse, as I discussed above -- if someone has an interpretation
of some aspect of the Writings that differs from the standard one, they may
feel discouraged from talking about it, for fear of causing strife and
disunity (or, horror of horrors, being seen as a schismatic).
Instead of resolving such conflicts honestly, Baha'is tend to bury them,
lest those conflicts fester and cause disunity. It seems a little cowardly
to me now.
Also, there's a little logic problem in Baha'i doctrine that has bothered me
for a while. Baha'is believe that the Faith has never been split into sects
(lasting ones, anyway), and will in fact remain basically undivided. But
those groups that do separate from the mainstream of the Faith are declared
non-Baha'is, simply because they separated. It's a semantic trick, no more.
I'm sorry, but there are other Baha'i groups that do not consider the
Universal House of Justice an authority. They do believe in Baha'u'llah
(though not in the Covenant as we understand it, hence the term
"Covenant-breakers"), so the rest of the world would consider them Baha'is.
They consider themselves Baha'is too. Only mainstream Baha'is don't, and
they have a powerful psychological motive for not doing so: the bedrock of
their faith would be shaken if these breakaway groups were acknowledged as
Baha'is.
This is very shaky ground for the claim that this faith is superior to
Christianity and Islam, with respect to a lack of internal division. It also
causes mainstream Baha'is to actively shun the company and opinions of
certain other people who believe in Baha'u'llah; my soul tells me this is
neither healthy nor just, and paradoxically, it makes the Faith less
tolerant of diversity than many other religions.
And at some levels, what's really wrong with division, as long as it doesn't
cause hatred or unloving behavior? I can choose to worship in a progressive
church and still love conservative parishioners who leave to go someplace
more suited to their beliefs. I can be an Episcopalian and still love my
Unitarian and Catholic friends. (And my Muslim friends, and my Baha'i
friends, and my Pagan friends, and so on!) I can even play Democrat to my
Republican friends, or vice versa. It may be a little harder to understand
where they're coming from, since I don't share their beliefs, but tests such
as these are opportunities for intellectual and spiritual growth, not an
indication that we need enforced uniformity of beliefs. I think what the
world really needs is not a ban on divisions, but a spiritual discipline
that prevents those divisions from causing hatred and prejudice.
9. Too many answers, not enough mystery. The Baha'i Writings are vast. In
my ten years as a Baha'i, I'm sure I haven't read even half of all the
English works, and of course I don't stand a chance at reading all the
untranslated Arabic and Persian works. Between the writings of the Central
Figures and the decisions of the Universal House of Justice, there's
probably something authoritative written on almost any topic of spiritual
significance!
It really does makes life easier, having such an extensive set of laws and
beliefs that I can subscribe to as a body. It means I don't have to think
all the time. I can just say, "Sorry, I don't drink," rather than having to
decide how much alcohol is too much. It means I can believe in the ultimate
unity of the religions and then shape my observations to that belief, rather
than doing the hard work of forming hypotheses based on what I observe. It
means I don't have to have any doubts about the humanity's future, since we
pretty much know what's eventually going to happen. It means I have a
perfectly good explanation of Christ's Resurrection; no need to keep going
back to it year after year, looking for new layers of meaning. It means
that there are very few unanswered questions left.
And this is supposed to help me grow spiritually?
It seems to me that all my real spiritual growth has come during periods of
doubt, when I was unconvinced that the answers offered by the Christian or
Baha'i doctrines were true. (This is one of those periods.) During those
times, I have to go looking for my own answers; those that are given free,
without the search, somehow lack the same weight. I feel like I have to use
the mind that God gave me, even -- especially -- in religious matters, and
to do otherwise would be something less than human. I take the independent
investigation of truth very seriously.
The Baha'i Faith tells us that humanity has finally outgrown its adolescence
and reached adulthood. Why, then, are we given yet more laws and answers
than before? To me, it just doesn't seem to fit.
Furthermore, the set of Baha'i beliefs and laws can only grow over time, as
the Universal House of Justice issues more infallible interpretations over
the years. They certainly don't seem to be in the business of abrogating
anything that the Central Figures have said, nor what they themselves have
said in the past. Therefore, the amount of authoritative "stuff" in the
Faith cannot shrink; it can only grow. If it continues this way, it seems
to me that the Faith will calcify -- with so many unchangeable answers, it
will gradually lose its ability to adapt, even if it must do so in order to
fulfill its divine station.
There is one non-religious idea that I've concluded is a fundamental truth
about the world: the concept of incremental change, of slow adaptation to
changing conditions while retaining an unchangeable core of individuality or
"self." It's required for anything to thrive, whether it be an organism, a
species, a personality, a building, a city, a software artifact, even a
belief system. Christianity tried for centuries to resist change, only to
be rocked by periodic upheavals like the Reformation. Now many
denominations have learned to adapt to a changing world and an advancing
understanding of morality, and they work pretty well. The Episcopal Church,
at least, offers a relatively simple Gospel-based core doctrine, but its
non-core beliefs change with the times. The changes are done thoughtfully,
not according to whims or fads, but slowly -- just enough to maintain a
certain aliveness. The Church once condoned the subordination of women; now
it doesn't. It may once have been silent on the issues of slavery and
racism in America; it certainly isn't anymore. The institution learns and
adapts.
(Ironically, the Baha'i Faith explicitly teaches incremental change, in the
form of progressive revelation -- each religion teaches a core of
unchangeable truths, but with a set of beliefs and laws that change from one
revelation to another. But the time scale is all wrong; will we really be
living with all these same early-twentieth-century interpretations for a
thousand years? I find that hard to believe.)
Christianity in general seems to fit this incremental-change model
particularly well. There are many Gospels, and none of them are guaranteed
to have accurately recorded the exact words and deeds of Christ. Their
authors had certain audiences, certain agendas. They contradict each other
sometimes, in fact. But because of these loving yet human retellings, the
story of Christ's life takes on a mythic status, more so than a historical
one. And here the importance of mystery arises: because the Christ story
is myth-like, its meaning shifts and deepens throughout a person's life (or
a culture's). How can there be any one interpretation to something as
profoundly simple as the Last Supper? It's a holy mystery. Different
interpretations are appropriate for different people, or at different stages
of a person's life, or in different cultures. No one can force a certain
interpretation on me, nor should they -- it would lose its mystery, and ruin
any chance that I can get other meanings out of it later. Nailing down a
single interpretation would damage the myth beyond repair, by stripping it
of its mysterious aspect.
I'm convinced that this is why Christianity has lasted so long, and is still
growing, in spite of its fragmentation. Its mythic basis allows for
changing interpretations, while still remaining firm on the fundamental
Christian truths (those pronounced uniformly by all the Gospels). It
permits a diversity of denominations, for people with different needs and
values. And above all, it offers an infinitely deep pool of spiritual
truth, never running dry, no matter how many times a person goes back to it
during his or her lifetime.
In contrast, the Baha'i Faith offers a pool which is large, but necessarily
finite; definitive answers are always there for the asking.
* * *
As you can see, I seem to have irreconcilable differences with the Baha'i
Faith. The question remaining to me is: am I still a Baha'i? If I believe
in Baha'u'llah as the Manifestation of God for this day, then I would still
be a Baha'i. That's the only test that counts.
The answer is, I just don't know anymore. I no longer have the certitude I
once had. I know I'll find out if He is or not in the next world, but until
then, I just can't make myself believe it. Because of the solidity,
coherence, and authority of its teachings, the Baha'i Faith is not a
religion in which one can just pick and choose what to believe or not
believe.
My soul is still moved by Baha'u'llah's writings, and probably will always
be; their beauty is simply incomparable. I'm sure they're divinely inspired
(though I'm no longer sure exactly how). But most of the issues I've
described here come from later interpretations, not from His own pen.
Therein lies the problem. With the Covenant, Baha'u'llah made it very clear
that Abdu'l-Baha' was his successor, and that what he said was
authoritative; and then it passed to the Guardian, and so on down to the
Universal House of Justice. To believe in the authority of some of these
institutions and not others is to break the Covenant, which is emotionally
impossible for me. It's also illogical. I don't see how I can believe that
Baha'u'llah was who He said He was, and yet discount what He clearly said
about the succession of His authority.
That leaves two choices: I accept all of it, or I accept none of it.
Now you know what I have to do. Since I can't make myself accept all of it
anymore, I feel like I have no choice but to resign my membership in the
Baha'i Faith.
Please understand that this was not an easy decision for me to make. It took
months. It's still deeply painful, and it will remain so for a very long
time; I have been a Baha'i for my entire adult life, and it is part of my
identity. Its teachings are deeply entwined with my personal value system,
to the point where I don't know sometimes where my own beliefs end and the
Baha'i doctrines begin. I still have a great love for my Baha'i friends,
and I'm acutely aware of how much pain this will cause them. To spare them
this pain, I considered quietly "going inactive," but I don't think that
would be intellectually honest, especially since I plan to be active in the
church that we're attending. I also need closure to this whole matter, and
leaving it open-ended like that just prolongs it unnecessarily. And
besides, every new beginning requires an ending!
I hope that the Baha'is that I know and love can understand why I am doing
this. I don't think the Faith is entirely wrong -- I'm just not sure it's
entirely right, that's all. It's definitely not right for me, at this point
in my life. I know that many of my Baha'i friends do know it's right for
them; may they continue growing happily in the Faith! My prayers will
always be with them. And the Faith will be right for many seekers. I do
think that growth will come, in time; the Faith offers so many wonderful
solutions for the problems of this world.
But I also hope that if "entry by troops" does not happen in the way that
Baha'is expect it to, that they may better understand why the Faith is not
right for many seekers. I tried my best to make it right for me, but
couldn't do it -- and I was a deepened Baha'i with a strong incentive to
stay with it! One of the ways I think the Faith must adapt is to accept its
place as one of many, many diverse religions in the world, not as a tiny
religion which assumes that it will eventually claim the majority of the
world's people. It will not appeal to all those people, because many
people's spiritual needs will not be fulfilled by the Faith. If this letter
can help the Baha'is understand that better, then that's really the best I
can hope for.
I read a book recently called "Things Seen and Unseen." It's an
autobiographical work by an Episcopalian woman who describes her slow
transition into a church community as being "pushed by God" -- as though
there was an invisible hand at her back, gently pushing her in the direction
that she needs to go to achieve spiritual maturity. That's what I've been
feeling for the last six months. When you feel the hand of God, you go with
it. I don't know where I'm going. But I trust that it will be where God
wants me to be.
I love you all dearly, and I pray that God may walk with you through all
your journeys.
Jenifer Tidwell
Adelard R
She will come back to the faith. Leaving the faith because the community is
not a spiritual one shows that some people really miss the nature of
spirituality in faith.
Being spiritual concerns you and Baha'u'llah or Allah, but not your
Community. Some people feel better to be moved by the gestures of the
Pastor, when raising his hands in the air and jumping around and speaking
loudly that the End of times is near, but that happens just Sunday for a
few hours. It's funny that I used to happen to raise my hands in the air
before becoming
Baha'i.
But in the Baha'i faith, the process of spiritual transformation doesn't
happen on Sunday, it's your encounter with Baha'u'llah, it
should be an eternal one. When you recognize Baha'u'llah and became
intoxicated his love and that of Abdu'l-baha, that's enough for spiritual
transformation, it's an eternal state of spirituality which bring nothing
but joy and happiness. Just meeting with your fellow Baha'is and do
something together should create a very powerful spiritual environment, even
without
praying, performing rituals, etc. That's what the Baha'i faith is.
Truly, before becoming Baha'i, I never felt a very powerful spiritual
environment like the one that i feel when i am with
my Baha'i friends. I am really sorry to see Jenifer is not feeling that way.
Before blaming the community, we should ask ourselves, do we really read
the writings everyday in morning and evening
to accomplish the requirement of the Covenant of Baha'u'llah?
The Community is made of people like you, they are themselves struggling
too in their spirituality. The fact that they are Baha'is that doesn't mean
that they suppose to reflect the spiritual radiance of Abdu'l'baha. To be
spiritual takes some time, the good news is that the life of people who are
in the Community are centered on the writings of Baha'u'llah. Before long,
all will change, the community will become a spiritual one.
Adelard R
Adealard....@unisys.com
Susan Maneck
>Pastor, when raising his hands in the air and jumping around and speaking
>loudly that the End of times is near, but that happens just Sunday for a
>few hours.
LOL. Abelard, I can assure you they don't do that in the Episcopal Church which
Jennifer joined. I can very much feel for Jennifer. I had I chosen a different
path and eventually withdrawn from the Faith, I expect my letter of resignation
would not have been so different from hers. I didn't suffer so much from
administrative burn out (being a real slacker in that respect) and I had some
of the additional problems associated with being an academic. But I pretty much
struggled with the same issues she did.
warmest, Susan
"And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time
left to start again . . "
Don McLean's American Pie
http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
Adelard R
"Susan Maneck " <sma...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010125175122...@ng-md1.aol.com...
> >Some people feel better to be moved by the gestures of the
> >Pastor, when raising his hands in the air and jumping around and
speaking
> >loudly that the End of times is near, but that happens just Sunday for a
> >few hours.
>
> LOL. Abelard, I can assure you they don't do that in the Episcopal Church
which
> Jennifer joined.
Dear Susan, maybe I was wrong. But I know some of the friends who left the
faith and after a while they came back again, and since that time they
became very, very dedicated. It's not that easy to leave the Baha'i faith.
You may be weak for some personal and normal reasons, but not to go far and
join an other religion. Of course there are some exceptions, but it's rare.
I can very much feel for Jennifer. I had I chosen a different
> path and eventually withdrawn from the Faith, I expect my letter of
resignation
> would not have been so different from hers.
But if you join an other church, I would feel sorry for you Susan :-). I
would feel someone didn't really get fortunate to be
in touch with the spirit of the Faith and the love of God, which we,
Baha'is, feel so moving in our souls when experiencing
the revelation of Baha'u'llah.
Through my personal experience, when you become in touch with that spirit, I
believe there is no where else you can go, you will not be satisfied with
anything else because you have reached your heart's desire. You may become
weak, but not go away and join an other faith.
I didn't suffer so much from
> administrative burn out (being a real slacker in that respect) and
I agree, but I always think there is away of the LSA to get organized it's
self really good. If the LSA supposed to have three meetings every 19 days,
it could find it's way out of reducing them to one. We, Baha'is, need to
change things, because I think the art of Consultation is not in the
writings of Baha'u'llah for nothing.
I had some
> of the additional problems associated with being an academic. But I pretty
much
> struggled with the same issues she did.
Thanks God, that you managed to stay connected with the Faith.
Adelard R
Adealard....@unisys.com
Susan Maneck
>faith and after a while they came back again, and since that time they
>became very, very dedicated. It's not that easy to leave the Baha'i faith.
I agree and would not write this young woman off. Obviously she is still quite
attached or she wouldn't have posted the letter to her website. Or she would
have said more promoting Christian "truths." But I sense she still recognizes
that there is more truth in the Baha'i revelation.
>But if you join an other church, I would feel sorry for you Susan :-).
You sure you wouldn't feel sorry for them? :-) The reason I say I can relate to
what she is expresing is that all too often our gatherings are more like Amway
meetings, the stress on more numbers, more money and all too little on the
devotional aspects of our faithful. Hopefully, the friends will take the Dec.
28 letter to heart and begin to incorporate it into their community life.
Seriously, what stopped me from going down that path is that I made the
conscious decision to consult. And when it didn't seem to be working after I
received the July 20 letter, I consulted even harder. And you are right btw,
that reading the Writings every morning and evening is an absolute necessity. I
wasn't that faithful about this on the rationale that as an academic scholar my
head was always in the Writings. The way we read them as academics is not the
same as the kind of devotional reading Baha'u'llah calls upon us to do. think I
only began to do this when I saw it was the only act of firmness in the
Covenant I had any control over.
with love, Susan
Charles
anywhere. Anybody can find it with Deja News or in archives.
thanks for posting it just ONCE. :)
--chas
Patrick Henry
>
> > This letter is so important in what it reveals about how dysfunctional
the Bahai Faith has become I'm entering it
> > into the record.
> > http://www.mit.edu/~jtidwell/letter_lsa.html
That's not an exaggeration.... TENS of THOUSANDS have
left the bahai faith for similar reasons. Many of their testimonies
may be found on my website under Ex-Bahais Explain Why.....
Patrick Henry
from ex for former bahais or present, please email me
a copy to that I might also make it available to others
via my website. Given the THOUSANDS who have left
or been driven out of the bahai faith, there must be many,
many, many similar stories....
dfio...@my-deja.com
> Unfortunately, what I often found is that there just isn't much
> interest in spiritual matters at Feast. I used to get criticized,
> especially as a new believer, for making devotions too long. In my
> naivete, I thought that's what we were there for. But what Feast is
> really about is that letter/tape/video from National and lots of
> aimless talk.
Each community has their own particular way. Community culture so to
speak. The feasts in my community have a goood amount of readings (at
least one for every feast participant), music, and persian chants. It
is very spiritually uplifting. All of the kids participate as well.
On most feast nights you will hear English, Persian, Urdu, Chinese, and
Dutch prayers.
Feast like every other aspect of Baha'i life should be a subject for
community consultaion and deepening.
> > The big problem is the content. It's limited to readings and
> > prayers from the Baha'i Writings (which truly are a wonderful
> > source of wisdom), and sometimes instrumental music or singing.
> > Nothing else. There's no spontaneous prayer, or personal
> > reflections, or creative praise.
"Regarding the question you asked him about the Bahá'í sacred writings:
these should be regarded as the writings of the Báb, Bahá'u'lláh and
`Abdu'l-Bahá and only these should be read during the purely devotional
part of the Feast."
-- Shoghi Effendi, Letters to Australia and New Zealand, p.71
> We are so afraid to express our spirituality and devotion as a
> community. We don't get emotional and spontaneous, we're scared to
> death of doing something "wrong" or that might look like a ritual.
The answer is not to be scared but to do it the way we are supposed to
and that means deepening our understanding of Feast. Then once we have
the knowledge we can move forward.
> I've even known people to object to the choral reading of Tablets with
> a repeating line that were clearly meant to be read chorally! Without
> either a freewheeling sort of emotionality *or* the quiet, deep
> emotional reaction evoked by ritual, our communal worship is pretty
> bland. Indeed, bland is all it can be as long as people squelch any
> sort of creativity by saying "Oh, we aren't supposed to do that!"
The answer is simple - learn the Writings on Feast. Design a Feast
program that matches them and if someone objects show them the writings
and consult on them. Why are we so afraid to go to the source material
to find out what the guidence is?
[music at Feast]
> We were fortunate enough to have a guy around who played guitar, sang
> like an angel, and even wrote songs. Sometimes he'd play guitar
> chords while we read the Writings at Feast. It really makes a
> difference.
Absolutely! Every Feast that my wife and I prepare we try to add at
least three selections off of CD. The trouble with singing is that
when you have a small group and no musical talent no one wants to sing
but they do love listening to music. This is something that will
improve as our communities grow.
We had a devotional gathering at the Philadelphia Baha'i Center a
couple of months ago with the Regional Council. We basically sang for
two hours and the songs were puncuated by some prayers. It was
awesome! There were about 70 people there so it was much easier to get
started.
> > Finally, I am saddened by the exclusion of non-Baha'is from
> > Feasts. I understand that people who have not chosen to be a
> > member of the Baha'i Faith shouldn't take part in the business-
> > meeting part of the Feast, but why can't they merely observe? And
> > why should they be excluded from the worship aspect of the Feast?
> > I'm sure it must be discouraging for people looking into the Faith,
> > who want to experience how we worship. Their presence may enhance
> > the Feast in unexpected ways, too. I will have more to say about
> > this exclusion later.
>
> This has always bothered me. Partly it is because we have made Feast
> into an admininstrative occasion, then placed it at the center of our
> community life, that we exclude many people who might just want to
> come and worship with us. It has always bothered me that I can walk
> into any church in town and be made welcome, but even non-Baha'i
> spouses and relatives are expected to disappear into the kitchen or
> something when it comes time for the "Business portion" of Feast.
> It's damned rude of us, really, and was the main reason I never
> hosted Feast at my home, because I wouldn't intrude on my husband
> that way. (I did host some Holy Days, however.) *We* are the ones who
> go around advertising ourselves as open and tolerant, but our main
> worship service is as closed to outsiders as a Mormon Temple ritual,
> like we've got some big deep, dark secret going on. Most of the stuff
> that gets talked about at Feast comes up at the LSA meeting when
> Assembly and community are identical, anyway.
But what happens when the "consultative" portion of Feast rolls around
and folks from outside the Baha'i community ARE present as you seem to
support. How can the community have frank and open consultation if
there is an audience? One Feast in our community used
the "consultative" portion of Feast to talk about the impact of a local
divorce on our community and the couple involved. It was emotionaly
difficult as it was, but we prayed and consulted and got through it.
we would never have been able to do that if a non-Baha'i was pesent.
The "consultative" portion of feast is not just for business and so how
can we open that up to folks outside the community?
As for the spiritual portion of Feast - I would say that 25% of the
time we usually have non-Baha'is present. No big deal.
> > In short, it seems like different people simply have different needs
> > with regard to worship. Many people I know (including some
> > Christians) honestly don't like church services. Some need
> > different kinds of rituals, some need private meditation, some need
> > to get out into the woods and mountains. To each their own.
> > Unfortunately, the Baha'i Faith doesn't allow much choice
> > in how to conduct Feasts, and what it does allow doesn't work for
> > me.
This I disagree with. Feast has a set of requirements but the rest is
left to the local community. If we learn the requiremnts then we can
make feast a very diverse element of our Faith. In other cultures
Feast is very different from how American's do it. This is not as
universal a problem as it is made out to be.
> That's the thing. And if I read Shoghi Effendi correctly, he meant to
> avoid ritual, not freeze us into an unalterable pattern. There really
> is nothing stopping the friends from experimentation in this area,
> except their own hardened attitudes. I personally would rather see
> different approaches tried, even if they fall flat, that to reject
> change under the excuse "We aren't supposed to do that."
See above.
> > 2. There's no clergy. I find this issue difficult to discuss
> > because it's a core doctrine of the Baha'i Faith, but I really
> > think the Faith has "thrown the baby out with the bathwater" --
> > there are good reasons to have clergy, and the lack of clergy
> > causes problems for individual believers and for the community.
>
> There are times I've thought perhaps having religious specialists take
> care of things might not be a bad idea, particularly considering the
> rampant and persistant incompetence I've seen. I mean, I'm not
> advocating it, but our LSAs really fall down on the job when it comes
> to pastoral care. Part of that is so much else is demanded of the
> LSA, and, quite frankly, when LSAs are put together from any nine warm
> bodies capable of scratching a signature on a line, you aren't going
> to necessarily have people with any talent for nurturing. Mostly,
> what I saw was the wish to duck personal issues, or just to give
> standard pat answers that aren't much help. Real people in real pain
> aren't going to hang around waiting for the institutions to stop
> being embryonic.
Yes. It is too bad that every community is not as developed as it
ought to be. But there is no solution other than to grow and mature.
I am always upset when I see someone who has been abandoned to their
own devices but I will not fault the system Baha'u'llah has set up for
that. We failed to help and we must learn how not to. Adding clergy
is not the answer.
> > It's my understanding that the Baha'i Faith does not have a
> > priesthood partially to avoid the trouble that an overly-powerful
> > clerical class can cause (witness the history of the Faith in Iran),
>
> Technically, there isn't supposed to be clergy in Islam either. The
> fact that a de facto clergy evolved anyway should give us pause.
Again, YES. This is why we must stick to the Revelation like glue.
> > I've also sensed a naivete on the part of some lifelong Baha'is
> > about what clergy actually do, especially Christian clergy.
>
> In my experience, lifelong Baha'is are often appallingly ignorant
> about anything Christian. I could tell you stories.
>
> > No one in a Baha'i community has its health and happiness as
> > their primary concern, day in and day out.
> > Of course, Baha'is have their Local Spiritual Assemblies to take
> > care of administrative and spiritual matters. But it's much harder
> > to run things effectively with a committee. And you know what? If
> > I have a real crisis, I don't want to talk to a nine-member LSA,
> > even if it does have God's blessings. I want to talk to a single
> > human being. I want to talk to someone one-on-one, someone who has
> > experience and knowledge that may help, someone with whom I have an
> > ongoing personal relationship, someone whom I know will find time
> > for me.
>
> I can sure see her point here. With personal problems, I would go to
> individual friends that I trusted within the community, but not the
> Assembly. (I still do that, actually, except that online friends are
> included when I need to hash things out with somebody.) I can sure
> relate to not wanting to spill your guts to a nine-member assembly,
> especially with highly personal issues, such as marital difficulties.
> I have a friend who was considering leaving her husband over sexual
> difficulties. Imagine bringing that to an LSA! Forget it. Even if
> she summoned up the courage, she probably would have just been told
> to go back to hubby, be good, and live without sex -- at least with
> the locals we have. I personally would rather lose voting rights than
> talk about such an intimate matter to a nine-person committee.
>
> I was fortunate inasmuch as I never had a personal problem that
> required I go to the LSA.
The LSA has its functions. If you need personal help you should not go
to the LSA - you should go to a Baha'i you know. Someone who can
help. We are all clergy when it comes to looking afetr the health and
happiness of the community. Each of us shares that responsibility.
> > 3. Chronic community fatigue and "burnout." The Baha'i Faith seems
> >
> > After all, the Faith's needs are so great; who are we to decline the
> > opportunity for service?
> >
> > I've thought about this issue for a long time. I now believe that
> > the Baha'i Faith in the United States is simply too demanding of its
> > active members. Except in the really big urban areas, everything
> > is done by volunteers, who all have their own lives to deal with
> > We constantly overreach ourselves, often fall short of our goal,
> > then set the next goal higher. Sometimes victories are won, but at
> > a high human cost: people who were once enthusiastic "burn out,"
> > or just get too discouraged to keep going.
> >
> > I think a religion should allow for more balance. We should all
> > have time for contemplation and reflection. Time to be with our
> > families, time to do our jobs really well without being tired, time
> > to allow spontaneous things to happen like talking to a friend or
> > taking a walk. Can we be spiritually whole without that? When
> > we're so busy serving and running around, we can't hear the "still
> > small voice" of God whispering into the ears of our souls.
> > And that's so important.
>
> This was a problem for me from Day One. When the community was
> working, it seemed like an endless round of meaningless activity. I'm
> a cerebral, contemplative type, so in the Baha'i community that meant
> I was a square peg in a round hole. Basically what I was told that I
> shouldn't be who I was, that I should find some sort of meaning in all
> these plans and projects. I felt enormous guilt and pain over this:
> If this is a Faith for all the world, why isn't there room in it for
> me? Now that I understand more about the mystical heritage of the
> Baha'i faith, it seems doubly sad that "being a Baha'i" is dominated
> by this sort of activity.
Let me share with you a lesson I learned. It is ok to say no. My wife
suffers from a horribly debilitaing disease which leaves her little
time in a day for any kind of meaningful activity. Our community is
fairly small (10 adults, 7 kids) and we are very active in local and
regional efforts. We are forced to choose what we do and when we do
it. We say no alot. It felt bad at first but then we realized that no
one got mad at us or thought any less of us. We always say it in a
kind and loving way. We do what we can and say no to things we cannot
do. It works - believe me.
> > 4. The pressure to teach. This is directly linked to the burnout
> > problem: if we had more people, the work would be spread out more,
> > but at the same time, teaching is the reason we spend so much time
> > and effort and money in the first place! Sometimes it seems that
> > the Baha'i Faith's whole purpose is to spread itself. In fact,
> > this is probably a sound theological point --
> > if the Faith's only ultimate purpose is to bring about the Kingdom
> > of God on earth, then growth to a "critical mass" is exactly what
> > it should be trying to do.
>
> Well, I spoke about this in my own story. It came as a terrible
> shock, especially after having been given the "no proselytizing"
> line. We lie to people, you know, when we say that.
No we do not. Here are the two meanins of prosletyze from Webster:
1 : to induce someone to convert to one's faith
2 : to recruit someone to join one's party, institution, or cause
transitive senses : to recruit or convert especially to a new faith,
institution, or cause
We do neither of these. No. 1 we cleary do not do. No. 2 is a fine
line to walk and if we do cross it it is because we do not understand
what it means to teach. We do not prosletyze.
> Before you join the community, you think it sounds so reasonable,
> just sharing the Faith with people who are interested, then once you
> sign that card it's "Why aren't you teaching? Don't you love
> Baha'u'llah? The world needs His message, the times are urgent etc.
> etc." It's a pretty cruel trick.
This may have been your experience - if so it was a bad one. This is
not true of the general community.
> > In a more sinister vein, the Faith sometimes encourages us to use
> > friendship as a means to the end of teaching. A recent letter from
> > the Regional Council for the Northeastern States recommends that we
> > choose a single seeker to take under our wing, and make friends
> > with them -- with the express purpose of opening their heart
> > through kindness and friendship, so that they will be more
> > receptive to the Faith. Isn't this putting the horse
> > before the cart? If I were that seeker, I would be offended if I
> > found out that such a "friendship" was built on the other person's
> > drive to teach, not on a genuine liking and respect for each other.
>
> Yeah, this always bothered me, too. That, and the pressure to convert
> spouses and family members. Worst is the insinuation that if your
> spouse is not in the Faith, the marriage isn't all it should be
> because marriage is supposed to be a "spiritual" connection.
I feel you have both mis-understood. First off any preasure to convert
your spouse is inappropriate and the person putting on the preasure
should be told so in no uncertain terms. As for the friendship issue -
the best way to share your life with others is through friendships. I
share my faith with my friends at a level that depends on the nature of
my friendship and their level of comfort and interest. The point the
RC was trying to make is that real friendship is a natural way to
teach. We share all kinds of things with close friends - why not
Faith? If we can take friends to soccer matches to share our love for
the sport why can't we invite them to a fireside as well? Why is the
soccer match inocent and the fireside sinister?
> > Finally, I think the emphasis on teaching pulls energy and resources
> > away from non-teaching-oriented service and charity efforts.
> > Perhaps if Baha'is were less focused on teaching, and less
> > overwhelmed by the weight of all their other activities, they could
> > do more in the way of community service, which they are enjoined to
> > do by the Writings. Then again, maybe what's really needed is a
> > change of heart -- away from growth as a primary goal,
> > and towards love and compassion for all people regardless of their
> > beliefs.
> > (Mind you, individual Baha'is are among the most loving and
> > compassionate people I've ever met; here I'm talking about the
> > Baha'i Faith as an institution.)
>
> Another nail on the head. One local assembly did some charity stuff
> for a while, but most of the time it wasn't even discussed. A common
> attitude I ran into is that the poor get their "pie in the sky" when
> the institutions are built and poverty is conquered. Tough luck for
> those walking the earth right now.
Again - you are speaking about single experiences and you are not
seeing the bigger picture. Many Baha'i communities are involved in
charitable work but we must balance charity and the needs of our own
community. One good way to do that is to teach through service. many
communities do just that. I am sorry that yours did not.
> > 5. An uncomfortable split between Baha'is and non-Baha'is. We talk
> > about unity this and unity that, but we still use that declaration
> > card to draw a sharp dividing line between who can attend Feast and
> > who can't, who can read certain letters and who can't, who can give
> > money and who can't, andvso on. It creeps into our language -- "I'm
> > inviting a non-Baha'i to this deepening, is that OK?" "We had six
> > non-Baha'is and ten Baha'is come to this event." It affects our
> > social lives -- we draw a cozy circle around "us Baha'is" and
> > occasionally widen it to include a new declarant or an enthusiastic
> > seeker. It subtly alters the way we view humanity, so that we no
> > longer see one world, but two: Baha'i and non-Baha'i.
>
> Yes. We present ourselves as being tolerant and inclusive, but we are
> far more picky about who is "in" or "out" than most religions are.
We are both tolerant and inclusive but we are also a distinct
community. We have community needs and community business. We have a
need to mature together. The distinction is not a separation or an
attempt to stratifiy the world spiritually. Instaed it is a
recognition that as a group we have some unique needs that are better
served when only other Baha'is are present. I do not see this a
problem.
> > 7. A lack of open intellectual discussion. This isn't entirely
> > true, of course; since the spark of truth comes from the clash of
> > differing opinions, open discourse is fine, as long as it stays
> > within certain bounds. But those bounds have felt awfully
> > constricting lately. Personally, I haven't wanted to be accused of
> > not being "firm in the Covenant," so I have avoided certain topics
> > that I'd really have liked to talk openly about. This includes
> > many of the issues I've brought up in this letter. (Even if my
> > dear Baha'i friends didn't explicitly accuse me of anything, I know
> > they would still be saddened and disturbed to hear me bring up these
> > topics, and they would probably feel torn between their friendship
> > with me and their loyalty to the Faith. I'd hate to put them
> > through that.)
> >
> > I did a Web search a few months ago and ended up on Frederick
> > Glaysher's Web site. While exploring there, I found an article
> > called "A Modest Proposal," written by a handful of Baha'is in 1987
> > for the now-defunct "Dialogue" magazine. It was an excellent
> > article, well-written, insightful, and full of courageous and
> > loving suggestions for revitalizing the Baha'i Faith in
> > the United States. But the National Spiritual Assembly did not allow
> > its publication. Personally, I could see nothing in it that might be
> > considered blasphemous, or disrespectful of the Covenant, or even
> > disunifying; to this day, I have no idea why its publication was
> > prevented.
Quite simply "A Modest Proposal" was not allowed to be published
because of method. The contents are sound for the most part and have
actually come to pass for the most part. The problem is that the
authors were by-passing the consultaive process and jumping into the
arena of public argumentation. Those ideas should have been presented
in a consultation with the NSA and not in not consultative position
paper.
> Of course, everyone here already knows of my encounter with "A Modest
> Proposal". Unlike Jenifer, I stuck around to find out why its
> publication was prevented. At least now, with the Internet, they
> can't hope to censor and lie like that again without it being
> immediately exposed. She also reacted much as I did to the Talisman
> crackdown and the anti-scholarship letters.
As I stated above the publication was not squelched because of the
ideas - it was because of the method.
> > 8. An overemphasis on unity as an ultimate good. Unity is
> > wonderful, of course, but odd things happen when it becomes the
> > highest ideal that we try to attain. I'm not sure that it ought to
> > be.
>
> What I see is that things often do not get addressed for fear
> of "disunity". Real unity is based on consultation (See, Dave, I know
> that.)
Yay! :-)
> but that requires bringing things out in the open and hashing
> them out, sometimes over quite a long time. To simply pretend like
> differences don't exist, and that we are, therefore, united, gets us
> nowhere -- but it often happens like that.
Yes it does and I can't stand it either!
> > Also, there's a little logic problem in Baha'i doctrine that has
> > bothered me for a while. Baha'is believe that the Faith has never
> > been split into sects (lasting ones, anyway), and will in fact
> > remain basically undivided. But those groups that do separate from
> > the mainstream of the Faith are declared non-Baha'is, simply
> > because they separated. It's a semantic trick, no more.
> > I'm sorry, but there are other Baha'i groups that do not consider
> > the Universal House of Justice an authority. They do believe in
> > Baha'u'llah (though not in the Covenant as we understand it, hence
> > the term "Covenant-breakers"), so the rest of the world would
> > consider them Baha'is. They consider themselves Baha'is too. Only
> > mainstream Baha'is don't, and they have a powerful psychological
> > motive for not doing so: the bedrock of their faith would be
> > shaken if these breakaway groups were acknowledged as Baha'is.
>
> Yes, this is one of those double-talk things that has become blatently
> exposed with the rise of the Internet. We go around claiming that
> there are no Baha'i sects, when even the most basic search reveals
> that there are. What is true is that the Faith has avoided major
> schism, and that the small breakaway groups are not a threat to the
> Baha'i mainstream. Just saying "Oh, those people aren't really
> Baha'is" doesn't cut it. Christians say that heretical groups aren't
> really "Christian" too. No doubt Muslims say that certain Muslim
> offshoots "aren't really Muslim". What matters is self-definition,
> not the pronouncement of orthodoxy.
Double-talk? Not really. The first paragraph of the Kitab-i-Aqdas
spells it all out:
"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."
To be a Baha'i is to follow Baha'i law. Baha'u'llah clearly says that
you cannot be a Baha'i, a believer in Baha'u'llah, if you do not follow
his ordinances. This is the heart of the Covenant. If you do not
follow this simple admonition then you are not a Baha'i. Remeyites are
not Baha'is. JJM's are not Baha'is. It is that simple.
> > 9. Too many answers, not enough mystery. The Baha'i Writings are
> > vast. In my ten years as a Baha'i, I'm sure I haven't read even
> > half of all the English works, and of course I don't stand a chance
> > at reading all the untranslated Arabic and Persian works. Between
> > the writings of the Central Figures and the decisions of the
> > Universal House of Justice, there's probably something thoritative
> > written on almost any topic of spiritual > significance!
>
> This is one area where I disagree with Jenifer. I personally don't
> believe that a lot of the answers are as cut and dried as many Baha'is
> try to make it, and there's a lot more room for ambiguity and diverse
> interpretation than she thinks. But then, I was willing to be a
> heretical Baha'i, and she wasn't.
I agree with you Karen but you don't have to be heretical to disagree
or to find alternate meanings. I do it all the time.
> > My soul is still moved by Baha'u'llah's writings, and probably will
> > always be; their beauty is simply incomparable. I'm sure they're
> > divinely inspired (though I'm no longer sure exactly how). But
> > most of the issues I've described here come from later
> > interpretations, not from His own pen.
> > Therein lies the problem. With the Covenant, Baha'u'llah made it
> > very clear that Abdu'l-Baha' was his successor, and that what he
> > said was authoritative; and then it passed to the Guardian, and so
> > on down to the Universal House of Justice. To believe in the
> > authority of some of these institutions and not others is to break
> > the Covenant, which is emotionally impossible for me. It's also
> > illogical. I don't see how I can believe that Baha'u'llah was who
> > He said He was, and yet discount what He clearly said about the
> > succession of His authority.
> >
> > That leaves two choices: I accept all of it, or I accept none of
> > it.
>
> These choices stripped my faith away, too, for a while. No doubt
> there are those here who would prefer that I take Jenifer's path,
> abandon Baha'u'llah, and become an adherent to another religion. I
> actually tried to do that, but Baha'u'llah wouldn't let me go.
Then why not follow through with Baha'u'llah's wishes? It is
Baha'u'llah's desire that we follow Abdu'l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi, and
the UHJ. He asked us to do it. Why then, if you believe in
Baha'u'llah so deeply is this step impossible?
I am sorry if I am being too blunt but it is after all the crux of your
position. You are happy to accept Baha'u'llah but then why nothing
after him?
Peace,
Dave
Ian McCarthy
"Adelard R" wrote in message
> I am glad that she returned to the church, when she is graduated there :-)
> She will come back to the faith.
Hi Adelard,
If she does come back, she'll come back as a liberal, and then your heavy
friends will kick her out again!
Gianni
Karen Bacquet
I have a little time this weekend for cyberspace, so I'll give you a
response:
dfio...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> Each community has their own particular way. Community culture so to
> speak. The feasts in my community have a goood amount of readings (at
> least one for every feast participant), music, and persian chants. It
> is very spiritually uplifting. All of the kids participate as well.
I found that the best times in our community were when we focused on
the children; I think just about everybody local would say the same.
Somehow, providing for them was something everyone could agree on and
feel good about.
>
> > We are so afraid to express our spirituality and devotion as a
> > community. We don't get emotional and spontaneous, we're scared to
> > death of doing something "wrong" or that might look like a ritual.
>
> The answer is not to be scared but to do it the way we are supposed to
> and that means deepening our understanding of Feast. Then once we
have
> the knowledge we can move forward.
I don't know about that. I think concern that we "do it the way we are
supposed to" is the problem. For example, prohibition on
congregational prayer has been misunderstood as a bad on anything
except one lone individual reading a prayer at a time. Did you
know 'Abdu'l-Baha recommended time for our obligatory prayers to be
said silently in spiritual meetings, and in the mashriq'u'l-adhkar? Now
I learned that from online translations and had never seen it before
then. Now if by deepening, you mean we need for there to be a lot more
material available to the friends on this issue, I'd say you were
right. But if it means we're going to read Shoghi Effendi and say "Oh
we can't light candles(or whatever) because we can't have ritual", then
we're right back where we started. Would the world come to an end if we
actually took a walk on the wild side and worshipped God the way we
feel like in our hearts instead of like we are "supposed to"?
It may gratify you to know that I do not entirely blame the
Institutions on this one; I know that there have been attempts to get
the friends to make our community life more spiritually fulfilling. (I
do think certain policies encourage an administative emphasis though.)
It was one topic, in fact, at the National Convention at my fateful
visit back there in 1988. This is something that has bitten deep into
Baha'i culture. Your community may be doing well, Dave, but this is a
consistent complaint from the disillusioned. Jenifer on the East coast
felt it just as much as I did on the West coast; it is a real and
persistent problem.
>
> We had a devotional gathering at the Philadelphia Baha'i Center a
> couple of months ago with the Regional Council. We basically sang for
> two hours and the songs were puncuated by some prayers. It was
> awesome! There were about 70 people there so it was much easier to
get
> started.
Oh that sounds wonderful. It is hard to get people to sing in a small
group; people feel like their own voice stands out too much. I sing
prayers all the time, when nobody's listening.
> >
> But what happens when the "consultative" portion of Feast rolls around
> and folks from outside the Baha'i community ARE present as you seem to
> support. How can the community have frank and open consultation if
> there is an audience? One Feast in our community used
> the "consultative" portion of Feast to talk about the impact of a
local
> divorce on our community and the couple involved. It was emotionaly
> difficult as it was, but we prayed and consulted and got through it.
> we would never have been able to do that if a non-Baha'i was pesent.
> The "consultative" portion of feast is not just for business and so
how
> can we open that up to folks outside the community?
I'm not suggesting that non-Baha'is be present for community business.
What I am suggesting that a business meeting, seasoned with a few
prayers and munchies, should not be the center of community life. The
mashriq meeting should be the center of community life -- if it is
impractical to build a physical mashriq'u'l-adhkar, then we should
build a spiritual one. Or call it a "unity Feast" if you like.
Whatever. A weekly meeting ('Abdu'l-Baha recommended Fridays) where
all would be welcome regardless of status. The practice of Feast makes
us so insular. As I said, I can show up to just about any worship
service in town and no one would say a word, except to welcome me.
There is almost something cultish in closing off your main worship
service to only insiders, and exposing outsiders only to carefully
crafted "programs" geared to induce them to join.(Non-Baha'i family
members usually get more exposure than that, of course, but not other
interested people.) Whatever the merits of "Baha'i only" functions,
they do constitute a barrier for people, especially since most are
unaccustomed to that sort of strict distinction.
>
> As for the spiritual portion of Feast - I would say that 25% of the
> time we usually have non-Baha'is present. No big deal.
What do you do with them during the business portion?
.
>
> This I disagree with. Feast has a set of requirements but the rest is
> left to the local community. If we learn the requiremnts then we can
> make feast a very diverse element of our Faith. In other cultures
> Feast is very different from how American's do it. This is not as
> universal a problem as it is made out to be.
As I said before, the lack of a good communal spiritual life is a
pretty constant complaint -- I don't think it can just be dismissed out
of hand as an aberration of my experience.
>
> Yes. It is too bad that every community is not as developed as it
> ought to be. But there is no solution other than to grow and mature.
> I am always upset when I see someone who has been abandoned to their
> own devices but I will not fault the system Baha'u'llah has set up for
> that. We failed to help and we must learn how not to. Adding clergy
> is not the answer.
No, probably not. I personally have no strong feelings about it one
way or the other, not having had either positive or negative
experiences with clergypeople. Certainly, Baha'u'llah prohibited the
establishment of an authoritative clergy, so we can't just invent one.
However, because our communities are often not able to cope with
people's problems, we lose people.
>
> The LSA has its functions. If you need personal help you should not
go
> to the LSA - you should go to a Baha'i you know. Someone who can
> help. We are all clergy when it comes to looking afetr the health and
> happiness of the community. Each of us shares that responsibility.
That's one area where I was fortunate. I did have Baha'is who became
my personal friends, and were more than just fellow-believers. I would
not have thought of going to the LSA for a personal problem; I guess
Jenifer felt something was missing there, though.
>
> Let me share with you a lesson I learned. It is ok to say no. My
wife
> suffers from a horribly debilitaing disease which leaves her little
> time in a day for any kind of meaningful activity. Our community is
> fairly small (10 adults, 7 kids) and we are very active in local and
> regional efforts. We are forced to choose what we do and when we do
> it. We say no alot. It felt bad at first but then we realized that
no
> one got mad at us or thought any less of us. We always say it in a
> kind and loving way. We do what we can and say no to things we cannot
> do. It works - believe me.
Yes, but that's something you have to learn. If I had it all to do
over again, I wouldn't participate in anything that I felt wasn't
meaningful, but that's 20/20 hindsight. Another problem I found was
that if you didn't show up for everything, you missed out on
information, and nobody called for the next thing, and pretty soon you
it was like pulling teeth to find out was the heck was going on, and it
was hard to show up for *anything*. This was why living in my little
incorporated city was so alienating -- I dropped from consciousness
once I was no longer on anybody's assembly.
> > Well, I spoke about this in my own story. It came as a terrible
> > shock, especially after having been given the "no proselytizing"
> > line. We lie to people, you know, when we say that.
>
> No we do not. Here are the two meanins of prosletyze from Webster:
>
> 1 : to induce someone to convert to one's faith
> 2 : to recruit someone to join one's party, institution, or cause
> transitive senses : to recruit or convert especially to a new faith,
> institution, or cause
>
> We do neither of these. No. 1 we cleary do not do. No. 2 is a fine
> line to walk and if we do cross it it is because we do not understand
> what it means to teach. We do not prosletyze.
<sigh> Dave, complaints about the Baha'i community's obsession with the
plans and projects to gain new members is probably the single most
universal complaint among us disgruntled types. We *do* attempt
to "recruit or convert" people; we talk about it endlessly. There were
times that I swore if I heard "the teaching work" one more time I would
absolutely scream. It's just a semantic trick to go around saying "we
don't prosletyze" when the LSAs top priority is teaching.
Anyway, no matter what we mean, what people hear is "Great, they don't
push their religion on people". And if they convert, they find they
are pressured to do exactly that. That's what happens, Dave, and it
not only happened to me, but to just about every disillusioned Baha'i I
know, in or out of cyberspace.
And the higher-ups are not innocent in this; it can't just be blamed on
immature communities. We got lectured about it at National Convention;
I've heard tapes talking about how the time is urgent and we have to
act *now*. On and on and on, ad nauseum. It's as predictable as the
appeals for more funds.
Well, Dave, I somehow lost the rest of your quotes, so I think I'll try
to complete this in a separate post.
Love, Karen
Susan Maneck
>congregational prayer has been misunderstood as a bad on anything
>except one lone individual reading a prayer at a time
Dear Karen,
This prohibition has indeed been misunderstood. There are various words for
prayer in Persian and Arabic. The only kind we are prohibited from saying in
congregation is the obligatory prayers. Wnen I was in the New Era School in
India children routinely said prayers in unison, including the Lord's Prayer.
>What I am suggesting that a business meeting, seasoned with a few
>prayers and munchies, should not be the center of community life. The
>mashriq meeting should be the center of community life -- if it is
>impractical to build a physical mashriq'u'l-adhkar, then we should
>build a spiritual one.
That is exactly what the Dec. 28, 1999 letter from the Universal House of
Justice called for: http://bahai-library.org/uhj/aqdas.laws.html
I think most larger communities have weekly worship services now.
warmest, Susan
Susan Maneck
>friends will kick her out again!
Gianna, there have been three, count them, three people kicked out of the Faith
in total. This is hardly a major purge.
Karen Bacquet
To continue with my comments:
> We are both tolerant and inclusive but we are also a distinct
> community. We have community needs and community business. We have a
> need to mature together. The distinction is not a separation or an
> attempt to stratifiy the world spiritually. Instaed it is a
> recognition that as a group we have some unique needs that are better
> served when only other Baha'is are present. I do not see this a
> problem.
Many (although by no means all) Baha'is are tolerant, but the Baha'i
Faith is far from inclusive. We exclude people all the time, drawing
strict lines between BIGS, LAR, non-Baha'is, not to mention CBs. I
would agree that for administrative matters discussion needs to be
limited to those who are committed to the Faith. The problem is that
those administrative matters so dominate Baha'i life that it amounts to
an exclusion. We can't claim to be "inclusive" and exclude outsiders
from our main worship service. If we can't open Feast up to everyone,
then maybe the community's life shouldn't be dominated by an
administrative gathering like Feast.
>
>
> Quite simply "A Modest Proposal" was not allowed to be published
> because of method. The contents are sound for the most part and have
> actually come to pass for the most part. The problem is that the
> authors were by-passing the consultaive process and jumping into the
> arena of public argumentation. Those ideas should have been presented
> in a consultation with the NSA and not in not consultative position
> paper.
Um, which of the nine recommendations in "A Modest Proposal" were
adopted Dave? The "crime" here was in writing an article and
submitting it for prepublication review, something that no one would
have thought was a crime, since Baha'i writers do it all the time. It
could have just failed review and the Dialogue editors just could have
gritted their teeth and gone on. That instead they were denounced from
the floor of the National Convention is an act of incredible
vindictiveness. What really happened was that Kazemzadeh hated those
who were associated with the LA group and he wanted them destroyed. Did
a pretty good job of it, too. You talk about method being important:
what about the method by which those accused of opposition are
prosecuted? A big high mucky-muck gets a hair up his butt about some
people, yells and screams about them, and they are doomed.
That is not justice.
> > but that requires bringing things out in the open and hashing
> > them out, sometimes over quite a long time. To simply pretend like
> > differences don't exist, and that we are, therefore, united, gets us
> > nowhere -- but it often happens like that.
>
> Yes it does and I can't stand it either!
It feels good when we can actually agree, doesn't it, Dave?
> > exposed with the rise of the Internet. We go around claiming that
> > there are no Baha'i sects, when even the most basic search reveals
> > that there are. What is true is that the Faith has avoided major
> > schism, and that the small breakaway groups are not a threat to the
> > Baha'i mainstream. Just saying "Oh, those people aren't really
> > Baha'is" doesn't cut it. Christians say that heretical groups
aren't
> > really "Christian" too. No doubt Muslims say that certain Muslim
> > offshoots "aren't really Muslim". What matters is self-definition,
> > not the pronouncement of orthodoxy.
>
> Double-talk? Not really. The first paragraph of the Kitab-i-Aqdas
> spells it all out:
> To be a Baha'i is to follow Baha'i law. Baha'u'llah clearly says that
> you cannot be a Baha'i, a believer in Baha'u'llah, if you do not
follow
> his ordinances. This is the heart of the Covenant. If you do not
> follow this simple admonition then you are not a Baha'i. Remeyites
are
> not Baha'is. JJM's are not Baha'is. It is that simple.
Dave, I actually ran into a non-Baha'i guy asking questions about this,
and somebody gave him the line about Remeyites not really being
Baha'is, and he thought it was a crock. And he was quite confused
because the CBs have a much bigger presence in cyberspace than their
actual numbers warrant. He found my explanation much more sensible.
From the outsider's perspective, it all just looks like an in-house
squabble between two versions of the same faith.
By the way, Remeyites think they *are* being obedient to the Covenant,
and that we are the ones all screwed up. Any sect that has Jesus as a
central figure is basically Christian, no matter how weird. Any sect
that has Baha'u'llah as a central figure is basically Baha'i, no matter
how wrong we think they are.
> > >
> > > That leaves two choices: I accept all of it, or I accept none of
> > > it.
> >
> > These choices stripped my faith away, too, for a while. No doubt
> > there are those here who would prefer that I take Jenifer's path,
> > abandon Baha'u'llah, and become an adherent to another religion. I
> > actually tried to do that, but Baha'u'llah wouldn't let me go.
>
> Then why not follow through with Baha'u'llah's wishes? It is
> Baha'u'llah's desire that we follow Abdu'l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi, and
> the UHJ. He asked us to do it. Why then, if you believe in
> Baha'u'llah so deeply is this step impossible?
Because the UHJ has done things that are wrong, that are completely
against my conscience to support. I do not believe that Baha'u'llah
requires me to place my conscience in the hands of the Institutions;
indeed the Writings support the use of the individual conscience. They
are the ones who have betrayed Baha'u'llah, not me.
>
> I am sorry if I am being too blunt but it is after all the crux of
your
> position. You are happy to accept Baha'u'llah but then why nothing
> after him?
That is not correct. I have never in the slightest way
questioned 'Abdu'l-Baha's station as Center of the Covenant.
Love, Karen
>
> Peace,
>
> Dave
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
>
--
"The essence of all that We have revealed for thee
is justice . . ." Baha'u'llah
http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/bigquestions/Bacquet.html
patk...@my-deja.com
In article <94t3q8$en9nl$1...@ID-57474.news.dfncis.de>,
When, Insha Allah, she comes back, it is because she has seen through
the shunting back to ground of clergy, she has seen through the shunting
back to ground of ritual, she has seen through the tradition, she has
seen the 'man behind the curtain' - the lesser materiality that creates
that illusion. She has discerned the Ageless Beauty from the layered
varnish, and in correctly assaying the gold from the dross, has herself
been transmuted across the decades.
After that, if anyone can kick her anywhere, a) more power to them, but
b) the kickers are really wasting their time in fruitless endeavours
anyway. Personally, I go with c) nobody in the AO has kicked anybody
anywhere. I am confident that if/when the evidence ever comes to light,
you will see that any disenrollments follow the pattern of simmply
documenting an alienation from the cause - those who've choosen to play
with the man behind the curtain, those who like the wafers, those who
prefer the incense and the distraction in general.
Are you staying the winter on the Mediterranean?
Blessings!
- Pat
ko...@ameritel.net
patk...@my-deja.com
sma...@aol.com (Susan Maneck ) wrote:
> >If she does come back, she'll come back as a liberal, and then your
heavy
> >friends will kick her out again!
>
> Gianna, there have been three, count them, three people kicked out of
the Faith
> in total. This is hardly a major purge.
>
These included, "Don't talk to me you bad bahais, or I'll sue!", and
"You Nazis, you!". I don't know exactly what the third one did, but the
first two seemed to have attained their intended objects.
patk...@my-deja.com
> >congregational prayer has been misunderstood as a bad on anything
> >except one lone individual reading a prayer at a time
Karen, you are a bright and spiritual person. The notion of praying
alone may seem daunting, but let me assure you that when you pray, you
are as un-alone as you can be.
> This prohibition has indeed been misunderstood. There are various
words for
> prayer in Persian and Arabic. The only kind we are prohibited from
saying in
> congregation is the obligatory prayers. Wnen I was in the New Era
School in
> India children routinely said prayers in unison, including the Lord's
Prayer.
>
I agree that there has been misunderstanding. I don't pray in public,
much less congregation. Prior is reunion with the Best Beloved. I do
not invite friends and blood relatives on the honeymoon. If I am taking
my wife out, I generally don't have two guys from the office tag along
so I can talk football.
If people want to drink the wine of astonishment from old skins, I
suppose some will. Don't bother asking me to have it that way, though.
"The reason why privacy hath been enjoined in moments of devotion is
this, that thou mayest give thy best attention to the remembrance of
God, that thy heart may at all times be animated with His Spirit, and
not be shut out as by a veil from thy Best Beloved. Let not thy tongue
pay lip service in praise of God while thy heart be not attuned to the
exalted Summit of Glory, and the Focal Point of communion."
Does the reason above apply to Salaat, or doah, both, or neither?
If people wish to recite prayers, I think that is another matter than
praying. I think this is like the difference between putting together a
shopping list and storing the items you've purchased. They are both
part of shopping but they are different activities.
> >What I am suggesting that a business meeting, seasoned with a few
> >prayers and munchies, should not be the center of community life. The
> >mashriq meeting should be the center of community life -- if it is
> >impractical to build a physical mashriq'u'l-adhkar, then we should
> >build a spiritual one.
>
> That is exactly what the Dec. 28, 1999 letter from the Universal House
of
> Justice called for: http://bahai-library.org/uhj/aqdas.laws.html
>
> I think most larger communities have weekly worship services now.
All matters of state should be referred to the Beytu'l Adel. Matters of
worship are to be referred to the Book. This is from the Eighth, which
is included in the Most Holy Book.
I think this also illustrates the near limit of a theocratical position.
May the Mashriqu'l Azhkar always be near.
- Pat
Nima Hazini
<patk...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:94tmqj$6qm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>If people want to drink the wine of astonishment from old skins, I
>suppose some will. Don't bother asking me to have it that way, though.
Another case of Baha'i triumphalism believing it invented solitary worship.
The Buddhists, various schools of Hinduism, Hesychast Eastern Orthodox
Christians and of course the Sufis and many more have practiced solitary
prayer and worship loooooong before Baha'is ever came on the scene.
>Does the reason above apply to Salaat, or doah, both, or neither?
It applies to dhikr,dua, munajaat and awrad in Sufi Islam long before ya'll
ever came around. Seems like ya'll have been drinking generous helpings of
the wine of mediocrity from astonishingingly old skins without even
realizing it.
cheers,
Nima
Gianmario Scotti
Hello.
I have read the letter at the http://www.mit.edu/~jtidwell/letter_lsa.html
link.
I am a Baha'i, and participate to our community life, but since I am very
busy these months, and since I still don't speak the language of the
country where I have moved, I don't get to ask many questions from my
fellow Baha'is. That's why I would like to know, if there are other
Bahai'is here, what is your take on some of the points in Jenifer's
letter. Specifically, point n. 6. That has been worrying me since a long
time, but I just were not able toexpress myself. But yes, I was always
wondering why is that Abdu'l Baha says Christ didn't resurrect because
that would be unscientific? CAn not God resurrect whoever He wants? Can
not God do whatever He wishes?
And about the other religions: how can I explain that there is no
reincarnation, to a Buddhist or a Hindu?
I don't know if I am making my point, I think Jenifer expressed herself
better, I just added some of my own thoughts.
If there is a Baha'i who would be so kind to reply to this question, I
would be very grateful. Also, if someone has already answered Jenifer's
letter, you could simply point me to the website (if it is published on
the 'net).
mario
Patrick Henry wrote:
> Jenifer Tidwell
Jenifer Tidwell
My goodness. I posted this letter a year and a half ago, and I'm
shocked -- shocked! -- that it took Fred this long to find it. :-)
(Fred, I'm sorry I didn't tell you about it earlier. I remember you
encouraged me to post it publicly back when I wrote it, but I wasn't
ready to do so then. It took me a lot of time to get to that point,
and when I did post it, I did so quietly.)
In the past couple of days, your public discussions and private
letters have touched me deeply. Thank you, everyone, for your
support, love, and willingness to discuss these issues. Karen, it
sounds like you and I really are on the same wavelength; I agree with
much of what you say. Susan, your wisdom is welcomed (though I
haven't gotten back to you yet). And thank you, both Susan and
Abelard, for not writing me off. :-)
In private email, someone asked me for a followup: What happened
as a result of that letter, and what has it been like since I left?
First, the individuals in my local community handled the situation
very well. I have seen them occasionally in the time since I left,
such as at a town interfaith celebration, and we remain on very good
terms, just like old friends ought to be! One of them has since had
trouble with the Faith and spoke to me about it -- I'm afraid I wasn't
of much help to him, but apparently he's been dealing with some of
the same issues, and maybe my letter helped him work them out.
I have not encountered any hostility. None. That speaks so well of
the Baha'is, doesn't it?
On the other hand, no institution has responded to any of my specific
points. In fact, National never send me any acknowledgement of the
letter at all (though the local LSA did) -- I just stopped receiving
mail from them, and that was that. Odd, but typical, I thought:
wonderful individuals and community, yet unresponsive institutions.
So... where am I now?
My husband and I both attend the church I spoke of in the 1999 letter,
and we've been active members since we started. It's a very liberal
place, with a female priest (who is a lesbian, by the way), lots of
strong women and young families and diverse ethnicities in the
congregation, plenty of opportunities for participation and service,
openness about the community's strengths and weaknesses, and plenty of
art and music (both of which I help create).
I am still learning so much about the Christian revelation that it
sometimes makes my head spin. One of our parishioners is a Harvard
professor who studies the Gospel of Mary. (Did you know that existed?
Along with the Gospel of Thomas, and other non-canonical books.
Fascinating stuff.) And our priest finds interpretations of old,
familiar stories that stand the traditional meanings on their heads.
It's confusing, and it's wonderful.
Among this church's many blessings is the fact that my husband and I
are both in the same faith community! I had missed that terribly when
I was a Baha'i and he wasn't. Our marriage was already good, but I
think this has made it even better. Likewise, I have become closer
to my Episcopal parents, simply because we have more in common to
talk about now.
Another blessing is the new freedoms I have. For instance, I no
longer feel any hesitation about taking sides on political issues.
In fact, I feel now that if we *don't* take part in the political
process -- both individually and corporately -- we're not living up to
our responsibility to do God's work in this world. (I'm talking more
about social justice, peace, and environmental issues than the nastier
right-wing stuff, don't worry. But, ironically, I understand the
religious right better now.)
Oh -- and good wine tastes fabulous. In moderation, of course. :-)
Talking to friends and family about religious issues is easier for
me, now that I'm not under pressure to teach. It comes much more
naturally. Funny how that works.
The rituals that we go through every week at church still work for me.
They are rock-solid, ever-changing, comforting, disquieting, and
everything else I said in my original letter.
I believe (as I think I always have) that gay and lesbian couples are
wonderful, strong families that should be given all the love and
support they deserve. There are several at our church, including
couples with adopted children. It would be utterly inhumane to tell
these couples and families that their existence is morally wrong.
Or to prevent them from forming in the first place.
I have been better able to reconcile my love of the outdoors with
Christian theology than with Baha'i theology. I won't go into the
details of that here, but I find God's Word written into the woods,
rock, snow, and mountains as much as it is written into Revelation.
That's a personal thing; I don't doubt there are Baha'is who feel the
same way.
I don't read the Writings that often anymore, though occasionally, in
meditative moments, the daily obligatory prayer comes unbidden.
(Christian prayers do, too, sometimes.) Now that I think about it, I
do miss the Writings. But I can't read them in quite the same way now
that I used to. Nevertheless, I am willing to believe I was wrong
about them having "pat answers for everything," and I'm reading this
netnews discussion with eagerness...
Finally, let me share a story with you. Last summer, having been out
of the Faith for a long time, my husband and I were driving up the
Maine coast near Kittery on a sunny afternoon. I suggested we take a
certain back road instead of the main highway, just because it looked
interesting. As we drove down the road, it began to look familiar.
Part of me gradually became aware of why. I was not surprised when
we saw the sign for Greenacre finally appear before us.
"Let's go in," I suggested. I expected that there would be some
weekend program going on, but I wanted to see the buildings again,
having not been there in many years. As soon as we parked the car, we
saw people we knew! And in the inn, more old friends! We hung out
talking with them for a while, then wandered around the grounds,
soaking up the Maine sunlight. I swear I have never seen Greenacre
that beautiful. It was one of those mysterious, perfect events that
could never have been planned.
I'm not sure what God was trying to tell me that day. It might have
been, "Come back to the Faith," but it might also have been, "It's OK
to be where you are. This Faith will always be here if you need it,
even if you remain outside it for a while."
Someday I'll know.
God bless all of you who seek to understand.
- Jenifer Tidwell
P.S. Please, continue the discussion; this is fascinating!
Karen Bacquet
This is one of my "complaint" areas that I have seen definite and
positive signs of improvement, even in my small, wacky community. And
while I was disturbed by the mention of the association of supporting
the mashriq with "internal opposition" in the April 7 letter, it looks
like the statements since then, like the letter you mention, have been
more supportive of that kind of effort. A fair person's got to give
credit where credit is due.
sma...@aol.com (Susan Maneck ) wrote:
> This prohibition has indeed been misunderstood. There are various
words for
> prayer in Persian and Arabic. The only kind we are prohibited from
saying in
> congregation is the obligatory prayers.
This is why we just need more deepening material in this area,
explaining the context of the devotional laws. The friends really don't
understand, really, how much freedom Baha'u'llah has actually given us
in this area. We are daintily sipping at tea, when we could really let
loose and party down, so to speak.
Susan Maneck
>"You Nazis, you!". I don't know exactly what the third one did, but the
>first two seemed to have attained their intended objects.
The third one was saying that the House of Justice was violating the Covenant.
Susan Maneck
>the shunting back to ground of clergy, she has seen through the shunting
>back to ground of ritual, she has seen through the tradition
Dear Pat,
I would hope rather that if and when she returns she will have a new
appreciation for Christianity which she can bring back to our community and a
new vision as to how some of these features might be incorporated into our
communities. (I'm seeing this to Jennifer, btw, because if we are going to talk
to her on a public forum like talk.religion.bahai, I think she should at least
know what is going on. ) That would require more work, naturally, so if it is
just work she wants to get out of, she would be out of luck! But I would hope
that she will recognize what needs things like an organized clergy, a rich
ritual life and appreciation for tradition offer, and be considering how the
Baha'i Faith might also meet those needs, even if it cannot replicate those
forms. Many of the problems she alludes to our simply maturation problems. We
frankly, don't yet have the expertise to know what we are doing!
I expect that some of the functions currently served by clergy in America which
she appreciates, such as spiritual advisor, will be eventually taken over by
the Institution of the Learned. Right now only some of the ABMs and most of the
Counselors have the expertise to fill such a role and most of them don't have
the time. Incidently, the pastorial and counseling role played by clergy in our
country is really pretty unique to the US. This is not done so much in Europe,
for instance. I had a dear friend of mine who was going back to Germany to be a
pastor and she very much neglected she couldn't play that roll there.
Of course, the leadership role will always be in the hands of the Houses of
Justice. But I think we can anticipate there will come a time when they won't
all be amateurs.
As far as avoiding rituals, nothing is a ritual unless it is done numerous
times. This is what the Guardian had to say about ritual:
"In the meantime your N.S.A. should take great care lest any uniform procedure
or ritual in this matter be adopted or imposed upon the friends. The danger in
this, as in some other cases regarding Bahá'í worship, is that a definite
system of rigid rituals and practices be developed among the believers."
Notice the stress upon words like "impose" and "rigid." What Shoghi Effendi is
doing is suggesting that we ought not to have rituals in the sense that things
*have* to be done this way, not in the sense that we can't enrich our corporate
devotional lives with the use of symbolic gestures. I have seen some marvelous
Feasts which utilized liturgical dance in the spiritual portion, for instance.
Course, there are even less of us that can dance than sing. :-) But this too
will change.
As far as tradition goes, in some sense we have more tradition than any other
rleigion, if we would just recognize it, for we embrace them all. Much of the
very language Baha'u'llah uses is incomprehensible without the very rich
tradition He is drawing on.
warmest, Susan
Susan Maneck
>this, that thou mayest give thy best attention to the remembrance of
>God, that thy heart may at all times be animated with His Spirit, and
>not be shut out as by a veil from thy Best Beloved. Let not thy tongue
>pay lip service in praise of God while thy heart be not attuned to the
>exalted Summit of Glory, and the Focal Point of communion."
>
>Does the reason above apply to Salaat, or doah, both, or neither?
>
Dear Pat,
You'd have to give me the source of that passage so I can look up the word
being translated as "devotion" here before I can tell you.
Patrick Henry
news:94tp84$mf4$1...@animato.animato.arlington.ma.us...
>
> My goodness. I posted this letter a year and a half ago, and I'm
> shocked -- shocked! -- that it took Fred this long to find it. :-)
> (Fred, I'm sorry I didn't tell you about it earlier. I remember you
> encouraged me to post it publicly back when I wrote it, but I wasn't
> ready to do so then. It took me a lot of time to get to that point,
> and when I did post it, I did so quietly.)
My apologies. :-) I do recall vaguely now my perhaps
urging you to share it with others. Sometimes the quiet
way is the best in the long run, since surely you realized
how the fundamentalists would view and treat your cri de coeur....
--
Frederick Glaysher
www.fglaysher.com
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
http://members.nbci.com/fglaysher/index.htm
>
Susan Maneck
>while I was disturbed by the mention of the association of supporting
>the mashriq with "internal opposition" in the April 7 letter, it looks
>like the statements since then, like the letter you mention, have been
>more supportive of that kind of effort. A fair person's got to give
>credit where credit is due.
Dear Karen,
The April 7 letter was not objecting to the mashriq movement per se, except in
those aspects where it was being seen as an institution entirely distinct from
the administrative institutions. I think it had been suggested that it be under
the direction of board of trustees not under the direction of the Houses of
Justice. In other words, in some quarters there was an attempt to present it
as an alternative to the Baha'i administration, rather than an integral part of
it (and I would say even central to it.) You might ask Terry Culhane for more
details regarding the fine distinctions between the views of those supporting
the Mashriq movement. The Dec. 28 letter was a definite attempt to embrace
those parts of it which the House found timely. I think this is shown by the
fact that, immediately upon its release, Counselor Birkland called Terry to
bring it to his attention.
This letter, btw, appeared on Baha'i Studies in a rather amusing context. Terry
had been complaining about the emphasis on Plans, etc. and not giving enough
attention being given to the devotional life by the Universal House of Justice.
I finally managed to persuade Terry privately to write the House of Justice
expressing his concerns to them directly. Accordingly, he wrote a rough draft
of a letter he intended to send them but just before he could do so, this
letter appeared on Baha'i Studies which already contained virtually every
recommendation he wanted to make to the House!
You might find the thread that proceeded and then followed this letter rather
amusing. Here are some links of the discussion which proceeded our reading that
letter:
http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist/m12368.html
http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist/m12368.html
http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist/m12376.html
http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist/m12378.html
http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist/m12381.html
http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist/m12385.html
http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist/m12390.html
http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist/m12444.html
And here are the ones which followed:
http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist/m12519.html
http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist/m12523.html
http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist/m12527.html
http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist/m12528.html
http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist/m12529.html
>This is why we just need more deepening material in this area,
>explaining the context of the devotional laws.
I agree.
Susan Maneck
>submitting it for prepublication review, something that no one would
>have thought was a crime, since Baha'i writers do it all the time.
Dear Karen,
It was a little more complicated than that and some of it seems to have been a
result of a misunderstanding. The NSA had been led to believe that this
document was being distributed to Convention delegates with the intent of
swaying the election. But obviously the House saw the document itself as
problematic as well, or they would not have endorsed the NSAs decision to
remove their right to pilgrimage. I think the NSA originally wanted to do far
worse, and the House wouldn't let them.
Susan Maneck
In regards to your question about the resurrection, I might note that the
things 'Abdu'l-Baha said are not inconsistent with much of the biblical
historical criticism today. The consensus is that there was definitely some
resurrection appearances, but these weren't physical in nature. What people
saw, according to the oldest texts was a being of light. Paul, who claims to
have seen the resurrected Christ, was insistent that flesh and blood did not
resurrect. (This is in Corinthians but I don't have a Bible with me just now to
give you the exact text.) Most historians believed that the New Testament
representations of the resurrection of Jesus became increasingly physical over
time in resistence to the gnostic belief that the true Christ was completely
separate from Jesus of Nazareth.
warmest, Susan
Susan Maneck
>shocked -- shocked! -- that it took Fred this long to find it. :-)
Glad you could join us, Jennifer! > In fact, National never send me any
acknowledgement of the
>letter at all (though the local LSA did)
Did your LSA indicate whether you had been taken off the rolls?
>Odd, but typical, I thought:
>wonderful individuals and community, yet unresponsive institutions.
The NSA is often deliberately slow to respond when someone turns in their
resignation but doesn't actually deny their belief in Baha'u'llah. Generally,
they want to give you plenty of time to think about it.
seegar
>to be where you are. This Faith will always be here if you need it,
>even if you remain outside it for a while."
You are on your
individual search for truth and are doing just fine!
Just one man's opinion.
`The ways unto
God are
as the number of the breaths of [His] creatures' is a mysterious
truth,
(`Abdu'l-Baha: A Traveler's Narrative, Pages: 91-92)
Peace and Love,
Chris
Karen Bacquet
It's so nice to hear from you!
>
> First, the individuals in my local community handled the situation
> very well. I have seen them occasionally in the time since I left,
> such as at a town interfaith celebration, and we remain on very good
> terms, just like old friends ought to be! One of them has since had
> trouble with the Faith and spoke to me about it -- I'm afraid I wasn't
> of much help to him, but apparently he's been dealing with some of
> the same issues, and maybe my letter helped him work them out.
>
> I have not encountered any hostility. None. That speaks so well of
> the Baha'is, doesn't it?
I've had the same experience, mostly. There was one guy who put a lot
of pressure on me either to come back to the Faith officially, or to
stay away completely. Actually, just last night I went to gathering,
and saw people I haven't seen in nearly two years. My feelings were
mixed. Everyone was very welcoming to me (not everyone was aware of my
rather ambiguous status), but some things were just same old, same old,
just like I left it.
Most of the hostility I have encountered has been in cyberspace, and
that is because I have been openly critical of the Institutions and
some of their actions.
>
> On the other hand, no institution has responded to any of my specific
> points. In fact, National never send me any acknowledgement of the
> letter at all (though the local LSA did) -- I just stopped receiving
> mail from them, and that was that. Odd, but typical, I thought:
> wonderful individuals and community, yet unresponsive institutions.
It took months before the NSA responded to my resignation letter,
although The American Baha'i stopped coming immediately, which I
thought somewhat amusing. (Can't have a "non-Baha'i" reading all those
deep, dark secrets in our national newsletter! :-)
>
>
> I am still learning so much about the Christian revelation that it
> sometimes makes my head spin. One of our parishioners is a Harvard
> professor who studies the Gospel of Mary. (Did you know that existed?
> Along with the Gospel of Thomas, and other non-canonical books.
> Fascinating stuff.) And our priest finds interpretations of old,
> familiar stories that stand the traditional meanings on their heads.
> It's confusing, and it's wonderful.
Yes, I've done some looking into the Nag Hammadi texts, and it is quite
amazing stuff.
>
> Another blessing is the new freedoms I have. For instance, I no
> longer feel any hesitation about taking sides on political issues.
> In fact, I feel now that if we *don't* take part in the political
> process -- both individually and corporately -- we're not living up to
> our responsibility to do God's work in this world. (I'm talking more
> about social justice, peace, and environmental issues than the nastier
> right-wing stuff, don't worry. But, ironically, I understand the
> religious right better now.)
>
> Oh -- and good wine tastes fabulous. In moderation, of course. :-)
You know what I miss? Margueritas, that's what I miss. :-) I have not,
since leaving, done much in terms of becoming involved in politics I
still follow Baha'i law in my personal life, but the prohibition on
politics is more community policy than law, and would not feel bound by
it. But I'm not all that politically-oriented. I am troubled,
however, that Baha'is go around talking about how we have the answers
to the world's problems, yet are prevented from doing so much that is
practical about them.
> I have been better able to reconcile my love of the outdoors with
> Christian theology than with Baha'i theology. I won't go into the
> details of that here, but I find God's Word written into the woods,
> rock, snow, and mountains as much as it is written into Revelation.
> That's a personal thing; I don't doubt there are Baha'is who feel the
> same way.
Baha'u'llah refers to "The Book of Creation" as well as "The Book of
Revelation". St. Paul calls it "general revelation" as opposed
to "specific revelation" -- in the Epistle to the Romans, I think.
>
> I don't read the Writings that often anymore, though occasionally, in
> meditative moments, the daily obligatory prayer comes unbidden.
> (Christian prayers do, too, sometimes.) Now that I think about it, I
> do miss the Writings. But I can't read them in quite the same way now
> that I used to. Nevertheless, I am willing to believe I was wrong
> about them having "pat answers for everything," and I'm reading this
> netnews discussion with eagerness...
Honey, you get out in Baha'i cyberspace, you'll see perspectives you've
never thought of. Not to mention new translations of Tablets you've
never seen.
>
> I'm not sure what God was trying to tell me that day. It might have
> been, "Come back to the Faith," but it might also have been, "It's OK
> to be where you are. This Faith will always be here if you need it,
> even if you remain outside it for a while."
It has always been my belief that no one who seeks God with sincerity
will ever end up in the wrong place.
Love, Karen
>
>
--
"The essence of all that We have revealed for thee
is justice . . ." Baha'u'llah
http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/bigquestions/Bacquet.html
Karen Bacquet
patk...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <20010126220046...@ng-mq1.aol.com>,
> sma...@aol.com (Susan Maneck ) wrote:
> > > For example, prohibition on
> > >congregational prayer has been misunderstood as a bad on anything
> > >except one lone individual reading a prayer at a time
>
> Karen, you are a bright and spiritual person. The notion of praying
> alone may seem daunting, but let me assure you that when you pray, you
> are as un-alone as you can be.
Dear Pat,
Thank you, I know that. But I guess what I'm saying is, what is a
religious community for? If there is not shared spiritual experience,
what's the point? I've got relatives I can eat potluck with, I hate
Assembly meetings, most teaching projects have flopped. The only
practical thing I really wanted from the community was Sunday School
for my kids, and they were always on-again, off-again.
I was a lone seeker before becoming a Baha'i; I was alone a lot when I
during the time I was enrolled, and I'm mostly on my own now. I'm not
afraid to be on my own. But I want *community* from my community --
not just a nice bunch of people, but people with whom I share a common
bond, and have a shared experience.
Besides, Pat, there needs to be room for all kinds within the Baha'i
community. I know you have a strong bias towards private devotions,
and I for one, would never insist that you participate in something
that makes you uncomfortable. But I think without a greater emphasis on
shared devotions, the Baha'i Faith will continue to lose people like
Jenifer, who will find spiritual communities that *do* offer a
spiritual experience.
Love, Karen
Karen Bacquet
> >submitting it for prepublication review, something that no one would
> >have thought was a crime, since Baha'i writers do it all the time.
>
> Dear Karen,
>
> It was a little more complicated than that and some of it seems to
have been a
> result of a misunderstanding. The NSA had been led to believe that
this
> document was being distributed to Convention delegates with the
intent of
> swaying the election.
Yes, I am aware of that. But Dave was complaining that the "method"
was somehow worthy of punishment. And I've got bit problems with
people being denounced when the authorities don't even have solid
evidence about what's going on. That article was not distributed at
Convention; that idea was discussed, but it didn't happen. Unless I'm
mistaken, the only delegates who saw it were those who were in the LA
area and associated with Dialogue.
The reason they were denounced at Convention is because Kazemzadeh
hates those guys.
But obviously the House saw the document itself as
> problematic as well, or they would not have endorsed the NSAs
decision to
> remove their right to pilgrimage. I think the NSA originally wanted
to do far
> worse, and the House wouldn't let them.
That may be so, but I have trouble seeing the justice of the situation.
They wrote an article. That's not a sin, especially since it was never
published. And a whole lot of ill feeling came out of that incident.
And now that people like Jenifer and myself can see what the article
really said, the Baha'i powers that be just look like paranoid asses.
Love, Karen
Gianmario Scotti
Gianmario Scotti
Thank you, Susan! I will look up the Letter to the Corinthians, tonight!
cheers!
mario
Nima Hazini
Susan Maneck <sma...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010127102724...@ng-ch1.aol.com...
>The NSA is often deliberately slow to respond when someone turns in their
>resignation but doesn't actually deny their belief in Baha'u'llah.
Generally,
>they want to give you plenty of time to think about it.
LOL :)) Or in my case and that of Steven Scholl's they were soooo slow -
wishing to give us time to think about it, and all - they responded in less
than a week. Just as well...
cheers,
Nima
patk...@my-deja.com
"Nima Hazini" <lotu...@wxc.com.au> wrote:
> yawn
>
> <patk...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:94tmqj$6qm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >If people want to drink the wine of astonishment from old skins, I
> >suppose some will. Don't bother asking me to have it that way,
though.
>
> Another case of Baha'i triumphalism believing it invented solitary
worship.
Utter nonsense!
> The Buddhists, various schools of Hinduism, Hesychast Eastern Orthodox
> Christians and of course the Sufis and many more have practiced
solitary
> prayer and worship loooooong before Baha'is ever came on the scene.
Duh! One of the stunning things about visiting Christian churches, is
hearing the preacher say, "Let us now pray", I wonder if he is asking
Jesus this. Sometimes in the service, you can hear them read the words
of Jesus saying, "Pray not as the hypocrites, but go to thy privvy
chamber." The gathering to pray is an obvious imitation of the synagog
service, which was deprecated by Jesus, but eventually was instituted by
the organization.
> >Does the reason above apply to Salaat, or doah, both, or neither?
>
> It applies to dhikr,dua, munajaat and awrad in Sufi Islam long before
ya'll
> ever came around. Seems like ya'll have been drinking generous
helpings of
> the wine of mediocrity from astonishingingly old skins without even
> realizing it.
Mebbe, but I'm not the one deluded myself into casting my reluctance to
simply imitate ancestral forms as "Baha'i Triumphalism". I've been well
aware that private worship has had a long history. Due to its dynamics,
it is not as popular (not as social). But popularity is not the point.
It is about obediance: when Allah calls us together for Friday
prayers, together we pray; when Allah calls us to our own places,
privately we pray; what we do is nothing, w/o Allah; should we do in the
name of Allah what we were told not to do, we are hypocrites. Prayer is
good; hypocrisy is bad. You can call it "Baha'i Triumphalism"; you can
call it "bogawagawingawonga". I want to do the good and not do the bad.
KN!
- Pat
ko...@ameritel.net
patk...@my-deja.com
In article <20010127091118...@ng-ch1.aol.com>,
sma...@aol.com (Susan Maneck ) wrote:
> >"The reason why privacy hath been enjoined in moments of devotion is
> >this, that thou mayest give thy best attention to the remembrance of
> >God, that thy heart may at all times be animated with His Spirit, and
> >not be shut out as by a veil from thy Best Beloved. Let not thy
tongue
> >pay lip service in praise of God while thy heart be not attuned to
the
> >exalted Summit of Glory, and the Focal Point of communion."
> >
> >Does the reason above apply to Salaat, or doah, both, or neither?
> >
>
> Dear Pat,
>
> You'd have to give me the source of that passage so I can look up the
word
> being translated as "devotion" here before I can tell you.
>
Sorry about that. "Persian Bayan", Vahid IX, Chapter 4.
I would think that the remembrance of Allah trumps various forms of
'devotion'.
Blessings!
- Pat
ko...@ameritel.net
Susan Maneck
>'devotion'.
The "Remembrance of God" is the Bab Himself. :-) But Baha'u'llah says that
"One hour's reflection is preferable to seventy years of pious worship"
Rick Schaut
"Karen Bacquet" <kala...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:94vc8t$bbl$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <20010127101716...@ng-ch1.aol.com>,
> sma...@aol.com (Susan Maneck ) wrote:
> > The NSA had been led to believe that
> > this document was being distributed to Convention
> > delegates with the intent of swaying the election.
> Yes, I am aware of that. But Dave was complaining that the "method"
> was somehow worthy of punishment. And I've got bit problems with
> people being denounced when the authorities don't even have solid
> evidence about what's going on.
> The reason they were denounced at Convention is because Kazemzadeh
> hates those guys.
Not hatred. Frustration. And the whole issue is way more complicated than
just the distribution of "A Modest Proposal". Dr. Kazemzadeh saw the
article as a continuation of a pattern of behavior stretching back to the
late '70s and early '80s. His frustration was shared by a number of people
who were aware of all that had gone on between the NSA and the old LA Study
Group. That whole series of events, stretching back more than a decade
prior to the incident at Convention, prompted the Universal House of Justice
to write the "Individual Rights and Freedoms" letter. No, there was way
more afoot there than just the intent to distribute that article.
> And now that people like Jenifer and myself can see what the article
> really said, the Baha'i powers that be just look like paranoid asses.
Yes. At the same time, I've yet to see anyone provide a fair and honest
account of all the stuff the led up to that incident. Perhaps the fact that
you see what the article really said but have been given that opportunity
devoid of almost any of the context that led to the incident is calculated
precisely to lead you to believe that the U.S. National Spiritual Assembly
is nothing but bunch of paranoid asses.
It's possible to put some of the pieces together. There are notes from that
group on H-Baha'i, but even they don't tell the whole story. One does,
however, get a sense of a pattern that seems to have been repeated even to
this day. The pattern goes like this:
1) A group of concerned individuals gets together and begins discussing
issues that are facing the Baha'i community. They take notes, the notes get
published. No one thinks to pay much attention to either style or tone.
The group is not particularly well deepened in certain facets of appropriate
Baha'i conduct, particularly with regard to criticism of the elected
institutions.
2) The institutions notice that these notes are getting published without
anyone having taken these issues directly to these institutions. The
distribution of these notes, particularly in so far as they contain
criticisms of a style and tone that's contrary to some basic Baha'i
principles, is problematic. The activity takes on the character of some
form of loyal opposition, and the distribution looks like an effort to
garner support for the criticisms being expressed. The institutions attempt
to bring this issue to the attention of the people who are publishing the
notes. (It's worth noting that "institutions", here, includes the Universal
House of Justice.)
3) The folks who have been distributing the notes respond as if the
institutions are trying to silence them rather than strive to understand
what the institutions have actually said. They push back, but, in doing so,
engage in a behavior that's even further in the direction away from which
the institutions were hoping to deflect them.
And, so begins a cycle of concomitant actions and reactions. That cycle has
repeated itself both on a large scale and on a smaller scale within the
larger cycles.
Now, for the irony. One criticism that's been voiced in this thread is that
Feasts are open only to people who are enrolled in the Baha'i Faith. The
reason for this is precisely to facilitate the sense that people should be
free to voice whatever views or criticisms they have of the Assembly's
policies and practicies. When I'm in a group that's not restricted to
members of the Faith, I don't feel like I can be quite as open as I can
within the group. One doesn't air one's dirty laundry in front of guests.
It would seem as though Baha'i institutions are damned if they do and damned
if they don't. They're supposed to be open to criticism and complaint, but
the one forum in which Baha'is are most free to do so, the Feast, is
criticised precisely because there is a provision designed to allow that
forum to be as free and open as possible.
Regards,
Rick Schaut
Paul Hammond
Gianmario Scotti wrote in message <3A7344DE...@nokia.com>...
>Hello.
>
>
>I have read the letter at the http://www.mit.edu/~jtidwell/letter_lsa.html
>
>link.
>I am a Baha'i, and participate to our community life, but since I am very
>busy these months, and since I still don't speak the language of the
>country where I have moved, I don't get to ask many questions from my
>fellow Baha'is. That's why I would like to know, if there are other
>Bahai'is here, what is your take on some of the points in Jenifer's
>letter. Specifically, point n. 6. That has been worrying me since a long
>time, but I just were not able toexpress myself. But yes, I was always
>wondering why is that Abdu'l Baha says Christ didn't resurrect because
>that would be unscientific? CAn not God resurrect whoever He wants? Can
>not God do whatever He wishes?
>And about the other religions: how can I explain that there is no
>reincarnation, to a Buddhist or a Hindu?
>
Ciao Mario,
It was always my understanding of Abdu'l Baha that he *didn't*
explicitly say that Christ was not risen from the dead.
I think that you are right, that God is all-powerful, and He 'verily
doeth whatsoever He will'. So that, if God wanted Jesus physically
raised from dead He could certainly do this.
But, Abdu'l Baha also said that a miracle was no proof of anything
to anyone who didn't directly witness it. Raising Jesus from the
dead would not make him unique (according to the bible, Jesus
raised Lazerus (sp?) from the dead, but we don't say that Lazerus
was therefore a Manifestation of God). And, it wouldn't really be
a big deal if Jesus were to rise again, and walk around physically
on the earth for another 30 or 40 years.
No, what Abdu'l Baha does is to draw attention to the *important*
thing about Jesus resurrection. That, whatever we think happened
to Jesus' flesh and blood body, His true resurrection was spiritual.
That is, somehow, He inspired His followers to rise out of their
despondency and realise the importance of the kingdom of heaven,
and go and teach the world what Jesus taught them.
So, you can think whatever you like about Jesus physical
resurrection, IMO. It doesn't make a difference to those of
us who live 2000 years after He walked the Earth. But, His
*words* are what makes the difference to us, and His spirit.
IMO, reading the Gospels confirms this idea. There is something
about Jesus' appearances after His death which makes them
seem - non-physical. He appears and disappears mysteriously,
and when He walks with His followers along the road, they
talk to Him, but don't recognise Him until they arrive at their
destination. All of these things don't sound to me like someone
re-inhabiting His physical, flesh and blood body, Doubting Thomas
putting his hands into the wounds in His hands and side,
notwithstanding.
So, anyway, my understanding of Abdu'l Baha was that he said
basically, believe whatever you want to about the physical
Resurrection, that is not important, what is important is Jesus
spiritual resurrection, which no-one can doubt.
Best wishes,
Paul
Mikal 606
"Paul Hammond" <paha...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:3a74...@news-uk.onetel.net.uk...
<snip>
>
> So, anyway, my understanding of Abdu'l Baha was that he said
> basically, believe whatever you want to about the physical
> Resurrection, that is not important, what is important is Jesus
> spiritual resurrection, which no-one can doubt.
>
That is an important point.Because we know that not everyone *will* believe
in a physical resurrection, at least this can lead people to the correct
path.
L
> Best wishes,
>
> Paul
>
>
Karen Bacquet
Thank you for your perspective. One question that has been in my mind
since I first started investigating this stuff has been "Just what the
hell did these guys do to earn themselves two decades' worth of enmity
from the Institutions?"
I remain unconvinced to this day that this enmity is deserved in any
way.
> Not hatred. Frustration. And the whole issue is way more
complicated than
> just the distribution of "A Modest Proposal". Dr. Kazemzadeh saw the
> article as a continuation of a pattern of behavior stretching back to
the
> late '70s and early '80s. His frustration was shared by a number of
people
> who were aware of all that had gone on between the NSA and the old LA
Study
> Group. That whole series of events, stretching back more than a
decade
> prior to the incident at Convention, prompted the Universal House of
Justice
> to write the "Individual Rights and Freedoms" letter. No, there was
way
> more afoot there than just the intent to distribute that article.
Maybe. But he did not have to destroy that magazine; he did not have to
publicly humiliate the editors. That was mean and uncalled-for. These
are supposed to be institutions that handle cases with justice, not
vehicles for letting out one's personal frustrations against people you
don't like.
>
> > And now that people like Jenifer and myself can see what the article
> > really said, the Baha'i powers that be just look like paranoid
asses.
>
> Yes. At the same time, I've yet to see anyone provide a fair and
honest
> account of all the stuff the led up to that incident. Perhaps the
fact that
> you see what the article really said but have been given that
opportunity
> devoid of almost any of the context that led to the incident is
calculated
> precisely to lead you to believe that the U.S. National Spiritual
Assembly
> is nothing but bunch of paranoid asses.
I didn't know that when articles were submitted for review
that "context" was so important. I thought articles were only judged
on "accuracy and dignity". The fact remains that these people were
unjustly humiliated for writing an article, then following the rules
(however much they disliked them) by submitting it to review.
I will say again: there needs to be some kind of formal due process for
those accused of opposition to the Institutions. Otherwise, it's just
a personal thing -- "We don't like those guys because they're a bunch
of long-haired 60s upstarts who think they're intellectuals. We're
going to teach those little snots some respect!" The offense, and its
consequences need to be clearly laid out and universally applicable.
That is justice.
>
> It's possible to put some of the pieces together. There are notes
from that
> group on H-Baha'i, but even they don't tell the whole story. One
does,
> however, get a sense of a pattern that seems to have been repeated
even to
> this day. The pattern goes like this:
I have noted this pattern as well, not so much in regard to the LA
study group, but in the tension evident in cyberspace, although I would
describe it differently than you have. It's a vicious cycle. My
suggestion is that the Institutions stop cracking down on people, and
give the liberals less to complain about. I still don't see why it has
been so necessary to try to shut these guys up.
> The group is not particularly well deepened in certain facets of
appropriate
> Baha'i conduct, particularly with regard to criticism of the elected
> institutions.
I really have trouble seeing people like Juan Cole, Steve Scholl, and
Tony Lee as "undeepened", even back in those days.
>
> 2) The institutions notice that these notes are getting published
without
> anyone having taken these issues directly to these institutions. The
> distribution of these notes, particularly in so far as they contain
> criticisms of a style and tone that's contrary to some basic Baha'i
> principles, is problematic. The activity takes on the character of
some
> form of loyal opposition, and the distribution looks like an effort to
> garner support for the criticisms being expressed. The institutions
attempt
> to bring this issue to the attention of the people who are publishing
the
> notes. (It's worth noting that "institutions", here, includes the
Universal
> House of Justice.)
My impression is that the issue was that the newsletter, a little local
typed smudgy newslettter, was not being sent in for review -- a
completely impractical and ridiculous suggestion. I've read some of
the issues of that newsletter, and I'm still left trying to figure out
what the NSA was on about.
>
> 3) The folks who have been distributing the notes respond as if the
> institutions are trying to silence them rather than strive to
understand
> what the institutions have actually said.
Well, the demand for review effectively put the kibosh on that
newsletter; I'm not surprised these guys felt "silenced". And, you
will note, they did not just say "Screw you, we'll publish what we
want!" The newsletter stopped. Same thing with Dialogue -- every single
article that was published in that magazine was submitted to and passed
review. If that was the case, how could that magazine be seen
as "opposing" the institutions? They did not mount a public protest
about the shabby way they were treated. Few people even knew about it
until Talisman came along. All this stuff *was* kept quiet. Juan
didn't put "A Modest Proposal" on the web until they pushed him out of
the Faith. Real stupid move, that. They created a critic who has
absolutely nothing to lose anymore; that's not very smart.
They push back, but, in doing so,
> engage in a behavior that's even further in the direction away from
which
> the institutions were hoping to deflect them.
>
> And, so begins a cycle of concomitant actions and reactions. That
cycle has
> repeated itself both on a large scale and on a smaller scale within
the
> larger cycles.
Yes, that's what I have seen. So maybe the institutions should back
off, take the wind out of everybody's sails and stop monitoring
people's email traffic looking for heresy. That would be a good thing.
>
> Now, for the irony. One criticism that's been voiced in this thread
is that
> Feasts are open only to people who are enrolled in the Baha'i Faith.
The
> reason for this is precisely to facilitate the sense that people
should be
> free to voice whatever views or criticisms they have of the Assembly's
> policies and practicies.
In my experience, Feast is not all that "free"; much depends upon who
is chairing it. It is a restricted environment. I never saw "big"
issues brought up at Feast, although I admit that I live in an
administratively underdeveloped area. People get shut up and accused of
causing "disunity." How free consultation is depends on how strong you
are and willing to fight for your right to be heard. I never felt like
I had a voice in anything until I got out in cyberspace.
When I'm in a group that's not restricted to
> members of the Faith, I don't feel like I can be quite as open as I
can
> within the group. One doesn't air one's dirty laundry in front of
guests.
>
> It would seem as though Baha'i institutions are damned if they do and
damned
> if they don't. They're supposed to be open to criticism and
complaint, but
> the one forum in which Baha'is are most free to do so, the Feast, is
> criticised precisely because there is a provision designed to allow
that
> forum to be as free and open as possible.
I am not advocating that non-Baha'is be allowed at the consultation
portion of Feast. What I am advocating is that a non-administrative
worship service, where all are welcome, be the center of community life
instead of the restricted and exclusive Feast.
Love, Karen
>
> Regards,
> Rick Schaut
>
>
--
"The essence of all that We have revealed for thee
is justice . . ." Baha'u'llah
http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/bigquestions/Bacquet.html
Gianmario Scotti
I have drawn my conclusion solely on the basis of "Some answered questions". I
don't have the book in front of my big nose right now, but I think I remembered
Abdu'l'Baha saying that Jesus did not resurrect.
I must admit that what you are saying makes perfect sense, and certainly, I
have to agree that what really -should- matter are the teaching Jesus left to
humanity.
However, Catholics put a lot of importance in the fact of the physical
resurrection of Jesus. I should know, I was a Catholic Christian once.
Thanks again, you gave me more food for thought.
saluti
mario
Ian McCarthy
Immagino che sei italiano.. (chi sa perche'?) Da dove vieni e dove ti sei
trasferito? Conosci il newsgroup it.cultura.religioni.bahai ?
On the subject of the Resurrection, this was one point I didn't agree with
in Jennifer's letter. I'm a Christian but I follow Abdu'l-Baha on this one -
I don't believe in a physical resurrection and I don't think many
Anglican/Episcopalian theologians do either, in this day and age (and many
don't believe in a real God at all - see http://www.sofn.org.uk/ )
I was admitted to a Christian Church with baptism by full immersion even
though I had made quite clear to the pastor that I didn't believe in most of
the old dogmas.
Dogmas are dead, I said.
Fine, he replied, have some bread and wine...
No thanks, I demurred,
Just give me the living Word,
And not even a God above
But only Love, Eternal Love.
Pace e bene,
Janji
"Gianmario Scotti" <gianmari...@nokia.com> wrote in message
news:3A7490DF...@nokia.com...
Ian McCarthy
"Susan Maneck " wrote
> The third one was saying that the House of Justice was violating the
Covenant.
Now we know the charge, but did she have the chance to defend herself in an
open court before the sentence was pronounced?
Janji
patk...@my-deja.com
Gianmario Scotti <gianmari...@nokia.com> wrote:
> Thak you, Paul.
>
> I have drawn my conclusion solely on the basis of "Some answered
questions". I
> don't have the book in front of my big nose right now, but I think I
remembered
> Abdu'l'Baha saying that Jesus did not resurrect.
It never hurts to double check. Different people seem to have different
recollections.
http://bahai-library.org/writings/abdulbaha/some.ans.ques/dir-piece-3/se
c-9.html
It does read "The resurrections of the Divine Manifestations are not of
the body". This is a general statement and seems to apply to 'return',
since, of the Manifestations, Jesus as described as rising from the
dead, physically, and most are not.
Beyond that, the text seems quite consistent with 'Abdu'l Baha drawing
focus to the resurrection of the spirit, as the major miracle.
> I must admit that what you are saying makes perfect sense, and
certainly, I
> have to agree that what really -should- matter are the teaching Jesus
left to
> humanity.
> However, Catholics put a lot of importance in the fact of the physical
> resurrection of Jesus. I should know, I was a Catholic Christian once.
>
With that in mind, and given Baha'u'llah's validation of the Gospel, in
the "Kitabi Iqan", it seems quite reasonable to be open-minded about the
possibility that the Master really wsa drawing attention to the
resurrection of the spirit.
Blessings!
- Pat
ko...@ameritel.net
Karen Bacquet
>
> >What I am suggesting that a business meeting, seasoned with a few
> >prayers and munchies, should not be the center of community life. The
> >mashriq meeting should be the center of community life -- if it is
> >impractical to build a physical mashriq'u'l-adhkar, then we should
> >build a spiritual one.
>
> That is exactly what the Dec. 28, 1999 letter from the Universal
House of
> Justice called for: http://bahai-library.org/uhj/aqdas.laws.html
>
> I think most larger communities have weekly worship services now.
>
> warmest, Susan
I thought it might please some here to know that I have revised the
final paragraph of my article on the mashriq "A Religion Out of
Balance" (Part II) to include information concerning the Dec. 28 letter.
This particular article has been one of my most popular (currently
ranked #2) and my most controversial, generating the most comments.
This is the article that Mark ripped me up about.
For those who haven't seen it yet, the URL is
http://www.themestream.com/articles/261922.html
On second thought, you might want to see Part I first:
http://www.themestream.com/articles/260778
Or, while I'm being promotional, you might just want to look around my
author's page:
http://www.themestream.com/authors/338958.html
Love, Karen
>
>
--
"The essence of all that We have revealed for thee
is justice . . ." Baha'u'llah
http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/bigquestions/Bacquet.html
Susan Maneck
>ranked #2) and my most controversial, generating the most comments.
>This is the article that Mark ripped me up about.
Dear Karen,
I didn't see what Mark had to say about this, but I note you wrote:
"Support of the mashriq'u'l-adhkar was characterized in the April 7, 1999
letter from the Universal House of Justice as a "particularly subtle form" of
"internal opposition" to Baha'i teachings"
It is not "support of the mashriqu'l-adhkar" which is being described as a
"particularly subtle form" of "internal opposition." Rather it was "an attempt
to suggest that the Mashriqu'l-Adhkar should evolve into a seat of
quasi-doctrinal authority, parallel to and essentially independent of the Local
House of Justice."
What happened is that after the accidental posting in 1996 which discussed the
various strategies being discussed on the secret Majnun list to combat the
Baha'i Administration, the participants on Majnun tried to come up with a means
of redeeming their reputation. At first they tried posting a bunch of
provisional translations which has always been a key way of calming people
down. But they also decided to adopt the Mashriq movement, that way if they
were attacked they could make it look like big, bad institutions were trying to
destroy those of a spiritual and mystical bent.
It was a good strategy because the Baha'is were hungering for more emphasis on
the devotional life. But it was just that, another strategy.
Susan Maneck
>open court before the sentence was pronounced?
>
Dear Janji,
There was no sentence. Otherwise, she would have either lost her administrative
rights or have been declared a Covenant breaker. It was instead decided that
she did not sufficiently meet the qualifications of membership within the
Baha'i community to be held responsible for her actions, in that sense.
Susan Maneck
>publicly humiliate the editors. That was mean and uncalled-for.
Dear Karen,
I should point out that the only action which to my knowledge the Universal
House of Justice supported was that of taking away four people's right to go on
pilgrimage. However, the Universal House of Justice letter to these individuals
also calls attention to certain pattern of behavior rather than the Modest
Proposal article itself. I'm posting below the letter from Universal House of
Justice in regards to this matter.
warmest, Susan
Department of the Secretariat 21 June 1989
[to an individual Baha'i]
Dear Baha'i Friend,
The Universal House of Justice has received your letter of 3 April 1989,
and had also received from Mr. [a member of
House] a copy of your letter to him dated 3 January 1989 which treats of the
same subject although from a more personal point of view. The House of Justice
welcomes and wish, expressed at the
end of the second paragraph of your letter of 3 April, to resolve the problems
which have been besetting your relationship with the National Spiritual
Assembly of the United States in a genuine spirit of love and reconciliations.
It has asked us to send you the following reply.
It is important for the editors of "dialogue" to recognize that source of
difficulties does not lie primarily in
specifics of the proposed publication of "A Modest Proposal". This incident was
merely the latest episode in a history of
problems going back some twelve years, originating with the study groups in Los
Angeles and its promotion of the wide circulation of the records of its
discussions, continuing through some of the publications of Kalimat Press, and
being developed through certain of the articles appearing in "dialogue".
It is clear that many different individuals were involved over the years in
the study group, Kalimat Press and "dialogue".
However, certain believers have been prominently associated with all three and
form a connecting link in the minds of many of the friends.
It is also clear that the views expressed by participants in the study
group, in the books published by Kalimat Press, and
in the articles in "dialogue" have covered a wide spectrum. But three
characteristics have continually recurred and it is these
that have caused the grave concerns that has existed in the hearts and minds of
many of the friends. These three
characteristics are as follows:
1. A destructively critical attitude toward many aspects of the Baha'i
community and its institutions, voiced often in highly
intemperate language.
2. An apparent wish to expose and publish widely whatever shortcomings that
Baha'i community or prominent individual
Baha'is may have had.
3. A clear attempt to create a onstituency of like-minded persons to bring
pressure to bear on the institutions of the Faith to make changes in the
policies and ractices of the Baha'i community.
If one reads the above characteristics dispassionately one can easily
recognize that they are accepted methods of
political life in western democracies. It is perhaps not surprising,
therefore, that many of those involved have failed to
recognize that they are methods which are not in harmony with the spirit and
principles of the Baha'i Faith. A thoughtful study of the letter of 29
December 1988 written by the Universal House of
Justice will make the Baha'i attitude clear.
Ideas can be both constructive and destructive. There is nothing wrong in
principle with expressing one's ideas and trying to convince others of their
rightness. This is what Baha'is do in relation to the rest of mankind. Since
our aim is to
establish unity we strive to teach the Faith in a way that will emphasize the
constructive effect and minimize the disruptive. We recognize nevertheless
that, in spite of all our efforts, opposition will be aroused, the Faith will
be bitterly assaulted and criticized, mankind will be divided between those who
accept
the Revelation and those who reject it. Because of this we try to be
forbearing and to react to slander with patience. But this
is, after all, the Day of Judgement.
The injection of new ideas into any society inevitably causes a ferment.
If the structure of the society itself is designed to take advantage of such
ideas in a way that will not disrupt its functioning and that enables it to
absorb the positive ones and discard or modify those that are harmful, it
can benefit immensely from the process.
In the Baha'i community methods and mechanisms are provided within the
Administrative Order to elicit and make the
best use of the ideas and hopes of individual believers in ways that enrich the
pattern of Baha'i life without disrupting the
community. There may be many ccasions on which individuals believers are
permitted or even encouraged by their Assembly to
promote their ideas, but independent attempts by individual Baha'is to canvass
support for their views among their fellow
believers are destructive of the unity of the Cause. To attempt, in opposition
to the institutions of the Faith, to form
constituencies for certain proposals and programmes may not necessarily lead to
Covenant-breaking, but it is a societal
factor for disruption against which the Covenant is designed to protect the
Faith. It is the process by which parties are formed and by which a religion
is riven into contending sects.
Thus, in the case of "A Modest Proposal" it was not the questions that were
raised or the proposals put forward that were primarily at fault, but rather
the implicit manner in which it was proposed to accomplish change in the
community.
It is an elementary Baha'i principle that the institutions of the Faith are
there to resolve differences and maintain unity, and that Assemblies are to be
obeyed
whole-heartedly, even if we feel their decisions to be wrong. It is
surprising, therefore, that a decade of adverse reactions from the United
States National Spiritual Assembly, and even from the
Universal House of Justice, has not sufficed to cause you to suspect that there
might be something seriously wrong in your approach. Instead, you seem to
assume that all is due to machinations of certain individuals in positions of
responsibility.
One can only deduce that you do not register the significance of what you
are saying. An example of this is your
letter of 26 April 1988. This was not, as you describe it, just a "rather
strong letter" "note meant to be offensive or
disrespectful". Already in the second paragraph you indirectly accuse the
Universal House of Justice of arriving at an erroneous and unjust conclusion by
failing to acquaint itself with the facts. In paragraph 2 on page 2 you state
"Since the article was a group effort, I offered the outside readers the
opportunity to
join as co-signers", without seeming to realize that this changes the
circulation from an attempt "to elicit critical feedback for improving it" into
an effort to raise a petition. The letter as a whole is largely an attack on
what you perceive to be the
failure and injustices of the National Spiritual Assembly without any
indication of an awareness that there may have been faults on you side; indeed,
to the contrary, you say "we knew we had done nothing wrong" and characterize
yourselves as "Baha'is who are innocent of any wrongdoing".
You yourself indicate that root of the problem towards the close of your
letter of 26 April 1988. At the foot of page
11 and the tope of page 12, your write:
For Baha'is of my generation, we became believers during the exciting
and turbulent Vietnam war years because we saw that Baha'u'llah offers
humanity the clearest direction for our inner spiritual growth and our work for
saving the planet. Most of my Baha'i friends of my youth have left the
Faith. Not because they lost faith in Baha'u'llah or the teachings, but
because they were not allowed to express their ideals and activism as
Baha'is.
And today, over and over again, I hear from friends who are quietly
leaving the Faith to pursue their ideals in the peace movement, in the women's
movement, in the field of ecology, in music and dance, in religious discipline,
because they are not allowed to express their commitment to social
change, artistic expression, or a mystical path within a Baha'i context.
It is not unusual for people to be drawn to the Faith because they see in
it the fulfilment of the ideals which are dear to their hearts. But, if a soul
truly recognizes
Baha'u'llah, and his understanding of the teachings deepens, he will gradually
see how his own ideals are but facets in the
all-embracing Purpose of God, and will be willing to endure all manner of
suffering and frustration for the sake of the fulfilment of that divine Purpose
If, however, the believer allows his own ideals and purposes to retain their
pre-eminence
in his thinking, and he finds he cannot pursue them as he wishes, it may result
in his leaving the Faith to pursue them in other ways. This is what would seem
to have happened to the friends you speak of.
You continue in the next paragraph:
These are among the reasons we continue to work for change in the
Baha'i community through every legitimate venue, we started "dialogue"
because of the great need for an independent forum to discuss new ideas.
This implies that, rather than leaving the Faith when you met with the same
problems as troubled your friends, you decided to remain in the Faith but to
change it to be more in accordance
with your purposes; that you found you were unable to do this through the
normal channels of Baha'i consultation and the
Administrative Order; and so decided to do so by promoting them through a
publication. What was the forum to be independent from if not from the Baha'i
Administration? Is it really surprising
that some friends should have surmised that you were "attempting to create an
alternative to the Baha'i administration" or
interpreted your activities as conspiratorial, contentious and divisive"?
With the process going on for so long, with a situation which caused a
representative of the "Voice of America" and others to refer to a "dissident
group" in California, with the obvious evidences of contention arising within
the community, it
is no wonder that some friends have suspected, in light of the persistent
following of one course of provocative action, that, although some persons
involved may be merely ignorant or
misguided, there is evidence of an underlying destructive intention at the
heart. You yourself are aware of such
suspicions, but instead of considering how your actions could have given rise
to them, you describe them as calumny and
denigration.
So far we have highlighted two aspects which lie at the root of the
problem: the un-Baha'i marshalling of a group
working to bring pressure on the institutions of the Cause, and
the intemperate criticism employed. Beyond them, however, are elements which
have aggravated the situation and fanned the spark of unease which has been
ignited in the hearts of many of your
fellow believers. These are well illustrated by certain aspects of the two
articles you enclosed with your letter of 3 January
1989 to Mr. [a member of the House]:
- Review of "Baha'ism", Denis MacEoin, in "A Handbook of
Living Religions", Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, England, 1985,
pp.475-98
- "Baha'is coming to Terms with AIDS"
These were referred by the Universal House of Justice to an ad hoc committee,
which prepared the following comments.
The first is a review of Denis MacEoin's article "Baha'ism" in "A
Handbook of Living Religions".
Unfortunately the academic position that Dr. MacEoin has gained has
obscured the extraordinarily unscholarly and distorted nature of some of
his writings on the Faith. He tries to portray himself as the pre-eminent
non-Baha'i authority on the Faith, and a Baha'i publisher does a
disservice to the Faith by giving credence to this claim.
The trouble with this review, however, is primarily that the
author uses the indirect form of a review, and the words of Dr. MacEoin
himself, to attack what he conceives to be current condition of the Baha'i
community as "the replication of certain disturbing features too readily
observable in other religious nstitutions and communities", suffering from
authoritarianism and a lack of openness and impartiality. The very use of the
word "glasnost" has connotations which go far beyond the written word.
This cloaking of profound and unjustified public criticism of the
Faith in an ostensibly objective form is a cause for suspicion of the
intentions of the writer.
Among the many good articles that have appeared in "dialogue", there
have been too many others that display this flaw.
The article about AIDS is very different. In general it is an
excellent, thought-provoking article about a world-wide problem of the gravest
danger. There points, however, need to be considered.
The first might be misunderstood by individual believers. This
is the author's in the section "Becoming a positive agent for a moral
solution" that "Shoghi Effendi specifically encourages Baha'is to be at
the forefront of progressive movements". The actual words of the Guardian
are:
It should also be borne in mind that the machinery of the Cause
has been so fashioned, that whatever is deemed necessary to
incorporate into it is order to keep it in the forefront of all progressive
movements, can according to the provisions made by Baha'u'llah, be safely
embodied therein. ("The
World Order of Baha'u'llah, pp.22-23)
This is not quite the same as the implications of the article.
The second and third problems come near the end of the article
under the personal measures that individual Baha'is are recommended to
take, namely:
Reexamining our puritanical attitude toward sex, thereby
strengthening our belief in a positive, frank approach to the subject.
As part of reexamining our attitude towards homosexuals, we
may gain new insights into the principle of the equality of the sexes. Rather
than viewing feminine and masculine qualities as black and white, we
will come to see them on a continuum f various shades of gray.
The problem arise from the author's failure to distinguish clearly
between the BAHA'I attitude to these problems, and the various
inadequate attitudes that individual Baha'is may have. The impression given
to a reader can be that the Baha'i teachings on sex and homosexuality
are puritanical and need rethinking. It does not draw the vital distinction
between the high standard that Baha'is must uphold in relation to
themselves and the forbearance they must show towards others. In this
connection there is a very important
passage in the Lawh-i-Maqsud ("Tablets of Baha'u'llah",
pp.169-70):
And likewise He saith: The heaven of understanding shineth
resplendent with the light of two luminaries: tolerance and righteousness.
O My friend! Vast oceans lie enshrined within this brief
saying. Blessed are they who appreciate its value, drink deep therefrom and
grasp its meaning, and woe betide the heedless....
It is the hope of the Universal House of Justice that the comments in this
letter help you and other friends responsible for the publication of "dialogue"
to appreciate the reasons behind vigorous reaction of both the National
Spiritual Assembly of the United States and the Universal House of Justice to
the proposed publication of "A Modest Proposal", and will give you clear
grounds on which you can revise your policies and overcome the problems which
have impeded your desire to serve the
Faith over so many years.
With loving Baha'i greetings,
For Department of the Secretariat
Karen Bacquet
> >ranked #2) and my most controversial, generating the most comments.
> >This is the article that Mark ripped me up about.
>
> Dear Karen,
>
> I didn't see what Mark had to say about this, but I note you wrote:
Mark wrote a long, Kluge-style, paragraph by paragraph critique which
slammed just about everything I had to say. It's in the "Talk Back"
section right after the article.
>
> "Support of the mashriq'u'l-adhkar was characterized in the April 7,
1999
> letter from the Universal House of Justice as a "particularly subtle
form" of
> "internal opposition" to Baha'i teachings"
>
> It is not "support of the mashriqu'l-adhkar" which is being described
as a
> "particularly subtle form" of "internal opposition." Rather it
was "an attempt
> to suggest that the Mashriqu'l-Adhkar should evolve into a seat of
> quasi-doctrinal authority, parallel to and essentially independent of
the Local
> House of Justice."
>
> What happened is that after the accidental posting in 1996 which
discussed the
> various strategies being discussed on the secret Majnun list to
"Secret Majnun list"? Is that anything like the "secret Zuhur list"?
combat the
> Baha'i Administration, the participants on Majnun tried to come up
with a means
> of redeeming their reputation. At first they tried posting a bunch of
> provisional translations which has always been a key way of calming
people
> down.
So, you're telling me Juan posts all those translation as a *political*
strategy? Isn't that an awful lot of work just to "calm people down"?
Besides I don't care why he does it, just so he does. Haifa was never
in a big hurry to translate these things. The fact that Juan Cole saw
fit to put the Word of God into the hands of ordinary believers like
myself is something I am very grateful for, and now you want me to
believe it's some kind of sinister plot or something. Go play that tune
somewhere else.
But they also decided to adopt the Mashriq movement, that way if they
> were attacked they could make it look like big, bad institutions were
trying to
> destroy those of a spiritual and mystical bent.
Uh huh. The only people I hear talking much about the mashriq are Terry
Culhane and Sen McGlinn. I don't see where it has been "adopted". In
fact, I don't see this bunch agreeing on any kind of strategy
whatsoever. I've been hanging with these guys a while now - on their
super priveleged secret list that you're so mad about; I don't see a
lot of clever maneuvering there.
>
> It was a good strategy because the Baha'is were hungering for more
emphasis on
> the devotional life. But it was just that, another strategy.
Oh, and of course, these guys never cared about the devotional life at
all, they just pretended to in order to get people on their side, and
their continuing expressions of devotion and interests in mysticism are
just a clever ruse to lull the gullible. Do I have "stupid" printed on
my forehead or something, that you would expect me to believe something
so ridiculous?
Susan Maneck
Dear Karen,
That bad, huh?
>"Secret Majnun list"? Is that anything like the "secret Zuhur list"?
Sort of, though it didn't start out that way. It was kind of a parrelel list of
Talisman. The "core" behind Talisman used Majnun as a backchannel to talk to
one another.
>So, you're telling me Juan posts all those translation as a *political*
>strategy? Isn't that an awful lot of work just to "calm people down"?
I'm not saying that is why he translates them. :-) But yeah, posting them was a
deliberate strategy he used on Talisman and H-Bahai whenever things got hot.
>The fact that Juan Cole saw
>fit to put the Word of God into the hands of ordinary believers like
>myself is something I am very grateful for, and now you want me to
>believe it's some kind of sinister plot or something.
No, no, Karen. I'm not saying the translations themselves were a "sinister
plot." I'm saying the timing of the posts of his translations was often a
deliberate strategy. Obviously he didn't immediately sit down and do a brand
new translation everytime things on Talisman were getting hot.
>Uh huh. The only people I hear talking much about the mashriq are Terry
>Culhane and Sen McGlinn.
Then why don't you share my posts on this subject to Terry Culhane and see if
he doesn't confirm what I am saying here? And you are right Terry does not
agree with the others. Nor does the House have any problem with Terry's views
on this matter.
> I've been hanging with these guys a while now - on their
>super priveleged secret list that you're so mad about; I don't see a
>lot of clever maneuvering there.
I'm not mad about that list. I just think it demonstrates Nima's hypocrisy,
that's all.
>Do I have "stupid" printed on
>my forehead or something, that you would expect me to believe something
>so ridiculous?
Again, if you don't want to believe me, talk to Terry.
warmest, Susan
Rick Schaut
> Dear Rick,
> Thank you for your perspective. One question that has been in my mind
> since I first started investigating this stuff has been "Just what the
> hell did these guys do to earn themselves two decades' worth of enmity
> from the Institutions?"
I'm not sure that "enmity" is the right word. From another perspective, it
seems as though there was quite a bit of patience, and great effort was made
to try to not dampen their enthusiasm or to quelch their inquiry into the
issues they were discussing.
At the same time, the institutions, including the Universal House of
Justice, thought these people were being disobedient to `Abdu'l-Baha's
exhortations regarding conflict, contention and criticism. Read the
"Individual Rights and Freedoms" letter, and try not to read between the
lines. The Universal House of Justice is rather adept at saying precisely
what they mean to say, nothing more and nothing less.
> > Dr. Kazemzadeh saw the
> > article as a continuation of a pattern of behavior stretching back to
> > the late '70s and early '80s.
> Maybe. But he did not have to destroy that magazine; he did not have to
> publicly humiliate the editors. That was mean and uncalled-for. These
> are supposed to be institutions that handle cases with justice, not
> vehicles for letting out one's personal frustrations against people you
> don't like.
Whoa. Slow down. First of all, Dr. Kazemzadeh was only acting as an
individual. To place his individual frustration on par with the National
Spiritual Assembly itself is to conflate the very clear distinction between
the institutions and the members who serve on them--a distinction that's
upheld rather strongly in Shoghi Effendi's writings.
Secondly, I'm not trying to defend Dr. Kazemzadeh's actions at that
convention. His frustration is understandable, if not entirely justified.
Lastly, you keep asserting that all of this was driven by some personal
dislike, but I see no evidence to support that. Frankly, I think Dr.
Kazemzadeh cared a great deal, and still does, about the individuals
involved.
You teach school. Aren't there times when your students do things that
raise your ire? Does your ire reflect any kind of hatred for those
children?
> I didn't know that when articles were submitted for review
> that "context" was so important.
Well, gosh, if, as letters from the various institutions have been saying
all along, behavior is the issue and not what's being said, then context is
everything if we're going to understand Dr. Kazemzadeh's outburst at that
national convention.
> I will say again: there needs to be some kind of formal due process for
> those accused of opposition to the Institutions.
Decades worth of trying to explain to these people precisely what the issues
are and what aspects of their behavior was contrary to Baha'i principles
isn't enough for you? How "formal" does it have to get?
> My
> suggestion is that the Institutions stop cracking down on people, and
> give the liberals less to complain about. I still don't see why it has
> been so necessary to try to shut these guys up.
You know, I haven't seen a single letter or statement from any institution
that says that these people should simply have shut up. Starting with that
first letter from the Universal House of Justice right on up to the
"Individual Rights and Freedoms" letter, the institutions have been talking
about tone, and respect for authority in one's criticisms, and about taking
one's criticisms to those forums that have been provided for those
criticisms rather than sneaking around in back alleys. Can you name a
single person who has ever been subject to sanctions for something they said
in a letter written to a National Spiritual Assembly?
I don't get why this is so hard to understand. It's not at all about
shutting people up. It's about consulting in unity as opposed to playing
politics. There are no "sides", here. There are only ideas--ideas that
succeed or don't succeed based solely on their merits and not on anyone's
ability to garner support for those ideas via public rhetoric.
And, in that light, why should the institutions stop enforcing Baha'i Law as
interpreted by `Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi and/or as legislated by the
Universal House of Justice simply because a handful of people who are so
enamored with hearing themselves speak haven't taken the time to actually
stop and listen?
> My impression is that the issue was that the newsletter, a little local
> typed smudgy newslettter, was not being sent in for review -- a
> completely impractical and ridiculous suggestion.
First, they were being distributed well beyond the communities of the people
who participated in the class. Indeed, some copies were being sent to
people outside the United States.
Second, poke through and read the various letters from the Universal House
of Justice and the National Spiritual Assembly. Those letters were specific
in reference to precisely the manner of criticism that was the initial cause
for concern. The call for review was a means of resolving the initial
concern, but the absence of review was not the initial concern.
> > 3) The folks who have been distributing the notes respond as if the
> > institutions are trying to silence them rather than strive to
> > understand what the institutions have actually said.
> Well, the demand for review effectively put the kibosh on that
> newsletter; I'm not surprised these guys felt "silenced". And, you
> will note, they did not just say "Screw you, we'll publish what we
> want!" The newsletter stopped.
I did notice, however, people expressing dismay over what they viewed as the
National Spiritual Assembly's failure to "negotiate"--as if an order from
the Universal House of Justice were negotiable in some manner or form.
> Same thing with Dialogue -- every single
> article that was published in that magazine was submitted to and passed
> review. If that was the case, how could that magazine be seen
> as "opposing" the institutions?
Perhaps, just perhaps, the real issue has to do with what the institutions
actually said they were concerned about and not about the actual content of
the criticisms. Indeed, many of the criticisms were valid. That's not at
all the issue. Read the "Individual Rights and Freedoms" letter.
I should note, now, an aspect of the pattern that is a relatively recent
development. The institutions have quoted Shoghi Effendi and `Abdu'l-Baha
time and again in this regard. The pattern now includes a resonse either to
the effect that Shoghi Effendi didn't really understand Baha'u'llah or
certain statements were mistranslated. This pattern first began to develop
with respect to the "Service of Women" paper, but it's since been extended
to encompass nearly all levels and function of the Administrative Order.
This development is not likely to induce the institutions to back off,
because this now involves aspects of the Covenant.
> > And, so begins a cycle of concomitant actions and reactions.
> Yes, that's what I have seen. So maybe the institutions should back
> off, take the wind out of everybody's sails and stop monitoring
> people's email traffic looking for heresy.
Or, maybe, individuals should start behaving in a manner that's consonant
with a professed belief in Baha'u'llah. That, too, would be a good thing.
> In my experience, Feast is not all that "free"; much depends upon who
> is chairing it. It is a restricted environment.
You missed the point entirely. If you raise an issue at feast and someone
criticises you for doing so, you have the backing of Shoghi Effendi for your
very right to raise those issues in Feast. Doing so outside the Feast,
however, provides no such textual basis within the Writings to establish
your rights.
That, in a nutshell, is what lies at the heart of how all of this stuff has
mushroomed into people leaving the Baha'i Faith in a huff. People keep
looking to the Writings to establish how someone outside themselves should
behave without having first taken the time to look to those Writings to
establish the boundaries that define what is and is not appropriate in their
own conduct.
Regards,
Rick Schaut
Susan Maneck
>individual.
Dear Rick,
I would assume that if Dr. Kazemzadeh, as chairman of the NSA gets up and makes
statements at Convention during which he quotes private letters addressed to
the Institutions he must have been acting on behalf of the Institution.
Otherwise, it seems to me, he would be guilty of very serious wrongdoing.
>First, they were being distributed well beyond the communities of the people
>who participated in the class. Indeed, some copies were being sent to
>people outside the United States.
You are quite correct about the newsletter, Rick. One of the things that got
the House so upset is that things were published there that endangered the
lifes of Baha'is in Iran. Since the people who did this were the same ones that
were pushing for an end to review it is perhaps understandable that their pleas
were not accepted.
Ron House
>
> >So, you're telling me Juan posts all those translation as a *political*
> >strategy? Isn't that an awful lot of work just to "calm people down"?
>
> I'm not saying that is why he translates them. :-) But yeah, posting them was a
> deliberate strategy he used on Talisman and H-Bahai whenever things got hot.
So... when Juan finds his point of view under fire, he publishes
writings from Baha'u'llah? I wonder if you can see what you have just
asserted?
--
Ron House ho...@usq.edu.au
http://www.sci.usq.edu.au/staff/house
A rose grows in the Earth's good soil.
Rick Schaut
> Do I have "stupid" printed on
> my forehead or something, that you would expect me to believe something
> so ridiculous?
I wouldn't use the word "stupid", but the absence of documentation for
various statements of fact in your ThemeStream articles does imply that
you're willing to accept things based on the source and not on whether they
can actually produce evidence to support their claims. If you'll pardon my
being frank, I think you accept these assertions not so much because they
represent documented fact, but because they resonate with where you're at.
And, for some reason, the words to Janis Joplin's "Me and Bobby McGee" keep
coming to my mind: "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to loose."
I just pray you don't end up, as did Janice, with nothing.
Regards,
Rick Schaut
Ian McCarthy
Pat wrote
>
> When, Insha Allah, she comes back, it is because she has seen through
> the shunting back to ground of clergy, she has seen through the shunting
> back to ground of ritual, she has seen through the tradition, she has
> seen the 'man behind the curtain' - the lesser materiality that creates
> that illusion. She has discerned the Ageless Beauty from the layered
> varnish, and in correctly assaying the gold from the dross, has herself
> been transmuted across the decades.
Without being too presumptious, I hope, I think I have seen through all
those things and I am still a Christian (more than anything else).
Never presume, o seeker, my brother
That what is gold for you is not dross for another
That the Ageless Beauty is not shining still clear
In a faded idol, for a heart sincere.
>
> Are you staying the winter on the Mediterranean?
Yea, by the rivers of Babylon, under the very skirts of the Whore!
No actually, we're still waiting anxiously for the winter to happen so we
can go snowboarding!!
Benedizioni,
Janji (I've japanesed it, very trendy!)
>
> Blessings!
> - Pat
> ko...@ameritel.net
Karen Bacquet
>
> I wouldn't use the word "stupid", but the absence of documentation for
> various statements of fact in your ThemeStream articles does imply
that
> you're willing to accept things based on the source and not on
whether they
I hear this assertion all the time from my conservative critics and I
don't even know what the hell you guys are talking about. There is
nothing in my articles that I accepted "based on the source". There
are things that are based on my own experience and observation. Any
factual errors called to my attention have been corrected. I do my
utmost to be fair. In fact the only reason you and Susan are on my
case here is because I was fool enough to announce that I put some
balancing information into one of my articles. Perhaps I shouldn't do
that next time.
I'm beginning to think that this mantra about me using opinion as fact
is just being thrown around just in an attempt to smear my reputation.
I guess you guys want an academic style paper replete with footnotes,
or weasly disclaimers all over the place "This may not necessarily
reflect the views of the Baha'i Faith or its institutions." Take a look
around Themestream sometime, and check out how "documented" most of
those articles are.
Besides, if you're going to make an accusation, at least get specific.
I can't defend myself against such a general charge.
Karen
Rick Schaut
> >Whoa. Slow down. First of all, Dr. Kazemzadeh was only acting as an
> >individual.
> I would assume that if Dr. Kazemzadeh, as chairman of the NSA gets up and
makes
> statements at Convention during which he quotes private letters addressed
to
> the Institutions he must have been acting on behalf of the Institution.
> Otherwise, it seems to me, he would be guilty of very serious wrongdoing.
You're right in that I misstated the point. My appologies.
I am, however, not altogether certain as the extent to which his remarks had
sanction of the National Spiritual Assembly, and I think he may have
overstepped that authorization at least in part. I wouldn't necessarily
indict the National Spiritual Assembly as vehemently as Karen has indicted
them based solely on Dr. Kazemzadeh's remarks.
Regards,
Rick Schaut
Rick Schaut
> I hear this assertion all the time from my conservative critics and I
> don't even know what the hell you guys are talking about. There is
> nothing in my articles that I accepted "based on the source".
Well, we can start with "Everybody Wants to Rule the World." In your list
of ways that Baha'is believe they can promote Baha'i social teachings, you
left out what is probably the most prevalent view in the Baha'i community
regardless of whether you'd call them "liberal" or "conservative"--namely
the view that true and lasting social change comes from changing people's
hearts; that a spiritual transformation must occur before these social ills,
which are viewed as symptoms of the real issue, can be cured.
Another aspect of this issue that's completely missing from your article is
the Universal House of Justice's call for social and economic development
projects and the attendant response from Baha'is the world over to that
call. This despite the fact that there is plenty of documentation available
on the web regarding this issue (start with http://www.mdssed.org/).
The result of these two omissions is a picture of the Baha'i community
that's so distorted that I can't even recognize what you're talking about.
You leave the impression that the vast majority of Baha'is are simply
sitting on their hands waiting for everybody to become Baha'is, when the
exact opposite is true.
The article on "Baha'i Fundamentalism" is completely devoid of any mention
of the exclusive interpretive authority held by `Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi
Effendi. The absence of this dimension in your discussion also so distorts
the truth that I am, again, unable to recognize myself in the portrait you
paint of me. Indeed, you even misstated my argument with respect to due
process, and have also misstated the idea that this is anyone's view but my
own.
Moreover, the notion that Baha'i institutions are to be obeyed without
question is a complete mischaracterization of the truth. Sincere questions
have always been answered when directed _to_ the institutions. Moreover,
there is no mention, at all, of the consultative process that is employed
prior to decisions made by the institutions, and that the institutions are
always open to new facts and/or evidence that might change their decisions.
And then there's the "Talisman Crackdown". The subtitle's reference to some
kind of war between Baha'i institutions and the internet is completely
misleading. The content of the article is plagued by the same problem that
undermines your article on "Baha'i Fundamentalism". The issue isn't simply
people expressing divergent points of view, or even the level of contention
that existed on Talisman. The issue stems from the fact that some
individuals were contending against `Abdu'-Baha's and Shoghi Effendi's
interpretations of the Writings. Thus, the inferred motivation behind what
the institutions have done ends up being completely distored, yet is
represented as fact when it is far more within the realm of opinion.
The article on "But Some are More Equal than Others" discusses the Service
of Women paper, but doesn't even mention, let alone cite, the Universal
House of Justice's response--a response that included a reference to a
tablet written by `Abdu'l-Baha and not referenced by the Service of Women
paper.
Is that specific enough for you?
> I guess you guys want an academic style paper replete with footnotes,
> or weasly disclaimers all over the place "This may not necessarily
> reflect the views of the Baha'i Faith or its institutions."
No, but it's also not a bad idea to actually cite authoritative Texts when
you make generalized assertions about what Baha'is believe.
Regards,
Rick Schaut
Juan Cole
Actually, the awful, terrible conspiracy to convince Baha'is to build
local houses of worship or mashriqu'l-adhkars, *in every village and
city*, appears to have been started by a suspicious character named
Mirza Husayn Ali in his secret conspiratorial text, the Most Holy Book.
From there, certain persons with a perfervid imagination and dubious
motives, began agitating for the *immediate* implementation of this
horrid plan. A certain Abbas Effendi, styled `Abdu'l-Baha, appears
repeatedly to have commanded his dupes to found as many mashriqs as
possible as soon as possible, even in *small towns* (gasp!).
Then another shadowy individual, about whom we know little, put out
scandalous pamphlets suggesting that the very work of the LSA and the
essential implementation of Baha'i values would remain incomplete until
the local mashriqs were built. Many of these noir-like persons appear
to have adopted the Eastern honorific, Effendi, and this one was also
so styled, with the first name Shawqi, but to throw people off he
spelled it Shoghi.
Did not this rogues' gallery realize what dreadful consequences would
ensue from their despicable plan? Would not every local community have
a place to worship? Might not non-Baha'is feel comfortable coming
there and finding a spiritual home? Might not the faith of God emerge
from Obscurity? Would not the perquisites and free airplane tickets of
the Counsellors and NSA members and House members be endangered if
Baha'is diverted their funds and energies to these local architectural
monstrosities? Might Baha'is not actually begin praying together
frequently, finding a spiritual core to their faith that would keep
them committed to it for more than six months after their conversions?
It is all, alas, too horrid, too abominable to contemplate!
But, everyone should rest assured! The Thought Police have identified
all the latter-day bohemians who have been misled by these pernicious
texts and thoughtless individuals! Some have been tried for buying
land and dreaming of a Mashriq. Others have been ostracized and given
the Cold Shoulder. Anyone who so much as lays a foundation stone shall
immediately be declared a Covenant Breaker worse than Mirza Muhammad
Ali. The Cause is very Great, and more than great enough to prevent
permanently any threatened outbreak of spirituality or implementation
of basic Baha'i laws of worship (`ibadat). The Cause is very, very
Great.
- The Grand Inquisitor
--
Juan Cole, http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai.htm
Buy *Modernity & Millennium: Genesis of Baha'i*
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0231110812/qid=933798168/sr=1-1/0
Susan Maneck
Nor does the April 7 letter even refer to this. It is true however, that the
Institutions do not wish to emphasize the construction of formal
Mashriqu'l-Adhkar's in local communities at this time. And it is also true that
they currently wish to stress the teaching work above all. The likely reason
for this, among other things, is 'Abdu'l-Baha's exhortation that "until
another two hundred years should pass all thoughts and minds should be focussed
on teaching..." *Risalyi-i Rahnamay-i Tabligh* p. 87. [The Persian reads: ta
divist
sal-i digar bayad afkar hasr dar tabligh bashad ] This statement has
essentially set the Baha'i priorities at this time. That might well change,
because one of the things that the Media Campaign has shown is that seekers do
*not* want to go to people's homes, they want to attend worship services at a
different locality. But I think that dignified Baha'i Centers having a
sufficient emphasis on the devotional life could certainly serve that purpose.
Juan writes:
> Would not the perquisites and free airplane tickets of
>the Counsellors and NSA members and House members be endangered if
>Baha'is diverted their funds and energies to these local architectural
>monstrosities?
Well, now that we have established that contrary to previous charges, the
members of the House of Justice do not live high-on-the-hog driving Mercedes
Benzes, as was previously chargeed, we will focus on the fact that their
travel expenses are paid. That, at least is true. But are we really supposed to
regard it as a "perquisites" that the Counselors, who duties take them away
from their families much of the time, and who receive no monetary recompense
for their labors, aren't required to pay for their air fares out of their own
pockets as well? Perhaps Dr. Cole would like to see it this way so only the
independently wealthy would be able to
serve in this capacity.
Susan Maneck
>sanction of the National Spiritual Assembly, and I think he may have
>overstepped that authorization at least in part.
Dear Rick,
That may be, however I should say that immediately after this incident happened
I contacted the National Baha'i Center and asked to see a transcript of Dr.
Kazemzadeh's remarks with the intention of asking clarification from the NSA.
However, that transcript was refused me. I did write them, however, mostly to
provide some background to Dr. Kazemzadeh's reference to someone from Voice of
America calling these people "dissidents." That person who made that remark had
formerly been the director of my master's thesis and I wanted them to
understand what his attitude towards the Faith was, so they could put his
remarks in proper context.
Susan Maneck
>So... when Juan finds his point of view under fire, he publishes
>writings from Baha'u'llah?
Dear Ron,
No, no, no. When his attacks against the Institutions, not his pov, gets
people too upset, that is when he tends to post his translations.
Susan Maneck
>case here is because I was fool enough to announce that I put some
>balancing information into one of my articles.
Dear Karen,
I was hardly on your case. I tried to clarify one thing in your article and you
attacked me for it. At least that is the way it looks from here.
patk...@my-deja.com
Years ago, there was a television show in the states called, "Kung Ff".
During the opening of each show, there was a flashback, to a Shaolin
(Taoist?) priest, telling the hero (then a child) to take a pebble from
his hand.
In article <953btv$fua82$1...@ID-57474.news.dfncis.de>,
"Ian McCarthy" <ian...@tiscalinet.it> wrote:
>
> Without being too presumptious, I hope, I think I have seen through
all
> those things and I am still a Christian (more than anything else).
So, you noticed the change in the subject line, even before this
message?
> Never presume, o seeker, my brother
> That what is gold for you is not dross for another
> That the Ageless Beauty is not shining still clear
> In a faded idol, for a heart sincere.
You never, know; you know?
> > Are you staying the winter on the Mediterranean?
>
> Yea, by the rivers of Babylon, under the very skirts of the Whore!
Yea, we wept, when we remembered the seven hills. They that sealed us
in their oil, required of us a rosary. How can we recite rosaries, in
our homeland?
> No actually, we're still waiting anxiously for the winter to happen so
> we can go snowboarding!!
>
Marvelous; I should hope I'm so lucky the rest of the season! The
northern slopes are always there; you may not always have time to go
that far.
Ron House
>
> >
> >So... when Juan finds his point of view under fire, he publishes
> >writings from Baha'u'llah?
>
> Dear Ron,
>
> No, no, no. When his attacks against the Institutions, not his pov, gets
> people too upset, that is when he tends to post his translations.
Unless he is a blithering idiot, this must surely be with the
expectation that they will supply justifications for his assertions? As
you seem to assume that the writings _do_ aid him, it would seem that
the entire substance of your comment is merely to try to find some way
to cast a revealing admission by yourself as a 'point' against Juan.
Karen Bacquet
> >case here is because I was fool enough to announce that I put some
> >balancing information into one of my articles.
>
> Dear Karen,
>
> I was hardly on your case. I tried to clarify one thing in your
article and you
> attacked me for it. At least that is the way it looks from here.
Since when are you so sensitive? That post was hardly an attack. I
was snide because the notion that Juan was posting translations, and
Baha'i liberals were supporting the mashriq purely as a political
strategy struck me as ridiculous. I generally can expect better from
you, Susan.
Karen
>
> warmest, Susan
>
> "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with
no time
> left to start again . . "
> Don McLean's American Pie
> http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
>
>
--
Karen Bacquet
Thank you for your response. Your criticisms, however pointed, are at
least intelligent. So far I've mostly gotten vague smears, silly
nitpicking, and tantrums that leave me wondering just what the critic
is on about.
However, I was surprised that most of the complaints concern items that
I left out. I thought your complaint originally was my lack of
documentation for what I put in. I should point out that there is a
recommended 1500 word limit for Themestream articles, and most of mine
come close to that. I hit a few main points, mostly, but I suppose it
is inevitable that some readers will think of things I should have
included.
For the benefit of those following the discussion I will include URLs.
>
> Well, we can start with "Everybody Wants to Rule the World."
http://www.themestream.com/articles/267177.html
In your list
> of ways that Baha'is believe they can promote Baha'i social
teachings, you
> left out what is probably the most prevalent view in the Baha'i
community
> regardless of whether you'd call them "liberal" or "conservative"--
namely
> the view that true and lasting social change comes from changing
people's
> hearts; that a spiritual transformation must occur before these
social ills,
> which are viewed as symptoms of the real issue, can be cured.
Well, first of all, the main thrust of that article is the prevalence
of theocratic views within the Baha'i community, and the fact that this
view is not the only way of looking at Baha'u'llah's teachings. And if
you are talking about "spiritual transformation", you are talking about
converting people to the Baha'i Faith, aren't you? I said "While
Baha'i scripture prohibits any violent means for promoting the faith,
and current practice forbids political involvement, many Baha'is feel
that by spreading their religion and building its institutions, they
are helping to bring about this theocratic future." This is true in my
experience. Isn't it true in yours?
>
> Another aspect of this issue that's completely missing from your
article is
> the Universal House of Justice's call for social and economic
development
> projects and the attendant response from Baha'is the world over to
that
> call. This despite the fact that there is plenty of documentation
available
> on the web regarding this issue (start with http://www.mdssed.org/).
Actually, it never occurred to me to go into the Social and Economic
projects done throughout the world. For one thing, it's not the main
thrust of my article. I could easily add a sentence about it if it
will make you feel better, but it really doesn't change anything. For
another thing, you must remember I come from the Baha'i hinterlands.
SED was like so many of the good things we were always told were
happening in the Faith, always somewhere out there and not really part
of my experience. Makes for inspiring reading at Feast, though. And I
might note that I'm far from the only person to complain that Baha'is
don't very much bother with charitable endeavors -- our communities are
too small and stretched, and teaching is always the main focus.
>
> The result of these two omissions is a picture of the Baha'i community
> that's so distorted that I can't even recognize what you're talking
about.
> You leave the impression that the vast majority of Baha'is are simply
> sitting on their hands waiting for everybody to become Baha'is, when
the
> exact opposite is true.
Yeah, maybe where you live. Locally, there have been three "leaders"
who had the main impact on what got done. Two of them harped on
teaching until everyone wanted to barf. Save the world by building the
Kingdom of God. I wouldn't call it "sitting on their hands waiting for
people to become Baha'is". It was push, push, push all the way! You
get Ruhiyyih Khanum's dream quoted at you -- you know, the one
where 'Abdu'l-Baha is building the dam to stop the flood, instead of
saving drowning individuals. You can't tell me, Rick, that this
attitude doesn't exist.
The third leader was a generous, but impractical soul that did, and is
still doing, local outreach among the poor. She's had more success in
teaching, but the fact that these marginal people with serious physical
and mental health problems, and messed up lives generally, ended up
being given LSA responsibilities because there aren't enough adult
believers to do otherwise. One big reason for my own alienation is
that I simply wasn't informed about activities -- generally because the
ditsy person whose job it was to tell me forgot their meds.
>
> The article on "Baha'i Fundamentalism"
http://www.themestream.com/articles/280644.html
is completely devoid of any mention
> of the exclusive interpretive authority held by `Abdu'l-Baha and
Shoghi
> Effendi.
In the third paragraph, I state the following: "The central teaching at
stake, the Baha'i equivelent to Biblical inerrancy, is the doctrine of
the Covenant. As the term is usually used, it refers to the written
transfer of authority to successive leaders of the Baha'i Faith, from
its founder, Baha'u'llah, to his son 'Abdu'l-Baha, to his grandson
Shoghi Effendi, to today's Universal House of Justice."
The absence of this dimension in your discussion also so distorts
> the truth that I am, again, unable to recognize myself in the
portrait you
> paint of me. Indeed, you even misstated my argument with respect to
due
> process, and have also misstated the idea that this is anyone's view
but my
> own.
I have no idea what you are talking about here, Rick. The reason you
don't recognize yourself is that I did not paint a portrait of you. If
I wanted to use anything that you had said, I would have contacted you
and asked permission to quote you. If something I wrote resembles
something you said, it was purely a coincidence. I am describing
fundamentalism as a viewpoint, not talking about any specific
individual.
>
> Moreover, the notion that Baha'i institutions are to be obeyed without
> question is a complete mischaracterization of the truth.
I am not describing what is supposed to happen, Rick. Again, I am
describing a particular attitude. I personally was shocked by the sort
of institution-worship I found among some people on the Net. I'd never
seen it out in the real world. What I am saying in that particular
paragraph is that what characterizes the difference between
fundamentalists and moderates or liberals is their attitudes toward the
institutions. I don't see how I'm wrong in that.
>
> And then there's the "Talisman Crackdown".
http://www.themestream.com/articles/254975.html
The subtitle's reference to some
> kind of war between Baha'i institutions and the internet is completely
> misleading.
Sure looks like a war to me, Rick.
The content of the article is plagued by the same problem that
> undermines your article on "Baha'i Fundamentalism". The issue isn't
simply
> people expressing divergent points of view, or even the level of
contention
> that existed on Talisman. The issue stems from the fact that some
> individuals were contending against `Abdu'-Baha's and Shoghi Effendi's
> interpretations of the Writings. Thus, the inferred motivation
behind what
> the institutions have done ends up being completely distored, yet is
> represented as fact when it is far more within the realm of opinion.
The "fact" is that the Institutions did not like some of the opinions
being expressed on Talisman. Do you think if I told the other side of
the story (the devilish half of me has thought of adopting a pseudonym
and doing just that), and called it "Baha'i Institutions Strike Blow
Against Internal Opposition" it would look any better? Do you think
the general public is going to be impressed if I say "some of the
individuals were contending against 'Abdu'l-Baha's and Shoghi Effendi's
interpretations of the Writings"? As I told another critic, that won't
play in Peoria. This is America, Rick. We believe in free speech, and
the notion that anyone could be threatened with shunning for expressing
opinions on email is an outrage to most normal people. Oh, yeah, I
forgot that you guys say that didn't happen. (You will note that I
included the official denial in my article.) Well, most normal people
aren't going to think too highly of an organization that "investigates"
people for their opinions on email, either. And that most certainly
*did* happen. No way to make it look nice.
>
> The article on "But Some are More Equal than Others"
http://www.themestream.com/articles/253815.html
discusses the Service
> of Women paper, but doesn't even mention, let alone cite, the
Universal
> House of Justice's response--a response that included a reference to a
> tablet written by `Abdu'l-Baha and not referenced by the Service of
Women
> paper.
Actually, I've never been entirely happy with this article.
Apparently, the readers agree, since it ranks among the least popular
and lowest rates of anything I've done. I was unaware of some of the
things you point out when I wrote it, but before I change anything I
want a chance to investigate further. I am also aware that there are
arguements against what you're saying.
However, the main thrust of the article is the inherent contradiction
between claiming the Baha'i Faith stands for the equality of the sexes
while at the same time excluding them from the Universal House of
Justice. I don't think you understand what a shock that is to
discover, as I did, after the card is signed. You feel like somebody
has pulled a fast one. I've heard of new believers leaving the Faith
over it. One ex-Baha'i described it as "the first clue" that there was
something wrong in the Faith. Most non-Baha'is who hear of it just see
it as sheer hypocrisy. What I tried to do here is at least explain it
in terms of a scriptural hurdle. I said "To many Baha'is this
exclusion cannot be changed any more than a Christian could remove an
inconvenient passsage from the Bible." That is not a harsh criticism.
I also clearly point out that women often do hold powerful positions at
the local and national levels.
Love, Karen
--
Milissa Boyer Kafes
Rick's response to you was almost the most patronizing post I've ever
seen.
Don't get the reference to Janis Joplin, though. We are all going to
be just as dead as she is now. Besides, who knows how many worlds of
God she's gone through now? I don't think we need to worry about her
soul or yours.
Perhaps his Janis Joplin reference reflects his fear you will die
before you are 30 from a heroin overdose. Ok I would agree with him on
that, but don't see what it has to do with your article.
Peace,
Milissa
In article <9540h7$quv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Rick Schaut
> However, I was surprised that most of the complaints concern items that
> I left out. I thought your complaint originally was my lack of
> documentation for what I put in.
Well, yes. Documenting the stuff you've written, with particular attention
to information regarding the views expressed by Baha'i Institutions, would
have gone a long way toward remedying the omissions in your articles. Case
in point:
'While administrators have been powerless to prevent freedom of expression
in Baha'i cyberspace (a phenomenon the Universal House of Justice has called
"a campaign of internal opposition")...'
Had you quoted more than a phrase out of the April 7 letter, it would be
more clear that the issue isn't about freedom of expression at all. It's
not even apparent that the goal of the Institutions is to prevent freedom of
expression. That's an inferred motive, but no one, anywhere, can find that
documented in any explicit way. Moreover, if their goal is to silence
people, going around and handing people their membership cards back seems
like a monumentally idiotic means of doing so.
Above all that, however, one is at least obligated to point out what these
institutions say is their motive, and to state it as accurately as possible.
People can figure out for themselves whether or not the institutions are
being upfront in their various letters.
> I should point out that there is a
> recommended 1500 word limit for Themestream articles, and most of mine
> come close to that. I hit a few main points, mostly, but I suppose it
> is inevitable that some readers will think of things I should have
> included.
First of all, you haven't missed a few minor details. In some cases, you
miss the entire issue that's at the center of the controversy.
Secondly, the word limit strikes me as a poor excuse. So break the articles
up into separate parts. Or, spend more time discussing facts and less time
drawing conclusions.
> Well, first of all, the main thrust of that article is the prevalence
> of theocratic views within the Baha'i community, and the fact that this
> view is not the only way of looking at Baha'u'llah's teachings.
But you got the context all wrong, Karen. I dare say you couldn't have
gotten the context any more wrong.
> And if
> you are talking about "spiritual transformation", you are talking about
> converting people to the Baha'i Faith, aren't you?
No. I'm talking about dealing with racism by doing something more than
wearing "Just undo it" t-shirts. I'm talking about things like the
statement on the "Prosperity of Humankind" in which social issues are
discussed from a spiritual perspective rather than a material one. I'm
talking about enough of a change of heart so that people come to regard
themselves as part of one, single human family rather than constantly
dividing us into "liberal" and "conservative" (or "fundamentalist") camps.
None of that requires that people become Baha'is.
> Actually, it never occurred to me to go into the Social and Economic
> projects done throughout the world. For one thing, it's not the main
> thrust of my article. I could easily add a sentence about it if it
> will make you feel better, but it really doesn't change anything.
Your introduction to the subject asks, "The natural question is, if Baha'is
can't work politically towards the realization of their social ideals, how
do they expect to achieve them?" And the introduction is what gives your
subject relevance. Since the only basis for the subject's relevance is
undercut, the article would appear to require a complete rewrite. Without
that introduction, what's the point in talking about Baha'i views on
theocracy?
> And I
> might note that I'm far from the only person to complain that Baha'is
> don't very much bother with charitable endeavors -- our communities are
> too small and stretched, and teaching is always the main focus.
And I can't help the feeling that this has way more to do with the fact that
those communities that are doing something are too busy doing something
worthwhile to spend all that much time bringing attention to themselves for
doing it. For example, there are presently 46 SED projects going on in the
16 states of the southern region of the United States. I don't know about
you, but that sure looks to me as though quite a few Baha'is are bothering
with charitable endeavors.
> > The article on "Baha'i Fundamentalism"
> http://www.themestream.com/articles/280644.html
> is completely devoid of any mention
> > of the exclusive interpretive authority held by `Abdu'l-Baha and
> Shoghi
> > Effendi.
> In the third paragraph, I state the following: "The central teaching at
> stake, the Baha'i equivelent to Biblical inerrancy, is the doctrine of
> the Covenant. As the term is usually used, it refers to the written
> transfer of authority to successive leaders of the Baha'i Faith, from
> its founder, Baha'u'llah, to his son 'Abdu'l-Baha, to his grandson
> Shoghi Effendi, to today's Universal House of Justice."
My point exactly. The Covenant isn't just about "written transfer of
authority". It's also about a division of authority between the various
institutions. You mentioned half of it, but you didn't even mention the
part that's central to this whole discussion about "fundamentalism".
> I am describing
> fundamentalism as a viewpoint, not talking about any specific
> individual.
Pardon my hyperbole. At the same time, if you're going to describe
"fundamentalism" as a point of view, wouldn't it be appropriate to at least
state the central thesis of the point of view that you're calling
"fundamentalism"?
> I am not describing what is supposed to happen, Rick. Again, I am
> describing a particular attitude. I personally was shocked by the sort
> of institution-worship I found among some people on the Net. I'd never
> seen it out in the real world.
Unless we conflate the meaning of the words "love" and "worship", I think
you've mischaracterized (caricaturized?) what you've observed. Where have
Baha'is said that the institutions must be obeyed absolutely without
question? A vast majority of the folks whose attitudes you would describe
as "intitution-worship" would agree entirely with the idea that Baha'is are
absolutely free to take their concerns to the institutions themselves.
You wrote:
"Baha'i fundamentalism shows an absolute contempt of traditional democratic
values such as the right to free speech, the necessity of a free press as a
check on institutional power, or the right for a person accused of
wrongdoing to have knowledge of the evidence against them and face their
accusers."
I've been around the Baha'i Faith for nearly my entire life. Nowhere have I
seen "absolute contempt" for any of those things. I _have_ seen absolute
contempt toward misguided attempts to incorporate some of the more unsavory
elements of those values into the structure of Baha'i Administration, but
that's a completely different matter. It's not at all unreasonable to
object to people trying to change something they don't entirely understand
in the first place, and such an objection doesn't resemble "fundamentalism"
in any of its forms.
> > And then there's the "Talisman Crackdown".
>
> http://www.themestream.com/articles/254975.html
>
> The subtitle's reference to some
> > kind of war between Baha'i institutions and the internet is completely
> > misleading.
> Sure looks like a war to me, Rick.
I wasn't particularly concerned with your use of the word "war". It's this
notion that Baha'i institutions have delcared ware on the internet that is
most objectionable. It conjures up images of hackers sitting in front of
terminals in the Center for the Study of the Texts trying to figure out ways
to bring the internet down. The first time I read it, I did a double-take.
> The "fact" is that the Institutions did not like some of the opinions
> being expressed on Talisman.
I think the institutions couldn't care less about the opinions themselves.
What concerned them was that these opinions were being expressed by Baha'is
and that these opinions happened to be diametrically opposed to statements
made in authoritative Baha'i texts. If you don't convey that aspect of the
controversey, then you haven't told the whole truth.
> Do you think if I told the other side of
> the story (the devilish half of me has thought of adopting a pseudonym
> and doing just that), and called it "Baha'i Institutions Strike Blow
> Against Internal Opposition" it would look any better?
Oh, good grief, Karen, I don't care what "looks any better". I care about
whether or not what you say represents an acurate picture of the truth.
What you said isn't an acurate picture, because it leaves out important
facts.
> This is America, Rick. We believe in free speech, and
> the notion that anyone could be threatened with shunning for expressing
> opinions on email is an outrage to most normal people.
Well, gosh, if you want to really deal a crushing blow, then why not talk
about Ruth White actually being declared a Covenant-breaker for expressing
the opinion that `Abdu'l-Baha's Will and Testament was a forgery, or Mason
Remey being declared a Covenant-breaker for expressing the opinion that he
was appointed to succeed Shoghi Effendi as Guardian of the Baha'i Faith? Do
you think anyone in Peoria would be upset of the Universal House of Justice
ousted a group of folks because they were advocating the incorproation of
aspects of white supremacy into the Baha'i Teachings?
The actual opinions, and their relationship to statements in authoritative
Baha'i texts, do matter, Karen. That's why you have an obligation to tell
the whole truth, and not just part of the truth.
> > The article on "But Some are More Equal than Others"
> Actually, I've never been entirely happy with this article.
Frankly, I think I'd be happy with a rewrite of the second-to-last
paragraph. The Universal House of Justice has responded to the "Service of
Women" paper, and subsequent actions by the Universal House of Justice
regards the behavior of Baha'is who act as if that response had never been
written.
And, while some individuals may have expressed arguments against the
ultimate position that the Universal House of Justice expresses in their
response, no one has, to date, delivered a point-by-point counter argument
to that letter. This is a fact the omission of which would be rather unfair
to the Universal House of Justice.
> However, the main thrust of the article is the inherent contradiction
> between claiming the Baha'i Faith stands for the equality of the sexes
> while at the same time excluding them from the Universal House of
> Justice.
If you want to discuss the subject, I would suggest that you begin by noting
that the central principle of the Baha'i Faith is the oneness of humanity.
There are a number of principles that arise out of that central principle;
the equality of women and men and the specific provisions of Baha'u'llah's
Covenant are but two of them. In other words, I would say that the Baha'i
Faith stands for the oneness of humanity rather than say that the Baha'i
Faith stands for equality between women and men. At least I would say that
this would be a more accurate statement of the Baha'i teachings on the
subject.
> I don't think you understand what a shock that is to
> discover, as I did, after the card is signed.
Now you're being presumptive. Also, you're moving into the realm of
personal opinions and away from the discusson of facts that can be
documented.
Regards,
Rick Schaut
Rick Schaut
"Milissa Boyer Kafes" <milis...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:956mg7$5dr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Rick's response to you was almost the most patronizing post I've ever
> seen.
I can assure you, that article didn't express even a small fraction of the
contempt I feel for some of the things Karen has written. I've never been
fond of anyone's effort to make a point or two by not telling the whole
truth. And, given the fact that people make a buck or two off of their
ThemeStream articles, it wouldn't have been all too out of line for me to
suggest that her purpose was to obscure the truth for financial gain,
however paultry that might be. It would certainly be in the same character
as some of the statements she's made about the Baha'i institutions and some
Baha'is.
You will notice, however, that I made no such accusation. Rather, I
suggested that her acceptance of what's true and what's not true reflects a
certain resonance with where she's at in her life and in relation to the
Baha'i Faith. Silly me. Here I thought I was expressing some understanding
of her circumstances and experiences despite the contempt I feel for some of
the things she's said.
> Don't get the reference to Janis Joplin, though.
I mentioned a variation in the chorus one of her songs (from the "Pearl"
album):
"Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose,
Nothing, that's all that Bobby left me, yeah,
But feeling good was easy, Lord, when he sang the blues,
Hey, feeling good was good enough for me, hmm hmm,
Good enough for me and my Bobby McGee."
I wasn't thinking about Janis' life outside the context of that chorus. It
just strikes me as resonant with a number of Karen's remarks about feeling
free after having left the Faith.
Regards,
Rick Schaut
Paul Hammond
Rick Schaut wrote in message <9579l...@news2.newsguy.com>...
>
>"Milissa Boyer Kafes" <milis...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:956mg7$5dr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> Rick's response to you was almost the most patronizing post I've ever
>> seen.
>
>I can assure you, that article didn't express even a small fraction of the
>contempt I feel for some of the things Karen has written. I've never been
>fond of anyone's effort to make a point or two by not telling the whole
>truth. And, given the fact that people make a buck or two off of their
>ThemeStream articles, it wouldn't have been all too out of line for me to
>suggest that her purpose was to obscure the truth for financial gain,
>however paultry that might be. It would certainly be in the same character
>as some of the statements she's made about the Baha'i institutions and some
>Baha'is.
>
>You will notice, however, that I made no such accusation.
But you have now, though, haven't you? Or rather, you have said
'This is what I could have said' but I didn't say it, and I'm not saying
it now.
Why don't you come straight out and really express the contempt
you feel, instead of saying things in this roundabout way, and then
expect us to applaud you for the restraint you have shown?
Milissa is right, your viewpoint comes across as patronising. You
pretend to a concern for telling the whole truth, but really you just
want to prove that you are right.
Rather, I
>suggested that her acceptance of what's true and what's not true reflects a
>certain resonance with where she's at in her life and in relation to the
>Baha'i Faith. Silly me. Here I thought I was expressing some
understanding
>of her circumstances and experiences despite the contempt I feel for some
of
>the things she's said.
>
And I could say that your version of the truth depends on your
feelings and your state of development in your life. I would
still respect your right to hold those opinions, and try to
understand where you were coming from.
Having read quite a few articles on Themestream, many of which
are incoherent rambles, I would say that Karen's are among the
best written and best researched on the site - at least up to the
standard of reporting of a local newspaper - which is a pretty
good standard for an amateur.
She doesn't 'distort the truth for financial gain', she lives by
being a teacher. Writing about the Baha'i Faith is a spare
time activity, though it's obviously important to her spiritual
journey.
And now I've gone and broken my rule about not posting while
I'm still feeling angry!
Paul
Paul Hammond
Milissa Boyer Kafes wrote in message <956mg7$5dr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
Hi Milissa,
I got you confused with another Melissa, who wrote a nice themestream
article about how her early attraction to Lakota religion eventually
tied up with her experiences as a Baha'i.
I looked it up, and found it was someone else - but it's worth taking
a look at.
(Sorry, I don't know how to get the short version of the URL)
Paul
http://www.themestream.com/gspd_browse/browse/view_article.gsp?c_id=249442&s
rc_cat_id=6381&id_list=248547,261922,254975,258500,280644,214335,267177,2594
41,249442,215477
Ian McCarthy
>
> Yea, we wept, when we remembered the seven hills. They that sealed us
> in their oil, required of us a rosary. How can we recite rosaries, in
> our homeland?
We simply cannot and could not even if we were to be put to the stake for
it!
In the meantime we look forward naughtily to Anti-Clerical Week, from 11
February, culminating in the commemoration of the 401st anniversary of the
martyrdom of Giordano Bruno on 17 February (also the anniversary of the
Edict of Emancipation of 1848 granting religious freedom to the Waldensian
minority . See http://www.chiesavaldese.org/indexen.htm ).
> > No actually, we're still waiting anxiously for the winter to happen so
we can go snowboarding!!
> >
> Marvelous; I should hope I'm so lucky the rest of the season! The
> northern slopes are always there; you may not always have time to go
> that far.
Indeed, I shouldn't even be writing this, I should have been in bed hours
ago!
Ciao,
Janji
seegar
> I'm posting below the letter from Universal House of
>Justice in regards to this matter.
>Department of the Secretariat 21 June 1989
>
>[to an individual Baha'i]
>
>Dear Baha'i Friend,
> It is the hope of the Universal House of Justice that the comments in this
>letter help you and other friends responsible for the publication of "dialogue"
>to appreciate the reasons behind vigorous reaction of both the National
>Spiritual Assembly of the United States and the Universal House of Justice to
>the proposed publication of "A Modest Proposal", and will give you clear
>grounds on which you can revise your policies and overcome the problems which
>have impeded your desire to serve the
>Faith over so many years.
>
> With loving Baha'i greetings,
> For Department of the Secretariat
Dear Susan,
Thank you for posting this letter from the Universal House of Justice!
It certainly is a counter balance to help understand the situation
since we hear so much embittered opinion from those who feel
disaffected.
It really helps my understanding as to what is going on and makes one
wonder why we all can't take our ideas for change and bring them to
consultation and work them through the Administrative Order of
Baha'u'llah.
I myself feel that there are many good ideas for discussion in "A
Modest Proposal", but apparently there is very little concern by some
who support it in the manner in which they promote their ideas and how
this method of proposal violates the very teachings of the Baha'i
Faith.
We are not to make Religion a cause of dissension and our maturity
will be evidenced when we are more obedient to the desire of
Abdul-Baha to be as one family!
Peace and Love,
Chris
Peace and Love,
Chris
Rick Schaut
"Paul Hammond" <paha...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:3a77...@news-uk.onetel.net.uk...
> Rick Schaut wrote in message <9579l...@news2.newsguy.com>...
> >"Milissa Boyer Kafes" <milis...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> >news:956mg7$5dr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >> Rick's response to you was almost the most patronizing post I've ever
> >> seen.
> >I can assure you, that article didn't express even a small fraction of
the
> >contempt I feel for some of the things Karen has written.
> Why don't you come straight out and really express the contempt
> you feel, instead of saying things in this roundabout way, and then
> expect us to applaud you for the restraint you have shown?
1) I'm saying things in a round-about way because expressing my full
feelings on the subject is not likely to lead to anything positive. The
only possible positive result that can come from it is that I vent, but I
can do that by throwing a few darts at a dart board (albeit with less than
my usual accuracy).
2) I don't expect to be applauded for doing so. I just don't expect to get
flamed for it.
> And I could say that your version of the truth depends on your
> feelings and your state of development in your life.
And, if you did, the chance that I'll say that your remarks are patronizing
is virtually zero.
> I would
> still respect your right to hold those opinions, and try to
> understand where you were coming from.
This implies that you think I haven't respected Karen's right to hold her
opinions, but I'm at a loss to figure out what I've done that is
disrespectful of that right.
Regards,
Rick Schaut
Karen Bacquet
Nice to know somebody out there still likes me.
>
> Perhaps his Janis Joplin reference reflects his fear you will die
> before you are 30 from a heroin overdose. Ok I would agree with him on
> that, but don't see what it has to do with your article.
Well, it's way too late for me to die before 30, from a heroin
overdose, or anything else. And the real objection people have to my
articles is that I write anything at all that doesn't echo their way of
thinking. Today, I'm just in the mood to say "Tough noogies!" No way to
make those guys happy except to be one of them, so what's a soul to do?
I don't know if I'll answer Rick or not; I got teaching stuff to do --
like trying to make Ancient Mesopotamia exciting to eleven-year-olds.
Love, Karen
--
Karen Bacquet
Maybe when the check comes, I'll take the kids out for pizza.
I have told the truth, exactly as I see it. You may disagree with me
all you like; you cross the line when you call me dishonest.
And Rick, don't forget that there are a whole lot of people who say
their experiences are similar. But I suppose they are all lying as
well.
Karen
--
Karen Bacquet
are.
> >fond of anyone's effort to make a point or two by not telling the
whole
> >truth. And, given the fact that people make a buck or two off of
their
> >ThemeStream articles, it wouldn't have been all too out of line for
me to
> >suggest that her purpose was to obscure the truth for financial gain,
> >however paultry that might be. It would certainly be in the same
character
> >as some of the statements she's made about the Baha'i institutions
and some
> >Baha'is.
You know, I realize this is Rick's quote, but it just occurred to me
that I make the same paltry sum no matter what I write. There is no
particular financial incentive to "distort the truth". Unless he
thinks I could predict that such truth-distorting articles could be
particularly popular. The article that had the most "page views" by far
was the one on Alison Marshall. Distant second is the one called "Exit
By Troops". He didn't mention either of those in his critique.
> >
> >You will notice, however, that I made no such accusation.
>
> But you have now, though, haven't you? Or rather, you have said
> 'This is what I could have said' but I didn't say it, and I'm not
saying
> it now.
>
> Why don't you come straight out and really express the contempt
> you feel, instead of saying things in this roundabout way, and then
> expect us to applaud you for the restraint you have shown?
>
> Milissa is right, your viewpoint comes across as patronising. You
> pretend to a concern for telling the whole truth, but really you just
> want to prove that you are right.
Yep, I'm the poor lost sheep so sadly misled by that devil Cole and his
minions. I suspect if I hang around long enough I will probably reach
independent demon status somewhere along the line. But "If you can't
stand the heat . . . "
>
>
> Having read quite a few articles on Themestream, many of which
> are incoherent rambles, I would say that Karen's are among the
> best written and best researched on the site - at least up to the
> standard of reporting of a local newspaper - which is a pretty
> good standard for an amateur.
Thank you, Paul, for reminding folks I'm an amateur. The only place
where I've ever published anything has been in our local small-town
newspaper -- where I gave the Faith some pretty good press, I might add.
One of my critics accused me of "posing as a journalist", which is just
plain bizarre, because I've never pretended to be anything other than
what I am. Sometimes I think that's the problem, that my articles are
just too good for this hick from the sticks to be writing. If I did
write incoherent rambles, I don't think anybody would give a damn.
I also keep telling people to take a look around Themestream
sometime. The place is only one notch above a bulletin board. Anybody
who wants to can submit articles. There is no one editing the material
there, which is of quite variable quality. Geez, Some professional
writers are there, along with some which are just awful. The only
thing that weeds articles out is the rating system, and I've done
pretty well there.
I personally would like to see other Baha'i writers submit stuff there,
so there can be a variety of voices on Baha'i Themestream. There's
nobody writing articles right now except the Remeyites. More
conventional Baha'is simply bugged out when I started writing. No
reason for that; let the readers decide whose articles they value. If
Rick doesn't like what I say, let him write an article telling
the "truth" as he sees it. That takes more effort of course, than
simply calling me a liar, but all good things take effort.
Another thing about Themestream is virtually all the articles
are "opinions". This whole opinion vs. fact thing is a tempest in a
teapot. No writer just writes "facts"; they write their interpretation
of the facts. It is a "fact" that Alison Marshall was disenrolled from
the Baha'i Faith. However that fact can be interpreted in various
ways. What is really being objected to here is that I do not take the
official spin on these events as gospel.
> She doesn't 'distort the truth for financial gain', she lives by
> being a teacher. Writing about the Baha'i Faith is a spare
> time activity, though it's obviously important to her spiritual
> journey.
That is pretty silly, isn't it? Now Robin Peters writes for money and
makes no bones about it, and will put critical things about the Faith
in her articles on the basis of the barest rumor.(In spite of what is
being said, I don't stick things in my articles just on the basis of
hearing them once.) She hasn't written anything about the Faith, lately
though, although I see her elsewhere on Themestream. She's quite
prolific, and I get the feeling she goes for quantity rather than
quality, but I saw her mentioned in another person's article as one of
the most successful writers on Themestream. You really have to be both
prolific and popular to make any significant money.
>
> And now I've gone and broken my rule about not posting while
> I'm still feeling angry!
Hey, Paul, don't worry about that. We all end up breaking that rule!
Love, Karen
>
> Paul
>
>
--
seegar
indubitably clear and evident that this Wronged One, strengthened by
the transcendent power of the Kingdom, is seeking to efface from among
the peoples and kindreds of the earth every evidence of disorder,
discord, dissension, differences or divisions; and it is for no other
reason but this great, this momentous object that He hath again and
again been cast into prison and many a day and a night hath been
subjected to chains and fetters. Blessed are they that judge this
impregnable Cause, this glorious Announcement, with fairness and
equity."
Tablets of Bahá'u'lláh Revealed After the Kitáb-i-Aqdas Pages 259-260
"What greater demonstration could there be that unity leadeth to
flourishing life, while dissension and withdrawing from the others,
will lead only to misery; for these are the sure ways to bitter
disappointment and ruin."
Selections from the Writings of `Abdu'l-Bahá, p. 278
seegar
God and His Religion is to safeguard the interests and promote the
unity of the human race, and to foster the spirit of love and
fellowship amongst men. Suffer it not to become a source of dissension
and discord, of hate and enmity.
Proclamation of Bahá'u'lláh, p. 112
patk...@my-deja.com
The water under the bridge is bound for the sea. Gazing downstream it
reminds me so much of thecritique I had on one of Robin's essays, to
include subsequent remarks in the vein as, "I never said it was the most
wretched piece of %^#&," accompanied by tremendous waiing and
lamentation.
It sure is swell to put together a story and post it to themestream and
then post a URL here. Here is an altenative idea: Post a draft here,
let folks through darts, if anything draws blood - from your
perspective, you make improvements (might post a revised draft for
something with major rework, but generally only one draft) > VERY
IMPORTANT < --> we don't know what the changes are until you go final.
Then you post the final, post the URL here, we all read like junior
editors to see if the author took our suggestions or left them. You may
get an even better product and you may find that less readers are really
torqued by what you wrote, for two reasons, 1) if they think it is
wrong, they had a chance to point out corrections on the draft and you
had a chance to fix them - less chance of a real mistake, 2) the
perception that you really are engaged in dialog with those with him you
may have some differences - this is better than the feeling that one is
a subject of an invisible gossip columnist, who pulls surprises out of
their hat, any surprise that they feel sells paper (I'm not saying you
would do that, but I most likely did suggest that maybe someone else
was doing that). Just a suggestion on how articles could be written,
and posted to themestream w/ less screaming here; now, throw darts!
Blessings!
- Pat
ko...@ameritel.net
patk...@my-deja.com
Karen Bacquet <kala...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > I wouldn't use the word "stupid", but the absence of documentation
for
> > various statements of fact in your ThemeStream articles does imply
> that
> > you're willing to accept things based on the source and not on
> whether they
>
> I hear this assertion all the time from my conservative critics and I
> don't even know what the hell you guys are talking about.
Are the conservative critics the ones who like things as they are? What
other sorts of critics do you have; those, such as myself who propose a
different way?
> There is
> nothing in my articles that I accepted "based on the source". There
> are things that are based on my own experience and observation. Any
> factual errors called to my attention have been corrected. I do my
> utmost to be fair. In fact the only reason you and Susan are on my
> case here is because I was fool enough to announce that I put some
> balancing information into one of my articles. Perhaps I shouldn't do
> that next time.
>
> I'm beginning to think that this mantra about me using opinion as fact
> is just being thrown around just in an attempt to smear my reputation.
Not at all. The go about with Fred and the "American Baha'i" was an
example. I think you correctly labeled the conventional speculation as
such, and Fred labeled it as a nasty and false claim by his critics.
The questio of 'did it ever happen' seems to get overshadowed.
I think a lot of people can get their conclusions confused with their
facts; our brains are supposed to do taht for us. It takes discipline
to keep them separate, and some are better at it than others and some
don't even seem to make an effort. I think you are trying, and it can
be frustrating in a forum like this where your readers can tell you
_exactly_ their impressions: not just everything you did wrong, but
everything you _might_ have done wrong. It reminds me of a family
meeting at my home!
> I guess you guys want an academic style paper replete with footnotes,
> or weasly disclaimers all over the place "This may not necessarily
> reflect the views of the Baha'i Faith or its institutions." Take a
look
> around Themestream sometime, and check out how "documented" most of
> those articles are.
I think you have higher standards than many of the other Themestream
writers active in the topic area. That doesn't mean you are infallible.
It just means you are worth talking to; it means there is a better
chance of resoning with you.
> Besides, if you're going to make an accusation, at least get specific.
> I can't defend myself against such a general charge.
Bingo! I think that is really all that is needed for the readers to be
satisfied.
Rick Schaut
> I have told the truth, exactly as I see it. You may disagree with me
> all you like; you cross the line when you call me dishonest.
Correction, Karen. I said that I _could_ have called you dishonest. I
didn't, and, quite frankly, I would chastise anyone who did.
What I also said, however, is that such an accusation would be roughly
parallel to some of the things you've said about Baha'i institutions and/or
members thereof. For example, you stated that members of the U.S. National
Spiritual Assembly were acting on hate for a group of people and were
looking for ways to oust them. Not even any mention of the fact that they
at least claim to be upholding Baha'i principles in the letters that are
available to us on the web, or that the principles they cite have basis in
Baha'i texts.
Now, Karen, how is your characterization any different from someone accusing
you of dishonesty? Figure out the answer to that question, and you'll
understand why I regard some of your remarks with such a high degree of
contempt.
With that, I think it's time I go throw a few darts...
Regards,
Rick Schaut
Rick Schaut
> And the real objection people have to my
> articles is that I write anything at all that doesn't echo their way of
> thinking.
Now _that's_ an accusation of dishonesty. It's also a cute way of ducking
the issues. Deplorable on both counts.
Regards,
Rick Schaut
Karen Bacquet
Ever the peacemaker, aren't you? It's a wonderful quality, you know.
However, the water is indeed under the bridge, since I don't have any
immediate plans to write more articles. I don't really have the time
right now; I'm already spending way more time online than I should. I
do have a couple of idea, but they are far less controversial than
those I've done. In fact, as far as the controversial stuff, I've
pretty much said most of what I want to say. And observers should take
note that the issues that are important to me do not precisely coincide
with those that are important to other Baha'i liberals. (I'll leave
the gay issue, for example, for somebody else to handle.) There are
some things I could expand on, perhaps -- maybe devote a whole article
to the subject of prepublication review, which I have only mentioned in
other articles. We'll see. I'll have more time when it gets closer to
summer.
As I tried to explain to Mark, my "agenda" boils down to three things:
the mashriq, free-expression, due process. The rest is secondary to
me. I personally have trouble seeing why anybody would find this
sinister.
Anyway, I will consider your suggestion. A lot of the time, when I'm
in the mood to write, I just go for it, but considering how some of
these articles are being seen, a little test run might not be a bad
idea. No promises; but I will think about it.
Love, Karen
--
"The essence of all that We have revealed for thee
is justice . . ." Baha'u'llah
http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/bigquestions/Bacquet.html
Paul Hammond
seegar wrote in message <3a777203...@news-server.optonline.net>...
Thanks for posting this.
But, I guess the tough thing is how to do this in practice. How do
we stop the faith becoming a source of dissension and discord, hate
and enmity when we have deeply felt disagreements which need
to be expressed?
Paul
Karen Bacquet
> >
> > I hear this assertion all the time from my conservative critics and
I
> > don't even know what the hell you guys are talking about.
>
> Are the conservative critics the ones who like things as they are?
What
> other sorts of critics do you have; those, such as myself who propose
a
> different way?
Actually, I wasn't thinking of you at all, Pat. I was thinking of Burl
Barer who saw fit to post a not-so-subtle piece on journalistic ethics
on t9, t2000, and Baha'i Studies, saying that certain persons
were "posing as journalists", and drawing attention to the ethical
requirement that journalists distinguish between advocacy and news
reporting. And, of course, Mark's Kluge-style critique in the "Talk
Back" column of Themestream. Before my Themestream articles, he called
me a "dear soul"; afterwords I'm a horrible egotist with an underhanded
agenda. Dave has been definitely critical, but nicer about it,
although I think he gets frustrated with me. To give credit where
credit is due, Susan has mostly refrained from criticism and has been
the source of some useful information. There's a few other people
who've written stuff in the "Talk Back" column. One guy tried writing
an conventional answer to my stuff in a Themestream article, but it
didn't rate well.
This is the first time I've ever crossed swords with Rick about
anything. I'm beginning to see where his hardline reputation comes
from. However, I must admit, I let myself in for it. Part of the
reason was, as I said, you can't fight a vague charge of "stating
opinion as fact"; you can only explain specifics. Besides, I was
curious to what precisely Rick was objecting to; I doesn't hurt a bit
to know.
Love, Karen
--
"The essence of all that We have revealed for thee
is justice . . ." Baha'u'llah
http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/bigquestions/Bacquet.html