Baha'i shunning Compared to Jehovah's Witnesses and Shunning
Slander, Shunning, & Censorship
Wintesses:
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Shunning.htm
http://www.xjw.com/shunning.html
Jehovah's Witnesses and Shunning
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the characteristics of a destructive religion is an enforced policy
that requires the members to shun anyone who leaves or gets expelled from
the religion. It is a common trait among esoteric movements that claim to be
"the Truth." Members are required to sever association with even their own
family members and relatives who leave. The consequences of this harsh
doctrinal policy are extreme, shattering family relationships and leaving
the victims emotionally and spiritually devastated. Suicides or attempted
suicides are not uncommon.
Jehovah's Witnesses are among the religious groups that practice extreme
shunning of former members. Of all the Watchtower Society's legalistic
doctrines, this one is perhaps the most responsible for uprising among
former members against the Organization that has resulted in exhaustive
examination and exposés of their flawed teachings and history.
Former members who disavow faith in the Watchtower organization's doctrines
are branded "apostates." Jehovah's Witnesses are taught that they must hate
such ones. An article titled "Search Through Me, O God" appeared in the
October 1, 1993 Watchtower. Speaking about "apostates" on page 19, beginning
with paragraph 15, we read:
15 Regarding them, the psalmist said: "Do I not hate
those who are intensely hating you, O Jehovah, and do I
not feel a loathing for those revolting against you? With a
complete hatred I do hate them. They have become to
me real enemies." (Psalm 139:21, 22) It was because
they intensely hated Jehovah that David looked on them
with abhorrence. Apostates are included among those
who show their hatred of Jehovah by revolting against him.
Apostasy is, in reality, a rebellion against Jehovah. Some
apostates profess to know and serve God, but they reject
teachings or requirements set out in his Word. Others
claim to believe the Bible, but they reject Jehovah's
organization and actively try to hinder its work. When they
deliberately choose such badness after knowing what is
right, when the bad becomes so ingrained that it is an
inseparable part of their makeup, then a Christian must
hate (in the Biblical sense of the word) those who have
inseparably attached themselves to the badness. True
Christians share Jehovah's feelings toward such
apostates; they are not curious about apostate ideas. On
the contrary, they "feel a loathing" toward those who have
made themselves God's enemies, but they leave it to
Jehovah to execute vengeance.--Job 13:16; Romans
12:19; 2 John 9, 10.
An article in The Watchtower, September 15, 1981, on page 29 under the
heading "DISFELLOWSHIPED RELATIVES NOT LIVING AT HOME" has this to say
(beginning at paragraph 18):
18 The second situation that we need to consider is that
involving a disfellowshiped or disassociated relative who is
not in the immediate family circle or living at one's home.
Such a person is still related by blood or marriage, and so
there may be some limited need to care for necessary
family matters. Nonetheless, it is not as if he were living
in the same home where contact and conversation could
not be avoided. We should keep clearly in mind the
Bible's inspired direction: "Quit mixing in company with
anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy
person . . . , not even eating with such a man."--1 Cor.
5:11.
See also the reference to this article on page 20 of The Watchtower,
November 15, 1988.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disfellowshipping versus SHUNNING
The point of this commentary will be to show that the Watchtower Society's
shunning doctrine does not adhere to the Bible. Further, an understanding of
congregational practices of first-century Christians in the Jewish culture
is necessary for a proper understanding of the scriptures on this matter.
The primary scripture for consideration is:
But now I am writing you to quit mixing in company with anyone called a
brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler
or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man.--1.Cor.
5:11 (NWT)
The text is clear that a person with whom the congregation should not mix
company is one who is:
1) "called a brother" (that is, one who professes to be a member of the
congregation); and
2) practicing fornication, greed, idolotry, reviling (insulting), habitual
drunkeness, and/or extortion (theft).
a.. Jehovah's Witnesses do not disfellowship greedy persons.
b.. They often do not disfellowship people who regularly get drunk unless
their conduct becomes so outrageous and publicly-known as to bring reproach
upon Jehovah's Witnesses.
c.. They do not disfellowship people for many of the things which they
themselves class as "idolatry" (for example: materialism, worshipping an
organization, etc.).
d.. On the other hand, Jehovah's Witnesses do disfellowship and shun
people for:
a.. no longer claiming to be called a brother/sister.
b.. independent study and discussion of the Bible that brings Watchtower
doctrine into question.
c.. possession of literature written by former members.
d.. having lunch with a former member, even if the former member
professes to be a Christian and was not disfellowshipped for fornication,
greed, idolotry, reviling, drunkeness, or extortion.
e.. attending a service of any other church or religious organization.
f.. authorizing a blood transfusion, even to save the life of a child.
g.. numerous other actions not mentioned in scripture, but deemed by the
congregation elders to be "unclean conduct," or "conduct unbecoming" of a
Jehovah's Witness. "Conduct" in this case covers a broad range of actions
not clearly defined by the Society, leaving discernment about what is not
acceptable to the discretion of the congregation's elders. As a result,
standards by which people may be disfellowshiped are inconsistent throughout
this religion which claims "unity" to be one of their identifying
characteristics.
"Not to be mixing in company with" . . . "not even eating with . . ."
Here it is important to learn the customs of association for worship
practiced by first-century Jews and Christians, bearing in mind that Jesus
and the apostles were Jews. They lived according to the Jewish lifestyle and
customs of their day. Jesus taught in the synogogues; hence, he was called
"Rabbi." Matt.26:25; 26:49; Mark 9:5; 11:21; 14:25; John 1:38, 49; 3:2, 26;
4:31; 6:25; 9:2; 11:8
There were two kinds of association for religious worship:
1) public meetings, such as at the temple and in synogogues, which anyone
was allowed to attend; and
2) private gatherings of the different sects.
Christians and Jews participated in both. Christians, met in private homes,
usually over a special meal with prayer. A presiding minister hosted the
meal using either fellowship funds or personal funds. (Acts 20:20; see the
footnote in older editions of the NWT)
Christians were instructed to "greet" one another with a kiss. (Rom.16:16;
1.Cor.16:20; 2Cor.13:12; Ti.3:15; 1Pet.5:14) When Paul sent his "greetings"
in a letter to the Christians in Thessalonica, he requested that the
"brothers" be greeted by a "holy kiss" on his behalf. (1Thess.5:26)
It was by this sign that Judas betrayed Jesus. (Luke 22:47,48)
Clearly, Paul did instruct Christians to expel from the congregation's
fellowship any person who was purposely practicing willful sin. The
disassociation would quite naturally exclude them from being greeted by the
identifying "holy kiss," as well as not being allowed to share in meetings
and the meals for Christian worship and prayer. However, Paul's instruction
did not prohibit normal conversation or witnessing to former members. Nor
were they barred from attending worship in the temple or the synagogues.
Jesus, the apostles and Paul, along with the rest of the Jews, worshipped
God both publicly in the temple and synagogues, and privately with small
groups in various homes. (Acts 5:42) It was from the private Christian
fellowship for worship that sinners were excluded.
What of 2 John 10,11?
If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, never receive him
into your homes or say a greeting to him. For he that says a greeting to him
is a sharer in his wicked works.--2 John 11 (NWT)
The above scripture is not about people who have been expelled from the
Christian congregation. When read in context, it is about anyone who "does
not bring this teaching" [of the Christ]. Because they held congregation
meetings in their homes (which might be little more than a dug-out or tent
outside the city walls of Jerusalem), in their culture their neighbors might
view inviting a non-Christian into the home as the Christian sharing worship
with non-Christians.
a.. Jehovah's Witnesses, while shunning disfellowshipped or disassociated
persons, do not prohibit them from attending the congregation meetings at
their Kingdom Halls. Yet the congregation was specifically where Paul
instructed Christians not be be "mixing in company with" disfellowshipped
sinners.
b.. If the scripture at 2 John 10 were observed literally by Jehovah's
Witnesses, they would be obliged to never invite anyone other than a
Jehovah's Witness in good standing into their home, or ever speak a greeting
to anyone other than a Jehovah's Witness.
How did Jesus say one expelled from congregation should be treated?
Moreover, if your brother commits a sin, go lay bare his fault between you
and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he
does not listen, take along with you one or two more, in order that at the
mouth of two or three witnesses every matter may be established. If he does
not listen to them, speak to the congregation. If he does not listen even to
the congregation, let him be to you just as a man of the nations ['Gentile'
in some translations] and as a tax collector.--Matt.18:15-17 (NWT)
a.. The instruction was to bring up the matter of sin first between the
two individuals alone. Then, if the sinner would repent, there was no need
to carry the matter further. If the sinner was not repentant, then one or
two others should be sought for witnesses. If the sinner remained
unrepentant, only then, as a last resort, should it be brought before the
entire congregation (not privately with the "elders").
b.. If, after all that, the person was still would not listen, he should
then be treated the same as Gentiles and tax collectors. In other words,
Christians were to treat former members just like anyone else who was not a
member of the congregation. To be treated like a "man of the nations" (which
is to say, a Gentile or foreigner) was far from being shunned. Jewish people
worked with, associated with, transacted business with, and preached to
Gentiles. As for "tax collectors," Jesus ate and associated with them.
Matthew was a tax collector. Tax collectors were not popular, but they were
not shunned.
Next, while passing along from there, Jesus caught sight of a man named
Matthew seated at the tax office, and he said to him: "Be my follower."
Thereupon he did rise up and follow him. Later, while he was reclining at
the table in the house, look! many tax collectors and sinners came and began
reclining with Jesus and his disciples. But on seeing this the Pharisees
began to say to his disciples: "Why is it that your teacher eats with tax
collectors and sinners?" Hearing [them], he said: "Persons in health do not
need a physician, but the ailing do. Go, then, and learn what this means, 'I
want mercy, and not sacrifice.' For I came to call, not righteous people,
but sinners."
--Matt.9:9-13 NWT
Conclusion
There is no scripture basis for mandating that Christians must totally shun
former members (that is, have no communication or conversation with them).
The instruction is to expel them from the congregation and treat them like
anyone else who is not a member. Especially, there is no scripture to
support shunning of one's own relatives--parents, children and siblings.
If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his
immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an
unbeliever."--1 Tim.5:8 (NIV)
Even for the rest, Paul counseled against abandoning those separated from
the congregation:
For your part, brothers, do not give up in doing right. But if anyone is
not obedient to our word through this letter, keep this one marked, stop
associating with him, that he may become ashamed. And yet do not be
considering him as an enemy, but continue admonishing him as a brother.
--2Thes.3:13-15 NWT
Instruction in the undistributed elders' guide
When a Jehovah's Witness male qualifies to be an elder in the congregation,
he is assigned an uncirculated proprietary book that gives instruction for
counseling and disciplinary actions according to the Society's rules. The
title of this book is Pay Attention To Yourselves and to All the Flock.
Interestingly, on the bottom of page 103 in that book, it is stated that
Jehovah's Witnesses need not be disfellowshipped for associating with
disfellowshipped relatives except if the association involves "spiritual
association" or if there is an attempt to excuse the former member's
objectional behavior. It says:
"Normally, a close relative would not be disfellowshipped for associating
with a disfellowshipped person unless there is spiritual association or an
effort made to excuse the wrongful course."--"Flock book", page 103, last
paragraph.
Despite this documented exclusion, Jehovah's Witnesses the world over are
taught that to please Jehovah God they must shun their siblings, their
children, and even their parents who either choose to leave or are
disfellowshipped--especially if the crime is variance with Watchtower
doctrine for which they are branded "apostates." And it is a fact that many
Witnesses have been disfellowshipped for refusing to shun their
disfellowshipped relatives.
The law of love
If the law of Christianity can be summed up in one word, it is "LOVE." Does
not love rescue and recover the sinner? Would Jesus shun the sheep who
strayed from the flock?
Now all the tax collectors and the sinners kept drawing near to him to
hear him. Consequently both the Pharisees and the scribes kept muttering
saying: "This man welcomes sinners and eats with them." Then he spoke this
illustration to them, saying: "What man of you with a hundred sheep, on
losing one of them, will not leave the ninety-nine behind in the wilderness
and go for the lost one until he finds it? And when he has found it he puts
it upon his shoulders and rejoices. And when he gets home he calls his
friends and his neighbors together, saying to them, 'Rejoice with me,
because I have found my sheep that was lost.' I tell you that thus there
will be more joy in heaven over one sinner that repents than over
ninety-nine righteous ones who have no need of repentance.--Luke 15:1-7
(NWT)
Note that the sheep did not have to come back and find the shepherd, the
shepherd went after the lost sheep.
Let us pray that the Watchtower Society will soon be blessed with "new
light" on their policy of extremist shunning of former members, thereby
liberating thousands--both within and out of the organization--from the
heart-strickening anguish imposed by this cruel, unjust, and unscriptural
dogma.
Dave Volek
"Slander, Shunning, & Censorship" <BI*P*G...@liberty.com>
wrote in message news:OcOdnQHUOPN...@comcast.com...
| Some might find it interesting to Compare Baha'i shunning
with Jehovah's
| Wintesses:
|
I find it interesting how such writers as above regard the
punitive actions an organization places on its members who
are not following the rules as "politically incorrect."
If one works for a large corporation, there are certain
formal and informal rules one must follow. To go against
these rules eventually means being shunned (to which "fired"
is perhaps a better word in this situation).
Government agencies, armies, volunteer groups, NGOs,
religious organizations, etc., etc., all have their rules
and processes to remove people who get out of hand. I can't
imagine any organization not being able to survive if it
could not deal with these situations.
Yet the above writer somehow feels the Bahai Faith should be
above all this--that somehow, members of the Bahai Faith can
do whatever they want and have no sanctions placed on them.
While such writers are quick to jump on the bandwagon of
being politically correct, they offer no alternative
solutions as what to do when members are not in line with
the values and traditions and rules of their organization's
current culture.
Dave Volek
Steve Marshall
>While such writers are quick to jump on the bandwagon of
>being politically correct, they offer no alternative
>solutions as what to do when members are not in line with
>the values and traditions and rules of their organization's
>current culture.
I can't speak for Fred's site, but Alison's site goes into some detail
about the need for due process when someone is being removed from
membership, and how that didn't occur.
Dave Volek
"Steve Marshall" <asm...@es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:23v5u0l1in6fs7isc...@4ax.com...
|
| I can't speak for Fred's site, but Alison's site goes into
some detail
| about the need for due process when someone is being
removed from
| membership, and how that didn't occur.
|
| http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/alisonz/
I spent about an hour with Alison's site and I just have
these few comments.
Without getting into whether she was right or not in her
particular arguments with the Bahai Faith, I would like to
know if she believes that the Bahai Faith--like any other
organization in the world--has the right to create its own
rules and traditions that limit how a member can express
themselves in a public manner AND once those rules and
traditions are violated, does the Bahai Faith--like any
other organization in the world--have the right to invoke
some internal discipline on such a member?
As for the lack of due process for Alison's removal, it is
true that according to methods commonly found in the western
democracies, it seems Alison may not have got a fair
treatment. But we Bahai's are trying to build a different
way of resolving such conflicts. Shoghi Effendi calls for us
not engage with lots of rules and regulation. Rather such
cases are to be resolved by consultation and judgement. In a
"Bahai Law" seminar I took some time ago, we are encouraged
to judge each case on its own merits. The writings seldom
give us a clear yes/no answer as what to do.
Despite the claim of lack of due process, Alison's own
chronology suggests to me that the Administrative Order was
very much active in trying to get Alison change her
positions before sanctions of some kind were to be evoked.
We can argue that perhaps better methods of reaching out to
Alison could have been employed. But unless Alison somehow
believed that she would not be subject to internal
discipline (whether or not she agreed with the
Administrative Order's assessment is irrelevent), she had to
have known that consequences of some kind, sooner or later,
was going to come down on her if she didn't change what she
saying in a public manner.
In the end, in my opinion, she chose her freedom to express
her contrary positions on Bahai writings over being part of
the Bahai community. Making such a choice had consequences:
she should not have been surprised at the result.
Randy Burns
"Dave Volek" <vo...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:3ZFEd.17808$06.14292@clgrps12...
>
> Without getting into whether she was right or not in her
> particular arguments with the Bahai Faith, I would like to
> know if she believes that the Bahai Faith--like any other
> organization in the world--has the right to create its own
> rules and traditions that limit how a member can express
> themselves in a public manner AND once those rules and
> traditions are violated, does the Bahai Faith--like any
> other organization in the world--have the right to invoke
> some internal discipline on such a member?
How can one ascertain if the rules are broken when the authorities refuse to
discuss the matter in question? Alison wasn't disciplined for breaking
rules as I understand it. Was she?
> As for the lack of due process for Alison's removal, it is
> true that according to methods commonly found in the western
> democracies, it seems Alison may not have got a fair
> treatment.
It's been generally acknowledged by Baha'is that the Baha'i Faith should
someday have due process in it's administrative proceedings, however the
administrative bodies cannot be bothered with it now due to the enormous
demands being made upon them being caused by the Entry of Troops!
> But we Bahai's are trying to build a different
> way of resolving such conflicts. Shoghi Effendi calls for us
> not engage with lots of rules and regulation. Rather such
> cases are to be resolved by consultation and judgement. In a
> "Bahai Law" seminar I took some time ago, we are encouraged
> to judge each case on its own merits. The writings seldom
> give us a clear yes/no answer as what to do.
Was there a resolution in Alison's case? Was it judged on its own merits?
Were there even merits involved? Were the writings ever addressed in any
manner?
> Despite the claim of lack of due process, Alison's own
> chronology suggests to me that the Administrative Order was
> very much active in trying to get Alison change her
> positions before sanctions of some kind were to be evoked.
Apparently they failed to tell her of this activity. Wouldn't that be the
proper first step?
> We can argue that perhaps better methods of reaching out to
> Alison could have been employed. But unless Alison somehow
> believed that she would not be subject to internal
> discipline (whether or not she agreed with the
> Administrative Order's assessment is irrelevent), she had to
> have known that consequences of some kind, sooner or later,
> was going to come down on her if she didn't change what she
> saying in a public manner.
How exactly do you conclude that she was breaking any rules in the first
place? Was a public or private hearing held which established this fact?
Do you have access to the conclusions that were established in this hearing?
> In the end, in my opinion, she chose her freedom to express
> her contrary positions on Bahai writings over being part of
> the Bahai community. Making such a choice had consequences:
> she should not have been surprised at the result.
Which positions does she have which are actually contrary to the Baha'i
writings? I haven't noticed any myself.
Cheers, Randy
Dave Volek
"Randy Burns" <randy....@gte.net> wrote in message
news:dkGEd.13972$lG.9744@trnddc03...
|
| How can one ascertain if the rules are broken when the
authorities refuse to
| discuss the matter in question? Alison wasn't disciplined
for breaking
| rules as I understand it. Was she?
What I hear you saying here is that she was arbitrarily
selected for annulment of membership with no just cause. Was
she?
| It's been generally acknowledged by Baha'is that the
Baha'i Faith should
| someday have due process in it's administrative
proceedings, however the
| administrative bodies cannot be bothered with it now due
to the enormous
| demands being made upon them being caused by the Entry of
Troops!
Perhaps, it's hard to predict what will happen in the future
as the Administrative Order matures. But right now we have
acceptable and unacceptable modes of conduct and a
leadership whose task it is to keep the Bahais within these
boundaries--using disciplinary measures as needed.
I still get the impression that some feel the Bahai Faith
has no business keeping its members in line.
|
| Was there a resolution in Alison's case? Was it judged on
its own merits?
| Were there even merits involved? Were the writings ever
addressed in any
| manner?
I wasn't there to make the decision, so I can't comment for
sure. But from Alison's own chronology, she was given lots
of opportunity to see what she was doing was not in
accordance with how the Faith wants to portray itself. She
also had to have known that the controversial commentors on
Talisman 9 were also under scrutiny. She was playing with
fire.
I suspect those in charge of the final decision probably
realized they were wasting their time trying to convince her
of changing her mind. More "due process" would not have
solved the problem. From her website, she has no regrets for
what she said. So, for this case, what was the point with
inventing a whole bunch of rules and procedures when her
annulment seemed imminent because she was not going to
change her ways.
|
| Apparently they failed to tell her of this activity.
Wouldn't that be the
| proper first step?
|
This is like me robbing a bank and trying to get off because
I didn't read the law that said robbing banks had bad
consequences for me.
Bahai's have laws. When they violate those laws, the various
administrators do their best to get a change of behavior.
When that change is not forthcoming, there are consequences.
She had been an active Bahai for almost 20 years. I fail to
see how she thought she was exempt from this process.
|
| How exactly do you conclude that she was breaking any
rules in the first
| place? Was a public or private hearing held which
established this fact?
If the goal was to get a change of behavior, it seemed
pointless to have had such a public hearing. Sanctions were
forthcoming regardless of whether a formal hearing was held
or not (and may have been had for all we know).
| Do you have access to the conclusions that were
established in this hearing?
|
| Which positions does she have which are actually contrary
to the Baha'i
| writings? I haven't noticed any myself.
|
I didn't read everything, but I didn't have to go far to
find her challenges to (1) infallibility of the UHJ and (2)
women were not allowed on the UHJ. THese are contrary to the
Bahai Writings. We may not understand them or agree with
them, but as long as we are Bahais, they are the rules we
have to go by.
If you challenge these rules in a public fashion, there are
consequences. It's that simple.
Steve Marshall
>Despite the claim of lack of due process, Alison's own
>chronology suggests to me that the Administrative Order was
>very much active in trying to get Alison change her
>positions before sanctions of some kind were to be evoked.
You do realise that the chronology was produced with 20:20 hindsight?
The AO's activity in getting Alison to "change her positions" was
completely hidden from her, so all that activity was impotent. All the
AO had to do was tell Alison it had a problem with her, but it failed
to do so. On the contrary, she was assured at various times that the
AO did not have a problem with her.
ka kite
Steve
Steve Marshall
>| discuss the matter in question? Alison wasn't disciplined for breaking
>| rules as I understand it. Was she?
>
>What I hear you saying here is that she was arbitrarily
>selected for annulment of membership with no just cause. Was
>she?
Yes, that sounds about right.
>I wasn't there to make the decision, so I can't comment for
>sure. But from Alison's own chronology, she was given lots
>of opportunity to see what she was doing was not in
>accordance with how the Faith wants to portray itself.
Then list these opportunities.
>More "due process" would not have
>solved the problem.
Show me just one piece of due process. Just one. That's all. Come on,
I'm waiting.
> From her website, she has no regrets for
>what she said. So, for this case, what was the point with
>inventing a whole bunch of rules and procedures when her
>annulment seemed imminent because she was not going to
>change her ways.
Excuse me, what did she say that was considered wrong? If you can't
answer that, you have no business going on about Alison "not changing
her ways".
>| Apparently they failed to tell her of this activity. Wouldn't that be the
>| proper first step?
>
>This is like me robbing a bank and trying to get off because
>I didn't read the law that said robbing banks had bad
>consequences for me.
Ignorance of the law is no defence, so bank robbers can't apply that
defence. But the situation with Alison is completely different. The AO
has failed to tell Alison what it is she has done wrong. It failed to
warn her before she was expelled, and it failed to tell her after she
was expelled. She has been arbitrarily expelled without explanation
and she has no avenue for appeal.
And the AO thinks it has something to offer to the world?
>Bahai's have laws. When they violate those laws, the various
>administrators do their best to get a change of behavior.
>When that change is not forthcoming, there are consequences.
>She had been an active Bahai for almost 20 years. I fail to
>see how she thought she was exempt from this process.
Through being completely unaware that the AO wanted her to change?
ka kite
Steve
Slander, Shunning, & Censorship
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Shunning.htm
"publicly denounce my family as heretics"
"Shunning is the marker of a cult."
"a form of libel as traditionally defined"
"non-Baha'is are being shunned by the Baha'i community"
Frederick Glaysher
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/
SLANDER > The Baha'i Way: See The Bahai Technique:
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/technique.htm
Dave Volek
| >
| >What I hear you saying here is that she was arbitrarily
| >selected for annulment of membership with no just cause.
Was
| >she?
|
| Yes, that sounds about right.
As I have seen Alison's website, I would disagree.
|
| >I wasn't there to make the decision, so I can't comment
for
| >sure. But from Alison's own chronology, she was given
lots
| >of opportunity to see what she was doing was not in
| >accordance with how the Faith wants to portray itself.
|
| Then list these opportunities.
In the chronology, there was mention of several visits by
the Auxilary Board member. THe chronology tends to treat
these visits as social visits, but I doubt that very much.
Auxilary Board members, to my experience, are very busy
people. They don't not randomly visit Bahais for no reasons.
I suspect these visits were to encourage a change of
behavior. If the visitee failed to recognize these visits as
such, then what is the visitor to do?
|
| >More "due process" would not have
| >solved the problem.
|
| Show me just one piece of due process. Just one. That's
all. Come on,
| I'm waiting.
If you want to run by the values of western demoncracy, the
Bahai Adminstrative Order has very little due process. But
the BAO is not an offshoot of this form of governance. It is
something different.
Visits by Auxilary Board member until it was proven that
change of behavior was not forthcoming is enough due
process.
|
| Excuse me, what did she say that was considered wrong? If
you can't
| answer that, you have no business going on about Alison
"not changing
| her ways".
(1) the UHJ is not infallible
(2) women should be allowed to sit on the UHJ
(3) If I had read more, I would have probably found more
"evidence."
As I said in a previous post, we may not like these rules or
may not understand them, but they are the rules of the Bahai
Faith. Those who oppose these rules deserve some kind of
sanction.
|
| >| Apparently they failed to tell her of this activity.
Wouldn't that be the
| >| proper first step?
I suspect she was told but was not listening.
But the situation with Alison is completely different. The
AO
| has failed to tell Alison what it is she has done wrong.
It failed to
| warn her before she was expelled, and it failed to tell
her after she
| was expelled. She has been arbitrarily expelled without
explanation
| and she has no avenue for appeal.
I suspect the warnings were given but not heeded, so it's
hard to say the expulsion was arbitrary. To me, the
connection is very obvious. There were controversial posts
made to Talisman 9; these posts did not stop; there was an
expulsion.
When the BAO figured that no change of behavior was
forthcoming, there was no need to put more Bahai resources
into this situation. The result would have been the same
regardless of how much "due process" was given: i.e. no
change of behaviour, therefore expulsion.
I'm not sure what you mean by appeal. If Alison is looking
for a forum to prove that (1) the UHJ is falliable or (2)
women should be allowed on UHJ or (3) the BAO is run by a
bunch of incompents, I see no reason to give her this
appeal. But if she sees the errors in her ways and is
willing to make changes, then I can see the BAO reviewing
her case. Pulling down the website would be a good start in
this process.
|
| And the AO thinks it has something to offer to the world?
It seems to be working quite fine by me in this situation.
You have generated no sympathy for her cause from this
writer. The expellant had clearly failed to grasp the
workings of the BAO and its community, and so sanctions of
some kind were necessary.
|
| Through being completely unaware that the AO wanted her to
change?
|
Again, I doubt this was the case. But just in case there was
some communication problems, here's the change the BAO was
looking for:
Do not attack in a public or community forum the basic
tenets of the Faith.
If Alison agrees to abide in this rule, it could be possible
that she could be reinstated.
The choice is hers. She can continue to be "right" with her
interpretations of the Writings and try to flog them in a
very limited way or she can be part of a vibrant and
evolving Bahai Community.
But in the meantime, the Bahai Faith still has the right to
set rules for its members and enforce those rules.
Finnegan's Wake
>
> Ignorance of the law is no defence, so bank robbers can't apply that
> defence. But the situation with Alison is completely different. The AO
> has failed to tell Alison what it is she has done wrong. It failed to
> warn her before she was expelled, and it failed to tell her after she
> was expelled. She has been arbitrarily expelled without explanation
> and she has no avenue for appeal.
>
> And the AO thinks it has something to offer to the world?
Of course .... as did Adolf Hitler!
Just popped in to say "Hello!" and let y'all know that I haven't gone away!
Hope to be back in a few days ... when more pressing problems have been
solved!
Randy Burns
>
> "Randy Burns" <randy....@gte.net> wrote in message
> news:dkGEd.13972$lG.9744@trnddc03...
> |
> | How can one ascertain if the rules are broken when the
> authorities refuse to
> | discuss the matter in question? Alison wasn't disciplined
> for breaking
> | rules as I understand it. Was she?
>
> What I hear you saying here is that she was arbitrarily
> selected for annulment of membership with no just cause. Was
> she?
That seems to be her point of view in the matter, and others as well.
> | It's been generally acknowledged by Baha'is that the
> Baha'i Faith should
> | someday have due process in it's administrative
> proceedings, however the
> | administrative bodies cannot be bothered with it now due
> to the enormous
> | demands being made upon them being caused by the Entry of
> Troops!
>
> Perhaps, it's hard to predict what will happen in the future
> as the Administrative Order matures. But right now we have
> acceptable and unacceptable modes of conduct and a
> leadership whose task it is to keep the Bahais within these
> boundaries--using disciplinary measures as needed.
I disagree, I don't think we really do have clear acceptable and
unacceptable modes of conduct. For example there was the recent "incest"
case where a Continental Counsellor was found to be helping an NSA member
cover up. There are some cases where the acceptable and unacceptable modes
of conduct apply and some (perhaps many) where they do not. Some people are
concerned with the unevenness of the application of discipline.
> I still get the impression that some feel the Bahai Faith
> has no business keeping its members in line.
It's more a question of having clear guidelines and then following the
guidelines both explicitly and implicitly to the full, unfortunately the
Baha'i Faith is not doing that.
> | Was there a resolution in Alison's case? Was it judged on
> its own merits?
> | Were there even merits involved? Were the writings ever
> addressed in any
> | manner?
>
> I wasn't there to make the decision, so I can't comment for
> sure. But from Alison's own chronology, she was given lots
> of opportunity to see what she was doing was not in
> accordance with how the Faith wants to portray itself. She
> also had to have known that the controversial commentors on
> Talisman 9 were also under scrutiny. She was playing with
> fire.
A lot of Alison's knowledge of the events is after the fact, gained from
documents presented in her lawsuit and coming from secret documents of the
NSA of New Zealand. It is difficult to say what she knew and when she knew
it.
> I suspect those in charge of the final decision probably
> realized they were wasting their time trying to convince her
> of changing her mind.
We can never know that since we have no access to such information, what's
more we have no access to what information they possessed and acted on
either, in fact we have no access of any kind nto the matter. What we now
know would not be known without Alison's lawsuit.
>More "due process" would not have
> solved the problem.
Isn't it clear that there was "zero" due process? None at all? Not even a
hint of it? The Catholics have due process, Baha'is do not. In fact we
cheerfully admit we have no due process of any kind.
> From her website, she has no regrets for
> what she said. So, for this case, what was the point with
> inventing a whole bunch of rules and procedures when her
> annulment seemed imminent because she was not going to
> change her ways.
You somehow expect her to be a mind reader, knowing that she was breaking
rules that she had no awareness of and no warning of. How does one know
what she would have done if she had been told up front what the problem was
or indeed that there was even a problem to begin with? Baha'i Faith has no
Dogma and individual believers cannot be coerced into accepting specific
statements of beliefs.
> |
> | Apparently they failed to tell her of this activity.
> Wouldn't that be the
> | proper first step?
> |
>
> This is like me robbing a bank and trying to get off because
> I didn't read the law that said robbing banks had bad
> consequences for me.
Not really. It might look like that in retrospect but you are simply
assuming that Alison was flouting authority. After all it was Abdu'l-Baha
who said Baha'i has no Dogma, that Baha'is were to be allowed to speak their
minds and thoughts freely at all times. It's more like someone following an
advice of Thomas Jefferson and then finding out that the activity had been
temporarily declared illegal but no one had been told about it in order to
save face.
> Bahai's have laws. When they violate those laws, the various
> administrators do their best to get a change of behavior.
> When that change is not forthcoming, there are consequences.
Baha'i laws are in the Aqdas, which laws as spelled out in the Aqdas did
Alison break?
> She had been an active Bahai for almost 20 years. I fail to
> see how she thought she was exempt from this process.
Which process is that -- the lack of due process process? Is the lack of
due process process really due process?
> | How exactly do you conclude that she was breaking any
> rules in the first
> | place? Was a public or private hearing held which
> established this fact?
>
> If the goal was to get a change of behavior, it seemed
> pointless to have had such a public hearing. Sanctions were
> forthcoming regardless of whether a formal hearing was held
> or not (and may have been had for all we know).
Again which law in the Aqdas was broken here, what exact rules are we
talking about? The rule against being allowed to use one's brain perhaps?
We are not allowed to have bull session discussions? Do you realize, Dave,
that by posting on TRB you are breaking one of the unwritten Baha'i laws?
You had better be careful, you are now being observed by an ABM.
> | Do you have access to the conclusions that were
> established in this hearing?
> |
> | Which positions does she have which are actually contrary
> to the Baha'i
> | writings? I haven't noticed any myself.
> |
>
> I didn't read everything, but I didn't have to go far to
> find her challenges to (1) infallibility of the UHJ and (2)
> women were not allowed on the UHJ. THese are contrary to the
> Bahai Writings. We may not understand them or agree with
> them, but as long as we are Bahais, they are the rules we
> have to go by.
I don't know what Alison's positions are on these two subjects, but they are
topics which one can discuss are they not? Are you saying that to merely
discuss these issues one is liable to be dismissed from the Faith without
any hearing?
> If you challenge these rules in a public fashion, there are
> consequences. It's that simple.
Creating a better world is not simple and never will be.
Cheers, Randy
Steve Marshall
>the Auxilary Board member. THe chronology tends to treat
>these visits as social visits, but I doubt that very much.
>Auxilary Board members, to my experience, are very busy
>people. They don't not randomly visit Bahais for no reasons.
>I suspect these visits were to encourage a change of
>behavior. If the visitee failed to recognize these visits as
>such, then what is the visitor to do?
You've read the chatty emails these visits were based on. You've seen
that most visits were to me, not to Alison. You've seen the summaries
of the conversations. If every Baha'i is to treat such outward
friendliness and encouragement as a sign that he or she was about to
be removed, then the Baha'i community is in an extremely sorry state,
that's all I can say.
>| >More "due process" would not have
>| >solved the problem.
>|
>| Show me just one piece of due process. Just one. That's
>all. Come on,
>| I'm waiting.
>
>If you want to run by the values of western demoncracy, the
>Bahai Adminstrative Order has very little due process. But
>the BAO is not an offshoot of this form of governance. It is
>something different.
You originally said:
More "due process"...
Evidently you believed there was some. So, again I ask. Where is it?
Just one example of due process would be fine. I'm still waiting.
>Visits by Auxilary Board member until it was proven that
>change of behavior was not forthcoming is enough due
>process.
You for got to mention "study classes conducted in her area" That's
also an obvious sign that the AO wants you to change, isn't it. :-)
>| Excuse me, what did she say that was considered wrong? If
>you can't
>| answer that, you have no business going on about Alison
>"not changing
>| her ways".
>
>(1) the UHJ is not infallible
>(2) women should be allowed to sit on the UHJ
>(3) If I had read more, I would have probably found more
>"evidence."
No, that's your interpretation of what she said, and your guess that
the House considered these views to be wrong. What did Alison say that
was considered wrong by the House?
>| >| Apparently they failed to tell her of this activity.
>Wouldn't that be the
>| >| proper first step?
>
>I suspect she was told but was not listening.
Of course. Infallible House. How could it make a mistake? Unthinkable.
Dave Volek
|
|
| I disagree, I don't think we really do have clear
acceptable and
| unacceptable modes of conduct.
And I will disagree with this. I did not have to go too far
in the website to realize that the limits of "free speech"
had been violated.
For example there was the recent "incest"
| case where a Continental Counsellor was found to be
helping an NSA member
| cover up. There are some cases where the acceptable and
unacceptable modes
| of conduct apply and some (perhaps many) where they do
not. Some people are
| concerned with the unevenness of the application of
discipline.
There is no way for me to know whether is made up or has
some elements of truth to it. Therefore it's prudent that I
know longer talk to it.
|
| It's more a question of having clear guidelines and then
following the
| guidelines both explicitly and implicitly to the full,
unfortunately the
| Baha'i Faith is not doing that.
If I challenge the Adminstrative Order and challenged
generally accepted Bahai interpretations to the degree that
was done in Talisman 9, I should fully expect to be informed
that I am transgressing certain boundaries.
|
| A lot of Alison's knowledge of the events is after the
fact, gained from
| documents presented in her lawsuit and coming from secret
documents of the
| NSA of New Zealand. It is difficult to say what she knew
and when she knew
| it.
There were several visits from the Auxilary Board member. I
suspect conduct was the main reason for these visits. What
was made available from the lawsuit is irrelevent.
This is what happens when a Bahai transgresses certain
boundaries: you get visits from members of the Adminstrative
Order whose mission is to convince the transgressor to get a
change of behavior.
Reading between lines of the website, it seems the "Bahai
due process" was working well.
| Isn't it clear that there was "zero" due process? None at
all? Not even a
| hint of it? The Catholics have due process, Baha'is do
not. In fact we
| cheerfully admit we have no due process of any kind.
We have no due process that is similar to what is expected
in western democracy. But the question should be: "Did the
transgressor have the sufficient opportunity to be aware of
behavior and make changes?" I can only surmise, but the
visits by the Auxilary Board most likely filfilled this
condition. Whether the complainent listened to the advice or
wanted to listen could be another story.
|
| You somehow expect her to be a mind reader, knowing that
she was breaking
| rules that she had no awareness of and no warning of.
I think the rules are quite clear. If I was in doubt, I
would ask someone from the Adminstrative Order.
|
| Not really. It might look like that in retrospect but you
are simply
| assuming that Alison was flouting authority. After all it
was Abdu'l-Baha
| who said Baha'i has no Dogma, that Baha'is were to be
allowed to speak their
| minds and thoughts freely at all times.
It's one thing to not agree with a particular law--and
another to flog your disagrement time and time and time
again in a public manner or in your community. The person
was not punished, in my mind, for her disagreement, but for
her continual insistence that somehow she had the correct
intepretations and continual chatisement of those who upheld
the curret interpretations.
A little while ago, I had a minor disagreement with the BAO.
I did not like their decision; I did not understand it; I
let the institution know I was not happy. But there's no
need for me to public, thus suggesting that those in charge
are somehow incompetent in their positions. I will just work
with the decision.
| Baha'i laws are in the Aqdas, which laws as spelled out in
the Aqdas did
| Alison break?
When one challenges the Bahai Adminstrative Order, one is
challenge the authority of Baha'u'allah.
Do you realize, Dave,
| that by posting on TRB you are breaking one of the
unwritten Baha'i laws?
| You had better be careful, you are now being observed by
an ABM.
Most likely. If my ABM tells to stop responding to this
newsgroup, I will do so without any agrument. There's other
Bahai and secular things I can be doing.
And I'm not really expecting to change anyone's mind here.
I'm just trying to gain some new insights.
|
| I don't know what Alison's positions are on these two
subjects, but they are
| topics which one can discuss are they not? Are you saying
that to merely
| discuss these issues one is liable to be dismissed from
the Faith without
| any hearing?
Again it is reletive. To say to a few friends that women
should be allowed on the UHJ is one thing. To put up many
posts on Talisman 9 on this topic is quite another. It would
be almost impossible to write laws to clearly define where
the line of right and wrong are. Rather than relying a bunch
of laws, each case will be judged on its own merits by
trusted and competent people within the Faith.
I have one new question, and I am assuming that you are or
have been a Bahai. Regardless, you will catch my drift:
Given that:
(1) one doesn't like some of the rules of the organization,
(2) one doesn't like being told to follow these rules,
(3) one does not trust the decisions from the leaders of the
organization, and
(4) one does not like the sanctions imposed,
why, then, would one want to be a member of such an
organization?
It beats me why one would want to stay involved.
Steve Marshall
>Which process is that -- the lack of due process process? Is the lack of
>due process process really due process?
I wish I'd said that.
Dave Volek
have garnered about how the BAO works and resolves
disputes--the process worked more or less as it is supposed
to. The result was acceptable in my eyes: we just can't have
Bahai's in the fold who are publicly contrary to the tenets
of the Faith. And Alison's posts to Talisman 9, in my
opinion, were very contrary.
We are starting to talk in circles, and I don't see much
sense in continuing in rehashing the same points over and
over again.
I will admit that the Bahai Faith has its own unique way of
handling such situations. I think it works very well; you
think differently.
But if such a organization, in your eyes, is governing
itself very inappropriately, why are you still belaboring
these points? Why not just quit and move on to something
more constructive with your life? What's in it for you to
continue telling your story?
Slander, Shunning, & Censorship
The Baha'i Technique = "Slanderous Vilification" - Ad Hominem, Libel,
Slander, Demonize, Scapegoat, Ostracize, Shun, Banish, Backbite,
Defame, Vilify, Discredit, Smear, Revile, Suppress, Attack, Bully,
Intimidate, Threaten, Malign, Blackball, Deceive, Coerce, Silence,
Harass... etc., CAUTION NON-Bahai'is.
------------------------------------------------------------------
During the last decade or two a number of observers have noted
common methods many fundamentalists among my fellow Bahai'is
use to avoid various issues or discredit people who hold opinions
other than their own:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Writing in 1941, Mirza Ahmad Sohrab may have been the earliest
observer to note the Baha'i Technique:
"The writer of the article in *Bahai'i News reaches the height of his
slanderous vilification when he likens Mr. and Mrs. Chanler and their
Bahai friends *to those enemies that preceded them . . . and their like"
(138).
Broken Silence: The Story of Today's Struggle for Religious Freedom.
New York: Universal Publishing, 1942.
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/SohrabEx.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Marshall, 2002:
"I think the documentation illustrates how the Baha'i administration
secretly watches, reports on and records the activities and views
of members it sees as a threat. This spying can go on for years
without the member knowing and despite general assurances to
the contrary. When it suits the administration to act, it can
summarily disenrol the person at any time and without any notice.
In such circumstances, 'counselling' will comprise any communication
that member has had with the institutions, whatever its nature, purpose
and timing. This action will be accompanied by a backbiting campaign
designed to destroy the member's reputation in the community. I think
members of the Baha'i community, and those contemplating joining it,
have a right to know how the Baha'i administration behaves." [2002]
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/AlisonMarshall.htm
Professor Juan Cole, University of Michigan, June 12, 1998:
"Let me ask you why in the world you think that I would risk my
professional reputation by publicly stating falsehoods? ...The very
technique of the more glaze-eyed among these people is to
unbearably bully a Baha'i whom they don't like, use unjustified
threats of declaring him or her a CB [Covenant Breaker (heretic)]
to silence the individual, and if the person will not be silenced,
then to depend upon the gullibility of the Baha'is in refusing to
listen to any victim's story because, of course, the Baha'i institutions are
infallible and divinely guided and could never do anything wrong.
It is a perfect racket. Of course, this technique of making liberals go
away has been enormously successful, and ex-Baha'i liberals have
no credibility with the remaining Baha'is nor do most of them have
any energy to continue to make a case, either to the Baha'is or the
outside world, for the incredible abuses that go on inside this
organization ostensibly committed to tolerance!"
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Cole10.htm
Professor Juan Cole, February 23, 1999:
"There is nothing to be puzzled by. Right wing Baha'is only like to hear the
sound of their own voices (which are the only voices they will admit to
being "Baha'i" at all). Obviously, the world is so constructed that they
cannot in fact only hear their own voices. They are forced to hear other
voices that differ from theirs. This most disturbs them when the voices
come from enrolled Baha'isor when the voices speak of the Baha'i faith.
The way they sometimes deal with the enrolled Baha'is is to summon them
to a heresy inquiry and threaten them with being shunned if they do not
fallsilent. With non-Baha'is or with ex-Baha'is, they deal with their speech
about the faith by backbiting, slandering and libelling the speaker. You
will note that since I've been on this list I have been accused of
long-term heresy, of "claiming authority," of out and out lying
(though that was retracted, twice), of misrepresentation, of 'playing
fast and loose with the facts,' and even of being 'delusional.' I have
been accused of all these falsehoods by *Baha'is*, by prominent Baha'is.
I have been backbitten by them. This shows that all the talk about the
danger a sharp tongue can do, all the talk about the need for harmony,
for returning poison with honey, for a sin-covering eye, is just *talk*
among right wing Baha'is. No one fights dirtier than they when they discover
a voice they cannot silence and cannot refute. Paul Johnson
has seen all these things, as well, for the past five years.
He can explain it to you."
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Cole71.htm
Professor Juan Cole, 12/5/2002:
"The purpose of having this system where it is so easy to turn insiders into
outsiders is to maintain very strict control over the community by its
leaders. The idea is that everyone still on the inside will fear being
made a non-person or being ostracized or being shunned, and so will keep
quiet and let the leadership do as it pleases with them. Silent suffering
of tyranny and injustice from one's leaders is the actual definition of a
Baha'i in good standing. Of course, this requirement is cult-like...."
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Cole80.htm
Frederick Glaysher, May 12, 1992:
"The Baha'i Faith has become very oppressive and manipulative of the
individual. That to me is merely a statement of fact, as I have experienced
it, for nearly sixteen years now [since 1976]. The usual stratagem in
dealing with anyone who would express his conscience in good faith is to
pretend the Cause is above any kind of criticism whatsoever while intimating
that anyone who would speak honestly must have something wrong with him,
i.e., his spiritual life isn't what it should be, he doesn't understand the
nature of unity, or he's accused of trying to obtain power for himself,
which at times seems merely a calculated way of discrediting the person, and
so on. Another common strategy used to acquire control over the individual
is to humor the person by letting him pour himself out, etc., and then
self-righteously giving him the Truth."
http://www.fglaysher.com/LettersAmD1989-1994.htm
Frederick Glaysher, June 1998:
"Some of the most striking methods demonstrated repeatedly by many Bahai'is
during the last year and a half of discussion about an unmoderated newsgroup
is their refusal to listen and respond to the criticisms of those who are in
favor of talk.religion.bahai, ignoring their concerns, never responding
analytically to their messages and reasoning and logic and evidence,
attacking them through character assassination and ad hominem, ganging
up on individuals, and "circling the wagons" around every action of the
soc.religion.bahai moderators or others who are opposed to
talk.religion.bahai."
Ron House, November 14, 1997:
"I know what you mean. I've found over the years that there is a technique
used by traditional Baha'is and others to squash dissension: harry the
dissenter so much he says something intemperate, then point out how 'loving'
and 'compassionate' they are and how nasty the dissenter is. The trouble
isthat this technique works, so I've been making a conscious effort not to
fall for it. Also, when they get the dissenter discouraged and miserable
enough, he invariably makes a slip-up sooner or later that they can REALLY
let loose the venom over. IMHO, they did this to you when you misread
Sharon's intentions. At any other time, they would overlook faults, as
Baha'u'llah says, but when they're in this mode they go for the jugular.
Very sad."
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/House2.htm
Ron House <ho...@usq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:3DAE2CE7...@usq.edu.au... October 2002,
WROTE REGARDING SUSAN MANECK's Technique:
If this were the the first, or a rare, occasion on which this specimen
had got up to this shenanigan, we might let it pass. But it is, in my
experience, her typical pattern of "debate": take something from another
poster, think out some uncharitable 'consequence' that she thinks
follows from it, and then assert as factual that the original posters were
in favour of her uncharitable interpretation. It is, imho, a
fundamentally malicious and dishonest way to conduct debate.
Steven Scholl, March 12, 2002:
"The problem in her [Susan Maneck] cult view of the world is the
"dissident act" of shining a light on internal Baha'i affairs so that
outsiders (and insiders) can learn about what really takes place in
the Baha'i world. The great sin is ignoring the Baha'i taboo against
speaking out against internal injustices because to do so is to tarnish
the reputation of the Baha'i institutions. Good Baha'is are expected
to take their abuse in silence. If they speak out against abuse,
they are regarded as internal opposition and come under investigation
from the Baha'i Inquisition. They are vilified and threatened, even
told that their status in the afterlife is threatened if they don't
change their ways. And, yes, this was a key element [in] the little
drama that played out between the Baha'i leadership and myself."
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Scholl4.htm
Rod Wicks, January 22, 2004:
I disagree...and my disagreement is based on years of online discussions
in which Susans [Maneck] propensity to accuse (openly or through innuendo)is
reflected by other fundamentalist Baha'is. So too the evasiveness, the glib,
trite smarmy non answer, the drive by 'blipvert' of one line innuendo, the
refusal to stand and defend/justify/explain any attack or allegation, the
retreat into cowards killfile when her dishonesty is exposed.....all these
are common features of what has been described as the Baha'i Technique.
I did not believe such a phenomena could exist when I first came online...
today the evidence is irrefutable and undeniable. Susan M perfectly reflects
all that is worst about contemporary Baha'i culture...'they' know it and
love her for it.
No....Manic and fundamentalist co workers do not simply "represent" the
Baha'i community...they *ARE* the community...their identification is
total/complete. Any criticism of any aspect of Baha'i is perceived by
Manic and Co as a direct personal attack and they respond by attacking
the individual rather than the argument. They will invent and
manufacture 'enemies of the faith', 'violators of the Covenant' and
even stoop to open allegations of criminal activity.
The AO cannot possibly be deaf, dumb and blind to this activity any
more than the online Baha'i gallery and lurkers are blind to it.
It is granted approval, formal or informal, open or tacit...it matters
not.
The truth is apparent in examination of the facts...the facts are
available in review of the archives...the archives reveal incident
after incident/event after event in which Susan (or co fundamentalist)
levels a baseless and unprovoked serious allegation, refuses substantiation,
hides behind glib and evasive [expletive] and/or killfile and receives
open or tacit support for doing so.
Susan represents a prevailing culture of abuse, slander, denial and
evasion.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8ccded73.0401212239.6e99f512%40posting.google.com&output=gplain
"O beloved of the Lord! If any soul speak ill of an absent one, the only
result will clearly be this: he will dampen the zeal of the friends and
tend to make them indifferent. For backbiting is divisive, it is
the leading cause among the friends of a disposition to withdraw. If any
individual should speak ill of one who is absent, it is incumbent on his
hearers, in a spiritual and friendly manner, to stop him, and say in
effect: would this detraction serve any useful purpose? Would it please
the Blessed Beauty, contribute to the lasting honour of the friends,
promote the holy Faith, support the Covenant, or be of any possible
benefit to any soul? No, never! On the contrary, it would make the dust
to settle so thickly on the heart that the ears would hear no more, and
the eyes would no longer behold the light of truth."
(Abdu'l-Baha, Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha, p. 230)
Fran Baker, May 1998:
"Just have to say that in my experience this is a common technique of
manipulative people in general; it is especially effective with thoughtful
people who are willing to see both sides of things, i.e., their own fault. I
consider this brow-beating technique to be a form of abuse. The only way to
deal with it is to call them on it every time and to refuse to let yourself
be beat up, i.e., not to do your part of the "tango." This can be very hard
to do, but it works.You can break this pattern in a personal relationship. I
don't know whether it's possible when a groupacts this way. Very scary."
Dermod Ryder, February 28, 2002:
"This is what is known as the "love bomb" technique. Disregard and entirely
ignore the substance of any complaint or criticism and throw out this carpet
of "bahai love" which will overwhelm the reason and appeal to the emotion.
I've been vaccinated! What I also glean from recourse to this technique
isthat there is no answer to the points I raised. In effect you guys who
support the AO do so through thick and thin to the point where you cannot
and will not admit that it has any faults of any substantive value. Because
guys like me cannot agree with you - the fault is obviously ours."
K. Paul Johnson, September 15, 1998:
"If that principle [people are innocent until proven guilty] were followed
by Baha'i administration and individuals in their condemnations of their
fellow believers, I would have very little to complain about regarding
Baha'i affairs. But character assassination by innuendo is the preferred way
of dealing with anything remotely resembling dissidence. Seems like that's
exactly what you're doing to Juan Cole in your message. Saying I don't want
to know what you've "got" on him, thus attacking me but insinuating you have
some awful proof of unspecified guilt on his part. If that's not character
assassination by innuendo, what is?"
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Johnson18.htm
Dermod Ryder, September 19, 2001:
"And then Eureka! I realised why Fred gets the treatment he does . . .
for Fred has painstakingly not only assembled the evidence of the canker
within but he constantly publicises it to the extent that he really gets up
noses and AO noses at that! . . . I basically agree with him that the AO
terrorises people - terror is more than bombs or kamikaze aircraft. A
whispered aside in the right circumstances can instil terror (like a threat
to be made a CB) - most ethnic cleansing is carried out by a piece of
"good" advice to the effect that one would be better off NOT living in this
neighbourhood, from a gentleman who is known or assumed to have the
"right connections" to ensure the advice is heeded. Twenty years ago the
AO tried that particular threatening tactic on with me and were told where
they could stick it! Others can also testify to that including Dennis Rogers
whose experiences were posted on TRB recently. And you guys hate
Fred for this, for his continued exposing of the sewer that the AO has
become. Of course you all hate Juan, Alison, Michael, Nima etc as well
and for the same reason and give them the same treatment but somewhat
reduced for they don't post as much as Fred who is just a real pain in the
butt for doing what he does so well! Fred is an avid counter terrorist and
he's good at it as the whimpering from the BIGS proves!"
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Ryder2001.htm
David Langness, 31 Mar 1997:
"I would advise you to be careful about any meetings, calls or
correspondence with Hoda Mahmoudi, who used to be an ABM
here in Southern California. She is quite conservative, and sees
herself -- as do many of the appointed branch, sadly -- as a staunch
defender of the Faith and the faithful, able and more than willing to
marginalize people like you and I to discredit our ideas. This cultlike
practice of shunning and casting out any dissidents has unfortunately
become the chief tactic of those fundamentalist Baha'is bent on
maintaining the current leadership. My worry is that the more
progressive Baha'is like Juan Cole and Steve Scholl and yourself
will all leave the Faith and thereby increase the power of the
conservatives."
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Langness.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bahai'i Technique is available on the web at
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/technique.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------
For two excellent introductions to the Bahai'i Wars:
Professor Juan R. I. Cole, University of Michigan,
"Fundamentalism in the Contemporary U.S. Baha'i Community,"
Religious Studies Review, Vol. 43, no. 3 (March, 2002):195-217:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai/2002/fundbhfn.htm
Karen Bacquet, "Enemies Within: Conflict and Control in the
Baha'i Community." Published in American Family Foundation's
Cultic Studies Journal, Volume 18, pp.109-140:
http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/bigquestions/enemies.html
COMPARE
Geoffrey Chaucer, AD 1340-1400.
Prologue to the Pardoner's Tale:
For in truth, many a sermon
Comes often out of evil intention;
Some for the pleasing and flattery of people,
To have advancement by hypocrisy,
And some for worldly fame, and some for hate.
For, when I dare not oppose a man otherwise,
Then I sting him with my sharp tongue
In preaching, so that he cannot escape
Being falsely slandered, if he
Has wronged my brothers or myself.
For, although I do not tell his exact name,
Men can readily guess whom I mean
By hints and by other devices.
Thus I pay back people who do us bad turns;
Thus I spit out my venom under color
Of holiness, while seeming holy and sincere....
(Translator, Vincent F. Hopper. 1948)
---------------------------------------------------------------
OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY. "Scapegoat (Lev. xvi) 1. Invented
by Tindale 1530.... One of the two goats that was chosen by Lot to be sent
away into the wilderness, the sins of the people having been symbolically
laid upon it, while the other was appointed to be sacrificed. 2. One who is
blamed or punished for the sins of others. 1867 Freeman, He has been
made the scapegoat for many of the sins both of other individuals and of
the whole nation."
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Scapegoat.htm
For an individual's use of The Bahai'i Technique, see
Susan Maneck - DRIVING people out of the Bahai'i Faith
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Maneck9.htm
----------------------------------------------------------
From another perspective, Karen Bacquet's Net Games:
Fallacies, Gambits, and Maneuvers in Baha'i Cyberspace
http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/bigquestions/Netgames.html
See Professor Juan R. I. Cole, University of Michigan,
"Fundamentalism in the Contemporary U.S. Baha'i Community,"
Religious Studies Review, Vol. 43, no. 3 (March, 2002):195-217:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai/2002/fundbhfn.htm
In his book Modernity and the Millennium, published by Columbia
University Press in 1998, Professor Cole observes the Baha'i
administration has increasingly come under the control of
fundamentalists, "stressing scriptural literalism . . . theocracy,
censorship, intellectual intolerance, and denying key
democratic values (196)."
--
Frederick Glaysher
The Bahai'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/
Join a new Yahoo Group, Bahai'i Censorship!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bahaicensorship/
SLANDER > The Baha'i Way: See The Bahai'i Technique:
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/technique.htm
"Slander, Shunning, & Censorship" <BI*P*G...@liberty.com> wrote in message
news:bNGdncOR5do...@comcast.com...
Cal E. Rollins
I asked that same question of the NSA in America's legal counsel when I
was researching stuff on church and state with the ACLU. They hate
religions getting tax-exempt status when they have ambitions to rule the
world, as it were.
I wanted to know whether or not the Master's words about teaching
children to not do anything injurious to the Commonweal might not be a
form of brainwashing so they, like their parents, could never consider
leaving the Faith without considerable mental disturbence. I used Firuz
Kazemsadeh's comments to the American Congress' subcommittee on
persecutions in Iran as an example of that. He said the mere act of
dissimulating one's faith in Baha'u'llah caused severe mental disorder
as well as suicide in some cases.
Oddly enough, the Counsel agreed with my comments that a "deepened"
Baha'i could not be expected to leave at the drop of a hat. To
cavalierly state that one could seems to me highly irresponsible and
ought to be punishable On High. To stay in the Faith and fight for
understanding seems more reasonable to me. People in power want you to
leave so their task of messing folk up will be easier. --Cal
Dave Volek
I have often wondered about the teaching of any religion to
children was or was not a form of brainwashing of some kind
or another. Clearly, when a child in brought up in Religion
X, he or she is more likely to remain with that religion in
adulthood than a child with a more independent upbringing
and discover Religion X on his or her own. In essence, all
religions have ulterior motives for encouraging parents for
educating their children in their own religion: it
definitely sustains the religion through the generations.
However, this kind of brainwashing is going around all us.
When I read Robert Heinein's "Stranger in a Strange Land" as
a youth, this book convinced me to move from a Catholic to
an agnostic. Is Heinlein, therefore, a bonafide brainwasher
for the agnostics--to the detriment of all other organized
religions?
Or maybe we could claim that Heinlein was responsible for my
breaking away from the Catholics and becoming a Bahai? The
tendrils of various ramifications here are infinite, and my
head hurts thinking about them.
I think it comes down to independent investigation of the
truth. When children get older, they do challenge their
value systems. The fact that a signficant percentage of
children do eventually leave their family's religion (even
the Bahai Faith has this problem) suggests that brainwashing
is not that severe that people can make the break if this is
where their heart and mind tell them they must do.
I also believe that people who are brainwashed are somehow
predisposed to being that way. They will eventually find the
preacher that will do it for them.
If I understand you correctly, Firuz Kazemsadeh was trying
to put the Bahai Faith in a bad light in front of the
American political establishment. I doubt that had much
long-term effect. At its worst, it would cause political
leaders to deny the Faith some short-term gain. But such
leaders would be become a little more aware of the Faith, do
some of their own investigation, and come to the conclusion
these Bahai's are pretty good people with interesting ideas.
As I understand Bahai history, anytime an enemy tries to
degrade the Faith, it backfires eventually.
Dave Volek
Inventor
Oilfinancier (www.oilfinancier.com)
Dave Volek's Business English (www.dvbe.bz)
"Cal E. Rollins" <crol...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:4459-41E...@storefull-3275.bay.webtv.net...
asier. --Cal
|
frito
Steve Marshall wrote:
> >What I hear you saying here is that she was arbitrarily
> >selected for annulment of membership with no just cause. Was
> >she?
>
> Yes, that sounds about right.
I disagree. She was asked by the House not to publish her review of
"The Baha'i World" and she did it anyway. That is just one example.
I do not think the NZ NSA did an adequate job of handling the process
but that does not mean that the reasons the process started are not so
obvious.
Cheers,
Dave
Steve Marshall
>We are starting to talk in circles, and I don't see much
>sense in continuing in rehashing the same points over and
>over again.
Just one example of due process would be fine. I'm still waiting.
Dave Volek
"Steve Marshall" <asm...@es.co.nz> wrote in message |
| Just one example of due process would be fine. I'm still
waiting.
Read my previous posts. I tried several different ways to
explain it to you. You don't want to listen to anything
that's contrary to how you think the Bahai Faith should be
run.
Steve Marshall
>"Steve Marshall" <asm...@es.co.nz> wrote in message |
>
>| Just one example of due process would be fine. I'm still
>waiting.
>
>Read my previous posts.
I have.
>I tried several different ways to
>explain it to you.
You haven't
>You don't want to listen to anything
>that's contrary to how you think the Bahai Faith should be
>run.
Cut and run.
Dave Volek
|
| Cut and run.
The last word is yours! You win. Sooner or later, I'm sure
you'll bend the Bahai Faith to your will. Keep up the good
work.
Dave Volek
|
| Cut and run.
You invited me to the site, and I went to it.
I came conclusions that were not what you wanted. I believe
that most Bahai's you invite will come to the similar
conclusions as I have.
If you don't want to be offended, don't invite people to
your site. It really doesn't help your cause.
Dave Volek
Susan Maneck
>"The Baha'i World" and she did it anyway. That is just one example.
Uh Dave, what are you talking about? That review was never published. She
posted it on the internet, but by then the decision had already been made to
take her off the roles.
>I do not think the NZ NSA did an adequate job of handling the process
It was the House of Justice, not the NSA who ordered her removed from the
roles.
warmest, Susan
http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist/
To subscribe: use subscribe bahai-st in the message body to ly...@list.jccc.net
Randy Burns
"frito" <bighapp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105561730.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> I disagree. She was asked by the House not to publish her review of
> "The Baha'i World" and she did it anyway. That is just one example.
Dear Frito
Apparently the review she wrote had nothing to do with her removal from the
roles, that seems to be one thing everyone agrees on.
> I do not think the NZ NSA did an adequate job of handling the process
> but that does not mean that the reasons the process started are not so
> obvious.
I don't think any of the NSA's that I am aware of are capable of handling
any kind of process with integrity, as witness the progression of the Faith
for the last few decades. You are looking at this case in hind site when
you suggest that the process was started for obvious reasons. It doesn't
sound as though you are familiar with the way the Baha'i Faith works at the
Cadre level.
Cheers, Randy
Randy Burns
"Dave Volek" <vo...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:DNbFd.71749$nN6.9233@edtnps84...
> I've given my viewpoint as best as I can, and from what I
> have garnered about how the BAO works and resolves
> disputes--the process worked more or less as it is supposed
> to.
You mean that you think the current system works the way Baha'u'llah would
have wanted?
>The result was acceptable in my eyes: we just can't have
> Bahai's in the fold who are publicly contrary to the tenets
> of the Faith.
What you don't have and don't know is whether Alison's beliefs or statements
are really contrary to the tenets of the Faith, there was no examination of
these beliefs or statements, in fact that is no evidence of any examination
or investigation at all is there? Was Alison ever asked what she actually
believed?
>And Alison's posts to Talisman 9, in my
> opinion, were very contrary.
That's great for your opinion, but you are only one person. Is it your job
to judge the world?
> We are starting to talk in circles, and I don't see much
> sense in continuing in rehashing the same points over and
> over again.
>
> I will admit that the Bahai Faith has its own unique way of
> handling such situations. I think it works very well; you
> think differently.
>
> But if such a organization, in your eyes, is governing
> itself very inappropriately, why are you still belaboring
> these points? Why not just quit and move on to something
> more constructive with your life? What's in it for you to
> continue telling your story?
Personally I don't think the teachings of the core figures of the Faith
support the current cadre system of Baha'i goverance.
Cheers, Randy
Randy Burns
>
> And I will disagree with this. I did not have to go too far
> in the website to realize that the limits of "free speech"
> had been violated.
Are these the limits of free speech delineated in the Aqdas? Perhaps you
can give us the quote?
> For example there was the recent "incest"
> | case where a Continental Counsellor was found to be
> helping an NSA member
> | cover up. There are some cases where the acceptable and
> unacceptable modes
> | of conduct apply and some (perhaps many) where they do
> not. Some people are
> | concerned with the unevenness of the application of
> discipline.
>
> There is no way for me to know whether is made up or has
> some elements of truth to it. Therefore it's prudent that I
> know longer talk to it.
Apparently it is true, there is a large thread on the subject on TRB. You
can check this in the archives on Google. It took an intervention by the
UHJ to settle this, but if the Faith had any kind of adequate due process
then you wouldn't have had a CC helping to kidnap a young woman to shut her
up and you wouldn't have needed an emergency intervention either, which
occured only after the case became public.
> If I challenge the Adminstrative Order and challenged
> generally accepted Bahai interpretations to the degree that
> was done in Talisman 9, I should fully expect to be informed
> that I am transgressing certain boundaries.
Are you in favor of kicking all Baha'i who post on T9 off the Baha'i roles?
Perhaps we should do the same with the Bigs who post here on TRB? Indeed
why not forbid the asking of questions altogether at all Baha'i meetings?
They take up needless time that could be spent teaching and make people
uncomfortable. Let's kick out all Baha'is who ask questions!
> There were several visits from the Auxilary Board member. I
> suspect conduct was the main reason for these visits. What
> was made available from the lawsuit is irrelevent.
In the US when an Auxilary Board member visits they usually state their
business, else why would they come. New Zealand I suspect is a much smaller
and friendlier community. Perhaps it is common for an ABM to drop by and
chat for a spell? Do you know that it isn't? Perhaps you are yourself a
New Zealander?
> This is what happens when a Bahai transgresses certain
> boundaries: you get visits from members of the Adminstrative
> Order whose mission is to convince the transgressor to get a
> change of behavior.
Shouldn't they make an effort to actually do that? Wouldn't they actually
state the problem and offer solutions?
> Reading between lines of the website, it seems the "Bahai
> due process" was working well.
The cadre system was working overtime.
> We have no due process that is similar to what is expected
> in western democracy.
How about due process that would be expected by Abdu'l-Baha and Baha'u'llah,
somehow I think most of us would settle for that. We don't have due process
because the Baha'i Faith is run by a cadre system and not by the proper
channels of established authority delineated by Baha'u'llah.
>But the question should be: "Did the
> transgressor have the sufficient opportunity to be aware of
> behavior and make changes?"
She claims otherwise. Were you there as an observer? Can you quote someone
who was?
>I can only surmise, but the
> visits by the Auxilary Board most likely filfilled this
> condition. Whether the complainent listened to the advice or
> wanted to listen could be another story.
Quote the advice given, if any was. That is the only way one could have an
opinion on this matter as to whether advice was given and then either
accepted or rejected.
> I think the rules are quite clear. If I was in doubt, I
> would ask someone from the Adminstrative Order.
You receive notice that you have been removed from the roles, I guess it's a
bit late in the day to ask questions about what is up.
> It's one thing to not agree with a particular law--and
> another to flog your disagrement time and time and time
> again in a public manner or in your community.
Again this is just your opinion. There was given no chance to face the
charges or the evidence or offer any rebuttal. It is impossible to know
what would have happened if someone had sat down with Alison and actually
brought these subjects up. You seem to think that Baha'is are somehow
required to live in mental straight jackets and never to utter their own
personal opinions out loud. I hate to tell you this, but these requirements
are not a part of Baha'i law.
> The person
> was not punished, in my mind, for her disagreement, but for
> her continual insistence that somehow she had the correct
> intepretations and continual chatisement of those who upheld
> the curret interpretations.
Again this is simply your opinion. Alison wasn't punished for anything she
did, if she had been punished for her actions then she would have had her
rights removed. That is not what happened. She was not punished for
anything she said or did so far as I know. Is there a statement somewhere
that you can quote that explicitly states that Alison was punished for
behavior?
> A little while ago, I had a minor disagreement with the BAO.
> I did not like their decision; I did not understand it; I
> let the institution know I was not happy. But there's no
> need for me to public, thus suggesting that those in charge
> are somehow incompetent in their positions. I will just work
> with the decision.
You are taught this attitude to make it easier for the Baha'i Cadre to
continue to rule the faith. It's a pity that you have been taken in so
easily.
> When one challenges the Bahai Adminstrative Order, one is
> challenge the authority of Baha'u'allah.
If she had challenged the Administrative Order then she probably would have
been punished for it, but she wasn't. How do you surmise that she
challenged the AO? On the other hand it sounds like you were guilty of
challenging behavior and were punished for it, doesn't mean it was just
(after all there is no due process in the faith so we can't really expect
justice).
> Most likely. If my ABM tells to stop responding to this
> newsgroup, I will do so without any agrument. There's other
> Bahai and secular things I can be doing.
Yes, we must obey at all costs. It's a lot easier then thinking.
> Again it is reletive. To say to a few friends that women
> should be allowed on the UHJ is one thing. To put up many
> posts on Talisman 9 on this topic is quite another.
Uh Talisman 9 is a discussion site for members only, it is not a propaganda
site. I guess you are confusing the two.
> It would
> be almost impossible to write laws to clearly define where
> the line of right and wrong are.
I guess that is why most laws read : judge feel free to make up the laws as
you go along, we the legislative body cannot be bothered to define the line
of right and wrong. The interesting fact here is that you are right--there
is no clearly defined line of right and wrong and this is done for a
purpose--to put more power into the hands of those in the Administrative
ranks. It quickly becomes impossible to defend oneself against accusations
of wrong doing if the rules are not clearly written.
> Rather than relying a bunch
> of laws, each case will be judged on its own merits by
> trusted and competent people within the Faith.
I don't think there is any evidence that any information was gathered and
then deliberated upon, Alison was never asked questions about why she wrote
something or what her intent was--the dismissal was rather sudden in her
mind.
> I have one new question, and I am assuming that you are or
> have been a Bahai. Regardless, you will catch my drift:
>
> Given that:
> (1) one doesn't like some of the rules of the organization,
> (2) one doesn't like being told to follow these rules,
> (3) one does not trust the decisions from the leaders of the
> organization, and
> (4) one does not like the sanctions imposed,
>
> why, then, would one want to be a member of such an
> organization?
>
> It beats me why one would want to stay involved.
I've been a Baha'i for over 30 years Dave, so let me ask you a question.
Assuming you believe in Baha'u'llah and in His teachings, why would you
accept warmed over and ill fitting simulacra of such when you can have the
real thing just by reading His writings and trying to apply them? Why
should the Faith settle for less then the real thing when the real thing is
our birth right as Baha'is to have?
Cheers, Randy
Steve Marshall
>news:1105561730.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>> I disagree. She was asked by the House not to publish her review of
>> "The Baha'i World" and she did it anyway. That is just one example.
Dave F,
I didn't see your message. Maybe I have you kill-filed without meaning
to. I can't see you ever being tedious enough for me to do that.
Anyway, I'm left responding to a scrap of your post, so I may have the
context wrong.
Alison wasn't asked by the House not to publish her review of two
voliumes of The Baha'i World:
She was commissioned by The Association of Baha'i Studies,
English-Speaking Europe(ABS-ESE), to write the review for The Baha'i
Studies Review(BSR). for some reason, the pre-publication review got
escalated to the NSA of the UK, then on to Haifa for a final decision.
That's how the House got involved. The details are here -
http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/alisonz/critical.html
So what actually happened was that Alison was told by the ABS-ESE
secretary that the review hadn't been approved for publication in BSR.
The article has not, to this day, gone to print publication.
Juan did put the review up on the the web at H-Baha'i
http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/reviews/marshal1.htm
Material put up on the web doesn't need to go through Baha'i review -
as you would be aware since you frequently post messages that end up
there. There's been no comment to Alison from the AO that Juan's
putting the piece on the web was considered inappropriate.
So please don't imply that Alison was being disobedient to the House
"She was asked by the House not to publish her review of "The Baha'i
World" and she did it anyway." when the facts don't bear you out.
cheers
Steve
Steve Marshall
>> This is what happens when a Bahai transgresses certain
>> boundaries: you get visits from members of the Adminstrative
>> Order whose mission is to convince the transgressor to get a
>> change of behavior.
>
>Shouldn't they make an effort to actually do that? Wouldn't they actually
>state the problem and offer solutions?
Hi Randy,
Let me step in here and offer my Kafkaesque view that this is a little
unfair on the ABMs and CBC involved. :-)
As Alison points out in her chronology, many of the get-togethers
cited by the New Zealand National Spiritual Assembly as constituting
part of Alison’s "counselling" prior to her disenrollment occurred
before the ABMs and CBC had any inkling there was any kind of
"problem" with Alison that required "counselling".
http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/alisonz/Chron.htm
Simply put, you can't state the problem and offer solutions if you
don't know there's a problem to fix.
ka kite
Steve
PaulHammond
Dave Volek wrote:
> I've given my viewpoint as best as I can, and from what I
> have garnered about how the BAO works and resolves
> disputes--the process worked more or less as it is supposed
> to. The result was acceptable in my eyes: we just can't have
> Bahai's in the fold who are publicly contrary to the tenets
> of the Faith. And Alison's posts to Talisman 9, in my
> opinion, were very contrary.
>
Censorship 'R Us. I see.
> We are starting to talk in circles, and I don't see much
> sense in continuing in rehashing the same points over and
> over again.
>
"The best beloved of all things in my sight is Justice"?
or
"Be QUIET and led God do his work".
Communism never had a better handle on thought-control.
> I will admit that the Bahai Faith has its own unique way of
> handling such situations. I think it works very well; you
> think differently.
>
> But if such a organization, in your eyes, is governing
> itself very inappropriately, why are you still belaboring
> these points? Why not just quit and move on to something
> more constructive with your life? What's in it for you to
> continue telling your story?
"The best beloved of all things in my sight is Justice"
In all my time hanging around Baha'i Cyberspace I have
never come across a person more in love with Baha'u'llah
than Alison Marshall. If the Baha'i AO thinks that she
cannot be Baha'i, then it must think that no-one can.
Oh, and if the Baha'i Faith wants to throw out its
best and brightest then it is the Faith, not Alison,
who have lost out.
Paul
(and to think, I never read threads Fred starts - I'd have
missed all this!)
PaulHammond
I still didn't see where you gave any examples of the
"process" used in the UHJ's decision to kick Alison
out of the Baha'i Faith.
PaulHammond
Am I hearing you right here, Dave?
You appear to be saying that it is against Baha'i rules to
post on Talisman 9.
>
> It's one thing to not agree with a particular law--and
> another to flog your disagrement time and time and time
> again in a public manner or in your community. The person
> was not punished, in my mind, for her disagreement, but for
> her continual insistence that somehow she had the correct
> intepretations and continual chatisement of those who upheld
> the curret interpretations.
>
Actually, the explanation of the decision to expel Alison
was that it was not because of opposition (ie, she wasn't
declared a covenant breaker), but because some people
decided that she somehow didn't have an adequate basis
for understanding of the glorious Baha'i revelation,
and therefore had never *really* been a Baha'i in the
first place.
It is a well noted phenomenon that before a seeker
declares (s)he is frequently told "You have already
been a Baha'i all your life without realising it",
and after (s)he has joined, that becomes "you don't
have a correct understanding of the writings, you're
not the kind of person we really want."
>
> | Baha'i laws are in the Aqdas, which laws as spelled out in
> the Aqdas did
> | Alison break?
>
> When one challenges the Bahai Adminstrative Order, one is
> challenge the authority of Baha'u'allah.
>
Can you give me a reference for that one?
(sounds like "Ladder theory" theology to me - where's Rod?)
>
> Again it is reletive. To say to a few friends that women
> should be allowed on the UHJ is one thing. To put up many
> posts on Talisman 9 on this topic is quite another. It would
> be almost impossible to write laws to clearly define where
> the line of right and wrong are. Rather than relying a bunch
> of laws, each case will be judged on its own merits by
> trusted and competent people within the Faith.
>
Discussing things on Talisman line isn't the same thing as
publishing an article about it.
> I have one new question, and I am assuming that you are or
> have been a Bahai. Regardless, you will catch my drift:
>
> Given that:
> (1) one doesn't like some of the rules of the organization,
> (2) one doesn't like being told to follow these rules,
> (3) one does not trust the decisions from the leaders of the
> organization, and
> (4) one does not like the sanctions imposed,
>
> why, then, would one want to be a member of such an
> organization?
>
Yeah, this is the other hand of the phenomenon I referred
to above. "If you don't like how things are, just leave"
> It beats me why one would want to stay involved.
Paul
Dave Volek
"PaulHammond" <paha...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:1105621404.6...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com..
.
| I still didn't see where you gave any examples of the
| "process" used in the UHJ's decision to kick Alison
| out of the Baha'i Faith.
If we are to judge the Bahai Faith by the legal standards
inherent with western democracies, the process used by the
Bahai Faith to "try and convict" such cases is quite
sketchy. But let's go back to why western democracies have
created such due processes in the first place.
Western democracy is essentially based on distrust on those
in power. We can't trust the police, so we have a whack of
rules to govern how they behave. We can't trust the judges
and juries, so we have a whack of rules to govern how they
behave. We can't trust the elected leaders, so we have a
whack of rules to govern how they behave. We can't trust the
appoined bureaucratic officials, so we have a whack of rules
to govern how they behave.
I would agree that the world currently needs such rules: we
can't trust the people in these institutions completely.
But the problem with creating all these rules that while
solving justice issues in aspects in society, it creates
injustices in other parts of society. For example, over four
hundred years of legal evolution, Canada now has rigorous
set of rules for two parties to conduct civil litigation.
But in my potential lawsuit, these rules clearly favored my
adversary.
I had paid premiums to disability insurance company for 12
years. When I got sick and could not work, they refused to
pay out. They knew the legal process inside out. They knew
they could keep the case in the courts for at least two
years. They knew in this time that (1) I was not able to
earn an income and (2) that to sue them, I would have to
spend lots of money on lawyers. They knew that, from their
history of handling cases in this way, a significant number
of such cases would drop out. It was just a case of dollars
and cents to them.
Despite the legal system having so many rules for a disabled
claiment having the right to sue a disability insurance
company for not fullfilling its contract, this is not
justice. I could give other examples, but I think you get
the point: more legal rules does not necessarily create
justice.
As I see it, the Bahai Faith cannot create more justice by
creating more rules. Instead, as I see it, it has a very
unique process of electing or appointing people of sound
judgement and experience to "try cases," the process of
Bahai consultation to consider the case from many different
angles, and interaction between the various institutions to
eventually reach a decision.
In other words, the Faith places its trust in the people
within the institutions rather than a complicated set of
legal rules to make its decisions.
I will grant that you and other readers of this post will
not appreciate the very different and unique approach the
Bahai Faith uses to resolve difficult issues it faces. And
that is fine. But if you want to be a member of the Bahai
Faith (like being a member of any other organization in the
world), you have to agree to abide by (even though you may
not necessarily 'agree with') the rules. And the rules are
that the BAO put its trust more in the institutions rather
than a complicated legal code. If you really don't like this
arrangement, then you should not be a Bahai for the BAO, as
it is today and how it will evolve in future, is a very
important product emanating from the Writings of
Baha'u'allah.
If a legal system was set up similar to the Bahai model was
in place to adminster my disability claim, the insurance
company would not have been able to hide behind the rules to
avoid its legal obligation to many of its claiments. Under a
Bahai-inspired legal system, it would have taken two or
three months to establish that I did have a contract with
the insurance company and I was sick and could not work.
Justice would have been served.
In the case we are currently discussing, I see no
acknowledgement from the writers that their actions were
wrong and I see no indication, before and after the decision
was made, that they are willing to modify their behaviour. I
don't see the benefits for the Bahai community to be
continually subjected to contrary opinions of how the Faith
should be run. Almost any other organization would have
imposed sanctions on its members who were behaving likewise.
From the website, the writers admitted that they had visits
from the Auxilary Board members. I doubt it very much these
visits were social visits (I certainly don't get visits from
my ABMs). The member was there to warn them about their
conduct. Whether they failed to understand the message or
didn't want to listen to it is irrelevent. These visits were
their "due process" in the Bahai way.
From what I see, the institutions had done an admirable job
in handling this case. It would have been much more
preferable for the writers in question to acknowledge their
errors and make changes, but this was their choice.
We could argue that perhaps more rules in place would have
better assured a good decision. But from what I see, more
rules would have resulted in the same result: sanctions
still being applied and the writers still publicly opposing
the decision. So why then, should we make it more
complicated for the institutions to do their job?
I thinks it's really important to realize that the Bahai
Administrative Order is not just on offshoot of western
democracy. By placing its trust in its institutions, it is
something new--A New World Order. And I'm excited to be part
of it.
Dave Volek
PaulHammond
Dave Volek wrote:
> "PaulHammond" <paha...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
> news:1105621404.6...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com..
> .
> | I still didn't see where you gave any examples of the
> | "process" used in the UHJ's decision to kick Alison
> | out of the Baha'i Faith.
>
I still don't see where you gave any examples of the
"process" used in the UHJ's decision to expel Alison.
I'm not reading a big long essay just to find where or
if you actually buried the answer to Steve's question in
there somewhere.
Paul
Cal E. Rollins
Can you show examples in which you know that Baha'i institutions and
individuals with administrative power have been any more trustworthy
than the ones you've stated who have not? (Read that missile about poor
Susan leaked by Journalist for some education.)
I suspect that if you read the charter for your disability company you'd
find a statement that convinced you to invest in them. Right? When
they allegedly failed in their promise, I can just about guarantee they
gave you legalistic reasons to support their action with which you
disagreed. Right? I could point to decisions in Baha'i's lives in
which they have had similar experiences with the administrators of the
Faith.
The upshot is there is no guarantee for justice as we or anybody else
knows it. We have faith that there will be but no guarantees. Have you
seen any written, legal guarantees from anybody that the predicted
future justice will flow down like the waters? What examples of such
have you seen in people's experiences? I've never heard people talking
about the good stuff the administration has done for them; have you?
--Cal
Randy Burns
>
> Dave Volek wrote:
> >
>
> I still don't see where you gave any examples of the
> "process" used in the UHJ's decision to expel Alison.
>
> I'm not reading a big long essay just to find where or
> if you actually buried the answer to Steve's question in
> there somewhere.
There is a process there Paul, but it is buried and needs to be extricated
from the obscuring elements of almost meaningless actions (conferences given
nearby, etc) which surround it. The process is the process of the Cadre
system The cadre system is a process of breaking down the individual's
will to be an individual in order to make him a tool of the cadre system.
It is a self perpetuating parasitic system which fastens onto a host body
and drains the life from it.
Anyone interested should google TRB for past messages concerning the Baha'i
Cadre system.
Cheers, Randy
Dave Volek
| Can you show examples in which you know that Baha'i
institutions and
| individuals with administrative power have been any more
trustworthy
| than the ones you've stated who have not? (Read that
missile about poor
| Susan leaked by Journalist for some education.)
I don't believe I've stated any institutions who were
untrustworthy, so I'm having a little problem in trying to
answer this question. Can you rephrase?
|
| I suspect that if you read the charter for your disability
company you'd
| find a statement that convinced you to invest in them.
Right? When
| they allegedly failed in their promise, I can just about
guarantee they
| gave you legalistic reasons to support their action with
which you
| disagreed. Right?
This was not the case. The marketing gimmick this company
used to entice me to sign up was that it used an "plain
legal English" contract. There were no embedded legal
tricks. When the case was taken to the judge's decision (two
or three years later), the company almost always lost.
I could point to decisions in Baha'i's lives in
| which they have had similar experiences with the
administrators of the
| Faith.
You probably could. Having a judgement against you is not
always easy to accept. If we visit a prison, we would find
at least 25% of the inmates really don't understand why they
are there. They will blame their predicament on a repressive
state that is out to get them.
In this case, I suspect much the same. The writers do not
understand why things happened the way they did. But to
me--and many other Bahais--the sanctions were warranted.
| The upshot is there is no guarantee for justice as we or
anybody else
| knows it. We have faith that there will be but no
guarantees. Have you
| seen any written, legal guarantees from anybody that the
predicted
| future justice will flow down like the waters?
A very big question Cal. I have total faith that some time,
the world will have a true justice system, which will be
inspired, directly or indirectly, by the Bahai Faith.
Having spent some time both in the political world and Bahai
world, I may be little more in tune to see how a
BAO-inspired system of governance will provide this justice.
As the decades roll by, things will become more obvious.
What examples of such
| have you seen in people's experiences? I've never heard
people talking
| about the good stuff the administration has done for them;
have you?
All I can really say to this matter when I was on an
Assembly, we had to deal with a membership issue, albeit not
nearly as critical as this one. I was very impressed about
how we handled it. There was a lot of consulation, prayer,
reviewing the writings, and communication with other
institutions. We did not make our decision lightly and
arbitrarily. It was a very unique process.
Dave
Dave Volek
.
|
|
| I still don't see where you gave any examples of the
| "process" used in the UHJ's decision to expel Alison.
The ABM was sent to to encourage a change of behavior. If a
change of behaviour was not forthcoming, then the ABM would
recommend sanctions. The elected institutions (in this case,
the UHJ) made the decision.
There was more than enough due procees for this case.
|
| I'm not reading a big long essay just to find where or
That's too bad. If you really want to learn some insights
about why this case was possibly handled the way it was, the
essay might be useful. If you want to maintain your position
that a grave injustice was done, then don't read it.
It's all up to you.
Dave Volek
|
| There is a process there Paul, but it is buried and needs
to be extricated
| from the obscuring elements of almost meaningless actions
(conferences given
| nearby, etc) which surround it. The process is the
process of the Cadre
| system The cadre system is a process of breaking down
the individual's
| will to be an individual in order to make him a tool of
the cadre system.
| It is a self perpetuating parasitic system which fastens
onto a host body
| and drains the life from it.
|
If this is your assessment, then why would you want to
belong to the Bahai Faith?
ajv2003
> "frito" <bighapp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1105561730.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>>
>>I disagree. She was asked by the House not to publish her review of
>>"The Baha'i World" and she did it anyway. That is just one example.
>
>
> Dear Frito
>
Hey 'Crispy' who is Frito?
Randy Burns
I should hope it is obvious that I have no problem with the Baha'i Faith and
the authoritative bodies designated by Baha'u'llah to direct that Faith but
I do have a problem with a Baha'i cadre which is illicit and unauthorized
and yet has a great deal of power within the Faith to interfere with the
normal processes ordained by Baha'u'llah. I feel I have a duty (as every
other member does) to call the properly designated authorities to this
problem
If you, through you own researches, had become aware of a problem wouldn't
you feel obligated to try and do something about the problem? If we don't
do that then how do problems get solved?
Cheers, Randy
Randy Burns
problem whatsoever with the Baha'i Administrative Order, either large or
small or of any kind. I have no personal grudge of any kind, I am simply an
objective observer.
Cheers, Randy
--
"Dave Volek" <vo...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:GRDFd.100208$KO5.78090@clgrps13...
>
Steve Marshall
> The cadre system is a process of breaking down the individual's
>| will to be an individual in order to make him a tool of the cadre system.
>| It is a self perpetuating parasitic system which fastens onto a host body
>| and drains the life from it.
>
>If this is your assessment, then why would you want to
>belong to the Bahai Faith?
Dave, this may come as some surprise to you, but the cadre system is
not the Baha'i Faith. It's an abberation that has attached itself to
the Baha'i Faith, and I expect it will pass
I'm guessing you're a Canadian. If I'm wrong, substitute examples from
your own country:
Paul Martin isn't the Canadian government. He is Canada's current
Prime minister. The cabinet isn't the Canadian Government, although it
is a key decision-making forum. Neither the prime minister's office
not the privy council office are the Canadian government. The 38th
Parliament will pass.
http://canadaonline.about.com/cs/primeminister/a/pmrole.htm
It's inevitable that politicians whose policies you dislike will be
elected to run your country. Any Canadian who suggests to a fellow
citizen that they leave the country just because they don't like its
current politics will most likely be seen to be unhelpful, intolerant
and just plain rude.
Very similar principles apply in religion.
Allah'u'Abha,
Steve
Steve Marshall
>The ABM was sent to to encourage a change of behavior. If a
>change of behaviour was not forthcoming, then the ABM would
>recommend sanctions. The elected institutions (in this case,
>the UHJ) made the decision.
Read the chronology:
16 September 1999 - the ABM, Mina Moayeed, was brought into the loop
by the NZ NSA. Prior to that date, no ABM was sent by anyone to do
anything with Alison. After that date, the only thing the ABM was
asked to do was the following...
February 2000 - the outgoing ABM, Mina Moayeed, and the incoming ABM,
Jan Tilley, hold a study in Dunedin, open to all local Baha'is. Alison
attends for only the first 5 minutes.
http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/alisonz/Chron.htm
Here's a funny thing. I stayed the whole time. I didn't buy any of the
bullshit and said so. Yet I'm still a BIGS.
So please explain your statement:
"The ABM was sent to to [sic.] encourage a change of behavior."
Or cut and run. it's your call.
Steve Marshall
>All I can really say to this matter when I was on an
>Assembly, we had to deal with a membership issue, albeit not
>nearly as critical as this one. I was very impressed about
>how we handled it. There was a lot of consulation, prayer,
>reviewing the writings, and communication with other
>institutions. We did not make our decision lightly and
>arbitrarily. It was a very unique process.
You don't mention any consultation with the person whose membership
was in jeopardy. Maybe that's what made it "very unique" (outside the
Baha'i system, at least) <grin>
PaulHammond
Dave Volek wrote:
> "PaulHammond" <paha...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
> news:1105640596.4...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com..
> .
> |
> |
> | I still don't see where you gave any examples of the
> | "process" used in the UHJ's decision to expel Alison.
>
> The ABM was sent to to encourage a change of behavior.
I've read Alison's site myself. This never happened.
> If a
> change of behaviour was not forthcoming, then the ABM would
> recommend sanctions.
Which behaviour of Alisons did they want her to change?
On what date was this instruction communicated to Alison?
Who told her what needed changing? Which Baha'i law was it
she broke? What steps were taken to ascertain that the
behaviour had not been changed? When was this decision
taken? What are the names of the people who took this
decision? Which rules did they apply in making it.
> The elected institutions (in this case,
> the UHJ) made the decision.
>
I know the UHJ decided to boot her. The question was, on what
basis did they make that decision?
> There was more than enough due procees for this case.
>
Okay - so answer Steve's question already. Give us one
example of where any process was followed.
> |
> | I'm not reading a big long essay just to find where or
>
> That's too bad. If you really want to learn some insights
> about why this case was possibly handled the way it was, the
> essay might be useful. If you want to maintain your position
> that a grave injustice was done, then don't read it.
>
> It's all up to you.
Writing a load of vague puff is no substitute for giving a straight
answer to a straight question. And it's not up to me to wade
through contentless nonsense on the offchance that you might
have actually managed to answer this question somewhere
amongst the guff.
It's all up to you.
Paul
Dave Volek
| Let me add Dave that, unlike you, I personally have never
had any kind of
| problem whatsoever with the Baha'i Administrative Order,
either large or
| small or of any kind. I have no personal grudge of any
kind, I am simply an
| objective observer.
|
Let me just clarify: I have not had any problem with the
Order either. And I fully expect that if my behaviour goes a
certain direction, that I will have such a problem.
Rather than regurgitate the usual political correct slogans
such "lack of due process" or "censureship," how do you
think the BAO should have handled this?
Dave Volek
|
| >
| >
| > If this is your assessment, then why would you want to
| > belong to the Bahai Faith?
|
| I should hope it is obvious that I have no problem with
the Baha'i Faith and
| the authoritative bodies designated by Baha'u'llah to
direct that Faith but
| I do have a problem with a Baha'i cadre which is illicit
and unauthorized
| and yet has a great deal of power within the Faith to
interfere with the
| normal processes ordained by Baha'u'llah.
I really didn't catch your drift with the cadre system idea.
To me, it seems like an excuse to not have
I feel I have a duty (as every
| other member does) to call the properly designated
authorities to this
| problem
So who are these "properly designated authorities." If the
UHJ was the one would ultimatel made that wrong decision,
then who do you go to?
I can assure you that I am not one of these authorities nor
do I have any sympathy for your cause. So why are you
wasting your time on me?
|
| If you, through you own researches, had become aware of a
problem wouldn't
| you feel obligated to try and do something about the
problem? If we don't
| do that then how do problems get solved?
|
Of course! But what I see is whiners and complainers who
ended up with a deserved sanction yet feel they did not
deserve this sanction. To justify their injustice, they have
all sorts of theories and excuses----just like a significant
number of prison inmates who feel they are there because the
police or judge did not like them.
Dave Volek
How about this?
---------------------------
1 May 1998
Mina visited Steve and Alison in their home. She explained
her understanding of removal from Baha'i membership. As
Alison recalls, she said it was a very unusual action taken
by the institutions, taken only in rare cases. Mina said she
was unable to discuss the details of Michael's case because
she was not at liberty to disclose personal information.
After that, Alison remembers the discussion moving on to
other matters such as the meaning of infallibility. Mina
gave her understanding of it.
[This meeting is cited by the New Zealand National Spiritual
Assembly as constituting part of Alison's 'counselling'
prior to her disenrollment.]
---------------------
As I read first read the chronology, there was stuff that
just wasn't adding up. I don't think you and Allison were
forthright about everything that had happened. If I were to
seriously investigate this matter, I would have lots of
questions for the two of you and I feel quite confident that
I could poke holes in your story fairly quickly. But this is
not enough to base my conclusion.
I also looked at the writer's posts to Talisman 9. My
conclusion was that they were challenging the Covenant and
the Administrative Order. If the articles were not stopped,
then sanctions of some kind would have been well deserved.
The fact that these articles are still available today and
almost touted as "proof of innocence" tells me that there
was nothing the BAO could have done to affect change. The
sanctions were justly applied--and this has increased my
confidence in the BAO to do its job of guiding followers to
more productive system of administration.
If the writer had been allowed to continue, this would have
opened the door for all sorts of contorted theories about
how the Bahai Faith should be run. With everyone providing
this theory and that theory, where is the unity needed to
build the New World Order? The BAO, in my opinion, has no
choice but to act and discourage Bahai's from such talk.
I suppose I could do a more thorough research on this case.
While at it, I should look at all the other cases where
members are dissatified with decisions that have gone
against them. But I really don't have the time for this
activity--especially when this is not the first time an
organization has had to expel a member for breaking its
rules and that member claims it was undeserved. Instead, I
put my trust in my leaders handle these things, which lets
me get on with other things--Bahai-wise and secular.
Maybe it's time for me to cut and run. We are not coming to
any common ground whatsover.
Dave Volek
Dave Volek
|
| Dave, this may come as some surprise to you, but the cadre
system is
| not the Baha'i Faith. It's an abberation that has attached
itself to
| the Baha'i Faith, and I expect it will pass
What I'm hearing is that the Bahai Faith will eventually
bend to the way you think it should be run. In your version,
how would it identify and handle "troublemakers"?
|
| Paul Martin isn't the Canadian government. He is Canada's
current
| Prime minister. The cabinet isn't the Canadian Government,
although it
| is a key decision-making forum. Neither the prime
minister's office
| not the privy council office are the Canadian government.
The 38th
| Parliament will pass.
This description is a serious oversimplification of the
western democratic model. There really is no one source of
where the true government is. For example, the Prime
Minister's Office in Canada often makes decisions without
Cabinet, without the governing party support, without
Parliament, and without the will of the people. But there is
a limit as to how the Prime Minister can use this power.
Some of these limits are defined by the formal rules. But
many of these rules are not codified and are very informal
and changing; nonetheless they are still rules that must be
adhered to. A skillful prime minister knows how to work with
this system. A not-so-skillful prime minister is turfed out
rather quickly.
Likewise, the BAO is a complex web of interconnections and
relationships. I tried to explain some of this web to you
and Randy, but you had no interest.
| It's inevitable that politicians whose policies you
dislike will be
| elected to run your country. Any Canadian who suggests to
a fellow
| citizen that they leave the country just because they
don't like its
| current politics will most likely be seen to be unhelpful,
intolerant
| and just plain rude.
Again you are trying to compare the BAO with being akin with
the western democratic model. The two are not the same. In
one, we have little trust of the decision-makers, so we
create a complex set of rules to govern their behaviour. In
one, we have (or should have) a great deal of trust: such
rules are no longer necessary.
Dave Volek
"Steve Marshall" <asm...@es.co.nz> wrote in message |
| You don't mention any consultation with the person whose
membership
| was in jeopardy. Maybe that's what made it "very unique"
(outside the
| Baha'i system, at least) <grin>
The member was consulted. She spent about an hour with the
Assembly. She was kept informed of how the process was
coming along. When time came, she was informed of the
choices she had to make and she was told of the choice the
Assembly preferred.
PaulHammond
SOunds like a model the NZ NSA could usefully have used
in their dealings with Alison. Nice to know Baha'is
_sometimes_ get it right!
Paul
Randy Burns
>
>
> Let me just clarify: I have not had any problem with the
> Order either. And I fully expect that if my behaviour goes a
> certain direction, that I will have such a problem.
>
> Rather than regurgitate the usual political correct slogans
> such "lack of due process" or "censureship," how do you
> think the BAO should have handled this?
This what? Alison's case or your case?
Randy
PaulHammond
"Due process" means if someone is in danger of incurring
sanctions, it is only fair that the person gets warned
they are about the get their wrists slapped (or in this
case, get thrown without warning out of their faith
of 20 years) and is informed of what the authorities
think they have done wrong, and what they can do to
amend the situation. Providing reasons to the person
under judgement, rather than to third parties who wrote
to the authorities asking for justification post-facto
might be useful too. Some could see this as institutionally
sanctioned back-biting.*
"Censorship" means telling people what they can and cannot
publish. I disagree with the review policy, but there are
at least good reasons for a faith to keep control on what
gets published publicly, and for correcting errors. There
are no good reasons for preventing people from speaking
their mind on a members only net discussion group. That is
*not* a publication.
"Censure" is an entirely different word, a synonym for
punishment.
"Politically correct" is an insult meaning "my opponent
is a pinko lefty who I disagree with."
Notes:
*It has been explicitly said by authoritative sources that
Alison's excommunication from her faith was *not* intended
as a punishment for bad behaviour, but as a "recognition" of
the "fact" that she had fallen short of the requirements of
membership of the faith throught lack of understanding. I
don't have the details on this, but Susan can provide them
I am sure.
Paul
Randy Burns
Baha'i Cadre, see what you come up with.
Randy
--
"Dave Volek" <vo...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:sORFd.93452$dv1.87959@edtnps89...
PaulHammond
Dave Volek wrote:
> |
> | Paul Martin isn't the Canadian government. He is Canada's
> current
> | Prime minister. The cabinet isn't the Canadian Government,
> although it
> | is a key decision-making forum. Neither the prime
> minister's office
> | not the privy council office are the Canadian government.
> The 38th
> | Parliament will pass.
>
> This description is a serious oversimplification of the
> western democratic model. There really is no one source of
> where the true government is. For example, the Prime
> Minister's Office in Canada often makes decisions without
> Cabinet, without the governing party support, without
> Parliament, and without the will of the people. But there is
> a limit as to how the Prime Minister can use this power.
> Some of these limits are defined by the formal rules. But
> many of these rules are not codified and are very informal
> and changing; nonetheless they are still rules that must be
> adhered to. A skillful prime minister knows how to work with
> this system. A not-so-skillful prime minister is turfed out
> rather quickly.
>
Unfortunately, the same is not true of the Baha'i Faith,
where incumbents are re-elected until they die or
resign time after time after time.
> Likewise, the BAO is a complex web of interconnections and
> relationships. I tried to explain some of this web to you
> and Randy, but you had no interest.
>
LOL - Dave, this really reads as you trying to teach
your Grandma to suck eggs. Randy has been around for some
time. From your posts, I gather that you are a recent
convert.
> | It's inevitable that politicians whose policies you
> dislike will be
> | elected to run your country. Any Canadian who suggests to
> a fellow
> | citizen that they leave the country just because they
> don't like its
> | current politics will most likely be seen to be unhelpful,
> intolerant
> | and just plain rude.
>
> Again you are trying to compare the BAO with being akin with
> the western democratic model. The two are not the same.
More's the pity.
> In
> one, we have little trust of the decision-makers, so we
> create a complex set of rules to govern their behaviour. In
> one, we have (or should have) a great deal of trust: such
> rules are no longer necessary.
Dave, tell me something, Did you become a perfect human
being the moment you signed your declaration card? Was
there ever any such thing as a perfect Baha'i since
the time of Abdu'l Baha?
Paul
Dave Volek
"PaulHammond" <paha...@onetel.net.uk> |
| LOL - Dave, this really reads as you trying to teach
| your Grandma to suck eggs. Randy has been around for some
| time.
What I hear you saying is that Randy is smarter and more
experienced than me. He is also a lot smarter than any
member of the House of Justice and even smarter the House
working as an institution for he has the right answer to
this case, the House did not.
From your posts, I gather that you are a recent
| convert.
|
It's been 11 years. I served four years on a mature and very
busy Assembly with three of those years as Secretary. I have
been homefront pioneering for the last four years. I
currently serve on the Program Committee for the Sylvan Lake
Bahai Centre. I have had lots of contact with Regional Bahai
Council and Auxilary Board members and have seen how these
two institutions interact within the BAO. I am also active
in activities within my cluster.
But this is probably not enough experience for you two to
consider that I just may know something of what I am talking
about. Instead you probably see me as some kind of rookie
who can be swayed to your side.
Dave Volek
.
|
| SOunds like a model the NZ NSA could usefully have used
| in their dealings with Alison. Nice to know Baha'is
| _sometimes_ get it right!
|
From what I have seen, I doubt it very much that the writers
would have changed their behaviour if this was the "due
process" given (and it may very well have been given: I
don't have all the facts).
Steve Marshall
>How about this?
>
>---------------------------
>
>1 May 1998
>
>Mina visited Steve and Alison in their home. She explained
>her understanding of removal from Baha'i membership. As
>Alison recalls, she said it was a very unusual action taken
>by the institutions, taken only in rare cases. Mina said she
>was unable to discuss the details of Michael's case because
>she was not at liberty to disclose personal information.
>After that, Alison remembers the discussion moving on to
>other matters such as the meaning of infallibility. Mina
>gave her understanding of it.
>
>[This meeting is cited by the New Zealand National Spiritual
>Assembly as constituting part of Alison's 'counselling'
>prior to her disenrollment.]
Hi Dave,
As I've already pointed out Mina was first brought into the loop by
the NZ NSA on 16 September 1999. That's four and a half months after
her 1 May visit. Thus the 1 May visit can't have been part of Alison's
'counselling".
Besides. the 1 May meeting was one that Mina had with me. I had been
asking Mina questions in email about Michael Mckenny's expulsion. Mina
was in Dunedin and offered to come around to discuss the issue. Alison
just happened to be home when Mina visited.
Here's the correspondence leading up to Mina's 1 May visit with me.
From: "mina" <mi...@clear.net.nz>
To: "Alison and Steve Marshall" <forum...@es.co.nz>
Subject: Re: Removal from Baha'i membership
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 11:26:10 +1200
Dear Steve
Thank you for your e-mail message sharing with me some of your
concerns. I've started investigating this matter and am wondering if
you and I could get together to discuss this issue while I am visiting
your community. I have Friday morning and/or afternoon free to meet
with you If that is convenient.
Warmest Baha'i greetings
Mina Moayyed
-----Original Message-----
From: Alison and Steve Marshall <forum...@es.co.nz>
To: mmoa...@admin.nelpoly.ac.nz <mmoa...@admin.nelpoly.ac.nz>
Cc: Michael McKenny <bn...@freenet.carleton.ca>; gb...@voyager.co.nz
<gb...@voyager.co.nz>
Date: Sunday, 26 April 1998 10:16
Subject: Removal from Baha'i membership
>Hi Mina,
>
>I hear you'll be in Dunedin this friday, and thought I'd give you some
>background information about a question I've been trying to get answered
>through the local protection assistants.
>
>I'm curious about the practice of removal of Baha'i membership. Here's a
>couple of emails in which the phrase is mentioned:
>
>-----emails begin------------------------------
>
>>Date: Wed Jul 30 18:39:48 1997
>>From: forum...@es.co.nz (Alison and Steve Marshall)
>>To: secre...@bwc.org (Universal House of Justice)
>>Cc: nsa...@interlog.com ("National Spiritual Assembly of
>>the Baha'is of Canada"), nat...@nsa.org.nz
>>("National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of New Zealand"),
>>bn...@freenet.carleton.ca (Michael McKenny)
>>
>>
>> _ _ _ _ _
>>E nga mana, e nga reo, e nga maunga, e nga awaa, e nga
>> _ _ _ _
>>pataka o nga taonga tuku iho, tena koutou.
>>
>>(All authorities, all voices, all mountains, all rivers, all
>>treasure houses, greetings to you.)
>>
>>
>>I was shocked to hear of the recent apparent expulsion of Michael McKenny
>>from the Baha'i Faith. I know Michael to be a thoughtful, honest, fearless
>>and articulate person. If he has been expelled, I urge you to reconsider the
>>decision.
>>
>> _
>>Heio ano.
>>(Enough said.)
>>
>> _ _
>>Naku noa, na,
>>(Yours sincerely)
>>Steve Marshall
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
>
>>Transmitted by email
>>
>>
>>TO: Mr. Steve Marshall DATE: 6 August 1997
>> New Zealand
>>
>>
>>Email address: forum...@es.co.nz
>>
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
>>
>>MESSAGE:
>>
>>
>>The Universal House of Justice has asked us to respond to your email message
>>of 31 July 1997 regarding Mr. Michael McKenny. As was stated in the letter
>>to Mr. McKenny from the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of Canada,
>>the conclusion regarding his Baha'i status was based entirely on a pattern of
>>behaviour and attitude on his part that is incompatible with membership in the
>>Baha'i community. Being removed from Baha'i membership carries with it no
>>necessary implication that one is not "thoughtful, honest, fearless and
>>articulate".
>>
>>Department of the Secretariat
>
>-----emails end------------------------------
>
>Removal of Baha'i membership, as I understand it, isn't an administrative
>sanction, such as loss of administrative rights, because the person who is
>removed from Baha'i membership is no longer considered by Baha'i
>administrative bodies to be a Baha'i. It doesn't appear to be related to
>Covenant breaking either -- no shunning for a start. The closest I come to
>understanding it is that it's the corollary of an individual resigning and
>breaking any ties with the Baha'i administration. In other words, if an
>individual can decide to break ties with the Baha'i administration (resign),
>then perhaps the reverse can occur, and a Baha'i administrative body can
>decide to remove someone from Baha'i membership.
>
>In the McKenny case, I understand that he was removed from Baha'i membership
>because he held views at variance with current Baha'i orthodoxy, and he
>spoke out about those views.
>
>I'm concerned about this apparent removal of people from Baha'i membership
>for holding and stating certain views because it puts severe limits on
>freedom of conscience. Also, the practice is rather arbitrary unless some
>form of Baha'i orthodoxy or creed is codified. Neither of those two
>scenarios - arbitrary expulsions or codification of Baha'i orthodoxy -
>appeals to me, and, besides, I'm comfortable about individual Baha'is
>spouting a diversity of ideas.
>
>Apparently, removal of Baha'i membership, or "expulsion" as it was then
>termed, was practiced during the time of Shoghi Effendi. It was then used
>mainly to purge membership rolls of names of people who were no longer
>associated with the Baha'is in any way, and occasionally used similarly to
>administrative sanctions. Jackson Armstrong-Ingram and others have written,
>via discussion groups such as Talisman, about the historical antecedents to
>removal of Baha'i membership.
>
>Perhaps this "new" practice is just an "old" practice that's being
>revisited, particularly since it appears to be possible once again to resign
>from Baha'i membership without denying the station of the central figures.
>
>I'm interested in knowing whether the current practice of removal of Baha'i
>membership has been formalised. For example, can local and/or national
>spiritual assemblies do the removing, or does the final decision go to
>Haifa? What are the grounds for removing people from Baha'i membership, and
>do any of them involve limits to freedom of expression?
>
>I'm also interested in finding out whether the community has been informed
>about the apparent change in policy regarding resignation/removal of
>membership. Most Baha'is I speak to still believe that a person must deny
>the station of the central figures in order to resign, and have not heard of
>Baha'is being expelled or removed from Baha'i membership.
>
>ka kite,
>Steve
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Alison & Steve Marshall, Aotearoa | "Fanaticism consists in redoubling
>forum...@es.co.nz (New Zealand) | your efforts when you have forgotten
>Try: http://www.rightwords.co.nz/ | your aim." - George Santayana
Steve Marshall
>The member was consulted. She spent about an hour with the
>Assembly. She was kept informed of how the process was
>coming along. When time came, she was informed of the
>choices she had to make and she was told of the choice the
>Assembly preferred.
But isn't that pandering to politically-correct Western notions of due
process? :-)
Dave Volek
Steve:
I really don't want to get into all the details. Much if
such investigation is likely to turn into "He said this, but
not that." The truth "beyond a reasonable doubt" will take a
long time. If I have only "X" amount of hours in a day for
Bahai activities, it's better to spend them on my committee
work than go through a thorough investigation of this
particular case.
And I don't believe I'm going to change my mind. Unlike you,
I don't think BAO makes such decisions flippantly and there
was justification for it. Your own story is full of holes
that I need not get into. So there's not much point in the
investigation from my part.
And even if I side with you, there's nothing I can do to
help you out. So what's the point?
Dave Volek
There's nothing written down that we had handle things this
way. It just sort of happened. By legal standards of western
democracy, this was not any due process because the next
case could be handled in an entirely different way.
I interpret "due process" as having the same legal
procedures for each case. In the Bahai Faith, as I see it,
each case is tried in consultation with the Writings and
appropriate institutions. No two cases can be handled in the
same way even if they have similar circumstances. The
processes will vary from locality to locality, country to
country, decade to decade, and situation to situation. By
western standards, there is no due process in the Bahai
Faith.
Steve Marshall
>"Steve Marshall" <asm...@es.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:k4qeu01v3e34cbban...@4ax.com...
>|
>| Dave, this may come as some surprise to you, but the cadre system is
>| not the Baha'i Faith. It's an abberation that has attached itself to
>| the Baha'i Faith, and I expect it will pass
>
>What I'm hearing is that the Bahai Faith will eventually
>bend to the way you think it should be run. In your version,
>how would it identify and handle "troublemakers"?
Hi Dave Volek,
I was responding to your apparent suggestion that Randy resign from
membership of the Baha'is of the United States, given his opinion of
the cadre system currently dominant within the AO.
What I was saying to you was that the cadre system is not the Baha'i
Faith and is not an essential part of the AO either. I made no
predictions about the directions the AO may take, In my discussions
with you, I have not explicitly put forward a "version" of the Baha'i
Faith, nor, as I recall, have I suggested that "troublemakers" be left
unidentified and unhandled. My call for due process does not hinder
either the identification or handling of such categories of believer.
In fact, I think due process helps the AO do its work. Just look at
the evident confusion within the NSA and within Alison, as chronicled
in Alison's chronology, when the House arbitrarily expelled Alison.
That confusion was entirely avoidable.
I'm pleased to say that my own NSA, after repeatedly insisting that I
must have some concerns I wish to discuss with IT. has finally
admitted that IT has some concerns about me that it wishes to discuss
with ME.
I may well be a "bad Baha'i" who should be expelled, but I'd like to
think I've assisted the AO in improving its expulsion procedures while
it deals with me.
ka kite
Steve
Steve Marshall
>By legal standards of western
>democracy, this was not any due process because the next
>case could be handled in an entirely different way.
Well, yes, you could say that due process consists of basic procedural
rights. But, essentially, due process consists of principles, not
procedures. So, even if things were handled "entirely differently"
principles of natural justice could still apply. After all, we're
tallking about very basic requirements -- ones that I would have
thought would have to underpin Baha'i notions of consultation.
* A person accused of a crime, or at risk of some form of loss, should
be given adequate notice about the proceedings (including any
charges).
* A person making a decision should declare any personal interest they
may have in the proceedings.
* A person who makes a decision should be unbiased and act in good
faith.
* Proceedings should be conducted so they are fair to all the parties
- the legal maxim 'audi alteram partem' comes into play here, as one
must 'hear the other side'.
* Each party to a proceeding is entitled to ask questions and
contradict the evidence of the opposing party.
* A decision-maker should not take into account irrelevant
considerations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_justice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process
As you pointed out, some systems of justice have become enmired in
complex and expensive procedural requirements. But throwing out due
process and natural justice is simply throwing the baby out with the
bath-water. Baha'u'llah suffered at the hands of leaders of religion
who had no regard for notions of due process and natural justice, and
he told them as much. Do Baha'u'llah's words no longer apply? Do you
think things have changed that much?
ka kite
Steve
Steve Marshall
>And I don't believe I'm going to change my mind.
Nobody expects you to. We're having a discussion.
> Unlike you,
>I don't think BAO makes such decisions flippantly
What evidence do you have that I think the BAO makes decisions
flippantly? Have I used the word "flippant". Have I used any other set
of words that means much the same thing? "Arbitrary" does not mean
"flippant".
I'm serious, Dave. Why do you misrepresent my viewpoint in this way?
> and there
>was justification for it.
I respect your right to believe that.
> Your own story is full of holes
>that I need not get into.
So an accusation without any justification or explanation is just
fine, is it?
> So there's not much point in the
>investigation from my part.
If you're not prepared to investigate, then stop making your
assertions and accusations.
>And even if I side with you, there's nothing I can do to
>help you out.
I'm sure you do feel powerless.
>So what's the point?
The point is that you and I are forced to deal with and respond to
each other's very divergent points of view. The point is that we both
might learn something.
ka kite
Steve
Randy Burns
>
>
> I'm pleased to say that my own NSA, after repeatedly insisting that I
> must have some concerns I wish to discuss with IT. has finally
> admitted that IT has some concerns about me that it wishes to discuss
> with ME.
Wow Steve, that's a major break through! Of course you realize that your
NSA is still convinced that it is you who have concerns with it and not it
that has concerns with you? and they are just humoring you by pretending
that they have concerns with you.
> I may well be a "bad Baha'i" who should be expelled, but I'd like to
> think I've assisted the AO in improving its expulsion procedures while
> it deals with me.
I'm sure that they will show appropriate gratitude.
Randy
sma...@jam.rr.com
case where a Continental Counsellor was found to be helping an NSA
member
cover up."
There is no evidence that the Counsellor knew about any incest.
sma...@jam.rr.com
Abraxas
>answer to a straight question
Pot, kettle, black!
W
sma...@jam.rr.com
"problem" with Alison that required "counselling"."
They certainly did know there were problems, though they may not have
been aware of all of them. They tried to take a much softer approach
with Alison than say Birkland had done in the US. Obviously that didn't
work. Dave, she was never 'warned' about her behavior. What the Board
Members and CBC attempted to do was make sure she was informed of the
teachings involved. That is what they are calling 'counselling.'
sma...@jam.rr.com
mind."
That is not what Alison said at the time. She said she had been
expecting it and that she wasn't upset.
sma...@jam.rr.com
You appear to be saying that it is against Baha'i rules to
post on Talisman 9."
Dear Paul,
That's not what he said. He said if he continually posted things on
that list that challenged the authority of the Administrative Order he
could expect reprecussions.
"Actually, the explanation of the decision to expel Alison
was that it was not because of opposition (ie, she wasn't
declared a covenant breaker), but because some people
decided that she somehow didn't have an adequate basis
for understanding of the glorious Baha'i revelation,
and therefore had never *really* been a Baha'i in the
first place."
Yes and no. It was decided that her opposition was not a result of
breaking the Covenant it was the result of having an inadequate
understanding of the Covenant which she did not wish to remedy. Whether
or not she had really been a Baha'i at some time in the past is not a
question which the House addressed.
sma...@jam.rr.com
completely hidden from her, so all that activity was impotent. All the
AO had to do was tell Alison it had a problem with her, but it failed
to do so."
And if they had told her she would have adjusted accordingly? Not
hardly! She would have gone on the internet and accused the AO of
conducting an inquisition.
"On the contrary, she was assured at various times that the
AO did not have a problem with her."
A Board Member at one time indicated that she had not information that
the April 7 letter referred to anyone in Dunedin. But it was pretty
obvious from Alison's own remarks that she shared the opinions that
were being condemned in that letter. For that reason the Board Member
in question reported the matter to the NSA as the documention on your
own website indicates.
"
Abraxas
Dave Volek
|
| I'm serious, Dave. Why do you misrepresent my viewpoint in
this way?
Call it arbitrary, call it flippant; it's the same to me.
|
| > and there
| >was justification for it.
|
| I respect your right to believe that.
|
This is first indication I've had from you that I might have
had something valuable to say here. Had I had this feeling
earlier, we might be somewhere else in our relationship.
| > Your own story is full of holes
| >that I need not get into.
|
| So an accusation without any justification or explanation
is just
| fine, is it?
Like I said before, I really don't have the time or desire
to get into any great detail of your case or any one else
who has had a run in with the BAO. You invited me to your
site, I gave it the ten-minute analysis, and concluded there
was justification for the sanctions. I also have great trust
in the BAO to make the right decision most of the time. The
fact that the UHJ was brought in to make the final decision
confirms the right decision was made.
|
| The point is that you and I are forced to deal with and
respond to
| each other's very divergent points of view. The point is
that we both
| might learn something.
I was trying to get into the mindset of Bahai's who were
extremely upset by the Order's decisions. I think my mission
is coming to close. I have learned a few things talking to
you, Randy, Paul, and Mr. Arbaxas. I'll be processing this
over the next couple of weeks.
Dave Volek
Steve Marshall
>"before the ABMs and CBC had any inkling there was any kind of
>"problem" with Alison that required "counselling"."
>
>They certainly did know there were problems, though they may not have
>been aware of all of them. They tried to take a much softer approach
>with Alison than say Birkland had done in the US. Obviously that didn't
>work. Dave, she was never 'warned' about her behavior. What the Board
>Members and CBC attempted to do was make sure she was informed of the
>teachings involved. That is what they are calling 'counselling.'
That's one spin. Here's Alison's assessment:
"I cannot see any adherence to principle in this testimony. The only
'principle' stated here is that the Baha'i administration reserves the
right to treat people exactly as it pleases and refuses to allow any
checks on its powers. However, I think the evidence shows that the
National Spiritual Assembly was initially concerned that I had not
been contacted, but later took the position that this did not matter.
I think the documentation illustrates how the Baha'i administration
secretly watches, reports on and records the activities and views of
members it sees as a threat. This spying can go on for years without
the member knowing and despite general assurances to the contrary.
When it suits the administration to act, it can summarily disenrol the
person at any time and without any notice. In such circumstances,
'counselling' will comprise any communication that member has had with
the institutions, whatever its nature, purpose and timing. This action
will be accompanied by a backbiting campaign designed to destroy the
member's reputation in the community."
http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/alisonz/news.html
Steve Marshall
I'll leave the readers to decide whether your summary is a distortion
of what Alison actually said.
>From: Alison Marshall <alisonz@c...>
>Date: Wed Mar 29, 2000 3:48pm
>Subject: removal from membership
>
>Well, my dear friends, I write to tell you that the House has asked my
>National Assembly to remove my name from the New Zealand Baha'i
>community membership list. As you will see from the letter below, they
>have decided that over the last 2-3 years my statements, behaviour and
>attitude have not met the requirements of membership. I can only
>conclude that the decision is based largely on my Talisman messages, for
>that is the only place I have lived over that time.
>
>I want to make it clear that I am not upset about this decision at all.
>In 1998 I had a dream about my mystical death and described it on
>Talisman. Since then, it was in the back of my mind that I was preparing
>for this day. And now that it has come, I feel deeply honoured. The
>reality is that I am a nobody; what do I have to give that is worthy of
>my beloved? A registration card? If I had a thousand cards, I would
>gladly give them up. But Baha'u'llah has accepted this small token for
>my sake and I am overwhelmed by his kindness. Surely, the House has
>acted as God has instructed it to, and I thank them for playing their
>part that I might be so blessed.
>
>Alison
>
>-----------------
>
>NATIONAL SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLY OF THE BAHA'IS OF NEW ZEALAND
>EMAIL MESSAGE (CONFIRMATORY COPY TO FOLLOW)
>
>28 March 2000 Our Ref: 2/10/156
>
>Dear Mrs Marshall,
>
>The Universal House of Justice has advised us of its conclusion that, on
>the basis of an established pattern of statements by you and behaviour
>and attitude on your part over the past two or three years, you cannot
>properly be considered as meeting the requirements of membership in the
>Baha'i community. Accordingly, we have removed your name from our membership
>rolls and have informed the Baha'i institutions concerned.
>
>Sincerely
>NATIONAL SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLY
>OF THE BAHA'IS OF NEW ZEALAND
Steve Marshall
>"The AO's activity in getting Alison to "change her positions" was
>completely hidden from her, so all that activity was impotent. All the
>AO had to do was tell Alison it had a problem with her, but it failed
>to do so."
>
>And if they had told her she would have adjusted accordingly? Not
>hardly! She would have gone on the internet and accused the AO of
>conducting an inquisition.
And people would have laughed at her. Score 1 for the AO 0 for Alison.
But that's not what happened. Score reversed.
>"On the contrary, she was assured at various times that the
>AO did not have a problem with her."
>
>A Board Member at one time indicated that she had not information that
>the April 7 letter referred to anyone in Dunedin.
That's right.
>But it was pretty
>obvious from Alison's own remarks that she shared the opinions that
>were being condemned in that letter. For that reason the Board Member
>in question reported the matter to the NSA as the documention on your
>own website indicates.
You're grossly mistaken yet again. Here's what the documentation on
Alison's web-site says:
"National Spiritual Assembly minutes No. 15/156 record that NSA
member, Peter Manins, reported to the NSA about the meeting between
Mina and the Dunedin community. He reported his recollections of the
ideas and feelings that were expressed by various members of the
community at the meeting. The National Spiritual Assembly expressed
its concern about the believers’ attitudes on the infallibility of the
House and the institutions in general. The National Assembly decided
to invite Counsellor Heather Simpson and ABM Mina Moayyed to
participate in a telephone consultation about their concerns over the
Dunedin community. They agreed that after the consultation, they would
inform the House of Justice about the matter."
http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/alisonz/Chron.htm
An NSA member reported to the NSA, not Mina. Heather and Mina were
simply invited to consult with the NSA by phone "about their
concerns". From personal experience, I know that "their concerns" is
NSA code for "the NSA's concerns". :-)
You also neglect to mention Heather's January 1997 emails and
coffee-bar chat, where she assured Alison and I that we weren't under
invesigation -- after a assistant, operating well outside his
jurisdiction, had made some trouble for us.
Susan (and David V), perhaps you should take Mina's 14 September 1999
advice:
" We shouldn't assume things. We must be careful about our attitude
towards other Baha'is. This is the Baha'i family; we shouldn't be
labelled by others just because we express opinions others don't like.
Others may have different ideas, but we should not judge others on
that basis."
ka kite
Steve
Steve Marshall
Well, I can't work out whether you're now being arbitrary or flippant,
so i guess i'll have to accept that. :-)
>|
>| > and there
>| >was justification for it.
>|
>| I respect your right to believe that.
>|
>
>This is first indication I've had from you that I might have
>had something valuable to say here.
No, I don't think you have anything valuable to say. All I'm saying is
that you have a right to believe that there was justification for what
was done to Alison.
> Had I had this feeling
>earlier, we might be somewhere else in our relationship.
That's true, and we've probably both slipped off the path of respect
for each other's positions at times.
>| > Your own story is full of holes
>| >that I need not get into.
>|
>| So an accusation without any justification or explanation
>is just
>| fine, is it?
>
>Like I said before, I really don't have the time or desire
>to get into any great detail of your case or any one else
>who has had a run in with the BAO. You invited me to your
>site, I gave it the ten-minute analysis, and concluded there
>was justification for the sanctions. I also have great trust
>in the BAO to make the right decision most of the time.
If you don't have the time, then don't make assertions you're
unwilling to defend.
>The
>fact that the UHJ was brought in to make the final decision
>confirms the right decision was made.
Read the chronology again. It wasn't brought in to make the final
decision. It cut across a process it had initiated and arbitrarily
ordered the NSA to expel Alison.
>I was trying to get into the mindset of Bahai's who were
>extremely upset by the Order's decisions. I think my mission
>is coming to close. I have learned a few things talking to
>you, Randy, Paul, and Mr. Arbaxas. I'll be processing this
>over the next couple of weeks.
Good on you. it's challenging stuff.
cheers
Steve
Susan Maneck
>western standards, there is no due process in the Bahai
>Faith.
>
Yet.
There is nothing against due process in principle. We've not developed them
thus far because 1) there isn't a readily available single system of due
proccess that would fit the entire world's circumstances at this time. 2) The
Guardian felt that it was important for Assemblies to remain flexible for the
time being and not get bogged down in developing proceedures for circumstances
which have not presented themselves. 3) The Writings have not been studied
thoroughly enough to determine what aspects of due process and human rights are
embedded in the Teachings.
warmest, Susan
http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist/
To subscribe: use subscribe bahai-st in the message body to ly...@list.jccc.net
Susan Maneck
>SOunds like a model the NZ NSA could usefully have used
>in their dealings with Alison.
As you know Paul, ultimately it was the House of Justice not the NZ NSA which
decided how to deal with Alison.
Susan Maneck
>That's one spin. Here's Alison's assessment:
Which has nothing to do with the original question. Yes, the NSA was apparently
planning a much more formal interview with you and your wife. That was
short-circuited when the House (not the NSA) found this unneccessary.
>I think the documentation illustrates how the Baha'i administration
>secretly watches, reports on and records the activities and views of
>members it sees as a threat.
Gee, they read stuff on the internet. Shame on them!
Steve Marshall
>>SOunds like a model the NZ NSA could usefully have used
>>in their dealings with Alison.
>
>As you know Paul, ultimately it was the House of Justice not the NZ NSA which
>decided how to deal with Alison.
I guess you stand corrected Paul. Perhaps what you should have said
is:
"Sounds like a model the NZ NSA could usefully have used in their
dealings with Alison ...until the House cut across the procedure that
the House itself had put in place, and ordered the NSA to expel her."
:-)
Steve Marshall
>
>Which has nothing to do with the original question.
Oh yes it is. You were going on about the AO trying "to take a much
softer approach with Alison". The NZ NSA uses a very similar argument:
"The Baha'i administration is non-adversarial in nature and works in
subtle ways"
http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/alisonz/news.html
Whereas it's really nothing more than covert surveillance, backbiting
and gossip.
>Yes, the NSA was apparently
>planning a much more formal interview with you and your wife. That was
>short-circuited when the House (not the NSA) found this unneccessary.
I don't believe we have any indication that the House found this
unnecessary. All we have is that the House cut across its own
investigation and ordered the NSA to expel Alison. I don't see why
that would short-circuit any investigation of me... ...but it
apparently did for a few years.
>>I think the documentation illustrates how the Baha'i administration
>>secretly watches, reports on and records the activities and views of
>>members it sees as a threat.
>
>Gee, they read stuff on the internet. Shame on them!
Gee, they retrospectively turned definitiely non-counselling
conversations with a CBC and an ABM into counselling sessions.
Gee, they had Baha'i-only meetings in Dunedin, at which they
repeatedly assured those present that they were unaware of any
problem, then the NSA restrospectively called that counselling.
Gee, they had study classes that Alison didn't attend, and they
retrospectively called that counselling.
Gee, they tried to "befriend" Alison and I, then backbit with each
other about what they learned: "Mina received a positive email from
the Marshalls and expressing their appreciation for the meeting and
she feels they now have some trust in her".
Gee, they listened to backbiting from others about us. "A longstanding
believer in the Dunedin community, [Alex Firestone] has told Mr Manins
that Y and the Marshalls have, in the past, made similar statements to
those they made at the meeting on 4 September. Mr Firestone believes
that there is a spirit of anti-institutionalism in the Baha'i
communities of the southern region of New Zealand (i.e., Dunedin and
Southland).
Gee, before passing on the House's ruling that Alison be expelled,
they backbit and told untruths to various NZ local assemblies about
her, saying: "It has become clear that [Alison] neither understands
the implication of Baha'i membership nor has any real desire to do so.
Efforts have been made to clear up her misunderstandings, but these
have been unsuccessful, hence the Supreme Body's decision."
Gee, the NSA consulted on how to improve the shock-value of the
House's decision: "We do not want to undermine the potency of the
letter by reducing its shock value to [Alison and Steve]."
Gee, when Alison saw that the NSA had told six local assemblies that
she had been counselled -- giving the impression that she had at the
very least been contacted about the administration's concerns -- she
asked the NSA to correct this statement. The NSA refused to do this.
Damn right. They should be ashamed.
You can spin all you like, Susan. I'll always have a dozen responses
to each of your desperate doctorings. Well, eight - but they're
really good ones. :-)
ka kite
Steve
Steve Marshall
>Yes, the NSA was apparently
>planning a much more formal interview with you and your wife.
What? You mean... ...actually telling us we had a problem! Wow! That
would have been a breakthrough.
But wasn't the House planning to do that, too?. What happened? The
House couldn't have become confused, and forgotten about that plan. Or
thought that part had been carried out. It's infallible, right?
You really do know how to dig holes for yourself, Susan.
I guess Dave finally got his flippancy.
Susan Maneck
>the House itself had put in place, and ordered the NSA to expel her."
The proceedure was designed to ascertain precisely what Alison believed.
Apparently her article on infalliblity made that quite unnecessary.
Susan Maneck
>But wasn't the House planning to do that, too?.
There is nothing in your documentation to suggest they were. But they had
apparently instructed the NSA to do so when they expressed to the House their
own concerns.
>What happened?
What happened is that your wife posted an article on the internet that departed
so significantly from the basic Baha'i beliefs that there was no longer any
doubt she was not a Baha'i.
The only proceedure presently in place in terms of dealing with this sort of
situation is that the institutions have the obligation to ascertain the facts.
Alison was kind enough to provide them without any formal meeting.
Mr. All Bad
ajv2003 wrote:
> Randy Burns wrote:
>
>> "frito" <bighapp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1105561730.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>
>>> I disagree. She was asked by the House not to publish her review of
>>> "The Baha'i World" and she did it anyway. That is just one example.
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Frito
>>
>
> Hey 'Crispy' who is Frito?
Dave Fiorito had posted here regularly some years back. He is a great
guy.
- Mr. All Bad
Michael McKenny
Hi, Susan.
Susan Maneck (sma...@aol.com) writes:
>>. By
>>western standards, there is no due process in the Bahai
>>Faith.
>>
>
> Yet.
I would like to express my sincerest sympathy to you and all those within
the Baha'i Faith today who are living with the severe contradiction
between the lofty ideals clearly enunciated in the Writings of the Central
Figures of the religion and the current practise of those exercising power
over you.
> There is nothing against due process in principle. We've not developed them
> thus far because
This is a noble effort on your part to defend that with which you very
strongly disagree. Asserting that really you do support it, would not
render it acceptable. One ought not lose track of the point that this
issue of due process has only arisen because those exercising power have
acted in an arbitrary AND an unjust manner. If each case is judged on its
own merrit AND spirituality, benificence, humanity are evident, who would
feel the need to consult about instituting due process? It is because the
power weilders have abused their power and turned against the believers
that this abuse of power causes a discussion on how to restrain abuses of
power.
>1) there isn't a readily available single system of due
> proccess that would fit the entire world's circumstances at this time.
I have said and I firmly accept the principle that who says something is
unconnected with the validity of the point. I cannot tell whether these
excuses were forwarded to you by some in the International Teaching Centre
or not. I do find it difficult to believe that you on your own could
concoct them. They remind me of that episode of BABYLON 5 when Sheridan
has gone to Z'ha'hadum and human mouths are expressing words that obviously
are not coming from rational human minds, in an attempt to convert the
leader of the lawful good alliance into working for the forces of chaotic
evil.
One by one I'll address these Shadow thoughts, that various human countries
have various legal systems is not an impediment to any really spiritual
individual or organization behaving in a spiritual manner. The embracing
ways of Baha'u'llah and of Abdu'l Baha more than saisfy the fundamental
problem of Baha'i today. Simply allowing any Baha'i to post personal
opinions to the Internet would have prevented the crisis the misguiding
inflicted on Baha'i. Simply accepting that the Universal House of Justice
is not inerrant and has the ability, actually the duty, to clean up its
messes, would allow such messes to be cleaned up without ridiculous loss of
face to the crowning institution of the Baha'i Faith.
What? All the countries aren't agreed precisely on the definition of
murder, so Baha'is don't know what that is? etc. It is an excuse to
continue misbehaving. The UHJ could easily institute any open hearted
measure to check institutional abuses, including its own, that it wanted,
without waiting for a consensus among the secular states, and the other
non-governmental organizations. This excuse is spurious.
I will reiterate, though, that this entire consultation is occasioned by
the misbehaviour of the power holders, their abuse of power in trampling
on human rights and their enormous distance even from a sagacious human
administration. Solomon did not, as far as I recollect, assert inerrancy.
Yet, Solomon may well have responded to the circumstances that tripped up
the Universal House of Justice much more insightfully, and even if he
stumbled similarily, then he wouldn't have lain on his face year after
year shouting out that really he was standing on his feet and running
forward. He'd have said, "Oops, got it wrong; now here's a better second
effort."
2) The
> Guardian felt that it was important for Assemblies to remain flexible for the
> time being and not get bogged down in developing proceedures for circumstances
> which have not presented themselves.
What kind of logic is revealed here? There is a consultation on the topic
of due process because circumstances have presented themselves. Otherwise
people wouldn't be wanting checks on the abuses of power that have taken
place and seem to be continuing.
>3) The Writings have not been studied
> thoroughly enough to determine what aspects of due process and human
> rights are embedded in the Teachings.
What? In the hundred and thirteen years since the death of Baha'u'llah his
followers, or rather those succeeding him in occupying positions of power
in his faith, still haven't learned that it's not cool to behave in the
same way as those who used positions of religious leadership to oppose
him, those who tried to squelch his freedom of thought and expression? How
much time do Baha'i power holders want?
Frankly, I am astounded (exactly as I was amazed at the Shadows in their
total ignorance of human beings presenting their reasons why a good guy
ought to become chaotic evil) that anyone would advance a defence of
Baha'i abuses of power that goes, "Duh, we're not sure whether we back
human rights, or to what extent we do. We've only had the last hundred and
thirteen years (well, not counting 1863-1892 while he was actually
revealing his revelation) to study what Baha'u''llah revealed. So, while
we continue to look into this, we'll just proceed as if human rights don't
apply to us and continue to inflict injustice upon those under us."
To which I reply, duh, and just how do you expect anyone who wanted to
harm the reputation of Baha'i to do a better job than what you've just
done here?
I look forward to those guys who are at the Baha'i World Centre actually
going to the most sacred Baha'i spots, emptying their minds of
preconceptions concerning inerrancy, face saving, etc. and praying with
open hearts for the courage to be able to admit they got it wrong, they
caused sincere believers pain, and could the great Baha'i ancestral
spirits please inspire them to find the most effective means to
communicate this to the believers and assist the lovers of God to arise
above fanaticism (prohibited in the Most Holy Book) and accept the
precious nature of the Supreme Institution, as it rectifies glaring errors
that have very evidently diminished the reputation of the People of Baha.
I think all Baha'is, wherever they live, can prayer for the balance of self
esteem and humility that allows them to continue to live spiritual lives
while the Universal House of Justice picks itself up, demonstrates a
spiritual guidance of the faithful and proves Baha'i's don't excuse
themselves from respecting human rights, behaving rather in such a manner
that they really are a precious example to the rest of humankind.
Thrice Three Blessings, Michael
> warmest, Susan
>
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
Steve Marshall
>>until the House cut across the procedure that
>>the House itself had put in place, and ordered the NSA to expel her."
>
>The proceedure was designed to ascertain precisely what Alison believed.
>Apparently her article on infalliblity made that quite unnecessary.
No Susan, no guesswork is required. The House explained why it
expelled Alison.
"In Mrs. Marshall's case, however, it seems clear that she neither
understands the implication of Baha'i membership nor has any great
desire to do so. Mrs. Mina Moayyed, an Auxiliary Board member, has
done her best to clear up Mrs. Marshall's serious misunderstandings
about the nature of the Cause, an effort that has, unfortunately,
proven quite unsuccessful. Accordingly, the House of Justice has
concluded that Mrs. Marshall cannot properly be regarded as a member
of the Baha'i community."
http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/alisonz/Chron.htm
Steve Marshall
>>
>>But wasn't the House planning to do that, too?.
>
>There is nothing in your documentation to suggest they were. But they had
>apparently instructed the NSA to do so when they expressed to the House their
>own concerns.
>
>>What happened?
>
>What happened is that your wife posted an article on the internet that departed
>so significantly from the basic Baha'i beliefs that there was no longer any
>doubt she was not a Baha'i.
>
>The only proceedure presently in place in terms of dealing with this sort of
>situation is that the institutions have the obligation to ascertain the facts.
>Alison was kind enough to provide them without any formal meeting.
As I've already explained, that's not what the house said happened.
Moreover, that's nothing like the methodology the House was initially
recommending:
"...you are encouraged to send a representative of your body, perhaps
a National Assembly member who has a clear understanding of the
Covenant, to meet with Mr. and Mrs. Marshall on your behalf. His
approach at that meeting should not be confrontational or judgmental;
rather he should appeal to them to examine, dispassionately and
fair-mindedly, their expressed views in relation to the authoritative
texts.
For example, they might be invited to discuss with him their
statements about the House of Justice in light of the description of
its powers and functions, as set out in the 'Will and Testament of
'Abdu'l-Baha" and 'The Dispensation of Baha'u'llah'. The aim should be
to seek a reconciliation between their understanding and the Writings
of the Faith."
The plan was not to ascertain facts; it was to seek reconciliation.
Finnegan's Wake
"Dave Volek" <vo...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:BKSFd.82745$nN6.75982@edtnps84...
> Again you are trying to compare the BAO with being akin with
> the western democratic model. The two are not the same. In
> one, we have little trust of the decision-makers, so we
> create a complex set of rules to govern their behaviour. In
> one, we have (or should have) a great deal of trust: such
> rules are no longer necessary.
The separation of powers implicit in the democratic model of government
developed so as to avoid abuse of power by any one branch of government.
Hence the legislature makes law, the executive carries it out and the
judiciary ensures the laws are properly interpreted and consistently
applied. In the AO all power is vested in one body with neither check nor
control on it. Bahais are not exempt from the application of Acton's dictum
that all power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Certainly in this jurisdiction there is a significant growth in the ability
to make decision makers susceptible to review by the Courts - it's not so
much that they are distrusted, thought that may happen, as that their
decisions are subject to judicial review to ensure they are lawful, rational
and proportionate.
As to your assertions about your own litigation - don't you have lawyers who
act on contingency fee arrangements or some form of legal aid that allows
access to the Courts for impecunious claimants? The procedural rules exist
to protect all parties to the process and render all equal before the Court.
Sometimes you do have to be patient. Alternatively, of course, you could
act as a personal litigant. This link should give you access to case and
statute law: -
http://bar.austlii.edu.au/cgi-dev/browse.pl?region=North+America
I use BAILII which offers the same access to law for the British Isles (UK
and Republic of Ireland. The law belongs to all - not just the lawyers. I
think you might find that the Judges, for the most part, are actually
sympathetic and helpful to personal litigants and that the Court Offices
will help you fill out the forms. Instead of whinging about the rules and
the big bad Insurance company why don't you get off your butt and apply
yourself to beating the crap out of them? If you have a sound case and
prepare it properly you can get it into Court and win - it certainly sounds
like a pretty straightforward contract case which should only entail a
careful scrutiny of the contract to determine the evidence required to prove
a breach.
I have just finished litigation. The cause of action arose in February last
year; the originating application was filed in the High Court in April, the
leave to go to hearing was granted in May; there were hearings listed in
September, October, December and this month. Three of the hearings were
adjourned to allow settlement by consent; this proved not to be possible and
the action was heard last week with judgement reserved and likely to be
issued in a few weeks' time. I don't wish to discuss the details of that
action save that, essentially, it was taken against Government agencies and
will be decided by an independent Judge of the High Court. In the Bahai
system I would have had no chance had I complained against the actions of an
administrative institution - I've been through that bahai judicial process
where the institution, whose actions were complained of, was allowed to file
evidence which I was not allowed to see and therefore could not rebut or
refute.
In the litigation I have just finished, there was complete disclosure by all
sides of pertinent documentation and a hearing conducted in a most civilised
fashion without acrimony of any sort - indeed I was actually joking with
some of my opponents during a recess and at the conclusion of the hearing.
My initial experience of complaint against a Bahai institution was a
judgement that I was "arrogant," made by the body whose actions were
complained of and who, quite properly, in the Bahai system took jurisdiction
of the matter. Common sense ought to tell you that a body cannot
objectively judge its own actions - indeed, any assertion that it has acted
wrongfully will merely serve to impel it to close ranks against the accuser
who cannot be other than a base malefactor engaged in malfeasance of the
first order.
One of the major differences twixt the Bahai way and that of a civilised
society is that the Courts not only render judgements but the ratio
decidendi therefor. They give reasons, cite laws and precedents and ground
the judgement on those and the facts of the case. The Bahais make it up as
they go along so that the consistency essential to a sound legal system is
missing.
Finnegan's Wake
"Susan Maneck " <sma...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20050115023657...@mb-m26.aol.com...
> >
> >SOunds like a model the NZ NSA could usefully have used
> >in their dealings with Alison.
>
> As you know Paul, ultimately it was the House of Justice not the NZ NSA
which
> decided how to deal with Alison.
So there was no meeting then .....
Finnegan's Wake
"Mr. All Bad" <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message
news:34tbhrF...@individual.net...
> Dave Fiorito had posted here regularly some years back. He is a great
> guy.
Not since he tried to kill-file me ... which immediately preceded my pinning
his scalp to the trophy board!
Finnegan's Wake
<sma...@jam.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1105753691.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Whilst the rest of us call it for what is is - bullshitting ... after being
caught in flagrante delicto!
>
Finnegan's Wake
<sma...@jam.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1105755882.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Whether
> or not she had really been a Baha'i at some time in the past is not a
> question which the House addressed.
Shorthand for "We don't have to return the money which otherwise we might
have had to if she had never been a BIGS!"
Finnegan's Wake
<sma...@jam.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1105752791.0...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> " For example there was the recent "incest"
> case where a Continental Counsellor was found to be helping an NSA
> member
> cover up."
> There is no evidence that the Counsellor knew about any incest.
Geez Susie ... you must have thought that I wasn't about when you made a
damnfool statement like that!
>