Reasons for intervention by the Universal House of Justice
Swiss Heritage
<jrma...@consultant.com> wrote:
>
>"Swiss Heritage" <geo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:2moi519gsbvi4uugc...@4ax.com...
><snip>
>> Furthermore, as I see it, some people's insistence that the members of
>> the House of Justice had evil motives, contrary to the stated reasons,
>
>
>I don't want to enter into an exchange of opinions on this one at the moment
>but I'm interested in whether your reference to 'the stated reasons'
>suggests you are aware of something I'm not? I've never seen any reason
>quoted other than something to the effect that her behaviour over a period
>demonstrated that she did not meet the requirements of being a Baha'i.
Have you ever read the documentation on Alison's Web pages?
I just reviewed it again, and I think part of the problem is that the
NZ NSA itself misrepresented the reasons of the House of Justice for
its decision.
>I
>don't feel that can be considered a reason - its really tautological rather
>like saying you are a criminal because you broke a law without specifying
>which law or when. I am aware that the House has also stated (or at least
>indicated) that the requirements are defined by Shoghi's 1925 list of
>things to be ascertained but that hardly counts as a reason as it covers a
>lot of stuff with some of the items in the list expanding on investigation
>(e.g. - 'every clause').
"The Bahá'í Community shall consist of all persons recognized by the
Universal House of Justice as possessing the qualifications of Bahá'í
faith and practice."
(The Universal House of Justice, The Constitution of The
Universal House of Justice, p. 8)
Apart from that I've never seen the House specify any list of
requirements. If you ever find such a statement from the House, please
let me know. As for Shoghi Effendi, I've seen at least three messages
from him about what to consider, and speaking for myself, whenever
I've been on a spiritual assembly considering someone's application,
I've never considered exclusively the list you mentioned.
I will say that say that I imagine there are many, many, members who
are no more qualified for membership than Alison. I'm quite sure that
the House of Justice is not trying to remove everyone who is not
qualified for membership.
As far as I know, no one, including Alison, has ever argued that she
*was* qualified for membership. She wrote:
"I was never interested in being reinstated or having the decision
reversed. What I wanted was to prove that I was never counselled and
that the NSA had grossly misled the New Zealand Baha'i community in
asserting that I had."
>Unless the UHJ or someone authoritative have clarified which of the items on
>the list Alison is believed not to meet and what aspect of her behaviour
>demonstrates this I don't think you could really say that the reasons have
>been stated.
The behavior that the House of Justice considered, in deciding that
Alison was unqualified for membership was specified precisely and in
detail, in letters responding to questions about its decisions, and it
said explicitly that her views, alone, would not have been sufficient
reason for intervention by the Universal House of Justice.
In responses to questions about its interventions in the
Dialogue/Talisman Saga, the House of Justice has explicitly stated
that the reason for those interventions was *not* the views that were
being promoted, nor even the promotion of those views, in itself.
----
"To attempt, in opposition to the institutions of the Faith, to *form
constituencies* for certain proposals and programmes may not
necessarily lead to Covenant-breaking, but it is a societal factor for
disruption against which the Covenant is designed to protect the
Faith. It is the *process by which parties are formed and by which a
religion is riven into contending sects*."
(The Universal House of Justice, 1989 Jun 21, 'Dialogue', 'A Modest
Proposal' etc)
"So far we have highlighted two aspects which lie at the root of the
problem: the un-Bahá'í *marshalling of a group working to bring
pressure on the institutions of the Cause, and the intemperate
criticism employed*."
(The Universal House of Justice, 1989 Jun 21, 'Dialogue', 'A Modest
Proposal' etc)
"From certain quarters, for a number of decades, there have been
repeated attempts to import into the Bahá'í Administration the concept
that it is desirable and proper to bring about change in the community
by *forming a constituency of like-minded believers to bring pressure
to bear on the elected Assemblies*. Such a concept is *very similar to
the formation of parties and factions* which is an accepted and
familiar feature of many representative democracies. It is, however,
wholly antithetical to the spirit of Bahá'í Administration, and would
distort its nature and undermine that unity which the Covenant is
designed to preserve."
(The Universal House of Justice, 1995 Dec 02, Email Discussion Group
Concerns)
"Over many years, a few believers in the United States, instead of
confining their protests against what they saw as abuses of authority
by Bahá'í bodies to the channels and agencies which are plentifully
provided for such a purpose, have been publicly and privily assailing
the institutions of the Cause and generalizing specific accusations of
injustice to such an extent as to accuse the entire system of
corruption, not only in practice, but also in form and theory. One
outcome of this *continuing stream of negative criticism* has been the
gradual conversion of unverified accusations into accepted 'facts' in
the minds of some of their hearers."
"Through such activities, and the mutual support that they give to one
another, these friends have increasingly assumed the appearance of a
dissident group of Bahá'ís who are *attempting to arouse widespread
dissatisfaction in the community and thereby to bring about changes*
in the structure and principles of Bahá'í administration, making it
accord more closely with their personal notions. Such an activity is
*closely analogous to the pursuit of a partisan political program*, an
activity which is accepted and even admired in most societies, but is
entirely antithetical to the spirit of the Bahá'í Faith. It promotes
an atmosphere of contention, and Bahá'u'lláh has expressly stated:
'Conflict and contention are categorically forbidden in His Book.'"
(The Universal House of Justice, 1996 July 02, Criticism of
Institutions)
----
So you see, according to the House of Justice, the reason for Alison's
removal was because she was marshalling!
Again, in responses to questions about its interventions in the
Dialogue/Talisman Saga, the House of Justice has explicitly and
repeatedly stated that the reason for those interventions was *not*
the views that were being promoted, nor even the promotion of those
views, in itself. I have never seen any substantive arguments from
people who insist that it was. All I've ever seen them do is repeat,
insistently, that it was, and mock, belittle, and insult anyone who
disagrees with them.
As I said, I have not done the investigation I would need to do, to
agree or disagree that the explanations given by the House of Justice
are lies, or perhaps self-deception if that's what you think. I've
never seen any sign that anyone who disbelieves them, has done a fair
investigation to find out if they are lies.
One reason it seems implausible to me that Alison and Michael were
removed because of the views they were promoting, is because I've seen
other members promoting the same views, without any action being taken
against them.
Jim
John MacLeod
> >
>
> Have you ever read the documentation on Alison's Web pages?
>
> I just reviewed it again, and I think part of the problem is that the
> NZ NSA itself misrepresented the reasons of the House of Justice for
> its decision.
I've just read it again and certainly there does seem to be some discrepancy
between what the UHJ said ("she's been naughty") and what the NSA said ("she
just doesn't understand") but I still can't actually see wshat views were
considered unacceptable to aggressively promote.
<snip>
> "The Bahá'í Community shall consist of all persons recognized by the
> Universal House of Justice as possessing the qualifications of Bahá'í
> faith and practice."
For sure. I myself have no doubt that the UHJ can throw anyone out of the
faith at any time for any or no reason. Personally, I don't see it as big
deal for the person being thrown out - I would (or maybe will) miss going to
feasts but it wouldn't be a huge impact. I appreciate though that others
may react differently and for them it could be a big deal. I think its a
fairly big deal for the UHJ themselves - to expel people who are
transparently still 'baha'is' in the general sense really must encourage a
lot of people to think that maybe the "unenrolled baha'i" option is not just
attractive but even in line with our leaders' guidance. No doubt the UHJ
considered that.
>
>
> Apart from that I've never seen the House specify any list of
> requirements. If you ever find such a statement from the House, please
> let me know. As for Shoghi Effendi, I've seen at least three messages
> from him about what to consider, and speaking for myself, whenever
> I've been on a spiritual assembly considering someone's application,
> I've never considered exclusively the list you mentioned.
My experience on LSAs is similar with the 'spark of faith' letter being the
primary consideration. I haven't actually got a statement from the House
myself but when I discussed this topic with Susan Maneck recently and I said
it was likely this list was used. she replied
"Not just likely. We know this for sure because they quote it in the
letter to Michael's wife, the letter regarding Alison's removal from
the roles and in their letter to the ITC regarding withdrawal of
membership."
The letter to the ITC is apparently a PDF document you need a password to
access but the other two should be accessible if Susan is right.
>
> I will say that say that I imagine there are many, many, members who
> are no more qualified for membership than Alison. I'm quite sure that
> the House of Justice is not trying to remove everyone who is not
> qualified for membership.
That's one of the points - if the UHJ is not throwing out everybody who is
not qualified then any 'stated reasons' must be specific to Alison's case.
>
> As far as I know, no one, including Alison, has ever argued that she
> *was* qualified for membership. She wrote:
>
>
> The behavior that the House of Justice considered, in deciding that
> Alison was unqualified for membership was specified precisely and in
> detail, in letters responding to questions about its decisions, and it
> said explicitly that her views, alone, would not have been sufficient
> reason for intervention by the Universal House of Justice.
Ah, I thought you must know something I didn't - can you point me to this
precise and detailed specification?
<snip>
> So you see, according to the House of Justice, the reason for Alison's
> removal was because she was marshalling!
Nice pun but actually none of the quotes you provided related to the
Marshall case so I don't see it yet though it sounds believable.
>
> One reason it seems implausible to me that Alison and Michael were
> removed because of the views they were promoting, is because I've seen
> other members promoting the same views, without any action being taken
> against them.
Yes, perhaps they were worried that Alison/Michael were effectively
promoting those views?? That's not particularly being cynical - I think
leaders have to take account of what the likely effect of somebody's actions
are.
Well anyway if you could point me to what you consider the precise and
detailed reasons I'd be grateful.
By the way, the letter sent out to enquirers does indeed quote Shoghi's
little list but actually misquotes it (unless Ocean is wrong?) note:
from the letter re Alison:
"Full recognition of the station of the Bab, the Forerunner; of Baha'u'llah,
the Author; and of 'Abdu'l-Baha, the True Exemplar of the Baha'i religion;
unreserved acceptance of, and submission to, whatsoever has been revealed by
their Pen; loyal and steadfast adherence to every clause of 'Abdu'l-Baha's
sacred Will; and close association with the spirit as well as the form of
Baha'i Administration throughout the world."
from (Shoghi Effendi, Baha'i Administration,
"Full recognition of the station of the Forerunner, the Author, and the True
Exemplar of the Bahá'í Cause, as set forth in 'Abdu'l-Bahá's Testament;
unreserved acceptance of, and submission to, whatsoever has been revealed by
their Pen; loyal and steadfast adherence to every clause of our Beloved's
sacred Will; and close association with the spirit as well as the form of
the present day Bahá'í administration throughout the world"
Apart from the reasonable substitution of names for titles the omission of
"as set forth in 'Abdu'l-Bahá's Testament" is significant. The reason
appears to be that Shoghi Effendi made a mistake there. There is no obvious
reference to the station of Abdul Baha in the Testament.
Swiss Heritage
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 19:44:04 +1000, "John MacLeod"
<jrma...@consultant.com> wrote:
>>
>> One reason it seems implausible to me that Alison and Michael were
>> removed because of the views they were promoting, is because I've seen
>> other members promoting the same views, without any action being taken
>> against them.
>
>Yes, perhaps they were worried that Alison/Michael were effectively
>promoting those views?? That's not particularly being cynical - I think
>leaders have to take account of what the likely effect of somebody's actions
>are.
Perhaps. That is not what they said. In another message they said that
they have no objection to Baha'is reading Modernity and the Millenium.
Maybe they are lying, to themselves or to us. I don't claim to know
that they aren't. My point is that if they have the sinister motives
ascribed to them by muckrakers, then they are lying, to themselves or
to us. I have not seen any sign that anyone has done what I would call
a fair investigation, to find out if they are lying or not.
Apart from that, it doesn't seem plausible to me that if that they
were worried that Alison/Michael were effectively promoting views they
wanted to repress, they would think that putting them out of the reach
of Baha'i institutions would be a good way to solve their problem.
Jim
Swiss Heritage
<jrma...@consultant.com> wrote:
>
>I've just read it again and certainly there does seem to be some discrepancy
>between what the UHJ said ("she's been naughty") and what the NSA said ("she
>just doesn't understand") but I still can't actually see wshat views were
>considered unacceptable to aggressively promote.
According to the House of Justice, the nature of her views was not the
determining factor in deciding to remove her from the membership. In
fact, if the House had included such a list, then it would have
reinforced the idea that there is such a thing as forbidden views,
which I think is false. It would have given vigilantes more ammunition
to use against anyone with divergent ideas.
>> The behavior that the House of Justice considered, in deciding that
>> Alison was unqualified for membership was specified precisely and in
>> detail, in letters responding to questions about its decisions, and it
>> said explicitly that her views, alone, would not have been sufficient
>> reason for intervention by the Universal House of Justice.
>Ah, I thought you must know something I didn't - can you point me to this
>precise and detailed specification?
Explanation given by the House of Justice for Alison's expulsion
http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/alisonz/19-4-00.html
"Over an extended period of time, Mrs. Marshall has given unmistakable
indications of lack of understanding of the foundations of the Baha'i
Administrative Order. Prolonged efforts by the Institutions of the
Faith to assist her to rectify this deficiency took the form of
educational classes conducted in the area where she lived, in addition
to personal discussions with her. Such assistance was without effect.
"Under normal circumstances, an erroneous understanding of the Baha'i
Faith and its Teachings would be regarded as a personal spiritual
challenge for the individual involved, which would hopefully be met in
due course through loving nurturance, deepening and encouragement by
the Baha'i Institutions or their representatives. However, in this
case, Mrs. Marshall has chosen to aggressively promote her
misconceptions in defiance of efforts to provide her with essential
Baha'i teachings which correct them. She has made a series of
statements that stand totally in contradiction to the authoritative
texts of the Baha'i writings. These assertions, which she disseminated
to an international audience, were of such concern to a number of
Baha'is that the matter was brought to the attention of the Universal
House of Justice.
"Under some conditions, actions of a kind taken by Mrs. Marshall might
have led to the loss of a believer's administrative rights or even
called into question his or her loyalty to the Covenant. In her case,
the Universal House of Justice has concluded that she does not satisfy
the requirements of Baha'i membership. Consequently it instructed the
National Spiritual Assembly to remove her name from the membership
rolls."
That says explicitly that the nature of the views she was promoting,
and even the fact that she was promoting them, were not the reasons
for the action taken. The reason for the action taken was "Mrs.
Marshall has chosen to aggressively promote her misconceptions in
defiance of efforts to provide her with essential Baha'i teachings
which correct them."
I understand that what that says is hotly contested, and might not be
true. My point is that the Universal House of Justice has explicitly
denied that the nature of a person's views, by itself, can be a reason
for removing her from membership, and it has stated exactly what
alleged behavior was the reason for the decision. That means that if
the real reason for her removal was the nature of her views, the
explanation of the House of Justice is a blatant lie.
><snip>
>> So you see, according to the House of Justice, the reason for Alison's
>> removal was because she was marshalling!
>
>Nice pun but actually none of the quotes you provided related to the
>Marshall case so I don't see it yet though it sounds believable.
See the letter from the Universal House of Justice to Susan Maneck
dated 20 July 1997.
http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/House_letter_academics_internet.html
It's a response to Susan's question about the whole situation with
academics, which eventually led to Alison's removal.
". . . the behaviour of a very small group of Baha'is who, rejecting
all efforts of the administrative institutions to counsel and appeal
to them, have aggressively sought to promote their misconceptions of
the Teachings among their fellow believers."
If you begin with the premise that the explanations of the House of
Justice are lies, and exclude any other possibility from the start,
then it's easy to say that none of my quotes were related to Alison's
case. However, if you admit the possibility that they are not lies,
then you might consider "Mrs. Marshall has chosen to aggressively
promote her misconceptions" in the context of the messages explaining
other actions of the House of Justice in relation to the whole
Dialogue/Talisman Saga. In those messages, the explanation for their
actions is overwhelmingly "the marshalling of a group working to bring
pressure on the institutions of the Cause, and the intemperate
criticism employed."
Jim
Swiss Heritage
than verbal abuse, is that *all* of the allegations against the House
of Justice, associated with the Dialogue/Talisman Saga, presuppose
that the explanations of the House of Justice for its actions are full
of lies. Without that premise, they have no arguments whatsoever. I'm
not saying they have no convincing arguments. I'm saying they have no
arguments at all that do not presuppose that those messages are full
of lies.
Look behind that presupposition and what do you see? I see nothing.
Nothing at all, except verbal abuse. They have never even tried to
make a case for it. Unless the case they're making is "we already know
they're guilty, so they must be lying."
Jim
Swiss Heritage
Universal House of Justice are in fact the real reasons for its
actions, then its explanations are sufficient to explain those
actions, without any need to imagine any unstated motives, nefarious
or otherwise.
If you begin with the premise that those explanations are full of
lies, and label their statements lies whenever it suits you, then of
course you will find them guilty of any and all allegations anyone
brings against them.
In purely logical terms, that means that the actions and explanations
of the Universal House of Justice can not be used to determine if they
are lying or not, and guilty or not of the allegations against them.
Their guilt has to be determined some other way. There would have to
be evidence in the words and actions of the individual members, that
they don't really believe what they said in those explanations.
I've never heard of anyone even trying to find such evidence.
That still would not disprove that the wisdom of following to the
House of Justice is independent of the character and personality of
its members.
Jim
Heather Carr-Rowe
The reasons for the interventions of the Universal House of Justice are
fairly clear. Perhaps it would be more useful to examine the causes for
Their negative behavior.
If an unbiased observer were to use Jungian psychology to examine the cause
for the negative behavior of the Universal House of Justice it would clearly
fall under the natural Senex/Puer Aeternus dynamic that has been the root
cause for the eventual breaking up of all religions into sects.
The great irony is that the Baha'i Adminstrative Order was set up to
prevent the very thing that it is now causing to happen through its own
negative behavior! So much for the plans of mice and men!
The very thing which Abdu'l-Baha' outlines in the following quote has
occured in the Baha'i Faith:
"Thus religion which was destined to become the cause of friendship has
become the cause of enmity. Religion, which was meant to be sweet honey, is
changed into bitter poison. Religion, the function of which was to illumine
humanity, has become the factor of obscuration and gloom. Religion, which
was to confer the consciousness of everlasting life, has become the fiendish
instrument of death. As long as these superstitions are in the hands and
these nets of dissimulation and hypocrisy in the fingers, religion will be
the most harmful agency on this planet. These superannuated traditions,
which are inherited unto the present day, must be abandoned, and thus free
from past superstitions we must investigate the original intention. The
basis on which they have fabricated the superstructures will be seen to be
one, and that one, absolute reality; and as reality is indivisible, complete
unity and amity will be instituted and the true religion of God will become
unveiled in all its beauty and sublimity in the assemblage of the world."
(Abdu'l-Baha, Divine Philosophy, p. 161)
Focus by the Baha'i Administrative Order on the 'superstructure' of the
Baha'i Faith has become the all an all, the 'original intention' has been
forgotten, superceeded.
That Baha'i hanging gardens to rival those of ancient Babylon are held out
by Baha'is as a great 'spiritual' accomplishment of the Baha'i Faith, when
in fact they are simply a self serving attempt to purchase Baha'i prestiege
in the world, is a clear symptom of this malady of 'superstructure' myopia.
The reasons are very clear so to are the causes.
There is only us, we are them, 'as one soul'.
Yours Larry
Michael McKenny
Hi, Jim.
Swiss Heritage (geo...@yahoo.com) writes:
> Apart from that, it doesn't seem plausible to me that if that they
> were worried that Alison/Michael were effectively promoting views they
> wanted to repress, they would think that putting them out of the reach
> of Baha'i institutions would be a good way to solve their problem.
The explanation is simple. The Universal House of Justice operated on the
erroneous ad hominem principle that anything stated by Michael and Alison
could be discounted because it was an utterance not by Baha'is in good
standing, as defined by the UHJ. Ad hominem is fallacious reasoning. It is
the only reasoning of the UHJ. X is correct because we say it is. Y is
incorrect because the person saying it is not us. As Alison and Michael
demonstrated an unwillingness to be silenced, the erroneous response was
to deny the views effectively being presented by them were the views of
Baha'is.
>
> Jim
Thrice Three Blessings, Michael
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
Swiss Heritage
McKenny) wrote:
>The Universal House of Justice operated on the
>erroneous ad hominem principle that anything stated by Michael and Alison
>could be discounted because it was an utterance not by Baha'is in good
>standing, as defined by the UHJ.
You might be right.
I've never seen that reasoning anywhere in their messages. Have you?
Have you seen some private correspondence from them about it, or heard
them say it in a talk, or heard from someone who knows them, that they
were reasoning that way? Where did you get this information, about
what they were thinking?
>As Alison and Michael
>demonstrated an unwillingness to be silenced, the erroneous response was
>to deny the views effectively being presented by them were the views of
>Baha'is.
You might be right.
I've never seen that reasoning anywhere in their messages. Have you?
Have you seen some private correspondence from them about it, or heard
them say it in a talk, or heard from someone who knows them, that they
were reasoning that way? Where did you get this information, about
what they were thinking?
Jim
Randy Burns
--
"Swiss Heritage" <geo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:be7t51duc1dkv1fke...@4ax.com...
In other words Alison was challenging the Cadre Baha'is and their dominance
within the Faith and not the Covenant or the Institutions.
Cheers, Randy
Randy Burns
--
"Swiss Heritage" <geo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:o4ct51182n46saags...@4ax.com...
>
> In purely logical terms, that means that the actions and explanations
> of the Universal House of Justice can not be used to determine if they
> are lying or not, and guilty or not of the allegations against them.
> Their guilt has to be determined some other way. There would have to
> be evidence in the words and actions of the individual members, that
> they don't really believe what they said in those explanations.
>
> I've never heard of anyone even trying to find such evidence.
You haven't looked. The speech of Peter Kahn when he visited New Zealand is
pretty well known.
Cheers, Randy
geo...@yahoo.com
five or more of the members of the Universal House of Justice do not
believe the explanations given in its messages, for its actions?
Jim
John MacLeod
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 19:44:04 +1000, "John MacLeod"
> <jrma...@consultant.com> wrote:
>
>
> That says explicitly that the nature of the views she was promoting,
> and even the fact that she was promoting them, were not the reasons
> for the action taken. The reason for the action taken was "Mrs.
> Marshall has chosen to aggressively promote her misconceptions in
> defiance of efforts to provide her with essential Baha'i teachings
> which correct them."
Yes thanks, I didn't remember that it was stated as succintly as that.
However we a different view of 'specific and detailed'. I couldn't consider
it specific and detailed unless the misconceptiion was specified. Surely
everybody has conceptions and everybody has some misconceptions? Also, I
wouldn't consider it detailed unless there was clearcut outlining of what
actions, speeches, postings etc were considered 'promoting' and which were
considered 'aggressive'.
>
> I understand that what that says is hotly contested, and might not be
> true. My point is that the Universal House of Justice has explicitly
> denied that the nature of a person's views, by itself, can be a reason
> for removing her from membership, and it has stated exactly what
> alleged behavior was the reason for the decision. That means that if
> the real reason for her removal was the nature of her views, the
> explanation of the House of Justice is a blatant lie.
I don't browse around the internet as much as you but I haven't run into
anyone (except perhaps Paul Hammond) saying that it was the nature of her
views. The consensus szeems to be that you can think wshat you like as long
as you don't say it publicly. I don't say that's true I just say thats what
I seem to read.
>
> See the letter from the Universal House of Justice to Susan Maneck
> dated 20 July 1997.
> http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/House_letter_academics_internet.html
>
> It's a response to Susan's question about the whole situation with
> academics, which eventually led to Alison's removal.
Is Alison an academic? I thought she had a real job as a communication
consultant but I don't actually know.
However to make a serious point - as far as I can see your linking of the
Alison Marshall case with Talisman, and letters about academic seems to me
just as much speculation as those (if they exist) who say that it concerned
the nature of her views. Both speculations are not unreasonable - but if I
might quote you
John MacLeod
> John, if you begin with the premise that the reasons given by the
> Universal House of Justice are in fact the real reasons for its
> actions, then its explanations are sufficient to explain those
> actions, without any need to imagine any unstated motives, nefarious
> or otherwise.
>
> If you begin with the premise that those explanations are full of
> lies, and label their statements lies whenever it suits you, then of
> course you will find them guilty of any and all allegations anyone
> brings against them.
I take it your use of "you" is generic not a personal reference to me?
Just for the record, I do not believe that the House has lied about the
Alison Marshall case or any other of the cases which you assume are related.
I think it is entirely possible but not proven th\at they misread the
situation and came to a wrong conclusion.
Swiss Heritage
I agree.
Jim
Swiss Heritage
Do you see any reason to think that the purpose, or part of the
purpose, of the Universal House of Justice, in removing Alison from
the membership, was to limit the circulation among Baha'is of some of
the views she was promoting?
Jim
Swiss Heritage
You might indeed quote me, and rightly so.
Jim
Randy Burns
Randy
--
<geo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1113590207.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Cal E. Rollins
Interesting question of John. What have you observed regarding the
removal of Alison from the Faith? What have been the results? If what
you write could be the goal of the Universal House of Justice by such
action, could you not conclude it has been very successful in the
results? Although most of the people I know don't know anything about
Alison's circumstances or who she is, others (save a very few) are cowed
and very careful in their confrontations with Baha'i Authority. --Cal
Swiss Heritage
wrote:
>The short answer is yes.
>
>Randy
A short answer is all I was looking for, and good enough. Thanks.
Jim
Swiss Heritage
Rollins) wrote:
>Jim,
>
>Interesting question of John. What have you observed regarding the
>removal of Alison from the Faith? What have been the results? If what
>you write could be the goal of the Universal House of Justice by such
>action, could you not conclude it has been very successful in the
>results?
Some of the castaways, at least, think that it has achieved the
opposite effect, and that the views she was promoting have gotten a
lot more attention and sympathy from Baha'is than they would have
otherwise. I've seen them proclaiming victoriously that Alison's
removal has had the opposite of the result they claim the House of
Justice was aiming for. In that case, judging by the results, could
you not conclude that it was *not* the purpose of the House of Justice
to limit circulation of those ideas?
>Although most of the people I know don't know anything about
>Alison's circumstances or who she is, others (save a very few) are cowed
>and very careful in their confrontations with Baha'i Authority. --Cal
As I see it, what is cowing people is not the decisions of the House
of Justice. Do you see me cowing? I wrote to the Baha'i World Center,
naming Karen, Fred, Nima, and Dermod as friends of mine. I talk to
people in Internet discussions who are promoting a Guardian after
Shoghi Effendi. I've argued in Internet discussions, that it would be
wrong to permanently exclude women from the Universal House of
Justice, without better reasons than any I've seen. I'm now comparing
the mistreatment of Baha'is by Baha'i institutions to the mistreatment
of the world and its people by governments and corporations.
As I see it, what is cowing some people is the wide publicity those
actions have received, and some people's interpretations of those
actions. Consider who has publicized those actions, and whose
interpretations of those actions are frightening people, and then if
you wish, judge by the results, who is trying to create an atmosphere
of repression.
Jim
Swiss Heritage
among Baha'is, of some of the views Alison was promoting, then how
could it honestly say that it has no objection to Baha'is reading
"Modernity and the Millennium"?
Jim
Swiss Heritage
<jrma...@consultant.com> wrote:
>The consensus seems to be that you can think what you like as long
>as you don't say it publicly. I don't say that's true I just say thats what
>I seem to read.
I see that everywhere in regime change rhetoric, and nowhere in the
messages of the House of Justice.
The only thing I know of, that the Universal House of Justice has said
is prohibited, as a way of promoting ideas, is creating a coalition of
Baha'is, by stirring up antagonism, for the purpose of intimidating
Baha'i institutions.
As I see it, you can argue to your heart's content, in public, in for
women on the House of Justice, against the review policy, for
abolishment of the House of Justice, for gay Baha'i marriage, for
slavery, or anything else, without doing anything the House of Justice
says is prohibited, and without any action being taken against you by
the House of Justice, as long as you are not helping to create a
coalition of Baha'is, by stirring up antagonism, for the purpose of
intimidating Baha'i institutions.
Jim
All_Bad
Maybe Alison did not write that book?
- All Bad
Swiss Heritage
Pat, do you know of any ideas that Alison was promoting, that are not
promoted in "Modernity and the Millenium"?
Jim
Swiss Heritage
<kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote:
Would you like me to respond to that? I mean, would it help entertain
you?
Jim
All_Bad
I had read some of Alison's stuff, but I forgot it. At a grossly
simplistic level, M&M talked about modernist thought in the 19th century
middle east, and the influence this may have had on Baha'u'llah's
teachings, suggesting that Baha'u'llah was a product of His time. I did
not have the impression that Alison was writing that. Had you had that
impression?
- Mr. All Bad
All_Bad
If you have a theory that Alison _did_ write the book, please go ahead.
Otherwise, you seem to be confusing Alison's views with those
expressed in the book, and I don't see any basis for that.
- Mr. All Bad
Michael McKenny
Hi, Jim.
Well, as I mentioned, there is an ad hominem consequence of saying that
someone is not a Baha'i. This works in at least two ways. On one hand it
means that said individual is distanced from controlled Baha'i discourse.
It means that those Baha'is treating TRB as a nest of enemies don't come
here to read what such enemies have to say. So, in this fashion, by
removing Alison from Baha'i Feasts, her voice is silenced there. It is
also not heard by those who won't venture in places they deem enemies of
the Faith reside. On the other hand, those who do encounter Alison's voice
then may have the personality issue blinding them to whatever Alison says.
So at least at both of these levels the consequence of the action is a
limiting of exposure to her voice. The archives of this newsgroup do
contain statements that such and such a remark does not come from a Baha'i
in good standing.
There is the further point, of course, that other individuals noticing the
penalty imposed for stating such opinions can be silenced. The archives of
Talisman One (i.e. 1996 before anyone was declared non Baha'i and we were
at the stage of pressure against some posters to that list and the list
owner, with some resultant resignations) do contain tearful and
frightened words from at least one person who bid a frightful farewell
to the list. Those familiar with the behaviour of totalitarian systems can
note a correspondence between the efforts of such systems to silence their
dissidents and the behaviour of the UHJ in the long saga of opposition to
liberal thought being communicated. Thought itself is accepted.
Communication of thought is opposed. If you wish to communicate the same
thoughts within Baha'i cyberspace and elsewhere in the Baha'i community as
brought authorities to the doors of other people, by all means go ahead.
May you have better success now than was the case in the past.
Michael McKenny
Hi, Jim.
Swiss Heritage (geo...@yahoo.com) writes:
> Some of the castaways, at least, think that it has achieved the
> opposite effect, and that the views she was promoting have gotten a
> lot more attention and sympathy from Baha'is than they would have
> otherwise. I've seen them proclaiming victoriously that Alison's
> removal has had the opposite of the result they claim the House of
> Justice was aiming for. In that case, judging by the results, could
> you not conclude that it was *not* the purpose of the House of Justice
> to limit circulation of those ideas?
It seems a more likely understanding of recent Baha'i history that there
was an attempt to prevent exposure to views. The Service of Women Paper
was censored. The articulate posters to Talisman One mentioning the same
kind of reasoning were visited by Counsellors. The owner of Talisman One
was pressured to close the list down. These things happened. Now, when
efforts were made to silence some people or get them to resign from the
Faith and they refused to do either, then the next step was to
disassociate their voices from the Baha'i community. If their voices are
indeed heard more, this seems not the planned consequence of those booting
them out, except as already mentioned that the second best option to
silencing them seems to have been taking an ad hominem act of denying
whatever they said was said by a Baha'i in good standing.
>
>>Although most of the people I know don't know anything about
>>Alison's circumstances or who she is, others (save a very few) are cowed
>>and very careful in their confrontations with Baha'i Authority. --Cal
>
> As I see it, what is cowing people is not the decisions of the House
> of Justice. Do you see me cowing? I wrote to the Baha'i World Center,
> naming Karen, Fred, Nima, and Dermod as friends of mine. I talk to
> people in Internet discussions who are promoting a Guardian after
> Shoghi Effendi. I've argued in Internet discussions, that it would be
> wrong to permanently exclude women from the Universal House of
> Justice, without better reasons than any I've seen. I'm now comparing
> the mistreatment of Baha'is by Baha'i institutions to the mistreatment
> of the world and its people by governments and corporations.
Congratulations. I will advise you that for about a year Michael McKenny
posted to the Baha'i lists his opinions along with a statement that no one
had attempted to interfere with his expression of his opinions, that one
of the basic Baha'i principles was freedom of thought and expression. That
was posted repeatedly. Finally, he was contacted and the rest is history.
I very much hope that the intervening years have provided a more with it
Baha'i leadership and your story will have a much happier Baha'i result.
> As I see it, what is cowing some people is the wide publicity those
> actions have received, and some people's interpretations of those
> actions. Consider who has publicized those actions, and whose
> interpretations of those actions are frightening people, and then if
> you wish, judge by the results, who is trying to create an atmosphere
> of repression.
I frankly find this quite a contorted thought. However, if the bottom line
is you're saying that today things are different, watch me Jim articulately
cite Sacred Text from the Service of Women Paper "In this age women are
men/rulers" mention the whole Chicago general house of justice thing and
encourage women on the house, etc, and nobody's gonna bother me now, hey
that's great. I'm pulling for you all the way. There's no sarcasm here. I
think the time is long overdue for the UHJ to begin providing a real
example to humanity. Go for it.
> Jim
Michael McKenny
Hi, Jim.
Swiss Heritage (geo...@yahoo.com) writes:
> The only thing I know of, that the Universal House of Justice has said
> is prohibited, as a way of promoting ideas, is creating a coalition of
> Baha'is, by stirring up antagonism, for the purpose of intimidating
> Baha'i institutions.
How do you understand this? First, if today things are different, it's
about time, and I've been looking forward to that change. I'll even try to
refrain from commenting much on what happened in the past, exchanging the
gift of mutual forgiveness, if the present becomes a time when really
there is acceptance of the full rquality of women, freedom of thought and
expression (with limits spelled out, so everyone knows where the line is)
etc. Frankly, I don't believe anyone was advocating the formation of a
political faction in the past. The most blatant smoking gun was that
accidental general post where a professor admonished a student for seeming
to be acting in such a manner.
> As I see it, you can argue to your heart's content, in public, in for
> women on the House of Justice, against the review policy, for
> abolishment of the House of Justice, for gay Baha'i marriage, for
> slavery, or anything else, without doing anything the House of Justice
> says is prohibited, and without any action being taken against you by
> the House of Justice, as long as you are not helping to create a
> coalition of Baha'is, by stirring up antagonism, for the purpose of
> intimidating Baha'i institutions.
Jim, a review of the evidence (examination of the posts by Michael McKenny
and Alison before their expulsions) would provide you with an indication
that as you worded the prohibition, didn't really fit. I think what fits
better is that at that time they were expelled for articulately advocating
women on the UHJ, etc. It may be different today and that's great. And, I
invite you to quote words from Michael McKenny prior to July 1997 that you
feel were "stirring up antagonism for the purpose of intimidating the
Universal House of Justice." I make that explicit because when I met with
Susie Tamas I told her that I had no problem with the local or national
assemblies. I'd be very interested in you providing any proof that such
actually was happening and what was it that was said to stir up antagonism
against the Universal House of Justice.
Swiss Heritage
McKenny) wrote:
>Jim, a review of the evidence (examination of the posts by Michael McKenny
>and Alison before their expulsions) would provide you with an indication
>that as you worded the prohibition, didn't really fit. I think what fits
>better is that at that time they were expelled for articulately advocating
>women on the UHJ, etc. It may be different today and that's great. And, I
>invite you to quote words from Michael McKenny prior to July 1997 that you
>feel were "stirring up antagonism for the purpose of intimidating the
>Universal House of Justice." I make that explicit because when I met with
>Susie Tamas I told her that I had no problem with the local or national
>assemblies. I'd be very interested in you providing any proof that such
>actually was happening and what was it that was said to stir up antagonism
>against the Universal House of Justice.
Michael, if you say you weren't trying to create a coalition, by
stirring up antagonism, in order to intimidate Baha'i institutions,
I'll take your word for it. I would believe Alison too, if she said
she wasn't trying to create a coalition, by stirring up antagonism, in
order to intimidate Baha'i institutions.
You might have been having that effect on people without knowing it
and without intending to, or the members of the House of Justice might
have thought so, or they might have been lying about their reasons. In
any case, in my reading of all the messages of the House of Justice,
responding to questions about your removal and other actions related
to the Dialogue/Talisman Saga, outside of creating a coalition, by
arousing antagonism, for purposes of intimidating institutions, there
is no prohibition against promoting ideas of any kind.
I'm only talking about what I see in the statements of the House of
Justice. I don't mean to deny anything that anyone might say about the
personal risks of saying what you think. You might be persecuted or
penalized for saying what you think. I'm only saying that I see no
other prohibition in statements of the House of Justice, against
promoting views of any kind, outside of creating a coalition, by
arousing antagonism, for purposes of intimidating Baha'i institutions.
Jim
Swiss Heritage
<kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote:
I was imagining that the views Alison was promoting, that some people
say the House of Justice is trying to repress, were also promoted in
Juan Cole's book, "Modernity and the Millennium." I might be wrong.
Jim
Cal E. Rollins
Interesting response. From what I've seen the Universal House of
Justice doesn't seem to act precipitously. It certainly claims it
doesn't, at any rate. We know it took it quite a while to act against
Alison. I think it finally did so vigorously because she's an
intelligent woman, and that's threatening to a patriarchal structure.
Say something irrefutable and innovative and see if there isn't swift
action to silence you. Just because you're a man and haven't yet had
any chastisement doesn't mean it's not on the way. I think uppity white
males have a better opportunity of survival length. But the dynamite
fuse does get shorter and shorter the more aggressive and intellectually
threatening you become.
Maybe you've not become threatening enough? After all, the stuff you've
been saying doesn't upset the power structure, and it certainly doesn't
sound subversive. In fact, I've seen nothing you've said to challenge
interpretations of the ones on high, so why bother with you? You just
ask questions without giving irrefutable arguments. Alison did
differently, in my opinion. I never heard what Michael did to incur
their wrath. --Cal
Swiss Heritage
McKenny) wrote:
>However, if the bottom line
>is you're saying that today things are different, watch me Jim articulately
>cite Sacred Text from the Service of Women Paper "In this age women are
>men/rulers" mention the whole Chicago general house of justice thing and
>encourage women on the house, etc, and nobody's gonna bother me now, hey
>that's great. I'm pulling for you all the way. There's no sarcasm here. I
>think the time is long overdue for the UHJ to begin providing a real
>example to humanity. Go for it.
See
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/e6835c9f7c9e5f0f
I'm not saying nobody's going to bother me. I'm saying I've see no
prohibition against what I'm doing, in any statements of the Universal
House of Justice.
Jim
Swiss Heritage
McKenny) wrote:
>However, if the bottom line
>is you're saying that today things are different, watch me Jim articulately
>cite Sacred Text from the Service of Women Paper "In this age women are
>men/rulers" mention the whole Chicago general house of justice thing and
>encourage women on the house, etc, and nobody's gonna bother me now, hey
>that's great. I'm pulling for you all the way. There's no sarcasm here. I
>think the time is long overdue for the UHJ to begin providing a real
>example to humanity. Go for it.
Michael, as I said, I do not see any prohibition against promoting
views of any kind, in any statements of the House of Justice or in any
of the writings. I do not see any prohibitions even against promoting
views contrary to the words of God Himself. What I see is a
prohibition against trying to create a coalition, by arousing
antagonism, for the purpose of intimidating Baha'i institutions.
I see a possibility that I could have that effect on people, without
trying to, and without knowing it. One thing I've done to avoid that
is to stop posting altogether, for a few weeks or even months,
whenever I see people using my name in their arguments.
I do not say that no one will try to repress me. Some people have
tried to repress me already, in some Internet discussions. So far
there has been no action against me from any institution, but I'm not
saying that won't happen either. I'm only saying that I haven't seen
any prohibition against promoting views of any kind, in any statements
of the House of Justice or in any of the writings.
Jim
Michael McKenny
Hi, Jim.
Swiss Heritage (geo...@yahoo.com) writes:
> Michael, if you say you weren't trying to create a coalition, by
> stirring up antagonism, in order to intimidate Baha'i institutions,
> I'll take your word for it. I would believe Alison too, if she said
> she wasn't trying to create a coalition, by stirring up antagonism, in
> order to intimidate Baha'i institutions.
>
> You might have been having that effect on people without knowing it
> and without intending to, or the members of the House of Justice might
> have thought so, or they might have been lying about their reasons. In
> any case, in my reading of all the messages of the House of Justice,
> responding to questions about your removal and other actions related
> to the Dialogue/Talisman Saga, outside of creating a coalition, by
> arousing antagonism, for purposes of intimidating institutions, there
> is no prohibition against promoting ideas of any kind.
If you surveyed the material related to this case, one of the most amazing
things you'll have seen is that there was at first essentially no reasoning
provided for the action. A request for clarification brought the
additional note that it had nothing to do with Michael McKenny failing to
write further to the Universal House of Justice. The total reasoning first
advanced was that it had to do with behaviour. That behaviour, as I
understood it later, was the expression of opinion on Baha'i e-mail lists.
It was only in response to the letter from Catherine Woodgold, a non Baha'i,
that further information was received.
My memory of something from 1997 will be less complete than the actual
response. What I recall is that the Universal House of Justice stated that
as the Baha'i Faith was a religion, it didn't have to meet political
criteria, that Michael McKenny had misconceptions, even after being
patiently counselled, and that such misconceptions were alright as long as
they remained Michael McKenny's personal problem and were not
communicated. The removal came from his continuing to communicate them.
If you have read this letter more recently perhaps you are in a
position to correct my memory here. My understanding was that the
removal was for continuing to post my views to Baha'i e-lists.
I ought to add that the communication with Susie Tamas was not seen by
me as her counselling me about my misconceptions, but rather as a
dialogue. In contradistinction to reports from Americans having similar
sessions with Counsellor Birkland, I consistently spoke very well of my
meeting with Susie Tamas. In fact it was remarked on Baha'i e-lists that
even some time after the expulsion, I did not speak negatively of the
Universal House of Justice, a thing some list members found astonishing
given the circumstances.
> I'm only talking about what I see in the statements of the House of
> Justice. I don't mean to deny anything that anyone might say about the
> personal risks of saying what you think. You might be persecuted or
> penalized for saying what you think. I'm only saying that I see no
> other prohibition in statements of the House of Justice, against
> promoting views of any kind, outside of creating a coalition, by
> arousing antagonism, for purposes of intimidating Baha'i institutions.
See above. One of the distinctions that have been made over the years
include the fact that the authority of the Universal House of Justice does
not diminish due to the decisions of previous sessions of the UHJ. The
Universal House of Justice retains full authority to decide. Parliament
cannot bind its successor. Another point made is that there is a clear
distinction between agreement and disagreement with the actions of
President Bush and supporting the institution of the presidency. It is the
same with the behaviour of current members of the Universal House of
Justice. One can very much support the institution of the Universal House
of Justice and indeed feel that persuading its members to behave more
benignly, more openly and more all-embracingly in accordance with the
essential spiritual principles of the Baha'i Faith would enhance respect
for the institution and even for its current members.
> Jim
Very Best Wishes, Michael
Swiss Heritage
opportunity to discuss this with you like this, as I have dreamed of
doing ever since I learned about what happened to you.
On 18 Apr 2005 12:24:07 GMT, bn...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael
McKenny) wrote:
I want to emphasize that I am not denying anything you might say about
any unstated motives or intentions of the members of the Universal
House of Justice. Any motives and intentions the members may have had,
besides what has actually been written in statements of the House of
Justice, or any motives and intentions contrary to what is written in
those statements, has no authority for me, in deciding what is
prohibited and what isn't.
What I see written in those statements, regardless of any hidden
motives or intentions the members might have had, is that it was *not*
the continued posting of your views, but your manner of posting them,
that was a deciding factor in the decision to remove you from the
membership.
Documents Related to the Expulsion by the Universal House of Justice
of Michael McKenny from the Baha'i Faith, 25 July 1997
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai/1999/mckenny.htm
"Had the situation continued at this level, Michael's confusion would
have remained his personal spiritual problem. That it did not remain
at this level was the result solely of his deliberate decision to
continue a series of open Internet postings in which he challenged the
authority of Baha'i institutions in language alternating between
conventional professions of respect and contemptuous reflections on
the integrity and actions of those institutions. As had been made
clear during review with him by the advisor mentioned above, of the
relevant passages from the Will and Testament of `Abdu'l-Baha, such
deliberate contention is entirely unacceptable in one who claims to
believe in Baha'u'llah. Indeed, as a general rule, it would raise a
question about the loyalty to the Covenant of an individual behaving
in this fashion. In Michael's case, the Universal House of Justice
reached the conclusion that he neither understands the basic
implications of Baha'i membership nor has any real desire to do so.
His subsequent behaviour will doubtless be read by most dispassionate
observers as confirming the accuracy of this assessment."
As I said, I am not denying anything you might say about the true
motives and intentions of the members. I'm saying that I do not see in
this a general prohibition against promoting views of any kind, on the
Internet, even if they contradict the words of God Himself. My rule of
thumb is that any time I start to see contention gathering around me,
I go back to the drawing board, and try coming from another angle.
>I ought to add that the communication with Susie Tamas was not seen by
>me as her counselling me about my misconceptions, but rather as a
>dialogue.
Seems to be a common experience.
>In contradistinction to reports from Americans having similar
>sessions with Counsellor Birkland, I consistently spoke very well of my
>meeting with Susie Tamas. In fact it was remarked on Baha'i e-lists that
>even some time after the expulsion, I did not speak negatively of the
>Universal House of Justice, a thing some list members found astonishing
>given the circumstances.
You look like a model of civility to me. I can see what you were doing
as contention, but I've seen much, much worse from other members. It
isn't clear to me why you and Alison were singled out. If you think
it's only because of the views you were promoting, maybe you're right.
However that may be, I still see no general prohibition, in anything
I've read from the House of Justice, against promoting views of any
kind.
>See above. One of the distinctions that have been made over the years
>include the fact that the authority of the Universal House of Justice does
>not diminish due to the decisions of previous sessions of the UHJ. The
>Universal House of Justice retains full authority to decide.
I agree wholeheartedly. If the hand of God can not be chained up by
His prophets, then it certainly can not be chained up by His House of
Justice. The fact that the House of Justice says now that it has no
authority to allow women to serve on the House of Justice, does not
mean it can not decide otherwise in the future, or that it's wrong for
anyone to promote a different view.
Jim
Heather Carr-Rowe
Ninety-nine point nine percent of Baha'i's with a liberal understanding of
their Faith have never advocated for the establishment of a ' coalition' as
you term it Jim, or a 'internal oppostition' as The Universal House of
Justice has termed it. Fred's 'reform' Baha'is is Fred's brain child and his
alone.
Baha'is with a liberal understanding of their Faith have simply expressed
the view that Baha'i teaching such as the full equality of women, the
independant investigation of truth, the oneness of the humanity, the harmony
of science-reason with true religion-faith, be honored and followed.
All of these above teachings have been desecrated by the Baha'i
Administrative Order in general and by The Universal House of Justice in
particular.
The illogical suppression of The Service of Women paper and the continued
refusal to openly address the issue of women's exclusion from the Universal
House of Justice is motivated by ignorance, by superstition. When the issue
of the full equality of women in the Baha'i Faith is viewed with logic, with
reason, with the two winged aspect of humanity in mind, the exclusion of
women from the Universal House of Justice is clearly seen to be justified on
ignorance, and superstition alone.
Baha'i institutions are not intimidated by liberal Baha'i they are
intimidated by their own ignorance and refusal to follow the teachings. Just
as all religious authorities in the past have behaved in exactly the same
manner, Baha'i 'authorities' are walking down the very same path as Islamic
and Christian religious authorities walked in their day.
The two paragraphs below, although they are written by a Buddhist and
describe Buddhist institutions, perfectly describe the institutions of the
Baha'i Faith as they are led today by The Universal House of Justice:
"The influence of the Senex archetype over the maintenance of systems and
organisations unfortunately has a dark unconscious shadow. At its most
shadowy Senex becomes rigid, dogmatic and ruthless tending to disenfranchise
and control any who question its authority. When Senex forms and structures
begin to ossify they become dry and stale, blind to the potential for change
and flexibility. In religious organisations and systems this leads to
doctrinal rigidity and dogmatism and an increasing tendency to control and
constrict disciples. When organisations become increasingly patriarchal and
authoritarian they are seldom able to recognise the degree to which they
disempower and deny individual freedom of self-expression. When a system or
form becomes too solid it can gradually destroy the essential vision that
gives it life and inspiration.
While the establishment of orthodoxy comes under the aegis of Senex,
reformation and regeneration come under the aegis of Puer. Individual
creative expression also comes into being through the Puer archetype and in
organisation this can often threaten established order. Teachers may resist
questioning or developing established orthodox practices and thereby
unconsciously prevent students from developing their own experience and
autonomy. Paradoxically the vision that originated most spiritual traditions
was an individuals creative experience and yet organised established
religion can become resistant to that same creative process. Those who chose
to follow their own inner truth can often find themselves in conflict with a
tradition that is trying to preserve the authority of a lineage. "
The Covenant has become a tool of the Baha'i Senex, a tool which has been
put to the opposite use it was intended for. The Covenant was intended to
maintain and protect unity, not to be used as an excuse to duplicate the
experiences of past religions.
The Universal House of Justice is a Senex Baha'i organization which does
not countenance any interpretation of the Baha'i Faith other than Their Own.
This is clearly a case of Their exceeding Their authority. The Universal
House of Justice clearly has no authority whatsoever to make or impose Its
Own interpretations of the Baha'i Faith and It's Writings.
The spiritual malaise which currently afflicts the Baha'i Faith is largely
because of the poisonous atmosphere of suspicion, distrust, and disunity
that The Universal Hose of Justice has created and fostered through such
statements:
'The need to protect the Faith from the attacks of its enemies may not be
generally appreciated by the friends, particularly in places where attacks
have been infrequent. However, it is certain that such opposition will
increase, become concerted, and eventually universal. The writings clearly
foreshadow not only an intensification of the machinations of internal
enemies, but a rise in the hostility and opposition of its external enemies,
whether religious or secular, as the Cause pursues its onward march towards
ultimate victory. Therefore, in the light of the warnings of the Guardian,
the Auxiliary Boards for Protection should keep "constantly" a "watchful
eye" on those "who are known to be enemies, or to have been put out of the
Faith", discreetly investigate their activities, alert intelligently the
friends to the opposition inevitably to come, explain how each crisis in
God's Faith has always proved to be a blessing in disguise, and prepare them
for the "dire contest which is destined to range the Army of Light against
the forces of darkness".'
(The Universal House of Justice, The Institution of the Counsellors, p. 16)
The great irony is that instead of protecting the Faith such negative
incitements as the above paranoia have only had the opposite effect. The
reason such ignorant statements of The Universal House of Justice have the
opposite effect is because the spirit of the ignorance of those statements
is opposite to the Spirit of Universality of Baha'u'llah's and Abdu'l-Baha's
Pivotal Teaching of the oneness of humanity, and Baha'u'llah's clear removal
of the very division of humanity that is used by the Universal House of
Justice in the above quote: the division of humanity - the Army of Light vs.
the forces of darkness.
Baha'u'llah once and for all removed such ignorant justifications for the
division of humanity. That the Universal House of Justice has sought to
reinstate the very thing Baha'u'llah Himself removed is a clear indicator of
the depth of Their ignorance, of the level of Their dependence on
superstition instead of on knowledge, logic and reason.
"In this way His Holiness Bahá'u'lláh expressed the oneness of humankind
whereas in all religious teachings of the past, the human world has been
represented as divided into two parts, one known as the people of the Book
of God or the pure tree and the other the people of infidelity and error or
the evil tree. The former were considered as belonging to the faithful and
the others to the hosts of the irreligious and infidel; one part of humanity
the recipients of divine mercy and the other the object of the wrath of
their Creator. His Holiness Bahá'u'lláh removed this by proclaiming the
oneness of the world of humanity and this principle is specialized in His
teachings for He has submerged all mankind in the sea of divine generosity.
Some are asleep; they need to be awakened. Some are ailing; they need to be
healed. Some are immature as children; they need to be trained. But all are
recipients of the bounty and bestowals of God."
(Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 246)
My only motive Jim, my only aim, is to awake those who are asleep, to heal
those who are ailing, to train those who are like children in their
ignorance.
The Universal House of Justice's 'superstructure' myopia and It's apparent
ignorance of the 'original intention' of religion is clear evidence that
They have gone far astray, that They are sleepy heads.
Wakey, wakey, rise and shine!
There is only us, we are them, 'as one soul'.
Yours Larry
"Thus religion which was destined to become the cause of friendship has
become the cause of enmity. Religion, which was meant to be sweet honey, is
changed into bitter poison. Religion, the function of which was to illumine
humanity, has become the factor of obscuration and gloom. Religion, which
was to confer the consciousness of everlasting life, has become the fiendish
instrument of death. As long as these superstitions are in the hands and
these nets of dissimulation and hypocrisy in the fingers, religion will be
the most harmful agency on this planet. These superannuated traditions,
which are inherited unto the present day, must be abandoned, and thus free
from past superstitions we must investigate the original intention. The
basis on which they have fabricated the superstructures will be seen to be
one, and that one, absolute reality; and as reality is indivisible, complete
unity and amity will be instituted and the true religion of God will become
unveiled in all its beauty and sublimity in the assemblage of the world."
(Abdu'l-Baha, Divine Philosophy, p. 161)
Swiss Heritage
Jim
Michael McKenny
Hi, Jim.
Swiss Heritage (geo...@yahoo.com) writes:
> Michael, first I want to say that I'm very happy to have an
> opportunity to discuss this with you like this, as I have dreamed of
> doing ever since I learned about what happened to you.
Thank you for your kind words. I very much hope that circumstances are
different today than what they were a decade or so ago when I first
entered Baha'i cyberspace. The various archives ought to provide a record
of sorts of the flow of my thoughts and awarenesses. Somewhere I probably
mentioned that I received a copy of the Service of Women Paper on March
23, 1996. I sent my letter to the Universal House of Justice on March 23,
1997. That date in 1997 was chosen because it is my sister's birthday and
because I thought the time after the Fast would be more beneficial.
There's a release of energy, the new springtime, etc. between Naw Ruz and
Ridvan.
You may be less interested in later happenings, and bringing it up to
date, I feel I've very much benefited from exposure to a wider look at
world spirituality. The solarguard webpage documents a lot of post 1997
reading and my glimpses at traditional spirituality in various places. I
continue to find it very interesting that some things embrace peoples
widely separated by geography and time.
> I want to emphasize that I am not denying anything you might say about
> any unstated motives or intentions of the members of the Universal
> House of Justice. Any motives and intentions the members may have had,
> besides what has actually been written in statements of the House of
> Justice, or any motives and intentions contrary to what is written in
> those statements, has no authority for me, in deciding what is
> prohibited and what isn't.
As I mentioned, at least from summer 1996 to the end of that year, I was
posting that I understood there is freedom of thought and expression in
Baha'i, that actually this is an essential Baha'i principle and that no
one had contacted me concerning what I was posting. I remember comments
such as, "Wait a minute; you're posting stuff like that and no one's
coming after you!" After I was contacted at least one person posted,
"Well, at least the system hasn't broken down."
> What I see written in those statements, regardless of any hidden
> motives or intentions the members might have had, is that it was *not*
> the continued posting of your views, but your manner of posting them,
> that was a deciding factor in the decision to remove you from the
> membership.
Your understanding of what was written by the Universal House of Justice
is a valid personal understanding. I would hope that if this understanding
is not considered correct by the Universal House of Justice that they
would be kind enough to communicate any correction to you before taking
your name off the list. This is a personal good wish, void of sarcasm, and
I continue to wish that things have changed, so that whatever the
situation was in 1997 today it's like what you say, if not better.
> Documents Related to the Expulsion by the Universal House of Justice
> of Michael McKenny from the Baha'i Faith, 25 July 1997
> http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai/1999/mckenny.htm
>
> "Had the situation continued at this level, Michael's confusion would
> have remained his personal spiritual problem. That it did not remain
> at this level was the result solely of his deliberate decision to
> continue a series of open Internet postings in which he challenged the
> authority of Baha'i institutions in language alternating between
> conventional professions of respect and contemptuous reflections on
> the integrity and actions of those institutions.
That, of course, was not my understanding of what was happening. As I
mentioned there was surprise from some members of e-lists that I continued
to be respectful towards the Universal House of Justice for a while after
having my name released. Again I invite examination of the actual messages
prior to July 1997. I do recall that one of my reactions to the flamefest
I encountered on entering Talisman One was posting "The Tablet of the
Nine Brewers" (this would probably be in April 1996; I joined near the end
of February and posted little). That was actually intended to cool things
down and was not intended as satire. I wasn't aware of the UHJ having any
sensitivity and assumed the infallibly good (really that's not sarcasm)
institution wouldn't take it negatively. I have not found a copy of that
one. If anyone has a copy, I'd be happy now to look at it.
This is an important clarification, as later actual satires were composed.
It's significant, in my opinion, in understanding the course of events to
realize there was a transition of understanding, a process of awareness.
It became clear to Michael McKenny that the problem in Baha'i was at the
top, not the UHJ as an institution, but the current administration
imposing a divisive conservative agenda. The passage you quote implies
something (or comes right out and says it) that may not be so easy to
support by an actual consideration of the e-mail posts to which it refers.
> As had been made
> clear during review with him by the advisor mentioned above, of the
> relevant passages from the Will and Testament of `Abdu'l-Baha, such
> deliberate contention is entirely unacceptable
This has been addressed in previous discussions about this and similar
statements. Frankly, if liberal ideas are advanced and conservatives start
flaming away, this challenges any reasonable understanding of the concept
of deliberate contention. As I mentioned, I joined Talisman One after
reading on SRB that there were provisional translations of Baha'i sacred
text there, unavailable elsewhere. What I blithely strolled into struck me
as a bar room brawl. I remember trying to cool things down and stating that
ad hominem remarks were unvalid, that according to a Canadian study guide
on the Covenant calling people Covenant Breakers wasn't something that ought
to be going on here, that according to the rules of an amateur press
association I had belonged to since 1984 snarking (flaming) against other
members was strictly prohibited and we'd do well on the list to follow
this wise experience of hardcopy versions of these Johnny come lately
e-lists (amateur press associations date back to the 1800s) I tried these
various methods of calming the flames. There was a post called "fire
extinguisher." "The Tablet of the Nine Brewers" was of an attempt at the
same calming of the flames, and I wouldn't have posted it had I known the
sensitivity of the UHJ.
My point is if some people begin a riot on hearing ideas such as the
equality of women and men, etc, it is, in my opinion, invalid to assert
that the person expressing this opinion is guilty of contention. The
Baha'i Faith has a basic principle that believers are supposed to be
examples to humanity of accepting the validity of a variety of opinions.
> in one who claims to
> believe in Baha'u'llah. Indeed, as a general rule, it would raise a
> question about the loyalty to the Covenant of an individual behaving
> in this fashion. In Michael's case, the Universal House of Justice
> reached the conclusion that he neither understands the basic
> implications of Baha'i membership nor has any real desire to do so.
This statement and others can be considered, as may any other text, and
there may be a number of understandings. One point already made is that
the Universal House of Justice is not constrained by the past. Parliament
cannot bind its successors.
> His subsequent behaviour will doubtless be read by most dispassionate
> observers as confirming the accuracy of this assessment."
It ought to be clearly understood that, very rare in religious history,
the Baha'i liberals very strongly opposed the concept of sectarianism. My
understanding was that Baha'u'llah had overcome brilliantly the divisive
declarations of heresy with their subsequent splintering of Faiths. This
erasing of the name was, as I saw it, a declaration of heresy. I did not
consider the Universal House of Justice authorized to make such a
declaration. I was so far removed from contention, as I understood it,
that I would not oppose the invalid declaration. Instead, fully
consistent with my universalism (which I see as an essential Baha'i
attribute) I acted promptly to remove the discrepency of a Baha'i heretic,
something whose existence underlined the invalidity of leadership. As I
already said, I had been telling Pagans since the 80s that I likely would
identify myself as a Pagan, had I not previously given my oath to Baha'i.
Now, since the Baha'i supreme authority had rejected that oath, I acted
in a non contentious and universalist manner, as I saw it.
> As I said, I am not denying anything you might say about the true
> motives and intentions of the members. I'm saying that I do not see in
> this a general prohibition against promoting views of any kind, on the
> Internet, even if they contradict the words of God Himself. My rule of
> thumb is that any time I start to see contention gathering around me,
> I go back to the drawing board, and try coming from another angle.
>
>>I ought to add that the communication with Susie Tamas was not seen by
>>me as her counselling me about my misconceptions, but rather as a
>>dialogue.
>
> Seems to be a common experience.
>
>>In contradistinction to reports from Americans having similar
>>sessions with Counsellor Birkland, I consistently spoke very well of my
>>meeting with Susie Tamas. In fact it was remarked on Baha'i e-lists that
>>even some time after the expulsion, I did not speak negatively of the
>>Universal House of Justice, a thing some list members found astonishing
>>given the circumstances.
>
> You look like a model of civility to me. I can see what you were doing
> as contention,
See above. I think this is not so unanimous an opinion; others also exist,
equally valid to yours.
> but I've seen much, much worse from other members. It
> isn't clear to me why you and Alison were singled out. If you think
> it's only because of the views you were promoting, maybe you're right.
That was my analysis of the written text provided. It seems to me to be
saying effective communication of liberal views is seen as threatening the
conservative domination. In retrospect I think other speculations can be
made and I've made some that feel strongly possible. However, looking at
the reasoning provided, as I read the text of this communication, I
understand it as saying effective presentation of liberal thought is
heresy.
> However that may be, I still see no general prohibition, in anything
> I've read from the House of Justice, against promoting views of any
> kind.
I hope the Universal House of Justice will courteously advise you if they
disagree, rather than striking your name off the list. I especially hope
that you're completely correct and that things may even be better than you
suggest, that this really is a new spring.
>>See above. One of the distinctions that have been made over the years
>>include the fact that the authority of the Universal House of Justice does
>>not diminish due to the decisions of previous sessions of the UHJ. The
>>Universal House of Justice retains full authority to decide.
>
> I agree wholeheartedly. If the hand of God can not be chained up by
> His prophets, then it certainly can not be chained up by His House of
> Justice. The fact that the House of Justice says now that it has no
> authority to allow women to serve on the House of Justice, does not
> mean it can not decide otherwise in the future, or that it's wrong for
> anyone to promote a different view.
Very best wishes in doing that. I hope you're right. I'm glad to have met
you here. May the future treat you very kindly.
> Jim
Thrice Three Blessings, Michael
Swiss Heritage
McKenny) wrote:
>You may be less interested in later happenings, and bringing it up to
>date, I feel I've very much benefited from exposure to a wider look at
>world spirituality. The solarguard webpage documents a lot of post 1997
>reading and my glimpses at traditional spirituality in various places. I
>continue to find it very interesting that some things embrace peoples
>widely separated by geography and time.
I've been participating in Pagan Internet discussions, and I'm
learning the Tarot. Also learning about my Swiss Amish heritage.
>Frankly, if liberal ideas are advanced and conservatives start
>flaming away, this challenges any reasonable understanding of the concept
>of deliberate contention.
That's something that puzzled me for a long time. It brings up an idea
I have about the situation. Not specifically about your case, but
about the Dialogue/Talisman Saga in general. I'll come back to that in
another post.
>As I mentioned, I joined Talisman One after
>reading on SRB that there were provisional translations of Baha'i sacred
>text there, unavailable elsewhere. What I blithely strolled into struck me
>as a bar room brawl. I remember trying to cool things down and stating that
>ad hominem remarks were unvalid, that according to a Canadian study guide
>on the Covenant calling people Covenant Breakers wasn't something that ought
>to be going on here, that according to the rules of an amateur press
>association I had belonged to since 1984 snarking (flaming) against other
>members was strictly prohibited and we'd do well on the list to follow
>this wise experience of hardcopy versions of these Johnny come lately
>e-lists (amateur press associations date back to the 1800s) I tried these
>various methods of calming the flames.
Yes, that sounds like you.
>There was a post called "fire
>extinguisher." "The Tablet of the Nine Brewers" was of an attempt at the
>same calming of the flames, and I wouldn't have posted it had I known the
>sensitivity of the UHJ.
That sounds like you, too.
:-)
>My point is if some people begin a riot on hearing ideas such as the
>equality of women and men, etc, it is, in my opinion, invalid to assert
>that the person expressing this opinion is guilty of contention. The
>Baha'i Faith has a basic principle that believers are supposed to be
>examples to humanity of accepting the validity of a variety of opinions.
Yes. As I said, that puzzled me a lot, for a long time.
>Very best wishes in doing that. I hope you're right. I'm glad to have met
>you here. May the future treat you very kindly.
Thank you. This has been a pleasure for me.
Jim
Swiss Heritage
sense me now. In reviewing the documentation related to Alison's
removal, I noticed that even her NSA writes as if her removal was due
entirely to the nature of the views she was promoting, and that she
continued to promote them, without any reference to her manners.
In any case, statements to individuals, have no authority for me, in
determining what the House of Justice has decided to prohibit. In
order for me to consider that the House of Justice has forbidden
Baha'is to promote a certain view, I would have to see that stated
unambiguously in a general message to the Baha'i community, or at
least to NSAs.
Jim
Swiss Heritage
purposes has been a lot more fruitful for me than trying to see the
purposes of administrators. It seems to me that it has served God's
purposes very well for you and Alison to be removed. For example, the
questions it has raised about membership, and the nature, role, and
functions of a community of believers, have led me to wonderful new
insights that have served me very well, in overcoming my own
sectarianism, and learning how to help others overcome theirs.
Jiim
Swiss Heritage
myself, serve as a ransom for the misbehavior of others. That has
happened to me again and again in Baha'i Internet discussions. For
example, in one moderated Baha'i discussion, I started a thread about
what equality for gays might look like in a Baha'i Internet
discussion. I posted some examples of what gays might say in a
gay-friendly forum. I was ferociously and assaulted by someone who
said repeatedly that the children in my community were in danger. The
forum manager never saw that because the assailant deleted those posts
before the manager had a chance to see them. The manager did see some
of his posts maligning me, and told him more than once that he would
be gagged if he didn't stop. He said he didn't care, and went on
assailing me. The manager never saw the post with his blatant
defiance, and never did gag him, even though he continued his assault.
It was pandemonium, because while he was assailing me, others,
including moderators, were assailing him for assailing me.
Finally, the forum manager closed the thread.
The forum manager told me himself, in a private message, that I was a
model of restraint. Clearly he deplored the behavior of my assailant.
Yet he chose to close the discussion, effectively silencing me, rather
than gag my assailant. It seems to me that sent a clear message to
others, that gay equality for Baha'is was a forbidden subject, without
actually saying so.
What happened you looks very similar to me.
I've found an explanation for what happened to me, in organic terms,
related to allergies and immune systems, and I'm still experimenting
with ways to avoid those allergic reactions.
Jim
Heather Carr-Rowe
Baha'is ( especially those in the Baha'i Administrative Order ) need to
take the example of individuals such as Matthew Fox ( Deep Ecuminism ) and
Neale Walsch ( Conversations with God ) and learn from them.
Baha'i 'entry by troops' and the ensuing take over of the world by the
Baha'i 'Army of Light' can be seen by all fair minded individuals for the
extreme of cultish thinking that it represents.
A deep ecuminism such as Matthew Fox advocates is the only true hope for
the reconcilliation of all religions. The conversion of a majority of the
members of humanity to the Baha'i Faith is never going to occur.
Not in a million years!
In order for the reconciliation of all religions to occur a deep ecuminism
which leaves behind the triumphalism of all organised religion ( the Baha'i
Faith included ) is required. A deep ecuminism, which not only tolerates
non-mono-theistic approaches to truth, which doesn't denigrate
non-mono-theistic approaches to truth ( as Baha'i currently does ) but that
accepts the legitimacy of ALL approaches to the truth made through human
spiritual experience - mono-theistic through to non-theistic.
This level of deep ecuminism is currently a tall order for the Baha'i
Administrative Order seeing that there is an inability for this Order to
even to reconcile its own coreligionists let alone begin the process of
reconciling all the worlds multifarious religions. Until the Baha'i Faith
can show that it capable of reconciling It's Own coreligionists it will
continue to be left far behind by thinkers such as Matthew Fox, Neale Walsch
and people such as them who are making genuine headway into the actual
real-time reconciliation of religions, instead of negative headway into self
serving triumphalism as is the Baha'i Faith's current focus.
God/dess is raising those who are willing to get the real job of
reconciliation done, it is up to Baha's themselves if they want to
participate.
Your efforts to seek out the truth of matters Jim is the only way to
preceed.
Swiss Heritage
scary about rallying a group of people to try intimidate Baha'i
institutions, even if there were people doing that. I have an idea.
If it continues, then an opposing faction will arise, trying to take
the law into its own hands, like the Baha'i who assaulted me when I
was trying to paint a picture of a gay-friendly environment. The war
between the two factions will grow and spread, and cripple the whole
community. It saves a lot of trouble to shut down the original faction
before the opposing one arises.
Baha'u'llah once expelled Himself from the community, to avoid such a
situation.
Jim
Swiss Heritage
Michael McKenny
Hi, Jim.
Swiss Heritage (geo...@yahoo.com) writes:
> Michael, your understanding of why you were removed makes a lot more
> sense me now. In reviewing the documentation related to Alison's
> removal, I noticed that even her NSA writes as if her removal was due
> entirely to the nature of the views she was promoting, and that she
> continued to promote them, without any reference to her manners.
That is my understanding of the words used to describe this.
> In any case, statements to individuals, have no authority for me, in
> determining what the House of Justice has decided to prohibit. In
> order for me to consider that the House of Justice has forbidden
> Baha'is to promote a certain view, I would have to see that stated
> unambiguously in a general message to the Baha'i community, or at
> least to NSAs.
Now, this one is very interesting. Sometimes I'm alert to distinctions in
thought. I wish it were more often :) Here's one way to bridge a bit some
of the difficulty some people have with the concept that the entire text
of everything Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l Baha, Shoghi Effendi and the Universal
House of Justice said all has to be infallibly correct and consistent. By
removing messages to individuals from the pot, it makes this chore a bit
easier for them. It doesn't mean that something said to an individual
necessarily can't benefit other individuals. It just means that every
individual on the planet isn't necessarily bound throughout all future
generations to something said at one time to one individual.
> Jim
Michael McKenny
Hi, Jim.
Swiss Heritage (geo...@yahoo.com) writes:
> I've been participating in Pagan Internet discussions, and I'm
> learning the Tarot. Also learning about my Swiss Amish heritage.
If you've got some Germanic background, you may also be interested in
runes. One piece of advice that goes back a thousand years or so is to be
very careful with bindrunes. That's putting more than one of them together
in a symbol designed to magically do something. EGIL'S SAGA is one source
for this being a bad idea for those inattentive to additional, unintended
runes that can be there as a consequence of trying this. However, using
runes as a divinatory tool, like tarot, just might resonate for you. The
Roman historian Tacitus (c. 55-120 C.E.) describes a selection of three
runes (today often done as past, present and future). If you're interested
you can check out the runic section of the solarguard web page.
> That's something that puzzled me for a long time. It brings up an idea
> I have about the situation. Not specifically about your case, but
> about the Dialogue/Talisman Saga in general. I'll come back to that in
> another post.
I'll look forward to reading that.
> Thank you. This has been a pleasure for me.
I've enjoyed this, too.
Swiss Heritage
McKenny) wrote:
>
>Hi, Jim.
>
>Swiss Heritage (geo...@yahoo.com) writes:
>> I've been participating in Pagan Internet discussions, and I'm
>> learning the Tarot. Also learning about my Swiss Amish heritage.
>
>If you've got some Germanic background, you may also be interested in
>runes. One piece of advice that goes back a thousand years or so is to be
>very careful with bindrunes. That's putting more than one of them together
>in a symbol designed to magically do something. EGIL'S SAGA is one source
>for this being a bad idea for those inattentive to additional, unintended
>runes that can be there as a consequence of trying this. However, using
>runes as a divinatory tool, like tarot, just might resonate for you. The
>Roman historian Tacitus (c. 55-120 C.E.) describes a selection of three
>runes (today often done as past, present and future). If you're interested
>you can check out the runic section of the solarguard web page.
Thanks! I'll look into that.
Jim
Swiss Heritage
McKenny) wrote:
>Now, this one is very interesting. Sometimes I'm alert to distinctions in
>thought. I wish it were more often :) Here's one way to bridge a bit some
>of the difficulty some people have with the concept that the entire text
>of everything Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l Baha, Shoghi Effendi and the Universal
>House of Justice said all has to be infallibly correct and consistent. By
>removing messages to individuals from the pot, it makes this chore a bit
>easier for them. It doesn't mean that something said to an individual
>necessarily can't benefit other individuals. It just means that every
>individual on the planet isn't necessarily bound throughout all future
>generations to something said at one time to one individual.
Exactly
Jim
Swiss Heritage
outsourcing violations.
As I said, in the story I told you (see below), about what happened
when I tried to post examples of what gays might say in a gay-friendly
forum, the forum manager admitted to me that my conduct was exemplary,
and that the conduct of my assailant was deplorable, and even warned
him several times that he would be gagged if he continued. My
assailant continued, in open defiance of the manager and moderators,
yet rather than stopping him, the manager used his behavior as a
pretext to stop the whole discussion.
That looks like a perfect example to me, of outsourcing violations.
Topics of discussion can be repressed in a way that shifts the blame
from the forum manager and moderators, to abusers, whose abuse is
never restrained.
I don't believe that the forum manager himself was aware of those
implications. I also think that the reason he prefers not to have
those discussions in his forum is not because he himself wants them
repressed, but because the resulting pandemonium is too hard for him
to manage. The worst abuse by far is coming from people who are trying
to repress the topic of discussion, but restraining it is not as
simple and easy as it might seem, if you aren't the one that has to
manage it.
Jim
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 22:25:06 GMT, Swiss Heritage <geo...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Michael McKenny
Hi, Jim.
Swiss Heritage (geo...@yahoo.com) writes:
> Michael, it has always puzzled me to see you and others, including
> myself, serve as a ransom for the misbehavior of others. That has
> happened to me again and again in Baha'i Internet discussions. For
> example, in one moderated Baha'i discussion, I started a thread about
> what equality for gays might look like in a Baha'i Internet
> discussion. I posted some examples of what gays might say in a
> gay-friendly forum. I was ferociously and assaulted by someone who
> said repeatedly that the children in my community were in danger.
I'm in a bit of a rush, and I think this point is worthy of considered
response, actually both the threatening issue of gay sensitivity and the
wider issue of the acceptance of expressed opinion. On the latter, my
feeling tends to be heavily on the freedom of speech end of things. One
reason for that is that if one doesn't drive some thoughts underground one
can deal with them at the factual and emotional level. If they're not
permitted expression then racism or whatever can flourish in the basement.
> The
> forum manager never saw that because the assailant deleted those posts
> before the manager had a chance to see them. The manager did see some
> of his posts maligning me, and told him more than once that he would
> be gagged if he didn't stop. He said he didn't care, and went on
> assailing me. The manager never saw the post with his blatant
> defiance, and never did gag him, even though he continued his assault.
> It was pandemonium, because while he was assailing me, others,
> including moderators, were assailing him for assailing me.
Yes, an understandable situation, even if better could have been hoped
for. As I now consider it, there are some who feel threatened by well
reasoned positions at variance to their own. Baha'u'llah did teach there's
a rainbow of valid views and individuals tend to have evolving opinions as
it is, so there's no need to be resistant and aggressive on encountering
other views. However, he taught a lot of stuff that isn't perfectly
practised today :) That includes ways and means of dealing with such
opposition as liberals encountered. I'll admit I wasn't perfect, that
there were better ways of handling what happened.
However, it is an interesting point to consider just how do we deal with
the scheme of suppressing free speech (or the natural intolerant
explosion, if it isn't really a calculated ploy) by flaming conservatives,
that is conservatives who respond to views they don't want to hear by
flaming anyone daring to articulate such unwelcome opinions?
> Finally, the forum manager closed the thread.
I can share stories myself, but I've gotta run. I'll try to get back to
you later today.
Thrice Three Blessings, Michael
>
> The forum manager told me himself, in a private message, that I was a
> model of restraint. Clearly he deplored the behavior of my assailant.
> Yet he chose to close the discussion, effectively silencing me, rather
> than gag my assailant. It seems to me that sent a clear message to
> others, that gay equality for Baha'is was a forbidden subject, without
> actually saying so.
>
> What happened you looks very similar to me.
>
> I've found an explanation for what happened to me, in organic terms,
> related to allergies and immune systems, and I'm still experimenting
> with ways to avoid those allergic reactions.
>
> Jim
Michael McKenny
Hi, Jim.
Swiss Heritage (geo...@yahoo.com) writes:
> Michael, I've seen people wonder, and you may wonder too, what's so
> scary about rallying a group of people to try intimidate Baha'i
> institutions, even if there were people doing that. I have an idea.
>
> If it continues, then an opposing faction will arise,
Thanks for sharing your thought on this. I guess experience in Baha'i
cyberspace seems more that the dominant faction (in power, if not in
actual numbers within the Baha'i community) tries to prevent views and
individuals it deems threatening to its continued dominance from becoming
widely known within the community. I don't so much see this as the
emergence of one faction generating another one(s), but as an existing
faction seeking to maintain its hold on power.
Thrice Three Blessings, Michael
> trying to take
> the law into its own hands, like the Baha'i who assaulted me when I
> was trying to paint a picture of a gay-friendly environment. The war
> between the two factions will grow and spread, and cripple the whole
> community. It saves a lot of trouble to shut down the original faction
> before the opposing one arises.
>
> Baha'u'llah once expelled Himself from the community, to avoid such a
> situation.
>
> Jim
Michael McKenny
Hi, Jim.
Swiss Heritage (geo...@yahoo.com) writes:
> Michael, you might be interested in the thread I started on
> outsourcing violations.
I started a reply and freenet disconnected part way through. It may take
several hours to reaccess that particular post. I'll hopefully finish it
within a day or so.
Thrice Three Blessings, Michael
John MacLeod
"Swiss Heritage" <geo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:m7v2615onal84ue8p...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 11:08:38 +1000, "John MacLeod"
> <jrma...@consultant.com> wrote:
>
> >The consensus seems to be that you can think what you like as long
> >as you don't say it publicly. I don't say that's true I just say thats
what
> >I seem to read.
>
> I see that everywhere in regime change rhetoric, and nowhere in the
> messages of the House of Justice.
I think you might want to reread the clarifying e-mail in the Alison
Marshall case.
My reading of it is:
1. They refer to Shoghi's list to demonstrate that the popular conception
that believe in Baha'u'llah is sufficient qualification to be a Baha'i is
unfounded.
2.They further quote Shoghi to the effect that acceptong the Cause involves
accepting the administration.
3.The give the legal basis of membership which is basically that the UHJ
decides with no restrictions on their decisions.
4. AM gave indications that she didn't understand the foundations.
Inbstitutions tried to help her.
5. This would normally be just a personal issue.
Now we come to the crux. What did alison do that made it more than a
personal issue?
6. She aggressively promoted her misconceptions; ignored efforts to correct
her; made a series of statements in contradiction to authoritative texts;
disseminated these statements to an international audience; and she got
dobbed in b y a snout.
7. This could be handled by administrative sanctions or could be considered
Covenant Breaking.
8. The UHJ in this case have decided she does not meet the requirements to
be a Baha'i. No reason given for this decision.
Now number six above is the crux and it is not specific but it phrases like
'made a series of statements'; 'disseminated to an international audience'
, and 'promote her misconceptions' do lend support to the popular view that
the answer is that it is OK to think what you like as long as you don't
express it in public. There is certainly far more support for that view
than for your view that
" As I see it, you can argue to your heart's content, in public,
........and without any action being taken against you by
> the House of Justice, as long as you are not helping to create a
> coalition of Baha'is, by stirring up antagonism, for the purpose of
> intimidating Baha'i institutions.
>
Nothing in the e-mail supports your contention.
NB in the above I have simply been looking at what the secretariat said. I
offer no opinion as to whether it was true or not.
Has...@aol.com
>
> The illogical suppression of The Service of Women paper and the
continued
> refusal to openly address the issue of women's exclusion from the
Universal
> House of Justice is motivated by ignorance, by superstition.
John MacLeod
> John, if you don't mind telling me:
>
> Do you see any reason to think that the purpose, or part of the
> purpose, of the Universal House of Justice, in removing Alison from
> the membership, was to limit the circulation among Baha'is of some of
> the views she was promoting?
>
No, I see nothing that answers this question either way but I tend to think
it wasn't at least a primary purpose as it is fairly easy to see that it was
unlikely to achieve that and easy enough to come up with alternative
strategies that stood more chance of success if that was the purpose.
John MacLeod
> John, if the House of Justice were trying to prevent the circulation
> among Baha'is, of some of the views Alison was promoting, then how
> could it honestly say that it has no objection to Baha'is reading
> "Modernity and the Millennium"?
>
> Jim
I tend to share Pat's view that there is not a lot of commonality between M
& M and Alison's postings.
However, having said that, I take your point - they certainly didn't like
either of them. I don't think there ever has been much tendency in the
Faith to prevent people reading the views of perceived 'enemies' (with the
possible exception of covenant breakers).. It is much more that such views
should be perceived as coming from outside the Faith and it is not
acceptable for Baha'is to express them.
Basically it seems to be the old 'flagrant' thing again. The UHJ etc must
know that a fair number of Baha'is are disenchanted with the administration
just as a fair number occasionally drink alcohol but so long as it is not
'flagrant' its OK.
Heather Carr-Rowe
There is no logical, knowledge based reason for the exclusion of women from
the Universal House of Justice. In fact the two-winged aspect of the
Teachings is disrespected through the exclusion of women from the Universal
House of Justice.
In short it only ignorance which is preventing women from serving in their
rightful roles as members of the Universal House of Justice, which is
preventing women from being treated with full equality, with full equity ;
by a religion which purports to believe in full equality non the less! An
ignorance which is no more noble than the superstitions of bygone ages.
"Any religion that contradicts science or that is opposed to it, is only
ignorance -- for ignorance is the opposite of knowledge."
(Abdu'l-Baha, Paris Talks, p. 130)
"There is no contradiction between true religion and science. When a
religion is opposed to science it becomes mere superstition: that which is
contrary to knowledge is ignorance."
(Abdu'l-Baha, Paris Talks, p. 141)
<Has...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1114061834.8...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Swiss Heritage
Yes. My feeling now is that I can sympathize very well with people who
think that was the purpose, but considering all I've seen, I see other
possibilities that seem more plausible to me.
Jim
Swiss Heritage
Some people's view that the purpose of the House of Justice, in
removing Alison and Michael, was to silence dissent, makes a lot more
sense to me now. I can certainly sympathize with that, especially
considering that messages from Alison's NSA seem to reflect that view.
Still, I see other possible explanations that seem more plausible to
me.
In any case, I doubt that all nine members had identical motives and
intentions. In every local and national spiritual assembly on which
I've served, different members had different ideas of what each
decision meant, and different reasons for approving it. Also, our
ideas were continually evolving during our consultation, and often the
final decision came as a complete surprise to all of us.
Jim
sma...@jam.rr.com
> I just reviewed it again, and I think part of the problem is that the
> NZ NSA itself misrepresented the reasons of the House of Justice for
> its decision.
Dear Jim,
Can you show us where the NSA's explanations of the reasons differ from
what the House itself said?
>
> Apart from that I've never seen the House specify any list of
> requirements. If you ever find such a statement from the House,
please
> let me know.
The list is quoted in the House's letter to Michael McKenny's wife. It
is also on the letter to the ITC on membership withdrawal which you can
find on the administrative website.
> In responses to questions about its interventions in the
> Dialogue/Talisman Saga, the House of Justice has explicitly stated
> that the reason for those interventions was *not* the views that were
> being promoted, nor even the promotion of those views, in itself.
>
> ----
>
> "To attempt, in opposition to the institutions of the Faith, to *form
> constituencies*
Jim, forming constiuencies is the *way* in which ones promotes views in
opposition to the institutions.
warmest, Susan
Michael McKenny
Welcome back, Susan.
(sma...@jam.rr.com) writes:
>> "To attempt, in opposition to the institutions of the Faith, to *form
>> constituencies*
I don't recall this statement from the letter of the UHJ to Catherine
Woodgold, but memory could be failing me. However, my memory is not that
faulty on the issue itself. Michael McKenny's efforts prior to July 1997
(and indeed long after it) had nothing to do with forming a constituency,
but with persuading the Universal House of Justice of what would most
enhance the respect, esteem and authority of the Universal House of Justice.
> Jim, forming constiuencies is the *way* in which ones promotes views in
> opposition to the institutions.
The sharing of personal opinions is a fundamental principle of the Baha'i
Faith. If a constituency, a ruling clique, opposes the sharing of personal
opinions, this could be understood as a violation of Baha'i principle.
Since Baha'i principles were not merely arbitrary commands tossed out of
Baha'u'llah's lips, but guidelines for the most effective functioning, in
a harmonious manner, of the Baha'i community, including maximum respect
for the institutions of the Faith, such contrary action by a ruling clique
is itself opposition to the institutions.
> warmest, Susan
Thrice Three Blessings, Michael
Swiss Heritage
>Can you show us where the NSA's explanations of the reasons differ from
>what the House itself said?
http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/alisonz/Chron.htm
Universal House of Justice:
"However, in this case, Mrs. Marshall has chosen to aggressively
promote her misconceptions in defiance of efforts to provide her with
essential Baha'i teachings which correct them."
NSA:
"Efforts have been made to clear up her misunderstandings, but these
have been unsuccessful, hence the Supreme Body's decision."
Universal House of Justice
Jim
Swiss Heritage
Universal House of Justice are trying to censor and repress some
views. I can see good reasons for imagining that. All I can say is
that I see other possible explanations for what has happened, that
seem more plausible to me.
I'm not sure of the sequence of events, and whether the House of
Justice considered the cases of Alison and Michael before or after it
considered the possibility of an organized campaign to intimidate
Baha'i institutions.
Imagine we have a ruling faction, and that another faction arises in
opposition to that. Then a third faction arises against the second
faction, lacking faith in the ruling faction's ability to manage the
situation, and trying to take the law into its own hands. I see a
possibility that the purpose of the House of Justice, in all of the
actions related to the Dialogue/Talisman Saga, was to avoid the kind
of culture war between the dissident faction and the vigilante faction
that we see cleaving other religious communities.
When complaints of vigilantes about Alison and Michael came to the
attention of the House of Justice, it may have seen the possibility of
an impending culture war, and decided, after exploring other
possibilities, that removing Alison and Michael from the membership
would be part of the best solution.
Jim
Heather Carr-Rowe
The wonderful insights you've gained Jim are very important ones.
Individual growth as well as communal growth can come about through the
interplay of dichotomies such as the Senex/Puer Aeternus dichotomy.
Viewing the Baha'i Faith using Jung's Senex/Puer Aeternus archetypes has
helped me to see that this dynamic is not only natural but that the oneness
of humanity and it's spiritual well-being will, in part, be built on the
eventual harmony between Senex and Puer Aeternus coreligionists.
There is a group of Catholic youths who call themselves Challange the
Church. It is interesting that the issues they are calling for the Catholic
Church to address are some of the very same issues Baha'i liberals have been
calling for the Universal House of Justice- The Baha'i Administrative Order
to address!
Interestingly these liberal Catholics are called anti-Catholic by
Senex-Conservative Catholics just as liberal Baha'is are called anti-Baha'i
' internal oppostion' by Senex-Conservative Baha'is!
It is my feeling that one the major intentions of Baha'u'llah Teachings was
to circumvent this seemingly inevitable divide that occurs between Senex and
Puer Aeternus coreligionists through removing the former religious practice
of dividing humanity using theological-doctrinal reasons to justify it.
This is why I so vehemently object to Alison's and Michael's removal from
Baha'i membership roles. If I keep mum and allow the Universal House of
Justice to go down the same road which all other religions have gone before
without speaking out, I am not only consenting to such negative behavior I
am complicit in that behavior.
It is this perennial sectarian purging of Puer Aeterus coreligionists by
their Senex brethren which has been the undoing of all religious movements
of the past. If religions had accomodated their Puer Aeternus coreligionists
throughout the ages we would have seen far less brutality and bloodshed in
the name of religion, in the name of God; far fewer negative manifestations
of religion.
One of the prime symptoms of religions which have become Senex centered is
that they begin to view their 'orthodoxy' as the one and only true form of
belief; those who do not share in that interpretational 'orthodoxy' are no
longer welcome in their 'religion'. The Baha'i Administrative Order in
general and The Universal House of Justice specifically are already
displaying many symptoms of this ancient spiritual malaise.
It is a malaise which Baha'u'llah sought to end through His removal of the
former religious practice of dividing humanity the 'evil tree' from the
'pure tree'. That the members of The Universal House of Justice see
themselves as the generals of the 'Army of Light' which is arrayed against
'the forcess of darkness' clearly shows that they have fallen back into that
same ignorant religious practice which Baha'u'llah Himself removed; the
religious practice of diving humanity the 'evil tree' from the 'pure tree'.
It is this reinstatement of a religious practice which Baha'u'llah Himself
removed which I refuse to condone. The spiritual malaise which has afflicted
the members of The Universal House of Justice through their going down the
very same road as all the religions which have preceeded the Baha'i Faith
afflicts not only them, it afflicts every Baha'i, mostly in an unconscious
manner.
What you are seeing Jim in the very negative verbal reactions you hear from
Baha'is in good standing to issues such as gay rights, the full equality of
women, the counterproductive typing and marginalization of liberal Baha'is
and scholars as a 'internal oppostion', freedom of conscience and
expression, comes about as a direct result of that spiritual malaise. The
very same spiritual malaise which has afflicted every religion before the
Baha'i Faith.
It is only through addressing all these issues openly and honestly that the
Baha'i Faith will evolve into a religion in which both it's Senex and it's
Puer Aeternus coreligionists will be welcomed. If The Universal House of
Justice refuses to begin to address these issues openly and honestly the
Baha'i Faith will become indistinguishable from all the religions which
preceeded it. Hopefully it's not too late already.
Swiss Heritage
<ro...@northwestel.net> wrote:
>Dear Jim,
>
> The wonderful insights you've gained Jim are very important ones.
Thank you
>Individual growth as well as communal growth can come about through the
>interplay of dichotomies such as the Senex/Puer Aeternus dichotomy.
>
> Viewing the Baha'i Faith using Jung's Senex/Puer Aeternus archetypes has
>helped me to see that this dynamic is not only natural but that the oneness
>of humanity and it's spiritual well-being will, in part, be built on the
>eventual harmony between Senex and Puer Aeternus coreligionists.
I didn't realize that came from Jung. It might be more interesting
than I thought!
Jim
Swiss Heritage
<ro...@northwestel.net> wrote:
> This is why I so vehemently object to Alison's and Michael's removal from
>Baha'i membership roles. If I keep mum and allow the Universal House of
>Justice to go down the same road which all other religions have gone before
>without speaking out, I am not only consenting to such negative behavior I
>am complicit in that behavior.
I understand. I'm very interested in your case. I'd like to see what
happens if it goes to the Universal House of Justice. Or have you
resigned already?
What you're doing is right on the line between what I think might
precipitate action by the House of Justice and what won't, and it
might not depend only on what you do. It might also depend on what
others do with what you do. And of course it depends on how you
respond to attempts to correct your misunderstandings. It might depend
also on whether you really want to be a member or not. Are you being
as aggressive as Michael and Alison were? I don't know, because I
never saw everything they did. Will you continue to be aggressive
after you've been counseled, or will your conscience maybe allow you
to find other, less aggressive ways to accomplish your purpose?
Maybe this will help us find out what "aggressive" means.
Jim
Swiss Heritage
uses the writings of Baha'u'llah as its supreme standard of truth and
justice, as I do, and that its reasons for all its decisions have been
exactly what it said they were, and what mine might be if I were one
of the members.
Jim
Steve Marshall
>> "To attempt, in opposition to the institutions of the Faith, to *form
>> constituencies*
>
>Jim, forming constiuencies [sic] is the *way* in which ones [sic] promotes
>views in opposition to the institutions.
constituency n.M19. [f. next: see -ENCY.]
1 All the people entitled to vote for a particular seat or member in a
public, esp. a legislative, body; the area or population represented
by an elected member. M19.
2 A body of customers, supporters, etc. L19.
(New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on CD)
So, the folks elected to the highest governing body within the Baha'i
Faith were never guilty of "forming constituencies"? How on earth did
they get elected, if they didn't (accidentally of course) develop a
body of supporters?
The quote from the House is just silly double-talk.
ka kite
Steve
sma...@jam.rr.com
> So, the folks elected to the highest governing body within the Baha'i
> Faith were never guilty of "forming constituencies"? How on earth did
> they get elected, if they didn't (accidentally of course) develop a
> body of supporters?
That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about things like the
author of the Service of Women paper trying to persuade me to join in a
campaign with him to get women elected to the House of Justice. This
conversation occurred many years before the actual paper was written.
sma...@jam.rr.com
> Apart from that, it doesn't seem plausible to me that if that they
> were worried that Alison/Michael were effectively promoting views
they
> wanted to repress, they would think that putting them out of the
reach
> of Baha'i institutions would be a good way to solve their problem.
Dear Jim,
It certainly doesn't repress the expression of such ideas. What it does
do is send a very clear message that such views are considered contrary
to the Teachings.
Susan
sma...@jam.rr.com
> I ought to add that the communication with Susie Tamas was not seen
by
> me as her counselling me about my misconceptions, but rather as a
> dialogue. In contradistinction to reports from Americans having
similar
> sessions with Counsellor Birkland, I consistently spoke very well of
my
> meeting with Susie Tamas.
Dear Michael,
You did indeed speak well of her, but my recollection of your account
of that meeting is that she did indeed counsel you to present the
matter to the Universal House of Justice rather than post your
opposition to the exclusion of women on the internet. And you agreed to
do so. I believe this is the response you received from them, is it
not? http://bahai-library.com/?file=uhj_umumi
After you received that letter you resumed your campaign plastering
numerous email messages each day even on lists like Baha'i Studies
where you had been told they were not welcome.
Susan
sma...@jam.rr.com
> See the letter from the Universal House of Justice to Susan Maneck
> dated 20 July 1997.
>
http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/House_letter_academics_internet.html
>
> It's a response to Susan's question about the whole situation with
> academics, which eventually led to Alison's removal.
>
> ". . . the behaviour of a very small group of Baha'is who, rejecting
> all efforts of the administrative institutions to counsel and appeal
> to them, have aggressively sought to promote their misconceptions of
> the Teachings among their fellow believers."
Dear Jim,
The chronology is a bit off. The House's letter to me was written a
couple of years before Alison's removal from the rolls. But she was
promoting the same 'misconceptions of the Teachings.'
warmest, Susan
sma...@jam.rr.com
>
> As I see it, you can argue to your heart's content, in public, in for
> women on the House of Justice, against the review policy, for
> abolishment of the House of Justice, for gay Baha'i marriage, for
> slavery, or anything else, without doing anything the House of
Justice
> says is prohibited, and without any action being taken against you by
> the House of Justice, as long as you are not helping to create a
> coalition of Baha'is, by stirring up antagonism, for the purpose of
> intimidating Baha'i institutions.
Dear Jim,
I don't recall that 'stirring up antagonism' was part of the criteria
for the House removing people from the rolls. The only context where I
recall the House referring to antagonism is when it advised us to avoid
dialogue with those having a 'fixed antagonism' towards the Faith. And
I think you are using the term 'coalition' in ways that always allow
for plausible deniability. I think they clearly consider arguing 'to
your heart's content, in public' against things the House has already
given a clear ruling on to be exactly the kind of 'aggressive
promotion' they would disallow, unless of course one's 'heart's
content' was not to keep pressing the issue year after year.
warmest, Susan
sma...@jam.rr.com
> better is that at that time they were expelled for articulately
advocating
> women on the UHJ, etc.
Dear Michael,
In your case I think it had more to do with the sheer volume of posts
you were making on as many lists as possible advocating these things,
not that they were particularly articulate.
warmest, Susan
sma...@jam.rr.com
Here is the letter:
From: secretar...@bwc.org ("Baha'i World Centre")
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 97 17:15:22 IST
24 September 1997
Ms. Catherine Woodgold
Canada
Dear Ms. Woodgold,
We have been asked to respond to your email letter of 7 September
1997 to the Universal House of Justice, regarding its conclusion
that your husband, Mr. Michael McKenny, cannot properly be regarded
as a member of the Baha'i community. The House of Justice hopes that
the following comments will be of assistance to you in understanding
the step that was taken in Michael's case.
The Baha'i Faith, as the name implies, is a religion, not a
political movement. Its foundation, Baha'is believe, is the
revelation of God for our day and its focal teaching is the oneness
of humankind. The mission that has been laid by Baha'u'llah on those
who recognize and would follow Him is the promotion of the
unification of the earth's peoples in one global society guided by
Divine principle. In order for the Baha'i community to discharge
this responsibility, it must itself remain united. It must
demonstrate to a skeptical age that human beings, in all their
diversity, can learn to live and work as a single people in one
global homeland.
The means by which Baha'u'llah has chosen to preserve the unity
of Baha'i society is the institutions established in the Covenant
which He made with those who accept Him. His Writings make it
indisputably clear that the spiritual and social teachings thus set
forth cannot be separated from the institutional means their Author
has provided for their promotion. Particularly is this true of the
interpretive functions with which the Guardianship has been endowed
and the ultimate decision-making power invested in the Universal
House of Justice, both of which are assured of unfailing Divine
guidance.
One is entirely free to accept or reject the system of belief
Baha'u'llah teaches. The Baha'i Faith is a religion which believes
ardently in freedom of spiritual choice. No one is -- or can ever
be -- compelled to be a Baha'i, nor does any discredit attach to
one who, having decided, for whatever reason, that he or she cannot
continue to accept the Teachings, may decide to renounce them. What
one cannot properly do is to behave in a way that undermines the
unity of the Baha'i community, by challenging the institutional
authority that is an integral part of the Faith one professes to
have accepted.
This is precisely what Michael has persisted in doing. He has
made it unmistakably clear that he does not accept the nature of the
authority conferred in Baha'u'llah's Covenant on either the
Guardianship or the Universal House of Justice, in important areas
of belief. Indeed, some of his statements give the impression that
he does not accept Baha'u'llah's many statements about the nature of
the authority of a Manifestation of God.
Ms. Catherine Woodgold 24 September 1997
Page 2
Efforts to help Michael in overcoming his misunderstanding of
these Baha'i teachings were entirely without avail. The Universal
House of Justice provided him with guidance from the Writings which
should have corrected a number of his misconceptions, including for
this purpose a memorandum specially prepared by the Baha'i World
Centre's Research Department on an issue central to his expressed
concerns. A knowledgeable believer selected for the purpose did her
best to assist him, through hours of discussion and a patient
exchange of correspondence on these and other issues. Michael's
subsequent statements made it clear that his views remained entirely
unaffected by these efforts.
Had the situation continued at this level, Michael's confusion
would have remained his personal spiritual problem. That it did not
remain at this level was the result solely of his deliberate
decision to continue a series of open Internet postings in which he
challenged the authority of Baha'i institutions in language
alternating between conventional professions of respect and
contemptuous reflections on the integrity and actions of those
institutions. As had been made clear during review with him by the
advisor mentioned above, of the relevant passages from the Will and
Testament of `Abdu'l-Baha, such deliberate contention is entirely
unacceptable in one who claims to believe in Baha'u'llah. Indeed, as
a general rule, it would raise a question about the loyalty to the
Covenant of an individual behaving in this fashion. In Michael's
case, the Universal House of Justice reached the conclusion that he
neither understands the basic implications of Baha'i membership nor
has any real desire to do so. His subsequent behaviour will
doubtless be read by most dispassionate observers as confirming the
accuracy of this assessment.
Your concern for your husband's well-being is understandable and
does you much credit. Michael is not a victim of persecution.
Whatever notoriety may have become associated with his situation is,
like the withdrawal of his membership, entirely the result of his
own actions. The House of Justice feels that you can best assist him
by encouraging him to set aside the question of his former
involvement in the Baha'i community and devote his energies to the
other religious and humanitarian interests which engage his
attention.
Faithfully,
Department of the Secretariat
sma...@jam.rr.com
> There is no logical, knowledge based reason for the exclusion of
women from
> the Universal House of Justice.
There is no reason that we know of, it's true. In fact both the House
and the Guardian admitted that we don't know the reason.
> In short it only ignorance which is preventing women from serving in
their
> rightful roles as members of the Universal House of Justice, which is
> preventing women from being treated with full equality, with full
equity ;
Sorry, it doesn't logically follow that because we don't know the
reason for excluding women that it is ignorance which is keeping them
off. Their exclusion is based on the authoritative interpretations of
Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi.
sma...@jam.rr.com
The owner of Talisman One
> was pressured to close the list down.
Michael,
He was never told to close down the list. That was his own decision.
The Counsellor did, however, express concerns about the contents of the
messages the owner was posting to that list which he felt were contrary
to the Teachings. Birkland had hoped to discuss these matters again in
an "an unhurried atmosphere of respect both for your personal
convictions and the integrity of the Faith's Teachings." His major
interest seemed to be in determining whether the owner could really be
considered a Baha'i.
Susan
sma...@jam.rr.com
> In any case, statements to individuals, have no authority for me, in
> determining what the House of Justice has decided to prohibit.
I would think the criteria would be who said it, not to whom it was
said.
Steve Marshall
> The owner of Talisman One
>> was pressured to close the list down.
>
>He was never told to close down the list. That was his own decision.
>The Counsellor did, however, express concerns about the contents of the
>messages the owner was posting to that list which he felt were contrary
>to the Teachings. Birkland had hoped to discuss these matters again in
>an "an unhurried atmosphere of respect both for your personal
>convictions and the integrity of the Faith's Teachings." His major
>interest seemed to be in determining whether the owner could really be
>considered a Baha'i.
It's so hard to tell what you mean when you're spin-doctoring. I
assume you're referring to the letter that includes the following
chilling closing paragraph:
"The International Teaching Centre has asked me--with the knowledge of
the Universal House of Justice--to warn you that your promulgation of
views contrary to the Teachings was damaging to the Cause. If you were
to resume in any fashion this course of action, the effect would be to
bring you into direct conflict with the Covenant.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai/bhcouns.htm
Yes, being threatened with being declared a Covenant-breaker is easily
confused with being pressured to close down a list. Thanks for your
clarification, Susan.
Here are more passages from Karen Bacquet about what went down at that
time:
The Baha'i leadership, accustomed to carefully controlling information
concerning their religion, soon became alarmed at the freewheeling
discourse on Talisman and cracked down in 1996, threatening prominent
posters with being shunned as "covenant-breakers".
http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/bigquestions/alison.html
In February 1996, a young member of Majnun (the smaller list
continued with its more specialized discussions) was furious at the
way the NSA handled the case and suggested that an organized protest
be formed along with a written statement of reform proposals for
Baha'i administration. Another member of this small circle of friends
responded with a humorous message, gentle vetoing the idea as
potentially causing more harm than good, and saying that the
administration couldn't do anything about the existence of Talisman or
the spread of liberal ideas, even though they disliked it. Fatefully,
this email was sent to the broader forum, Talisman, instead of to the
Majnun list. This message, later dubbed the "Majnun post"was
misinterpreted as evidence of a conspiracy and used as an excuse to
investigate the prominent posters on the list.
These included John Walbridge and his wife, Linda, Juan Cole,
Steven Scholl of White Cloud Press and founding editor of Dialogue
magazine, and Anthony Lee of Kalimat Press, an independent Baha'i
publisher. Accounts differ concerning the nature and purpose of this
investigation. Cole, who had made the most extensive public statements
on the crackdown insists that he was threatened with being called a
"covenant-breaker" if he did not stop posting his liberal views on
email forums. (A covenant-breaker is a heretic who advocates a form of
authority other than the Baha'i institutions. The penalty for this is
shunning.) Baha'i officials deny that Cole was ever threatened.
The only written evidence of the nature of the threats made
against the Talisman posters are two letters by Counselor Stephen
Birkland, the Baha'i official asssigned to the investigation, to
Scholl and another Talisman participant.Both of these letters end with
the warning that "your promulgation of views contrary to the Teachings
was damaging to the Cause. If you were to resume in any fashion this
course of action, the effect would be to bring you into direct
conflict with the Covenant"; that is, they would be regarded as
"covenant-breakers". The letters also make it clear that Birkland's
instructions came from the supreme governing body of the Baha'i Faith,
with its seat in Haifa.
http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/bigquestions/talisman.html
Steve Marshall
Thanks for the clarification I never would have guessed that. Gosh
it's hard to tell what you're talking about when you go into
spin-doctoring mode.
All the same, I'm asking a damn good question -- so it's no surprise
you can't answer it.
ka kite
Steve
Abraxas
the
>former religious practice of dividing humanity the 'evil tree' from
the
>'pure tree'.
And exactly how did your "profit" accomplish this given his concepts of
"covenant" and "covenant breaking" which does exactly the oppsoite? You
are speaking nonsense again, larry. Your "profit" was just as much an
asshole in creating categories of us and them as the next semitic
prophet.
There is only I, I am the All, 'as unific Being-Beyond-Being.'
Yours Wahid
Michael McKenny
Hi, Susan.
(sma...@jam.rr.com) writes:
> You did indeed speak well of her,
As I'll now try to speak well of all here and elsewhere. Actually, if we
could only see beneath the exterior of animosity, we'd realize just how
wondrous is the creation, or evolution, of humanity and how truly worthy
of respect the members of the species.
> but my recollection of your account
> of that meeting is that she did indeed counsel you to present the
> matter to the Universal House of Justice rather than post your
> opposition to the exclusion of women on the internet.
Uhm, that kinda looks like an attempt to suppress personal opinion, Jim.
It's not exactly how I recall things, but memory is not very trustworthy
and it's true that when I told her that I had no trouble with the LSA or
the NSA, only with the UHJ that she encouraged me to write to them. Now
since I'd been posting stuff to the Baha'i e-lists not to form any
constituency, but ultimately to encourage the UHJ to behave in a manner to
enhance respect for itself and the Baha'i Faith, it made sense to write to
them, though as the letter I wrote states, I was counselled by others that
this was a very bad idea, considering the nature of the entity I'd be
addressing.
> And you agreed to
> do so.
I guess it's this agreement thing, contract, even covenant, you could call
it. Well, A does X and B does Y. So, I wrote to them and I wrote an
effective letter, or one that could have been effective. And B didn't do
anything except respond with the same material that was the cause of
writing to them. It's like "You repair this broken car and I'll drive it
off your lot, okay?" "Thanks for bringing us your car; here it is; now
drive away and be quiet." "But you haven't done anything to fix it. It's
in the same shape as when I brought it in, along with the manual on how to
fix those broken parts." "We declare you're not a true driver, since you
refuse to shut up and drive away in the car."
> I believe this is the response you received from them, is it
> not? http://bahai-library.com/?file=uhj_umumi
Well, I am a technopeasant, so I may not have done it right, but when I
clicked on that link all I got was one of the addendums to the letter.
> After you received that letter you resumed your campaign plastering
> numerous email messages each day
This statement is false. I believe I posted no more than two or three
posts a day; you've posted very much more to TRB. It may have seemed a lot
to those who really didn't want others reading what I had to say. After
all, with kill files no one is forced to read someone they don't want to,
or even to know he's posted. So, Jim, another indication that it is about
censoring ideas, concepts, information.
> even on lists like Baha'i Studies
> where you had been told they were not welcome.
You are free to post here the unwelcome material from that list and to
explain why those finding it unwelcome would not simply killfile me, if
their main concern wasn't to prevent other people from reading what I had
to say. This, by the way, is actually the best balancing method to my one
side of the story. I wasn't very pleased with that non response from the
Universal House of Justice ("Here's how we can overcome our prejudice
against Blacks and do away with slavery." "Thanks for contacting us;
here's the false foundation for our system of slavery; have a nice day.")
I reckon if one isn't comfortable with slavery, one speaks up, even if
some folks tell you to shut up.
Michael McKenny
Hi, Susan.
(sma...@jam.rr.com) writes:
>> ". . . the behaviour of a very small group of Baha'is who, rejecting
>> all efforts of the administrative institutions to counsel and appeal
>> to them, have aggressively sought to promote their misconceptions of
>> the Teachings among their fellow believers."
My reading of this text is that the expression of one's understandings is
here being described as aggressive promotion of misconceptions. It is the
invalid and unauthorized, indeed prohibited, entrance of the Universal
House of Justice into the realm of ruling on doctrine and heresy. This
action requires remediation. This behaviour, along with the attitude that
any and all Baha'i spiritual principles may be disregarded, is what calls
for correction.
> The chronology is a bit off. The House's letter to me was written a
> couple of years before Alison's removal from the rolls. But she was
> promoting the same 'misconceptions of the Teachings.'
"Misconception of the teachings" applied to calls for living the life of
the spiritual teachings of the religion is one reason some people
associated the current administration with the least beneficial political
administrations of the past century. I very much hope that a corner has
been turned and the present day is very different.
> warmest, Susan
Michael McKenny
Greetings, Susan, Hooper and all.
(sma...@jam.rr.com) writes:
> not to keep pressing the issue year after year.
Slavery of Black folks is wrong. It was wrong in 1892 C.E. It was wrong in
1921 C.E. It was wrong in 1957 C.E. It's wrong today. It will be wrong in
2222 C.E. Preventing women from taking their legitimate place on the
Universal House of Justice was wrong in 1963. It was wrong in 1968. It was
wrong in 1973. It was wrong in 1978. It was wrong in 1983. It was wrong in
1988. It was wrong in 1993. It was wrong in 1998. It was wrong in 2003. it
was wrong in each and every year in between. It is wrong today. It will be
wrong in each year it is conducted in violation to the spiritual
principles of Baha'i. It is so wrong, the Master explains this as the
cause of the continuation of warfare upon this planet. The issue is
pressing, until it is dealt with and women are accepted, according to the
pressing demands of the Baha'i spiritual principles.
The Universal House of Justice has absolutely no moral authority, until
women are accepted as eligible for membership.
> warmest, Susan
Very much hoping we are no longer talking about year after year, and
instead the Universal House of Justice attains moral authority.
Michael McKenny
Hi, Susan.
(sma...@jam.rr.com) writes:
> In your case I think it had more to do with the sheer volume of posts
> you were making on as many lists as possible advocating these things,
> not that they were particularly articulate.
This is factually incorrect. You are free to post the posts I made to
whatever lists you can obtain archives from. There were more lists than I
was on. It's possible this is the case of looking in the mirror. I believe
you have the gold medal in the quantity department, both in overall posts
and in number of Baha'i lists posted to. I believe that articulate is very
apt in describing what was feared by those, who could have killfiled me
and so didn't themselves have to read a word I posted, but did indeed
dread the consequences of others reading what I wrote so convincingly.
> warmest, Susan
geo...@yahoo.com
> Hi, Susan.
>
> Uhm, that kinda looks like an attempt to suppress personal opinion,
Jim.
Confusing me with Susan already. Time for me to disappear.
Jim
PP
What's wrong with that, I'd love to be confused with Susan.
Novice
is saying that she wasn't interested in being counseled. Her website
is a testament of denial of the divine guidance of the House of
Justice. She does not deny that such a posture towards the House, the
"present-day Administration", disqualifies her from the membership she
does not want.
But rather than admitting that she does not belong in the Baha'i Faith,
she prefers to continue to harangue the Administration of the Faith for
its misstatement. Better to point the finger at others than admit the
gaping flaws in one's own position.
"I was never interested in being reinstated or having the decision
reversed. What I wanted was to prove that I was never counselled and
that the NSA had grossly misled the New Zealand Baha'i community in
asserting that I had."
Why not admit, up front, that the decision to remove you, Alison, was
well-founded?
Because once that's done, the quibbling objections you raise are seen
for what they are; ashes in the wind. Better to stir up opposition.
Novice
Michael McKenny
Hi, Jim.
(geo...@yahoo.com) writes:
> Confusing me with Susan already. Time for me to disappear.
>
Nope, no confusion, just a thought you'd be reading and the comments and
quotes Susan provided seemed to validate the theory that it is ideas,
opinions and concepts that are being censored (or attempted censorship) by
Baha'i authorities. Hence this misconceptions thing.
> Jim
Michael McKenny
Hi, Novice.
"Novice" (novicea...@yahoo.com) writes:
> So let's get this straight. Alison didn't want to be reinstated.
Well, it's a common thing that a lot of people in repressed communities
are not happy to dwell within the repressed society. Yevgeny Zamyatin
wrote to Stalin asking for the ability to move out of Russia until Russia
was not ruled by little men. It doesn't mean he's not seeing himself in
that letter or his subsequent move to France as Russian. It means that
what has been done to Russia under Stalin is intolerable. Ditto for Baha'i.
> She
> is saying that she wasn't interested in being counseled.
Well, Zamyatin wasn't terribly interested in being counselled by Stalin's
henchmen either. Zamyatin didn't require counselling. Russia required
being administered by something better than little men.
> Her website
> is a testament of denial of the divine guidance of the House of
> Justice.
Novice, Hooper and all, the Universal House of Justice will prove it is
being divinely guided only after it admits that women are eligible to
serve on the Universal House of Justice. Until then, the little men
(lacking the balls to admit their mistake) will have exactly the same
moral authority to rule Baha'i as Stalin had to rule Russia. And if you
think any god has anything to do with it (other than having his guidance
ignored) that is an impressive stretch of the rainbow of valid opinions.
> She does not deny that such a posture towards the House, the
> "present-day Administration", disqualifies her from the membership she
> does not want.
Alison Marshall is a Baha'i in good standing. She has legitimate
membership within the Baha'i world community, inasmuch as the little men
refusing to be divinely guided and insisting on heresy declarations have
no more moral authority to pronounce on membership qualifications of
Baha'is than Stalin had moral authority to decide Russian citizenship.
> But rather than admitting that she does not belong in the Baha'i Faith,
> she prefers to continue to harangue the Administration of the Faith for
> its misstatement.
She is a Baha'i. What does not belong in the Baha'i Faith is the divisive
concept of heresy declarations. What does not belong in the Baha'i Faith
is patriarchy and the suppression of women.
> Better to point the finger at others than admit the
> gaping flaws in one's own position.
This seems aptly to describe the situation currently facing those who have
usurped the title of Universal House of Justice. I look forward to a
complete reversal of this mess, the evolution of these little ballless
things into the real Source of All Good and the Wellspring of Guidance and
the healers of humanity.
> "I was never interested in being reinstated or having the decision
> reversed. What I wanted was to prove that I was never counselled and
> that the NSA had grossly misled the New Zealand Baha'i community in
> asserting that I had."
See above. Zamyatin's case is a close parallel.
> Why not admit, up front, that the decision to remove you, Alison, was
> well-founded?
Do you agree, Novice, that Stalin's approval of Zamyatin's request was
well-founded.
> Because once that's done, the quibbling objections you raise are seen
> for what they are; ashes in the wind. Better to stir up opposition.
Now this point's so interesting, I'm going to reply separately, lest my
reply get lost by being at the end here.
> Novice
Thrice three Blessings, Michael
Michael McKenny
"Novice" (novicea...@yahoo.com) writes:
> Because once that's done, the quibbling objections you raise are seen
> for what they are; ashes in the wind. Better to stir up opposition.
The continuation of warfare in the Twenty First Century is more than ashes
in the wind, unless of course you mean that eventually your inability to
accept the equality of women and men will produce a nuclear holocaust
delayed, but, alas, thanks to you, only delayed and not prevented. Then
the hopes for future generations of humans will be ashes in the wind along
with the material artefacts of your prejudiced petty generation.
I'll post this and reply to your other point separately.
> Novice
Thrice Three Blessings, Michael
Michael McKenny
Hi, Novice.
The comments below and separately are frank and valid readings of the
Baha'i demise and its terrible consequences for humanity. Baha'i isn't the
only ace in humanity's deck, but it was an ace and its demise is tragic.
Now, this doesn't erase the understanding that both frank illumination of
reality and an attempt to respond according to a Baha'i method are called
for. Well, you've gotten the frank illumination. Where do we go from here?
Gandhi was able to get the British out of India and to the degree that the
Baha'is in the 80s in Iran were able to respond in breathtakingly
spiritual ways they gained the sympathy for Baha'i of the planet. This
sympathy was pissed away by the Universal House of Justice, but again
that's frank illumination. Humanity has no time for patriarchies that
issue heresy declarations and insist on suppressing women, but again,
that's just more frank illumination.
We still haven't got to any meaningful response. I think I'll post that
meaningful response thing separately. However, one point is that
meaningful illumination is the opposite of opposition. Driving in the dark
got you into the ditch. Illumination frankly provided at least lets you
know where you gotta be. The question becomes one of how to get there.
Thrice Three Blessings, Michael
PP
related to the Universal House of Justice, or do you also have frank
illuminations about Baha'u'llah? Just curious.
Heather Carr-Rowe
Welcome back! I guess Nima and Starr* can no longer claim that I replaced
you as the rep for the A.O. here on TRB, lol!
The vast arrogance of Birkland and other Baha'is of his ilk is prodigious.
The vast ignorance of The Universal House of Justice in setting such pit
bulls of dogma on the community of Baha' Itself shows a total distain for
Baha'u'llahs removal of the former religious practice of dividing humanity
"the evil tree" from "the pure tree", and the spirit of Universality.
"Convictions and ideas are within the scope of the comprehension of the King
of kings, not of kings; and soul and conscience are between the fingers of
control of the Lord of hearts, not of [His] servants. So in the world of
existence two persons unanimous in all grades [of thought] and all beliefs
cannot be found. 'The ways unto God are as the number of the breaths of
[His] creatures' is a mysterious truth, and 'To every [people] We have
appointed a [separate] rite'* is one of the subtleties of the Qur'án. If
this vast energy and precious time which have been expended in persecuting
other religions, and whereby no sort of result or effect has been obtained,"
(Abdu'l-Baha, A Traveller's Narrative, p. 91)
If the vast energy and precious time wasted by The Universal House of
Justice and the Baha'i Administrative Order on persecuting its own
coreligionists and ignorantly attempting to enforce Their Own
interpretational, dogmatic, doctrinal purity, ' and whereby no sort of
(positive) result of effect has been obtained ', had been spent in
strengthening the basis of the Baha'i Faith through encouraging and
fostering diversity instead of prohibiting and eliminating that diversity,
the Baha'i Faith would now be flourishing instead of floundering.
The cultishness of the mindset represented in such words as these:
"The need to protect the Faith from the attacks of its enemies may not be
generally appreciated by the friends, particularly in places where attacks
have been infrequent. However, it is certain that such opposition will
increase, become concerted, and eventually universal. The writings clearly
foreshadow not only an intensification of the machinations of internal
enemies, but a rise in the hostility and opposition of its external enemies,
whether religious or secular, as the Cause pursues its onward march towards
ultimate victory. Therefore, in the light of the warnings of the Guardian,
the Auxiliary Boards for Protection should keep "constantly" a "watchful
eye" on those "who are known to be enemies, or to have been put out of the
Faith", discreetly investigate their activities, alert intelligently the
friends to the opposition inevitably to come, explain how each crisis in
God's Faith has always proved to be a blessing in disguise, and prepare them
for the "dire contest which is destined to range the Army of Light against
the forces of darkness".
(The Universal House of Justice, The Institution of the Counsellors, p. 16)
Needs only to be contrasted with the Universality represented in such Words
as the following to show that the words and actions of The Universal House
of Justice and It's mimions in no way represent Baha'u'llah's or
Abdu'l-Baha's Universal Teachings of the oneness of humanity:
"A fundamental teaching of Bahá'u'lláh is the oneness of the world of
humanity. Addressing mankind, He says: "Ye are all leaves of one tree and
the fruits of one branch." By this it is meant that the world of humanity is
like a tree, the nations or peoples are the different limbs or branches of
that tree and the individual human creatures are as the fruits and blossoms
thereof. In this way His Holiness Bahá'u'lláh expressed the oneness of
humankind whereas in all religious teachings of the past, the human world
has been represented as divided into two parts, one known as the people of
the Book of God or the pure tree and the other the people of infidelity and
error or the evil tree. The former were considered as belonging to the
faithful and the others to the hosts of the irreligious and infidel; one
part of humanity the recipients of divine mercy and the other the object of
the wrath of their Creator. His Holiness Bahá'u'lláh removed this by
proclaiming the oneness of the world of humanity and this principle is
specialized in His teachings for He has submerged all mankind in the sea of
divine generosity. Some are asleep; they need to be awakened. Some are
ailing; they need to be healed. Some are immature as children; they need to
be trained. But all are recipients of the bounty and bestowals of God."
(Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 246)
The control of the Baha'i Faith by Senex Baha'is has turned what was to be
a progressive religion into a mirror image of Catholicism.
As Senex Baha'is continue to purge their Puer Aeternus coreligionist
Baha'is from their shared religion the Baha'i Faith will become even less
progressive and more cultish till it is but a shell, not a 'religion' at
all. A 'superstructure' where the 'original intention' has long been
forgotten, a religion indistinguishable from all those which have preceded
it.
There is only us, we are them, ' as one soul'.
Yours Larry
"Thus religion which was destined to become the cause of friendship has
become the cause of enmity. Religion, which was meant to be sweet honey, is
changed into bitter poison. Religion, the function of which was to illumine
humanity, has become the factor of obscuration and gloom. Religion, which
was to confer the consciousness of everlasting life, has become the fiendish
instrument of death. As long as these superstitions are in the hands and
these nets of dissimulation and hypocrisy in the fingers, religion will be
the most harmful agency on this planet. These superannuated traditions,
which are inherited unto the present day, must be abandoned, and thus free
from past superstitions we must investigate the original intention. The
basis on which they have fabricated the superstructures will be seen to be
one, and that one, absolute reality; and as reality is indivisible, complete
unity and amity will be instituted and the true religion of God will become
unveiled in all its beauty and sublimity in the assemblage of the world."
(Abdu'l-Baha, Divine Philosophy, p. 161)
Milissa
Cyberhugs to both of you! Of course, not at the same time....;)
Coming out of lurking mode for a moment. One thing that still puzzles
me is the constituencies thing. It *seems* like the Internet has made
this fuzzy, at least to me. In "the old days" if one had a
controversial opinion, you really did have to make an effort to
develop a constituency. On the Internet, it just a whole lot easier
to make connections with others of like-minded opinion. It just seems
that it makes determining whether one is developing a constituency way
too subjective.
Another thing that I still haven't been able to work out is that there
*seems* to be a double standard. When believers petitioned to be
allow to pay Huququ'llah they were not seen as developing a
constituency, even though it involved people getting together to
request a particular action. Why, in this instance, was it not seen
as developing a following? Why was their request seen as a "petition"
and other requests seen as trying to apply pressure? I can't help
avoid the conclusion that it just all depends on whether or not the
House likes what is being requested!
So, what am I missing here? The only difference between the two that I
know of *at this time* is that the Huququ'llah petitioners apparently
did it at convention (ie official channels) rather than via the
Internet. Is that why the House sees them so differently? But either
way, both involved forming some type of constituency at some point, or
how else to get all those signatures? Thanks for helping me
understand the difference between these two events.
Peace,
Milissa
Steve Marshall <asm...@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:<mh3h61pau6l1m65vf...@4ax.com>...
Michael McKenny
Hi, pp.
Many thanks for the question. Actually. in this context, the other hand
remains how do Baha'is respond to this situation. That is the frank
illumination is that Baha'u'llah has advised a novel method (well, I won't
complain if others point out previous teachers advocating same, but it
remains a relatively rare bit of advice) of dealing with such as have
usurped the title of UHJ. And, I'm alert enough to detect that the natural
reaction of telling it like it is, something a bit refreshing in a land of
censorship, oppression and other malodorous aspects, doesn't answer the
whole requirement. It leaves a lot out, though it is very understandable
that people stand up and shout that there's something rotten in the
kingdom of the usurpers of the title of UHJ.
This again is too lengthy in the frank illimination bit. I'll have to stop
and try again. I'll spell it out and say that Michael McKenny and anyone
else who focuses only on what's wrong with the Baha'i Faith or anything
else is missing quite a bit. Now, in my opinion, even if there's a grand
and fierce combat won by the forces of light and the patriarchate is
dissolved and replaced by something more approaching Baha'i spiritual
principles, the grand and fierce combat itself is an indication that
Baha'i failed to evolve by purely Baha'i means and this growth happened at
least in part according to traditional means. That's sad as to the degree
the novel (or at least rare) means found in the Baha'i teachings are not
employed, then to that extent they can't serve as an example in the
greater society.