|
From: "Karen Bacquet" <kalamity@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: Jenifer Tidwell - Letter to the LSA.
Date: Saturday, January 27, 2001 3:27 PM
Dear Jenifer:
It's so nice to hear from you!
>
> First, the individuals in my local community handled the situation
> very well. I have seen them occasionally in the time since I
left,
> such as at a town interfaith celebration, and we remain on very good
> terms, just like old friends ought to be! One of them has since
had
> trouble with the Faith and spoke to me about it -- I'm afraid I
wasn't
> of much help to him, but apparently he's been dealing with some of
> the same issues, and maybe my letter helped him work them out.
>
> I have not encountered any hostility. None. That speaks
so well of
> the Baha'is, doesn't it?
I've had the same experience, mostly. There was one guy who put
a lot
of pressure on me either to come back to the Faith officially, or to
stay away completely. Actually, just last night I went to gathering,
and saw people I haven't seen in nearly two years. My feelings were
mixed. Everyone was very welcoming to me (not everyone was aware of
my
rather ambiguous status), but some things were just same old, same old,
just like I left it.
Most of the hostility I have encountered has been in cyberspace, and
that is because I have been openly critical of the Institutions and
some of their actions.
>
> On the other hand, no institution has responded to any of my specific
> points. In fact, National never send me any acknowledgement of
the
> letter at all (though the local LSA did) -- I just stopped receiving
> mail from them, and that was that. Odd, but typical, I thought:
> wonderful individuals and community, yet unresponsive institutions.
It took months before the NSA responded to my resignation letter,
although The American Baha'i stopped coming immediately, which I
thought somewhat amusing. (Can't have a "non-Baha'i" reading all
those
deep, dark secrets in our national newsletter! :-)
>
>
> I am still learning so much about the Christian revelation that it
> sometimes makes my head spin. One of our parishioners is a
Harvard
> professor who studies the Gospel of Mary. (Did you know that
existed?
> Along with the Gospel of Thomas, and other non-canonical books.
> Fascinating stuff.) And our priest finds interpretations of
old,
> familiar stories that stand the traditional meanings on their heads.
> It's confusing, and it's wonderful.
Yes, I've done some looking into the Nag Hammadi texts, and it is
quite
amazing stuff.
>
> Another blessing is the new freedoms I have. For instance, I no
> longer feel any hesitation about taking sides on political issues.
> In fact, I feel now that if we *don't* take part in the political
> process -- both individually and corporately -- we're not living up
to
> our responsibility to do God's work in this world. (I'm talking
more
> about social justice, peace, and environmental issues than the
nastier
> right-wing stuff, don't worry. But, ironically, I understand
the
> religious right better now.)
>
> Oh -- and good wine tastes fabulous. In moderation, of
course. :-)
You know what I miss? Margueritas, that's what I miss. :-) I
have not,
since leaving, done much in terms of becoming involved in politics I
still follow Baha'i law in my personal life, but the prohibition on
politics is more community policy than law, and would not feel bound by
it. But I'm not all that politically-oriented. I am troubled,
however, that Baha'is go around talking about how we have the answers
to the world's problems, yet are prevented from doing so much that is
practical about them.
> I have been better able to reconcile my love of the outdoors with
> Christian theology than with Baha'i theology. I won't go into
the
> details of that here, but I find God's Word written into the woods,
> rock, snow, and mountains as much as it is written into Revelation.
> That's a personal thing; I don't doubt there are Baha'is who feel the
> same way.
Baha'u'llah refers to "The Book of Creation" as well as
"The Book of
Revelation". St. Paul calls it "general revelation"
as opposed
to "specific revelation" -- in the Epistle to the Romans, I
think.
>
> I don't read the Writings that often anymore, though occasionally, in
> meditative moments, the daily obligatory prayer comes unbidden.
> (Christian prayers do, too, sometimes.) Now that I think about
it, I
> do miss the Writings. But I can't read them in quite the same
way now
> that I used to. Nevertheless, I am willing to believe I was
wrong
> about them having "pat answers for everything," and I'm
reading this
> netnews discussion with eagerness...
Honey, you get out in Baha'i cyberspace, you'll see perspectives
you've
never thought of. Not to mention new translations of Tablets you've
never seen.
>
> I'm not sure what God was trying to tell me that day. It might
have
> been, "Come back to the Faith," but it might also have
been, "It's OK
> to be where you are. This Faith will always be here if you need
it,
> even if you remain outside it for a while."
It has always been my belief that no one who seeks God with sincerity
will ever end up in the wrong place.
Love, Karen
>
>
--
"The essence of all that We have revealed for thee
is justice . . ." Baha'u'llah
https://www.angelfire.com/ca3/bigquestions/Bacquet.html
Sent via Deja.com
https://www.deja.com/From: "Karen Bacquet" <kalamity@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: [ bahai ] Jenifer Tidwell - Letter to the LSA. of Arlington.
Massachusetts
Date: Thursday, February 01, 2001 12:00 AM
In article <957rra079q@news1.newsguy.com>,
"Rick Schaut" <RSSchaut@email.msn.NOSPAMcom> wrote:
>
> "Karen Bacquet" <kalamity@my-deja.com> wrote in
message
> news:957n47$54b$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > I have told the truth, exactly as I see it. You may disagree
with me
> > all you like; you cross the line when you call me dishonest.
>
> Correction, Karen. I said that I _could_ have called you
dishonest.
I
> didn't, and, quite frankly, I would chastise anyone who did.
>
> What I also said, however, is that such an accusation would be
roughly
> parallel to some of the things you've said about Baha'i institutions
and/or
> members thereof. For example, you stated that members of the
U.S.
National
> Spiritual Assembly were acting on hate for a group of people and were
> looking for ways to oust them. Not even any mention of the fact
that
they
> at least claim to be upholding Baha'i principles in the letters that
are
> available to us on the web, or that the principles they cite have
basis in
> Baha'i texts.
Rick,
Exactly where is it a "Baha'i principle" that someone under
suspicion
by the institutions can be publicly humiliated. By the way, the only
particular individual I have even mentioned has been Dr. Kazemzadeh,
who I am angry at because I was there for his big snit fit about "A
Modest Proposal", and I feel like I was lied to. That's the
thing
Rick, I trusted my National Spiritual Assembly. I am now deeply
ashamed that I believed such accusations just based on the mere word of
an NSA member. He used me, Rick, and I just don't take kindly to that.
He used me to destroy that magazine. That's the difference between
what I say and what Kazemzadeh says. He had power over people; I am
no
one. What he did tore my faith away from me in one of those most
traumatic experiences of my life; but I'm no more trouble to our
eminent ex-Secretary for External Affairs that a pimple on his behind,
assuming he even knows I exist. He knew that when he denounced
Dialogue that most Baha'is would immediately either cancel their
subscriptions, or not renew them. I threw my copies away; I sure
wish
I had them now. We all followed like a bunch of sheep.
Now how is that a Baha'i principle, Rick? That a National
Spiritual
Assembly member can denounce somebody and force the closure of a
publication? I thought the institutions were supposed to work by
consultation; I thought they were supposed to have due concern for a
person's honor, which is one reason Shoghi Effendi gives for not making
Spiritual Assembly meetings public. Why denounce an article that could
have been easily and quietly censored in the prepublication reveiw
process, unless you wanted the people involved to be tarred with an
unsavory reputation?
Yeah, I trusted my National Spiritual Assembly, and they lied to
me. I
won't make that mistake again.
Karen
>
> Now, Karen, how is your characterization any different from someone
accusing
> you of dishonesty? Figure out the answer to that question, and
you'll
> understand why I regard some of your remarks with such a high degree
of
> contempt.
>
> With that, I think it's time I go throw a few darts...
>
> Regards,
> Rick Schaut
>
>
--
"The essence of all that We have revealed for thee
is justice . . ." Baha'u'llah
https://www.angelfire.com/ca3/bigquestions/Bacquet.html
--
"The essence of all that We have revealed for thee
is justice . . ." Baha'u'llah
https://www.angelfire.com/ca3/bigquestions/Bacquet.html
Sent via Deja.com
https://www.deja.com/From: "Karen Bacquet" <kalamity@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: [ bahai ] Jenifer Tidwell - Letter to the LSA. of Arlington.
Massachusetts
Date: Thursday, February 01, 2001 1:13 AM
Dear Rick,
Here's my response to your last post. I'm sorry that I took so
long,
but I do have a life beyond cyberspace.
> Well, yes. Documenting the stuff you've written, with
particular
attention
> to information regarding the views expressed by Baha'i Institutions,
would
> have gone a long way toward remedying the omissions in your
articles. Case
> in point:
>
> 'While administrators have been powerless to prevent freedom of
expression
> in Baha'i cyberspace (a phenomenon the Universal House of Justice has
called
> "a campaign of internal opposition")...'
>
> Had you quoted more than a phrase out of the April 7 letter, it would
be
> more clear that the issue isn't about freedom of expression at all.
Well, they don't like some of the opinions expressed on email forums.
That sure looks like a freedom of expression issue to me.
It's
> not even apparent that the goal of the Institutions is to prevent
freedom of
> expression.
I think some of their actions speak pretty loudly about their
motivations.
That's an inferred motive, but no one, anywhere, can find that
> documented in any explicit way. Moreover, if their goal is to
silence
> people, going around and handing people their membership cards back
seems
> like a monumentally idiotic means of doing so.
On the contrary, it is very effective at silencing those who might not
be willing to risk the loss of their membership cards. It also
undermines the effectiveness of someone who, it can be said, is no
longer a Baha'i, or "disgruntled" or whatever. There is also the
possibility that the person so targeted witll become less of a presence
in Baha'i cyberspace after being booted. For example, Mike McKenny
found another spiritual home and pops in only occasionally. There is
no way to guarentee any individual's silence, but booting them out of
the Faith is likely to, at least, alter their voice somewhat. It
also
provides a cautionary example to anyone who might consider speaking out
in a similar fashion.
>
> Above all that, however, one is at least obligated to point out what
these
> institutions say is their motive, and to state it as accurately as
possible.
> People can figure out for themselves whether or not the institutions
are
> being upfront in their various letters.
Actually, the entire April 7 letter is available on Themestream Baha'i
in Robin Peters' article "What is This Supposed to Mean?" and it
has
been discussed a little in some of the "Talk Back"
columns. I actually
recommended to my readers that they read that letter. I have a link
to
it from my webpage on the Faith, too. I dislike putting (or for that
matter, reading) long quotes in an article, but I do put short ones in
wherever it seems appropriate.
>
> > I should point out that there is a
> > recommended 1500 word limit for Themestream articles, and most
of
mine
> > come close to that. I hit a few main points, mostly, but I
suppose
it
> > is inevitable that some readers will think of things I should
have
> > included.
>
> First of all, you haven't missed a few minor details. In some
cases,
you
> miss the entire issue that's at the center of the controversy.
>
> Secondly, the word limit strikes me as a poor excuse. So break
the
articles
> up into separate parts. Or, spend more time discussing facts
and
less time
> drawing conclusions.
No, I'm sure it isn't much of an excuse. However I did
publish an
article (A Religion Out of Balance) in two parts, and it's awkward.
The two of them are rated separately, and the second half is ranked #2,
and the first half is something like #15. I've had people confused
about where the other half of the article is.
Anyway, I'm not convinced that I've left out much of importance; all I
know is that I've left out some things *you* consider important. I
think part of the appeal of my articles is that they're short, punchy,
to-the-point, without a lot of detours, and I'm disinclined to make
them anything different than that. I do my best to give the official
side -- you will recall that this whole thing started because I put
information about the Dec. 28 letter into my mashriq article and was
fool enough to believe some people might think that was a good idea. I
balance Juan's claim that he was threatened with being named a covenant-
breaker with the official denial that this ever happened. I also quote
from the Birkland letters, since that's the only publicly available
written record of the crackdown. I've got short quotes from a UHJ
letter all over the article about Alison.
>
> > Well, first of all, the main thrust of that article is the
prevalence
> > of theocratic views within the Baha'i community, and the fact
that
this
> > view is not the only way of looking at Baha'u'llah's teachings.
>
> But you got the context all wrong, Karen. I dare say you
couldn't
have
> gotten the context any more wrong.
Well, I don't understand what you are talking about. First, I
said
that Baha'i teaching have a lot to say about social issues, but
individual Baha'is are prevented from achieving those goals through
political means. I name a few ways that we do express our social
concerns. I say that there exists the expectation of a future Baha'i
theocracy among some elements of the community, whicle admitting some
uncertainty as to just how prevalent they are. I mention the April 7
letter's condemnation of the separation of church and state, and I note
that there are differing views on the matter based upon differing
interpretations of Baha'i scripture. I'm still not convinced that
any
of those things are false, misleading, or inaccurate. The only
legitimate complaint I can see you might have here is that i didn't
talk up SED, and I can stick a sentence in there to remedy that. As
I
said, I didn't think of it, because it never touched my Baha'i life
that much.
>
> > Actually, it never occurred to me to go into the Social and
Economic
> > projects done throughout the world. For one thing, it's
not the
main
> > thrust of my article. I could easily add a sentence about
it if it
> > will make you feel better, but it really doesn't change
anything.
>
> Your introduction to the subject asks, "The natural question is,
if
Baha'is
> can't work politically towards the realization of their social
ideals, how
> do they expect to achieve them?" And the introduction is
what gives
your
> subject relevance. Since the only basis for the subject's
relevance
is
> undercut, the article would appear to require a complete rewrite.
Without
> that introduction, what's the point in talking about Baha'i views on
> theocracy?
The reason that I wanted to talk about theocracy is because, like the
exclusion of women from the UHJ, it's one of those things that gets
pulled out like a rabbit out of a hat, after you've signed a card.
It's not fair to do stuff like that to people. Also, after
maintaining
the uncomfortable belief that the expectation of a future theocracy was
just part and parcel of being a Baha'i, I found out that there were
other ways of looking at it. It's only fair that people know that,
too.
Rick, the rest of your quotes seem to have disappeared. I'll
complete
the rest of my response in a separate post.
Love, Karen
Sent via Deja.com
https://www.deja.com/From: "Karen Bacquet" <kalamity@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: [ bahai ] Jenifer Tidwell - Letter to the LSA. of Arlington.
Massachusetts
Date: Thursday, February 01, 2001 1:41 AM
Dear Rick,
To continue:
>
> Karen wrote:
>
> "Baha'i fundamentalism shows an absolute contempt of traditional
democratic
> values such as the right to free speech, the necessity of a free
press as a
> check on institutional power, or the right for a person accused of
> wrongdoing to have knowledge of the evidence against them and face
their
> accusers."
>
> I've been around the Baha'i Faith for nearly my entire life.
Nowhere
have I
> seen "absolute contempt" for any of those things. I
_have_ seen
absolute
> contempt toward misguided attempts to incorporate some of the more
unsavory
> elements of those values into the structure of Baha'i Administration,
O.K. how about prepublication review imposed on everything Baha'i
authors write about the Faith, whether for a Baha'i publisher or not --
a policy that can be enforced by the threat of taking administrative
rights away if the writer doesn't cooperate? What about the right to
face one's accuser? Does Alison Marshall have the right to know who
was turning in her emails to Haifa? Does Juan Cole or Steve Scholl
have access to the reports written about their cases? Can you give
me
an answer that *doesn't* show contempt for democratic values? Or is
the right to know about the evidence held against you, evidence that
influences the decisions that Baha'i institutions make about a person's
life, one of those "unsavory" elements of democracy?
but
> that's a completely different matter. It's not at all
unreasonable to
> object to people trying to change something they don't entirely
understand
> in the first place,
I'm always amazed that anyone who doesn't agree with certain views is
considered to have a "lack of understanding" rather than a
different
viewpoint.
>
> > The "fact" is that the Institutions did not like some
of the
opinions
> > being expressed on Talisman.
>
> I think the institutions couldn't care less about the opinions
themselves.
> What concerned them was that these opinions were being expressed by
Baha'is
> and that these opinions happened to be diametrically opposed to
statements
> made in authoritative Baha'i texts. If you don't convey that
aspect
of the
> controversey, then you haven't told the whole truth.
The people who express those opinions do not believe that they are
diametrically opposed to the texts. Neither do I. Besides the
UHJ
does not have the authority to interpret the texts and decide what is
or is not "diametrically opposed" to them.
>
> The actual opinions, and their relationship to statements in
authoritative
> Baha'i texts, do matter, Karen. That's why you have an
obligation to
tell
> the whole truth, and not just part of the truth.
So basically what you are saying is that I'm not telling the truth if
I
don't say that the people who got into trouble with the AO were
expressing opinions contrary to the Writings. I can't say that,
because I do not believe it is true.
> > while at the same time excluding them from the Universal
House of
> > Justice.
>
> If you want to discuss the subject, I would suggest that you begin by
noting
> that the central principle of the Baha'i Faith is the oneness of
humanity.
> There are a number of principles that arise out of that central
principle;
> the equality of women and men and the specific provisions of
Baha'u'llah's
> Covenant are but two of them. In other words, I would say that
the
Baha'i
> Faith stands for the oneness of humanity rather than say that the
Baha'i
> Faith stands for equality between women and men. At least I
would
say that
> this would be a more accurate statement of the Baha'i teachings on
the
> subject.
Here, I would agree. I would far rather the Faith stop telling
everyone that it stands for equality than to look so hypocrital. In
fact, I tell Dave that in the "Talk Back" column following that
article. The only problem with that approach is that Baha'u'llah did
say it was a feature of this Dispensation.
> > I don't think you understand what a shock that is to
> > discover, as I did, after the card is signed.
>
> Now you're being presumptive. Also, you're moving into the
realm of
> personal opinions and away from the discusson of facts that can be
> documented.
I think it's very telling, the fact that you can dismiss this.
One
reason people respond to my articles is that I don't dismiss feelings
as irrelevant, and my readers identify with the feelings I express.
I'm telling you, Rick, it's a kind of betrayal to be brought into a
religion, told that it stands for a certain principle, then told
something directly contrary to that principle once you've been hooked.
The Baha'i Faith does that to people; it hurts them. It's one of the
big reasons people leave. It was ultimately the reason I left,
because
I was under the impression that the Baha'i administration supported
Baha'u'llah's principle of the independent investigation of truth, but
I discovered I was wrong. It hurts to discover that you've been
deceived.
Love, Karen
>
> Regards,
> Rick Schaut
>
>
--
"The essence of all that We have revealed for thee
is justice . . ." Baha'u'llah
https://www.angelfire.com/ca3/bigquestions/Bacquet.html
--
"The essence of all that We have revealed for thee
is justice . . ." Baha'u'llah
https://www.angelfire.com/ca3/bigquestions/Bacquet.html
Sent via Deja.com
https://www.deja.com/From: "Karen Bacquet" <kalamity@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: That may be the road of becoming a Real Baha'i.
Date: Thursday, February 01, 2001 10:50 PM
In article <20010201150024.17523.00000456@ng-mi1.aol.com>,
smaneck@aol.com (Susan Maneck ) wrote:
> >She was kicked out after many years in the
> >community and despite a deep faith in its founder!
>
> Dear Ian,
>
> It isn't enough to believe in the founder to be a Baha'i. According
to Shoghi
> Effendi the qualifications for membership in the Baha'i community
include:
> "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." (BA 90) Now when that
passage
was brought
> to Alison's attention she didn't even pretend she could adhere to
this, she
> only stated she was under the impression you no longer had to believe
those
> things. :
Susan, in Alison's statement of faith on her website she includes the
clause about administration.
>
> For the record, I have been excluded from Zuhur, and other lists run
by these
> people. I have not excluded them from anything.
As has been said before, the Zuhur list was created in the wake of
Alison's disenrollment as a refuge for those who might fear that they
could be "turned in" for what they express in their email
messages.
You have a record of reporting on people for Baha'i authorities. Quite
frankly, to include you on that list would cause a good many of its
participants to leave. I have seen expressions of nervousness when
the
possibility of leaks from the list are discussed.
I personally think it's sad that Baha'is must live in such fear of
their institutions.
Karen
>
> >You have made
> >enemies of them
>
> Be fair, Ian and look at the posts which have written about me on
this list.
> Then tell me, who made who an enemy?
>
> warmest, Susan
>
> "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space,
with
no time
> left to start again . . "
> Don McLean's American Pie
> https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
>
>
--
"The essence of all that We have revealed for thee
is justice . . ." Baha'u'llah
https://www.angelfire.com/ca3/bigquestions/Bacquet.html
Sent via Deja.com
https://www.deja.com/From: "Karen Bacquet" <kalamity@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: [ bahai ] Jenifer Tidwell - Letter to the LSA. of Arlington.
Massachusetts
Date: Thursday, February 01, 2001 11:40 PM
In article <95c8ld01fa9@news2.newsguy.com>,
"Rick Schaut" <RSSchaut@email.msn.NOSPAMcom> wrote:
>
> "Karen Bacquet" <kalamity@my-deja.com> wrote in
message
> news:95aqi6$qj6$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > Exactly where is it a "Baha'i principle" that someone
under
suspicion
> > by the institutions can be publicly humiliated.
>
> Where does this "under suspicion" bit come from? This
is _exactly_
what
> I've been talking about. The extent to which those individuals
had
been
> behaving contrary to Baha'i principles, and in some cases Baha'i Law,
had
> been well documented. The pattern of on-going activity was well
> established. The phrase "under suspicion" is totally
misleading.
Well, I don't know what else to call it, since at the time of the
Convention in 1988, none of these people had been found guilty of
anything or sanctioned in any way. Besides, I don't think it's a
Baha'i principle for even a person who has been sanctioned by the
institutions to be publicly humiliated.
Really, Rick, if you're trying to get me to say that what happened at
Convention was that certain dangerous and guilty persons were denounced
for the safety of the community -- I have looked at the history of this
pretty carefully, and I just can't see that's what happened.
>
> Secondly, the likely reason anything at all was stated publicly was
because
> members of the National Spiritual Assembly were under the impression
that
> the document had been distributed among delegates at that Convention.
Maybe they should have asked the delegates how many of them got a copy
before launching into an attack. They were all assembled there; all
they had to do was have a show of hands. My friend who was delegate
never heard of the article until Kazemzadeh brought it up.
>
> Understand the point here. The distribution of that document at
convention,
> whatever that distribution might have been, wasn't the issue that
> constituted the primary wrong-doing carried out by the editors of
Dialogue.
> The primary wrong-doing was the ongoing campaign of dissent, of
attempting
> to incorporate the notion of a "loyal opposition" into
Baha'i
administrative
> practice, of attempting to change the Baha'i Faith to fit their own
agenda
> of social and political activism and trying to do so outside the
normal
> administrative channels for accomplishing those ends.
I've never seen any evidence of this; all I've seen is the
oft-repeated
charge.
>
> Now, it shouldn't be necessary to quote Baha'u'llah, `Abdul-Baha and
Shoghi
> Effendi as to what they had to say about such dissention, conflict
and
> contention. I believe "categorically forbidden" is a
phrase one of
them
> used. The texts are clear.
It is not at all clear that the "LA group" was causing
contention.
What it looks like to me was that when the newsletter got in the hands
of more conservative Baha'is, it freaked them out, and they went
tearing off to the authorities. It looks also like something of the
kind happened on the first Talisman. In fact, I'm not sure how much
of
the stuff that happens is due to monitoring by the institutions and how
much is a result of people who think a new idea might cause brain
damage and must be squelched immediately.
>
> But, of course, none of that is recounted when critics want to
discuss the
> "Dialogue affair". Rather, people use such phrases as
"under
suspicion" as
> a means of obscuring the fact that the individuals involved had long
since
> started on a course of action inimical to the very core of the Faith
to
> which they had professed their allegiance. Also obscured is the
fact
that
> the Institutions had, all along the way, taken great pains to point
out to
> these individuals precisely what they were doing wrong and had cited
clear,
> authoritative texts as the basis for the concerns they expressed.
What is clear is that the institutions were upset about some of the
ideas that were expressed. I have not seen any "course of
action
inimical" to the Faith. Again, the accusation exists, but not
proof of
the supposed wrongdoing.
>
> > By the way, the only
> > particular individual I have even mentioned has been Dr.
Kazemzadeh,
> > who I am angry at because I was there for his big snit fit about
"A
> > Modest Proposal", and I feel like I was lied to.
>
> I have no doubt that you _feel_ like you were lied to. The
facts,
however,
> suggest something completely different.
I was told that "A Modest Proposal" was written by people
disrepectful
to the Institutions. I found a politely worded, thought-provoking
article expressed concerns about the slow growth of the Baha'i
community and provided some suggestions for reform that might have
helped. I was lied to.
I've told again and again that "A Modest Proposal" was
actually
incidental to the "real" crimes of the Dialogue editors. That
can be
said now that the article is one the web and anyone can read how
innocent it really was. Back in 1988, however, they were denounced
for
writing it. Kazemzadeh wasn't up there talking about the history of
the LA study group; he was denouncing that article, the magazine, and
the editors, calling them "dissidents". In fact, at the
time, I
thought he said "self-described dissidents". I didn't even
really
understand, from his talk, that the article actually was a reform
proposal. I thought it was some kind of satire, like Swift's "A
Modest
Proposal". Yeah, I was lied to, all right.
Karen
>
> > Yeah, I trusted my National Spiritual Assembly, and they lied to
me. I
> > won't make that mistake again.
>
> Quite obviously--even to the point of assuming that they're lying to
you
> even when they've told the truth.
>
> Regards,
> Rick Schaut
>
>
--
"The essence of all that We have revealed for thee
is justice . . ." Baha'u'llah
https://www.angelfire.com/ca3/bigquestions/Bacquet.html
Sent via Deja.com
https://www.deja.com/From: "Karen Bacquet" <kalamity@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: For Michael: "Rebels Within the Cause?"
Date: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 6:13 PM
In article <95ru52$iq3$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>,
bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael McKenny) wrote:
> Greetings, Karen.
> Many thanks for letting me read this article.
It was fascinating.
> What a sad tale. You may not be aware that one of the accusations
that
> was hurled at liberals on Talisman was that we'd been infected by
this
> LA study class. I replied at the time that the closest I'd been to LA
> was Edmonton, Alberta (April 1972) and Chicago (July 1975), so Juan
and
> I couldn't have been having tea together in LA at the time of this
> study class (an allusion to Muslim allegations that Baha'is were
> putting something in the tea and this explained conversions).
> FreeNet claims Themestream articles are
improperly addressed, so
> I'm not able to read them. I would thus be grateful if you posted the
> ones about the expulsion of Alyson Marshall and Talisman.
> Many thanks for this. I think it's a story
that should be as
> widely known as possible. Having independent investigation of truth
> as an essential principle, declaring this is the age for the maturity
> of humanity and adopting the slogan of "Unity in Diversity"
are not
> compatible with an imposed doctrine of uniform, thoughtless obedience
> to each and every dictate of Council, including the rule of
censorship.
>
To Glastnost and Perestroika Within Baha'i,
>
Michael
Dear Michael,
I'm glad you enjoyed my article, and I will get you the other ones as
soon as I have a chance. Both of them mention your case briefly -- I
became familiar with it before I ever came on the newsgroups, and was
moved to tears by your letter to the UHJ, knowing as I read it, what
the end of the story would be.
The priniciple of independent investigation of truth, along with that
of the unity of religions was what first drew me to the Baha'i Faith in
the first place. To find that principle so violated by Baha'i
Institutions was a terrible blow to me. It was such a betrayal of
everything I ever believed to be true about the Faith.
I am aware of how people link the LA study group to Talisman; in fact
it was the continual dark references to the activities of the LA group
that led me to do the article.
I'm going to take some time off from this place. The unending
hostility
is getting to me; I haven't even read today's posts yet and I feel like
I have to brace myself for a bashing. I'll get you your articles,
but
I'm going to do my best not to drawn into further discussions about
them until I've had chance to take a breather for a while. There are
days when one doesn't much feel like being brave.
Nice talking to you, Michael. Hope to have the pleasure again
soon.
Love, Karen
>
> Dear Michael,
>
> Thank you for your interest in my article. I pasted this
straight
from
> my rough draft, and although I looked it over, there still may be
some
> slight descrepancies between this and the final published version.
>
> Other group members might note that I don't get paid my two cents
from
> Themestream when people read my articles on a newsgroup. It is my
hope
> that this will put the silly charge that I'm doing it for the money
to
> rest.
>
> It is, however, an even greater hope, Michael, that you will enjoy
the
> article. Did you get to see my articles on Alison Marshall's
expulsion
> and the Talisman crackdown? If you are interested and have time
to
> read them, I would be happy to post those for you as well.
>
> Love, Karen
>
> --
> "The essence of all that We have revealed for thee
> is justice . . ." Baha'u'llah
>
> https://www.angelfire.com/ca3/bigquestions/Bacquet.html
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> https://www.deja.com/
> --
> "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar
Guard."
> (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY
FOR MARS p2)
>
>
--
"The essence of all that We have revealed for thee
is justice . . ." Baha'u'llah
https://www.angelfire.com/ca3/bigquestions/Bacquet.html
Sent via Deja.com
https://www.deja.com/From: "Karen Bacquet" <karenbacquet@hotmail.com>
Subject: Karen's Statement on RD and BA
Date: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 7:16 PM
Dear friends,
As most of you are now aware, I am currently taking a short vacation
from
Baha'i cyberspace, after an incident in which an email I intended to
forward
was instead sent back to the list that was its original sender. This
is an
easy mistake to make, and an impossible one to undo.
However, the fact remains that I had no business forwarding any posts
from
that list. While there is not a clear no-forwarding policy, it is a
list
for enrolled Baha'is only, and I was only allowed to continue there
through
the leniency of the list's moderators, something for which I repaid them
rather poorly. I realize that I have damaged my own reputation and
credibility through this action, and that I have left myself open to a
number of charges from which I am completely unable to defend
myself: that
I am a hypocrite, that I have been spying, that I am more sorry for
getting
caught than for the original action etc. No matter what account I
give, it
is quite likely that I will not be believed, and I really have no one to
blame but myself. In my opinion, it is an error for anyone here to lay the
responsibility on anyone else.
I have been unable to resist checking into the aftermath, and I see
that the
events surrounding this has given rise to a rather ugly exchange here on
trb, with charges and accusations, insults and lies. I very much
regret my
part in all of this, and feel that perhaps some clarification from me
might
be in order.
First, concerning the Religious Debate list: This list is
operated by a
15-year-old non-Baha'i, a young girl whose primary religious interest is
in
Wicca and Paganism. The Baha'i wars have been raging there since
nearly the
very beginning, with most non-Baha'is on the list being rather more
sympathetic to the liberal side of things. This young lady, Crystal,
in
fact had grown so tired of the Baha'i domination of her list that she
created another one that was specifically geared towards her interests.
From her perspective, Mark's presence was a disruption to the harmony of
the
list, and she was shocked to learn that emails find their way to Haifa,
and
have been used in the past to threaten and sanction people. So she threw
him
off her list, and also refused to allow other AO-defenders there.
Where I
am not satisfied that these decisions were entirely fair, I understand
Crystal's reasons -- the Baha'i wars are not her problem; she just wants
some peace on her list.
I was very much dismayed and outraged to see Mark's letter to her
threatening her with legal action. This is a child, one who is rather
emotionally fragile, and subscription to a list is simply not worth such
strong-arm tactics. My own advice to her was to close it down. No
score in
the battles raging here is worth Crystal's well-being, as far as I'm
concerned.
Secondly, concerning my presence on the Baha'i Apologetics list:
I
subscribed to that list some months ago, with no intent of informing
anyone
but myself. No one knew I was on that list. I had no intention
of posting
anything, even to defend the liberal perspective, but when Susan responded
to my critique, I assumed that she must know I was there, and that her
post
was addressing me. So I responded, and engaged Mark and Susan in debate.
Nima's request that I forward any posts concerning him was more a matter
of
taking advantage of existing circumstances rather than a deliberate plan
to
"spy".
What happened was an accident. I was tired, having been
intensely engaged
in cyberspace on both lists the day before -- both my lack of judgment and
my Majnun-like error was largely due to that. It seems like I've
gone from
one thing into another, engaging in intense, grueling, and sometimes
emotionally-draining debates with people in several forums. I acted
without
thinking, and I blew it.
I sympathize with Milissa's complaint about "meanness", but
the unfortunate
fact is that's just the way cyberspace is. No amount of anyone
standing
here and saying "Now kids, play nice" is going to make that any
different.
There's just no point in standing in the middle of the fire and
complaining
about how hot it is. . For a people ostensibly committed to peace
and
unity, we Baha'is have created quite a little war for ourselves -- a war
that seems to stretch above and beyond those specific issues on which we
disagree. All too often, discussions go beyond debate about issues
within
the Faith, to demonizing, accusations, and, yes, backbiting. It gets
real
personal. Religious belief is a key part of a person's outlook and
identity, and it is not surprising that arguments get heated. But
Baha'is
in cyberspace have a lot of hurt and anger, issues of trust and betrayal,
personal grudges and loyalties, all thrown into that mix -- and all of
those
things have affected my interactions in cyberspace as well.
And I'm not really planning on jumping into the fire now. I have
said my
apologies, and explained the circumstances. The state of my soul, my
relationships to the parties concerned, and my future intentions are no
one'
s business but my own, and I do not plan on commenting on any of those
things.
You may now go back to your regularly scheduled war games.
Love, Karen
--
"The essence of all that We have revealed for thee is Justice . .
." --
Baha'u'llah
From: "Karen Bacquet" <karenbacquet@hotmail.com>
Subject: No Room for "Dialogue"
Date: Monday, July 09, 2001 7:53 PM
Since the topic of Dialogue magazine has come up, I thought I'd share
this
with you, for the sake of those not familiar to the story. It's a
section
of a much longer article that tells the entire story of the conflict
between
Baha'i liberals and the AO.
Love, Karen
The rise and fall of dialogue
In May 1985 Steve Scholl and Payam Afsharian sent out a
memorandum to
remnants of the LA class still in the area, as well as other young
intellectuals that there had been a trend towards "fuller discussion
of
vital issues facing the Baha'i community", which needed "an
adequate
literary forum." Scholl was an Oregonian who adopted the Baha'i Faith
in
1971 at the age of 16. After graduate work in Islamic Studies at
McGill
University, and a year in Egypt, he came to Los Angeles working part time
at
bookstores, and the independent Baha'i publisher, Kalimat Press. The
two
co-founders of Kalimat Press, Payam Afsharian and Tony Lee, were also
involved with the proposed magazine from the first meeting.
Afsharian was
of Iranian extraction, but had been brought up in England. Lee had
also
been brought up as a Baha'i, and his mother was a longtime member of the
Los
Angeles Spiritual Assembly. At this time he was a graduate student
in
African history at UCLA. Juan Cole called him "the sort of
committed young
person who might well end up on the NSA", but he had already
accumulated
something of a bad record with the Baha'i institutions as secretary of the
LA study class, the author and circulator of the notorious newsletter.
A meeting was set to launch the project. Attendees were
mostly young, some
still doctoral students or just recently graduated. The group at
first did
not give much thought to the possible hindrance of prepublication review,
but the recent publication of Circle of Unity which contained essays very
similar to the articles planned for the magazine seemed reason for hope.
There was also some hope that the Local Spiritual Assembly of Santa Monica
could be the reviewing agency.
In spite of the possible difficulties, Scholl announced that
dialogue: A
Baha'i Journal of Commentary and Opinion would appear beginning fall 1985.
The first dispute with the NSA concerned the title, and the fact
that
Scholl had taken action without first consulting the institutions.
Kazemzadeh insisted that the word "Baha'i" could not appear in
the title,
because that would imply that the articles represented the official point
of
view. Scholl pointed out where Shoghi Effendi had allowed the publication
of
an independent magazine, using the name "Baha'i" in the
title. He also
pointed out how unfair it was to both deny dialogue the use of the name
"Baha'i" while simultaneously demanding that all of its articles
would be
vetted by the NSA. The Universal House of Justice backed the
American NSA
on the issue of the name, and called upon Scholl and
the editorial board to "achieve unity with the decision
of the National
Assembly".
There were several disputes over articles: about a dozen were
censored
outright
and dialogue was required to excise phrases in and alter the titles
of
others. The often slow and cumbersome review process also created real
difficulties for the publication schedule.
The first major battle occurred over an article about the
anti-apartheid
movement. While Baha'i scripture teaches racial equality, Baha'is
are
expected to abstain from any political involvement. Scholl was
warned that
to criticize the South African policy of apartheid might endanger the
Baha'i
community in that country, even though the Baha'is' failure to oppose this
institutionalized racism created the impression that they supported
it. In
the end, the article was allowed to appear after several changes had been
made.
While Baha'i officials were unhappy with the magazine, dialogue
rapidly
became popular in the community. By the end of its two-year life it became
the largest paid subscription periodical in the Western Baha'i world.
However, the magazine never entirely emerged from debt and finding good
material that would pass through the official censors was a continual
challenge.
In May of 1987, Steve Scholl, Tony Lee, Payam Afsharian, and Richard
Hollinger were summoned to Wilmette to meet with the members of the
National Spiritual Assembly. This meeting has been described as a
"trial"
with Firuz Kazemzadeh, in particular, laying out a series of charges
against
the magazine, and the "LA group" in general. He clearly
felt that they
represented a radical sub-group bent upon "undermining the
authority of the
NSA." Scholl later felt that they had done "a bang-up
job" of defending
themselves, and the meeting ended on a fairly positive note. The tension
between the magazine and the NSA continued, however, with Baha'i
authorities
continuing to censor articles.
The final crisis was precipitated by an article written by David
Langness
called "A Modest Proposal: Nine Recommendations for the
Revitalization of
the American Baha'i Community." The second draft was co-signed
by seven
others,(an act that would later be seen as "an effort to raise a
petition")
and presented to the National Spiritual Assembly for review.
The article
pointed out that growth had slowed considerably since the youth influx of
the early 70s, and the community had a large number of inactive and
alienated people on the rolls. The reforms proposed to remedy this
situation included: the establishment of a "teaching"
fund, an end to
prepublication review, term limits on elected office-holders, the
establishment of regional boards, the publication of a complete fiscal
report prior to Convention and more emphasis on humanitarian projects.
According to Scholl, the NSA reacted in "an extreme
manner" and members Jim
and Dorothy Nelson met with Dialogue editors to go over it line by line.
The editors revised the article in accordance with NSA concerns and so
positive was the feeling at this meeting that he contacted the Office of
the
Secretary asking if the article could be circulated, with NSA approval.
Shortly after this call, in early April 1988, he received a phone call
telling him "they wanted to set up the inquisition.". At a hotel
near the
Los Angeles airport, three members of the NSA, Robert Henderson, Bill
Maxwell, and William Davis met with twelve staff members,
questioning them
one by one. In outrage over this investigation, Scholl and the Dialogue
staff each wrote individual letters of appeal and protest to the UHJ.
Just
before National Convention a letter was circulated among some Baha'i
administrators "disparaging" dialogue, but none of editors were
prepared for
what happened next.
At the 1988 National Convention, Firuz Kazemzadeh brought
forward the
article "A Modest Proposal" and denounced it with the claim that
it had
circulated to "dozens" of delegates, an act that was regarded as
"electioneering".(Campaigning of any kind is forbidden in Baha'i
elections.)
He explained the satirical origin of the name of the article(Jonathan
Swift
's "A Modest Proposal" suggested, in tongue-in-cheek fashion,
the eating of
Irish children as a cure for poverty), and read from the letters that
Scholl
and other dialogue editors had written to the Universal House of Justice.
Few delegates knew anything about the magazine or about the LA group's
history of conflict with the NSA. The author was present at this
Convention, and came away with the impression that "A Modest
Proposal" was a
savage satire attacking the Baha'i institutions. The discovery that
it was,
in fact, a set of politely worded reform proposals, was the catalyst for
my
resignation from the Baha'i Faith in 1999.
In the face of this hostility, dialogue ceased
publication. While Baha'i
officials are quick to point out that no Baha'i institution directly
called
for the magazine to shut down, the religion's history of
"shunning" those
perceived as internal enemies meant that the magazine had no chance of
survival. Between the constant publication delays and censorship caused
the
NSA's review policy, which they suspected was deliberate harassment, and
the
open denunciation of the editors by Baha'i leaders, the Dialogue staff
felt
that continuing the magazine was impractical financially and unhealthy
spiritually. The
closing of a successful and popular magazine was devastating to the
editors
and staff, some of whom would never get over their perception of being the
victims of an outrageous injustice.
In the end, four people associated with dialogue were sanctioned
with the
loss of the right to travel to Haifa as Baha'i pilgrims:
Editor-in-Chief
Steven Scholl, Publisher Payam Afsharian, staff member Anthony Lee, and
David Langness, the author of "A Modest Proposal". This
was a unique
punishment, probably intended to be somewhat milder than the full loss of
administrative rights that would be the typical punishment for clear
violations of Baha'i law. Both Langness and Scholl would openly
confess
confusion about why they were sanctioned. In a letter to Scholl, the
UHJ
identifies their crime as "the un-Baha'i marshalling of a group
working to
bring pressure on the institutions of the Cause, and the intemperate
criticism employed", but there is no indication that, before the
dialogue
episode that either of these things were punishable offenses.
Criticism of
Baha'i institutions was, indeed, discouraged by Shoghi Effendi, but he
never
imposed sanctions for it. In fact, it is difficult to find where, in
the
pages of dialogue, or the proposed article, the criticism becomes
"intemperate." As far as "bringing pressure"
both petitions and appeals for
change by individuals have historically been allowed in the Faith, and
both
Baha'u'llah and 'Abdul-Baha responded to them. In the wake of the
dialogue
episode, the Universal House of Justice released to the American Baha'i
community a statement titled "Individual Rights and Freedoms in the
World
Order of Baha'u'llah." Intended to clarify the House's position on
the
limits of public discourse within the Baha'i community, it reviews the
importance of the Covenant and the administrative order, confirms that
freedom of expression is upheld in the Baha'i writings, reminds the
Baha'is
that Baha'u'llah warned of the consequences when liberty was carried to
excess, and essentially places the burden of responsibility on the
individual to make sure that his discourse does not cause
"contention".
The suggested reforms are dismissed in this way:
"But occupation with the mechanics of Baha'i Administration,
divorced from
the animating spirit of the Cause, leads to a distortion, to an arid
secularization foreign to the nature of the Administration. Equally
significant to the procedures for election -- to further extend the
example -- is the evocation of that rarefied atmosphere of prayer and
reflection, that quiet dignity of the process, devoid of nominations and
campaigning, in which the individual's freedom to choose is limited only
by
his own conscience, exercised in private in an attitude that invites
communion with the Holy Spirit. In this sphere, the elector regards the
outcome as an expression of the will of God and those elected as being
primarily responsible to that will, not to the constituency which elected
them. An election thus conducted portrays an aspect of that organic unity
of
the inner and outer realities of human life which is necessary to the
construction of a mature society in this new Age. In no other system do
individuals exercise such a breadth of freedom in the electoral
process."
However, by simultaneously upholding freedom of speech and
punishing those,
such as the Dialogue editors, who were seen as taking that freedom too
far,
the Baha'i administration gave the community a mixed message concerning
the
limits of acceptable expression. The dialogue editors had followed
the
established Baha'i procedure, and had no indication that their activities
were illegitimate until they were denounced and punished. It appears
as if
the rules by which the Baha'i administrative order was operating were ad
hoc, and highly personalized.
Several statements on the Dialogue incident indicate that Baha'i
authorities believed they were containing the influence of a political
faction that threatened their authority and the well-being of the
community.
For example:
"It is important for the editors of "dialogue" to
recognize that source of
difficulties does not lie primarily in
specifics of the proposed publication of "A Modest
Proposal". This incident
was merely the latest episode in a history of problems going back some
twelve years, originating with the study groups in Los Angeles and its
promotion of the wide circulation of the records of its discussions,
continuing through some of the publications of Kalimat Press, and being
developed through certain of the articles appearing in
"dialogue". It is
clear that many different individuals were involved over the years in the
study group, Kalimat Press and "dialogue".However, certain
believers have
been prominently associated with all three and form a connecting link in
the
minds of many of the friends. . . .
In the Baha'i community methods and mechanisms are provided
within the
Administrative Order to elicit and make the best use of the ideas and
hopes
of individual believers in ways that enrich the pattern of
Baha'i life without disrupting the community. There may be many occasions
on
which individuals believers are permitted or even encouraged by their
Assembly to promote their ideas, but independent attempts by individual
Baha'is to canvass support for their views among their fellow believers
are
destructive of the unity of the Cause. To attempt, in opposition to the
institutions of the Faith, to form constituencies for certain proposals
and
programmes may not necessarily lead to Covenant-breaking, but it is a
societal factor for disruption against which the Covenant is designed to
protect the Faith. It is the process by which parties are formed and by
which a religion is riven into contending sects.
Thus, in the case of "A Modest Proposal" it was not
the questions that were
raised or the proposals put forward that were primarily at fault, but
rather
the implicit manner in which it was proposed to
accomplish change in the community. . . ."
Langness and Scholl however, regarded themselves as devoted
Baha'is who
were making positive contributions to their community. It is, in fact,
impossible to pin down any particular Baha'i law that was broken by those
sanctioned in the dialogue affair.(In any case, Baha'i laws mostly address
matters of worship and personal morality.) Langness would later say, in
spite of the statements of the Baha'i institutions to the contrary, he was
"punished for writing and 'distributing' a dialogue magazine article
on
reinvigorating the American Baha'i community." Scholl would
bitterly
complain that every attempt he made to smooth over differences were
rebuffed, attributing the difficulty to officials, most particularly
Kazemzadeh, who he felt regarded the "LA group" as insincere and
incorrigible. The rest of the Baha'i community, even most Dialogue
subscribers, would have no idea what had happened to the magazine until
the
story was discussed on the Internet.
--
"The essence of all that We have revealed for thee is Justice . .
." --
Baha'u'llah
From: "Karen Bacquet" <karenbacquet@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: No Room for "Dialogue"
Date: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 12:56 AM
--
"The essence of all that We have revealed for thee is Justice . .
." --
Baha'u'llah
Susan Maneck <smaneck@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010709212259.11556.00006457@ng-fc1.aol.com...
> Dear Karen,
>
> The most striking thing about your article here is that there is no
evidence of
> any real independent journalism. What you have presented is a
second-hand
> regurgiatation of Steve Scholl's version of what happened.
Hey, if the powers-that-be won't talk to me, that's hardly my
fault. That's
why the long quotes from the UHJ letters, to make sure their side is
represented. Quotes like that are scattered all throughout the whole
article; one person I showed it to recommended I cut them down, but I
won't.
If the Institutions or their members want their point of view in my
writing,
all they have to do is tell me their side. You yourself told me that if I
was honest about telling them I was writing an article they wouldn't talk
to
me. I've done the best I could with what I've got, and clearly tell the
audience that the people associated with Dialogue were regarded as
disruptive and a threat to unity by the institutions.(The completed
article,
which tells the story "from LA to Alison" has a long
section explaining the
administration and the Covenant.) Are you saying that I got the
sequence of
events wrong? Or are you just upset that the people from Dialogue appear
sympathetic? Or do you just figure that, because I'm an amateur writer,
you'll do what you can to shake my confidence and/or discredit me?
If there
is evidence I'm lacking, point me to it. Indeed, I insist on it, because I
don't want any gaps that will come back and bite me on the butt later --
in
fact, in one case, I toned down what somebody wanted me to say because I
felt there wasn't enough to back it up. I want this story to be as
airtight
as I can make it.
There isn't a way to tell that story without Baha'i liberals
appearing
sympathetic. A non-Baha'i friend of mine commented that the story
was
"difficult to read" -- and I feared the story was too convoluted
to follow.
He said "No, it's emotionally difficult to read, because of what
happened to
those people." That's how human beings react to this story --
real human
beings with hearts.
Karen
From: "Karen Bacquet" <kb4@mail.csuchico.edu>
Subject: Re: common ground
Date: Thursday, January 11, 2001 8:53 PM
If Dr. Maneck would care to condescend to look through the recent
archives of this newsgroup, she would see that I have, in fact,
enumerated my motives, since they were so recently called into
question. In fact, I think that post may be somewhere in this
"common
ground" thread.
I don't think my critics care much about my motivation at all. I
think
they just don't like the fact that I write articles about current
Baha'i issues. The questioning of my motives is just an attempt to
destroy my credibility. It's a whole lot easier than writing
articles
expressing the opposite point of view, or facing that what I have to
say makes sense to a whole lot of people. (My articles have over 1000
hits now.) I am currently the highest rated author in Themestream's
Baha'i category, with seven of the top ten articles being mine. And
I
didn't do that -- the readers did that, because they are the ones that
rated me. If people didn't like what I was saying, those articles
would sink like a rock to the bottom of the list and be heard from no
more.
I think there are some people here who, if they are concerned about
motives, would benefit from consulting a mirror.
Karen
bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael McKenny) wrote:
> Greetings, Susan.
> This is a fascinating position. You seem to
argue that the UHJ
judges
> individuals on the basis of the motives of these individuals and that
the
> individuals themselves do not know what their own motives are.
> This justification of inappropriate behaviour
by authority is a
Most
> Great Unacceptability for any decent society.
> And with that this green Druid slips back
into the verdant woods.
>
To Life,
>
Michael
>
> Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes:
> >
> > Yeah, it mostly has to do with motive which is sometimes not all
that easy to
> > discern.
> >
> > Well, since Karin has removed herself from the Baha'i community
she
really
> > isn't subject to Baha'i standards of conduct anyhow, so I don't
know that it
> > much matters. As for Karin's motives, I'm not sure she knows
what
they are.
> >
> > warmest, Susan
> >
> >
> >
> > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in
space,
with no time
> > left to start again . . "
> > Don McLean's American Pie
> > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
> >
>
> --
> "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar
Guard."
> (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY
FOR MARS p2)
>
>
Sent via Deja.com
https://www.deja.com/From: "Karen Bacquet"
<karenbacquet@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: No Room for "Dialogue"
Date: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 11:52 AM
>
> Speaking for myself, I usually find Karen's style and tone quite
powerful
> and affecting - she reminds me somewhat of Jane Austen, in that she
> seems to be careful to write only what she knows about because she
> saw it, or someone she trusts told her it was true.
>
> I like it a lot - I must have read this before - I think on
Themestream -
> but it was a real pleasure to read it again here.
Dear Paul,
Thank you for the kind words. I've never written an article on
the Dialogue
episode before, but the other episodes in the conflict betweeen liberals
and
the AO that I've outlined in the entire article were taken from my
Themestream articles. (I incorporated the one on the LA study group almost
without changes.) The charge of bias really means nothing more than
I'm
saying stuff they don't want me to say. Conservatives constantly
whine
about the "liberal bias" in the media -- and it just means that
the stories
these journalists present don't support the conservative point of view.
If I am successful at getting published, I have to expect that I will
take
some major hits. It is inevitable.
>in that she
> seems to be careful to write only what she knows about because she
> saw it, or someone she trusts told her it was true.>>
It's not so much a matter of "someone I trust". Steve
Scholl's perspective
is incredibly important, because he was the founding editor of Dialogue --
he's a source that no journalist would ignore. It would be better if
I
could get Kazemzadeh's perspective as well, or that of other NSA members.
But I do have the official communications about Dialogue, and I think I
have
adequately presented that perspective. However, there really is no
way to
make it look good to the non-Baha'i world --the only way to make
conservatives happy is not to write at all, or to write the sort of
article
that would only be of interest within the Baha'i community.
("Longsuffering
institutions reluctantly sanction perverse dissidents" is not a story
anybody's going to care about.)
Love, Karen
From: "Karen Bacquet" <karenbacquet@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: A Modest Revision (was No Room for "Dialogue")
Date: Saturday, July 14, 2001 8:28 PM
Dear Michael,
Here is the entire satire. As I mentioned, that isn't my usual
style, but I
pondered the question "Well, how *would* a person write it from the
institutions' point of view?" and a bit of deviltry and humor took
over. I
call it "A Modest Revision"
Love, Karen
Believing that uncontrolled free expression is destructive of unity,
and
symptomatic of the inferior "Old World Order" that prevails in
Western
society, Baha'i institutions strictly control print media concerning the
Faith and have attempted to limit the discussion of community concerns to
internal venues. Taking advantage of the American NSA's patience and
goodwill, the left-wing radicals behind Dialogue plotted to expose the
Baha'
i community to dangerous and subversive ideas in order to undermine
the
institutions and to impose their own political agenda.
Since the subversive activities of the LA Study class had lapsed, a
hardline
remnant gathered in an unauthorized meeting in May 1985 to strategize on
other ways to expose the Baha'i community to these alien and destructive
ideas, including the possible evasion of prepublication review. This
cadre
of plotters audaciously proposed that this vehicle of dissident propaganda
be called a "Baha'i Journal", a falsehood that was immediately
vetoed by the
NSA. The Universal House of Justice supported the NSAs decision that
even
though this radical publication could not bear the name
"Baha'i", all
articles must be submitted to the review process in order to ensure
accuracy
and dignity in the presentation of the Faith. The review process
weeded out
the most dangerous articles, something made ever more crucial as the
magazine grew in popularity.
The alarming success of this underhanded project aimed at casting
aspersions
on the integrity of Baha'i teaching caused the National Assembly to
arrange
for consultation with the errant editors. While clearly warned about
the
tone of the magazine, it continued to spread its poison throughout the
Baha'
i community. Clearly, something had to be done.
The final straw which compelled the longsuffering Spiritual Assembly
to take
action was the article "A Modest Proposal", which tried to
convince the
happy and thriving community that it was not growing as it should and that
certain reforms alien to Baha'i teaching were necessary, like the
establishment of a Teaching Fund, the expansion of humanitarian projects,
and giving delegates a fiscal report prior to Convention. The
sneering
title, boldly taken from Jonathan Swift's satire, clearly showed the
dissidents' disrespect for institutional authority. While some of
the more
broad-minded members met with these plotters to convince them to tone down
aspects of this article laying out the radicals' political agenda, wiser
members of that body felt that even allowing it to fail review was
insufficient to protect the Baha'i community. One of the editors had
threatened to circulate this subversive set of proposals at National
Convention, therefore the delegates had to be warned of its disrespectful
and destructive nature, lest they find such alarming ideas as the
abandonment of prepublication review and term limits worthy of
consideration. A careful investigation of those associated with the
magazine had been launched. Instead of understanding the grave
nature of
their offense and being properly repentant, these people dared to exercise
their right of appeal, attempting to undermine the House of Justice Itself
by claiming to be innocent.. These letters were read to the
delegates
assembled at National Convention in order to prove the perfidious nature
of
this dangerous publication.
Soon afterwards, in a decision completely independent from any action
by any
Baha'i institution, Dialogue ceased to publish, and there were no further
unsettling outbreaks of free expression until the advent of the dark age
of
the Internet.
From: "Karen Bacquet" <karenbacquet@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: No Room for "Dialogue"
Date: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 11:44 PM
>
> There is far more evidence that review was the central issue.
And, given
> the amount of exchange that had already gone on between these
individuals
> and the institutions regarding the prospects for any change in the
policy
of
> review, "A Modest Proposal" could easily be seen as yet
another attempt to
> buck the policy of review dressed up with a bunch of innocuous
proposals
for
> change in the community.>>
Every single article ever published in Dialogue magazine was submitted
to
passed review. About a dozen other articles were not published because
they
failed review. The Dialogue editors put up with review even though it
caused
tremendous headaches, since the review system wasn't set up to deal with a
quarterly publication. "A Modest Proposal" was submitted
to review, and
still in the review process when it was denounced. This is in an
independent
magazine that wasn't even allowed to call itself a "Baha'i
Journal"! A whole
lot of Baha'i intellectuals and writers heartily dislike review, even
while
remaining obedient to it -- or do you mean everyone is just supposed to be
completely silent on the issue and lie and say it's a terrific idea and
essential to the Faith?
That's back to the notion that you aren't a good Baha'i unless you sit
down,
shut up, and let them screw you. From that perspective, the Dialogue
folks
must have been very good Baha'is, because that's exactly what they
did. Oh,
I know what their crime was: it was having the very, very bad *
thought *
that maybe freedom of expression is a good idea and completely compatible
with Baha'i teaching. That, and the fact they wanted to revitalize
the
Baha'i community.
Karen
>
>
> Regards,
> Rick Schaut
>
>
From: "Karen Bacquet" <karenbacquet@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: If there were a free Baha'i press...
Date: Monday, July 23, 2001 3:37 AM
--
"The essence of all that We have revealed for thee is Justice . .
." --
Baha'u'llah
Dr. Herbert West <whooptee51@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:CgQ67.6641$wM5.1192625323@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> all of the back and forth about what did and didn't happen regarding
"A
> Modest Proposal" would be a moot point. Indeed, were the actions
of the
> persons involved held up for public scrutiny at the time of the
events,
this
> issue would have long been settled.
Yes. If I had read "A Modest Proposal" in the pages of
Dialogue in 1988,
instead of on the web eleven years later, I would still be an enrolled
Baha'i today. In fact, one thing that keeps the issue alive is that
people
*still* don't know what happened until they get on the Internet. It
is the
suppression of free expression within the community that creates these
problems in the first place.
Love, Karen
>
> John
>
>
From: "Karen Bacquet" <kb4@mail.csuchico.edu>
Subject: Re: common ground
Date: Friday, January 12, 2001 8:36 AM
In article <93mjoo$vp9$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
rlittle95@my-deja.com wrote:
> Dear Karen
>
> If you would "care to condescent to look" at what Dr.
Maneck wrote,
you
> would find that she did not question your motives, but rather, wrote
> that she surmised that you might not be fully self-aware of your own
> motives. I do not believe that she implied, and she certainly did not
> say, that she feels she is better aware of your motives than you.
Dear Robert:
I am aware of what Susan meant, and I felt that she was taking an
attitude of superiority and that I was being patronized. Is
anyone "fully self-aware" about their motives about
anything? Of
course not, but I have been through experiences connected with my
spiritual life which have caused me to examine them very closely.
Are
any human being's motives entirely selfless? Of course not, but I do
not feel obliged to share to results of my self-examination here on a
newsgroup.
I did not say that Susan was claiming to understand my motives better
than I do. What I do believe she was saying was that I don't know
what
I'm doing.
One thing, however, that I will share here is that I find that as I
spend more time defending myself on these newsgroups that it is taking
a certain toll. To put it simply, I'm not as nice as I once was, or
even than I was a couple of months ago. Of course, where Susan herself
is concerned, she blew it with me very early on, and I've been
suspicious of her ever since. Which is too bad, because she's an
impressive person in some ways.
But since going through all this stuff about my articles, I find my
own
attitude hardening. It's wearing on a person to have to justify
their
existence all the time. However, the alternative is to just allow
these people to shut me up, and that's not going to happen.
Love, Karen
>
> For my part, I believe that a pivotal trait or characteristic which a
> follower of Baha'u'llah must possess is love - love of God, love of
> mankind. This love must be the foundation of everything which they do
> and say and feel.
>
> There is a unity of heart and mind and soul, a certain type of
> simplicity, which is found in some Baha'is which set them apart from
> the rest of us. The Hands of the Cause of God, for example, were all
> very distinctively different from each other, yet they were all very
> simiilar in the utter simplicity of their character, their unity of
> being. They demonstrated one overriding motive in all their words and
> actions, whereas most of us possess a variety of motives, each
> competing for dominance, and these motives sometimes interfere with
our
> desire to love God, and His creation.
>
> It is within the bounds of reason to suppose that that love of God
> which Baha'u'llah inculcates in His followers must constantly
struggle
> to overcome some few basic, lower motives for dominance.
>
> It is my opinion that Dr. Maneck would fervently pray that you always
> win these battles, and it is my hope that you would pray thusly for
her.
>
> Robert A. Little
>
> In article <93lo32$9k5$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Karen Bacquet <kb4@mail.csuchico.edu> wrote:
> > If Dr. Maneck would care to condescend to look through the
recent
> > archives of this newsgroup, she would see that I have, in fact,
> > enumerated my motives, since they were so recently called into
> > question. In fact, I think that post may be somewhere in
this "common
> > ground" thread.
> >
> > I don't think my critics care much about my motivation at
all. I
> think
> > they just don't like the fact that I write articles about
current
> > Baha'i issues. The questioning of my motives is just an attempt
to
> > destroy my credibility. It's a whole lot easier than
writing
articles
> > expressing the opposite point of view, or facing that what I
have to
> > say makes sense to a whole lot of people. (My articles have over
1000
> > hits now.) I am currently the highest rated author in
Themestream's
> > Baha'i category, with seven of the top ten articles being mine.
And I
> > didn't do that -- the readers did that, because they are the
ones
that
> > rated me. If people didn't like what I was saying, those
articles
> > would sink like a rock to the bottom of the list and be heard
from
no
> > more.
> >
> > I think there are some people here who, if they are concerned
about
> > motives, would benefit from consulting a mirror.
> >
> > Karen
> >
Sent via Deja.com
https://www.deja.com/From: "Karen Bacquet"
<kb4@mail.csuchico.edu>
Subject: Re: common ground
Date: Saturday, January 13, 2001 4:00 PM
In article <20010113014849.09479.00003996@ng-ch1.aol.com>,
smaneck@aol.com (Susan Maneck ) wrote:
> >The hell I don't, Susan. Haven't you been listening?
I am an
> >unenrolled Baha'i.
>
> I heard you say that you still believed in Baha'u'llah. But I figured
in
> unenrolling you were stating you no longer wished to be a part of the
Baha'i
> community.
>
> >As for Baha'i officialdom, I have no idea how they view me, or
even
if
> >I have come to their attention at all.
>
> Oh, I'm sure you have.;-} But if they accepted your resignation, it
means they
> do not consider you a Baha'i.
>
Dear Susan,
Just to clarify: At the time I resigned, I actually did not know what
I
believed. I was just furiously angry, and felt lied to and betrayed.
What I actually said in my resignation letter was that if this was the
administration that Baha'u'llah wanted, then He could not be a
Manifestation of God. If anyone had ever told me that it was
possible
for the AO to treat people the way they do, I would have said, "No,
that can't happen, because it is completely opposed to Baha'i
priniciples." Yet these things did happen, and because
Baha'u'llah is
not supposed to be separated from the Institutions my faith in Him was
destroyed for a brief while. So it is accurate to say that when I
sent
in my resignation, I was not a Baha'i.
However, over the course of the next few months, I found that I really
could not walk away from Him, but I could not in good conscience
support the kinds of actions I have seen from the Baha'i
administration. So I did not seek to re-enroll in the community, nor
do I have any plans to do so. Locally, there is nothing here for me
to
go back to. Technically, I was an isolated believer anyway because
of
the way the lines are drawn. The two "communities" that are here
are
just pathetic.
I wish I could have a Baha'i community, but that's been a pipe dream
for most of the years I've been a Baha'i. I've got my email contacts
and a few local friends and that's fine. And I haven't seen a lot of
reason yet for me to change my position on how I view the higher-up
administration.
So, as I said, I'm an unenrolled Baha'i.
Love, Karen
Sent via Deja.com
https://www.deja.com/From: "Karen Bacquet"
<kb4@mail.csuchico.edu>
Subject: Re: common ground
Date: Saturday, January 13, 2001 8:12 PM
Dear Susan:
I appreciate you sharing your side of the story. You are aware,
of
course, that I have heard bits and pieces of the other side.
However,
I like having as much information as I can get -- each piece gives a
clearer picture of the whole.
In the middle of formulating an answer I lost my Internet connection,
so I think I'll just make some quick comments rather than try to dredge
up the energy for a detailed response.
>
> This doesn't precisely parellel Karen's experiences, for in her case
it seemed
> to involve mostly problems in her local community. But I expect that
for her,
> like me, there had come a time when the Faith no longer seemed to
have any
> terms for her existence. I'd been feeling that for nearly two decades
before
> Juan resigned, but when that happened I imagined my own worst fears
had been
> realized.
The point I reached, Susan, was just that something finally snapped
and
I didn't care if I was involved in the community or not. I was tired
of the lack of just basic organization locally. There was no one
around who shared my interests in comparative religion and religious
history, but I had always been pretty much isolated intellectually.
When I ran into questions, I mostly just kept my mouth shut, and
investigated on my own the best I could. I had no idea of the extent
of the conflict between intellectuals and the AO, and when I did
discover it, it came as a terrible shock. I already had a great deal
of frustration and anger built up, and when I ran into "A Modest
Proposal" and I discovered how I'd been lied to, it was like throwing
a
match into gasoline. My leaving the community was not a calm and
careful decision; it was an explosion of all the built-up pressure,
frustration, resentment, anger etc.
A good example of that
> kind of hypocrisy is the following discription of your
own Zuhur
list:
Susan, I don't really see hypocrisy in this. What is so terrible
about
liberals having a place to go where they don't have to deal with
fundamentalist attacks? There are times when Talisman seems like little
more than shouting across the liberal/conservative divide. Of
course,
a liberals-only list has its disadvantages, too. But the point is,
there is room for both, and an exclusive list does not necessarily mean
hypocrisy. Aren't there lists that are for enrolled Baha'is only?
Love, Karen
Sent via Deja.com
https://www.deja.com/From: "Karen Bacquet"
<kb4@mail.csuchico.edu>
Subject: Re: common ground
Date: Sunday, January 14, 2001 1:41 AM
In article <20010114001451.29728.00002555@ng-cs1.aol.com>,
smaneck@aol.com (Susan Maneck ) wrote:
> >What is so terrible about
> >liberals having a place to go where they don't have to deal with
> >fundamentalist attacks?
>
> Dear Karen,
>
> If it is personal attacks one is worried about then one bans personal
attacks.
> What this list is basically doing is banning the expression of any
ideas it
> chooses to label as "fundamentalist."
Oh come on, Susan! Talisman bans personal attacks, and still the
ideological split ends up dominating things a good deal of the time.
There was a while there where it just seemed like an endless procession
of conservatives showed up to duke it out with Juan. That can be
interesting sometimes, but there are times you need a break from it.
And, as Nima said, there are those who are justifiably afraid of being
reported to the Institutions. There are security measures, like the no-
forwarding rule. I personally will not mention any particular person
as being a member of the list, especially if they are an enrolled
Baha'i. I don't see why it would be so hard to understand why people
want to get away from that, to speak without the risk that something
they post is going to end up in the files of some member of the
Institution of the Learned. I find that sort of reporting
behavior absolutely despicable, as you know. I have no problem at
all
with protecting the friends from those who would do them harm. Remember
that list was created in the wake of Alison's disenrollment. I sure
wish she'd had some protection on a secure list.
I think there's a certain amount of hypocrisy on the part of
conservatives who object to being denied access to liberal lists.
Ian
Kluge is going around huffing and puffing about not being able to get
on Paul Johnson's new list. Now these two guys are like oil and
water,
so why does Kluge want on a list that consists of liberal Baha'is,
A.R.E. members and Theosophists? My guess is he tried to subscribe
just so he could spout lots of righteous indignation about
liberal "hypocrisy" when he was denied a subscription.
However, there are times I wish the oil and water would mix -- I think
the recent discussion about Juan's translation of 'Abdul-Baha's letter
on jurisprudence would have been better if I hadn't had to hop in
between three lists to get all sides. Yeah, I know the sparks would
have flown, but occasionally from sparks you can get a bit of light.
>
> >Aren't there lists that are for enrolled Baha'is only?
>
> Sure. That's quite different from saying that only one Baha'i
theology can be
> expressed by those belonging to it.
Since when do Baha'i liberals have "one Baha'i
theology"? You used to
hang with these guys, Susan. Surely you know what a diverse bunch
they
are, unless things have changed a good deal since then.
Love, Karen
>
> warmest, Susan
>
> "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space,
with
no time
> left to start again . . "
> Don McLean's American Pie
> https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
>
>
Sent via Deja.com
https://www.deja.com/From: "Karen Bacquet"
<kb4@mail.csuchico.edu>
Subject: Re: common ground
Date: Sunday, January 14, 2001 10:55 AM
Dear Juan:
Thanks for presenting your side of the story. I'd heard bits and
pieces before, but I'm not sure I've ever seen it just all put together
like this.
It's really quite outrageous that things you said in the aftermath of
leaving the Faith are being used against you. It doesn't take an
enormous amount of sensitivity to understand what you must have been
going through. I, for one, would be inclined to overlook just about
anything you said then, no matter how wild and crazy, because I know
how black and terrible the experience of losing your faith is. I wrote
all kinds of wild speculations when I went through that, but I wasn't
on the Internet with moles lurking in the shadows, so nobody will ever
see the angry, confused, and sad things I was thinking.
When Susan tells me these things, I know I am getting a skewed version
of events, and that she's out to discredit you if she can. I just like
having the information, even if I know I can't swallow it whole. She's
probably telling the truth when she talks of her feelings, but the
picture she presents of you and other Baha'i liberals doesn't jive with
my experience with you all.
Love, Karen
>
Sent via Deja.com
https://www.deja.com/From: "Karen Bacquet"
<kb4@mail.csuchico.edu>
Subject: Re: common ground
Date: Monday, January 15, 2001 11:07 AM
In article <20010115041736.29351.00003397@ng-cs1.aol.com>,
smaneck@aol.com (Susan Maneck ) wrote:
> >Maneck posts private messages from me from
> >that period occasionally in order to discredit me.
>
> Sorry, the stuff about Peter Khan being of fundamentalist
Christian
background
> or Mr. Arbab having a chauffer-driven Mercedes were all public
postings, not
> private.
Susan,
I think Juan is not referring here to these specific instances,
besides he admitted being wrong about Khan's background, and I think
his post-resignation anger is enough explaination for complaints about
House members' lifestyle. However, you did try to discredit Juan to
me
by referring to and posting private messages, apparently believing me
naive enough to fall for something like that.
I actually am pretty trusting, reluctant to believe the worst about
someone, but once I see evidence that someone is untrustworthy, they
are not likely to be given a second chance without overwhelming signs
of a change of heart. Juan has never given me reason to doubt his
trustworthiness; you have.
But that's not the only way I judge this stuff. It is possible
for
Juan to be wrong, after all, he relies other people for his
information. Even eyewitnesses can be mistaken, and time alters memory.
There may be the temptation on the part of Juan's friends to tell him
what they think he wants to hear. All these things are factors. It
would be nice if incidents within the Faith could be better documented,
but that's just not the way it works. I do not believe, however,
that
he invents things out of thin air.
When it comes to Juan himself and the things that are said about him,
I
just have to trust my gut. I have been out here in cyberspace for
over
a year now. I've seen hundreds of Juan's posts, several of his articles
and read his book. I think I have a pretty good feel for what sounds
like Juan and what doesn't. If I hear that Juan said such-and-such
about some high muckety-muck in the Faith, then I figure that's
probably true, because he has been critical about various Baha'i
officials.
However, when you tell me that H-Bahai was being used to promote a
particular ideological agenda, then that's just bogus. There are
conservatives on H-Bahai, and you know it, because one of them was
taking pot-shots at Juan's translations and posting H-Bahai digests on
Baha'i Studies. Conservative Baha'is post there all the time.
Liberal
Baha'is are always being accused of imposing some kind of ideology, and
I have never seen any evidence of that whatsoever. In fact, I think
Juan shows remarkable patience with these people who are always
attacking him. Juan has more than once expressed his view that he'd
rather everything just be open and above board, and that all
perspectives should be heard.
I have never had any liberal Baha'i try to push me in any particular
direction. There is no ideological litmus test in any liberal Baha'i
group I've been on. The notion that there is some kind of liberal party
line just strikes me as sour grapes, and just another attempt at trying
to discredit Baha'i liberalism.
Karen
Sent via Deja.com
https://www.deja.com/From: "Karen Bacquet"
<kalamity@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: quastion about conflicts among Bahais
Date: Sunday, January 28, 2001 1:01 AM
In article <9506b4$vhp$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
libertarian@nukeworker.com wrote:
> I see a lot of conflict between Bahais on this NG. I think the
basic
> religon is fantastic! What is the reason for all this conflict. I
want
> to hear all sides.
>
>
L1
Dear Libertarian:
Probably the simplest way of putting it is that the conflict centers
on
disagreements about certain actions and policies of the Baha'i
Institutions.
Love, Karen
--
"The essence of all that We have revealed for thee
is justice . . ." Baha'u'llah
https://www.angelfire.com/ca3/bigquestions/Bacquet.html
Sent via Deja.com
https://www.deja.com/From: "Karen Bacquet"
<kalamity@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: [ bahai ] Jenifer Tidwell - Letter to the LSA. of Arlington.
Massachusetts
Date: Saturday, January 27, 2001 3:49 PM
In article <20010127101716.00302.00002787@ng-ch1.aol.com>,
smaneck@aol.com (Susan Maneck ) wrote:
> > The "crime" here was in writing an article and
> >submitting it for prepublication review, something that no one
would
> >have thought was a crime, since Baha'i writers do it all the
time.
>
> Dear Karen,
>
> It was a little more complicated than that and some of it seems to
have been a
> result of a misunderstanding. The NSA had been led to believe that
this
> document was being distributed to Convention delegates with the
intent of
> swaying the election.
Yes, I am aware of that. But Dave was complaining that the
"method"
was somehow worthy of punishment. And I've got bit problems with
people being denounced when the authorities don't even have solid
evidence about what's going on. That article was not distributed at
Convention; that idea was discussed, but it didn't happen. Unless
I'm
mistaken, the only delegates who saw it were those who were in the LA
area and associated with Dialogue.
The reason they were denounced at Convention is because Kazemzadeh
hates those guys.
But obviously the House saw the document itself as
> problematic as well, or they would not have endorsed the NSAs
decision to
> remove their right to pilgrimage. I think the NSA originally wanted
to do far
> worse, and the House wouldn't let them.
That may be so, but I have trouble seeing the justice of the
situation.
They wrote an article. That's not a sin, especially since it was
never
published. And a whole lot of ill feeling came out of that incident.
And now that people like Jenifer and myself can see what the article
really said, the Baha'i powers that be just look like paranoid asses.
Love, Karen
Sent via Deja.com
https://www.deja.com/ bacquet
8/6/01 2:48 PM 1 out of 22
Dave,
I just did a quick search of the Writings on liberty and freedom.
'Abdul-Baha had a lot to say about it, and I think he liked it.
Love, Karen
****************
. Truly, this is a great and revered nation. Here liberty has reached its
highest degree. The intentions of its people are most praiseworthy. They
are, indeed, worthy of being the first to build the Tabernacle of the Most
Great Peace and proclaim the oneness of mankind. I will supplicate God for
assistance [PUP p.36-37]
You are living upon the great continent of the West, enjoying the
perfect liberty , security and peace of this just government. There is no
cause for sorrow or unhappiness anywhere; every means of happiness and
enjoyment is about you, for in this human world there is no greater
blessing than liberty. [PUP p.52]
This is the century of new and universal nationhood. Sciences have
advanced; industries have progressed; politics have been reformed; liberty
has been proclaimed; justice is awakening. [PUP p.143]
. . .opinions of men are not free, and development is stifled, whereas
in democracy, because thought and speech are not restricted, the greatest
progress is witnessed. It is likewise true in the world of religion. When
freedom of conscience, liberty of thought and right of speech
prevail--that is to say, when every man according to his own idealization
may give expression to his beliefs--development and growth are inevitable.
[PUP p.197}]
Praise be to God! The standard of liberty is held aloft in this land.
You enjoy political liberty; you enjoy liberty of thought and speech,
religious liberty, racial and personal liberty. Surely this is worthy of
appreciation and thanksgiving.[PUP p.390]
But when they removed these differences, persecution, and bigotries
out of their midst, and proclaimed the equal rights of all subjects and
the liberty of men's consciences, the lights of glory and power arose and
shone from the horizons of that kingdom in such wise that those countries
made progress in every direction [TN p.91]
These are effectual and sufficient proofs that the conscience of man
is sacred and to be respected; and that liberty thereof produces widening
of ideas, amendment of morals, improvement of conduct, disclosure of the
secrets of creation, and manifestation of the hidden verities of the
contingent world. [TN p. 91]
When meeting for consultation, each must use perfect liberty in
stating his views and unveiling the proof of his demonstration. [BWF
p.406]
The third candle is unity in freedom which will surely come to pass.
[SWA p.32]
The honoured members must with all freedom express their own thoughts,
and it is in no wise permissible for one to belittle the thought of
another,[SWA p.88]
[To insure] freedom of conscience and tranquility of heart and soul is
one of the duties and functions of government, and is in all ages the
cause of progress in development and ascendency over other lands. [TNp87]
The Constitutional Government, according to the irrefutable text of the
Religion of God, is the cause of the glory and prosperity of the nation
and the civilization and freedom of the people[TAB p. 492]
bacquet
8/6/01 6:52 PM 5 out of 22
Gee, and I thought Juan was over the top when he said Baha'i
fundamentalists don't like 'Abdul-Baha. I guess they really don't.
Dear Dave,
As I said earlier, it is clear that there are passages that support
liberty and freedom and passages that disparage it. Baha'u'llah said
clearly that He grants freedom in some instances, and refuses to grant it
in others. Heck, I'm not even enrolled in the Faith and I still feel the
constraints of Baha'i law in my personal life -- I still don't drink,
gamble, and I say my prayers ever day, and fast in March. I accept those
limits on my freedom as part of my love for Baha'u'llah and not because
somebody threatens me to do it. "Observe my commandments for the love
of My Beauty". My position is not one of antinomian contempt for
religious law.
O.K., since liberty and freedom are both praised and condemned, the
question is "Under what circumstances is liberty good, and in which
circumstances is it bad?" I think 'Abdul-Baha is clearly praising
political freedoms, freedom of thought, conscience, and expression. And
these are precisely the sort of freedoms that are at issue in recent
events.
The idea that man's freedom consists of submission to God is not new
with Baha'u'llah -- you find it in the Gospels: "The truth shall set
you free". Some things I've read suggest that early Christians
regarded the gospel primarily as a message of freedom -- but I digress.
That freedom deals with detachment from the world and its constraints; it
is not something measurable by an outside authority.
Love, Karen
P.S. As for me being free to "assail the Cause" -- I'm not
enrolled and I'm free to do or say anything I like. As 'Abdul-Baha said
about such freedom "Praise be to God!" And I do not "assail
the Cause"; I am upholding the integrity of the Baha'i teachings in
the face of fundamentalism, fanaticism, injustice, and
bigotry.
From: "Karen Bacquet" <kalamity@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: [ bahai ] Jenifer Tidwell - Letter to the LSA. of Arlington.
Massachusetts
Date: Sunday, January 28, 2001 3:12 PM
Dear Rick,
Thank you for your perspective. One question that has been in my
mind
since I first started investigating this stuff has been "Just what
the
hell did these guys do to earn themselves two decades' worth of enmity
from the Institutions?"
I remain unconvinced to this day that this enmity is deserved in any
way.
> Not hatred. Frustration. And the whole issue is way
more
complicated than
> just the distribution of "A Modest Proposal". Dr.
Kazemzadeh saw the
> article as a continuation of a pattern of behavior stretching back to
the
> late '70s and early '80s. His frustration was shared by a
number of
people
> who were aware of all that had gone on between the NSA and the old LA
Study
> Group. That whole series of events, stretching back more than a
decade
> prior to the incident at Convention, prompted the Universal House of
Justice
> to write the "Individual Rights and Freedoms" letter.
No, there was
way
> more afoot there than just the intent to distribute that article.
Maybe. But he did not have to destroy that magazine; he did not have
to
publicly humiliate the editors. That was mean and
uncalled-for. These
are supposed to be institutions that handle cases with justice, not
vehicles for letting out one's personal frustrations against people you
don't like.
>
> > And now that people like Jenifer and myself can see what the
article
> > really said, the Baha'i powers that be just look like paranoid
asses.
>
> Yes. At the same time, I've yet to see anyone provide a fair
and
honest
> account of all the stuff the led up to that incident. Perhaps
the
fact that
> you see what the article really said but have been given that
opportunity
> devoid of almost any of the context that led to the incident is
calculated
> precisely to lead you to believe that the U.S. National Spiritual
Assembly
> is nothing but bunch of paranoid asses.
I didn't know that when articles were submitted for review
that "context" was so important. I thought articles were
only judged
on "accuracy and dignity". The fact remains that these
people were
unjustly humiliated for writing an article, then following the rules
(however much they disliked them) by submitting it to review.
I will say again: there needs to be some kind of formal due process
for
those accused of opposition to the Institutions. Otherwise, it's
just
a personal thing -- "We don't like those guys because they're a bunch
of long-haired 60s upstarts who think they're intellectuals. We're
going to teach those little snots some respect!" The offense, and its
consequences need to be clearly laid out and universally applicable.
That is justice.
>
> It's possible to put some of the pieces together. There are
notes
from that
> group on H-Baha'i, but even they don't tell the whole story.
One
does,
> however, get a sense of a pattern that seems to have been repeated
even to
> this day. The pattern goes like this:
I have noted this pattern as well, not so much in regard to the LA
study group, but in the tension evident in cyberspace, although I would
describe it differently than you have. It's a vicious cycle.
My
suggestion is that the Institutions stop cracking down on people, and
give the liberals less to complain about. I still don't see why it has
been so necessary to try to shut these guys up.
> The group is not particularly well deepened in certain facets of
appropriate
> Baha'i conduct, particularly with regard to criticism of the elected
> institutions.
I really have trouble seeing people like Juan Cole, Steve Scholl, and
Tony Lee as "undeepened", even back in those days.
>
> 2) The institutions notice that these notes are getting published
without
> anyone having taken these issues directly to these
institutions. The
> distribution of these notes, particularly in so far as they contain
> criticisms of a style and tone that's contrary to some basic Baha'i
> principles, is problematic. The activity takes on the character
of
some
> form of loyal opposition, and the distribution looks like an effort
to
> garner support for the criticisms being expressed. The
institutions
attempt
> to bring this issue to the attention of the people who are publishing
the
> notes. (It's worth noting that "institutions", here,
includes the
Universal
> House of Justice.)
My impression is that the issue was that the newsletter, a little
local
typed smudgy newslettter, was not being sent in for review -- a
completely impractical and ridiculous suggestion. I've read some of
the issues of that newsletter, and I'm still left trying to figure out
what the NSA was on about.
>
> 3) The folks who have been distributing the notes respond as if the
> institutions are trying to silence them rather than strive to
understand
> what the institutions have actually said.
Well, the demand for review effectively put the kibosh on that
newsletter; I'm not surprised these guys felt "silenced".
And, you
will note, they did not just say "Screw you, we'll publish what we
want!" The newsletter stopped. Same thing with Dialogue -- every
single
article that was published in that magazine was submitted to and passed
review. If that was the case, how could that magazine be seen
as "opposing" the institutions? They did not mount a public
protest
about the shabby way they were treated. Few people even knew about
it
until Talisman came along. All this stuff *was* kept quiet. Juan
didn't put "A Modest Proposal" on the web until they pushed him
out of
the Faith. Real stupid move, that. They created a critic who
has
absolutely nothing to lose anymore; that's not very smart.
They push back, but, in doing so,
> engage in a behavior that's even further in the direction away from
which
> the institutions were hoping to deflect them.
>
> And, so begins a cycle of concomitant actions and reactions.
That
cycle has
> repeated itself both on a large scale and on a smaller scale within
the
> larger cycles.
Yes, that's what I have seen. So maybe the institutions should back
off, take the wind out of everybody's sails and stop monitoring
people's email traffic looking for heresy. That would be a good thing.
>
> Now, for the irony. One criticism that's been voiced in this
thread
is that
> Feasts are open only to people who are enrolled in the Baha'i Faith.
The
> reason for this is precisely to facilitate the sense that people
should be
> free to voice whatever views or criticisms they have of the
Assembly's
> policies and practicies.
In my experience, Feast is not all that "free"; much depends
upon who
is chairing it. It is a restricted environment. I never saw
"big"
issues brought up at Feast, although I admit that I live in an
administratively underdeveloped area. People get shut up and accused of
causing "disunity." How free consultation is depends on how
strong you
are and willing to fight for your right to be heard. I never felt like
I had a voice in anything until I got out in cyberspace.
When I'm in a group that's not restricted to
> members of the Faith, I don't feel like I can be quite as open as I
can
> within the group. One doesn't air one's dirty laundry in front
of
guests.
>
> It would seem as though Baha'i institutions are damned if they do and
damned
> if they don't. They're supposed to be open to criticism and
complaint, but
> the one forum in which Baha'is are most free to do so, the Feast, is
> criticised precisely because there is a provision designed to allow
that
> forum to be as free and open as possible.
I am not advocating that non-Baha'is be allowed at the consultation
portion of Feast. What I am advocating is that a non-administrative
worship service, where all are welcome, be the center of community life
instead of the restricted and exclusive Feast.
Love, Karen
>
> Regards,
> Rick Schaut
>
>
--
"The essence of all that We have revealed for thee
is justice . . ." Baha'u'llah
https://www.angelfire.com/ca3/bigquestions/Bacquet.html
Sent via Deja.com
https://www.deja.com/From: "Karen Bacquet"
<karenbacquet@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: This is Bahai?
Date: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 10:28 PM
> Is this what has happened to the Bahai faith? This is
nothing at all
> like I saw and learned a few years ago. What has happened and what is
> going on?
To put it simply: The Internet happened. These things had
been going on
before, but few Baha'is knew about them. The Baha'i administration
strictly
controlled what information was available and the Faith never attracted
outside scrutiny, so these internal problems had never been exposed.
Now,
you've got Baha'is who are appalled by the fact people could be forced or
thrown out of the Faith for their opinions expressed on email, and Baha'is
who defend it.
I would caution, however, that talk.religion.bahai is not exactly
representative of the Baha'i community. Even though there are
serious
problems in the administration, there still are a lot of good Baha'is out
there, trying to live the ideals that Baha'u'llah taught.
If you'd like to know more, I've written a series of articles on some
of
these events:
https://www.angelfire.com/ca3/bigquestions/themestream.html
Love, Karen
From: "Karen Bacquet" <karenbacquet@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Impact of Fred's website and efforts
Date: Sunday, September 30, 2001 10:47 PM
> > As explained above - that number means nothing because you
cannot
> > judge the status of others simply because they do not show up
for
> > events or have a good mailing address.
>
> An odd conclusion - most religions require adherents to fulfill
certain
> regular practices to be regarded as in good standing. Obviously
Bahaism
> doesn't - Karen's a BIGS when it suits to present it as an all
encompassing
> faith system but not, when it comes to matters to do with the
Covenant.
One
> vision for outsiders - one diktat for insiders.
Dear Dermod,
The administration doesn't consider me a Baha'i of any kind, BIGS or
not.
Dave, being somewhat more humane than the administration, is willing to
concede that I am type of Baha'i. What the administration is doing
by
keeping people on the rolls that haven't been heard from in years is
following the dictate of Shoghi Effendi, who explicitly forbade removing
people from the rolls unless they send in a letter renouncing Baha'u'llah.
Personally, I don't think the higher-ups even have a clue as to what's
going
on out here. I've heard of cases where LSAs don't send on
resignation
letters, especially if that would jeopardize the Assembly. I don't
think
they had any idea of the kind of discontent that's out here before the
Internet came along -- the new goal in the Plan to reach out to
"alienated
believers" is almost certainly a reaction to that.
The numbers game is pretty wacky -- suddenly in my Almanac, the number
under
"churches" went from 1750 to 8000. Why? Well, they
almost certainly
replaced the number of LSAs with the number of localities -- which leads
me
to suspect that the number of LSAs has gone down. An independent
poll in
the early 90s put the number of Baha'is at 28,000 -- which led the Baha'i
administration to talk to the people that had done it, who conceded that
there may have been an undercount for religious groups "living in a
communal
setting". Since Baha'is don't live in communes, they must mean
families--
but a religion composed of converts actually has fewer families in
it. For
example, there are no other Baha'is beside myself in my household.
That's
back when there were supposedly 110,000, and I simply don't believe that
there has been 50,000 converts since then, especially since only 7,000 are
giving to the National Fund -- by their own adminssion. That would be
comparable to the number that came in during the 70s, for heaven's
sake! So
some stretching is definitely going on, along with a blind eye towards
those
who drift away. I recall seeing a report of the actual numbers in the late
80s when they were claiming 100,000 -- the numbers on the rolls were
actually something like 92,000. So they are "rounding up".
That 28,000 may be a undercount, but it isn't much of one.
It's a lot more
solid, because it numbers those who identify themselves as Baha'i, not
just
somebody who is on the rolls because they didn't know they had to write a
letter in order to get off of it.
Love, Karen
From: "Karen Bacquet" <karenbacquet@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Impact of Fred's website and efforts
Date: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 11:00 AM
--
> The trouble with numbers is that they are never truly accurate when
it
> comes to any population.
Religious statistics are notoriously inaccurate, no matter what
religion you
are talking about. Most groups probably inflate their numbers to an
extent.
For all I know, I'm probably still counted as a Baptist, because I went to
that church for a while as a kid. I know a local Baha'i who still
found out
he was on the rolls of the Catholic church.
I do not think that there are 160,000
> Baha'is in the US. I don't know what the accurate number is and
I
> don't care. Trouble is Juan came up with this oh so scientific
> sounding calculation and it is based on flawed logic. It is
flat out
> wrong. It is as flat out wrong as the 160,000 number.
Well, I don't know what "flawed logic" you are talking
about. I think
Juan's estimate is that there are about 60,000 Baha'is in this
country. I
think the 28,000 figure is closer to accurate, although somewhat low,
because it is based on self-identification, which I figure is the most
accurate way to count adherence. It probably is pretty hard to
estimate
numbers of a small group from a sample like that. I wonder what kind
of
estimate they got for really tiny groups of 10,000 or less.
>
> My biggest beef is the hypocritical claim from floks like Juan that
no
> one can judge someone elses heart only to have him turn around and
> judge the hearts of the folks who signed a declaration card then
> ceased to come to feast.
I don't think it's a matter of judging people's hearts. The
likelihood is,
especially with those who are "mail returns" is that they have
abandoned
identification with the Baha'i Faith. A person who stops going to
his
parents' church might retain a sort of nominal identification -- it's much
less likely that a convert will. There's nothing there to keep a
person
identified with the Faith, once they abandon active involvement.
Now, I've
known people who have been inactive for years suddenly show up one day,
but
I think that's the exception rather than the rule. I simply don't
believe
that there are thousands of lost Baha'is out there; there are probably
thousands of ex-Baha'is out there who just never made it official.
The problem I have with the inflated statistics is that it gives a
false
impression of growth, when there is none. Instead of dealing with
the
problem of the revolving door, we ignore it and accept it as normal.
As
I've said many times, the impression that everything was fine with the
Baha'i world "out there" always acted as a kind of guilt trip
for me. I
thought the Faith was growing everywhere but here.
Now, I would not advocate tossing people off the rolls for not coming
to
Feast just so the count will be accurate -- unless maybe someone has been
a
mail return for a very long period of time. (I wonder how many dead
people
we've still got on the rolls? Do we take someone off if they haven't
been
heard from in 50 years?) I do wish, however, we knew how many mail
returns
there are (The figure I've heard is about a third), and I'd like to know
how
many LSAs we've got. The figure was 1750 back in the mid-1980s --
and
they've never given another figure since. My guess is that it has
gone
down. Besides the change in accounting in the Almanac I mentioned,
they've
also stopped allowing classified ads in the American Baha'i pleading for
pioneers to come save jeopardized assemblies. But if things are
stagnant,
and I believe they are, then we need to take a look at why, and consult on
ways to reverse the trend. The major problem I have with the
inflated
statistics is that it masks a problem -- and you know I'm one who believes
in dealing with reality.
Love, Karen
>
> You can't have it both ways.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave
>
> P.S. The trouble with statistical samples is that as a
population
> reaches statistical 0% the probability that you will get an accurate
> count reaches 0% as well. The population of Baha'is in the US
is
> withing the margin of error of any possible survey.
From: "Karen Bacquet" <karenbacquet@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Impact of Fred's website and efforts
Date: Thursday, October 04, 2001 1:03 AM
--
"The essence of all that We have revealed for thee is Justice . .
." --
Baha'u'llah
Pat Kohli <kohliCUT_THE_CAPS@ameritel.net> wrote in message
news:3BBBE6B2.455D2B5@ameritel.net...
> Allahu Abha!
>
> Karen Bacquet wrote:
>
> >
> > I don't think it's a matter of judging people's hearts.
The likelihood
is,
> > especially with those who are "mail returns" is that
they have abandoned
> > identification with the Baha'i Faith.
>
> This appears to be purely speculation on your part.
As I told Dave it is equal speculation that they have not abandoned
such
identification. The fact is, we don't know anything about these
people
except that they signed a delaration card once upon a time. In a
religion
composed largely of converts it is less likely that people will maintain a
nominal adherence, like a cradle Catholic might. Besides, it is not
entirely "speculation on my part" when an independent poll could
only find
28,000 people identifying themselves as Baha'is-- that may be an
undercount,
but I have trouble believing that the undercount could be that drastic.
This was done by independent researchers who had no stake in either
inflating or deflating the numbers.
>
> I do believe that others can offer anecdotes where the numbers do not
simply
> even out. I do wish to try to convince you that some research,
not a
pants seat
> search, would be needed to draw a meaningful guess of what percentage
of
Baha'is
> w/o current addresses at National are active Baha'is and how many are
likely to
> be active Baha'is in the next tne years. These people should be
counted
as
> Baha'is.
>
> Should someone not be counted as a Catholic if they simply don't go
to
church
> every week?
I would agree that without any kind of research we're guessing, and
such
research would be pretty hard to do considering we don't even know where a
lot of these people are. I think it just isn't sensible to go around
believing that all those people are lost Baha'is, who might show up at any
time. Most have almost certainly moved on. Yes, I know people
can and do
show up, but *thousands* -- I'm doubting it. What I've seen are
people that
drop out of sight very soon after declaring, and probably don't even think
about getting themselves off the rolls.
I'm not advocating that people be tossed off the rolls for not
showing up
to Feast, for heaven's sake. What I am saying is the fact that such
a high
rate of people that abandon active involvement with the Baha'i Faith
belies
the numbers that show continual and bouyant growth. People come in,
take a
look around and say "I'm outta here!" I think it would be
profitable to
consider the reasons why that happens, rather than just pretending it
doesn't.
Love, Karen
From: "Karen Bacquet" <karenbacquet@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Impact of Fred's website and efforts
Date: Thursday, October 04, 2001 1:19 AM
Oh, and besides the high inactivity rate, there has been some plain --
and
it has to be deliberate -- inflation of the membership numbers. When
I
became a Baha'i back in 1985, they were claiming 100,000 Baha'is in the
U.S., which as I noted earlier was a rounding upward. They always
put the
numbers of declarations in The American Baha'i, which always hovered
around
1,000 a year. That means, by 1999, when I left there should have
been about
113,000 Baha'is -- that is, if no one withdrew or died during those years.
But I start hearing these figures of 140,000, and now 160,000. Has
there
been a massive influx of new believers since I left, of nearly 40,000 new
believers in the last two years? Where is this happening? Are
we having a
revival of South Carolina in the 70s style mass teaching? Or is
somebody
cooking the books?
Love, Karen
> >
> > >
> > > I don't think it's a matter of judging people's
hearts. The
likelihood
> is,
> > > especially with those who are "mail returns" is
that they have
abandoned
> > > identification with the Baha'i Faith.
> >
> > This appears to be purely speculation on your part.
>
> As I told Dave it is equal speculation that they have not abandoned
such
> identification. The fact is, we don't know anything about these
people
> except that they signed a delaration card once upon a time. In
a religion
> composed largely of converts it is less likely that people will
maintain a
> nominal adherence, like a cradle Catholic might. Besides, it is
not
> entirely "speculation on my part" when an independent poll
could only find
> 28,000 people identifying themselves as Baha'is-- that may be an
undercount,
> but I have trouble believing that the undercount could be that
drastic.
> This was done by independent researchers who had no stake in either
> inflating or deflating the numbers.
>
> >
> > I do believe that others can offer anecdotes where the numbers
do not
> simply
> > even out. I do wish to try to convince you that some
research, not a
> pants seat
> > search, would be needed to draw a meaningful guess of what
percentage of
> Baha'is
> > w/o current addresses at National are active Baha'is and how
many are
> likely to
> > be active Baha'is in the next tne years. These people
should be counted
> as
> > Baha'is.
> >
> > Should someone not be counted as a Catholic if they simply don't
go to
> church
> > every week?
>
> I would agree that without any kind of research we're guessing, and
such
> research would be pretty hard to do considering we don't even know
where a
> lot of these people are. I think it just isn't sensible to go around
> believing that all those people are lost Baha'is, who might show up
at any
> time. Most have almost certainly moved on. Yes, I know
people can and do
> show up, but *thousands* -- I'm doubting it. What I've seen are
people
that
> drop out of sight very soon after declaring, and probably don't even
think
> about getting themselves off the rolls.
>
> I'm not advocating that people be tossed off the rolls
for not showing
up
> to Feast, for heaven's sake. What I am saying is the fact that
such a
high
> rate of people that abandon active involvement with the Baha'i Faith
belies
> the numbers that show continual and bouyant growth. People come
in, take
a
> look around and say "I'm outta here!" I think it
would be profitable to
> consider the reasons why that happens, rather than just pretending it
> doesn't.
>
> Love, Karen
>
>
>
From: "Karen Bacquet" <karenbacquet@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: bahai - TERRORISM 5 - Testimonies re US bahai community
Date: Friday, October 05, 2001 10:34 AM
>
> One thing that I learned long ago - when there is a conflict, the two
> sides are both to blame. I have yet to read anything from Juan,
Fred,
> or anyone on "that side" to fess up to their own mistakes.
You can only "fess up", Dave, if you believe you have done
something wrong.
Juan and the others don't believe that they have, and quite frankly, I
don't
either. That isn't "spin"; that's just a statement of how
a person feels
about it. All Juan was ever guilty of was having opinions that the
powers-that-be don't like, and it isn't even entirely clear what those
opinions were that made them come after him. The administration,
rather
than making it clear what it expects, takes this "you ought to know
better"
approach, and assumes that a person with unconventional ideas has sinister
motives. Through this whole history from the LA study class on you
see the
administration saying "Your tone isn't right", the liberals
saying "What the
heck do you mean?" and the response is "Figure it out; you ought
to know."
I guess the assumption is that a *real* Baha'i wouldn't have an
independent
thought, or if he did, would never say so out loud.
>
> Fred's site is biased and inaccurate because most of it is out of
> context. If people want a more accurate depection of those
kinds of
> problems then go read Karen Bacquet's work. I do not always
agree with
> it but at least she tries to be more balanced.
Thanks for the plug. :-)
Love, Karen
From: "Karen Bacquet" <karenbacquet@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Disowning and Shunning?
Date: Friday, October 05, 2001 11:53 PM
--
"The essence of all that We have revealed for thee is Justice . .
." --
Baha'u'llah
Onandagus7 <onandagus7@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20011005225943.21551.00001089@mb-ce.news.cs.com...
> Nimda:
> >Because my parents have absolutely refused
> >> > to disown me - as the Baha'i administration wished them
to (which was
the
> >> > reason for the defamation published against me in the
Australian
Baha'i
> >> > Bulletin in the first place) - they have been targetted
by the Baha'i
> >> > administration (particularly through Peter Khan and his
networks),
> >through
> >> > my mothers family, and are now being systematically
shunned.
>
> Are the parents of "covenant-breaking" Baha'is encouraged
to disown them?
Are
> the spouses of such Baha'is encouraged to leave them? Is shunning
really
ever
> encouraged or practiced?
Encouraged? Heck, it's required, if a person has been declared a
covenant-breaker -- the penalty for doing otherwise would be to be shunned
oneself. I should clarify, though, that Nima has not been officially
declared a covenant-breaker, but the tradition of shunning internal
enemies
carries over to others perceived as dangerous or disruptive. Not a
pretty
sight, is it?
And, if so, how is all of this reconciled with the
> expansive Baha'i ideals of unity and inclusion beginning at the level
of
the
> family?
The theory goes like this: The practice of shunning schismatics
(which are
what covenant-breakers generally are) preserves the unity of the Faith,
which is considered to be essential to its mission of unifying
mankind. The
history of it is that Baha'u'llah commanded all Baha'is to turn to
'Abdul-Baha as leader and interpreter of the Faith, but a younger brother
disputed his authority and schism threatened. The naming of
schismatics as
"covenant-breakers" and the practice of shunning began as a way
to prevent
the Faith from splitting under rather perilous circumstances, but the
legacy
continues. Most Baha'is view the shunning of covenant-breakers as a
fundamental commandment, and see CBs as being spiritually diseased.
>
> If Baha'is do shun and disown, then they are not trying to promote
unity
among
> humankind, they are trying to promote unity within the faith, which
is a
> different thing altogether.
Yes, well, Baha'is regard it as being pretty much as a matter of the
Faith
can't unite the world if it is not united itself.
_Every_ religion does this. I thought that what was
> distinctive about the Baha'i faith is that it promoted unity among
all the
> children of God, _not_ just among the "faithful."
Well, some Baha'is are more tolerant than others. As in any
scriptural
religion, commandments can be read in different ways, and some can be
stricter or looser about keeping them. Some Baha'is can be downright
fanatical about "protecting the Faith" and draw lines between
those "firm in
the Covenant" and those not. There are others who are more
flexible in
their attitudes.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Matt:
> >Baha'u'llah specifically said not to 'shun the followers of
> >other religions'
>
> Is this same tolerance still extended to them if they are ex-Baha'is?
BTW,
does
> anyone have the source on this?
Yes, the House of Justice recently made a statement on those who have
withdrawn from the faith. In general, they are just supposed to be
treated
with the same tolerance as any non-Baha'is. However, there are some
"former
members whose actions are seriously destructive" who are to be
"left to
themselves". That latter comment can be misinterpreted on a
popular level
as an order to shun.
Love, Karen
>
> Don Bradley,
> investigating the Baha'i faith.
From: "Karen Bacquet" <karenbacquet@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Unity and Contention
Date: Friday, October 05, 2001 11:26 PM
--
"The essence of all that We have revealed for thee is Justice . .
." --
Baha'u'llah
Onandagus7 <onandagus7@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20011005224916.21551.00001088@mb-ce.news.cs.com...
> Hi again,
>
> I know that unity is the key principle of the Baha'i faith, so I am
surprised
> at the ferocity of the disagreements on this list. I'm not saying
this
list is
> more contentious than most - it's probably par for the course
considering
it's
> an unmoderated list about religion. But I wouldn't have expected this
level of
> blasting, given the core Baha'i principle. The faith that was
intended to
be a
> cause of unity often obviously is not. How typical is this of
Baha'i's
> relations with their critics? Do they tend to be as tendentious with
their
> critics as Muslims and Christians are with one another, or as Mormons
and
> anti-Mormons are, or as Catholics and Evangelicals? Or are they about
as
> argumentative over religion as anyone else?
Dear Don,
I think precisely because of our emphasis on unity, many thoughts and
feelings are kind of "buried" in our community life, and
face-to-face
encounters. On the Internet, though, they've been openly voiced and
divisions in opinion and approach to the Faith have been revealed.
Some
people are shocked at the opinions; others are shocked about certain
actions
that the administration has taken -- that they never knew about until
getting into cyberspace. Baha'is, in spite of the tolerant principles
promoted by their Faith, can be as dogmatic, or even fundamentalist, as
the
adherents of any other religion. There's no easy road to unity --
some
think it means people just have to shut themselves up and assent to what
the
community decides to do; others feel like the best route to unity is
toleration of diversity. As you can see, we're still working on it.
However, I believe this kind of openness about what we think and feel is
healthier than the pretended unity that requires the stifling of the
individual.
Love, Karen
>
> Don Bradley
From: "Karen Bacquet" <karenbacquet@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Unity and Contention
Date: Saturday, October 06, 2001 2:42 PM
> >Baha'is, in spite of the tolerant principles
> >promoted by their Faith, can be as dogmatic, or even
fundamentalist, as
the
> >adherents of any other religion.
>
> That's the impression I'm getting. I still think this leaves Baha'is
a cut
> above, say, evangelical Christians. (Better to be dogmatic in
proclaiming
world
> unity and human equality than in opposing the new world order and
damning
> non-believers to eternal fire.) Still, one would hope such an open
faith
would
> inspire a more open faithful.
Well, that's one reason why, even though I'm on the outside looking
in, I'm
still hanging around. I'm a believer in Baha'u'llah and in His
teachings.
Unfortunately, the dogmatism I mentioned isn't about the social
principles,
but about authority relationships within the Faith itself. When it
comes to
our actual beliefs, theology, principles etc. there really isn't all that
much difference between different Baha'is -- it all comes down to how you
feel about the administrative system. Believe it or not, that's what
has
Baha'is at each other's throats. Religionists have fought over
stupider
things, though -- look at Christian history.
>
> So, you're saying unity in diversity is your watchword? Sounds
heretical
;-)
Oh, I'm a heretic all right. :-) I'm tolerant of differing
viewpoints, a
passionate believer in justice, and would rather have issues out on the
table rather than shoved under the carpet. Makes a bad Baha'i,
according to
some people. :-)
Love, Karen
>
> Don Bradley
>
From: "Karen Bacquet" <karenbacquet@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: UHJ letter on withdrawals (for Don)
Date: Saturday, October 06, 2001 10:27 PM
--
"The essence of all that We have revealed for thee is Justice . .
." --
Baha'u'llah
Onandagus7 <onandagus7@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20011006215400.16563.00002399@mb-fb.news.cs.com...
> Thanks Karen.
>
> Is the UHJ generally more reasonable than many in the Baha'i
community
itself?
Hoo boy! Have you asked a question! In all fairness, I would
have to say
yes. In the particular instances that we've been speaking of, I
don't think
the House of Justice approves of people looking for enemies and
covenant-breakers under the bed, or in people being treated as CBs that
have
not been declared so. At least, that's what I see from public statements.
The problem is that some of these statements can be taken more than one
way.
How does one decide who is a "former member whose actions are
seriously
destructive"? "Leave them to themselves" can be seen
as "don't hang around
and argue with them" or as "avoid them like the
plague." I have also heard
of instances where warnings about certain people have circulated in more
of
a backdoor way -- not through public statements. So some individual
members
of the UHJ may be less moderate than some of their collective statements
would suggest. Sometimes there are wheels within wheels going on,
and I
honestly don't know very much about how the gentlemen in Haifa think.
However, in the areas of free expression and its attitude towards
academics
and scholarship, I find the UHJ something less than
"reasonable", and have
said so many times. Also, since I'm one of those who has resigned
membership but still retained my faith, one of those
"self-contradictory"
types they are talking about, I was less than delighted with this letter
when it came out. And, in fact, I think the presence of unenrolled
Baha'is
on the Internet is one reason they decided to make this statement right
now.
Some people took it as an outright threat. I don't know what I
think, and
decided I'm not going to worry about it.
If you're investigating the faith, Don, I would encourage you to go
back to
Baha'u'llah and 'Abdul-Baha and not get caught up in the administrative
stuff so much. That can be a downer even for us old-timers.:-)
Love, Karen
From: "Karen Bacquet" <karenbacquet@hotmail.com>
Subject: UHJ letter on withdrawals (for Don)
Date: Saturday, October 06, 2001 2:28 PM
4 April 2001
To all National Spiritual Assemblies
Dear Baha'i Friends,
The International
Teaching Centre has sought elucidation
of issues concerning the attitude of Baha'is and Baha'i
institutions towards those who have withdrawn from the Faith.
In response, we have provided the following comments, which
are being sent to you for your information and guidance. You
are free to share this letter with the believers under your
jurisdiction as you wish.
One's beliefs are an
internal and personal matter; no
person or institution has the right to exert compulsion in
matters of belief. Since there is a wide range of meanings in
the Sacred Scriptures, there are bound to be different ways in
which individuals understand many of the Baha'i teachings.
Nevertheless, it is necessary for the viability of the Baha'i
community that its members share a common understanding
of essentials. This implies a commitment by each member to
function within the framework established by such an
understanding.
This framework
includes, for example, cognizance of the
existence of a Divine Revelation brought by Baha'u'llah, the
Manifestation of God for this age, and acceptance of the two
primary duties prescribed by God, as expressed in the
Kitab i Aqdas, the Most Holy Book of the Baha'i Revelation.
These are: "recognition of Him Who is the Dayspring of His
Revelation and the Fountain of His laws," and observance of
"every ordinance of Him Who is the Desire of the world. These
twin duties," the Aqdas firmly states, "are inseparable. Neither
is acceptable without the other."
'Abdu'l Baha, Whom
Baha'u'llah appointed as the
Interpreter of His writings, reaffirms these fundamentals of
Baha'i belief. In His Will and Testament He writes: "This is the
foundation of the belief of the people of Baha (may my life be
offered up for them): 'His Holiness, the Exalted One (the Bab),
is the Manifestation of the Unity and Oneness of God and the
Forerunner of the Ancient Beauty. His Holiness the Abha
Beauty (may my life be a sacrifice for His steadfast friends) is
the Supreme Manifestation of God and the Dayspring of His
Most Divine Essence. All others are servants unto Him and do
His bidding.'"
It is within the
context of these statements of basic belief
and practice that membership in the Baha'i Faith is
determined. Acknowledging that the matter of ascertaining the
qualification of a true believer is a delicate and complex
question, Shoghi Effendi, the appointee of 'Abdu'l Baha as
Guardian of the Cause and authorized interpreter of its
teachings, set down for Spiritual Assemblies the principal
factors that must be taken into consideration before deciding
whether a person may be regarded as a true believer or not:
"Full recognition of the station of the Forerunner, the Author,
and the True Exemplar of the Baha'i Cause, as set forth in
'Abdu'l Baha'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 Baha'i administration throughout
the world...."
Viewed in the light
of these texts, a statement that one
wishes to withdraw from the Baha'i community, but not from
the Faith, is seen to be self contradictory. The Baha'i
community must be seen in its proper light. The necessity for
its existence as an inseparable element of the Faith itself is
explained by the stated purpose of the Revelation of
Bah=DF'u'll=DFh: to baing about a Divine Civilization. The
embodiment of that purpose and of the spirit breathed by
Baha'u'llah into the world is the Order He has ordained, to
which He refers in the Most Holy Book in asserting: "The
world's equilibrium hath been upset through the vibrating
influence of this most great, this new World Order. Mankind's
ordered life hath been revolutionized through the agency of this
unique, this wondrous System the like of which mortal eyes
have never witnessed."
Normally, a Spiritual
Assembly is called upon to make a
decision in such matters only as the result of an action by an
individual, either in declaring his belief in Baha'u'llah, or in
stating that he wishes to withdraw from the Faith, or, very
rarely, in persistently promoting concepts which are clearly
inconsistent with the essentials of membership outlined above.
Acceptance of the
Faith is the voluntary act of an
individual and is registered by the appropriate Baha'i institution
unless it has good reason not to do so. Likewise, a Baha'i is
free to leave the Faith voluntarily. When a member of the
community informs the Assembly of his wish to withdraw, it
would try to help him overcome whatever problems seem to be
the cause of his desiring to take such a step. If he persists in
his intention, the Assembly would normally accept the
withdrawal unless there were grounds for suspecting that he is
acting insincerely out of some ulterior motive, such as to
violate a Baha'i law with impunity.
In spite of loving
encouragement given by their
Assemblies, not all Baha'is are active in the work of the
community. This does not, of course, necessarily indicate
withdrawal. An Assembly should carefully distinguish between
those who are not active but still identify themselves with the
Faith, and those whose inactivity indicates complete lack of
interest and a wish to have nothing more to do with the Cause.
Once a person's
resignation from the Faith has been
accepted, his status is that of a non Baha'i and except as
noted below his relationship with Baha'i institutions and
individual believers is the same as that of any other
non Baha'i. As in all human relationships, the closeness of
this connection, and the warmth of friendship, depend upon
personal factors.
Sometimes, after a
person's withdrawal from the Cause
has been accepted, it becomes evident that his statements
were insincere and were made merely in order to evade Baha'i
law. The Assembly need not take any overt action in such a
case, but would note the matter in its records. In other words,
it would have to be cautious about accepting a subsequent
declaration of belief from this individual until satisfied that it is
made in good faith. Also, depending upon the circumstances,
the Assembly might require him to rectify the action, taken in
violation of Baha'i law, which was the motive for his
withdrawing from the Faith.
An analogous
situation arises when a person who is
engaged in some activity which he suspects would result in
his being declared a Covenant breaker withdraws from the
Faith under the impression that this step would prevent such
an outcome. The Universal House of Justice may conclude
that the withdrawal provides adequate protection of the
community from the individual in question. However, if he
persists, following his withdrawal, in trying to undermine the
Covenant or joins forces with Covenant breakers, he may be
judged to have broken the Covenant, and the friends would be
told to have no association with him. Each such case would
be considered in the context of its specific circumstances.
There is one other
condition which should be mentioned.
There are certain former Baha'is whose actions do not
necessarily constitute Covenant breaking, but are seriously
destructive. Where such people have shown that they are
impervious to explanations or exhortations from the Baha'i
institutions, continued association with them can be
burdensome and can exert a spiritually corrosive effect on the
faith of believers. In such cases the Head of the Faith may
simply advise the Baha'is to leave them to their own devices.
Thus, there are
exceptional cases in which a former
believer's spiritual attitude to the Faith may, to various
degrees, create an estrangement between him and the
Baha'is. In general, however, a person who has withdrawn from
the Faith is regarded as being among the generality of
humankind with whom the Baha'is are enjoined to associate
"in joy and fragrance".
With loving Baha'i greetings,
cc: International Teaching Centre
Continental Boards
of Counsellors
Counsellors
--
"The essence of all that We have revealed for thee is Justice . .
." --
Baha'u'llah
From: "Karen Bacquet" <karenbacquet@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Disowning and Shunning?
Date: Saturday, October 06, 2001 2:13 PM
>
> >And, if so, how is all of this reconciled with the
> >> expansive Baha'i ideals of unity and inclusion beginning at
the level
of
> >the
> >> family?
> >
> >The theory goes like this: The practice of shunning
schismatics (which
are
> >what covenant-breakers generally are) preserves the unity of the
Faith,
> >which is considered to be essential to its mission of unifying
mankind.
>
> LOL. But _every_ faith stigmatizes its "apostates" in order
to preserve
> internal unity so it can fulfill its God-ordained purpose for
humanity. If
> Baha'is make an exception to their unity principles for heretics or
> schismatics, then they _guarantee_ that universal unity won't come
about
by
> dividing the families and communities in their own midst . . . .
Well, just to clarify -- a covenant-breaker isn't an apostate.
There's not
supposed to be any stigma on those who leave the Faith; in fact, those who
disagree with administration policy are actually encouraged to leave
rather
than buck the status quo. Covenant-breakers are schismatics who
advocate an
alternative kind of authority. Most of those regarded as
"covenant-breakers" are followers of a person who laid claim to
the
Guardianship after Shoghi Effendi's death, which are themselves divided
into
several splinter groups. However, it is not unheard of for a person
to be
named CB, or threatened with being named so, for other reasons.
>
> Why shouldn't "unity in diversity" be the
"watchword" _within_ the faith,
as
> well as without?
It's supposed to be the watchword within the Faith. You are
exactly right.
>
>
> >> Most Baha'is view the shunning of covenant-breakers as a
> >fundamental commandment, and see CBs as being spiritually
diseased.
>
> Wow. So much for not dividing humanity into "clean" and
"unclean" groups.
Yes, Baha'u'llah explicitly got rid of the idea of ritual
uncleanliness,
especially that with regard to "unbelievers". Indeed, He said
that anything
which causes human beings to shun one another had been abrogated.
But the
circumstances that brought about the practice of shunning arose
later. It's
hard to explain the kind of gut-reaction Baha'is have about
covenant-breaking. The CB is a kind of "anti-Baha'i" --
claiming to believe
in Baha'u'llah, yet attempting to undermine the unity which is the Faith's
mission. It isn't at all rational. Out in the real world, most
Baha'is
never run into covenant-breakers because these splinter groups are pretty
tiny. It is much more common to run into their literature, which, if
it
causes someone to ask the wrong questions, can throw a community into a
panic.
>
> The early schisms make it easy to see _why_ shunning got started. But
couldn't
> this just be viewed as a mistake, or a practice necessitated by the
early
days
> when the faith was struggling to survive? Nowadays, there are plenty
of
> religious communities that tolerate a broad spectrum of participants
without
> shattering into a thousand splinter groups.
Well, that's the problem. It is written into the texts --
'Abdul-Baha said
to shun covenant-breakers therefore that's what Baha'is do. There is
a
sense, especially among conservative Baha'is, that a person's spiritual
health is measured by "loyalty to the Covenant", which these
days means the
House of Justice. On one forum, I once related a story that put the
administration in a less-than-positive light, and was told that I must be
either mentally ill or a covenant-breaker. That's what makes things
so
difficult for those of us that see problems in the administration --
belief
in Baha'u'llah is supposed to be inextricably tied to acceptance to
whatever
the UHJ says. It's a terrible thing to deal with when you find that
body
doing things that prove it to be something less than infallible. The
assumption is that if you *really* believe in Baha'u'llah, then you have
to
accept whatever 'Abdul-Baha', Shoghi Effendi, and the UHJ has said.
I
finally cut the Gordian knot and practice my faith privately, outside the
administration.
As far as shunning -- I don't, although I've never met a
covenant-breaker
anywhere but on the Internet. But I do refuse to get into extended
discussions about the Guardianship. Since that is their main issue,
that
usually just puts an end to the conversation. Someone like Nima I
would
never even consider shunning, even when I was an enrolled Baha'i -- he is
a
critic of the Faith, but he is not a covenant-breaker, and I don't believe
in "unofficial" CBs, and never did.
>
> >> If Baha'is do shun and disown, then they are not trying to
promote
unity
> >among
> >> humankind, they are trying to promote unity within the
faith, which is
a
> >> different thing altogether.
> >
> >Yes, well, Baha'is regard it as being pretty much as a matter of
the
Faith
> >can't unite the world if it is not united itself.
>
> Again, Baha'is seek unity in diversity for the world as a whole,
right? So
why
> not begin by building _that_ sort of unity within the family and the
faith
> community?
Sometimes, what it is, that the broad principles of the Faith say one
thing,
but specific passages in the texts say another. I prefer the broad
priniciples, don't you? Because CBs advocate a different sort of
authority
within the Faith, the differences are considered irreconciliable -- by
creating a schism, they've done the unforgiveable.
>
> >
> >Yes, the House of Justice recently made a statement on those who
have
> >withdrawn from the faith. In general, they are just
supposed to be
treated
> >with the same tolerance as any non-Baha'is
>
> Good. Would you happen to know how I can access this?
I can dig it up and post it for you.
Love, Karen
>
> Thanks,
>
> Don Bradley
From: "Karen Bacquet" <karenbacquet@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Disowning and Shunning?
Date: Saturday, October 06, 2001 8:40 PM
>
> I think the most insidious, paranoid thought that runs through a
Baha'is
> head is: "You're doing it wrong."
Dear Craig,
Here I would whole-heartedly agree. It can be stifling
sometimes.
>
> I remember once a young gentleman who, in a good-natured mock display
of
> gallantry, sought to kiss the hand of a middle-aged Persian woman,
only
> to find she'd yanked her hand away and left the room, more
embarrassed
> than he. Someone pulled him aside and told him the kissing of hands
was
> forbidden.
My understanding is that the kissing of hands is forbidden because it
was a
kind of show of subservience -- you'd kiss the hand of some all-high
religious muckety-muck. In a Western context, it is kind of a show
of
gallantry to kiss the hand of a lady -- it's a cultural mix-up. I'd
bet my
bottom dollar that gentlemen don't kiss ladies' hands (or anything else)
in
the Middle East; it could probably get you into big trouble real fast.
>
> So, I can understand why a community would be thrown "into a
panic." >>
Well, it actually happened in my community; it was pretty awful.
>
> The word "conservative" seems so incredibly loaded.>>
Baha'i forums are the only place I've ever been where using the terms
"liberal" and "conservative" can get you called all
kinds of nasty things.
At the mere mention of such terms I've been called "divisive"
and accused of
trying to "politicize the Faith" -- all I'm really trying to do
is describe
a situation. If somebody knows better terms, I'd like to hear them.
I know it can be
> restrained or cautious, which I think is how you're using it. But it
> begs comparison to the term "liberal" which is usually used
to describe
> those voicing opposition to Baha'i administration. In intellectual
> circles, "conservative" connotes dogma and closed
mindedness, while
> "liberal" connotes exploration and open mindedness. And of
course in
> politics, this word can bring conversation to a grinding halt
depending
> on the company.
Yes, but in politics people will often proudly label *themselves*
liberal or
conservatives. Some Christians proudly boast of being
fundamentalist. When
I use the term, I'm thinking in terms of approaches to religion -- there
are
liberal Christians and conservative Christians. Conservative
Christians
tend to be more scripturally literal, antagonistic to certain aspects of
modern life and certain the world is falling apart, opposed to
evolutionary
theory etc. Liberals tend to be more tolerant, flexible, more likely
to
accept the findings of biblical criticism etc. Putting that in a
Baha'i
context, it generally centers around (although there are other issues,
too)
attitudes towards the administration. A liberal tends to see the
UHJ's
authority as more restricted; a conservative thinks it is infallible in
everything it does; a fundamentalist practically worships it and thinks
it's
the center of the universe.
I see a spectrum of attitudes within the Faith, a continuum reaching
from
virtually extreme fundamentalism on the right to liberal on the
left. Some
individuals aren't easy to catagorize; it's not always black-and-white.
>
> There are many avenues for consultation, which IMO is the best way to
> voice opinions. I have no idea what your specific beef was with the
UHJ,
> but as you know, backbiting is one of the worst offences there is,
and I
> hear it *every day* from Baha'is, and fall into that behavior myself
> (ah hem)... once in a very blue moon. I know some folks can get very
> touchy about Baha'i criticism, and might even brand it as backbiting
if
> not couched in the most careful language.
Yes, I know. Nobody backbites as much as Baha'is do; we just
piously
pretend we don't. One of the unwritten Internet rules that amuses me
to no
end is that you can talk bad about someone as much as you like as long as
you don't use their name. Somebody can mention "a certain
Michigan
professor" and talk about how terrible he is, but that's not
backbiting even
though everybody knows who is being talked about. I also don't like
the
term "backbiting" applied to institutions -- they are
institutions; they
make policy -- how can you discuss the policy if you can't voice
disagreements without being accused of "backbiting"? If I
think a certain
decision is wrong, and I say so, that is *not* backbiting, even if I don't
"couch it in the most careful language."
>
> I don't think it's said that the body is infallible, but that their
> decisions are infallible, meaning that even if they do a complete 180
> down the road, they prayerfully carried out exactly what needed to be
> done at the time.
Well, I've seen some decisions that I don't think God had anything to
do
with.
>
> It's a divinely guided body, and personally I think there's a
difference
> between strongly urging them to pursue a course of action in future,
> even if it's in effect reversing a previous decision, and criticising
> what's already been done.
Well, that's more open-minded than some.
>
> But didn't Baha'u'llah say you have to believe in 'Abdul-Baha',
Shoghi
> Effendi and the UHJ? Believe me, I'm not trying to wage a debate, I
just
> see the administrative loyalty (aka the Covenant) as part of the
package.
Well, I'm not sure I'm in the mood to get into all that, so I'm not
debating
whether you want to wage one or not. I've explained why I think the
way I
do numerous times. You can look through the Google archives if
you're
curious. You can also look at my website:
https://www.angelfire.com/ca3/bigquestions/Bacquet.html
>
> Ah, that's probably enough on that. I enjoy reading your posts,
Karen,
> they're straightforward and sincere. I hope nothing I've written
comes
> off as hostile or self righteous. Wasn't my intention...
Thank you; I don't think you've said anything at all offensive.
Love, Karen
From: "Karen Bacquet" <karenbacquet@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: This is Bahai?
Date: Sunday, October 07, 2001 12:06 AM
> >> As the relative success of fundamentalism shows, such an
approach has
> >appeal
> >> to a number of people.
> >
> >The biggest influx of Baha'is was during the late 60's and early
to mid
> >70's. Are you saying these people were prone to fundamentalism?
>
> Actually yes! This is the time period when, as one religious scholar
put
it, we
> saw "the revenge of God" - fundamentalist movements emerged
or gained
> considerable strength in virtually every major religion during this
time
> period. Despite - or perhaps because of - the counterculture movement
of
the
> 1960s, fundamentalism emerged as the counter-counterculture.
Don, you are very astute. For every Baby Boomer that dabbled in
Eastern and
alternative religions, there were ten who became "Jesus
Freaks"-- the
culture wars are, in a lot of ways, a war between Boomers. My
grandmother
shakes her head at how tongue-speakers and fundamentalists, once
considered
rather off-beat and lower-class in her day, are now so prominent and
noisy.
The Baha'is have both fundamentalists and liberals -- the thing is,
our big
test is, can our "Unitarians" and "New Agers" live
with our "Southern
Baptists"? If you're a Christian, you can just go to the church
across the
street and don't have to live with those godless modernists and humanists
and just stick to "Bible-believing" folks if you like. Or
the liberals can
leave the Bible-thumpers behind and go to their own church. But if
you're a
Baha'i, there's only one game in town. Until the Internet, the
existance of
these differing perspectives were kind of hidden -- now it's all out there
in the bright light of day, and only time will tell if we really can
accept
unity in diversity, or if the Baha'i Faith will limit itself to a narrow
perspective.
>
> Besides, even a person with very progressive views can hold those
views
> dogmatically. For instance, political liberals tend to be about as
dogmatic in
> holding their views as political conservatives are in holding theirs.
Well, my experience of Baha'i liberals is that they can be strident,
but are
seldom dogmatic. Their whole trip has been freedom of expression, so
they
aren't into anyone being shut up, or following a single view.
>
> And, finally, based on my very brief period of observing Baha'i
Internet
fora,
> I would say that the faith is a fundamentalist one. Any faith in
which the
> majority of the believers take virtually all the faith claims at face
value and
> in which they believe the authoritative sources are infallible is
certainly
> fundamentalist, at least in the broad sense. How is it fundamentalist
to
> believe _the Bible_ is infallible, but not to believe the decisions
of the
UHJ
> (or Abdul-Baha, etc.) are infallible? If the latter is not
fundamentalist,
> neither is the former, and we would have little ground for describing
anyone as
> fundamentalist.
Oooo! Very good. The issue of infallibility is very complex;
whole papers
have been written on that. I'll get back to you on that other thread
where
you asked about it, when I can.
>
> I
> >heartily disagree. If all that mattered were "converts"
and raw numbers,
> >the Faith could morph itself into whatever the focus groups
recommended
> >(if it had the lattitude to do so, which by definition of Baha'i
Law, it
> >doesn't). Besides, such catering to the mores of the time is a
trap I
> >think we've seen historically in other religions, that has led to
> >confusion and division that adversely impacts us to this day.
>
> One of the things that leads to this division of which you speak is
that
> although there are multiple religions, each tends to hold its
authoritative
> sources up as infallible, "showing" clearly that the
contrary views of the
> other faiths are absolutely wrong. How is the Baha'i faith different
in
this
> regard?
Oh my gosh! You *are* sharp. Again and again, the UHJ has said
that an
individual can't be allowed to push for his opinion within the Faith
because
that threatens to cause schism, but they are wrong, wrong wrong!
What
causes schism is the orthodox drawing lines between acceptable and
unacceptable. Nothing will create schism faster than inflexible
leadership.
By trying to preserve the Faith in some kind of pristine and unchangeable
form, they will either stunt it or divide it. Baha'is tend to think
that
their religion is different somehow, that these bad things that happened
in
other religions can't happen in ours. That's very dangerous
thinking, in my
view.
>
> >. IMO there is no more
> >comprehensively laid-out set of administrative guidelines on
Earth, to
> >prevent the kind of infighting and division that effected nearly
every
> >other religion shortly after the ascension of its Founder.
>
> And yet, ironically, this itself seems to have become a source of
infighting.
> The sort of social controls that tout infallible authority, censor
publications
> about the faith, and advocate the shunning of certain dissidents are
bound
to
> stir up the very resentments and complaints they seek to prevent.
Yes. Exactly. That's how I got to be on the outside of the
Faith. I was
horrified to find that the administration had done these things, and could
not be part of an organization that supported that. Even worse, it
is a
betrayal of the teachings of Baha'u'llah that I believed, and still do
believe in.
>
>
> >The "independent investigation of truth" calls for all
to judge for
> >themselves based on a fair and thorough examination of the facts.
In LA,
> >our former Auxiliary Board Member for Protection (who recently
passed
> >away) told me that oftentimes it's people with great abilities
and
> >intellect who sometimes let ego get the better of them, who start
to
> >eschew humility and try to wield intellectual power over others.
>
> This could be true. But it sounds fishy - like an ad hoc explanation
that
seeks
> to avoid a more obvious, but less pleasant, possibility. If the
smarter
people
> are having trouble believing everything they're told to, it's more
likely
that
> something is wrong with those beliefs than that they are simply
afflicted
with
> pride.
Yes. The ego charge is flung at intelligent people, and
especially scholars
who don't tow the line -- and people buy it just because those
pointy-headed
intellectual types make them uncomfortable anyway. Besides, how do
you
prove yourself free of ego? By shutting up and towing the line, of
course.
Smart people are curious, they ask questions, they investigate, and they
don't always accept an argument based on authority.
>
>
> >> Keep asking those questions, Don. They are most
pertinent.
Amen!
Love, Karen
From: "Karen Bacquet" <karenbacquet@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Infallibility? (was Re: Disowning and Shunning?)
Date: Sunday, October 07, 2001 2:39 PM
> What is the basis for the infallibility claim? And how literally
and
broadly is
> it taken? Are they, like the Pope is for Catholics, infallible only
on
matters
> of faith and morals, or on everything? And given the non-prophetic
status
of
> everyone since Bahaullah, and especially the UHJ, what is it that
_makes_
them
> infallible? Are they believed to operate under divine inspiration?
>
> As a sympathetic outsider, but an outsider nonetheless, this
infallibility
> claim is the most difficult one for me to swallow. To me it is simply
absurd on
> the face of it to claim infallibility for any human being. I find it
difficult
> to imagine even what the basis of the claim could be or how people
could
accept
> it.>>
Dear Don,
As I said earlier, infallibility is a complex concept, and much has
been
written and said about it. A good explanation can be found both in
"Some
Answered Questions", and in the tablet of Ishraqat that's in the book
I
recommended to you before. Or, if you like, you can go to the site I gave
you, and just put in "infallibility" in the search engine.
First of all, the term "ma'sum", which is translated as
"infallibility"
means something different from what the English word would imply. It
doesn't so much mean "factual inerrancy" as it does "moral
immaculacy" or
"sinlessness". The "error" that an the
infallible person is preserved from
is not an error of fact, but moral error.
The Writings speak of two kinds of infallibility: essential or
"the Most
Great Infallibility", and infallibility that is described as
"conferred" or
"acquired". Essential infallibility is a quality of the
Manifestation
alone. Baha'u'llah clearly says that no one else has a share in it.
Without that infallibility, a Manifestation couldn't be a
Manifestation. It
goes with the territory, so to speak. The sort of infallibility that
the
authorized interpreters of the revelation have is "conferred"
infallibility -- which, as I understand it, is infallibility limited to a
certain sphere. For example, 'Abdul-Baha would have that kind of
infallibility when interpreting the Writings, but not necessarily when he
is
speaking in other matters such as science or history. Now, I should
point
out that many Baha'is do believe that everything that 'Abdul-Baha ever
said
must be factually correct. I'm just giving you my
understanding. The
particular sphere given to the UHJ, for example, is legislation, and its
infallibility would be limited to that -- again, that's just my view and
there are a lot of Baha'is that would see every decision it makes as
divinely guided. To me, to see 'Abdul-Baha, Shoghi Effendi, or the UHJ as
completely infallible in all they every did or said is to put them on the
level of the Manifestation -- who clearly said that no one has a share in
the Most Great Infallibility. I have known Baha'is to put all their
statements on virtually the same level -- to say Baha'u'llah said
something
when it was really 'Abdul-Baha or Shoghi Effendi who said it. Or to
view
these later interpretations as virtually the same as the Revelation
itself.
I tend to make more of a distinction.
It sounds odd to say someone is "less infallible", but
I see that as
meaning "infallibility limited to a specific sphere of
authority." I have
known people to voice the opinion that it means only that the head of the
Faith is "where the buck stops", i.e. that they have the final
authority for
making decisions about the Faith.
One interesting aspect is that Baha'u'llah and 'Abdul-Baha say that
this
lesser infallibility is given "to every holy soul" -- so this
"conferred" or
"acquired" infallibility is not limited to those who are
supposed to possess
it "officially". It can be seen as a spiritual quality
that souls can
potentially develop. That only makes sense if you see the word as
meaning
"freedom from sin" rather than "they never can be
wrong".
I hope this helps clarify things.
Love, Karen
>
> >> Again, Baha'is seek unity in diversity for the world as a
whole, right?
So
> >why
> >> not begin by building _that_ sort of unity within the family
and the
faith
> >> community?
> >
> >Sometimes, what it is, that the broad principles of the Faith say
one
thing,
> >but specific passages in the texts say another. I prefer
the broad
> >priniciples, don't you?
>
> Very much. ;-)
>
> Don Bradley
From: "Karen Bacquet" <karenbacquet@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: bahai - TERRORISM 5 - Testimonies re US bahai community
Date: Thursday, October 11, 2001 10:16 AM
--
">
> Then we are stuck. If people are mad at you then maybe - just
maybe
> something _is_ wrong. Take Juan - he is a sweet and intelligent
man,
> but his fuse very short, and when riled he flies off the handle.
> Maybe if he controled the anger he would be able to see the other
> sides point of view.
Dear Dave,
I don't see Juan's fuse as being all that short, and a good deal of
his
anger at the system is justifiable. If they had approached him in a
rational way instead of assuming he had some kind of nefarious motives and
threatening him, I think we'd have seen a whole different reaction.
>
> > That isn't "spin"; that's just a statement of how a
person feels about
it.
>
> Feel is spin - its emotional, not rational or objective. That
does
> not mean that it is invalid, but it does mean that it is biased.
Then what are we talking about here? You accused Juan of putting
"spin" on
his story -- that implies a deliberate kind of distortion. I sure don't
find
the AO approach as either "spin"-free or rational and
objective. They have
acted like people that are very afraid.
>
> > All Juan was ever guilty of was having opinions that the
> > powers-that-be don't like, and it isn't even entirely clear what
those
> > opinions were that made them come after him.
>
> Uh, I think the opinion that Baha'u'llah got his ideas from his
> contact with a modernist philosophy rather than from God might have
> something to do with it.
In other words, writing history like an academic instead of an
apologist.
As I have said again and again, academic history doesn't say anything
about
God one way or the other; that's not the historian's job. If this is
really
the reason they went after Juan, then all the UHJ claims that it supports
Baha'i scholarship are nothing but lies. Talk about spin! It's
just the
same old song of fundamentalists everywhere -- write history that defends
a
religion and you're a good guy; write history that critically examines it
from solid historical evidence, then you are a godless secular humanist
out
to destroy the foundation of people's faith.
>
> > The administration, rather than making it clear what it expects,
takes
> > this "you ought to know better" approach, and assumes
that a person with
> > unconventional ideas has sinister motives.
>
> Motives are not important in this case. As to the "you
ought to know
> better" approach - that comes from out lack of clergy, the call
to not
> point out the sins of others, and the call to avoid conflict and
> contention. If the AO came to Juan and handed him a laundry
list of
> offenses he would complain that the AO is a bunch of judgemental
> so-and-so's who ignore Baha'u'llah's command to not find faults in
> others. Its almost a no-win situation.
Well, according to Juan's account there was a "laundry list"
of questions he
was asked. I was thinking of the LA study class and Dialogue, as well as
the
disenrollments. Personally, if they are going to come after people like
this
I'd rather they were upfront about what's bugging them, rather than this
vague stuff about "tone". Even better would be for them to
leave people
alone to think for themselves and exchange ideas freely.
>
> > Through this whole history from the LA study class on you see
the
> > administration saying "Your tone isn't right", the
liberals saying "What
the
> > heck do you mean?" and the response is "Figure it out;
you ought to
know."
> > I guess the assumption is that a *real* Baha'i wouldn't have an
independent
> > thought, or if he did, would never say so out loud.
>
> No - independent thought is not the issue. Tone is. They
are spot on
> about that. Trouble is we often take the
"sin-covering-eye-thing" too
> far. In any consultation, indeed in any communication, we must
follow
> Baha'u'llah's exhortations about speech by using tact and wisdom,
> words as mild as milk, etc. Tone mattered to Baha'u'llah enough
that
> he instructed us on how we should use it.
What the hell are you talking about? So, if you can't figure out
the right
"tone", you can get nailed -- you have to read the minds of the
powerful
before you dare utter a word. It's one thing to exhort people to use
"tact
and wisdom"; it's quite another to push people who aren't
sufficiently
"tactful" out of their religion. Besides, "tact"
is very much in the minds
of the beholder. I really don't find a great lack of tact in these
guys'
pre-crackdown statements, at least, for the most part -- afterwards, the
tact sort of dissolves. But in judging these cases, I think you need
to
look at what's said and done before institutional action was taken against
someone, not the angry statements afterwards. What astonishes me
sometimes,
is just how fairly mild statements can be taken as somehow underhanded.
>
> I really mean it Karen - your work is good. I wish you could
also
> report on the AO's P-O-V but I undrstand that they wont exactly
> welcome your questions.
Yes, I would actually prefer that they did answer my questions.
For some
things, publicly-released institutional letters are probably sufficient,
but
in some things the other side just remains hazy. For example, the
decision
to go after Dialogue; and the administration's side of the Talisman
crackdown. But nobody's talking. So, defenders can slam me
with "you
aren't giving the other side" -- but they can't slam me with not
making an
effort to get the other side. It galls me though; whenever there is any
complaint about any Baha'i official or institution, somebody jumps in with
"Well, we don't know the other side" -- that's hardly fair when
the "other
side" is carefully hidden. We are just supposed to assume, I
suppose, that
anybody the institutions go after just deserves it.
Love, Karen
From: "Karen Bacquet" <karenbacquet@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: bahai - TERRORISM 5 - Testimonies re US bahai community
Date: Friday, October 12, 2001 8:08 PM
,
>
> First off - we do not have a recorded transcript of his conversation
> with the folks who came to speak with him. >>
You're damned right we don't! The two people who insisted that
any
face-to-face interview be tape recorded got turned down. And
Birkland sure
isn't talking about the incident -- so again, we are just supposed to
ignore
the accounts of those threatened by him in the name of "we don't know
the
other side". Sure, two eyewitnesses would be better, and a tape
recording
would be best of all. I wish they had all, en masse, insisted on
having the
meetings tape recorded -- but the that's 20/20 hindsight. The two who did
so
already had experience with how Baha'i jurisprudence works; the others
were
more naive. So far, we've got four public accounts from people who say
that
they were threatened with being named CBs for their email messages, two
letters warning that "the effect would be to bring you into conflict
with
the Covenant", and one giant "no comment" from the prime
investigator of the
Talisman posters. That's the information we have to work with.
>
> > > Feel is spin - its emotional, not rational or
objective. That does
> > > not mean that it is invalid, but it does mean that it is
biased.
> >
> > Then what are we talking about here? You accused Juan of putting
"spin"
on
> > his story -- that implies a deliberate kind of distortion. I
sure don't
find
> > the AO approach as either "spin"-free or rational and
objective. They
have
> > acted like people that are very afraid.
>
> Go back and look at the statement and you will find that he chose
> words that would invoke a specific mental image of the encounter.
>>
It was his experience, Dave, and a really bad one. What sort of
"mental
image" was he supposed to evoke?
>
>
> > As I have said again and again, academic history doesn't say
anything
about
> > God one way or the other; that's not the historian's job.
>
> So perhaps it would have been better not to even try. If you
want to
> do an academic study of Baha'u'llahas an historic figure, as a
> believer, then don't try to explain where His ideas came from.
Look
> at His life and the impact of His teachings. If a Baha'i
academic
> writes something that patently contradicts the claims of Baha'u'llah
> then a problem is sure to arrise.
>
> The academic must choose - loyalty to Baha'u'llah or loyalty to the
> acadamy.
This is pure, unadulterated fundamentalism of a kind that leaves me
almost
speechless with outrage. Maybe somebody should have told these guys
about
that before they answered Shoghi Effendi's call for the youth to study
fields related to the Faith at University. They were fooled into
hooking up
with a religion that claims to support scholarship and the life of the
mind,
and free inquiry, only to be told "Uh, uh, you can't go
there." Maybe the
administration should just be honest about what it is, and tell young
people
not to study secular humanist history and you can go ahead and build some
kind of brainless enclave off-limits to intelligent people. It won't
have
anything to do with Baha'u'llah, but nobody will be rocking the boat.
>
>
> > So, if you can't figure out the right "tone", you can
get nailed -- you
have
> > to read the minds of the powerful before you dare utter a word.
>
> No, but the wrong "tone" can make any bad situation even
worse. Look
> at Alison's actions from the P-O-V of the UHJ. She has filed
suit
> against the Baha'is inspite of the clear instruction to make every
> effort to resolve conflicts inside the Baha'i Community. Her
"tone"
> is causing entrenchment. Others who have met the same kind of
> preasure as Juan took a milder "tone" and were able to work
out their
> differences with the AO.
They booted her out, Dave; they aren't interested in any discussion.
>
>
> Here is a suggestion - try to put yourself in their position.
Try to
> understand their point-of-view. Talk to folks like Pat or I and
ask
> us what we think the AO saw. That might help.
I can't, Dave. It's just too idiotic. I've read their
letters about these
events, and they are just stupid. They are going to look that way to
the
non-Baha'i world, too, and if I have anything to do with it, the
non-Baha'i
world will see them.
Karen
From: "Karen Bacquet" <karenbacquet@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: bahai - TERRORISM 5 - Testimonies re US bahai community
Date: Thursday, October 25, 2001 10:19 AM
--
"The essence of all that We have revealed for thee is Justice . .
." --
Baha'u'llah
>
> Opinions are not banned. Methods of expressing an opinion that
cause
> disunity or the undrmining of the AO is the problem.>>
I don't buy this at all. If the opinions being voiced were
considered
acceptable by Baha'i officialdom, I don't believe that there would be all
this complaining about "method" and "parties" to
promote them. In
Birkland's letter to Steve Scholl's, there were several opinions mentioned
that were considered inappropriate.
> > > Anything that is placed in an email on a forum should
be considered to
> > > be public knowledge. By posting to a group you are
essentially giving
> > > up privacy. You are publishing. I always assume
that what I post
> > > will be read by folks other than my intended
audience.>>
> >
> > So, he was just supposed to figure that out ahead of time?
And, by the
way,
> > he retracted the statement -- and was punished anyway.
>
> That is what happens when you do something wrong - you must accept
the
> punishment that comes with the transgression. You can't break a
> criminal law and then avoid punishment by apologizing.
That wasn't the deal -- the threat was "retract or lose your
rights". He
retracted and lost his rights. Again, the injustice comes in from
basically
making the punishment ex post facto -- everyone knows one can lose voting
rights from clear violations of Baha'i law -- there is no Baha'i law
concerning expression. Penalties in this country cannot be imposed
ex post
facto, even in criminal law. This guy was just participating in an email
discussion, shared a personal experience, then Wham! he's on the
carpet for
it.
> > Whether or not we can move forward depends on what they do
next. If
they
> > stop nailing people for their online activities, eventually
these events
> > will be far enough into the past where they'll have been all
talked out.
>
> Karen - they have stopped. Its been what - nearly 2 years?
About a year and a half. I'm not convinced they've
stopped. After all, it
was nearly three years between the disenrollments of Mike and
Alison. It's
a positve sign, but I'm not ready to breathe a sigh of relief just yet.
>
> > However, if they take action against anyone else, everything
from
Dialogue
> > onward will be regurgitated again and again.
>
> Why open up old wounds like that? What is the point?>>
Because it's all related. It's a pattern of behavior.
.
>
> First of all they are not censors. I object to that
characterization.>>
When someone in authority says "No, you can't say that",
it's censorship.
Let's call a spade a spade here.
> Pre-publication review was a policy introduced by
Abdul-Baha and
> endorsed by Shoghi Effendi. It is a temporary measure and is
not even
> applicable to all media since the Internet is exempt. It helps
us all
> to present an accurate image of the Baha'i Faith.>>
And whose "image" is accurate, Dave? There are a
myriad ways to look at the
Revelation -- not just one simplistic "official" way. I've
been noticing
the conversations on Baha'i Studies about the Ruhi curriculum and how
thinking people who won't subject themselves to this kind of mindless rote
learning are dismissed as "arrogant", and talented people aren't
allowed to
teach at Baha'i schools unless they conform to the big push for this
program. It's frightening, Dave. They don't want people who
think -- they
just want a bunch of trained clones like out of some dystopian nightmare.
The title "Brave New World" for Baha'i satire is more accurate
than I
thought.
> >
> > Fine. But they don't have the right to control freedom of
expression in
> > unofficial venues. I really don't understand this idea
that intelligent
> > people have to expect that everything they say is somehow an
official
Baha'i
> > statement.
>
> Karen - I am talking about published works and public
statements.>>
Dave, you were basically saying that because someone has a Ph.d, that
anything they say about the Faith implicitly claims to be authoritative.
Sure, it's public space, and lots of people say lots of things about the
Faith, but I don't see anywhere explicitly claiming to have the
authoritative viewpoint. Yet this charge is leveled at the people
who got
into trouble with Talisman. Why? Because they are intelligent
and
articulate and have credibility. So they don't even have to claim
authority -- they are suspected of doing so just by virtue of who they
are.
That isn't right.
> Whoso interpreteth what hath been sent down from the heaven of
> Revelation, and altereth its evident meaning, he, verily, is of them
> that have perverted the Sublime Word of God, and is of the lost ones
> in the Lucid Book.>>
"It's meaning can never be exhausted". Take your pick.
Love, Karen
From: "Karen Bacquet" <karenbacquet@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: bahai - TERRORISM 5 - Testimonies re US bahai community
Date: Sunday, October 21, 2001 5:50 PM
Dear Dave,
I have been thinking about our discussion about the academic way of
looking
at the Manifestations vs. looking at them only through a believer's
eyes. I
think perhaps I should explain some of my own history about that, and why
this issue is important to me. Because, in my own life, intellectual
investigation has been an important part of my spiritual and personal
growth.
I came into the Baha'i Faith at the age of 24 with a naive, but
heartfelt
belief in the unity of religion, a love/hate relationship with the Bible,
and the belief that one's search for truth and spiritual meaning is the
most
important thing in one's life. I rejected the Christianity of my childhood
because of its exclusivity, and insistence that you should just turn your
brain off and believe even when things don't make any sense. (I was not
really that aware, at the time, of more liberal forms of Christianity) I
had
dabbled in New Age, and Hindu thought, which appealed to me because it's
tolerance and view of spiritual development, but found it unsatisfying on
an
emotional level.
Then Baha'u'llah came into my life. It was, in some ways, like a
homecoming, with that devotional aspect of spirituality brought back to
me.
The Bible was brought back to me, too. I avoided, for a lot of years
looking at the Bible, because, while I didn't exactly believe in it, I
didn't exactly *not* believe in it either. The symbolic way of
looking at
scripture came as a revelation, and allowed me to accept the truth of
scripture without being required to believe things I thought were
nonsense.
So I read a lot of books that look at Jesus from a Baha'i angle, but soon
became dissatisfied with the elaborate symbolizing that they did, along
with
the tendency of Baha'is to look at the Bible as if just about everything
in
it referred to the Baha'i Revelation. I felt that the Christian
accusation
of "scripture-twisting" kind of had a point. I ran into
Udo Schaeffer's
"Answer to a Theologian", and decided to look back into early
Christian
history to see if I could find the Baha'i Jesus. Thus my
introduction to
looking at religious history from a more academic angle.
Well, I didn't find the Baha'i Jesus -- indeed, I found that there
were no
simple answers at all. Instead of being distressed by that, I was
fascinated. There was not just one pure early Christianity, but a
variety
of people with vastly differing views that considered themselves the
followers of Jesus. And there sure wasn't just one viewpoint of
Jesus from
the scholars who wrote about him, either. Some would say things
diametrically opposed to each other. But I found I liked that
academic
voice, points of view that hung together and made sense -- that were
content
to leave an empty tomb empty and not offer any comments about how it got
that way.
And I'm still learning: Partly because of a class I took as sort
of a
filler when I was getting my credential, and because of some things I've
seen from Michael Sours on Baha'i Studies, I'm no longer so harsh about
all
that symbolizing -- I now realize that this is actually a very traditional
way of looking at scripture and that fundamentalist-style literalism is
actually more of an innovation. I'm also letting go of the
"Well, a
Manifestation didn't write that, therefore I can dismiss it"
attitude.
So what does all this have to do with looking at Baha'u'llah
academically?
It has influenced the way I think and the way I approach things. It
did not
destroy my faith because my investigations into Christian history did not
exactly coincide with the Baha'i view. It does not destroy my faith
that
Buddha doesn't fit into the Baha'i paradigm of a succession of
Manifestations of God. When I first read "Modernity and the
Millennium" I
did not say "Oh, this guy is saying that Baha'u'llah was influenced
by this
and that; he must be an unbeliever trying to undermine the Faith. (I read
the book before ever meeting Juan.) No, I thought it was amazing -- it
hung
together and made sense, and it only confirmed for me just how wonderful
Baha'u'llah is -- even from the simply human aspect.
Now, I have gone through all this on a very naive level -- it took me
years
to discover things that the real intellectuals found out in their
undergraduate days. But what I have kept, through it all, is
curiosity and
the mental flexibility to accept new ideas, and an appreciation for
looking
at religious figures within the context from which they arose. That
has
been important to me -- so the idea that Baha'is should be rejected from
the
community for doing that just appalls me. Looking at things in that way
has
enriched my faith, and my life.
Love, Karen
From: "Karen Bacquet" <karenbacquet@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: bahai - TERRORISM 5 - Testimonies re US bahai community
Date: Monday, October 22, 2001 4:54 PM
>
> My objection is that there is an inherent hypocracy created when in
> one breath we say that Baha'u'llah was the Revealer of God's Word and
> then we say Baha'u'llah was a skilled philosopher who made this all
> up.
>
> Can you see why I would object to attributing Baha'u'llah's words to
> the people with whom he had contect?>>
Yes, but I don't see that Juan has done that. He hasn't done
anything
that's all that different from what scholars who study Jesus have
done. For
one thing, if you are studying a religious figure, the fact that he made a
claim to a revelation is a historical fact, so any attempt to "reduce
him to
a philosopher" would be unhistorical. One doesn't come away from
M&M with
the impression that Baha'u'llah just took a bunch of good ideas and
cobbled
them together to make a religion -- that's not what Juan said. Have
you
actually read that book yet, Dave?
Love, Karen
From: "Karen Bacquet" <karenbacquet@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: WARNING - Fundamentalist Deception runs rife on trb & arb
Date: Friday, October 26, 2001 9:55 AM
>
> Perhaps it's because BIGS tend to be cloistered from the outside
world
> that
> they actually believe the system is democratic. The biggest
problem
> they
> have and fail to equate with democracy is the feeling that the AO is
> not
> accountable to the electorate.>>
Not to mention freedom of expression and the free flow of
information. I
pointed out to this guy that all sorts of repressive regimes hold
elections -- just because Baha'is vote every year doesn't make the system
democratic. But it goes right past him. Never let truth get in
the way of
a good sales pitch! I initially found his approach interesting
because,
unlike most fundamentalists, he didn't harp on the Covenant, basically
implying that the system gets its authority by reflecting the will of the
majority. But as time as gone on, I see he just keeps repeating the
same
things over and over, in spite of anything I say. Virtually everything he
posts to anything on the list is "Yes, the Baha'i Faith teaches that,
just
like your religion, except it has the answers to all the world's
problems."
He keeps pointing out to Christians how "disunited" their
religion is, and
you know, the Christians don't really care!
> >
> > Yes. That's what I was saying -- every sanction against
people on
> the
> > Internet just adds fuel to the fire. I don't know if
they've
> figured that
> > out yet. It has been a year and a half since the last
outrage --
> Alison's
> > disenrollment -- only time will tell if they've caught on to how
> futile
> that
> > approach is.
>
> I think they realise it but won't admit it. But that at least is
> progress -
> the sign of an ever advancing civilisation?>>
Well, I'm in wait and see mode. They may yet have a few tricks
up their
sleeves. All the outrageous things seem to happen in the spring, so
I'm
waiting to see if they do anything this next year.
>
> > > Its biggest mistake was not to put review on the Internet
and
> train up a
> > > corps of cyber warriors. But since there is no debate
within the
> AO the
> > > cadre of experienced debaters does not exist.>>
> >
> > Yes, even now Susan's the best they've got. And she hasn't
been in
> the
> > trenches much lately -- new job and everything, probably.
>
> Ah come on! Not the "Grand Old Duke of York" who
"led his men up the
> hill and down again" ... You're not serious that she's the best!
> There must be better... somewhere!
Have you seen any other conservative that's better? Susan, at
least, can
hold up her end in a debate, and she's unpredictable, which is a rare
quality among the traditionalists. In fact, she's sometimes at odds with
the
real fundamentalist brain-dead types; they annoy her. I sometimes
wonder if
she'll ever figure out someday that she's smarter than the higher-ups
she's
defending.
>
> I'm subscribed - the chat's delivered rather than having to go to the
> Post Box to collect it. Yeah - they're back on the topic again
except
> that far from arguing that there should be a Guardian they're arguing
> about who that Guardian should be. The solution is so obvious
it's
> actually painful to read all of this! But where theology flies
in,
> rationality flies out!>>
Yeah, I noticed that. The list was ostenbly to be a place for
the Baha'is
of all the various groups to talk about Covenant issues, but it's
inevitable
that it will sometimes degenerate into "My Guardian is better than
your
Guardian."
> Some years ago some mildly disaffected from the AO Bahais
suggested
> organising a community event where all the Bahais from Northern
> Ireland would come together for a day every so often for meeting,
> socialising, discussing, debating or just plain bitching, whatever
> took their fancy. Apart from organising a venue and the
victuals,
> there was no agenda or anything like that - at least that is until it
> was "learned" that all such events had to be under the
supervision of
> the LSA. >>
Yes, that's the kiss of death. How many good ideas have been
squelched
because it was suddenly decided that they had to be under administrative
control?
>
> The more you "organise" community life the less attractive
it becomes.
> There would be much more and better community life if they took the
> BIGS down the local pub, poured multiple libations down the throats
> until everybody lost their inhibitions and started to say what they
> really think about so called community life in the AF.>>
Yes, that's the sad part. Even a lot of the people who are very
into the
whole administrative thing aren't really that happy with it. And
just about
everybody is frustrated with the lack of growth.
>
> You remind me of that old joke of the girl who had fallen pregnant
but
> insisted to the doctor that she couldn't be pregnant as she had NEVER
> EVER done THAT sort of thing with any man. The doctor went over
to
> the window and looked out.
>
> "What are you looking for?" the young lady said.
>
> "Last time this happened," quoth the doctor, "three
wise men came from
> the East. I can't see them yet but I'm sure they are
there!">>
Well, Dermod, miracles do happen sometimes. So I keep looking
out the
window, even though the chances are slim that the "wise men"
will ever
appear.
Love, Karen
From: "Karen Bacquet" <karenbacquet@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: WARNING - Fundamentalist Deception runs rife on trb & arb
Date: Saturday, October 27, 2001 7:10 PM
Paul Hammond <pahammond@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:3bdb3edd@212.67.96.135...
>
> Dave Fiorito <bighappymonkey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:f0853486.0110241045.5c89092@posting.google.com...
> > Karen,
> >
> > > > I am sorry to hear that you would not be open to
consultation unless
> > > > it took place on your terms. I hope that changes
some day.
> > >
> > > True consultation requires both parties to compromise.
> >
> > I don't recall ever reading that. My impression is not
that both
> > parties compromise but that all parties look at ideas presented
in a
> > unbiased and detatched manner so that all fact get uncovered and
the
> > truth can come out. I have never read that compromise on
all sides is
> > required for consultation.
> >
>
> Do you think that Karen was using the word "consultation"
here in
> the technical, Baha'i sense, or the more general sense, as it might
> appear in the dictionary, with examples such as
"consultation" (talks)
> between management and workers in a trade dispute?
Dear Paul,
It depends on what you think of as the Baha'i technical sense.
When Baha'is
consult with institutions, it generally is a matter of giving the
institution the opportunity to tell the individual is why he or she is
wrong, and "unity" is achieved when the individual agrees with
what the
institutions is saying. My understanding of what Baha'i consultation
is
supposed to be about is that the issue is laid out on the table honestly,
and a mutually satisfactory consensus is reached.
> >
> > But my point is that personal conscience is an inaccurate method
of
> > determining right and wrong. Over and over again
throughout the
> > Writings the Word of God is upheld as the standard of right and
wrong.
> >
>
> personal conscience is every individual person's method of
determining
> right and wrong - apart from persuasion, I don't see how this can
> be changed. I didn't believe that Baha'u'llah wanted robots,
and
> with 70-odd meanings to the word of God (as the Word of God
> itself says) there *must* be a certain amount of wiggle room in
> there.
Oh, Paul, you ought to know by know the only accurate way a Baha'i can
tell
right from wrong is to have the UHJ tell him what it is. One is
expected to
abandon personal conscience, and accept the UHJ interpretation if you are
to
be really firm in the Covenant. The only moral rule the
conservatives have
got is "The House is always right.", and an individual has
a "spiritual
problem" if they disagree with that.
Love, Karen
From: "Karen Bacquet" <karenbacquet@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: That's right: Opinions are not banned!
Date: Sunday, October 28, 2001 6:32 PM
Michael McKenny <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:9ri15e$pta$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> You are wrong that I thought the UHJ
were Nazis.
> You are wrong that I called them Nazis
to their face.
> You are wrong in saying the service of
Women Paper was not censored.
> You are wrong that even were I one so
thinking and so calling that
> this would justify a tyrannical response on their part.
>
To A Better Future,
>
Michael
Dear Michael,
Thank you for that clarification. One of the more disturbing things
about my
investigations is that yours in not the only case in which letters written
to the UHJ have been held against people, although in your case they
reacted
in an exceptionally extreme way. Steve Scholl's and David Langness'
letters
were held against them in the Dialogue case, and David's were again
mentioned as evidence that he "made statements against the
Covenant" during
the Talisman crackdown.
From what I've picked up, both from UHJ responses and advice I have
been
given is that one is not really expected to be honest, but to write to the
Supreme Institution in an extremely deferential and self-deprecating
matter.
If one is foolish enough to bare one's heart and lay the cards on the
table,
it will be taken as an indication that one is up to no good.
Love, Karen
> Pat Kohli (kohliCUT_THE_CAPS@ameritel.net) writes:
>
> >> > A nice bit of deceptive propaganda! Michael wrote
the UHJ as if they
were
> >> the Nazi
> >> > party of the Third Riech. Then he got
disenrolled.
> >> >
> >
> > "Very frankly, it is very difficult to see the distinction
between such
Baha'i
> > practices and those directed by Goebbels which at length
required the
> > intervention of my father and many millions like him. I can not
describe
for you
> > the extent of the impact it had on me when I learned that your
initial
response
> > to the reception of the information that the Writings contain
passages
in which
> > women are referred to as "men/rulers" and that it is
quite likely that
> > Abdul-Baha was speaking about the House of Justice in Chicago
and not
the
> > Universal House of Justice at all was to prohibit the
publication of
this data."
> >
> > My impression is that Michael was misinformed that the Universal
House
of
> > Justice prohibited the publication of information that he
alleges.
Rather than
> > seeking some clarification, he compares them with the scourge of
the
20th
> > century.
> >
> > Blessings!
> > - Pat
> > kohli@ameritel.net
> >
>
>
> --
> "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar
Guard."
> (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY
FOR MARS p2)
>
From: "Karen Bacquet" <karenbacquet@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: This is Bahai?
Date: Monday, November 05, 2001 9:30 AM
Dermod Ryder <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9s62qf$11796b$3@ID-84503.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "Karen Bacquet" <karenbacquet@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
> news:tuarqpomhpk286@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Hi karen,
>
> >
> >
> > the shift in the Faith had been so dramatic it
> > was as if they had joined one religion and ended up part of
another.
>
> And sure isn't that the same today? Come and join the liberal
Faith
> for tomorrow is the message to the seeker! Prostrate thyself
and
> toady before the omniscient, omnipotent and infallible AO is the
> reality when you've signed that wee card!
Dear Dermod,
Yes, exactly. And it's a cruel thing to do to people, and one
reason that
people who leave the Faith have such anger -- you feel gypped.
People don't
join the Baha'i Faith because they think building an administration that
will evolve into a future theocracy is a really cool idea. They join
because of the tolerant and rational principles are such a refuge from the
Christian fundamentalism they are often in flight from, and because their
hearts are touched by the Writings. Then, they sign the card, and
the
monster machine catches them in its grinding gears.
Also, in my own case, I had the rather naive idea that the
administration
might at least try to act within shouting distance of those tolerant
principles. I understand the denial I run into sometimes -- if
someone had
told me, before I saw for myself, that the AO had done some of the things
it
had done, I would have said it was impossible. The institutions
would never
do that, because we believe in the independent investigation of truth, and
nobody gets into trouble unless they break clearly defined Baha'i law, and
even then only as a last resort. I believed that the Covenant
actually
guaranteed freedom of thought because diversity of views did not need to
threaten to divide the Faith, because we had an agreed-upon center.
The sense of betrayal when I found out I was wrong was enormous.
Love, Karen
From: "Karen Bacquet" <karenbacquet@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: This is Bahai?
Date: Friday, November 23, 2001 1:16 PM
--
"The essence of all that We have revealed for thee is Justice . .
." --
Baha'u'llah
Michael McKenny <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:9tlrhk$skp$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> Greetings, Karen.
> Many thanks for your comments.
> You are quite right that the suppression of
freedom of thought and
> expression is a quite telling and alarming aspect of current Baha'i
life.
> What most upset me on first reading the Service of Women Paper was
that it
> had been censored. What most upset me when I first entered Baha'i
cyberspace
> was that there were Baha'i fundamentalists there seeking to suppress
the
> expression of any opinion, but their own.>>
Dear Michael,
Yes, my own reaction to the censorship of "A Modest
Proposal" was similar.
I had naively believed that freedom of expression was encouraged in the
Faith, and was shocked at the sort of fundamentalism I found in
cyberspace.
And there's no doubt some of the fundamentalists were shocked by me.
These
differences can't be swept under the rug any more, which I think is far
more
healthy in the long run, even though it has been painful in the short run.
> One point I stressed from early on was
that the Baha'i Covenant was a
> two way street; it guaranteed the freedom of thought and expression
for
> Baha'is, who, whatever their personal opinions, would accept the
> legitimacy of the authorized institutions. What is very remarkable
about
> those who had the understanding that Baha'i women should be on the
UHJ was
> that they only sought their legitimate right to express this opinion,
and
> all stated it would come about when the UHJ called for it. No one
staged
> a coup, or even passed around a special ballot.>>
Yes, that's another thing that amazed me. All the accusation
against the
prominent liberals -- they were politicking, they were claiming the right
to
authoritative interpretation, etc. -- completely fall apart upon
examination. Paul Hammond recently said of the Dialogue crowd that it's
rare
to find such a meek set of dissidents. That's the sad thing -- all
these
guys really believed in the system and tried their best to work within it
until they were left, at long last, with no option but to leave.
It may interest you to know that I discovered that the Mormon church,
which
is also experiencing tension between liberals and conservatives had a
"Dialogue" of their own. The editor has been recently
forced to resign
under pressure from conservative, but the liberal magazine itself,
Sandstone, has been in existence for 12 years. And it doesn't even
have to
submit its articles for review! And nobody has suffered sanctions.
It
saddens me greatly that the Baha'i Faith would show so much less
tolerance.
I've been trying to find out whether any other religious group has
punished
people for its email, and so far I've come up with zip -- not even the
most
controlling totalitarian cult punishes people for free expression in
cyberspace. I've found plenty of conflict between current and ex members,
though.
> The validity of propositions is independent of the
> personality of individuals; all the contemporary members of the UHJ
> demonstrate by moving against personalities, by pressuring or even
> legislating the non-Baha'i status of people believing that spiritual
> principles trump particular literal interpretations appearing to
exempt
> leaders from living according to spiritual principles is testify to
their
> powerlessness to stand in the light of what they oppose and the
extent
> they are willing to go to insist on their own understanding.>>
Yes -- if you have to stifle ideas, that demonstrates a fear of the
strength
of those ideas. If they had no merit, the sensible thing to do is
let them
be examined in the light of day. But they have no power against the
hearts
and minds of the sincere, and only show themselves to be petty and narrow
when they do these things.
> Thanks again for your comments and
for the opportunity this allows
> for me to restate these points. The time I took to do this may have
set
> back a little the completion of that Canadian archaeology project I'm
> working on, but it was worth it. Please feel free to repost any of my
> posts that in the ever flowing nature of cyberspace may seem called
for
> yet again. The same points seem to flow as waves to the shore and it
is
> only seldom now I look in here. Much I'm missing, but the archives
have
> likely already received responses by me and others so irrefutable
that
> exceptional ad hominems were all those sitting in UHJ seats had to
answer
> with.
Dear Michael, I know the time you have to spend in Baha'i cyberspace
is
limited. However, I'm always glad to see you here when you have the
moment
to spare. Until next time.
Love, Karen
From: "Karen Bacquet" <karenbacquet@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: "Shunning is the marker of a cult . . . note that these
Date: Thursday, November 29, 2001 11:36 AM
Dear friends,
I want to thank everyone for their kind words after my brief
departure. I'm
still keeping my cyberspace activities down, but can't resist peeking in
on
you guys. I'm really perfectly all right; it's just that if I
continue to
post while I'm over-stressed and touchy, I'll end up doing and saying
things
that I shouldn't. I figure I should at least try to keep my behavior
within
shouting distance of Baha'i standards, and taking these brief breaks is a
way of ensuring that I'm not led to do otherwise just because I happen to
be
tired or in a bad mood.
However, I ran into something concerning the definition of cults a
while
back that really struck me, and I thought was worth quoting in full.
It
appears in Cultic Studies Journal, which is an academic journal that
studies
the psychological and sociological dynamics in New Religious
Movements. The
immediate context is an article about Christian Identity, but I think it
applies generally. (I can give a full reference for this article if
someone
really wants one.)
"Accordingly, cults may best be viewed daily as falling on a
continuum. At
one end stand healthy well functioning groups, in which dissent is
respected, people participate in decision making, and members at all times
retain a foot in the real world. At the other end we find
totalitarian
enclaves in which conformity is prized above all else and people are
frequently manipulated against their will for the greater good of the cult
leader. People and organizations can move back and forth on this
continuum
depending on events. Organizations are not necessarily cults or not
cults.
They can be both at different times and in different places."
Note that the key to where a religion falls on this continuum is how
much
dissent is allowed, and how much people are allowed to participate in
decision-making. While Baha'is are allowed, at least on the local
level, to
participate in decision-making (how much depends a lot on local leaders),
there are severe limits on the expression of dissent. Conformity and
obedience are highly prized within the Baha'i community. (Dave, for the
purpose of analyzing a religion objectively, it is not much of a defense
to
say that such limits are an inherent part of the teaching. That's true
even
of severely destructive cults.)
Let's look objectively at what we've got here: This is a
religion in which
the highest governing body is believed to be infallible, and obedience to
its directives is considered a measure of spiritual well-being. Even at
lower levels, decisions are not to be opposed once they are reached, and
the
goals are generally set from upper levels, not from the grassroots. The
religion practices the shunning of schismatics in order to maintain unity,
and on a popular level even dissenters who are not schismatics can be
considered worthy of this treatment. The religion also maintains a
hierarchy of officials whose primary job it is to maintain orthodoxy, and
who investigate, interrogate, and threaten adherents who deviate.
Individual
initiative is discouraged, unless it is carefully under institutional
control. Adherents may not publish anything concerning their
religion
unless it is first vetted by the leadership. Sanctions and punishments
have
been imposed upon those seen as promoting unorthodox ideas, especially if
the people doing so are articulate and credible.
The Baha'i Faith is more controlling that the Catholic Church.
Many
Catholics openly call for women to be priests, but I don't see them being
punished solely for that reason. The Baha'i Faith is more controlling that
the Mormons. There is a controversial liberal Mormon magazine that
is still
in operation after twelve years, even though it has been under fire from
the
more conservative leadership. No one reviews the articles it
publishes.
The liberal Baha'i magazine, Dialogue, was forced to close after only two
years, even though all the articles it published were reviewed.
It would be completely unfair to class the Baha'i Faith along with
really
destructive cults, such as Jonestown, Heaven's Gate, or the Branch
Davidians. However, it would not be out of line to class it with
other
fringe groups who apply psychological pressure towards conformity, like
the
Jehovah's Witnesses and the Amish.
Also, as this article noted, exactly how "cult-like" one
experiences the
Baha'i Faith depends very much on who one is and where one is. LSAs
and
ABMs differ widely in their approach. Some are tolerant; others are harsh
and inflexible. Those who deal in the realm of ideas, such as academics
and
writers are far more vulnerable to being subject to pressure than the
ordinary believer. Curious and questioning types are also more likely to
run
into trouble, especially if their curiosity brings them into an encounter
with schismatic literature.
I think it is rather simplistic to just say "shunning is the
hallmark of a
cult". However, shunning is a control mechanism that is found
almost
exclusively in marginal religious sects that feel threatened by
non-conformist ideas or behavior. If the Baha'i Faith wants to be anything
other than marginal, then it will have to loosen up a bit.
Love, Karen
"
--
https://www.angelfire.com/ca3/bigquestions/Bacquet.html
Dave Fiorito <bighappymonkey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0853486.0111290657.3a48a74d@posting.google.com...
> Ron,
>
> > > Ok, so if you believe that shunning is a part of a cult,
then how do
> > > you explain the following from Baha'u'llah (emphasis
added):
> > >
> > > "... it is incumbent upon all the friends of God to
_*shun*_ any
> > > person in whom they perceive the emanation of hatred for
the Glorious
> > > Beauty of Abhá, though he may quote all the Heavenly
Utterances and
> > > cling to all the Books."
> >
> > You can't perceive anything in someone whom you are forbidden by
someone
> > else to have any association with. That is, this command of
> > Baha'u'llah's is _incompatible_ with shunning on the command of
the
> > leadership of an organisation. The same applies to your other
> > references, but the last has an additional problem:
>
> Could you please elaborate. I am not sure I understand your
point.
>
> > > "Erelong shall clamorous voices be raised in most
lands. _*Shun*_
> > > them, O My people, and follow not the iniquitous and
evil-hearted."
> >
> > This is simply saying not to pay attention to the _voices_. It
has
> > nothing to do with shunning people.
>
> So how do you shun a voice without shunning the person
speaking? And
> futhermore, shunning a voice or a person is still shunning and by
> Fred's definition that means it is still the "hallmark of a
cult".
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave
From: "Karen Bacquet" <karenbacquet@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: "Shunning is the marker of a cult . . . note that these
Date: Monday, December 03, 2001 4:37 PM
--
https://www.angelfire.com/ca3/bigquestions/Bacquet.html
Dave Fiorito <bighappymonkey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0853486.0112030938.7febefae@posting.google.com...
> Paul,
> > >
> >
> > So, preserving and protecting the Faith from attack is *not* a
> > major concern of the ABM for protection?
>
> Protection does not equate with the maintenance of orthodoxy.
> Orthodoxy is impossible in a Faith with no authorized
interpretor.<<
Then on what basis are people supposed to have
"misconceptions"? It's
beside the point anyway, Dave -- having a bunch of officials whose whole
job
is to make sure people don't mess with the ideas of splinter groups and/or
publicly disagree with administrative decisions, then you've got a control
mechanism intended to limit dissent.
>
> Informal and unofficial statements do exist right here on the Net.
> Publications are classified in a very different way. Because
the
> Baha'i Faith has no clergy any individual who publishes could easily
> be seen as making an official statement. That is why review
persists.<<
It's control, Dave. The tighter the control, the closer to
"cult" you are.
>
> > The point is that the "definition" of cult is
fuzzy. The Baha'i Faith
> > is somewhere in the middle of a continuum from damaging,
> > mind-controling cults to the free-est of Unitarian Universalists
and
> > liberal Quakers. I would say that it was accurate to place
it,
> > in general, at around the same point as the Mormons and the
> > JWs.
>
> But the continuum is not of religions - it is of cults. That
was the
> point of the article quoted. To put the Baha'i Faith on the
continuum
> is to call it a cult.<<
No, Dave, the continuum is of *all* religions. One end of the
continuum is
Jonestown; the other is the Unitarians, with most religions falling
somewhere in between. That's the whole point of the paragraph -- the line
between "cult" and "non-cult" isn't clear, and a
single religious group can
be both depending on the circumstances.
> > I don't think it is. JW "disfellowship" is
the main thing that
convinces
> > me that they practice psychological mind control.
>
> I have known plenty of JW's, they don't seem to fit the cult model
> though I am not familiar with their practice of
"disfellowship".<<
Check out support sites for ex-cultists sometimes -- there are huge
numbers
of ex-JWs around with horror stories. They shun apostates -- I know
they
"disfellowship", but I'm not entirely sure on what basis they do
it. I
wouldn't call them a "cult" either, but they have a high
turnover rate, and
are more strongly controlling than your average church, at least from the
stories I've heard.
Love, Karen
From: "Karen Bacquet" <karenbacquet@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: bahai - "Please remove my name and address from your
mailing list."
Date: Sunday, December 09, 2001 2:52 AM
> Do you know of anyone who has ever returned their membership
card?
Milissa, did
> you send them yours? How about you Karen? Did anyone ask for it?
Nope; it's still in my wallet. In fact, my friends locally have been
so
discreet about the fact of my withdrawal that when I attended a recent
Holy
Day celebration it was clear that some Baha'is who hadn't seen me in a
while
thought I was still part of the community. One lady asked me if I
was
"still isolated"; another explained to a couple that just moved
in that I
lived in a tiny incorporated city and so was not technically part of
either
the Redneck Heaven or Hick County communities. No one who knew
better
chimed in to explain that where I lived would no longer matter since I'm
not
on the rolls.
It took several months for National to respond to my resignation
letter, but
the American Baha'i stopped coming almost immediately. That would be
anybody's first clue that they aren't on the rolls anymore.
I find these extended discussions of Fred's status a bit silly.
Apparently,
it is important to him to proclaim to all and sundry that he is a Baha'i
in
Good Standing. It also seems that it is important to some other
people here
that they proclaim just as loudly that he is not. I don't really
understand
either point of view. But then, official "status" is not a
big deal to me.
I have very strongly insisted on my identity as an unenrolled Baha'i,
though. I think Fred is doing something similar, in insisting on his
Baha'i
identity. So leave him alone about it, already. I don't see why Dave
felt
the need to go checking in on his status in the first place.
The other disenrollees got a very terse letter saying they'd
been booted.
I don't see how that could be considered harrassment by any stretch of the
imagination. They can either send Fred one, or put up with his
public claim
to be a BIGS.
Love, Karen
From: "Karen Bacquet" <karenbacquet@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: bahai - "Please remove my name and address from your
mailing list."
Date: Sunday, December 09, 2001 11:06 AM
>
> The problem isn't really Fred's status. Why the whole thing
concerns
> me is that Fred is claiming to not only be a BIGS (About which I
could
> really care less) but he is also claiming to have been a victim of AO
> injustice. He is trying to get us to think that they did to him what
> they did to Alison.<<
Well, going around claiming to be a BIGS seems to be an odd way of
going
about that-- it seems to be, in fact, a denial that he was disenrolled.
IIRC, he doesn't put his own name in his "roll call of Baha'i
victims".
I care deeply about the injustices done by AO and
> I want to be able to distinguish the real victims from the
> non-victims.<<
Well, Milissa, it doesn't look like to me that you're having much
trouble
making such a distinction.
Fred just doesn't upset me much. I'm not crazy about his approach, but
then,
I could say that of some other AO critics as well. He's deliberately
made
himself into the guy everybody loves to hate. He crossposts repetitive
messages, says some wild stuff sometimes, and generally makes himself a
pain
in the butt. On the other hand, he has made a strong stand for
freedom of
conscience and expression and has a wealth of information on his website
about cases of AO injustice. There are very few who have done as much to
promote awareness of the problems in the Baha'i system about those issues.
Fred, or at least his online persona (which I believe to be deliberately
contrived), is about as lovable as a prickly pear, but he has made an
important contribution.
Love, Karen
From: "Karen Bacquet" <karenbacquet@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: bahai - "Please remove my name and address from your
mailing list."
Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 6:39 PM
--
> > >
> > > National: "Did you mean just the mailing lists or the
membership
> > > list as well."
> > >
> > > Fred: "What kind of idiot are you? Take me
off your lists, and if
> > > you ever contact me again I will drag your ass to
court!"
> > >
> > > Silence as National complies with Fred'd request.
> > >
> > > As Milissa pointed out - no one who withdraws ever gets
> > > confirmation.
> >
> > I did resign from the Bahai community and I did get confirmation
that
> > that had been actioonned in the administrative records.
>
> Different NSA, different procedure.
Dave,
I got confirmation -- it took months to get it, but I got one. A
letter
saying that I'd been removed from the rolls according my request and if
the
Baha'i community can do anything further for me, then let them know.
Nice,
polite stuff.
Love, Karen
>
>
> > > End of story. Now - to me National owes Fred nothing.
> >
> > Fred disagrees - he said that he did not withdraw! There
is a
> > disputation as to fact. How shall it be resolved?
>
> That is up to Fred, then again he does not want it resolved. He
will
> howl his claim on any board he deems worthy of his spam. If he
> resolves it he can't howl anymore.
>
> > Until it is, this thread shall repeat, like a Mexican Chilli or
a
> > decent Madras Curry!
>
> mmmMMMmmm. Curry. drool, drool, drool.
>
> Well time for dinner.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave
From: "Karen Bacquet" <karenbacquet@hotmail.com>
Subject: Just 'Cause we vote doesn't make it democratic
Date: Sunday, December 16, 2001 9:25 PM
Dear Randy, Pat, and friends,
I've been talking a lot lately about this whole
"democratically-elected"
business; both because of my talks with Paul on uk.r.i. and because
there's
a relatively new Baha'i on my list who is *really* bugged by the way that
Baha'i elections are conducted. He is also bugged by how Baha'is go
around
bragging about how superior their system is to American democracy, and
says
he doesn't want his children brought up to disdain American freedoms.
I don't think my vote had any impact on anything whatsoever other than
locally, where my choices were pretty darn limited. The Chairman of the
convention almost invariably was elected -- the two times this one guy
from
my community was elected were exactly the two times when convention was
held
here. He was up there running the show when people walked in, looked like
he
knew what he was doing, and lo! he was elected. The last time I went
to
Convention the man was an elderly Knight of Baha'u'llah who also happened
to
live in our community. I was a teller that year, and saw the votes
-- a
great many of the votes cast for this person were simply written as
"Kathy
X's father". That is, they didn't even know his name -- all
they knew was
that he was a "big-deal" Baha'i. I didn't vote for him, since I
knew him
rather better. But he was elected. Then, I once saw a report
on the
National Convention, and four of the nine didn't even get a majority of
the
delegates' votes -- since we put in the nine top vote-getters whether they
get a majority or not. The votes are spread so thin that just being
a
little bit better known than someone else tips the scale. Voting for a
delegate entirely by reputation, who in turn will vote largely on
impressions that he gets at Wilmette when he's there isn't democracy at
all.
Democracy runs on free expression and discussion of issues. In the
Baha'i
system, you might as well put names on a corkboard and throw a dart, for
all
the difference it makes.
Love, Karen
--
https://www.angelfire.com/ca3/bigquestions/Bacquet.html
Karen Bacquet <karenbacquet@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u1qiugh82qg602@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
> > Note the bit about "some of my mails were rejected"!
> >
> > By the way now many times can someone write democatically
elected in a
> > single email, have you found out yet?
>
> LOL!! In fact, Paul has been calling me anti-democratic because I
don't
> support the "democratically elected" institutions right to
punish people
and
> push them out of the Faith for their opinions. It is an
incredible leap
of
> logic that make freedom of speech "anti-democratic", but
I've heard
Baha'is
> say weirder things.
>
> Love, Karen
>
> >
> > Good luck in your discussions, Randy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
From: "Karen Bacquet" <karenbacquet@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Just 'Cause we vote doesn't make it democratic
Date: Monday, December 17, 2001 7:09 PM
--
https://www.angelfire.com/ca3/bigquestions/Bacquet.html
Randy Burns <randy.burns4@gte.net> wrote in message
news:h8rT7.194$5f4.80410@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
> Karen
>
> I don't think Shoghi Effendi would like the Baha'i election process
> characterized as being "democratic" anyway.,,
I think you're right there, but every once in a while you run into
someone
like Paul who basically justifies the authority of the AO by claiming it
is
democratic and/or that it reflects the will of the majority of Baha'is.
Although, I must admit Paul is a bit extreme on this score.
>
> So I think the idea of saying "democratically-elected"
everytime you
> mentioned the Baha'i administration would not be too pleasing to
Shoghi.
>
> Shoghi thought this system was superior to other forms of election
processes
> but I still find it very subject to manipulation. The nice
thing about
> these new regional boards is that we now have a nice "short
list" of
> candidates for the NSA!<<
Well, no doubt all forms of elective government are subject to some
form of
manipulation. Local elections, like school boards, are real bad that way
--
just a tiny vocal bunch can get somebody in because with a low turn-out
election, name recognition means a lot. We've had some wacko
constitutionalist types elected to local office, and in fact, had a recall
election that threw out three county supervisors. But in the Baha'i
system,
you don't know if somebody's wacko or not -- you know nothing at all
about
their individual performance, just whatever their public reputation is, in
a
very general way. If you wanted something changed, you'd have to vote
against all incumbants, and aren't likely to get very far.
Love, Karen
>
>
> Cheers, Randy
>
> --
>
> Karen Bacquet <karenbacquet@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:u1qlj8aarpun74@corp.supernews.com...
> > Dear Randy, Pat, and friends,
> >
> > I've been talking a lot lately about this whole
"democratically-elected"
> > business; both because of my talks with Paul on uk.r.i. and
because
> there's
> > a relatively new Baha'i on my list who is *really* bugged by the
way
that
> > Baha'i elections are conducted. He is also bugged by how
Baha'is go
> around
> > bragging about how superior their system is to American
democracy, and
> says
> > he doesn't want his children brought up to disdain American
freedoms.
> >
> > I don't think my vote had any impact on anything whatsoever
other than
> > locally, where my choices were pretty darn limited. The Chairman
of the
> > convention almost invariably was elected -- the two times this
one guy
> from
> > my community was elected were exactly the two times when
convention was
> held
> > here. He was up there running the show when people walked in,
looked
like
> he
> > knew what he was doing, and lo! he was elected. The last
time I went to
> > Convention the man was an elderly Knight of Baha'u'llah who also
happened
> to
> > live in our community. I was a teller that year, and saw
the votes -- a
> > great many of the votes cast for this person were simply written
as
"Kathy
> > X's father". That is, they didn't even know his name
-- all they knew
was
> > that he was a "big-deal" Baha'i. I didn't vote for
him, since I knew him
> > rather better. But he was elected. Then, I once saw
a report on the
> > National Convention, and four of the nine didn't even get a
majority of
> the
> > delegates' votes -- since we put in the nine top vote-getters
whether
they
> > get a majority or not. The votes are spread so thin that
just being a
> > little bit better known than someone else tips the scale. Voting
for a
> > delegate entirely by reputation, who in turn will vote largely
on
> > impressions that he gets at Wilmette when he's there isn't
democracy at
> all.
> > Democracy runs on free expression and discussion of
issues. In the
Baha'i
> > system, you might as well put names on a corkboard and throw a
dart, for
> all
> > the difference it makes.
> >
> > Love, Karen
> >
> > --
> > https://www.angelfire.com/ca3/bigquestions/Bacquet.html
> > Karen Bacquet <karenbacquet@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:u1qiugh82qg602@corp.supernews.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > > Note the bit about "some of my mails were
rejected"!
> > > >
> > > > By the way now many times can someone write
democatically elected in
a
> > > > single email, have you found out yet?
> > >
> > > LOL!! In fact, Paul has been calling me anti-democratic
because I
don't
> > > support the "democratically elected" institutions
right to punish
people
> > and
> > > push them out of the Faith for their opinions. It is
an incredible
leap
> > of
> > > logic that make freedom of speech
"anti-democratic", but I've heard
> > Baha'is
> > > say weirder things.
> > >
> > > Love, Karen
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Good luck in your discussions, Randy
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
From: "Karen Bacquet" <karenbacquet@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: The Silence of the Lambs
Date: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 3:07 PM
Hi, guys!
Not much to say today, but since y'all have so kindly been wondering
where
I've been, I thought I'd stop by and say hello.
>
> There are over 200 subscribed to Talisman 9 at the moment.
Karen's
> "Unenrolled Bahai" has I think around 50 <<
Unenrolled Baha'i stands at 49 right now. I was a bit worried if
the list
would fly when I first started, but I have no problem at all attracting
subscribers. It is also growing less dependent upon my input, and
members
are becoming a real support group to each other. There's a whole lot
of
disillusioned Baha'is out there, folks, who have never heard of Juan Cole,
or ever seen Fred Glaysher's web page. I have a fantasy that all
those
inactive and alienated people show up one day at Unit Convention and make
their voices heard. They'd swamp the place if they did.
>
> The essential business of war is the ability to cut through the
> smokescreen of disinformation to assess the damage inflicted on the
> enemy by one's operations. That is a complicated and complex
> business. In assessing the effect of Bahai Wars on the AO one
has to
> learn to read the subtext. For example the UK NSA used to
publish the
> names and numbers of new additions to the flock as well as the
> withdrawals. It hasn't done so for many moons past.<<
One thing I noted was the statistics that they keep in the church page
of my
annual almanac -- once upon a time they published LSAs, which was 1750, as
the number of congregations. Oddly, a few years ago, this number
jumped to
over 8,000, which, I suppose is the number of localities, which includes
groups and isolated believers. What this tells me is that the number
of
LSAs in this country has dropped significantly. I'd really like a
hard
statistic on that if anyone's got one.
>
> >Nima (alas he has left the groups for the
> >time being)
> > is virulent, but backed up with sources. Karen and Melissa
are
> always worth a
> > read.
>
> Dare one disagree with so cogent a point?,,
Thanks, guys. I need a balm to my ego. I've just been
recently accused of
"double-think" and "incoherence". Not by anybody I
should care about, but
I'm thinner-skinned than I ought to be for somebody out in cyberspace.
>Even
> poor old Karen has been accused there of being a Violator and
Covenant
> Breaker!<<
I have also just been accused of single-handedly orchestrating the
entire
Religious Debate fiasco. Not only did I have the moderator of that
list in
my pocket, but sent my lapdogs, Nima, Paul, and even Juan, to that list to
do my evil bidding. (Hey, they didn't mention you, Dermod. How did you
manage to escape that?) Exactly how I got myself promoted to that
status, I
haven't a clue. If I'm going to be the object of someone's paranoid
fantasies, I'd rather it be a Baha'i fundamentalist, where I can at least
understand why I'm hated. Maybe I'll go over to Beliefnet . . .
Love, Karen
|