The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience

 Subject:      More Bahai censorship - moderators
From:         FG <>
Date:         1997/08/20
Message-ID:   <>
[More Headers]
[Subscribe to alt.religion.bahai]
Mac0000013 wrote:
> Greetings;
> Whoever this F. Glaysher is, he makes some assumptions which appear not to
> be proven.
> He appears to claim, without evidence, that there is  censorship in
> regards to  talk.religion.bahai   ---- he then claims that the majority of
> the Baha'i's are intolerant, as when he claims that  "...both were crushed
> by the intolerant Baha'i majority."
I and others have posted numerous censored messages to 
alt.religion.bahai as evidence. They may be found on by searching for "SRB Censored" from
January 1, 1997 to the present under talk.religion.bahai
and alt.religion.bahai. Well over 30 other people have
stated they have been censored and their messages too
may be found on
In terms of an "intolerant Bahai majority," I am 
clearly referring to the 691 majority who voted NO for
an unmoderated talk.religion.bahai--in clear excess
of what usually takes place on UseNet where technical
NO votes are the only legitimate ones....
> Before addressing some other issues, if I remember correctly, the
> moderators have explained the policy of the newsgroup.   If one wishes to
> engage in the flame wars, the catcalling, the  ad homin. attacks far too
> prevalent in other newsgroups, then one's posting is returned with a
> comment as to where one may wish to employ some degree of courtesy.  One
> is then free to resubmit the posting:  a posting that should be on topic,
> address the issues, and not make personal attacks.
This neglects that many people have stated their posts
were innocuous and relevant to discussion. An umoderated
Big 8 newsgroup on the Bahai Faith would provide a place 
where people can discuss it with confidence that no one
is suppressing their opinions. Soc.religion.bahai has
lost its credibility for good reasons.
> ALSO, I believe that there was this particular individual quite loudly
> declaring that there was  "trouble in RiverCity"  and demanding a vote be
> taken.   The vote was taken.  The proposal was defeated:  I believe that
> under two hundred voted for it and more than five or six hundred voted
> against it...  Rather than abide by the decision and accept the outcome,
> within a short time, a newsgroup was formed by this same person.
All of the above is based on misperception and misunderstanding
of the UseNet voting guidelines. First of all it's an interest
poll. If 100+ people are interested in forming a newsgroup,
they should be allowed to do so on any topic they choose. No
ideological reasons are valid. NO votes should only be cast for
technical reasons, i.e., the proposed group is in the wrong
hierarchy of UseNet, which was not a problem with 
talk.religion.bahai, it was definitely in the right one, the
talk.* hierarchy. I did not form alt.religion.bahai. A member of
the UseNet Volunteer Votetakers did. I believe he did because
he perceived the manifest injustice of what Bahais did....
> Perhaps I am mistaken by there was a vote, the vote went against the
> person, and the person then implemented a Newsgroup meeting the parameters
> of his particular wishes and that Newsgroup was not, to my limited
> knowledge, opposed by any one of the establishment.
Alt.religion.bahai does not meet the parameters of what
157 YES votes wanted: a Big 8 unmoderated newsgroup,
open and highly accessible by all....
> And now this individual claims that there is censorship when he is still
> touting his statements publicly upon his own little Newsgroup and in this
> newsgroup?
I am not the only person making that claim. I am 
surprised, somewhat, that you and others are still
claiming that to be the case. Please read the record
via where you'll find many people
saying so....
> At the same time this person now claims that 157 people were suppressed
> --- not, I hope, as has been done in Cambodia, or in parts of South
> America----  and he now claims that there was fraud but in re-reading that
> particular post I was unable to read of any specific evidence documenting
> such an assertion.
Using you can find many postings
under "NO vote campaign" that I believe will
document my accusation of voter fraud....
> With all due respect to all concerned, it would appear that this
> particular individual is demanding that everyone halt all activities and
> heed his declarations, his opinions and accord him wondrous status of
> knowledge and that we accept  his statement of censorship (self-defined)
> and fraud and intolerance.
You, like others, continue to attempt to present me
as an isolated, aberrant individual with an unjust
axe to grind. I believe that is tantamount to 
character assassination and very old and tiresome
strategem for anyone who has followed the discussion
all along these several months. I am not alone in 
believing censorship exists on soc.religion.bahai.
Why do you and others continue to insist otherwise?
> I must apologize that I haven't been in his particular country for as many
> years as he has, nor do I have the bounty of his vast education and
> attainments, HOWEVER, many of the Baha'i's I have met in this country and
> others have not been intolerant nor do they claim others are when a vote
> goes against them.
I find it interesting that the moderators permit you
to sarcastically attack and insult me in very personal
terms but routinely reject much milder posts from myself 
and other Bahais and non-Bahais. I believe it is unfair
and inconsistent of them and that they owe me an apology,
as you do, and the decency of this response....
I respond above to the "intolerant" allegation.
> Over the years I have met many Baha'i's who strive to submerge the ego
> that they might serve others...  for some it is an easier contest than for
> others.  Few  wish to be so embroiled in battles and contests as to have
> little energy for personal transformation that will help their
> communities.   THUS, I find myself at a loss to understand the statement
> that, even in this alleged instance, so many Baha'i's were intolerant ---
> as defined by F. Glaysher within the parameters of a proposal being
> defeated.
Again, with all respect, you are ignoring what UseNet 
voting guidelines are and that they were ignored and
abused by many Bahais.... Instead, you are in the above
passage, I believe, blaming the victim of injustice and
censorship and you seem to be intimating I'm a megalomaniac
in the maw of my ego.... Unfair, I believe.
> I lack the vast experience F. Glaysher must have so I can not make the
> comments he has regarding others,  but perhaps we might all practice
> something I learned from two wonderful Baha'i  ladies in Columbus, Ohio (
> Olivia Kelsey and Emily Chavez ) who stated that if I managed to keep my
> mouth shut and my eyes open and my ears attentive, then perhaps I might
> learn something  --- and especially, learn how good others are.
Your opening sentence seems quite derisive to me. The rest 
of the passage is irrelevant to the censorship issue.
> There is not a day that goes by that I surely could take that injunction
> to heart more and more:  and especially when trying to learn some of the
> foundations of patience and courtesy and submerging ego to serve others so
> I might learn something of the Baha'i Faith.
Does the Bahai Faith support, stand for, and encourage
censorship? That is the question.... Many have said YES.
Many have experienced it. The first vote for 
talk.religion.bahai proved for most fair-minded observers.
The next vote approaches come late September. You and 
other Bahais will have the opportunity once again to
live up to the high ideals of the Bahai Writings on
liberty and freedom of religious conscience....
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
Ask your ISP to add it; also available on,, and