The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience

Subject: Re: loyal opposition in Baha'i
Date: Monday, January 03, 2000 1:07 PM

> Dear Dave,

I have very much wanted to respond to the issues you raise here, but
I've only had sporadic access to the Net lately(like on short visits to
my in-laws').  I'm hoping the persuasiveness of my reply will outweigh
its lateness.

I'm not claiming that we have unlimited freedom; certainly we are
required to restrain our behavior in accordance with what Baha'u'llah
has given us.  But the kind of absolute obedience that you are
describing seems, to me, that I am being asked to leave my own
conscience in the hands of the institutions, and behave as if whatever
they do is right by definition, even if they violate the standards given
us by Baha'u'llah Himself.  God does, as you say, ask us to do some very
difficult things, and sometimes standing against the tide is one of
them.

The sad truth is that I have never seen much result from using the
"proper channels" of dissent.  At least not on anything very important.
 Mostly what I see is that people with a complain get told why the
complaint has no merit, or an explanation why things won't be changed.
In this situation, I can simply dissolve into dissillusionment and walk
away from the Faith altogether, as many do, or I can protest openly.  Or
I can become a sort of nonperson that has no will or vision or
conscience of my own, which would be virtually impossible for me to do
even if I thought that were a desirable goal.  Where do we draw the line
between obedience and cult-like mindlessness?  I have no brilliant
answers, but to me that line has to be the standard of behavior given to
us by Baha'u'llah, and to which I expect the institutions of the Faith
to conform:  honesty, trustworthiness, justice, compassion.  And if the
institutions of the Faith would rather violate this standard than allow
a diversity of voices, then I can't support them.

I was reading something the other day which spoke about how the practice
of Shi'ih Islam was less obedience to the principles of the Qur'an, and
more the merging of one's will with that of the "Imam of the Age", who
just happens to be represented by the religious authorities.  I've
lately had the thought that perhaps that's the context for Baha'u'llah's
continual insistence on independent thought.  I don't think Baha'u'llah
demands that I merge my will with that of an institution; in fact, it is
entirely possible that's something He was warning us against.

Another problem is the secret and surreptitious way these heresy cases
you mention have been handled. There is no real due process. A
Counsellor or ABM shows up and investigates/interrogates/intimidates,
then reports back, and a decision is made.  There is little opportunity
for a person to defend himself and the rest of us are just supposed to
assum that justice was served.  Well, now people who have undergone this
process have a forum for presenting their own side.  That isn't going to
go away.

As far as the history of opposition goes:  the Faith, since the time of
'Abdul-Baha has expelled covenant-breakers.  I know of no lesser crime
for which a person has ever been expelled from the Faith, until Michael
McKenney in 1997, who was found not to meet the "requirements for
membership in the Baha'i community." All the other cases which have
become notorious in recent times have essentially involved the
resignation or lapse into silence and inactivity, of a person under the
threat of being called a covenant-breaker.  This is not "removal from
the community" of a person "opposing the Faith"; this is the
intimidation and harassment of believers who have yet to be proven
guilty of anything. These people are not covenant-breakers, but the
threat of being named so hangs over their heads like the sword of
Damocles.

Yes, of course we must, as 'Abdul-Baha said "be obedient to the
commandments of God and the laws of the House of Justice."  But before a
person is removed from the Baha'i community, or is threatened so severly
that he removes himself, I think that justice demands that we know
exactly what commandments and laws have been broken, and exactly what
evidence exists proving this.  If the wounds in our community are to be
healed, then justice must be seen to be done by the friends, so that all
of us can know exactly why believers in Baha'u'llah have deserved such
severe treatment.  It is not enough to say "The institutions did this,
therefore it must be right."  It is not enough to say "They said some
bad stuff on email."  It is not enough to say "They are part of a
materialist conspiracy."  There needs to be specific charges concerning
specific laws, backed up by concrete evidence.  And if heresy is to be
one of those charges, this needs to be clearly known so that the UHJ's
policy can be clear to all, and the Baha'i Faith can cease its pretense
of being the open and tolerant religion promoted by its Founder.

But justice takes time and effort, and it's probably just easier to
threaten people into shutting up or leaving.  Evoke the name
"covenant-breaker" and you can make all dissent go away, and you never
have to change anything.  That's what passes for justice in the Baha'i
community.

Baha'u'llah suffered for 40 years under a system where justice was
arbitrary and the accused had no rights.  I do not believe He intended
to found such a system.

Love,
Karen Bacquet
>
> Sent via Deja.com https://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>

Sent via Deja.com https://www.deja.com/

From: <kalamity@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: Liberalism
Date: Wednesday, January 19, 2000 12:54 PM

In article <8622u6$b5n$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
  dfiorito@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <85ikd6$fhe$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>   kalamity@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> <SNIP MY OLD POST>
>
> > Dear Dave,
> >
It seems we have very different ideas about what unity means.  I find it
a little odd that you would point to Catholicism, or any Christian
denomination as an example of unity.  A repetition of Christian history
is precisely what I fear:  the definition of orthodoxy and heresy which
leads to the creation of sects.  Drawing such lines is the very opposite
of unity, but if the orthodox insist, the "heretic", who is just a
sincere believer with another viewpoint, has no place to go.  In
Christianity, people have few scruples about just settting up their own
church if they don't like where they're at; Baha'i cannot do that
without violating the covenant, but the division exists nevertheless.
Allowing different schools of thought to exist is unity in diversity, so
 long as everyone recognizes the central authority.  Imposing a uniform
opinion has the opposite effect, saying "You can't be part of the
faithful unless you are silent about what you conscientiously believe."
 To force people out in that way creates a division.  A person doesn't
stop being a Baha'i just because they aren't on the rolls.

I find myself existing in a sort of religious no-man's-land.  I am a
believer in Baha'u'llah, so I can't just hook up with another religion.
 Yet I can't be part of the Baha'i community, either, without supporting
actions that I believe to be wrong. (To be honest,the roots of my
alienation from the Faith is more complex than that, but to explain it
all would lead us rather far afield.)

You are quite right when you say that I don't trust the institutions.  I
have said so before on this very forum.  They broke my trust.  I do
believer, however, in trying to see both sides, and I've read as much as
I can find from the UHJ on the controversies we've mentioned.  I'm not
convinced.  In fact, I find the attitudes about scholarship pretty
appalling. And I just can't find it in myself to leave my conscience in
their hands, and let them define what justice is for me. That is not
what Baha'u'llah said about the nature of justice.

I have had the odd thought, though, that in a backhanded sort of way, I
actually have been obedient to the House of Justice.  They have said in
more than one letter that anyone who doesn't like their policies is free
to resign "with no discredit attached". So, by leaving, I did exactly
what they wanted.  And in joining the ranks of unwanted Baha'is, it
looks like I'm in pretty good company.

By the way, what is the difference between vigorous debate and "an
active attempt to convince and convert others"?  After all, everybody
likes people to agree with them.  It would be pretty hard to discuss any
issue within the Baha'i community if doing so exposes us to the
accusation that one is trying to "convert" others to a point of view.

I don't quite understand your last comment about Baha'u'llah's breadth
of vision not being borne out in the Writings.  It seems we have very
different ideas about what it means to be a Baha'i.  That's what this is
all about.  For example, I don't think your comment about Juan Cole
valuing academic freedom above Baha'u'llah's definition of true liberty
is accurate.  I think his opinions come from a whole different vision of
what Baha'u'llah meant.  You could just as easily accuse me of placing
my individual conscience about Baha'u'llah's teachings.  But I believe
He allows me freedom of conscience, that He insists I examine things for
myself, and that the condemnations of liberty in the Aqdas have a lot
more to do with moral laxness that individual rights. "We approve of
liberty in certain circumstances, and refuse to sanction it in others."
 You will notice that I have refrained from giving unflattering names to
more conservative views, yet I have had some very harsh words for
actions I believe to be immoral.  I believe that to be consistent with
what Baha'u'llah taught.

The point is that it should not be such a problem that we have different
visions of what the Writings mean. That's what the search for truth is
all about.

Love, Karen

>
> Sent via Deja.com https://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>

Sent via Deja.com https://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.From: <kalamity@my-deja.com>
From: <kalamity@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: loyal opposition in Baha'i
Date: Monday, January 03, 2000 4:19 PM

In article <84qvf0$n5i$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
  Carol <cajc@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>
> So far as I can tell from my redaings the UHJ has no authority to
> declare anyone a heretic, nor to declare anyone a covenant breaker.
The
> Hands appointed by Abdul-Baha had that authority while Shoghi Effendi
> was a minor, then Shoghi Effendi specifically fordbade them to do so,
> and said that only the Guardian could declare anyone a covenant
breaker.
> I think that was pretty definite.  What was done after Shoghi
Effendi's
> death is pretty confusing and unclear as to whether it was correct
> according to the evolution of the Coventual understanding as described
> by him.
>
> The UHJ's purview is to enforce temporal laws in the Aqdas, and to
> create or eliminate temporal laws not delineated in the Aqdas as
needed.
> There is no evidence that they are the Guardian or have the authority
of
> the Guardian.
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
> Carol Ann

Of course, Carol, you are quite right.  What I'm saying is that when
people are bullied and threatened because of their opinions, then a de
facto class of heretics is created.  My challenge is that if heresy, the
holding of unorthodox opinions, is going to be the subject of punitive
action by the institutions, then they should just say so, pass a law
about it and deal with it according to due process.  Such a law would be
completely contrary to the teachings of Baha'u'llah, but so is the
action of pushing people out of the Faith for heresy, whether it is
termed so or not.

It would be a whole lot better if a broad diversity of views, including
those of liberal academics and writers, were just accepted as part of
many ways of viewing the Baha'i Faith.  I personally have a hard time
seeing what's so darn threatening about these guys. But then, I suppose,
I'm something of a heretic myself.

Love, Karen
> "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo
>
> Sent via Deja.com https://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>

Sent via Deja.com https://www.deja.com/

Before you buy.From: <kalamity@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: loyal opposition in Baha'i
Date: Wednesday, January 05, 2000 2:26 PM

In article <s72a0lep5k287@corp.supernews.com>,
  "Patrick Henry" <patrick_Henry@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> Ditto.
>
> You're probably right that you will now be branded
> a heretic and harassed until you go away or withdraw
> from the Bahai faith; that is, if the uhj doesn't suddenly have
> its sycophants tell you one day that you are no longer on the
> "roles," bogus as they are....
> Dear Fred,
You've forgotten my story.  I'm not on the roles, which I why I can be
so bold in saying what I think. But what else do you call a Baha'i who
is not part of the administrative order and not a covenant-breaker? I
refer to myself as a "heretic" in a sort of tongue-in-cheek way, because
the UHJ denies that it is creating heretics by its actions. By the way,
my understanding is that the word "heretic" comes from the Greek meaning
"to make choices" as opposed to orthodox or "right thinking" people.
From that perspective, the label is not so bad to wear.
Love, Karen
> --
> Patrick Henry.... "Give me liberty or give me death!"
> The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
> https://members.tripod.com/~FG/bahai.htm
>
> <kalamity@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:84r3o2$qcq$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <84qvf0$n5i$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> >   Carol <cajc@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > So far as I can tell from my redaings the UHJ has no authority to
> > > declare anyone a heretic, nor to declare anyone a covenant
breaker.
> > The
> > > Hands appointed by Abdul-Baha had that authority while Shoghi
Effendi
> > > was a minor, then Shoghi Effendi specifically fordbade them to do
so,
> > > and said that only the Guardian could declare anyone a covenant
> > breaker.
> > > I think that was pretty definite.  What was done after Shoghi
> > Effendi's
> > > death is pretty confusing and unclear as to whether it was correct
> > > according to the evolution of the Coventual understanding as
described
> > > by him.
> > >
> > > The UHJ's purview is to enforce temporal laws in the Aqdas, and to
> > > create or eliminate temporal laws not delineated in the Aqdas as
> > needed.
> > > There is no evidence that they are the Guardian or have the
authority
> > of
> > > the Guardian.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > Carol Ann
> >
> > Of course, Carol, you are quite right.  What I'm saying is that when
> > people are bullied and threatened because of their opinions, then a
de
> > facto class of heretics is created.  My challenge is that if heresy,
the
> > holding of unorthodox opinions, is going to be the subject of
punitive
> > action by the institutions, then they should just say so, pass a law
> > about it and deal with it according to due process.  Such a law
would be
> > completely contrary to the teachings of Baha'u'llah, but so is the
> > action of pushing people out of the Faith for heresy, whether it is
> > termed so or not.
> >
> > It would be a whole lot better if a broad diversity of views,
including
> > those of liberal academics and writers, were just accepted as part
of
> > many ways of viewing the Baha'i Faith.  I personally have a hard
time
> > seeing what's so darn threatening about these guys. But then, I
suppose,
> > I'm something of a heretic myself.
> >
> > Love, Karen
> > > "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo
> > >
> > > Sent via Deja.com https://www.deja.com/
> > > Before you buy.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com https://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
>
>

Sent via Deja.com https://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Before you buy.From: "Karen Bacquet" <kb4@mail.csuchico.edu>
Subject: Re: Comments on Doug's Letter Part Three
Date: Thursday, September 07, 2000 11:05 AM

In article <8p2l8q$lhi$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>,
  bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael McKenny) wrote:
>     Or is it promoting the book that's the serious concern? Pat, I
> believe, said Alison Marshall was booted out because she wrote a book
> review of this book and posted this book review to cyberspace.
>

Dear Michael:

Alison's expulsion was announced less than a week after she posted her
censored book review (which was of Baha'i World, not M&M)and the
discussion of it was still going hot and heavy.  Initially, many of us
assumed that the two events were related.  Later, it became clear that
the decision to boot Alison was made some time before.

As to the reasons for her disenrollment:  She received only a
terse letter saying that her "behavior and attitude" made it impossible
for her to be considered a member of the Baha'i community.  A later
letter explained that it was because she was "disseminating"
her "misconceptions" of the Teachings to "an international audience" --
in plain English, they didn't like her Talisman postings. (Postings,
which, by the way, they should never have seen because list rules
prohibit forwarding anyone's posts to Baha'i authorities.)  It is not
clear which "misconceptions" the House is upset about.  I've always
suspected that that it was her views on infallibility that caused them
to go after her, but that's only a guess on my part.

Of all the people I met when I first subscribed to talisman9 last
December, Alison impressed me the most.  She is a kind and devoted
lady, a mystic who would far rather discuss irfan or do a slow read of
a new translation than spend her time shouting across the liberal-
conservative divide.  That this passionate lover of Baha'u'llah is not
considered to be a Baha'i by the powers-that-be is a terrible tragedy
and injustice.

Getting back to the original topic:  I've never been able to see how
the writing of a book is attempt to "foist" views on the community.
Exactly how is this "foisting" to occur?  It's just a book:  the
friends can read it or not read it, agree with the ideas presented or
disagree. That the mere expression of views that the UHJ doesn't like
is somehow considered to be a deep, dark plot indicates, to me, that
they are very afraid that Juan's ideas might prove appealing to a great
many of the friends.  I,personally, don't think there's much of a
chance of that, so I'm struggling to understand the whole mindset of
people who live in such terror of ideas and free thought.

Love, Karen

Sent via Deja.com https://www.deja.com/

Before you buy.From: "Karen Bacquet" <kb4@mail.csuchico.edu>
Subject: Re: Uh,oh! Karen's still telling stories . . .
Date: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 2:39 AM

Dear Dave:

I very much appreciate your thoughtful reaction to my history.  I have
always felt that in spite of our disagreements that you are basically
sincere and make an effort to be fair.

You wrote:  The only thing I can say is that I have spent a great
 deal of time with different communities from Long Island NY to
Richmond VA, to Fredrick MD, to Danville PA, and I have not encountered
the kinds (or the magnitude) of difficulties you mentioned in your
essay.

I am aware that my community is probably not typical.  However, I
really have no experience of what *is* typical.  Recently I discovered
that a guy in one of my classes has a Baha'i wife, so I told him what
my situation was. When he told her what community I came from she
said "No wonder she left!"  Apparently she'd come here for convention
and was not impressed with the locals.  However, I don't get the
impression that the problems concerning an over-emphasis on
administration and lack of spiritual focus are unique to our area.
They seem to be pretty common complaints.  And it sounds to me like
your community is to be congratulated on having such a positive focus.
How many active people do you have there?

> This is my big issue.  Someone who declares should never be left to
> their own devices unless they want to be.  Constant communication is
> very important.  This means that we should be genuinely supportive and
> helpful.  We should not worry about administration or teaching right
> away.  We need to first bring a new believer into the community then
> when they say they are ready bring them into the teaching and
> administrative aspects of the Faith.  When a new believer is the ninth
> member of a community I understand that they are officialy part of the
> LSA but and LSA can function on 5 members so we should never pressure
> new Baha'is to be at every LSA meeting.  We should also make them
aware that they can request not to be considered for an LSA office.

Boy, I wish there had been someone of your common sense around when I
was a new believer!  I got thrown into administration head first,
wondering just what had hit me.

(Um, I seem to have lost the rest of the quotes so I'll just have to
answer the rest of the points without them.  Fortunately, I printed out
your post.)

You agreed with me that strong personalities are a problem.  It seems
that they just don't have the patience to let real consultation
happen.  They are so caught up in their vision that they can't see the
damage they're doing. To them, to slowly build those bonds and focus on
community spirituality is "doing nothing" -- when really nothing is
going to happen without that foundation first.  Or so I think.  I've
never really seen anything work, but I know the ideal we're shooting
for.

As far as the problem of no outside support, I don't know why that
happened.  Lately, I've had the feeling that this area has been just
written off as too troublesome.  Not long ago our ABMs were holding
meetings all over the region, but never got up this far, not even to
the largest community in our area.  Of course, hearing some of the
stories on the Internet, I'm not so sure I want an ABM around, but for
many years my complaint was that we were being neglected.  I wish I
knew somebody with inside info that could find out the reason.  It
could be as simple as the territory being too large.  Or maybe we've
just got some lazy assistants (although I basically like our
assistants -- a little leery of the ABM, though.) But we needed help,
badly, and never really got any.

You agreed that squelching "John's" teaching project was a mistake.  I
can't even begin to tell you how badly they hurt this guy; it brings me
to tears just to think about it.  Juan says that it's fairly common for
teaching projects to be stopped, and although I have no way of
independently verifying that, I can't help but believe that "upper
echelons" were involved in this case.  The people that actually
told "John" he couldn't do his project would later always ask about how
he was doing, and generally acted like they felt badly over what
happened.  I don't think they really wanted to do that to him. That's
just a gut-feeling, of course.

I don't anticipate being in your area, but I thank you for your kind
offer.  I hope that discussion of some of these issues will yield more
than words, and that we'll actually see some changes.  I don't know,
though.  Some days I'm more hopeful, some days less.  Just last night
an old friend told me he was thinking of resigning, after 30 years in
the Faith, because the problems seem so entrenched, so I've been pretty
bummed.  I'm glad things are working for you in your neck of the woods.

Love, Karen

Sent via Deja.com https://www.deja.com/

Before you buy.From: "Karen Bacquet" <kb4@mail.csuchico.edu>
Subject: Re: Rollcall of bahai Victims....
Date: Friday, November 17, 2000 12:26 AM

In article <8uuk1a$idi$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
  dfiorito@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <P2AQ5.393$BN.150700@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net>,
>   "Randy Burns" <randy.burns4@gte.net> wrote:
> >
> > So this is why she was kicked out of the Baha'i Faith!  I wondered
> > what she had done wrong.  Such vicious criticism!
> >
> > Randy
>
> This is not the reason Alison was removed from the rolls.  In fact the
> real reason is a private matter between her and the Universal House of
> Justice.  Any attempt at a detailed explanation would be pure
> speculation on our parts.
>
Dear Dave,

My problem with this is that Alison herself has not been told the
specific reasons for her disenrollment. Assuming you are correct and
that the community at large does not have a right to know, surely you
would not suggest that Alison herself should be kept in the dark! They
held study classes in her area, hoping she would get the "hint",
claiming that this was sufficient warning, then announced that because
of her "behavior and attitude" she could no longer be considered a
Baha'i, in spite of twenty years in the community.  I see no justice
here.

And I believe that the community at large has the right to know
specifically what type of "behavior and attitude" disqualifies one for
membership in the Baha'i Faith.  When I became a Baha'i, I was told the
only necessary requirement was belief in Baha'u'llah.  Apparently, they
have decided to tighten up the requirements, which is a bad thing if
this Faith is supposed to be open to all mankind.

Love, Karen

Sent via Deja.com https://www.deja.com/

Before you buy.From: "Karen Bacquet" <kb4@mail.csuchico.edu>
Subject: Re: Rollcall of bahai Victims....
Date: Friday, November 17, 2000 9:23 AM

Yes, Randy, of course.  You've been over on talisman, haven't you?  But
we haven't had the chance to talk directly. With newer participants, I
sometimes lose track of who says what.  The sad thing is there are
people who would say this about Alison, and not be joking.

It's very disturbing that a Faith that I thought was open to all the
world is now so very anxious to get rid of people.  It's just crazy.
Besides, if the aim is to shut people up, they haven't succeeded.
Alison is still there, saying the same things she's always said, and
still proclaiming her devotion to Baha'u'llah.  Only the most rigid-
minded would say that she is not a Baha'i.

It seems to me that there is this vicious circle in motion:  the AO
cracks down and tries to control public discourse, which releases a
flood of protest,which only leads to more sanctions imposed, and more
protests. If they want the protests to stop, they are going to have to
stop treating people like this.

Love, Karen

> Thanks Karen,
>
> Actually the "vicious criticism" was of course a joke, as her review
was
> very professional.  I really had no idea why what happened to Alison
> happened, so your information is appreciated.  I can't help but think
that
> changes have occurred in the Baha'i faith, where once we tried to
encourage
> people who were sincere believers to stay in and now some people will
> deliberately encourage those they don't agree with to leave (and
actually
> have a good laugh about it as well).
>
> Sincerely, Randy
> --
>
> Karen Bacquet <kb4@mail.csuchico.edu> wrote in message
> news:8v2f5b$otc$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <P2AQ5.393$BN.150700@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net>,
> >   "Randy Burns" <randy.burns4@gte.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > So this is why she was kicked out of the Baha'i Faith!  I wondered
> > what she
> > > had done wrong.  Such vicious criticism!
> > >
> > > Randy
> > >
> > Dear Randy,
> >
> > It is very unlikely that the review had anything to do with Alison's
> > expulsion.  The news of her expulsion came soon after she publicly
> > posted her review, but the actual decision was almost certainly made
> > before then.
> >
> > Bear in mind that Alison was giving a professional opinion of the
> > article; in New Zealand she gets paid to do that. It is not vicious
to
> > give an honest opinion about the flaws in a piece of writing when
you
> > are acting as a professional. It's no favor to a writer to be namby-
> > pamby about it, and it's no favor to potential readers who are
going to
> > lay out money for a book to say a book is wonderful if it's not.
> >
> > The House of Justice has not given specific reasons for Alison's
> > expulsion, but it has said that it was the dissemination of her
> > opinions to "an international audience" that was the problem i.e.
her
> > postings to talisman. It was something she said there that upset
them,
> > but it's anybody's guess exactly what that was.
> >
> > Besides, do you really think that someone should be booted out of
the
> > faith simply on the basis of something they have written or said?
> >
> > Love, Karen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com https://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
>
>

Sent via Deja.com https://www.deja.com/

Before you buy.From: "Karen Bacquet" <kb4@mail.csuchico.edu>
Subject: Re: Rollcall of bahai Victims....
Date: Friday, November 17, 2000 6:56 PM

Dear Dave:

First of all, what law did Alison ever break?  Or Michael McKenney?  I
thought that the penalty for breaking Baha'i law was the removal of
voting rights, not expulsion from the community.  In fact the reason
they insist that their removal from the community is not "expulsion" is
because that is a penalty exclusively reserved for covenant-breakers.

Has the UHJ passed a law concerning what is and is not appropriate
speech?  The "Rights and Freedoms" statement is too vague to be a law --
 it basically comes down to "You've got all the freedom in the world to
speak until we tell you to shut up." How was Baha'i law broken?

Dave, several months ago, you said you were looking into the penalty of
removal from the rolls, what the rationale is etc.  Did you ever find
out anything useful?
>
> I don't think the AO is trying to silence anyone.  Being declared a CB
> never silenced Remey.  So we have a long history in the Faith of folks
> being removed from the Faith in various ways who just kept on talking.
> So if silence is not the motive than what is?

Actually, you are right.  They knew they couldn't silence Alison.  In
fact, I think the reason that no one contacted her is that they knew
that any contact would be immediately reported on the Internet.  The
silencing comes from her example -- they have made it very clear what
happens to enrolled Baha'is who speak out on the Internet.

And there were definitely people silenced in the Talisman crack-down.
I've had more time to look at all those archives, and I look at the
names that have dropped out of sight . . . I know some of them fell
silent in order to keep their status in the community.  You can only
silence a person that has something to lose.  The main reason I can be
so bold is that I'm not enrolled.  If I were, I'd either have to be
silent, speak under a pseudonym, or turn into a paranoid maniac waiting
for that phone call from the ABM. Besides, I've had people email me
after reading my story and they tell me that they are afraid to
complain for fear of being "turned in". I do not think Baha'is should
have to give up their human rights in order to be enrolled in the
community.

You speak of justice.  Well justice is not just arbitrary decisions
based upon how uppity a person is.  Justice requires that the
bounderies be crystal clear, that people must have both warning that
those bounderies are being crossed and the opportunity to defend
themselves, and that the consequences of the prohibited actions are
clear. Shoghi Effendi said that Assemblies must exhaust every effort
before imposing sanctions.  I don't see how this was done in either
Michael's or Alison's cases. Michael certainly had no knowledge of what
the penalty might be -- it had never been imposed before!  Nobody ever
said to Alison that she cannot say whatever she said that was
offensive, or she would be disenrolled.  In fact, they are making the
rather unbelievable claim that disenrollment is not a sanction or
punishment, just a statement of fact that because of their opinions
neither of them can be considered a Baha'i. When were they given the
opportunity to defend themselves?

You ask if Alison has contacted the UHJ to find out why she was
expelled.  I don't know; it is possible that she has. But it's not her
responsibility to do that -- the UHJ has the moral obligation to make
itself clear.  I do know that people from New Zealand have written
concerning her case, and so the NZ community got a good scolding from
Peter Khan about it.

That's enough for one post.  My kids are clamouring for attention. You
know the song:  Mo--om!:-)

Love, Karen
>
> In my mind it is the simple enforcement of Baha'i Law.  In the Kitab-
i-
> Aqdas there is a clear admonition that Baha'u'llah's laws to to be
> followed and enforced without exception.  That is why it is the House
> of Justice and not the House of Mercy.  Mercy is for God to dispense
> and for man He left us His laws so that we could enforce Justice.
>
> So in my view the AO has little choice but to enforce that laws and
> ordinances of God.  To do otherwise would be to break those very same
> laws.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave
>
> Sent via Deja.com https://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>

Sent via Deja.com https://www.deja.com/

Before you buy.From: "Karen Bacquet" <kb4@mail.csuchico.edu>
Subject: Re: My article on Alison Marshall's expulsion
Date: Friday, December 01, 2000 1:41 AM

Dear Dave:

As I told you, I'll address the issues concerning Alison and the
covenant a little later.  The only thing I will say now is that to some
extent my lack of disapproval of Alison's posts is probably, to some
extent, an indication of just how far I've traveled from traditional
Baha'i
thinking. I just had another guy I was talking basically say to me "You
don't believe in the Covenant" and I think, from his tone he's closing
the conversation. Now, I don't think I don't believe in the Covenant,
but he saw it that way.  I made a rather short remark to him, and now I
wish I had explained it more.  My head is just in a different place
now, and someone who is not accustomed to the thinking of a Baha'i
liberal could easily be shocked, and I was insensitive to that, I think.

Anyway, in order to explain my views on Alison really requires that I
lay out my view on the Covenant. So let me get my head organized and
I'll get back to you on that.
> >
> > Well, that perception is way off. Over on Talisman, I was just
> > correcting the misperception that Juan thinks of himself as
a "Baha'i
> > Martin Luther". This is simply not true, although I admit that fact
> > wasn't really clear to me until I'd been hanging out with these guys
> > for a while.  On the surface, Juan "looks" like a leader, but among
> > the liberals themselves he's really not.
>
> Yes but when do you make the distinction between "looks" and "is"?
> When you meet a strange dog on the street do you wait to see if he
will
> bite or do you take it at face value and take no chances.  So should
> the UHJ wait until a person has started an active internal split or do
> you act when a person sounds like they are about to take that action?
> Juan acts and speaks like a leader.  He claims he will win converts
> for "the liberal Baha'i Faith".  How is the AO supposed to take that?

Part of the reason Juan appears as a "leader" is that he was the only
one left standing after the Talisman crack-down.  Birkland contacted
five people, presumably the most outspoken liberals on Talisman:  Steve
Scholl and Linda Walbridge resigned their membership, and mostly fell
silent.  I see Steve around sometimes, of course, but he's certainly
not a busy poster. I have never seen a post from Linda, except in the
archives of Talisman I.  John Walbridge and Tony Lee both stayed in the
Faith but keep a very low profile. Juan resigned, but continued to talk
about Baha'i issues, and bring more information to light than had ever
been done in the pre-crackdown days.  He is a leader rather by default -
- there used to be other strong liberal voices out there, but they have
been silenced.

I think you exagerate his remark about winning converts.  What I recall
him saying is that if the conservatives are going to spend their time
with trivial stuff (and I can't remember the particular matter being
discussed), then the liberals will win converts to the Faith. He has
never referred to the "liberal Baha'i Faith" as an entity, only to
Baha'i liberals.  Juan is absolutely opposed to any form of
organization that would be composed only of Baha'i liberals.  He does
want liberals included within the Baha'i Faith, though.
>
> > And Alison is a mystic.  Both Juan and Alison are inner-directed
> > cerebral types.  They aren't interested in being a "center" of
> > authority; they just want to be left alone to do their thing.
>
> Yet they both have websites dedicated to their causes and actively
> argue that their positions are correct.  They both make open calls for
> action.  How is any of that inner-directed?  If they are not
interested
> in being at the center then why do they call so much attention to
> themselves?

Well, I've got a website, too. And I can't speak to Juan's or Alison's
motivation, but I can tell you mine. Because I spent all those years in
the Baha'i Faith with no one listening to me.  The Internet gives me a
voice that I have never had. Even being called a covenant-breaker by
right-wing loony-toons is better than simply being tuned out.

Getting one's viewpoint out there is not the same as claiming
authority. Neither Alison or Juan is saying "follow me".  Both of them
say "This is what I believe.  This is what happened to me."  And in
Juan's case, his website also contains the results of his academic
research.

And as far as inner-directedness -- yes, the Internet is public, but
it's also private as well.  One can leave one's opinion and not be
directly interfered with it. Example:  I have had many discussions with
many people who disagree with me.  No doubt some have even gotten angry
with me.  Sometimes I am disturbed, too, or whatever.  But it's not
like what you get face to face.  A friend of mine disagrees with me,
too, and he spent hours one evening just going on and on at me about
it.  Every single thing I said about what I'd been thinking or feeling
he turned around and used against me. And I just sat there and took it,
because in real life I'm nowhere near as bold as I am out here. People
can call me what they like out here and I can bear it. But to have a
friend look me in the eyes and tell me I'm not a Baha'i is a thing I
still haven't recovered from.

I guess what I'm saying is that the Internet is a "safe" way for the
more introverted person to get their views across. Yeah, I'm with you
here, Dave, but there's also a sense in which I'm safely by myself.

And there went the last of the quotes. <sigh> It's late and thinking
about that particular incident has upset me, so I'd better call it
quits for tonight. You know, that happened months ago and it still just
rips me up.

I'll give you a response on the other stuff later.

Love, Karen

Sent via Deja.com https://www.deja.com/

Before you buy.From: "Karen Bacquet" <kb4@mail.csuchico.edu>
Subject: Re: My article on Alison Marshall's expulsion
Date: Saturday, December 02, 2000 7:29 AM

Dear Dave:

I'm awake in the wee hours this morning, so I thought I'd just give up,
put on a pot of coffee, and start giving you my thoughts on what you've
said about Alison.

Before I get started I'll tell you that I just published another
article on Themestream "But Some are More Equal than Others" about
women's exclusion from the UHJ.  I haven't really promoted it yet; I'm
not sure where the line is between shameless self-promotion and
*really* shameless self-promotion.  :-) I don't think the friends would
appreciate weekly advertisements from me -- and I'm hoping to get an
article out that often until I go back to work.  Actually, I really
tried to give both points of view on this one, although it's probably
pretty clear where my sympathies lay.

The first thing that jumps out at me about your comments on Alison is
that my own views are so similar in many ways, that since I think of
myself as Baha'i, I can't think of her as "un-Baha'i". The House
probably wouldn't think I was qualified for membership, either. But
then, I was already unenrolled before making public my unorthodox
views, so they can't hurt me like they did Alison. (I find the notion
that being booted from a religious community you've been a part of for
over twenty years in *not* a punishment to be both heartless and
ridiculous. Not to mention silly double-talk.)

Another thing that really keeps getting rammed home to me the more I
talk to people is that one's attitude towards the institutions is very
much the fruits of individual experience.  People whose experience in
the Baha'i community was good think the institutions are just peachy-
keen and can't figure out where all this mistrust comes from. And I
would be the last person to call such a perspective invalid.

However, as you know from reading my history my experience was not
good.  As I quipped to someone just lately "What did the AO ever do for
me?" Now that's a little flippant, but I do rather feel that for people
who want absolute loyalty, they've done darn little to earn it. My
community was just left to sit and rot,and some of the policies of
upper echelons just made things harder. For most of my Baha'i life, the
NSA and the UHJ were just the distant writers of letters (inspiring if
you were lucky) and the sources of all the plans and demands I always
felt guilty about.

When I first came out on the Internet, I was amazed at some of the
passionate exclaimations of loyalty to the institutions. I'd never
heard people talk like that.  I simply don't relate to the idea
of "loving" the House of Justice.  How does one "love" an institution?
I fell in love with the Manifestation; the institutions are just His
creation.

Another thing that shaped my views towards the UHJ is our local
experience with Remeyite literature, described in my history. It's hard
to convey to you the kind of trauma we went through.  I don't think any
of us old-timers who went through it have the kind of "loyalty" to the
Institutions that they think ought to be there.  At best, what you get
is "This is the only Baha'i Faith we've got and we're stuck with it.
I'll keep my mouth shut for the sake of unity."

And it wasn't Remey's claims -- I personally feel the only appeal that
he or his various successors could possibly have is that he's the only
one who ever claimed the Guardianship after Shoghi Effendi. However,
once we looked at the fact that 'Abdul-Baha created a balanced system
of Twin Institutions that were supposed to work together, I could
hardly see what we've got now as anything other than a patch-up job.

Which would be o.k.  One could hardly expect, after Shoghi Effendi's
death that everyone would say "We've got no more Guardians, lets just
pack it up and not have a Baha'i Faith anymore."  It must have been a
shattering time for everyone who went through it, and I would totally
disagree with anyone who would suggest sinister motives on the part of
the Hands or the first elected UHJ.

So it wasn't the patch-up job that bothered me; it was the patch-up
theories.  I really felt, when our ABM talked to me about this, that I
was being treated like a child or an idiot. The notion that the
Guardianship somehow mystically exists without a living Guardian is
just stupid.  But the issue that bears more directly on what I have to
say on Alison's statements is interpretation.  I find the fine
distinction between "interpretation" (the Guardian's job) and
the "elucidations" of the UHJ to be just more double-talk.

What jumps out at me, when I read your complaints about Alison's
statements is that you are granting the UHJ the scripturally
unwarranted right to interpret the Writings.

This post is getting quite long, and I think it would be better if I
addressed Alison's specific points in a separate one. Today, if I can.

Love, Karen

dfiorito@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <90604c$9a4$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>   Karen Bacquet <kb4@mail.csuchico.edu> wrote:
> > Dear Dave:
> >
> > You are seeing things in Alison's posts that I don't see there. And
> > you're not the first person I could say that to.
>
> Here are a few examples:
>
> Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 13:10:25 +1200
> To: irfan1@umich.edu
> From: Alison and Steve Marshall forumbahai@es.co.nz
> Subject: Re: the covenant
>
> “The letter talks about how the House of Justice went through a
process
> of trying to get Micheal to see things in the same way as it does. It
> says that it even produced writings to back up its view and even this
> was to no avail. But what of the writings that I, for example, can
> produce to back my opinions on the covenant? Why do their quotes trump
> mine? Why do my quotes threaten their authority?
>
> It is my feeling that the House's interpretation of the covenant
> removes my covenantal right to express the fruits of my guided journey
> towards God. My right to express those fruits is not in any way at
> variance with its authority. Surely, the 'mystery' of the covenant is
> partly captured by the fact that the expression of my considered
> opinions is in fact a demonstration of my *support* for the House.“
>
> The questions in the first paragraph indicate that Alison does not
> understand or fails to recognize the authority invested in the UHJ.
In
> the second paragraph she makes it clear that she feels that she can
> have the authority to question the validity of the UHJ's infallible
> ability to legislate.
>
> Here is another:
>
> To: talisman
> Subject: infallibility
>
> “If Baha'u'llah only intended to describe the House as 'inspired', is
> it open to anyone, including Abdul-Baha, to interpret this so widely
as
> to say that everything the House says is true?
>
> As I see it, the problem with our popular notion that 'everything the
> House says is true' is that it moves away from the ideal of
> consultation and its use of reason, and disempowers the community.
> Baha'is are exhorted to consult with the House, but in practice, this
> amounts to writing letters and receiving replies. The community
punches
> in the data and the House processes it and tells us the answers. If
> there's any consultation or reasoning going on, then its happening
> entirely among the House members. There's no requirement for the
> community to use its reason, our job is to provide information and not
> question the answers given.
>
> I'm keen to see us move away from 'everything the House says is true'
> so that the community can begin to play a meaningful part in the
> decision making process at the international level. “
>
> Here Alison Is ignoring the clear - crytal clear - wiritings on the
> institution of the Universal House of Justice and its relation to the
> greater community.
>
> One more:
>
> Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 20:56:30 +1200
> From: Alison and Steve Marshall forumbahai@es.co.nz
> Subject: Re: UHJ and women: "the sound of one wing flapping"
> Cc: irfan1@umich.edu
>
> “As I see it, nowhere does Baha'u'llah actually come out and say that
> the House of Justice members must be men. He describes them in passing
> as men, but never makes a positive law of it. So, in effect we have
> based a positive exclusion on a word that was not even necessary for
> the purpose of the passages in which it was used - Baha'u'llah could
> have referred to the "women of the House of Justice" and those
passages
> would not be altered in meaning. IMV, this is bad law. Surely,
> justifying an exclusion that prima facie is inconsistent with the
> positive principle of equality needs a more solid foundation. Look at
> the law relating to polygyny. There 'Abdul-Baha clearly says that
> Baha'u'llah meant men to have only one wife, and in doing this, gave a
> positive principle to justify his position, that of justice and
> treating people equitably. But here there seems to be no principle
that
> can be invoked to overturn equality, except perhaps the idea of
> gradualism, as suggested by 'Abdul-Baha's position, but this would
> last only a limited time.
>
> Given the lack of clarity, I agree with X that we have a situation
that
> is not covered in the Book. This means that the House of Justice *can*
> rule on the matter, and change its constitution, which would bring it
> into line with modern circumstances. “
>
> Here Alison is ignoring the statements of both Abdul-Baha and the
> Gaurdian on this issue.  Reason is a wonderful thing.  It is a gift of
> God but God gave us some pretty strong absolutes to measure our reason
> against.  In this post Alison is ignoring those in favor of reason.
>
> > Ian Kluge was saying, soon after her expulsion, that she had
invented
> > a "goddess theology" that denied the centrality of Baha'u'llah in
the
> > Faith -- and all I can figure is that he misinterpreted some of her
> > statements concerning the houri tablets. Saying that Baha'u'llah is
> > not central to Alison is just crazy; she's passionately in love with
> > Him.
>
> Here is a small lesson I have learned about love.  I am probably
saying
> something you already know but bear with me.  When I got married I
> realized that love was hard.  It takes a whole lot of work.  You have
> to accept those qualities that do not mesh with your own vision of how
> things should be.  In order to love you must accept the whole and not
> just the parts you like.
>
> The same is true in our love for Baha'u'llah.  Faith is hard.  You
need
> to accept the whole and not just the parts you like.  That is the
point
> of the Covenant - acceptance of the whole.
>
> > Another example is that Susan Maneck says Alison repeatedly says
that
> > the UHJ is in violation of the Covenant, and I haven't seen that in
> > her public posts. (I did get some material sent to me privately that
> > had Alison saying that, but it is of doubtful reliability.)
>
> I see it in her posts.  She says that the UHJ does not take input from
> the community and does not cosult with anyone (both untrue) and
> therefore are in violation of the "two way" nature of the Covenant.
> Her scriptural position is based on a single passage from the Bab.
> Trouble is that there are two Covenants at work in the Baha'i Faith.
> The first is the Covenant that Baha'u'llah has made with His followers
> regarding the chain of authority and unity.  The other is the Covenant
> between God and His creation - the Abrahamic Covenant.  The Bab could
> >

Sent via Deja.com https://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.From: "Karen Bacquet" <kb4@mail.csuchico.edu>
Subject: Re: Rollcall of bahai Victims....
Date: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 2:42 AM

Dear Mark:

Yes, I know I can go back.  Anytime I want to abandon my conscience and
approve of injustice.

I have no illusions about my ability to change anything.  I'm no one,
Mark. I'm just a mom, soon to be schoolteacher, in a little town --
with a Baha'i community so screwed up even the ABM avoids it. I have no
power. I was never "prominent" even locally.

But I do have a voice, and I'm not inclined to give that up. What will
they ask me to do, Mark?  Say that tossing Alison out on her butt was a
really great idea?  Say that modern scholarship is "materialistic"? Say
that threatening people over their emails is their right?

I would love to be part of the Baha'i community.  But those in control
of it have become so immoral, that I just can't support them. To do so
would be to betray everything I ever believed Baha'u'llah's teachings
to be about-- the virtues of trustworthiness, justice, and compassion;
the investigation of truth; tolerance, honesty.

I feel I have been lied to in a very profound way -- not just over
the "Dialogue" thing.  I believed I joined a religion that was open,
flexible, tolerant, supportive of the use of reason.  And it has been
unmasked as a monster.  The Baha'i Faith I believed in doesn't even
really exist, except maybe in the hearts of some of the believers. The
people who would do the things I've seen are not people I can believe
in.

I'll keep Baha'u'llah; you can have the other stuff if you want. They
broke my trust.  Big changes are going to have to happen for them to
earn it again.

Love, Karen

> Dear Karen,
>      If you feel that you are still a Baha'i and continue your belief
in
> Baha'u'llah............... and realize that there is an
administrative order
> that is trying to operate within their guidelines then you are
probably
> still a good candidate to be a Baha'i.
> If you wish to install change within the adnministrative order and its
> members by any public means in an attempt to influence other
> Baha'is............. then good luck in no-mans land. The belief in
> Baha'u'llah is just the precusor to a willingness to participate
within a
> community at local, national and international levels. It is obvious
that
> you are very close to where you want to be. I personally hope all the
best
> for you and only wish we were able to deal with this outside this
> gladiatoral arena.
> Mark
> "Karen Bacquet" <kb4@mail.csuchico.edu> wrote in message
> news:90gbi4$d7$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <3A2B399F.5592DFEE@usq.edu.au>,
> >   Ron House <house@usq.edu.au> wrote:
> > > Karen Bacquet wrote:
> > >
> > > > We have no option if we resign.  The AO doesn't intend for us to
> > have
> > > > one.  We are Baha'is-in-exile, living in a religious no-man's-
land.
> > >
> > > You are not in no-man's-land! You are a lover of all the world, of
> > which
> > > 'Abdul-Baha spoke, and therefore a true Baha'i.
> >
> > Thank you, Ron, your kind acceptance and for the reminder --  being
on
> > somebody's list somewhere doesn't really mean so much in the grand
> > scheme of things, does it?
> >
> > Love, Karen
> > >
> > > --
> > > Ron House     house@usq.edu.au
> > >               https://www.sci.usq.edu.au/staff/house
> > >
> > > A rose grows in the Earth's good soil.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com https://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
>
>

Sent via Deja.com https://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.From: "Karen Bacquet" <kb4@mail.csuchico.edu>
Subject: Re: Rollcall of bahai Victims....
Date: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 6:49 PM

In article <D2eX5.33$UI4.2686@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net>,
  "Mark Elderkin" <mee@tsn.cc> wrote:
>
> I'm not asking you to abandon anything. Just be fare with us. Bottom
> line..... what do you want to acomplish?

I guess you are thinking in different terms than I am.  I don't have a
practical "goal" in mind, like I'll write this stuff and the AO will
react a certain way.  I will admit to being politically unsophisticated.
I don't really expect to have much of an influence.

Since I have been out in cyberspace, I have done basically two things --
 just in different forms and formats:  Told the story of my community,
and how centering on administration makes it almost impossible to have
a satisfying community life.  And I have spoken out about how people
have been treated unjustly by the Baha'i insitutions.  Those two things
are my main interest.  And I really have no power other than to say --
 "This is what happened to me" or "This is what happened to someone
else and it is wrong." Maybe if enough people see this, change will
happen. Or maybe I'll just spend my whole life in exile from my
religion. It's in God's hands.

You really are over-estimating me if you think I have a more
complicated agenda than that.

> >
> > I have no illusions about my ability to change anything.  I'm no
one,
> > Mark. I'm just a mom, soon to be schoolteacher, in a little town --
> > with a Baha'i community so screwed up even the ABM avoids it. I
have no
> > power. I was never "prominent" even locally.
>
> We actually have a lot in common with our communities...........
that's
> another story. What does being prominent have to do with this? Here
on this
> format we all share the same............ the ability to type.........
and
> the ability to weave our way around the internet.

What I meant was, why should anybody listen to me as opposed to anyone
else?  There are plenty of eloquent voices supporting the AO; it's not
like I carry that much weight.

>
> > But I do have a voice, and I'm not inclined to give that up. What
will
> > they ask me to do, Mark?  Say that tossing Alison out on her butt
was a
> > really great idea?  Say that modern scholarship is "materialistic"?
Say
> > that threatening people over their emails is their right?
>
> Can't really comment about Alison's position, but did her situation
become
> yours or do you have your own? I'm not sure you want to talk about
> scholarship with me.......... I seem to be rather mean when it comes
to
> these self-appointed pseudo-intelligent heartless bastards that are
looking
> for a following in order to achieve their own aggendas. OOPs.......
sorry. I
> am sure that you see these people in a different way than I do, but
that is
> what makes life interesting. As far as receiving threats, I would
encourage
> you to post any of these, that you have received , and let us relieve
that
> situation.

I have never been in direct conflict with the AO, if that's what you
mean.  There was an investigation of our community in 1987 when a
community member ran into some Remeyite material, but the matter was
cleared up and dropped.  That is the only occasion in which I've ever
been in any kind of trouble.  Hell, they hardly know I exist up here.

Mark, I gotta run.  My son has not come home from school yet, and I
have to free up the phone.  I'll finish this in a little bit.

Love, Karen
>
> > I would love to be part of the Baha'i community.  But those in
control
> > of it have become so immoral, that I just can't support them. To do
so
> > would be to betray everything I ever believed Baha'u'llah's
teachings
> > to be about-- the virtues of trustworthiness, justice, and
compassion;
> > the investigation of truth; tolerance, honesty.
>
> We would all like to be part of the perfect community in a perfect
town
> doing perfect teaching........... nice concept but may not be
practical. We
> are at a stage of infantcy and have a lot of growing to do. There are
> problems and they will alleviate themselves over a matter of time. To
be a
> Baha'i is apart from anything in the community...... anything
> national.......... anything international........... it is about
developing
> the virtues you've listed.
>
> > I feel I have been lied to in a very profound way -- not just over
> > the "Dialogue" thing.  I believed I joined a religion that was open,
> > flexible, tolerant, supportive of the use of reason.  And it has
been
> > unmasked as a monster.  The Baha'i Faith I believed in doesn't even
> > really exist, except maybe in the hearts of some of the believers.
The
> > people who would do the things I've seen are not people I can
believe
> > in.
>
> I would hesitate to say that I probably have met several thousand
Baha'is
> over the last 27 or so years and I believe that the attributes of
> flexibility, tolerance, and reasonability exist in all most all of
their
> hearts. I can state for a fact, that without these attributes most
Baha'is
> wouldn't have been Baha'is. It would be a lot easier to just fit in
with the
> regular crowd.
>
> > I'll keep Baha'u'llah; you can have the other stuff if you want.
They
> > broke my trust.  Big changes are going to have to happen for them to
> > earn it again.
> >
> > Love, Karen
>
> Karen, I am sure that you are a very sweet person but I think you
have now
> missed the point. This is Baha'u'llahs Faith. Trust is only a
perception of
> those willing to comprehend its' significance. It may have been lost
but
> surely needs to be regained.
>
> Mark
>
>

Sent via Deja.com https://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.From: "Karen Bacquet" <kb4@mail.csuchico.edu>
Subject: Re: Rollcall of bahai Victims....
Date: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 8:21 PM

Dear Mark,

Sorry for cutting the last message short -- Mom stuff, you know.  I
tried to give you an answer earlier, but when I tried to send it, Deja
put me on the sign up page, and I lost everything I'd typed.  Is it
just me or does Deja have just about the crummiest service around?

Anyway, there are two basic issues left in your post to me.
The first comes down basically to the fact that I find some of the
arguements of the "heartless bastards" convincing and you do not -- in
fact I think there's an enormous amount of heartlessness on the other
side. So I don't think there's much point in going back over old ground
and thrashing out who was right. The "heartless bastards" you speak of
have never been anything but kind to me.

Secondly, the "we're in our infancy" argument gets a little old after a
while.  Just the other day, a Baha'i of some thirty years standing and
who had been elected Treasurer, went to the Chairman and turned all the
Treasurer stuff in and said "Don't call me anymore; I'm going fishing,
it's a more spiritual thing to do." For thirty years people have tried
to establish a community here. Can you blame this guy for not being
able to, for the umpteenth time, stand the hassle involved in getting
an LSA off the ground?  Why should he?  It'll just crash again when
somebody moves out. And this guy put up with it; a lot of new converts
sat in on a LSA meeting or Feast consultation once or twice and said to
themselves "I'm outta here." Until we start forming worship communities
instead of Assemblies that's the way it's going to be.  Everybody here
is so burned out I don't think there's much hope of making things
better. Maybe higher echelons ought to check into how local communities
are doing instead of building impressive structures and worrying about
what us heretics are saying on email.

Love, Karen

>

Sent via Deja.com https://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.From: "Karen Bacquet" <kb4@mail.csuchico.edu>
Subject: Re: Themestream Articles
Date: Friday, December 15, 2000 9:50 AM

Dear Randy:

No, I don't have any journalism training at all.  The only experience I
had was doing PR for local non-profit organizations, including the
Baha'i community here. I got my first experience with the local arts
council.

With the article on Alison, I first asked her permission to write it,
then allowed her to check it for accuracy.  However, the Talisman
article involves a whole lot of people, and I didn't think it was
practical or necessary to contact them all -- I don't even know all of
them, or how I would contact them.  For my source material, I used
whatever documentation is available on the web. I though about not
using names, but they were all on the web anyway, and Paul used them in
his Gnosis article. Things where there seems to be concern for
confidentiality, I was careful of.  I did not, for example identify the
author of the Majnun post, the recipient of the first Birkland letter,
because the recipient is not named on that web page.  In fact, I have
never identified that person except in private correspondence with
people who know who it is already -- even though that's got to be the
most open secret in Baha'i cyberspace.

So I have thought about the ethics of all this.  However, Randy, we are
talking about an online magazine here, where anybody can publish.  The
only screening of articles that I have seen is that imposed by audience
preference -- that is, a bad article will rapidly drop to the bottom of
the list, and a good one will stay near the top.  It's entirely based
on the score the audience gives you.  However, there is nothing but the
writer's own conscience and ability to ensure accuracy and fairness. If
you look around there's some wacky things on Themestream. There are
also some really good articles written by professional writers.

Anyway, with anything published online like this, I would expect
readers to use some discrimination. I'm doing my best to be accurate,
and now that Susan has sent me the material on David, I don't think it
would be necessary to make personal contact.

Thank you, Randy, for the kind words about my articles.  I'm not going
to be able to keep writing at this pace.  After New Year, I'm going to
be student teaching and that's pretty demanding, and I'll probably have
to cut back significantly on my cyberspace activities. For the past
couple weeks I've been off, and my kids have still been in school, so
I've had the time to hang around.  However, I'll still keep writing
when I can.

Love, Karen

  "Randy Burns" <randy.burns4@gte.net> wrote:
> Karen
>
> If you want the article to be accurate perhaps you should let David
Langness
> see and reply to this new material.  That would be only fair in a
> journalistic sense.  Since you are doing some really nice things on
> Themestream (I've read several of your articles and enjoyed them), I
just
> wonder if you have taken any classes on journalistic ethics and the
like.
> It's not an area of personal expertise for me, but you read a bit
about what
> is expected of jounalists, the things they do to ensure both accuracy
and
> fairness.  Its not an easy area to deal I would imagine.  Anyway,
good luck
> on more fine articles.
>
> Cheers, Randy
>
>

Sent via Deja.com
https://www.deja.com/From: "Karen Bacquet" <kb4@mail.csuchico.edu>
Subject: Re: Themestream Articles
Date: Thursday, December 14, 2000 11:44 PM

Dear Pat:

I only just learned that John resigned; he didn't resign in the
immediate aftermath of the Talisman crackdown, but last year, from what
I understand.  The Birkland letter is not described as forcing him out
of the Faith, but threatening him with shunning. That's why I was
confused. I believe the Gnosis article also described John as still
being within the community, although Linda had resigned.

I never said the John and Tony stopped posting completely, but that
they stopped being active posters. It seems to me they must have been
pretty prominent voices if Birkland had to go talk to them; now you
don't see them around much.  That's all I meant. In any case, because
of the confusion, I deleted that sentence from my article.

I also revised the paragraph concerning David Langness.  However, I
have just got some documentation about his case, and I can see that I'm
going to have to revise it further in order to have it completely
accurate.(Or as accurate as such a thing can be, when people see the
same set of facts so differently.) Since this stuff wasn't on the web,
and I was trying to piece together what happened from conflicting
stories, and I did the best I could.  What happened with him was an
important part of the Talisman story and I wasn't going to leave it out.

Love, Karen

Sent via Deja.com
https://www.deja.com/From: "Karen Bacquet" <kb4@mail.csuchico.edu>
Subject: A Question from Karen to Mark E.
Date: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 8:42 PM

Dear Mark:

I'm sorry you're so upset about my article "Everybody Wants to Rule the
World" about theocratic beliefs in the Baha'i community.  But I'm
confused on precisely what it is you are upset about -- is it because I
say that theocratic beliefs are widespread in the community, or because
I'm implying that they are not part of Baha'u'llah's teaching? Or is it
because I'm saying openly something that people don't normally find out
until they're in the Faith, thus "letting the cat out of the bag" too
soon?

Love, Karen

Sent via Deja.com
https://www.deja.com/From: "Karen Bacquet" <kb4@mail.csuchico.edu>
Subject: Re: Welcome to unmoderated NGs on BF (was: Roman Catholic ...)
Date: Monday, December 18, 2000 8:18 PM

In article <4XVUfLBLbpP6EAu4@breacais.demon.co.uk>,
  Chris Manvell <chris@breacais.NOdemonUCEPLEASE.co.uk> wrote:
> On alt.religion.bahai, Karen Bacquet (mailto:kb4@mail.csuchico.edu)
> wrote:
> >The Baha'i
> >Faith, you see, has so many extra people in it that it can afford to
> >throw them away. It only wants the pure of heart that can stand the
> >bullshit for an entire lifetime.
>
> No Karen.  The Baha'i Faith is for all -- every soul is precious and
no
> individual, no Institution of the Faith has the right to stand
between a
> seeking soul and its Maker.

Deeds, not words, Chris.  If the Baha'i Faith really cared about its
members, it wouldn't do so many things to alienate them. Then blame the
alienated for being so.

I am quite in sympathy with your ideals, and was being sarcastic,
speaking from the anger that I've still got from my experience.  You
are absolutely right in that no institution has anything to do with my
relationship with God.  They do, however, have something to do with who
belongs with the Baha'i Faith, or does not.

Love, Karen

 If one was already "pure of heart" then it
> would be like taking a perfectly fit and healthy person to the doctor
> for treatment, or a university only accepting students that already
knew
> the entire content of their desired course.  The Faith exists quite
> simply because we are NOT "pure of heart".  It exists to help us come
> nearer to God, to better ourselves.  No seeker is "not good enough"
for
> the Faith.
>
> What you are writing about is the opinions of a few people who want to
> preserve the status quo, the nice little cosy club that the Faith has
> become in the North (or West, if you prefer).  Is this what the
martyrs
> sacrificed their lives for?  Is this what Martha Root and the other
> early heroines and heroes of the Faith sacrificed THEIR lives for?  Is
> this what the Iranian believers are sacrificing their livelihoods,
their
> honour, their material possessions, and their very lifeblood for?
That
> we have a cosy time, eating cucumber sandwiches and drinking cups of
> teas (or whatever the American equivalent is) and discussing next
> month's calendar?  The House has told us to go out and teach, and what
> do WE do?  We talk about teaching.  We make plans that we don't keep.
> We let windows of opportunity pass us by, and we judge those who come
to
> us seeking that which is the most precious gift we can offer.  We who
> are no better that any other, and just as much in need of succour.
> Until these cosy comforts are put aside and the believers take up the
> banner of the Faith nothing, but nothing, will happen and the Faith of
> God will languish, and when Baha'u'llah asks us "How many souls did
you
> guide to Me?" what will our answer be?
> --
> Chris Manvell <https://manvell.org.uk/>   email: <chris@manvell.org.uk>
> Breacais Iosal, Isle of Skye, Scotland.              Fax:0870-056 8081
> Main Web site:                      <https://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/>
> ABS(ESE): /abs/>,  DAYSPRING: /dayspring/>,   UK BAHA'I LINKS: /lynx/>
> ISLANDS OF THE NORTH SEA: /islands/>, SAPLING PUBLICATIONS: /sapling/>
> SGRIOBTIUREAN CREIDIMH NAM BAHA-I (Scots and Irish Gaelic with
English
> Translations)                <https://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/gaelic/>
> Baha'is of Skye and Lochalsh       <https://bahai.community.skye.co.uk>
>

Sent via Deja.com
https://www.deja.com/From: "Karen Bacquet" <kb4@mail.csuchico.edu>
Subject: Re: Welcome to unmoderated NGs on BF (was: Roman Catholic ...)
Date: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 11:31 PM

>
> In a sense, Rick is saying (as I understand it) that her pain comes
not
> from the community, which, after all, is supposed to give us tests,
but
> from her own fundamental understanding of the nature of our
> relationship with God and with other humans. Our relationship as a
> Baha'i is directly with God, it is not through other Baha'is.
> Frequently, routinely, we allow other people to interfere with our
> relationship with God, and we blame them for our estrangement.
>
Dear Robert:

Presumably, I am one of the "ex"s you're talking about (although I
prefer the term unenrolled Baha'i, leaving the term ex-Baha'i for those
who have left belief in Baha'u'llah behind, not just membership), and
you're wrong here.

The fact that I have separated myself from the Baha'i administration
and that I grieve over that separation and what has happened to the
Faith has nothing to do with my relationship with God. The only time my
faith in Baha'u'llah was destroyed was when I saw Him and the
institutions as inextricably joined.  When I separated them, I became
much happier, and actually less angry and frustrated.  As I was just
telling my friends on another list, the only time in my Baha'i life I
did not say my daily prayers was during the six months before I
resigned, when I had become so angry and frustrated I just couldn't
stand it anymore.  When I discovered the truth about what had been done
to Dialogue magazine, that acted as a catalyst -- I exploded with all
this pressure that had built up and was faced with the task of
rebuilding my inner life from scratch.  I came out of it with my faith
in Baha'u'llah intact.  To go back to the community without substantial
changes would mean a return to that dead-end, hopeless, helpless
frustration.  It would also be a violation of my conscience because I
object to the unjust way some believers have been treated.

And you know one reason I feel so much less frustration?  I had no
voice before. No one listened before. I had no chance to ever make
anything different; I was stuck in an endless round of Assemblies being
created and falling apart. The frustration of the lack of simple
competence that I was supposed to accept with good humor while I was
dying inside. Well, you know what?  People are listening now; I am
making a difference now; I have ties of real spiritual community now.
Do you really want me to go back to the hell I was in before?

You know, people join spiritual communities so they can have community,
not so they can experience all those lovely tests that are supposed to
be so great for our spiritual development.

What the Baha'i Faith needs to do is take a look at why people are
estranged and do something to stop it.

Love, Karen

Sent via Deja.com
https://www.deja.com/From: "Karen Bacquet" <kb4@mail.csuchico.edu>
Subject: Re: common ground
Date: Friday, December 22, 2000 1:15 PM

Dear Dave,

I have some comments on our last exchange --
> >
Karen: That's the thing.  Nobody really understands Baha'u'llah.  We
all have
> > different levels of understanding.  These differences are inevitable
> > and the result of our individual investigation of truth.
>
Dave: Yes but there is His Revelation.  The written Word of God.  We
also
> have the words of Abdul-Baha and Shoghi Effendi but ...
>
Karen: Geez, we don't even have most of the Writings available to us
yet.
>
Dave: ... according to the Gaurdian we have all of the most critical
works.
> The others are just commentaries or restatements of words we already
> have translated.  Besides Baha'u'llah continually says that if we were
> to understand the spirit of just one letter of His Revelation then we
> would understand it all.  This Faith is meant for all and can be
> understood by all even if they can not read a single word.

Now this is an attitude I don't understand at all.  I'm always hungry
to know more, insatiably curious.  I want to dive into that ocean, and
could never be content with just a cupful. If I had my way, Juan would
be doing nothing but turning out those lovely translations, morning,
noon, and night. I am tremendously grateful when someone explains the
nuances of the original language, or puts the Revelation into its
historical context.  I want to understand those things
>
> So what are we to do.  Some have decided to blame it on the Universal
> House of Justice.  How is it their fault?  And even worse - how can
> anyone say it is their fault without clearly crossing the line the
> Covenant tells us not to cross?

Your way out of this mess, Dave, would be to strip me of all hope and
faith.  The House of Justice has done things that are wrong.  If I
believed that Baha'u'llah had intended for them to operate this way,
then I couldn't believe in Him.

Your way is to leave me voiceless, silent, and in despair.

Love, Karen

Sent via Deja.com
https://www.deja.com/From: "Karen Bacquet" <kb4@mail.csuchico.edu>
Subject: Re: common ground
Date: Saturday, December 30, 2000 12:23 PM

In article <#BYK1cicAHA.268@cpmsnbbsa09>,
  "Thirinel" <thirinel@email.msn.com> wrote:
> Mark -- why do you backbite and slander Juan Cole?  There is no such
thing
> as jcoleism and if you wanted to tar and feather him with that why
not write
> to him directly.

Dear Alma,

Mark already tried to tar and feather Juan; that's what got him kicked
off talisman9.  I'm still only getting Mark's responses from your
quotes, Alma, so I appreciate your responding to him.

Mark,

The person calling themselves "Baz" was posting disillusionment all
over Baha'i and Friends way before the post referring to my article.
S/he called the arguements in the Kitab-i-Iqan a logical fallacy.  S/he
posted a picture of Baha'u'llah and compared His looks to those of
Charles Manson.  This person was in real doubt about the Faith before
my article. Now, you took this one quote from his post out of context
in order to slam me with it.  Are you careless, or are you being
deliberately dishonest? I don't think baz is lying, but I think there's
a real possibility that you are being deliberately misleading.

My readers give me all kinds of positive responses, not only agreeing
with my point of view, but saying that they are going to make more
effort in reading the Writings, and in spiritualizing community life.
Why should I take responsibility for a person who quite obviously
doesn't believe in Baha'u'llah anymore and wants to leave the Faith?
As I said, I am always careful to separate Baha'u'llah from the things
that have gone wrong in the Faith.  I always direct people towards the
Writings.

I don't know what jcoleism is.  I really don't.  In a recent discussion
on Talisman we were talking about "mentoring" in the Faith, and someone
thought both Juan and Nima acted as "mentors" and both of them strongly
rejected the idea.  Juan, especially, was preaching self-reliance. I
certainly didn't ask his permission before writing my articles, and
would have written them even if he didn't like them. In fact, one
complaint you occasionally run into is that liberal Baha'is aren't
organized enough.  This notion that we all just are followers of Juan
Cole is ludicrous.  Juan hasn't even been around lately, yet talisman
goes on, diverse and independent bunch that we are.

Mark, it is clear that you are reading into my articles some kind of
motivation.  I have explained my motives, but you don't believe me.
Since you seem to think yourself so informed about my motives, why
don't you explain to me what they are.

Karen
>

> Alma
>
> Mark Elderkin wrote in message <3a4bd982@appserver.>...
> >
> >> For some reason, Mark seems to want to impute some sort of sinister
> >> motives to me.  Well, I can't stop him from doing so, and if I'm
going
> >> to speak out on controversial issues then I have to expect that
certain
> >> people aren't going to like me, and some will think the worst.
> >> Truthfully, I am the most politically unsophisticated person you
can
> >> imagine. I haven't got a devious bone in my body. Believe it, or
don't
> >> believe it.
> >
> >Dear Karen,
> >   It seems that you have missed the point............ I haven't
imputed
> any
> >sinister motives to you, I have just reposted either what baz posted
and
> >what your response was. I also never said anything to you about
having a
> >political aggenda. As far as being devious............. it will be
the
> >articles that you posted that will determine that. Someone has taken
what
> >he/she has found in one of your articles and decided to leave the
> community.
> >I don't know baz and I haven't communicated with baz. As I said
before  'I
> >calls em like I sees em'.
> >
> >I have never recommended that
> >> people leave the Faith.
> >
> >When it happens and it is attributed to your writing, then 'what'?
Or are
> >you implying that baz is lieing here about what the reasons were? Is
it
> >possible that your motives are made more clear by reading your
Themestream
> >articles then relying on your description you give here? At what
point are
> >you going to accept responsibility for what you write and not rely on
> >jcoleism to be your substantial point of view?
> >
> >Mark
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Sent via Deja.com
https://www.deja.com/From: "Karen Bacquet" <kb4@mail.csuchico.edu>
Subject: Re: not-so common ground
Date: Sunday, December 31, 2000 12:10 AM

In article <e9Bq$qtcAHA.281@cpmsnbbsa07>,
  "Thirinel" <thirinel@email.msn.com> wrote:
> Mark (and I respond so that Karen can see your post)

Thank you very much, Alma, but for some reason Deja had Mark's last
post on there.  The reason the ad hominem attack has such appeal is
that a person doesn't have to address the issues involved.  Just call
somebody egotistic and you can walk away in a huff feeling like you've
won the day.  Whether or not I am egotistic is a subjective judgement
and irrelevant, really.

Did you notice, "baz's" last post on B & F, Alma?  Nobody can blame me
for that one.  It looks like the last straw was a conventional pat
answer from somebody who is quite AO-friendly.

However, I'm glad to see the end of this thread.  It becomes tiresome
having to defend your existence all the time, and I'm starting back in
the classroom on Tuesday, so I just am not going to be able to keep up
with all this stuff.

Thank you for your help.

Love, Karen
>
> Where in the writings does it say you can slander someone?  What do
you know
> about Karen's ego or her state of her spiritual perception of the
Faith?
> Faith includes ALL believefrs in Baha'u'llah.  If you mean the
Community of
> those covenantly bound to the AO, why don't you say so?
>
> Alma
> markelder@my-deja.com wrote in message <92lq1k$1h7
$1@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >
> >
> >> Mark, it is clear that you are reading into my articles some kind
of
> >> motivation.  I have explained my motives, but you don't believe me.
> >> Since you seem to think yourself so informed about my motives, why
> >> don't you explain to me what they are.
> >
> >Dear Karen,
> >   All I did was present what was written. You read them and I read
> >them and everyone else read them. Your motives are rather evident but
> >if I were to list them you would only tell me that I was wrong. No
> >point in that. Your articles are 3-star and are ambiguous of someone
> >whos' ego has overcome any spiritual perception of this Faith. Let's
> >just drop it here. There is no more progress to made in futhering
this
> >thread. I expect you will continue to write and I will continue to
read.
> >Mark
> >
> >
> >Sent via Deja.com
> >https://www.deja.com/
>
>

Sent via Deja.com
https://www.deja.com/From: "Karen Bacquet" <kb4@mail.csuchico.edu>
Subject: Re: common ground
Date: Thursday, December 28, 2000 2:52 PM

For some reason, I'm only getting Mark's responses through the quotes
attached to Alma's messages.  Another example of the fine service we
can expect from Deja, I suppose.

For some reason, Mark seems to want to impute some sort of sinister
motives to me.  Well, I can't stop him from doing so, and if I'm going
to speak out on controversial issues then I have to expect that certain
people aren't going to like me, and some will think the worst.
Truthfully, I am the most politically unsophisticated person you can
imagine. I haven't got a devious bone in my body. Believe it, or don't
believe it.

If "baz" wants to leave the Baha'i community, then my advice was to
ensure that s/he can do so with a minimum of hassle.  In fact, in
his/her initial post s/he says that s/he doesn't want to deal with the
bureaucracy. So, if you don't want some ABM calling you up and asking
you about your beliefs, then don't mention them in your letter. If you
want to make sure your name gets taken off the rolls, then go straight
to National.  I personally know of someone who was inactive for fifteen
years, finally got around to asking to be removed from the rolls, but
was not because it would leave the LSA jeopardized.  It happens.  This
woman thinks she has resigned, but she exists as a Baha'i on the rolls,
and is, in fact, an Assembly member.  Maybe "baz" doesn't want to be an
assembly member in abstentia.

I have no vested interest in seeing people leave the Faith.  What
possible advantage could that be to me?  I have never recommended that
people leave the Faith.

Mark has several times asked me what my "agenda" is.  I don't think of
myself as having one. But since he is so sure I've got one, I will tell
you what I'd like to see happen in the Faith:

1.  First, and most important to me, is to see communities that are
spiritually-centered (by which I mean mashriq-centered) instead of
administratively centered.  My history is one of watching LSAs be
created and inevitably collapse.  I just want to stop the futile effort
to build LSAs when there aren't even enough believers around to need
administration, and center the community on the Writings of Baha'u'llah.

2. I want to end the policy of believers being sanctioned and otherwise
punished for the public expression of their opinions.

3. I want to see some sort of due process for those believers accused
of wrongdoing.

There are other issues in which I have an interest, but none that are
important to me as these three.  If we don't have freedom of
expression, any other reform talk is just flattus in the wind.

So there you have it, my evil, sinister and dastardly motives.  Tie me
to the pillory and go for it.

Karen

  "Thirinel" <thirinel@email.msn.com> wrote:
> Dear Mark,
>
> I don't think I said that baz must necessarily leave the Baha'i
Faith.  I
> think I said Community which is a subsegment of the Faith.  The Faith
> includes all and I do mean ALL who believe in Baha'u'llah regardless
of any
> misconceptions the person may have.  We all have misconceptions about
> Baha'u'llah's Faith and I include myself there.  The Community
consists of
> those Baha'is who have accepted the Covenant (whatever that means).
They
> are often called disparaginly BIGS (Baha'is in good standing).  I
happen to
> be a BIGS and will remain so unless and until there are efforts to
remove me
> from the Community and I won't cross that bridge unless I need to.
Why do I
> remain a BIGS?  Because I don't know at this point why Baha'u'llah
called me
> to enroll and there may be some task that we wants me to do as a BIGS.
>
> I no more know the particulars --- or even gender -- of baz.  But
there are
> certain situations which can be intolerable.  The most obvious is if
one is
> Gay.  (I really don't know why so much effort of the AO is spent
making life
> unbearable for the gays but they do.)
>
> Whether you like it or not, there are many ways of believing in
Baha'u'llah
> and I feel privileged to investigate a few on an email list.  Some of
these
> are mind-boggling for me but they do make sense if I read and ponder.
>
> As for the 'short jab' about some LSA's not passing it on.  This is
true --
> particularly if the loss of a member endangers the LSA because it is
a small
> community.  And there are other known instances when a LSA has not
passed on
> something.  Like anything else human, there are flaws in the members
of the
> LSA and sometimes these flaws are of such a nature that the LSA acts
in
> non-Baha'i ways.  Sometimes there are very good LSAs.
>
> Why write directly to the NSA?  Because it is that level of the AO
which has
> the ability to disenroll.  It may well be that informing the LSA
leads to
> shunning, etc., of the one who wants to be disenrolled.  WHy would
anyone
> want to chance that?
>
> In peace,
>
> Alma
> Mark Elderkin wrote in message <3a4afbba@appserver.>...
> >
> >"Karen Bacquet" <kb4@mail.csuchico.edu> wrote in message
> >news:92edn1$gaa$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >> Dear Mark and Alma:
> >>
> >> I wrote a response to "baz" discouraging him/her from leaving the
> >> Faith, if s/he felt there was any way at all to improve the
situation.
> >> However, after looking at the rest of what "baz" has posted, it is
> >> clear we are dealing with a person who is very cynical about
> >> Baha'u'llah Himself, and all the teachings of the Faith. For
example,
> >> calling the sort of argument used in the Kitab-i-Iqan "begging the
> >> question".  Now, I can't be blamed for that.  It is clear that this
> >> person was getting down on the Faith before ever reading my
articles.
> >>
> >> I am always careful, in my articles, to separate Baha'u'llah from
the
> >> current problems in the Faith.  When people write me privately, I
> >> invariably direct them towards the Writings.  I would never
encourage
> >> anyone to leave the Faith.
> >>
> >> I do think, however, the option of being an unenrolled Baha'i is a
> >> viable one, and for some people may be the best solution.
> >>
> >> Ultimately, people are responsible for their own spiritual
decisions.
> >>
> >> Love, Karen
> >
> >Fair enough Karen.......... the response hadn't been posted yet.
Here is
> >your response:
> >
> >From: Karen Sent: 12/28/2000 9:39 AM 3 of 3
> >Dear friend:
> >You must write to the NSA.  I've heard of people trying to disenroll
> >locally, or even thought they did disenroll, but the LSA doesn't
send it
> on,
> >especially if losing someone means the LSA will be jeopardised.
> >Traditionally, it was necessary to renounce belief in Baha'u'llah to
> >disenroll.  However, some of those who resigned in the wake of the
Talisman
> >crackdown positively affirmed belief in Baha'u'llah, but their
resignations
> >were accepted anyway.  Shoghi Effendi instructed assemblies not to
accept
> >resignations unless if they affirmed belief in Baha'u'llah.  You
might just
> >say you want to leave the community and not mention your belief.
> >By the way, I do not necessarily endorse people leaving the
community.
> Just
> >because I did doesn't mean I think it's always the best solution.  I
would
> >think about it very carefully first.  If you think you have any
chance at
> >all of improving your community situation, or whatever your problems
are, I
> >think you ought to stay and try.  Of course, I'm not walking in your
shoes
> >and don't know what you are facing. However, I hope that able and
devoted
> >people will be able to make improvements in community life, and would
> rather
> >see them stay in if they possibly can.
> >
> >Love, Karen
> >*********************************************************************
> >Mark Said:  Karen......... It was nice of you to offer such explicit
> details
> >in disenrolling. Even the short jab about LSAs not passing it on.
Even the
> >advice "not to mention your belief'" is rather clear. I realise that
you
> >covered your tracks in the last paragraph(not necessarily),  but it
doesn't
> >need a rocket scientist to realise what the desired goal is here:
> >
> >From 'Baha'is and Friends'
> > Started by: baz Sent: 12/28/2000 4:36 AM
> >    I just read Karen's articles including "Exit By Troops" and am
> seriously
> >    considering formally unenrolling as a member of the Bahai
religion as
> >    defined by the Administrative Order, etc.
> >
> >Mark Said:  Karen this wasn't my thread. This is a clear statement
by 'baz'
> >that after reading your articles he is considering unenrolling.  Your
> >comment was also to first tell 'baz' how to go about it. Your
Themestream
> >articles are clear and certainly not about making improvements in
one's own
> >local community. Maybe it's about time you set out your agenda and
quit the
> >Bullstuff.
> >
> >Alma,
> >     You asked me if there was anything wrong with leaving the Baha'i
> Faith.
> >No....... is my answer. I have accepted several resignations and did
it
> with
> >the pain that usually accompanied it. It is always a tragic loss.
But in
> the
> >grand scheme of things it is going to happen. At least if the Baha'i
Faith
> >doesn't suit......... get on with it. Don't stick around and try to
mess
> >with everyone else. I have been here for over a year now and seen
just
> about
> >every type of attempt to try and create disunity among the Baha'is.
If
> >that's your objective,  just realise that some of us will be here in
your
> >face and calling it like we see it.
> >    I'm not particularly clever, I'm probably not good looking, I
don't
> >express myself well in written form........... but I have the
ability to
> >distinguish between Baha'i rhetoric and plane anti-Baha'i sentiments.
> Where
> >do you see yourself....... Alma?
> >
> >
> >
> >Mark   mee@tsn.cc
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Sent via Deja.com
https://www.deja.com/From: "Karen Bacquet" <kb4@mail.csuchico.edu>
Subject: Re: Rollcall of bahai Victims....
Date: Friday, November 17, 2000 12:19 AM

In article <P2AQ5.393$BN.150700@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net>,
  "Randy Burns" <randy.burns4@gte.net> wrote:
>
> So this is why she was kicked out of the Baha'i Faith!  I wondered
what she
> had done wrong.  Such vicious criticism!
>
> Randy
>
Dear Randy,

It is very unlikely that the review had anything to do with Alison's
expulsion.  The news of her expulsion came soon after she publicly
posted her review, but the actual decision was almost certainly made
before then.

Bear in mind that Alison was giving a professional opinion of the
article; in New Zealand she gets paid to do that. It is not vicious to
give an honest opinion about the flaws in a piece of writing when you
are acting as a professional. It's no favor to a writer to be namby-
pamby about it, and it's no favor to potential readers who are going to
lay out money for a book to say a book is wonderful if it's not.

The House of Justice has not given specific reasons for Alison's
expulsion, but it has said that it was the dissemination of her
opinions to "an international audience" that was the problem i.e. her
postings to talisman. It was something she said there that upset them,
but it's anybody's guess exactly what that was.

Besides, do you really think that someone should be booted out of the
faith simply on the basis of something they have written or said?

Love, Karen

Sent via Deja.com https://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.From: "Karen Bacquet" <kb4@mail.csuchico.edu>
Subject: Re: bahai - Re: Uh,oh! Karen's still telling stories . . .
Date: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 9:32 AM

> (Perhaps I missed it....but.....how many phone calls/ letters/ visits
did
> you get from the community/AO with a simple....."Hey Karen, I hear
you  are
> leaving after all these years....how come sister?....anything I can
do to
> help)?"
>
> Curious.
>

Dear Curious:

The reactions I got varied.  Two friends stayed close to me and helped
me with the emotional aftermath of leaving, other inactive people were
sympathetic, one tried a lot of emotional manipulation to try to get me
back in the Faith (or, as Plan B, to get me completely away so that I
wouldn't influence anybody).  The funniest incident was a phone call I
got from the "City" community about six months after I resigned, asking
me to help with convention.  Apparently the fact that I do retain my
local ties gave the impression that I would be coming back, and they
were desperate for help. I thought that was typical -- nobody gives a
damn about how I'm doing spiritually, but they sure need my help with
an administrative event.  I was polite about it, though.

The way I see it, our local experiences really define what our Baha'i
experience is all about, at least as far as community life goes.  We
lost people here just because nobody could get their act together.  I
stuck it out so long simply because I love Baha'u'llah -- otherwise I
wouldn't have put up with most of this nonsense for five minutes.  If
Baha'is don't learn how to build real communities instead of fake
assemblies, the Faith is never going to amount to anything.

Love, Karen

Sent via Deja.com https://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

 

Homepage