|
From: "François-Xavier MARTIN de LASSALLE" <tiriel@club-internet.fr>
Subject: Re: Happy Naw-Ruz
Date: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 4:40 PM
Allah'u'Aba !
When I meet Bahai'Faith, it was a great revelation for me. It was the first
time I saw a religion who was tolerant, and in which I could feel perfectly
well.
Baha'u'lah was a prophet who continued the mission of Zoroastre, Moises,
Christ, Muhammad and his teaching was in this continuity. And it was great.
The new world order seems to me so manificient, and the decisions of the
House of Justice so clever.
But when I saw how was organised the learning, in way to bring in people, it
looks like brain washing, like a secte... and so, i had to leave to keep my
liberty of conscience.
I do regret this practice, and I hope that this way of teaching ( as the
Ruhi's method) will be abandonned ... and maybe i will join Baha'i Faith
again.
Please, answer me to tell what do you think about my reaction.
Sincerly yours.
Tiriel.
pdodenhoff 6/28/01 1:01 PM 17 out of 23
Americakelsey wrote:
"Juan Cole has never been named a covenant-breaker, nor have the friends
been forbidden to read his books or articles. He is an unenrolled Baha'i"
to which krahmet replied:
"Certainly Americankelsey you would still have to admit that J. Cole
still is very intent on publicly rebuffing the entire Baha'i Administration.
There is hardly a day on T9 that Mr. Cole doesn't attribute something devious
to either the Universal House of Justice or someone in the AO. Certainly this
aggenda must play a critical factor in Mr. Coles's translations.
K"
America kelsey, you are correct that Baha'is have never *explicitly* been
forbidden to read Juan Cole's books or articles. However, I can tell you that
when I was a Baha'i *and* an Assistant for Protection, there was certainly a
good deal of covert pressure on Baha'i's to not only not read Juan's material
but to disparage his scholarship and his character. Indeed, at the time I was
completeing post-graduate work in American Religious History and it was told
to me *many* times that as an academic I *still* had no responsibility to
examine Professor Cole's work as he was "an enemy of the Faith." (In
fact, it was in not a few conversations that he was freely referred to as a
"Covenant Breaker" and frequently as someone with mental problems.
And while certain AO members said that such things should not be said, they
*never* went out of their way to put a stop to such nonsense. It was this
continued attitude and policy of milieu control by various members of the NSA
and the AO that caused me to question what could *possibly* be so bad about
this guy! So, against all the so-called advice (which was really a demand) I
began to read Juan's articles and his then newly released book. I also began
to communicate privately with him to hear *his* side of the story.
Krahmet,what I found in Professor Cole was a person who, in my opinion, is
far more interested in *upholding* the Baha'i covenant than in personal power
and control. His translations of Baha'i texts, *many of which were requested
by the World Center* are without peer. This, and the continued policy of the
NSA and the UHJ of trying to censor and control what Baha'i academics wrote
and said led to my break with the Baha'i Faith.
Professor Cole's translations in no way reflect any attempt to undermine the
Baha'i Faith, or the Baha'i AO. In fact, if you read them, you will discover,
always, a sincere and I think successful attempt which is both accurate and
devotional. If anything, Baha'is should be very thankful to him for his
efforts.
But it appears, krahmet, that when light shines in a dark place, the Baha'i AO
would rather ignore it or cover it up than be open and engage in real
investigation of truth.
Yours,
Paul
Whiterabbit on BeliefNet.org
6/10/01 7:48 PM 39 out of 44
I wasn't going to say anything else on these boards, others seem to be
saying anything I would
say. I do call myself an ex-Baha'i, and proudly, what with letters like this
coming from the
House. I only have a couple of comments:
>>If he persists in his intention, the Assembly would normally
accept the withdrawal unless
there were grounds for suspecting that he is acting insincerely out of some
ulterior motive, such
as to violate a Baha'i law with impunity.<<
SO WHAT if somebody wants to "violate Baha'i law with impunity?"
I mean, if they have
withdrawn (and I, for one, withdrew in my heart before I sent any letters
off), what right does the
Assembly have for judging their motives? Certainly my former Assembly didn't
come asking me
why I *really* wanted out. I did give my reasons, to one member, prior to my
withdrawal. If
somebody is not a Baha'i, then what's the problem with them breaking Baha'i
law?
I did my best to follow the Baha'i laws while I was a Baha'i. I wouldn't
have quit just so that I
could go out and break them. I don't think any sincere convert to any faith
would do that unless
they had joined with vastly distorted ideas of what they were converting to.
>>An analogous situation arises when a person when a person who is
engaged in some activity
which he suspects would result in his being declared a Covenant-breaker
withdraws from the
Faith under the impression that this step would prevent such an
outcome.<<
So, then, by the House's definition, they're no longer Baha'is. What's the
problem? They can do
what they want!
>>The Universal House of Justice may conclude that the withdrawal
provides adequate
protection of the community from the person in question.<<
Surely the Baha'i community isn't so weak that it needs
"protection" from ex-members. I mean, if
faith can't stand up to challenges, what's the point of faith?
>>However, if he persists, following his withdrawal, in trying to
undermine the Covenant or
joins forces with Covenant-breakers, he may be judged to have broken the
Covenant, and the
friends would be told to have no association with him. Each such case would be
considered in the
context of its specific circumstances.<<
Aha! So somebody who is officially not a Baha'i can STILL be called a
Covenant-breaker and
should be shunned? This is a truly frightening idea. Even if they still
consider themselves
Baha'is, if they aren't registered with the Haifan administration, how can
that administration
decide that they are breaking rules that shouldn't apply to people who aren't
on those rolls? And
what if they don't believe at all, how can they then be accused of breaking a
Covenant that they
don't believe in?
This is so far from the Faith that I thought I'd joined several years
ago...I am so glad I got out
when I did.
|