From: Ron House <house@usq.edu.au>
Date: 1998/01/22
Message-ID: <34C7019A.6E449C46@usq.edu.au>
Newsgroups: news.groups
Rick Schaut wrote:
> Guy Macon wrote in message <6a1fg5$l2b$1@news01.deltanet.com>...
> >Discussing this on a private Bahai mailing list would be a Bad Thing,
> >in my opinion. It would have three bad effects:
> >[1] It includes those who should not be included (Bahais who can not
> > access Usenet).
> It does, however, include the wisdom of those Baha'is who do not have access
> to Usenet yet whose experience on Covanental issues is most valuable.
> Moreover, there are representatives of institutions who simply are not at
> liberty to speak their minds in a public forum. Hence, pertinent facts will
> not be available if the discussion of an appropriate Baha'i response, should
> the newsgroup pass, is confined to news.groups.
Should the NG pass, you can discuss your plans anywhere you
please. The question is, NOW, why are you concerned about
there being a free place where people can practice
Baha'u'llah's injunction to independently search after
truth? This is the correct forum for discussing any
_legitimate_ reason why this NG should not be
approved. If you have such a reason, please post it here.
(Note: Baha'i theological problems can NOT be legitimate
reasons for voting no to this proposal; we've been all
through that - so sensitivity about non-Baha'is reading
your words doesn't come into it.)
> >[2} It excludes those who should be included (Non Bahais who have wisdom
> > and experience in the ways of Usenet that most Bahais lack)
>
> Reaching a consensus on the appropriate Baha'i response to the Covanental
> issues that arise if this newsgroup passes is not a discussion that can be
> open to non-Baha'is. If you think a little bit about who we might intend to
> exclude from the discussion, I think you'll understand why. (Hint: it's not
> you.)
See above. This is not a reason for voting no, so it
is irrelevant to any concerns about whether this NG
should exist.
> >[3] It opens the door for the mailing list moderator to influence the
> > vote, and will lead to accusations that he influenced it even
> > if he did not.
>
> If the proponents of the newsgroup are in on the discussion, indeed if they
> are leading the discussion, then they can ensure that the discussion is not
> about the vote itself but about an appropriate Baha'i response should the
> vote pass.
This may interest you; it doesn't interest me. I just
want anyone who has an opinion, a question, or just wants
to mull over the Baha'i Faith to have a free, open forum
where they can be guaranteed to hear any responses their
post may elicit. In short, I want it to be easy for people
to practice independent investigation of truth. Sorry if your
faith is so low that this proposition scares you.
> Such accusations, if made by the proponents, will sound very empty if,
> having been given every opportunity to participate in the discussion, they
> have adamantly refused to join the appropriate e-mail lists where they could
> participate.
It is a basic principle of Usenet that discussions about the
shape of Usenet be conducted on Usenet. If you want to discuss
some OTHER issue somewhere else, fine. But I don't have have to
accept being railroaded into a forum I have no respect for
just to be sure you don't break the rules. If I suspect you've
been up to no good at a later date, be assured I shall say so.
Just look at it: you expect me to join your forum so I can
police you and make sure you don't break the rules, and if I
don't, my accusation will sound hollow??? What happened to
Baha'i integrity that you need me to watch over you?
> For my own part, I have honored the requests of the proponents by not
> discussing these issues on those private e-mail lists, and, given their
> absence, will not do so until after the vote.
Excellent. So why am I needed on the private and censored
Baha'i lists?
> I haven't conducted a scientific poll on this, but my sense is that, if
> Baha'is could reach a positive consensus on what to do in response to the
> existence of an unmoderated USENET newsgroup, then the vote would likely
> pass without any difficulty whatsoever. Indeed, the failure, in some cases
> the adamant refusal, to seek to find such a consensus through consultation
> with other Baha'is, more than anything else (including Fred Glaysher's
> accusations), is the most significant factor working against this vote.
Let's just think about that for a mo. We have a religion
here whose founder taught independent investigation of
truth, to see with one's own eyes and not through the eyes
of another, supported a free press, opposed book burning...
Can you see a pattern here? Doesn't a free, open electronic
medium fit this pattern? Yet you would have us believe there
are loads of Baha'is huddled out there fearing the advent
of this forum. Well, you may be right, but only, in my
opinion, if those Baha'is lack faith in the founder of their
own religion.
--
Ron House
<A HREF="/profile.xp?author=house@usq.edu.au&ST=PS">house@usq.edu.au</A>
An age is called Dark not because the light fails to shine, but
because people refuse to see it. -- James Michener,
Homepage
|