Baha'i on Huffington Post - Another Forum of Disinformation
https://fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Huffington_Post_Bahai.html
Homa Sabet Tavangar posted a blogger message to the Huffington Post, which I've included at the bottom here from Google's cach, titled "Baha'i Teachings to Prevent the Federal Government Shutdown." Posted: 04/ 7/11 05:24 PM ET After I responded to it on about April 11, 2011, the post was removed from Huffington Post, according to the editor, "This post has been removed at the request of the blogger."
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/editors-note/removed.html
Here is my response to the article:
“"The Baha'i approach is profoundly spiritual while in harmony with the latest in management research: start with clarifying the overarching vision and purpose; allow, appreciate and truly listen to differences of opinion; and engage in honest discussion and decision-making for the sake of the greater good to move forward in unity. All of this is rooted in the most universal of principles: the Golden Rule." [Homa Sabet Tavangar]
That's what all fascists thinks and say while behaving the way the Wilmette Baha'is did by suing THREE other Baha'i denominations in the US Federal Courts from 2006 to late last year, 2010.
The 7th Circuit Court documents and Opinion are online for anyone who wants to read about the *actual* behavior of the "spiritual" religion Ms. Sabet imagines has something to teach the US Government. The US Government's Courts understand the Wilmette Baha'is very well
Opinion in case# 08-2306, Judge Sykes:
"When a district judge takes sides in a religious schism, purports to decide matters of spiritual succession, and excludes dissenters from using the name, symbols, and marks of the faith (as distinct from the name and marks of a church) [boldface added], the First Amendment line appears to have been crossed."
https://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?caseno=08-2306&submit=showdkt&yr=08&n\ um=2306
No Golden Rule demonstrated by the supposed "Baha'i approach."”
My post displayed on the Huffington Post:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/FG/bahai-teachings-to-preven_b_846361_84055545.html
I would add here, non-Bahais might want to reflect on exactly what the organized Baha'is of Wilmette, Illinois, and Haifa, Israel have to offer the US Federal Government. These are the techniques used by Baha'is for decades but concealed as even a short amount of time on this website should persuade even a cursory look at the evidence:
Opinion in case# 08-2306, Judge Sykes:
"When a district judge takes sides in a religious schism, purports to decide matters of spiritual succession, and excludes dissenters from using the name, symbols, and marks of the faith (as distinct from the name and marks of a church) [boldface added], the First Amendment line appears to have been crossed."
https://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?caseno=08-2306&submit=showdkt&yr=08&num=2306
Here's my response to Homa Sabet Tavangar's Huffington Post of In Unity Is Our Security: Baha'i Wisdom For Violent Times Posted January 10, 2011 | 08:33 PM (EST)
What is Homa Sabet Tavangar actually saying in this post? Carefully consider the reasoning she presents here regarding the murder of Pakistan’s governor in the province of Punjab, Salman Taseer, and the shooting of U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, Arizona, with 6 others killed. The solution to such violence in her opinion, she implies, by asking,
“How many wake-up calls do we need before we rethink our commitment to bringing opposing viewpoints together for the common good, so that differences don't spur violence?”
That’s her key sentence. She just slips that into a lot of other cuddly sounding lovey-dovey.
Note “rethinking,” i.e., *changing* our thinking or belief that “bringing opposing viewpoints together for the common good” needs to be done; she’s advocating no longer doing that. Another words, not have people who hold various opinions talking or debating together. Hold that thought. Notice the next implication, that “differences” produce, yes, produce violence. So, in her reasoning, or the reasoning she’s using here, “differences” in opinions, when brought together inevitably bring about violence. Solution, apparently, everyone should think the way she does. Conveniently, her understanding or interpretation of the Baha’i found Baha’u’llah supplies the opinions everyone needs. Just accept her interpretation of them, and we’ll have peace on earth.
How does the Baha’i Faith work in reality? Meaning, the *real* world? Fortunately, the Wilmette Baha’i organization has given the world a demonstration of how it would treat *differences* in opinion if it ever obtained the theocratic control its interpretation of Baha’u’llah’s leads it to believe it should have. From 2006 through 2010, the Wilmette, Illinois organization sued in the US Federal Courts three other small Baha’i denominations, essentially seeking to destroy them.
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals oral argument and Opinion are online for anyone who wants to listen to and read about the *actual* behavior of the Baha’i interpretation that Homa Sabet Tavangar presents in such glowing terms. The US Government's Courts understand the Wilmette Baha'is very well, since it rule THREE times against them:
Opinion in case# 08-2306, Judge Sykes:
"When a district judge takes sides in a religious schism, purports to decide matters of spiritual succession-, and excludes dissenters from using the name, symbols, and marks of the faith (as distinct from the name and marks of a church) [boldface added], the First Amendment line appears to have been crossed."
https://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?caseno=08-2306&submit=showdkt&yr=08&num=23
Perhaps Homa Sabet Tavangar should consider her own advice and that of Baha’u’llah: “He taught that if religion causes tyranny, injustice or hostility, "the absence of religion would be preferable."
Historically speaking, suppressing religious freedom and conscience is a recipe for tyranny and violence, not peace and love, as the actual actions of the Baha’i organization clearly demonstrate. Anyone can further substantiate that for themselves bygoogling “Baha’i censorship.”
|