Subject: Re: Michael McKenny's expulsion from Baha'i Faith
From: pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu (K. Paul Johnson)
Date: 1997/09/02
Message-ID: <1997Sep2.150738.29735@leo.vsla.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,misc.misc,talk.religion.misc
[More Headers]
[Subscribe to alt.religion.bahai]
FG writes:
> Chris wrote:
> >
> > However, the nub of it is that if someone makes public statements, or
> > makes statements to the House that indicate that he is not, after all, a
> > Baha'i, then the response would be to tell that person that, no, they
> > are not a Baha'i.
And if a person makes voluminous statements that indicate to
everyone concerned who has read them that he *is* a Baha'i, a
rather "true believerish" type of Baha'i at that... then what?
Everyone on Talisman was shocked by the expulsion because
McKenny had been so consistent in his support of the Covenant
and the Central Figures, etc.
In this case it appears as if the person thought they
> > were a Baha'i but that after writng to the House they proved otherwise.
After 25 years or so of being accepted as a Baha'i in good
standing. Then expressing sentiments that seem too "liberal"
about things like women serving in a future House, or
interpreting infallibility in a broader way, cause this person
to get targeted as a problem by Haifa, and then declared a
non-Baha'i.
> > So maybe it is not so much expelling someone as telling them that what
> > they believe does not accord with Baha'i beliefs, ipso facto they are
> > not a Baha'i.
It's creating a new litmus test of unquestioning support not
merely for the authority of the House but the theological views
of its members.
>
> > We will never know all the facts of this case and anything less than all
> > the facts is idle speculation.
>
> He seems not reluctant to share them with others.
Right, and "idle speculation in the absence of all the facts"
is an excuse to ignore tyranny.
>
> > And, no, I do not find it scary. I see it as the natural outcome of a
> > series of communications about the beliefs of an individual.
They were not at all natural. The House never told McKenny
*which* beliefs he stated made him a non- Baha'i! Nor did they
answer his pleas for explanation at all. Nor did the Canadian
NSA, simply reasserting the expulsion.
>
> So do I. It's unreasonable to wish to belong to Christianity
> or Islam (though Abdul-Baha did) and still be considered
> a Bahai.... Illogical, if nothing else.
McKenny did not maintain dual membership or wish to SFAIK.
What's your point?
Homepage
|