From: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
Subject: fw KevinEco Reconsider the NO votes, please.
Date: Monday, December 14, 1998 6:53 AM
I wish to thank Kevin for presenting a very balanced rationale for
reconsidering Susan Maneck's call for NO votes against talk.religion.bahai.
Let me say, with all honesty, that my only reason for wanting an unmoderated
forum on the Bahai Faith is that Bahais might learn the importance of, and
live up to, Abdul-Baha's demanding words:
"These are effectual and sufficient proofs that the conscience of man
is
sacred and to be respected; and that liberty thereof produces widening of
ideas, amendment of morals, improvement of conduct, disclosure of the
secrets of the contingent world."
Abdul-Baha, A Traveler's Narrative, 91.
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
index.htm Talk.religion.bahai voter
ballot is on news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai,
or email the votetaker dave@dogwood.com requesting the "trb CFV."
-------
Subject: Reconsider the NO votes, please.
Date: 12/12/1998 8:09 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: KevinEco
Message-id: <19981212200919.08230.00001915@ng-fc2.aol.com>
As the tempest grows wilder, any attempt to present a balanced view on this
subject appears more daunting, but now circumstances demand it.
To all of you, whether Baha'i or not, determined to vote NO on
talk.religion.bahai, please consider carefully the implications of your
decision.
Perhaps you reached this decision because you are annoyed with Fred
Glaysher, and you think a NO vote the perfect revenge because it will annoy
him. Perhaps you are convinced he has bad motives, and you believe
anything
that a person with bad motives will fight so hard to get must be a bad
thing. Perhaps you don't have a clear idea of your own motives; whenever
that happens to me, I always find it wiser to refrain from acting until I
can clarify my
own motives.
Now, let's consider the worst-case possibility. Suppose for a moment
that
Fred really is a bad person with bad motives, perhaps even a
Covenant-breaker. (Let me state in the strongest possible terms that this
is NOT my conviction about Fred; I am sorry to discuss such an accusation
even hypothetically, but sadly, the accusation has already been made public,
so it has to be dealt with.)
Even if this were true, even IF someone really does have destructive motives
and really is hatching some kind of nefarious plot, we must remember that IT
IS NOT OUR JOB TO SILENCE SUCH PEOPLE.
The Baha'i Writings tell us that to defend our religion, we are to speak the
truth about it when someone makes false accusations against it -- NOT to
compel such persons to be silent.
Leaving idealistic principle aside for a moment, let's get more practical.
Suppose the talk.religion.bahai proposal really is part of some fiendish
plot. Perhaps the fiendish plot is actually calculated to goad as many
people as possible into voting NO, creating more evidence for the claim that
most Baha'is love nothing more than censorship.
Seem outlandish? Yes, but if you read the exchanges on news.groups,
you
will see messages from people who are non-Baha'is with no interest in Baha'i
matters, who are discussing this only because they follow discussion of
every proposed newsgroup. Several such Usenet authority figures have
explicitly stated their temptation to vote NO simply because they find
Fred's tactics annoying. If we indulge in speculating about motives, we
have to include
the possibility that this is no accident.
Returning to the level of principle (as the Baha'i teachings require of us)
none of us can claim anything other than speculation about the motives of
Fred or anyone else.
There may be tons of circumstantial evidence that someone has bad motives,
but the same evidence could also arise from a person who is extremely
devoted to a particular principle, and just doesn't have the talent or
charisma needed to inspire people's sympathy. In neither case do the
Baha'i
Writings give us any permission to attack such a person. No, we have an
inescapable duty to treat all with love and respect.
For these reasons, let us all consider the following course of action:
1. Please stop giving vent to negative emotions regarding Fred
Glaysher.
Such venting will only drive him deeper into isolation, and as a creation of
God he deserves better. If he really is trying to attack the Baha'i Faith,
such venting can only strengthen the attack. Focus on issues and facts in
every response to him or about him, both for his sake, and for the sake of
adherence to correct principles.
2. Please reconsider any NO vote on the talk.religion.bahai
proposal. If
you're still determined to annoy Fred (after all my efforts to stir your
compassion), consider that a large NO vote may be just what he's aiming for.
A better way to send a message would be an ABSTAIN vote, which would show
that you do not support the creation of talk.religion.bahai, but you are
unwilling to provide more ammunition to those who claim that Baha'is try to
censor everything.
3. If you must vote no, please refrain from publicly stating your
intention
to do so, and please refrain from campaigning for others to vote no. Both
actions violate Usenet etiquette and will be interpreted as attempted
censorship by many neutral observers.
To anyone who is still reading this longish message, thank you for your
time.
If my attempt to present a balanced view of this tangled situation has
offended anyone, I offer my apologies, and hope you will be kind when you
point out my errors.
Your humble servant,
Kevin
|