|
[Mostly from 2000, after a few from late 1999.]
From: Michael McKenny <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: Fred's Baha'i Membership Could Not Confirmed
Date: Tuesday, December 28, 1999 8:26 AM
Millennial Greetings, Susan.
Uhm, I was speaking in terms of giving legitimacy to
critics and of
demonstrating the insecurity of incompetent administrators. It doesn't
matter whether you are the president of the US or a member of a dinky
cult's
wannabee politburo, the effect is the same.
Who the Hell gave Doug Martin the right to meddle with
the beliefs of
anyone else? The Baha'i Faith is not derived from the theories of John
Locke
but rather those of Baha'u'llah, who forbade Doug Martin and the boys from
interfering in the personal beliefs and the freedom of expression of any
other human being. Anyone may acknowledge Baha'u'llah and believe that
Baha'u'llah was telling it like it is and not some forked tongue Soviet
mouthing newspeak when he (Baha'u'llah) spoke of world peace depending
upon
the recognition of the equality of women and men. World Peace has not yet
happened because Doug, Adib and the rest chose to assume the role of cult
leaders, keep the women out and react to honest criticism in the Soviet
manner.
John Locke is right on the mark when it comes to
freedom to create as
many religious organizations as necessary to accomodate individual freedom
of conscience and the natural tendency of leaderships to seek to rule over
unquestioning sheep and to impose their limited understandings on the
outfit.
Baha'u'llah, on the other hand, had this crazy idea
that all of human
thought could be harmonized through the validation of the inalienable
right of each individual perception to be shared, expressed, enunciated,
promulgated, all the while tolerating the vast variety of varying views
within the rainbow of human thought.
Doug, Hooper and the boys display to the world their
opinion that the
founder of the world religion they prefer to direct as a dinky cult had no
clue about harmonizing a species. Now, Stalin, there's the guy to take as
a
role model. What does it matter that this role model has already been
discredited?
Now, you tell me whether it wouldn't be better to have
people able to
write as well as Juan, Nima and I composing posts about this principled
entity where men, following the example of the Hands of the Cause, gave
up absolute power, proving the World Unifier Manifestation of the age of
maturity had the influence to overcome religious fundamentalism,
sectarianism and male chauvinism, so inherent an evil of past power games.
You tell me whether inclusion or exclusion was the most effective concept
to further the goal of world peace. You tell me whether there'd be any
need
to quibble about whether a century ends in 00 or not, if you had a model
of
human peace and harmony that chose not to follow John Locke's manner of
allowing for the sectarian diversity of religious beliefs, but instead
accepted Baha'u'llah's wisdom of including each opinion inside the
rainbow of one over-arching human faith.
To the Future,
Michael
Smaneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes:
> One is a citizen by virtue of being born or naturalized within a
country. But
> one belongs to a religion by virtue of believing certain things. The
two issues
> are really not comparable. I suggest you take a look at John Locke's
essay on
> Religious Tolerance. He recognized that an indispensible part of that
tolerance
> was the right of each religious community to determine its own
membership and
> to discipline that membership by means of excommunication. In his
view the
> right of each person to choose their own religion and the right of
religions to
> excommunicate those who did not recognize its authority were
inextricably
> intertwined and that the state had no right to intervene in either
function.
> Susan Stiles Maneck
> History, Stetson University
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: Michael McKenny <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: Tests of faith
Date: Wednesday, December 29, 1999 2:33 AM
Greetings, Adelard.
Is it you or Hooper and the boys who are trying to
impose this one
fundamentalist interpretation of the words of Abdu'l Baha on another human
being, despite Baha'u'llah's insistence that human harmony is impossible
if there is any attempt to interfere with the freedom of thought and of
expression?
It seems clear to me that those who find themselves
entrusted with
leadership within the Baha'i Faith are being encouraged to rule as if
they were the source of all good, to promote human harmony and follow the
essential principles of their religion. The individuals comprising a
maturing species are to seek to carry out the practical manifestation
of the essential principles Baha'u'llah enunciated.
To insist that this authorizes those who find
themselves in the seats
of power to trash the essential principles of the religion, to rule
according to fundamentalist whim and demand the absolute thoughtless
obedience of the entire maturing human race is demonstrably fallacious.
Humans have sacrificed their lives to oppose this kind of evil, and the
fruit the current fundamentalist leadership in Baha'i has garnered by
attempting to dictate this evil is that the expected troops have washed
their hands of such outmoded fundamentalism. In addition, as only to be
expected, many within the religion have spoken out against this narrow
anachronistic attachment to old divisive notions, failed theories of
totalitarian leadership.
Neither you nor Hooper and the boys are authorized by
your prophet
to denigrate the sincerity of anyone else. Anyone may read any words and
perceive these words according to the divinely created variety of human
thought and understanding. My understanding is that the imposition of a
single permissable interpretation is contrary to the remedy your prophet
stated would cure humanity of conflict and contention. Humans require the
freedom to see things according to a vast rainbow of perception, and to
allow others to view things in many other valid ways.
The current members of the UHJ have trashed the
guidance of Baha'u'llah
by opposing Baha'u'llah's essential concepts of the equality of women and
of
men, of the freedom of thought and expression, of the harmony of humanity,
of the non-existence of evil, etc. When these are followed, then the UHJ
may claim more convincingly that it is being guided by the founder of your
religion. I doubt that I'm in a very small minority when I state, I assure
you quite sincerely, that no entity I'd consider divine would give the
time
of day to any leadership trashing liberal democracy, human rights,
equality
of women and men, freedom of thought and expression, etc. You are
quite
free to believe otherwise and to express your belief as convincingly as
you can. Just don't insist everyone must see things your way.
To Harmony,
Michael
"Adelard R" (edruba@cruzio.com) writes:
> Greetings,Michael;
>
> I suggest you to read the "will and testament "
of Abdul-Baha.
> And if you did , you posting is lack of sincerity or may
be you don't
> think that the faith is divine in nature.
> Don't you know that the "Universal house of justice
" is being guided by
> the blessings of Baha'u'llah.Was not
> that promised by and written in the "will and
testament of Abdul-Baha".
> Please be sincere in your beliefs .
>
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: Michael McKenny <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: Tests of faith
Date: Wednesday, December 29, 1999 1:53 AM
Greetings, Brian.
Uhm, surely there were plentiful and delightful fruits
for some in the
Nazi party, for a while. Because the theory of exlusion was carried to the
extremes it was, even these suffered as the 12 year reich came to its
tragic
end. Now, the difference with Baha'i is that in theory it is for everyone,
and it is supposed to promote some fairly uncommon ideals. The beneficial
fruits it harvested were largely the consequence of those fairly uncommon
seeds having been planted. Now, some of that harvest has been trashed and
some awefully stale seeds are being planted these days by the likes of
Doug and Hooper -- you know, anachronistic concepts that human beings are
to perceive the species as divided beween the elect and the lost, that
only
men may rule at the top, that one may not freely express one's opinion,
that the patriarchy is owed thoughtless obedience, that those who think
too
much are bad, that liberal democracy is condemned and the leadership
theories of Stalin are worthy of emulation, etc.
Now, the harvest of the latest model of UHJ seeds is
proving to be
less praiseworthy, unless the anachronistic good feeling of being one of
the elect few is defined as praiseworthy. Perhaps, the original seeds of
Baha'u'llah were okay and his vision of a harmonious fragrant garden of
divinely created diverse humanity wasn't so much in need of ditching.
To A Decent Future,
Michael
"Dr. Brian F. Walker" (dr.walker@fsandp.com) writes:
> Nice point Michael,
>
> but the difference surely is in the fruits of what we follow? The
tragedy that was
> the third Reich has been laid bare for the world to fail to
comprehend, so great
> was the tragedy. The fruits of the Baha'i Faith are plentiful and
delightful.
>
> But point taken.
>
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: Michael McKenny <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: Tests of faith
Date: Wednesday, December 29, 1999 9:00 AM
Greetings, Brian.
Congratulations for keeping your cool (whether you
thought you were or
not, I felt you were) in the face of some pretty tough talk in my posts.
I'll try to reply as cooly. I'm sorry if you don't notice it, but at least
the analogies having been made, will not be repeated in this
post.
First of all, the common fallacy of those defending
what I consider the
indefensible attempt by the UHJ to reduce the vision of Baha'u'llah from
an
all-encompassing over-arching world religion into an exclusivist
fundamentalist cult is to comment on the personality of someone. What one
says is of interest in a Baha'i consultation and according to the Baha'i
principles of consultation who says something isn't even supposed to be of
concern to the one who spoke. What was said has been placed on the table
and
may be considered on its own merrit. This, by the way, is in full
agreement
with the rules of formal logic, where ad hominem (to the person) is held
to
be a fallacy.
Now, the defenders of what I consider the indefensible
spend a great deal
of attention on who said something. They spend a lot of energy on exerting
pressure so the likes of Juan Cole renounce any association with what
bears
so little ressemblance to the all-embracing vision of Baha'u'llah, and
then
speak as if such a renunciation invalidates the points Juan makes. This is
a method of discourse contrary to formal logic and opposed to Baha'i
principle. The threads concerning whether or not someone in Chicago has
erased the name of FG are in the same category, as is the
issue of sending out a letter telling Michael McKenny the UHJ said his
name
should be erased from a list in Toronto. It should be noted that even
within
this fallacious context the UHJ has not proclaimed any of these people to
be
Covenant Breakers, a medieval concept I've addressed earlier on here and
elsewhere in Baha'i cyberspace. If the whole purpose of the Baha'i Faith
was to achieve the peaceful harmony of humanity and Baha'i leadership has
had the nerve to tell the contending governments and peoples of the world
to get along with each other, then shunning those who don't see eye to
eye with you about the Baha'i Faith only demonstrates you are not of those
who practise what they preach.
I think I've been clear enough in stating that, in my
opinion, the
harvest of straying from the Baha'i principle of the freedom of thought
and expression to the one of insisting that everyone must accept only one
fundamentalist interpretation of the words of Baha'u'llah, and even those
of Shoghi Effendi, is the cultification of what was intended to be a world
religion. Those with the power to do so can insist that those who do not
keep quiet about opinions varying from the literalist fundamentalist are
excluded from the elect, but such an insistence does not result in fruits
plentiful and delightful at a general level, whatever thrills one may
obtain from feeling one of the small minority who are seeing reality in
the only true light, even the only true Baha'i light.
If you mean that the fruit is in the writings,
according to an imposed
literalist fundamentalist interpretation, the human mindset, so very
varied,
renders this impossible for humanity. Humans are so diverse of perception
that humanity cannot accept one imposed literalist interpretation. Humans
are also at the point, some would hold as a consequence of the influence
of
Baha'u'llah, that an imposed literalist interpretation that places the
rule of a patriarchy above the essential principle of the equality of
women
and men, will succeed only in preserving the present men's grasp on power
within an overwhelmingly rejected anachronism. This has been demonstrated
clearly. No incumbent on the UHJ has been defeated in election, if one may
use this term for how Baha'i leadership goes about prohibiting a direct
vote for Baha'i leadership and perpetuating individuals in office, and the
predicted troops have quite understandably not joined an outdated
patriarchal outfit.
As to how one may have understandings that accept
the as still hidden
"In this day women are men/rulers" (when will all the writings
be published?)
that think it made more sense for Abdu'l Baha to answer Corinne True's
question clearly and tell her she had to accept her exlusion from the
"General House of Justice" in Chicago, the exclusion she was
complaining
about, rather than put up with her exclusion from the UHJ, not to be
established for more than fifty years, that really essential principles
such as the equality of women and men must trump the literalist reading
even of Shoghi Effendi (He used the spiritual interpretation of this
letter to Corinne True to uphold essential principle and state that in
every case, where it was safe to do so, women were equally eligible to
serve on Baha'i spiritual assemblies, clearly identified with houses
of
justice; it is humanly possible to envision the utilization of this
spirit of upholding the essential principle of the equality of women and
men over a dogmatic fundamentalism that does not rise above the literal
interpretation of words and letters), that the essential Baha'i principle
of the harmony of mind and heart, reason and faith permit more than one
dogmatic literalist understanding of Shoghi Effendi's infallibility, as
well as the infallibility of the UHJ (and hasn't Ron House repeatedly
reminded us that this word is consistently passed off as meaning inerrant
when those in charge have admitted when he's pressed them that it does not
mean this), that one may perceive such writings to refer to the high
standards of behaviour those finding themselves in the position of
leadership in Baha'i should strive to manifest, the opposite meaning from
they should suppress all articulate comment reflecting understandings at
variance to their own, and saying one has complete freedom to speak in
exile is not really a good demonstration of upholding the freedom of
thought and expression -- all these have been discussed in some detail and
may be searched out in the archives of this and of other cyberspace sites.
I am all in favour of freedom of thought and
expression. Express your
point of view as clearly as you like, and by all means detail the good
things going on in the Baha'i Faith. That certainly won't be off topic.
I'll look forward to reading about them.
Slan,
Michael
"Dr. Brian F. Walker" (dr.walker@fsandp.com) writes:
>
> I would say that the fruits are there for ALL to enjoy. First of all
there
> is the life-giving water of the Holy Writings.
>
>
> I understand this riles you, but then again, if God has said He wants
it
> this way, are we wise to disagree? On the other hand, if you think
that
> the UHJ got it wrong, you could point out where God, through
Baha'u'llah,
> agrees with you?
> ...
> Well, this is your POV, and every right you have to hold it. I am of
another opinion, I
> see good things happening,
> ...
> 1. What is the truth of Baha'u'llah? How can I be sure He is of
God?
> 2. If He is of God, how do I react to law AB or principle XY?
> 3. How do I make my Faith practicable, day to day and liveable? Tread
the spiritual path
> with practical feet?
> ...
>
> Slainte
>
> Brian
>
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: Michael McKenny <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: Tests of faith
Date: Wednesday, December 29, 1999 1:25 AM
Greetings, David.
Don't you think it would be better to grasp the mindset
which leads
to the atrocities of Stalin and Hitler ahead of time, rather than working
to establish a totalitarian theocratic world state a la fundamentalist UHJ
vision, so that your grandchildren will be spared the reality of dying at
the hands of empowered Baha'i fundamentalists, if they have not the worse
fate of executing other human beings because of a natural diversity of
human thought, the liberal democratic tolerance and understanding of which
Baha'u'llah called for and the UHJ has ditched?
The sole difference between Hitler and the UHJ is that
he had the power
of a 20th Century state to enforce his will. And, you are quite wrong in
stating there is an identical obedience situation between Hitler and the
Prime Minister of Canada. The Prime Minister of Canada, as I've said here,
has not sought to suppress dissent -- to the extent that those seeking to
break up our federation and establish a separate country of Quebec, far
from being relegated to concentration camps and gas chambers, have freely
expressed their opinion and been elected to govern the province of
Quebec.
What ought to be the difference between Hitler and the
UHJ is that the
Covenant be understood as promoting, rather than eliminating, the right
of individuals to freely express and share personal opinions. Liberal
democracy works. Opposing liberal democracy a la UHJ is the mindset of
Hitler and Stalin. This fails hellishly. You choose which you'd rather
have.
What is more hurtful, to have the reality of the nature
of exclusivist
fundamentalism exposed in blunt language, or to follow the dictates of
such
fundamentalist passion to the point that all that prevents Hooper, Doug
and the boys from creating a worse hell than Hitler's or Stalin's is their
lack of the ability to do so? The theory that everything Shoghi Effendi
said is literally true means that a theocratic state is the intent of this
outfit. The notion that Hooper, Doug and the boys can trash whatever they
please of the high minded principles of the religion and are owed mindless
obedience from all to be included in this theocratic state paves the way
for Hooper's offsping to take the step of the final solution with regard
to
dissidents (The nine bully boys already have said that there cannot be
dissidence within their vision of the Baha'i Faith; check that newspeak
titled Rights and Freedoms Letter).
If you find it painful to see outlined the consequences
of exclusivist
fundamentalism, good. Perhaps there's some hope for what was intended by
it's founder to include, not exclude. The road to hell is paved with good
intentions, and intending to create a peaceful world monolithic state of
sheep all baaing while the UHJ stomps on fundamental human rights and the
principles that were enunciated by Baha'u'llah is guaranteed to produce a
hell worse than those of Hitler and Stalin, if only Hooper and the boys,
"Get the muscle" to do what they want. If you and others really
object to
the reality of the nature of Hooper's brand of exclusivist fundamentalism,
maybe you'll try being a bit more open to Baha'u'llah's vision of
inclusion.
To Harmony,
Michael
"David Fiorito and Jennifer Spotila" (fiospots@pond.com)
writes:
> You know. Maybe it is because I am sitting here with the flu
but I am sick
> and tired of these over blown comparisons that just don't hold up to
> scrutiny.
>
> I am sick of anyone dragging out Hitler and Stalin every time they
get
> ticked off at some one else.
>
> Until there are more mass murdering meglomaniacal psychos running
around can
> we please stop saying that people we disagree with are Stalinist
Nazis?
>
>
> Oh and by the way - you follow the laws of your country don't
you? Well
> guess what in you statement bellow you might as well put in your name
and
> the name of your countries leader because you are doing the same
thing as
> the Germans did during W.W.II - you are following your leader.
>
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: Michael McKenny <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: Tests of faith
Date: Sunday, January 02, 2000 7:56 PM
Greetings, Brian.
Happy Millennium.
At last I have a moment to reply to your previous post.
I have already
made one comment on it, on the position that one ought to wait for a
divine intervention, or that what transpires: fascist rule in Germany,
the Inquisition, Stalin's reign of terror or the violation by the UHJ of
essential Baha'i principles, is happening according to the pleasure of
God.
This is the position of the tyrrant and the opium eater, and I am so very
happy that our modern age so overwhelmingly disagrees with so dangerous
and
harmful a philosophy. Had there been no Inquisition, no Holocaust, no
reign
of Stalinist terror and had the UHJ not sought to stomp on the principles
of Baha'u'llah and create an exclusive cult, then those other than
cultists
could agree with such historical evidence. However, we may now judge by
the
actual evidence of the history which happened the worthiness of despotic
theories, the utility of taking opium and the price of opposing freedom of
thought and expression, the equality of women and men, the independent
investigation of truth, liberal-democracy itself.
I am so very sorry that you confess that you would have
to leave the
Baha'i Faith, were you to decide that you had a UHJ, as you do, which has
removed itself from the guidance of god. We may quibble about the meaning
of the word god, however, any decent entity does not grant to mortals the
absolute authority to violate principles. Such authority comes through no
other legitimate agency either. The doctrine that the state or the party
or the royal family or the institution of the monarchy or anything else
may
render concentration camps, gulags, inquisitions, crusades, pogroms, etc.
etc. worthy, as opposed to unprincipled deeds, is bogus, hogwash and the
excrement of cattle. A deed is principled not because leadership says so,
but because it is principled, and, if the primary principle insisted
on
is that Hitler, Stalin or the UHJ must be obeyed, regardless of principle,
then the unprincipled, the sadistic and the cultist may obey, and this
obedience will never achieve the harmony of humanity, although censors,
secret police, exile, imprisonment and execution of dissidents be
undertaken by such unprincipled authorities in the name of achieving a
unity no decent person would ascribe to an honest man, let alone a deity.
I entirely disagree with you, and I assert that neither
you, nor anyone
else, not even the UHJ has the right to insist on your opinion. If you
wish
to resign from what you perceive as a cult, divinely guided, you are quite
at liberty to do so. What you have absolutely no right to do, and what the
UHJ has absolutely no right to do, is to insist that anyone else must see
with your eyes, must believe in obedience of despots as the primary
principle, must follow you in quitting a cult on discovering that the UHJ
indeed has discriminated against women, indeed does forbid women from
holding office, indeed has harrassed the likes of Juan Cole to drive them
out of the religion, indeed did erase the name of Michael McKenny from the
membership list, because he continued to post to e-mail lists his opinion
that there are essential principles brought by Baha'u'llah such as the
equality of women and men, the independent investigation of truth, the
harmony of true religion and science, etc. which must be accepted by
any authority seeking to assist a greater harmony among the human species.
Anyone who chooses to believe that the founder of your
religion sought
to provide the essential principles to bring about greater human harmony
and
that these principles outweigh the Stalinist doctrine of absolute
obedience
of any command soever, anyone at all who is of an opinion other than the
literalist one in the infallibility of the UHJ, is quite rightly a
believer,
a member of the Baha'i community, as s/he sees fit. By seeking to have the
ability to decide who is a follower of Baha'u'llah, by drawing on
this
article of its constitution to have the names of individuals erased
because
these individuals have another understanding of the words of the Prophet
of
Baha, than the Stalinist one, the UHJ has strayed far from the
universality
of the purpose of the founder of the religion. It has insisted on a
narrow,
a single, a fundamentalist, a despotic, a tyrranical, a cultic
interpretation
of the words that may also be understood as directing these very members
of
the UHJ to be all-embracing in their vision, to arise above the power
seeking, theself-centredness, the imposition of one viewpoint, the
despotism,
the male chauvinism, the medievalism, into which in reality the current
members of the UHJ have sunk.
My hour is up, so I'll post this. The point is
clear. You are quite at
liberty to believe the primary principle upon which all principle depends
is the obedience of despots, and others are at complete liberty to hold a
less cultish, less opium devouring opinion, and you, nor anyone else has
the right to tell them they must think as you think, or they are not
Baha'i.
To a Better Future,
Michael
The issue regarding the position of women on the UHJ has been decided
upon, and
is based on the Writings. At least, I am satisfied it has been clearly
stated.
But that is my opinion, and a differing opinion is welcome. Where we
differ is
that I have confidence that the UHJ has been guided by God. If I were not
confident of that, I would have to leave the Faith.
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Old Friends
Date: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 12:53 PM
Greetings.
An old friend looked in here to find my e-mail address.
Ah, how time flows and memories stir in the breeze of
the years. How
much has passed since you told me of this wondrous medium of cyberspace.
The
USSR has ceased to be, and I in starry eyed innocence walked into Talisman
to
read the provisional translations of writings by Baha'u'llah not available
elsewhere. And this petit gars from Ottawa became one of the articulate
voices encouraging the Baha'is to choose a way embracing the
open-mindedness
so refreshingly a fundamental aspect of the teachings of their prophet. I
was one of them at the time, and you may enjoy reading some of what the
spirit of this faith wafted at that time. The archives of this list
contain
copies of some of this material, and you may assess, as may any
independent
seeeker of truth, the value of the thoughts of these people who were
hounded until they said they weren't Bahai's or, if they persisted in
saying they were, were declared to be unqualified for membership in this
religion.
Personally, I became a Baha'i overwhelmed that God
could be providing
for humanity to avoid the darkness of nuclear confrontation and guiding
the species to harmonious life. Yet, when they so demonstrated, I accepted
the
evidence that those whose obligation it was to further this goal of the
maturity of the Terran species had instead replicated the defects of
previous totalitarian and divisive systems.
I do not know whether it was ever humanly possible to
achieve the
vision of Baha'u'llah, as we saw it in the old days, one vast diverse
garden of humanity, fostering the open-minded search for truth, the
harmony of reason and faith, the freedom of thought and expression, the
balance of the feminine and masculine wings of the bird of the species --
ah, such golden dreams we had so long ago.
Anyway, if you wish, go ahunting for the thoughts of
your old friend
and others such as Juan Cole from those halcyon days in the mid 90s. And,
judge for yourself the quality of opinions decreed heretical (in a
religion
whose author strove to overcome the concept of heresy).
I have spent a lot of time recently very deeply
exploring the ways
of those who were not monotheists. Unlike Juan Cole and some others, my
opinion is that the inability of the UHJ to escape the contagion of power
regardless of principle exposes the incapacity of the revealed
monotheistic
paradigm to provide for a mature human species. There are many strengths
in polytheism, and the chief need, in my opinion, humanity has when it
comes to religion, is the separation of church and state with the state
based on liberal democracy. Humans are too prone to catch the disease of
dictatorial totalitarianism regardless of the particular source of their
theoretical and practical power to allow leaders a legitimacy transcending
liberal democracy, human rights, etc. Perhaps, I'll have more to say on
this
later. For now, greetings again and farewell. I look forward to an old
friendship renewed and wish you all the best.
See You,
Michael
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: Michael McKenny <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: Bingo! (was: Doug Martin's attack on Modernity and the
Millennium)
Date: Sunday, July 16, 2000 11:26 AM
Greetings, Patrick.
(patk9018@my-deja.com) writes:
> Correct. Categorizations of certain individuals as Nazis, or
some sort
> of anti-christ, are simply demonizations which excuse the view holder
> from any additional thoughts on the matter - rationalizations for
> prejudice and rigid adherence to flawed opinions.
President Reagan described Mikhail Gorbachev as
the Evil Emperor. The
response by Gorbachev was to acquaint Westerners with the meaning of the
Russian words Glasnost and Perestroika and to end the Cold War, so that
we
saw recently Westerners describing Gorbachev as the man of the 20th
Century.
Michael Mckenny advised the members of the UHJ
that their actions
in conducting censorship, seeking the exclusion of scholars from the
Baha'i Faith, opposing liberal-democracy, etc. were similar to those
actions which required the defence of the Free World. The response by
the
UHJ was a continued opposition to professors in the humanities and to the
concept of liberal-democracy, as well as the innovation of removing
from the membership rolls some liberal-minded followers of the religion.
What you fail to notice is that it is the
behaviour of Mikhail
Gorbachev and the members of the UHJ which permit unbiased observers
to note the distance or the spot on nature of the assessments made by
others. If one says you are behaving in the manner of the Nazis and you
react by insisting on censorship, thought control, one officially
imposed dogma, etc., it is not the words about you, but your own deeds
which demonstrate the validity of that comparison.
Despite the depiction of Gorbachev as the Evil
Emperor, Reagan and
the West paid keen attention when Gorbachev demonstrated how different
he was from such a depiction. Despite the current lot in power in Haifa
acting previously as have acted such despicable regimes as the Nazis,
let Doug and Co. begin to behave differently, let them welcome,
within
the Baha'i Faith, professors of the humanities such as Juan, who think
in ways confirming Baha'u'llah's description of humanity as a garden,
let them promote humane principles, enunciated also in Baha'i texts,
let us observe such actions and sentiments described on this newsgroup
and elsewhere and, as the west paid attention to Gorbachev, so will
attention be paid to Doug and his partisans. Indeed, such actions may
well contribute to elevating the Baha'i religion above sectarian and
personal partisanship, as was hoped by the founder of the religion.
And, if Doug and Co. continue to behave in a
manner opposing the
freedom of thought and expression within the Baha'i Faith, attacking
liberal-democracy, etc., attention will still be paid to them, as it
currently is, and the similarity of such behaviour to the actions of
previous despicable regimes will continue to be noted.
Write to the best of your ability, describe as
fully as you are
able, elucidate to the utmost of your capacity the theories and the
practises of Baha'i leadership. If they are behaving worthily, anyone
at all will be able to convince humanity of this; if they are behaving
harmfully no one will be able to convince unbiased observers that their
oppressive, divisive, harmful action is beneficial.
May they provide you and others with material
worthy to present.
All the Best,
Michael
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: Michael McKenny <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: Bingo! (was: Doug Martin's attack on Modernity and the
Millennium)
Date: Wednesday, July 19, 2000 9:42 AM
Greetings.
Your statement as to the election of Baha'i leadership
may be your
understanding and it is valid in this non-absolutist sense. It is not the
understanding of many others who consider themselves Baha'is. It is, in
the
estimation of the Solar Guard, at the root of the current sectarianism
within the movement begun by Baha'u'llah. Overcoming your fundamentalist
insistence that the literal texts you believe applicable to this issue and
those which you ignore as being unconnected with it (or trumped by those
you favour) freeze the electoral pattern of your religion in pre-modernism
has divided you and has permitted the totalitarian membership for life (or
as long as personally desired) of an old boys' club of fundamentalists.
This is in the best interests of such an old boys' club; it has been
demonstrated to be against the intent of Baha'u'llah, except to those
interpreting this intent as the formation of a fundamentalist sect
controlled by an old boy's club.
We find the thought that the formation of a
fundamentalist sect, the
insistence on silent compliance with a fundamentalist agenda (or exlusion
from membership), discrimination against women, opposition to liberal-
democracy, to the harmony of faith and reason, to the independent
investigation of truth, etc. is the promotion of the Baha'i
teachings quite remarkable. According to this method of defining such
teachings, one would be most likely to find virgins in brothels.
You are free to think and to say what you like,
and we repeat that
your definite statement is not the Baha'i position, although it may be one
of a number of personal opinions held by individuals saying they are
Baha'is.
We stress the importance of the permission of the
expression, within
the Baha'i Faith, of all personal opinions on such topics. Refusal
to
allow such freedom of thought and expression is one indication that the
individuals so interfering in personal thought and expression are unfit
for leadership, that is their leadership is harmful to humanity.
Loving Greetings,
Department of the Secretariat,
Solar Guard
(patk9018@my-deja.com) writes:
>
The Center of the Cause does promote those teachings
> and is elected consistent with the guidance given by Baha'u'llah and
> thus 'Abdu'l Baha as well.
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: Michael McKenny <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: Doug Martin's attack on Modernity and the Millennium
Date: Saturday, July 08, 2000 11:57 AM
Greetings, Rlittle.
Have you read THE PROMISED DAY IS COME? Were Shoghi
Effendi alive, he
would castigate Doug Martin and his colleagues with the same vehemence
with
which he lashed out at the fundamentalists and the despots of previous
generations.
Have you read THE EPISTLE TO THE SON OF THE WOLF? Were
Baha'u'llah
alive, he would use the same language to denounce Doug Martin and his
colleagues for hounding, harrassing and maligning those who demonstrate
that the harmony of humanity is incompatible with fundamentalist
despotism.
Altering Baha'u'llah's vision of a golden age of human
maturity into
yet another re-run of tyrannical oppression and sectarian animosity is
indeed reprehensible.
May every human being clearly perceive the extent to
which the spirit
of this age and species repudiates tyrannical fundamentalist sectarianism.
Loving Greetings,
Department of the Secretariat,
Solar Guard
(rlittle95@my-deja.com) writes:
> Is there anyone who can read this passage and still consider that
> slander and backbiting and vilification and demonization are
"meet and
> seemly?"
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: Michael McKenny <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: Doug Martin's attack on Modernity and the Millennium
Date: Monday, July 10, 2000 1:38 PM
Greetings, Brian.
Many thanks for your comments.
"Brian F. Walker" (dr.walker@fsandp.com) writes:
> I put it to you that the basic beliefs of Christians everywhere can
result in
> unity only if we concentrate on the Bible, but that people are
divided (and
> tyrannized by their respective AO) because of divisions caused by the
minds of
> humans which interpret the Holy Writ for the "benefit" of
others. One looks at
> the Orange order marches in Northern Ireland, and wonders what is
going on
> between their ears.
The important concepts introduced by Baha'u'llah
include harmony as
the goal instead of uniformity, the recognition that individuals, by
nature,
will have a vast variety of understandings and that no one understanding
should be imposed as the exclusive authoritative one; such impositions,
contrary to human nature, have been quite destructive in the past; people
must be allowed, encouraged to seek independent understanding of reality
and to speak freely their ever-changing personal perception of truth, also
listening, or at least allowing to be spoken, each other human's personal
awareness of truth.
> The danger I see comes from those who would reject, modify or
abrogate the
> words of Baha'u'llah, Abdul-Baha and Shoghi Effendi, put them into
"historical
> perspective"
No, the danger comes from those who would
deny other human beings
the freedom to seek independently for truth, those who believe they know
the real perspective of the words of Baha'u'llah, etc. and if they hear
some other thoughts then these other thoughts are the rejection,
modification
or abrogation of such words. In my opinion, those who seek to squelch the
freedom of the followers of Baha'u'llah to think and to share their
thoughts have rejected, modified and abrogated the words of Baha'u'llah
and
have tossed away one of the chief means for the achievement and
preservation
of human harmony.
The concept that one understanding alone is
permitted to be spoken and
all other understandings exclude one from the community has been attempted
with the full force of totalitarian regimes, has been condemned by
Baha'u'llah and has been demonstrated in the laboratory of human
experience
to result in the opposite of human harmony. Human minds are not made that
way. We are not clones. We see things differently. Accepting this variety
of views is a means by Baha'u'llah for the peace, harmony and prosperity
of
this planet. By rejecting Baha'u'llah's methods, Baha'i fundamentalists
have
transformed his vision into one in which contention, confrontation and
disharmony are inevitable.
> I see the blindness of those who would pretend to see, and who attack
the very
> institutions that Baha'u'llah created and defined
As far as I know, the focus of discussion
has not been an opposition
to the institutions Baha'u'llah defined. I consider it perfectly
legitimate
for humans to think and to express their thoughts, within the Baha'i
Faith,
for a variety of institutional forms. However, so far, what I have
observed
in these discussions is the assertion that the Baha'i world should now be
blessed by the actual institutions created and defined by Baha'u'llah,
instead of by individuals using the names of such institutions but as far
from such institutions as one (or at least I) can imagine. In place of a
Universal House of Justice, we have some guys who are administering as if
they were a typical tyrannical cult leadership. They use the name, but
humans
have long suffered from leaders using names and words, but being and doing
the opposite.
When we see visionary leadership, accepting
the views of Baha'u'llah
so as to provide an over-arching accepting harmony of humanity, when we
observe that those imaginative (some would say inspired) concepts of
Baha''llah: the independent investigation of truth, the freedom of thought
and expression, the harmony of science and religion (reason and faith),
etc.
are preferred to dictatorial imposition of one fundamentalist
interpretation,
to one exclusivist understanding, to one divisive dogmatic definition,
then
we will know that the institutions created and defined by Baha'u'llah
don't
merely have their names applied to their opposites, but really exist.
I have not seen anyone here attack the
institutions created and
defined by Baha'u'llah. Just as one may object to a drunk at the wheel of
a car stuck in the ditch without finding fault with the car, so those who
have failed to provide us with a Universal House of Justice, instead
replicating the attitudes of the most objectionable and oppressive regimes
in human history (generating the same divisiveness and diminishment of
respect for leadership as was generated by those regimes) find themselves
pointedly called to drive on the Baha'i highway and get out of the ditch
of
fundamentalism, suppression of human thought, exclusivity, confrontation
and disunity. May the institution of the Universal House of Justice at
long
last appear resplendent before the expectant gaze of humanity. It is not
attacked, it is long overdue.
All the Best,
Michael
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: Michael McKenny <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: Doug Martin's attack on Modernity and the Millennium
Date: Thursday, July 13, 2000 11:44 AM
Greetings, Brian.
Many thanks for your comments.
Brian F. Walker (dr.walker@fsandp.remove.com) writes:
> If we regard the UHJ as just another group of politicians <pfui>
then I
> would be behind you on the barricades and shouting and jumping up and
down
> (albeit from the standpoint of a non-Baha'i) to effect reform.
Reason and faith are in harmony. Blind faith is
forbidden to Baha'is.
When the observation of reason reveals that the current lot in Haifa are
manifesting precisely the same attitudes and behavior as totalitarian
politicians (in actual fact, democratic leadership is one of the great
achievements of humanity; I do not malign Canada's prime-minister, and
one reason is that we are free to agree or disagree with him and to say
so;
leaders who insist their errors are correct and may not be pointed out are
unacceptable wheresoever they may be, in the Kremlin, on Mt. Carmel or
anywhere else).
I absolutely reject the position that you or any
other human being,
or committee of human beings, pretending they are doing so according to
the words of deity, may dictate whether any other soul is a Baha'i,
Buddhist or Confucianist. The fact that the allegedly universal faith
of Baha'u'llah is now being administered by men who have done so and who
advocate that some believers of Baha'u'llah tell other believers of
Baha'u'llah that these other believers are not Baha'is unless they accept
that the errors of Doug Martin and his colleagues are literally correct
is one indication these guys have behaved as cult leaders instead of as
members of an all-embracing Universal House of Justice. They have divided
the movement of world harmony, exactly in the manner of the most
objectionable politicians.
We have been through this on this newsgroup.
Infallibility, in the
sense of inerrancy, is NOT the correct meaning of what was said about the
decrees of Doug Martin, Hooper Dunbar, et al. In addition, I've already
posted here, that the words may be seen as addressed to Doug Martin,
Hooper
Dunbar et al. They may be perceived as being directed to act AS IF they
were
the infallible source of all good; this may be understood as strong
spiritual
advice TO THEM. And, they have so far not followed it very well. When they
rein in the fundamentalists, when they follow the universalist teachings
of
Baha'u'llah, instead of promulgating a dogma that humans cannot be Baha'is
unless they accept a literalist fundamentalist viewpoint and take the
behavior of Doug Martin, Hooper Dunbar, et al. as the only possibly
correct
course, as dictated by deity (Oghma, great god of wisdom, great champion
of
our people, great source of eloquence, may I be empowered to overcome so
nightmarish a vision) then will they be contributing to benefit instead of
adding to human suffering.
> I think, however, that the analogy is completely wrong. I believe
that
> Baha'u'llah was right, that the UHJ is not man-made, but a
Divinely
> ordained body, which does not play by the Old World Order rules.
The
> motives which are ascribed to it are not what motivate it.
They are pointedly called to account
because it is evident to reason
that they are playing by Old World rules, and the most objectionable of
Old
World rules at that. They are the cause of confrontation, division,
oppression; they are the ones who have redefined the religion into a
sect.
>>The opinions of those liberals who were hounded out of the Baha'i
>>Faith, and in my case booted out when I resisted all efforts to
get me
>>to resign, are legitimate within a Baha'i belief system. Human
minds are
>>obviously capable of arriving at them, and human hearts which feel
that
>>the founder of the religion intended there to be harmony between
faith
>>and reason (religion and science), the independent investigation
of
>>reality, unfettered by orthodoxies either scientific or religious,
the
>>freedom of thought and expression, the recognition of the
over-arching
>>harmony of the species, rather than a uniform acceptance of
dictated
>>dogmatic belief, living the life, rather than discriminating on
the
>>excuse of fundamentalist literalism's mistranslation, when it
comes to
>>equality of women and men replacing male's only at the top, etc.
are
>>demonstrably in accord with the influences and the movement of
>>Baha'u'llah.
> Wow! OK ... for the most part I agree with you, but consider this
Michael:
> let us assume that the future of the world is bleak indeed unless we
have a
> new style of government and leadership.
Nonsense. Liberal-democracy has been shown to be
one of the greatest
achievements with which humanity has been blessed. Why does the UN keep
saying Canada is the best place to live?
The new thing you assert is as old as the hills;
it is the childish
tyranny of the weak and the insecure. It is the oppression of those who
have been divinely created to see things differently from Doug Martin and
Hooper Dunbar, etc. It is the attempt to shut people up, drive them away
and define them as other, alien, non- The future of humanity is likely not
bleak, UNLESS fundamentalism, blind faith that deity has given Doug Martin
& Co. the inerrant right to impose their opinions, silencing all
others, is
inflicted upon a species that has so long endured despots and tyrannical
rule.
>The woes facing us (environmental
> political and social) are immense, and need a new cure. Let us
further
> assume that the new world order we need depends upon *consultation*,
which
> Shoghi Effendi assures us is the only really new part of our
religion, all
> else being a renewal of revelation.
Some consultation! Unless one caws a
fundamentalist party line, one
is not included. Great Epona, protectress, shield, sword, defend our
people
from such anacronism, such Orwellian newspeak.
Consultation means listening to all
points of view. Doug Martin,
Hooper Dunbar and their colleagues have sought to impose one point of
view.
This is not new at all. It is not in the least required by humanity at
this,
or any other stage, of its existence.
> Let us go on to assume that if
> Baha'u'llah is right, then the UHJ will play a role in that new
world
> order, using consultation and assured of Divine guidance.
Doug Martin, Hooper Dunbar et al have tossed away
whatever divine
guidance they had and instead of the novel view of Baha'u'llah that all
humans are part of a vastly varied divinely created garden, have sought to
grow only a field of fundamentalism.
I absolutely deny that it is basic to Baha'i
belief that the
redefinition of the Baha'i Faith into a fundamentalist sect must be the
opinion of the totality of the membership. Of course, as old world
communists, as the partisans of Stalin, it could be imposed, by force,
that one had to keep opinions quiet or suffer the consequences. This is
not new and it is not to the advantage of humanity.
Were Baha'u'llah to raise up a Universal House of
Justice that really
behaved as the guides of the planet, that actually promoted the
independent investigation of truth, the harmony of reason and faith
(defining this a bit more acceptably than believing whatsoever Orwellian
newspeak emerges from Mt Carmel is reasonably inerrant), that practices
the principles of freedom of thought and expression, the true equality of
women and men, the veritable diversity of valid viewpoints, etc, then,
perhaps such a body would deserve some consideration. As long as the guys
now in charge can't even get along with those who believe in their own
prophet what possible worth are they to the world at large?
Let them get out of the ditch, toss away the
bottle of fundamentalism
and then perhaps they can ask others to observe how splendidly they
drive. >
> I know - a lot of assumptions, but I think they are basic to Baha'i
belief.
> Now, to the point.
> I believe that the reason you, personally, have had problems is not
so much
> because of what you have said, but more because of how you have said
it. I
> think that part of the reason is because you have assumed the UHJ is
part
> of the old world order - and you have treated them as such.
Absolutely wrong. Read the sequence of my
writings in order. I assumed
they were a Universal House of Justice. They responded as old world
politicians. Only then, did I understand, because I am not one incapable
of modifying my opinions according to new information, that the Universal
House of Justice called for by Baha'u'llah does not exist.
> I also assume that you have had the most honourable of intentions,
and that
> you act now in a spirit of righting wrongs. But if I am right in
having
> made the above asumptions, then it is possible that the way back to
peace
> is to accept the new world order for all its beauty,
Oghma, Epona, Lugh, all the
warrior gods of our ancient past, ever
preserve humanity from such a nightmare as the oppression, tyranny and
discord of such a terrible beauty. Arm us in mind, body and spirit ever
to resist, oppose and vanquish such horror.
May anyone who assumes that
diversity of views may be squelched,
that reason may be extinguished by fanatical fundamentalism, that women
may by dominated by an all-male hierarchy, that the liberal arts may be
vilified, that dictatorial dogma may be imposed on this species be granted
the full realization that such demonic efforts cannot succeed, that only
a cult would attempt them and that, with the blessing of deity and the
full approval even of Baha'u'llah, humans will die rather than submit to
so great an evil.
> and work - with that
> diversity you uniquely manifest (tongue in cheek but sincerely meant)
- for
> that abundant and diverse garden. Consultation instead of
confrontation.
> Unity in diversity instead of diverse disunity.
Orwellian newspeak again. It is not Baha'i
liberals who had problems
with diversity. The origin of this intolerance lies with the
fundamentalists who hounded the liberals and even legislated them out of
the organization they control. It is not Juan, etc. who need to show
greater acceptance of diversity. It is Doug Martin and his colleagues.
This ball is on their side of the net. Let them manifest the attributes
of an ordinary follower of Baha'u'llah, to say nothing of those charged
with behaving AS IF they were the wellspring of divine guidance, a mighty
example and source of human harmony. This is an entirely different concept
from the thought that one must think a certain way, be silent or be gone.
>> .... is an historical testimony to their failure to guide the
religion
>>as a universalist movement, according to the broad-minded vision
of the
>>founder of the faith, but instead they have repeated the behaviour
of
>>those whom Baha'u'llah assessed to be in error and an oppressive
burden
>>to their people. As Juan once said, yes, it may be possible to
alter the
>>Baha'i Faith so that it is a fundamentalist sect, but, then,
doesn't it
>>cease being relevant and become redundant?
> Again, I see your point, and the horror you express, but I truly
believe
> the UHJ is leading us to achieve that very beauty you desire. My wish
is
> for you to see the beauty I see, not the horror you see, and that you
were
> in that vanguard, watering those flowers.
How can you say they are leading us
to beauty, when what they have
done is drive people away, define only one fundamentalist viewpoint as
acceptable, turned a universal religion into a fundamentalist dogma, etc.
etc. This is contrary to reason, which, as I understand Baha'i, is
contrary
to Baha'i. One may have blind faith in cult leaders, even to the extent of
committing suicide. Blind faith, contrary to reason, is a proof the
individual or the entity may be assessed to be non-Baha'i, according to
the
original definition of the Faith.
May those who would call themselves
Baha'is be granted the insight
to realize such a word requires open-mindedness, understanding that no
one,
not even Doug Martin in committee with eight other men, may oppose
diversity
of views or impose thought control, censorship, suppression of thought and
expression, etc. etc.
To the Future,
Michael
> All the best,
>
Brightest Blessings to you and yours.
> Brian
>
> (Do you think we are all that far apart?)
If you posit that Doug Martin and
Company may impose fundamentalism,
we are worlds apart. If you accept that a world spiritual assembly
promotes
the rainbow of human understanding, we are not in the least apart.
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: Michael McKenny <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: Doug Martin's attack on Modernity and the Millennium
Date: Monday, July 10, 2000 12:44 PM
Dia Dhuit, Pat.
No, I base it on his opposition to fundamentalists such
as the Wolf and
ibn Wolf, his enunciation of metaphorical interpretations of scripture,
his
assertion that individual understandings of scripture, god and religious
concepts (including one's perception of the nature of Baha'u'llah himself)
should be recognized, his promotion of the principles of the independent
investigation of truth and the freedom of thought and expression, and his
declaration that the reason he opened his mouth was to demonstrate the
underlying inclusive harmony of the human species. Doug Martin, Hooper
Dunbar and their colleagues have behaved in the exact same exclusive,
literalist fundamentalist manner as those castigated by Baha'u'llah, as
if their theological heritage may be traced through ibn Wolf and father,
instead of as the spiritual offspring of Baha'u'llah. The Baha'i Covenant,
so literally cherished by the fundamentalists in charge, includes the
concept that if the one in line to succeed does not manifest the
attributes
of his ancestry, then such a lack demonstrates his lack of fitness to
succeed. It is obvious, to any non-cultist, that those demonstrating their
spiritual heritage is from the family of ibn Wolf, instead of Baha'u'llah,
have no mandate to positions of leadership in the Baha'i Faith, although
there may be some theological positions they may legitimately compete for
in the fundamentalist religions.
Slan,
Michael
Pat Kohli (kohli@ameritel.net) writes:
>
> As far as your predictions regarding Baha'u'llah, would you base that
on the
> influence of Sufi pirs? British intervention in Egypt? tobacco
concessions in
> Iran? or something else?
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: Michael McKenny <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: Doug Martin's attack on Modernity and the Millennium
Date: Sunday, July 16, 2000 9:11 AM
Hmmm, do you understand that there are other things than your literal
interpretation of the scripture. You already received the answer that
the very writings you consider the divine standard include THE EPISTLE
TO THE SON OF THE WOLF, and in addition there is THE PROMISED DAY IS COME
which contains quotes as well as the writing of Shoghi Effendi, quite
pointedly commenting on the failings of others. These are among numerous
passages in Baha'i literature, scripture and commentary by Shoghi Effendi,
calling leaders, political and religious, to account in terms quite
similar
to those being used concerning the misdeeds of Baha'i fundamentalists now
in power.
It is legitimate for those in control of
the Baha'i religion to be
treated as Baha'u'llah treated their spiritual ancestors, fundamentalists
in other religions.
If you have some other opinion and can cite
some other passages as
to how you or Doug Martin think you or Doug Martin may respond to Baha'i
fundamentalism, by all means, as long as your interpretation of such
passages does not incite you to break the law of the land, live your life.
Do not demand that your understanding or Doug's understanding is the only
Baha'i understanding and demand everyone else must follow your personal
understanding of such passages.
There are several basic principles to
modify your premise about the
priority of Baha'i scripture: primarily, one must accept that human minds
being divinely created different will perceive such writings in a wide
variety of manners and that this variety is valid and efforts to impose
a single understanding cannot succeed, unless success is defined as the
uniform dogma of a sect, such a sect being the consequence of the failure
of the mission of Baha'u'llah to achieve human harmony.
Additional factors, such as the
metaphorical and poetical
exaggeration of inspired text and the essential requirement to harmonize
spiritual literature with spiritual principles necessitate the avoidance
of actions based on literal readings contrary to humanity and ethics.
That is, by principle one cannot place an absolute priority for one's
actions on literal text if the literal text (for example, "Leave not
a
single unbeliever alive in the Central provinces of Iran,") appears
to
justify what is already known to be unethical.
I hope the above is clear. If not, don't
hesitate to say so.
To the Future,
Michael
(rlittle95@my-deja.com) writes:
> May I ask just what post you are responding to? I asked questions,
> rather than "insist(ed) that one opinion of the writings is the
only
> correct one." Perhaps you did not understand my questions,
something
> quite likely in newsgroups.
>
> So, to restate the previous post, I stated an a priori: that the
> Writings of the Baha'i Faith are to be considered as the divine
> standard by which all else is judged.
>
> I then asked you what the Baha'i Writings say concerning how one
ought
> to respond to an injustice, whether real or perceived; and, I asked
you
> what those same Writings say concerning backbiting, and if possible,
> how we can determine if we or someone else is commiting backbiting.
>
> You have raised an interesting point that ought to be expored as
well,
> in my opinion: You said that Baha'u'llah opposed despotism and this
> seems to be fundamental to your position. How did He oppose
despotism?
> (quotations will do nicely).
>
> I hope that by sticking to what the Writings say, we can avoid
slippage
> down that slope that leads into personal attacks and denunciations,
and
> remain on flat, friendly ground.
>
> Ok?
>
> Robert A. Little
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: Michael McKenny <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: Exposing Mr Mahdi Part 1
Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2000 8:49 AM
Greetings, Comrade Adelard.
Many thanks for your comments.
Yes, I recall one famous fundamentalist telling me that
the UHJ (by
which Doug Martin and Co. were intended) had no sense of humor at all.
Well, Gee, Comrade, don't you think one takes something seriously when
one spends some time at it, considers it, takes actions, considering the
consequences, accepting the consequences, hmmm.
"Keep insulting the institutions of Baha'u'llah"
well, as I've said
before, I haven't really posted anything saying that the institutions of
Baha'u'llah are anything except in need of coming into existence, having
a reality more substantial than the current verbal cloneship to, Dear
Comrade, entities familiar to Soviet citizens and readers of 1984.
I would like to share one comment made a while back on
a pagan
cyberspace planet. It concerns this concept of "insult". This
pagan posted
the opinion that one is not really insulted unless the offensive remark is
true. In other cases one may simply dismiss the offending words as of no
factual connection to one's self. He used as the example, "But he
said my
mother was a whore?" and the response, "Well, was she?"
So, if some guy chattering away on an e-list or
newsgroup says that
the men in charge of the Baha'i Faith are acting more in the manner of
totalitarian dictators replete with the oppression of the Baha'i
principles of independent investigation of truth, the freedom of thought
and expression, the harmony of science and religion, the equality of women
and men, etc., well, if this is false say so, demonstrate that really
Allison Marshall has not been removed from the rolls of the Baha'is in
New Zealand by the guys who really are not clones of the old Politburo
members, that really there is no censorship within the Baha'i Faith and
historians may write books about Baha'u'llah without getting nasty
letters composed by Doug Martin or anyone else in Haifa signing his name
"Department of the Secretariat", etc.
And, if you tell me or if Doug Martin tells me that
what I say is
insulting well, perhaps it that what I write is
true.
I was astonished when one member of a Baha'i e-list
(soon after my
unwarned notice arrived saying my name had been deleted from the list
of Baha'is) posted that he had contacted someone in Totonto (HQ of
Canadian NSA which sent me the notice on behalf of the UHJ) to seek
more details and had been told the members of the UHJ had found my
communications with them insulting. Go back and read what I wrote. This
is written in a very polite style. So, is my pagan friend correct, and
did the issues I raised (with all the delicacy an inspired and careful
writer could attempt) insult because they were true?
And, again, you have the complete freedom to express
your opinion,
if such it is, that your interpretation of the words of the Will and
Testament of Abdu'l Baha is that Doug Martin and his buddies may decree
anything they please and behave in any manner they desire. And, anyone
else is equally free to express any other opinion, including the one that
the Institution of the Universal House of Justice is required by the Will
and Testament to seek to live up to Baha'i standards and principles, and
these include promoting freedom of thought and expression among all humans
instead of seeking clones of good Soviet citizens to compose the cult's
membership rolls.
Those who criticized the attitude and behaviour of
despots were not
attacking Mother Russia or any other country afflicted by such leadership.
Ditto for those objecting to the despotic attitudes and behaviour by Doug
Martin and his buddies. One calling for something using the name of the
institutions written about by Baha'u'llah actually to be recognizeable by
Baha'u'llah instead of by Stalin is not attacking the institutions that
Baha'u'llah called for. Doug and Co. are lucky that Baha'u'llah is not
alive to give them a piece of his mind, because he'd give them an earful
they could really find insulting, and all of it true, Comrade.
To the Future,
Michael
"Adelard R" (postmaster@ishop-usa.com) writes:
>>I'm at a loss to understand why you two are defending
>
> I am still asking Mr Nima hazini, why could you get at loss,
when you
> really know these individuals are not sincere and don't take
seriously the
> Will and Testament of Abdul-Baha and keep insulting the
Institutions of
> Baha'u'llah and our beloved Universal House of Justice .
What do you
> expect Nima?
>
> Thank you though for your sincerity on this thread .
>
> Adelard R
> Adelard.Rubangura@unisys.com
>
>
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: Michael McKenny <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: Exposing Nima
Date: Wednesday, July 26, 2000 11:01 AM
Greetings, Hooper.
Uhm, well, I am interested not so much in the all too
prevalent ad
hominems in general, as this is a typical fundamentalist Baha'i error.
If reason and faith are to agree and if faith minus reason is merely
superstition, then the basic foundation of much fundamentalist argument
is pure superstition, condemned by the very founders of the religion. For,
if one examines such argumentation, a great deal of it, in complete
contradiction to both elementary formal logic and to the basic principles
of Baha'i consultation, is directed at who is speaking, instead of what
is being said.
So, whether it is the ghost of the Ayutullah Khomeini
or an alter ego
of Hooper Dunbar or the president of a theological college in Ohio or a
miner in the Ukraine or wrote these references to Nima's personality, such
references are absolutely irrelevant to the thoughts posted here and the
positions taken here by Nima or anyone posting under his name. It is pure
and simple superstition to focus on the individual saying something and
not what is said.
Now, as I said, what I find most interesting is not the
usual blatant
and irrelevent superstition per se, but the specific things that are
supposed to render the thoughts of Nima void.
Let's look at these:
Mr Mahdi (mrmahdi@aol.com) writes:
> Don't worry folks, a grown man who is mostly like still living with
his parents
> in the land down under is nothing to take seriously.
As one who has spent much of my free time over the past
six months
seeking to get a glimpse of traditional Chinese religion, thought and life
and its similarities and dissimilarities to the ancestral ways of my
Celtic
ancestors, I find this reference to abiding in one's paternal home quite
fascinating. Supposedly, Hooper or whoever, believes that one's thoughts
may be discounted because one has not moved out of the parental home, an
action that would seem quite bizarre, possibly unfilial, to a great many
of
the people who have ever lived on this planet.
Hmmm, is there something wrong with Australians,
Hooper? This is of a
class of argument that suggests that everything someone says may be
discounted on the grounds that person is from Iran or Egypt or Greece,
etc.
Such national prejudice is what may be discounted.
>A cult prone vagabond who
> had to borrow money from a family (as well as other things) is
nothing to lose
> sleep over.
Well, can we have it two ways, first, he stays in the
ancestral
residence, then he leaves it and wanders around presumably away from the
ancestral home? However, you know whether one is sedentary or a nomad,
the thoughts of this individual (or of this people) are equally worthy
of consideration and not to be disregarded on the grounds that they are
the thoughts of one settled or one ambulatory.
What? that someone is considered trustworthy and
meritorious enough
to be the recipient of the charity you suggest is supposed to render his
remarks void? A fascinating suggestion. And, uhm, by the same reasoning,
this fellow Muhammed, this cult vagabond who wandered up to Medina and
received charity there, would you suggest we discount anything he said,
too?
> Let him rant and rave and cry about why he can't get a teaching
> job.
What, Hooper, I would have thought, according to the
anti-scholastic
sentiments within fundamentalist circles, that we'd be told to ignore what
Nima was saying were he to have a job as a teacher. So, were he something
other than a teacher, this ought, by fundamentalist reasoning, to render
his comments of greater interest.
As I noted earlier, all references to Nima's
personality rather than
to his thoughts are superstitous irrelevancies.
> Nima, doesn't telemarketing pay minimum wage thse days?
As I understand sales, of which telemarketing is one
branch, you get
healthy bonuses, if you are successful at it. Hooper, whether you are a
telemarketer, a college professor, a carpenter or a UHJ member has no
bearing on the validity or the invalidity of your positions. Your
expressed opinions may be assessed on their own.
I can appreciate the enormous chellenge this raises for
fundamentalists
all too often feeling the flawless, infallible response to thoughts
expressed is to talk about the person speaking. However, according to
reason (what is actually taught in formal logic) and religion (what at
least used to be taught in Baha'i deepenings on Baha'i consultation) such
references to who, rather than what, is superstitious irrelevency
I will repeat that I find the specific grounds of this
Nima ad hominem
quite fascinating.
Department of the Secretariat,
Solar Guard
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: Michael McKenny <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: << bahai >> newcomer
Date: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 10:57 AM
Greetings, Rlittle.
Many thanks for your comments, and acknowledgements
that you are posting
to TRB, replying to others' post, demonstrating that you at least are
reading
what others are posting here. However, if I understand you correctly you
are
upholding the policy that there should not be freedom of speech within the
Baha'i religion.
If by vertical you did not mean the creation of
additional layers
between Doug and Co. and the ordinary people, but rather the development
of
diversity within local communities, hats off to you.
Factually, of course, it is very incorrect to suggest
that few places
exist without fifteen adult Baha'is. Even in the US, I would be surprised
were one per cent of localities to possess fifteen adult Baha'is, and in
such vast nations as China the number of such localities is likely minute.
In addition, while it's a great thing to continue the
long standing
Baha'i concern with developing local communities, your statement as to the
novelty of this is also incorrect. It has always been a Baha'i concern. I
would be astonished if your Baha'i community, however marvellously
developed it may be, can compare with Ashkabad a hundred years ago for
the vitality and diversity of the local community activities.
Also, local community development is not incompatible
with greater
practise of Baha'i principles. Indeed, the extent to which you insist that
the expression of varying views is something passe and prohibitive of the
building of a community, to that extent are you revealing the resistence
you are exhibiting to the growth of the vision of Baha'u'llah.
The ability of individuals to think various thoughts
and to express these
thoughts is essential. It, of course, is a natural ploy of despots to
assert
that their despotic, unprincipled measures are fixed and no one is
permitted to show what may otherwise be done. This is simply factually
incorrect. Neither what was fixed by those ruling Germany during the 30s
and the first half of the 40s, nor what was fixed by those ruling Russia
through much of the 20th Century has necessarily remained. Likewise,
however attractive it may be for Doug and Co. to envision that their
attempt
to freeze their religion in a similar totalitarian blueprint (devoid of
newspeak, this is what your impression of moving ahead with decisions
made for the world boils down to) is not at all, the gods be praised,
something that all of humanity will have to grin and bear.
Thoughts may be thought, ideas may be expressed and the
consequences
of the seed of totalitarianism can be observed. The day will come when
what Doug and Co. wish you to believe is fixed will be as melted as the
similar ice from Nazi and Soviet regimes.
I will happily applaud you and Doug and Co. or their
successors, when
your words are not mere Orwellian newspeak and really you are showing you
are striving to create something according to the vision of Baha'u'llah,
Abdu'l Baha etc. This vision is the democratic respect, within the Baha'i
Faith, for the independent investigation of truth, the harmony of faith
and reason, the freedom of thought and expression, the equality of women
and men, etc. When this is evident, I will be happy to applaud. When all
you and Doug and Co. have to offer are such words of opposite meaning as
were the style of Goebbels and Co., I'll continue to underline how what
you claim is the opposite of what you do. You say you offer the vision
of
Baha'u'llah and you provide something more familiar to Stalin.
To Baha'u'llah's Vision,
Michael
(rlittle95@my-deja.com) writes:
> Hi Michael
>
> Well, we disagree. I seem to be following the exhortations you
mention,
> concerning freedom of expression, eh?
>
> Think about it, please: For decades, the advice has been that fifteen
> adult Baha'is were sufficient for a community. Baha'is have been
> dispersing for a very long time, with the result that they now live
in
> nearly as many places as Christians. They are running out of places
to
> disperse to.
>
> The need to disperse is still there, and dispersal is continuing, but
> the need for communities to form, to build up the structure of a
Baha'i
> society is taking on more importance. That is what we have seen in
the
> goals of the Four Year Plan just finished, the current plan now
> underway, and that is the focus for the next twenty years.
Integration
> of believers into community, and the development of community into a
> structure which can effect change in society. Change, Michael, is
> inevitable.
>
> This is a Faith which requires that one rolls up one's sleeves and
jump
> into the fray. You're going to get scratched and bruised now and
again,
> but it is the only way to raise up the edifice of the future which
> Baha'u'llah has charted for humanity. You are most probably right
that
> some of the people in there with you aren't reading the blueprints
the
> same way you are. So what? You have most strongly expressed your own
> opinions on the way things ought to be, and probably always have, as
> have others, but at some point someone has to make an authoritative
> decision.
>
> Have you considered the process of consultation in any of this? Are
you
> aware - you most probably are - of the requirement for relinquishing
> ownership of one's opinion once it has been given, within the
structure
> of consultation? Are you aware that the collective force of a unified
> community going in the wrong direction is preferable (as I understand
> it in the Baha'i Faith) to a disunited community going in various
> directions?
>
> You seem to call for the freedom of individuals to hold their own
> opinion, a freedom you correctly state Baha'u'llah grants you. But
> unless all those/us isolated individuals agree at some point to build
> something, nothing will ever get built. And in order to build,
they/we
> will have to follow the vision of Baha'u'llah, and the blueprint laid
> out by the interpretations of 'Abdul-Baha', Shoghi Effendi and the
> Universal House of Justice.
>
> Everything you rail against is the inevitable result of the growth of
> the Faith. You came into the Baha'i Faith at a time of what I call
> horizontal growth, or outward growth of individuals. Now we are
> witnissing the very beginning of a growth of community, which entails
> Baha'is working together, as against seeing each other now and again
at
> Feast or holy day observances. Working together in ever larger and
more
> complex arrangements. Vertical development.
>
> I think history will sort out whether or not we are progressing in
the
> right direction, or in a direction you have been pointing in. I don't
> walk in your shoes, nor you mine, so it is very difficult for either
of
> us to judge the other, and judging is certainly not our
responsibility
> in any event.
>
> With respect,
>
> Robert A. Little
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: Michael McKenny <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: << bahai >> newcomer
Date: Friday, August 04, 2000 7:45 AM
Greetings, Rlittle.
Many thanks for your comments.
You wrote:
>
One of the differences I see between us is that I
> _choose_ to participate in the construction of the future as I
> understand Baha'u'llah to have revealed it, and you _choose_ not to.
Actually, factually, it was Doug and Co.
that decreed that my name
be removed from the membership rolls of the Baha'i community. I chose in
response to seek to follow the more beneficial path of our
pre-monotheistic
and very largely tolerant ancestors and I chose to continue to exercise
the
principle of the freedom of thought and expression here, in order that the
potential evil that you are striving to construct may be clearly exposed.
How in the world could anyone expect me to
participate in the
construction of a global fundamentalist state, a place where the most
intrinsic and essential principles enunciated by Baha'u'llah are ignored
while despots discriminate against women, trample on the rights of the
individual, impose one literalist interpretation of text, oppress scholars
and others daring enough to exercise their god-given right to freedom of
thought and expression, etc.?
I stand at the Tree Ring and express
gratitude to my ancestors that
while still alive I was able to cease contributing to so great an evil.
And, in my life, in my studies, in my
interaction with diverse
humanity, in my posts here, I continue to try to promote all that was
best in both the ancestral ways of all our peoples and in the so
beneficial
intent of Baha'u'llah.
May they who call themselves Baha'is
likewise strive to live and
to create not something that would be a horrible affliction for a species
that has already endured so much division, despotic oppression, narrow
minded fundamentalism, but something really inculcating the broad-minded
and effective vision and the essential principles of Baha'u'llah. May they
insist that anyone who would guide them as the living leaders of their
religion live, breathe and behave in a manner that accords with all that
is worthy, so that were anyone to denounce them as narrow-minded cultists,
the words and deeds of such leaders could not be produced as proofs of
their
remoteness from the over-arching Baha'i principles bestowed upon humanity,
but as undeniable evidence that Baha'u'llah has the influence to produce a
true harvest of humble leaders guiding so as to contribute to a divinely
endowed, humane and widely tolerant civilization.
May today find you very well, may tomorrow
treat you even more
kindly and may each day after that be better than the one it succeeds.
To the Future,
Michael
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: Michael McKenny <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: << bahai >> newcomer
Date: Saturday, August 05, 2000 8:37 AM
Greetings, Robert.
Many thanks for your message.
Primarily, the evil may be seen in your fundamentalist
reply. It is
evil to impose one exclusivist interpretation of text (and by the way,
are you aware the UHJ is forbidden to interpret Baha'i scripture; they
are supposed to be a legislative body and not to stray into the realm of
interpretation), intolerant of the divinely created diversity of human
thought, perceptions and understandings. Baha'u'llah said humans were
diverse, called for no one (including you, Doug and Co.,) to impose one
interpretation, and said that even when it came to the most primary Baha'i
concept, what exactly is the nature of Baha'u'llah himself, different
people would have different understandings, and all were valid.
The evil is your insistence that only your
understanding is correct.
Your understanding is one valid understanding, but when you insist it is
the only permissible one, and when you define your understanding as the
understanding of all Baha'is and when Doug and Co. not only stray into the
realm of issuing interpretations, but insisting that these interpretations
are the sole interpretations permitted, and take this to the extent that
they would (if Pat, I believe it was, is to be believed) exclude a Baha'i
in good standing from membership within the broad-minded, tolerant,
universalist movement envisioned by Baha'u'llah, on the grounds that she
posted a book review to a USENET newsgroup, then, yes, indeed, this is a
great evil.
Those who have used their fundamentalist
exclusivist intolerance to
cause the terrible deeds of pogroms, inquisitions and persecutions also
spent time in daily prayer, in reading writings they considered
sacred,
in receiving messages from authorities believing they had the right, or
at least acting as if they had the right, to impose one (usually literal)
interpretation of scripture upon a whole people and to exclude anyone who
was divinely endowed with a different perception.
What they inflicted upon humanity was evil. When
you follow in their
footsteps, instead of building up the open-minded, inclusive, tolerant
vision of Baha'u'llah, you are walking in the path of evil, instead of
seeking to follow the Golden Mean.
Personally, I am a pagan, honouring the spirits,
gods and goddesses
of my ancestors, who seldom, if ever, oppressed each other over matters of
the spirit, until intolerant, exclusivist monotheists planted the seed of
this evil in our lands and raised a terrible harvest from which we are
still suffering. Baha'u'llah sought to transform that evil growth into
a richly diverse and fragrant garden that would provide fragrance to all
of humanity. You, Doug and Co. have rejected this vision of Baha'u'llah
and tried to foster within Baha'u'llah's own universal movement this
poisonous weed of the insistence on one single intolerant, exclusivist
interpretation. I believe Baha'u'llah is ashamed that you who call
yourselves by his name are striving so hard to defeat his purpose and
have to such an extent opposed the more open-minded of his declared
believers that you (speaking generally, fundamentalists, in general) have
hounded many out of the organization using his name, even, in at least two
cases legislating them out of the movement, when they could not be bullied
into resigning on their own.
I do not consider myself a Baha'i, though it
would have been very
interesting to see what would have been the dialog between me and pagan
thought, had Doug and Co. allowed Baha'u'llah's name to be used for the
broad-minded, universal and tolerant movement He initiated. In other
words, is the modern Neo-Pagan revival, a turning of the wheel again to
a pattern of thought that would, in any case, have received such strong
validation, or is it largely the distortion of Baha'u'llah's more up to
date correction of exclusivist monotheism into just one more
fundamentalist
intolerance which leaves the field clear for the revalidation of the
spiritual tolerance, etc. of our ancestors?
Here's a toast to tolerance and understanding,
peace and prosperity,
health and happiness. May you never again insist that your personal
opinion, or Doug Martin's personal opinion, or the
"interpretation" of
the current or future leaders of the largest Baha'i sect defines all
Baha'is. May you never again ask for literal quotes from scripture with
the intent that only one literal reading of such text is allowed. May you
and those like you whether they prefer to read the Torah, the Bible, the
Koran, Baha'i texts or anything else be inspired by the words they read,
by the gods they believe in, by the so precious humanity of this species
to
accept the fragrant garden of human diversity (even by those of their own
religions) and cease watering with the tears of fellow humans the evil,
the harmful, the poisonous weed of fundamentalist, exclusivist
intolerance.
To the Future,
Michael
(rlittle95@my-deja.com) writes:
>
> I am less able than you to express myself, yet your words merit a
> response, so....
>
> My words:
>
> On a daily basis, Baha'is offer up prayers to God, prayers revealed
by
> the Bab, Baha'u'llah and 'Abdul-Baha'. On a daily basis they read
and
> study and meditate on the words and teachings, exhortations, tablets,
> letters and books revealed by Baha'u'llah, as well as the
> interpretations of His authorized interpretor, 'Abdul-Baha', and the
> Guardian, Shoghi Effendi. On those occasions specifically permitted
in
> writing by Baha'u'llah, where there are no interpretations from
'Abdu'l-
> Baha' or Shoghi Effendi, Baha'is turn to the specific interpretations
> of the Universal House of Justice. Finally, Baha'is regularly
> participate in activities of community life, in myriads of ways,
which
> are based upon the writings of Baha'u'llah, and His authorized
> interpretors.
>
> Several times a year, Baha'is receive letters from the Universal
House
> of Justice, a body which Baha'u'llah called for and which His
followers
> elected into being and reform through a universal election every five
> years. Those letters frequently announce or refer to a plan of action
> which directs Baha'is to strive to achieve particular goals.
Currently,
> those goals center around increased study and meditation of the
> writings upon which this Faith is based, principally the writings of
> Baha'u'llah. The letters invariably quote Baha'u'llah, 'Abdul-Baha'
> and/or Shoghi Effendi as the source of authority for any plan of
action
> called for. It would follow then that you believe that the Baha'i
> writings Baha'is read, study and pray have been perverted, thus
> bringing about the evil you discuss.
>
> My understanding of your words lead me to conclude that you consider
> yourself to be a true follower of Baha'u'llah, while those who call
> themselves Baha'is do evil. You consider that you stand for the
> principles He enunciated, Baha'is do not.
>
> I have read your conclusions, but have never read any of the source
> materials you have based those conclusions upon. You are encouraged
to
> cite your sources, i.e., quotations from any of those letters which
> illustrate this claimed evil.
>
> Robert A. Little
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: Michael McKenny <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: << bahai >> newcomer
Date: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 8:44 AM
Greetings, Robert.
Many thanks for your comment.
No. Whatever the UHJ decides (including the decision
that a matter
does not fall within its jourisdiction) may be reconsidered at a later
date. The UHJ may not interpret. It may legislate. It may express its
opinions behind such legislation. Such opinions may not be imposed on
any other Baha'i, except in the manner that all ought to attempt to
implement what has been legislated -- within reason, of course.
It is very important to underline the historical fact
that the Baha'i
liberals (many of whom have now been driven out of the organization Doug
and Co. head) insisted that while they held the opinion (contrary to the
opinion of Doug and Co.) that Baha'i principle called for the membership
of
women on the UHJ, still they believed this would come to pass when the
UHJ
so legislated. In other words, none of them did anything. There was
no
holding of conventions to elect women, etc. All that happened was the
expression of opinions that Doug and Co. had the responsibility to
arrange
for the eligibility of women on the UHJ to be recognized.
The evil of Doug and Co. was less any legislative
decision, even the
legislative decision, contrary to Baha'i principle, not to include women
on
the highest Baha'i legislative body, but their intolerance of any other
opinion. By censoring the research and the views of those who thought
otherwise, those nevertheless accepting that women would serve when the
UHJ
so decided, by oppressing those who dared to speak their opinion, Doug and
Co. exposed the identity of the evil of their actions.
Clinton and the US Congress may hold a vast range of
views and their
is a great scope of legislation based on quite a variety of opinions that
they or others in their positions (or any positions, especially the
positions of administrative religious leadership) may hold, and little or
no harm need occur, unless and until the ability of others to hold and to
express differing opinions is denied. Then legislators, by opposing
freedom
of thought and expression, by being intolerant, have become a cause of
evil.
It is such intolerant tyrants, opposing such essential
Baha'i
principles as the independent investigation of truth and the freedom of
thought and expression who may be considered as "O ye that are lying
as
dead on the couch of heedlessness".
To Tolerance,
Michael
(rlittle95@my-deja.com) writes:
> The Universal House of Justice is not forbidden from interpretation,
as
> you erroneously state. On numerous occasions Shoghi Effendi (and I
> believe 'Abdul-Baha' also) stated clearly that the question put to
him
> (them) would be answered in the future by the House of Justice. That
> body is forbidden from REinterpreting, something that people whose
> faith in their own vision exceeds their faith in Baha'u'llah dislike
as
> a general rule, as it means that body cannot and will not change the
> teachings which those of little or no faith dislike. See Hidden Words
> #20 (O YE THAT ARE LYING AS DEAD ON THE COUCH OF HEEDLESSNESS).
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: Michael McKenny <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: Thoughts (was Re: For Fundamentalists)
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2000 11:42 AM
Greetings, Rick.
Many thanks for your comment.
I look forward to a reduction of the amount of material
quoted by
fundamentalists here with the intent to insist only one view is valid.
I greatly look forward to an increase in the evidence
that you and
other fundamentalists here (as well as Doug, Hooper and others) are
demonstrating in your own lives this humility and detachment from the
insistence on the sole validity of your views. It is not the thinking and
expressing of views which is a problem. It is your insistence that only
your opinions are allowable. May you (and Hooper and Doug, etc.) follow
your
own advice, show us all your humility and detachment from the sole
validity
of your own views and accept that others may legitimately think and speak
within the Baha'i Faith opinions which are not dictated by you.
When you start living the life in such a way, you may
well notice you
have ceased being a fundamentalist. You may hold and utter as traditional
a viewpoint as you like. Only don't arrogantly dictate this opinion as
the
only one Baha'is are allowed to hold.
To your practising what you preach.
To Tolerance,
Department of the Secretariat,
Solar Guard
Religion is in the greatest danger of becoming meaningless when we
spend
more time quoting stuff to each other than we spend reflecting on what
these
various statements mean in our own lives.
Ultimately, religion is about personal transformation--a
transformation that
manifests itself in our behavior. Thus, Rabbi Heschel manages to
talk of
only half the equation. The other half is our response, as
individuals, to
the exercise of authority and the compassion _we_ demonstrate in our own
lives. The latter requires a certain degree of humility and
detachment from
the validity of our own views. Alas, this is something we see all to
infrequently in these forums.
Regards,
Rick Schaut
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: Michael McKenny <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: Thoughts (was Re: For Fundamentalists)
Date: Friday, August 11, 2000 8:13 AM
Greetings, Dave.
Many thanks for your comments.
Just in case you didn't notice it, YOU SAID THAT ANYONE
DISAGREEING
WITH YOU WAS IN OPPOSITION TO BAHA'ULLAH AND HIS CAUSE. You are insisting
on your understanding to that extent!!!
Now, actually, I'm saying that when it comes to
assessing the priority
of understandings of the entire ocean of Baha'u'llah's Revelation, to say
nothing of the totality of Revelation and of human awareness of spirit,
then there are essential principles that are taken into consideration.
One of these essential principles, enunciated by
Baha'u'llah, is the
independent investigation of truth. Another is the freedom of thought
and expression. Thus, one may have whatever understanding one pleases
about any specific passages, on the condition that this understanding
does not interfere with the ability of others to investigate freely,
within Baha'i, and to express the results of this investigation. When
you insist your opinion must be accepted or else one expressing another
thought is in opposition to Baha'u'llah and his cause, you are violating
Baha'i principle and defeating the purpose of the Baha'i cause.
Another of these essential principles is the harmony of
faith and
of reason. Thus, one may offer whatever opinion one has, and if one is
imposing an opinion that is contrary to reason, not only is one imposing
such an opinion, but what one is imposing is superstition, condemned by
Baha'u'llah.
So, if one insists on an interpretation that the UHJ
must be obeyed,
even when the dictates of the Universal House of Justice are contrary to
the essential principles of Baha'u'llah and contrary to reason, then one
is insisting on what is unreasonable and condemned by Baha'u'llah.
The essential thing for you (and for Doug, Hooper,
etc.) to realize
is that it is impossible to have as the primary principle in any society
that leaders must be obeyed unthinkingly, even when what they attempt to
decree is contrary to morality and to reason. There are those whose
reasonable morality will refuse to tolerate the excesses of such heedless
obedience. The only reason for the Baha'i Faith's existence was the
achievement of human harmony. This harmony is unattainable if previous
fundamentalist literalism insists that everyone in the world must accept
the superstitious position that, contrary to all reason and contrary to
all morality, one defines the dictates of despots as morality.
One can seek to insist that humanity accept exclusion
as harmony, the
imposition of a single opinion as tolerance, heedless obedience of tyrants
as mature reason and as the highest morality. One can even, as has been
posted here, argue that there is a distinction of class between the
oppression of individuals within the Baha'i Faith by the so called
universal house of justice and the oppression of people by the Nazi and
the Soviet regimes, on the grounds that interfering in personal beliefs
but not imprisoning nor executing is a different kind of thing, indeed,
it is not really interfering in human beliefs, nor is it oppression. It
is a difference of degree, not kind, and interference in personal belief,
imposition of a single opinion is oppression and contrary to essential
principle. One can utter newspeak, as previous totalitarian regimes have
done, and this will be understood and some, whatever the cost, will arise
to protest the abuse of language and the oppression of the people.
As has been stated here before, even when the baseline
was taken as
unthinking obedience to authority backed by the full might of the modern
state, the identical bases of rule Doug and Co. are trying to dictate
(heedless obedience of whatsoever in the world, including censorship,
discrimination, injustice, oppression is decreed by the authorities) the
laboratory of human experience has provided the results that such bases
cause enormous human suffering and are unsuccessful in achieving human
harmony. Humanity produces the harvest of noble souls who oppose such
evil, despite the personal consequences dished out by the tyranny.
Again, the words and admonitions of Abdu'l Baha may be
understood in
a vast spectrum of ways, and the problem arises when you (or Doug and Co.)
demand everyone in the world must understand them in the same way and try
to prohibit anyone from thinking and expressing another of the various
perceptions of what any specific passage signifies within the context of
vast totality of Abdu'l Baha's writings, the full range of the example of
his life, the wholeness of the life and revealed utterance of his father,
the entirety of prophetic revelation and the complete experience of human
spirituality.
Such an insistence on one literal perception violates
essential
principle and has been shown to lead to religious persecution and
conflict,
which are contrary to the purpose of the Baha'i Faith.
Yes, there are lines that may not be crossed. Thou
shalt not impose
your understanding on others. Thou shalt not interfere in the freedom of
thought and expression within Baha'i. Thou shalt not impose superstition
on others. Thou shalt not view others as enemies. Thou shalt not divide
humanity into a sect that holds your opinion and the rest. Thou shalt not
demand a mature humanity speak newspeak, censor truth and on the couch of
heedlessness obey oppressive despotism. Thou shalt not discriminate
against
other groups of humans, including those of a different gender. The lines
that may not be crossed are clear. May you and Doug and Co. be assisted
to get back on track and cease bothering others who naturally think
differently than you do.
The principles that one heedlessly accept tyrannical
oppression and
that everyone had to think in a uniform way, according to a particular
literal interpretation of text or else be excluded as an enemy have been
among the greatest ills in human history. The principles of the freedom
of thought and expression, the harmony of reason and faith, the equality
of women and men, etc. are the remedy to the ills of the age. Thou shalt
not demand everyone toss away the remedy of Baha'u'llah and swallow the
poison of past ills instead.
I trust the above is clear. Read what you please, think
what you like,
say what you think, and refrain from imposing your opinion on others,
heedless that such imposition is contrary to Baha'i principle (and human
spirituality in general) and do not insist that anyone else heedlessly
violate reason and Baha'i principle and superstitiously obey injustice
and oppression.
To a Decent Future,
Michael
Okay, but what about the essential principle expressed in the first
paragraph of the Kitab-i-Aqdas? And what about the essential
principle
of obedience to the Universal House of Justice, or the essential
priciple of adherence to the words and admonitions of Abdul-Baha?
Do you see what I mean? How we select some of Baha'u'llah's
words and
not others?
And what do we do when Baha'u'llah tells us that the order of the
world
is maintained through reward and punishment? What do we do when He
says that men are like a flock of sheep in need of strong guidence?
And finally what do we do when He gives us a clear mechanic for dealing
with people whose opinions stand in oposition to Him and His Cause?
Whether we like it or not there are lines that Baha'u'llah Himself
said
can not be crossed. He told us that the UHJ would be the supreme
body
in the Baha'i Faith and He was the primary author of the rules they
follow.
You are agruing that we distill Baha'u'llah's words down to a few
essentials and discard the rest. How does that make sense in light
of
Baha'u'llah's characterization of His Revelation as the perfect
perscription for the ills of the world?
Cheers,
Dave
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: << bahai >> newcomer
Date: Saturday, October 07, 2000 12:10 AM
Greetings, Rick.
Many thanks for your comments.
This may have worked better in Russian during the
Soviet era. Uhm, are
you saying that there wasn't posted to several lists and reposted to this
newsgroup (where it should be in the archives) and probably to several web
pages some extensive material by the UHJ, Michael McKenny, Catherine
Woodgold, Juan R. Cole, etc. concerning the intolerant removal of Michael
McKenny's name from the membership roles?
I guess I'll have to get my own web page to make sure
such amnesia by
Baha'i officials is addressed.
Of course, the whole point about Soviet style (as well
as the style
favoured by Goebbels, by the way) was using words in ways contrary to the
dictionary definitions. So, you say that Doug and Co. are not intolerant
and indeed intolerance is being shown towards them because they're not
allowed to boot people out of the Faith for writing book reviews, then
you say that not all the facts are known about the booting out of people.
Well, if that includes me, check the archives and my new web page when I
get around to that obviously essential task. If you mean Alyson Marshall,
well, shall we have her non-Baha'i spouse write a letter denouncing the
injustice of something daring to call itself the Universal House of
Justice,
so Doug and Co. can provide another sample of intolerant prose for minds
to read clearly?
The whole reason you can speak about speculation
instead of fact in
this issue of intolerance is that Doug and Co. prefer not to have an open
system of justice. They go Soviet justice one better by not even bothering
to hold a kangaroo court, just quietly conveying the news to
individuals
that they'd been found not to meet membership requirements and their names
had been removed from the rolls. In the case of FG they've
even trumped that, it appears, and not even bothered to have him notified
they were booting him out.
The reason that Gorbachev brought in Glasnost is
that it became
apparent to this leader that having the authorities seeking a more open
communication was better than what had been previous procedure. I believe
that this is very much true within the Baha'i Faith as well. So, don't sit
there bragging that the UHJ, without warning, without due process, without
providing the facts, excludes individuals in good standing from
membership,
so that no one can say anything about it, as there is only speculation for
them to speak about, albeit it was a traditional Baha'i (Pat Kohl, if
memory serves me right) who posted here that Alyson was booted out for
posting to USENET a book review and that Michael McKenny was expelled for
comparing the actions of the UHJ to those of Goebbels.
As I've said before, the actions of the UHJ can
be compared to anything
by anyone and this is significant only when any unbiased observer can see
for oneself that yes, indeed, these actions are indeed comparable to
those
mentioned.
Michael McKenny has posted repeatedly that his
views are among a vast
spectrum of valid views. This is so even within the Baha'i Faith. That is,
although I personally deny I am still a Baha'i, many of my opinions are
shared by some who still consider themselves Baha'is. These opinions are
among a great number of valid ones within Baha'i. This validity includes
any
opinion, within reason, that Doug Martin may hold.
What is invalid is the intolerance of Doug and
Co. That is, it is a
flaw in logic to assert that freedom of thought and expression allows
Doug Martin or anyone else to insist Doug Martin's opinion or any other
opinion permits the suppression of all other opinions. The UHJ may not
interpret; it may not demand that any one understanding must be the only
allowable understanding. With that exception, let Doug and his friends
say whatever they like. I strongly favour Doug Martin writing any book
review he pleases, as long as his book review is not imposed as canonical
doctrine and as long as other people may also review the same book,
without being declared non-Baha'is, unless they agree with
him.
I trust this is clear, albeit clarity has
not seemed a very high
priority on the part of fundamentalists holding positions of
responsibility within the largest sect of Baha'is.
To a Better Future,
Michael
"Rick Schaut" (RSSchaut@email.msn.NOSPAMcom) writes:
> Michael McKenny <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:8mp01h$otn$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>> As I have already answered, your own
posts and more significantly
>> the words and deeds of the "infallible" Doug and Co.
demonstrate your
>> unwillingness to tolerate diversity of views within the Baha'i
Faith.
>
> Yet again, the above constitutes an interpretation of the facts and
not the
> facts themselves. The following remarks have similar
difficulties:
>
>> If Doug and Co. did not pen attacks about
>> history books and remove from membership Baha'is in good standing
on the
>> grounds of writing book reviews, if you did not present your
views as the
>> only views Baha'is could hold, then anyone could write whatever
they
>> wished without any connection to your evil and Doug and Co's
evil. This
>> evil is demonstrated through your actual intolerance.
>
> 1) The letter that's been attributed to Mr. Martin merely states a
number of
> facts about a particular book and the premises upon which some of
it's
> conclusions are based. It's difficult to see how this would
constitute an
> "attack". It appears as though the Universal House of
Justice is not
> entitled to have their own opinion or are not entitled to voice that
opinion
> in any way that certain individuals have demanded their own rights to
voice
> an opinion.
>
> 2) We simply don't know the facts regarding some individual's
expulsion from
> membership in the Baha'i Faith. I haven't seen any such facts
posted here,
> and, frankly, I'd expect them to be posted often given the political
mileage
> some individuals are trying to make from said expulsion. Thus,
Mr.
> McKenny's statement is pure speculation, and does not constitute
fact.
>
> 3) Mr. McKenny has a habit of expressing his own views as being the
only
> views that Baha'is should hold, even to the point of questioning the
honesty
> and integrity of those who disagree with him. If this is
"tolerance", then
> someone is abusing the English language.
>
>
> Regards,
> Rick Schaut
>
>
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: authorship - the person matters
Date: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 7:30 AM
Greetings, Dave.
Motive is irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether I
advocate
open-mindedness, tolerance, equality of women and men, independent
investigation of truth, harmony of reason and faith, freedom of thought
and expression, the non-existence of enemies within Baha'i because I'm
striving to advance the Cause of Baha'u''lah, because I'm trying to nip in
the bud the reappearance of a new Dark Ages, because I'm seeking to
provide
for a decent first contact between Civilization in the wider Galaxy and
Terra, fully conscious that religious fanatics who discriminate against
women, oppose freedom of thought and expression, insist on literal text
over reason, conceptualize others as enemies and are trained to believe
they are mature sophonts, all the time having to goose step in tune to
whatever irrational utterance emerges from the Patriarchy would not be the
most understanding people to contact Civilization, or whatever other
reason, motive or purpose I may have.
These issues may be assessed on their own, and
the validity and
invalidity of the cult being established by the current administration
and the World religion they are seeking to ditch may be considered per se
and apart from the motives of those who prefer to lord it over a cult
rather than to guide a world religion or those who prefer the world
religion advocated by Baha'u'llah to the cult which is being passed off
under his name. Assess the issues on their own without any reference to
personalities and let's see what is more valid, this narrow-minded cult
or this all-embracing world religion.
To the Future,
Michael
(dfiorito@my-deja.com) writes:
> I hear ya Pat. I guess what I am getting at specifically is not
> character but motive.
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: Doug Martin's attack on Modernity and the Millennium
Date: Sunday, July 02, 2000 1:58 PM
Greetings, Dfiorito.
Could you kindly post a copy of Martin's attack on
Juan's book. I thought
that's what this thread was all about.
As to your words about humbly consulting with the UHJ,
Susie Tamas said
to me when I was still a Baha'i that I should write to the UHJ if I had
any
problems. I did and the rest is history, as they say. The idea that one
guy
or one politburo has absolute right to do whatever they like and everyone
else has to grin and bear it in silence is a characteristic of the cult
minded. Sometimes such demagogues have the might to enforce the people to
lump such but this is not acceptable behaviour on the part of any ruler or
government. By rejecting Baha'i principles and seeking to divide Baha'is,
rather than to promote the real harmony in diversity of the human species,
Martin and his buddies have demonstrated to any uncultish scrutiny that he
and they have lost the Mandate of Heaven. Reciting the literal text of
Marx, Engels, Lenin or Baha'u'llah as justification for unprincipled
behaviour can only cut it with of one (fundamentalist) way of viewing
reality.
Such totalitarianism could not be imposed by the full
might of the
modern state apparatus. It breeds heroic dissidents who sacrifice their
lives to demonstrate that humanity (to say nothing of the divine) is made
of loftier stuff than this most great oppression.
Martin and his buddies have taken a great crack at
erecting a cult in
place of a global spiritual movement.
I stress the distinction between having a high regard
for the office
of emperor, for the institution of the UHJ, and being very conscious of
the failings of the individuals who make a mess of things because they
happen to occupy such an office. I very much admire Baha'u'llah's idea
of a democratically elected world spiritual assembly, and I recognize,
firstly that as all institutions staffed by humans it is imperfect and
secondly that the office is a thing apart from the people who enter into
office.
The ones in need of humility are they who've turned the
vision of
human harmony Baha'u'llah provided into an exclusivist cult, replete
with censorship, anti-democratic tirades and attacks on intellectuals.
The Baha'i principle is that reason and faith go hand in hand, also that
freedom of thought and expression is essential, etc. By trashing these
principles designed to achieve world harmony, by prefering to rule a
cult instead of provide an example of a mature human culture, Martin and
his buddies have behaved in a manner that lost the Mandate of
Heaven.
As a student of history, the most amazing thing I see
in this whole
story is even today the real Baha'is forced or booted out of the cult
have refused to establish an alternative organization to the one that
was transformed by Martic and Company. Unlike previous times there still
has not emerged a new sect of Baha'is as a response to this cultification.
Were such to emerge, the legitimacy of such an organization would be
valid,
according to the principle of the Mandate of Heaven, whatever cultists
opine about the precise writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin or Baha'u'llah.
It will be fascinating to see how the future unfolds.
In my opinion,
the traditional views of our ancestors are, within moderation, validated
by the failings of Martin et al.
To the Future,
Michael
(dfiorito@my-deja.com) writes:
> Juan,
>
> Everytime you post something like this you just deepen the perception
> that you are an enemy of the Faith of Baha'u'llah. You try to
split
> hairs and say that an "critique" is not an
"attack" but your words
> betray read like an attack.
>
> You try to single out one particular member of the Universal House of
> Justice and then you say you are not assaulting the
institutions. That
> may work for you as some kind of self-justification, but when it
comes
> out it reads like an attack on the institution.
>
> Every post like this just digs the hole deeper. Why not take
the high
> ground and consult with the Universal House of Justice with humility
> and forgiveness? Why squable with them in public? You
know that it is
> percieved as a move for authority on your part and just reinfoces
their
> characterization of you and your motives.
>
> Your critiques come off as a play for superiority and as a call for
> revolution. That is the main problem. Why not call a
truce in the war
> of words and talk to the Universal House of Justice?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com https://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: Old Friends
Date: Saturday, July 01, 2000 7:56 PM
Greetings, Juan.
Many thanks for your comments.
I'm sorry I'm so busy these days that I only get to
glance here once in
a while.
I'm glad the Internet allowed me to meet you and others
whom otherwise
I'd never have heard of, unless BAHA'I CANADA or the rumour mill reported
on
some bad guys. May all the gods and holy ones, Baha'u'llah included :) ,
be
praised that I was spared that, and saw with my own eyes. I am enormously
grateful that before I died I learned the consequences of the theoretical
mandate of infallibility. I'm delighted that I ceased to contribute to
this
very harmful situation.
I don't doubt that the vision of Baha'u'llah was bright
and beneficial.
I also have no doubt that any work of yours on this topic is a magnificent
and moderate portrayal of the moderate individual who inspired such a
wonderful spiritual movement. That after he lived others tarnished
his legacy and were caught in the sticky webs of narrow minded
fundamentalism, the bane of religions of the book, in no way diminishes
the luminous nature and the bright hopes of the great soul who founded
the religion. That you have written a book honouring this noble being and
presenting the circumstances of his life and works in a moderate context
is
a true accomplishment that no one can remove. Any fundamentalist
opposition
to the work exposes both the unpalatable nature of fundamentalism and the
value of moderation.
I look forward someday to reading your book.
Right now I'm breathing
the fragrances of Chinese paganism and pondering the similarities it bears
to the ancestral ways of my early Celtic ancestors. The time will come
when
I will turn to look at and inhale the rose you have grown in the garden of
Baha. I look forward to that. If, personally, I've come to some opinions
about the validity of the ancestral view of the Celtic people concerning
the too sacred nature of spirituality for mere mortal words to enclose it
(a denial therefore of the very concept of the Prophet and the Book)
and
the recognition that spirit, deity is all about us, instead of outside
creation providing infallible mandates to Prophets and their successors,
this in no way is intended to invalidate the enormous benefit obviously
possible from the influence of the life and words of any spiritual being,
including the glory of god. Honour to you who honour Baha'u'llah and
honour
to him whom you honour.
A great value of the ancestral ways is the
acceptance that each one
of us, each people, may interact with the spiritual realm in individually,
in culturally valid ways, harmony in diversity, as Baha'u'llah would say.
It is the temptation of the literal minded and the fundamentalist to say
only one view is valid which I oppose. Those who look at a book or a holy
one and use this as justification to exclude all else are the reason the
paradigm of Prophet and Book has had the opposite result for humanity than
the life-giving intent of such spiritual beings.
In general, in my opinion, our pagan ancestors
were more accepting of
the diversity of opinions and spiritual customs of the various peoples.
There are exceptions such as Roman opposition to the druids (in my
opinion,
due to the powerful political influence of this trans-tribal body so
strongly resisting Roman expansion). However, in my opinion, these were
relatively very rare. My great hope for the future is that humanity, all
humans, increasingly accept peacefully the very valid diversity of the
species.
Again, deepest thanks for your great contribution. May
the influence
of Baha'u'llah melt the ice of the fundamentalism that froze his hopes.
May his lofty aims overcome the failings of those responsible for the
administration of his spiritual movement.
Thrice Three Blessings,
Michael
Juan Cole (jricole@my-deja.com) writes:
> Dear Michael:
>
> It was so good to see your name, and thanks for continuing to post at
> Baha'i venues. It is so important to demonstrate that people
cannot be
> made simply to vanish by heavies like Doug Martin just by the
expedient
> of removing them from membership rolls.
>
> I still think it is funny in a darkly tragicomic way that they chose
> *you* to come after. I can't think of anyone more gentlemanly
and
> courteous, more wedded to the key Baha'i principles of tolerance and
> love of humankind.
>
> As to your reference to my continued faith in Baha'u'llah, I hope you
> will read my book *Modernity and the Millennium*. I think he
stood for
> democracy and the separation of religion and state, and for freedom
of
> expression. I also think his teachings about the divine
transcend mere
> monotheism. That his followers have misunderstood him and
sought to
> create social structures more reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition
> than of Baha'u'llah's gentle and all-embracing faith is not his
fault.
> Human beings are human beings. There have been intolerant
polytheists,
> too, you know. The RSS in India are polytheist fascists of the
first
> water. There is no 'framework' that can escape the human
tendency to
> seek inordinate social control. All we can do, in our various
> traditions, is stand up for human rights and speak out when we see
> things veering in the wrong direction.
>
> I cannot say how much I admire you for having done so.
>
> cheers Juan
>
>>
>
> --
> Juan Cole, https://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai.htm
> Buy *Modernity & Millennium: Genesis of Baha'i*
>
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0231110812/qid=933798168/sr=1-1/0
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com https://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: Prof. Cole's book and further thoughts
Date: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 6:35 AM
Greetings, RLittle.
No, what has fallen beyond the Pale is your intolerance
of any view
other than your own. If that's my misapprehension of your words and really
you are tolerant, I'm delighted to apologize.
In my view there are a vast number of valid subjective
opinions,
understandings, perceptions. If you wish to believe that Creation occurred
over six 24 hour periods in the year 4,004 BCE, that is fine by me and I
defend your right to express this opinion. What I vehemently oppose as
invalid and not of Baha'u'llah is any effort by you to impose such a
view
as the only legitimate opinion, denying within Baha'i freedom of
expression
to all other understandings.
It is a valid understanding within Baha'i that
Baha'u'llah was a man
who had a normal exposure to the culture and society within which he grew
up and lived. It is a valid understanding within Baha'i that each verse
he recited has a great number of possible understandings, not merely the
dictionary definition of the words. It is a valid understanding within
Baha'i that these verses be perceived in a rainbow of metaphorical
meanings. It is a valid understanding within Baha'i that the spirit of
the law, the essential spiritual principles of the Revelation require
spirituality, rather than the materialistic reading of dictionaries that
oppose spirituality. All of these views, including the literalist one, are
valid.
Where I oppose you and others holding literalist
opinions is not on
your literalism, but on your perceived intolerance to any other opinion
within Baha'i. Put forth, post clearly and articulately, express with
full freedom your literalist understanding. But do not demand that others
must accept such a materialistic opinion.
So, I reiterate, what is not included in the rainbow of
valid views
is an insistence that only one frequency of thought may be expressed
within Baha'i. So, go ahead, clearly state that you accept within Baha'i
not just your single understanding, but also the whole range of possible
perceptions. And, I delightedly apologize for having misunderstood you and
erroneously perceived you to be considering your one viewpoint the only
one allowable within Baha'i.
To Tolerance Within Baha'i,
Michael
(rlittle95@my-deja.com) writes:
> Well, Michael, I'm open to hearing an alternate understanding of the
> statement where Baha'u'llah says that His Revelation is from God, and
> not from Him. I believe Pat has supplied a quotation (in this thread)
> which you may wish to refer to. My understanding is literal, what is
> yours?
>
> I'd like to mention here that while you say you are open to a rainbow
> of opinions, it has been my experience that my opinions have
> consistently fallen outside the color scheme you accept. One could
> conceivably conclude that in insisting on a rainbow of diverse and
> equally valid opinions, you are rejecting any particular one as being
> _the_ correct one, thereby freeing yourself from any duty to perform.
>
> I assume that there are other possible interpretations, so perhaps
this
> time we can agree.
>
> Robert A. Little
>
> In article <8u9njv$pan$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>,
> bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael McKenny) wrote:
>> Greetings, Rlittle.
>> I'm open-minded and constantly delighted
to be proved wrong when
> it
>> comes to perceptions of narrow mindedness. If you really are open
to
>> accepting a variety of views other than your own, if, indeed,
someone
>> understands Baha'i other than according to literalist rendition
of
> text,
>> and you consider that valid, great. I'm happy to eat my words.
The
> only
>> colour lacking in my rainbow of valid opinions is the bigot's
demand
> that
>> everyone else is wrong, except the literalist perception of
> scripture. I
>> even accept as valid a literalist understanding; where I draw the
> line is
>> where the literalist demands everyone else buy into his
literalism or
> be
>> considered wrong.
>> So, if you post your acceptance to the
validity of a vast variety
> of
>> views, and not just one literalist perception, you have
welcomingly
> from
>> me my sincerest apology for misunderstanding you, and my delight
that
> the
>> darkness on this planet is a shade less severe than I'd,
fortunately,
>> erroneously understood.
>>
To the Future,
>>
Michael
>>
>> (rlittle95@my-deja.com) writes:
>> > This is pretty cute, Michael: you have transformed my
offered
> opinion
>> > into an "insistance", and deemed me not a Baha'i,
all in the spirit
>> > of "a rainbow of valid personal opinions."
>> >
>> > Your rainbow lacks a few colors, Michael.
>> >
>> > Robert
>> >
>> > In article <8u8sst$ghq$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>,
>> > bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael McKenny)
wrote:
>> >> In your opinion. He also said that a rainbow of valid
personal
>> > opinions
>> >> exist, and that would include the one that he was also a
normal
> human
>> > who
>> >> spoke Persian and Arabic, as he learned them from
humans, etc. To
>> > insist
>> >> on your single opinion as the only one permitted is to
demonstrate
> you
>> >> are not of Him.
>> >>
>> >> (rlittle95@my-deja.com) writes:
>> >> > Please provide your source(s) for your contention
that
> Baha'u'llah
>> >> > revealed His writings in accordance with what he
learned from
> men.
>> >> >
>> >> > Did Baha'u'llah have free will, as you do? He says
no. He says
> that
>> > God
>> >> > is the Author, the Source, and He is the Pen,
moving across the
>> > page at
>> >> > God's behest.
>> >> >
>> >> > Is this thread about backbiting, Fred? If so,
perhaps you might
> also
>> >> > offer some textual references as to what
constitutes backbiting.
>> >> >
>> >> > Robert A. Little
>> >> >
>> >> > In article
<5HGN5.83368$hD4.19427592@news1.rdc1.mi.home.com>,
>> >> > "Patrick Henry"
<patrick_Henry@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> >> >> See my comments below:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Chris Manvell"
<chris@breacais.NOdemonUCEPLEASE.co.uk> wrote in
>> >> > message
>> >> >> news:oncQDxAXVZB6EAfE@breacais.demon.co.uk...
>> >> >> > On talk.religion.bahai, Zutetflute428
>> > (mailto:zutetflute428@cs.com)
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> > >>> If Juan has abused the trust
of his readership, then I've
> no
>> >> > doubt
>> >> >> > >>> that this will come out in
academic reviews of his book.
>> >> >> > >>
>> >> >> > >>It was mentioned in one of the
reivews at Amazon.com, but
> that
>> > now
>> >> >> > >>seem
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > >Please! ANYONE can write a
review on Amazon.com, That
> hardly
>> >> > qualifies
>> >> >> it as
>> >> >> > >an academic review, no matter who the
reviewer claims he is.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > If you can get hold of a copy of the
latest Baha'i Studies
>> > Review,
>> >> > you
>> >> >> > will see that Juan's book is the subject
of a Sounding. This
> is
>> > not
>> >> > so
>> >> >> > much an academic review as an invitation
for further comment.
> The
>> >> > author
>> >> >> > is disappointed with the book but does say
that "the positive
>> > public
>> >> >> > impact of [the] book outweighs its
shortcomings." The author
>> >> > continues:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
> Cole, who has
demonstrated in his prolific and often
>> >> > brilliant
>> >> >>
> writings his capacity
for careful and meticulous
>> >> > scholarship, is
>> >> >>
> curiously at his most
tenuous in demonstrating what he
>> >> > promises
>> >> >>
> to do, i.e. in
establishing the connection between the
>> >> > writings
>> >> >>
> of Baha'u'llah and
the presumed sources that
> influenced
>> > him.
>> >> >>
> Virtually all the
presentation of the evidence, such
> as
>> >> > supposed
>> >> >>
> casual conversations
with westernised Ottoman leaders
> and
>> >> >>
> thinkers in the
coffee houses of Baghdad and Edirne,
> is
>> >> > couched
>> >> >>
> in vague and
subjunctive phrasing. Juxtaposition of
>> > European
>> >> >>
> trends of thought on
major components of modernity
> with
>> > the
>> >> >>
> progressively
emerging and ever expanding vision of
>> >> > Baha'u'llah
>> >> >>
> is reminiscent of
exercises in intellectual history
> where
>> >> > ideas
>> >> >>
> are detached from
events and very scant attention is
> paid
>> >> > to the
>> >> >>
> resonance between the
two. [BSR vol. 9, page 159]
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Such opinions are at variance with
Baha'u'llah's often repeated
>> >> > emphasis
>> >> >> that the Manifestation is influenced by the
conditions and
> culture
>> > of
>> >> > his
>> >> >> time and origin. Cole's book, as cultural
history, is highly
>> > accurate
>> >> > and
>> >> >> perceptive of the subtle influence of
middle-eastern reformers.
>> > That
>> >> > the
>> >> >> uhj has ossified into the very reincarnation of
the Son of the
> Wolf
>> >> > does
>> >> >> not excise the Writings of Baha'u'llah nor the
undeniable impact
>> > upon
>> >> >> him of Western liberal political and social
thought.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The opinions and non sequiteurs expressed below
are quite
> typical
>> > of
>> >> >> bahai fundamentalism.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> FG
>> >> >> www.FG.com
>> >> >> The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of
Conscience
>> >> >> https://members.nbci.com/FG/index.htm
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > And, that seems to sum up the author's
view of Cole's book.
> It
>> >> > throws
>> >> >> > into relief the difference between a
review written for Baha'i
>> >> > readers
>> >> >> > and one written for academia in
general. Because the Baha'i
>> > reader
>> >> >> > knows in his or her heart that Baha'u'llah
is the source of
>> > change,
>> >> > it
>> >> >> > does not make sense to speak of Him being
influenced by
> outside
>> >> > sources.
>> >> >> > But for the professional academic to
retain credibility in the
>> >> > world of
>> >> >> > historical research he must put his
beliefs aside and "compare
>> > and
>> >> >> > contrast" the teachings of
Baha'u'llah with the accepted
> mores of
>> >> > the
>> >> >> > days. That some of Baha'u'llah's teachings
were already
> starting
>> > to
>> >> >> > emerge in the West will not surprise a
Baha'i -- he or she
> will
>> > see
>> >> > that
>> >> >> > as being a result of the outpouring of the
Baha'i revelation.
>> > But
>> >> > the
>> >> >> > non-Baha'i historian would be looking for
the flow to be in
> the
>> >> > other
>> >> >> > direction. This appears to be the burden
of Professor Cole's
>> > book.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > This also raises the question of how
fundamentalist (I use the
>> > word
>> >> > in
>> >> >> > the sense of following the fundamental
teaching of the Faith,
> as
>> >> > opposed
>> >> >> > to "fanatical" which is what is
usually meant when we use the
>> > word
>> >> >> > "fundamental") we should
be. Baha'u'llah's teachings are
> mainly
>> >> > well
>> >> >> > defined and, through the writings of
'Abdul-Baha and Shoghi
>> >> > Effendi,
>> >> >> > interpreted. Certain basic
principles are laid down and we
> are
>> >> > enjoined
>> >> >> > to observe them. In many cases,
these fundamental principles
>> > are in
>> >> >> > conflict with generally accepted behaviour
in today's
> society, a
>> >> > good
>> >> >> > example is the laws involving chastity and
marriage.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I believe that one reason the mainstream
churches (in
> contrast to
>> >> > the
>> >> >> > more fundamentalist sects) are waning is
their determination
> to
>> > be
>> >> > found
>> >> >> > to be acceptable to the majority of the
people. (Whether
> some of
>> >> > these
>> >> >> > changes are actually valid, and I believe
that some are, is
> not
>> > the
>> >> >> > point.) Members of the church are
distressed, and rightly so,
>> > when
>> >> > they
>> >> >> > see these efforts at compromise and
outsiders just see the
>> > churches
>> >> > as
>> >> >> > being weak and popularist.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > During my time as a Baha'i I have seen and
heard (and,
>> > occasionally,
>> >> >> > been the source of) many erroneous
statements about the
> Faith's
>> >> > tenets
>> >> >> > and teachings on various subjects.
Yes, I have, as a result,
> had
>> >> >> > problems with institutions set up by my
NSA, but I have also
>> > found
>> >> > that,
>> >> >> > where there has been a problem, taking it
to the right
> authority
>> > has
>> >> >> > usually sorted it out with a minimum of
fuss, whether it be
> the
>> >> >> > institution or me that has been at
fault. That authority is
> the
>> >> > Baha'i
>> >> >> > Administrative Order, not a public
forum. At no time have I
> ever
>> >> > felt
>> >> >> > that I was being a nuisance (apart from
once, when I really
>> > was!),
>> >> > and
>> >> >> > my problem has been addressed and resolved
either by education
>> > (of
>> >> > me)
>> >> >> > or by resolution of the problem itself.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > The Faith cannot bow to changes in
generally accepted social
>> > mores,
>> >> > it
>> >> >> > is the mores that, amongst Baha'is at
least, must conform, in
> the
>> >> > end,
>> >> >> > with the Faith. Our worst enemy is
compromise, followed by a
>> > close
>> >> >> > second; apathy.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > With love you all,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Chris
>> >> >> > --
>> >> >> > Chris Manvell
<https://manvell.org.uk/> email:
>> >> > <chris@manvell.org.uk>
>> >> >> > Breacais Iosal, Isle of Skye,
Scotland.
Fax:0870-
> 056
>> >> > 8081
>> >> >> > Main Web site:
>> >> > <https://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/>
>> >> >> > ABS(ESE): /abs/>, DAYSPRING:
/dayspring/>, UK BAHA'I
>> >> > LINKS: /lynx/>
>> >> >> > ISLANDS OF THE NORTH SEA: /islands/>,
SAPLING
>> >> > PUBLICATIONS: /sapling/>
>> >> >> > SGRIOBTIUREAN CREIDIMH NAM BAHA-I (Scots
and Irish Gaelic with
>> >> > English
>> >> >> > Translations)
>> >> > <https://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/gaelic/>
>> >> >> > Baha'is of Skye and Lochalsh
>> >> > <https://bahai.community.skye.co.uk>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Sent via Deja.com https://www.deja.com/
>> >> > Before you buy.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer,
Solar Guard."
>> >> (Tom Corbett
#1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > Sent via Deja.com https://www.deja.com/
>> > Before you buy.
>>
>> --
>> "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar
Guard."
>> (Tom Corbett #1 STAND
BY FOR MARS p2)
>>
>>
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com https://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: Prof. Cole's book and further thoughts
Date: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 6:50 AM
Greetings, Susan.
What is contrary to the Baha'i Faith, and what Baha'u'llah said he was
quit of is any insistance that only one possible understanding of
scripture is allowable within Baha'i. A literalist, material dictionary
rendition of the ocean of revelation is allowable; what is verboten and
forbidden is the denial of all other viewpoints, perceptions and
understandings except the mundane materialist one wrapped up in words
and letters. Express your literalist perception as articulately, as
clearly, as openly as you please and this is fine, unless you deny all
other views a similar freedom of expression.
To Tolerance Within Baha'i,
Michael
Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes:
>>Such opinions are at variance with Baha'u'llah's often repeated
emphasis
>>that the Manifestation is influenced by the conditions and culture
of his
>>time and origin.
>
> Which passage from Baha'u'llah's writings did you have in mind here?
Was it one
> of these?
>
> "We have not entered any school, nor read any of your
dissertations.
> Incline your ears to the words of this unlettered One, wherewith He
> summoneth you unto God, the Ever-Abiding. Better is this for
you than
> all the treasures of the earth, could ye but comprehend it."
(Baha'u'llah: The
> Kitab-i-Aqdas, Page: 57)
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: Question for all Baha'is
Date: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 2:00 PM
Greetings, Dave.
The problem is that you are not following his
teachings, you are not
living the life. Baha'u'llah taught the independent investigation of
truth, the freedom of thought and expression, the harmony of reason and
faith, the equality of women and men, the non-existence of enemies as the
means to create world peace and advance his Cause. You (the current
administration and those backing them) are squelching independent
investigation of truth, censoring freedom of thought and expression WITHIN
BAHA'I (it is inane to sputter that our liberal-democracies permit people
to speak their mind outside Baha'i), conceptualize others as enemies,
discriminate against women, suppress reason. Is there any wonder that the
cult which has rejected the spiritual principles of Baha'u'llah is being
rejected by humanity more in tune with Baha'u'llah than those calling
themselves Baha'is.
To Tolerance Within Baha'i,
Michael
(dfiorito@my-deja.com) writes:
> Darrick,
>
> You are not telling the Baha'i community something it does not
already
> know. As long as I can remember the focus has been on
Baha'u'llah.
> Both the UHJ and the NSA encouraged us to focus on the station a
claims
> of Baha'u'llah as a part of our teaching efforts. In 1992 we
got that
> great statement on Baha'u'llah from the UHJ. Here in Philly the
> students at U-Penn distributed thousands of copies and held numerous
> firesides based on who Baha'u'llah is. But one cannot separate
> Baha'u'llah from his teachings. The foremost of which is the
unity and
> oneness of mankind. So you see - neither Baha'u'llah nor the
> principles that he taught can be separated.
>
> We have known this for many years Darrick. This is not a
revolutionary
> concept.
>
> Dave
>
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: Question for all Baha'is
Date: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 5:07 PM
Greetings, Dave.
Oooo, now can you see how hard it is for me to perceive your tolerant
inclusion of a valid varity of views. This is pretty hard to read except
as your insistence that only your single literal understanding holds and
all others are wrong. I invite you to clarify this and state that really
you do admit other opinions besides your own are valid.
According to Baha'u'llah a wide range of opinions
is valid and this
includes the one that demanding only the dead bones of letters, words,
syllables and sounds be worshipped is insistence on idolatry. Clothe those
dead bones with the flesh of the spirit and accept the spiritual
principles
of Baha'u'llah, including the freedom of thought and expression of the
totality of the rainbow of human understanding, not merely one literalism.
It is a valid opinion that you see yourself bound
to absolute
obedience. There are many other valid opinions on that point, and if you
demand everyone else adopt your view of absolute obedience you have
crossed the line into what is not of Baha'u'llah. A mature sophant, in my
opinion, and according to reason, cannot render absolute obedience. Those
who render absolute obedience operate gas chambers and gulags. They are
the opposite of mature, decent and spiritual. Those who demand absolute
obedience are exposing their desire to control others and to direct humans
to perform unacceptable, unprincipled, unethical actions.
I will add that one valid viewpoint is that the
obedience to which
the followers of Baha'u'llah are summoned is the living the life of the
spiritual principles of the Baha'i Revelation. By opposing freedom of
thought and expression within Baha'i, by opposing reason, by opposing
the essential spiritual principle of the equality of women and men, by
opposing the peace-creating, peace-maintaining concept of the
non-existence
of enemies the current administration and those backing it have failed in
this duty to obey the Lord of the Age and his fundamental principles for
this age. This view is valid within Baha'i.
The metaphorical, the spiritual, the entire
context of human
spirituality and of the revelation of Baha'u'llah permit a vast range of
perceptions, understandings, comprehensions of passages, the dead bones
of whose isolated letters, words, syllables and sounds can provide the
basis for reprehensible behaviour. Another point is the quote, "By
their
fruits shall ye know them." Honestly now, what has been the fruit of
hankering after those dead bones that fostered discrimination against
women, the conceptualizing of enemies, the opposition to reason, the
opposition to the independent investigation of truth, censorship within
Baha'i? Be honest. Is this fruit worthy, valuable and valid? Does it
taste like what Baha'u'llah said would come from truly obeying him?
Perhaps, obedience really means clothing the dead bones of letters and
literal words with the flesh of his spiritual principles.
To Tolerance Within Baha'i,
Michael
(dfiorito@my-deja.com) writes:
> Michael,
>
> That is your perspective. However the authoritaive texts do not
> support your version of the Truth just as they do not support
> Darrick's. Darrick has taken thing's to literally and you have
ignored
> some key specifics in favor of larger themes. The fact of the
matter
> is that the whole Revelation must be considered to understand just
what
> the Baha'i Faith is.
>
> Baha'u'llah did endorse independent investigation of the truth yet he
> commanded complete obedience to those who recognized Him. He
> definitely endorses the absolute equality of women and men yet He and
> His authorized interpretors have made it clear that women are not to
> serve on the Universal House of Justice. He upholds liberty and
> freedom yet He says that it needs moderation.
>
> What are we to do? We can not ignore any of it. What we
need to do is
> understand how these seeming contradictions actually are part of the
> whole. We need to figure out how the whole thing works and not
get too
> fixated on one particular point-of-view.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com https://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: Question for all Baha'is
Date: Sunday, November 12, 2000 3:12 PM
Greetings, Dave and All.
Addressing the issues:
Primus, it is asserted that the writings of Baha'u'llah
are what
remain of him. Later, the concept of these writings will be more closely
examined. The immediate response is that the influence of such a figure
may be more extensive than only the writings. Someone else, perhaps Dave
himself, can quote from the writings of Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l Baha what
is said on this point of the example of the life of spiritual figures as
an extra-scriptural source for the influence of such figures. The fact is
that the charisma of such people, their elevated interaction with their
fellows, the generally narrow-minded, bigotted and fanatical reaction
they arouse from those whose understanding of spirituality is limited to
a literal interpretation of scripture, those believing their duty is
thoughtless obedience of religious administrators, those understanding
that reality contains evil enemies who do not see things in the same
literal way as certain religious administrators, etc. may be observed in
history.
Among the concepts written down by Baha'u'llah is
that as a pure well
comes a great spiritual figure, but that with the passage of time after
such a soul has ascended, there comes the introduction of human dirt into
this well and it ceases to be what it was. Now, I am fully conscious that
the literal text of Baha'i Scripture includes passages asserting that this
time such muddying of the water of life, such a night following day, will
not take place. On the one hand one may perceive in such a prophetic
utterance an admonition, command and order for those who would follow
Baha'u'llah to obey, that is, "See to it, that this time the normal
human temptation to transmute the water of life into the mud of exclusive
literalism, of anti-rationalism, of thoughtless obedience to religious
administrators, of the preference of the dry bones of the letters of
scriptural passages to the spirit of such passages, etc. is avoided."
On
the other hand, regardless of any literal text, informed reason, the
evidences of our senses, what is actually the situation may be considered.
Thus, one may assess the purity of this water and one may determine the
brightness of this light and one may taste this fruit.
So, the assertion that the water, light and fruit
of Baha'u'llah is
the literal understanding extracted from a specific take on the minority
of
the writings allowed to be translated, so that, despite Baha'u'llah's
principle of the equality of women and men, there is discrimination
against
women, instead of his concept of freedom of thought and expression there
is one literal dogma allowed, other than his command for freedom of
thought
and expression there is censorship, notwithstanding his order that there
be
a balance of reason and faith, there is a rejection of logic, reason and
good sense, displacing his brilliant vision of only light and no positive
evil, nor enemies is the traditional human perception of us the people and
of them evil outsiders, in place of his command to live a life of mature
spirituality there is the insistence on thoughtless obedience of what is
contrary to his definition of spirituality, etc. may be read, seen, felt
and, the quality of such water, light and fruit may be known quite
clearly.
To the extraction of dirt from this polluted
well, to the removal of
the thick clouds obscuring this sun, to the harvesting of what Baha'u'llah
considered the spiritual fruit of his Revelation,
Michael
== BEGIN forwarded message ==
From: dfiorito@my-deja.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.bahai
Subject: Re: Question for all Baha'is
In article <8uegde$576$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>,
bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael McKenny) wrote:
> Greetings, Dave.
> My understanding of this statement, I hope incorrect, is that
> Baha'u'llah is quit of you and you have no connection with Him.
I am
> eager to apologize for my misunderstanding.
There is a definite connection to Baha'u'llah. Though He is no
longer
physically here the Writings of His Revelation are.
> Within Baha'i, according to Baha'u'llah there is a rainbow of
valid
> personal opinion.
Please show me that in His Writings. Then show me where He says
we can
disregard His laws and ordinances.
> Abdu'l Baha even said that here is one interpretation
> of mine (i.e. of Abdu'l Baha's) and there are many others within
these
> words. To insist that your perception, it could be said according to
> the dry bones of letters, words and dictionaries, is the yardstick \
> for all that is valid within Baha'i is to demand the idol-worship of
> your vain imaginings as the totality of the Revelation of
> Baha'u'llah.
The Word of God is none of the things you mentioned. It is the
Living
Waters, the constant Voice of God. Using your logic it should never
be
refered to again. I say that it is the glue that holds the Baha'i
community together. The Word of God is an active force as well as a
guide and a yardstick.
> This fanaticism, bigotry, narrow-mindedness and intolerance is
the
> opposite of the Baha'i Faith.
Was it narrow minded of Baha'u'llah to insist that all of His words be
followed? He makes it very clear that the Word of God is eternal and
to it we must all turn. You are saying that it should be discarded
and
replaced by vague notions and human rational thought. Clearly this
is
not what Baha'u'llah meant in the first paragraph of the Kitab-i-Aqdas.
> It is the source of the persecution of Baha'u'llah and of all
> persecutions by closed-minded, intolerant individuals and
> cultists.
The persecution of Baha'u'llah came at the hands of people who had
turned away from the Word of God or twited its meaning to suit their
own purposes. That is why we must look at it as a whole
system. We
must not disregard those words that challege us. In the Gospel of
Thomas Jesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they
find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed,
they will marvel, and will reign over all."
> I repeat emphatically that I would be only too happy to state
here
> the extent of my failure to understand you and to apologize for this
> failure. All that is required for that is for you to clarify that
> really you did not mean that one single understanding, one literalist
> interpretation is the totality of the broad-minded, inclusive Baha'i
> Faith. This actually ought to be easy, since Baha'u'llah himself
> advocated broad-mindedness,
yet limited liberty
>unfettered search for truth,
yet absolute obedience once a soul has recognized his Lord
> accepting the validity of a variety of understandings.
yet demanded that the Word of God be THE standard for our
understanding
of all things
> Even on the issue of one's understanding of the nature of
> Baha'u'llah, he said that some would perceive him as god,
> some as man, etc. and all are valid. WITHIN BAHA'I.
Yes. Some language in the Baha'i Revelation is mysterious -
allusions
and symbols. But some is clear and evident in its meaning.
Baha'u'llah explained this clearly in the Kitab-i-Iqan.
> If one perceives Baha'u'llah's utterance that he never entered
> schools or studied the learning current amongst men to mean that
> everything he wrote was directly channelled from God, that actually
> he did learn his mother tongue from his mother and others around him,
> that really he was trained in calligraphy, that truly he did hear
> people talking about certain topics and maybe he read the odd book,
> etc. etc., it doesn't matter. If his words are taken as
> literally and exactly true or as metaphorical, symbolic and poetic
> exaggeration, it doesn't matter until there's the demand that one
> viewpoint is the yardstick measuring validity within Baha'i.
But one viewpoint is the yardstick - Baha'u'llah's viewpoint.
> It is not the literalist, fundamentalist opinion per se which
places
> one outside Baha'i; it is the demand that only this is allowed to be
> thought and expressed within Baha'i. Such a demand is incompatible
> with the broad-minded, univeralist movement intended by Baha'u'llah
> to create harmony and peace, not to replicate the spiritual
> arrogance, intolerance, divisiveness and darkness of those who
> persecuted him.
But you still have not told me how you reconcile this broad-mindedness
with the clear call of Baha'u'llah to follow His Word completely. On
antoher news group someone posted the following:
A philosophy of unity permits many mentalities but only one Mind,
innumerable individualized points in the same creative consciousness of
an Absolute which always remains one, undivided and indivisible unity.
I do not have an attribution for it but it does give a good summary of
how unity in diversity really works. The "Mind" and the
"Absolute" in
the Baha'i model is Baha'u'llah - the Word Made Flesh. We can differ
but He is absolute. We can vary but He is of "one
Mind". He makes it
very clear that His Will and His Words override our own. He states
clearly and unequivically that all of His ordinances are to be followed
by those who believe in Him.
You may wish it wer not this way. You can refer to vague notions
and
grand themes, but in the end we still have His Words to adhere to.
And
when those Words clearly contradict your words then His Words prevail.
> So, yet again, state your freedom from the fanatical intolerance
> perceived by me in your post, and I'll be delighted to apologize for
> my poor perception and I'll welcome any contribution you add to the
> valid rainbow of human understanding. What is unacceptable,
> intolerable is exclusivist, closed-minded insistence that only a
> single understanding is allowable within Baha'i. The yardstick is
> your ability to see the whole rainbow as valid, not only the one
> colour that most easily touches your eyes.
Baha'u'llah is the Yardstick. The colors of that rainbow either
fit
His will or they do not. What touches my eyes does not matter.
What
He says does.
Dave
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: "Michael McKenny"
<bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: Tag up? (was: s.c.i.fredglaysher)
Date: Sunday, October 01, 2000 12:55 PM
God and Mary Be With You Cousin,
Sorry that I'm too busy to really enter
into this. However, here
goes. First of all, this uncensored newsgroup is not in the least
redundant.
As I mentioned on news.groups, FreeNet here does not carry the alt one
and,
I hope, you will admit that, pleasing or un as the case may be to Uncle
Doug, this newsgroup does carry a lot of stuff that the censors on SRB
would not pass. Doug may not like it, but, hey, just because Soviet
leaders may not have liked The Voice of America does not mean that medium
had no reason to exist. So, this NG is not redundant.
Secondly, as I've repeatedly said if you
want me to read it, post it
here. This technopeasant is too busy and inept to be counted on to go
elsewhere. That said, I'm not impressed by a position that says the word
paranoia has been used by non-fundamentalists re Fred. Do you mean this
specific word has not been used on Sept 28th by any fundy, never used at
all by any fundy about Fred, or what? I am very open (I was able to accept
purple trees and I can accept similarily that no fundamentalist ever used
any term, i.e. paranoia or any of the host of other words used to cast
doubts on Fred's sanity, but, then, as with the purple trees, I'd just be
admitting I've entered a different Slider's World; where I come from the
fundamentalists, including you, used terms suggesting you considered Fred
not all there).
Thirdly, this whole discussion is an ad hominem, a
thread discussing
discrediting what Fred has to say on the grounds of who he is or is
alleged to be. I have no complaints at all about a collaborative FAQ on
the issues raised by Fred. That is valid. What was gold medal calibre was
the concept of responding to a troll by a committee writing an FAQ. For
seven or more people to tackle the issues is fine, and it confirms the
significance of the issues; this is the opposite of trollbane, but it has
a place here, just don't do the ad hominem thing, for, then your FAQ is
counter-productive to your own position. Gods willing, I'll take time out
from my filled schedule to point it out here.
Fourthly, a fundamentalist, as I've said before,
is one, such as Doug,
who insists on one generally literalist interpretation of Scripture and is
intolerant to the expression of views other than his own. I completely
agree with those, including Michel Boucher, who have said to me that this
word in a different sense, the sense of holding to traditional Baha'i
thought (e.g. tolerance and openness to the expression of a vast variety
of views) actually much more clearly describes the position of those who
think tolerantly, etc. Perhaps, when I've time to mull this over I'll come
up
with something more appropriate, although the problem is that elsewhere
holding to traditional monotheistic systems did not generally include
tolerance and openmindedness, so usually, not just in Baha'i, monotheists
intolerant and closedminded, corresponding to Doug, have been described
as fundamentalist. It may be difficult to use the term within Baha'i in
am opposite, even though technically more precisely accurate, sense.
Sigh. I also ignored all those who responded to
the guy saying that
aliens would intervene in the war in Yugoslavia. I'd have ignored this
thread, too, except it stood out. By Lugh, if you do a gold medal
performance, you just might get me to respond. I do apologize, though,
that
really my schedule is full, so I can't be expected to even see all that's
posted here this month, let alone respond to it.
Fred, that's the main reason I'm not saying more
here about this or
other threads. I'm working, studying hard and doing other time consuming
things. My best wishes remain with you at all times, and I acknowledge
your contribution to piercing through Baha'i censorship. Thrive ever.
Doug's funny. That closed minded, intolerant guy
calls those who
welcome the expression of a vast variety of opinions, those who can talk
in a forum about a rainbow of concepts, closed minded, because they don't
buy Doug's opinion and thus to talk with them is draining (draining of his
intolerance; possibly some will be convinced that Baha'u'llah is correct
and other valid views exist besides Doug's and really one can think other
than as a clone of Doug, one can even poke ridicule at Doug's
intolerance
and closedmindedness without being an enemy of Doug, how much less an
enemy of Baha'u'llah, who were he alive would likely give Doug a much less
polite and humorous treatment than have the likes of Juan Cole and Michael
McKenny.
The whole point is that no one has to read TRB. Doug's
problem isn't
that he's forced to read what's here, but that an uncensored forum where
ideas other than his are expressed isn't to his liking, and since
Baha'u'llah
agreed with some of these transDougian concepts, some Baha'is are liable
to
agree with Baha'u'llah and not be clones of Doug.
Ah, yes, things could be better. Doug could be
tolerant, open-minded,
you know, sort of like, what Baha'u'llah had in mind, and, then it would
be unnecessary to wonder about such terms as Baha'i fundamentalist, the
similarity of Nostalgic Moscow to reality, etc. Yep, things could be
better.
A Toast To That,
M
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
Diai dhuit, cousin,
Okay, call me Pyotr "Puffy" Kooloff.
Quotes normally can be attributed. For example, I can quote you
writing, "There's going to be an FAQ saying there's this guy posting
here with a paranoia that Baha'i fundamentalists are out to get him."
right here in this thread. To find instances of the use of the
word "paranoid", try this link in your browser:
https://www.deja.com/dnquery.xp?
ST=QS&DBS=2&groups=talk.religion.bahai&QRY=paranoid&svcclass=dncurrent
For paranoia, try:
https://www.deja.com/dnquery.xp?
ST=QS&DBS=2&groups=talk.religion.bahai&QRY=paranoia&svcclass=dncurrent
Tell me who is using these terms to describe Fred, other than
Fred? Do
you consider these people fundamentalists, or is expression that Fred
is paranoid the acid test of fundamentalism in your mind?
Or, is this your acid test, those who voted against a redundant
newsgroup are fundies? The existence or non-existence of trb
certainly
did not prevent Fred from speaking. For some time before its
existence, it was a topic on which for he would express himself.
Okay.
Though you or I might ignore trolls, ignoring works best when many can
be pursuaded. The existence of a FAQ might persuade some that an
alternate POV will be expressed w/o them expressing it every time Fred
expresses himself.
How so? This the official line on cyberspace: "Discussion
with those
who sincerely raise problematic issues, whether they be Baha'is or not,
and whether -- if the latter -- they disagree with Baha'i teachings,
can be beneficial and enlightening. However, to continue dialogue with
those who have shown a fixed antagonism to the Faith, and have
demonstrated their imperviousness to any ideas other than their own, is
usually fruitless and, for the Baha'is who take part, can be burdensome
and even spiritually corrosive."
Just between thee and me, things could be better, IMHO.
They still download before I don't see them and they still displace
meaningful messages. That is why there are guidelines against
spamming.
Umm, maybe not. Let me assume I can pass your fundie test for a
minute
or so. I tend to see most of Fred's messages as prima facie nonsense
-
self refuting to use the English. My concern is the inconvenience we
are now causing other NGs in responding to nonsense w/ refutation which
is itself off topic on the other Newsgroups.
Hmmmmm, so you see the AO migrating east of the Oder? I suppose
that
is progress. FWIW, I read Nostalgic Moscow as entertainment.
Health, wealth and/or wisdom,
- Pat
kohli@ameritel.net
Sent via Deja.com https://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: "Michael McKenny"
<bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: Thoughts (was Re: For Fundamentalists)
Date: Friday, August 11, 2000 1:37 PM
Greetings, Rick.
All I have insisted on is that you and Doug and Co. do
not demand
everyone else accept your single opinion as exclusively valid, booting
people out of the club, if they don't agree with you.
I continue to invite everyone to say what they think.
Write any book
reviews you like. That's fine by me. I only insist that you allow everyone
else the freedom to think and to say whatever other thoughts they please.
The archives of this newsgroup contain my quote from
LEST DARKNESS
FALL on this complaint by some fundamentalists that they're being
discriminated against because the government is preventing them from
discriminating against others.
Comrade Shaut, I delight in this my kind of
insistence: Yes, I insist
that all views are allowable, that your views (express them as freely, as
well, as you can) are not the sole ones permitted.
To Tolerance,
Michael
"Rick Schaut" (RSSchaut@email.msn.NOSPAMcom) writes:
>
> Sorry, Mr. McKenny, but no one in this newsgroup, with the possible
> exception of Mr. Glaysher, has been as insistent on the singular
correctness
> of his own views as you have been.
>
>
> Regards,
> Rick Schaut
>
>
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: uhj's backbiting letter about Prof. Juan Cole
Date: Saturday, November 04, 2000 4:06 PM
Greetings, Rick.
The issue is the freedom of thought and expression,
tolerance, peace-
creating advance of civilization, human maturity. When those who are
supposed to be enhancing these beneficial things instead squander their
time composing letters advising people promoting academic works that
there is the matter of heresy, that there are enemies of true thought,
etc., said position is quite open to criticism.
You are completely correct that no ad hominem ought to
be applied to
the UHJ. The equality of women and men, the harmony of faith and reason,
the independent investigation of truth, the freedom of thought and
expression, the absence of the concept of enemies, etc. are valid on
their
own merits and the opinion of any individual or group of individuals does
not validate, nor invalidate them.
It is the current leadership of Baha'i that pretty well
exclusively makes
references to the ad hominem: this Michael McKenny he's not a Baha'i, this
Alyson Marshall ahe's not a Baha'i, this Juan Cole he's writing what we
disagree with, etc. instead of rationally refuting what these people have
said. The flip side of the coin is that the UHJ position strikes me as
being: "Discrimination against women, the visualization of enemies,
the
creation of a dogma of belief and hence the existence of heresy, the
necessity for the suppression of the free expression of human thought --
all of this platform of Ibn Wolf, instead of the basis of Baha'u'llah's
Faith, is valid on the grounds that we so decree." Solely on the
basis
of ad hominem.
Speak to the point, the matter, the
issue without the ad hominem
of who is arguing such a point. Go ahead defend the indefensible per se
and without reference to who says discrimination is valid, who says we
should have a harmonious human civilization by means of conceptualizing
others as enemies, who says that true progress involves the suppression
of freedom of thought and expression, who says that reason ought not to
apply and only blind faith in the above inequities is necessary.
Go ahead. Make your point. I'm waiting.
And, oh yes, darn tootin' right, when some
outfit has power, the
public had better be able to scrutinize that outfit to make sure it don't
trample on human rights and abuse that power.
To the Future,
Michael
"Rick Schaut" (RSSchaut@email.msn.NOSPAMcom) writes:
> "Steve Marshall" <asmarsh@es.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:3a028979.31258996@news.dun.ihug.co.nz...
>> On Thu, 2 Nov 2000 12:25:51 -0800, "John McQueed"
<jmcqueed@qwest.net>
>> wrote:
>> >I don't see anything in this letter that I would consider
"Backbiting".
>
>> Ok then. I'll also avoid backbiting and stick to giving my
opinion of
>> John McQueed:
>
>> No, It still feels like backbiting.
>
> Yes, and while the Universal House of Justice, in a private letter to
an
> individual, pointed out certain facts regarding another individual
that can
> be construed as finding fault with that individual, we, here, are
going to
> publicly find fault with the Universal House of Justice. Can
you think of
> no circumstances when it would be appropriate for an institution to
point
> out the faults of others, particularly when, in the eyes of that
> institution, doing so is necessary for the protection of members of
the
> community? I can think of plenty.
>
> You know, you might discuss whether or not what is said in that
letter is
> true or false. Very few people but Dr. Cole seem to actually go
after the
> substance of that letter, and even he only manages to give it only
glancing
> blows (particularly the part about the existence of authoritative
Baha'i
> texts that contradict his conclusions). You might discuss
whether or not
> the Universal House of Justice's concern for the well-being of the
members
> of the community is justified. Yet, you do neither of these
things. Does
> Mr. McKenny's argument apply to your and his criticisms of the
Universal
> House of Justice?
>
>
> Regards,
> Rick Schaut
>
>
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: uhj's backbiting letter about Prof. Juan Cole
Date: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 3:18 PM
Within Baha'i; it is indeed very much an issue, WITHIN BAHA'I!!!!
To babble that one is free outside Baha'i, due to the, gods be praised,
liberal democracy of our free countries, to publish what one wills is to
admit the nature of the problem WITHIN BAHA'I!!!! The Baha'i Faith, the
liberalizing, peace inducing, maturity raising vision of Baha'u'llah has
a need to elevate itself above the totalitarian, anti human rights
concepts that idiotically provide you with an apparant excuse to say the
essential Baha'i principles may be practised outside Baha'i. The problem
is not with our, may they ever be blessed, liberal democracies; it is
with the current despots oppressing these principles WITHIN BAHA'I !!!!
to Tolerance Within Baha'i,
Michael
"Rick Schaut" (RSSchaut@email.msn.NOSPAMcom) writes:
> "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote
in message
> news:8u1tpb$plt$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>> The issue is the freedom of thought and
expression, tolerance, peace-
>> creating advance of civilization, human maturity.
>
> Since no one has denied that Dr. Cole has a right to publish whatever
he
> wishes to, this is a non-issue.
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Reply to Doug's Review of Juan's Book Concluding Part
Date: Friday, September 22, 2000 8:50 AM
Greetings.
Here is the conclusion of my analysis of Doug's letter.
Doug wrote:
>this opposition has tried by every means possible to undermine the
>broad authority conferred in Baha'u'llah's own words and emphasized in
>the Master's Will and Testament.
I concede, Doug, that the gold medal for undermining
the authority of
the Universal House of Justice has been won by you and your colleagues.
Without your exclusivist fundamentalism, who knows, half the world might
be Baha'i by now.
>(In Dr. Cole's book, this agenda makes its appearance in the
>conclusion: namely, that the Faith founded by Baha'u'llah has failed
in
>its mission because, like "the Khomeinist state in Iran", it
has been
>somehow captured by "fundamentalists", by which term Dr.
Cole has
>repeatedly characterized the members of the Universal House of
>Justice.) . . .
Actually, from an historical point of view, you could
provide a very
valuable primary source for information on this point. Would you consider
sharing with us how precisely it was that you and your colleagues came to
dominate the religion and to try so hard to impose your personal
understanding of Shoghi Effendi's writings as the sole doctrine of the
Baha'i religion? If the mission of Baha'u'llah is understood as the
educating of humanity so it could accept its vast variety, including its
vast variety of thought and belief, within Baha'i, then, indeed, your rise
to power and your insistence on a single allowable doctrine is the failure
of that mission. Of course, at some point the influence of the broad-
minded and tolerant founder of the religion may succeed in overcoming your
temporary defeat of his purpose.
To Tolerance In Baha'i,
Michael
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: Michael McKenny <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: Tests of faith
Date: Thursday, December 30, 1999 3:40 PM
Greetings, Brian.
My holiday is over, so I'll focus for now on a key
issue you raised.
"Dr. Brian F. Walker" (dr.walker@fsandp.com) writes:
> The bottom line for me though, is that I believe the Baha'i Faith to
be
> of God. Therefore,by definition almost, if mistakes have been made,
they
> will be rectified. Unless, of course, mankind is allowed free rein to
> interpret what mankind thinks God really meant. Then we get real
problems.
You have real problems because one fundamentalist human
interpretation
of what God meant has been adopted and is being insisted upon as the only
exclusive permissable understanding, in contradiction to such essential
Baha'i principles as the freedom of thought and expression and the
equality
of women and men.
One of the major concepts proposed is this idea of
doing nothing until
God does something about it, that if there's anything wrong, then, in his
good time and in his way, he'll set things right. And, why when God did
not step in at the time of the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Holocaust,
Stalin's savaging of millions in the Soviet Union, etc. etc. should anyone
await such an intervention in Haifa? One wag has suggested that the ideal
such divine action would be for Hooper and the boys to discover that
they'd
had a miraculous sudden sex change.
As the saying goes, "God helps those who help
themselves." There was
reasoning behind the Communist consideration of religion as, "The
opium of
the masses." Of course, tyrants and oppressors favour a philosophy of
putting off any rectification of wrongs until God decides to do something
about it. This permits the wrongs to continue unabated while the wronged
are
soothed with, as the song goes, "There'll be pie in the sky when we
die."
It is belief in the divine that leads one to insist
that essential
spiritual principles be implemented, even in such medieval enclaves as the
UHJ. To allow despots to dictate as if they had a lifetime (or a thousand
years) to stomp on fundamental Baha'i principles and God given human
rights
does nothing to convince the peoples of the world that you are of God. If
you were of God, you would not rest until God's principles had effected
the transformation of your despotic patriarchy into a real Universal
House
of Justice, radiant in its embodiment of the vitality of the essential
principles for this age.
Peace,
Michael
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Nostalgic Moscow Act One Scene Five
Date: Monday, October 09, 2000 8:40 AM
Nostalgic Moscow
Act One, Scene Five
"Greetings, Comrades. Don't crowd all together.
Line up like normal.
You'll each get your turn to pay."
"But why should we pay for calls we never
made?"
"One at a time."
"But we're together."
"You are all paying the same phone bill? It is not
a regular occurance."
"We're not all paying the same phone bill. We're
none of us paying for
calls we never made."
"I will try again. You are all using the same
telephone?"
"No, though we've had conference calls. You see we
are members of the
Svyerdlovsk Academy for the Investigation of the Philology, Philosophy
and Validity of Bakunin's Writings."
"Ah, yes. I hear the Central Committee plans to
translate more of his
writings within the next three hundred years."
"Actually, three hundred and thirteen. But we're
really here to ask
about our phone bills. Why are they so exhorbitantly high?"
"No doubt the bill is as high as it is, because
you have been talking
on the phone as much as you have to people not living in Svyerdlovsk. This
is a common happening."
"Comrade, my colleagues and I have compared our
phone bills and they
are all wrong."
"Well, rare as it is, it does happen that we make
a mistake. Only the
Central Committee is infallible."
"The Central Committee..."
"Shhh... Not here, Nikolai."
"What was that?"
"Nothing. Look at these bills. There is a common
mistake in all of
them."
"Hmm. I don't see any mistake."
"It's this number here. See that's the phone
number of our member,
Alexis Mestnov. Yet, we are each being charged long distance rates to call
this guy who lives right here in Svyerdlovsk."
"Why do you say he lives in Svyerdlovsk?"
"Well, he said so."
"Hmm. Let me check. Yes, I thought so. That is a
Moscow telephone
number."
"Moscow! But why would he say he was in
Svyerdlovsk, if really he was
in Moscow?"
"And not just any Moscow phone number."
"What do you mean?"
"This guy you were calling was using a telephone
located in the
Kremlin."
"Holy Bakunin! The Kremlin!"
"So, maybe you don't have a problem after
all."
"What do you mean?"
"Well, if you have a member in the Kremlin, maybe
you can get the
Central Committee to cover the costs of your calls there."
"Yes, Nikolai, can you just see it -- the Central
Committee paying for
our phone calls."
"They won't do that any time soon."
"Ah, yes, I forgot. They are busy considering
Professor Kolyev's book.
Sorry, you'll have to pay."
(End Act One, Scene Five)
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: Building Bridges
Date: Monday, July 03, 2000 6:54 AM
Greetings, Karen, Hooper et al.
"Karen St.Rain" (seeker@indiana.edu) writes:
> A higher divorce rate in the Baha'i community doesn't imply
ANYTHING
> about the AO.
The Mandate of Heaven has been withdrawn from the
current members of
the Universal House of Justice because they have behaved in a manner so
as to cause division, conflict and contention among those who stated a
belief in Baha'u'llah. Your reply to Juan is one example of such opposite
to harmonious behaviour. Such a reply originates from the fundamentalist
actions of Martin et al.
In actual fact, the principle of the Mandate of Heaven
holds the
leadership responsible to ensure that all is going well. The leadership is
to be spiritually in tune with the needs of the people and with the higher
spiritual energies required to have things go well. If there is a high
divorce rate (the opposite of the primary Baha'i principle of harmony at
the mose basic level of society) this is an indication that those higher
spiritual energies are not being adequately accessed by the leadership.
In traditional Chinese society, considering the importance of the family,
this alone would suffice to cause the emperor to take extra-ordinary
spiritual actions. It should be noted that an argument (Is it in the
book BAHA'U'LLAH AND THE NEW ERA?) for the validity of the Baha'i Faith
was the strength of Baha'i marriages and the near absence of divorce
among Baha'is. The reversal of this condition, the existence of high
divorce rates among Baha'is could then be stated to prove the invalidity
of the Faith.
In my opinion, high divorce rates are simply another
indication that
the individuals presently in charge of the religion have lost the Mandate
of Heaven. They have done this primarily by using the means of conflict
and contention, visualization of enemies and opposition, suppression of
Baha'u'llah's concept of the freedom of thought and expression within the
movement intended by its founder to encompass the vastness of human
diversity, identification of a supposedly universal movement as a limited
exclusivist entity opposed to those such as Juan whose more open minded
approach to reality is closer to the vision of the founder of the Faith
than the exclusivist expressions and the divisive deeds of those in
positions of responsibility.
I would advise those individuals at the highest levels
of this Faith
to consider and to act so as to access the higher spiritual energies. I
would advise them to consider and to act so as to demonstrate their
acceptance of the primary Baha'i goal of human harmony. This includes the
means by which conflict, contention, opposition and division are overcome,
namely an all-embracing harmonious approach. On the specific issue of a
book about Baha'u'llah this could include a statement that the leaders of
the Baha'i Faith are delighted that yet another item has been included in
Baha'i bibliography and they look forward to the continual growth in the
field of Baha'i literature. Such inclusive rather than exclusive attitudes
and behaviours will be the demonstration that the Mandate of Heaven is
being sought, rather than proofs it has already been lost.
To the Future,
Michael
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: {bahai} Re: New Email List (Zuhur19)
Date: Monday, May 22, 2000 1:17 PM
Greetings, Nima.
My deepest appreciation for you taking the effort you
have been to
express such a reasonable point of view in general on this newsgroup. I'd
like to respond to one point.
You said:
>
I supported his action then, as I do now,
> and in fact I have made it quite clear that if anyone should
subscribe
> to Zuhur19 under false pretenses and procede to forward subscribers'
> posts without their expressed permission to Baha'i authorities, and
were
> the Baha'i authorities to take retaliatory measurers against a
> subscriber, the matter then will be between attorneys for egroups and
> the Baha'i authorities to deal with.
All I have to say is what I have said for years about
cyberspace. In
my opinion, one ought not post to cyberspace anything one would not feel
happy seeing on the front page of the daily paper. In my time on Talisman
I strongly insisted that the Baha'i Faith guaranteed complete freedom of
thought and the full expressions of the entire rainbow of human opinion.
I was quite happy to have my opinions available to be read by anyone who
so wished, including the members of the Universal House of Justice. And,
the reaction they provided was an opportunity for me independently to
assess the literal validity of the claim they are infallible. My path has
moved on to an exploration of the way of my early ancestors, and I'm doing
a lot of reading of Confucian and Taoist stuff these days. Apologies again
for being too preoccupied with other stuff to do more than cast occasional
glances here.
The main point is, however, that if anyone really is
worried about the
absolute secrecy of what they post, perhaps they'd best not post. It is
the
natural thing in cyberspace for unintended exposure of embarassing
material.
And, I would just like to say that one's personal opinion of Baha'i
scripture
or the antics of its administrators could only strike someone as
embarassing
in an organization some significant distance from what was visualized by
the
founder of the religion.
Again, my deepest appreciation for all you are doing
here.
Thrice Three Blessings,
Michael
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: Doug Martin's attack on Modernity and the Millennium
Date: Tuesday, July 04, 2000 7:58 AM
Greetings, Patrick.
In the course of my letter, I said that I had been
advised that it
was not wise to write to the UHJ, that others told me they'd respond
poorly.
I said that their policy of censorship which I urged them to lift, etc was
comparable with the policy of Goebbels, which is true. It can never be the
words of some obscure individual which most demonstrates the validity or
invalidity of such comparisions. It is the behaviour of the UHJ itself
that
best shows it is indeed more in tune with the thinking of Goebbels than of
Baha'u'llah. The institution of a world spiritual Universal House of
Justice is a fine one. The present individuals in office have not measured
up, and, if they reply to words to that effect by attacking individuals,
this all the more demonstrates they are out of touch with the spirit of
the
age, as the Founder of the Faith saw it.
Peace,
Michael
> Your historical allusions compared the Baha'is with the Nazi
Party,
> suggesting that many millions of men might have to be called into war
> to rid the world of their menace, "Very frankly, it is very
difficult
> to see the distinction between such Baha'i practices and those
directed
> by Goebbels which at length required the intervention of my father
and
> many millions like him." Your 'high regard for the
institution of the
> UHJ' might be a bit much to swallow in the same bite w/ 'humbly
> consult. Others may hold different perspectives on your
opinions.
>
> Blessings!
> - Pat
> kohli@ameritel.net
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com https://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: Tag up? (was: s.c.i.fredglaysher)
Date: Friday, September 29, 2000 5:13 PM
Greetings, Pat.
Uhm, no, my intent was to use your post as is,
disguising only the
names. Nostalgic Moscow was an additional idea.
Uhm, no, it was fundamentalists who suggested Fred
mustn't be all
there; I was doing a quote thing. I reckon the vote on news.groups with
hundreds of NOs confirmed Fred's claims that they (fundies) wanted to
prevent him from speaking; having this great collaborative FAQ against
him would only further validate any claims he's made, right?
Uhm, no, my constant recommendation and practise re
trolls is not
to feed them. I saw no need to prepare an FAQ against the guy elsewhere
who had a news release saying aliens were going to interfere in the war
in Yugoslavia. No, your idea is the opposite of my thought on trolls.
Further, and more important official Baha'i response to what's posted to
cyberspace exposes inept leadership. As I've said repeatedly as long as
Clinton et al do not respond to alt.conspiracy all is well.
Uhm, no, the newsgroup is not an elevator; you may even
killfile
whomever you like, or dislike, no need even to glimpse their posts, so
accomodating is technology. The fundy problem is not that they see Fred's
posts or those of others with whom they disagree, but that other people
may
see these posts, hence Fred is correct that they wish to interfere with
his
freedom of speech, hence, despite fundy claims to the contrary, he's as
sane as they come, my position, by the way.
Uhm, no, sadly enough Nostalgic Moscow is not fiction;
it is satire,
and it's satire drawn from reality. Satire was a response to old Soviet
system; it is a traditional Irish response to inept leadership; the UHJ
begs for it, by its perversion of Baha'i into a clone of inept Soviet
system. One exposes how ridiculous such a system is, and then, gods
willing, the very serious consequences of such inept leadership may be
overcome.
To Health and Sanity Within Baha'i,
Michael
(patk9018@my-deja.com) writes:
> Diai dhuit,
>
> Sure, but dress it up well. Instead of me giving Fred some
benefit of
> the doubt regarding his emotional state just edit it so I'm
describing
> him as a definite fruitcake, OK? That is what you've suggested
I've
> done in your remarks below.
>
> There are plenty of contenders. Methinks your wife lives w/
one, a
> modest one who may not be fully aware of his own abilities.
>
> For a bunch of folks to cooperate there often is some 'at odds
> accomodation'. Personally, I'm not convinced that a FAQ is
needed, but
> I think it might assist in coopting all concerned. Though I
alluded to
> fruitcake above, I'd like to point out that you're the one who
> introduced the notion that Fred is bonkers here; of course Fred drags
> the notion out himself just so he can say he's not crazy. But
for your
> piece, put it on me - it's fiction, right?
>
> The fact is we _regularly_ get complaints on the cross posts and when
> folks set out to refute what Fred wrote a certain percentage
> inadvertantly cross post setting off more protests.
>
> Laugh all you want Michael. I'm just trying to figure out a
course of
> action so that reading the NG is not so much of a overcrowded
elevator
> w/ complaints of toes being mashed.
>
> Dress it out smartly for BNW. My guess is that the editors who
amuse
> themselves the most over notions of their preconceptions of double
> standards are the ones who most would most like to see them for folks
> they like. I can't stop Fred and I won't stop you either.
When your
> done, rest assured I'll get over it. Have a good laugh, though,
that
> is the important thing.
>
> Slan,
> - Pat
> kohli@ameritel.net
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: 13 MYTHS ABOUT THE RESULTS OF THE 2000 ELECTION
Date: Thursday, November 16, 2000 7:13 PM
Hi, Dave.
Ad hominems are invalid. It's not an issue of trusting
who said it.
One observes the facts, the point, the issue, the matter not that Popeye
or Baha'u'llah said something, but what was said. Now you vehemently
assert, as do Doug and the boys, that mere liberal-democracy and human
rights have no place in Baha'i, Baha'i is a more elevated system in which
no trials need be held, merely private judgements rendered. Nothing anyone
else says can more seriously impact negatively on the reputation of the
UHJ
than what they say themselves.
Ad hominems are invalid. It is not a question of
trusting this person
who has missed clear statements by Baha'u'llah. If it is proven that
Baha'u'llah really advocated, male supremecy (to be called the equality of
women and men), censorship, the ignorance of reason, the insistence on a
single viewpoint and expulsions for heresy and posting censored book
reviews to the internet, along with an entity designated the universal
house of justice which issues private decrees of guilt without
bothering
with the childish concept of fair, honest and open trials, all this does
is
indicate the kind of unpalatable and unpleasant individual Baha'u'llah
was.
You do not validate indefensible actions by saying they were advocated by
anyone -- even God. Such a God achieves a metamorphosis and acquires
the
attributes of a demon.
Now, go ahead, post your clear quotes which I
missed and try to paint
Baha'u'llah as a mean nasty fellow. Perhaps, Juan, Nima or someone will
take the time to defend this spiritual soul you're so intent on maligning.
Again, what is despicable is despicable and
trying to prove really
that's what Baha'u'llah meant instead of convincing decent people that
what is despicable is really okay and really (nudge, nudge, wink, wink)
women aren't created to rise to the top, you only convince people this
guy Baha'u'llah was a male supremecist whose influence belongs in the
past. Ditto for all the other nasty characteristics. Of course, one can
posit that it's only the fundamentalist interpretation of ten per cent
of the allowed scripture, and a selective reading of that, which is
seeking to tar the stature of this soul. And, golly gee, I guess that's
true. I guess one can look at the totality of the Writings of this soul
and the example of his life, etc and arrive at non-fundy understandings
that don't make him sound so bad. May unbiased observers note this and
not judge only on what you and Doug accuse Baha'u''lah of being.
So, here's to Juan and the rest, who are more
intent on advancing
the reputation of Baha'u'llah, so badmouthed by the fundamentalists.
Michael
(dfiorito@my-deja.com) writes:
> Michael,
>
> Considering that you are passing these judgements by ignoring some
very
> clear statement by Baha'u'llah why should "the unbiased
observer" trust
> you biased and misinformed opinions?
>
>
> Dave
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com https://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: My article on Alison Marshall's expulsion
Date: Saturday, December 02, 2000 5:54 PM
It is a valid human and Baha'i understanding of reality that writings
that in the original do not speak of the inerrancy of the current nine
men composing the entity titled UHJ, nor of the inerrancy of any other
collective, cannot trump the essential spiritual principles of this
Faith or any other religion, to say nothing of spirituality itself. It
is contrary to the example of the Founders of the religion, and of all
other spiritual heroes, to posit the principle of absolute thoughtless
obedience of the orders of any others to spiritual principles.
It is true that, following armed rebellion in
Babi times, though it
is pointed out such conflicts were defensive in nature, Baha'is always
tried to obey legitimate authority, but only within limits. They did not
even agree to join the political party the Shah of Iran set up when no
one else had a problem with this, not in the sense of agreeing
politically,
but in the sense of doing what he ordered.
So, to think or feel values such as freedom of
thought and expression,
equality of women and men, independent investigation of truth, harmony of
reason and faith, etc. trump the opinions, even the orders, of Doug Martin
and his colleagues is a perfectly valid position. The case can be made
that
it would be non-Baha'i to thoughtlessly obey such violations of principle,
regardless of the source of such unprincipled opinions or commands. In my
opinion, it is clearly non-Baha'i to say those holding to principle are
non-Baha'i. The Baha'i way is to demonstrate open-mindedness, tolerance,
acceptance of a variety of valid views. If some claiming to be Baha'is
show closed mindedness, intolerance, unwillingness to listen or even to
permit the expression of opinions varying from their own, these people
are not Baha'is. This has ramifications, inasmuch, as I understand it,
membership on the Universal House of Justice is only open to Baha'is.
To Tolerance Within Baha'i,
Michael
(dfiorito@my-deja.com) writes:
> The questions in the first paragraph indicate that Alison does
not
> understand or fails to recognize the authority invested in the
UHJ. In
> the second paragraph she makes it clear that she feels that she can
> have the authority to question the validity of the UHJ's infallible
> ability to legislate.
>
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: My article on Alison Marshall's expulsion
Date: Saturday, December 02, 2000 6:17 PM
Greetings, Susan.
As was mentioned in the quite considered analysis of
that letter, the
UHJ has no business, no authority and no excuse for getting involved in
matters of personal belief. The Baha'i Faith was designed by its Author
to prevent the long sorry history of human religious leaders
insisting
they could intrude into issues of personal belief. The Baha'i Faith
permits
the free expression of a vast variety of valid views, including the range
of views that hold the guys now wielding power are as flawlessly correct
as
were the aged gentlemen who ruled Soviet Russia in the good old days.
Personally, my understanding was that if the cutting
edge (sic) of
monotheism was not able to do better than incarnate Soviet political
opinions on the foundation of cloned theology from Medieval Christianity
and Islam, then our much pitied pagan ancestors were maybe not so poor of
insight, discernment and spirituality as some hastily infer. But, if Juan,
Alison and others choose to walk a monotheistic, indeed, a Baha'i, path,
three cheers for them. And, it is they, rather than those daring to judge
their theology heretical who match the description of Baha'i, whatever may
be written in the constitution of the USSR, or any such similar document.
To Tolerance Within Baha'i,
Michael
Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes:
> What happened to Alision and Michael was neither. They were
removed
> from the roles because it was determined that their beliefs were not
in keeping
> with the qualifications of Baha'i membership as given by Shoghi
Effendi. This
> is why, for instance in their letter to Michael's wife, they make no
attempt to
> lay out any conditions for his return and instead urge her to help
Michael find
> other avenues for the expression of his humanitarian concerns. The
House
> recognizes that beliefs are not a matter which can be ordered or for
which one
> can expect obedience.
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From: "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: My article on Alison Marshall's expulsion
Date: Monday, December 04, 2000 12:06 PM
Greetings, Susan.
Many thanks for the clear, simplistic quote. It is so
easy and so
comforting to the conscience to be able to find something that lets one
feel one has the right to tell anyone disagreeing with one to shut up or
get out, because otherwise they are insisting on their views and they
will shatter unity.
Any corpus of writings may become an accordion out of
which anything
may be pulled or squeezed. The issue is which particular quotes does one
accentuate and according to which interpretation. Now, there are those
who express the opinion that the clear quotes in the Baha'i Writings in
favour of basic human rights, etc. are the reasonable and the spiritual
way to go. And there are those, in power, operating according to the way
things were done in the Ex-USSR, saying what's needed is silent
acceptance,
if not very vocal support of anything at all decreed from on high. Now
this
latter way is a fine method of controlling people and of imposing one's
opinion. Defining the posting of views to Baha'i e-mail lists, or even
to TRB, as violating the Covenant is quite convenient for those in power
seeking to dominate not by the spiritual conviction of freely expressed
views and the independent investigation of reality, but through the
intimidation of others and the demand that evidence be concealed and
the broad-minded tolerance of Baha'i, which, frankly, is what raises it
above the afflictions of many previous power structures (but not liberal-
democracy, against which fundamentalists have railed) be frozen into its
opposite. If the broad-minded and tolerant movement Baha'u'llah intended
to promote human harmony really is transformed into the sort of inflexible
fundamentalist outfit your post appears to insist on, then, the quotes
also
exist, it were better it did not exist.
In reply to your sig line, each generation tends
to feel this is the
end, that it's too late. Such is myopic thinking, however understandable.
A
vast range of constructive options always exist. The only thing certain
is that the current attempt of individuals exercising power in
Baha'i
(contrary to Shoghi Effendi's recommendations, or would you say his
orders?) to freeze the religion, according to their interpretation, will
fail and change will occur. Change has already happened. In place of the
image of tolerance, open-mindedness, humanity, innovative perception in
constructively harmonizing interpersonal and intergroup relationships,
this insistence on one interpretation has conveyed to increasing numbers
within and without your community that Baha'i authorities are closed-
minded, intolerant, opposed to human rights, clueless in dealing with
diversity of human opinions, except according to anachronistic and
ultimately unsuccessful methods much condemned by decent people, including
the founder of Baha'i.
Many positive, valuable and constructive
options exist. The specific
path taken is less important than the essential principles, that whatever
means are employed, humanity respect the rights of individuals, within all
organizations, certainly within all organizations claiming to be
spiritual,
to freely feel and think and speak what they think and feel.
All those asserting, contrary to the
original text, they have
god-like perfection in decision making accomplish by such a selection and
interpretation of passages which they hope will justify the violation of
essential spiritual principles accomplish is to demonstrate to all
non-cultists the reprehensible nature of their cult. Those such as
Alison Marshall this flawless UHJ judge heretical (heresy being a crime
abolished in Baha'i) are upholding and promoting what gives Baha'i any
worthwhile reason to exist. Do you honestly believe that this poor planet
needs another (so much for innovation) all-male body assessing theological
validity and insisting that whatever the hell it orders must be obeyed?
Argumenta ad homines are invalid, and any
simplistic quotes may be
placed within the wider context of the entire Revelation, the other quotes
upholding the essential nature of freedom of thought and expression, the
quotes requiring the UHJ to legislate and not interfere in human rights
(Did not Baha'u'llah call upon the leaders of the West to promote human
rights; he obviously did not authorize an interpretation of a passage that
was penned almost a century ago and according to specific circumstances of
those days ("The Baha'i leader after me is Shoghi Effendi") to
mean that a
legislative body supposed to be guiding the Baha'i Faith should interfere
now with the very basic human rights of those recognizing Baha'u'llah.
As I said, arguments directed at the person
are invalid. The points
are refuted, not because you said them, but because they cannot stand and
at the same time support something decent. Claiming people can't say they
agree with Baha'u'llah that this is the age of human maturity and human
maturity is demonstrated not by words alone, but by action, by really
proving independent investigation of reality, freedom of thought and of
expression, harmony of reason and of faith, full equality of women and
men,
open-mindedness, tolerance, acceptance of the validity of a variety of
understandings -- claiming Baha'is must avoid such thoughts, or at least
accept censorship and not say such things out loud, if they wish to be
Baha'is is the proof of the indecency of those so claiming.
And, although arguments directed at the person are
invalid and despite
having shown to all non-cultists that it is not the Baha'i vision which is
indecent, but those seeking to impose their fundamentalist (intolerant,
male dominated, anti-rational, unwillingness even to permit the expression
of alternate views, doctrinaire, etc.) dogma as the single interpretation
of the Baha'i Revelation who are opposing what is decent about Baha'i, yet
I am writing to you. And, as you surely are aware, these guys so intent on
clinging to power, on telling others what they are allowed to think and to
say within however small a puddle over which they may exercise their male
dominance, do not believe you actually feel what you are posting here.
You,
yourself are able to refute the fundamentalist baloney that you post. If
you did not live within a non-Baha'i, within a Stalinist environment, you
would freely express what elevates the Baha'i Faith, not what pleases the
despots. They know this and you know they know this. So, I certainly do
not
post anything revealing to you.
This is not an assertion that any two individuals
completely agree, or
that there will not be plenty of opportunity after the liberation of
Baha'i
for the Nimas, Juans, Alisons, Susans, etc. to have thrilling and
fascinating
exchanges of opinion. It is an assertion though that such exchanges of
opinion will uplift, elevate and promote Baha'i -- something that is not
accomplished by posting simplistic quotes, interpreted out of context, to
attack that openess, those principles, that spirituality, those diverse
ideas and Baha'is confirming Baha'u'llah's value today and tomorrow.
To Tolerance Within Baha'i,
Michael
Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes:
>>First of all, what law did Alison ever break? Or Michael
McKenney? I
>>thought that the penalty for breaking Baha'i law was the removal
of
>>voting rights, not expulsion from the community.
>
> Dear Karen,
>
> What was violated was the provisions of the Covenant as stated in the
Will and
> Testament:
>
> "To none is given the right to put forth his own opinion or
express his
> particular conviction. All must seek guidance and turn unto the
Center of the
> Cause and the House of Justice. And he that turneth unto whatsoever
else is
> indeed in grievous error. " W&T p.26. >
>
>
> That's true. And the reason they were not declared Covenant breakers
is that
> the House determined that their opposition was due to their
"misconceptions"
> not a deliberate attempt to violate the Covenant.
>>
>>They knew they couldn't silence Alison. In
>>fact, I think the reason that no one contacted her is that they
knew
>>that any contact would be immediately reported on the
Internet.
>
> I think you are probably write about that. Had the House any reason
to believe
> that Alison would have responded positively to a meeting with a
Counselor they
> would surely have seen to it that happened. .
>
> "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space,
with no time
> left to start again . . "
> Don McLean's American Pie
>
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
|