|
Michael McKenny - Mostly from 2001
From: "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: Heart of the Baha'i Faith Discussion Group Announces
Formation
Date: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 12:12 PM
Greetings, Susan.
Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes:
> But then it has been a long time since ethics has entered into the
way Prof.
> Cole does anything involving Baha'i history.
Hmmm. It seems to me that the concept of ethics suggested here has to
do
with what appeals to the politicos running things these days in Baha'i. I
think the word as normally understood is much closer to Prof. Cole than it
is to the guys whose modus operandi involves exclusivist fundamentalist
opposition to the essential principles of the religion they rule.
To the Essential Baha'i Principles,
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 > - New Mexico LAWSUIT **against** bahai
institutions for FRAUD
Date: Friday, March 30, 2001 2:20 PM
Greetings, Rick.
Sigh. I'm sure you'll be sad to hear I'm too busy to
devote the
attention to this I'd like to.
For the record, as usual there's a lot here about WHO
rather than WHAT.
Everything to do with who is irrelevant ad hominem. Stick to the issues
man.
That's what you're so powerless to do, since your whole position is at
odds
with rational discourse -- you hold that WHO is all that counts. Doug and
his buddies, because of who they are, can define ethics and the good. So,
you carry this over into all discourse, you comment about who, rather
than what.
Formal logic, in complete agreement with the principles
of Baha'i
consultation, holds that who said it is of no consequence; what is said
is the whole point. The issue is what counts.
I look forward to you addressing issues, but I don't
hold my breath.
To the Essential Baha'i
Principles,
Michael
"Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@home.NOSPAMcom) writes:
> "Pat Kohli" <kohliCUT_THE_CAPS@ameritel.net> wrote in
message
> news:3AC40611.995016AD@ameritel.net...
>> Could be a guy from somewhere else who gets thanked for his legal
> expertise in
>> helping put together a book on wildlife laws which is available
at the U
> of New
>> Mexico web site:
>> https://ipl.unm.edu/cwl/fedbook/acknow.html
>
> Not necessarily _legal_ expertise. One "Yorgos D.
Marinakis" is also the
> author of a couple of papers on biochemistry and the environment.
>
>
> 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: < bahai > - New Mexico LAWSUIT **against** bahai
institutions for FRAUD
Date: Saturday, March 31, 2001 1:21 PM
Greetings, Susan, Nima and all.
This is ad hominem.
The point I think being made is that the people running
Baha'i,
including the current lot on the UHJ, are corrupt because this former
leading Canadian NSA member was doing hanky panky and his buddies took
care of him by placing him in a position of trust. Lovers of the ad
hominem leap to defend him and people can debate whether he was really
at fault (they didn't lock him up) or innocent (but, he agreed not to
practise his profession in British Columbia, or is it Canada, or is it
anywhere any more).
To me this is ad hominem and beside the significant
issue.
I've said before that Hooper and his buddies can have
as many
mistresses as they please (though I'd advise them to have consentual sex)
and that doesn't bother me at all. It's a non-issue.
The issue is that the founder of the Baha'i Faith
envisaged an open
minded, universalist movement, administered according to certain essential
principles and the guys running the show have mutilated that vision by
operating according to traditional divisive partisan politics &
religious
fundamentalism (abhorrent to Baha'u'llah) and they expect to be followed
unthinkingly no matter how extensively they mutilate the Baha'i vision.
It is not which individuals are dividing the believers,
declaring
people not to be Baha'is, discriminating against women, opposing the
freedom of thought and expression, etc., etc. It is the platform of
fundamentalism, the abuse of authority to mutilate Baha'u'llah's position
on the freedom of thought and expression and his views on the equality of
women, etc. which is the issue.
The issue is that Baha'i is a universalist movement
that promotes
the diversity of human understandings, that firmly accepts the equality
of sexes, that is inclusive, liberal (in the beneficial meaning of the
word), etc. When the issues are discussed, instead of whether Hossayn
Danesh did or did not grope his female patients, then it becomes a bit
clearer what's involved here. At some point Baha'i authority is going to
return to Baha'u'llah's abhorrence of fundamentalism, partisan politics,
disunity and start living the life he envisaged, guiding according to
his principles, rather that the old hat of outworn dictatorial domination,
imposed dogmas, etc. etc.
Let's realize what the issue really is and not
play the personality
game.
M
Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes:
>>
>>So why would he cut a deal never to practice psychiatry ever
again?
>
> The "deal" had nothing to do with the civil case which was
dismissed with
> extreme prejudice.
> But he gave up his license to practive medicine before this came to
court
> because he had already retired and was on his way to Europe at the
time. He
> thought doing this would quiet things down without bringing any
embarassment
> on the Faith. Obviously he was wrong, and my understanding that
the NSA and
> the House were none too pleased that he handled things as he
did.
>
> "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space,
with no time
> left to start again . . "
> Don McLean's American Pie
> https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
>
--
"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 > - New Mexico LAWSUIT **against** bahai
institutions for FRAUD
Date: Saturday, March 31, 2001 4:29 PM
Greetings, Rick.
Only ad hominems here, except an allegation without
further detail
that the complaint is flawed. How is it flawed.
If you really were concerned with truth and with
issues, you'd admit
women are equal to men, that the Baha'i vision is inclusive, tolerant,
open-minded, universalist, world-embracing, harmonizing. The issues
transcend personalities. Mismanagement has divided the religion. Political
attitudes and fundamentalism have mutilated it from the vision of its
founder. The issue is to live the life: that is, to demonstrate the
essential principles in action.
Show us you can do more than speak about personalities.
Admit here
your belief in what makes Baha'i worthwhile, instead of standing as a
political backer supporting the faction in power and the individuals
heading it. Forget who and say what. The truth is that any true backer
of current leadership would clearly uphold the principles leaders need
to elevate as standards for those guided. Well, your move. Can you speak
any language, but ad hominem?
M
"Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@home.NOSPAMcom) writes:
> "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote
in message
> news:9a54kp$1sr$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>> Again, as expected, you are not dealing
with issues, but irrelevant
>> personalities. Who is logically irrelevant; what is the issue.
>
> Again, as expected, you take me to task for engaging in a discussion
of
> personalities when you're absolutely silent when it comes to Mr.
Hazini's
> attacks on people in this forum. Try using a more even hand
about this.
> And, by the way, I have not argued that the complaint is flawed
because the
> attorney is incompetent. That, of course, would actually be an
ad-hominem
> argument. Rather, I have argued that the attorney appears to be
incompetent
> because the complaint is seriously flawed. So, the only real
question is
> how you've managed to fail to notice that Nima has yet to address the
> _issue_ of the rather obvious flaws in the complaint?
>
>
> 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: < bahai > - New Mexico LAWSUIT **against** bahai
Date: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 7:21 AM
Greetings, Rick.
Uhm, well, what's stopping the Universal House of
Justice from
stepping in and resolving differences here? I suppose considering the
past performance of the guys currently in power when it comes to doing
this, we might be grateful they've not intervened in the case.
However, at some time there could come actions by the
UHJ that are
in accordance with the title and job description, including resolving
differences -- really resolving them that is. This is antipodal from
seeking to impose one authoritarian dogma and declaring the rainbow of
valid personal opinions to be invalid, except for the opinion of the
faction in power, and everyone else to have the freedom to remain silent
or to have their say outside the entity Hooper, Doug and their buddies
control.
So, if there are differences, and, if their job is to
resolve such
differences, what are they waiting for? Do they need an invitation from
the disagreeing parties? Every dawn brings a new day during which those
in charge of Baha'i have another opportunity to be true Baha'i guides
for a species quite some distance from harmony.
Here's to the day the UHJ begins functioning as what it
was meant
to be, and what humanity can benefit from.
M.
"Rick Schaut" (RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom) writes:
>
> If that's the case, then why does the complaint fail to mention any
effort
> to bring these issues to the attention of the Universal House of
Justice?
> Wouldn't it be equally reasonable to suspect that the complaint was
filed in
> a New Mexico court because the plaintiff doesn't recognize the
authority of
> the Universal House of Justice to settle matters which have caused
> differences among the members of the Baha'i 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: Re: < bahai > - New Mexico LAWSUIT **against** bahai
institutions for FRAUD
Date: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 6:19 AM
Hi, Rick.
Then challenge him to a duel if you wish.
My point is that what you say is not validated by who
you are. And,
it is not only my point. It is a principle of formal logic and it is a
principle of Baha'i consultation. Talking about persons, pretty much
all I see from you, is irrelevant to issues.
The main issue is that Baha'i is open-minded, tolerant,
favouring
the independent investigation of truth, the freedom of thought and
expression, the realization that the jewel of spiritual truth is
perceived in a rainbow of varying perceptions, according to the
divinely endowed diversity of humanity, the equality of women and
men, the harmony of faith and reason.
It's a great game to focus discussion on who you are
and your
character, etc., but that is irrelevant to the issue.
Thrive,
M.
"Rick Schaut" (RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom) writes:
> "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote
in message
> news:9aak0a$dk9$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>> What Rick said or what Dermod said is not
validated because of who
>> said it.
>
> Except when Mr. Ryder makes a remark that's intended to disparage my
> character. In which case you reply by saying that this is an
important
> issue. The double standard strikes again.
>
>> It is the principles that
>> are the issue, not which individuals order them to be
disregarded, nor
>> which individuals disregard them.
>
> Then kindly explain why you happen to notice when some individuals
> supposedly disregard those principles and fail to notice when other
> individuals blatantly disregard them.
>
>
> 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: BIGS Bunch
Date: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 6:25 AM
Greetings, Charles.
Actually, since the issue is that Baha'i is freedom of
thought and
expression and the independent investigation of truth, and freedom of
association with people of a variety of valid views, etc. I suggest you
let
the non-Baha'is in all these other NGs receiving Fred's posts handle
any
problem with crossposts to them. Otherwise, it might appear that Baha'is
were deeply concerned with the suppression of thought and expression and
preventing other people from reading Fred's opinions, etc.
Thrive,
M.
Charles (lmno@mindspring.com) writes:
> Thanks for your responses...
> I am a "BIGS" by the narrowest of margins, and in some ways
I can relate clearly
> to the situation of good ol' Fred, but his method of spamming and kil-filing
> irks the snot outta me. Most people see through the
cross-posting, but I still
> think it quite rude to impose these arguments on multiple
newsgroups. Fred has
> been hurt by all this, and is spreading that hurt willy-nilly to a
lot of people
> that do not deserve it or need it.
--
"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 > - New Mexico LAWSUIT **against** bahai
institutions for FRAUD
Date: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 8:08 AM
Hi, Rick.
Why not try the Michael McKenny approach. I delight in
flames and
ad hominems. I respond these indicate that the flamer obviously considers
my position, my thoughts, my points irrefutable. Rick, rather than
thinking, in error, that I've the time to read everything posted here
and
take everyone to task for ad hominems, why not yourself respond to those
maligning your character by saying, well I see my points are irrefutable
as
Nima, etc. you are not addressing these issues I've been making.
Only problem with that seems to be that I'm still able
to ask you
what are your points, other than personalities?
Let's see you demonstrate that Baha'i is independent
investigation
of truth, freedom of thought and expression, harmony of faith and reason,
acceptance of the valid variety of personal opinions, the equality of
women and men, individual responsibility for ethical action, the
abhorrence
of dictatorial, closed-minded, intolerant, exclusivist fundamentalism.
Then,
address every comment about you or other individuals by saying such
remarks
are invalid logically and according to the principles of Baha'i
consultation
and merely demonstrate the irrefutability of these Baha'i principles.
Well, now that you're doing that, I can get back
to my other duties.
I'll check in from time to time to see how you're doing.
Good Luck,
M.
"Rick Schaut" (RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom) writes:
> "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote
in message
> news:9acbk9$5hp$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>> My point is that what you say is not
validated by who you are.
>
> Which still fails to answer the question as to why you notice when
some
> people do this in relatively subtle ways (if at all), but fail to
notice
> when people do it so blatantly as to astound the senses.
>
> You're exhibiting prejuice, Michael. Your efforts to make this
point have
> been carried out in an arbitrary and capricious manner.
>
>
> 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: < bahai > - New Mexico LAWSUIT **against** bahai
institutions for FRAUD
Date: Friday, April 06, 2001 5:55 AM
Greetings, Rick.
Uhm, no, not at all.
The point is that ad hominems are irrelevant. The
absence of relevant
text is what has been indicated, the non-existence of substance.
The issue is that Baha'i is freedom of thought and
expression. The
freedom of thought and expression is antipodal from culpable behaviour
for which individuals may be expelled from Baha'i. Sharing one's views
on issues is not behaviour, although people have been expelled from the
Baha'i Faith because they were posting their opinions, in favour of the
essential Baha'i principles, to e-mail lists. This is a very serious
issue. That issues are avoided and personalities alone addressed is very
noteworthy.
Thank you for providing the opportunity for this
distinction to be
underlined. Again, freedom of thought and expression, the posting of
personal opinions to e-mail lists and to newsgroups is Baha'i; the very
serious issue of using political power to define those posting opinions
one doesn't share as misbehaving so culpably that membership is denied
is non-Baha'i.
To Baha'i,
Michael
"Rick Schaut" (RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom) writes:
> I'm afraid you've failed to notice that this is precisely what I've
been
> doing in my recent responses to your messages. You see, rather
than
> focussing on discussing the issues I've raised, you've focussed on my
> behavior. By your own definition, that's ad-hominem. And,
by your own
> argument, you now understand the implications of your repeated, and
very
> one-sided, attempts at discussing my behavior.
>
> 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: < bahai > - New Mexico LAWSUIT **against** bahai
institutions for FRAUD
Date: Friday, April 06, 2001 1:43 PM
Greetings, Susan.
Baha'i Faith is independent investigation of truth,
freedom of thought
and expression, acceptance of the valid rainbow of personal
understandings,
tolerance, freedom of association with individuals of varying viewpoints,
harmony of reason and of faith, personal responsibility for ethical
action,
equality of women and men, etc.
Just maybe this was a reason for the preference of the
word "Faith" in
the description of this entity. Too many entities referred to by the word
religion had been about interfering in personal beliefs, in the imposition
of a dogmatic structure by authoritarian leadership happy to tell the
childish followers what must be believed. Baha'i Faith is the attaining of
humanity to maturity, the abolition of clergymen telling flocks what to
think. Authorities interfering in the personal opinions of others,
seeking
to prevent independent investigation of truth, to oppose the freedom of
thought and expression, to thwart the harmony of faith and reason, to
refuse the equality of women and men, separating, dividing and
splintering
the fellowship of believers indeed show behaviour, but it is not Baha'i
Faith's behaviour.
To Baha'i,
Michael
Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes:
>>Sharing one's views
>>on issues is not behaviour,
>
> Says who? Religion is all about believes.
--
"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: common ground
Date: Thursday, January 11, 2001 11:40 AM
Greetings, Susan.
This is a fascinating position. You seem to argue that
the UHJ judges
individuals on the basis of the motives of these individuals and that the
individuals themselves do not know what their own motives are.
This justification of inappropriate behaviour by
authority is a Most
Great Unacceptability for any decent society.
And with that this green Druid slips back into the
verdant woods.
To Life,
Michael
Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes:
>
> Yeah, it mostly has to do with motive which is sometimes not all that
easy to
> discern.
>
> Well, since Karin has removed herself from the Baha'i community she
really
> isn't subject to Baha'i standards of conduct anyhow, so I don't know
that it
> much matters. As for Karin's motives, I'm not sure she knows what
they are.
>
> warmest, Susan
>
>
>
> "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space,
with no time
> left to start again . . "
> Don McLean's American Pie
> https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
>
--
"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 > - New Mexico LAWSUIT **against** bahai
institutions for FRAUD
Date: Saturday, April 07, 2001 9:56 AM
Greetings, Rick.
No. I see there's a complete lack of understanding as
to what I've
been communicating. I'm not in the least complaining about the ad hominems
and personalities you've been posting. I said and I meant it that I
delight
in ad hominems. They are indication of absence of substance; they are
testimony of irrefutable nature of points made in favour of Baha'i Faith
as great promoter of worthy principles, including independent
investigation of truth, freedom of thought and expression and harmony of
faith and reason.
What I am doing so delightfully is exposing imperial
nudity of those
who have presented Baha'i as censorship, dictated unreasonable
thought,
male supremecy, etc. Numerous the haystacks piled by such of remarks
about personalities. Emperor's naked body is indicated. Complaint on my
part is non-existent. Mandate of heaven not likely to rest on so
very
unclothed a form.
Further, I don't kill file anyone. I am all in favour
of freedom of
thought and expression. In all the sectors of cyberspace I've ventured I
have travelled without kill file technology. As I said from the beginning
to those on Baha'i lists very concerned to restrict freedom of speech, I
don't have time to read everything I'd like to read, so I certainly am not
forced to read what I don't like. Posts arrive with titles and with the
indication of authorship, so one can select according to interest, known
history of posters and I am aware of the number of minutes available, etc.
Kill filing is not necessary, and since it exists, then interference with
freedom of thought and expression is not required. Those so strenuously
seeking such limitation on Baha'i lists, and going on about it here seem
much more concerned to prevent other people from reading thoughts varying
from one single orthodox dogma, than with their personal relationship to
words so unnecessarily perused.
To Baha'i,
M.
"Rick Schaut" (RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom) writes:
> "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote
in message
> news:9ak7an$act$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>> The point is that ad hominems are
irrelevant. The absence of relevant
>> text is what has been indicated, the non-existence of substance.
>
> Yes. Which is why there is no substance to your repeated, and
extremely
> one-sided (do you have Fred in a kill file?) plaints.
>
>
> 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: < bahai > - New Mexico LAWSUIT **against** bahai
Date: Saturday, April 07, 2001 12:55 PM
Greetings, Rick.
Nope.
An issue is valid or invalid according to the
substantial reasoning.
The shining of the sun at noon is something happening or not, regardless
of any characteristic of humans observing or not said occurrence. The
vast hayfields of comments about individuals: Nima lives in Australia;
Rick lives in America; Well, Nima used to live in America ad nauseum
are beside the point.
The Baha'i Faith is freedom of thought and expression,
harmony of
faith and reason, independent investigation of truth, association of
people with rainbow of various valid views. Attempted justification of
remarks about individual is denied. That Nima claims to have witnessed
a moon orbiting Earth neither proves nor disproves existence of moon.
All comments on Nima's failing or excellent eyesight, his honesty and
his dearth of reliability are unconnected to actual existence of such
a natural satellite.
It is the same for vast majority of issues. Assertions
about the
credentials of Nima or Rick (whether made by you or by anyone else)
are unconnected with the reality of issues. And, I am equal in the
assertion of this basic point of logic and of Baha'i consultation. An
idea is mentioned and is recognized by all, including the one voicing
it, as an entity apart from any individual. All comments about people,
the colour of their eyes, the quantity of books in their basement, the
amount of snow on their back lawn are so much hay, non-metallic in
content, needle free.
Please feel free to point out, with my blessing, any
remarks made
about you by anyone among gardens of posts unread by me as haystacks
devoid of thread bearing potential, able to adorn issues with novel
wardrobe of emperor. And, I will continue delightfully to indicate
nudity of posts by those opposing essential Baha'i principles of the
independent investigation of truth, the freedom of thought and expression,
the harmony of faith and reason, the association of unlikeminded people,
the vaidity of a rainbow of valid personal understandings, the equality
of women and men.
To Baha'i,
M.
"Rick Schaut" (RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom) writes:
> Actually, Michael, where the credibility of the witness is concerned,
> pointing out past instances where the witness' testimony proved to be
> entirely false is about as "competent, relevant and
material" as one can
> get.
>
> Regards,
> Rick Schaut
>
> "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote
in message
> news:9ak7g7$ald$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>> Ad hominem; no substance.
>>
>> Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes:
>> >>
>> >>> You really are selective. Nima has confirmed
the essentials of the
> type
>> >>of
>> >>> behaviour in this particular community
>> >
>> > A great source!
>
>
--
"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 > - New Mexico LAWSUIT **against** bahai
Date: Saturday, April 07, 2001 1:14 PM
Greetings, Susan.
The point where essential logic meets essential Baha'i
consultation
includes everyone. All comments about Susan Maneck are equally unconnected
with issues as are such remarks about anyone. The issue is of interest;
personalities are irrelevant. The issue is valid or invalid; the LSA of
Albuquerque and the USA NSA and the UHJ clearly perform their duties or
fall short of the standard in measureable ways, regardless of anyone so
testifying with or without anyone's expert or inexpert advice. The facts
of the case are independent of successful or unsuccessful legal case or
even of existence or non-existence of any legal case.
The independent investigation of truth, the freedom of
thought and
expression, the harmony of faith and reason, the association of a vast
variety of valid personal opinions, the equality of women and men are
essential aspects of Baha'i. The opposition by any individuals wearing
any titles is irrelevant to that point. The recognition of that point
may assist individuals in positions of Baha'i authority on how to act
and this clear knowledge may assist individuals ordered to obey rules
to discern Baha'i from non-Baha'i commands. Such awareness by everyone
also facilitates more elevated behaviour by those conscious that
dictating compliance with any order soever is hallmark of tyrannical
non-Baha'i regimes. Baha'is have adult personal responsibility for
ethical behaviour.
To Baha'i,
Michael
Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes:
>>Comment
>>about lawyer, whether s/he exists or not, is comment about
personality
>>and not issue.
>
> Dear Michael,
>
> I am *not* making a comment about *any* lawyer. The term
"competent" came from
> Dermod's post not mine. I was simply repeating the phrase. As Rick,
has pointed
> out this is once more a good example of your lack of even-handedness.
I was
> merely pointing out that the person in question had apparently not
consulted
> with *anyone* before making his decision, including a lawyer.
>
> warmest, Susan
>
> "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space,
with no time
> left to start again . . "
> Don McLean's American Pie
> https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
>
--
"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 > - New Mexico LAWSUIT **against** bahai
Date: Sunday, April 08, 2001 11:47 AM
Greetings, Dermod.
Baha'i is freedom of thought and expression. Any
declaration of heresy
is non-Baha'i. Personalities are irrelevant. The identity of the entity
making this declaration does not render non-Baha'i declarations Baha'i.
The identity of individuals and their titles does not fundamentalize and
medievalize the Baha'i Faith. Fundamentalism and medievalism are not
characteristics of Baha'i. Understanding that Baha'i includes variety of
valid opinions and excludes intolerance, authoritarian dictated dogma and
heretical proclamations may assist those calling themselves by Baha'i
titles to pass legislation in accordance with the characteristics of the
Baha'i Faith. It may also assist those claiming to members of the Baha'i
Faith to understand that personal responsibility for ethical behaviour is
Baha'i and thoughtless obedience of dictated non-Baha'i decrees, while
imposed on oppressed masses in despicable systems, is not the action of
mature humans. Human maturity of the body of the believers will assist
those in authority to abstain from absolute abuse of absolute power.
To Baha'i,
Michael
"Dermod Ryder" (grimreaper@freenetname.co.uk) writes:
> Have you any authority for that? In any case is it not the
proper way to
> caution a potential heretic of his/her "misunderstandings"
and endeavour to
> correct them PRIOR to taking any administrative action?
--
"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 > - New Mexico LAWSUIT **against** bahai
Date: Sunday, April 08, 2001 11:32 AM
Greetings, Susan.
The Baha'i Faith is the freedom of thought and
expression. The
declaration by any individual(s) that one is expelled from the Baha'i
Faith because of Internet postings is contrary to Baha'i.
To Baha'i,
Michael
Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes:
> There were no witnesses against Alison. So far as I know actions
taken against
> her were entirely on the basis of her internet postings, all of
which are a
> matter of public record.
--
"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: Validity of membership in the Faith
Date: Monday, April 09, 2001 12:33 PM
Greetings, Roger.
This is irrelevant ad hominem, personalitity stuff
devoid of issue.
Baha'i is independent investigation of truth, freedom
of thought and
expression, association of a rainbow of valid diverse personal opinions,
harmony of faith and reason, abhorrence of dictatorial oppression,
personal
responsibility for ethical action, equality of women and men, etc.
The assertion by anyone, whatever titles may be
associated with that
person's signature, whatever quotations may be appended to this focus on
personality, that someone is not a Baha'i has no connection with the
qualities and attributes of Baha'i membership. The Baha'i Faith is not a
political party, not even the political party in a totalitarian state,
operating according to the whim of individuals and imposed ideologies, by
means of the literal text of constitutions penned by leadership. It is a
moral, ethical and spiritual essence.
It has been stated correctly on this newsgroup that
Abdul-Baha as
well would have had his name removed the rolls, were he alive today and
expressing his point of view. This is a point of personality that may
communicate more to you than the pure spirit of Baha'i consultation and
of formal logic that issues are valid and personalities are not. Why in
the world would anyone take the trouble to bother with whether or not a
poster here has his name registered in Chicago, unless it's an attempt to
assess this individuals posts on his identity, instead of on the value of
the words posted?
Why in the world go to the trouble of removing names
from membership
rolls when people continue, as Baha'is doing what the Perfect Exemplar
did and His Father before Him, to freely express personal opinions,
even
in the context of dictatorial leadership, unless it was misguided effort
to address not the issues, opinions and ideas expressed, but instead the
totally invalid personality of who is expressing such ideas?
Removing the names of those most articulate in
portraying the Baha'i
Faith as independent investigation of truth, freedom of thought and
expression, harmony of faith and reason, amicable association of the
rainbow of valid personal opinions, the equality of women and men,
individual responsibility for ethical action, abhorrence of dictatorial
imposition of orthodox dogma, etc. does not transmute the identity of
the Baha'i Faith, nor the qualities and attributes of those pressured
into resigning or decreed to no longer belong. The identity of Baha'i
Faith and its qualities and attributes are shining testimony very much
unconnected with personalities.
To Baha'i,
Michael
Roger Reini (roger@rreini.com) writes:
> ...
> In the US, Baha'is are issued numbered membership cards when they
> enroll in the Faith. On the back of those cards, there are
these
> ...
> For those who are interested in the mechanics. I made a request
to
> membership services at national. I provided them with [believer
X's]
> name and
> Baha'i ID# (made public by [believer x] on his website). At
first
> they said
> ...
--
"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 > - New Mexico LAWSUIT **against** bahai
Date: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 12:45 PM
Greetings, Rick.
I understand the awesome difficulty it is for those who
are unable
to argue on the issue against freedom of speech, independent investigation
of truth, harmony of faith and reason, association of a valid rainbow of
personal understandings, the equality of women and men to say anything
about
the issues themselves. Nothing at all seems to be available, no words, no
text, no letters, no sentences, paragraphs, arguments, reasoning --
nothing but personality which is irrelevant.
Rick, you seem unable to grasp the point, or powerless
to post any
words even if you do grasp the point, that even had this article
been
about Michael McKenny, even had I been the one who had made some deal
promising not to practise medicine or psychiatry in Canada again, that
fact would be absolutely unconnected with the essential nature of the
Baha'i Faith as something embodying independent investigation of truth,
freedom of thought and expression, harmony of reason and faith,
association of a rainbow of valid personal opinions, equality of women and
men etc.
Powerless to address the issues, the totality of the
utterance of
those supporting the opposite of the essence of Baha'i is ad hominem, is
to attempt (invalidly according to both Baha'i principles and the
principles of formal logic) to speak about the individuals making the
points. It is why you are so sensitive to such articles about the
personality of Hossayn Danesh, because it addresses you at your own
irrelevant level, but the only level to which you attribute any weight.
Why did you not respond when I pointed out your article
had
substantial value? Why not post that and promote a discussion on issues
instead of personalities?
Again, whether I operate brothels, am indeed the agent
of the Oikoumene
on Terra, am a six year old hologram generated by the computers in Haifa
or
anything else having to do with me is irrelevant to the validity of the
issues I address and which remain undiscussed by you, let alone refuted.
To Baha'i,
M.
"Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@home.NOSPAMcom) writes:
> "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote
in message
> news:9attmd$9c7$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>> It's my constant request that anything,
including your paper, that
>> is brought up here with a web address etc
>
> No, Michael, you're not sliding out of this one with that kind of
line.
You
--
"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: Pat Kohli and the invlaid election fo UHJ and a Defense of
the Guardianship
Date: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 1:07 PM
Greetings, Nima.
Many thanks for your comments.
From my perspective, a lot of people on this newsgroup
have the
disadvantage of having been indoctrinated that there are some really evil
people out there (I know one quite valid understanding of Baha'i teaching
is that evil has no existence and there are no evil people, nevertheless
...) who have taken an egotistical and divisive spin on the Will and
Testament.
Shedding such cult think and examining issues with
one's own eyes
and not through the eyes of others, allows the fact to be acknowledged
that the Baha'i Faith is not a solid monolith, despite assertions of
having gone through so many years with its unity maintained. Only cult
think definitions that define anyone who has accepted another Guardian
as non-Baha'i permit this incorrect statement to be passed on in the
indoctrination of new believers.
Moving further, one acknowledges that not only are
there other sects
of Baha'is besides the one acknowledging the power, if not the wisdom, of
the men in Haifa, but these valid associations of believers have grounds
for their existence. I do not find it a very beneficial exercise here or
elsewhere to seek to demonstrate the invalidity of existing groups of
spiritual individuals.
It is valid to present the issue that your opinion is
that a Guardian
must know Arabic and Persian (possibly English as well, if Shoghi
Effendi's
writings must also be considered by his successors), but that is one view;
other quite valid viewpoints exist, including the one that interpretation
as expected of the Guardian is not a literalist duty, which may be given
to any translator, but a spiritual responsibility, to guide the body of
the
believers according to the spirit of the revelation and the needs of the
present time.
My point is not to assert a single authoritative
understanding, but
rather to say that all who have been influenced by the revelation of
Baha'u'llah are worthy of respect and the recognition that they have
valid views. Associations of believers are valid and to be encouraged
both to live the life, according to their understandings, and to see in
others with differing opinions fellow humans, even fellow believers.
Actually, as I've said before here, one quite
energizing potential
of the existence of such a forum as this is that it permits those of
all persuasions and opinions to associate and even to explore modalities
for harmonious organizational agreement. I am fully aware that the men
in Haifa are so fundamentalist they are expelling people from their own
organization. This does not mean that the possibilities of the Internet
do not exist, only that the opportunities have not yet been utilized by
those who could demonstrate their ability to unite themselves as an
example to the greater world.
Thanks again for your comment. Your point is valid, as
is the view
that one need not know certain languages to be a Baha'i spiritual leader.
To All Baha'is and Others,
M
"Nima Hazini" (lotusapt@wxc.com.au) writes:
> Boy, this issue keeps coming up with Remeyites year after year, and
they
> still come back with the same weak retorts.
>
> Answer this, then. An authoritative interpretor (mubayin) such as a
Guardian
> must elucidate (tabyin) upon texts. This is what the primary function
of the
> Guardian is. If you knew Persian and Arabic and could read the
W&T in the
> original languages this truism would be self-evident to you without
> demonstration. A Guardain who does not know Persian and Arabic cannot
> authoritatively elucidate upon texts he has no access to whatsoever,
so
> therefore the chief primary function of that Guardian as mubayin is
> inoperative throughout his/her ministry, making the very existence of
that
> office superfluous and totally unnecessary. It's as simple as that
I'm
> afraid. Remey, who was not even an Aghsan, did not read a word of
Persian
> and Arabic. Neither does Joel Marangella. Therefore, Remey was not a
> legitimate wali amru'llah, nor Marangella for that matter.
>
> Besides I happen to believe Shoghi Effendi could've and would've done
much
> better than some upperclass, snob American socialite upstart to
succeed him
> in his office. Ruhi Afnan, for starters.
>
> cheers,
> Nima
>
>
> <multiman@aros.net> wrote in message news:3ae5326d.3848345@news.aros.net...
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 10:47:57 +1000, "Nima Hazini"
> <lotusapt@wxc.com.au> wrote:
>
>>
>><multiman@aros.net> wrote in message news:3ae4b39c.3511230@news.aros.net...
>>> I certainly do not find that one of the spiritual or
otherwise
>>qualifications of the Guardin
>>>to be appointed is that he speaks Arabic and Persian.
Which paragraph
>>>of the Will and Testament is that in?
>>
>>What languages was the W&T originally written in?? There's
your answer.
>
> So Baha'u'llah and Abdul-Baha could not interpret the New Testament
> and Old Testament since they were written in Hebrew and Koine Greek!
> What an argument.
>
> Since there were translations made by others in Arabic, Baha'u'llah
> quotes an Arabic translation in the Iqan, those translations no doubt
> had the biasis of the translators in it, inlcuding those int he New
> and Old quoted by Abdul-baha, he should not interpret, unless of
> course what we have been maintaining is true which is there is no
> language requirement for Guardianship or Abdul-baha's postion either
> since not knowing the language did not stop Him or His Father from
> interpreting.
>
>
>>cheers,
>>Nima
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
--
"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: I have nothing to do with the election of the UHJ (was:
something else)
Date: Thursday, April 26, 2001 6:29 AM
Hi, Pat.
Well, here's a defense of medieval shunning.
Incredible. The
point I've made before is that shunning is an admission that one is very
insecure, that one has failed to imbibe the spirit of the Baha'i Faith
which is the harmonious association of the rainbow of human beings,
whatever their colour, language, class, beliefs, etc. The practise is
indefensible and like censorship is designed to defend inept leaders
by means of keeping followers from realizing that those with other
leaders and other understandings are decent human beings who may well
be capable of articulately expressing themselves on views such inept
leaders don't wish their followers to encounter. Little demonstrates
the incapacity and insecurity of leadership more than an insistence
followers avoid exposure to alternative views. Little demonstrates the
remoteness of individuals from that open-minded maturity promoted by the
Central Figures of the Baha'i Faith than blind obedience to decrees of
such insecure leaders that individuals, spiritual associations and ideas
be shunned and censored.
To Harmony,
M.
Pat Kohli (kohliCUT_THE_CAPS@ameritel.net) writes:
> Allahu Abha!
>
> Dermod Ryder wrote:
>
>> "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
wrote in message
>> news:9c73p0$7ar$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>>
>> Amen Michael - I don't think the Orthodox or other groups have a
good
>> interpreation on the Guardianship but I fully acknowledge their
right to
>> believe what they do. The policy of shunning them is
abhorrent in the
>> extreme - we need tolerance and respect not blind hatred.
>>
>> As ever,
>>
>> Dermod.
>
> Allahu Abha!
>
> Personally, I find shunning much better than relaying nasty dreams,
or claiming
> that 'Abdu'l Baha wrote bad things about Baha'is, etc. and so
on. Shunning
> shows more toleration than blind hatred. When I read the
"GUESS WHO SAID THIS
> ABOUT BAHA'IS" message I thought to myself, this was an utterly
marvelous world
> where MrMahdi might have brought in a friend who can read 'Abdu'l
Baha, spell
> "Baha'i" and insult us, rather than just read the
propaganda, tell us it is
> "bahai" and all quite thoroughly refuted. If MrMahdi
shunned us, his blind
> hatred wouldn't be so visible, would it?
>
> My mother used to say that when you have nothing nice to say, say
nothing.
> Shunning is an extension of this.
>
--
"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: Pat Kohli and the invlaid election fo UHJ and a Defense of
the Guardianship
Date: Monday, April 30, 2001 12:07 PM
Hi, Nima.
The comparison here was of a recognized spiritual
authority speaking
to those seeking to limit his authority. By the way, I don't think you're
a Tibetan Buddhist. Do you accept the subjective validity of the authority
of the Dalai Lama and his followers, regardless of your personal
understanding of reincarnation, or do you deem him and those who consider
him a spiritual leader all wrong? If you grant validity to those
Buddhists,
similarily you may be able to understand the validity of those who accept
living guardians, even if you're not among the number who do.
I hope this clarifies the issue. Ah yes, Juan is an ad
hominem here.
He is an individual. The issue is that those recognized as guardian may
Interpret (elucidate, guide, explain, etc.) without literally translating.
For Juan or anyone else to come here and say, "The literal
interpretation
of the word and the historical context of Ali and the Imams of Islam is
that the Guardian should literally translate," would be an indication
that
on this point his and their opinion was literalist. I have already said
that
such an opinion is subjectively valid; it is just not exclusively so. He
would no more invalidate living guardians and their followers than his
expression that reincarnation is not taught in Baha'i would invalidate the
Dalai Lama, Tibetan Buddhism or any other religious leaders and faiths
that understand reincarnation to exist, even, by the way, were there
Baha'i guardians and their followers believing Shoghi Effendi was alive
and guiding the religion in a new incarnation.
By the way, Nima, why did you snip the example I provided
where one
invested with the authority could authoritatively rule, without knowing
Hebrew, Greek or Latin that a Biblical passage stating "Thou shalt
not
permit a witch to live" does not state, "Thou shalt not permit
Wiccans to
live", but, "The penalty for death by poison is death" or
even rule that
actually the death penalty is historical, not current? Whether one
owes
authority to genetic heritage, to reincarnation or to any other cause, one
in authority may issue rulings on such issues without personal knowledge
of
the original languages of the text.
Personally, I think history demonstrates that the
attitude that the
text must be followed literally has been calamitous for humanity. I feel
you do see the value of non-literal understandings in places. I hope you
will agree that it would be much better to live under an Interpreter who
knew not a word of the language and guided according to the principles
of the Baha'i Faith than one who was expertly fluent in languages and
ruled as a medieval, fundamentalist, literalist theocrat. The criticism
of current administrators in the organization centred in Haifa is not
that one may not find a way of literally extracting their medieval
policies out of the ocean of words of Baha'i text, but that such literal
extraction is done at the expense of those principles that elevated the
Baha'i Faith above the medieval mindset. One aspect of this medieval
mindset is the refusal to entertain the possibility other people holding
non-literal understandings have valid understandings.
To A Better Future,
Michael
"Nima Hazini" (lotusapt@wxc.com.au) writes:
>
> Bad comparison and irrevelant. The function of a Dalai Lama is much,
much
> different than a Guardian. I think the problem here is a fundamental
> misunderstanding of the role of a Guardian by Remeyite and Haifan
Baha'is
> alike. The Guardian is a not a divine being, not a Manifestation, not
a
> prophet, not a seer, not the incarnation of a Buddhist deity, or what
have
> you. He is a temporal - not divine - guardian/caretaker of the
religion, and
> there are certain foundational qualifications for that office without
which
> the utility of the office becomes questionable. Remey did not possess
a
> single one of those qualifications, and neither does Marangella, nor
Jacques
> Shoghomonian, Pepe Remey, Rex King, etc., for that matter.
>
> Irrelevant. A Dalai Lama is not a Guardian.
>
> If it's according to the understanding of texts he has no way of
> understanding, then the apparent limitations of that Guardian's
abilities
> once again raises questions of functional utility not to mention
legitimacy.
> Besides if that Guardian is *only* interpreting translated texts, why
even
> have a Guardian when others can equally do the
elucidating/interpreting for
> themselves??
>
> Nonesense.
>
> Another hypothetical "what if" scenario which is not
grounded in reality.
> This is worse than the Dalai Lama example. One could also conjecture
wildly
> that maybe Shoghi Effendi did write a Will and Testatement which was
> suppressed by certain Hands including Remey, the contents of which
appointed
> a lessor known but competent female of his kin to succeed him as
Guardian,
> Head of the Faith and member for life of the UHJ. It would make for
one heck
> of a great suspense mystery novel, and maybe I should just it, but so
what?
>
> Michael, put some of these arguments you're making past people who
know what
> they're talking about and know the texts backwards and forwards and
see how
> far you get. Try Juan for starters. You still don't understand the
dynamics
> of the questions involved and are drawing analogies that are for the
most
> part completely irrelevant and non sequitor. Again, a Guardian who
does not
> possess the requisite knowledge of Persian and Arabic cannot be an
> *authoritative interpretor*. If he cannot authoritatively interpret,
then he
> vacates his fundamental duty as Guardian, therefore his guardianship
is
> illegitimate - period, full stop. Please don't give me this silly
"The Holy
> Spirit will guide correctly an illiterate guardian" argument. It
is
> nonesense.
>
> cheers,
> Nima
>
>
--
"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: Morals of a Mole
Date: Thursday, January 18, 2001 12:32 PM
Top o' the Mornin' to You, Dermod.
You make me almost regret being so busy I'm not even
reading everything
posted here. But, it's great to hear your Irish voice. Keep it up, if
you've
the time and inclination. Personally, I tend to think that all talk about
personalities is irrelevant; however, since this is generally the whole of
fundamentalist discourse (trying to discredit those not fundamentalist
instead of addressing the issues and trying to say because of who the
fundamentalists are, therefore their fundamentalism, according to that
ad hominem, is exclusively valid), perhaps you're right to score on the
net they stand in front of, rather than the one they leave empty.
Anyway, as I learned that old folksong as a child in
the Ottawa Valley
the lines went:
"That's why women are worse than men
They can go down to Hell and come back
again."
And, not withstanding the concept of humour in previous
generations,
women are fully eligible to serve on the UHJ, and all that's lacking is
the will of the patriarchate to live in the present, instead of the Dark
Ages.
Slan,
Michael
"Dermod Ryder" (grimreaper@freenetname.co.uk) writes:
>
> "So it's true that the women are worse than the men,
> For they went down to Hell and were threw out again."
>
> Traditional Irish Words and Air
--
"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: Pat Kohli and the invlaid election fo UHJ and a Defense of
the Guardianship
Date: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 7:36 AM
Hi, Pat.
Continuing revelation is completely in accord with the
concept of
revealed religion. There are possibilities for semantic arguments, e.g.
that in Baha'i, or one or more of its sects, the leader interprets and
does not reveal, or elecidates and does not interpret. Such semantics
have no overall significance, however important they may be decreed
internally. Thus, separate sects can have different official positions
and different individuals within the sects will have a variety of
perceptions, however intense the pressure by dictatorial leaders to
quash personal opinions or at least the expression of such.
Speaking specifically to the case of Baha'i, my
personal opinion is
that one of the most important aspects of the Revelation by the original
Revealer (Baha'u'llah) was to provide a modern alternative to
fundamentalist Islam and to fundamentalism in general. Accordingly, the
transformation of his movement into a fundamentalist one opposed to the
essential principles he enunciated is inconsistent with this specific
revealed religion. Historically, revealed religions often seem to have
come into the hands of leaders whose insecurity and domineering natures,
etc., have prompted them to rely on fundamentalist techniques and to
impose a fundamentalist idealogy.
While I consider the current oppression by the men in
Haifa of the
Baha'i principles: the independent investigation of truth, the freedom of
thought and expression, the harmony of faith and reason, the equality of
women and men, the harmonious association of a variety of valid opinions
and of the various peoples on the planet, etc., to be inconsistent with
the paradigm of the Revelation of Baha'u'llah, indeed to be what he sought
to eliminate, I recognize the existence of these men and understand that
they, through decree, have asserted a single selective and literal
interpretation of the ocean of Baha'u'llah's writings. It is completely
in keeping with the fundamentalist (as opposed to the Baha'i) paradigm
for those issuing such decrees to say that really they are not decreeing
anything, not interpreting anything, merely elucidating the obvious
literal interpretation of weighted passages of text. QED.
They exist and their effect on the movement launched by
Baha'u'llah
may be observed. The original universal, harmonizing, open-minded,
individual-enhancing, tolerant, liberal intent of Baha'u'llah may be
outlined and, sooner or later, the fundamentalist excesses may be shed.
To the Future,
Michael
In an abstract sense, above the specifics of any faith, the
"Guardian of the
Faith" might be a continuing revelator and thus not depend on reading
the
revelation. I don't think that that fits too well in the paradigm of
a revealed
religion.
Is it possible that a Guardian of the Faith who is continuously
receiving
revelation might seem inconsistent with a revealed religion, to you?
Is there any notion which might be inconsistent w/ certain
religious
paradigms, as you understand various types of religions?
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: My fears about the Albuquerque Baha'i community
Date: Thursday, May 03, 2001 11:56 AM
Greetings, Roger.
You have not demonstrated that you are arguing with
validity. You
are arguing against persons because of who they are. This is invalid
according to formal logic and according to the principles of Baha'i
consultation which hold that issues alone are valid. Present issues,
but do not say (outside of a cult) that one is wrong because one does
not accept the cult leaderrship's position. You may defend the cult
leadership's position as cogently, rationally, articulately as you wish.
However, the cult leadership's position is not correct simply because
the leadership says it is, nor is someone else wrong simply because that
one disagrees with leadership. If leadership's view is so dazzlingly
correct tell us why; if one disagreeing with leadership is so blatantly
wrong show us on the issue. If you say this person is wrong on the
grounds he disagrees with the cult leaders you are, in my opinion,
testifying that you are powerless to refute his statements.
As I said on news.groups during the discussion about
establishing TRB,
if the response by the US president to claims by someone that he was the
lawful King of the USA was to publically inform the American people that
there was someone asserting to be King of America, and for the good of
the country no one should read anything this guy had to say and his
supporters should be denied access to public media, then logically we'd
have to deduce that, By Zeus, there must really be something to this guy's
claims; gosh and golly gee, we'd always thought the US was a republic and
no possible legitimacy existed for anyone to claim to be a US king, but
the president's response shows there must be something to it. Similarily,
the response by official Baha'i leadership undermines their own position
and indicates there's something to the points being made by those they
don't want read.
Again, you may refute to your utmost capacity any
points made, but
don't argue against people on the grounds of who they are or you are
confessing the superiority of their positions and your impotence to
show them wrong.
To Tolerance,
Michael
Roger Reini (roger@rreini.com) writes:
> On 2 May 2001 18:55:30 GMT, bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael
> McKenny) wrote:
>
>>Ad hominem and hence invalid. Issues, points, content is valid.
What is
>>said is valid. Who said it is invalid.
>
> Not in this case. A Covenant breaker or a supporter of a CB
would be
> expected to engage in attacks on the legitimacy of the Administrative
> Order in general and, in this day, the Universal House of Justice in
> particular. This would be to gain support for their position --
their
> rebellion, as it were.
>
> And here we had someone attacking the House of Justice, someone who
> had expressed sympathy for the views and positions of Mason Remey,
who
> falsely claimed the Guardianship for himself. That sets off
warning
> alerts for me.
>
>>
>>Roger Reini (roger@rreini.com) writes:
>>>
>>> I tend to discount that person's opinion in this case because
of other
>>> opinions he has stated in this newsgroup -- opinions that,
IMHO, are
>>> in support of individuals who have broken the Covenant of
Baha'u'llah.
>>> I am NOT calling him a Covenant breaker, for I have no
knowledge of
>>> his status in the Baha'i Faith. Still, if he is indeed
a CB or a
>>> supporter of CB's, then I discount any statement of his on
the supreme
>>> Baha'i institution and its legitimacy.
>
> Roger (roger@rreini.com)
> https://www.rreini.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: Albuquerque - some corroboration
Date: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 9:46 AM
Hi, Rick.
Well, gee, I'm not even a Baha'i. Why should I go and
dig this stuff
out of the basement, when there's so much not getting down, while I even
take the time to type this. If you want to attack the Baha'i Faith and
say this is definitely not an outfit where one can submit a letter, a
request, an appeal, a communication and expect any response (other than
having it tossed in the waste paper basket) well, let the Baha'is defend
their religion against you, or will it be Nima who gives you your quotes?
I continue to assert that nothing anyone else says
about the Baha'i
Faith can cause as much harm, is such an attack, as what is signed by
Doug and his buddies and those claiming to be in the same party.
I don't promise never to post such quotes. I'm just
astonished that
people such as you act as if you're defending Baha'i when you challenge
assertions that it is decent. You reply to remarks in favour of Baha'i
with, "No, that aint so, prove it, by citing," (literally I
assume) "the
appropriate quotes." I expect if I don't find "Thou shalt not
trash the
appeals sent to thee unanswered," you'll say, "See we are
allowed to
respond to appeals by trashing them unanswered." And this is
defending
the Faith?
To Baha'i,
M.
"Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@home.NOSPAMcom) writes:
> "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote
in message
> news:9d14h0$smh$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>> Of course, Baha'i texts allow for people
contacting Baha'i authorities
>> to receive a timely response -- response being defined as an
answer, a
>> reply, a communication from the authority to the person initially
>> contacting them.
>
> So, cite the actual texts, Michael. Better yet, quote them, and
explain
> precisely how those texts apply to these circumstances. Such
would be a
> vast improvement over the constant stream of uninformed personal
opinion
> that plagues these newsgroups.
>
>
> 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: Handling Appeals (was Re: bahai - Re: Unconstitutional (per
UHJ Constitution) NSA By-law)
Date: Thursday, May 31, 2001 12:13 PM
Yes, Rick, they acted by tossing the appeal in the wastepaper basket.
An
individual addressing a decent authority, especially in this manner, is
entitled to more than the unspoked assurance that whatever action, if any,
is deemed appropriate by the authority will be taken. The individual is
entitled to a real reply informing her/him what action has been taken.
Actually, in decent contexts this would be published in the press.
"Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@home.NOSPAMcom) writes:
> "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com> wrote
in message
> news:9euse9$1bfl6$2@ID-84503.news.dfncis.de...
>> "Yorgos" <nthyorgos@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:OE44pGOjXZ1tazAfM0n000072cb@hotmail.com...
>> Thank you for confirming the length of time that elapsed between
the time
>> that Deborah filed her Complaint with the NSA and the emission of
a reply.
>> As you well know yet more months followed before the Complaint
was filed
> in
>> Court. Mr Schaut seemed to think I was making this story
up. I wonder
> what
>> further comments he now has to make!
>
> Actually, Mr. Ryder's memory is somewhat faulty. I have pointed
out that we
> only know that Ms. Buchhorn is unaware of any action taken by the
National
> Spiritual Assembly in these matters. Mr. Ryder's conclusion is
that that
> National Spiritual Assembly "sat on" (to use Mr. Ryder's
words) the appeals
> raised by Ms. Buchhorn--a conclusion that would imply that the
National
> Spiritual Assembly never took any action to investigate the matters
raised.
> All I've pointed out is that we don't know whether or not the
National
> Spiritual Assembly took no action whatsoever. We only know that
they have
> not replied directly to Ms. Buchhorn's appeals.
>
>
> 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: MacEoin Review of Crooked/Straight, Part Two
Date: Sunday, June 17, 2001 8:23 AM
Greetings, Denis and Nima.
Many thanks for this post. I see that this second part
of the review
contains some of the specific objections I mentioned as lacking in the
first one. This, in my opinion, still does not excuse the other objections
I raised about the first half (complaining about the size, number of
footnotes, length of bibliography and presence of Latin and also about the
lack of scholarly credentials of the book's authors!!!).
I note the objection to the use of secondary source
material,
including GOD PASSES BY which itself contains no footnotes, and this is a
valid objection. If Baha'u'llah himself is not to be taken as a primary
historical source for events to which he was not an eye witness, that is,
if Baha'u'llah's historical assertions concerning such things as Greek
philosophers are not to be accepted as literal fact, then Shoghi Effendi,
whom Baha'is do not regard as a Manifestation of God, cannot be treated as
a hollow reed transmitting God's inerrant historical knowledge. The normal
standards are to be applied in his case, and it is indeed a failing of the
book being reviewed (notwithstanding its length, number of footnotes,
size of bibliography and seasoning of Latin quotes) if indeed it accords
any priority to Shoghi Effendi over actual primary source material.
Denis, as strenuously as I can, I absolutely disagree
with your
assertion that one should not be writing on a subject, if one does not
know about the existence of certain material. This is flawed reasoning
and a favouring of censorship repugnant to me. Let whosoever wishes write
and let whichsoever publisher desires publish what is written. And, by the
same token, then, may you or anyone else who has a point of view, an
awareness of facts unstated (through ignorance or deliberate
misrepresentation) be equally free to write and to be published. Let
knowledge thus be advanced not be telling others to be silent if they
haven't read everything you have read or if they don't share your opinion
and mine as to the primacy of primary sources (thus, removing GOD PASSES
By from any cultish pedestal), but rather through the freedom of authors
both to write what they wish and to encounter corrections and opinions at
variance to their own.
I would like to comment on your specific point that it
is
reprehensible for Baha'u'llah to have conspired to have another
substituted for him for reasons of safety. I fully appreciate your point
of view, and one of the essential Baha'i principles is the freedom to
express one's opinion and the willingness to listen to the rainbow of
personal opinions held by the diverse individuals comprising humanity.
This point is not so uniformly believed as you suggest. Many rulers in
past times employed tasters whose task was to die in place of a ruler
being poisoned. I do not say that I necessarily consider this the most
heroic thing to do, only that many people have esteemed the life of the
ruler highly. There is, for example, that story of a Chinese ruler about
to rush to the aid of a woman being threatened by a wild beast, only to
be advised that he could be provided with other women, but what could they
do if their ruler was killed. You don't have to share this opinion of the
value of a ruler's life, or of his acting so as to reduce the possibility
his people will be confronted by his death. My point is that the view
does exist that the ruler's life is so precious, and the official Baha'i
opinion is not so universally condemned as you imply.
I agree, of course, on the issue of democracy over
totalitarianism.
Again, thanks for posting this. In my opinion this
review could have
been better written. Also, if the book is as forbidding to most readers
as the reviewer suggests (in the sense of length, etc.), then such readers
could benefit from the kind of review that summarizes its content in half
a dozen or so pages. This could be written by someone sympathetic with the
authors' point of view, and one hopes also aware of the validity of other
viewpoints.
Thrive,
Michael
Article 46149 of talk.religion.bahai:
[Part 2 of review by Denis MacEoin, Ph.D., of:
Udo Schaefer, Nicola Towfigh, and Ulrich Gollmer (contribs), Making
the
Crooked Straight: A Contribution to Bahá'í Apologetics, trans. from
German
by Dr. Geraldine Schuckelt, 2000, George Ronald, Oxford, 863 pp.]
Not many lines later (p. 485), he writes 'Although, as a Baha'i one
trusts
that the main sequence of events is recorded correctly'. Frankly, being a
Baha'i doesn't come into it, Ulrich. Facts are facts, and pious trusting
has no place in historical analysis. But Gollmer isn't content with
trusting in the texts: he actually believes that the lives of their
authors
make a difference.
Referring to Abd al-Baha' and Shoghi Effendi, he writes: 'The lives of
these two chroniclers testify to this, embodying as they do the ethical
principles of their faith'. I've no doubt Shoghi Effendi was the best of
men (though I know less about him than I do about, oh, let's say, Ann
Frank), but the fact is that, when he wrote God Passes By, he hung his
'facts' on a preconceived framework. Just as I might distort historical
characters or events in writing a novel, so he told his tale in order to
meet the demands of a grand scheme, a divine drama played out in Shiraz,
Baghdad, or Acre. It's a work of genius, but I don't think it's a reliable
historical source, if for no other reason than that there isn't a single
reference from beginning to end. We're meant to take everything on Shoghi
Effendi's say-so. Whereas academic books are open and transparent,
displaying their origins in the form of citations and bibliographies, God
Passes By is wholly opaque, cramming primary and secondary materials in
together without rhyme or reason, and leaving the reader in the dark
throughout. So just what Shoghi Effendi's rather unknown life has to do
with the veracity of his text is quite beyond me.
One particularly lengthy historical section, written by Towfigh, runs
from
page 599 to page 673, and deals, in the main, with the break between Baha'
Allah and Subh-i Azal. I found this a very frustrating sequence to read,
because I sensed throughout that Towfigh was only marginally familiar with
the original texts, but brazened things out by judicious use of secondary
materials, most of them from Baha'i sources. Since this is still a
controversial area, it requires well-honed historical and linguistic
skills, without which it is easy to slip into error, as Towfigh does.
As before, I am aware that the only detailed discussions of Babism in
this
period are to be found in Chris Buck's Symbol and Secret and in two
articles by myself, 'Hierarchy and Authority' and 'Divisions and Authority
Claims', along with Juan Cole's translation of the Risala-yi shathiyya and
some discussion that has emerged from it. Yet, apart from a passing
reference to Buck's work, none of these is brought into Towfigh's
analysis.
In other words, she is choosing which sources to cite, and which to
engage
with (if any), whereas in proper academic discourse a salient book or
paper
demands to be accounted for. In other words, you don't have the freedom to
ignore anything that gets in the way of your argument. Unless, of course,
you don't actually know such materials exist, in which case you should not
be writing on the subject.
Towfigh is constantly out of tune with what seems to have been
happening.
She shows no understanding of the Shi'ite concept of ghayba as an element
in Azal's behaviour (it was certainly referred to by his contemporaries in
explanation of his absence), she persists in accepting 'Mystic Source' as
an adequate translation for the phrase masdar-i amr, (13) she believes
(incorrectly) that there is no document in the Bab's hand which
legitimizes
Azal's position, and she does not know why Azal was chosen as the Bab's
successor (on account of his 'inspired' writings, apparently).
In one place she states that 'the early Babis, too, clearly expected
the
Promised One to arrive soon', which is debatable at the very least. And
she
goes on to say: 'Only this can explain the fact that during the years
immediately following the martyrdom of the Bab so many proclaimed
themselves to be the Promised One.' If she had read the second of my
articles, she would have seen adequate evidence that probably no-one made
that claim at that point, and that all these matters require a much more
sophisticated understanding of events and terminology than Towfigh brings
to them.
Since the range of claims open to the Babis of that period was fairly
large, a researcher in this field ought to be able to access the sort of
texts in which they are laid out. I see no mention at all in Towfigh's
copious footnotes of Naraqi, Dahaji, the Azali compilation Qismati az
alwah, the original texts of Baha' Allah's Baghdad writings, or the
relevant later works of the Bab. The work is being done largely from
secondary texts: God Passes By is cited no fewer than twenty-one times, A
Traveller's Narrative thirty-one, and other articles by Browne thirty-nine
times.
Elsewhere, ideology leads to contradictions. On p. 665, we are assured
that, when Browne was writing, 'a single, united Babi community had long
since ceased to exist', whereas on pages 672-3, we are informed that 'the
term schism is inappropriate in connection with the conflict between Mirza
Yahya Azal and Baha'u'llah, since no division within a religion occurred'.
There are numerous other points that arise from this section, but I'll
restrict myself to just one here, which is an ethical, not an historical
one. On p. 636, Towfigh quotes a statement from 'Abd al-Baha' to the
effect
that the Bab and Baha' Allah agreed to have Subh-i Azal appointed nominal
head of the faith in order to preserve his older brother from danger. She
is not the first Baha'i writer to cite this with approval, and I'm sure
she
will not be the last. Let me only comment here that, if the aim of this
book is to win friends and influence people in the non-Baha'i world, this
citation alone would undermine the whole enterprise. Imagine how
Christians
would react to the suggestion that Jesus conspired to have Judas
substituted for him so he could escape the cross (an idea actually mooted
by some Muslim writers). Or that a French resistance fighter handed a Jew
over to the Gestapo, knowing that doing so would save his life. Or that
John Kennedy, fearing assassination, had placed a double to ride in his
open-top car.
This is something the Baha'is have to think about hard Fortunately,
the
solution is historical rather than ethical. We can't prove there wasn't
some sort of conspiracy, but Azal's appointment does seem genuine, we know
that the Bab gave Azal specific instructions to 'preserve himself', (14)
that he issued instructions to others to take care of Azal, (15) and that
Baha' Allah was in the public eye from quite an early period. (16) What
Abd
al-Baha' was trying to do was to find a plausible explanation for what was
to him an unpalatable fact: that the Bab had appointed as the guardian of
his faith and writings a man considered by Baha'is to be a primary source
of spiritual evil.
That's enough history for the moment. To be honest, the historical
gaffes
and distortions gave me less grief than some early sections in Schaefer's
main contribution, and in parts of Gollmer's section on politics. This
isn't easy to convey, but it matters, so please be patient while I try to
develop this point.
My problem is this. With one important exception, which I shall come
to
later, the tone and content of much of the book seemed to me deeply
conservative and self-righteous. What is worse is that Schaefer clearly
seems to want his voice, with its illiberal overtones, to be taken for the
voice of the Baha'i faith as a whole. To be honest, this doesn't surprise
me, since a rather puritan conservatism was the atmosphere within the
Baha'i movement when I was a member and had much to do with driving me and
others out. What does surprise me is that, after so much worthwhile
debate,
promoted by organs like Dialogue magazine, the liberal voice of Baha'ism
has not convinced men like Schaefer that they are dinosaurs who need to
modify their views in some respects if they are not to cause the Baha'i
faith to petrify in a mode that will become more and more out of touch
with
the reality lived by most thoughtful, caring people.
Let's take a look. After a lengthy section on Baha'i political ideas,
to
which I'll return in a moment, Schaefer really gets going on pp. 301 ff.,
where he discusses 'the concept of liberty'. At first he seems quite
reasonable, arguing, for example, that the liberty of which Baha' Allah
disapproved was not democratic liberty but anarchy, immorality, and so
forth. From there, he works his way round to a popular Baha'i theme,
namely
that true liberty is obedience to God's law. This too, he stresses, does
not contradict democratic liberties.
But this liberal mask starts to slip not much later. Ficicchia, he
says (p.
318), argues against Baha' Allah's legislation 'purely on the basis of the
modernist attitude held by the sceptical and irreligious person who lacks
any concept or understanding of religious obligations and-horribile
dictu-faithful obedience, who rejects any possibility of absolute
authority, accepting no authority but his own self according to the
principle: "I am the Law!"'
There's nothing like a stereotype to waken certain forms of bigotry,
in
this case the notion that non-believers do not understand religious
matters, and that they are anarchists and libertines at heart.
But he goes further. It isn't just non-believers whom we can't trust,
it's
people in general: (17) 'people today value nothing more dearly than their
sovereign liberty in decision-making, their individual right to shape
their
own lives, their freedom to decide for themselves what is and what is not
permissible as defined by their sense of moral autonomy' (p. 320).
In the last century, thousands upon thousands of men and women gave
their
lives to establish just such a freedom, very rightly rejecting the
'absolute authority' of fascism and communism. Many of these were
religious
people of upstanding morals. Others, perhaps the majority, were agnostics
or atheists, also of high moral standards Many of Schaefer's own
countrymen
and women joined the widerstand, the internal opposition to Hitler, just
as
many Russians resisted Stalinism, denying that the authority of the state
is absolute and that individuals have no rights.
Other men and women fought - as many round the world today still fight
-
for human rights, for the right of the individual to believe and speak and
write and act within very broad limits. This sometimes results in speech
or
behaviour that you or I may find offensive. But I - and millions of others
- would always prefer to be offended than to be straitjacketed by a
Hitler,
or a Khomeini, a Pope, or an 'infallible' religious body. If Schaefer sees
(as I think he does) something ignoble in this, what a very blinkered man
he must be.
One of the things that originally attracted me to the Baha'i faith was
its
modernity, its concern with contemporary issues, the belief that it had
passed beyond traditional religions to a new dimension of belief and
action. All I see now, when I look at it, is a religion led by deeply
conservative men and women whose beliefs chime only too well with those of
the conservative wing of all the old faiths. Baha'is have more in common
with haredi than Reform Jews, with the present Pope than liberation
theologians, with Southern Baptists and fundamentalist Muslims than
Unitarians and reformist Shi'a.
Much of this neo-conservatism has its roots in just the same fears
that
prompted Pius IX to declare war on the liberalism of his day. It's a
deep-seated fear of people, a distrust of anyone who dares to think for
himself, to publish a book without having to ask anyone else's approval,
to
stand up in meetings and tell those in charge they are talking nonsense,
to
tell obscene jokes like Lenny Bruce, as a weapon against racism and
sexism.
It's a fear of that young man with his shopping bags standing his
ground in
front of tanks on Tianenmen Square, of the Catholic women who stand up in
church to demand the right to contraception, abortion, and women priests,
of the Muslim women who jeered at the fundamentalists marching in support
of the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, of the angry rabbis who dared take
God
to task for allowing the Holocaust to happen, of a writer daring to
satirize a religion that has the temerity to condemn him and others to
death. It's a fear of change, of questions, of the laughter that punctures
the pride of the man on the platform, of satire; a fear of the power of
sex, of the power of words, of the power of people who are willing to make
their own decisions and their own mistakes, people who have eyes that can
see through the Emperor's new clothes.
Schaefer is on the wrong side of history. We atheists and agnostics
out
here are not a gang of depraved, self-interested libertarian anarchist
no-gooders. If you want depravity and self-interest, better look in almost
any religious group around. Religious people have been responsible for an
outrageous amount of suffering in this world, and they still have the gall
to tell us: 'It was bad then, but that was a mistake, just trust us, we've
got it right this time round.' Rationalists believe in the dignity of man,
the value of reason, the worth of ordinary human wisdom, the power of
disobedience to irrational authorities.
Was the Enlightenment a denial or affirmation of the worth of
humanity? Was
science hindered or helped by its separation from religion? (18) Ditto
medicine. Which is the less violent culture, that of largely secular
Europe, or that of the highly religious USA, with its craze for guns, its
murders, drug-related crime, capital punishment, and Star Wars? Is secular
England, where churches are demolished or turned into bingo halls, a worse
place to live than my native Northern Ireland, which has churches on
almost
every street corner? Which developing countries have made the most
progress
economically and socially: the lightly religious nations of Asia, or the
fervently religious countries of the Islamic world? Are practices like
female genital mutilation, honour killings, forced marriages, and the like
more common in religious (mainly, Islamic) countries or in secular states?
I could go on here for pages. In case anyone thinks this has just been
a
digression, may I point out that my reason for going into all this is
simply to draw full attention to an extraordinary refusal on Schaefer's
part to come face to face with arguments like these which contradict his
self-assertive and, frankly, pompous pronouncements on the frivolity and
danger of the non-religious world.
The fact is that Schaefer and pals are writing an extended polemic,
not
just against Ficicchia, but against a host of Baha'i bugbears, from free
speech to balanced academic enquiry.
On pages 209 ff, Schaefer addresses the questions of pre-publication
review, restrictions on free expression, and so on. I don't intend to
pursue the topic here, since a lot could be said on the matter. But I will
comment that the arguments employed by Schaefer reminded me vividly of a
debate that is currently raging in several Asian countries, notably
Singapore and Malaysia, over the role of the press vis-à-vis the
government. Inevitably, the more authoritarian states take much the view
that Schaefer does here, arguing that the state (for which read Schaefer's
religious institutions) must be above all criticism.
In similar vein, Schaefer writes, refuting Ficicchia's claim that
Baha'ism
is anti-democratic, 'On no account is [the Baha'i order]
"anti-democratic",
since the democratic elements, along with the theocratic traits, are
dominant' (p.246). The overall impression (and Schaefer is not alone in
giving it) is that the proposed (and, indeed, the current) Baha'i system
of
government is dominantly democratic. I imagine many of my readers will
concur in this understanding. I, however, beg to differ, as, I think, will
most democrats.
The trouble is that you cannot, in reality, just mix
monarchy/aristocracy,
democracy, and theocracy (with absolute authority). The result is a
denaturing of each of the elements to no useful purpose. We in Britain
have
a monarchy, but the monarch cannot override the will of the people: if she
could, we would no longer have a democracy, and might as well dissolve
parliament.
Theocracy, as in Iran and Afghanistan, tends to demand precedence over
democratic norms (such as the right of the people to enact laws according
to their will). Democracy, where it flourishes, tends to make other
systems
redundant.
This is not to say that democracy does not have its problems. But
those
problems will not be solved by introducing incompatible notions such as
absolutism or infallibity.
Throughout this section, Schaefer selects his targets so that he does
not
have to confront the real issues. The main objections are as follows: 1)
the fact, referred to above, that believers can have their voting rights
and their right to vote suspended should they infringe the Baha'i moral
code (including, I would argue, improper questioning of the authorities);
2) the fact that heresy/disobedience to divinely-constituted authority
leads to automatic exclusion from the community; 3) the fact that, however
democratically elected, no Baha'i government can introduce major
legislation in its own right or abrogate laws set by Baha' Allah or the
Universal House of Justice (democratic parliaments make and rescind their
own laws); 4) the fact that women cannot serve on the Universal House of
Justice; 5) the fact that a Baha'i state would be a one-party state (try
setting up in opposition to the official 'divinely-appointed' line even
now); 6) the fact that there can never be open debate about certain basic
issues, such as gay rights, capital punishment, or any number of matters
from contraception to the running of the police, that have yet to be
decided by the Universal House of Justice.
I know that Baha'is don't actually want a democracy, but that leaves
the
rest of us justifiably concerned. It's not enough to try to reassure us by
saying democracy is dominant alongside theocracy. Democracy is not
divisible, and is only mocked when autocratic states use it as a mask to
conceal their true nature.
Finally, what was the exception referred to above? On pages 256-7 and
page
742, Schaefer and Gollmer mention something that they do not,
surprisingly,
make much more of. The second reference is to two texts, one by 'Abd
al-Baha', the other by Shoghi Effendi, both writing about the need to
accord human rights to covenant breakers.
To be honest, this flabbergasted me. I had never seen the passages in
question before, and they caught me unawares. Anything, whether scriptural
or otherwise, I had ever read previously on covenant-breakers, had been
extremely negative: reading their words is like eating vomit (from a 'Hand
of the Cause'), they are utterly despicable, they are to be shunned
absolutely, even by their families, and so on. All of those vitriolic
passages in God Passes By about Azal and Mirza Muhammad 'Ali, and Ruth
White, and Ahmad Sohrab, and every 'enemy of the Faith' from Hajj Mirza
Aqasi on. So to learn that even Covenant-Breakers have rights turns a lot
of my assumptions upside down.
The biggest puzzle, of course, is why there aren't more passages
displaying
this degree of humanity, and why the Baha'is haven't made greater efforts
to present this side of their faith, instead of the heavy-handed
conservatism to be found in the work of so many eminent exponents.
There are also, of course, obvious contradictions between these texts
and
others. 'Abd al-Baha' instructs some believers not to obstruct a
covenant-breaker in seeking employment as a teacher, since even such a
person has to earn a living. That's terrific, and much more sensitive than
I'm used to in Baha'i texts; but if we move forward a bit in time, to a
large village or small town where most of the inhabitants are Baha'is,
what
happens at the school? I can't imagine the Baha'i authorities or the other
teachers or the parents letting a covenant-breaker loose on their children
just because 'Abd al-Baha' says he should have job. Can you?
I also have trouble with the Shoghi Effendi passage. Not with the
statement
itself, which is admirable, but with how it squares with other things. If
covenant-breakers are not to be deprived of their civil rights in a free
society, then how come the mere act of drinking alcohol, or having sex
outside marriage, or even, for a man to let his hair grow below the
earlobes, will lead to the loss of voting rights, the most basic civil
rights of all? How humanitarian is it to demand that a man's wife and
children should shun him merely because he has changed his beliefs?
All of this needs to be addressed, and I was disappointed that neither
Schaefer nor Gollmer chose to do so.
I'm left with a list of items that I'd love to take up, but I realize
this
has also become one of the longest book reviews on record. Given time, I
could probably get to 900 or even 1000 pages, but I doubt very much if
anyone would want to publish the resulting book in German.
Why have I been so hard on Dr. Schaefer and co-authors? Basically,
it's
because Schaefer himself goes to some trouble to point out how much
Ficicchia's book damaged understanding of the Baha'i faith within
German-speaking academic and ecclesiastical circles, and even civil
authorities (pp. 1-12). I don't disagree with that, but when I then find
that the volume seeking to correct Ficicchia's misrepresentations is
itself
with replete with factual errors, academic sloppiness, and apologetics
dressed as scholarship - in other words, many of the things Ficicchia
stands accused of - I find myself obliged to try to set the balance as
straight as a simple man can.
The fact is that Making the Crooked Straight will sell more copies to
Baha'is than to the great unwashed beyond their gates. Most people aren't
sufficiently interested in Baha'ism as yet that they will sit down and
read
over 800 pages of apologetics. So, I suppose the book is aimed more at
believers than anyone else. If that's so, it means that Schaefer, et al.,
have produced a major contribution to a process that has been going on
since Shoghi Effendi's days, but particularly over the past fifteen years
or so. At some point in that period, while expansion remained a priority,
the Baha'i authorities seem to have woken up to the fact that most
believers had a limited grasp on the basics of their faith. Making the
Crooked Straight may not be the most systematic presentation of where
Baha'is stand on most crucial issues, but it is certainly the largest, and
has the appearance of being the most authoritative.
That's why I've spent so long niggling away at the text, and why I
could go
on longer if I thought anybody was still reading. Major statements require
greater care than has been devoted to this volume. Not only that, but it
disturbs me to find that fundamentalist Baha'is have seized the high
ground
in this way. Why shouldn't some liberal Baha'is tell it like it is for
once? If my criticisms nudge things further in those two
directions-accuracy and liberality of mind and heart-they will have been
worthwhile. Thank you for reading this far.
Denis MacEoin
Dursley
Newcastle
June 2001
NOTES
1. I remain unimpressed by Schaefer's curious claim that Ficicchia's
book
was really written by someone else: 'I doubt if the author, Francecso
Ficicchia, who has certainly contributed a lot of material, was able to
write the book himself in the style of a methodical, scholarly work, using
the terminology of theology and religious studies and Hebrew, Arabic,
Persian, Greek and Latin terms - languages of which the author, himself a
social worker, has no knowledge. It is very probable then that the book
was
written by an expert of religious studies and that Ficicchia contributed
some material and his name' (Baha'i Studies Review, 2:1 (1992).
2. The first sentence of chapter one, part one reads: 'The goal of all
academic research is to find truth', with the rest of the chapter
proceeding along the same lines.
3. That making academic work conform with Baha'i mass opinion is an
obligation on Baha'i scholars is made clear by Moojan Momen: 'Secondly,
you
have to satisfy the Bahá'í community that your scholarship is a true
representation of the Faith, one that most Bahá'ís would agree is a
presentation of the Faith that is consistent with the texts and being
interpreted in ways to which most Bahá'ís would not object' (Baha'i
Studies
Review, 3:2 [1994]).
4. This episode is cursorily dealt with in a reference on p. 101, and
a
footnote on p. 703.
5. Baha'is seem to have a problem with this. Many years ago, I met
with the
editor of the Penguin Handbook of Living Religions and two members of the
British NSA, who were there to persuade him to drop my commissioned
article
on the Baha'is and replace it with one they would have written by a Baha'i
author. Like any sensible academic, I admitted during the meeting that I
had my biases and assumptions. The Baha'is seized on this, arguing that
this alone disqualified me from writing the piece. Not once did they
accept
the possibility that their Baha'i author might be biased in his own way.
The editor, John Hinnells, admitted to me later that he had been quite
sympathetic to the Baha'is until he actually sat through that meeting.
6. I'm referring specifically to the many volumes of scripture edited
by
him, all of them sloppy, filled with mistakes and misattributions.
7. Religion, 12 (1982): 93-129. See also 'Baha'i Fundamentalism and
the
Academic Study of the Babi Movement', Religion 16 (1986): 57-84, and
'Afnan, Hatcher, and an Old Bone', Religion 16 (1986): 193-195. It's
interesting that none of these articles, which represented one of the
first
debates between the old-style Baha'i scholarship and the new, academic
approach, is referred to in the present work.
8. Gollmer does it too. On p. 464, he quotes approvingly a statement
by the
World Council of Churches: 'A second danger is that of interpreting a
living faith not in its own terms but in terms of another faith or
ideology. This is illegitimate on the principles of both scholarship and
dialogue'.
9. W. Collins, Bibliography of English-language Works on the Babi and
Baha'i Faiths, p. 281
10. In footnote 20, p. 498, she complains that 'Even within
Ficicchia's own
transcription system, the transcription Ta'rih (sic) is incorrect, since
Táríkh is written with alif and not with hamza. Since when? Ta'rikh is
an
Arabic word and is written with hamza in that language, whatever the
Persian pronunciation might be. Of course, it would be pointless to object
if someone left the hamza out, but it seems most irregular to correct
someone for putting it in. And, by the way, it is not Ficicchia's 'own
transcription system', but a standard one used widely by Arabists and
Persianists in Germany and elsewhere.
11. Gollmer too shows a reluctance to engage with current scholarship,
and
even appears to be unaware of what is happening in the wider world. On p.
778, for example, he states magisterially: 'no systematic presentation of
the Baha'i Faith has yet been published that satisfies academic criteria'.
Says who? Peter Smith's excellent volume for Cambridge University Press
springs immediately to mind. And what about the numerous encyclopaedia
articles by Juan Cole, Smith, Moojan Momen, Todd Lawson, and myself?
12. Gollmer reiterates this position on pp. 558 and 559.
13. He gets into greater trouble on the next page, when he asserts
that
there are plenty of scriptural texts in which the phrase masdar-i amr
refers to God. I have gone over most of these texts with Steve Lambden,
and
I don't think there was one where the phrase might not as easily have
referred to the Manifstation For examples, see my 'Divisions and Authority
Claims', pp. 118-19. I am dismayed that Gollmer did not even attempt to
engage with these references.
14. See MacEoin, 'Divisions and Authority Claims', p. 109.
15. Ibid
16. See ibid', p. 117.
17. There's more of this on the next page, p. 321: 'most people at
present', 'modern people'. On the next page, p. 322, he expresses his
impatience with 'a critical and sceptical public'.
18. On this, see an excellent new study by Stephen Jay Gould, Rock of
Ages.
--
"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: Democratic Conservatism was Refutation of Peter Khan
Date: Monday, June 18, 2001 10:03 AM
Greetings, Nima and Juan.
Juan asks if you hate Communists and Liberals who is
left to admire
bur fascists. I certainly understand the context behind this rhetorical
question, and I would like to take this opportunity to underline that
what is reprehensible about the behaviour of the UHJ is that it is
acting precisely as have acted those whom Baha'u'llah condemned and it
is oppressing its own people not because it is neither communist, nor
liberal, but because it is anti-democratic, because it violates the most
essential Baha'i principles of freedom of thought and expression.
In this country there is an ongoing debate of
considerable proportions
among those of conservative viewpoints and one of the most heartening
aspects of this debate is the extent to which the term and attitude of
democratic conservatism is used and demonstrated. The guy who, in my
opinion, is the most articulate talk show host in this city is a great
example of this. He continually and sincerely invites the expression of
all points of view, admits he is expressing his own opinion, which may
not be correct and certainly isn't the only one and states his opposition
only to the view that there is only one permissable opinion.
It is, in my opinion, essential to stress this point in
the Baha'i
context. Holding conservative views and expressing them is perfectly
legitimate and in accord with the universalist approach of Baha'u'llah.
Where those who now hold power have broken their trust is not by thinking
there is life on Pluto or Herodotus lived after Alexander the Great etc.
but in their refusal to allow the expression of other opinions. That
they exercise censorship, that they misuse their stewardship of the
Baha'i Faith to divide the community when their job is to advance the
harmony of the human species, that they are striving to de-evolve the
world-encompassing vision of Baha'i into a replica of the intolerant
sectarian entities Baha'u'llah sought to surpass is why they are so much
in error and have caused such harm.
Again, express whatever literalist and
conservative views one wishes,
on the condition other views are not suppressed. It is the true clash of
conflicting opinions that produces the spark of truth.
To Truth,
Michael
> ... At one point Khan
> spoke of the fall of communism, and he almost spat the word
"communist."
> His nose flared, his eyes blazed. Then he spoke of the likely
criticisms
> "Western liberals" would make of Baha'u'llah's Most Holy
Book. And, he
> almost spat the word "liberals." His nose flared, his eyes
blazed. If you
> hate both communists and liberals, I'm not sure who is left to admire
but
> fascists.
--
"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: Refutation of Peter Khan
Date: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 12:20 PM
Greetings, Juan.
Many thanks for replying to my questions.
On the issue of the ethical source of e-mails forming
the basis for
action against Alison Marshall and others, I think you're missing the
point. The issue is not whethor or not my memory that Talisman had a
non-forwarding policy is flawed. The fact is Susan is admitting, as I
believe do those individuals signing themselves the Universal Housae of
Justice, that opinions people expressed on e-mail lists were sent to
Baha'i authorities who then took action against such people on account
of these opinions, such action extending to that of declaring such people
not to be Baha'is, notwithstanding the fact that the e-mails forming the
basis for such astounding actions were views supporting the fundamental
principles enunciated by Baha'u'llah.
What significant difference is there between what Susan
is seeking to
prove, i.e. that it was after messages on e-mail lists had been forwarded
to Baha'i authorities and these authorities took action against people
because of the expression of personal opinion on e-mail lists that there
came into being the remarkable entities of private Baha'i e-mail lists
whose members are not to forward messages to Baha'i authorities or that
there already existed private Baha'i e-mail lists from which
personal
opinions were sent to Baha'i authorities who took action against those
expressing such opinions.
Speaking of ethics, if what Susan is asserting
(contrary to my memory)
were true, if really she was forwarding messages to Counsellor Ghadirian,
Peter Khan or whomever from lists that were not private, and then she
observed Baha'i authorities taking action against Baha'is because of the
views they had expressed and which she had forwarded to these authorities,
then, morally outraged she ought to have posted her response in words
similar to these:
"What in the name of the Prince of Peace are you
doing taking the
honest expression of personal opinion, using what I forwarded to you, as
the grounds to oppress those voicing their views? Freedom of thought and
expression is one of the essential principles of this religion. Who do you
think you are supposed to take as your model, the Centre of the Covenant
or
the Son of the Wolf and his ilk? Cease and disist your reprehensible moves
against those expressing personal support in cyberspace for the world
embracing vision of the Blessed Beauty and his fundamental principles
for human harmony. If this is what you're going to do with e-mails I
honestly sent you in good faith, you can swallow sea water for all I care,
but I won't send you another comma from any lists and I'll recommend they
adopt a no-forwarding policy. Immerse yourselves in the Writings of
Baha'u'llah and stop oppressing the believers." If Susan posted any
such
honest outrage, I missed it. Maybe someone else can post it and she'll
stand vindicated.
Anyway, the bottom line on this issue is that it
is a violation of
fundamental Baha'i principle to interfere in the freedom of thought and
expression. Baha'i authorities have no business taking action against
those posting their personal views to cyberspace. The Calamity is quite
evident and its source clear when people signing themselves the Universal
House of Justice and any other Baha'i authority use posts to e-mail lists
as
grounds for action against Baha'is expressing personal opinion, especially
personal opinion in support of the fundamental principles of Baha'u'llah.
It matters not whether or not such lists had or had not a
non-forwarding
policy.
To the Future,
Michael
Juan Cole (jricole@my-deja.com) writes:
>
> Michael, I think you can corroborate for me that talisman@umich.edu
> has always had a limited no-forwarding policy, and that in fact I
> tossed Iskandar Hai off it in 1997 for violating it with regard to
> a particular liberal Baha'i scholar of the time. Therefore, it
is
> certainly true that "evidence" against Alison Marshall was
gathered
> unethically.
>
> The community in the midwest that wanted to build a local Baha'i
> House of Worship had purchased the land and just wanted to put up
> a sign saying that it was the site of a future local Mashriqu'l-
> Adhkar. Goons from the central Baha'i administration appeared,
who
> insisted they take back down the sign. This, despite
`Abdul-Baha's
> strict and urgent instructions that local Houses of Worship be built
> everywhere as soon as possible.
>
> cheers Juan
--
"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: Refutation of Peter Khan
Date: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 9:19 AM
Greetings, Nima and Juan.
Peter Khan is quoted as saying that the Calamity
already exists, as
can be seen from this situation in New Zealand. He asks isn't the loss of
spirituality the Calamity.
I would like to underline this remark and place it in
the context of
Baha'u'llah's own definition. It's been years since I read it, but no
doubt someone here can provide the exact reference. Does not Baha'u'llah
in the KITAB-I-IQAN refer to the Calamity and say that it already exists
as a consequence of the fundamentalists who are ruling in Islam. Does he
not ask there something like, "What greater Calamity can there be
than
that the believers would wish to turn to their spiritual leaders for
guidance and not be able to receive such spiritual guidance from
them?"
In my opinion, Peter Khan is completely correct that
the situation
existing currently as demonstrated by the expulsion of Ms. Marshall is
an indication that the Calamity is upon the Baha'is. It is the very same
situation deplored by Baha'u'llah, that those whose responsibility is to
promote the harmony of the human species have instead become wolves
ravening on the very believers of the Prince of Peace.
Here's to Peter Khan and his like reading more of
Baha'u'llah and
humbly reversing the Calamity they themselves have brought about.
To the Future,
Michael
>
> On the belief of Baha'i cultists that the world was going to end or
eternal
> peace come or something in the year 2000, Khan quotes a questioner as
> saying: "Related to that is the question: "I'm still
waiting for the unseen
> calamity by the end of the 20th century. Are we still getting
it?"
>
> He replies, "I've got news for you folks, you've got it. This
stuff going
> on in New Zealand at the present time, if this is not a calamity,
what is?
> Would you rather lose your spiritual life and your spiritual
condition and
> go through all eternity spiritually crippled by this? Is that worse
or
> better than the physical calamity of having your house blown up or
having a
> war occur or something like that? Our values are spiritual. The
things we
> value most are spiritual things. We are facing spiritual tests and a
> spiritual calamity is before us. And one of the things I wanted to do
this
> morning is to alert you to my understanding that the Baha'is in New
Zealand
> are facing the very real prospect of a spiritual calamity unless
urgent and
> immediate measures are taken."
>
> In other words, Khan is reinterpreting the Calamity that Baha'is have
been
> waiting for (and which obviously hasn't come in the way the cultists
> expected) as the tendency of New Zealand Baha'is actually to think
for
> themselves and not bow down in glaze-eyed uniformity before the
infallible
> pronouncements of Peter Khan. This is so extreme, so absurd, that it
is
> hard for me to believe that the audience didn't just walk out on him
at
> that point.
--
"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: Text of Fosters Threatening Letter to a 15 year old girl
with depression
Date: Monday, June 25, 2001 9:54 AM
Greetings, Mark.
One of the reasons I so strongly supported the
formation of this
newsgroup was that it provides freedom of thought and expression. I very
much encourage you and everyone else interested in this subject to post
here. And, I am constantly happy to repeat that in the discussion of
issues comments directed at individuals, rather than the issue being
discussed, are invalid. Indeed, I have always welcomed flames as an
admission by the flamer that my points were assessed incapable of
refutation. Otherwise such refutation of the points would have been
posted and not invalid remarks about the individual making these
points.
This point concerning the invalidity of remarks directed against an
individual normally applies to all individuals, including those who
are flamed in posts I'm too busy to read or to respond.
I look forward to reading your further comments
on this newsgroup
and trust the focus will be on issues and not irrelevant personalities.
Thrice Three Blessings,
Michael
"Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. " (owner@sociologist.com) writes:
> ...
> Just as I would defend your right to freedom of speech, I will defend
my own
> as well.
>
> Mark Foster
>
--
"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: Refutation of Peter Khan
Date: Monday, June 25, 2001 10:14 AM
Greetings, Susan.
Many thanks for your comments.
I would just like to underline that since freedom of
thought and
expression is an essential Baha'i principle, the issue here is not that
there are spies on Baha'i lists of whatever shade of opinion, but that
Baha'is feel a need to have private lists, to conceal their opinions,
except from those of likemindedness. I have consistently said that my
posts to cyberspace may be shared with anyone interested. There are
pagan webpages carrying some of my pagan material and Baha'i web pages
carrying my freely expressed views on Baha'i topics. The sharing of
personal opinions is fully in tune with Baha'i and other democratic
principle. The problem in current Baha'i practise is the interference in
the expression of personal views, including by Baha'i authorities, so that
those treading a Baha'i path feel they cannot speak except in private and
Baha'i authorities, as if they operated according to anti-democratic
(hence
anti-Baha'i) modes, seek to obtain information on views expressed in these
amazing entities, these Baha'i private lists.
I do not consider the existence of private
lists for Baha'is of
conservative shades of opinion healthy either. All viewpoints out to be
allowed freedom of thought and expression.
To the Future,
Michael
Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes:
>>I don't think you are eligible to join - Bahai spies are not
welcome
>
> Ah, but non-Baha'i spies like Nima and Jo who got Karen to spy for
them on the
> Baha'i-apologetics list are? Now that's fair an egual treatment! The
fact is I
> never asked anyone to forward me anything from Talisman or
Zuhur. Anything I
> have received came unsolicited. I expect the same thing is true of
Mark Foster.
> However, Nima solicits people to spy on our lists. He admitted
this following
> after we found out about what Karen was doing:
>
> "Oh, btw, I have my spies on every one of your lists. HAH!
LOL"
>
>>AFAIC Foster was out to get me declared a Covenant Breaker -
>
> Oh, nonsense. You left the Faith years ago and presumably did not lie
about the
> circumstances. They would not now declare you CB as Mark well knows.
Ditto with
> Steve Scholl.
>
>
>
> "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space,
with no time
> left to start again . . "
> Don McLean's American Pie
> https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
>
--
"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: To the members of the sans-Guardian "Universal House of
Justice"
Date: Sunday, January 21, 2001 8:48 PM
Greetings, Herr Nobe!
Well, your post resolves any perplexity. Yes, indeed,
you may deem
yourself a fundamentalist, including to the extent of saying you're
not
interested in having any discussion, as you already know what Baha'u'llah
said (presumably in the ten per cent of the Writings translated into Eng-
lish) and are not interested in the opinions of others. What amazing New-
speak you display in calling the expression of additional opinions (Do
you include the provision of additional material in translation?) as
censorship. Your view alone is valid and the imposition of this is not,
in newspeak, censorship. Ah, but, gods be praised, I speak a different
language, and calling the spade a spade means insisting people only say
what you see literally in a fraction of the text is damanding censorship.
Frankly, I consider this suppression of freedom
of thought and
expression a waste of time and you'd do best to teach everyone, by your
example, rather than by newspeak, that Baha'i is a tolerant, embracing
religion whose founder sought to encourage the recognition that humans
are a quite diverse lot, especially in how the divinely created minds
of the entire species have such a spectrum of valid perceptions and
understandings. Perhaps someday we'll observe Baha'i authorities keenly
living such a life as an example to a humanity that, truth be told, in
many ways has leaped ahead of said authorities in applying the basic
principles of the Baha'i religion, which include, by the way, freedom of
thought and expression.
To Tolerance Within Baha'i,
Michael
ernobe (ernobe@my-deja.com) writes:
> I don't know whether or not I fit in to your bahá'í fundamentalist
> category, but my object in writing this is not to engage you in any
> dialogue, but simply to point out to you and those who may be reading
> this an issue that seems to be at the heart of all your problems with
> the Bahá'í Faith. You seem to argue that one of the principal
causes
> of the irritation you feel when dealing with Bahá'ís the
censorship,
> reviewing, and "harrassment" you experience at the hands of
Bahá'í
> authorities. You state that if we were to make an objective
inquiry
> into the coercive and abusive methods of the Bahá'í Faith we would
be
> able to free it from the "fetters of orthodoxy" of its own
making, and
> give it a much wider hearing to the interested public. This is
more or
> less what your position is. Now you might agree with me that
the "tip
> of the ice-berg" that has alerted you to these issues and
brought on
> your present state of open confrontation with the Bahá'í
authorities is
> (was) censorship. At the same time you acknowledge that the
arrival at
> the truth of issues thru consultation is the modus operandi of all
> Bahá'í activity, because the Bahá'ís themselves have suffered the
> consequences of censorship and have learned the lesson well (that
those
> who engage in it unrightfully deprive themselves of arriving at the
> truth). Therefore by means of consultation everything that
appears to
> have been wrongly censored is brought to light for discussion and
> research, so that action may be taken to clarify and bring to light
the
> truth of any issue that affects the development and growth of the
> Faith. For this purpose Bahá'ís have specially elected bodies
whose
> job is precisely to engage in this sort of counsel. All the
> objectionable behaviour of Bahá'ís that you mention is considered
by
> them not only considering the objectionable conduct itself, but what
> its context is in the progress of the Faith, in other words, what the
> specific issues, words, and statements made up each of the
questionable
> instances of misconduct, and whether the solution to these problems
in
> any way served to clarify the position of the Faith in relation to
> those who might be totally unacquainted with it and might be
> predisposed to learn more of it if the proper information would have
> been presented. All academic endeavours of Bahá'ís should
also be
> undertaken with this same principle in mind, remembering that many,
if
> not all of the thorny issues addressed by academics receive in the
> Words of Bahá'u'lláh Himself ample explanation, giving us an
> understanding of the religious texts that far transcends those which
> the academics already agree on and look to for guidance. It is
the
> censorship of the Writings of Bahá'ulláh by academics which must be
> stopped, and not the censorship of academics by Bahá'ís.
Academics are
> censored by Bahá'ís because the academics censor the Writings of
> Bahá'u'lláh. Bahá'ís believe that controversies and
discussion over
> issues which Bahá'u'lláh has already addressed and resolved is a
waste
> of time, which could be spent teaching the interested public, and
> useless, because those who would argue that they are serving the
> interests of the Faith by challenging the Writings of its Founder
> deserve not to be considered as qualifying for membership in the
Bahá'í
> community.
>
> --
> ernobes' forum:
> https://forum.asiaco.com/ernobe/
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> https://www.deja.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: Susan Maneck and Mark Foster
Date: Thursday, June 28, 2001 8:06 AM
Greetings, Mark.
There is no Baha'i de facto sectarianism, except that
caused by the
conservatives led by the UHJ failing to live the life of the freedom of
thought and expression, independent investigation of truth, etc. It is
one of the more noteworthy aspects of the current fundamentalist
domination of the religion that the liberals faced with pressures to
resign from the narrowed formerly universalist and broad minded Faith
and even kicked out have not obliged the fundamentalist leadership and
become a sect. Those attempting to redefine the Faith as a sect are the
current members of the UHJ and these actions are grounds for their
removal from office.
To Baha'i,
Michael
"Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. " (owner@sociologist.com) writes:
> ...
> Private correspondence on Zuhur19 was not private anymore the moment
it was sent
> to me, and I determined that de facto sectarianism (i.e., as a fait
accomplis)
> warranted that people have knowledge of the situation.
>
> Mark Foster
>
>
--
"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: Refutation of Peter Khan
Date: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 12:27 PM
Greetings, Susan.
When I first became a Baha'i, I accepted that Deity had
revealed
a universal, world-embracing, harmonious, global fellowship which would
bring together the peoples of the world severed due to political,
religious and other prejudices and Deity, by means of essential spiritual
principles, such as the independent investigation of truth, the freedom of
thought and expression, the harmony of reason and faith, the equality of
women and men, etc., would elevate the human species above the
antagonisms,
pettiness, fundamentalism, etc. which had brought us to the brink of
extinction. When those in power in the Baha'i Faith decreed that this
understanding of things was incompatible with membership within Baha'i,
I accepted that my ancient ancestors were correct in their approach to
spiritual matters.
Thrice Three Blessings,
Michael
Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes:
> To my comment:
>
>> In removing Michael and Alison from the roles what
>>>the House was basically saying is that neither of them
had a sufficient
>>>grasp
>>>or acceptance of the provisions of the Covenant to be
considered fully
>>>responsible for their failure to abide by it.
>
> Warren writes:
>
>>That sounds a lot like the act of the Catholic Church Marriage
tribunals to
>>declare marriages annuled. The idea is that a marriage really did
not take
>>place
>
> Well, I'm not sure they are commenting on the quality of their faith
when they
> first became Baha'is.
>
> warmest, Susan
--
"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: Why does everyone have to be so Goddamn mean?
Date: Friday, June 29, 2001 8:22 AM
Hi, Susan.
This is ad hominem. You are, in my view, the most
articulate,
persuasive defender of the conservative viewpoint on the Internet. You
dance rings around the others, and that includes the infallible nine. I
recommend you ignore all this irrelevant ad hominem stuff and concentrate
on issues that have validity. The rest is a waste of time. It's like
getting the star quarterback on the opposing team to compete in a who
can eat the most waffles in the shortest amount of time contest, simply
distracting.
You are welcome, in my view, to file this and use it
whenever you wish
as a reply to ad hominems, or simply ignore them.
I may disagree with your points many times. I may even
wonder whether
you yourself really believe what you're saying. "It's good
practise," I
believe it was Cicero once said, "To argue the weaker the weaker
case."
Anyway, here's a toast to you, the best conservative
quarterback, and
don't worry about proving how many waffles you've eaten. Anyone can tell
when you carry the ball you know what you're doing.
Thrive,
Michael
Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes:
>>You only have 1 major article and no full-length monograph, and
the Indian
>>publication hardly qualifies.
>
> Excuse me, Nima. I have more than seven articles and a book.
>
> "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space,
with no time
> left to start again . . "
> Don McLean's American Pie
> https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
>
--
"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: Karen's Statement on RD and BA
Date: Friday, July 06, 2001 9:14 AM
Greetings, Susan.
The reason I so strongly supported this forum is that
it is unmoderated.
That means no one's posts can be censored. That means, whatever your
understanding may be on the intent of the primary proposer of the site,
that nothing and no one is preventing Baha'is from utilizing this
available
site and carry on a full range of discussions, consultations, the sharing
of information, etc. to their hearts' content.
What is surprising, except perhaps to those suspecting
Baha'i
authorities have made people fearful of expressing their opinions on the
Internet in unmoderated fora, is that this is a place so relatively
under-utilized by Baha'is. I find it quite telling that at times I've
requested a few of the items that should all be posted here as a matter of
course, example Ridvan letters from the Universal House of Justice. Were
all well with Baha'i this would be an additional medium for the sharing
of news and views in every beneficial sense.
To the Future,
Michael
Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes:
>
> This newsgroup hardly reflects the reality of the Baha'i community.
.It was
> basically started by Fred as a forum for bashing the Baha'i
Faith.
>
> warmest, Susan
--
"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: No Room for "Dialogue"
Date: Thursday, July 12, 2001 7:55 AM
Greetings, Dave.
Thanks for your statement. Could you kindly
clarify it?
You mean in your opinion the fundamental Baha'i
principal is that what
the UHJ orders takes precedence over what Baha'u'llah wrote, right? You
mean
that really the Baha'i Faith is not about what Baha'u'llah wrote; it is
not
about the harmony of humanity through living the life of the independent
investigation of truth, the freedom of thought and acceptance, the
welcoming within Baha'i of the rainbow of human understandings, the
blending of the rational and faith sources of knowledge, the equality of
women and men, etc., right? It is, in your opinion, about not thinking,
not investigating reality, not speaking one's thoughts freely, not
accepting within Baha'i those whose understandings of what Baha'u'llah
wrote differ from yours, not accepting reason, not allowing women to be
equal, not overcoming past divisive behaviour due to fundamentalism and
sectarianism, not tossing cult leadership in the trash can of history,
right? Your opinion of Baha'i is that it is a cult of people mindlessly
accepting the opposite of what Baha'u'llah wrote, right?
Well, that is your opinion, but I think the Baha'i
Faith is about what
Baha'u'llah wrote.
To Baha'u'llah,
Michael
Dave Fiorito (bighappymonkey@yahoo.com) writes:
> Michael,
>
> The Baha'i Faith is not about our opinions of what is or is not a
> spiritual truth. The Baha'i Faith is about what Baha'u'llah
wrote and
> he wrote that we are to obey the decisions of the UHJ.
>
> 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: A Bahai in *Perfectly* Good Standing
Date: Thursday, July 12, 2001 7:35 AM
Greetings, Dave.
And, just precisely how does this differ from
back-biting? Where is
the written documentation that Fred has been disenrolled? Why would you
or anyone else backbite, according to my understanding of the word, on
this issue, and why has there not been any public documentation of this?
Secret membership lists, secret expulsions, verbal conversations such as
you and Susan are recounting sound to me exactly like the kind of thing
Baha'u'llah condemned in the most emphatic language.
To Baha'i,
Michael
Dave Fiorito (bighappymonkey@yahoo.com) writes:
>
> Are you refering to me? If so I make no
"allegation". I contacted
> Membership Services at National and asked them if Fredrick Glaysher
> was a member of the Baha'i Faith. I gave them your Baha'i ID
number
> from the card on your site. They responded by telling me that
you
> were removed from the membership rolls in February of 1999.
>
> Just the facts.
>
> 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: No Room for "Dialogue"
Date: Thursday, July 12, 2001 8:20 AM
Herr Dave.
You hold a Nazi opinion of the Revelation of
Baha'u'llah. You say
that nothing Baha'u'llah wrote is to be considered, only obedience to the
current individuals who are calling themselve the Universal House of
Justice.
Sir, if there were to be a gentleman in Washington who went around wearing
a crown, who ignored what was written in the US Constitution and by the
Founding Fathers, who were to proclaim those believing in the principles
of the US Constitution and refusing to keep such a belief a silent thought
deep in their heats, but articulately upheld these principles in public to
be ineligible for US citizenship, sir, such a gentleman could call himself
the President of the United States, but, sir, his actions would put the
lie to this claim. Sir, it is the same case with those individuals
who
are saying they are the Universal House of Justice. They no more resemble
what Baha'u'llah called the Universal House of Justice than would, gods
ever preserve America from, the above hypothetical gentleman embody the
ideals of the Constitutional concept of president.
Baha'u'llah never asked anyone to thoughtlessly
obey fundamentalistt
sectarians, oppressors of all for which He endured decades of privation
and imprisonment. Baha'u'llah called for there to be those guiding His
universal community as if they were the Source of All Good, those
promoting the fellowship of the believers through diffusing the divine
fragrances of independent investigation of truth, freedom of thought and
expression, acceptance that not your one understanding alone is valid, but
humans are created holding capacity for a rainbow of valid individual
perceptions, the agreement of true faith and reason, the equality of women
and men, etc. When such an Institution exists and is beneficially
demonstrating that Baha'is harmoniously, universally are being shown a
way to the light of happiness, understanding, peace, this Institution is
to be obeyed, reasonably. The Nazi principle of obeying cult leaders has
nothing to do with Baha'u'llah.
To Baha'i,
Michael
Dave Fiorito (bighappymonkey@yahoo.com) writes:
>
> No. Not if you are a Baha'i. Baha'u'llah's instructions
are clear on
> this one. The UHJ is to be obeyed. If we want
clarification or we
> wish to appeal we do so directly to them. Beyond that we must
obey if
> we are to stay within the bounds of Baha'u'llah's laws. I
challenge
> anyone to show me - in Baha'u'llah's Writings - where it says
anything
> to the contrary.
>
> 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: No Room for "Dialogue"
Date: Thursday, July 12, 2001 8:35 AM
Hello, Dave.
It is the UHJ and those thoughtlessly accepting the
opposite of
everything Baha'u'llah wrote about the essential principles of Baha'i and
of spirituality who are ignoring Baha'u'llah and have turned people
against what Bah'u'llah sought to provide humanity. He had no intent to
vomit up yet another fundamentalist sect, replete with cult leaders and
politburos.
What is wanted is for those holding positions of
responsibility to
start behaving as Baha'is, to follow Baha'i principles, to welcome all
Baha'is within Baha'i, to accept the right of the free expression of all
individual understandings within Baha'i, to be world-embracing, global-
minded, truly the Trustees of the Merciful and the Source of All Good.
What is wanted for anyone clothing herself or himself in the robe of
Baha'i to refuse to tolerate the imposition of fundamentalism with its
divisive designation of people such as Alison as unbelievers, with its
opposition to all Baha'u'llah and His Son endured decades of sorrow to
overcome. What is wanted is for you and all your kind to be Baha'is and
understand the one hundred and eighty degree difference between Baha'i
and cult. Do not permit cult leaders to trample on Baha'u'llah's legacy
and they cannot trample on it.
Let the leaders of Baha'i be Baha'is; let the ordinary
believers be
Baha'is.
To Baha'i,
Michael
Dave Fiorito (bighappymonkey@yahoo.com) writes:
>
> Ok. So they listen - now what? Turn people against the AO
that
> Baha'u'llah ordained? Get them to leave the Baha'i Faith?
Convert
> them to a version of the Faith that ignores everything Baha'u'llah
> said about LSAs and the UHJ?
>
> What is the purpose of running over the same old ground? Are
you
> trying to shame the AO into reversing itself? Are you trying to
> convince the world the Baha'u'llah was wrong?
>
> I just don't get what it is you actually want?
>
>
> 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: Epistle to Liberal Baha'is
Date: Monday, July 16, 2001 9:45 AM
Greetings, Pat.
Actually, read my letter again, as perhaps ought anyone
being advised
to contact the UHJ with concerns. I mentioned that I'd been advised it was
not a good idea to contact them, I indeed mentioned that my father faught
against those whose policies seem to be similar to those of the UHJ. How
do you distinguish freedom of speech as permitted in a Baha'i context from
what has been the policy of the UHJ? How do you distinguish the workings
of Goebbels from the censoring of the Service of Women Paper, etc.,
etc.?
The very significant point is the response of the UHJ.
In Canada we
are free to express our opinion of government policy, of the fallibility
of our leaders, things that in Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia were
not allowed. Now how did the UHJ respond to my questioning. Read my
letter
again carefully. I didn't say "You bunch of fascists", I asked
how current
Baha'i censorship, etc. was to be distinguished from Goebbel's. Tell me,
how does censorship within Baha'i vary from censorship in unappetizing
regimes? And, just how did the UHJ demonstrate the distinguishing features
of the Baha'i as compared to the Nazi and Communist systems when they
reacted to freedom of expression, in my letter, and by many others on the
InterNet? Encouraging people to resign membership because they are saying
what they think, having people visited by Counsellors and Auxiliary Board
Members, threatening people with being shunned, calling New Zealanders
unspiritual and writing the most shameful letters the UHJ has ever
received when they appeal the expulsion without notice of someone whose
offense was to believe Baha'u'llah meant what he said when he said that
freedom of thought and expression is a Baha'i principle, etc, etc.
If someone called Uncle Joe a tin potted dictator with
delusions of
grandeur and the reponse of Uncle Joe was to enforce that person's
deprivation of citizenship has he not confirmed the accusation? If someone
calls a liberal democratic leader a clone of Herr Hitler and continues to
speak and write as a free citizen, has this reaction by the
liberal-democrat not demonstrated the quality of the leader? So, even had
I said, "You guys are clones of Hitler," my comment would have
been of no
import. It was the reaction a la fascisme that demonstrated the nature of
the operation being run by the current lot in Haifa.
To A Better Future,
michael
Pat Kohli (kohliCUT_THE_CAPS@ameritel.net) writes:
> Allahu Abha!
>
> Michael McKenny wrote:
>
>> And some sit on a mountain and call those swimming unbelievers.
>
> Some sit on their seats and call others the fascist reason their
fathers
> risked their necks. There is a lot of name calling to be done,
eh?
>
> Blessings!
> - 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: No Room for "Dialogue"
Date: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 9:27 AM
Hi, Rick
Ad hominem again. Why don't you tell us what the facts
really are?
As to the ad hominem point you've made here, let me get this straight,
are you really suggesting that concerns about freedom of thought and
expression, about the living the Baha'i life of following the essential
principles of the Founder of the Faith and the Perfect Exemplar may not
be accessed by listening to those who have been valiant enough to insist
on living this life and following these principles even at the cost of
encountering the wrath of religious fundamentalists and authoritarian
leadership? By this reasoning, since Baha'u'llah was valiant enough to
insist on living the same life and follow the same principles, despite
arousing the same fundamentalist and authoritarian wrath, you hold that
he's likely wrong, too, right? Well, you're entitled to your opinion,
just so long as you don't demand every other Baha'i share it.
To a Decent Future,
Michael
"Rick Schaut" (RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom) writes:
>
> It's pretty good evidence that even three years after the
"Modest Proposal"
> events, the individuals involved still weren't understanding many of
the
> concerns that the institutions had over some of the stuff they were
> publishing. If you're relying on the impressions of those
individuals as
> the primary source for what the institutions were concerned about,
then
> you've probably got it wrong.
>
>
> 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: No Room for "Dialogue"
Date: Friday, July 20, 2001 8:36 AM
Hi, Karen.
Fascinating. I spent so much time thinking the press
here was biased
in favour of the conservative viewpoint, that I was amazed to hear right
wing folks complaining we've a liberal dominated press. However, Rick is,
either deliberately or not, seemingly not getting it. In my experience, it
is very rare to see him or many other anti-liberals here and elsewhere in
Baha'i cyberspace do anything except talk about personality, who said
something. I see very little concrete discussion of the point, issue,
subject. It almost always becomes an issue of who, not what. In my
opinion,
this is because if the discussion is on what, they've got nothing to say.
Their premise is ad hominem, because of who said it, therefore it's
right.
This is invalid. Something is not right (except perhaps right wing :) )
simply because the NSA or UHJ said so. And it is not wrong, simply because
Juan, Nima, etc. said so. Issues are independent of personality. Allowing
freedom of thought and expression is not simply right because Baha'u'llah
said so, but human experience, including Baha'i experience has
demonstrated
the evil of oppressing freedom of thought and expression, etc.
thrive,
m.
"Karen Bacquet" (karenbacquet@hotmail.com) writes:
>> >
>> >P.S. Where's Michael to point out that Karen's remark was an
ad hominem?
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Well, I didn't read it that way. I have seen many
conservatives
> complaining
>> about the bias in the press. I have no reason to think that
*you* are
>> one of these conservatives, as I have no clue what your political
>> beliefs are - we don't talk politics much around here.
>>
>> I think Karen is making a general point, and you are just taking
it
>> too personally - I don't think she is saying that you are one of
>> these people.
>>
>> I guess I can see how the confusion could arise, what with the
>> conversation about various styles of journalism we were just
having.
>>
>> But, I think it's clear, since she is talking about a nationwide
media
>> phenomena here, that Karen is referring to political
conservatives
>> talking about the national media - not Baha'i conservatives
talking
>> about the Baha'i media.>>
>
>
> Yes, and I'm married to a political conservative, so I'm pretty
familiar
> with how they think, and with the complaint that the press has a
"liberal
> bias".
>
> Love, Karen
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
"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: Just another ridiculous revealed religion...
Date: Monday, February 19, 2001 1:50 PM
And With You, Pat.
Uhm, golly gee, by the ravens on Cu Chulainn's
shoulders, don't you
think there's a wee bit of discrepancy between the attitude the Prince
of Peace and his son conveyed as the mature attitude of the New Day and
the perception that those posting views other than fundamentalist ones
are attacking the Baha'i Faith?
I mean, by the great ancient Goddesses of Battle, even
this pagan can
read various views, including that yes, really, Buddhists of a traditional
Theravada persuasion believe there is no creator god, and they have
scriptures to support their belief, that there's vindivation of this as
not some aberrant eccentricity of Bruce's, but a traditional Buddhist view
on Buddhist FAQs, as I posted to Baha'i cyberspace several years
back,
without perceiving such views as attacks. And, we in ancient times were
quite a bellicose lot, though, goddesses and gods be praised, in all our
fighting we found other reasons to display martial prowess than views
about
spirituality. Ireland was not known for its religious intolerance before
fundamentalist monotheism arrived from outside.
So, if Bruce or anyone else, in threads others initiate
or in threads
they start themselves speak their minds and support tolerance, broad-
mindedness, universality in the sense of inclusive unity of diverse
views, methinks it doesn't need any special ogam divination by
Brigid's
favour to realize those perceiving such a sharing of personal views as
"Attacks" on the Baha'i Faith have quite an extensive
interpretation of
the word "Attack" and methinks quite a limiting one of the
Baha'i Faith.
Here's a cup (of tea, if you like :) ) to praising all
those great
warriors of the past, and to the bright vision of the New Day, where one
may express personal views without anyone feeling there are war chariots
thundering at the door, or even that the speaker is hacking away at the
sacred tree of Baha. In my opinion, perceiving others as enemies attacking
the Baha'i Faith, rather than individuals with varied opinions, is much
more destructive of the Baha'i Faith than Theravada denial of a creator
god or any other beliefs, views, perceptions anyone can post to either
threads they jump into or ones the flow of which they start themselves.
Health and Prosperity To You, Too,
Michael
Pat Kohli (kohli@ameritel.net) writes:
> May the gods be with you,
>
> If Bruce were simply responding to Baha'is disparaging Buddhism, I'd
expect to see
> his comments to be largely in the course of threads started by
others. If Bruce
> were primarily attacking the BF, I'd expect to see more messages in
threads that he
> started.
>
> Does this seem to you to be reasonable metrics?
>
> Health and prosperity!
> - Pat
--
"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: Women on the House
Date: Thursday, February 22, 2001 11:55 AM
Greetings, Susan.
Sigh.
But, they've no trouble with the word
"elucidation" rather than the
word "interpretation." They not only are interpreting they are
imposing
their interpretation and striving, contrary to Baha'i scripture, to
interfere with the freedom of individuals to express a variety of personal
opinions and perceptions, calling the expression of such opinions the
assertion of authoritative interpretations and those expressing such
perceptions devoid or lacking in true understanding.
How can one insist on true understanding to the extent
of booting
people out for saying another opinion, without interpreting?
The point often overlooked by fundamentalist Baha'is is
that a literal
interpretation, whether you call it an elucidation or some other word, is
an interpretation and this applies to the writings of anyone, including
Shoghi Effendi. If they do the fundamentalist twist and divorce the text
of Shoghi Effendi from the context of when, why and for whom he was
writing, demanding, contrary to Baha'i scripture, that everyone must take
his words as universally and eternally (well, for the next thousand or
thousands of years) applicable, as "interpreted" literally, they
are not
only interpreting, they are interpreting authoritatively. They are
using
power, authority to impose their interpretation as the only one permitted
expression within Baha'i.
To A Better Future,
Michael
Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes:
>>But wait a minute, are you saying that the Universal House of
>>Justice has no power of authoritative interpretation?
>
> Dear Ian,
>
> Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying and what the House of Justice
says about
> itself.
>
> warmest, Susan
--
"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: UPDATE on Deborah Buchhorn v NSA/LSA
Date: Thursday, August 23, 2001 8:39 AM
Top o' the Mornin' to You, Nightshadow.
Dyou really figure it's more oppressive to be
attacked in this NG
than to have you're name removed without notice from the membership rolls
of the Baha'i community?
To a Better Future,
M.
NightShadow (seals_jay@hotmail.com) writes:
> There was someone named "BIGS - Bahai In *Perfectly* Good
Standing"
> <patrick_henry@liberty.com> who once said...:
>
>>Non-bahais new to this arena may want at least to glance at
>>the more than decade-long record of dishonesty of such
>>fundamentalists painstakingly compilied on my bahai website.
>
> You know, come to think of it, I don't recall any members of the NSA
> or their representatives coming in here and attacking you on a
> personal level or calling you names.
>
> How unfortunate for you that they don't. If they did, then you'd
> REALLY have a reason to bitch, wouldn't you?
>
> It must feel really good to attack something that doesn't fight back,
> eh?
--
"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: Just another ridiculous revealed religion...
Date: Friday, February 23, 2001 9:47 AM
Hi, Susan.
Wow. Equating one opposed to totalitarian imposition of
a single
party line with one opposed to the equality of the races. Well done.
My limited mathematics couldn't visualize that equation.
All generalizations cry out for the exceptions that
render the
equation all X = y invalid. However, most x = y is not invalidated by
such exceptions and although it's often tempting to think so, the finding
of such exceptions does not render the equation no x = y valid. So, you
may well find some people here who are exceptions to the statement
Canadians speak English or French or to Canadians were born in the 20th
Century, but these exceptions don't mean a knowledge of either of those
languages will not help you talk to most of us, nor that all of the folks
up here were born in centuries other than the 20th.
I'm in favour of freedom of thought and
expression. If you feel like
demonstrating Baha'u'llah was gung ho for the suppression of thought and
expression go to it, on the condition those who have a higher opinion of
him also get their say. And, praise be to the liberal democracies of the
West and cyberspace, here we all can speak our minds, and the validity
and desireability of our equations may be seen by all interested.
Thrive,
Michael
Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes:
>>if I'm reading the post
>>correctly, seems to be dealing with keeping quiet in order to have
unity,
>>even if one believes one has superior knowledge, how it can be
perceived
>>that not only the recipient of this Nineteenth Century document
(if s/he
>>really is a candidate for the category of those thinking they have
superior
>>knowledge and not keeping quiet for the sake of unity) but a
Twenty First
>>Century individual named in the post could consider this an ad
hominem --
>>in a Baha'i context.
>
> Dear Michael,
>
> Scholarship would certainly suffer greatly if one could not post or
discuss
> translations of primary texts material because it might contain
material which
> could cause people to take a critical view of someone's activity.
Should
> academics avoid discussion of the elimination of prejudice in
Baha'u'llah's
> writings because the list might have a racist who would
consider this ad
> hominen?
>
> warmest, Susan
--
"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: Just another ridiculous revealed religion...
Date: Monday, February 19, 2001 6:57 AM
Diethe dhuit, Susan.
No, actually.
Bruce has simply responded to fundamentalist Baha'is
insisting that
Buddhists haven't got a clue about Buddhism, that Buddhists have distorted
and got wrong what Buddha said, and that it's the literal reading of the
words of Abdu'l Baha that should take precedence over the scriptures of
Buddhism for an understanding of Buddhism.
Anyone who has been reading these cyberspace fora ought
to recall the
facts of this. Anyone who has newly ventured in, need merely look at the
archives.
Perhaps you can share with us the material from H-Bahai
that shows
the intolerance of those towards traditional, as opposed to
fundamentalist, Baha'i positions. The archives of cyberspace should
clearly show that Michael McKenny consistently upheld the right of anyone
to share an opinion, and opposed only the demand that a single view be
imposed as the exclusive Baha'i dogma. Exclusivity, dogmatism and the
veils of intolerance adorning these being the only things he doesn't
tolerate.
Slan Agat,
Michael
Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes:
>> Actually, no. You've had a traditional (Theravada) Buddhist
posting
>>here. The distinction is that fundamentalists are generally
exclusivists
>>intolerant of other opinions
>
> Yes, that is what I was revering to. A certain Buddhist who has shown
himselve
> to be exclusvistic and intolerant of the other's opinions.
>
>>Bruce, has not demanded that his
>>opinion be imposed on all Buddhists,
>
> No, he mostly wants to impose them on us. So much so, that he has
devoted
> considerable energy over the last six years to achieve that end.
>
> >I repeat yet again that liberals so vehemently opposed by
the
>>fundamentalist Baha'is have continuously spoken in favour of
freedom
>>of thought and expression.
>
> Oh yeah? You obviously haven't been aware of what has been going on
on H-Bahai
> lately.
>
> warmest, Susan
--
"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: Women on the House
Date: Saturday, February 24, 2001 7:47 AM
Hi, Susan.
I reckon you posted this before reading everything I
said. If you go
back and read it all, you'll see that I said they were authoritatively
interpreting, as they were using their power (authority) to insist that
their interpretation was the only one allowed. Otherwise how could they
be calling people devoid or lacking of true understanding for having a
different opinion, and in addition how could they be declaring such
faulty understanding demonstrated failure to meet membership requirements?
I know they claim other people have been
authoritatively interpreting
-- the funny thing being these were people without power who were only
expressing a difference of personal opinion. No, the authoritative
interpretation being conducted these days, contrary to Baha'i scripture,
is
by the UHJ.
My posts are normally not that long. It doesn't hurt to read
to the end
before answering.
Thrive,
Michael
Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes:
>> Whatever they call it, it's interpretation.
>
> Dear Michael,
>
> There is nothing in the Writings against interpretation which we must
all
> engage in. It is *authoritative* interpretation which is limited to
the
> Master and the Guardian.
>
> warmest, Susan
--
"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: Hmmm.... Interesting!
Date: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 8:32 AM
Greetings, Gerald.
Many thanks for your post.
Actually, I think an unbiased historical analysis will
agree with
your assessment that it was the failing of Shoghi Effendi that is the
principal origin of the decline of Baha'i. He it was who reared the
organization, living as he was in an age of totalitarianism. Of course,
he extracted his vision from the ocean of words of his predecessors, but
sacred text permits a vast spectrum of understanding; the specific ideas
of Shoghi Effendi are not exclusively all there is.
In addition I don't see what difference it makes
really whether one
has a pope or a UHJ, that is, the absence of a Guardian, in my view, is a
red herring. It is a fundamentalist dogma that only the non-existing
guardian is able to recognize that what Shoghi Effendi legislated or
opined was applicable within the context of his lifetime. This is not the
only understanding available, even within a Baha'i worldview. Fundies are
very good at positing that the literal text demands a single perception
and much pretty despicable stuff has stained human history flowing from
this irrational premise.
I think you are quite correct that politics, the
ambition of
individuals to attain and maintain personal positions of authority and
to insist on their personal and partisan platforms as the narrow limit
defining Baha'i, has devastated the religion.
The vehement reaction of people such as Pat
results from you hitting
too close to home. Henderson doesn't have to run for the presidency to be
political. After all, there is a brief eight years allowed to one to be
president. A more astute politico would set his sights on reiging as long
as he liked in Wilmette, and use the tools of the politician to remove
people like Juan Cole from any possibility of replacing him, albeit the
mystics who form the bulk of the exiled Baha'i liberals are more perceived
by fundy politicos as threats than they are interested in the sterile
administration which so bedazzles Henderson, Hooper and Co.
Interesting to meet another pagan here. I am
Celtic. The falling of
Baha'i (intended by its founder to be the cutting edge of all-embracing
monotheism) to exclusivist literalist fundamentalism simply validates for
me the view of my pagan ancestors that spirituality was too precious a
thing to circumscribe with one god and with the written word. Little
political minds are too capable of using monotheism and words asserted to
be sacred to divide so as to rule, however undesireable the entity
they
create to rule may be.
Very Best Wishes,
Michael
"Gerald Smith" (gerald.smith38@gte.net) writes:
> Greetings, everybody!
>
> I am Gerald Smith and I was a Bahai for 15 years, though I have no
faith
> whatsoever in that or any other form of Middle Eastern
Monotheism. I find
> it interesting that the dragon's teeth of totalitarianism sown by the
> leaders of the Bahai Faith are starting to sprout. I was led
out of the
> faith by my awareness of how badly the faith was stagnating in the
1980's,
> by the obvious inflexible rigidity of the leadership of the faith,
parroting
> the same thing over and over again they are still parroting, by the
heavy
> emphasis on proselytizing combined with lack of any real community
spiritual
> life, and most of all, by spending a year in Saudi Arabia where I got
to
> know some true, enlightened Muslims (none of whom were Saudis) and
realized
> that the best parts of Bahai were stolen wholesale from Islam.
>
> It doesn't surprise me that the seedlings of what I saw ten years ago
are
> bearing fruit now. It is obvious to me that the Covenent is dead, the
Bahai
> Faith a mere cult of no real importance that will doubtless linger
for a
> long time but has lost its chance to become a first-class world
religion. I
> believe it was Shoghi Effendi himself who said the Faith would have
poor
> chances at long term survival if it were deprived of the Guardianship
and he
> was right, but the fault is largely his for not writing a will, not
having
> children and excommunicating every relative who could have succeeded
him.
> The faith has effectively been dying since and has largely already
> accomplished the little further that could be expected of it.
Now that the
> "dirty linen" the leaders of the faith so long successfully
hid from the
> public is being prominently displayed, only long term decline can be
> foreseen.
>
> I don't regret the time that I spent as a Bahai, but it is to bad the
faith
> has been so ill-served by its leadership. Has anyone noticed how
closely the
> organization of the Bahai Faith as instituted by Shoghi Effendi
parallels
> that of the Communist Party? Right down to dictatorial control of the
center
> by a self-perpetuating oligarchy, "democratic centralism"
and multi-year
> plans. This is a great way to organise a small, power-hungry
core of
> disciplined fanatics into a totalitarian regime, but as with
Marx-Leninism
> it will guarantee the long term decline and eventual disappearance of
the
> faith.
>
> Oh well, please keep in mind there is no one true religion and there
are
> plenty of other faiths you can explore in your spiritual seeking. I
could
> recommend the more liberal and enlightened forms of Sufi but I myself
am
> Pagan and polytheistic and more interested in the Primordial
religions of
> the Earth.
>
> Peace and Joy to you, Pilgrim!
>
> JerryBear
>
>
--
"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: Just another ridiculous revealed religion...
Date: Sunday, February 18, 2001 9:19 PM
Greetings, Susan.
Actually, no. You've had a traditional (Theravada)
Buddhist posting
here. The distinction is that fundamentalists are generally exclusivists
intolerant of other opinions. It is the current situation within Baha'i
that a faction of exclusivists intolerant of other opinions,
fundamentalists,
that is, have been engaging in political activity to insist that the
view
they hold is the only one permitted and those exercising their right to
share other personal opinions be excluded. Bruce, has not demanded that
his
opinion be imposed on all Buddhists, as have fundamentalist Baha'is with
their one only viewpoint. He is a traditional Buddhist. One may be a
traditional Baha'i, but not by demanding all other opinions be excluded.
I repeat yet again that liberals so vehemently opposed
by the
fundamentalist Baha'is have continuously spoken in favour of freedom
of thought and expression. Traditional views are welcome; what is not
welcome is any attempt to insist that only one viewpoint is valid in
Baha'i.
To Tolerance Within Baha'i,
michael
Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes:
>
> Not, really. We've had a fundamentalist Buddhist posting on Baha'i
lists for
> years. :-)
>
> warmest, Susan
--
"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: Why there is no trace of USA in Bible!!!
Date: Sunday, August 12, 2001 2:51 PM
Hi, Michel.
Sounds like something for alt.history.what-if. On the
flip side there's
Turtledove's Byzantine stuff where Muhammad became a Christian monk and
the
Byzantine Empire is thriving.
As to Biblical stuff predicting North American Nations,
then, there's
Canada's claim that that verse, "And there shall be a dominion from
sea to
sea," applies to Canada.
I disagree with you at least in part. I'm mighty fond
of the US and
much prefer its liberalism to the theocratic visions of those in Haifa.
The US isn't perfect, but it's degree of imperfection is not as serious
a threat to human well-being as a lot of other totalitarian entities.
That said, I do prefer Canada, well, except maybe on the coldest days :)
Thrive,
michael
Michel Boucher (alsandorz@netcom.ca) writes:
> jolie296@cs.com (Jolie296) a écrit dans
> news:20010810182252.01988.00003476@ng-bd1.news.cs.com:
>
>> Why there is no trace of USA in Bible!!!
>>
>> That is because USA is a pleasant surprise
>> for the Human Race.
>
> Hardly. It's a millstone around the neck of every nation that
opposes
> its "liberal" policies with respect to its national
interest. And if
> one looks at it another way, were we not supposed to embrace Islam,
in
> which case history would have evolved in a completely different
way,
> and the British Empire and the US would not have existed.
>
> I look on the US as the result of some very bad decisions all around.
>
> --
> The danger with depleted geranium is that it's like holding a
pistil
> to your head.
>
> Something I thought I heard on radio
>
> To send private mail, get the zed out.
--
"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: Just another ridiculous revealed religion...
Date: Monday, February 19, 2001 6:57 AM
Diethe dhuit, Susan.
No, actually.
Bruce has simply responded to fundamentalist Baha'is
insisting that
Buddhists haven't got a clue about Buddhism, that Buddhists have distorted
and got wrong what Buddha said, and that it's the literal reading of the
words of Abdu'l Baha that should take precedence over the scriptures of
Buddhism for an understanding of Buddhism.
Anyone who has been reading these cyberspace fora ought
to recall the
facts of this. Anyone who has newly ventured in, need merely look at the
archives.
Perhaps you can share with us the material from H-Bahai
that shows
the intolerance of those towards traditional, as opposed to
fundamentalist, Baha'i positions. The archives of cyberspace should
clearly show that Michael McKenny consistently upheld the right of anyone
to share an opinion, and opposed only the demand that a single view be
imposed as the exclusive Baha'i dogma. Exclusivity, dogmatism and the
veils of intolerance adorning these being the only things he doesn't
tolerate.
Slan Agat,
Michael
Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes:
>> Actually, no. You've had a traditional (Theravada) Buddhist
posting
>>here. The distinction is that fundamentalists are generally
exclusivists
>>intolerant of other opinions
>
> Yes, that is what I was revering to. A certain Buddhist who has shown
himselve
> to be exclusvistic and intolerant of the other's opinions.
>
>>Bruce, has not demanded that his
>>opinion be imposed on all Buddhists,
>
> No, he mostly wants to impose them on us. So much so, that he has
devoted
> considerable energy over the last six years to achieve that end.
>
> >I repeat yet again that liberals so vehemently opposed by
the
>>fundamentalist Baha'is have continuously spoken in favour of
freedom
>>of thought and expression.
>
> Oh yeah? You obviously haven't been aware of what has been going on
on H-Bahai
> lately.
>
> warmest, Susan
--
"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: That's right: Opinions are not banned!
Date: Sunday, October 28, 2001 4:34 PM
Greetings, Pat.
Actually, you've got it wrong. I notice every time this
issue comes
up you say something like, "Well, Michael told the UHJ he thought
they
were Nazis and therefore they were justified in kicking him out."
Firstly, at the time I was a strong supporter of the
UHJ. I was
writing as a result of having been so advised by Auxiliary Board Member
Sue Tamas. Baha'u'llah says somewhere that one in the presence of
authority and justice need not fear, and simply has to tell the truth.
I did not fear. My letter, if I recall correctly, states that I had
been
advised by others that writing to the UHJ was not a good idea. I wrote to
them, despite such advice, something I would not have done, if I
really
thought they were Nazis.
Secondly, I was aware that the Service of Women Paper
had been
censored; I read the Rebuttal by the UHJ. They said that there was a Paper
being read and creating quite a stir in New Zealand, but I was not
permitted
to read the Paper itself. The UHJ censored the Paper. Years later, after I
joined Talisman, I received a copy by e-mail. This struck me at the time,
and still does, as an unacceptable censorship. This and the use of the
quote, in the context of the present honestly considered a mistranslation,
in the Rebuttal is legitimate basis for mentioning the parallel to the
Nazi
policy of misinformation.
It is very legitimate, for example, for any strong
supporter of the
government and the Constitution of the US, or any of our other Western
democracies, to express the opinion that recent anti-terrorist
legislation
appears tyrannical and despotic, even to compare it to the legislation of
fascist and communist regimes. I, myself, am not saying that here; I have
not studied this legislation sufficiently to hold such an opinion. I
am saying that I have no hesitation that if I decide to express such an
opinion, or if anyone else in our democracies wishes to express this
point of view, this expression of personal opinion is fully compatible
with one being a strong supporter of the government and the Constitution.
Anyone, really thinking that President Bush or any other leader actually
has become a totalitarian despot would keep silent and live, as lived and
live, people in totalitarian states.
So, it was reasonable for me to say,
"Frankly, I do not see the
distinction between censoring the Service of Women Paper which says that
Abdu'l Baha'i told Corinne True to accept her exclusion from the
General
House of Justice of Chicago, using that very quote (mistranslated) in
the official Rebuttal to the censored Paper and the kind of stuff
Goebbels
was involved in." That is very reasonable on the part of one thinking
he's
dealing with decent people who are perhaps able to explain the
distinction,
and, in any case deserve to have honest perception of their policies.
Thirdly, as I have frequently said, people call
the Prime Minister
of Canada and the leaders of our other democracies all kinds of names.
There is no problem, even if someone hosts a talk show on the radio or
writes columns in the newspaper, calling the leader a tyrant, dictator
or
what have you, a different degree than one individual writing to the
leader
and saying this seems to me to resemble dictatorial or what have you
policy. The problem only arises when the leader responds to this
comment
as would have responded dictators and tyrants.
Clearly, the response by the Universal House of
Justice to the Service
of Women Paper, to the letter by Michael McKenny, to the expression of
personal opinion by the members of the Talisman e-mail list, etc., etc.
is the only significant factor in assessing the nature of those guys who
now occupy the seats of the UHJ. People can say they perceive no
distinction
between your policy and that of Goebbels, they can call you a despot or
anything they like and no impact has this on the actual determination of
your character unless and until you demonstrate that the accusations
are
true by your responding in a despotic manner.
You are wrong that I thought the UHJ were Nazis.
You are wrong that I called them Nazis to their
face.
You are wrong in saying the service of Women
Paper was not censored.
You are wrong that even were I one so thinking
and so calling that
this would justify a tyrannical response on their part.
To A Better Future,
Michael
Pat Kohli (kohliCUT_THE_CAPS@ameritel.net) writes:
>> > A nice bit of deceptive propaganda! Michael wrote
the UHJ as if they were
>> the Nazi
>> > party of the Third Riech. Then he got disenrolled.
>> >
>
> "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. I can not
describe for you
> the extent of the impact it had on me when I learned that your
initial response
> to the reception of the information that the Writings contain
passages in which
> women are referred to as "men/rulers" and that it is quite
likely that
> Abdul-Baha was speaking about the House of Justice in Chicago and
not the
> Universal House of Justice at all was to prohibit the publication of
this data."
>
> My impression is that Michael was misinformed that the Universal
House of
> Justice prohibited the publication of information that he
alleges. Rather than
> seeking some clarification, he compares them with the scourge of the
20th
> century.
>
> Blessings!
> - 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: That's right: Opinions are not banned!
Date: Monday, November 05, 2001 9:14 AM
Greetings, Ron.
Many thanks for your comments.
You wrote:
>
But in the end the UHJ
> has proved by its continuing actions that it is incapable of making
> Baha'u'llah's system work. That is my conclusion from accepting their
> offer of studying the Baha'i community.
In my opinion, the current members of the UHJ,
using an extremely
literal and fundamentalist position that they must be obeyed no matter
what they decide have demonstrated that such fundamentalism cannot work,
except in the degeneration of spirituality to cult. Following Baha'i
principles and allowing for unfettered search for truth within Baha'i,
for the freedom of thought and expression, for the UHJ, as all
consultative bodies so advised in principles of Baha'i
administration,
changing policies that fail, for the harmony of reason and faith, for
the full equality of women and men, may create a different situation.
However, even here, it now seems very unlikely that the literalist
expectation of uniting all the peoples of the world under a Baha'i
theocracy can be achieved.
Peace,
Michael
> --
> Ron House house@usq.edu.au
>
https://www.sci.usq.edu.au/staff/house
--
"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: That's right: Opinions are not banned!
Date: Monday, November 05, 2001 10:03 AM
Dia Dhuit, Pat.
The point is that the action of suppressing the
academic analysis and
invalidation of literalist interpretations of quotations used to excuse
violating essential Baha'i principle and all-male leadership within
Baha'i,
of censoring this academic article (Where's Steve and Alyson Marshall?
My
understanding is that this paper actually PASSED review, but the guys on
the UHJ got their hands on it and ordered it censored) does strike me as
the kind of thing done by such totalitarian outfits as the NAZI propaganda
ministry. Since this is true, and I challenge you to demonstrate the
distinction, other than that of the identity of the individuals involved,
it is quite valid for one who does not really believe the members of the
UHJ are Nazis to ask them, "What is the difference between your
policy of
misinformation and the policy of misinformation policy of
Goebbels?"
I look forward to your answering the issue that
since people in our
liberal democratic country call the Canadian PM a dictator, or what have
you, even on radio talk shows and in newspaper articles, and we remain a
liberal democracy, because such freedom of speech is allowed, the guys
now running the show demonstrated their incapacity by their response.
Indeed, do you really consider it justification
to boot someone out,
even if he deliberately called the leaders Nazis?
Again, and every time I see you raise this point,
I'll try to give
the identical reply. The policy of misinformation and censorship is a
reprehensible policy, especially on such a crucial issue of essential
principle that permits the men currently running the show to prevent
women from holding seats on the UHJ. It is valid for one to ask, without
really thinking these guys are evil, how do you distinguish this policy
from that of the NAZIs.
And, I reiterate for the umteenth time, that
those defending the men
so violating Baha'i principle, use an enormous number of words about
individuals, about people, ad hominem, because it seems quite clear they
have little to say on the issue. This Michael McKenny is a bad guy,
bacause he called the holy men running the show NAZIs.
What I say is that the POLICY of censorship, of
the violation of the
most essential Baha'i principles of freedom of expression, of the equality
of women and men, of the harmony of reason and faith -- the POLICY of
doing the opposite of what Baha'u'llah taught -- the POLICY of
totalitarianism, extremism and fundamentalism is wrong. This POLICY is
similar, if not identical, to the POLICY of Goebblels and others like him.
Now, Pat, honestly, ethically, morally, go ahead
and speak to the
issue, avoiding any mention of people. Speak to the issue of censoring
academic analysis demonstrating that in context there is no impediment
whatsoever to Baha'is living the life and abiding by principle, no
restraint to women serving as members of the Universal House of Justice.
Go ahead. I dare you.
I don't have much time in cyberspace, and what
time I have, I want
to devote largely to injecting a bit of reason into the issue of the
current conflict, add my influence to avoiding an attack against Iraq,
etc. Many days may pass without me reading this newsgroup. This article,
the one Pat clearly didn't read thoroughly, and others further back in
the archives are clearly adequate to refute his astonishing position
that leadership justifies acting like tyrants because they perceive they
have been called tyrants. The gods be praised, Canada has a leader of a
much more reasonable, understanding and beneficial nature.
To a Better Future For Baha'i,
M.
Pat Kohli (kohliCUT_THE_CAPS@ameritel.net) writes:
> Guten Tag, Mein Feuhrer!
>
> Michael McKenny wrote:
>
>> Greetings, Pat.
>> Actually, you've got it wrong. I notice
every time this issue comes
>> up you say something like, "Well, Michael told the UHJ he
thought they
>> were Nazis and therefore they were justified in kicking him
out."
>> Firstly, at the time I was a strong
supporter of the UHJ. I was
>> writing as a result of having been so advised by Auxiliary Board
Member
>> Sue Tamas. Baha'u'llah says somewhere that one in the presence of
>> authority and justice need not fear, and simply has to tell the
truth.
>> I did not fear. My letter, if I recall correctly, states
that I had been
>> advised by others that writing to the UHJ was not a good idea. I
wrote to
>> them, despite such advice, something I would not have done, if I
really
>> thought they were Nazis.
>
> Reading your reply, I sometimes get the impression that you might
actually try to
> wriggle off of comparing the UHJ to the Nazis.
>
>>
>> Secondly, I was aware that the Service of
Women Paper had been
>> censored; I read the Rebuttal by the UHJ. They said that there
was a Paper
>> being read and creating quite a stir in New Zealand, but I was
not permitted
>> to read the Paper itself. The UHJ censored the Paper. Years
later, after I
>> joined Talisman, I received a copy by e-mail. This struck me at
the time,
>> and still does, as an unacceptable censorship. This and the use
of the
>> quote, in the context of the present honestly considered a
mistranslation,
>> in the Rebuttal is legitimate basis for mentioning the parallel
to the Nazi
>> policy of misinformation.
>
> Thanks for the acknowledgment on your part of the Nazi
parallels. At times, I might
> get the vague suspicion that you are trying to pretend that you had
no suggestions of
> Naziism in your letter.
>
>>
>> It is very legitimate, for example, for
any strong supporter of the
>> government and the Constitution of the US, or any of our other
Western
>> democracies, to express the opinion that recent anti-terrorist
legislation
>> appears tyrannical and despotic, even to compare it to the
legislation of
>> fascist and communist regimes. I, myself, am not saying that
here; I have
>> not studied this legislation sufficiently to hold such an
opinion. I
>> am saying that I have no hesitation that if I decide to express
such an
>> opinion, or if anyone else in our democracies wishes to express
this
>> point of view, this expression of personal opinion is fully
compatible
>> with one being a strong supporter of the government and the
Constitution.
>> Anyone, really thinking that President Bush or any other leader
actually
>> has become a totalitarian despot would keep silent and live, as
lived and
>> live, people in totalitarian states.
>
> Note your wind Michael, again with the totalitarian despotry!
>
>>
>> So, it was reasonable for me to
say, "Frankly, I do not see the
>> distinction between censoring the Service of Women Paper which
says that
>> Abdu'l Baha'i told Corinne True to accept her exclusion from the
General
>> House of Justice of Chicago, using that very quote
(mistranslated) in
>> the official Rebuttal to the censored Paper and the kind of stuff
Goebbels
>> was involved in." That is very reasonable on the part of one
thinking he's
>> dealing with decent people who are perhaps able to explain the
distinction,
>> and, in any case deserve to have honest perception of their
policies.
>
> Decent people???? Who the BLSC@!#$% do you think you are bullshitting
here? If you
> really do consider Goebbels and the rest of the Nazi party
"decent people", millions
> of men likd your Dad need not have shed their blood, sweat and tears
to rid this world
> of that scourge which you now cast as "decent
people". Either that, or you
> acknowledge that your comparsion of the UHJ with the Nazis was
completely off base!
> You didn't address them as decent people then. . . sadly I find
it a bit false of you
> to try to pretend so now.
>
>>
>> Thirdly, as I have frequently said,
people call the Prime Minister
>> of Canada and the leaders of our other democracies all kinds of
names.
>> There is no problem, even if someone hosts a talk show on the
radio or
>> writes columns in the newspaper, calling the leader a tyrant,
dictator or
>> what have you, a different degree than one individual writing to
the leader
>> and saying this seems to me to resemble dictatorial or what have
you
>> policy. The problem only arises when the leader responds to this
comment
>> as would have responded dictators and tyrants.
>> Clearly, the response by the
Universal House of Justice to the Service
>> of Women Paper, to the letter by Michael McKenny, to the
expression of
>> personal opinion by the members of the Talisman e-mail list,
etc., etc.
>> is the only significant factor in assessing the nature of those
guys who
>> now occupy the seats of the UHJ. People can say they perceive no
distinction
>> between your policy and that of Goebbels, they can call you a
despot or
>> anything they like and no impact has this on the actual
determination of
>> your character unless and until you demonstrate that the
accusations are
>> true by your responding in a despotic manner.
>
>>
>> You are wrong that I thought the
UHJ were Nazis.
>
> You are wrong. I wrote "Michael wrote the UHJ as if they
were the Nazi party of the
> Third Riech." and by gum, you did! Deny it all you want,
but you did!
>
>>
>> You are wrong that I called them
Nazis to their face.
>
> You are wrong. I wrote "Michael wrote the UHJ as if they
were the Nazi party of the
> Third Riech." and by gum, you did! Deny it all you want,
but you did!
>
>>
>> You are wrong in saying the service
of Women Paper was not censored.
>
> You are wrong. In your letter to the UHJ, you wrote, "I
learned that your initial
> response to the reception of the information that the Writings
contain passages in
> which women are referred to as "men" ", and I pointed
out that this was in publication
> _long_ before the "Service of Women" paper.
>
>>
>> You are wrong that even were I one
so thinking and so calling that
>> this would justify a tyrannical response on their part.
>
> You are wrong, again. It was _alleged_ that you were
disenrolled simply for
> suggesting that women should serve on the UHJ and I suggested that
that might not be
> the case at all. I don't know why you wre disenrolled, but I do
know you've done far
> more objectionable than simply discussing women on the UHJ, as was
alleged. propaganda
> which you show no interest in denying, Herr Goebels.
>
>> Pat Kohli (kohliCUT_THE_CAPS@ameritel.net) writes:
>>
>> >> > A nice bit of deceptive propaganda! Michael
wrote the UHJ as if they were
>> >> the Nazi
>> >> > party of the Third Riech. Then he got
disenrolled.
>> >> >
>> >
>> > "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. I can
not describe for you
>> > the extent of the impact it had on me when I learned that
your initial response
>> > to the reception of the information that the Writings
contain passages in which
>> > women are referred to as "men/rulers" and that it
is quite likely that
>> > Abdul-Baha was speaking about the House of Justice in
Chicago and not the
>> > Universal House of Justice at all was to prohibit the
publication of this data."
>> >
>> > My impression is that Michael was misinformed that the
Universal House of
>> > Justice prohibited the publication of information that he
alleges. Rather than
>> > seeking some clarification, he compares them with the
scourge of the 20th
>> > century.
>> >
>> > Blessings!
>> > - 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: This is Bahai?
Date: Friday, November 23, 2001 10:55 AM
Greetings, Karen.
Many thanks for your comments.
You are quite right that the suppression of freedom of
thought and
expression is a quite telling and alarming aspect of current Baha'i life.
What most upset me on first reading the Service of Women Paper was that it
had been censored. What most upset me when I first entered Baha'i
cyberspace
was that there were Baha'i fundamentalists there seeking to suppress the
expression of any opinion, but their own.
One point I stressed from early on was that the Baha'i
Covenant was a
two way street; it guaranteed the freedom of thought and expression for
Baha'is, who, whatever their personal opinions, would accept the
legitimacy of the authorized institutions. What is very remarkable about
those who had the understanding that Baha'i women should be on the UHJ was
that they only sought their legitimate right to express this opinion, and
all stated it would come about when the UHJ called for it. No one staged
a coup, or even passed around a special ballot.
Of course, what one does when one opposes the free
expression of human
opinion is expose one's own insecurity concerning one's own position. By
censoring the Service of Women Paper, by exerting tremendous pressure on
those stating their views on the e-mail lists, by having people visited
by Counsellors, etc., those occupying seats on the UHJ revealed that the
points made in that Paper and by those exercising their Baha'i right to
speak their mind and heart are irrefutable. Those occupying those
seats
had no way of overcoming the reason and spirituality they encountered.
They chose the policy of other despotic rulerships and sought to conceal
views, to censor, to oppress, to intimidate, to create suspicion and
division, to force those thinking the irrefutable thoughts to be silent
or to begone.
Ad hominems are invalid, but this was the policy, the
only plank of
reasoning those individuals, offered this splendid opportunity to prove
Baha'is really do live the life of their principles, had and have. They
seek to discredit the people who say what cannot be denied. They assert
those currently on the UHJ are correct, because of who they are, and this
was carried to the invalid proposition that the hands of the future
members of the UHJ are bound according to the opinions of those now
occupying that body. The validity of propositions is independent of the
personality of individuals; all the contemporary members of the UHJ
demonstrate by moving against personalities, by pressuring or even
legislating the non-Baha'i status of people believing that spiritual
principles trump particular literal interpretations appearing to exempt
leaders from living according to spiritual principles is testify to their
powerlessness to stand in the light of what they oppose and the extent
they are willing to go to insist on their own understanding.
Again, I stress freedom of thought and expression
includes the right
of literalist interpretations to be spoken; it even includes the right
of
leadership to speak literal interpretations. What is forbidden is the
suppression of other understandings, carried to the extent in this case
to the completely false proposition that the particular literal
interpretation of the contemporary members of the UHJ prevents their
successors from feeling and reasoning in any other way. This view is
invalid. Parliament may not bind its successors, and the members of the
Universal House of justice are completely free at any time to legislate
according to their own understanding without hindrance from the views of
those who have sat in those seats previously. Considering the actual
situation today, all one can say about the valid reality of the freedom
of the future is, "Thank God!"
Thanks again for your comments and for the
opportunity this allows
for me to restate these points. The time I took to do this may have set
back a little the completion of that Canadian archaeology project I'm
working on, but it was worth it. Please feel free to repost any of my
posts that in the ever flowing nature of cyberspace may seem called
for
yet again. The same points seem to flow as waves to the shore and it is
only seldom now I look in here. Much I'm missing, but the archives have
likely already received responses by me and others so irrefutable that
exceptional ad hominems were all those sitting in UHJ seats had to answer
with.
May you always be well.
To the Future,
Michael
"Karen Bacquet" (karenbacquet@hotmail.com) writes:
> --
> "The essence of all that We have revealed for thee is Justice .
. ." --
> Baha'u'llah
>
> This is an excellent observation, Michael. I recently was reading
Marcus
> Borg's latest book, and he points out that scriptural literalism
actually
> requires a good deal of creative effort to maintain. If the
idea that the
> Guardianship, as in Institution, is still in existence is not a very
> creative interpretation, I don't know what is. It is a
"literal" approach
> inasmuch as it seems to be based upon nothing more than the Will and
> Testament's appointment of Shoghi Effendi, and his interpretations
> concerning the necessary role of the Guardianship, but it sort of
boils down
> to "There's a Guardianship, because the Writings say there must
be one". A
> corallary is "The UHJ doesn't intepret because the Writings say
it can't".
> So anything that looks like an interpretation just is called an
elucidation
> instead. That, in itself, is an interpretation.
>
> Yes. Many times I wonder about the context of Shoghi Effendi's
letters --
> who was he talking to, and what was the situation that cause him to
respond
> the way he did? Was it advice bounded by certain conditions, or was
he
> expounding on a general principle? I do know that his insistence on
the
> importance of the Guardianship was, at least partially, due to
challenges to
> his own position. Those that had the Guardian thought they
should have the
> UHJ; now those that have the UHJ think they should have a
Guardian. The
> grass is always greener, I guess. But when I look at the
W&T, I see an
> entire, coherent system that was cut down before it ever had the
chance to
> fully develop and work properly.
>
> Yes. I think that the issue of women's service on the UHJ is an
"unclear
> matter", and as such falls within the purview of the legislative
power of
> that body. However, as I've said before, the fact that enrolled
Baha'is
> cannot advocate this publicly without reprisals is something that
concerns
> me far more. There's no future for any sort of change or reform
if Baha'is
> do not have the freedom to promote their views.
>
> Yes. They're the ones with the power -- it is inevitable that
they
> interpret, and it is their choice how they do so. Literalism, as you
point
> out, is just one of those choices.
>
> Love, Karen
>
--
"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: "Shunning is the marker of a cult . . . note that these
Date: Monday, December 03, 2001 9:08 AM
Hi, Susan.
So, those people who have accepted Baha'u'llah and are
opposing His
key teachings of the independent search for truth, freedom of thought and
expression, harmony of faith and reason, agreement of true religion with
science, equality of women and men, etc. have a "Spiritual
problem"? And,
those people indoctrinated to consider mindless obedience to leadership
as the only essential element of spirituality are signs of a cult? We are
in complete agreement.
Thrive,
Michael
Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes:
> More specifically accepting Baha'u'llah as a Manifestation yet
rejecting key
> elements of His Teachings is a "spiritual problem."
>
> Susan Maneck
> Associate Professor of History
> Jackson State 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: "Shunning is the marker of a cult . . . note that these
Date: Monday, December 03, 2001 9:28 AM
Greetings, Karen and Susan.
As I've said before, these points are cyclical. They
have been made
and refuted already. Feel free to repost refutations any time. Some day,
I should write an FAQ, that deals with these issues and repost every full
moon or something.
For starters, again, just how is posting two or three
messages a day to
the dinky e-mail lists, "A campaign of pushing misconceptions."
Alas, I'm
too busy to write another satire today, but this sure cries out for it. Of
course, Baha'i is a religion whose Founder guaranteed freedom of thought
and expression, and many other spiritual principles, but, if one arrives
at an understanding as to how these spiritual principles can actually be
put into practise and makes a couple of posts to e-mail lists a day, then
one is waging, "A campaign pushing misconceptions." Smeone
should let you
in on the fact it's not 1984, but 2001. For those unfamiliar with the
references, the year 1984 is used in a novel as a time when,
"Newspeak"
is endowing words with quite remarkable meaning in support of despotic
rulership, and 2001 is from another novel dealing with the arrival of
humanity at the threshold of elevated awareness.
Thrive,
Michael
Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes:
> Dear Karen,
>
> You're taking that reference out of context. What they were saying is
that had
> Alison and Michael not made a campaign out of pushing their
'misconceptions'
> then it would have remained a 'personal spiritual problem' not
something the
> institutions would have intervened in.
>
> warmest,
> Susan Maneck
> Associate Professor of History
> Jackson State 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: bahai - "Please remove my name and address from your
mailing list."
Date: Sunday, December 09, 2001 5:09 PM
Hi, Pat.
Duh, have I wandered into another sliders world again.
I recall some
outlandish figure such as 900 plus NO votes the first time TRB was voted
on. People at News.Groups noticed this and some helped out on finally
getting the Newsgroup through. Sorry for my poor memory, but perhaps all
these alternate universes I've passed through contributes to that. I do
have the impression it took three tries before TRB got through. Taking all
three votes, including that first one with its NSA of Iceland NO vote, or
was that on the second ballot?, I strongly suspect more Baha'is voted to
prevent this first uncensored line of communication in recent Baha'i
generations.
Thrive,
M.
Pat Kohli (kohli@ameritel.net) writes:
>
> He has voting results which show that more Baha'is voted for TRB than
against
> it, yet he concludes that Baha'is were an obstacle to TRB formation.
>
> Blessings!
> - 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: bahai - talk.religion.bahai - "Please remove my name and
address from your mailing list."
Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 9:55 AM
Dearest Robert,
Our perceptions of reality are considerably different.
My experience, both on the e-mail lists with several
dozen or score
subscribers, and in wider cyberspace, is that there is a desire by some
to prevent opinions at variance to their own from being expressed. It
is not a question, in this wonderful modern technology, even of
having
to have your eyes sullied by the thoughts of those who disagree with you.
You can simply kill file them and delightfully imbibe what pleases you.
No, the issue is that these displeasing contradictory thoughts are so
convincing that you, and more significantly, the men now sitting on the
chairs intended for members of the Universal House of Justice, would
rather no one read them.
I have often posted to Baha'i cyberspace that you and
those like you
can have your say. That's what freedom of speech is all about. If you are
indeed the majority, then let all these 900 plus naysayers come and share
with us words of wisdom and love. Surely, these will swamp all the
hate
you perceive here, though honestly I don't see that hate. What I see is
honest criticism of the lot currently in power. Since they are ruling
over an entity in considerable decline, such criticism is the opposite
of hate. Anyone with an IQ higher than a twig's and hating Baha'is would
merely gloat silently while the inept guys in power continued their dive.
Those who for years have been speaking up have been doing so out of love
for the Baha'i Faith.
To Love,
Michael
"Robert Little" (rlittle1@socal.rr.com) writes:
> What happened is that Baha'is voted against it first time around. On
the
> last vote, most of those Baha'is who had voted against it the first
time
> simply did not vote again. The remaining Baha'is who had an interest
in it
> voted more for it than against it.
>
> As this is a newsgroup dedicated to discussion of Baha'u'llah and His
Faith,
> and as the majority of His followers who did vote that first time
generally
> did not want an unmoderated forum that would allow backbiting, spite,
> deceit, lies, racism, bigotry and the like to populate a forum with
the name
> of the Glory of God attached; and, inasmuch as the Baha'i Faith
inculcates
> the concept of the will of the majority taking precedence over the
will of
> the few, it would seem reasonable to conclude that this newsgroup
ought not
> to exist, reasonable to conclude that it exists more because of
hatred than
> of love, reasonable to conclude that the protagonist of this
newsgroup did
> not wish to abide by the overwhelming wish of the Baha'i community.
>
> Robert A. Little
>
> "BIGS - Bahai in *Perfectly* Good Standing"
<patrick_henry@liberty.com>
> wrote in message news:9v2c4k$cb2me$1@ID-75545.news.dfncis.de...
>> Michael,
>>
>> 600+ no votes on the first interest poll. You're right that
>> people on news.groups were noticeably shocked by the
>> figure and realized something was going on. One of them
>> immediately created alt.religion.bahai in response. There's
>> a very long and complicated record of fundamentalist
>> interference in the creation of talk.religion.bahai.
>>
>> For those interested, most of the relevant docs are at this link:
>> https://fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/trbmenu.htm
>>
>> --
>> FG
>> The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
>> https://members.fortunecity.com/bahaicensorship
>>
>>
>> "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
wrote in message
>> news:9v0nel$q4k$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>> > Hi, Pat.
>> > Duh, have I wandered into another
sliders world again. I recall some
>> > outlandish figure such as 900 plus NO votes the first time
TRB was voted
>> > on. People at News.Groups noticed this and some helped out
on finally
>> > getting the Newsgroup through. Sorry for my poor memory, but
perhaps all
>> > these alternate universes I've passed through contributes to
that. I do
>> > have the impression it took three tries before TRB got
through. Taking
> all
>> > three votes, including that first one with its NSA of
Iceland NO vote,
> or
>> > was that on the second ballot?, I strongly suspect more
Baha'is voted to
>> > prevent this first uncensored line of communication in
recent Baha'i
>> > generations.
>>
>
Thrive,
>>
>
M.
>> >
>> >
>> > Pat Kohli (kohli@ameritel.net) writes:
>> > >
>> > > He has voting results which show that more Baha'is
voted for TRB than
>> against
>> > > it, yet he concludes that Baha'is were an obstacle to
TRB formation.
>> > >
>> > > Blessings!
>> > > - Pat
>> > > kohli@ameritel.net
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer,
Solar Guard."
>> > (Tom Corbett #1
STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
--
"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 - talk.religion.bahai - "Please remove my name and
address from your mailing list."
Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 9:58 AM
Greetings, Frederick.
As I've said before, many thanks for your tremendous
effort to pierce
the balloon of Baha'i censorship.
Thrive,
Michael
"BIGS - Bahai in *Perfectly* Good Standing"
(patrick_henry@liberty.com) writes:
> Michael,
>
> 600+ no votes on the first interest poll. You're right that
> people on news.groups were noticeably shocked by the
> figure and realized something was going on. One of them
> immediately created alt.religion.bahai in response. There's
> a very long and complicated record of fundamentalist
> interference in the creation of talk.religion.bahai.
>
> For those interested, most of the relevant docs are at this link:
> https://fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/trbmenu.htm
>
> --
> FG
> The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
> https://members.fortunecity.com/bahaicensorship
>
>
> "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote
in message
> news:9v0nel$q4k$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>> Hi, Pat.
>> Duh, have I wandered into another sliders
world again. I recall some
>> outlandish figure such as 900 plus NO votes the first time TRB
was voted
>> on. People at News.Groups noticed this and some helped out on
finally
>> getting the Newsgroup through. Sorry for my poor memory, but
perhaps all
>> these alternate universes I've passed through contributes to
that. I do
>> have the impression it took three tries before TRB got through.
Taking all
>> three votes, including that first one with its NSA of Iceland NO
vote, or
>> was that on the second ballot?, I strongly suspect more Baha'is
voted to
>> prevent this first uncensored line of communication in recent
Baha'i
>> generations.
>>
Thrive,
>>
M.
>>
>>
>> Pat Kohli (kohli@ameritel.net) writes:
>> >
>> > He has voting results which show that more Baha'is voted for
TRB than
> against
>> > it, yet he concludes that Baha'is were an obstacle to TRB
formation.
>> >
>> > Blessings!
>> > - Pat
>> > kohli@ameritel.net
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar
Guard."
>> (Tom Corbett #1 STAND
BY FOR MARS p2)
>>
>
>
--
"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 - "Please remove my name and address from your
mailing list."
Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 9:25 AM
Top o' the Mornin' To You, Pat.
You agree there were three votes. I assume you also
accept there were
900 plus no votes first time round.
Pat, I consistently request people posting to news
groups to provide
data to the newsgroup and not say go to the following url. I don't know
whether some readers of this newsgroup are but a click away from what url
soever is named, but personally I have to get off trb, get out of the
newsgroup feature of freenet, activate the www section, type in the url
and I see you've provided some that are so long they run off my screen
and besides that they contain per cent signs, dollar signs and question
marks. If you want me to read it, post it here.
My point, as I understand your message, is accepted.
There were 3
votes before TRB was established. There was a concerted effort to prevent
the establishment of this first major uncensored Baha'i forum, as the
results of the first vote clearly demonstrate, and no one can deny
the
basic fact that Fred was the primary originator of this forum. For his
tremendous effort to pierce the walls of Baha'i censorship, he deserves
the highest praise.
Slan,
Michael
Pat Kohli (kohliCUT_THE_CAPS@ameritel.net) writes:
> May all the Gods smile on your face forever,
>
> The facts I had in mind can be checked at the links. I got on
to unmoderated
> Baha'i news a few months before the third vote and I still remember
Fred trying to
> convince me that, as a Baha'i, I was ethically and morally bound to
vote for TRB.
>
> Michael McKenny wrote:
>
>> Hi, Pat.
>> Duh, have I wandered into another sliders
world again. I recall some
>> outlandish figure such as 900 plus NO votes the first time TRB
was voted
>> on. People at News.Groups noticed this and some helped out on
finally
>> getting the Newsgroup through. Sorry for my poor memory, but
perhaps all
>> these alternate universes I've passed through contributes to
that. I do
>> have the impression it took three tries before TRB got through.
Taking all
>> three votes, including that first one with its NSA of Iceland NO
vote, or
>> was that on the second ballot?, I strongly suspect more Baha'is
voted to
>> prevent this first uncensored line of communication in recent
Baha'i
>> generations.
>>
Thrive,
>>
M.
>>
>> Pat Kohli (kohli@ameritel.net) writes:
>> >
>> > He has voting results which show that more Baha'is voted for
TRB than against
>> > it,
>
>
https://groups.google.com/groups?selm=789oo1%24l9s%40news3.newsguy.com&output=gplain
>
>> > yet he concludes that Baha'is were an obstacle to TRB
formation.
>> >
>
>
https://groups.google.com/groups?selm=79c2k0%24j0k%40news3.newsguy.com&output=gplain
>
> 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: bahai - "Please remove my name and address from your
mailing list."
Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 9:33 AM
Hi, Robert.
You do not negate anything I said. Baha'u'llah did say
that the Baha'i
House of Worship is to be a centre of humanitarian activity, and the
Senior
Citizens Residence was the first step taken generations ago to begin
fulfilling this requirement. Closing it, unless another such humanitarian
activity is undertaken, is a significant retrogression in the institution
of the American National Mashriqal Adhkar, below what was acceptable in
the
time of Shoghi Effendi.
Regards,
Michael
"Robert Little" (rlittle1@socal.rr.com) writes:
> Easy
>
> The present structure requires more money to upgrade to current legal
> standards than it is worth. It, the structure, is therefore being
closed.
>
> Robert A. Little
>
> "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote
in message
> news:9v2gbe$h81$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>>
>> Greetings, Dermod.
>> Actually, this could be a quite
significant comment you made. Do you
>> mean the US NSA is closing the Senior Citizens Residence at
Wilmette? As
>> I understand the history, Baha'u'llah wrote that Baha'i Houses of
Worship
>> are intended to be centres of humanitarian activity and when the
American
>> Baha'is suggested the Temple in Wilmette to begin fulfilling this
>> requirement have a library connected with it, Shoghi Effendi, I
think it
>> was, said this was unacceptable and more direct care of society
was
>> necessary. Thus, was the senior citizens residence founded.
>> If my interpretation of your comment is
correct and this is now being
>> closed, unless some other alternative humanitarian activity is
replacing
>> it, we are observing a highly significant decline in the
institution of
>> the American National Mashriqal Adhkar, a retrogression below
what was
>> acceptable in previous generations by Shoghi Effendi.
>> I await with interest any clarification.
>>
Slan,
>>
Michael
>>
>> "Dermod Ryder" (Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com) writes:
>> > "Susan Maneck " <smaneck@aol.com> wrote in
message
>> > news:20011209133223.16269.00002635@mb-ch.aol.com...
>> >> >
>> >> >Don't need to - I use Hendi's name and number to
access that
>> > place -
>> >> >not that it's worth it.
>> >>
>> >> Is that your wife? Are you saying you can access the US
>> > administrative website
>> >> using an Irish I.D.?
>> >
>> > Geez! You really are a dumb cluck!
"Hendi" as in Robert C.! Duh!
>> > Geddit! Sometimes, however, just for fun, I log on as
you!
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >I haven't seen anything of importance on it
>> >> >yet - nothing about reforms in New Mexico, declining
numbers.
>> >>
>> >> Or a letter telling Baha'is not to say the prayer for
America? :-)
>> >
>> > No - didn't see that but then I didn't claim to have seen it
so why
>> > would I have? Did see the lovely bit about closing the
old folks'
>> > home! Now there'll be nowhere for you in your dotage!
>>
>> --
>> "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar
Guard."
>> (Tom Corbett #1 STAND
BY FOR MARS p2)
>>
>
>
--
"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 - "Please remove my name and address from your
mailing list."
Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 10:18 AM
Greetings, Robert.
The correct plural in Latin is "Homines", as
homo is a third declension
noun. This is in the accusative, following ad. in English "Ad
hominems" is
generally used.
Freedom of speech is indeed about the ability to say
what you feel,
regardless of whether or not you agree with anyone else, including men
now warming chairs intended for members of the Universal House of Justice.
As to Buddhism, as years ago I cited from
Soc.Religion.Buddhism and
as Buddhists have pointed out in Baha'i cyberspace, for which I saw them
less than politely treated, traditional Buddhism does not have a creator
god. Calling Buddha a Manifestation of God and asking Buddhists to accept
Baha'u'llah as the World Unifier (Meitreya) Buddha coming from such a
creator God is doing something outside of traditional Buddhism. I have
seen Baha'is malign a traditional Buddhist expressing classical Buddhist
thought on this point. I hope such maligning can be relegated to history,
and those inclined to such maligning can accept freedom of though and
expression includes the ability of Buddhists to state understandings of
Buddhism derived from Buddhist scriptures, even where such differ from the
understandings these Baha'is have of Buddhism.
To Enlightened Understanding and Goodwill,
Michael
"Robert Little" (rlittle1@socal.rr.com) writes:
> Randy
>
> You use a highly colored term ("trash talk") to
characterize on srb what you
> have referred to here on trb as "the clash of conflicting
opinions".
>
> Although the subject is not currently of that great an interest to
me, I
> have followed the Buddhist threads on srb, and I do not recall
anything
> remotely resembling what you describe, and in fact have seen
Buddhists given
> great exposure to reply to questions put to them by Baha'is. Boths
sides
> have spoken to the question, have refrained from using such colorful
> phraseology and have demonstrated a high degree of respect for each
other,
> something that same discussion failed miserably to achieve in the
past here
> on trb/arb.
>
> Previously on the unmoderated forums, I attempted repeatedly to
engage the
> Buddhist proponents in a discussion of common themes in both
religions, such
> as marriage, divorce, alcohol, murder, and other ethical questions.
These
> questions were never answered, although there were numerous examples
of
> "trash talk", and not-infrequent ad hominums (homini?).
>
> I do not understand how the concept of free speech is so frequently
defined
> as speech that agrees with one's already-formed opinions.
>
> Robert A. Little
>
> "Randy Burns" <randy.burns4@gte.net> wrote in message
> news:0hhR7.651$vo1.134225@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
>> SRB will allow a Baha'i to trash talk Buddhism but will not let a
Buddhist
>> respond to this trash talk because it would be talking about
Buddhism and
>> not Baha'i and therefore irrelevant. I personally have no
use for SRB and
>> if it ceased to exist tomorrow I would not notice.
>>
>> Cheers, Randy
>>
>> --
--
"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 - "Please remove my name and address from your
mailing list."
Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 5:13 PM
Greetings, Paul.
You're right that I don't want pictures here. I missed
any quote Pat
posted, of which those URLs were the background context. I don't mind at
all posting here only what's relevant to one's point. As I wandered in,
Pat seemed to be saying it wasn't true most Baha'is voted against TRB,
so I answered him about the three votes and that very high number of NO
votes on the first round.
As FG was, and has never denied to my
knowledge, the
major proponent of this newsgroup, I don't understand the surprise at
him
urging people to vote for it.
We completely agree on the nature of unmoderated
newsgroups. I'll add,
as I've said more than once in Baha'i cyberspace, that I, for one, never
used and do not use kill files. I may be too busy to read everything, but
I like the opportunity. And, as many already know, I delight in personal
attacks directed at me, as these are ad hominems and testimony by their
author that what I said is irrefutable. Otherwise, there would have been
posted the refutation, rather than the personal attack.
Thrive,
Michael
"Paul Hammond" (pahammond@onetel.net.uk) writes:
>
> Sorry mike, but if the reference is to pictures, or extended texts,
> it is *much* better that Pat provides a link, and hardly his fault
> if your connection has quirks.
>
> Most of those long URLs you refer to are references to former
> posts to usenet, as archived in google - the result of some advanced
> searching thru that database, at a guess.
>
> I wouldn't want to encourage people to repost entire posts from
> yesteryear, and Pat usually seems to provide the relevant paragraph
> or phrase from whatever he has given the link to - it's good that
> he gives the link to the entire post so that you can see for yourself
> whether he has quoted selectively or not.
>
> Pat has good usenet habits, from my experience, and I wouldn't
> want to encourage him into forming bad ones.
>
> Well, it was my comment that started this little byway. I
*wasn't*
> around at the time, but from what I've just read, Pat is confirming
> to us that Fred was being very insistent on trying to persuade
> Baha'is to vote *for* this forum, which I think was what I was
> trying to say. I think what I got wrong was thinking that
Robert
> Little had voted against. Though, since he has now gone to the
> trouble of writing a "beginners guide" to Baha'i
cyberspace, which
> basically advises newbies to stick to srb, I think we can safely say
> that his opinion of this forum is now very low.
>
> All this being a distraction from my main point, which was that
> *unmoderated* forums belong to no-one, and no-one can say who
> is or is not entitled to post here, or how they can express
themselves
>
> (by which I mean, of course, that one's *opinion* of someone
> else's style may be expressed, but if someone annoys you too
> much, you must have recourse to the killfile - there's no other
> way here!)
>
> Paul
>
>
>
--
"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 - "Please remove my name and address from your
mailing list."
Date: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 4:21 PM
And the Same Back at You, Lad.
I must admit I've always been partial to those
humorous descriptive
modifiers "A middlin' and paltry 92 per cent of people think X and a
humungous mob of 8 per cent think Y." Being one very able to
concentrate
on the figures straight without the veils, I always am amused when I run
into such obscuring modifiers.
We agree with regard to the third vote. I've got
better things to do
with my time than use oracle bone divination or whatever to determine the
religion of people voting for and against TRB. But, the first vote was a
horse of another hue. It was admitted that some computer guru in Baha'i
cyberspace had been urging anyone and everyone to come and vote NO, I see
you quote the name Mark Towfiq. The result actually was a very high number
of NO votes (I recall something like 969, but whatever it was it was so
high regulars on news.groups sat up and took notice).
As to democracy, well, yes, duh. The point of
news.groups is to
provide some kind of order, so that if a bunch of people really do want
to chat about something in cyberspace, in the relatively chaotic realm
here, then they can go through a procedure, set themselves up and show
they actually exist. If there were too few people wanting to talk
about
Harry Potter in 1997, maybe that's not the case now. And, 900 plus fans
of Harry Houdini ought not have an eternal and permanent veto on there
ever being a Harry Potter group. If they don't like it, fine they can
surge through other reaches of cyberspace, permitting those who really
want the newsgroup the opportunity to do their thing.
Like, freedom of speech, m'lad. Wonderful stuff.
Thrive,
Michael
Pat Kohli (kohliCUT_THE_CAPS@ameritel.net) writes:
> Top O' the afternoon to you, Michael,
>
> Ah yes. A fascinating exercise in democracy - keep voting until
the 'right' answer is
> returned.
>
> Nope.
>
> Please accept my apologies. As an aging man I do sometimes
forget that you can not have
> a web browser and a newsreader open at the same time. I usually
surf and read news in
> Netscape.
>
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> From: "FG" <FG@hotmail.com>
> Subject: Annotated NO voters - 3rd interest poll
> Date: 1999/01/22
> Message-ID: <789oo1$l9s@news3.newsguy.com>
> Organization: https://extra.newsguy.com
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
> Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.bahai
>
>
> Searching www.dejanews.com for a history of posting to Usenet, the
> following results are obtained:
>
> Voted NO
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
> B=Bahai
> N=no hits on www.dejanews.com or fewer than a recent dozen
> T=techie
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
> 22 Bahais voted NO (only 27 YES)
> 10 Techies
> 26 or more NO hits or so very few as to raise the question of
> the legitimacy of the email address.
>
> Nope. I have no idea what religion is held by each and every
one of the folks who voted
> against TRB in the first or second votes. I try to resist the
temptation to speculate.
> I don't like it when other folks make up religions for me, but, other
folks have other
> ideas of what is good and seemly conduct. You are perfectly
entitled to uphold the right
> of someone to decide who is and who is not a Baha'i.
>
> I pointed out that when Fred did estimate the faith of the voters on
the third poll, even
> though he estimated that about 55% percent of the Baha'is voted
"for" and 45% "against,
> he concluded that they had been an obstacle.
>
> Fred systematically and patently stacks the cards | moves the
goalposts | changes the
> rules when dealing with Baha'is. Since it is plain, I was
surprised that anyone gives
> him much credence.
>
> The results do not indicate a concerted effort to fix the outcome;
you want to refer to
> examples of chicanery for that. If you simply accept negative
results as evidence of a
> conspiracy, you hold up every non-tie vote as such evidence.
>
> I can. Fred consistently sabotaged efforts to form TRB.
Even on the last vote, he
> provided the basis for an official complaint, and, through his
hypocritical dissociation
> from the election rigging that he started, strongly tempted official
protests.
>
>> For his
>> tremendous effort to pierce the walls of Baha'i censorship, he
deserves
>> the highest praise.
>
> We see Fred differently. I see him as a poster child for
review.
>
> Blessings!
> - 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: bahai - "Please remove my name and address from your
mailing list."
Date: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 4:27 PM
Greetings, Karen.
Yes, I remember that goal. From the comments posted
here hitherto, it
didn't sound like it had been met. Thank you for coming out and
saying
that. Here's to a better future.
Thrive,
Michael
"Karen Bacquet" (karenbacquet@hotmail.com) writes:
> Dear Michael and all,
>
> It wasn't that long ago, early 90s, I think, when consideration of
creating
> another dependency to the mashriq in Willmette was part of the
Plan. But
> after that, not a word was said about it, much to my
disappointment. Guess
> they figured they had better things to do.
>
> Love, Karen
--
"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: Dermod=Fred? Who else is missing?
Date: Thursday, December 27, 2001 9:08 AM
Greetings, Susan.
I hereby absolve you of all guilt of slander in any
assertion that
Fred has a Ph.D. His possession, or the lack thereof, also has no bearing
on any idea, thought, concept, opinion he may express here. I do admit
that if he as witness is seeking to have accepted as evidence his view
of you speeding through a red light, or onto a UFO, demonstrating his
constant, eternal and absolutely reliable veracity, or the lack thereof,
may be relevant to the acceptability of said testimony as infallible.
However, since I don't believe in infallibility, I can doubt any witness
asserting you were seen speeding through that light or onto that flying
saucer, whether or not said witness has a Ph.D.
The reliability of people expressing thoughts,
opinions, ideas, views
is quite a different thing than the reliability of witnesses in court, in
the sense of people testifying to what they saw. Formal logic holds that
ideas, opinions, propositions, concepts are assessed on their own merrit
and not according to the reliability, or the lack thereof, of the person
who is credited with the idea; Baha'i consultation is supposed to occur
on the same basis.
Here's to a good harvest of focused consideration of
ideas, thoughts,
opinions, etc. freely expressed in this uncensored forum.
Peace,
Michael.
p.s. for the biographers in the crowd, yesterday I posted a lengthy
reply,
paragraph by paragraph, to soc.culture.indian, soc.culture.pakistan,
soc.culture.usa and alt.religion.islam titled Re: Nukes should be armed.
Those not bothering to read it will be correct in assuming I argued
against the motion of increased violence in the Subcontinent. Also, I
added three new reviews on ancient China on my freenet webpage, on
Mencius, Ssu-ma Ch'ien and Liu Wu-chi's splendid A SHORT HISTORY OF
CONFUCIAN PHILOSOPHY. I also added another bit to the CAMBRIDGE HISTORY OF
ANCIENT CHINA review. All these are available to be independently checked,
but my claim to having read some of Perry Mason solves the case of the
FIERY FINGERS may be doubted as much as you like, according to credibility
or the lack thereof. :)
Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes:
>>The ad hominems in this newsgroup suggest that
>>there could well be some considerable interest in such a
project.
>
> Dear Michael,
>
> I'm afraid counsel, that such information does speak to credibility.
> Furthermore,
> I was responding to an accusation that I was somehow committing
slander by
> suggesting that Fred had a PhD. Since he had told me at one time, he
did, I
> thought I should check my facts. And I did so, uncovering a great
deal of
> information which I posted here in order to set the record
straight.
> Susan Maneck
> Associate Professor of History
> Jackson State University
>
> "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space,
with no time
> left to start again . . "
> Don McLean's American Pie
> https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
>
--
"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: Dermod=Fred? Who else is missing?
Date: Thursday, December 27, 2001 4:55 PM
Greetings, Susan.
And, just what are these eyewitness assertions? I've
already said that
if he claims to having spotted you speeding through a red light or onto a
flying saucer, I'm not taking that as infallible proof you did so, whether
or not he has a Ph.D. I'll add even a certificate from the Unified Flight
Operatives of Antares won't completely convince me. And, whether or not
you sped through a red light or onto an Antares craft once, thrice or four
score and seven times, is irrelevant to the cogency of any view you may
express.
Peace,
Michael.
Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes:
>> The reliability of people expressing thoughts, opinions,
ideas, views
>>is quite a different thing than the reliability of witnesses in
court
>
> That's true, Michael. But Fred has done more than assert his personal
thoughts,
> opinions, ideas and views here. He has made statements of fact which
are
> largely false. It is for this reason people should be aware that his
testimony
> is suspect.
>
> warmest,
> Susan Maneck
> Associate Professor of History
> Jackson State University
>
> "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space,
with no time
> left to start again . . "
> Don McLean's American Pie
> https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
>
|