From talisman-errors@umich.edu Thu Feb 12 07:20:49 1998
Received: (from root@localhost)
by redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.8.5/2.5) with X.500 id KAA13522; Thu, 12 Feb 1998
10:12:58 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from root@localhost)
by redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.8.5/2.5) with X.500 id KAA13515
for talisman-members@umich.edu; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 10:12:58 -0500 (EST)
Received: from freenet1.carleton.ca (freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20])
by redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.8.5/2.5) with ESMTP id KAA13449
for <talisman@umich.edu>; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 10:12:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from freenet5.carleton.ca.carleton.ca (bn872@freenet5.carleton.ca [134.117.136.25])
by freenet1.carleton.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8/NCF_f1_v2.02) with ESMTP id KAA04194;
Thu, 12 Feb 1998 10:12:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: (bn872@localhost) by freenet5.carleton.ca.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id
KAA23192; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 10:12:47 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 10:12:47 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199802121512.KAA23192@freenet5.carleton.ca.carleton.ca>
From: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca (McKenny Michael)
To: Smaneck@berry.edu
Subject: Trying A More Constructive Approach
Cc: talisman@umich.edu
Reply-To: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca
Greetings, Susan, from Ottawa.
If you are well, it is well.
I think what you said now was that very little of what I posted to
Talisman was spam. Okay. Fine.
Moving on, you may not be right (possibilities are many) and still
you raise a valid point. It is possible that had I not posted the
letter I received from the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is
of Canada which arrived out of the blue to say that I could no longer
be considered a member of the Baha'i community on the assessment of
the Universal House of Justice, then such information may not have been
made public.
I will go further. There are other possibilities, and still one
possibility is that on the basis of my clear statement on the need to
follow principle over orders from leadership, the Universal House of
Justice felt that were they to continue any extended process of
communication with me this would have resulted in no change on my part
and would have left them with the feeling they had to declare me a
Covenant Breaker, on the grounds, which I don't accept as valid cause
for such an action, that I wasn't obeying them.
Personally, I strongly feel that they owed me one direct order
concisely stated "Stop posting," and after that they could have said
"Since he didn't obey an unambiguous command from us, he can't be
considered a Baha'i." This thing about wording it "member of the
Baha'i community" doesn't wash with me, as I don't believe there is
any category such as Baha'is not mebers of the community. The point
is that they did not do this. They did not say, "Hey, didn't you say
to Susie Tamas that you'd stop talking about women once we answered
you." Even the notice I was out of the community, sent without warning,
was sent by the Canadian NSA.
For the record, I felt my letter to them was treated summarily and
that I was sent copies of material which had prompted me to write to
them in the first place, along with something new which was an
inaccurate statement.
So, yes, one possible understanding is that they felt however
lengthy a process they continued with me there could be no better
outcome than the step they took.
For the record, I have always said that a Covenant Breaker is one
who asserts to be head of the Baha'i Faith contrary to the accepted
transmission of authority, or one who backs such a self-declared head.
Period. And I have never done anything of that kind. I have always
called on the accepted head of the Baha'i Faith to act so as to
increase the actual authority (as opposed to syllables and sounds,
letters and words penned on paper) and respect of the accepted head.
The real drunk is the one who imagines any order soever, even one
in violation of fundamental principle must be obeyed, that there may
by investigation of members for their personal understanding of the
Writings, that independent investigation of truth and freedom of
expression may be interfered with, that people may be encouraged to
resign from the Faith on the grounds of their understanding of the
sacred text and on their exercise of the principle of freedom of
expression, etc.
The shouting and screaming going on is a response to this abuse.
It may not be optimum behavior, and, I, for one, would be happy to
see instead discourse continually at a very lofty level. I have
lately repeatedly told you that insofar as what I have direct control
over I am quite attentive to any constructive ideas you may contribute
to the consultation encouraging this to happen.
Now, if you have nothing else to say, except that any order soever
really must be obeyed, that really it is not alcoholic consumption that
women are excluded from the Universal House of Justice, that there is
censorship, that there are literalist understandings of scripture which
must alone be believed, or at least which alone must be uttered in
public, that individuals in theory charged with diffusing the divine
fragrances really are going around looking into the beliefs of believers
and pressuring these believers to shut up, if they believe something
other than the party line, that efforts were taken (are they
continuing?) to drive the liberals, or at least the outspoken ones out
of the Baha'i Faith, then again I say you are refusing to look at the
place where you do live, and what constructive result emerges from
such shut eyes?
I have said before that up here we take a dim view of the "Planet"
(an argument such as either a planet is entirely composed of land, or
it is entirely composed of water). You suggest that either the
Universal House of Justice is unprincipled and the Baha'i Faith will
never amount to anything, or the Universal House of Justice is the
perfect expression of the divine will and inevitably Paradise will be
reflected on Earth.
My reading of history leads me to accept this "Planet" no more
than the general run of the lot.
I believe that previous monotheistic religions achieved some
kind of success despite unprincipled leadership, unethical behavior,
intolerance and oppression.
There are no absolutes. There were a great number of decent people
living in Medieval Christian Europe or under the Umayyad Caliphate,
etc. Yet, the rise to power of such religions did not take place in
ways most pleasing to the divine.
You are completely free to believe what you like.
And I hope it is a quite understandable belief, however much you
may not agree with it, that history could conceivably repeat itself.
And why in the world is it impossible for the Baha'i Faith to
achieve principled leadership. Indeed, what I think Baha'is ought to
be using all their alleged consultative skills considering is how
may there be a transformation of present reality into the stage of
principled leadership and all the other aspects of maturing Baha'i
and human life.
Indeed, it is an understandable interpretation of reality that the
very crisis of the outspoken liberals is part of the process of divine
favour. Without justifying shouting, yet, one way of looking at things
is that attempts to freeze the Faith in a mould contrary to the divine
pleasure (one allowed, as such has always been allowed in the past, due
to human free will; why else failed Ali, Husayn and all the imams?)
have produced a response and this response, this crisis, however it is
defined, is an opportunity to ponder deeply the real purpose of the
revelation, and the means by which this may honourably, ethically and
in ever increasing accord with principle, be achieved.
So, there is definitely sense in striving to see beneficial change
whether or not what transpires in future history is a repetition of
the past or some other unpleasant reality. The future is filled with
possibilities, including some very beneficial ones. So, of course
trying to foster beneficial change is a worthwhile activity, even if
the attempt ulimately fails.
And, quite sincerely, if one possibility is that this pagan finds
himself living around the year 155 C.E. with the ability to attempt
to reduce the liklihood of the fundamentalist intolerance which so
savagely impacted pagan civilization, then his continued attention to
reducing fundamentalism and intolerance is surely understandable.
I am all ears if you know other methods more likely to achieve
the desired result.
My contribution to the process of consultation you mention is:
The identification of the problem as the relative inattention to
the fundamental principles of the Baha'i Faith;
The raising of principle in this consultation, for example, the
independent investigation of truth, unity in diversity, the freedom of
thought and expression, harmony of science and religion, and the
complete equality of men and women;
My initial tentative solutions are:
The announcement by the Universal House of Justice that women may
be elected to the Universal House of Justice, the lifting of review,
the cessation of investigations of believers for expressing beliefs
and understandings, the cessation of language from official sources
expressed in inimical terms, and,
A much greater attempt by all believers and others (including
Michael McKenny) to speak without yelling and name-calling;
A much greater attempt by each to perceive the other, especially
those in positions of responsibility according to the positive light
as advised by the Central Figures of the Baha'i Faith. By the way, as
I understand it, in general, the antagonistic view of good and evil is
much more resonant in pagan thought, and treating what I perceive as
oppressive leadership positively, which I always tried to do when I was
a Baha'i, would, in general be seen as misguided; yet it still seems to
me that if everyone treats those who don't agree with them as enemies,
then this is less conducive to a real solution, not that tolerating
the degree of unprincipled leadership currently existing is the answer.
A greater effort by believers to carry out the decisions of the
institutions of the Baha'i Faith, within reason, i.e. that these
decisions are not contrary to fundamental principle, and that what does
not work will be changed.
The only one of these under my personal control is to strive to
stop shouting and use more elevated discourse. I will try, and, acting
in isolation is very difficult. This is not a promise to cease posting
nor even to cease stating what I believe are the crying needs of the
Baha'i Faith, especially in the absence of any visible and beneficial
action to respond to these needs.
And I am all ears to your constructive contribution to this
consultation.
May this find you very well, and may the days to come be better
than the days that were.
All the Best,
Michael
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
Homepage
|