From: McKenny Michael <bn872@freenet.carleton.ca>
To: talisman@umich.edu <talisman@umich.edu>
Cc: irfan@umich.edu <irfan@umich.edu>
Subject: Re Anonymous Remailers
Date: Monday, December 08, 1997 3:01 PM
Greetings from Ottawa, Canada.
If you are well, it is well.
Please forgive the lethargic pace of the season and my other
preoccupations which have so reduced my participation in this
discussion. I am posting this elsewhere I feel relevant, and invite
others to send it to appropriate places I fail to reach.
Since I am one of the four individuals named in article #327619
posted Thursday December 4th to news.groups as having faced
consequences from Baha'i authorities for freely expressing my views
in Baha'i cyberspace, some comment may be called for. Also, since
continued investigation of Baha'is by Baha'i authorities for views
posted to e-mail lists has prompted the thread on the need for
anonymous remailers, it becomes more understandable that some (such
as many who voted YES last time) who would be expected to be very
interested in this discussion on the formation of a new unmoderated
Baha'i newsgroup (Talk.Religion.Bahai) could be reluctant to speak.
It is a fact that among the various Baha'i e-mail lists is the
one referred to, with membership conditional on agreement not to
forward posted views to Baha'i authorities and it is true that this
condition was broken. It is a fact that the Universal House of
Justice giving some information, two months after the announcement
without warning that I could no longer be considered a member of the
Baha'i community, said that I seemed not to understand what a Prophet
was and that following that statement Baha'is discussed this in
relation to the comment I'd made on this restricted list apparently
providing grounds for such a statement, namely my remark that even
were it true that among the mass of untranslated Baha'i Scripture
existed a passage from the earlier Baha'i Prophet literally stating,
"Leave not a single unbeliever alive in the Central Provinces of
Iran," understanding such words would depend on already acknowledged
spiritual principles from previous Prophets such as Moses and Buddha,
who prohibited murder.
The fundamentalist view is that unquestioned obedience of Baha'i
authority takes precedence over everything else, including one's
conscience, as a recent post to Soc.Religion.Bahai by a person
assessed as not qualifying for Baha'i membership confirms. It is
very fortunate that one of the first things the most recent Baha'i
Prophet said was that warfare was prohibited. However, given the
capacity of "infallible" Baha'i authority to assert that "Exempting"
women from service on the Universal House of Justice is equality of
the sexes, I have been unable to re-assure the Interstellar Federation
that a Baha'i interpretation of such a prohibition on warfare would
guarantee peaceful contact with the human species. :)
Of course, in matters of religion, especially of fundamentalist
monotheism, we are dealing with highly charged emotion, with issues
of faith. Notwithstanding such Baha'i principles as the unfettered
search for truth, of the freedom of conscience and of the harmony of
science and religion, the existence of alternative views is very
difficult for many literalist Baha'is to accept and the free flow of
data inherent in the Internet does not correspond with previous Baha'i
practice. The recent letter from the Universal House of Justice
stating that Baha'is may freely express their views in cyberspace,
although in full accord with basic Baha'i principle, represents an
evolution beyond what was described at the beginning of this 20th
Century as the "Temporary" requirement for "Review" of all material
on the Baha'i Faith written by Baha'is.
Also, in light of the consequences of articulate expression of
liberal views to e-mail lists, a belief that pre-publication "Review"
has simply been replaced with post-publication "Review", is the most
prevalent view I have encountered from those who would seem most
likely to favour the creation of Talk.Religion.Bahai.
Probably the most sensitive datum of information awaiting Baha'is
is that the all-male Universal House of Justice censored the academic
paper written by leading Baha'i scholars in the late 80s which showed
that the reservation of seats on the Universal House of Justice
exclusively for men was based on the mistranslation and inadequate
understanding of Scripture. My view expressed openly to the Universal
Universal House of Justice that where literalism appeared to provide
an excuse for the suspension of basic Baha'i principles (one of which
is the equality of the sexes) it would be more seemly for principle
to prevail appears to have assisted the assessment by the Universal
House of Justice that I may not be considered a member of the Baha'i
community.
Personally, this assessment by the authorities of what had seemed
the cutting edge of all-embracing tolerant monotheism provided the
occassion for me openly to identify myself with paganism. After all,
if even the cutting edge of tolerant monotheism is pushing a
fundamentalist agenda and seeking to silence liberal voices, then
monotheism may be dismissed entirely.
However, liberal Baha'is who have not had their names removed
without warning from the membership rolls, are encouraged by me to
remain within the Faith whatever unpleasant truths may come to light
in the free flow of information possible in cyberspace. In theory,
the Baha'i Faith is a very open and tolerant path. And why would one
who is open-minded want this path surrendered totally to those seeking
to transform it into one more fundamentalist church, something, IMHO,
the human race has as much need for as its sun going nova.
I hope this made some sense.
May the future exceed our highest hopes.
Peace,
Michael
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
Homepage
|