The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience

From: "Paul Hammond" <pahammond@onetel.net.uk>
Subject: Re: bahai - TERRORISM 5  - Testimonies re US bahai community
Date: Saturday, October 27, 2001 4:42 PM

Dave Fiorito <bighappymonkey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0853486.0110261156.6340fd16@posting.google.com...
> >
> > And whose "image" is accurate, Dave?  There are a myriad ways to look at
the
> > Revelation -- not just one simplistic "official" way.
>
> I agree.  I agree.  I agree.  That is why "review" is temporary.
>

What is it now?  60 years and counting?  When *did* review
start?

Sounds to me like it's worse than those "temporary" internment
rules the British government brought in to deal with its terrorist
problem which somehow hung around for ever until they were
forced to change them by later events (a useful point to bear
in mind in the present times of fear)

>  The AO is a dynamic organization that will
> change to meet the character of the community because we are the ones
> that elect them.
>

Hmm.  I *was* just giggling at the first phrase, but then I realised that
there is a serious point to be made about the last part.  No-one is
ever voted off the higher assemblies.  Whatever Shoghi Effendi
attended to achieve by this system, dynamism is *not* one of the
outcomes.  ISTR that this is a situation that worries Susan
enough that she has talked here before about options for
voting reform.

Paul

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: bahai - TERRORISM 5  - Testimonies re US bahai community
Date: Saturday, October 27, 2001 9:00 PM

"Dave Fiorito" <bighappymonkey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0853486.0110261156.6340fd16@posting.google.com...

Dave,

> Yes there are - you cannot express heartfelt support for the Nth
> Living Gaurdian.  You cannot lay claim to a Revelation from God ere
> the expiration of a thousand years, and one cannot express one's
> interpretations as authoritative.

The only Bahai law regarding expression is that it does not claim to
be authoritative. And nobody around here or most other places claims
to be authoritative so the AO should just butt out and go do something
useful for a change.

There are ABMS for Protection - what do they do?  What do they
protect?  Why are they not here protecting the Faith for us
"spiritually corrosive" types?  Because they are too busy protecting
the AO from any form of internal criticism!

>
> > Penalties in this country cannot be imposed ex post
> > facto, even in criminal law. This guy was just participating in an
email
> > discussion, shared a personal experience, then Wham!  he's on the
carpet for
> > it.
>
> And I agree that the incident was not handled with the right kind of
> tact or wisdom.

Or in short it was a real TARFU!

> > > Karen - they have stopped.  Its been what - nearly 2 years?
> >
> > About a year and a half.  I'm not convinced they've stopped.
After all, it
> > was nearly three years between the disenrollments of Mike and
Alison.  It's
> > a positve sign, but I'm not ready to breathe a sigh of relief just
yet.
>
> Remember, between Mike and Alison was Fred.  I think the pattern has
> been broken.

I don't agree that they have stopped!  Certainly the Great Covenant
Breaker Circus here a few months ago clearly got the message across
that any more antics would bring down retaliation.  And let's not
forget the message from the Ethereal Plateau that Nima was to be "left
to his own devices" - lucky Nima!

I feel that the thinking caps are on in Haifa to devise some new way
of eviscerating external and internal opposition.  I don't think that
all of this effort will come up with anything effective but I'm
looking forward with eager anticipation to the next set of jolly japes
to confound the critics.  Might I suggest large bribes in larger brown
envelopes that just might interest the "financially challenged"
amongst the critics (I could use a new car - Hint!) - I understand
that despite all of the current strictures, it is still possible to
proffer suggestions to Mount Olympus!

> > > > However, if they take action against anyone else, everything
from
> > > > Dialogue onward will be regurgitated again and again.
> > >
> > > Why open up old wounds like that?  What is the point?>>
> >
> > Because it's all related. It's a pattern of behavior.
>
> The US NSA has a bunch of different members, the UHJ has changed as
> well, although not quite as much.  At a certain point past behavior
> becomes less and less relevant.

"Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out!" - Old King Log!

> > > First of all they are not censors.  I object to that
characterization.>>
> >
> > When someone in authority says "No, you can't say that", it's
censorship.
> > Let's call a spade a spade here.
>
> Then we are all censors because we never say exactly what we want.
> Calling someone a censor has specific political conotations.

The laws on libel and sedition limit the exercise of speech as a means
of expressing opinion.  But in secular society ideas can be
expressed - Paul and I as citizens of the UK are quite free to call
for the abolition of the Monarchy without being regarded as traitors.
When the expression of ideas is suppressed or controlled, that is
censorship with all of its nasty political connotations.  It is the
practice of the AO!

> > >  Pre-publication review was a policy introduced by Abdul-Baha
and
> > > endorsed by Shoghi Effendi.  It is a temporary measure and is
not even
> > > applicable to all media since the Internet is exempt.  It helps
us all
> > > to present an accurate image of the Baha'i Faith.>>
> >
> > And whose "image" is accurate, Dave?  There are a myriad ways to
look at the
> > Revelation -- not just one simplistic "official" way.
>
> I agree.  I agree.  I agree.  That is why "review" is temporary.

But how temporary?  And why is it used to suppress viewpoints rather
than correct errors of fact when free expression of ideas is expressly
permitted and supposedly encouraged within the BF?

<SNIP>
>
> Well you can add my voice to that choir.  I have tried the Ruhi
method
> and I found it to be overly simplified with to much emphasis on rote
> learning.  I have told that to lots of people.  I still get invites
to
> give talks and conduct deepening inspite of that less than popular
> opinion.  The main reason is that I do recognize that some folks
enjoy
> it and really learn from it.  Furthermore I see the need for
> systematic learning in our communities.  I just don't like the Ruhi
> method.

How can you have systematic learning by rote in a Faith that
supposedly allows of free independent investigation of truth, freedom
to interpret for oneself, and freedom to express oneself?  Madrasa
Rule -OK!

> >  It's frightening, Dave.  They don't want people who think -- they
> > just want a bunch of trained clones like out of some dystopian
nightmare.
> > The title "Brave New World" for Baha'i satire is more accurate
than I
> > thought.
>
> That is why I do not like Ruhi.  I have noticed, however, that some
> folks who take it gain a passion for reading Baha'u'llah and begin
to
> read more of the writings on their own.  You might be suprised at
how
> many new Baha'is do not read Baha'u'llah.

Yeah! They read with the official meaning already implanted in their
minds.  Let's face it - Bahai scholarship is learning the right
quotations (and their citations) by heart to fling in the face of
critics and worse.  Net result is the chorus on Beliefnet of appalling
and unmitigated cultic bigotry.  Like it or not, Dave, this is the
Bahai Faith for the foreseeable future and if you don't start to stop
worrying and love Ruhi, then you, my friend, will be liable to a
midnight call along the lines Juan had!

<SNIP>
> > Dave, you were basically saying that because someone has a Ph.d,
that
> > anything they say about the Faith implicitly claims to be
authoritative.
> > Sure, it's public space, and lots of people say lots of things
about the
> > Faith, but I don't see anywhere explicitly claiming to have the
> > authoritative viewpoint.  Yet this charge is leveled at the people
who got
> > into trouble with Talisman.  Why?  Because they are intelligent
and
> > articulate and have credibility.  So they don't even have to claim
> > authority -- they are suspected of doing so just by virtue of who
they are.
> > That isn't right.
>
> Bingo - they have credibility.  Credibility provides a vehicle for
> influence.  Influence can be helpful or harmful.  Perhaps the AO has
> overreacted in these cases but I refuse to believe that their
motives
> were anything but good.

Credibility is not authority although it can be useful for authority
to have credibility.  I don't dispute that the motives of the AO were
good ... for the AO.  Do you realise that if these silly ideas in
Modest Proposal were implemented, some careerists in the AO might be
made redundant?  Now we can't have that - can we?

>
> > > Whoso interpreteth what hath been sent down from the heaven of
> > > Revelation, and altereth its evident meaning, he, verily, is of
them
> > > that have perverted the Sublime Word of God, and is of the lost
ones
> > > in the Lucid Book.>>
> >
> > "It's meaning can never be exhausted".  Take your pick.
>
> Yes, I agree.  But in a unifed community how can you incorporate
> diverse opinion unless you have an arbiter?  The AO is the arbiter.
> Yes the meaning of the writings can never be exhausted because life
is
> constantly changing.  The AO is a dynamic organization that will
> change to meet the character of the community because we are the
ones
> that elect them.

You don't need an arbiter - you let the opinion diffuse throughout the
community.  If it resonates it will remain alive so it is probably of
worth, should be closely examined and perhaps incorporated into
current praxis.  If it's worthless it will die of its own accord!

The AO, by your own explanation will never change.  It has suppressed
or expelled all the dynamic forces and put the community on an
interminably bland diet of "exciting" meetings to choose the name for
a cluster of communities!

Pass the sick bag, Bob!

--
As ever,

Dermod.

"In God We Trust - All others pay Cash!"

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Attn Dermod - Re Haifa's "monitors"
Date: Friday, October 26, 2001 8:15 AM

"BIGS - Bahai in *Perfectly* Good Standing"
<patrick_henry@liberty.com> wrote in message
news:9rbgej$sspua$1@ID-75545.news.dfncis.de...
> Dermod Ryder wrote:
> They read the newsgroups - there are three people at Haifa tasked
with
> monitoring TRB/ARB (What aboutcha, people?  I constantly think of
you
> checking on each other!)
> --
>
> Who are they? Have any names?

Sorry Fred - no names!  They are the unsung heroes, the
Rangers/SAS/Delta Force/SEALS of the Adminocentric Faith for they
disappear into the bunker to do their duty and are never heard of
more.  For them is sung this anthem: -

Go ye heroes, go to glory,
Though you die in combat gory,
Ye shall live in song and story,
Go to immortality!
Go to death and go to slaughter:
Die, and every Bahai daughter
With her tears your grave shall water.
Go to monitor TRB!

(With apologies to W.S. Gilbert)

>
> --
> FG
> The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
> https://members.fortunecity.com/bahaicensorship
>
>
>
>

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Attn Dermod - Re Haifa's "monitors"
Date: Friday, October 26, 2001 5:13 PM

"BIGS - Bahai in *Perfectly* Good Standing"
<patrick_henry@liberty.com> wrote in message
news:9rckn0$sjbmq$2@ID-75545.news.dfncis.de...
> "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:9rbr91$sa5qr$1@ID-84503.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > Sorry Fred - no names!
>
> Well, any guesses? Anybody we know around here?

My understanding is that they are in a bunker buried deep under Mount
Carmel near Haifa and they live in constant fear of attack.  The
bunkers are designed to resist a dead hit by a rocket propelled Fred
Glaysher - a variant that is considered more deadly than the Fred
Glaysher Mk 1 Master of Spam.

To protect these valued assets who serve a daily report on the
activities on TRB to the House members over breakfast - an event that
makes breakfast the worst meal of the day - counter-Glaysher weapons
have been deployed across the Internet. These include the Fiorito
Close In Weapons System, the Medium Range Kohli and the Rolling
Articulated Matt Menge.

We can't provide the names of the monitors for security reasons - that
and the fact that they are regularly rotated for the strain of having
to listen to the absolute filth and drivel on TRB is considered too
hazardous - and that's just the guy who monitors the fundies.  Word
has it that several have died from boredom, as well - something we can
all empathise with.

The ones in charge of the others, those faced with daily exposure to
the  "covenantly challenging" infection, for which there is no known
cure, are a particularly sad case.  A number have gone over the hill,
having succumbed to the infection; others are reported to have ended
their days in strait jackets.  I tell you, Fred, you gotta take your
hat off to these guys.

Due to their courage and devotion to duty, the Bahai World is a safer
place for your kids to be brought up as fundamentalists!!

From: "Paul Hammond" <pahammond@onetel.net.uk>
Subject: Re: That's right: Opinions are not banned!
Date: Saturday, October 27, 2001 4:34 PM

Dave Fiorito <bighappymonkey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0853486.0110261030.2ad0a65d@posting.google.com...
> >
> > 1. The NZ NSA lied about Alison Marshall being 'counselled', and the UHJ
> > has, culpably and dishonestly, never corrected the lie.
>
> In their view she was counselled.  The were wrong in that assumption
> but that was not their perception.
>

And, the mighty UHJ never corrected that misconception, apologised
to Alison, and acted immediately to correct their mistake by re-instating
her because?

In criminal law, if they was something dodgy about the trial process,
the wrongly convicted person is immediately released, *even* if it
was just an unfortunate procedural cock-up and everyone is
certain of the guilt of the person who didn't get the fair trial they
were entitled to.

>
> > 2. There are widespread problems in the Baha'i administration in the
> > USA, and a great many heavy-handed outrages contrary to the fundamental
> > principles of unity have occurred, such as the denunciation of the
> > Dialogue magazine and the inquisition of Juan Cole. The UHJ is curiously
> > inactive in ever bringing any of this activity to heel.
>
> The events you mention are old news.  The past is past - time to move
> on.
>

But, there has been no closure on them because the wrongdoers
insist on their correctness and demand apologies from their victims.

>
> > 3. By heavy-handed authoritarian tactics, the UHJ has brought continuing
> > criticism upon itself that is surely much worse than the original
> > problems; I am thinking of the various carpetings and, worse, the
> > expulsions from the Faith for such trivial reasons as Michael thinking
> > (like most Baha'is, incidentally, but saying so just a bit more
> > vociferously) that women should serve on the UHJ.
>
> He did more than say it - he campaigned for it and then refused to
> ever obey the UHJ.  That is a line Baha'is cannot cross without
> consequenses.  That's just the way it is.
>

You mean, by strongly saying that you believe an injustice is being
done, and carefully explaining the reasons why you think so you
deserve to be expelled?  That's nonsense.

He refused to obey the UHJ about women on the house?  How did
he do that?  As far as I know, it actually isn't within his power to
put a woman on the house.

> > 4. The scope of freedom of thought, belief, and expression within the
> > Baha'i Faith has been narrowed tragically from the wide, generous
> > horizons envisioned by Baha'u'llah, until the modern typical believer is
> > scared of his own shadow, always careful to 'vet' every comment in case
> > it offends some dictum from on high. The very notion that others'
> > comments have to conform to some standard that the AO is authorised to
> > lay down as to 'tone' and 'methods of expression' is contrary to
> > Baha'u'llah's clear teachings regarding freedom of speech. Yes,
> > Baha'u'llah gives us a lot of guidance as to how to speak wisely, but
> > that guidance does not constitute a right for _someone else_ to vet the
> > contents or style of any person's speech.
>
> I completely disagree - crossing the bounds of moderation can lead to
> breaking Baha'i law.  If Baha'i law is broken then consequences will
> follow.  Freedom of speech, even here in the US, has limits.  If you
> don't like the limits - so be it.  Just understand that if the limit
> is crossed then there are consequences.
>

What are the rules?  What are the limits?  Surely we should be told!

Even that horribly materialistic society, the USA, has the limits on
freedom of speech carefully and legally described, and a big part
of, say, libel trials is to actually establish the facts that a libel has
in fact been committed - the injured feelings of the plaintiff alone
are not enough.

>
> > Therefore you fall back on inspecting people's 'tone of
> > voice', or their 'method of expression', or some such irrelevancy.
>
> I see it as completely relevant.
>

What are the rules of tone?  How can they be framed in such a
way as to avoid the injustice of Iranian cultural imperialism which
would find Dermod's casual swearing offensive, and yet lying
about your true intentions as to your desire for tea and cakes
is the height of polite behaviour?

I think there is immense room for confusion here, and not enough
care is being taken to establish the truth before excommunicating
people.

> > That
> > sidetrack will only take you so far, and one day you will have to face
> > the actual problem.
>
> What problem?  That some folks want the Baha'i Faith to behave as if
> the US Constitution was our guiding document rather than the Writings?
>

And, what is wrong with the US constitution?  It's a damn sight better
than the make it up as you go along rules the UHJ play by, and it's
meant to be vice versa isn't it?

Alternatively, my own country manages quite well without a written
constitution, but things are still not made up as the whim of the
British government dictates - vested interests will always cry foul
as they feel their traditional rights are being infringed.

Paul

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: That's right: Opinions are not banned!
Date: Saturday, October 27, 2001 10:11 PM

Hi Pat,

"Pat Kohli" <kohliCUT_THE_CAPS@ameritel.net> wrote in message
news:3BDB685C.5A5CED76@ameritel.net...
>
>
> Ron House wrote:
>
> > Dave Fiorito wrote:
> > >
> > > Opinions are not banned.  Methods of expressing an opinion that
cause
> > > disunity or the undrmining of the AO is the problem.
> >
> > I am sorry Dave, but it is not necessary, as others seem to be
doing, to
> > defend whether they are on one side or the other of some imaginary
line.
> > It is _you_ and the unreflective persons in the administrative
order,
> > who "just don't get it": If you don't like what someone says,
_that is
> > just too bad_! Go and say some prayers until you learn the skills
> > necessary to deal with living in the human race. "From the clash
of
> > differing opinions" comes the spark of truth. From the stimulation
of
> > hearing others of differing views trying to convince us - Yes!
Trying to
> > convince us they are right! - it is from that challenge that we
> > ourselves hone our own thinking, discover our own oversights, and
come
> > to a better understanding of reality.
> >
> > Now, your big, big problem in the various questions discussed
commonly
> > here is, to put it bluntly, that the UHJ is wrong and its critics
> > (excepting one particular person) are mostly right - to the
nearest
> > one-sentence approximation.
>
> To put it bluntly, when I hear or read, "your problem is", I
anticipate some big
> bullshit about to splat.  Thanks for the warning, Ron.

Will somebody warn me about the bullshit - BEFOREHAND?  I'm looking
carefully but I haven't found it yet.

> > Therefore any reasonable attempt to provide
> > evidence in support of any of the usual criticisms will naturally
sound
> > like an overwhelming argument and, if one has a religious
mind-block
> > that prevents one accepting the clear consequences of the
evidence, then
> > it will of course sound like 'disunity' and 'undermining'.
>
> Yeah, I suspect that any evidence which might diminish your tale,
will be brushed
> off as so much dandruff.

But the tale has been treated with HEAD AND SHOULDERS - clears up the
dandruff and sorts out various monsters!

> > The truth is
> > the truth, though, so the more you push this barrow the sooner the
> > wheels will fall off.
> >
>
> Aye!

There they go!

> > In case you are wondering what I mean by 'the critics are right',
here
> > is a short list of some points that come to mind as I write this
over a
> > quick tea break. I regard the following as proven beyond
reasonable
> > doubt:
> >
> > 1. The NZ NSA lied about Alison Marshall being 'counselled', and
the UHJ
> > has, culpably and dishonestly, never corrected the lie.
> >
>
> Perhaps.

I actually think it's the other way around - the UHJ lied and the NSA
did what it was told!

> > 2. There are widespread problems in the Baha'i administration in
the
> > USA, and a great many heavy-handed outrages contrary to the
fundamental
> > principles of unity have occurred, such as the denunciation of the
> > Dialogue magazine and the inquisition of Juan Cole. The UHJ is
curiously
> > inactive in ever bringing any of this activity to heel.
> >
>
> I doubt it there are widespread problem in the USA.  Juan overstates
things.  You
> really don't know the extent of the UHJ's invovlement with the US
NSA, nor are you
> in any position to make such an assessment.  I must suppose that the
thinner the ice
> is, the more energetic the figure skating will be.

I heard a tale the other day of a LSA that ignored the law totally in
fund raising but of course that's not culpable thanks to the First
Amendment, just as Albuquerque got off the hook.  These may be only
two stories but I reckon there are a lot more out there.  In any case
two is two too many and compounded by the failure of the AO to deal
with and rectify them.

> > 3. By heavy-handed authoritarian tactics, the UHJ has brought
continuing
> > criticism upon itself that is surely much worse than the original
> > problems; I am thinking of the various carpetings and, worse, the
> > expulsions from the Faith for such trivial reasons as Michael
thinking
> > (like most Baha'is, incidentally, but saying so just a bit more
> > vociferously) that women should serve on the UHJ.
> >
>
> 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.

So you're not allowed to express opinion.  All of those who referred
to the President of the United States of America as "Dubya" in a
gratuitous attempt to take the piss, will now leave the room for
punishment!

> > 4. The scope of freedom of thought, belief, and expression within
the
> > Baha'i Faith has been narrowed tragically from the wide, generous
> > horizons envisioned by Baha'u'llah, until the modern typical
believer is
> > scared of his own shadow, always careful to 'vet' every comment in
case
> > it offends some dictum from on high.
>
> Bullshit.

Let's see - criticism of the Ruhi Madrasas is not very poular in
certain quarters, electoral reform has been excluded as is discussion
of Women in the House (quite rightly too - we need these male
bastions), "review" is non-negotiable, "negative" criticism is off the
menu (whatever negative criticism is), reference to electioneering are
denied (even though everybody knows it goes on), spying is not a
function of the ABM or his Assistants (somebody else is instructed or
understands he/she is to perform the task by "voluntarily" supplying
private E-mails) ... yup! I can see that great big pile of bullshit
winging its way across the Internet all the way from Mount Olympus
(Home of the Gods for the benefit of those who didn't have a classical
education - but now relocated to the big white edifice in Haifa!)

--
As ever,

Dermod.

"In God We Trust - All others pay Cash!"

From: "BIGS - Bahai in *Perfectly* Good Standing" <patrick_henry@liberty.com>
Subject: Re: An Apology to Fred
Date: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 6:24 AM

You're a deceitful liar. And basically a bahai terrorist,
at that.... Every person on trb can be subpeoned and
required to testify that you have been harassing,
hounding, and stalking me for years.... Now that you have been
unequivocally caught at it you want to hide the evidence....

--
FG
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
https://www.angelfire.com/mi3/bahai/

------
Little Better Than the Terrorists

 FG
9/14/01 7:51 AM  1 out of 2

Sad fact, sad fact.... Having betrayed the moderation
articulated in the Writings....

FG

-----------------------------------
Path:
uni-berlin.de!fu-berlin.de!headwall.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postn
ews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: bighappymonkey@yahoo.com (Dave Fiorito)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.bahai
Subject: something Fred posted on Beliefnet
Date: 14 Sep 2001 11:01:38 -0700
Organization: https://groups.google.com/
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <f0853486.0109141001.2fd2b8c@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.145.1.40
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1000490499 26370 127.0.0.1 (14 Sep 2001 18:01:39
GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 14 Sep 2001 18:01:39 GMT
Xref: uni-berlin.de alt.religion.bahai:7159 talk.religion.bahai:27665

To: Fred
From: the white hot ball of anger in my gut.

In the past you were just a pain.  I welcomed your voice as proof that
the First Amendment works.  I never did agree with you but that is the
way of this world.  I never wanted you to go away.  You are the
negative to the Baha'i positive.

Not now.  Not after that comment above.  You are a fucking asshole.
You are a egomaniacal sociopathic shit head of the highest order.
This is not character assasination because you have no character to
assassinate.  You are worthless.

How dare you compare people who are at this moment gathering their
resources to help rescue their fellow world citizens from the twited
wreckage left in the wake of that horrifically evil deed.  Baha'is in
NYC and in New Jersey have gone to Manhatten to volunteer.  Others are
gathering goods and money for the tough task of recovery.  Baha'is are
working to heal the wounds.

All you want to do is inflict more pain.

You are evil.

You are a fucking coward.

You make me sick.

"Dave Fiorito" <bighappymonkey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0853486.0109181316.7ce32ad1@posting.google.com...
> Fred,
>
> I apologized because my conscience was not at rest.  I spoke in anger
> and that bothered me.
>
> So how am I like a terrorist if I apologize for the use of harsh
> language?
>
> Sheesh,
>
> Dave

From: "Ron House" <house@usq.edu.au>
Subject: Re: That's right: Opinions are not banned!
Date: Sunday, October 28, 2001 9:36 PM

Michael McKenny wrote:
> 
> Greetings, Pat.

>      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

Bravo Michael. Your final line is the central point. The administrative
mindset of many in the Baha'i Faith is incapable of grasping this
fundamental issue: You can assert what you like. Yes, Baha'u'llah has
given us much guidance in how to do it properly, but His guidance is not
a licence to administrators to set up tests of one's toadying skills as
hurdles to free speech.

-- 
Ron House     house@usq.edu.au
              https://www.sci.usq.edu.au/staff/houseFrom: "Ron House" <house@usq.edu.au>
Subject: Re: That's right: Opinions are not banned!
Date: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 8:37 PM

Dave Fiorito wrote:
> 
> Randy,
> 
> > > And who are you to judge?  If you don't like what I say - too bad.
> >
> > That's a wonderfully reasoned reply.
> 
> You are right I was snipped at and I snipped back.  I should not have
> acted emotionally.  I apologize for that.
> 
> Ron said that if I did not like what he said then too bad - as if I
> can't speak _my_ mind when I disagree with _him_, only the critics are
> allowed to speak their minds.

Let's look at this a bit closer. But first, I didn't mention myself; I
said:

>> If you don't like what someone says, _that is just too bad_!

Now of course, my use of "you" was the standard English colloquial
equivalent for "one", but Dave might have misunderstood that, so let's
take it he understood this to mean:

>> If Dave doesn't like what someone says, _that is just too bad_!

Now, I ask: what can the general principle be of which this is a
specific case? Is it:

(a) If one doesn't like what someone says, _that is just too bad_!

or

(b) Dave and those who agree with him are not allowed to speak their
minds.

Clearly Dave has taken it to be the latter. However, there is at least
one unspoken assumption involved in getting from my remark to conclusion
(b). I don't know exactly what it is in Dave's specific case, but the
sort of thing that might cover it would be a proposition like:

(P) There is only room in the world for one spoken viewpoint.

Now clearly, if we accept (P), my speaking my mind will preclude Dave's
speaking his. It seems to me that propositions akin to (P) are central
to the fundamentalist mindset, and without understanding their
underlying presence, nothing the fundamentalists do will ever make sense
to those of a more liberal thought pattern. The correct response to
fundamentalism, then, is not to continue to argue the basic issues: they
have been proved beyond doubt in any case. Rather, find every occasion
to show how people of differing views and backgrounds can live together
in harmony, provided all accept the basic proposition that expressing a
view is not the same as launching an attack. The spark of truth arises
from the clash of differing opinions. Be glad those opinions are there,
take them on and argue about them. Friends can respect each other
without necessarily agreeing on every proposition; they can even put up
their opinions vociferously and try to persuade their friends to change
theirs. Differing opinions are not attacks.

-- 
Ron House     house@usq.edu.au
              https://www.sci.usq.edu.au/staff/houseFrom: "Ron House" <house@usq.edu.au>
Subject: Re: That's right: Opinions are not banned!
Date: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 8:59 PM

Dave Fiorito wrote:

> "Paul Hammond" <pahammond@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message news:<3bdb3ee2@212.67.96.135>...
> > Dave Fiorito <bighappymonkey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:f0853486.0110261030.2ad0a65d@posting.google.com...
> > > >
> > > > 1. The NZ NSA lied about Alison Marshall being 'counselled', and the UHJ
> > > > has, culpably and dishonestly, never corrected the lie.
> > >
> > > In their view she was counselled.  The were wrong in that assumption
> > > but that was not their perception.
> > >
> >
> > And, the mighty UHJ never corrected that misconception, apologised
> > to Alison, and acted immediately to correct their mistake by re-instating
> > her because?
> 
> If they were told by the NZ NSA that she was counselled then why
> should they believe otherwise?

How about: Because they monitor these newsgroups and email lists like
Talisman, ample time has now elapsed, and they now know perfectly well
that they have committed an injustice. That's a fact: they NOW KNOW IT.
And they have, in contradiction to their charge to be "the guardians
appointed of God for all who dwell on Earth", deliberately committed an
injustice by failing to correct their erroneous allegation in all the
time that has now elapsed.

>...
> > Even that horribly materialistic society, the USA, has the limits on
> > freedom of speech carefully and legally described, and a big part
> > of, say, libel trials is to actually establish the facts that a libel has
> > in fact been committed - the injured feelings of the plaintiff alone
> > are not enough.
> 
> ... and US law is the result of how many years of legal evolution?
> Hundreds?  Some would argue thousands?  The Baha'i community has not
> yet established the exact procedures for due process.  It is probably
> time to do that.  Until then we must a) carefully study the Writings
> and guidence and b) obey our elected institutions and consult with
> them about these issues.

The various historical issues you would like us to all forget
demonstrate, in conjunction with ongoing new injustices such as their
false allegations about Alison, that there simply isn't any coherent
system in the Baha'i administration for delivering justice to the
individual or for stopping or even correcting institutional failures.
This is a critical point! The UHJ offered, some decades ago, the Baha'i
community to the world as a model for study. Well, I am studying it and
I find it to be hopelessly flawed. These faults are endemic, not the
occasional accident. When you are trying to construct a new and better
system for the operation of the world society, you cannot build a
malfunctioning system and then claim, in the face of specific
identifiable faults such as the lack of checks and balances, "Well, one
day, when this thing is big enough, it will somehow work properly (even
though we don't know how or why) and it will solve all the world's
problems." No, you must get it working now, while it is small, and show
now that it can solve the problem of injustice for the small numbers who
have agreed to place themselves within the system, now.

If it can't work NOW for a small community, it won't work later for a
big one.

For some years now I have been trying to see on these channels whether
the faults can be rectified. To that end I have defended the UHJ's
legitimate authority and I have argued against the unjust criticisms of
them that I have seen some posters making here. 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.

-- 
Ron House     house@usq.edu.au
              https://www.sci.usq.edu.au/staff/houseFrom: "Freethought110" <lotusapt@wxc.com.au>
Subject: Re: Amazement
Date: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 6:11 AM

Absolute lies? I think not. All of us saw how you published Fred's phone
number and home address all over the internet.

Been walking the dog lately?? ;-)

Freethought

"Mark Elderkin" <elley@intercoast.com.au> wrote in message
news:3bdfe61c@news.rivernet.com.au...
> I still find it amazing that someone of Freds caliber can afford the time
> that it takes to mass-produce the absolute trash that he has filled both
his
> website, this newsgroup and to many others websirtes worth mentioning. I
> have have had first hand experience with Fred and his manipulation of
facts
> and am still well mentioned in his website as someone who has threatened
> him. Absolute lies and clearly a fantasy that this retired author must
have
> created within his realms of menatl creativity. Just think what positive
> things might have existed had Fred only mangaed to use his skills in some
> positive and meaningful way. Fred has not been a Baha'i for years and this
> fact alone must stand as the reason for his continuous onslaught of the
> facts. Thank God for his mercies for some will have greater needs of this
> than others.
>
>

From: "Freethought110" <freethought110@bohemian.org>
Subject: Re: Amazement
Date: Thursday, November 01, 2001 2:29 AM

Then don't be accusing people of lying when you yourself admit to making
threats.

--
Freethought110

"Mark Elderkin" <elley@intercoast.com.au> wrote in message
news:3be1076c@news.rivernet.com.au...
> Bloody well right I did..........It was the best thing that could have
> happened. Fred ignores all the rules, cross-posts and completely ignores
the
> rest of the participants here. Having his name out there was the best way
> for people to let him know what an absolute idiot he acts like. I really
> hope he enjoyed the phone calls.
>    And as a by-the-way......... the dog is healthy and loves her walks.
She
> is also considering writing some full length poetry. Could be interesting.
> M
>
>

From: "John R MacLeod" <jrmacleod@consultant.com>
Subject: Re: That's right: Opinions are not banned!
Date: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 2:57 PM

Pat,
I don't follow your thinking here.  If the UHJ threw Michael out for
advocating women serve on the UHJ it was at least a substantitave issue
which they could at least argue represents direct opposition to the
decisions of the elected body.  I wouldn't personally have thought that
justified expulsion but I can at least understand the issues.
However you seem to be suggesting he was expelled for losing his cool enough
to offer a vulgar insult to the UHJ.  That idea would terrify me.  I don't
think you are right but if you are we are all in deep trouble.  Rulers who
react to insults are trouble in spades.
Have you any evidence for thinking the central issue was this trivia?

From: "Karen Bacquet" <karenbacquet@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: WARNING - Fundamentalist Deception runs rife on trb & arb
Date: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 1:50 PM

> Yes, but that does not mean that the parties to a consultation must
> compromise.  One party might be 100% correct.  The key to consultation
> is not compromise.  It is a commitment to the objective examination of
> the facts.
>
> > > personal conscience is every individual person's method of determining
> > > right and wrong - apart from persuasion, I don't see how this can
> > > be changed.  I didn't believe that Baha'u'llah wanted robots, and
> > > with 70-odd meanings to the word of God (as the Word of God
> > > itself says) there *must* be a certain amount of wiggle room in
> > > there.
> >
> > Oh, Paul, you ought to know by know the only accurate way a Baha'i can
tell
> > right from wrong is to have the UHJ tell him what it is.  One is
expected to
> > abandon personal conscience, and accept the UHJ interpretation if you
are to
> > be really firm in the Covenant.  The only moral rule the conservatives
have
> > got is "The House is always right.",  and an individual has a "spiritual
> > problem" if they disagree with that.
>
> Karen - that is overly simplistic and - frankly - quite insulting.
> The Word of God is the Infallible Guide.  The UHJ has been assured of
> God's Guidence in its deliberations - that is in the Word of God.  We
> are told to obey the UHJ - that is in the Word of God.  We are told
> that we are free to express our views while we consult - that is in
> the Word of God.  Once a consultation has reached a conclusion by
> consensus or majority vote we must support the decision without
> hesitation - that is in the Word of God.  Liberty is allowed in some
> instances and sanctioned in others - that is in the Word of God.
>
> Yes - the UHJ is always right.  That is what Baha'u'llah promised.
> Where does he say otherwise?

If that's really your position, Dave, then why do you find my saying so
insulting?  If the UHJ can never be wrong, no matter what apparent wrong it
commits, then the believer is supposed to abandon his individual conscience
about the matter, correct?  We are not allowed to adhere to our own
standards of right and wrong, but must accept the UHJ's definition instead,
no matter how much mind-twisting that requires of us.

The only person that is "always right" is the Manifestation -- the UHJ was
always envisioned as a legislative body i.e. that passes actual laws. It
currently functions largely as an executive committee and judiciary, very
rarely passing legislation. To say that it is always right, in all its
capacities is to grant it a share of the Most Great Infallibility, which is
"joining partners"with the Manifestation.  The difference betweeen
"essential infallibility" and "conferred infallibility" is that the latter's
sphere is limited.  To say it is not limited is to put the UHJ on a level
with Baha'u'llah, something I don't think is warranted by the Writings.

Karen

From: "Ron House" <house@usq.edu.au>
Subject: Re: That's right: Opinions are not banned!
Date: Thursday, November 01, 2001 9:18 PM

> > What's "ongoing".  Alison's case is cold.  Old news.

Randy Burns wrote:
> 
> Not to her it isn't.  I don't know why you think you have to say that.
> 
> Randy

Hi Randy, that point was well worth making. In the cold breasts of those
who have abandoned true empathy in favour of strident fake spirituality,
the idea that there are real individuals at the other end of each
outrage by these administrators is an alien concept.

"Thus you will know them by their fruits. "Not every one who says to me,
'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the
will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me,
'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in
your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I
declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.'"

-- 
Ron House     house@usq.edu.au
              https://www.sci.usq.edu.au/staff/houseFrom: "Ron House" <house@usq.edu.au>
Subject: Re: That's right: Opinions are not banned!
Date: Thursday, November 01, 2001 9:07 PM

Dave Fiorito wrote:

> Ron,
> 
> > How about: Because they monitor these newsgroups and email lists like
> > Talisman, ample time has now elapsed, and they now know perfectly well
> > that they have committed an injustice. That's a fact: they NOW KNOW IT.
> 
> Maybe they don't monitor this space?  Maybe they don't know anything
> of the dialogues here.  You and I just don't know.

Tell us another one. They don't know Alison has launched legal action in
NZ, and this is the substance of the complaint? They certainly spy on
Talisman, and the issue has been discussed there. We know this because
when poor Hooper Dunbar left his office on holiday, his email responder
posted apologies to the list. Not only a spy, but a blockheaded one.

> > The various historical issues you would like us to all forget
> > demonstrate, in conjunction with ongoing new injustices such as their
> > false allegations about Alison, ...
> 
> What's "ongoing".  Alison's case is cold.  Old news.

Oh?? Just a minute ago you told us the UHJ wasn't abreast of the fact
that their own NZ NSA's statements were false. Make up your mind.

But apart from that, I find the entire mindset behind that remark to be
odious. Alison was lied about to the entire Baha'i population of her
country by her own NSA, and nothing has ever been done to correct it.
But that's "Old news"; after someone has been harmed long enough, we
just let 'em rot with the slander uncorrected, unrepented, unatoned, is
that it? Disgusting.

> Again, what "continuing actions"?  The case is damn near 2 years old
> and there has not been a peep from the UHJ since.  So?  Time to move
> on.  If you are so concerned about the actions of the UHJ why not
> consult with them to clarify the situation.  You can do that if you
> want to.

No, you don't get to 'move on'. The UHJ has collaborated in a libel
against a true and dear follower of Baha'u'llah and never corrected the
slate. Let them correct the libel; then I'll "move on".

In truth, Alison is a better Baha'i than the whole dishonest, unjust lot
of them.

-- 
Ron House     house@usq.edu.au
              https://www.sci.usq.edu.au/staff/houseFrom: "Paul Hammond" <pahammond@onetel.net.uk>
Subject: Re: That's right: Opinions are not banned!
Date: Friday, November 02, 2001 4:09 AM

bighappymonkey@yahoo.com (Dave Fiorito) wrote in message news:<f0853486.0111011203.5684420d@posting.google.com>...
> Ron,
> 
<snip>
> 
> What's "ongoing".  Alison's case is cold.  Old news.
> 
<snip>
> 
> Again, what "continuing actions"?  The case is damn near 2 years old
> and there has not been a peep from the UHJ since.  So?  Time to move
> on.  If you are so concerned about the actions of the UHJ why not
> consult with them to clarify the situation.  You can do that if you
> want to.
> 

It takes about that long for the legal wheels to get in motion
in most legal system - in France it takes even longer.

Alison believes that the UHJ and NSA have told lies about her, and
her case comes up for review this year.  The fact that some of the
information she has on her on expulsion is, as it were, sub judice
is one of the reasons why she has not published all the material
relating to it on her website.

Don't worry about Alison, she *has* moved on.  She still feels 
however that it is a point of principle that she use legal means
to correct the untruths that have been told about her to the
Baha'i community, when she found that asking them nicely to
tell the truth wouldn't work.

PaulFrom: "Randy Burns" <randy.burns4@gte.net>
Subject: Re: That's right: Opinions are not banned!
Date: Monday, November 05, 2001 11:36 AM

Dave,

Since it has been ongoing for over 20 years, I would have to assume that it
continues today.  Unlike you I have watched this develop since the late
70's.  A review of the evidence presented on Fred's website would reveal to
an impartial witness that there has been a continual assault against certain
viewpoints in the Faith for at least that amount of time.

You see each episode as an isolated incident, which, when over, will never
happen again (according to you), at least until the next time.  And when
there is a next time, it will be just another isolated incident, completely
unconnected to the last incident, and the next time and the next time.  All
completely unconnected I'm sure.

Remember there is no proof of anything ongoing, no proof that there isn't
something ongoing either.  I think we can call your theory the "Unconnected
Incident Theory" of physics.  All events that occur are entirely unconnected
to all other events.  Sounds very modern.

Cheers, Randy

--

Dave Fiorito <bighappymonkey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0853486.0111050901.6ce41b73@posting.google.com...
> Randy,
>
> > How well inform are you of what the UHJ is doing now, or as to what is
> > ongoing?  Your statements below cannot be verified by you or me in any
> > manner, and you know it.
>
> ... and neither can the statement that they are engaged in some kind
> of ongoing campaign of oppression be verified in any way.
>
> My point stands.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave

From: "DW Suiter" <dwsuiter@toast.net>
Subject: Re: Why I Don't Respond to bahai Fundamentalists
Date: Monday, November 12, 2001 6:57 PM

I have found FG's posts to be very informative. I certainly
do not see him as
Self appointed........ self regulated...........and self manipulated. He, as
with any individual, has a right to speak on any matter he deisres. What I
see, is what he has stated. Attempts of others to censure, control, oppress,
and quiet his voice.

The question all persons should ask is; "Is what he says true?" This same
questions should be asked in regards to what any one says.

Instead of attempting to degrade or demonize a person, the word of the
person should be addressed by principle. The tactics many use are indeed as
he says and epitomize the mind and spirit that persecuted the man Jesus of
Nazareth.

DW Suiter

"Mark Elderkin" <elley@intercoast.com.au> wrote in message
news:3bf03a6f@news.rivernet.com.au...
>
> > I can only hope by serving humbly, as the self-appointed
> > archivist/historian for talk.religion.bahai and for all the many victims
> > of the "universal" house of "justice," that someday someone will come
> > along who will dig deep enough into the record so that the truth will
> > begin to surface.
>
> Self appointed........ self regulated...........and self manipulated. Do
you
> really believe that anyone has ever excepted you in this self appointed
> position. Do you really think anyone here thinks you have any such
> qualifications?  You wouldn't know justice if it bit you in the arse.
Since
> your retirement, you have become more and more bitter about these things
and
> it is just not a pretty site. Get some hobbies to keep your mind busy.
Maybe
> read some poetry. IF you ask nicely...... I'll send you a book of rhyming
> words to help.
> M
>
>

______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Binaries.net = SPEED+RETENTION+COMPLETION = https://www.binaries.netFrom: "K. Paul Johnson" <kpauljohnson@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: soc.religion.bahai CENSORSHIP
Date: Thursday, December 06, 2001 12:35 PM

Kimo@volcanomail.com (Kimo Kumalaa) wrote:

> dialouge with him (till he started attacking personalities again). It
> is very difficult for a demi-god who wields power to reject thoughtful
> arguments on SRB at will to reduce himself to humble discussions with
> the public sector over a sustained period of time. The baha'i faith
> encouraged him and has given him free reign 'to defend the Faith' even
> if it means creating enemies within and without. The actions are like
> that of a hired hit man 

When I first read this message I thought how much this person sounded
like Bill Hyman, and remembered my own horror story with srb
"moderation"-- which was anything but.  Upon further reading it became
clear that he was indeed the abusive moderator in question, so for the
record, I'll share my story.  I found a quote from `Abdu'l Baha about
the unification of all religions in "this century" (20th), posted by a
Baha'i on srb, in the late 90s, and wrote it down at the time.  Some
weeks later I reposted this quote to srb (some time after its first
appearance) with the comment that it was extremely unlikely to be
fulfilled, and that this reflected on Baha'i belief in the
infallibility of AB.  Hyman immediately rejected my post, saying the
quote wasn't "authenticated" because I didn't cite the original
source.  Which of course I didn't know as I'd just seen it posted
without a citation.  So I wrote back saying that this had been
accepted as a legitimate quote and discussed on his very own list, but
I had no way of identifying the publication since it had not been
cited.  Moreover adding that on a daily basis Baha'is quoted the
Central Figures without citing chapter and verse, and asking why this
new criterion was being invented just for me.  At this point he
escalated the rude and abusive tone, and I gave up.  Except a few
weeks later I learned about a search engine that would enable one to
find any quote from `Abdu'l Baha (among others).  Using the phrase
"this century" I went straight to it.  Then tried to post again,
*with* the proper citation, and with a complaint about being made to
jump through hoops no one else had to jump through.  That time he
didn't even have the courtesy to tell me of the rejection; it was just
thrown away.

A memorably unpleasant experience with a memorably unpleasant
character that tends to support the characterization which has emerged
in this thread.

PJFrom: "Randy Burns" <randy.burns4@gte.net>
Subject: Re: bahai - "Please remove my name and address from your mailing list."
Date: Saturday, December 08, 2001 5:35 PM

I think what Dermod is implying is this:

if National feels able to delete names from it's list without any
notification at all at the time of occurrence then how do we know they are
not also adding names willy nilly as the urge suits them to replace names of
people who may have left, therefore insuring that our American numbers never
fall below last years numbers. (maybe like the Mormons they are even
converting the dead).

Cheers, Randy

--

Susan Maneck <smaneck@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011208103652.02564.00002151@mb-dh.aol.com...
> >A strange thought comes to me - if National hasn't told Fred he is not
> >on the list, could it possibly be that it also (and conversely)
> >maintain a number of "ghosts" or "ringers" on the list just to keep
> >the old numbers up.
>
> Your logic is quite astounding, Dermod. There is no line between point A
and
> point B.
>
>  >
> >An even stranger thought - suppose they made me a CB and didn't tell
> >me or anybody else.
>
> We might find it very difficult to shun you.
>
>
> 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/
>

From: "Randy Burns" <randy.burns4@gte.net>
Subject: Re: bahai - "Please remove my name and address from your mailing list."
Date: Saturday, December 08, 2001 10:50 PM

If they were honoring his demand not to be contacted then they would neither
affirm nor deny his membership to inquirers as to his status without his
express consent (other than legal purposes such as police, FBI and the
like).  If he is no longer on the roles, then something must have happened
other than simply not contacting him.

Cheers, Randy

--

Susan Maneck <smaneck@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011208175428.02597.00002071@mb-dh.aol.com...
> >
> >if National feels able to delete names from it's list without any
> >notification at all at the time of occurrence then how do we know they
are
> >not also adding names willy nilly as the urge suits them
>
> Dear Randy,
>
> They did not remove Fred 'willy nilly' without notifying him. They had
honored
> his own demand not to be contacted, that is all. But you guys can invent
> whatever fantasies you want about National.
>
> 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/
>

From: "Randy Burns" <randy.burns4@gte.net>
Subject: Re: bahai - "Please remove my name and address from your mailing list."
Date: Sunday, December 09, 2001 12:27 AM

You are still ignoring the difference between a Baha'i Institution and any
particular individual who might happen to inquire.  If someone well known
happens to be a Baha'i, is National free to give out such things and
difficulties with say a divorce proceeding to anyone who might happen to
call.

"Yes that's right, National Enquirer, Joe Star has had his administrative
rights removed for adultery.  Any other questions?"

No wonder some people have a problem with trust!

Pat Kohli <kohli@ameritel.net> wrote in message
news:3C12E777.AAEB0496@ameritel.net...
>
>
> Hmmm, nice try, but he's not a nuclear weapon on a Navy ship bound for New
> Zealand, or something like that.  If folks present themselves to Baha'is,
in the
> US, there are methods of establishing their membership status.  It
involves
> contacting the national center where they _do_ confirm or deny, as the
case may
> be.
>
> Blessings!
> - Pat
> kohli@ameritel.net
>

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: bahai - "Please remove my name and address from your mailing list."
Date: Sunday, December 09, 2001 6:31 AM

"Susan Maneck " <smaneck@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011209011021.11254.00002484@mb-fi.aol.com...
> >
> >If they were honoring his demand not to be contacted then they
would neither
> >affirm nor deny his membership to inquirers as to his status
without his
> >express consent
>
> Dear Randy,
>
> That has nothing to do with being contacted. Membership and Records
will answer
> anyone's request to know the membership of anyone. If you write them
asking if
> Bill Clinton is a Baha'i they will say no to that too.
>
> > If he is no longer on the roles, then something must have happened
> >other than simply not contacting him.
>
> Yes, Randy. They took him off the rolls. But because of he said he
would
> consider any contact from them to be harassment, they saw no reason
to inform
> him of this fact.

But not, presumably, anybody else who enquired!  We have now
established a further precedent in AO jurisprudence.  Not only does
one not have the right to to see or hear evidence against one or
proffer defence of one's actions - the judicial body determining the
matter doesn't even have to tell one of its decision.

Ah!  Brave New World!

From: "Paul Hammond" <pahammond@onetel.net.uk>
Subject: Re: "Shunning is the marker of a cult . . . note that these
Date: Friday, December 07, 2001 9:31 PM

Robert Little <rlittle1@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:lW%P7.20519$Ws6.3135898@typhoon.socal.rr.com...
> You misunderstood my first question: I was not asking for a description of
> the term.
>
> As I recall:
> You complained about my citing Baha'u'llah.  I said that this is a
newsgroup
> that is devoted to discussion of the history and teachings of Baha'u'llah.
> Unsaid is that it is also one where the charter clearly calls for
> participants to observe Baha'i standards in their posts. I concluded that
> you are free to find another newsgroup more to your liking. Nothing
passive
> about that that I can see. Nothing hostile in my meaning or intent either.
I
> treated you like an adult, not as a child. "You don't like to observe the
> charter of this newsgroup, go to another" is what I recall.
>

You made a comment regarding me finding a newsgroup "more
suited to my nature".

What exactly did you mean to say about my nature?

AIUI, this is a newsgroup for the discussion of the Baha'i Faith,
Baha'u'llah and so on.  In this particular case, we were talking about
cults in general, and how far the Baha'i Faith could be said to
possess those traits.

Now, when I wanted to imply something about your nature, I
called you a sanctimonious git.  I wish you'd do me the courtesy
of being similarly up front if you have something to say about
"my nature" in future.

I don't object to your quotations of Baha'u'llah,
but you seem to be unable to actually make remarks that are
germane to the topic in any way for much of the time, beyond vaguely
implying that perhaps Dermod might be behaving in an "un-Baha'i"
fashion.

> Why is it permissible for those who dislike Baha'is and their Faith to
> violate virtually every Baha'i tenet, attack and malign the integrity and
> intelligence and actions of Baha'is - on a Baha'i newsgroup?
>

This may be a newsgroup whose subject is the Baha'i Faith, but
I've got news for you Robert, you don't own this one.  The downside
to that is that there is more noise - the upside, it's a much livelier
place than srb ("can we swallow toothpaste during the fast? Puh-leeze!")

> Why is it not permissible for Baha'is to quote Baha'i writings now and
then?
>

Who says this is not permissible?  Certainly not me!  I said you were
a sanctimonious git.  I didn't say anything about that being because
you use quotes from the Writings.  It is the *purpose* for which you
use them that offends!

> Why is it not permissible for Baha'is to attempt to control the tone and
> content of their newsgroup?
>

I've got news for you pal - this is *not* *your* newsgroup.  After all the
effort Fred put into getting the vote through in the teeth of opposition
from people like you, I would say *he* had more right to lay claim to
it than virtually anyone - but it is in the nature of the net that
unmoderated newsgroups do not, in fact, belong to anyone.

In Usenet, no-one knows you're a dogmatic materialist!

> Thinking about "passive-aggressive" some more, I'd have to say that it is
> very hard for a Baha'i to even visit this newsgroup, much less post
> regularly on it. In the approx. four years I have been posting on arb and
> trb, I have tried to find a middle way that allowed me to get down in the
> mud here, without getting muddy. I am not so sure that it can be done, not
> so sure it is worth trying. At the moment, I have little patience with
> people who are eager to attack, reluctant to consult.
>

Well, you know, sometimes it's a fight around here, but imv, even
*with* the "shock troops" like Dermod, Nima, Fred, Rick and Mark
around here, it still has a better tone than many Usenet warzones.

I discount Mahdi as being mostly irrelevant, although it is noticable
that he is the only poster who can provoke unity amognst virtually
everyone else here!

Whether you stay here or not is not for me to comment on - perhaps
you can (or do) do as Karen does, and give yourself a break from
the net every now and then.  But, as food for thought, didn't Abdu'l
Baha mention "the CLASH of differing opinions" in glowing terms?

(Speaking for myself, the sound of passionate argument is much
better than the sound of silence, or reluctant obedience)

> Since I know almost nothing about you, or what is in your heart, I find it
> difficult to know how to respond. As most of the people here are so quick
to
> attack, and so slow to discuss, I may be responding to the statistical
> probability rather than the ever-so-rare genuine question.
>

Well, of course *that* adds to the statistical probability that you'll
add to the noise, rather than the sense!

Anyway, I had a momentary flash of anger at you which I expressed,
but has now passed..  Truce?

Paul

>
> "Paul Hammond" <pahammond@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
> news:c977f97b.0112060532.4b818916@posting.google.com...
> > "Robert Little" <rlittle1@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:<f9AP7.18457$Ws6.2655121@typhoon.socal.rr.com>...
> > > What was passive about my post?
> > >
> > > What were you saying about parental authority, Paul?
> > >
> > > Robert A. Little
> > >
> >
> > Err, right.  "Passive-aggressive" is a psychological term.  AIUI, it
> > refers to people who are controlling, but not apparently bossy or
> > angry - they get their own way without being overtly aggressive, but
> > their anger is displayed covertly.  This is what I see you doing to
> > me here, and I don't like it.
> >
> > For instance, what exactly were you trying to imply about "my nature"
> > in your previous post?
> >
> > And what are you trying to imply by your reference above to
> > "parental authority"?  The parental thing was an analogy which
> > *you* developed - I dispute its relevance here, and in fact have asked
> > you to clarify how it applies.
> >
> > It seems to *me* that what you are doing here is characterising
> > me as a childish person, without actually coming right out and
> > saying so.
> >
> > At least when *Nima* ad-hom's someone he is up front about it.
> >
> > You try to pretend that you're "just being spiritual", and so we
> > shouldn't get angry about your attempts to control the way we post
> > here.
> >
> > > "Paul Hammond" <pahammond@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:3c0e9d61@212.67.96.135...
> > > > Are you this passive-aggressive in real life too, Robert?
> > > >
> > > > When I want you to give me one of your little lectures, I'll let you
> > > > know, okay?  Until then, I will express my opinions any damn way
> > > > I please.
> > > >
> > > > The "shut up while I quote irrelevant passages at you" technique
> > > > won't work on *me* mate.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you.
> > > >
> > > > Robert Little <rlittle1@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:IIeP7.16572$PQ2.2037589@typhoon.socal.rr.com...
> > > > > Paul
> > > > >
> > > > > This is a Baha'i newsgroup, and if you object to quotations of the
> > >  writings
> > > > > of Baha'u'llah, then perhaps you might find some other newsgroup
> better
> > > > > suited to your nature.
> > > > >
> > > > > Robert A. Little
> > > > >
> > > > > "Paul Hammond" <pahammond@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
> > > > > news:3c0d5900@212.67.96.135...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ah, you're a sanctimonious get, aintcha?  Do you *have* any
> > > > > > words or opinions of your own, or is this all you've got?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Paul
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
>
>

From: "Randy Burns" <randy.burns4@gte.net>
Subject: Re: bahai - "Please remove my name and address from your mailing list."
Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 12:59 AM

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

--

Pat Kohli <kohliCUT_THE_CAPS@ameritel.net> wrote in message
news:3C158D37.BC533C12@ameritel.net...
> Rah rah rah for free speech!
>
https://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl761699077d&hl=en&selm=78hrjr%2419t%40
news1.newsguy.com
> OR
>
>
https://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&threadm=78iv57%24g4a%241%40nnrp1.dejan
ews.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dsoc.religion.bahai%2Bviolated%2Bcharter%26
hl%3Den%26as_drrb%3Db%26as_mind%3D4%26as_minm%3D1%26as_miny%3D1999%26as_maxd
%3D29%26as_maxm%3D1%26as_maxy%3D1999%26rnum%3D1%26selm%3D78iv57%2524g4a%2524
1%2540nnrp1.dejanews.com
>
> .. and newsgroup charters!
>
https://groups.google.com/groups?selm=7gp8mk%24mtc%241%40remarQ.com&output=gp
lain
>

From: "Randy Burns" <randy.burns4@gte.net>
Subject: Re: bahai - "Please remove my name and address from your mailing list."
Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 4:49 PM

Moderators Note:

>This forum is for disseminating Baha'i teachings. If anyone want to know
>what Baha'is believe this is the right forum. If anyone wants to know
>what Buddhists believe this is not the forum. This thread may be closed
>again shortly

SRB is not for open discussion, it is for disseminating Baha'i teachings.
It's easy to hid behind this facade to take swipes at Buddhism and not have
to face an answer, you just hide behind the moderators.

Randy

Excerpts from Paul Saunders-Priem

I do not agree with your historical theory but I do think that the Four
Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path are more than enough to guide Buddhists
to lead a great and holy life.  The question I put you is that why over
historical periods in mankind development since the death of Buddha have
Buddhists not done that.  Is such a wide variety of expression and
interpretation of religious belief a good or a bad thing from your point of
view

Even if the Original Buddhist texts existed a lot of  Buddhist would still
have acted badly because there would have been no democratically elected
institutions such as the Baha'i Administration to further and protect the
community

Sorry mate  my facts were right Shinto is based on Buddhism

Etc.

--

Pat Kohli <kohliCUT_THE_CAPS@ameritel.net> wrote in message
news:3C16792C.446FDBAC@ameritel.net...
> Randy Burns wrote:
>
> > SRB will allow a Baha'i to trash talk Buddhism
>
> Please cite some examples.  Is this an example of what you are referring
to?
> https://bounty.bcca.org/srb/archive/980701-980831/0338.html
>
> > but will not let a Buddhist
> > respond to this trash talk
>
> A Buddhist certainly does get to respond, and respond and respond, ...
> https://bounty.bcca.org/srb/archive/980701-980831/0339.html
>
> and even start threads to start new discussions and expand old ones.
> https://bounty.bcca.org/srb/archive/980901-981031/0342.html
> https://bounty.bcca.org/srb/archive/980901-981031/0409.html
> https://bounty.bcca.org/srb/archive/981101-981231/0151.html
> https://bounty.bcca.org/srb/archive/990901-991031/0650.html
> https://bounty.bcca.org/srb/archive/991101-991231/0086.html
> .
> .
> .
> https://bounty.bcca.org/srb/archive/010701-010831/0219.html
> https://bounty.bcca.org/srb/archive/011101-011231/0222.html
> https://bounty.bcca.org/srb/archive/011101-011231/0226.html
>
>
>
>
> > because it would be talking about Buddhism and
> > not Baha'i and therefore irrelevant.
>
> Strictly, "yes", but when Bruce can put his Buddhism sermons into Baha'i
> wrappers, and avoid repeating his previous messages, and otherwise abide
by the
> charter, it does seem that his messages go through, and go through and go
> through.  Looking through the archives, it appears that he has been one of
th
> emore prolific contributors since 1998, certainly more productive than
MrMahdi.
>
> > I personally have no use for SRB and
> > if it ceased to exist tomorrow I would not notice.
>
> So, please take just enough notice to find this example of trash talk.  I
do
> occasionally post there and I'd be happy to correct some misconception
left at
> SRB.
>
> Blessings!
> - Pat
> kohli@ameritel.net
>

From: "Randy Burns" <randy.burns4@gte.net>
Subject: Re: Just 'Cause we vote doesn't make it democratic
Date: Monday, December 17, 2001 1:50 PM

Karen

I don't think Shoghi Effendi would like the Baha'i election process
characterized as being "democratic" anyway.

The system promoted by Shoghi Effendi, which is only provisional, allows for
candidates with the highest vote totals to be elected, but there is no
assurance that any candidate will actually have a simple majority of votes
cast at that election.

Shoghi also says this, from page 70 of the Principles of Baha'i
Administration:

"The administrative order which lies embedded in the Teaching of
Baha'u'llah, and which the believers have championed and are now
establishing, should, under no circumstances, be identified with the
principles underlying present-day democracies."

So I think the idea of saying "democratically-elected" everytime you
mentioned the Baha'i administration would not be too pleasing to Shoghi.

Shoghi thought this system was superior to other forms of election processes
but I still find it very subject to manipulation.  The nice thing about
these new regional boards is that we now have a nice "short list" of
candidates for the NSA!

Cheers, Randy

--

Karen Bacquet <karenbacquet@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u1qlj8aarpun74@corp.supernews.com...
> Dear Randy, Pat, and friends,
>
> I've been talking a lot lately about this whole "democratically-elected"
> business; both because of my talks with Paul on uk.r.i. and because
there's
> a relatively new Baha'i on my list who is *really* bugged by the way that
> Baha'i elections are conducted.  He is also bugged by how Baha'is go
around
> bragging about how superior their system is to American democracy, and
says
> he doesn't want his children brought up to disdain American freedoms.
>
> I don't think my vote had any impact on anything whatsoever other than
> locally, where my choices were pretty darn limited. The Chairman of the
> convention almost invariably was elected -- the two times this one guy
from
> my community was elected were exactly the two times when convention was
held
> here. He was up there running the show when people walked in, looked like
he
> knew what he was doing, and lo! he was elected.  The last time I went to
> Convention the man was an elderly Knight of Baha'u'llah who also happened
to
> live in our community.  I was a teller that year, and saw the votes -- a
> great many of the votes cast for this person were simply written as "Kathy
> X's father".  That is, they didn't even know his name -- all they knew was
> that he was a "big-deal" Baha'i. I didn't vote for him, since I knew him
> rather better.  But he was elected.  Then, I once saw a report on the
> National Convention, and four of the nine didn't even get a majority of
the
> delegates' votes -- since we put in the nine top vote-getters whether they
> get a majority or not.  The votes are spread so thin that just being a
> little bit better known than someone else tips the scale. Voting for a
> delegate entirely by reputation, who in turn will vote largely on
> impressions that he gets at Wilmette when he's there isn't democracy at
all.
> Democracy runs on free expression and discussion of issues.  In the Baha'i
> system, you might as well put names on a corkboard and throw a dart, for
all
> the difference it makes.
>
> Love, Karen
>
> --
> https://www.angelfire.com/ca3/bigquestions/Bacquet.html
> Karen Bacquet <karenbacquet@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:u1qiugh82qg602@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> >
> > > Note the bit about "some of my mails were rejected"!
> > >
> > > By the way now many times can someone write democatically elected in a
> > > single email, have you found out yet?
> >
> > LOL!! In fact, Paul has been calling me anti-democratic because I don't
> > support the "democratically elected" institutions right to punish people
> and
> > push them out of the Faith for their opinions.  It is an incredible leap
> of
> > logic that make freedom of speech "anti-democratic", but I've heard
> Baha'is
> > say weirder things.
> >
> > Love, Karen
> >
> > >
> > > Good luck in your discussions, Randy
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

From: "Randy Burns" <randy.burns4@gte.net>
Subject: Re: bahai - "Please remove my name and address from your mailing list."
Date: Monday, December 17, 2001 1:08 PM

My point is that someone is deliberately putting down Buddhism on SRB
knowing that a Buddhist spokesperson can't respond fully on that forum, they
have to put up with censorship and getting postings sent back by the
Moderators!

That is not Baha'i-like behavior.  If someone wants to discuss the Baha'i
slant on Buddhism they should be prepared to put up with a full discussion
of the same coming from Buddists.

Cheers, Randy

--

Robert Little <rlittle1@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:KuiT7.7032$37.1235589@typhoon.socal.rr.com...
> There is a charter which regulates discussion on soc.religion.bahai to the
> Baha'i Faith, its teachings and its history. Any other subject is offtopic
> and not allowed by the charter, which the moderators are required to
> enforce.
>
> The subject of Buddhism is manifestly off topic unless the poster relates
it
> to the Baha'i Faith, which frequently doesn't happen, forcing the
moderators
> to bounce the post back, or kill the entire thread.
>
> The consequences of your approach are that the Baha'is would not have
> freedom to have a newsgroup dedicated to discussion of the Baha'i Faith.
>
> Weird form of freedom.
>
> Robert A. Little
>
> "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:9vd6h8$esvup$5@ID-84503.news.dfncis.de...
> > "Robert Little" <rlittle1@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:cWcS7.150$37.121111@typhoon.socal.rr.com...
> > > You may have a point, but see Susan's post just upstream. This is a
> > > continually difficult thing for the moderators I think.
> >
> > So when the Moderators inhibit free expression - get rid of them
> > entirely or reduce their power to one of avoiding flames, spam and
> > obscene language.
> >
> > What is there to fear from freedom of expression?
> >
> > Dermod.
> >
> > >
> > > Robert A. Little
> > >
> > > "Randy Burns" <randy.burns4@gte.net> wrote in message
> > > news:UZ5S7.521$lC2.238690@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net...
> > > >
> > > > I find fault with the moderators who refuse to post the answers to
> > Paul's
> > > > questions and statements.  It isn't what Paul is saying that
> > bothers me
> > > but
> > > > the refusal to post answers does.
> > > >
> > > > Randy
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Robert Little <rlittle1@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:DT%R7.7986$Ha.1992021@typhoon.socal.rr.com...
> > > > > Do you not wish a "clash of differing opinions?"
> > > > >
> > > > > Paul asked a question whose roots are based in the writings of
> > > > Baha'u'llah,
> > > > > i.e., that divine Religion has seasons, and that winter has
> > inevitably
> > > > > descended upon every dispensation of the past, including
> > Buddhism.
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you find fault with his question, or with the tone of his
> > question,
> > > or
> > > > > both, or something else?
> > > > >
> > > > > Robert A. Little
> > > > >
> > > > > "Randy Burns" <randy.burns4@gte.net> wrote in message
> > > > > news:HbvR7.1025$a%5.229085@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
> > > > > > Moderators Note:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >This forum is for disseminating Baha'i teachings. If anyone
> > want to
> > > > know
> > > > > > >what Baha'is believe this is the right forum. If anyone wants
> > to know
> > > > > > >what Buddhists believe this is not the forum. This thread may
> > be
> > > closed
> > > > > > >again shortly
> > > > > >
> > > > > > SRB is not for open discussion, it is for disseminating Baha'i
> > > > teachings.
> > > > > > It's easy to hid behind this facade to take swipes at Buddhism
> > and not
> > > > > have
> > > > > > to face an answer, you just hide behind the moderators.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Randy
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Excerpts from Paul Saunders-Priem
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I do not agree with your historical theory but I do think that
> > the
> > > Four
> > > > > > Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path are more than enough to
> > guide
> > > > > Buddhists
> > > > > > to lead a great and holy life.  The question I put you is that
> > why
> > > over
> > > > > > historical periods in mankind development since the death of
> > Buddha
> > > have
> > > > > > Buddhists not done that.  Is such a wide variety of expression
> > and
> > > > > > interpretation of religious belief a good or a bad thing from
> > your
> > > point
> > > > > of
> > > > > > view
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Even if the Original Buddhist texts existed a lot of  Buddhist
> > would
> > > > still
> > > > > > have acted badly because there would have been no
> > democratically
> > > elected
> > > > > > institutions such as the Baha'i Administration to further and
> > protect
> > > > the
> > > > > > community
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sorry mate  my facts were right Shinto is based on Buddhism
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Etc.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Pat Kohli <kohliCUT_THE_CAPS@ameritel.net> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:3C16792C.446FDBAC@ameritel.net...
> > > > > > > Randy Burns wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > SRB will allow a Baha'i to trash talk Buddhism
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Please cite some examples.  Is this an example of what you
> > are
> > > > referring
> > > > > > to?
> > > > > > > https://bounty.bcca.org/srb/archive/980701-980831/0338.html
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > but will not let a Buddhist
> > > > > > > > respond to this trash talk
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A Buddhist certainly does get to respond, and respond and
> > respond,
> > > ...
> > > > > > > https://bounty.bcca.org/srb/archive/980701-980831/0339.html
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > and even start threads to start new discussions and expand
> > old ones.
> > > > > > > https://bounty.bcca.org/srb/archive/980901-981031/0342.html
> > > > > > > https://bounty.bcca.org/srb/archive/980901-981031/0409.html
> > > > > > > https://bounty.bcca.org/srb/archive/981101-981231/0151.html
> > > > > > > https://bounty.bcca.org/srb/archive/990901-991031/0650.html
> > > > > > > https://bounty.bcca.org/srb/archive/991101-991231/0086.html
> > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > https://bounty.bcca.org/srb/archive/010701-010831/0219.html
> > > > > > > https://bounty.bcca.org/srb/archive/011101-011231/0222.html
> > > > > > > https://bounty.bcca.org/srb/archive/011101-011231/0226.html
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > because it would be talking about Buddhism and
> > > > > > > > not Baha'i and therefore irrelevant.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Strictly, "yes", but when Bruce can put his Buddhism sermons
> > into
> > > > Baha'i
> > > > > > > wrappers, and avoid repeating his previous messages, and
> > otherwise
> > > > abide
> > > > > > by the
> > > > > > > charter, it does seem that his messages go through, and go
> > through
> > > and
> > > > > go
> > > > > > > through.  Looking through the archives, it appears that he
> > has been
> > > > one
> > > > > of
> > > > > > th
> > > > > > > emore prolific contributors since 1998, certainly more
> > productive
> > > than
> > > > > > MrMahdi.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I personally have no use for SRB and
> > > > > > > > if it ceased to exist tomorrow I would not notice.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So, please take just enough notice to find this example of
> > trash
> > > talk.
> > > > > I
> > > > > > do
> > > > > > > occasionally post there and I'd be happy to correct some
> > > misconception
> > > > > > left at
> > > > > > > SRB.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Blessings!
> > > > > > > - Pat
> > > > > > > kohli@ameritel.net
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

From: "Randy Burns" <randy.burns4@gte.net>
Subject: Re: bahai - "Please remove my name and address from your mailing list."
Date: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 1:26 PM

Robert

>Also, can you please try to illustrate where the line is between "clash of
> conflicting opinions" and "putting down Buddhism?"
>

The only point is to have a full and free exchange of ideas without the
threat of censorship and without having posts returned by the moderator.
That is censorship and treating people of other religions with disdain.
Nothing wrong with having a full discussion on Buddhism and Baha'i as long
as there is no censorship or refusal to post messages that aren't obscene
and disruptive.

Cheers, Randy

--

Robert Little <rlittle1@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ehBT7.7439$37.1485937@typhoon.socal.rr.com...
> Hi Randy
>
> I have not seen any example of "putting down Buddhism", although I have
not
> read all the posts.
>
> I can understand a Baha'i writing about Buddhism, whose sole source of
> knowledge is the Baha'i writings, and as a result not getting it right,
from
> the standpoint of Buddhists who see things quite differently than Baha'is.
I
> have seen that happen on srb in these latest series of postings. However,
I
> have also seen in every case, a Buddhist response that explained the
> Buddhist understandings. Frankly, the conversation there has been pretty
> informative, without any apparent hurt feelings.
>
SNIP

From: "Randy Burns" <randy.burns4@gte.net>
Subject: Re: bahai - "Please remove my name and address from your mailing list."
Date: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 1:36 PM

Robert said:

> Additionally, I am interested in hearing opinions about the very issue of
> whether or not it is permissible for a Baha'i to state that Buddha was a
> Manifestation of God. 'Abdul-Baha'i stated that He is, Buddhists state
that
> He is not. What does a Baha'i do, in your opinion?

Unfortunately I don't have any references here of Abdul-Baha's.  Can you
reproduce his quote on the Buddha?

Here's something I said earlier which received no comments here:

My impression of Abdul-Baha's comments on Buddhism is that they were off
the cuffs remarks intended for a western audience and not authoritative
Baha'i scripture.  I think that AB relied mostly on western attempts to
examine Buddhism and thus his comments have to been seen relative to what
was current in western thought at that time about that particular religion..

Of course there were Baha'is in southeast Asia at that time and perhaps they
also relayed information on the current status of Buddhism to Abdul-Baha,
but did these individuals have the background and training to thoroughly
investigate and understand Buddhism?  I seriously doubt it.

Thus I personally wouldn't take seriously any of AB's comments on Buddhism,
I don't think they represent either the reality of Buddhism or official and
mature Baha'i thought about Buddhism.

That is the reason I wanted Robert to differentiate what Central figure made
comments about Buddhism.  Is there any known comment by Baha'u'llah on
Buddhism?

Cheers, Randy

--

Robert Little <rlittle1@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:I%QT7.7961$37.1678955@typhoon.socal.rr.com...
> Additionally, I am interested in hearing opinions about the very issue of
> whether or not it is permissible for a Baha'i to state that Buddha was a
> Manifestation of God. 'Abdul-Baha'i stated that He is, Buddhists state
that
> He is not. What does a Baha'i do, in your opinion?
>
> Robert A. Little
>
>

From: "Paul Hammond" <pahammond@onetel.net.uk>
Subject: Re: bahai - talk.religion.bahai - "Please remove my name and address from your mailing list."
Date: Friday, December 14, 2001 7:26 AM

"Robert Little" <rlittle1@socal.rr.com> wrote in message news:<NLcS7.144$37.119049@typhoon.socal.rr.com>...
> "Paul Hammond" <pahammond@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
> news:3c18fac7@212.67.96.135...
> >
> > Robert Little <rlittle1@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:u4%R7.7978$Ha.1981935@typhoon.socal.rr.com...
> > > I never heard one single comment, never received any correspondence,
>  either
> > > verbal or written, concerning the supposed campaign you refer to. It is
> > > clear, however, that many internet-savvy Baha'is did talk to each other,
>  and
> > > the overwhelming majority of them came to the same conclusion, one that
>  you
> > > are in opposition with.
> > >
> > > As to your percentage, perhaps you are aware that the vast majority of
> > > Baha'is live in poor, rural or less-than-rural circumstances, and do not
> > > have computers or access to the internet. You may either extrapolate
>  from
> > > the percentages of pro-con votes, or you can make an attempt to
>  determine
>  in
> > > some other way just how those Baha'is would feel about the spiritual
> > > atmosphere found on this newgroup.
> > >
> >
> > No, there is a third way - you can refuse to draw *any* conclusion
> > whatsoever about the opinions of "the vast majority of the Baha'i
> > Community" on such a ludicrously small and self-selected sample.
> >
> > It's the only scientific thing to do.
> 
> It is not the Baha'is who have raised the issue and drawn the collusion
> conclusion. However, if 900 or 600 Baha'is did vote against (hard to figure
> out how either figure was arrived at)

I imagine the vote was recorded somewhere, and an independently verifiable
record might still be accessible somewhere - you'd have to ask around
(probably) news.groups if you were interested.

, I would conclude that this represents
> a very striking unity of belief, and a clear statement from those Baha'is
> who do participate on the internet that they want to protect the name of
> Baha'u'llah.
> 

Or evidence that Mark Towfiq spent considerable efforts sending an email
around telling people that it was virtually their Baha'i duty to send
a NO vote to the appropriate address.

Considering the amount of CB material that surfaces around the net
these days, I should say that the better way for Baha'is to protect
the name of Baha'u'llah on the net would be to conduct themselves in
such a way as to make him proud, and not behave like a censoring
fundamentalist! (this comment not directed at you personally)

>  
> > Considering the facts you mention about the small proportion of the
> > Baha'is who even *have* internet access, it is better to say that
> > there just *is* no such thing as a "Baha'i community" view on the
> > existence of this forum.
> 
> Well, yes and no. According to Mr. Glaysher, there was a clear Baha'i view.
> In my opinion, it is probable that the majority of Baha'is the world over
> are not aware of this unmoderated newsgroup.
> 

That is most likely.  And, by the same token, most non-Baha'is have
never heard of the Baha'i Faith either.

> >
> > If you want to make ridiculous statements about "that vast majority
> > of the Baha'i community think thus and so" on the basis of 900
> > usenet votes, expect to be called on it when you make such a
> > laughable statement.
> 
> What laughable statement is that? That Baha'is colluded against this
> newsgroup? Not my statement.
> 

The laughable statement that 900 votes against a usenet forum shows
something about "the overwhelming view of the Baha'i community".

>
> > > Care to guess?
> > >
> >
> > No, I'd rather not guess, and if you are going to make mathematically
> > supported statements, you'd better make sure that your statements
> > *have* some kind of basis, else I shall point out any ludicrous
> > errors.
> 
> Rereading my comments to you, I find no statement of mine stating that the
> vast majority of Baha'is believe "thus and so".
> 

You said that by continuing to try to set up an unmoderated Baha'i
discussion forum, Fred was going against "the overwhelming view of
the Baha'i community". Perhaps it was *not* your intention to suggest
that most Baha'is would disapprove of this forum, and that therefore
this forum should not exist.

>
> > If these 900, 600 or whatever people did *anything* other than
> > follow the instructions on a circulated email to "send a NO vote
> > to the address below", then why weren't these concerned
> > Baha'is equally concerned a couple of months later?
> 
> If there was an email that circulated amongst Baha'is, please reproduce it.

I've seen an email from Mark Towfiq which attempts to persuade the reader
to go vote No against trb, yes, on Fred's website - but I haven't been there
in ages.

Anyway, the circumstantial evidence (techies notice something is wierd,
since most newsgroup votes don't get such high numbers except in the
case of some orchestrated campaign pro or con) is strong.

I hear that some techies voted *yes* in the second round, on pure
principle, having worked out that something fishy was afoot.  One could
say that *this* impression of the Faith was not good for Baha'u'llah's
name, in fact.

I think it unlikely that any such people recieved a copy of the original
email from Mark Towfiq, but I wouldn't say that their reasoning that
some such letter existed was unsound.  You presumably would.

[insert cliche a about ducks that quack here]

> I've never seen nor heard of one, although, as I said, it would be
> remarkable if Baha'is did not write to each other. One can conclude that the
> internet savvy Baha'is were consulting with each other,as seems likely but
> not proven, or one can conclude, as at least one individual has, that that
> Baha'is have obeyed an order from their fundamentalist masters. This flies
> in the face of the stateement made by the Universal House of Justice
> concerning Baha'i participation on the internet newsgroups. Don't speculate,
> demontrate.
> 

I like speculating.  Now, Dermod and Susan were talking about this earlier
on - perhaps Susan, being the expert, can tell me whether this speculation
is wild or tame?

I doubt that there is anything like such an organised conspiracy as
Fred sees around every corner, but I am reasonably certain that some
such campaign *did* take place.  Probably, it was just that one guy,
Mark, who took it as his Baha'i duty to make disinterested techies
see the Baha'is as "just another fundie cult", but that doesn't mean
it didn't happen.

Oh, btw, do you think it is less like backbiting if you write "at
least one individual" rather than "Fred"? (Clearly, nothing said
here is said behind *Fred's* back)

> > As Michael has already explained, it is not usual for people who
> > have no real interest in a proposed new usenet forum to vote
> > in such a way as to prevent others who *do* have an interest in
> > that forum from forming it.  This 600 votes, it appears, was
> > wierd enough to make the non-Baha'i techies smell a rat.
> >
> 
> What techies?
>

The ones who came in to vote YES in the second round, because the
huge NO vote in the first round pissed them off.
 

PaulFrom: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Notice: Mild Usenet annoyance, Fred "Baha'i in *Perfectly* Good Standing" Gleysher, STILL at it!
Date: Saturday, December 29, 2001 1:06 PM

"NightShadow" <seals_jay@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c2de2a1.17191808@news...
> Thpppppppptttt!!!
>
> >:-)
>
> Dateline: Somewhere in Cyberia, December 29, 2001

Actually the Gulag operated by the ABM Corps for Protection - a poor
misguided prisoner is offered a chance for freedom OR is it a guard
seeking preferment?  Who can tell?

>
> After more than three years of taking up the mantle to aprise and
> alert non-Baha'is to the so-called (by Mr. Gleysher) "terrorist"
> organization known as the esteemed Baha'i Faith, Mr. Gleysher has
> staunchly continued his efforts to inform, MISinform and generally
> annoy Usenet.

Indeed yes!  Even though you have spelt his name incorrectly!

> Facts relating to the validity, sincerity, patience, unity,
tolerance,
> kindness, growth, developing maturity and cohesion of the Baha'i
Faith

Facts?  Where are they?  If anybody can find these "facts" kindly
inform the management - it has been in hope of finding some for quite
a long time now.

> seem to have no effect on Mr. Gleysher's attempts to discredit,
defame
> and dismantle it. His continued diatribe and drivel, hearsay and
rife
> complaints against the Faith have gone on, largely unchecked, for
> going on three years.

Largely because the A Onions have no answer to his diatribe etc.

> Through crossposts to unrelated newsgroups on
> Usenet, ad hominem arguments and personal attacks of individual
> Baha'is on Usenet,

Aw!  Large sobs for the poor wee Bahais who have been so mercilessly
trounced by Big Bad Fred and all on his own too!  What about the rest
of us?  Don't we get a mention here?  Or is Big  Bad Fred going to get
all the credit?

> Mr. Gleysher repeatedly and consistently attempts
> to undercut the noble virtues of the Baha'i Faith by pointing out
ONLY
> its failures without tempering his posts regarding its successes-
all
> in the name of justice. Where, in this, is the justice of his
actions?
> Where is the balance of truth and wisdom?

Big Fred has never attacked the BAHAI FAITH - he has attacked those
who, being in charge, have perverted it to their own narrow vision.

> This man is to be commended for his dedication to his goal. Such
> determination shows a strength and temerity rarely seen in human
> beings.

And most assuredly not to be found in the AO or its Onions.

<SNIP>
> Some basic tenets of the Baha'i Faith:

Some basic tenets of the Administrative Faith:

>     Religion must go hand-in-hand with science.

Unless that involves the usage of materialistic academic methodologies
such as are not approved by the junta in Haifa.

>     Both men and women are equal

Except when it comes to membership of the supreme administrative
institution.

>     The abolition of war and slavery amongst Humanity

Specifically excluding "volunteers" who work for the advancement of
the Haifan interests around the world for no pay!!!

>     There is to be no division of the "races" within Humanity

Especially as Covenant Breakers are sub-human and don't count
therefore as a part of humanity.

>     The independent investigation of Truth

So long as it leads to Haifa.

>     Baha'u'llah, the Faith's founder, is the promised one for this
Day
> and Age.

So long as he is in agreement with the enunciations of the Supreme
Institution.

>     The advent of single World Government.

Based at Haifa

>     The advent of single World Currency/Economy

Based at Haifa.

>     The advent of single World Auxilliary Language

Called Bahaispeak

>     No one religion is greater than another; all religions are equal
> and unified through the Baha'i Faith.

But the Bahai Faith is more equal and united than the rest!

> Mr. Gleysher contends that anyone who questions his views on the
> Baha'i Faith, its Administrative Order and its growth is a "fundie."
>
> Question:
> Considering the items listed above, who in their right mind would
NOT
> want to take on such ideals as fundamental to their way of thinking?

Me!

>
> Find out more about the Baha'i Faith at:
> https://www.bahai.org  OR

https://members.fortunecity.com/bahaicensorship

> Learn for yourself, with discerning eyes, which claim is true.
>
> The Baha'i Faith's Administrative Order has not ONCE, as an
> authoritative entity, come out to publicly criticise or defame Mr.
> Gleysher- yet he persists in attacking it, its followers and its
child
> organizations.

No!  It has just expelled him and not bothered to tell him!

> Note: This message brought to you by an individual believer of the
> Baha'i Faith and NOT a member of its administrative organization.
Feel
> free to contact me at seals_jay@hotmail.com for further questions
> regarding the Baha'i Faith and its writings.

CORRECTION - the message was brought to you by a member of the Bahai
Faith and a de facto member of its administrative organisation - the
guy has the vote.

Homepage