From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 31, 1998 5:14 AM
To: Ron House
Cc: Fran Baker
Subject: Re: Fw: ROUGH DRAFT - news release
Excellent piece, Ron. It really reads well. And perfectly
addresses the issues involved.... Let's use it verbatim.
I agree too with Fran about keeping the rhetoric as low
keyed as possible....
I'll add it to the next draft of the RFD and post it in a few minutes.
Fred
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron House <house@usq.edu.au>
To: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
Cc: Fran Baker <fran@crhc.uiuc.edu>; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu
<fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sunday, August 30, 1998 11:13 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: ROUGH DRAFT - news release
>Here is my solution to the 'civil rights' question.
>See what you all think:
>
>
>CHARTER: talk.religion.bahai
>
>All topics or ideas relevant to the Baha'i faith -- its history,
>teachings, theology, etc. -- would be appropriate areas for
>discussion.
>
>Postings may take any point of view with regard to the Baha'i Faith.
>Whilst this allows criticism, including criticism that might be
>uncomfortable or hurtful to some, it also fully opens the door
>for enquirers to see with their own eyes and not through the
>eyes of their neighbours by asking questions and reading replies
>from anyone who is interested in their question. Talk.religion.bahai
>also fills the need for the first and only universally accessible
>Internet forum about the Baha'i Faith. As the Internet is clearly
>becoming an indispensible part of modern life, such access for
>those interested in the Baha'i Faith will, in the future, be
>as important a civil right as the right to free speech in non-
>electronic forums. Thus talk.religion.bahai is clearly in the
>spirit of Baha'u'llah's injunctions supporting a free press.
>
>As Baha'u'llah taught, a free press has both rights and
>responsibilities. Therefore some Baha'is might fear misuse of
>the facility, especially postings by covenant-Breakers. However,
>Shoghi Effendi has addressed this question:
>
>"First, the civil rights of Covenant-breakers must be scrupulously
>upheld." Shoghi Effendi, Lights of Guidance, page: 186.
>
>Further, it is permitted for Baha'is to read and post material in an
>open Internet forum:
>
>"In general, the House of Justice has no objection to Baha'is'
>participating in public, unmoderated discussions about the
>Faith, whether those discussions take place in person or
>through some form of electronic communication."
>Department of the Secretariat, DATE: 14 October 1997 U.S.A.
>
>Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette and voting
>procedure in their use of this newsgroup and during its creation.
>
>(The rest as before)
>
>
>
>--
>Ron House house@usq.edu.au
>
>Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is
>unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30.
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 31, 1998 5:17 AM
To: Frank Baker
Subject: Fw: Fw: ROUGH DRAFT - news release
-----Original Message-----
From: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
To: Ron House <house@usq.edu.au>
Cc: Fran Baker <fran@crhc.uiuc.edu>
Date: Monday, August 31, 1998 6:14 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: ROUGH DRAFT - news release
>Excellent piece, Ron. It really reads well. And perfectly
>addresses the issues involved.... Let's use it verbatim.
>I agree too with Fran about keeping the rhetoric as low
>keyed as possible....
>
>I'll add it to the next draft of the RFD and post it in a few minutes.
>
>Fred
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ron House <house@usq.edu.au>
>To: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
>Cc: Fran Baker <fran@crhc.uiuc.edu>; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu
><fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu>
>Date: Sunday, August 30, 1998 11:13 PM
>Subject: Re: Fw: ROUGH DRAFT - news release
>
>
>>Here is my solution to the 'civil rights' question.
>>See what you all think:
>>
>>
>>CHARTER: talk.religion.bahai
>>
>>All topics or ideas relevant to the Baha'i faith -- its history,
>>teachings, theology, etc. -- would be appropriate areas for
>>discussion.
>>
>>Postings may take any point of view with regard to the Baha'i Faith.
>>Whilst this allows criticism, including criticism that might be
>>uncomfortable or hurtful to some, it also fully opens the door
>>for enquirers to see with their own eyes and not through the
>>eyes of their neighbours by asking questions and reading replies
>>from anyone who is interested in their question. Talk.religion.bahai
>>also fills the need for the first and only universally accessible
>>Internet forum about the Baha'i Faith. As the Internet is clearly
>>becoming an indispensible part of modern life, such access for
>>those interested in the Baha'i Faith will, in the future, be
>>as important a civil right as the right to free speech in non-
>>electronic forums. Thus talk.religion.bahai is clearly in the
>>spirit of Baha'u'llah's injunctions supporting a free press.
>>
>>As Baha'u'llah taught, a free press has both rights and
>>responsibilities. Therefore some Baha'is might fear misuse of
>>the facility, especially postings by covenant-Breakers. However,
>>Shoghi Effendi has addressed this question:
>>
>>"First, the civil rights of Covenant-breakers must be scrupulously
>>upheld." Shoghi Effendi, Lights of Guidance, page: 186.
>>
>>Further, it is permitted for Baha'is to read and post material in an
>>open Internet forum:
>>
>>"In general, the House of Justice has no objection to Baha'is'
>>participating in public, unmoderated discussions about the
>>Faith, whether those discussions take place in person or
>>through some form of electronic communication."
>>Department of the Secretariat, DATE: 14 October 1997 U.S.A.
>>
>>Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette and voting
>>procedure in their use of this newsgroup and during its creation.
>>
>>(The rest as before)
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>Ron House house@usq.edu.au
>>
>>Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is
>>unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30.
>>
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 31, 1998 5:26 AM
To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com
Subject: 2nd ROUGH DRAFT - RFD - talk.religion.bahai
[This is a rough draft only. You may not vote at this time. Ron House
contributes all of the revisions regarding "civil rights."]
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
unmoderated group talk.religion.bahai
This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to create an unmoderated
worldwide discussion group called talk.religion.bahai. This is not a
Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural details
appear below. All followup discussion should be crossposted to
news.groups,alt.religion.bahai.
Newsgroup line:
talk.religion.bahai Discussion of the Baha'i Faith.
RATIONALE: talk.religion.bahai
Currently, the only newsgroup on the Big 8 heirarchies, which exists
specifically for discussion of the Baha'i Faith, is moderated. A
need exists for an unmoderated forum, and this proposed newsgroup
would meet that need.
From January 17, 1997, the posting of the first proposed RFD, until
March 27, 1997, more than 759 messages were posted concerning
talk.religion.bahai, 11 messages per day for 70 days.
From April 1, 1997, to September 27, 1997, over 2,863 messages
have been posted on alt.religion.bahai from people with highly
varying points of view on the Baha'i Faith, resulting in 16 messages
per day for 179 days, and 477 messages a month for six months.
Since www.dejanews.com does not pick up all postings, an
additional conservative 5 percent, roughly 150 messages, have
probably been lost from the archive. During this time period,
approximately 513 different individuals posted on over
1,200 threads.
From September 28, 1997, to August 31, 1998, over 23,000
messages have been posted to alt.religion.bahai resulting
in X messages per day for 331 days and X messages per
month for nine months.
These numbers may be verified by searching www.dejanews.com
for talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai for the relevant time
periods. Please note that despite the poor propagation of the
alt.* hierarchy the high rate of posting demonstrates significant
interest, justifying the forming of an unmoderated newsgroup on
the Bahai Faith on the talk.* hierarchy. It is only reasonable
to conclude that the easy accessibility of the talk.* hierarchy
will lead to even higher rates of posting by interested people.
As a further indication of interest in an unmoderated newsgroup,
it should be noted that the web site "The Bahai Faith & Religious
Freedom of Conscience" has had more than 3,000 hits on it
since May 8, 1998.
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/bahai.htm
The proponents intend that talk.religion.bahai will complement,
rather than supplant, the existing moderated group
soc.religion.bahai, and will provide those without access to
alt.religion.bahai, on the less well propagated alt.* hierarchy, the
opportunity to participate, especially since many people who voted
YES on the first proposal were unable to join in on
alt.religion.bahai, their ISPs not carrying the hierarchy. It is
anticipated that alt.religion.bahai will evolve along as its users
see fit and will complement talk.religion.bahai as an alternative
unmoderated newsgroup.
CHARTER: talk.religion.bahai
All topics or ideas relevant to the Baha'i faith -- its history,
teachings, theology, etc. -- would be appropriate areas for
discussion.
Postings may take any point of view with regard to the Baha'i Faith.
Whilst this allows criticism, including criticism that might be
uncomfortable or hurtful to some, it also fully opens the door
for enquirers to see with their own eyes and not through the
eyes of their neighbours by asking questions and reading replies
from anyone who is interested in their question. Talk.religion.bahai
also fills the need for the first and only universally accessible
Internet forum about the Baha'i Faith. As the Internet is clearly
becoming an indispensible part of modern life, such access for
those interested in the Baha'i Faith will, in the future, be
as important a civil right as the right to free speech in non-
electronic forums. Thus talk.religion.bahai is clearly in the
spirit of Baha'u'llah's injunctions supporting a free press.
As Baha'u'llah taught, a free press has both rights and
responsibilities. Therefore some Baha'is might fear misuse of
the facility, especially postings by covenant-Breakers. However,
Shoghi Effendi has addressed this question:
"First, the civil rights of Covenant-breakers must be scrupulously
upheld." Shoghi Effendi, Lights of Guidance, page: 186.
Further, it is permitted for Baha'is to read and post material in an
open Internet forum:
"In general, the House of Justice has no objection to Baha'is'
participating in public, unmoderated discussions about the
Faith, whether those discussions take place in person or
through some form of electronic communication."
Department of the Secretariat, DATE: 14 October 1997 U.S.A.
Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette and voting
procedure in their use of this newsgroup and during its creation.
Readers are asked to observe Baha'i standards of conduct and not
to start or prolong flamewars in the group, but to focus instead on
articles and threads written in more moderate terms.
The posting of articles not specifically relevant to the Baha'i Faith
is strongly discouraged. Also discouraged are personal messages,
large ASCII graphics, binaries, special-format files, pornography,
spam, and any postings of a purely commercial nature.
Crossposting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers
are encouraged to redirect followups to reduce excessive
crossposting. Readers may also post articles that have been
rejected from soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to this
charter.
As is true for other groups devoted to discussing a particular
religion, including soc.religion.bahai, the talk.religion.bahai
newsgroup is not an official organ of any institutional faith.
END CHARTER.
PROCEDURE:
An instructive passage by Russ Allbery might fruitfully be
considered by all:
"There is no official 'list of acceptable reasons for voting'; Nothing
of the sort is enforced. There's no way of knowing why people vote
the way they do. There *is*, however, a general *consensus* that
certain *patterns* of voting constitute abuse of the system. Block
voting on religious, cultural, ethnic, or political grounds is one of
the things that is frowned upon. It is unlikely that even extreme block
voting would cause a result to be overturned, but it's practically
assured that block voting *will* earn an extremely bad reputation for
the group doing the block voting. In other words, yes, the Baha'i
*could* vote down the newsgroup en masse and be successful.
This would, however, also earn the Faith a reputation (fairly or no)
amongst those people who followed the proposal as a religion that
advocates censorship. I think it's in the best interest of Baha'is and
the Baha'i Faith to avoid that."
The process of creating newsgroups is twofold. First is the RFD
stage, when someone writes a Request for Discussion (RFD) outlining
the purpose of the proposed group. The RFD appears in
news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, and other relevant discussion
groups. Anyone may publicly comment on the RFD in news.groups for a
three-week period. During the discussion phase, proponents may modify
the RFD in response to suggestions from posters on news.groups.
The second stage is the Call for Votes (CFV) stage. The proposal must
pass a Usenet-wide vote with a 2/3 supermajority -- and at least 100
more votes in favor than against -- to be created. Anyone with an
e-mail address may cast a ballot. A neutral votetaker from the Usenet
Volunteer Votetakers (UVV) conducts all CFV's.
This RFD attempts to comply with the Usenet newsgroup creation
guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and
"Writing an RFD" and available for perusal on news.groups or
news.announce.newgroups. Please refer to these documents if you
have further questions about the process.
DISTRIBUTION:
This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,soc.religion.bahai,
alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human
and the following three mailing lists:
Talisman
Subscribe via: jsgreen@umich.edu
Bahai Studies
Subscribe via: major@johnco.cc.ks.us
h-Bahai h-Bahai@h-net.msu.edu
Subscribe jrcole@umich.edu
Pointers will appear in the following newsgroups:
soc.religion.unitarian-univ,soc.religion.eastern,
soc.religion.gnosis,soc.religion.hindu,
soc.religion.paganism,soc.religion.quaker,
soc.religion.sikhism,soc.religion.scientology,
soc.religion.vaishnava,talk.religion.buddhism,
talk.religion.newage,alt.religion.islam,alt.religion,
uk.religion.misc,uk.religion.interfaith,
uk.religion.other-faiths,news.admin.censorship
And to the following seven Bahai-only listservs:
Subscribe via bahai-request@bcca.org
Baha'i Campus Forum (BCF)
Baha'i Discuss (Discuss)
Baha'i Singles (Singles)
Baha'i Teachers (Teachers)
Baha'i Women Converse (Women)
Baha'i Youth (Youth - aimed at the 12-18 age group)
Baha'i Announce (Announce)
Proponent: FG
Proponent: Ron House
Proponent: Fran Baker
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 31, 1998 5:31 AM
To: M Clark
Subject: Re: Censorship on SRB
Please post this to alt.religion.bahai. Thank you.
-----Original Message-----
From: M Clark <mclark@tpgi.com.au>
To: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
Date: Sunday, August 30, 1998 8:48 PM
Subject: Re: Censorship on SRB
>At 04:20 24/08/98 -0400, you wrote:
>>Deceit and lies in the name of the Faith are wrong.... And so
>>is censorship for the same specious reasons....
>
>True. It sounds like you have had some bad experiences in this regard.
>
>I don't know how long you have been associated with the Faith, or how you
>feel about it at the moment. After 20 years as a Baha'i, I have seen most
>of what goes down, but I have also become aware that a mechanism exists
>within the Faith that sooner or later deals with abuses. I believe it is
>one of the mechanisms referred to in the quote about "there is a power in
>this cause ... " Many Baha'is are aware of it. The problem with some is
>that they believe that because the recognise the Cause, they automatically
>understand it. Situations develop where people, sometimes without realising
>it, exercise authority which they do not possess. Only the elected have
>authority, and only then as members of an Assembly, not as individuals.
>Persons _appointed_ to positions may have responsibilities, but do not have
>authority. The Faith has no priesthood, but there are a few would-be
>Mullahs and Cardinals running around within it.
>
>Regards,
>
>Martin Clark
>
>
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 1998 5:14 AM
To: Ron House
Subject: Re: Fw: ROUGH DRAFT - news release
Your message was posted to arb. No one has commented
on it yet. I didn't add it to the 2nd draft because I first I
forgot (sorry) and then earlier I had been thinking it could
be used to drag out the discussion period for another
week or so to get us well into at least the middle of
September. There are a number of things that will have to
be discussed about it. I've been trying to get the cb
thing finished first before taking up the newsgroups.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron House <house@usq.edu.au>
To: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
Cc: Fran Baker <fran@crhc.uiuc.edu>
Date: Monday, August 31, 1998 10:22 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: ROUGH DRAFT - news release
>FG wrote:
>>
>> Excellent piece, Ron. It really reads well. And perfectly
>> addresses the issues involved.... Let's use it verbatim.
>> I agree too with Fran about keeping the rhetoric as low
>> keyed as possible....
>>
>> I'll add it to the next draft of the RFD and post it in a few minutes.
>>
>Thanks Fred. Did you add those extra newsgroups I
>suggested?
>
>--
>Ron House house@usq.edu.au
>
>Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is
>unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30.
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 1998 5:37 AM
Subject: Re: 2nd ROUGH DRAFT - RFD - talk.religion.bahai
Roger Reini wrote in message <35eadbae.4455680@news.newsguy.com>...
>On Mon, 31 Aug 1998 06:26:52 -0400, "FG"
><FG@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Postings may take any point of view with regard to the Baha'i Faith.
>>Whilst this allows criticism, including criticism that might be
>>uncomfortable or hurtful to some, it also fully opens the door
>>for enquirers to see with their own eyes and not through the
>>eyes of their neighbours by asking questions and reading replies
>>from anyone who is interested in their question. Talk.religion.bahai
>>also fills the need for the first and only universally accessible
>>Internet forum about the Baha'i Faith.
>
>This should be qualified with "unmoderated", for s.r.b is universally
>accessible -- at least for those sites which choose to carry the soc.*
>hierarchy.
Sure: "only universally accessible unmoderated Internet forum...."
>
>> As the Internet is clearly
>>becoming an indispensible part of modern life, such access for
>>those interested in the Baha'i Faith will, in the future, be
>>as important a civil right as the right to free speech in non-
>>electronic forums.
>
>Hm -- now this is an interesting twist in the argument, stating the
>reasons why it should be regarded as a civil rights issue. I'm not
>necessarily agreeing with it, but putting it in this form helps to
>build the case.
>
>> Thus talk.religion.bahai is clearly in the
>>spirit of Baha'u'llah's injunctions supporting a free press.
>>
>>As Baha'u'llah taught, a free press has both rights and
>>responsibilities. Therefore some Baha'is might fear misuse of
>>the facility, especially postings by covenant-Breakers. However,
>>Shoghi Effendi has addressed this question:
>>
>>"First, the civil rights of Covenant-breakers must be scrupulously
>>upheld." Shoghi Effendi, Lights of Guidance, page: 186.
>
>It was not Shoghi Effendi who said this but the Universal House of
>Justice. Actually, the reference is "From a letter written on behalf
>of the Universal House of Justice to a National Spiritual Assembly,
>October 29, 1974)
> (Multiple Authors: Lights of Guidance, Page: 186)
>
>Please correct this.
Had meant to before posting this 2nd draft and then forgot
somehow. Thanks. Will do so on the 3rd draft, if I can remember....
>
>>
>>Further, it is permitted for Baha'is to read and post material in an
>>open Internet forum:
>>
>>"In general, the House of Justice has no objection to Baha'is'
>>participating in public, unmoderated discussions about the
>>Faith, whether those discussions take place in person or
>>through some form of electronic communication."
>>Department of the Secretariat, DATE: 14 October 1997 U.S.A.
>>
>
>This is better, though I doubt that those who object to an unmoderated
>newsgroup on principle will be convinced to re-evaluate their
>position.
What "principle" do they object on?
>
>
>Roger (rreini@wwnet.net)
>https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 1998 5:44 AM
Subject: Re: 2nd ROUGH DRAFT - RFD - talk.religion.bahai
John Noland wrote in message
<2A90EF02E296956B.A64F0B938A213433.74076DA3C98E0B3D@library-proxy.airnews.ne
t>...
>
>FG wrote in message <6sdtqi$dut@news3.newsguy.com>...
>>[This is a rough draft only. You may not vote at this time. Ron House
>>contributes all of the revisions regarding "civil rights."]
>
>
>>As a further indication of interest in an unmoderated newsgroup,
>>it should be noted that the web site "The Bahai Faith & Religious
>>Freedom of Conscience" has had more than 3,000 hits on it
>>since May 8, 1998.
>>https://members.tripod.com/~FG/bahai.htm
>
>Hi Frederick, Ron and Fran,
>
>Have you run this by the news.groupies yet? I honestly don't think
>the inclusion of your Web site hits is necessary or appropriate.
>First of all, as written it doesn't explain how this relates to an
>interest in trb. There's also no way to relate web traffic to
>newsgroup traffic. Also, how accurate is the count? I've visited
>your web site at least half a dozen times, so each of those counts
>as a hit. I think the data from arb and srb is adequate to show
>interest.
>
>John
It will have to be in the draft posted to news.announce.newgroups
for the news.groupies to see it. It can then be deleted before the
final official posting of the RFD before the interest poll starts. I'll
try to revise the intro somehow and make it clearer. I don't
believe it can be disputed that the vast majority of the hits on the
web site are from readers from Usenet.... Since I don't have a
counter on every page, there have certainly been many more
hits than have been recorded. There have been times too when
the counter has gone beserk and not been able apparently to
keep up with the traffic....
How would srb data relate to arb or trb?
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 1998 5:58 AM
To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com
Subject: Re: The Baha'i Technique
Kent Johnson wrote in message <6s9tma$1oi$1@as4100c.javanet.com>...
>As a Baha'i who has experienced and observed these things you talk about, I
>find it sad. The Baha'i Faith is not living up to its destiny in this
>regard. I have seen them do all the things you mention, and more. It
turns
>my stomach that they call themselves a Baha'i Group while doing these
things
>so obviously partisan and consciously unjust. I have pointed it out to
some
>of the moderators and they are in an Us Vs Them mindset. I can only
>apologize for them.
>
>--Kent
Thank you, Kent, for having the honesty and integrity to acknowledge
the seriousness of the situation at soc.religion.bahai. I believe you
identify something that really needs to be addressed and few Bahais
have had the courage to do so. The "moderators," and really Bahais
in general, almost always respond to anything other than the most
pedestrian opinion with reactionary sentiments and accusations of
one type or another.... I believe you're quite right about their mindset
having become "Us Vs Them." I would think their injustices are evident
to outside observers too.... I think especially of their banning me from
posting to soc.religion.bahai because of my signature file, which points to
my web site, which points to Yahoo, which ultimately points to a couple of
covenant breaker sites.... Not to mention one of the most complete
listings of Bahai information on the Net, which is why I put it on my
site....
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
>
>
>FG wrote in message <6s94hd$6f4@news1.newsguy.com>...
>>During the last year and a half, a number of observers have noted
>>several common methods many Bahais use to avoid various issues
>>or discredit people who hold other opinions than their own...
>
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 1998 6:13 AM
Subject: Re: The Baha'i Technique
FG wrote in message <6sgk20$r0f@news3.newsguy.com>...
>Kent Johnson wrote in message <6s9tma$1oi$1@as4100c.javanet.com>...
>
>>As a Baha'i who has experienced and observed these things you talk about,
I
>>find it sad. The Baha'i Faith is not living up to its destiny in this
>>regard. I have seen them do all the things you mention, and more. It
>turns my stomach that they call themselves a Baha'i Group while doing
>these things so obviously partisan and consciously unjust. I have pointed
>it out to some of the moderators and they are in an Us Vs Them mindset.
>I can only apologize for them.
>>
>>--Kent
On further reflection, let me add too that this touches on what is
THE really profoundly disturbing problem with the Bahai Faith as it
has become for many Bahais.... EVERYTHING is a threat,
EVERYONE is an enemy, if they don't share what such Bahais
believe is the correct interpretation of the Bahai writings or whatever....
Their response is always akin to some kind of demonization or
denunciation, never a good-faith exchange between people of
good will, albeit differing opinions.... Their response is clearly
partisan, while attempting to obscure or deny the fact.... THEY
possess the truth; everyone else is a heretic....
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
>>
>>
>>FG wrote in message <6s94hd$6f4@news1.newsguy.com>...
>>>During the last year and a half, a number of observers have noted
>>>several common methods many Bahais use to avoid various issues
>>>or discredit people who hold other opinions than their own...
>>
>>
>
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 1998 6:53 AM
To: Ron House
Subject: Fw: Fw: ROUGH DRAFT - news release
The news.groupies will care though. They believe one
should post the RFD or a pointer to too many groups.
That when you do that you're fishing for votes in a way
that's comparable to spam. They'll ask have you subscribed
to these groups and is the proposal relevant to them?
At least they have in the past. I'm all for adding them. I'll
to get to it as soon as possible....
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron House <house@usq.edu.au>
To: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, September 01, 1998 8:36 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: ROUGH DRAFT - news release
>FG wrote:
>>
>> Your message was posted to arb. No one has commented
>> on it yet. I didn't add it to the 2nd draft because I first I
>> forgot (sorry) and then earlier I had been thinking it could
>> be used to drag out the discussion period for another
>> week or so to get us well into at least the middle of
>> September. There are a number of things that will have to
>> be discussed about it. I've been trying to get the cb
>> thing finished first before taking up the newsgroups.
>
>I don't know that the average person particularly cares which
>newsgroups get told. Why not just add the lot and see if
>anyone objects?
>
>--
>Ron House house@usq.edu.au
>
>Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is
>unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30.
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 1998 6:57 AM
Subject: fw Ron House Re: 2nd ROUGH DRAFT - RFD - talk.religion.bahai
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron House <house@usq.edu.au>
To: bahai-faith@makelist.com <bahai-faith@makelist.com>
Date: Tuesday, September 01, 1998 8:38 PM
Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] 2nd ROUGH DRAFT - RFD - talk.religion.bahai
>FG wrote:
>>
>> Roger Reini wrote in message <35eadbae.4455680@news.newsguy.com>...
>
>> >This should be qualified with "unmoderated", for s.r.b is universally
>> >accessible -- at least for those sites which choose to carry the soc.*
>> >hierarchy.
>>
>> Sure: "only universally accessible unmoderated Internet forum...."
>
>I disagree that srb is universally accessible. Covenant
>breakers and Fred can't post there - and, I presume, based
>on the absurdity of their treatment of Fred's case, neither
>can anyone else who commits the sin of mentioning Yahoo.
>
>--
>Ron House house@usq.edu.au
>
>Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is
>unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30.
>
>____________________________________________________________________
>
>List Site: https://www.findmail.com/list/bahai-faith/
>To unsubscribe, send to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com
>
>FREE group e-mail lists at https://www.findmail.com
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 1998 6:58 AM
To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com
Subject: Fw: 2nd ROUGH DRAFT - RFD - talk.religion.bahai
-----Original Message-----
From: Donald Zhang Osborn <osborndo@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc
Date: Tuesday, September 01, 1998 7:10 PM
Subject: Re: 2nd ROUGH DRAFT - RFD - talk.religion.bahai
>FG wrote:
>> John Noland wrote in message
><2A90EF02E296956B.A64F0B938A213433.74076DA3C98E0B3D@library-proxy.airnews.n
et
>>...
>>>>As a further indication of interest in an unmoderated newsgroup,
>>>>it should be noted that the web site "The Bahai Faith & Religious
>>>>Freedom of Conscience" has had more than 3,000 hits on it
>>>>since May 8, 1998.
>>>>https://members.tripod.com/~FG/bahai.htm
>>>
>>>Hi Frederick, Ron and Fran,
>>>
>>>Have you run this by the news.groupies yet? I honestly don't think
>>>the inclusion of your Web site hits is necessary or appropriate.
>
>I'd concur with Roger and John that it is inappropriate to include
>Frederick's website in the RFD. For one thing, web hits don't
>necessarily translate into Usenet interest. For another, if one
>includes this website, then why not also hits on other Baha'i-related
>websites as further "evidence" of potential interest in Usenet
>discussion? And another, this website has what strikes this reader as a
>very selective presentation of past events. Frederick is certainly free
>to publicize his website during the discussion period (though I would
>hope this would not be a part of rehashing old debates), but IMHO it
>doesn't belong in the RFD.
>
>Hope this helps...
>
>DZO
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 1998 7:06 AM
Subject: Re: The Baha'i Technique
The truth is the UHJ knows exactly what the "moderators" of
soc.religion.bahai are doing and apparently approves of it and
appears even to be advising them through the BCCA, or
while hiding behind the BCCA....
The UHJ has no excuse of ignornance whatsoever. I've emailed
them directly over 30 times, recently on July 24th notifying them
of the imposition of the ban on my signature file, and they've
stood by and condoned such contemptible fanaticism as they
always do....
There's nothing "isolated" about the srb. It's widely known and
many, many people have said so.... Messages to that effect from
more than 30 people can be found on my web site.
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
Chris Manvell wrote in message ...
>In article <6shqbu$81n$1@as4100c.javanet.com>, Kent Johnson
><compx2k@javanet.com> wrote
>>All of the criticisms you mention are, in many cases, fair. They trouble
>>me. In my opinion, however, they are criticisms of individuals who ban
>>together and do harm to the Faith while calling themselves Baha'is. The
>>criticisms do not apply to the Faith itself unless and until these groups
>>find a way to usurp the power that is the Baha'i Faith itself. As long as
>>you and I keep noticing, that will not happen.
>
>I respectfully ask to disagree. The Faith itself is the Faith of
>Baha'u'llah. If others usurp it, it is no longer the Faith of
>Baha'u'llah but something else calling itself the Baha'i Faith. I do
>not believe that this has happened, apart from in fairly isolated cases.
>--
>Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317
> Fax.:+44+(0)870-0568081
>Personal Web site: <https://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/index.htm>
>Association of Baha'i Studies (English speaking Europe):
> <https://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/BSR/BSR.htm>
>Sgriobtiurean Creidimh nam Baha-i
> <https://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/gaelic/index.htm>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 1998 7:16 AM
To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com
Subject: Re: Fran Baker page added to web site
Chris Manvell wrote in message ...
>You obviously were not reading SRB during the Ahmadiya (sp.)/Baha'i
>debate, or the debate between a Christian minister and the Baha'is.
>What, in spite of the protestations of some people, is NOT allowed is
>rudeness, personal attacks, and UCE. Sometimes one moderator is
>stricter in their interpretation that at others but generally, if one
>wants to discuss the Faith without having to put up with the personal
>invective of some people, it is a good place to be as one can
>concentrate on the matter at hand and not in having to defend oneself
>etc.
What "personal invective" is their in my signature file? Is it rude?
There are many suppressed messages on my web site that were
not rude in any way whatsoever.... This accusation is merely a ruse....
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 1998 8:09 AM
To: Jackson Armstrong-Ingram
Subject: Re: reliabilty of information
I came across this message while cleaning out my old
files. Would you perhaps have a copy of the "Wilson Diary"?
I'd like to add it to my web page.
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
-----Original Message-----
From: Jackson Armstrong-Ingram <jarmstro@iusb.edu>
To: irfan <irfan1@umich.edu>
Cc: Talisman <talisman@umich.edu>
Date: Thursday, December 04, 1997 6:26 PM
Subject: reliabilty of information
>It would seem appropriate to mention that I know from sources other than
>Juan that the information he gave about a list member being under
>'investigation' because of postings is correct. This has actually being
>going on for some time.
>
>I might also mention, that the time I worked at the National Center
>included the period covered by the 'Wilson diary' as it has been seen in
>electronic form. Whoever may be the author of that text, those events for
>which I have personal knowledge are accurately portrayed, however
>'colorized' these passages may seem to those who were not there.
>
>I do not intend to engage in any discussion or further elaboration of this
>post. I simply felt that it needed to be made clear that just because
>news comes from Juan that does not in itself make it dismissable.
>
>Jackson
>
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 1998 4:47 AM
To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com
Subject: Fw: fw Ron House Re: 2nd ROUGH DRAFT - RFD - talk.religion.bahai
-----Original Message-----
From: Donald Zhang Osborn <osborndo@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc
Date: Wednesday, September 02, 1998 4:14 PM
Subject: Re: fw Ron House Re: 2nd ROUGH DRAFT - RFD - talk.religion.bahai
>FG wrote:
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Ron House <house@usq.edu.au>
>>To: bahai-faith@makelist.com <bahai-faith@makelist.com>
>>Date: Tuesday, September 01, 1998 8:38 PM
>>Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] 2nd ROUGH DRAFT - RFD - talk.religion.bahai
>>
>>>FG wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Roger Reini wrote in message <35eadbae.4455680@news.newsguy.com>...
>>>
>>>>>This should be qualified with "unmoderated", for s.r.b is universally
>>>>>accessible -- at least for those sites which choose to carry the soc.*
>>>>>hierarchy.
>>>>
>>>> Sure: "only universally accessible unmoderated Internet forum...."
>>>
>>>I disagree that srb is universally accessible. [...]
>
>As soc.* and talk.* are both "Big 8" hierarchies, the groups in them are
>equally accessible as I understand it. So if talk.religion.bahai would
>be "universally accessible" ("universally" for people with access to
>computers, of course...) then so is soc.religion.bahai.
>
>The whole issue of access as I understand it was brought up in the first
>place (and put in the t.r.b. RFD) because alt.* hierarchy groups are not
>carried by all servers, but "Big 8" groups supposedly are. So, even
>though a.r.b. is not moderated, it is not "universally accessible," and
>therefore t.r.b. is "needed" so to have a "universally accessible"
>non-moderated ng.
>
> [ . . . ] Covenant
>>>breakers and Fred can't post there - and, I presume, based
>>>on the absurdity of their treatment of Fred's case, neither
>>>can anyone else who commits the sin of mentioning Yahoo.
>
>S.r.b. is a moderated group. As such *what* is posted may be limited,
>not *who* posts. IOW, it's not an "access" issue, but one relating to
>standards of moderation. Anyway, as I understand it, a Covenant-breaker
>or Fred *can* post anything relating to the Baha'i teachings that
>doesn't include Covenant-breaking material (or links to it). One may or
>may not agree with the moderation policy, but moderation does not affect
>the accessibility of a newsgroup.
>
>I would therefore concur with what Roger suggested.
>
>Hope this helps.
>
>DZO
>
>NB- The message to which I'm replying responds to a posting in another
>part of this thread.
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 1998 5:02 AM
Subject: alt.religion.bahai FAQ
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) for
Alt.Religion.Bahai and bahai-faith@makelist.com
September 3, 1998
This FAQ will be reposted approximately every two weeks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please note that crossposting your messages to talk.religion.misc
makes it possible for some people without access to the alt.*
hierarchy to follow along with the discussion on alt.religion.bahai.
Similarly, crossposting or sending a courtesy copy, "cc," to
bahai-faith@makelist.com also allows people with only email
access to participate. Currently, 23 individuals are subscribed.
Other people with web access might use www.dejanews.com or
www.reference.com They both offer reading and posting capabilities,
including free email accounts, for people who can't directly access
alt.religion.bahai.
Though these stopgap measures may appear cumbersome or repetitive,
they really do compensate a little for the lack of
talk.religion.bahai, which would be an unmoderated newsgroup
on a major hierarchy that most people ought to be able to use.
Alt.Religion.Bahai is now available on America Online (AOL).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: Not all people agree on the interpretations given below.
Question #1 "what would be the difference between the proposed
newsgroup talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai?"
ANSWER: The alt.* hierarchy is not widely available, while the
talk.* hierarchy is, since it is on what's called the Big 8 hierarchy
of Usenet. Many more Bahais and non-Bahais would be able to
access talk.religion.bahai.
Question #2 "Isn't ARB also unmoderated?"
ANSWER: Yes. Alt.religion.bahai is unmoderated and talk.religion.bahai
would be too. Though not a newsgroup, the mailing list
bahai-faith@makelist.com is also unmmoderated.
Question #3 "Why create a t.r.b.?"
ANSWER #1: Because many people believe they experienced or are
continuing to experience censorship when attempting to post to
soc.religion.bahai. See the quotations from Abdul-Baha:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/bahai.htm
ANSWER #2: Because the Bahai writings support free speech and
religious conscience.
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/bahai.htm
ANSWER #3: [fill in the blank according to your own opinion.]
Question #4: "Why do the srb moderators oppose trb?"
ANSWER: [Perhaps they'll supply us with an answer to place
here]
Question #5: "Are Bahais opposed to freedom of speech and
conscience?"
ANSWER: Despite glowing words of love and support for
other people's opinions, despite the Universal House of Justice
stating at least publicly it is not opposed to an unmoderated forum,
the record of actual behavior by Bahais and on soc.religion.bahai
and the experience of many Bahais and people who have left the Bahai
Faith give reason for concern.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronology of major events: talk.religion.bahai
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 17, 1997: The 1st proposal for talk.religion.bahai was
submitted to news.announce.newgroups.
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/1stRFD.htm
Early March 1997: Mark Towfiq, chairman of the BCCA, the
Bahai Computer and Communication Association, posts to
three Bahai-only mailing lists a call for Bahais to vote NO
against talk.religion.bahai.
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/Towfiq.htm
March 1997: soc.religion.bahai bans all discussion of
talk.religion.bahai from its newsgroup. This ban is still in
effect more than a year and a half later.
March 31, 1997: The 1st proposal was defeated 157 YES to
691 NO.
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/1stRESULT.htm
April 3, 1997: Jonathan Grobe, a non-Bahai, creates
alt.religion.bahai.
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/arb.htm
October 14, 1997: The Universal House of Justice releases
a message stating it has no objection to unmoderated
newsgroups: https://members.tripod.com/~FG/UHJ1.htm
November 1997: At a time when discussion was highly
favorable in support of talk.religion.bahai, the BCCA deprives
FG of access to the private Bahai-only mailing
list bahai-discuss and all of its other lists, inflaming Bahai
passions against trb. See bahai-discuss archived files and
correspondence between FG and the BCCA
committee: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
December 19, 1997: The Universal House of Justice releases
a message that suggests it does not understand the nature of
Usenet interest polling:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/UHJ2.htm
January 12, 1998: The 2nd proposal for talk.religion.bahai was
submitted.
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/2ndRFD.htm
February 22, 1998: The 2nd proposal was defeated 109 YES
to 65 NO.
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/2ndRESULT.htm
May 25, 1998: srb bans all messages from FG
that contain his signature file.
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/srb23.htm
August 28, 1998: The 3rd proposal scheduled to be submitted.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For past discussion of censorship on soc.religion.bahai and other
issues, including censorship within the Bahai community, see the
Web site below.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
WEB SITE:
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAILING LIST:
bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) For Web subscription
& List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com
To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 1998 5:05 AM
Subject: REPOST - To UHJ July 24, 1998
From: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
To: UHJ <secretariat@bwc.org>; Letters to Editor <letters@nytimes.com>;
bahai-faith @ makelist.com <bahai-faith@makelist.com>
Subject: To UHJ July 24, 1998
Date: Friday, July 24, 1998 9:03 PM
July 24,1998
Dear Members of the Universal House of Justice:
As a Bahai, I am saddened by the news of the execution of yet
another Bahai in Iran. However, the immediate public statements
made by Firuz Kazemzadeh of the National Spiritual Assembly
of the United States, reminiscent of Robert Henderson's piece in
The New York Times on January 13th of this year, appear equally
lamentable for their blatant hypocrisy: "We had hoped that President
Khatami's assertions about freedom, justice and the rule of law in Iran
would apply to the Baha'is of that country.... We urge the international
community to protest vigorously Mr. Rowhani's killing and to seek
justice for the beleaguered Iranian Baha'i community."
The tragic loss of Bahai lives in Iran and the subsequent exploitation
of their deaths by Bahai spokesmen, often in the American media,
always courting the President and other members of the government,
has become a predictable pattern rendered intolerable in the context
of continuing and pervasive Bahai censorship and denial of human
and civil rights in the United States and elsewhere. Such incidents as
I queried you about in my unanswered email of March 31, 1997,
available on my Web site, regarding the crushing of the magazine
Dialogue, the resignations of a number of scholars from the Bahai
Encyclopedia, the attacks on the listserv known as Talisman I at
Indiana University, the harassing and blacklisting of many individuals,
Bahai and non-Bahai, suggest profoundly deep-seated problems within
the Bahai community and administration.
To these incidents must now be added the apparent conspiracy for more
than a year and a half of the Bahai Computer and Communications
Committee (BCCA), under the chairmanship of Mark Towfiq, to defeat
twice now, along with the collusion of other Bahais, the creation of an
unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith which would be known as
talk.religion.bahai. You may find extensive documentation for all of
these violations of the basic human rights of many Bahais and
non-Bahais on my Web site, "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom
of Conscience": https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm
Because the third interest poll for talk.religion.bahai on Usenet is
approaching, after August 28th, I ask you again to investigate the
BCCA and its depriving me of access last November from all private
Bahai-only mailing lists at a crucial moment just when the tide of
discussion was going very much in favor of the newsgroup, noted by
many observers. I also ask whether you supported or were involved in
that decision? The relevant files can be found on my Web site under
Bahai-Discuss Archives.
Similarly, I would like to know whether your institution or the BCCA has
approved of or advocated the recent ban of my email signature file by
the moderators of soc.religion.bahai, as well as their complete ban for
more than a year and a half now on all discussion regarding
talk.religion.bahai.
The prevailing atmosphere of suppression of free speech and
religious conscience that now characterizes the Bahai Faith cannot
but call into question the honesty of many members of the Bahai
administration and perhaps the institutions themselves.
I ask once more whether censorship is allowed in the Bahai Faith and
what passages of the Bahai Writings support it, what are the "rules," if
you will, of Bahai censorship?
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
cc: The New York Times, letters@nytimes.com
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 1998 5:12 AM
To: Ron House
Cc: Fran Baker
Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: ROUGH DRAFT - news release
Sounds good. I'm not dodging this issue, I'm just so
busy with everything else and really believe we need to
hold on to it in order to drag out discussion through much
of this month if possible in order to get the USA student
vote on our side as advised by some news.groupies.
We've got a national holiday over here until Sept. 8th.
I'm over due for a break.... Hope you and others can
take up the slack....
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron House <house@usq.edu.au>
To: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, September 02, 1998 9:27 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: ROUGH DRAFT - news release
>FG wrote:
>>
>> The news.groupies will care though. They believe one
>> should post the RFD or a pointer to too many groups.
>> That when you do that you're fishing for votes in a way
>> that's comparable to spam. They'll ask have you subscribed
>> to these groups and is the proposal relevant to them?
>> At least they have in the past. I'm all for adding them. I'll
>> to get to it as soon as possible....
>
>I did subscribe to all of them, read sample posts, and
>anything I cross-post will be specifically written for
>the NGs concerned, not just general appeals aka spam.
>
>--
>Ron House house@usq.edu.au
>
>Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is
>unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30.
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 1998 1:33 PM
To: AGrove1756@aol.com
Subject: Re: Baha'i Youth Classes
Nothing offensive intended against you but your
comments strike me as cheap and meaningless rhetoric as
long as the systematic censorship continues here in the US,
where I live and have experienced in the Bahai faith
now for over 20 years, especially on soc.religion.bahai....
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
-----Original Message-----
From: AGrove1756@aol.com <AGrove1756@aol.com>
To: FG@Hotmail.com <FG@Hotmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, September 08, 1998 4:59 PM
Subject: Re: Baha'i Youth Classes
>Regarding the postings that you forwarded: an eloquent
>description of the old world order. I have not encountered
>any of those techniques when serving at the Baha'i World
>Centre, when consulting with the Asian Counselors as
>an ABM or when working with various NSA's, I am saddened
>that you think of it as a trend. If you were to look outside
>of the US you would find other old world order problems,
>but also a very strong effort to shed old patterns.
>
>We are are after all, children of the half light.
>Anne
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 1998 1:41 PM
Subject: fw LaAeterna Re: fw Juan Cole [bahai-faith] mutilation theology (further)
-----Original Message-----
From: LaAeterna@aol.com <LaAeterna@aol.com>
To: bahai-faith@makelist.com <bahai-faith@makelist.com>
Date: Friday, September 04, 1998 11:43 PM
Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] mutilation theology (further)
>The quotes Burl pulled out do not in any way say the the Universal House
has
>anything other than a legislative function. Nor can he show anything that
>gives the UHJ legitimacy without a Guardian. As Abdul'Baha stated over and
>again, it is a legislative body only, with some arbitration duties.
Period.
>That it has chosen to take a huge interpretive leap and given itself
majesty
>where it has none appointed it, shows exactly why a Guardian_is_essential:
to
>maintain the *spiritual* aspect of the Faith. That there IS NO Guardian
now
>cannot be shrugged off.
>Shoghi Effendi states (page 9, WOB) that the administration
*is*not*the*Faith
>but is, instead, an instrument of the faith. Instruments are not perfect
nor
>are they permanent institutions, but have been shown throughout the history
of
>humanity to be temporary tools useful for a period of time (sometimes
>undefined).
>It could well be that the "tool" we are using now is defective, exactly
>because one of the primary aspects is missing, As one poster so aptly put
it
>: a headless body. I would say rather: an empty shell without a guiding
>spirit. That it is making such shocking decisions re: its members and
>alienating so many demonstrates my point quite nicely.
>Nancy
>
>____________________________________________________________________
>
>List Site: https://www.findmail.com/list/bahai-faith/
>To unsubscribe, send to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com
>
>FREE group e-mail lists at https://www.findmail.com
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 1998 2:08 PM
To: Fran Baker
Subject: Recommendation?
Fran,
I hope you don't mind my giving your name and email address
to America Online as someone who might vouch for me. AOL
has a number of forums that require a Forum Leader. The
current one is very inactive and many things that might make
for a fairer representation of viewpoints have been nicely
neglected somehow.... It seems to me no one else is going
to do it so what the heck....
FG@AOL.com
(please continue to use my FG@hotmail.com address)
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 1998 2:10 PM
To: Fran Baker
Subject: Re: a vacation?
Just got your note. Guess we're on at the same time.
Rare for me. I'm usually online early in the morning....
Trying to get the bugs out the system and get caught
up..................
-----Original Message-----
From: Fran Baker <fran@crhc.uiuc.edu>
To: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
Cc: fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu <fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wednesday, September 09, 1998 2:40 PM
Subject: Re: a vacation?
>Dear Fred,
>
>Thanks for the pep talk. I was beginning to need one badly!
>It was all I could do not to tell Rick to stop Schaut-ing at me.
>
>Thanks for the update, too.
>
>--Fran
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 1998 5:47 AM
Subject: Re: fw Juan Cole [bahai-faith] mutilation theology (further)
>To: bahai-faith@makelist.com
>From: Juan Cole <jrcole@umich.edu
>Subject: [bahai-faith] mutilation theology (further)
And I think the lack of institutional checks
>and balances in the current structure, which Shoghi Effendi thought so
>essential, are an excellent explanation for why the mutilation of the
>Baha'i faith has occurred. Someone accused me of conducting a personal
>vendetta. But this is not about personalities. The structures are the
>problem; even really promising people are corrupted by absolute power,
>which is what the Baha'i institutions now have within the community.
Plato, of course, is the other classical meditation on republicanism
devolving into demogoguery and tyranny, especially his Republic....
I'd also recommend the Federalist Papers for serious consideration
of checks and balances and reflection on the lessons of the classical
past as well for that matter.... Allan Bloom's Closing of the American
Mind draws insightfully from these works....
A pity, but it seems Shoghi Effendi's education was lacking in
such sources.... Given my experience with censorship on
soc.religion.bahai and the involvement of the BCCA in it,
I agree fully with Dr. Cole that there are no checks or balances
now within the Baha'i Faith.
By the way, for a fascinating aside on Galileo, which fits the context
so penetratingly well, one might look at the excerpts from
John Milton's Areopagitica on my web site. Milton visited Galileo
while he was under house arrest....
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/Areopagitica.htm
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 1998 6:10 AM
To: Fran Baker
Subject: Re: Recommendation?
Lovely picture of you and Frank!
By the way, where is he? I'm worried that he's never
really participated on arb, as you have....
-----Original Message-----
From: Fran Baker <fran@crhc.uiuc.edu>
To: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
Cc: fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu <fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wednesday, September 09, 1998 3:32 PM
Subject: Re: Recommendation?
>Sure thing.
>
>By the way, I have a web site, but it is just personal stuff.
>It's https://chaos.crhc.uiuc.edu/~fran/.
>
>--Fran
>
>FG wrote:
>>
>> Fran,
>>
>> I hope you don't mind my giving your name and email address
>> to America Online as someone who might vouch for me. AOL
>> has a number of forums that require a Forum Leader. The
>> current one is very inactive and many things that might make
>> for a fairer representation of viewpoints have been nicely
>> neglected somehow.... It seems to me no one else is going
>> to do it so what the heck....
>>
>> FG@AOL.com
>> (please continue to use my FG@hotmail.com address)
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 1998 6:13 AM
To: martinc
Subject: Re: Censorship on SRB
The least you can do then, is write srb "moderators" and
ask them to post a retraction of the abuse of my message
so that readers understand how it has been abused....
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
-----Original Message-----
From: martinc <martinc@thuringowa.qld.gov.au>
To: 'FG' <FG@hotmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, September 09, 1998 7:37 PM
Subject: RE: Censorship on SRB
> You said:
>
> "As far as I can recall, I asked for it to be posted to
>> alt.religion.bahai, not soc.religion.bahai.
>>
>> I believe you've abused the nature of my message to
>> you."
>>
> Looking back through the inbox, I find that you are right, and I
>apologise for this error. I certainly picked up the thread from SRB and
>our correspondence followed on from that, so maybe that explains the
>oversight.
>
> Regards,
>
> Martin Clark
>
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 1998 6:15 AM
Subject: Re: Censorship on SRB
The message George refers to was posted to srb without my
consent. I believe it was allowed in order to further agitate
Bahais against me and talk.religion.bahai. I specifically
requested the person in question to post to arb, never to
srb....
-----Original Message-----
From: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
To: martinc <martinc@thuringowa.qld.gov.au>
Date: Thursday, September 10, 1998 7:13 AM
Subject: Re: Censorship on SRB
>The least you can do then, is write srb "moderators" and
>ask them to post a retraction of the abuse of my message
>so that readers understand how it has been abused....
>
>FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
>https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
>talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
>Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: martinc <martinc@thuringowa.qld.gov.au>
>To: 'FG' <FG@hotmail.com>
>Date: Wednesday, September 09, 1998 7:37 PM
>Subject: RE: Censorship on SRB
>
>
>> You said:
>>
>> "As far as I can recall, I asked for it to be posted to
>>> alt.religion.bahai, not soc.religion.bahai.
>>>
>>> I believe you've abused the nature of my message to
>>> you."
>>>
>> Looking back through the inbox, I find that you are right, and I
>>apologise for this error. I certainly picked up the thread from SRB and
>>our correspondence followed on from that, so maybe that explains the
>>oversight.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Martin Clark
>>
>>
>
George wrote in message <6spa1i$d35$1@news.eli.net>...
>
>George wrote in message <6snvml$211$1@news.eli.net>...
>>Found this on SRB.
>>For those who may not post there.
>>Thought you might not know.
>>PostOn.
>>George
>>
>>mclark@tpgi.com.au wrote in message
>><"X7F7cD.A.YhD.k7K71"@bounty.bcca.org>...
>>>Date sent: Tue, 01 Sep 98 07:12:43 GMT
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>At 04:20 24/08/98 -0400, FG wrote:
>>>>Deceit and lies in the name of the Faith are wrong.... And so
>>>>is censorship for the same specious reasons....
>>>
>>>True. It sounds like you have had some bad experiences in this regard.
>>>
>>>I don't know how long you have been associated with the Faith, or how you
>>>feel about it at the moment. After 20 years as a Baha'i, I have seen most
>>>of what goes down, but I have also become aware that a mechanism exists
>>>within the Faith that sooner or later deals with abuses. I believe it is
>>>one of the mechanisms referred to in the quote about "there is a power in
>>>this cause ... " Many Baha'is are aware of it. The problem with some is
>>>that they believe that because the recognise the Cause, they
automatically
>>>understand it. Situations develop where people, sometimes without
>realising
>>>it, exercise authority which they do not possess. Only the elected have
>>>authority, and only then as members of an Assembly, not as individuals.
>>>Persons _appointed_ to positions may have responsibilities, but do not
>have
>>>authority. The Faith has no priesthood, but there are a few would-be
>>>Mullahs and Cardinals running around within it.
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>
>>>Martin Clark
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 1998 6:29 AM
Subject: REPOST - The Bahai technique
During the last year and a half, a number of observers have noted
several common methods many Bahais use to avoid various issues
or discredit people who hold opinions other than their own:
FG:
"Some of the most striking methods demonstrated repeatedly by
many Bahais during the last year and a half of discussion about
an unmoderated newsgroup is their refusal to listen and respond to
the criticisms of those who are in favor of talk.religion.bahai,
ignoring their concerns, never responding analytically to their
messages and reasoning and logic and evidence, attacking them
through character assassination and ad hominem, ganging up
on individuals, and "circling the wagons" around every action
of the srb moderators or others who are opposed to
talk.religion.bahai."
More than twenty different people on my web site have posted messages
explaining their experience with srb censorship yet many srb Bahais
NEVER address their concerns. Ignoring such charges will not make
them go away. NO ONE has to "try" to link the trb interest poll with
censorship on srb; the moderators themselves have done that by
suppressing droves of people for years. There are many people who
believe such suppression is part and parcel of the Bahai
community as it exists today. A YES vote need not necessarily
support such a belief. There are other reasons Bahais might vote
YES.
Ron House:
"I know what you mean. I've found over the years that
there is a technique used by traditional Baha'is and
others to squash dissension: harry the dissenter so
much he says something intemperate, then point out
how 'loving' and 'compassionate' they are and how
nasty the dissenter is. The trouble is that this
technique works, so I've been making a conscious
effort not to fall for it. Also, when they get the
dissenter discouraged and miserable enough, he
invariably makes a slip-up sooner or later that they
can REALLY let loose the venom over. IMHO, they did
this to you when you misread Sharon's intentions.
At any other time, they would overlook faults, as
Baha'u'llah says, but when they're in this mode
they go for the jugular. Very sad."
Fran Baker:
"Just have to say that in my experience this is a common
technique of manipulative people in general; it is especially
effective with thoughtful people who are willing to see both
sides of things, i.e., their own fault. I consider this brow-beating
technique to be a form of abuse. The only way to deal with it is
to call them on it every time and to refuse to let yourself be beat
up, i.e., not to do your part of the "tango." This can be very hard
to do, but it works.You can break this pattern in a personal
relationship. I don't know whether it's possible when a group
acts this way. Very scary."
Dr. Juan Cole:
"Let me ask you why in the world you think that I would risk my professional
reputation by publicly stating falsehoods? ...The very technique of the
more glaze-eyed among these people is to unbearably bully a Baha'i whom
they don't like, use unjustified threats of declaring him or her a CB to
silence the individual, and if the person will not be silenced, then to
depend upon the gullibility of the Baha'is in refusing to listen to any
victim's story because, of course, the Baha'i institutions are infallible
and divinely guided and could never do anything wrong. It is a perfect
racket.
"Of course, this technique of making liberals go away has been enormously
successful, and ex-Baha'i liberals have no credibility with the remaining
Baha'is nor do most of them have any energy to continue to make a case,
either to the Baha'is or the outside world, for the incredible abuses that
go on inside this organization ostensibly committed to tolerance!"
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/Cole10.htm
This document may also be found on my web site:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/technique.htm
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 1998 7:40 AM
Subject: Re: Censorship at alt.religion.bahai
I wish I knew how to look into this but it's really quite complicated
and beyond me. I'll forward this to news.groups in the hope that
someone there can and people won't mind though the RFD
is still a week or two away from posting....
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
K. Paul Johnson wrote on talk.religion.misc in message
<35f57c54.0@vlinsvr>...
>Today I did a DejaNews check of alt.religion.bahai, which I
>cannot read at this site. I found three or four cancelled posts;
>two by Joel Marangella and one or two by Timothy Mulligan. Don't
>have a clue as to how this kind of cancellation is done. But
>apparently this is an instance of censorship of the most offensive
>kind, and I'd hope there might be some way to identify the
>culprit. Is this against the law? What can be done?
>
>Marangella is a so-called "Covenant breaker," while Mulligan is
>an ex-Baha'i. This cancellation pattern is symptomatic of what
>certain kinds of Baha'is think is the right way to deal with
>dissenting voices-- SILENCE THEM. What sort of "New World Order"
>would it be if such behavior and attitudes were in control?
>Probably paradise in the eyes of such people, but hell on earth
>for the rest of us.
>
>Fred, please look into this.
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 1998 7:40 AM
To: FG
Subject: Fw: Censorship at alt.religion.bahai
-----Original Message-----
From: K. Paul Johnson <pjohnson@vlinsvr.vsla.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Date: Tuesday, September 08, 1998 2:49 PM
Subject: Censorship at alt.religion.bahai
>Today I did a DejaNews check of alt.religion.bahai, which I
>cannot read at this site. I found three or four cancelled posts;
>two by Joel Marangella and one or two by Timothy Mulligan. Don't
>have a clue as to how this kind of cancellation is done. But
>apparently this is an instance of censorship of the most offensive
>kind, and I'd hope there might be some way to identify the
>culprit. Is this against the law? What can be done?
>
>Marangella is a so-called "Covenant breaker," while Mulligan is
>an ex-Baha'i. This cancellation pattern is symptomatic of what
>certain kinds of Baha'is think is the right way to deal with
>dissenting voices-- SILENCE THEM. What sort of "New World Order"
>would it be if such behavior and attitudes were in control?
>Probably paradise in the eyes of such people, but hell on earth
>for the rest of us.
>
>Fred, please look into this.
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 1998 7:43 AM
Subject: Cancelled messages - a call for help
I wish I knew how to look into this but it's really quite complicated
and beyond me. I'll forward this to news.groups in the hope that
someone there can, and people won't mind, though the RFD
is still a week or two away from posting....
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
K. Paul Johnson wrote on talk.religion.misc in message
<35f57c54.0@vlinsvr>...
>Today I did a DejaNews check of alt.religion.bahai, which I
>cannot read at this site. I found three or four cancelled posts;
>two by Joel Marangella and one or two by Timothy Mulligan. Don't
>have a clue as to how this kind of cancellation is done. But
>apparently this is an instance of censorship of the most offensive
>kind, and I'd hope there might be some way to identify the
>culprit. Is this against the law? What can be done?
>
>Marangella is a so-called "Covenant breaker," while Mulligan is
>an ex-Baha'i. This cancellation pattern is symptomatic of what
>certain kinds of Baha'is think is the right way to deal with
>dissenting voices-- SILENCE THEM. What sort of "New World Order"
>would it be if such behavior and attitudes were in control?
>Probably paradise in the eyes of such people, but hell on earth
>for the rest of us.
>
>Fred, please look into this.
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 1998 3:15 PM
To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com
Subject: Re: fw Juan Cole [bahai-faith] mutilation theology (further)
For the umpteenth time, I'm not the moderator, I'm not
the moderator, I'm not the moderator!!!
For a long time I tried to forward EVERYTHING and
about killed myself trying to keep up with it all. For
roughly TWO months now the FAQ has stated in
painful detail how to "cc" messages to
bahai-faith@makelist.com George is one of the
few people who does so fairly regularly.
I forward what I want, none too consistently, and
shan't accept criticism lightly for it. You're free to
forward his message. By the way, why doesn't he
post it himself to alt.religion.bahai? Or have the
last two Bahai attacks on talk.religion.bahai
deprived him of access? Why didn't he vote YES?
Unlike most Bahais, I've attempted to rectify the
situation....
What's your excuse?
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
Richard Schaut wrote in message ...
>
>FG wrote in message <6t8aq4$a76@news3.newsguy.com>...
>>>To: bahai-faith@makelist.com
>>>From: Juan Cole <jrcole@umich.edu
>>>Subject: [bahai-faith] mutilation theology (further)
>
>
>Fred, is there any particular reason that you keep forwarding these
messages
>that Dr. Cole has sent to bahai-faith@makelist.com but have not forwarded
>the remarks of some of the other participants (e.g. Burl Barer)? How is
>your failure to foward both sides of that discussion any different from
what
>you accuse the moderators of soc.religion.bahai of doing?
>
>BTW, those who are interested in views that differ from those of Dr. Cole
>regarding the necessity of a living Guardian should point their browsers to
>https://www.interlog.com/~winters/articles/flow.html
>
>
>Regards,
>Rick Schaut
>
>
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 1998 3:15 PM
Subject: Re: fw Juan Cole [bahai-faith] mutilation theology (further)
For the umpteenth time, I'm not the moderator, I'm not
the moderator, I'm not the moderator!!!
For a long time I tried to forward EVERYTHING and
about killed myself trying to keep up with it all. For
roughly TWO months now the FAQ has stated in
painful detail how to "cc" messages to
bahai-faith@makelist.com George is one of the
few people who does so fairly regularly.
I forward what I want, none too consistently, and
shan't accept criticism lightly for it. You're free to
forward his message. By the way, why doesn't he
post it himself to alt.religion.bahai? Or have the
last two Bahai attacks on talk.religion.bahai
deprived him of access? Why didn't he vote YES?
Unlike most Bahais, I've attempted to rectify the
situation....
What's your excuse?
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
Richard Schaut wrote in message ...
>
>FG wrote in message <6t8aq4$a76@news3.newsguy.com>...
>>>To: bahai-faith@makelist.com
>>>From: Juan Cole <jrcole@umich.edu
>>>Subject: [bahai-faith] mutilation theology (further)
>
>
>Fred, is there any particular reason that you keep forwarding these
messages
>that Dr. Cole has sent to bahai-faith@makelist.com but have not forwarded
>the remarks of some of the other participants (e.g. Burl Barer)? How is
>your failure to foward both sides of that discussion any different from
what
>you accuse the moderators of soc.religion.bahai of doing?
>
>BTW, those who are interested in views that differ from those of Dr. Cole
>regarding the necessity of a living Guardian should point their browsers to
>https://www.interlog.com/~winters/articles/flow.html
>
>
>Regards,
>Rick Schaut
>
>
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 1998 3:19 PM
To: Timothy Mulligan
Subject: Fw: Censorship at alt.religion.bahai
Timothy,
Are you aware that someone may have
cancelled three of your messages to arb?
Let us know if you did this yourself or someone
else is at work for Baha'u'llah....
-----Original Message-----
From: K. Paul Johnson <pjohnson@vlinsvr.vsla.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.religion.bahai
Date: Thursday, September 10, 1998 3:15 PM
Subject: Re: Censorship at alt.religion.bahai
>Richard Schaut (RSSchaut@email.msn.com) wrote:
>:
>: K. Paul Johnson wrote in message <35f57c54.0@vlinsvr>...
>
>: >two by Joel Marangella and one or two by Timothy Mulligan. Don't
>: >have a clue as to how this kind of cancellation is done. But
>: >apparently this is an instance of censorship of the most offensive
>
>:
>: Gads, you have no idea how it's done, but it somehow has to be
censorship.
>
>You misrepresent my position. I did not say it *had* to be
>censorship. I said-- as you can see-- that *apparently* it was
>censorship. Why? Mulligan and Marangella have been the most
>unpopular of contributors in the eyes of people who make it clear
>that they do not want all sides of Baha'i issues aired.
>
>: Amazing.
>
>Your knee-jerk defensiveness amazes me at least as much as my
>suspicion of the dark possibilities of Baha'i fundamentalism
>amazes you.
>:
>: People, for a number of reasons, cancel their own posts. Had Mr. Johnson
>: done a thorough enough search, he would have found at least one of my
posts
>: cancelled--I cancelled it.
>
>Why in the world would I have done such a search?
>:
>: And, yes, it's possible to fake a cancellation message, but any
individual
>: who has the knowledge can do so.* When that happens, the people whose
posts
>: have been cancelled generally complain about the fact. In this case,
>: neither Mr. Mulligan nor Mr. Marangella have so complained.
>
>Thus you assume that they did cancel their own posts? OK, let's
>ask them.
>:
>: Thus, it takes a substantive leap to go from the appearance of a couple
of
>: cancelled messages to the conclusion of censorship. One needs a bit more
>: evidence of such, and that evidence is lacking here.
>
>Evidence you choose to disregard: it's not just a couple of
>cancelled messages but actually five (not three or four as I
>said.) Not just any two random people but two of the most hated
>contributors in the eyes of fundamentalist Baha'is: one, a
>"Covenant-breaker" leader-- and it is abundantly clear that
>Baha'is *do not want the views of "Covenant-breakers" to be
>freely expressed*-- the other, a disgruntled and very articulate
>ex-Baha'i, who has attracted a whole lot of negative emotion from
>defenders of Baha'i orthodoxy.
>:
>: BTW, if you think your messages have been cancelled by someone else, you
>: should contact the news administrator at your particular ISP.
>
>Rick, if you believe that Marangella and Mulligan canceled their
>own posts, why don't you write and ask them? If you won't, I
>will.
>
>PJ
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 1998 4:07 PM
To: FG
Subject: NEWS RELEASE
NEWS RELEASE
For immediate release. . . [or]
For Use the Week of September 20th. . .
Contact: FG (xxx) xxx-xxxx or
FG@hotmail.com
Baha'is Debate Freedom of Speech and Conscience
The third interest poll is beginning for talk.religion.bahai,
a proposed unmoderated newsgroup on the part of the
Internet known as Usenet. Critics charge members of the
Baha'i Faith have opposed its creation now for more than a
year and a half because they would not be able to exercise
the kind of control they exert over soc.religion.bahai, a
moderated newsgroup.
Under the Usenet guidelines for discussion groups, if a
newsgroup is moderated, a single moderator or panel of
moderators chooses which messages are posted for all
subscribers to read. There seems to be a classic struggle
between Baha'is and ex-Baha'is of liberal sentiment and the
elements of a conservative orthodoxy. Both appear ready for
another stormy battle on news.groups, the discussion group
where the creation of a new forum is always debated.
Some critics even go further. Dr. Juan Cole of the
Department of History at the University of Michigan, a
former Baha'i who withdrew from the Faith after more than
twenty years, has asserted there is widespread, pervasive
censorship and distortion of information throughout the
religion that belies the gentle and tolerant universalism of
its Founders. Recently, Dr. Cole has said, "The checks
and balances . . . will have to come from public opinion,
within the faith and without."
A poet and literary critic who remains a Baha'i after more
than two decades of membership, FG,
one of the proponents of talk.religion.bahai, has developed
a web site, "The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of
Conscience," documenting numerous instances of
interference with free speech by the moderators of
soc.religion.bahai and the Baha'i Administration:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm
Whatever the outcome of the third interest poll, the more
than 30,000 messages posted to alt.religion.bahai, a less
accessible newsgroup than the one wanted, shows Baha'is
and others have a lot to say on the matter!
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 1998 4:21 PM
To: Mulligan, Tim
Subject: Re: Cancelled posts at arb
Tim,
It's not paranoia; it's that so many of their tricks
have been so low and dirty!
I wish you wouldn't leave. It plays right into their
hands at a crucial moment. The RFD will probably
be posted during the week of the 20th. How about
if you take a few weeks off? Or just post every
other day, or once in a while.... Whatever....
For God's sake, please come back and vote in
early October....
Don't consign other people to a religion in which
no other opinions can ever be heard. Help us
provide a forum where you, for instance, can
receive the hearing you want or wanted.
Fred
-----Original Message-----
From: Mulligan, Tim <TMulligan@Central.UH.EDU>
To: 'FG@hotmail.com' <FG@hotmail.com>
Date: Thursday, September 10, 1998 4:22 PM
Subject: FW: Cancelled posts at arb
Thanks for your concern. I have to agree with the Baha'I fundies in
this case however: you guys are paranoid! I suggest you take a one
month break from all posting. Seriously. Just let it go, at least for
a little while. You need the break.
My response to Paul follows.
Tim
-----Original Message-----
From: Mulligan, Tim
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 1998 2:36 PM
To: 'K. Paul Johnson'
Subject: RE: Cancelled posts at arb
Paul,
I'm afraid you are mistaken. I canceled all my remaining posts
last week, in the interest of pulling up stakes and disengaging from the
ego battles on arb and srb.
I appreciate your intent, which was to defend my right to post.
But you were simply mistaken, and you need to admit that in the
newsgroups. I will not post any further in Baha'I newsgroups, or any
other newsgropus for that matter, because, as I've said, with rare
exception, they're simply an arena for the psychological equivalent of
gladiator battles.
You have my permission to post the content of this email message
to the newsgroups, but only if you quote the entire message.
Tim Mulligan
Tmulligan@central.uh.edu <mailto:Tmulligan@central.uh.edu>
-----Original Message-----
From: K. Paul Johnson [SMTP:pjohnson@vsla.edu]
<mailto:[SMTP:pjohnson@vsla.edu]>
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 1998 2:30 PM
To: jmara@cyllene.uwa.edu.au
<mailto:jmara@cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
Cc: tmulligan@central.uh.edu
<mailto:tmulligan@central.uh.edu>
Subject: Cancelled posts at arb
Dear Joel and Timothy,
On a Dejanews search of alt.religion.bahai, I found several
cancelled posts from each of you; five from TM and three at
least
from JM. I then expressed suspicion that someone other than
yourselves was cancelling them out of the desire to censor
opinions regarded as anathema to certain Baha'is.
The fundamentalists then accused me of making an accusation with
no evidence and of being mentally ill.
So I am writing to ask each of you if you did indeed cancel your
own posts to arb, or if you know who did. Please answer me ASAP
and better yet, post to arb and talk.religion.misc about this
issue.
Sincerely,
Paul Johnson
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 1998 4:22 PM
To: Ron House
Subject: Fw: NEWS RELEASE
Ron,
What do you think of this draft?
-----Original Message-----
From: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
To: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
Date: Thursday, September 10, 1998 5:09 PM
Subject: NEWS RELEASE
> NEWS RELEASE
>
>For immediate release. . . [or]
>For Use the Week of September 20th. . .
>
>Contact: FG (xxx) xxx-xxxx or
>FG@hotmail.com
>
>Baha'is Debate Freedom of Speech and Conscience
>
>The third interest poll is beginning for talk.religion.bahai,
>a proposed unmoderated newsgroup on the part of the
>Internet known as Usenet. Critics charge members of the
>Baha'i Faith have opposed its creation now for more than a
>year and a half because they would not be able to exercise
>the kind of control they exert over soc.religion.bahai, a
>moderated newsgroup.
>
>Under the Usenet guidelines for discussion groups, if a
>newsgroup is moderated, a single moderator or panel of
>moderators chooses which messages are posted for all
>subscribers to read. There seems to be a classic struggle
>between Baha'is and ex-Baha'is of liberal sentiment and the
>elements of a conservative orthodoxy. Both appear ready for
>another stormy battle on news.groups, the discussion group
>where the creation of a new forum is always debated.
>
>Some critics even go further. Dr. Juan Cole of the
>Department of History at the University of Michigan, a
>former Baha'i who withdrew from the Faith after more than
>twenty years, has asserted there is widespread, pervasive
>censorship and distortion of information throughout the
>religion that belies the gentle and tolerant universalism of
>its Founders. Recently, Dr. Cole has said, "The checks
>and balances . . . will have to come from public opinion,
>within the faith and without."
>
>A poet and literary critic who remains a Baha'i after more
>than two decades of membership, FG,
>one of the proponents of talk.religion.bahai, has developed
>a web site, "The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of
>Conscience," documenting numerous instances of
>interference with free speech by the moderators of
>soc.religion.bahai and the Baha'i Administration:
>https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm
>
>Whatever the outcome of the third interest poll, the more
>than 30,000 messages posted to alt.religion.bahai, a less
>accessible newsgroup than the one wanted, shows Baha'is
>and others have a lot to say on the matter!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 11, 1998 6:37 AM
To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com
Subject: On AOL- Re: ARB more harm than good?
This is exactly what's happening on America Online from
my observing for more than a month now. The largest ISP
is being used and manipulated by Bahais in the very same
way as they have approached the interest polls for
talk.religion.bahai and as described in "The Bahai technique."
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/technique.htm
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
kate_mccolloch_bodi@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<6tafaq$g6b$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>I heard through this list that America On-line had a chat room for Baha'is
so
>I decided on evening to peer inside and have a look-see. I was not granted
>the opportunity to lurk for a few moments to get the feel for the
atmosphere,
>perhaps my screen name made them nervous...I asked those in the room very
>politely a few simple honest questions. Although they seemed very nervous
>they finally obliged...although several left when they asked me questions.
I
>was told there room was a place to for those interest in the faith to ask
>that this was their purpose. I told them also that I went there because I
>saw it mentioned here. Strange that they should warn me not to hang out
here
>though because in their opinion...ARB does more harm than good.with
>laughter and free speechkate
>
>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>https://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 11, 1998 6:45 AM
To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com
Subject: Re: fw Ron House Re: 2nd ROUGH DRAFT - RFD - talk.religion.bahai
Roger Reini wrote in message <35f05772.13211616@news.newsguy.com>...
>
As far as
>Fred's blockage from posting because of a .sig statement, that does
>begin to stretch things. Perhaps if the URL pointed to his main
>homepage rather than his Baha'i page, that might be enough to get the
>posting through.
The URL in my signature file did and does point to my
main hompage/index.htm
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 11, 1998 6:51 AM
Subject: Re: 2nd ROUGH DRAFT - RFD - talk.religion.bahai
Roger Reini wrote in message <35eadbae.4455680@news.newsguy.com>...
>On Mon, 31 Aug 1998 06:26:52 -0400, "FG"
><FG@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>[This is a rough draft only. You may not vote at this time. Ron House
>>contributes all of the revisions regarding "civil rights."]
>>
>
>This is better, though I doubt that those who object to an unmoderated
>newsgroup on principle will be convinced to re-evaluate their
>position.
Roger, you've never answered me. What principle is that?
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 11, 1998 7:04 AM
Subject: 3rd ROUGH DRAFT - RFD talk.religion.bahai
[This is a rough draft only. You may not vote at this time. ]
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
unmoderated group talk.religion.bahai
This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to create an unmoderated
worldwide discussion group called talk.religion.bahai. This is not a
Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural details
appear below. All followup discussion should be crossposted to
news.groups,alt.religion.bahai.
Newsgroup line:
talk.religion.bahai Discussion of the Baha'i Faith.
RATIONALE: talk.religion.bahai
Currently, the only newsgroup on the Big 8 heirarchies, which exists
specifically for discussion of the Baha'i Faith, is moderated. A
need exists for an unmoderated forum, and this proposed newsgroup
would meet that need.
From January 17, 1997, the posting of the first proposed RFD, until
March 27, 1997, more than 759 messages were posted concerning
talk.religion.bahai, 11 messages per day for 70 days.
From April 1, 1997, to September 27, 1997, over 2,863 messages
have been posted on alt.religion.bahai from people with highly
varying points of view on the Baha'i Faith, resulting in 16 messages
per day for 179 days, and 477 messages a month for six months.
Since www.dejanews.com does not pick up all postings, an
additional conservative 5 percent, roughly 150 messages, have
probably been lost from the archive. During this time period,
approximately 513 different individuals posted on over
1,200 threads.
From September 28, 1997, to September 11, 1998, over 30,000
messages have been posted to alt.religion.bahai resulting
in X messages per day for 331 days and X messages per
month for nine months.
These numbers may be verified by searching www.dejanews.com
for talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai for the relevant time
periods. Please note that despite the poor propagation of the
alt.* hierarchy the high rate of posting demonstrates significant
interest, justifying the forming of an unmoderated newsgroup on
the Bahai Faith on the talk.* hierarchy. It is only reasonable
to conclude that the easy accessibility of the talk.* hierarchy
will lead to even higher rates of posting by interested people.
As a further indication of interest in an unmoderated newsgroup,
it should be noted that the web site "The Bahai Faith & Religious
Freedom of Conscience" has had more than 3,000 hits on it
since May 8, 1998.
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/bahai.htm
The proponents intend that talk.religion.bahai will complement,
rather than supplant, the existing moderated group
soc.religion.bahai, and will provide those without access to
alt.religion.bahai, on the less well propagated alt.* hierarchy, the
opportunity to participate, especially since many people who voted
YES on the first proposal were unable to join in on
alt.religion.bahai, their ISPs not carrying the hierarchy. It is
anticipated that alt.religion.bahai will evolve along as its users
see fit and will complement talk.religion.bahai as an alternative
unmoderated newsgroup.
CHARTER: talk.religion.bahai
All topics or ideas relevant to the Baha'i faith -- its history,
teachings, theology, etc. -- would be appropriate areas for
discussion.
Postings may take any point of view with regard to the Baha'i Faith.
Whilst this allows criticism, including criticism that might be
uncomfortable or hurtful to some, it also fully opens the door
for enquirers to see with their own eyes and not through the
eyes of their neighbours by asking questions and reading replies
from anyone who is interested in their question. Talk.religion.bahai
also fills the need for the first and only universally accessible
Internet forum about the Baha'i Faith. As the Internet is clearly
becoming an indispensible part of modern life, such access for
those interested in the Baha'i Faith will, in the future, be
as important a civil right as the right to free speech in non-
electronic forums. Thus talk.religion.bahai is clearly in the
spirit of Baha'u'llah's injunctions supporting a free press.
As Baha'u'llah taught, a free press has both rights and
responsibilities. Therefore some Baha'is might fear misuse of
the facility, especially postings by covenant-Breakers. However,
Shoghi Effendi has addressed this question:
"First, the civil rights of Covenant-breakers must be scrupulously
upheld."
From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice
to a National Spiritual Assembly, October 29, 1974. Lights of
Guidance, Page: 186.
Further, it is permitted for Baha'is to read and post material in an
open Internet forum:
"In general, the House of Justice has no objection to Baha'is'
participating in public, unmoderated discussions about the
Faith, whether those discussions take place in person or
through some form of electronic communication."
Department of the Secretariat, DATE: 14 October 1997 U.S.A.
Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette and voting
procedure in their use of this newsgroup and during its creation.
Readers are asked to observe Baha'i standards of conduct and not
to start or prolong flamewars in the group, but to focus instead on
articles and threads written in more moderate terms.
The posting of articles not specifically relevant to the Baha'i Faith
is strongly discouraged. Also discouraged are personal messages,
large ASCII graphics, binaries, special-format files, pornography,
spam, and any postings of a purely commercial nature.
Crossposting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers
are encouraged to redirect followups to reduce excessive
crossposting. Readers may also post articles that have been
rejected from soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to this
charter.
As is true for other groups devoted to discussing a particular
religion, including soc.religion.bahai, the talk.religion.bahai
newsgroup is not an official organ of any institutional faith.
END CHARTER.
PROCEDURE:
An instructive passage by Russ Allbery might fruitfully be
considered by all:
"There is no official 'list of acceptable reasons for voting'; Nothing
of the sort is enforced. There's no way of knowing why people vote
the way they do. There *is*, however, a general *consensus* that
certain *patterns* of voting constitute abuse of the system. Block
voting on religious, cultural, ethnic, or political grounds is one of
the things that is frowned upon. It is unlikely that even extreme block
voting would cause a result to be overturned, but it's practically
assured that block voting *will* earn an extremely bad reputation for
the group doing the block voting. In other words, yes, the Baha'i
*could* vote down the newsgroup en masse and be successful.
This would, however, also earn the Faith a reputation (fairly or no)
amongst those people who followed the proposal as a religion that
advocates censorship. I think it's in the best interest of Baha'is and
the Baha'i Faith to avoid that."
The process of creating newsgroups is twofold. First is the RFD
stage, when someone writes a Request for Discussion (RFD) outlining
the purpose of the proposed group. The RFD appears in
news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, and other relevant discussion
groups. Anyone may publicly comment on the RFD in news.groups for a
three-week period. During the discussion phase, proponents may modify
the RFD in response to suggestions from posters on news.groups.
The second stage is the Call for Votes (CFV) stage. The proposal must
pass a Usenet-wide vote with a 2/3 supermajority -- and at least 100
more votes in favor than against -- to be created. Anyone with an
e-mail address may cast a ballot. A neutral votetaker from the Usenet
Volunteer Votetakers (UVV) conducts all CFV's.
This RFD attempts to comply with the Usenet newsgroup creation
guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and
"Writing an RFD" and available for perusal on news.groups or
news.announce.newgroups. Please refer to these documents if you
have further questions about the process.
DISTRIBUTION:
This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,soc.religion.bahai,
alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human
and the following three mailing lists:
Talisman
Subscribe via: jsgreen@umich.edu
Bahai Studies
Subscribe via: major@johnco.cc.ks.us
h-Bahai h-Bahai@h-net.msu.edu
Subscribe jrcole@umich.edu
Pointers will appear in the following newsgroups:
soc.religion.unitarian-univ,soc.religion.eastern,
soc.religion.gnosis,soc.religion.hindu,
soc.religion.paganism,soc.religion.quaker,
soc.religion.sikhism,soc.religion.scientology,
soc.religion.vaishnava,talk.religion.buddhism,
talk.religion.newage,alt.religion.islam,alt.religion,
uk.religion.misc,uk.religion.interfaith,
uk.religion.other-faiths,news.admin.censorship,
alt.atheism,alt.atheism.moderated,
alt.religion.christian.biblestudy,alt.religion.christian.last-days,
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic,aus.religion.christian,
alt.religion.christian.pentecostal,alt.religion.vaisnava,
alt.individualism,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.activism,talk.atheism,
talk.philosophy.humanism,talk.philosophy.misc,
alt.philosophy.debate
And to the following seven Bahai-only listservs:
Subscribe via bahai-request@bcca.org
Baha'i Campus Forum (BCF)
Baha'i Discuss (Discuss)
Baha'i Singles (Singles)
Baha'i Teachers (Teachers)
Baha'i Women Converse (Women)
Baha'i Youth (Youth - aimed at the 12-18 age group)
Baha'i Announce (Announce)
Proponent: FG
Proponent: Ron House
Proponent: Fran Baker
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 11, 1998 7:43 AM
To: FG
Subject: soc.religion.bahai victims speak out
Kent Johnson:
"It turns my stomach that they call themselves a Baha'i Group
while doing these things so obviously partisan and consciously
unjust."
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/srb61.htm
Ron House:
"I think the following is a clear case of malicious
rejection of an article by the worst of the moderators of
soc.religion.bahai."
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/srb53.htm
Timothy Mulligan:
"(Sigh) Fred, I'm beginning to think you're right about those
SRB moderators."
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/srb59.htm
RobertNik:
"these guys are pompous arseholes IMHO."
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/srb54.htm
Bruce Burrill:
"What are Baha'i afraid of?"
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/srb60.htm
Zuteflute:
"Frankly I could not see anything in the letter I wrote which
would prompt someone to ask whether or not I am a Baha'i."
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/srb50.htm
YU ZIR:
"But as an outsider, I can perhaps see the point Fred Glaysher
is making, and which point none of SRB's defenders seem to
address."
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/srb46.htm
Matthew Cromer:
"The current moderators regulate the contents--posting articles
which they agree with...."
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/srb47.htm
Melissa Boyer Kafes:
"For me, I have posted a couple of times on soc.religion.bahai
and have gotten a couple of nasty emails...."
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/srb44.htm
Harold Shinsato:
"It seems like there is an oppression over the Baha'i Faith."
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/srb33.htm
Maryam:
"Firstly, there is nothing in Fred's sig. file that mentions CB
material."
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/srb22.htm
Laeterna:
"To say I was flabberghasted at this type of "moderating" was
putting it mildly indeed."
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/censored2.htm
Guy Macon"
"Please explain which portion of the charter the following
post violates."
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/censored1.htm
Robin Peters:
"I think you're to be commended for your persistence in the
face of consistent censorship."
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/srb43.htm
jgoldberg:
"I refuse to post on soc.religion.bahai because of the arbitrary and
mean-spirited manner of censorship practiced by the moderators. "
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/srb57.htm
Many other similar messages may be found on my web site under
soc.religion.bahai censorship.
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 11, 1998 7:53 AM
To: D E Siegel
Subject: talk.religion.bahai
>Please do not turn the next t.r.b debate into a wrangle over who has
censored
>whom on s.r.b, either via moderation or via cancels. >
> -David E. Siegel
David,
I'd really appreciate your advice on how to approach the
interest poll this time. So many people have experienced
censorship that it seems inescapable and is the impetus
behind why people want an unmoderated newsgroup
on the Bahai Faith, talk.religion.bahai. I do intend to try
more to keep discussion of the religious side of the issues
on alt.religion.bahai and the technical only, if possible,
on news.groups. Emma Pease suggested this a couple
of months ago. I'd appreciate hearing any ideas you might
have.
Thanks.
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 11, 1998 7:57 AM
To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com
Subject: On soc.religion.bahai - brief quotations
Kent Johnson:
"It turns my stomach that they call themselves a Baha'i Group
while doing these things so obviously partisan and consciously
unjust."
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/srb61.htm
Ron House:
"I think the following is a clear case of malicious
rejection of an article by the worst of the moderators of
soc.religion.bahai."
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/srb53.htm
Timothy Mulligan:
"(Sigh) Fred, I'm beginning to think you're right about those
SRB moderators."
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/srb59.htm
RobertNik:
"these guys are pompous arseholes IMHO."
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/srb54.htm
Bruce Burrill:
"What are Baha'i afraid of?"
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/srb60.htm
Zuteflute:
"Frankly I could not see anything in the letter I wrote which
would prompt someone to ask whether or not I am a Baha'i."
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/srb50.htm
YU ZIR:
"But as an outsider, I can perhaps see the point Fred Glaysher
is making, and which point none of SRB's defenders seem to
address."
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/srb46.htm
Matthew Cromer:
"The current moderators regulate the contents--posting articles
which they agree with...."
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/srb47.htm
Melissa Boyer Kafes:
"For me, I have posted a couple of times on soc.religion.bahai
and have gotten a couple of nasty emails...."
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/srb44.htm
Harold Shinsato:
"It seems like there is an oppression over the Baha'i Faith."
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/srb33.htm
Maryam:
"Firstly, there is nothing in Fred's sig. file that mentions CB
material."
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/srb22.htm
Laeterna:
"To say I was flabberghasted at this type of "moderating" was
putting it mildly indeed."
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/censored2.htm
Guy Macon"
"Please explain which portion of the charter the following
post violates."
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/censored1.htm
Robin Peters:
"I think you're to be commended for your persistence in the
face of consistent censorship."
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/srb43.htm
jgoldberg:
"I refuse to post on soc.religion.bahai because of the arbitrary and
mean-spirited manner of censorship practiced by the moderators. "
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/srb57.htm
Many other similar messages may be found on my web site under
soc.religion.bahai censorship.
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 11, 1998 2:16 PM
Subject: Bahai accusation of TOS on AOL
I ask all Bahais or non-Bahais on AOL to email
the TOSGeneral@aol.com and inform him or her what you
believe may be actually involved here on the part of Bahais.
I myself have stated my opinion below.
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
-----
Subj: Terms of Service
Date: 98-09-11 02:54:49 EDT
From: TOSBoards2
To: FG
Dear Member,
I need to let you know that America Online was notified of a post to one of
our message boards which violates the Terms of Service. Here is the
information I have placed on the account regarding this incident:
On 9/9/98 6:58 AM Eastern Daylight EST the FG screen name posted a
message in Baha'i Message Boards, For Non Baha'is >> Subject: Re: Literal-
minded Bahai ignorance. The following is an excerpt from the post: " The
typical response of Bahai fanatics....
FG:
"Some of the most striking methods demonstrated repeatedly by
many Bahais during the last year and a half of discussion about
an unmoderated newsgroup is their refusal to listen and respond to
the criticisms of those who are in favor of talk.religion.bahai,
ignoring their concerns, never responding analytically to their
messages and reasoning and logic and evidence, attacking them
through character assassination and ad hominem, ganging up
on individuals, and "circling the wagons" around every action
of the srb moderators or others who are opposed to
talk.religion.bahai.
"More than twenty different people on my web site have posted messages
explaining their experience with srb censorship yet many srb Bahais
NEVER address their concerns. Ignoring such charges will not make
them go away. NO ONE has to "try" to link the trb interest poll with
censorship on srb; the moderators themselves have done that by
suppressing droves of people for years. There are many people who
believe such suppression is part and parcel of the Bahai
community as it exists today. A YES vote need not necessarily
support such a belief. There are other reasons Bahais might vote
YES."
Ron House:
"I know what you mean. I've found over the years that
there is a technique used by traditional Baha'is and
others to squash dissension: harry the dissenter so
much he says something intemperate, then point out
how 'loving' and 'compassionate' they are and how
nasty the dissenter is. The trouble is that this
technique works, so I've been making a conscious
effort not to fall for it. Also, when they get the
dissenter discouraged and miserable enough, he
invariably makes a slip-up sooner or later that they
can REALLY let loose the venom over. IMHO, they did
this to you when you misread Sharon's intentions.
At any other time, they would overlook faults, as
Baha'u'llah says, but when they're in this mode
they go for the jugular. Very sad."
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/House2.htm
Fran Baker:
"Just have to say that in my experience this is a common
technique of manipulative people in general; it is especially
effective with thoughtful people who are willing to see both
sides of things, i.e., their own fault. I consider this brow-beating
technique to be a form of abuse. The only way to deal with it is
to call them on it every time and to refuse to let yourself be beat
up, i.e., not to do your part of the "tango." This can be very hard
to do, but it works.You can break this pattern in a personal
relationship. I don't know whether it's possible when a group
acts this way. Very scary."
Dr. Juan Cole:
"Let me ask you why in the world you think that I would risk my professional
reputation by publicly stating falsehoods? ...The very technique of the
more glaze-eyed among these people is to unbearably bully a Baha'i whom
they don't like, use unjustified threats of declaring him or her a CB to
silence the individual, and if the person will not be silenced, then to
depend upon the gullibility of the Baha'is in refusing to listen to any
victim's story because, of course, the Baha'i institutions are infallible
and divinely guided and could never do anything wrong. It is a perfect
racket.
"Of course, this technique of making liberals go away has been enormously
successful, and ex-Baha'i liberals have no credibility with the remaining
Baha'is nor do most of them have any energy to continue to make a case,
either to the Baha'is or the outside world, for the incredible abuses that
go on inside this organization ostensibly committed to tolerance!"
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/Cole10.htm
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
baha'i
baha'i"
Our Terms of Service agreement, which was presented during the sign up
process, allows America Online to be informative, entertaining and, above
all,
fun for all of our Members. You can review that agreement by using keyword
<A HREF="aol://1391:41-4688">TOS</A>. This area also has information and
tools you can use to help protect your account. Also, you may want to take
a
look at our <A HREF="aol://1722:parentalcontrols">PARENTAL CONTROLS</A>.
This
will allow you, among other things, to limit and/or block specific screen
names from various online activities.
Thanks for taking the time to read this letter. Please note, this screen
name
cannot accept replies. Therefore, if you have any comments or questions
please
send mail to <A HREF="mailto: TOSGeneral">TOSGeneral</A>.
Regards,
Bill
Community Action Team
America Online, Inc.
* Have you heard about AOL's latest and easiest to use software version,
4.0?
You can upgrade for free at keyword: <A
HREF="aol://1722:Upgrade">Upgrade</A>.
With AOL 4.0, you can have fun by sending multiple files, changing screen
names without signing off, customizing your toolbar, and much, much more.
Upgrade today!
------
Bahai posts on AOL responding to "The Bahai Technique":
-------
Subject: Re: fw Juan Cole Re: [bahai-faith] mutilation theology
Date: Wed, Sep 9, 1998 11:46 EDT
From: <A HREF="aol://3548:Holly7711">Holly7711</A>
Message-id: <1998090915464300.LAA29616@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Friends,
This stuff is not only ugly in its outlook toward Baha'is, but now there is
criticism of the Universal House of Justice and the beloved institutions of
the Faith.
This is right on the edge... borderline.
Charlotte
--------
Subject: Re: fw Juan Cole Re: [bahai-faith] mutilation theology
Date: Wed, Sep 9, 1998 11:59 EDT
From: <A HREF="aol://3548:Karndor">Karndor</A>
Message-id: <1998090915595200.LAA03894@ladder03.news.aol.com>
Charlotte,
before you read a post, look who wrote it, and if it is someone, that you
might think is a CB, or will make you mad, don't read it, and go on to the
next one. trust me it works.
Karen
Momie to
Forrest Febuary 17,1994
Terran October 23, 1996
<A HREF="https://members.aol.com/ballyhoo9/sexyguy.html"> </A>
<A HREF="https://www.kidscom.com/orakc/Mousers/mouse.html">KidsCom: Mousers
</A>
-----------
Subject: General Disclaimer
Date: Wed, Sep 9, 1998 14:00 EDT
From: <A HREF="aol://3548:WScott1995">WScott1995</A>
Message-id: <1998090918003500.OAA11333@ladder01.news.aol.com>
For those visiting our Baha'i boards, anyone can post here and say they are
a
Baha'i. That doesn't necessarily make it so. Every religion has their wolves
in sheeps clothing would would try to destroy the flock, and this forum
makes
this particularly easy since they can hide behind their computers and no one
will know who they are. Baha'is need to deal with these people as both our
writings and the Bible says:
"But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more
ungodliness. And their word will eat as doth a canker....and overthrow the
faith of some." (2 Tim. 2:16-17)
"Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and vain
babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge —by
professing it, some have strayed concerning the faith." (1 Tim 6:20-21)
A true Baha'i would abide by the teachings of Baha'u'llah, in every
situation,
to the best of his or her ability. And those teachings are:
"Should anyone wax angry with you, respond to him with gentleness; and
should
anyone upbraid you, forbear to upbraid him in return, but leave him to
himself
and put your trust in God, the omnipotent Avenger, the Lord of might and
justice." (Bahá'u'lláh: The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, Page: 75)
_____________________________
Love and peace, Wendy--------<-@
-----
ubject: Re: General Disclaimer
Date: Wed, Sep 9, 1998 15:05 EDT
From: <A HREF="aol://3548:Bennachti">Bennachti</A>
Message-id: <1998090919050600.PAA17531@ladder01.news.aol.com>
I agree, Wendy. I am always reminded of this passage, when I meet people
like
that online:
"Erelong shall clamorous voices be raised in most lands.
Shun them, O My people, and follow not the iniquitous and evil-hearted."
Baha'u'llah, Kitab-i-Aqdas, pg. 32
I'm all in favor of Karen's suggestion too, to just skip over the names of
people who seem to be filled with hatred. I hope that for their sake they
learn that their anger only hurts them, not anyone else. They can stew in
it,
suffer from it, develop heart and liver diseases from it (and more) but it
doesn't affect the rest of us at all. It is a most unfortunate malady, this
anger and hatred. May God help all of us to recover from angers and
resentments whensoever they may afflict us.
Love you all
Zaynab
No man shall attain the shores of the ocean of true understanding except he
be
detached from all that is in heaven and on earth.
- Bahá'u'lláh -
My Bahá'í Faith website: <A
HREF="https://members.aol.com/Bennachti/bahai.htm">
Camphor Fountain</A>
-----------
Subject: Re: General Disclaimer
Date: Wed, Sep 9, 1998 15:14 EDT
From: <A HREF="aol://3548:Holly7711">Holly7711</A>
Message-id: <1998090919140800.PAA18518@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Excellent advice, everyone!
Thanks particularly for those quotes from the writings.... always good
spiritual food for just about any situation that comes up. :)
Love,
Charlotte
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 11, 1998 2:25 PM
To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com
Subject: Re: ARB more harm than good?
kate_mccolloch_bodi@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<6tafaq$g6b$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>I heard through this list that America On-line had a chat room for Baha'is
so
>I decided on evening to peer inside and have a look-see. I was not granted
>the opportunity to lurk for a few moments to get the feel for the
atmosphere,
>perhaps my screen name made them nervous...I asked those in the room very
>politely a few simple honest questions. Although they seemed very nervous
>they finally obliged...although several left when they asked me questions.
I
>was told there room was a place to for those interest in the faith to ask
>that this was their purpose. I told them also that I went there because I
>saw it mentioned here. Strange that they should warn me not to hang out
here
>though because in their opinion...ARB does more harm than good.with
>laughter and free speechkate
>
Given Bahais on AOL are now alleging a TOS against me, I urge you
to reciprocate and contact the TOSGeneral@aol.com immediately.
If you can remember the Bahais involved and their addresses, you
should pass that along to him or her too. One or all of them might
very well be the same Bahais who are trying to blackball me on
AOL!
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 11, 1998 2:26 PM
To: kate_mccolloch_bodi@my-dejanews.com
Subject: Fw: ARB more harm than good?
-----Original Message-----
From: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com <bahai-faith@makelist.com>
Date: Friday, September 11, 1998 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: ARB more harm than good?
>kate_mccolloch_bodi@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
><6tafaq$g6b$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>>I heard through this list that America On-line had a chat room for Baha'is
>so
>>I decided on evening to peer inside and have a look-see. I was not
granted
>>the opportunity to lurk for a few moments to get the feel for the
>atmosphere,
>>perhaps my screen name made them nervous...I asked those in the room very
>>politely a few simple honest questions. Although they seemed very nervous
>>they finally obliged...although several left when they asked me questions.
>I
>>was told there room was a place to for those interest in the faith to ask
>>that this was their purpose. I told them also that I went there because I
>>saw it mentioned here. Strange that they should warn me not to hang out
>here
>>though because in their opinion...ARB does more harm than good.with
>>laughter and free speechkate
>>
>
>Given Bahais on AOL are now alleging a TOS against me, I urge you
>to reciprocate and contact the TOSGeneral@aol.com immediately.
>If you can remember the Bahais involved and their addresses, you
>should pass that along to him or her too. One or all of them might
>very well be the same Bahais who are trying to blackball me on
>AOL!
>
>FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
>https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
>talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
>Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 11, 1998 2:31 PM
To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com
Subject: Re: Bahai accusation of TOS on AOL
Oops! Here's my message to the TOSGeneral@AOL.com
----
Subj: Accusation of TOS at AOL
Date: 98-09-11 15:03:38 EDT
From: FG
To: TOSGeneral
CC: FG@hotmail.com
Please explain to me how my post is a TOS.
It appears to me that you fail to understand the
context in which my message was posted. There
has been a pervasive Bahai effort for more than a
year and a half to censor and control all knowledge
and information on the Bahai Faith. Extensive
documentation to this effect, with statements and
samples of suppressed messages from well over
30 people, can be found on my web site:
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm
Extensive discussion relevant to Bahai censorship
can also be found on alt.religion.bahai
If AOL is not merely to be a pawn used by Bahais,
unknown in this instance, hiding behind annonymity,
it is essentially that you reveal my accuser's
identity, something which is long recognized in
common law. Note the so-called TOS below contains
observations from four different people, one a
Professor of History at the University of Michigan.
Further, to understand the nature of my comments,
you would need to consider the posts that I was
responding to, post which follow the "Bahai
technique" remarked upon by myself and the
other three people below.
I wish to draw to the attention of AOL that Bahais
are apparently using your naivete regarding what
Bahais call "covenant breaking" in this instance.
I am confident a fair and just investigation in regard to the so-called
TOS will help AOL reach a balanced understanding of what is
truly involved in the accusation.
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
-------
Subj: Terms of Service
Date: 98-09-11 02:54:49 EDT
From: TOSBoards2
To: FG
Dear Member,
I need to let you know that America Online was notified of a post to one of
our message boards which violates the Terms of Service. Here is the
information I have placed on the account regarding this incident:
On 9/9/98 6:58 AM Eastern Daylight EST the FG screen name posted a
message in Baha'i Message Boards, For Non Baha'is >> Subject: Re:
Literal-minded Bahai ignorance. The following is an excerpt from the post:
" The typical response of Bahai fanatics....
FG:
"Some of the most striking methods demonstrated repeatedly by
many Bahais during the last year and a half of discussion about
an unmoderated newsgroup is their refusal to listen and respond to
the criticisms of those who are in favor of talk.religion.bahai,
ignoring their concerns, never responding analytically to their
messages and reasoning and logic and evidence, attacking them
through character assassination and ad hominem, ganging up
on individuals, and "circling the wagons" around every action
of the srb moderators or others who are opposed to
talk.religion.bahai.
"More than twenty different people on my web site have posted messages
explaining their experience with srb censorship yet many srb Bahais
NEVER address their concerns. Ignoring such charges will not make
them go away. NO ONE has to "try" to link the trb interest poll with
censorship on srb; the moderators themselves have done that by
suppressing droves of people for years. There are many people who
believe such suppression is part and parcel of the Bahai
community as it exists today. A YES vote need not necessarily
support such a belief. There are other reasons Bahais might vote
YES."
Ron House:
"I know what you mean. I've found over the years that
there is a technique used by traditional Baha'is and
others to squash dissension: harry the dissenter so
much he says something intemperate, then point out
how 'loving' and 'compassionate' they are and how
nasty the dissenter is. The trouble is that this
technique works, so I've been making a conscious
effort not to fall for it. Also, when they get the
dissenter discouraged and miserable enough, he
invariably makes a slip-up sooner or later that they
can REALLY let loose the venom over. IMHO, they did
this to you when you misread Sharon's intentions.
At any other time, they would overlook faults, as
Baha'u'llah says, but when they're in this mode
they go for the jugular. Very sad."
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/House2.htm
Fran Baker:
"Just have to say that in my experience this is a common
technique of manipulative people in general; it is especially
effective with thoughtful people who are willing to see both
sides of things, i.e., their own fault. I consider this brow-beating
technique to be a form of abuse. The only way to deal with it is
to call them on it every time and to refuse to let yourself be beat
up, i.e., not to do your part of the "tango." This can be very hard
to do, but it works.You can break this pattern in a personal
relationship. I don't know whether it's possible when a group
acts this way. Very scary."
Dr. Juan Cole:
"Let me ask you why in the world you think that I would risk my professional
reputation by publicly stating falsehoods? ...The very technique of the
more glaze-eyed among these people is to unbearably bully a Baha'i whom
they don't like, use unjustified threats of declaring him or her a CB to
silence the individual, and if the person will not be silenced, then to
depend upon the gullibility of the Baha'is in refusing to listen to any
victim's story because, of course, the Baha'i institutions are infallible
and divinely guided and could never do anything wrong. It is a perfect
racket.
"Of course, this technique of making liberals go away has been enormously
successful, and ex-Baha'i liberals have no credibility with the remaining
Baha'is nor do most of them have any energy to continue to make a case,
either to the Baha'is or the outside world, for the incredible abuses that
go on inside this organization ostensibly committed to tolerance!"
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/Cole10.htm
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
baha'i
baha'i"
Our Terms of Service agreement, which was presented during the sign up
process, allows America Online to be informative, entertaining and, above
all, fun for all of our Members. You can review that agreement by using
keyword TOS. This area also has information and tools you can use to help
protect your account. Also, you may want to take a look at our PARENTAL
CONTROLS. This will allow you, among other things, to limit and/or block
specific screen names from various online activities.
Thanks for taking the time to read this letter. Please note, this screen
name cannot accept replies. Therefore, if you have any comments or questions
please send mail to TOSGeneral.
Regards,
Bill
Community Action Team
America Online, Inc.
* Have you heard about AOL's latest and easiest to use software version,
4.0? You can upgrade for free at keyword: Upgrade. With AOL 4.0, you can
have fun by sending multiple files, changing screen names without signing
off, customizing your toolbar, and much, much more. Upgrade today!
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 1998 4:58 AM
Subject: Re: On soc.religion.bahai - brief quotations
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/technique.htm
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 1998 5:54 AM
To: TOSGeneral@aol.com
Subject: Fw: The Bahai technique
<<Message: Re: The Bahai technique>>
The attached message shows the kind of attacks
Bahais are mounting against people on AOL
and in response to which I posted "The Bahai
Technique" you're apparently citing me for.
FG@aol.com
-----Original Message-----
From: FG@aol.com <FG@aol.com>
To: FG@hotmail.com <FG@hotmail.com>
Date: Monday, September 07, 1998 10:36 AM
Subject: Fwd: The Bahai technique
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 1998 6:10 AM
To: Kate Bodi
Subject: Re: Fw: ARB more harm than good?
>Fred,
>
>Thank you. Yes, I will try. I just found your post on TOS...to which I
added some simple truth.
>
> BTW, I stumbled across a name in connection with yours on a posting
relating to this topic, Bennatchi (sp?).
Kate,
I recognize the name too. I've tried to search www.dejanews.com for it
but can't find a message from her under alt.religion.bahai.
I do not remember the Baha'is involved exactly...maybe sort of; however, she
was present during the above incident, although the only one truly helpful
to me. I was hoping to contact her again, but lost her email...so until I
relocate the post.
Someone called Wendy? She's emailed a couple
of posts accusing me of being a cb and so on.
I posted her message to arb.
>
>I would just like you to know that I am sympathetic and understand (I
think) your efforts at free speech in this arena. They just don't
understand me yet...but they are very leery and may not like what I must do
for myself. Do not misunderstand me, I do not wish to detract from anyone's
faith...merely to eradicate hipocrisy...which is a cancer of the truth.
>
>kate
I'm not hiding anything complicated. All I want is free speech,
to speak my mind and so that others can too. I too am not
trying to destroy others' belief in the Bahai Faith. It's the
censorship and hypocrisy too that deeply shakes mine to
the foundations....
I'm going to forward from arb your message about the
chatroom on AOL to the TOSGeneral@aol.com
Hope you don't mind. They should know both sides.
If you can email them yourself too, I'd appreciate it.
Don't let the fundamentalists drive you away or
make you embittered. Truth and openness will win
in the end.
Thanks, Kate.
Fred
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 1998 6:12 AM
To: TOSGeneral@aol.com
Subject: Fw: ARB more harm than good?
I'm forwarding this message to you since you have
recently cited me for a TOS on the basis of a Bahai's
apparent denunciation of me to you. I believe you
should be aware of the complexity of the situation
and on your guard for false accusations from Bahais.
Please contact Kate so that she can corroborate
her message below.
FG@hotmail.com
-----Original Message-----
From: kate_mccolloch_bodi@my-dejanews.com
<kate_mccolloch_bodi@my-dejanews.com>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai
Date: Friday, September 11, 1998 2:18 AM
Subject: ARB more harm than good?
>I heard through this list that America On-line had a chat room for Baha'is
so
>I decided on evening to peer inside and have a look-see. I was not granted
>the opportunity to lurk for a few moments to get the feel for the
atmosphere,
>perhaps my screen name made them nervous...I asked those in the room very
>politely a few simple honest questions. Although they seemed very nervous
>they finally obliged...although several left when they asked me questions.
I
>was told there room was a place to for those interest in the faith to ask
>that this was their purpose. I told them also that I went there because I
>saw it mentioned here. Strange that they should warn me not to hang out
here
>though because in their opinion...ARB does more harm than good.with
>laughter and free speechkate
>
>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>https://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 1998 6:16 AM
To: TOSGeneral@aol.com
Subject: Fw: AOL Bahai threats
I'm forwarding these messages which we're posted on
the Bahai Message Boards threatening me with the
Bahai religious persecution by turning me into the
Bahai officials for alleged transgressions. Again,
this is the way Bahais are operating on AOL. You're
communications to me seem quite naive in this
regard. Please visit my web site and apprise yourself
and AOL of the very long history of Bahai opposition
to freedom of speech and conscience:
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
>Subject: Re: Literal-minded Bahai ignorance
>Date: Tue, Sep 8, 1998 14:17 EDT
>From: Ecominer
>Message-id: <1998090818173900.OAA01117@ladder03.news.aol.com>
>
>Thank-you...do you know, or can you discover who this guy's Auxillary Board
for
>Protection is? I think it is time to talk to that person about this
situation
>and put this very angry, hurt soul into the proper hands????
>
>
>
>Subject: Re: Literal-minded Bahai ignorance
>Date: Tue, Sep 8, 1998 16:05 EDT
>From: Bennachti
>Message-id: <1998090820050400.QAA11750@ladder03.news.aol.com>
>
>Debbie, if you feel that is the right course of action, you can just
forward
>the postings to your own Auxiliary Board Member and that person should be
able
>to take it from there.
>
>Love
>Zaynab
>
>
>No man shall attain the shores of the ocean of true understanding except he
be
>detached from all that is in heaven and on earth.
> - Bahá'u'lláh -
>
>My Bahá'í Faith website: Camphor Fountain
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 1998 6:36 AM
Subject: Re: Bahai accusation of TOS on AOL
RMckin6046 wrote in message
<1998091121465800.RAA00697@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>Dear Friends:
>
>I posted a rather long reply to this topic earlier. And, this despite an
>intention not to reply to Glaysher's constant harangues. I know that
response
>to him goes no where.
For insight into what's really being said here read:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/technique.htm
>
>Nevertheless... If you could not make it through the whole post, the nub of
the
>issue is this: It is a violation of AOLs TOS (Terms of Service) for one to
>post the same message to multiple folders on one of AOLs interest Forums.
On
>more than one occasion, Glaysher posted the same message to almost every
folder
>on AOLs Baha'i Faith Forum. It was pointed out to him that this was a
>violation, but he continues to do it. I assume that any reported TOS
violation
>centers on this issue.
It was not to every folder. There is no statement in the AOL TOS
documents that posting a message to more than one board is
a TOS. Regardless, that was a number of weeks ago in mid
August. Notice the assumption here. AOL has not yet stated
why or who alleged a TOS against me. Perhaps it was one of
the Bahais below who posted these messages to the same
message boards on AOL. Such tactics indeed follow to the
"T" if you will the Bahai technique of discrediting others:
Subject: Re: Literal-minded Bahai ignorance
Date: Tue, Sep 8, 1998 14:17 EDT
From: Ecominer
Message-id: <1998090818173900.OAA01117@ladder03.news.aol.com>
Thank-you...do you know, or can you discover who this guy's Auxillary Board
for
Protection is? I think it is time to talk to that person about this
situation
and put this very angry, hurt soul into the proper hands????
Subject: Re: Literal-minded Bahai ignorance
Date: Tue, Sep 8, 1998 16:05 EDT
From: Bennachti
Message-id: <1998090820050400.QAA11750@ladder03.news.aol.com>
Debbie, if you feel that is the right course of action, you can just forward
the postings to your own Auxiliary Board Member and that person should be
able
to take it from there.
Love
Zaynab
No man shall attain the shores of the ocean of true understanding except he
be
detached from all that is in heaven and on earth.
- Bahá'u'lláh -
My Bahá'í Faith website: Camphor Fountain
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 1998 6:49 AM
Subject: Re: Censorship at alt.religion.bahai
K. Paul Johnson wrote in message <35f8651f.0@vlinsvr>...
>Richard Schaut (RSSchaut@email.msn.com) wrote:
>:
>: Clearly, you saw no other reasonable explanation. At no point did you
_ask_
>: as to whether or not there might be other explanations. You reached a
>: conclusion, however tentative, in a matter about which you profess
>: ignorance.
>
>You are jumping to conclusions about my own thought processes
>without asking the one who knows, which seems contrary to the
>principles you are espousing here. Actually I did see
>another reasonable explanation-- self-cancellation-- but thought
>that conceivable on Mulligan's part but not Marangella's. The
>coincidence of the two was striking.
The coincidence of the two happening at the same
time took me in also, I must admit.... Given the type
of duplicity so often demonstrated, most clearly in
srb's suppression of all discussion of trb and my
signature file, I believe my and Paul's concern was
warrented. As they say, vigilance is the eternal price
of freedom....
>:
>: It's not your suspicion that amazes me. What amazes me is the fact that
>: people reach conclusions on matters about which they profess ignorance.
>
>Not knowing how cancellations can be forged has little to do with
>knowing that it's possible. I don't know *how* precisely what
>I'm typing gets to your screen, but I still conclude, on reliable
>evidence, that it does.
>
>: As for the "dark possibilities of Baha'i fundamentalism," even the
>: existence of this alleged "Baha'i fundamentalism" is far more a matter of
>: rhetoric than it is a matter of fact.
>
>Not at all. We can come up with objective definitions of
>fundamentalism as a historical phenomenon in 20th century
>Christianity, and then compare non-Christian movements to it to
>see how they display the same characteristics. Juan Cole has
>posted eloquently on this score.
>
>: Oh, because one might want to test a hypothesis before running with it to
>: some public forum.
>
>What would your cancelling your own posts have to do with
>Marangella cancelling his? Or Mulligan? Isn't it obvious
>especially in the former case that there is cause for suspicion?
>
>: about such things before putting one's foot so squarely in one's mouth.
>
>As you know, I now have written to both people and we will see
>what Marangella has to say.
>:
>: Indeed, why in the world would you post such an inflamatory tentative
>: conclusion without having first gathered sufficient information as to at
>: least know what you're talking about?
>
>You keep harping on the *technical* knowledge. I do know, very
>well, how Baha'is feel about Joel Marangella. And how a fair
>number have felt about Tim Mulligan. And that forged
>cancellations occur.
>:
>: No. I _conclude_, based upon the extent to which I would expect these
>: people to complain about it had someone else cancelled their messages,
that
>: they themselves cancelled their own messages.
>
>That rests on the assumption that they knew of the cancellation.
>
>: >: Thus, it takes a substantive leap to go from the appearance of a
couple
>: of
>: >: cancelled messages to the conclusion of censorship. One needs a bit
more
>: >: evidence of such, and that evidence is lacking here.
>
>Eight so far, and from about the most controversial people
>who have ever posted to arb.
>:
>: And, let's not forget that the word "censorship" implies an official
>: sanction in some way.
>
>Certainly not in the sense I was using it.
>
> Even the existence of a few rogue cancellation
>: messages demonstrates little with regard to "censorship" unless one can
>: prove who sent those messages, and can prove that the person was acting
>: under the knowledge and sanction of some official institution. Absence
any
>: evidence of such sanction, all one has is evidence of a prank--a single
>: individual acting inappropriately.
>
>You are awfully disingenuous here. Are you really pretending
>that someone cancelling posts by Marangella (especially) would be
>simply an individual pulling a prank? That *official* and
>*institutional* attitudes toward that gentleman would not have
>any impact on the person who would pull such a "prank?" I do not
>suspect that any Baha'i institution knew of the forged
>cancellations, if they occurred at all. But censorship can be
>official or unofficial. If a person forged cancellation messages
>based on his institutional loyalties, in order to prevent an
>opposing view being heard, that's a self-appointed censor.
>Which is all I ever suspected.
>
>: So, Mr. Johnson, you have a _long_ way to go in order to justify even a
>: tentative conclusion of "censorship".
>
>By your definition, yes. But what word would you use, if what I
>suspected were true? If an individual Baha'i, whose attitudes
>toward Marangella were shaped by institutional policies, decided
>to forge cancellations in order to prevent others from reading
>his posts? A prank, by my definition, is random and playful, not
>ideologically directed and purposeful.
>
>This is all rather beside the point until we hear from
>Marangella. But even if he denies cancelling his posts, you will
>presumably insist that this proves nothing and that whoever did
>cancel them was probably not ideologically motivated anyhow.
>
>What it comes down to, of course, is that you are resolutely
>fixed in your conviction that Baha'i institutions and their
>supporters are entirely innocent of any charges made against
>them. This conviction has been apparent in years of your posts
>that I have read. Whereas I am equally fixed in my conviction
>that these institutions and their supporters are in many cases
>guilty as charged-- not necessarily every case. That leaves
>me the flexibility to admit that perhaps this case is purely
>coincidental and nothing underhanded was going on. But I don't
>see that you have any room at all to admit that a supporter of
>the Baha'i administration might take it upon himself to cancel
>posts by a "Covenant-breaker" in the belief, institutionally
>shaped and nurtured, that such people are spiritually diseased
>and their words should never be read by the faithful.
>
>Can you admit that possibility?
>
>PJ
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 1998 6:52 AM
Subject: Re: Censorship on SRB
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/technique.htm
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 1998 7:07 AM
To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com
Subject: Re: fw Juan Cole Re: [bahai-faith] mutilation theology
Roger,
I believe you misread Cole. His point is there are no
checks or balances in the Bahai Faith. I believe that
observation is true; indeed, it's been obvious to me
for years.... The last two years' experience with srb
and trb has only confirmed that conviction....
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
FG wrote in message
<1998090909522700.FAA11217@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 02:08:01 -0400
>To: talisman@umich.edu
>From: Juan Cole <jrcole@umich.edu> Save Address Block Sender
>Cc: bahai-faith@makelist.com
>In-Reply-To: <v01540b02b2150f5723f2@[139.80.53.29]>
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] mutilation theology
>Reply Reply All Forward Delete Previous Next Close
>
>
>
>Someone asked where Shoghi Effendi spoke of the administrative order being
>mutilated without a Guardian. It is World Order of Baha'u'llah p. 148:
>
>"An attempt, I feel, should at the present juncture be made to explain the
>character and functions of the twin pillars that support this mighty
>Administrative Structure--the institutions of the Guardianship and of the
>Universal House of Justice. To describe in their entirety the diverse
>elements that function in conjunction with these institutions is beyond the
>scope and purpose of this general exposition of the fundamental verities of
>the Faith. To define with accuracy and minuteness the features, and to
>analyze exhaustively the nature of the relationships which, on the one
>hand, bind together these two fundamental organs of the Will of
>`Abdu'l-Bahá and connect, on the other, each of them to the Author of the
>Faith and the Center of His Covenant is a task which future generations
>will no doubt adequately fulfill. My present intention is to elaborate
>certain salient features of this scheme which, however close we may stand
>to its colossal structure, are already so clearly defined that we find it
>inexcusable to either misconceive or ignore. 13 It should be stated, at the
>very outset, in clear and unambiguous language, that these twin
>institutions of the Administrative Order of Bahá'u'lláh should be regarded
>as divine in origin, essential in their functions and complementary in
>their aim and purpose. Their common, their fundamental object is to insure
>the continuity of that divinely-appointed authority which flows from the
>Source of our Faith, to safeguard the unity of its followers and to
>maintain the integrity and flexibility of its teachings. Acting in
>conjunction with each other these two inseparable institutions administer
>its affairs, cöordinate its activities, promote its interests, execute its
>laws and defend its subsidiary institutions. Severally, each operates
>within a clearly defined sphere of jurisdiction; each is equipped with its
>own attendant institutions--instruments designed for the effective
>discharge of its particular responsibilities and duties. Each exercises,
>within the limitations imposed upon it, its powers, its authority, its
>rights and prerogatives. These are neither contradictory, nor detract in
>the slightest degree from the position which each of these institutions
>occupies. Far from being incompatible or mutually destructive, they
>supplement each other's authority and functions, and are permanently and
>fundamentally united in their aims."
>
>The uhj tries to interpret this passage away by pointing out that the
>Guardianship operated just fine without a house of justice, so obviously
>the house of justice can operate without a living Guardian. Moreover, the
>lack of a living guardian does not detract from the fact that the
>guardianship did exist at one point, leaving a great deal of guidance.
>
>The problem is that the Guardian *did* think it essential that a house of
>justice come to be asap, and he constantly put things off or made rulings
>provisional upon their future acceptance. Obviously, this schema cannot
>work the other way around--the uhj cannot put things off or rule only
>provisionally on issues in hopes of a future guardian arising, since there
>can be no further guardians. Moreover, it is also clear from his diction
>that he felt that key checks and balances in the Baha'i system were
>provided by a *living* Guardian.
>
>On pp. 154-155 of World Order of Baha'u'llah, Shoghi Effendi continues,
>
>"The hereditary authority which the Guardian is called upon to exercise,
>the vital and essential functions which the Universal House of Justice
>discharges, the specific provisions requiring its democratic election by
>the representatives of the faithful--these combine to demonstrate the truth
>that this divinely revealed Order, which can never be identified with any
>of the standard types of government referred to by Aristotle in his works,
>embodies and blends with the spiritual verities on which it is based the
>beneficent elements which are to be found in each one of them. The admitted
>evils inherent in each of these systems being rigidly and permanently
>excluded, this unique Order, however long it may endure and however
>extensive its ramifications, cannot ever degenerate into any form of
>despotism , of oligarchy, or of demagogy which must sooner or later corrupt
>the machinery of all man-made and essentially defective political
>institutions."
>
>Shoghi Effendi is referring to Aristotle's division of government into rule
>by the one, rule by the few, and rule by the many. Aristotle thought each
>of these forms of government, in turn, had a virtuous and corrupt form.
>Rule of the one is ideally a virtuous monarchy, but it could deteriorate
>into despotism. Rule of the few is ideally a noble aristocracy, but it
>could deteriorate into oligarchy (we would say a junta). Rule of the many
>is ideally a just Republic or Polity that protects the rights of
>minorities; but it could deteriorate into demagoguery and a tyranny of the
>majority.
>
>Shoghi Effendi was saying that the Baha'i system had all three elements:
>rule of the one was the Guardianship, rule of the few was the Hands (?),
>and rule of the many was the elected officers of the houses of justice
>(including NSAs and LSAs).
>Now, according to Aristotle, the rule of the many, i.e., the rule of the
>houses of justice, was liable to deteriorate into demagoguery and the
>tyranny of the majority (a sort of populist fascism, we might say). Shoghi
>Effendi says explicitly that it is the hereditary principle of the
>Guardianship (i.e. the Baha'i equivalent of monarchy) that keeps this
>deterioration from occurring. Obviously, in the absence of a living
>Guardian and with the end of the institution of the hands of the cause, the
>Baha'i system no longer has a living, breathing representative of the
>monarchical principle nor of the aristocratic. This means that the houses
>of justice have become a Republic. And according to Shoghi Effendi's
>analysis, this Republic is open to going bad and becoming demagogic.
>Notice that he does *not* say that what prevents the uhj from becoming
>tyrannical is its own infallibility, or divine guidance, or anything so
>airy fairy. He is concrete and explicit. It is the simultaneous presence
>of the monarchical, aristocratic and republican forms of governance that
>act as institutional brakes on one another. That institutional brake is no
>longer effectively present.
>
>And this is the only way I can understand how things have gone so wrong in
>the Baha'i faith. Things are so corrupt that people like Firuz Kazemzadeh
>go about publicly and explicitly identifying the elected officials of the
>faith with an "aristocracy!" This does so much damage to both Aristotle
>and Shoghi Effendi (not to mention common sense) that one cringes. I
>suppose it must be nice for Firuz, though. And one of the reasons I left
>was that in spring of 1996 the uhj mangled the interpretation of this
>passage by insisting that *it* is the 'rule of the one'! Well, of course,
>they aren't authorized to interpret things, though, are they?
>
>What would replace the role of the Guardian in keeping the elected
>officials from becoming demagogues? Well, maybe nothing can. But maybe
>public opinion could. Just the censure of ordinary Baha'is. And the
>wonderful thing for the Baha'i faith at this juncture, and the thing that
>gives even me hope for those still clinging to the crimson ark, is that
>cyberspace is creating a Baha'i public opinion, and the uhj and the nsa's
>are beginning to feel pressure from it. They hate it. They had liked
>thinking of themselves as 'aristocrats' (or actually oligarchs given how
>they often have behaved). But they had better shed the velvet robes and
>dump the silver wine goblets, with the $200 million palaces, and get back
>to being plain democratic representatives of the Baha'i Republic or
>eventually they will lose all their power and perquisites, altogether.
>
>
>cheers Juan
>
>
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 1998 7:15 AM
Subject: Re: There's protection, and then there's Protection
Richard Schaut wrote in message <#ynwxEQ39GA.278@upnetnews05>...
>
>Fran Baker wrote in message <6t98s4$6ia$1@chaos.crhc.uiuc.edu>...
>>>Subject: Re: Literal-minded Bahai ignorance
>>>Thank-you...do you know, or can you discover who this guy's Auxillary
>Board for
>>>Protection is?
>
>>I will never forget my surprise, quickly followed by the usual
>>bemusement when I learned that "protection" in this context
>>meant protection of the religion.
>
>Gosh, Fran, while you're in the mood to provide information, why omit the
>fact that members of the Auxiliary Board have no authority? They give
>counsel. They provide assistance. They cannot tell people what to do.
They harass scholars and other people, driving them out
of the Bahai Faith, as Juan Cole so rightly points out in
another current thread, but, ohhhh, they have no power!
YES, we have no bannanas,
Oh, we have no bannanas today....
>
>
>
>>Hmmm, why all that money and work keeping up a showplace in Haifa?
>
>
>"Showplace" what "showplace"?
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/technique.htm
See Cole:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/Cole17.htm
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 1998 7:19 AM
Subject: Re: Wanted: Cyber Psych
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/technique.htm
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 1998 7:23 AM
Subject: Re: On AOL- Re: ARB more harm than good?
Roger Reini wrote in message <35fd32d9.70796364@news.newsguy.com>...
>On Fri, 11 Sep 1998 07:37:24 -0400, "FG"
><FG@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>This is exactly what's happening on America Online from
>>my observing for more than a month now. The largest ISP
>>is being used and manipulated by Bahais in the very same
>>way as they have approached the interest polls for
>>talk.religion.bahai and as described in "The Bahai technique."
>
>IMHO, you cannot legitimately make this assertion, for the opinions
>expressed by participants in AOL discussion areas are those of the
>participants. The discussions did not involve the operation of
>America Online (the corporation and the service). Ergo, there is no
>"manipulation" of AOL.
Roger,
You misread me above. I'm not saying AOL itself is
responsible but Bahais who are abusing it and
using it for suppressing what they don't want others
to hear. Kate's message along these lines are a
good example of the way in which Bahais in
chatrooms are driving people out or away. It's the
technique Bahais are taught as soon as they sign
their "cards." It certainly explains why the supposed
130,000 Bahais in America are really no more
than 25,000: 105,000 have voted with their feet....
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 1998 7:27 AM
Subject: Re: ARB more harm than good?
Incidentally, I've forwarded Kate's message to
TOSGeneral@aol.com and advise others who have experienced
such "Bahai love" to contact them too.
FG wrote in message <6tbtg6$hdk@news3.newsguy.com>...
>kate_mccolloch_bodi@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
><6tafaq$g6b$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>>I heard through this list that America On-line had a chat room for Baha'is
>so
>>I decided on evening to peer inside and have a look-see. I was not
granted
>>the opportunity to lurk for a few moments to get the feel for the
>atmosphere,
>>perhaps my screen name made them nervous...I asked those in the room very
>>politely a few simple honest questions. Although they seemed very nervous
>>they finally obliged...although several left when they asked me questions.
>I
>>was told there room was a place to for those interest in the faith to ask
>>that this was their purpose. I told them also that I went there because I
>>saw it mentioned here. Strange that they should warn me not to hang out
>here
>>though because in their opinion...ARB does more harm than good.with
>>laughter and free speechkate
>>
>
>Given Bahais on AOL are now alleging a TOS against me, I urge you
>to reciprocate and contact the TOSGeneral@aol.com immediately.
>If you can remember the Bahais involved and their addresses, you
>should pass that along to him or her too. One or all of them might
>very well be the same Bahais who are trying to blackball me on
>AOL!
>
>FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
>https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
>talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
>Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 1998 10:07 AM
To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com
Subject: AOL removes TOS - Bahai accusation
After an apparent investigation of the threatening messages
I receive from Bahais on AOL's Message Boards, the
TOSGeneral has removed the charge of a TOS against me.
I believe this is another clear and blatant example of the
vindicating the validity of my and others' observations of
how many Bahais operate, summed up, really, in the
"Bahai technique."
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/technique.htm
-----
Subj: Fwd: TOS violation for what?
Date: 98-09-12 06:52:07 EDT
From: TOSGen2
To: FG
Dear Member,
Thank you for writing regarding the Terms of Service notation on your
account.
We have reviewed your account history, and in light of the circumstances
that you described, removed the notation.
You may want to visit keyword NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH and review the guidelines
available there with all users of this account.
Please note, this screen name cannot accept replies. Therefore, if you have
any comments or questions please send mail to TOSGeneral.
Regards,
Larry
Community Action Team
America Online, Inc.
* Have you heard about AOL's latest and easiest to use software version,
4.0? You can upgrade for free at keyword: Upgrade. With AOL 4.0, you can
have fun by sending multiple files, changing screen names without signing
off, customizing your toolbar, and much, much more. Upgrade today!
-----------------
Forwarded Message:
Subj: Fwd: TOS violation for what?
Date: 98-09-12 06:42:14 EDT
From: TOSGeneral
To: TOSGen2
[This Message (REGULAR) Has Been Forwarded By The Mail Spinner]
-----------------
Forwarded Message:
Subj: TOS violation for what?
Date: 98-09-12 06:42:00 EDT
From: FG
To: TOSGeneral
CC: FG@hotmail.com
I would appreciate it if you would state for what
reason I've received a TOS. I've read the TOS
info and do not believe I've committed anything
listed there.
As I stated in my first response, copied below,
Baha'is have opposed freedom of speech and
conscience systematically now for more than
a year and a half and there is a long record
available to prove it if you'd look at my web
site. Baha'is on the Message Board for
Non-Bahais accused me of being what they
term a "covenant breaker" or suggested as
much. That's an attack according to your
TOS and I shall be forward a number of
complaints to you shortly so that you perceive
both sides of the issue.
FG@aol.com
Subj: Fwd: Accusation of TOS at AOL
Date: 98-09-11 15:09:33 EDT
From: TOSGen2
To: FG
Dear Member,
We have reviewed your account, and our records do not support a removal of
the warning at this time. The notation will drop off of your account six
months after the date it was issued.
As stated in the Terms of Service, the master account holder is responsible
for all activity that takes place on an account.
We encourage you to review the Terms of Service and the Community Guidelines
(both available at keyword TOS or keyword NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH) with anyone
who has access to your America Online account. You may also want to explore
keyword PARENTAL CONTROLS for ways to limit a screen name's access to AOL
and/or the Internet.
Please note, this screen name cannot accept replies. Therefore, if you have
any comments or questions please send mail to TOSGeneral, or you may call
Member Services at 1-800-827-6364.
Regards,
Jim
Community Action Team
America Online, Inc.
* Have you heard about AOL's latest and easiest to use software version,
4.0? You can upgrade for free at keyword: Upgrade. With AOL 4.0, you can
have fun by sending multiple files, changing screen names without signing
off, customizing your toolbar, and much, much more. Upgrade today!
-----------------
Forwarded Message:
Subj: Fwd: Accusation of TOS at AOL
Date: 98-09-11 15:03:44 EDT
From: TOSGeneral
To: TOSGen2
[This Message (REGULAR) Has Been Forwarded By The Mail Spinner]
-----------------
Forwarded Message:
Subj: Accusation of TOS at AOL
Date: 98-09-11 15:03:38 EDT
From: FG
To: TOSGeneral
CC: FG@hotmail.com
Please explain to me how my post is a TOS.
It appears to me that you fail to understand the
context in which my message was posted. There
has been a pervasive Bahai effort for more than a
year and a half to censor and control all knowledge
and information on the Bahai Faith. Extensive
documentation to this effect, with statements and
samples of suppressed messages from well over
30 people, can be found on my web site:
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm
Extensive discussion relevant to Bahai censorship
can also be found on alt.religion.bahai
If AOL is not merely to be a pawn used by Bahais,
unknown in this instance, hiding behind annonymity,
it is essentially that you reveal my accuser's
identity, something which is long recognized in
common law. Note the so-called TOS below contains
observations from four different people, one a
Professor of History at the University of Michigan.
Further, to understand the nature of my comments,
you would need to consider the posts that I was
responding to, post which follow the "Bahai
technique" remarked upon by myself and the
other three people below.
I wish to draw to the attention of AOL that Bahais
are apparently using your naivete regarding what
Bahais call "covenant breaking" in this instance.
I am confident a fair and just investigation in regard to the so-called
TOS will help AOL reach a balanced understanding of what is
truly involved in the accusation.
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
-------
Subj: Terms of Service
Date: 98-09-11 02:54:49 EDT
From: TOSBoards2
To: FG
Dear Member,
I need to let you know that America Online was notified of a post to one of
our message boards which violates the Terms of Service. Here is the
information I have placed on the account regarding this incident:
On 9/9/98 6:58 AM Eastern Daylight EST the FG screen name posted a
message in Baha'i Message Boards, For Non Baha'is >> Subject: Re:
Literal-minded Bahai ignorance. The following is an excerpt from the post:
" The typical response of Bahai fanatics....
FG:
"Some of the most striking methods demonstrated repeatedly by
many Bahais during the last year and a half of discussion about
an unmoderated newsgroup is their refusal to listen and respond to
the criticisms of those who are in favor of talk.religion.bahai,
ignoring their concerns, never responding analytically to their
messages and reasoning and logic and evidence, attacking them
through character assassination and ad hominem, ganging up
on individuals, and "circling the wagons" around every action
of the srb moderators or others who are opposed to
talk.religion.bahai.
"More than twenty different people on my web site have posted messages
explaining their experience with srb censorship yet many srb Bahais
NEVER address their concerns. Ignoring such charges will not make
them go away. NO ONE has to "try" to link the trb interest poll with
censorship on srb; the moderators themselves have done that by
suppressing droves of people for years. There are many people who
believe such suppression is part and parcel of the Bahai
community as it exists today. A YES vote need not necessarily
support such a belief. There are other reasons Bahais might vote
YES."
Ron House:
"I know what you mean. I've found over the years that
there is a technique used by traditional Baha'is and
others to squash dissension: harry the dissenter so
much he says something intemperate, then point out
how 'loving' and 'compassionate' they are and how
nasty the dissenter is. The trouble is that this
technique works, so I've been making a conscious
effort not to fall for it. Also, when they get the
dissenter discouraged and miserable enough, he
invariably makes a slip-up sooner or later that they
can REALLY let loose the venom over. IMHO, they did
this to you when you misread Sharon's intentions.
At any other time, they would overlook faults, as
Baha'u'llah says, but when they're in this mode
they go for the jugular. Very sad."
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/House2.htm
Fran Baker:
"Just have to say that in my experience this is a common
technique of manipulative people in general; it is especially
effective with thoughtful people who are willing to see both
sides of things, i.e., their own fault. I consider this brow-beating
technique to be a form of abuse. The only way to deal with it is
to call them on it every time and to refuse to let yourself be beat
up, i.e., not to do your part of the "tango." This can be very hard
to do, but it works.You can break this pattern in a personal
relationship. I don't know whether it's possible when a group
acts this way. Very scary."
Dr. Juan Cole:
"Let me ask you why in the world you think that I would risk my professional
reputation by publicly stating falsehoods? ...The very technique of the
more glaze-eyed among these people is to unbearably bully a Baha'i whom
they don't like, use unjustified threats of declaring him or her a CB to
silence the individual, and if the person will not be silenced, then to
depend upon the gullibility of the Baha'is in refusing to listen to any
victim's story because, of course, the Baha'i institutions are infallible
and divinely guided and could never do anything wrong. It is a perfect
racket.
"Of course, this technique of making liberals go away has been enormously
successful, and ex-Baha'i liberals have no credibility with the remaining
Baha'is nor do most of them have any energy to continue to make a case,
either to the Baha'is or the outside world, for the incredible abuses that
go on inside this organization ostensibly committed to tolerance!"
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/Cole10.htm
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
baha'i
baha'i"
Our Terms of Service agreement, which was presented during the sign up
process, allows America Online to be informative, entertaining and, above
all, fun for all of our Members. You can review that agreement by using
keyword TOS. This area also has information and tools you can use to help
protect your account. Also, you may want to take a look at our PARENTAL
CONTROLS. This will allow you, among other things, to limit and/or block
specific screen names from various online activities.
Thanks for taking the time to read this letter. Please note, this screen
name cannot accept replies. Therefore, if you have any comments or questions
please send mail to TOSGeneral.
Regards,
Bill
Community Action Team
America Online, Inc.
* Have you heard about AOL's latest and easiest to use software version,
4.0? You can upgrade for free at keyword: Upgrade. With AOL 4.0, you can
have fun by sending multiple files, changing screen names without signing
off, customizing your toolbar, and much, much more. Upgrade today!
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 1998 10:14 AM
Subject: Re: Bahai accusation of TOS on AOL
I'll add all of the relevant messages on this attempt by
some Bahais to have me thrown off AOL to my web site
so that those people interested in understanding what's
really just taken place in this regard can decide for
themselves.
I, for one, believe this incident corroborates once again
the duplicity and opposition of many Bahais to freedom of speech
and conscience....
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
-----
Subj: Fwd: TOS violation for what?
Date: 98-09-12 06:52:07 EDT
From: TOSGen2
To: FG
Dear Member,
Thank you for writing regarding the Terms of Service notation on your
account.
We have reviewed your account history, and in light of the circumstances
that you described, removed the notation.
You may want to visit keyword NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH and review the guidelines
available there with all users of this account.
Please note, this screen name cannot accept replies. Therefore, if you have
any comments or questions please send mail to TOSGeneral.
Regards,
Larry
Community Action Team
America Online, Inc.
* Have you heard about AOL's latest and easiest to use software version,
4.0? You can upgrade for free at keyword: Upgrade. With AOL 4.0, you can
have fun by sending multiple files, changing screen names without signing
off, customizing your toolbar, and much, much more. Upgrade today!
-----------------
Forwarded Message:
Subj: Fwd: TOS violation for what?
Date: 98-09-12 06:42:14 EDT
From: TOSGeneral
To: TOSGen2
[This Message (REGULAR) Has Been Forwarded By The Mail Spinner]
-----------------
Forwarded Message:
Subj: TOS violation for what?
Date: 98-09-12 06:42:00 EDT
From: FG
To: TOSGeneral
CC: FG@hotmail.com
I would appreciate it if you would state for what
reason I've received a TOS. I've read the TOS
info and do not believe I've committed anything
listed there.
As I stated in my first response, copied below,
Baha'is have opposed freedom of speech and
conscience systematically now for more than
a year and a half and there is a long record
available to prove it if you'd look at my web
site. Baha'is on the Message Board for
Non-Bahais accused me of being what they
term a "covenant breaker" or suggested as
much. That's an attack according to your
TOS and I shall be forward a number of
complaints to you shortly so that you perceive
both sides of the issue.
FG@aol.com
------
FG wrote in message <6tdmcb$d56@news3.newsguy.com>...
>RMckin6046 wrote in message
><1998091121465800.RAA00697@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>>Dear Friends:
>>
>>I posted a rather long reply to this topic earlier. And, this despite an
>>intention not to reply to Glaysher's constant harangues. I know that
>response
>>to him goes no where.
>
>For insight into what's really being said here read:
>https://members.tripod.com/~FG/technique.htm
>
>>
>>Nevertheless... If you could not make it through the whole post, the nub
of
>the
>>issue is this: It is a violation of AOLs TOS (Terms of Service) for one
to
>>post the same message to multiple folders on one of AOLs interest Forums.
>On
>>more than one occasion, Glaysher posted the same message to almost every
>folder
>>on AOLs Baha'i Faith Forum. It was pointed out to him that this was a
>>violation, but he continues to do it. I assume that any reported TOS
>violation
>>centers on this issue.
>
>It was not to every folder. There is no statement in the AOL TOS
>documents that posting a message to more than one board is
>a TOS. Regardless, that was a number of weeks ago in mid
>August. Notice the assumption here. AOL has not yet stated
>why or who alleged a TOS against me. Perhaps it was one of
>the Bahais below who posted these messages to the same
>message boards on AOL. Such tactics indeed follow to the
>"T" if you will the Bahai technique of discrediting others:
>
>Subject: Re: Literal-minded Bahai ignorance
>Date: Tue, Sep 8, 1998 14:17 EDT
>From: Ecominer
>Message-id: <1998090818173900.OAA01117@ladder03.news.aol.com>
>
>Thank-you...do you know, or can you discover who this guy's Auxillary Board
>for
>Protection is? I think it is time to talk to that person about this
>situation
>and put this very angry, hurt soul into the proper hands????
>
>
>
>Subject: Re: Literal-minded Bahai ignorance
>Date: Tue, Sep 8, 1998 16:05 EDT
>From: Bennachti
>Message-id: <1998090820050400.QAA11750@ladder03.news.aol.com>
>
>Debbie, if you feel that is the right course of action, you can just
forward
>the postings to your own Auxiliary Board Member and that person should be
>able
>to take it from there.
>
>Love
>Zaynab
>
>
>No man shall attain the shores of the ocean of true understanding except he
>be
>detached from all that is in heaven and on earth.
> - Bahá'u'lláh -
>
>My Bahá'í Faith website: Camphor Fountain
>
>
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 1998 10:20 AM
To: talisman; bahai-faith @ makelist.com
Subject: Re: fw Juan Cole Re: [bahai-faith] mutilation theology
Plato's comments in the Republic seem apt here as well:
"For cobblers who deteriorate and are spoiled and pretend
to be the workmen that they are not are no great danger to a
state. But guardians of laws and of the city who are not what
they pretend to be, but only seem, destroy utterly, I would
have you note, the entire state.... but these helpers and
guardians are to be constrained and persuaded to do
what will make them the best craftsmen in their own work,
and similarly all the rest." Book IV
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
FG wrote in message
<1998090909522700.FAA11217@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 02:08:01 -0400
>To: talisman@umich.edu
>From: Juan Cole <jrcole@umich.edu> Save Address Block Sender
>Cc: bahai-faith@makelist.com
>In-Reply-To: <v01540b02b2150f5723f2@[139.80.53.29]>
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] mutilation theology
>Reply Reply All Forward Delete Previous Next Close
>
>
>
>Someone asked where Shoghi Effendi spoke of the administrative order being
>mutilated without a Guardian. It is World Order of Baha'u'llah p. 148:
>
>"An attempt, I feel, should at the present juncture be made to explain the
>character and functions of the twin pillars that support this mighty
>Administrative Structure--the institutions of the Guardianship and of the
>Universal House of Justice. To describe in their entirety the diverse
>elements that function in conjunction with these institutions is beyond the
>scope and purpose of this general exposition of the fundamental verities of
>the Faith. To define with accuracy and minuteness the features, and to
>analyze exhaustively the nature of the relationships which, on the one
>hand, bind together these two fundamental organs of the Will of
>`Abdu'l-Bahá and connect, on the other, each of them to the Author of the
>Faith and the Center of His Covenant is a task which future generations
>will no doubt adequately fulfill. My present intention is to elaborate
>certain salient features of this scheme which, however close we may stand
>to its colossal structure, are already so clearly defined that we find it
>inexcusable to either misconceive or ignore. 13 It should be stated, at the
>very outset, in clear and unambiguous language, that these twin
>institutions of the Administrative Order of Bahá'u'lláh should be regarded
>as divine in origin, essential in their functions and complementary in
>their aim and purpose. Their common, their fundamental object is to insure
>the continuity of that divinely-appointed authority which flows from the
>Source of our Faith, to safeguard the unity of its followers and to
>maintain the integrity and flexibility of its teachings. Acting in
>conjunction with each other these two inseparable institutions administer
>its affairs, cöordinate its activities, promote its interests, execute its
>laws and defend its subsidiary institutions. Severally, each operates
>within a clearly defined sphere of jurisdiction; each is equipped with its
>own attendant institutions--instruments designed for the effective
>discharge of its particular responsibilities and duties. Each exercises,
>within the limitations imposed upon it, its powers, its authority, its
>rights and prerogatives. These are neither contradictory, nor detract in
>the slightest degree from the position which each of these institutions
>occupies. Far from being incompatible or mutually destructive, they
>supplement each other's authority and functions, and are permanently and
>fundamentally united in their aims."
>
>The uhj tries to interpret this passage away by pointing out that the
>Guardianship operated just fine without a house of justice, so obviously
>the house of justice can operate without a living Guardian. Moreover, the
>lack of a living guardian does not detract from the fact that the
>guardianship did exist at one point, leaving a great deal of guidance.
>
>The problem is that the Guardian *did* think it essential that a house of
>justice come to be asap, and he constantly put things off or made rulings
>provisional upon their future acceptance. Obviously, this schema cannot
>work the other way around--the uhj cannot put things off or rule only
>provisionally on issues in hopes of a future guardian arising, since there
>can be no further guardians. Moreover, it is also clear from his diction
>that he felt that key checks and balances in the Baha'i system were
>provided by a *living* Guardian.
>
>On pp. 154-155 of World Order of Baha'u'llah, Shoghi Effendi continues,
>
>"The hereditary authority which the Guardian is called upon to exercise,
>the vital and essential functions which the Universal House of Justice
>discharges, the specific provisions requiring its democratic election by
>the representatives of the faithful--these combine to demonstrate the truth
>that this divinely revealed Order, which can never be identified with any
>of the standard types of government referred to by Aristotle in his works,
>embodies and blends with the spiritual verities on which it is based the
>beneficent elements which are to be found in each one of them. The admitted
>evils inherent in each of these systems being rigidly and permanently
>excluded, this unique Order, however long it may endure and however
>extensive its ramifications, cannot ever degenerate into any form of
>despotism , of oligarchy, or of demagogy which must sooner or later corrupt
>the machinery of all man-made and essentially defective political
>institutions."
>
>Shoghi Effendi is referring to Aristotle's division of government into rule
>by the one, rule by the few, and rule by the many. Aristotle thought each
>of these forms of government, in turn, had a virtuous and corrupt form.
>Rule of the one is ideally a virtuous monarchy, but it could deteriorate
>into despotism. Rule of the few is ideally a noble aristocracy, but it
>could deteriorate into oligarchy (we would say a junta). Rule of the many
>is ideally a just Republic or Polity that protects the rights of
>minorities; but it could deteriorate into demagoguery and a tyranny of the
>majority.
>
>Shoghi Effendi was saying that the Baha'i system had all three elements:
>rule of the one was the Guardianship, rule of the few was the Hands (?),
>and rule of the many was the elected officers of the houses of justice
>(including NSAs and LSAs).
>Now, according to Aristotle, the rule of the many, i.e., the rule of the
>houses of justice, was liable to deteriorate into demagoguery and the
>tyranny of the majority (a sort of populist fascism, we might say). Shoghi
>Effendi says explicitly that it is the hereditary principle of the
>Guardianship (i.e. the Baha'i equivalent of monarchy) that keeps this
>deterioration from occurring. Obviously, in the absence of a living
>Guardian and with the end of the institution of the hands of the cause, the
>Baha'i system no longer has a living, breathing representative of the
>monarchical principle nor of the aristocratic. This means that the houses
>of justice have become a Republic. And according to Shoghi Effendi's
>analysis, this Republic is open to going bad and becoming demagogic.
>Notice that he does *not* say that what prevents the uhj from becoming
>tyrannical is its own infallibility, or divine guidance, or anything so
>airy fairy. He is concrete and explicit. It is the simultaneous presence
>of the monarchical, aristocratic and republican forms of governance that
>act as institutional brakes on one another. That institutional brake is no
>longer effectively present.
>
>And this is the only way I can understand how things have gone so wrong in
>the Baha'i faith. Things are so corrupt that people like Firuz Kazemzadeh
>go about publicly and explicitly identifying the elected officials of the
>faith with an "aristocracy!" This does so much damage to both Aristotle
>and Shoghi Effendi (not to mention common sense) that one cringes. I
>suppose it must be nice for Firuz, though. And one of the reasons I left
>was that in spring of 1996 the uhj mangled the interpretation of this
>passage by insisting that *it* is the 'rule of the one'! Well, of course,
>they aren't authorized to interpret things, though, are they?
>
>What would replace the role of the Guardian in keeping the elected
>officials from becoming demagogues? Well, maybe nothing can. But maybe
>public opinion could. Just the censure of ordinary Baha'is. And the
>wonderful thing for the Baha'i faith at this juncture, and the thing that
>gives even me hope for those still clinging to the crimson ark, is that
>cyberspace is creating a Baha'i public opinion, and the uhj and the nsa's
>are beginning to feel pressure from it. They hate it. They had liked
>thinking of themselves as 'aristocrats' (or actually oligarchs given how
>they often have behaved). But they had better shed the velvet robes and
>dump the silver wine goblets, with the $200 million palaces, and get back
>to being plain democratic representatives of the Baha'i Republic or
>eventually they will lose all their power and perquisites, altogether.
>
>
>cheers Juan
>
>
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 1998 10:25 AM
To: talisman
Subject: Fw: AOL removes TOS - Bahai accusation
fyi
-----Original Message-----
From: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc
Date: Sunday, September 13, 1998 11:07 AM
Subject: AOL removes TOS - Bahai accusation
>After an apparent investigation of the threatening messages
>I receive from Bahais on AOL's Message Boards, the
>TOSGeneral has removed the charge of a TOS against me.
>
>I believe this is another clear and blatant example of the
>vindicating the validity of my and others' observations of
>how many Bahais operate, summed up, really, in the
>"Bahai technique."
>https://members.tripod.com/~FG/technique.htm
>
>
>
>-----
>Subj: Fwd: TOS violation for what?
>Date: 98-09-12 06:52:07 EDT
>From: TOSGen2
>To: FG
>
>Dear Member,
>
>Thank you for writing regarding the Terms of Service notation on your
>account.
>
>We have reviewed your account history, and in light of the circumstances
>that you described, removed the notation.
>
>You may want to visit keyword NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH and review the guidelines
>available there with all users of this account.
>
>Please note, this screen name cannot accept replies. Therefore, if you have
>any comments or questions please send mail to TOSGeneral.
>
>Regards,
>Larry
>Community Action Team
>America Online, Inc.
>
>* Have you heard about AOL's latest and easiest to use software version,
>4.0? You can upgrade for free at keyword: Upgrade. With AOL 4.0, you can
>have fun by sending multiple files, changing screen names without signing
>off, customizing your toolbar, and much, much more. Upgrade today!
>-----------------
>Forwarded Message:
>Subj: Fwd: TOS violation for what?
>Date: 98-09-12 06:42:14 EDT
>From: TOSGeneral
>To: TOSGen2
>
>[This Message (REGULAR) Has Been Forwarded By The Mail Spinner]
>-----------------
>Forwarded Message:
>Subj: TOS violation for what?
>Date: 98-09-12 06:42:00 EDT
>From: FG
>To: TOSGeneral
>CC: FG@hotmail.com
>
>I would appreciate it if you would state for what
>reason I've received a TOS. I've read the TOS
>info and do not believe I've committed anything
>listed there.
>
>As I stated in my first response, copied below,
>Baha'is have opposed freedom of speech and
>conscience systematically now for more than
>a year and a half and there is a long record
>available to prove it if you'd look at my web
>site. Baha'is on the Message Board for
>Non-Bahais accused me of being what they
>term a "covenant breaker" or suggested as
>much. That's an attack according to your
>TOS and I shall be forward a number of
>complaints to you shortly so that you perceive
>both sides of the issue.
>
>FG@aol.com
>
>
>
>Subj: Fwd: Accusation of TOS at AOL
>Date: 98-09-11 15:09:33 EDT
>From: TOSGen2
>To: FG
>
>Dear Member,
>
>We have reviewed your account, and our records do not support a removal of
>the warning at this time. The notation will drop off of your account six
>months after the date it was issued.
>
>As stated in the Terms of Service, the master account holder is responsible
>for all activity that takes place on an account.
>
>We encourage you to review the Terms of Service and the Community
Guidelines
>(both available at keyword TOS or keyword NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH) with anyone
>who has access to your America Online account. You may also want to explore
>keyword PARENTAL CONTROLS for ways to limit a screen name's access to AOL
>and/or the Internet.
>
>Please note, this screen name cannot accept replies. Therefore, if you have
>any comments or questions please send mail to TOSGeneral, or you may call
>Member Services at 1-800-827-6364.
>
>Regards,
>Jim
>Community Action Team
>America Online, Inc.
>
>* Have you heard about AOL's latest and easiest to use software version,
>4.0? You can upgrade for free at keyword: Upgrade. With AOL 4.0, you can
>have fun by sending multiple files, changing screen names without signing
>off, customizing your toolbar, and much, much more. Upgrade today!
>-----------------
>Forwarded Message:
>Subj: Fwd: Accusation of TOS at AOL
>Date: 98-09-11 15:03:44 EDT
>From: TOSGeneral
>To: TOSGen2
>
>[This Message (REGULAR) Has Been Forwarded By The Mail Spinner]
>-----------------
>Forwarded Message:
>Subj: Accusation of TOS at AOL
>Date: 98-09-11 15:03:38 EDT
>From: FG
>To: TOSGeneral
>CC: FG@hotmail.com
>
>Please explain to me how my post is a TOS.
>
>It appears to me that you fail to understand the
>context in which my message was posted. There
>has been a pervasive Bahai effort for more than a
>year and a half to censor and control all knowledge
>and information on the Bahai Faith. Extensive
>documentation to this effect, with statements and
>samples of suppressed messages from well over
>30 people, can be found on my web site:
>
>The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
>https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm
>
>Extensive discussion relevant to Bahai censorship
>can also be found on alt.religion.bahai
>
>If AOL is not merely to be a pawn used by Bahais,
>unknown in this instance, hiding behind annonymity,
>it is essentially that you reveal my accuser's
>identity, something which is long recognized in
>common law. Note the so-called TOS below contains
>observations from four different people, one a
>Professor of History at the University of Michigan.
>
>Further, to understand the nature of my comments,
>you would need to consider the posts that I was
>responding to, post which follow the "Bahai
>technique" remarked upon by myself and the
>other three people below.
>
>I wish to draw to the attention of AOL that Bahais
>are apparently using your naivete regarding what
>Bahais call "covenant breaking" in this instance.
>
>I am confident a fair and just investigation in regard to the so-called
>TOS will help AOL reach a balanced understanding of what is
>truly involved in the accusation.
>
>FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
>https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai,
>talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
>Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
>
>
>
>-------
>Subj: Terms of Service
>Date: 98-09-11 02:54:49 EDT
>From: TOSBoards2
>To: FG
>
>Dear Member,
>
>I need to let you know that America Online was notified of a post to one of
>our message boards which violates the Terms of Service. Here is the
>information I have placed on the account regarding this incident:
>
>On 9/9/98 6:58 AM Eastern Daylight EST the FG screen name posted a
>message in Baha'i Message Boards, For Non Baha'is >> Subject: Re:
>Literal-minded Bahai ignorance. The following is an excerpt from the post:
>" The typical response of Bahai fanatics....
>FG:
>
>"Some of the most striking methods demonstrated repeatedly by
>
>many Bahais during the last year and a half of discussion about
>
>an unmoderated newsgroup is their refusal to listen and respond to
>
>the criticisms of those who are in favor of talk.religion.bahai,
>
>ignoring their concerns, never responding analytically to their
>
>messages and reasoning and logic and evidence, attacking them
>
>through character assassination and ad hominem, ganging up
>
>on individuals, and "circling the wagons" around every action
>
>of the srb moderators or others who are opposed to
>
>talk.religion.bahai.
>
>"More than twenty different people on my web site have posted messages
>
>explaining their experience with srb censorship yet many srb Bahais
>
>NEVER address their concerns. Ignoring such charges will not make
>
>them go away. NO ONE has to "try" to link the trb interest poll with
>
>censorship on srb; the moderators themselves have done that by
>
>suppressing droves of people for years. There are many people who
>
>believe such suppression is part and parcel of the Bahai
>
>community as it exists today. A YES vote need not necessarily
>
>support such a belief. There are other reasons Bahais might vote
>
>YES."
>
>
>
>Ron House:
>
>"I know what you mean. I've found over the years that
>
>there is a technique used by traditional Baha'is and
>
>others to squash dissension: harry the dissenter so
>
>much he says something intemperate, then point out
>
>how 'loving' and 'compassionate' they are and how
>
>nasty the dissenter is. The trouble is that this
>
>technique works, so I've been making a conscious
>
>effort not to fall for it. Also, when they get the
>
>dissenter discouraged and miserable enough, he
>
>invariably makes a slip-up sooner or later that they
>
>can REALLY let loose the venom over. IMHO, they did
>
>this to you when you misread Sharon's intentions.
>
>At any other time, they would overlook faults, as
>
>Baha'u'llah says, but when they're in this mode
>
>they go for the jugular. Very sad."
>
>https://members.tripod.com/~FG/House2.htm
>
>
>
>Fran Baker:
>
>"Just have to say that in my experience this is a common
>
>technique of manipulative people in general; it is especially
>
>effective with thoughtful people who are willing to see both
>
>sides of things, i.e., their own fault. I consider this brow-beating
>
>technique to be a form of abuse. The only way to deal with it is
>
>to call them on it every time and to refuse to let yourself be beat
>
>up, i.e., not to do your part of the "tango." This can be very hard
>
>to do, but it works.You can break this pattern in a personal
>
>relationship. I don't know whether it's possible when a group
>
>acts this way. Very scary."
>
>
>
>Dr. Juan Cole:
>
>"Let me ask you why in the world you think that I would risk my
professional
>
>reputation by publicly stating falsehoods? ...The very technique of the
>
>more glaze-eyed among these people is to unbearably bully a Baha'i whom
>
>they don't like, use unjustified threats of declaring him or her a CB to
>
>silence the individual, and if the person will not be silenced, then to
>
>depend upon the gullibility of the Baha'is in refusing to listen to any
>
>victim's story because, of course, the Baha'i institutions are infallible
>
>and divinely guided and could never do anything wrong. It is a perfect
>
>racket.
>
>"Of course, this technique of making liberals go away has been enormously
>
>successful, and ex-Baha'i liberals have no credibility with the remaining
>
>Baha'is nor do most of them have any energy to continue to make a case,
>
>either to the Baha'is or the outside world, for the incredible abuses that
>
>go on inside this organization ostensibly committed to tolerance!"
>
>https://members.tripod.com/~FG/Cole10.htm
>
>
>
>FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
>
>https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai,
>
>talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
>
>Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
>
>baha'i
>
>
>
>baha'i"
>
>Our Terms of Service agreement, which was presented during the sign up
>process, allows America Online to be informative, entertaining and, above
>all, fun for all of our Members. You can review that agreement by using
>keyword TOS. This area also has information and tools you can use to help
>protect your account. Also, you may want to take a look at our PARENTAL
>CONTROLS. This will allow you, among other things, to limit and/or block
>specific screen names from various online activities.
>
>Thanks for taking the time to read this letter. Please note, this screen
>name cannot accept replies. Therefore, if you have any comments or
questions
>please send mail to TOSGeneral.
>
>Regards,
>Bill
>Community Action Team
>America Online, Inc.
>
>* Have you heard about AOL's latest and easiest to use software version,
>4.0? You can upgrade for free at keyword: Upgrade. With AOL 4.0, you can
>have fun by sending multiple files, changing screen names without signing
>off, customizing your toolbar, and much, much more. Upgrade today!
>
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 1998 12:35 PM
Subject: Re: the censorship that wasn't
Kent Johnson wrote in message <6tf8sh$7bd$1@as4100c.javanet.com>...
>If you are interested in real evidence of censorship for no good reason, I
>have some. I see no reason to put it here publicly, but it happened and
>there is plenty of evidence, at least where it concerns me.
>
>Warm Baha'i Love. --Kent
Please do post it on alt.religion.bahai. A number of people have
pointed out from time to time that doing so is really the only way
of dealing with Bahai censorship on soc.religion.bahai and
elsewhere. I believe Ron House and Michael McKenny have
said as much. Whoever....
Please compare the recent attempts of Bahais on AOL
to get me kicked off by charging me with a TOS. The messages
threatening me with denunciation to an auxiliary board member
speak for themselves.... Bahais and non-Bahais need to know
how common such contemptible tactics really are and only the
indisputable evidence is capable of waking up some people....
Consider, too, that by posting such messages of Bahai duplicity and
intrigue, it is the surest safeguard against their attempting such
things again. They'll KNOW the truth will come out and restrain
themselves at least a little....
Compare too the observations in "The Bahai technique."
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/technique.htm
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 1998 12:40 PM
Subject: REPOST alt.religion.bahai FAQ
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) for
Alt.Religion.Bahai and bahai-faith@makelist.com
September 3, 1998
This FAQ will be reposted approximately every two weeks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please note that crossposting your messages to talk.religion.misc
makes it possible for some people without access to the alt.*
hierarchy to follow along with the discussion on alt.religion.bahai.
Similarly, crossposting or sending a courtesy copy, "cc," to
bahai-faith@makelist.com also allows people with only email
access to participate. Currently, 23 individuals are subscribed.
Other people with web access might use www.dejanews.com or
www.reference.com They both offer reading and posting capabilities,
including free email accounts, for people who can't directly access
alt.religion.bahai.
Though these stopgap measures may appear cumbersome or repetitive,
they really do compensate a little for the lack of
talk.religion.bahai, which would be an unmoderated newsgroup
on a major hierarchy that most people ought to be able to use.
Alt.Religion.Bahai is now available on America Online (AOL).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: Not all people agree on the interpretations given below.
Question #1 "what would be the difference between the proposed
newsgroup talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai?"
ANSWER: The alt.* hierarchy is not widely available, while the
talk.* hierarchy is, since it is on what's called the Big 8 hierarchy
of Usenet. Many more Bahais and non-Bahais would be able to
access talk.religion.bahai.
Question #2 "Isn't ARB also unmoderated?"
ANSWER: Yes. Alt.religion.bahai is unmoderated and talk.religion.bahai
would be too. Though not a newsgroup, the mailing list
bahai-faith@makelist.com is also unmmoderated.
Question #3 "Why create a t.r.b.?"
ANSWER #1: Because many people believe they experienced or are
continuing to experience censorship when attempting to post to
soc.religion.bahai. See the quotations from Abdul-Baha:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/bahai.htm
ANSWER #2: Because the Bahai writings support free speech and
religious conscience.
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/bahai.htm
ANSWER #3: [fill in the blank according to your own opinion.]
Question #4: "Why do the srb moderators oppose trb?"
ANSWER: [Perhaps they'll supply us with an answer to place
here]
Question #5: "Are Bahais opposed to freedom of speech and
conscience?"
ANSWER: Despite glowing words of love and support for
other people's opinions, despite the Universal House of Justice
stating at least publicly it is not opposed to an unmoderated forum,
the record of actual behavior by Bahais and on soc.religion.bahai
and the experience of many Bahais and people who have left the Bahai
Faith give reason for concern.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronology of major events: talk.religion.bahai
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 17, 1997: The 1st proposal for talk.religion.bahai was
submitted to news.announce.newgroups.
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/1stRFD.htm
Early March 1997: Mark Towfiq, chairman of the BCCA, the
Bahai Computer and Communication Association, posts to
three Bahai-only mailing lists a call for Bahais to vote NO
against talk.religion.bahai.
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/Towfiq.htm
March 1997: soc.religion.bahai bans all discussion of
talk.religion.bahai from its newsgroup. This ban is still in
effect more than a year and a half later.
March 31, 1997: The 1st proposal was defeated 157 YES to
691 NO.
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/1stRESULT.htm
April 3, 1997: Jonathan Grobe, a non-Bahai, creates
alt.religion.bahai.
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/arb.htm
October 14, 1997: The Universal House of Justice releases
a message stating it has no objection to unmoderated
newsgroups: https://members.tripod.com/~FG/UHJ1.htm
November 1997: At a time when discussion was highly
favorable in support of talk.religion.bahai, the BCCA deprives
FG of access to the private Bahai-only mailing
list bahai-discuss and all of its other lists, inflaming Bahai
passions against trb. See bahai-discuss archived files and
correspondence between FG and the BCCA
committee: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
December 19, 1997: The Universal House of Justice releases
a message that suggests it does not understand the nature of
Usenet interest polling:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/UHJ2.htm
January 12, 1998: The 2nd proposal for talk.religion.bahai was
submitted.
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/2ndRFD.htm
February 22, 1998: The 2nd proposal was defeated 109 YES
to 65 NO.
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/2ndRESULT.htm
May 25, 1998: srb bans all messages from FG
that contain his signature file.
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/srb23.htm
August 28, 1998: The 3rd proposal scheduled to be submitted.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For past discussion of censorship on soc.religion.bahai and other
issues, including censorship within the Bahai community, see the
Web site below.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
WEB SITE:
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAILING LIST:
bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) For Web subscription
& List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com
To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 1998 12:41 PM
Subject: REPOST To Bahai UHJ July 24, 1998
From: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
To: UHJ <secretariat@bwc.org>; Letters to Editor <letters@nytimes.com>;
bahai-faith @ makelist.com <bahai-faith@makelist.com>
Subject: To UHJ July 24, 1998
Date: Friday, July 24, 1998 9:03 PM
July 24,1998
Dear Members of the Universal House of Justice:
As a Bahai, I am saddened by the news of the execution of yet
another Bahai in Iran. However, the immediate public statements
made by Firuz Kazemzadeh of the National Spiritual Assembly
of the United States, reminiscent of Robert Henderson's piece in
The New York Times on January 13th of this year, appear equally
lamentable for their blatant hypocrisy: "We had hoped that President
Khatami's assertions about freedom, justice and the rule of law in Iran
would apply to the Baha'is of that country.... We urge the international
community to protest vigorously Mr. Rowhani's killing and to seek
justice for the beleaguered Iranian Baha'i community."
The tragic loss of Bahai lives in Iran and the subsequent exploitation
of their deaths by Bahai spokesmen, often in the American media,
always courting the President and other members of the government,
has become a predictable pattern rendered intolerable in the context
of continuing and pervasive Bahai censorship and denial of human
and civil rights in the United States and elsewhere. Such incidents as
I queried you about in my unanswered email of March 31, 1997,
available on my Web site, regarding the crushing of the magazine
Dialogue, the resignations of a number of scholars from the Bahai
Encyclopedia, the attacks on the listserv known as Talisman I at
Indiana University, the harassing and blacklisting of many individuals,
Bahai and non-Bahai, suggest profoundly deep-seated problems within
the Bahai community and administration.
To these incidents must now be added the apparent conspiracy for more
than a year and a half of the Bahai Computer and Communications
Committee (BCCA), under the chairmanship of Mark Towfiq, to defeat
twice now, along with the collusion of other Bahais, the creation of an
unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith which would be known as
talk.religion.bahai. You may find extensive documentation for all of
these violations of the basic human rights of many Bahais and
non-Bahais on my Web site, "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom
of Conscience": https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm
Because the third interest poll for talk.religion.bahai on Usenet is
approaching, after August 28th, I ask you again to investigate the
BCCA and its depriving me of access last November from all private
Bahai-only mailing lists at a crucial moment just when the tide of
discussion was going very much in favor of the newsgroup, noted by
many observers. I also ask whether you supported or were involved in
that decision? The relevant files can be found on my Web site under
Bahai-Discuss Archives.
Similarly, I would like to know whether your institution or the BCCA has
approved of or advocated the recent ban of my email signature file by
the moderators of soc.religion.bahai, as well as their complete ban for
more than a year and a half now on all discussion regarding
talk.religion.bahai.
The prevailing atmosphere of suppression of free speech and
religious conscience that now characterizes the Bahai Faith cannot
but call into question the honesty of many members of the Bahai
administration and perhaps the institutions themselves.
I ask once more whether censorship is allowed in the Bahai Faith and
what passages of the Bahai Writings support it, what are the "rules," if
you will, of Bahai censorship?
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
cc: The New York Times, letters@nytimes.com
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 1998 12:43 PM
Subject: REPOST the Bahai technique
During the last year and a half, a number of observers have noted
several common methods many Bahais use to avoid various issues
or discredit people who hold opinions other than their own:
FG:
"Some of the most striking methods demonstrated repeatedly by
many Bahais during the last year and a half of discussion about
an unmoderated newsgroup is their refusal to listen and respond to
the criticisms of those who are in favor of talk.religion.bahai,
ignoring their concerns, never responding analytically to their
messages and reasoning and logic and evidence, attacking them
through character assassination and ad hominem, ganging up
on individuals, and "circling the wagons" around every action
of the srb moderators or others who are opposed to
talk.religion.bahai."
"More than twenty different people on my web site have posted messages
explaining their experience with srb censorship yet many srb Bahais
NEVER address their concerns. Ignoring such charges will not make
them go away. NO ONE has to "try" to link the trb interest poll with
censorship on srb; the moderators themselves have done that by
suppressing droves of people for years. There are many people who
believe such suppression is part and parcel of the Bahai
community as it exists today. A YES vote need not necessarily
support such a belief. There are other reasons Bahais might vote
YES."
Ron House:
"I know what you mean. I've found over the years that
there is a technique used by traditional Baha'is and
others to squash dissension: harry the dissenter so
much he says something intemperate, then point out
how 'loving' and 'compassionate' they are and how
nasty the dissenter is. The trouble is that this
technique works, so I've been making a conscious
effort not to fall for it. Also, when they get the
dissenter discouraged and miserable enough, he
invariably makes a slip-up sooner or later that they
can REALLY let loose the venom over. IMHO, they did
this to you when you misread Sharon's intentions.
At any other time, they would overlook faults, as
Baha'u'llah says, but when they're in this mode
they go for the jugular. Very sad."
Fran Baker:
"Just have to say that in my experience this is a common
technique of manipulative people in general; it is especially
effective with thoughtful people who are willing to see both
sides of things, i.e., their own fault. I consider this brow-beating
technique to be a form of abuse. The only way to deal with it is
to call them on it every time and to refuse to let yourself be beat
up, i.e., not to do your part of the "tango." This can be very hard
to do, but it works.You can break this pattern in a personal
relationship. I don't know whether it's possible when a group
acts this way. Very scary."
Dr. Juan Cole:
"Let me ask you why in the world you think that I would risk my professional
reputation by publicly stating falsehoods? ...The very technique of the
more glaze-eyed among these people is to unbearably bully a Baha'i whom
they don't like, use unjustified threats of declaring him or her a CB to
silence the individual, and if the person will not be silenced, then to
depend upon the gullibility of the Baha'is in refusing to listen to any
victim's story because, of course, the Baha'i institutions are infallible
and divinely guided and could never do anything wrong. It is a perfect
racket.
"Of course, this technique of making liberals go away has been enormously
successful, and ex-Baha'i liberals have no credibility with the remaining
Baha'is nor do most of them have any energy to continue to make a case,
either to the Baha'is or the outside world, for the incredible abuses that
go on inside this organization ostensibly committed to tolerance!"
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/Cole10.htm
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 1998 12:45 PM
Subject: REPOST Re soc.religion.bahai - brief quotations
Kent Johnson:
"It turns my stomach that they call themselves a Baha'i Group
while doing these things so obviously partisan and consciously
unjust."
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/srb61.htm
Ron House:
"I think the following is a clear case of malicious
rejection of an article by the worst of the moderators of
soc.religion.bahai."
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/srb53.htm
Timothy Mulligan:
"(Sigh) Fred, I'm beginning to think you're right about those
SRB moderators."
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/srb59.htm
RobertNik:
"these guys are pompous arseholes IMHO."
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/srb54.htm
Bruce Burrill:
"What are Baha'i afraid of?"
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/srb60.htm
Zuteflute:
"Frankly I could not see anything in the letter I wrote which
would prompt someone to ask whether or not I am a Baha'i."
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/srb50.htm
YU ZIR:
"But as an outsider, I can perhaps see the point Fred Glaysher
is making, and which point none of SRB's defenders seem to
address."
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/srb46.htm
Matthew Cromer:
"The current moderators regulate the contents--posting articles
which they agree with...."
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/srb47.htm
Melissa Boyer Kafes:
"For me, I have posted a couple of times on soc.religion.bahai
and have gotten a couple of nasty emails...."
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/srb44.htm
Harold Shinsato:
"It seems like there is an oppression over the Baha'i Faith."
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/srb33.htm
Maryam:
"Firstly, there is nothing in Fred's sig. file that mentions CB
material."
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/srb22.htm
Laeterna:
"To say I was flabberghasted at this type of "moderating" was
putting it mildly indeed."
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/censored2.htm
Guy Macon"
"Please explain which portion of the charter the following
post violates."
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/censored1.htm
Robin Peters:
"I think you're to be commended for your persistence in the
face of consistent censorship."
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/srb43.htm
jgoldberg:
"I refuse to post on soc.religion.bahai because of the arbitrary and
mean-spirited manner of censorship practiced by the moderators. "
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/srb57.htm
Many other similar messages may be found on my web site under
soc.religion.bahai censorship.
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 1998 7:05 PM
Subject: srb commits backbiting (Re: Censorship on SRB)
Upon further reflection, it seems to me this message is
tantamount to backbiting on the part of the moderators
of soc.religion.bahai since I am denied any possibility
of replying to this or any other message on srb.
I have already pointed out the questionable circumstances under
which this appeared on srb.
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
Subject:
Re: Censorship on SRB
Date:
1 Sep 1998 22:35:17 -0400
From:
mclark@tpgi.com.au
Organization:
----
Newsgroups:
soc.religion.bahai
Date sent: Tue, 01 Sep 98 07:12:43 GMT
>At 04:20 24/08/98 -0400, FG wrote:
>Deceit and lies in the name of the Faith are wrong.... And so
>is censorship for the same specious reasons....
True. It sounds like you have had some bad experiences in this regard.
I don't know how long you have been associated with the Faith, or how you
feel about it at the moment. After 20 years as a Baha'i, I have seen most
of what goes down, but I have also become aware that a mechanism exists
within the Faith that sooner or later deals with abuses. I believe it is
one of the mechanisms referred to in the quote about "there is a power in
this cause ... " Many Baha'is are aware of it. The problem with some is
that they believe that because the recognise the Cause, they automatically
understand it. Situations develop where people, sometimes without realising
it, exercise authority which they do not possess. Only the elected have
authority, and only then as members of an Assembly, not as individuals.
Persons _appointed_ to positions may have responsibilities, but do not have
authority. The Faith has no priesthood, but there are a few would-be
Mullahs and Cardinals running around within it.
Regards,
Martin Clark
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 14, 1998 6:23 AM
Subject: fw Ron House Re: 3rd ROUGH DRAFT - RFD talk.religion.bahai
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron House <house@usq.edu.au>
To: bahai-faith@makelist.com <bahai-faith@makelist.com>
Date: Sunday, September 13, 1998 11:01 PM
Subject: [bahai-faith] Re: 3rd ROUGH DRAFT - RFD talk.religion.bahai
>FG wrote:
>>
>> [This is a rough draft only. You may not vote at this time. ]
>>
>> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>> unmoderated group talk.religion.bahai
>>
>
>Whoops! Spotted another one. Three paragraphs near the
>start have a ">" character at the start, which seems to
>serve no purpose.
>
>--
>Ron House house@usq.edu.au
>
>Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is
>unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30.
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>
>Subscribe, unsubscribe, opt for a daily digest, or start a new e-group
>at https://www.eGroups.com -- Free Web-based e-mail groups.
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 14, 1998 6:24 AM
Subject: fw Ron House 2 Re: 3rd ROUGH DRAFT - RFD talk.religion.bahai
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron House <house@usq.edu.au>
To: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
Date: Sunday, September 13, 1998 11:04 PM
Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] 3rd ROUGH DRAFT - RFD talk.religion.bahai
>FG wrote:
>
>Looks like a small typo, Fred: This:
>
>> As Baha'u'llah taught, a free press has both rights and
>> responsibilities. Therefore some Baha'is might fear misuse of
>> the facility, especially postings by covenant-Breakers. However,
>> Shoghi Effendi has addressed this question:
>>
>> "First, the civil rights of Covenant-breakers must be scrupulously
>> upheld."
>> >From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice
>> to a National Spiritual Assembly, October 29, 1974. Lights of
>> Guidance, Page: 186.
>
>should be replaced with:
>
>> As Baha'u'llah taught, a free press has both rights and
>> responsibilities. Therefore some Baha'is might fear misuse of
>> the facility, especially postings by covenant-Breakers. However,
>> the Universal House of Justice has addressed this question:
>>
>> "First, the civil rights of Covenant-breakers must be scrupulously
>> upheld."
>> -From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice
>> to a National Spiritual Assembly, October 29, 1974. Lights of
>> Guidance, Page: 186.
>
>Note two changes above.
>
>--
>Ron House house@usq.edu.au
>
>Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is
>unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30.
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 14, 1998 6:27 AM
Subject: Re: AOL Bahai threats
These were among the threatening messages from Bahais
that convinced AOL to remove the fraudulently alleged TOS
from my account....
FG wrote in message
<1998090911084500.HAA10771@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>Baha'is on the AOL Message Boards under Keyword search Bahai are
>attempting to employ the same Baahai techniques of intimidation
>and insinuation that have been so amply demonstrated by
>soc.religion.bahai and a number of Bahais on alt.religion.bahai.
>I include two of their messages here....
>
>FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
>https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai,
>talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
>Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
>
>
>Subject: Re: Literal-minded Bahai ignorance
>Date: Tue, Sep 8, 1998 14:17 EDT
>From: Ecominer
>Message-id: <1998090818173900.OAA01117@ladder03.news.aol.com>
>
>Thank-you...do you know, or can you discover who this guy's Auxillary Board
for
>Protection is? I think it is time to talk to that person about this
situation
>and put this very angry, hurt soul into the proper hands????
>
>
>
>Subject: Re: Literal-minded Bahai ignorance
>Date: Tue, Sep 8, 1998 16:05 EDT
>From: Bennachti
>Message-id: <1998090820050400.QAA11750@ladder03.news.aol.com>
>
>Debbie, if you feel that is the right course of action, you can just
forward
>the postings to your own Auxiliary Board Member and that person should be
able
>to take it from there.
>
>Love
>Zaynab
>
>
>No man shall attain the shores of the ocean of true understanding except he
be
>detached from all that is in heaven and on earth.
> - Bahá'u'lláh -
>
>My Bahá'í Faith website: Camphor Fountain
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 14, 1998 6:31 AM
Subject: Re: On AOL- Re: ARB more harm than good?
kate_mccolloch_bodi@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<6td0gg$gb3$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>Interestingly,
>
>I have had a group of Baha'is sitting together over a cup of tea in my
living
>room discussing how Baha'is can effectively use the media and the internet,
>specifically to promote the Faith while at the same time restricting
annoying
>distractions of detractors and dissidents.
>
>However, in all fairness this was some five years ago. I would assume that
>these types of gatherings no longer occur.
Kate, permit me to say, nothing negative intended, that
it would just be plain naive to assume such "gatherings no longer occur."
Given the battle over trb, it's quite realistic to believe they occur
over the Internet.
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
>
>kate
>
>In article <6tbc31$3vh6$1@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>,
> "loriann" <OKOBOJI@prodigy.net> wrote:
>> Frederick,
>>
>> Perhaps you ought to write Oliver Stone (the director) and see if he
can't
>> come up with a Jim dandy movie including all of your conspiracy theories
>> surrounding the newsgroup ARB. I'm sure the movie would be a block
buster.
>> Maybe even bigger than Water World by Kevin Costner.
>>
>> Dude, find a different cause before you have a mental breakdown. Life is
too
>> short...........
>>
>> -Loire
>>
>> FG babbled once again:
>> >This is exactly what's happening on America Online from
>> >my observing for more than a month now. The largest ISP
>> >is being used and manipulated by Bahais in the very same
>> >way as they have approached the interest polls for
>> >talk.religion.bahai and as described in "The Bahai technique."
>>
>>
>
>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>https://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 14, 1998 6:38 AM
Subject: Re: On AOL- Re: ARB more harm than good?
AOL's removing the TOS from my account ought to
be food for thought, I would think, for many....
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
loriann wrote in message <6tbc31$3vh6$1@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>...
>Frederick,
>
>Perhaps you ought to write Oliver Stone (the director) and see if he can't
>come up with a Jim dandy movie including all of your conspiracy theories
>surrounding the newsgroup ARB. I'm sure the movie would be a block buster.
>Maybe even bigger than Water World by Kevin Costner.
>
>Dude, find a different cause before you have a mental breakdown. Life is
too
>short...........
>
>-Loire
>
>FG babbled once again:
>>This is exactly what's happening on America Online from
>>my observing for more than a month now. The largest ISP
>>is being used and manipulated by Bahais in the very same
>>way as they have approached the interest polls for
>>talk.religion.bahai and as described in "The Bahai technique."
>
>
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 14, 1998 6:41 AM
To: Kent Johnson
Subject: Re: the censorship that wasn't
You might want to look now at what's happened
on AOL....
-----Original Message-----
From: Kent Johnson <compx2k@javanet.com>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai
Date: Saturday, September 12, 1998 9:57 PM
Subject: Re: the censorship that wasn't
>If you are interested in real evidence of censorship for no good reason, I
>have some. I see no reason to put it here publicly, but it happened and
>there is plenty of evidence, at least where it concerns me.
>
>Warm Baha'i Love. --Kent
>
>
>rlittle@nils.com wrote in message <6tceu5$nfr$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>>Dear friends:
>>
>>There has been discussion recently concerning a plot or conspiracy to
>cancel
>>email messages to alt.religion.bahai in an attempt to censor vocal critics
>of
>>either the Baha'i Faith or some adjunct or agency of that Faith. Some few
>>individuals expressed the opinion in very strong and unmistakable language
>>that they believed these canceled posts to be the work of Baha'is.
>>
>>Inasmuch as one of the alleged victims of this "plot" has publicly come
>>forward...
>>The source of the cancelled emails was not an individual Baha'i, or a
>>group of Baha'is, nor was it any agency or arm of the Baha'i Faith.
>
>
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 14, 1998 8:14 AM
To: Kate Bodi
Subject: Bennatichi found
I've put the AOL messages on my web site
and found two messages from Bennatichi in the process.
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/AOL8.htm
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/AOL9.htm
For the entire exchange of messages:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/AOL.htm
Hope this helps. If appropriate, report them to the TOSGeneral@aol.com!!!
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 14, 1998 8:16 AM
To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com
Subject: fw Barthaman Re: Bahai accusation of TOS on AOL
-----Original Message-----
From: Barthaman@aol.com <Barthaman@aol.com>
To: FG@hotmail.com <FG@hotmail.com>
Cc: Talisman@umich.edu <Talisman@umich.edu>
Date: Saturday, September 12, 1998 11:15 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: AOL removes TOS - Bahai accusation
>Dear Frederick,
>
>Some of us (Baha'is who think like I do) read you loud and clear. You're
not
>alone,
>obviously, in your observations. We know exactly what you're talking about.
>It's out there. It's true. Juan Cole and Denis MacEoin (both first-class
>scholars in my humble
>opinion) have said just as much in years past.
>
>Because the Universal House of Juctice won't come down from its elitist
hill
>top long enough to listen to common sense (too bad they don't have women
>members) and because the general Baha'i community has been indoctrinated
from
>day-1 not to question religious authority, one will have to reach
influential
>minds
>outside the Faith.
>
>An informed general public will not condone Baha'i institutional abuses of
>power,
>and will hold Baha'i expansion in check (through both indifference and
public
>criticism) as long as it's leadership thumbs its nose at the democratic
ideals
>this country was founded on. People come to America from around the world
to
>experience freedom. Why would they embrace a religion that gives them less
of
>it? The Baha'is, apparently, haven't learned anything from the history of
the
>Mormons, their distant spiritual cousins.
> --Barthaman
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 14, 1998 8:17 AM
Subject: Bahai TOS on AOL now on web site
All the relevant messages to this incident on AOL
can now be found at
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/AOL.htm
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 14, 1998 3:27 PM
To: Barthaman@aol.com
Subject: Re: Fw: AOL removes TOS - Bahai accusation
Thanks for your message. I don't receive too many word of
encouragement and am grateful for them....
Would you consider recommending me for the Forum Leader
(absurd title)? I've applied with AOL but fear the fundamentalists
are going have me burned at the stake on this one too....
......
ubj: Baha'i Faith Forum Application
Date: 98-09-09 15:03:43 EDT
From: FG
To: RBCF Mark
CC: RBCF Admin
Spirituality Forums Volunteer Community Leader Application
(v1.01 - 8/21/98)
CONFIDENTIALITY WILL BE MAINTAINED FOR ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN.
APPLICANT ALSO AGREES TO HOLD CONFIDENTIAL ALL INFORMATION LEARNED AS PART
OF THE APPLICATION PROCESS AND, IF ACCEPTED, AS AN AMERICA ONLINE VOLUNTEER
STAFF MEMBER. APPLICATION FOR A VOLUNTEER POSITION IMPLIES PERMISSION IS
GRANTED TO RESEARCH YOUR PAST AND RECENT AMERICA ONLINE ACCOUNT HISTORY AND
INFORMATION.
~:~:~:~ Personal Information~:~:~:~
**Required**
First name:Frederick
Last name: Glaysher
-----Original Message-----
From: Barthaman@aol.com <Barthaman@aol.com>
To: FG@hotmail.com <FG@hotmail.com>
Cc: Talisman@umich.edu <Talisman@umich.edu>
Date: Saturday, September 12, 1998 11:15 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: AOL removes TOS - Bahai accusation
>Dear Frederick,
>
>Some of us (Baha'is who think like I do) read you loud and clear. You're
not
>alone,
>obviously, in your observations. We know exactly what you're talking about.
>It's out there. It's true. Juan Cole and Denis MacEoin (both first-class
>scholars in my humble
>opinion) have said just as much in years past.
>
>Because the Universal House of Juctice won't come down from its elitist
hill
>top long enough to listen to common sense (too bad they don't have women
>members) and because the general Baha'i community has been indoctrinated
from
>day-1 not to question religious authority, one will have to reach
influential
>minds
>outside the Faith.
>
>An informed general public will not condone Baha'i institutional abuses of
>power,
>and will hold Baha'i expansion in check (through both indifference and
public
>criticism) as long as it's leadership thumbs its nose at the democratic
ideals
>this country was founded on. People come to America from around the world
to
>experience freedom. Why would they embrace a religion that gives them less
of
>it? The Baha'is, apparently, haven't learned anything from the history of
the
>Mormons, their distant spiritual cousins.
> --Barthaman
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 14, 1998 3:29 PM
To: Kate Bodi
Subject: Bahai Forum Leader
Kate,
Would you consider recommending me for the Forum Leader
(absurd title)? I've applied with AOL but fear the fundamentalists
are going have me burned at the stake on this one too....
You're on AOL, right?
......
ubj: Baha'i Faith Forum Application
Date: 98-09-09 15:03:43 EDT
From: FG
To: RBCF Mark
CC: RBCF Admin
Spirituality Forums Volunteer Community Leader Application
(v1.01 - 8/21/98)
CONFIDENTIALITY WILL BE MAINTAINED FOR ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN.
APPLICANT ALSO AGREES TO HOLD CONFIDENTIAL ALL INFORMATION LEARNED AS PART
OF THE APPLICATION PROCESS AND, IF ACCEPTED, AS AN AMERICA ONLINE VOLUNTEER
STAFF MEMBER. APPLICATION FOR A VOLUNTEER POSITION IMPLIES PERMISSION IS
GRANTED TO RESEARCH YOUR PAST AND RECENT AMERICA ONLINE ACCOUNT HISTORY AND
INFORMATION.
~:~:~:~ Personal Information~:~:~:~
**Required**
First name:Frederick
Last name: Glaysher
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 14, 1998 3:46 PM
To: FG
Cc: Ron House
Subject: NEW RELEASE DRAFT
Ron,
Thanks for your honest evaluation. One recent
update is now needed. I'm leaving it fairly understated:
"With recent clashes
even taking place on America Online, "
You can find the relevant messages now at
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/AOL.htm
Are the newsgroups you wanted in the RFD okay?
Later, when it's time, can you post the pointers to them?
I feel Frank Baker had plenty of opportunity to get
involved if he really wanted to. How do you feel about
him? I don't really know anything about him though
Fran has been a lot of help. What should we do?
Fred
NEWS RELEASE
For immediate release. . . [or]
For Use the Week of September 20th. . .
Contact: FG (xxx) xxx-xxxx or
FG@hotmail.com
Baha'is Debate Freedom of Speech and Conscience
The third interest poll is beginning for talk.religion.bahai,
a proposed unmoderated newsgroup on the part of the
Internet known as Usenet. Critics charge members of the
Baha'i Faith have opposed its creation now for more than a
year and a half because they would not be able to exercise
the kind of control they exert over soc.religion.bahai, a
moderated newsgroup.
Under the Usenet guidelines for discussion groups, if a
newsgroup is moderated, a single moderator or panel of
moderators chooses which messages are posted for all
subscribers to read. There seems to be a classic struggle
between Baha'is and ex-Baha'is of liberal sentiment and the
elements of a conservative orthodoxy. With recent clashes <<<<
even taking place on America Online, both appear ready for
another stormy battle on news.groups, the discussion group
where the creation of a new forum is always debated.
Some critics even go further. Dr. Juan Cole of the
Department of History at the University of Michigan, a
former Baha'i who withdrew from the Faith after more than
twenty years, has asserted there is widespread, pervasive
censorship and distortion of information throughout the
religion that belies the gentle and tolerant universalism of
its Founders. Recently, Dr. Cole has said, "The checks
and balances . . . will have to come from public opinion,
within the faith and without."
A poet and literary critic who remains a Baha'i after more
than two decades of membership, FG,
one of the proponents of talk.religion.bahai, has developed
a web site, "The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of
Conscience," documenting numerous instances of
interference with free speech by the moderators of
soc.religion.bahai and the Baha'i Administration:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm
Whatever the outcome of the third interest poll, the more
than 30,000 messages posted to alt.religion.bahai, a less
accessible newsgroup than the one wanted, shows Baha'is
and others have a lot to say on the matter!
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 14, 1998 3:51 PM
To: Ron House
Subject: Fw: NEW RELEASE DRAFT
I'm resending this just to be sure you receive it.
My server seemed to hang up on it.
-----Original Message-----
From: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
To: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
Cc: Ron House <house@usq.edu.au>
Date: Monday, September 14, 1998 4:46 PM
Subject: NEW RELEASE DRAFT
>Ron,
>
>Thanks for your honest evaluation. One recent
>update is now needed. I'm leaving it fairly understated:
>
>"With recent clashes
>even taking place on America Online, "
>
>You can find the relevant messages now at
>https://members.tripod.com/~FG/AOL.htm
>
>Are the newsgroups you wanted in the RFD okay?
>
>Later, when it's time, can you post the pointers to them?
>
>I feel Frank Baker had plenty of opportunity to get
>involved if he really wanted to. How do you feel about
>him? I don't really know anything about him though
>Fran has been a lot of help. What should we do?
>
>Fred
>
>
> NEWS RELEASE
>
>For immediate release. . . [or]
>For Use the Week of September 20th. . .
>
>Contact: FG (xxx) xxx-xxxx or
>FG@hotmail.com
>
>Baha'is Debate Freedom of Speech and Conscience
>
>The third interest poll is beginning for talk.religion.bahai,
>a proposed unmoderated newsgroup on the part of the
>Internet known as Usenet. Critics charge members of the
>Baha'i Faith have opposed its creation now for more than a
>year and a half because they would not be able to exercise
>the kind of control they exert over soc.religion.bahai, a
>moderated newsgroup.
>
>Under the Usenet guidelines for discussion groups, if a
>newsgroup is moderated, a single moderator or panel of
>moderators chooses which messages are posted for all
>subscribers to read. There seems to be a classic struggle
>between Baha'is and ex-Baha'is of liberal sentiment and the
>elements of a conservative orthodoxy. With recent clashes <<<<
>even taking place on America Online, both appear ready for
>another stormy battle on news.groups, the discussion group
>where the creation of a new forum is always debated.
>
>Some critics even go further. Dr. Juan Cole of the
>Department of History at the University of Michigan, a
>former Baha'i who withdrew from the Faith after more than
>twenty years, has asserted there is widespread, pervasive
>censorship and distortion of information throughout the
>religion that belies the gentle and tolerant universalism of
>its Founders. Recently, Dr. Cole has said, "The checks
>and balances . . . will have to come from public opinion,
>within the faith and without."
>
>A poet and literary critic who remains a Baha'i after more
>than two decades of membership, FG,
>one of the proponents of talk.religion.bahai, has developed
>a web site, "The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of
>Conscience," documenting numerous instances of
>interference with free speech by the moderators of
>soc.religion.bahai and the Baha'i Administration:
>https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm
>
>Whatever the outcome of the third interest poll, the more
>than 30,000 messages posted to alt.religion.bahai, a less
>accessible newsgroup than the one wanted, shows Baha'is
>and others have a lot to say on the matter!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 1998 6:26 AM
To: Ron House
Subject: rfd
[This is a rough draft only. You may not vote at this time. ]
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
unmoderated group talk.religion.bahai
This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to create an unmoderated
worldwide discussion group called talk.religion.bahai. This is not a
Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural details
appear below. All followup discussion should be crossposted to
news.groups,alt.religion.bahai.
Newsgroup line:
talk.religion.bahai Discussion of the Baha'i Faith.
RATIONALE: talk.religion.bahai
Currently, the only newsgroup on the Big 8 heirarchies, which exists
specifically for discussion of the Baha'i Faith, is moderated. A
need exists for an unmoderated forum, and this proposed newsgroup
would meet that need.
From January 17, 1997, the posting of the first proposed RFD, until
March 27, 1997, more than 759 messages were posted concerning
talk.religion.bahai, 11 messages per day for 70 days.
From April 1, 1997, to September 27, 1997, over 2,863 messages
have been posted on alt.religion.bahai from people with highly
varying points of view on the Baha'i Faith, resulting in 16 messages
per day for 179 days, and 477 messages a month for six months.
Since www.dejanews.com does not pick up all postings, an
additional conservative 5 percent, roughly 150 messages, have
probably been lost from the archive. During this time period,
approximately 513 different individuals posted on over
1,200 threads.
From September 28, 1997, to September 11, 1998, over 30,000
messages have been posted to alt.religion.bahai resulting
in X messages per day for 331 days and X messages per
month for nine months.
These numbers may be verified by searching www.dejanews.com
for talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai for the relevant time
periods. Please note that despite the poor propagation of the
alt.* hierarchy the high rate of posting demonstrates significant
interest, justifying the forming of an unmoderated newsgroup on
the Bahai Faith on the talk.* hierarchy. It is only reasonable
to conclude that the easy accessibility of the talk.* hierarchy
will lead to even higher rates of posting by interested people.
As a further indication of interest in an unmoderated newsgroup,
it should be noted that the web site "The Bahai Faith & Religious
Freedom of Conscience" has had more than 3,000 hits on it
since May 8, 1998.
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/bahai.htm
The proponents intend that talk.religion.bahai will complement,
rather than supplant, the existing moderated group
soc.religion.bahai, and will provide those without access to
alt.religion.bahai, on the less well propagated alt.* hierarchy, the
opportunity to participate, especially since many people who voted
YES on the first proposal were unable to join in on
alt.religion.bahai, their ISPs not carrying the hierarchy. It is
anticipated that alt.religion.bahai will evolve along as its users
see fit and will complement talk.religion.bahai as an alternative
unmoderated newsgroup.
CHARTER: talk.religion.bahai
All topics or ideas relevant to the Baha'i faith -- its history,
teachings, theology, etc. -- would be appropriate areas for
discussion.
Postings may take any point of view with regard to the Baha'i Faith.
Whilst this allows criticism, including criticism that might be
uncomfortable or hurtful to some, it also fully opens the door
for enquirers to see with their own eyes and not through the
eyes of their neighbours by asking questions and reading replies
from anyone who is interested in their question. Talk.religion.bahai
also fills the need for the first and only universally accessible
Internet forum about the Baha'i Faith. As the Internet is clearly
becoming an indispensible part of modern life, such access for
those interested in the Baha'i Faith will, in the future, be
as important a civil right as the right to free speech in non-
electronic forums. Thus talk.religion.bahai is clearly in the
spirit of Baha'u'llah's injunctions supporting a free press.
As Baha'u'llah taught, a free press has both rights and
responsibilities. Therefore some Baha'is might fear misuse of
the facility, especially postings by covenant-Breakers. However,
Shoghi Effendi has addressed this question:
"First, the civil rights of Covenant-breakers must be scrupulously
upheld."
From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice
to a National Spiritual Assembly, October 29, 1974. Lights of
Guidance, Page: 186.
Further, it is permitted for Baha'is to read and post material in an
open Internet forum:
"In general, the House of Justice has no objection to Baha'is'
participating in public, unmoderated discussions about the
Faith, whether those discussions take place in person or
through some form of electronic communication."
Department of the Secretariat, DATE: 14 October 1997 U.S.A.
Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette and voting
procedure in their use of this newsgroup and during its creation.
Readers are asked to observe Baha'i standards of conduct and not
to start or prolong flamewars in the group, but to focus instead on
articles and threads written in more moderate terms.
The posting of articles not specifically relevant to the Baha'i Faith
is strongly discouraged. Also discouraged are personal messages,
large ASCII graphics, binaries, special-format files, pornography,
spam, and any postings of a purely commercial nature.
Crossposting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers
are encouraged to redirect followups to reduce excessive
crossposting. Readers may also post articles that have been
rejected from soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to this
charter.
As is true for other groups devoted to discussing a particular
religion, including soc.religion.bahai, the talk.religion.bahai
newsgroup is not an official organ of any institutional faith.
END CHARTER.
PROCEDURE:
An instructive passage by Russ Allbery might fruitfully be
considered by all:
"There is no official 'list of acceptable reasons for voting'; Nothing
of the sort is enforced. There's no way of knowing why people vote
the way they do. There *is*, however, a general *consensus* that
certain *patterns* of voting constitute abuse of the system. Block
voting on religious, cultural, ethnic, or political grounds is one of
the things that is frowned upon. It is unlikely that even extreme block
voting would cause a result to be overturned, but it's practically
assured that block voting *will* earn an extremely bad reputation for
the group doing the block voting. In other words, yes, the Baha'i
*could* vote down the newsgroup en masse and be successful.
This would, however, also earn the Faith a reputation (fairly or no)
amongst those people who followed the proposal as a religion that
advocates censorship. I think it's in the best interest of Baha'is and
the Baha'i Faith to avoid that."
The process of creating newsgroups is twofold. First is the RFD
stage, when someone writes a Request for Discussion (RFD) outlining
the purpose of the proposed group. The RFD appears in
news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, and other relevant discussion
groups. Anyone may publicly comment on the RFD in news.groups for a
three-week period. During the discussion phase, proponents may modify
the RFD in response to suggestions from posters on news.groups.
The second stage is the Call for Votes (CFV) stage. The proposal must
pass a Usenet-wide vote with a 2/3 supermajority -- and at least 100
more votes in favor than against -- to be created. Anyone with an
e-mail address may cast a ballot. A neutral votetaker from the Usenet
Volunteer Votetakers (UVV) conducts all CFV's.
This RFD attempts to comply with the Usenet newsgroup creation
guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and
"Writing an RFD" and available for perusal on news.groups or
news.announce.newgroups. Please refer to these documents if you
have further questions about the process.
DISTRIBUTION:
This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,soc.religion.bahai,
alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human
and the following three mailing lists:
Talisman
Subscribe via: jsgreen@umich.edu
Bahai Studies
Subscribe via: major@johnco.cc.ks.us
h-Bahai h-Bahai@h-net.msu.edu
Subscribe jrcole@umich.edu
Pointers will appear in the following newsgroups:
soc.religion.unitarian-univ,soc.religion.eastern,
soc.religion.gnosis,soc.religion.hindu,
soc.religion.paganism,soc.religion.quaker,
soc.religion.sikhism,soc.religion.scientology,
soc.religion.vaishnava,talk.religion.buddhism,
talk.religion.newage,alt.religion.islam,alt.religion,
uk.religion.misc,uk.religion.interfaith,
uk.religion.other-faiths,news.admin.censorship,
alt.atheism,alt.atheism.moderated,
alt.religion.christian.biblestudy,alt.religion.christian.last-days,
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic,aus.religion.christian,
alt.religion.christian.pentecostal,alt.religion.vaisnava,
alt.individualism,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.activism,talk.atheism,
talk.philosophy.humanism,talk.philosophy.misc,
alt.philosophy.debate
And to the following seven Bahai-only listservs:
Subscribe via bahai-request@bcca.org
Baha'i Campus Forum (BCF)
Baha'i Discuss (Discuss)
Baha'i Singles (Singles)
Baha'i Teachers (Teachers)
Baha'i Women Converse (Women)
Baha'i Youth (Youth - aimed at the 12-18 age group)
Baha'i Announce (Announce)
Proponent: FG
Proponent: Ron House
Proponent: Fran Baker
____________________________________________________________________
List Site: https://www.findmail.com/list/bahai-faith/
To unsubscribe, send to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com
FREE group e-mail lists at https://www.findmail.com
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 1998 6:57 AM
Subject: Re: On soc.religion.bahai - brief quotations
I would appreciate help on determining who this person is
who is posting in my name.
Here are the headers for the person who posted the message
below and stole my identity:
Path:
spln!extra.newsguy.com!lotsanews.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!cpk-news-hub1.bbnpla
net.com!news.bbnplanet.com!howland.erols.net!news.alt.net!netroplex.com!usen
et
From: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc
Subject: On soc.religion.bahai - brief quotations
Date: 15 Sep 1998 06:25:13 GMT
Lines: 67
Message-ID: <6tl189$5vu$bt@207.212.27.40>
References: <6ss9qm$4cr$1@clarknet.clark.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.212.27.40
Xref: spln alt.religion.bahai:8688 talk.religion.misc:200030
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
FG wrote in message <6tl189$5vu$bt@207.212.27.40>...
>Not posted by me - but I have complained to netroplex.com and the guy
>WILL be caught, named and thrown off the server
>
>On 14 Sep 1998 05:30:06 GMT, ipcress7@hotmail.com (Nezumi Kozo) wrote:
>
>>In article <eCryaAC39GA.220@upnetnews03>,
>> "Tony Nitzke" <tony_nitzke@email.msn.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> >Because Jesus could endure anything, but the absense of his Father's
love.
>>
>>
>>> Couldn't Jesus handle spiritual ups and downs? I've had to. Is he less
>>> than me? Haven't you had moments of God's love followed by moments
without?
>>> Were you able to handle it without crying tears for yourself?
>>
>>
>>I'm not talking about some 'simple' struggle. I'm not really even talking
>>about struggle at all. I'm talking about anguish. Horrible and tormenting
>>anguish. It is an anguish that you as a sinful man could never understand.
>>
>>The Lord Jesus Christ, who never sinned, who only knew love and goodness,
>>became sin for his children, and suffered the wrath of holiness for that
sin,
>>that was undeserved and yet accepted in full on behalf of all humanity.
>>
>>On the cross, Jesus cried "My God, why hast thou forsaken me ?"
>>In other words "My Father, why have you left me ?" God the Father had
>>left Jesus, because Jesus was paying the penalty of all sin, on behalf of
>>all mankind. Alone. Totally and utterly alone. But God had not left Jesus
>>from the moment of the cross. No, this abandonment began the night that
>>Jesus was calling to his Father in the garden, with no response.
>>
>>It is for this reason that Jesus prays the same prayer three times.
Because
>>God has not answered Jesus. It is for this reason also that Jesus is
praying
>>with sweating blood. Because he is so seriously and intently calling on
the
>>Father that has abandoned him.
>>
>>Jesus fortold that he would be three days and three nights in the 'heart
of
>>the Earth' . Yet we can count that Jesus was crucified on Friday and arose
>>from the grave on Sunday morning. This would be three "days" but only two
>>"nights". The solution to this lies in the evening before. The night he
was
>>in the garden praying. To be "In the heart of the Earth" is a metaphor for
>>being under the judgement of God. When Jesus is "In the heart of the
Earth"
>>for three days and three nights, it means that Jesus will endure the wrath
of
>>God's judgement against sin for three days and three nights. This sin
>>judgement began the evening of Jesus' prayer in the garden (hence, no
>>response to his prayers) and continued until he rose on Sunday morning.
>>
>>It is one thing to endure God's absence when you know in your heart that
you
>>deserve it and have yourself abandoned God many times, yet quite another
to
>>endure Judgement and seperation from God when you have done no wrong, and
>>when the love of God had been consistent throughout eternity.
>>
>>Many martyrs have indeed been tortured and killed for the cause of God,
yet
>>none but Jesus ever endured that suffering totally alone. The love of
Christ
>>for his flock is beyond human comprehention.
>>
>>--
>><b>CRAIG MAXIM EX-MOONIES PAGE</b>
>><a href="https://members.aol.com/Rosamaxim/index.html">Click Here
>>
>>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>>https://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
>>
>
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 1998 7:01 AM
Subject: Re: Seriously scrambled messages
A server error can't be doing this. It must be intentional,
given the note on the message I've attempted to report
to abuse@ clark.net or whever.
Roger Reini wrote in message <35FE2C56.3A7B8EC2@wwnet.net>...
>There are some seriously scrambled messages currently (9-15, 6 AM ET) on
>alt.religion.bahai. They seem to have the following headers in common:
>
>
> Message-ID:
> <6tl186$5vu$br@207.212.27.40>
> References:
> <6ss9qm$4cr$1@clarknet.clark.net>
> NNTP-Posting-Host:
> 207.212.27.40
>
>
>For the record, I did not post the two messages attributed to me around
>this period, and the same is likely true about the others.
>
>Roger (rreini@wwnet.net)
>https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 1998 7:19 AM
To: FG
Subject: Wendy1
-------
Subject: Re: AOL removal of Bahai inspired TOS
Date: Mon, Sep 14, 1998 21:56 EDT
From: WScott1995
Message-id: <1998091501562200.VAA16035@ladder03.news.aol.com>
Fred,
This is really interesting. First, you drive everyone up the wall with
repetitive announcements of your anti-Baha'i website, then you pout about
their reactions and put all their attempts to have you obey the TOS rules on
that website to show how nasty the Baha'is are. Well, I have some advice for
you:
Get a life! You are in serious need of one. How about some counselling? Or
maybe just a cup of tea and a good book and chill out! You are going to end
up with some serious regrets (if not an ulcer) if you don't deal with your
negative and destructive tendencies. I'm very sorry you are this way. The
Baha'is need to pray for you so you can be happy. After all, "if we are not
happy in this day, for what day are we waiting?" Do you really think trying
to
destroy the reputations of the Baha'is will make you happy? Or even that it
will work? People can see right through your attempts, you know. It is a
fruitless exercise. I hope you will seriously consider the consequences of
your actions, both in this life and the next.
_____________________________
Love and peace, Wendy--------<-@
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 1998 7:30 AM
To: Barthaman@aol.com
Subject: Re: FG for forum leader...
Just email the AOL Administration for the RBCF (not quite
sure what that is).
CC: RBCF Admin@aol.com
Usually, I'm against casting pearls before swine, but
many Bahais constitute a special group of pigs I can no longer
tolerate....
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
-----Original Message-----
From: Barthaman@aol.com <Barthaman@aol.com>
To: FG@HOTMAIL.COM <FG@HOTMAIL.COM>
Cc: Talisman@umich.edu <Talisman@umich.edu>
Date: Sunday, September 13, 1998 9:10 PM
Subject: Re: FG for forum leader...
>Frederick, you'd make as good a forum leader as anyone I know of.
Certainly,
>I'll recommend you. Who do I need to contact? (About that burning at the
stake
>idea, I can't quite comment right now because my own pant legs are on
fire!)
>
>I think the Baha'is (your critics) should lighten up and give you a
>break--they don't recognize your fine talents and what they're losing. Why
do
>they prefer you as their enemy when being friends is a whole lot better for
>the blood pressure? I see a lot of myself in you. If I could speak to
myself
>as another person, I'd say: "Don't waste your precious life serving people
who
>don't appreciate you and who don't make you happy." Life is too short. But
>since you've already heard all of that before, godspeed.
>
>Warmest regards, Barthaman.
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 1998 7:36 AM
To: Fran Baker
Cc: Frank Baker
Subject: news release & Frank....
Frank,
Are you still interested in serving as a proponent?
Revised news release rough draft below, with a slight allusion
to what Bahais have just attempted on AOL....
NEWS RELEASE
For immediate release. . . [or]
For Use the Week of September 20th. . .
Contact: FG (xxx) xxx-xxxx or
FG@hotmail.com
Baha'is Debate Freedom of Speech and Conscience
The third interest poll is beginning for talk.religion.bahai,
a proposed unmoderated newsgroup on the part of the
Internet known as Usenet. Critics charge members of the
Baha'i Faith have opposed its creation now for more than a
year and a half because they would not be able to exercise
the kind of control they exert over soc.religion.bahai, a
moderated newsgroup.
Under the Usenet guidelines for discussion groups, if a
newsgroup is moderated, a single moderator or panel of
moderators chooses which messages are posted for all
subscribers to read. There seems to be a classic struggle
between Baha'is and ex-Baha'is of liberal sentiment and the
elements of a conservative orthodoxy. With recent clashes
even taking place on America Online, both appear ready for
another stormy battle on news.groups, the discussion group
where the creation of a new forum is always debated.
Some critics even go further. Dr. Juan Cole of the
Department of History at the University of Michigan, a
former Baha'i who withdrew from the Faith after more than
twenty years, has asserted there is widespread, pervasive
censorship and distortion of information throughout the
religion that belies the gentle and tolerant universalism of
its Founders. Recently, Dr. Cole has said, "The checks
and balances . . . will have to come from public opinion,
within the faith and without."
A poet and literary critic who remains a Baha'i after more
than two decades of membership, FG,
one of the proponents of talk.religion.bahai, has developed
a web site, "The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of
Conscience," documenting numerous instances of
interference with free speech by the moderators of
soc.religion.bahai and the Baha'i Administration:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm
Whatever the outcome of the third interest poll, the more
than 30,000 messages posted to alt.religion.bahai, a less
accessible newsgroup than the one wanted, shows Baha'is
and others have a lot to say on the matter!
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 1998 7:39 AM
To: support@extra.newsguy.com
Subject: Fw: 3rd ROUGH DRAFT - RFD talk.religion.bahai
Something is seriously wrong with many, many
messages being all mixed up. Is it originating at
newsguy.com?
I include all the headers to help you figure it out:
Path:
spln!extra.newsguy.com!lotsanews.com!Cabal.CESspool!bofh.vszbr.cz!howland.er
ols.net!news.alt.net!netroplex.com!usenet
From: John Noland <dno543@airmail.net>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc
Subject: 3rd ROUGH DRAFT - RFD talk.religion.bahai
Date: 15 Sep 1998 06:25:10 GMT
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <6tl186$5vu$br@207.212.27.40>
References: <6ss9qm$4cr$1@clarknet.clark.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.212.27.40
Xref: spln alt.religion.bahai:8675 talk.religion.misc:200022
-----Original Message-----
From: John Noland <dno543@airmail.net>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc
Date: Tuesday, September 15, 1998 2:25 AM
Subject: 3rd ROUGH DRAFT - RFD talk.religion.bahai
>In article <35f725c7.183268556@news.thegrid.net>,
>AGENTQ@please.stop.breeding (Soyed Pants) wrote:
>
>> She has no point Susan. She's obviously too damn stupid to look around
>> and realize she's in an overcrowded world. Another one who probably
>> lives a quality life but has no concern for the conditions others live
>> in.
>
>Unlike Soyled Pants who has great concern only for her pocket book and
creature
>comforts.
>
>To whom "overcrowding" means there might be not enough of something for
her.
>
>Soyled Pants, who say's "she doesn't hate kids", as if we fabricated her
coments
>to make her look bad. All the while she refers to my kids or your kids as
>"your brats".
>
>Soyled Pants, who's single note song is "why should you get a tax break
>for contributing to this over crowded world", yet is too wimpy and self
>centered to make a real contribution to the betterment of others.
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 1998 3:24 PM
To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com
Subject: Re: ARB more harm than good?
This is another instances of someone stealing my
identity or however you wish to see it. I don't find
it amusing.
netroplex.com has notified me that they have deleted his account.
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
Path:
spln!extra.newsguy.com!lotsanews.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplan
et.com!newsfeed.wli.net!newspeer.monmouth.com!news.lightlink.com!news.alt.ne
t!netroplex.com!usenet
From: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc
Subject: ARB more harm than good?
Date: 15 Sep 1998 06:25:26 GMT
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <6tl18m$5vu$ca@207.212.27.40>
References: <6ss9qm$4cr$1@clarknet.clark.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.212.27.40
Xref: spln alt.religion.bahai:8691 talk.religion.misc:200032
FG wrote in message <6tl18m$5vu$ca@207.212.27.40>...
>> Can Mormons be Mormons without
>> believing in Jaredites, etc?
>>
>> Doug
>
>
>Can Christians and Jews be Christians
>and Jews without believing that Moses
>personally stood on the plains of Moab and
>delivered the word in the Book of Deuteronomy
>to the Children of Israel? If "no" what about
>all the excellent biblical scholarship from
>learned Christians and Jews who see the work
>as the product of the age of Jeremiah? If
>"yes" what about Jesus' quotes from the
>book?
>
>Maybe, just maybe, there's something of
>a parallel between the Israelite restoration
>under King Josiah and the coming forth of
>Deuteronomy -- and -- (fill in the blank)
>
>Unka Dale
>who has yet to meet a Jaredite
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 1998 3:26 PM
Subject: Re: Help Someone elses post is sent with my name - HOW?
More "Bahai love" in practice?
Fran Baker wrote in message <6tm43e$1fa$1@chaos.crhc.uiuc.edu>...
>dooltracy@aol.com (Dool Tracy) writes:
>
>>THIS POST IS NOT FROM ME!!!!
>>THIS POST IS NOT FROM ME!!!!!
>
>>How did this post get posted with my signature name????
>
>>How can this be done???? Is this some some sort mistake?????
>>The belowpost was sent under 'Politicas and th faith' a therea started by
me.
>>The below posts dont contain anything Ive written however.
>>How?
>
>>Dool Tracy
>
>This just happened to me, too, although the full email address was
>not the same, just some of it and the name on the post.
>Pretty creepy. Someone is making trouble/noise, maybe to
>prove how ugly an unmoderated newsgroup can be.
>
>--Fran
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 1998 3:30 PM
Subject: netroplex.com NUT
Obviously, not a Bahai, it would appear?
-----Original Message-----
From: Policy Manager <abuse@netroplex.com>
To: paul M <ipcress7@hotmail.com>; kenb@nidlink.com <kenb@nidlink.com>;
Anton Hein <ahein@xs4all.nl>; jw_eiler@bellsouth.net
<jw_eiler@bellsouth.net>; Searles O'Dubhain <odubhain@mindspring.com>;
H4P1A3S1@aol.com <H4P1A3S1@aol.com>; landis.ragon@ibm.net
<landis.ragon@ibm.net>; Gul Agha <agha@cs.uiuc.edu>; Doug Gilliland
<dougg@idt.net>; Ken Stoltzfus <kenstoltz@erols.com>; Nidiffer
<wnidiffe@bcpl.net>; Empath <empath@skipper.com>; Dawn Reeder
<astalis@epsi.net>; Nick S Bensema <nickb@primenet.com>; Roy Johnson
<royjohns@hotmail.com>; Ananda das (ISKCON Victoria, B.C.)
<ananda@coastnet.com>; ebear <ebear@direct.ca>; Jeremiah McAuliffe
<alimhaq@city-net.com>; Gregory Gyetko <ggyetko@newbridge.com>; diana@n1.net
<diana@n1.net>; Henrik Nilsson <mrmagoo@hem.passagen.se>; Khurram Muhammad
<khurram@ecn.purdue.edu>; Gary L King <Oreocat@ETINTERNET.NET>; Mike
Spurgeon <mike@spurgeon.net>; Jim Cheesman <mogrim@arrakis.es>; Glen
<gft@pacificcoast.net>; Mike Dodd <mdodd@shore.net>; Rick Ellis
<ellis@ftel.net>; Kenneth C. Sherwood <unique@ptd.net>; Matz Bjurstr–m
<matz@email.msn.com>; Richard van den Berg <R.vandenBerg@inter.NL.net>;
Oliver Osswald <osswald@mail.com>; John C. 'Buck' Field
<operative@applink.net>; Rich <rsmith@aloha.net>; FG
<FG@hotmail.com>; David Migicovsky <david@showbuzznet.com>; Darryl L.
Pierce <mcpiarais@usa.net>; Don Kresch <dkresch@execpc.com>; Mark W Brehob
<brehob@cse.msu.edu>; Barry T. Dallmann <oddinsgothi@email.msn.com>;
Cornell, David da Silva <CornellD@gtlaw.com>; nurban@vt.edu <nurban@vt.edu>;
Craig Bratcher <jqpublic@netnitco.net>; Rev. Mike Bugal
<revmikeb@mindspring.com>; dbgrap@cy-net.net <dbgrap@cy-net.net>;
MariZap@aol.com <MariZap@aol.com>; Thomas R Scudder <tomscud@umich.edu>;
Alan M Dunsmuir <alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk>; Richard Menninger
<rem@dante.mh.lucent.com>; Jim McCulloch (by way of Jim McCulloch
<ifza600@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu>) <mcculloch@mail.utexas.edu>; Brian J Goggin,
Wordwrights, T/F + 353 61 377057 <bjg@wordwrights.ie>; Verre, Leah
<leahv@humongous.com>; Skitt <skitt1@rocketmail.com>; Peter
<peter@the-upper-room.net>; lshkim@netroplex.com <lshkim@netroplex.com>
Date: Tuesday, September 15, 1998 2:35 PM
Subject: USENET Forgeries
>To all USENET Forgery Victims,
>
>We have identified the user and canceled the service. I called the user
>and the phone number is not valid. I assume that the name and the address
>are fake, too. As an ISP, we have ZERO tolerance for SPAMMERS. We
>apologize for the problem that the user has caused, but we also are a
>victim. (We've gotten tons of e-mail regarding this.) It took us a while
>to track who the user was since the user was also posting messages using
>other e-mail addresses from our users. You won't see any more forgeries
>through our network.
>
>
>
>sincerely,
>
>Laurent Kim
>Policy Manager
>abuse@netroplex.com
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 1998 3:33 PM
Subject: Re: AOL Bahai threats
All the relevant messages to this incident on AOL
can now be found at
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/AOL.htm
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
Jules Joubert wrote in message <6tm3oj$3f5$1@news.worldonline.nl>...
>Dear Robert,
>
>Thank you for your opinion. My feelings exactly. But I was wondering what
>problem Frederick has or sees.
>So I am asking Frederick for his opninion and try to understand his
>position. This does not mean that I agree.
>
>With regards,
>Jules Joubert
>
>rlittle@nils.com wrote in message <6tkeq5$d0u$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>>Dear Jules:
>>
>>What is needed, in my opinion, is a return to the Writings.
>>
>>What would 'Abdul-Baha' do? What would He say?
>>
>>I think that the Baha'i Writings offer clear guidance in how to behave
>towards
>>other human beings. I think that the Baha'i Writings also offer very clear
>>guidance in problem solving.
>>...........................
>>...........................
>>...........................
>>Do we respond with love, or with bitterness?
>>
>>With respect,
>>
>>Robert A. Little
>>
>
>
>
>
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 1998 3:35 PM
Subject: Re: ARB more harm than good?
All the relevant messages to this incident on AOL
can now be found at
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/AOL.htm
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
RMckin6046 wrote in message
<1998091500174100.UAA26624@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>Kate:
>
>Perhaps I was responding more to Fred's response to your post than I was to
>your actual post. There is a tendency here on this newsgroup to see the
worst
>possible explanation for one's behavior... especially if one is a Baha'i
and
>not a cynic. And, I think that perhaps I am feeling a little defensive on
>behalf of my AOL friends. I will revisit your post with a more open mind
and
>try to read it without the responses coloring my understanding.
>
>In the meantime, we should not be surprised at any number of differences of
>opinion. The fact is that this newsgroup can be quite contentious, and
more
>than a few of us can be judgmental of others' opinions.... not to mention
>sarcastic in tone. I think that a resonable person who does not value the
>free-for-all atmosphere can believe that ARB does more harm to teaching the
>Faith than it does good. Please, do not mistake that for my opinion. I
think
>that ARB and SRB and other avenues of discussion and approach all fufill
>reasonable and ultimately helpful ends.
>
>My remark about approaching others with understanding and humility was not
>directed solely or particularly at you. It would be good advice for those
who
>were in the chat room that you visited as well as those of us here on ARB.
My
>point there is that we often approach others with pre-conceived notions of
>their opinions and immediately question their motivations. [Did this not
>happen to you... maybe?] I am guilty of this, and I think it is obvious
that
>others here are too.
>
>Thanks for your kind reply.
>
>Richard
>-------------------------------------------------
>Dr Richard A McKinley
>Fayetteville NC USA
>RMckin6046@aol.com
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 1998 3:40 PM
To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com
Subject: Re: ARB more harm than good?
All the relevant messages to this incident on AOL
can now be found at
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/AOL.htm
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
RMckin6046 wrote in message
<1998091418084000.OAA06037@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>Gee, Thanks! Fred. Let's make real sure all the non-Baha'is at AOL central
>know what horrible "loving" people we really are.
>
>Now what exactly did these loving Baha'is do? Let's see, they "seemed
nervous"
>at Kate's "few simple honest questions." Despite their nervousness, "they
>finally obliged" Kate in answering her questions. Some left the chat room
>instead of participating in the Q&A session desired by Kate. Someone --
quite
>horribly -- exercised free speech and expressed "their [own] opinion... ARB
>does more harm than good."
>
>Now, what TOS violations are described in Kate's post? Did they attack her
>personally? Did someone use profanity? Did some one call her names?
Where
>was the violation of AOL's TOS [Terms of Service]. By forwarding this
>complaint to TOSGeneral and encouraging Kate to report the e-addresses, all
you
>have really accomplished is to reveal yourself to TOSGeneral. Crying
"wolf"
>when there is no wolf will almost certainly backfire. Good going! Keep up
the
>good work!
>
>Richard
>
> >Incidentally, I've forwarded Kate's message to
>>TOSGeneral@aol.com and advise others who have experienced
>>such "Bahai love" to contact them too.
>snip
>> I urge you
>>>to reciprocate and contact the TOSGeneral@aol.com immediately.
>>>If you can remember the Bahais involved and their addresses, you
>>>should pass that along to him or her too. One or all of them might
>>>very well be the same Bahais who are trying to blackball me on
>>>AOL!
>>>
>>>FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
>>>https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
>>>talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
>>>Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>></PRE></HTML>
>
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 1998 3:49 PM
Subject: Re: Censorship at alt.religion.bahai
K. Paul Johnson wrote in message <35fe6f1b.0@vlinsvr>...
>Richard Schaut (RSSchaut@email.msn.com) wrote:
>:
>: There's a rather clear principle of justice, Mr. Johnson, a principle
that I
>: think you may well have forgotten in your fervor and your desire to be
>: considered "liberal" and "free-minded". That principle is: people are
>: innocent until proven guilty.
AOL has clearly found the Bahais GUILTY as charged....
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/AOL.htm
>Johnson wrote:
>If that principle were followed by Baha'i administration and
>individuals in their condemnations of their fellow believers, I
>would have very little to complain about regarding Baha'i
>affairs. But character assassination by innuendo is the
>preferred way of dealing with anything remotely resembling
>dissidence. Seems like that's exactly what you're doing to Juan
>Cole in your message. Saying I don't want to know what you've
>"got" on him, thus attacking me but insinuating you have some
>awful proof of unspecified guilt on his part. If that's not
>character assassination by innuendo, what is?
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 1998 3:55 PM
To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com; Kent Johnson
Subject: Re: the censorship that wasn't
Kent,
In this context, be sure to compare what Bahais have just done on AOL:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/AOL.htm
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
Kent Johnson wrote in message <6tf8sh$7bd$1@as4100c.javanet.com>...
>If you are interested in real evidence of censorship for no good reason, I
>have some. I see no reason to put it here publicly, but it happened and
>there is plenty of evidence, at least where it concerns me.
>
>Warm Baha'i Love. --Kent
>
>
>rlittle@nils.com wrote in message <6tceu5$nfr$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>>Dear friends:
>>
>>There has been discussion recently concerning a plot or conspiracy to
>cancel
>>email messages to alt.religion.bahai in an attempt to censor vocal critics
>of
>>either the Baha'i Faith or some adjunct or agency of that Faith. Some few
>>individuals expressed the opinion in very strong and unmistakable language
>>that they believed these canceled posts to be the work of Baha'is.
>>
>>Inasmuch as one of the alleged victims of this "plot" has publicly come
>>forward...
>>The source of the cancelled emails was not an individual Baha'i, or a
>>group of Baha'is, nor was it any agency or arm of the Baha'i Faith.
>
>
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 1998 6:09 AM
Subject: Re: Bahai TOS on AOL now on web site
I think of John Milton's sonnet "On the New Forcers of Conscience
under the Long Parliament," especially its final line:
"New Presbyter is but Old Priest writ Large."
Given the techniques of Bahais on AOL, the inescapable
conclusion must read:
"New Bahai is but old Mullah writ Large."
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
FG wrote in message <6tj52t$1d7@news1.newsguy.com>...
>All the relevant messages to this incident on AOL
>can now be found at
>https://members.tripod.com/~FG/AOL.htm
>
>FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
>https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
>talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
>Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 1998 6:12 AM
To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com
Subject: Re: Censorship at alt.religion.bahai
New Bahai is but old Mullah writ Large.
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 1998 6:26 AM
Subject: Srb Bahais' solution - censor EVERYTHING & EVERYBODY! (Re: Signatures on SRB)
New Bahai is but old Mullah writ Large....
After having censored and suppressed any posts from me
for more than three and a half months now, the "moderators"
of soc.religion.bahai, in their scintillating wisdom, have come
up with what has to be one of the most laughable "policies" on
Usenet.... Their timing ought to be carefully noted by observers....
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
-----Original Message-----
From: srb-mods@bcca.org <srb-mods@bcca.org>
Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai
Date: Monday, September 14, 1998 1:59 AM
Subject: Moderator's Notice
>Moderators' Notice:
>
>As some signature files contain advertising, which is against the
>charter for this newsgroup, the moderators have decided that only a
>subscriber's name and a return e-mail address will be allowed in
>signatures. Longer signatures will be truncated.
>
>
>
Roger Reini wrote in message <35fcfb6e.222489238@news.newsguy.com>...
>It has just been announced on soc.religion.bahai that the only
>signatures permitted will be those with only a name and e-mail
>address. No URL's. This is because some signatures contained
>advertising, which violates the SRB charter. Longer signatures will
>be truncated.
>
>Since this applies to every participant, Fred or anyone else can no
>longer claim that they are being singled out for an inappropriate
>signature.
>
>Roger (rreini@wwnet.net)
>https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 1998 6:37 AM
Subject: Re: fw Juan Cole Re: [bahai-faith] mutilation theology
Alexander Hamilton & James Madison, The Federalist Papers:
"Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions
of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice,
without constraint."
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
FG wrote in message
<1998090909522700.FAA11217@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 02:08:01 -0400
>To: talisman@umich.edu
>From: Juan Cole <jrcole@umich.edu> Save Address Block Sender
>Cc: bahai-faith@makelist.com
>In-Reply-To: <v01540b02b2150f5723f2@[139.80.53.29]>
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] mutilation theology
>Reply Reply All Forward Delete Previous Next Close
>
>
>
>Someone asked where Shoghi Effendi spoke of the administrative order being
>mutilated without a Guardian. It is World Order of Baha'u'llah p. 148:
>
>"An attempt, I feel, should at the present juncture be made to explain the
>character and functions of the twin pillars that support this mighty
>Administrative Structure--the institutions of the Guardianship and of the
>Universal House of Justice. To describe in their entirety the diverse
>elements that function in conjunction with these institutions is beyond the
>scope and purpose of this general exposition of the fundamental verities of
>the Faith. To define with accuracy and minuteness the features, and to
>analyze exhaustively the nature of the relationships which, on the one
>hand, bind together these two fundamental organs of the Will of
>`Abdu'l-Bahá and connect, on the other, each of them to the Author of the
>Faith and the Center of His Covenant is a task which future generations
>will no doubt adequately fulfill. My present intention is to elaborate
>certain salient features of this scheme which, however close we may stand
>to its colossal structure, are already so clearly defined that we find it
>inexcusable to either misconceive or ignore. 13 It should be stated, at the
>very outset, in clear and unambiguous language, that these twin
>institutions of the Administrative Order of Bahá'u'lláh should be regarded
>as divine in origin, essential in their functions and complementary in
>their aim and purpose. Their common, their fundamental object is to insure
>the continuity of that divinely-appointed authority which flows from the
>Source of our Faith, to safeguard the unity of its followers and to
>maintain the integrity and flexibility of its teachings. Acting in
>conjunction with each other these two inseparable institutions administer
>its affairs, cöordinate its activities, promote its interests, execute its
>laws and defend its subsidiary institutions. Severally, each operates
>within a clearly defined sphere of jurisdiction; each is equipped with its
>own attendant institutions--instruments designed for the effective
>discharge of its particular responsibilities and duties. Each exercises,
>within the limitations imposed upon it, its powers, its authority, its
>rights and prerogatives. These are neither contradictory, nor detract in
>the slightest degree from the position which each of these institutions
>occupies. Far from being incompatible or mutually destructive, they
>supplement each other's authority and functions, and are permanently and
>fundamentally united in their aims."
>
>The uhj tries to interpret this passage away by pointing out that the
>Guardianship operated just fine without a house of justice, so obviously
>the house of justice can operate without a living Guardian. Moreover, the
>lack of a living guardian does not detract from the fact that the
>guardianship did exist at one point, leaving a great deal of guidance.
>
>The problem is that the Guardian *did* think it essential that a house of
>justice come to be asap, and he constantly put things off or made rulings
>provisional upon their future acceptance. Obviously, this schema cannot
>work the other way around--the uhj cannot put things off or rule only
>provisionally on issues in hopes of a future guardian arising, since there
>can be no further guardians. Moreover, it is also clear from his diction
>that he felt that key checks and balances in the Baha'i system were
>provided by a *living* Guardian.
>
>On pp. 154-155 of World Order of Baha'u'llah, Shoghi Effendi continues,
>
>"The hereditary authority which the Guardian is called upon to exercise,
>the vital and essential functions which the Universal House of Justice
>discharges, the specific provisions requiring its democratic election by
>the representatives of the faithful--these combine to demonstrate the truth
>that this divinely revealed Order, which can never be identified with any
>of the standard types of government referred to by Aristotle in his works,
>embodies and blends with the spiritual verities on which it is based the
>beneficent elements which are to be found in each one of them. The admitted
>evils inherent in each of these systems being rigidly and permanently
>excluded, this unique Order, however long it may endure and however
>extensive its ramifications, cannot ever degenerate into any form of
>despotism , of oligarchy, or of demagogy which must sooner or later corrupt
>the machinery of all man-made and essentially defective political
>institutions."
>
>Shoghi Effendi is referring to Aristotle's division of government into rule
>by the one, rule by the few, and rule by the many. Aristotle thought each
>of these forms of government, in turn, had a virtuous and corrupt form.
>Rule of the one is ideally a virtuous monarchy, but it could deteriorate
>into despotism. Rule of the few is ideally a noble aristocracy, but it
>could deteriorate into oligarchy (we would say a junta). Rule of the many
>is ideally a just Republic or Polity that protects the rights of
>minorities; but it could deteriorate into demagoguery and a tyranny of the
>majority.
>
>Shoghi Effendi was saying that the Baha'i system had all three elements:
>rule of the one was the Guardianship, rule of the few was the Hands (?),
>and rule of the many was the elected officers of the houses of justice
>(including NSAs and LSAs).
>Now, according to Aristotle, the rule of the many, i.e., the rule of the
>houses of justice, was liable to deteriorate into demagoguery and the
>tyranny of the majority (a sort of populist fascism, we might say). Shoghi
>Effendi says explicitly that it is the hereditary principle of the
>Guardianship (i.e. the Baha'i equivalent of monarchy) that keeps this
>deterioration from occurring. Obviously, in the absence of a living
>Guardian and with the end of the institution of the hands of the cause, the
>Baha'i system no longer has a living, breathing representative of the
>monarchical principle nor of the aristocratic. This means that the houses
>of justice have become a Republic. And according to Shoghi Effendi's
>analysis, this Republic is open to going bad and becoming demagogic.
>Notice that he does *not* say that what prevents the uhj from becoming
>tyrannical is its own infallibility, or divine guidance, or anything so
>airy fairy. He is concrete and explicit. It is the simultaneous presence
>of the monarchical, aristocratic and republican forms of governance that
>act as institutional brakes on one another. That institutional brake is no
>longer effectively present.
>
>And this is the only way I can understand how things have gone so wrong in
>the Baha'i faith. Things are so corrupt that people like Firuz Kazemzadeh
>go about publicly and explicitly identifying the elected officials of the
>faith with an "aristocracy!" This does so much damage to both Aristotle
>and Shoghi Effendi (not to mention common sense) that one cringes. I
>suppose it must be nice for Firuz, though. And one of the reasons I left
>was that in spring of 1996 the uhj mangled the interpretation of this
>passage by insisting that *it* is the 'rule of the one'! Well, of course,
>they aren't authorized to interpret things, though, are they?
>
>What would replace the role of the Guardian in keeping the elected
>officials from becoming demagogues? Well, maybe nothing can. But maybe
>public opinion could. Just the censure of ordinary Baha'is. And the
>wonderful thing for the Baha'i faith at this juncture, and the thing that
>gives even me hope for those still clinging to the crimson ark, is that
>cyberspace is creating a Baha'i public opinion, and the uhj and the nsa's
>are beginning to feel pressure from it. They hate it. They had liked
>thinking of themselves as 'aristocrats' (or actually oligarchs given how
>they often have behaved). But they had better shed the velvet robes and
>dump the silver wine goblets, with the $200 million palaces, and get back
>to being plain democratic representatives of the Baha'i Republic or
>eventually they will lose all their power and perquisites, altogether.
>
>
>cheers Juan
>
>
>
FG wrote in message <6tgnta$p42@news1.newsguy.com>...
>Plato's comments in the Republic seem apt here as well:
>
>"For cobblers who deteriorate and are spoiled and pretend
>to be the workmen that they are not are no great danger to a
>state. But guardians of laws and of the city who are not what
>they pretend to be, but only seem, destroy utterly, I would
>have you note, the entire state.... but these helpers and
>guardians are to be constrained and persuaded to do
>what will make them the best craftsmen in their own work,
>and similarly all the rest." Book IV
>
>FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
>https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
>talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
>Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>FG wrote in message
><1998090909522700.FAA11217@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>>Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 02:08:01 -0400
>>To: talisman@umich.edu
>>From: Juan Cole <jrcole@umich.edu> Save Address Block Sender
>>Cc: bahai-faith@makelist.com
>>In-Reply-To: <v01540b02b2150f5723f2@[139.80.53.29]>
>>Mime-Version: 1.0
>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>>Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] mutilation theology
>>Reply Reply All Forward Delete Previous Next Close
>>
>>
>>
>>Someone asked where Shoghi Effendi spoke of the administrative order being
>>mutilated without a Guardian. It is World Order of Baha'u'llah p. 148:
>>
>>"An attempt, I feel, should at the present juncture be made to explain the
>>character and functions of the twin pillars that support this mighty
>>Administrative Structure--the institutions of the Guardianship and of the
>>Universal House of Justice. To describe in their entirety the diverse
>>elements that function in conjunction with these institutions is beyond
the
>>scope and purpose of this general exposition of the fundamental verities
of
>>the Faith. To define with accuracy and minuteness the features, and to
>>analyze exhaustively the nature of the relationships which, on the one
>>hand, bind together these two fundamental organs of the Will of
>>`Abdu'l-Bahá and connect, on the other, each of them to the Author of the
>>Faith and the Center of His Covenant is a task which future generations
>>will no doubt adequately fulfill. My present intention is to elaborate
>>certain salient features of this scheme which, however close we may stand
>>to its colossal structure, are already so clearly defined that we find it
>>inexcusable to either misconceive or ignore. 13 It should be stated, at
the
>>very outset, in clear and unambiguous language, that these twin
>>institutions of the Administrative Order of Bahá'u'lláh should be regarded
>>as divine in origin, essential in their functions and complementary in
>>their aim and purpose. Their common, their fundamental object is to insure
>>the continuity of that divinely-appointed authority which flows from the
>>Source of our Faith, to safeguard the unity of its followers and to
>>maintain the integrity and flexibility of its teachings. Acting in
>>conjunction with each other these two inseparable institutions administer
>>its affairs, cöordinate its activities, promote its interests, execute its
>>laws and defend its subsidiary institutions. Severally, each operates
>>within a clearly defined sphere of jurisdiction; each is equipped with its
>>own attendant institutions--instruments designed for the effective
>>discharge of its particular responsibilities and duties. Each exercises,
>>within the limitations imposed upon it, its powers, its authority, its
>>rights and prerogatives. These are neither contradictory, nor detract in
>>the slightest degree from the position which each of these institutions
>>occupies. Far from being incompatible or mutually destructive, they
>>supplement each other's authority and functions, and are permanently and
>>fundamentally united in their aims."
>>
>>The uhj tries to interpret this passage away by pointing out that the
>>Guardianship operated just fine without a house of justice, so obviously
>>the house of justice can operate without a living Guardian. Moreover, the
>>lack of a living guardian does not detract from the fact that the
>>guardianship did exist at one point, leaving a great deal of guidance.
>>
>>The problem is that the Guardian *did* think it essential that a house of
>>justice come to be asap, and he constantly put things off or made rulings
>>provisional upon their future acceptance. Obviously, this schema cannot
>>work the other way around--the uhj cannot put things off or rule only
>>provisionally on issues in hopes of a future guardian arising, since there
>>can be no further guardians. Moreover, it is also clear from his diction
>>that he felt that key checks and balances in the Baha'i system were
>>provided by a *living* Guardian.
>>
>>On pp. 154-155 of World Order of Baha'u'llah, Shoghi Effendi continues,
>>
>>"The hereditary authority which the Guardian is called upon to exercise,
>>the vital and essential functions which the Universal House of Justice
>>discharges, the specific provisions requiring its democratic election by
>>the representatives of the faithful--these combine to demonstrate the
truth
>>that this divinely revealed Order, which can never be identified with any
>>of the standard types of government referred to by Aristotle in his works,
>>embodies and blends with the spiritual verities on which it is based the
>>beneficent elements which are to be found in each one of them. The
admitted
>>evils inherent in each of these systems being rigidly and permanently
>>excluded, this unique Order, however long it may endure and however
>>extensive its ramifications, cannot ever degenerate into any form of
>>despotism , of oligarchy, or of demagogy which must sooner or later
corrupt
>>the machinery of all man-made and essentially defective political
>>institutions."
>>
>>Shoghi Effendi is referring to Aristotle's division of government into
rule
>>by the one, rule by the few, and rule by the many. Aristotle thought each
>>of these forms of government, in turn, had a virtuous and corrupt form.
>>Rule of the one is ideally a virtuous monarchy, but it could deteriorate
>>into despotism. Rule of the few is ideally a noble aristocracy, but it
>>could deteriorate into oligarchy (we would say a junta). Rule of the many
>>is ideally a just Republic or Polity that protects the rights of
>>minorities; but it could deteriorate into demagoguery and a tyranny of the
>>majority.
>>
>>Shoghi Effendi was saying that the Baha'i system had all three elements:
>>rule of the one was the Guardianship, rule of the few was the Hands (?),
>>and rule of the many was the elected officers of the houses of justice
>>(including NSAs and LSAs).
>>Now, according to Aristotle, the rule of the many, i.e., the rule of the
>>houses of justice, was liable to deteriorate into demagoguery and the
>>tyranny of the majority (a sort of populist fascism, we might say).
Shoghi
>>Effendi says explicitly that it is the hereditary principle of the
>>Guardianship (i.e. the Baha'i equivalent of monarchy) that keeps this
>>deterioration from occurring. Obviously, in the absence of a living
>>Guardian and with the end of the institution of the hands of the cause,
the
>>Baha'i system no longer has a living, breathing representative of the
>>monarchical principle nor of the aristocratic. This means that the houses
>>of justice have become a Republic. And according to Shoghi Effendi's
>>analysis, this Republic is open to going bad and becoming demagogic.
>>Notice that he does *not* say that what prevents the uhj from becoming
>>tyrannical is its own infallibility, or divine guidance, or anything so
>>airy fairy. He is concrete and explicit. It is the simultaneous presence
>>of the monarchical, aristocratic and republican forms of governance that
>>act as institutional brakes on one another. That institutional brake is
no
>>longer effectively present.
>>
>>And this is the only way I can understand how things have gone so wrong in
>>the Baha'i faith. Things are so corrupt that people like Firuz Kazemzadeh
>>go about publicly and explicitly identifying the elected officials of the
>>faith with an "aristocracy!" This does so much damage to both Aristotle
>>and Shoghi Effendi (not to mention common sense) that one cringes. I
>>suppose it must be nice for Firuz, though. And one of the reasons I left
>>was that in spring of 1996 the uhj mangled the interpretation of this
>>passage by insisting that *it* is the 'rule of the one'! Well, of course,
>>they aren't authorized to interpret things, though, are they?
>>
>>What would replace the role of the Guardian in keeping the elected
>>officials from becoming demagogues? Well, maybe nothing can. But maybe
>>public opinion could. Just the censure of ordinary Baha'is. And the
>>wonderful thing for the Baha'i faith at this juncture, and the thing that
>>gives even me hope for those still clinging to the crimson ark, is that
>>cyberspace is creating a Baha'i public opinion, and the uhj and the nsa's
>>are beginning to feel pressure from it. They hate it. They had liked
>>thinking of themselves as 'aristocrats' (or actually oligarchs given how
>>they often have behaved). But they had better shed the velvet robes and
>>dump the silver wine goblets, with the $200 million palaces, and get back
>>to being plain democratic representatives of the Baha'i Republic or
>>eventually they will lose all their power and perquisites, altogether.
>>
>>
>>cheers Juan
>>
>>
>>
>
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 1998 6:40 AM
To: Juan Cole
Subject: Nash?
You wrote recently:
"And given what happened to Denis MacEoin, Abbas Amanat, Steven Scholl,
Linda Walbridge, Bill Garlington, Geoffrey Nash, "
I haven't anything about Nash. I'd appreciate it if you could fill me in on
what happened in his regard....
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 1998 7:03 AM
To: Ron House
Subject: Fw: news release & Frank....
Ron,
I'll go with your point of view, but, between ourselves, I feel
uneasy and distrustful....
-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Baker <fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu>
To: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
Cc: Frank Baker <fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu>; Fran Baker <fran@crhc.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tuesday, September 15, 1998 6:50 PM
Subject: Re: news release & Frank....
>Dear Fred,
>
>First of all, thanks for inquiring; I appreciate it. Second, yes,
>I am still interested in serving as a proponent. That said, I feel
>that I owe you an apology and an explanation.
>
>First the explanation: My interest is in the establishment of an
>open forum and I will argue positively and constructively in its
>favor. I do not, however, wish to be personally associated with
>the negative side of the arguments, e.g., the various accusations
>of censorship or suppression. I would rather let the facts of
>such cases speak for themselves and let thinking people draw their
>own conclusions. Don't get me wrong, though; I am not saying that
>I feel that those cases should not be discussed. Even "thinking
>people" cannot draw reasonable conclusions if the facts are
>suppressed.
>
>And the apology: I have not been able to achieve the level of
>"presence" on the news groups as I would like ... and as is
>necessary if I am to be effective as a proponent. In part, this
>is because my work as a technical writer keeps me in front of a
>computer anywhere from 6 to 12 hours a day. While I do indeed
>wish to support the TRB effort, pressures are often such that I
>cannot engage in such activity during the workday and I find that
>at the end of such intense days, a "busman's holiday" on the computer
>in the evening very close to the last thing I want need. (The past
>several weeks has seen one of those intense pushes at work.) The
>result is that my participation is likely to be somewhat episodic
>-- Between pushes, I will be able to participate; during a serious
>push, especially as we approach deadlines, I will tend not to be
>around very much.
>
>Regards,
>-- Frank
>
>
>
>At 08:36 AM 9/15/98 -0400, FG wrote:
>>Frank,
>>
>>Are you still interested in serving as a proponent?
>>
>>Revised news release rough draft below, with a slight allusion
>>to what Bahais have just attempted on AOL....
>>
>>...
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 1998 7:10 AM
To: Ron House
Subject: bcca mailing lists
Ron,
What should be done about the bcca mailing lists?
I can't subscribe to them in order to post the pointers.
Can you subscribe? I've mentioned a few times it
would be helpful for someone trustworthy like yourself
to do so. Bahai-discuss last year was used to mobilize
some people against the proposal....
You can find all the bcca files from last year at
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/archive.htm
FROM THE RFD:
And to the following seven Bahai-only listservs:
Subscribe via bahai-request@bcca.org
Baha'i Campus Forum (BCF)
Baha'i Discuss (Discuss)
Baha'i Singles (Singles)
Baha'i Teachers (Teachers)
Baha'i Women Converse (Women)
Baha'i Youth (Youth - aimed at the 12-18 age group)
Baha'i Announce (Announce)
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 1998 6:26 AM
To: Juan Cole
Subject: Re: Nash?
In about 1990, I had exchanged a letter or two with him, in one
of which he had commented:
We can see by what has happened to dialogue that even if
people are ready to read an independent style magazine,
there are others who do not wish them to, and are
prepared to make it virtually impossible for them to do
so. Sorry to sound so bleak, but that is the reality of
the situation.
Print or electronic, the situation remains the same....
-----Original Message-----
From: Juan Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>
To: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, September 16, 1998 12:58 PM
Subject: Re: Nash?
>
>Dear Fred:
>
>I don't have details, but he was just gradually disgusted by the behavior
>of the Baha'i Far Right in the UK, and the crackdown on Dialogue magazine
>appears to have been the last straw for him.
>
>
>cheers Juan
>
>
>
>
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 1998 6:28 AM
Subject: fw Juan Cole Re: Checks & Balances (was Re: fw Juan Cole Re: [bahai-faith] mutilation theology)
-----Original Message-----
From: Juan Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>
To: Richard Schaut <RSSchaut@email.msn.com>
Cc: bahai-faith@makelist.com <bahai-faith@makelist.com>
Date: Wednesday, September 16, 1998 2:06 PM
Subject: [bahai-faith] Re: Checks & Balances (was fw Juan Colemutilation
theology)
>
>Dear Rick:
>
>I wish you would spend more time getting rid of those 'fatal protection
>faults' that make us Microsoft users' lives hell (which somehow don't seem
>to be a problem for Apple users) and less time expounding Aristotle. :-)
>
>I thank you for your comments on my note, which I hope to expand as a
>paper, and, of course, the process of dialogue and criticism can only make
>it a better paper.
>I am sorry you used the word 'absurdities,' however, since I do not believe
>my perspective is absurd even if it may need refinement, and I do not
>believe that my studies of Baha'i texts have ever been frivolous in such a
>way as would legitimately call for such an insult.
>
>You wrote:
>
>>>From a political science perspective, the existence of some form of
checks
>>and balances requires a tension between powers and authorities granted to
>>various branches of government. Specifically, it requires two or more
>>separate institutions to have authority to limit each other's functions.
>
>But the Guardian himself said *what* prevents the various elements of the
>Baha'i system (rule of the one, rule of the few, and rule of the many) from
>deteriorating from their good form (monarchy, aristocracy, republicanism)
>to their bad form (despotism, oligarchy, demagoguery). That is, when he
>says on WOB p. 154 that the administrative order cannot degenerate into
>despotism, oligarchy or demagogy, this is coming as the *conclusion* of an
>argument earlier in the paragraph: the *reason* for which it cannot
>degenerate is because the administration "embodies and blends with the
>spiritual verities on which it is based the beneficent elements which are
>to be found in each one of them"--that is, it embodies the beneficent
>elements of monarchy, aristocracy and republicanism.
>
>Now, obviously, logically speaking, should the system cease to "embody" all
>three of these "beneficent elements", and instead be left with only one of
>them (rule of the many via their elected representatives), then we would
>have a different system. With the end of the guardianship, that is what
>has happened. (The fiction that rule of the one continues through the
>Guardian's writings is just propaganda; those writings can be interpreted
>in many ways, and when they are misinterpreted for narrow institutional
>purposes they can't talk back the way a living Guardian would.) The rule
>of the many, as we all know, is in constant danger of becoming demagogic
>and a tyranny of the majority. And there is no 'beneficent' rule of the
>on--the Guardian--to offset this tendency.
>
>Note that in the U.S. system, the Supreme Court also could not come in and
>make foreign policy, 'over-ruling' the Cabinet. It would have to respect
>the executive sphere of authority. I doubt it could even rule a foreign
>policy unconstitutional. But in other respects the existence of an
>independent judiciary that interprets the laws does limit the ability of
>the executive branch to act in a despotic fashion.
>
>It is certainly the case that a living Guardian would have been in a
>position to deter the other 8 members of the universal house of justice
>from acting in a dicatorial fashion. As Interpeter of the text, he could
>simply tell them that his interpretation of the scriptures ruled out
>falsely accusing college professors of covenant breaking as a way of
>silencing them or discrediting them in the community. The latter sort of
>action, of which the present universal house of justice has been
>egregiously guilty, clearly violates not only enormous numbers of
>scriptural texts guaranteeing freedom in thought, speech and intellectual
>inquiry, but violates the constitution of the universal house of justice
>itself, which constrains that body to protect the rights of individual
>Baha'is. (Ha!). A living Guardian could not have over-ruled such a
>malicious, mad and slightly stupid plan, but he could have weighed in,
>using his charisma and interpretive authority, to prevent the Hyppolyte
>Dryfuses and Auguste Forels of a later time from being railroaded by
>fundamentalist electrical engineers and narrow-minded failed businessmen
>and actors. And I firmly believe he would have.
>
>I think Rick Schaut knows very well that there are areas of corruption and
>unjustified repression in the Baha'i administration. He has a faith that
>all will be well nevertheless. I have had that faith shattered by
>witnessing my universal house of justice, in which I used to repose such
>high hopes, act like a group of ayatollahs or inquisitorial cardinals,
>falsely accusing decent, energetic, loving Baha'is like Linda Walbridge of
>verbal covenant breaking as a way of silencing their voices. They don't
>have the right or the legitimate authority to silence individual Baha'is
>from their expression of individual interpretation. This is something
>`Abdul-Baha and Shoghi Effendi guaranteed the Baha'is. They are acting
>like despots. And whether my explanation of how this could have come to be
>is completely correct or not, some explanation of it is required.
>
>cheers
>
>Juan Cole
>Professor
>History
>U of Michigan
>
>
>
>
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>
>Subscribe, unsubscribe, opt for a daily digest, or start a new e-group
>at https://www.eGroups.com -- Free Web-based e-mail groups.
>
Richard Schaut wrote in message ...
>
>FG wrote in message <6to7u6$k7p@news1.newsguy.com>...
>>Alexander Hamilton & James Madison, The Federalist Papers:
>>
>>"Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions
>>of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice,
>>without constraint."
>
>
>I can see that it's time to point out some of the absurdities of Dr. Cole's
>arguments regarding "Checks and Balances" within the structure of the
>Administrative Order of the Baha'i Faith. Dr. Cole asserts that the
>presence of a living Guardian is some form of "balance" of the "rule of
one"
>against the "rule of many" embodied in the institution of the Universal
>House of Justice.
>
>In support of this assertion, Dr. Cole quotes Shoghi Effendi's letter dated
>8 February 1934 and addressed to the Baha'is of the West (i.e. Europe and
>North America). The letter is often referred to as "The Dispensation of
>Baha'u'llah", and is quoted in its entirety in "The World Order of
>Baha'u'llah"--a collection of selected letters from Shoghi Effendi.
>
>In this regard, however, Dr. Cole fails to quote the most important passage
>we might find with respect to any form of checks and balances within the
>Administrative Order. Speaking of the complimentary functions of the
>institutions of the Guardianship and the Universal House of Justice, Shoghi
>Effendi states:
>
>"Though the Guardian of the Faith has been made the permanent head of so
>august a body [The Universal House of Justice] he can never, even
>temporarily, assume the right of exclusive legislation. He cannot override
>the decision of the majority of his fellow-members, but is bound to insist
>upon a reconsideration by them of any enactment he conscientiously believes
>to conflict with the meaning and to depart from the spirit of Baha'u'llah's
>revealed utterances." (World Order of Baha'u'llah, p. 150)
>
>From a political science perspective, the existence of some form of checks
>and balances requires a tension between powers and authorities granted to
>various branches of government. Specifically, it requires two or more
>separate institutions to have authority to limit each other's functions.
>For example, in the United States, the Courts have the power and authority
>to declare a law of Congress unconstitutional--i.e. to _bindingly_ state
the
>Congress have stepped outside their bounds.
>
>Contrast this with Shoghi Effendi's remarks above, in which, _at most_, the
>Guardian can only "insist upon a reconsideration by" the other members of
>the Universal House of Justice, yet cannot override the majority's
decision.
>
>Shoghi Effendi goes even further in this regard. In the paragraph
>immediately preceeding the paragraph quoted above, Shoghi Effendi states,
>
>"The interpretation of the Guardian, functioning within his own sphere, is
>as authoritative and binding as the enactments of the International House
of
>Justice, whose exclusive right and prerogative is to pronounce upon and
>deliver the final judgement on such laws and ordinances as Baha'u'llah has
>not expressly revealed. Neither can, nor will ever, infringe upon the
>sacred and prescribed domain of the other. Neither will seek to curtail
the
>specific and undoubted authority with which both have been divinely
>invested." (Ibid, p. 150)
>
>Clearly, there are no "checks and balances" in the form of contravening
>powers and or authorities. The authority of the Guardianship _compliments_
>that of the Universal House of Justice, and "Neither will seek to curtail"
>the operations of the other.
>
>Having shown the absence of any specific provisions that would engender the
>common notions of "Checks and Balances" as we've come to know them, we can
>now return to the passage that Dr. Cole quotes:
>
>"The admitted evils inherent in each of these systems being rigidly and
>permanently excluded, this unique Order, however long it may endure and
>however extensive its ramifications, cannot ever degenerate into any form
of
>despotism , of oligarchy, or of demagogy which must sooner or later corrupt
>the machinery of all man-made and essentially defective political
>institutions." (Ibid, p. 154)
>
>Dr. Cole asserts that Shoghi Effendi's remarks in this paragraph,
>particiularly regarding demagogy, hinge upon the hereditary authority that
>the Guardian exercises. Yet, as we have seen above, the Guardian's
>authority does _not_ include the authority to override any decision of the
>Universal House of Justice. At best, the Guardian can insist that the
>members of the Universal House of Justice reconsider a decision, but he
>cannot override that decision.
>
>What, then, prompts Shoghi Effendi to assert that this Order "cannot ever
>degenerate into any form of depotism, of oligarchy or of demagogy"? To
>answer that, let's take a closer look at the sentences that precede those
>quoted above:
>
>"The hereditary authority which the Guardian is called upon to exercise,
the
>vital and essential functions which the Universal House of Justice
>discharges, the specific provisions requiring its democratic election by
the
>representatives of the faithful--these combine to demonstrate the truth
that
>this divinely revealed Order, which can never be identified with any of the
>standard types of government referred to by Aristotle in his works,
embodies
>and blends with the spiritual verities on which it is based the beneficent
>elements which are to be found in each one of them." (Ibid, p. 154)
>
>Note that it is not merely the hereditary authority which the Guardian
>exercises, but also the specific provisions requiring the democratic
>election of the membership of the Universal House of Justice, combine to
>distinguish the Administrative Order from any of the forms of government
>identified by Aristotle.
>
>A demagogy is a system whereby leadership is conducted via appeal to the
>emotions of the populace. The specific aspect of any democracy that would
>give rise to any tendancy to become such a "tyrany of the majority" is the
>fact that the elected representatives in a democracy must answer to the
>views of those who have elected them.
>
>In the Baha'i System, however, members of these institutions do not answer
>to the whims of those who elect them. Further, the absence of any form of
>electioneering implies that members are elected based upon their character
>and recognized ability to make sound decisions. They are not elected based
>upon their "political" views. Within such a system, there can be no
mandate
>from the populace, as their are no platforms upon which candidates would
run
>for office.
>
>The feature, then, of the Baha'i System that precludes its degeneration
into
>any form of demagogy is not the Guardian's hereditary authority. Rather,
>the feature is in the specific provisions regarding the election of members
>of the Houses of Justice.
>
>Lastly, to see just how absurd Dr. Cole's assertion is, consider his
>concluding remarks:
>
>"What would replace the role of the Guardian in keeping the elected
>officials from becoming demagogues? Well, maybe nothing can. But maybe
>public opinion could."
>
>What an astounding remark! The very thing that _creates_ a demagogue is
the
>appeal to public opinion. Yet, somehow, public opinion is to be the means
>that prevents the Universal House of Justice from becoming demagogues!
This
>is so twisted that it boggles the mind.
>
>
>Regards,
>Rick Schaut
>
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 1998 6:38 AM
To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com
Subject: Re: On soc.religion.bahai - brief quotations
Schaut wrote:
>>Not a single demonstrable fact in this one, just opinions. He's entitled
>>to his opinions, but his opinions do not, of themselves, constitute
>>evidence.
>
>
>You are on the wrong side here. You want facts I can supply them. But for
>what purpose?
>
>--Kent
The purpose would not be for convincing fundamentalists Bahais.
Nothing anyone can say can reach or help most of them.... But
it could help people of a more open mind who can still think for
themselves, especially when added to the already overwhelming
evidence of censorship and duplicity....
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 1998 6:53 AM
Subject: Re: Censorship at alt.religion.bahai
K. Paul Johnson wrote in message <35ffc677.0@vlinsvr>...
K. Paul Johnson wrote:
>I can assure you, Rick, that your continual personal hostility,
>calling me "Mr. Johnson" repeatedly, and now making an implicit
>threat, might be winning you points with your own constituency
>but does not make a positive impression of Baha'i for outsiders
>who read it.
Someone has recently said to me in email that Rick is the
one who is doing all the "shauting."
Johnson wrote:
>That's "weasel" and not the argument at all. What I'm saying is
>that you are hassling me, for thousands of words now, for a
>speculation about possible persons who may have done something,
>and have been silent to the best of my knowledge in cases where
>specific people have been maligned.
Rich himself, a month or so ago, was extremely derisive
and insulting to Timothy Mulligan. All the "good" Bahais stood
by and said nothing.... A fine demonstration of Bahai "unity."
Johnson wrote:
>It's clear to me that you're in a "win/lose" mindset with all
>critics of the Baha'i institutions, and that this struggle to vindicate
>them has a pretty high priority for you. Whereas among my
>interests, Baha'i affairs are way down the list, even if we just
>count religious movements. Thus I don't have the interest or the
>will to continue debating you. If that strikes you as a victory,
>so be it. Congratulations.
It's usually victory enough, for many Bahais.... Wear them down,
drive them out, hector them to hell and back, but get rid of them....
Uh, duh, where are the missing 105,000 Bahais in the USA?
The tens of thousands the NSA claims in the unsuspecting media?
But in all sincerity, I would urge
>you to consider in future, when you are facing a critic in a
>public forum, that your tone reflects on the cause you think you
>are defending. I don't think you are winning any points for that
>cause in the eyes of onlookers, however much your coreligionists
>might encourage you to take this approach.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>PJ
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 1998 6:56 AM
Subject: fw Ron House 3 Re: 3rd ROUGH DRAFT - RFD talk.religion.bahai
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron House <house@usq.edu.au>
To: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, September 16, 1998 10:25 PM
Subject: Re: rfd
>Hi Fred,
>
>Is it too late to suggest we drop a couple? I am not sure whether
>these are groups I suggested or someone else, but I find myself
>having doubts as I read the list now:
>
>> soc.religion.sikhism,
> Too parochial, not very open-minded.
>
>> soc.religion.scientology,
> Better to leave to their own devices
>
>> soc.religion.vaishnava,
> Same as sikhism
>
>> alt.religion.islam,
> I think the Moslems are causing too much trouble for innocent
> Baha'is to consider giving them more ammo.
>
>> alt.religion.vaisnava,
> As above.
>
>--
>Ron House house@usq.edu.au
>
>Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is
>unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30.
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 1998 6:58 AM
Subject: fw Ron House 4 Re: 3rd ROUGH DRAFT - RFD talk.religion.bahai
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron House <house@usq.edu.au>
To: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, September 16, 1998 10:52 PM
Subject: Re: bcca mailing lists
>FG wrote:
>>
>> Ron,
>>
>> What should be done about the bcca mailing lists?
>> I can't subscribe to them in order to post the pointers.
>> Can you subscribe? I've mentioned a few times it
>> would be helpful for someone trustworthy like yourself
>> to do so. Bahai-discuss last year was used to mobilize
>> some people against the proposal....
>
>Hi Fred,
>
>I'd rather stick to the newsgroups. I am finding that email
>is a big problem for me as it is, as I have various non-Baha'i
>lists that I have to subscribe to for other reasons. I am
>trying to get out of all email discussions if I possibly can
>at present.
>
>--
>Ron House house@usq.edu.au
>
>Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is
>unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30.
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 1998 6:59 AM
To: Ron House
Subject: Re: Fw: news release & Frank....
Okay, Ron, I'll try to hope for the best....
Not easy for me to do. We may have to cut
the mailing lists if we can't find someone else
to post to them.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron House <house@usq.edu.au>
To: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, September 16, 1998 10:49 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: news release & Frank....
>FG wrote:
>>
>> Ron,
>>
>> I'll go with your point of view, but, between ourselves, I feel
>> uneasy and distrustful....
>>
>Hi Fred,
>
>I wouldn't worry. It's much less important to do things
>perfectly than to find friends and gladden their hearts
>(after all, this is what we complain about the standard
>Baha'is NOT doing!).
>
>--
>Ron House house@usq.edu.au
>
>Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is
>unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30.
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 1998 7:08 AM
Subject: The Bahai technique - May 4,1992
I've stumbled on to a letter I wrote in May of 1992 which, to
my surprise, seems to have already identified "The Bahai technique"
so thoroughly demonstrated here online:
The leap you talk about, however, is different from
Kierkegaard's and not as simple as it is made out to be. Shoghi
Effendi writes somewhere that the administrators of Baha'u'llah
must be worthy of the trust of the Baha'i community. Undeniable
experience has shown me that is not always the case. It seems to
me the Baha'i administration, or what passes for it, is well on
its way to becoming its own form of clergy, with all the abuses
and seductions of the past. The worst distortions of the Jesuits
or mullahs seem suggestive. If God has given us a mind to use, I
don't see how ignoring or lying about the situation serves any
purpose, except the acquisition of further power and control.
The Baha'i Faith has become very oppressive and manipulative of
the individual. That to me is merely a statement of fact, as I
have experienced it, for nearly sixteen years now. The usual
stratagem in dealing with anyone who would express his conscience
in good faith is to pretend the Cause is above any kind of
criticism whatsoever while intimating that anyone who would speak
honestly must have something wrong with him, i.e., his spiritual
life isn't what it should be, he doesn't understand the nature of
unity, or he's accused of trying to obtain power for himself,
which at times seems merely a calculated way of discrediting the
person, and so on. Another common strategy used to acquire
control over the individual is to humor the person by letting him
pour himself out, etc., and then self-righteously giving him the
Truth.
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 1998 7:26 AM
To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com
Subject: Antinomies sublime....
Plato, The Republic, Parable of the Cave:
In like manner, when anyone by dialectic attempts through
discourse of reason apart from all perceptions of sense to
find his way to the very essence of each thing.... he arrives
at the limit of the intelligible, as the other in our parable
came to the goal of the visible.
* * *
And may we not also declare that nothing less than the
power of dialectic could reveal this, and that only to one
experienced in the studies we have described....
* * *
Do you agree, then, said I, that we have set dialectic
above all other studies to be as it were the coping
stone--
* * *
And it is also, said I, the chief test of the dialectic
nature and its opposite. For he who can view things
in their connection is a dialectician; he who cannot,
is not....
Baha'u'llah, the Most Great Dialectician, understood all this....
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 18, 1998 5:35 AM
To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com
Subject: Re: Definition of a follower of Baha'u'llah
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/technique.htm
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
rlittle@nils.com wrote in message <6trkrj$gci$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>Dear Friends:
>
>I quickly read through the messages posted to alt.religion.bahai this
morning
>and discovered not one single message which reflected in any substantive
way
>the love and devotion and purity of thought which Baha'u'llah inculcated in
>His followers, and which 'Abdul-Baha', His Perfect Exemplar and the Center
>of His Covenant, so wonderfully exemplified.
>
>It is not particularly easy for one to discover that the Baha'i Faith
exists,
>even today, although it is getting easier, as the Faith grows and becomes
more
>visible.
>
>It is not particularly easy for one to learn about the Baha'i Faith, once
one
>becomes apprised of its existence, for the Baha'is do not seem to have the
>media resources so necessary in this electronic society for the propagation
of
>knowledge and information.
>
>It is not particularly easy for one to become a Baha'i today. It is
actually
>quite difficult. For most of us, we must struggle against the "common
>knowledge" of what Religion is, and we must struggle against ingrained
habits
>of thought and feeling, and we must struggle to embrace a Faith which is
still
>largely unknown, and frequently "uncool" to belong to, as it is outside of
the
>cultural centers of power.
>
>It is not particularly easy for one to become an expert at being a Baha'i,
as
>the Teachings require profound changes in our fundamental attitudes towards
>other races, Religions, peoples, cultures, sexes, ages, and so on. We must
>acquire not only a knowledge of the Baha'i Faith, in itself a life-long
task,
>but we must also acquire knowledge of all the other Faiths and cultures as
>well. Finally, we must transform ourselves into radiant, loving, devoted
>servants of humanity, and of God.
>
>With all this said, I find it strange that there should be so much
negativity
>found here on a newsgroup dedicated to discussion of Baha'u'llah and His
>Faith and Teachings. As I understand it, Baha'u'llah has called on humans
to
>grow up, become mature, loving adults, to create a society whose foundation
>is justice, to abolish the childish pastimes of the past, such as war,
drugs,
>and violence, and take up those pursuits which lead to the enoblement of
the
>soul.
>
>When one becomes a Baha'i, how are her co-religionists supposed to act
>towards her? It is to be expected that there will be tests and
difficulties,
>that there will be setbacks. As these all too human attributes surface, are
>the other members of her community supposed to point out her faults,
>criticize her efforts, mistrust her motives and backbite against her?
>
>Most assuredly not, if one is to be obedient to God.
>
>There has been given us the Perfect Standard by which we can judge our own
>behavior, and the Perfect Exemplar to assist us in understanding that
>Standard, and the tools with which to modify that behavior. If we are truly
>following Baha'u'llah, we should not have the time or the inclination to
seek
>out the mote in our neighbors eye. We should be concerned with acquiring
the
>virtues of God, such as patience, understandng, love, honesty, integrity,
>truthfulness, forebearance, kindness, and in general a rectitude of conduct
>such that a stranger, upon meeting us for the first time, would cry out,
>"There is a Baha'i!".
>
>I would like to request that the participants and the visitors and the
lurkers
>who come her please focus on the beauty which is present in all of us, the
>glory which is found in all Faiths, the love which exists in all hearts,
and
>write and talk about these elements which ALONE will bring us together.
>
>In the final analysis, we (you and I), are either part of the problem, or
we
>are part of the solution. Which side do you want to be one?
>
>Choose wisely.
>
>With love,
>
>Robert A. Little
>
>
>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>https://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 18, 1998 5:35 AM
Subject: Re: Definition of a follower of Baha'u'llah
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/technique.htm
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
rlittle@nils.com wrote in message <6trkrj$gci$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>Dear Friends:
>
>I quickly read through the messages posted to alt.religion.bahai this
morning
>and discovered not one single message which reflected in any substantive
way
>the love and devotion and purity of thought which Baha'u'llah inculcated in
>His followers, and which 'Abdul-Baha', His Perfect Exemplar and the Center
>of His Covenant, so wonderfully exemplified.
>
>It is not particularly easy for one to discover that the Baha'i Faith
exists,
>even today, although it is getting easier, as the Faith grows and becomes
more
>visible.
>
>It is not particularly easy for one to learn about the Baha'i Faith, once
one
>becomes apprised of its existence, for the Baha'is do not seem to have the
>media resources so necessary in this electronic society for the propagation
of
>knowledge and information.
>
>It is not particularly easy for one to become a Baha'i today. It is
actually
>quite difficult. For most of us, we must struggle against the "common
>knowledge" of what Religion is, and we must struggle against ingrained
habits
>of thought and feeling, and we must struggle to embrace a Faith which is
still
>largely unknown, and frequently "uncool" to belong to, as it is outside of
the
>cultural centers of power.
>
>It is not particularly easy for one to become an expert at being a Baha'i,
as
>the Teachings require profound changes in our fundamental attitudes towards
>other races, Religions, peoples, cultures, sexes, ages, and so on. We must
>acquire not only a knowledge of the Baha'i Faith, in itself a life-long
task,
>but we must also acquire knowledge of all the other Faiths and cultures as
>well. Finally, we must transform ourselves into radiant, loving, devoted
>servants of humanity, and of God.
>
>With all this said, I find it strange that there should be so much
negativity
>found here on a newsgroup dedicated to discussion of Baha'u'llah and His
>Faith and Teachings. As I understand it, Baha'u'llah has called on humans
to
>grow up, become mature, loving adults, to create a society whose foundation
>is justice, to abolish the childish pastimes of the past, such as war,
drugs,
>and violence, and take up those pursuits which lead to the enoblement of
the
>soul.
>
>When one becomes a Baha'i, how are her co-religionists supposed to act
>towards her? It is to be expected that there will be tests and
difficulties,
>that there will be setbacks. As these all too human attributes surface, are
>the other members of her community supposed to point out her faults,
>criticize her efforts, mistrust her motives and backbite against her?
>
>Most assuredly not, if one is to be obedient to God.
>
>There has been given us the Perfect Standard by which we can judge our own
>behavior, and the Perfect Exemplar to assist us in understanding that
>Standard, and the tools with which to modify that behavior. If we are truly
>following Baha'u'llah, we should not have the time or the inclination to
seek
>out the mote in our neighbors eye. We should be concerned with acquiring
the
>virtues of God, such as patience, understandng, love, honesty, integrity,
>truthfulness, forebearance, kindness, and in general a rectitude of conduct
>such that a stranger, upon meeting us for the first time, would cry out,
>"There is a Baha'i!".
>
>I would like to request that the participants and the visitors and the
lurkers
>who come her please focus on the beauty which is present in all of us, the
>glory which is found in all Faiths, the love which exists in all hearts,
and
>write and talk about these elements which ALONE will bring us together.
>
>In the final analysis, we (you and I), are either part of the problem, or
we
>are part of the solution. Which side do you want to be one?
>
>Choose wisely.
>
>With love,
>
>Robert A. Little
>
>
>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>https://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 18, 1998 5:56 AM
To: FG
Subject: REPOST - alt.religion.bahai FAQ
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) for
Alt.Religion.Bahai and bahai-faith@makelist.com
September 18, 1998
This FAQ will be reposted approximately every two weeks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please note that crossposting your messages to talk.religion.misc
makes it possible for some people without access to the alt.*
hierarchy to follow along with the discussion on alt.religion.bahai.
Similarly, crossposting or sending a courtesy copy, "cc," to
bahai-faith@makelist.com also allows people with only email
access to participate. Currently, 23 individuals are subscribed.
Other people with web access might use www.dejanews.com or
www.reference.com They both offer reading and posting capabilities,
including free email accounts, for people who can't directly access
alt.religion.bahai.
Though these stopgap measures may appear cumbersome or
repetitive, they really do compensate a little for the lack of
talk.religion.bahai, which would be an unmoderated newsgroup
on a major hierarchy that most people ought to be able to use.
Alt.Religion.Bahai is now available on America Online (AOL).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: Not all people agree on the interpretations given below.
Question #1 "what would be the difference between the proposed
newsgroup talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai?"
ANSWER: The alt.* hierarchy is not widely available, while the
talk.* hierarchy is, since it is on what's called the Big 8 hierarchy
of Usenet. Many more Bahais and non-Bahais would be able to
access talk.religion.bahai.
Question #2 "Isn't ARB also unmoderated?"
ANSWER: Yes. Alt.religion.bahai is unmoderated and talk.religion.bahai
would be too. Though not a newsgroup, the mailing list
bahai-faith@makelist.com is also unmmoderated.
Question #3 "Why create a t.r.b.?"
ANSWER #1: Because many people believe they experienced or are
continuing to experience censorship when attempting to post to
soc.religion.bahai. See the quotations from Abdul-Baha:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/bahai.htm
ANSWER #2: Because the Bahai writings support free speech and
religious conscience.
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/bahai.htm
ANSWER #3: [fill in the blank according to your own opinion.]
Question #4: "Why do the srb moderators oppose trb?"
ANSWER: [Perhaps they'll supply us with an answer to place
here]
Question #5: "Are Bahais opposed to freedom of speech and
conscience?"
ANSWER: Despite glowing words of love and support for
other people's opinions, despite the Universal House of Justice
stating at least publicly it is not opposed to an unmoderated forum,
the record of actual behavior by Bahais and on soc.religion.bahai
and the experience of many Bahais and people who have left the Bahai
Faith give reason for concern.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronology of major events: talk.religion.bahai
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 17, 1997: The 1st proposal for talk.religion.bahai was
submitted to news.announce.newgroups.
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/1stRFD.htm
Early March 1997: Mark Towfiq, chairman of the BCCA, the
Bahai Computer and Communication Association, posts to
three Bahai-only mailing lists a call for Bahais to vote NO
against talk.religion.bahai.
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/Towfiq.htm
March 1997: soc.religion.bahai bans all discussion of
talk.religion.bahai from its newsgroup. This ban is still in
effect more than a year and a half later.
March 31, 1997: The 1st proposal was defeated 157 YES to
691 NO.
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/1stRESULT.htm
April 3, 1997: Jonathan Grobe, a non-Bahai, creates
alt.religion.bahai.
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/arb.htm
October 14, 1997: The Universal House of Justice releases
a message stating it has no objection to unmoderated
newsgroups:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/UHJ1.htm
November 1997: At a time when discussion was highly
favorable in support of talk.religion.bahai, the BCCA deprives
FG of access to the private Bahai-only mailing
list bahai-discuss and all of its other lists, inflaming Bahai
passions against trb. See bahai-discuss archived files and
correspondence between FG and the BCCA
committee:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/archive.htm
December 19, 1997: The Universal House of Justice releases
a message that suggests it does not understand the nature of
Usenet interest polling:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/UHJ2.htm
January 12, 1998: The 2nd proposal for talk.religion.bahai was
submitted.
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/2ndRFD.htm
February 22, 1998: The 2nd proposal was defeated 109 YES
to 65 NO.
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/2ndRESULT.htm
May 25, 1998: srb bans all messages from FG
that contain his signature file:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/srb23.htm
September 9,1998: America Online (AOL) places a
Bahai-inspired TOS against FG; AOL
removes the TOS after considering both sides of the
issue, i.e., Bahai messages attacking and threatening
FG:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/AOL.htm
September 14, 1998: soc.religion.bahai extends its ban on
FG's signature file to include all URLs from
all posters, allowing only email addresses and name of the
poster:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/srbban.htm
The 3rd proposal scheduled to be submitted before the end
of September.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For past discussion of censorship on soc.religion.bahai and
other issues, including censorship within the Bahai community,
see the Web site below.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
WEB SITE:
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAILING LIST:
bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) For Web subscription
& List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com
To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 18, 1998 6:00 AM
To: FG
Subject: NEWS RELEASE
NEWS RELEASE
For immediate release. . . [or]
For Use the Week of September 20th. . .
Contact: FG (xxx) xxx-xxxx or
FG@hotmail.com
Baha'is Debate Freedom of Speech and Conscience
The third interest poll is beginning for talk.religion.bahai,
a proposed unmoderated newsgroup on the part of the
Internet known as Usenet. Critics charge members of the
Baha'i Faith have opposed its creation now for more than a
year and a half because they would not be able to exercise
the kind of control they exert over soc.religion.bahai, a
moderated newsgroup.
Under the Usenet guidelines for discussion groups, if a
newsgroup is moderated, a single moderator or panel of
moderators chooses which messages are posted for all
subscribers to read. There seems to be a classic struggle
between Baha'is and ex-Baha'is of liberal sentiment and the
elements of a conservative orthodoxy. With recent clashes
even taking place on America Online, and soc.religion.bahai
now banning any links to any web sites, both appear ready for
another stormy battle on news.groups, the discussion group
where the creation of a new forum is always debated.
Some critics even go further. Dr. Juan Cole of the
Department of History at the University of Michigan, a
former Baha'i who withdrew from the Faith after more than
twenty years, has asserted there is widespread, pervasive
censorship and distortion of information throughout the
religion that belies the gentle and tolerant universalism of
its Founders. Recently, Dr. Cole has said, "The checks
and balances . . . will have to come from public opinion,
within the faith and without."
A poet and literary critic who remains a Baha'i after more
than two decades of membership, FG,
one of the proponents of talk.religion.bahai, has developed
a web site, "The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of
Conscience," documenting numerous instances of
interference with free speech by the moderators of
soc.religion.bahai and the Baha'i Administration:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm
Whatever the outcome of the third interest poll, the more
than 30,000 messages posted to alt.religion.bahai, a less
accessible newsgroup than the one wanted, shows Baha'is
and others have a lot to say on the matter!
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 18, 1998 6:22 AM
To: FG
Subject: REPOST The Bahai Technique
During the last year and a half, a number of observers have noted
several common methods many Bahais use to avoid various issues
or discredit people who hold opinions other than their own:
FG, May 12, 1992:
"The Baha'i Faith has become very oppressive and manipulative of
the individual. That to me is merely a statement of fact, as I
have experienced it, for nearly sixteen years now [over 22]. The usual
stratagem in dealing with anyone who would express his conscience
in good faith is to pretend the Cause is above any kind of
criticism whatsoever while intimating that anyone who would speak
honestly must have something wrong with him, i.e., his spiritual
life isn't what it should be, he doesn't understand the nature of
unity, or he's accused of trying to obtain power for himself,
which at times seems merely a calculated way of discrediting the
person, and so on. Another common strategy used to acquire
control over the individual is to humor the person by letting him
pour himself out, etc., and then self-righteously giving him the
Truth."
Ron House, November 14, 1997:
"I know what you mean. I've found over the years that
there is a technique used by traditional Baha'is and
others to squash dissension: harry the dissenter so
much he says something intemperate, then point out
how 'loving' and 'compassionate' they are and how
nasty the dissenter is. The trouble is that this
technique works, so I've been making a conscious
effort not to fall for it. Also, when they get the
dissenter discouraged and miserable enough, he
invariably makes a slip-up sooner or later that they
can REALLY let loose the venom over. IMHO, they did
this to you when you misread Sharon's intentions.
At any other time, they would overlook faults, as
Baha'u'llah says, but when they're in this mode
they go for the jugular. Very sad."
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/House2.htm
FG, June 1998:
"Some of the most striking methods demonstrated repeatedly by
many Bahais during the last year and a half of discussion about
an unmoderated newsgroup is their refusal to listen and respond to
the criticisms of those who are in favor of talk.religion.bahai,
ignoring their concerns, never responding analytically to their
messages and reasoning and logic and evidence, attacking them
through character assassination and ad hominem, ganging up
on individuals, and "circling the wagons" around every action
of the srb moderators or others who are opposed to
talk.religion.bahai."
"More than twenty different people on my web site have posted messages
explaining their experience with srb censorship yet many srb Bahais
NEVER address their concerns. Ignoring such charges will not make
them go away. NO ONE has to "try" to link the trb interest poll with
censorship on srb; the moderators themselves have done that by
suppressing droves of people for years. There are many people who
believe such suppression is part and parcel of the Bahai
community as it exists today. A YES vote need not necessarily
support such a belief. There are other reasons Bahais might vote
YES."
Fran Baker, May 1998:
"Just have to say that in my experience this is a common
technique of manipulative people in general; it is especially
effective with thoughtful people who are willing to see both
sides of things, i.e., their own fault. I consider this brow-beating
technique to be a form of abuse. The only way to deal with it is
to call them on it every time and to refuse to let yourself be beat
up, i.e., not to do your part of the "tango." This can be very hard
to do, but it works.You can break this pattern in a personal
relationship. I don't know whether it's possible when a group
acts this way. Very scary."
Dr. Juan Cole, June 12, 1998:
"Let me ask you why in the world you think that I would risk my professional
reputation by publicly stating falsehoods? ...The very technique of the
more glaze-eyed among these people is to unbearably bully a Baha'i whom
they don't like, use unjustified threats of declaring him or her a CB to
silence the individual, and if the person will not be silenced, then to
depend upon the gullibility of the Baha'is in refusing to listen to any
victim's story because, of course, the Baha'i institutions are infallible
and divinely guided and could never do anything wrong. It is a perfect
racket."
"Of course, this technique of making liberals go away has been enormously
successful, and ex-Baha'i liberals have no credibility with the remaining
Baha'is nor do most of them have any energy to continue to make a case,
either to the Baha'is or the outside world, for the incredible abuses that
go on inside this organization ostensibly committed to tolerance!"
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/Cole10.htm
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 18, 1998 6:31 AM
To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com
Subject: Timeline for posting RFD
I'd like to bring this stage of discussion of the RFD
to a close by about the end of the next week, let's
say Friday, September 25th, and post it about then
to news.announce.newgroups, if no one has any
objections.
Ron's made some suggestions for dropping a
few newsgroups and a few other things that I've noted
and will incorporate in the next draft.
All the numbers and statistics need to be revised
here and there and updated.
After that kind of thing, the fine tuning can really be
done on news.groups with the news.groupies help
and consultation, it seems to me....
Anyone willing to handle the crossposting of
pointers to the BCCA mailing lists? Since the BCCA
denied me access to them during the last interest
poll, I shan't be able to post this time around. More
on that for those interested at
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/archive.htm
Looks good to me!
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 18, 1998 6:47 AM
To: FG
Subject: REPOST - The Bahai Technique
During the last year and a half, a number of observers have noted
several common methods many Bahais use to avoid various issues
or discredit people who hold opinions other than their own:
FG, May 12, 1992:
"The Baha'i Faith has become very oppressive and manipulative of
the individual. That to me is merely a statement of fact, as I
have experienced it, for nearly sixteen years now [over 22]. The usual
stratagem in dealing with anyone who would express his conscience
in good faith is to pretend the Cause is above any kind of
criticism whatsoever while intimating that anyone who would speak
honestly must have something wrong with him, i.e., his spiritual
life isn't what it should be, he doesn't understand the nature of
unity, or he's accused of trying to obtain power for himself,
which at times seems merely a calculated way of discrediting the
person, and so on. Another common strategy used to acquire
control over the individual is to humor the person by letting him
pour himself out, etc., and then self-righteously giving him the
Truth."
Ron House, November 14, 1997:
"I know what you mean. I've found over the years that
there is a technique used by traditional Baha'is and
others to squash dissension: harry the dissenter so
much he says something intemperate, then point out
how 'loving' and 'compassionate' they are and how
nasty the dissenter is. The trouble is that this
technique works, so I've been making a conscious
effort not to fall for it. Also, when they get the
dissenter discouraged and miserable enough, he
invariably makes a slip-up sooner or later that they
can REALLY let loose the venom over. IMHO, they did
this to you when you misread Sharon's intentions.
At any other time, they would overlook faults, as
Baha'u'llah says, but when they're in this mode
they go for the jugular. Very sad."
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/House2.htm
FG, June 1998:
"Some of the most striking methods demonstrated repeatedly by
many Bahais during the last year and a half of discussion about
an unmoderated newsgroup is their refusal to listen and respond to
the criticisms of those who are in favor of talk.religion.bahai,
ignoring their concerns, never responding analytically to their
messages and reasoning and logic and evidence, attacking them
through character assassination and ad hominem, ganging up
on individuals, and "circling the wagons" around every action
of the srb moderators or others who are opposed to
talk.religion.bahai."
"More than twenty different people on my web site have posted messages
explaining their experience with srb censorship yet many srb Bahais
NEVER address their concerns. Ignoring such charges will not make
them go away. NO ONE has to "try" to link the trb interest poll with
censorship on srb; the moderators themselves have done that by
suppressing droves of people for years. There are many people who
believe such suppression is part and parcel of the Bahai
community as it exists today. A YES vote need not necessarily
support such a belief. There are other reasons Bahais might vote
YES."
Fran Baker, May 1998:
"Just have to say that in my experience this is a common
technique of manipulative people in general; it is especially
effective with thoughtful people who are willing to see both
sides of things, i.e., their own fault. I consider this brow-beating
technique to be a form of abuse. The only way to deal with it is
to call them on it every time and to refuse to let yourself be beat
up, i.e., not to do your part of the "tango." This can be very hard
to do, but it works.You can break this pattern in a personal
relationship. I don't know whether it's possible when a group
acts this way. Very scary."
Dr. Juan Cole, June 12, 1998:
"Let me ask you why in the world you think that I would risk my professional
reputation by publicly stating falsehoods? ...The very technique of the
more glaze-eyed among these people is to unbearably bully a Baha'i whom
they don't like, use unjustified threats of declaring him or her a CB to
silence the individual, and if the person will not be silenced, then to
depend upon the gullibility of the Baha'is in refusing to listen to any
victim's story because, of course, the Baha'i institutions are infallible
and divinely guided and could never do anything wrong. It is a perfect
racket."
"Of course, this technique of making liberals go away has been enormously
successful, and ex-Baha'i liberals have no credibility with the remaining
Baha'is nor do most of them have any energy to continue to make a case,
either to the Baha'is or the outside world, for the incredible abuses that
go on inside this organization ostensibly committed to tolerance!"
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/Cole10.htm
K. Paul Johnson, September 15, 1998:
"If that principle [people are innocent until proven guilty]
were followed by Baha'i administration and individuals in
their condemnations of their fellow believers, I
would have very little to complain about regarding Baha'i
affairs. But character assassination by innuendo is the
preferred way of dealing with anything remotely resembling
dissidence. Seems like that's exactly what you're doing to Juan
Cole in your message. Saying I don't want to know what you've
"got" on him, thus attacking me but insinuating you have some
awful proof of unspecified guilt on his part. If that's not
character assassination by innuendo, what is?"
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/Johnson18.htm
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 19, 1998 4:42 AM
To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com
Subject: Re: Srb Bahais' solution - censor EVERYTHING & EVERYBODY! (Re: Signatures on SRB)
Note this person fails to comment on the fact that srb has EXTENDED
its censorship of MY signature file to EVERYONE's signature file.
His approach is basically to ignore and change the subject to
derogatory intimations of my character or pyschology. His approach
conforms quite well to the "Bahai technique":
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/technique.htm
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
Chess Hazlett wrote in message <#be9VJx49GA.286@upnetnews05>...
>FG wrote:
>>After having censored and suppressed any posts from me
>>for more than three and a half months now, the "moderators"
>>of soc.religion.bahai, in their scintillating wisdom, have come
>>up with what has to be one of the most laughable "policies" on
>>Usenet.... Their timing ought to be carefully noted by observers....
>
>God in Heaven, Fred! Does SRB exist solely to keep you from posting there?
>Do you think someone just wanted an electronic "No-Fred" club?
>I can't imagine that the moderators of that newsgroup sit around all day
and
>think of better ways to censor you. Anyway, you can post here, and I'm
glad
>to read them; but sometimes you remind me of a cornered politician more
than
>anything else. Relax; the world isn't against you.
> --ChessH
>
>
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 19, 1998 4:52 AM
Subject: fw K. Paul Johnson re Relentlessly aggressive cult apologists
Relentlessly aggressive cult apologists
Author: K. Paul Johnson author profile
Email: pjohnson@vlinsvr.vsla.edu
Date: 1998/09/18
Forums: talk.religion.misc
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
There's a particular toxic type of person who hangs out in
religious/spiritual newsgroups and lists, and I think that the
common features of this type are more important than the
particularities. Most of my unpleasant encounters with them have
involved Theosophists, with Baha'is and Eckists in second and
third place. But for each of my own such interactions I've witnessed
dozens more involving others, with a wide range of groups.
The chief preoccupation of this type is to use the Net to defend
a belief system against criticism. But that in itself doesn't
make a person a RACA. Reasoned debate about the merits and
demerits of a religion is a good thing, and many honorable
people do it. It's the relentlessly aggressive nature of the
cult apologia-- sometimes rather *passive* aggressive-- that
marks the particular type I'm talking about. The aggressive part
of the "defense" means that the topic of discussion is always
immediately shifted from the belief system itself to the *person*
who criticizes it. The relentless aspect of the type is that
they place a very high priority on having the last word,
consistently take a "win/lose" approach to discussion, and will
go on and on indefinitely, exhausting their opponents who usually
have far less invested in the subject and a lower threshold for
giving up the debate as hopeless.
What is most mysterious to me about such people is that they are
relentlessly and personally aggressive to those they debate, yet
are in complete denial of this behavior. Indeed, anyone who
points out that they are being RACA will be told that this is
imagination, there is nothing personal or aggressive about their
style of argumentation, blah, blah. The funniest and most
mind-blowing part of it all is that they use this very denial as
part of a *further* strategy of RACA. That is, turning
discussion of their own behavior into an attack on the mental
health of their victims, saying that you must be crazy if you
think they're behaving like hateful bastards. Do they really believe this?
Are they fooling themselves but no one else? Or is there a
conscious, cynical strategy here? Who knows? What I do know is
that they behave *as if* they were thinking this: "My chief goal
is to stifle all criticism of My True Religion by being so
unpleasant to anyone who dares criticize it that they eventually
give up and go away saying `I'll never mess with a ______
again.'"
Several strange paradoxes characterize the dynamics of
interaction with such people. One is that they manage to arrange
things, in their own minds at least, so that they "win" no matter
what. If you give up and say "I've had it trying to talk to you,
forget it," their response is "I WIN!! My peerless logic and
overwhelming evidence has so cowed you that you have no choice
but to give up." But if you keep arguing with them, they win in
another way-- tying up your energy and time in a fruitless
endeavor to make some kind of breakthrough that can never ever
happen with such people. Damned if you do walk away, damned if
you don't. But another paradox is that their self-perceived
victories are usually defeats for the belief system they espouse,
in terms of the impression they make on outsiders. How many
people read them and think "YUCK! If *that's* what [Baha'is,
Eckists, Theosophists, etc.] are like, to hell with them!"
I welcome comments from anyone who has engaged in fruitless
discussion with RACAs, or better yet who has ever seen one evolve
into a decent human being capable of open, give-and-take
interchange. Is it possible?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 19, 1998 4:53 AM
Subject: REVISED - The Bahai Technique
During the last year and a half, a number of observers have noted
several common methods many Bahais use to avoid various issues
or discredit people who hold opinions other than their own:
FG, May 12, 1992:
"The Baha'i Faith has become very oppressive and manipulative of
the individual. That to me is merely a statement of fact, as I
have experienced it, for nearly sixteen years now [over 22]. The usual
stratagem in dealing with anyone who would express his conscience
in good faith is to pretend the Cause is above any kind of
criticism whatsoever while intimating that anyone who would speak
honestly must have something wrong with him, i.e., his spiritual
life isn't what it should be, he doesn't understand the nature of
unity, or he's accused of trying to obtain power for himself,
which at times seems merely a calculated way of discrediting the
person, and so on. Another common strategy used to acquire
control over the individual is to humor the person by letting him
pour himself out, etc., and then self-righteously giving him the
Truth."
Ron House, November 14, 1997:
"I know what you mean. I've found over the years that
there is a technique used by traditional Baha'is and
others to squash dissension: harry the dissenter so
much he says something intemperate, then point out
how 'loving' and 'compassionate' they are and how
nasty the dissenter is. The trouble is that this
technique works, so I've been making a conscious
effort not to fall for it. Also, when they get the
dissenter discouraged and miserable enough, he
invariably makes a slip-up sooner or later that they
can REALLY let loose the venom over. IMHO, they did
this to you when you misread Sharon's intentions.
At any other time, they would overlook faults, as
Baha'u'llah says, but when they're in this mode
they go for the jugular. Very sad."
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/House2.htm
FG, June 1998:
"Some of the most striking methods demonstrated repeatedly by
many Bahais during the last year and a half of discussion about
an unmoderated newsgroup is their refusal to listen and respond to
the criticisms of those who are in favor of talk.religion.bahai,
ignoring their concerns, never responding analytically to their
messages and reasoning and logic and evidence, attacking them
through character assassination and ad hominem, ganging up
on individuals, and "circling the wagons" around every action
of the srb moderators or others who are opposed to
talk.religion.bahai."
"More than twenty different people on my web site have posted messages
explaining their experience with srb censorship yet many srb Bahais
NEVER address their concerns. Ignoring such charges will not make
them go away. NO ONE has to "try" to link the trb interest poll with
censorship on srb; the moderators themselves have done that by
suppressing droves of people for years. There are many people who
believe such suppression is part and parcel of the Bahai
community as it exists today. A YES vote need not necessarily
support such a belief. There are other reasons Bahais might vote
YES."
Fran Baker, May 1998:
"Just have to say that in my experience this is a common
technique of manipulative people in general; it is especially
effective with thoughtful people who are willing to see both
sides of things, i.e., their own fault. I consider this brow-beating
technique to be a form of abuse. The only way to deal with it is
to call them on it every time and to refuse to let yourself be beat
up, i.e., not to do your part of the "tango." This can be very hard
to do, but it works.You can break this pattern in a personal
relationship. I don't know whether it's possible when a group
acts this way. Very scary."
Dr. Juan Cole, June 12, 1998:
"Let me ask you why in the world you think that I would risk my professional
reputation by publicly stating falsehoods? ...The very technique of the
more glaze-eyed among these people is to unbearably bully a Baha'i whom
they don't like, use unjustified threats of declaring him or her a CB to
silence the individual, and if the person will not be silenced, then to
depend upon the gullibility of the Baha'is in refusing to listen to any
victim's story because, of course, the Baha'i institutions are infallible
and divinely guided and could never do anything wrong. It is a perfect
racket."
"Of course, this technique of making liberals go away has been enormously
successful, and ex-Baha'i liberals have no credibility with the remaining
Baha'is nor do most of them have any energy to continue to make a case,
either to the Baha'is or the outside world, for the incredible abuses that
go on inside this organization ostensibly committed to tolerance!"
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/Cole10.htm
K. Paul Johnson, September 15, 1998:
"If that principle [people are innocent until proven guilty]
were followed by Baha'i administration and individuals in
their condemnations of their fellow believers, I
would have very little to complain about regarding Baha'i
affairs. But character assassination by innuendo is the
preferred way of dealing with anything remotely resembling
dissidence. Seems like that's exactly what you're doing to Juan
Cole in your message. Saying I don't want to know what you've
"got" on him, thus attacking me but insinuating you have some
awful proof of unspecified guilt on his part. If that's not
character assassination by innuendo, what is?"
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/Johnson18.htm
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 19, 1998 5:03 AM
To: K. Paul Johnson
Subject: Re: The Bahai technique - May 4,1992
Paul,
Excellent post on RACAs! Let's see now, where have I
experienced such things.... It's very much the procedure,
technique, if you will, of the literal-minded among Bahais.
I've added similar comments from you in another posts
to the "REVISED - The Bahai Technique." Hope you
don't mind. Put a few more things from you on the web
too at
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/Johnson.htm
Let me say thanks. Thanks for your speaking your mind.
It's only you and a few other people who have had the courage
to do so that keeps me from cracking up under all the
"Bahai love" I'm so often treated to.... That and your
independent corroboration of what's really taking place,
so often, so often....
Do you have any ideas on how to get trb passed this
time? I'd appreciate hearing from you if you do. The RFD
will probably be posted now this coming week by Friday.
Fred
-----Original Message-----
From: K. Paul Johnson <pjohnson@vsla.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc
To: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
Date: Friday, September 18, 1998 3:00 PM
Subject: Re: The Bahai technique - May 4,1992
>In article <6tqu5i$r0k@news3.newsguy.com> you wrote:
>: I've stumbled on to a letter I wrote in May of 1992 which, to
>: my surprise, seems to have already identified "The Bahai technique"
>: so thoroughly demonstrated here online:
>:
>snip
>: have experienced it, for nearly sixteen years now. The usual
>: stratagem in dealing with anyone who would express his conscience
>: in good faith is to pretend the Cause is above any kind of
>: criticism whatsoever while intimating that anyone who would speak
>: honestly must have something wrong with him, i.e., his spiritual
>
>Dear Fred,
>
>
>Baha'is have no monopoly on this kind of behavior. Shifting the discussion
>from the belief system or institutions to the individual raising the
>questions is a universal way of avoiding unwanted topics. See my
>post on "relentlessly aggressive cult apologists," immediately inspired by
>very recent events, but based years of observations of fanatics
>in a number of different groups.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Paul
>
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 19, 1998 5:06 AM
Subject: REVISED - alt.religion.bahai FAQ
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) for
Alt.Religion.Bahai and bahai-faith@makelist.com
September 18, 1998
This FAQ will be reposted approximately every two weeks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please note that crossposting your messages to talk.religion.misc
makes it possible for some people without access to the alt.*
hierarchy to follow along with the discussion on alt.religion.bahai.
Similarly, crossposting or sending a courtesy copy, "cc," to
bahai-faith@makelist.com also allows people with only email
access to participate. Currently, 23 individuals are subscribed.
Other people with web access might use www.dejanews.com or
www.reference.com They both offer reading and posting capabilities,
including free email accounts, for people who can't directly access
alt.religion.bahai.
Though these stopgap measures may appear cumbersome or
repetitive, they really do compensate a little for the lack of
talk.religion.bahai, which would be an unmoderated newsgroup
on a major hierarchy that most people ought to be able to use.
Alt.Religion.Bahai is now available on America Online (AOL).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: Not all people agree on the interpretations given below.
Question #1 "what would be the difference between the proposed
newsgroup talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai?"
ANSWER: The alt.* hierarchy is not widely available, while the
talk.* hierarchy is, since it is on what's called the Big 8 hierarchy
of Usenet. Many more Bahais and non-Bahais would be able to
access talk.religion.bahai.
Question #2 "Isn't ARB also unmoderated?"
ANSWER: Yes. Alt.religion.bahai is unmoderated and talk.religion.bahai
would be too. Though not a newsgroup, the mailing list
bahai-faith@makelist.com is also unmmoderated.
Question #3 "Why create a t.r.b.?"
ANSWER #1: Because many people believe they experienced or are
continuing to experience censorship when attempting to post to
soc.religion.bahai. See the quotations from Abdul-Baha:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/bahai.htm
ANSWER #2: Because the Bahai writings support free speech and
religious conscience.
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/bahai.htm
ANSWER #3: [fill in the blank according to your own opinion.]
Question #4: "Why do the srb moderators oppose trb?"
ANSWER: [Perhaps they'll supply us with an answer to place
here]
Question #5: "Are Bahais opposed to freedom of speech and
conscience?"
ANSWER: Despite glowing words of love and support for
other people's opinions, despite the Universal House of Justice
stating at least publicly it is not opposed to an unmoderated forum,
the record of actual behavior by Bahais and on soc.religion.bahai
and the experience of many Bahais and people who have left the Bahai
Faith give reason for concern.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronology of major events: talk.religion.bahai
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 17, 1997: The 1st proposal for talk.religion.bahai was
submitted to news.announce.newgroups.
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/1stRFD.htm
Early March 1997: Mark Towfiq, chairman of the BCCA, the
Bahai Computer and Communication Association, posts to
three Bahai-only mailing lists a call for Bahais to vote NO
against talk.religion.bahai.
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/Towfiq.htm
March 1997: soc.religion.bahai bans all discussion of
talk.religion.bahai from its newsgroup. This ban is still in
effect more than a year and a half later.
March 31, 1997: The 1st proposal was defeated 157 YES to
691 NO.
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/1stRESULT.htm
April 3, 1997: Jonathan Grobe, a non-Bahai, creates
alt.religion.bahai.
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/arb.htm
October 14, 1997: The Universal House of Justice releases
a message stating it has no objection to unmoderated
newsgroups:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/UHJ1.htm
November 1997: At a time when discussion was highly
favorable in support of talk.religion.bahai, the BCCA deprives
FG of access to the private Bahai-only mailing
list bahai-discuss and all of its other lists, inflaming Bahai
passions against trb. See bahai-discuss archived files and
correspondence between FG and the BCCA
committee:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/archive.htm
December 19, 1997: The Universal House of Justice releases
a message that suggests it does not understand the nature of
Usenet interest polling:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/UHJ2.htm
January 12, 1998: The 2nd proposal for talk.religion.bahai was
submitted.
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/2ndRFD.htm
February 22, 1998: The 2nd proposal was defeated 109 YES
to 65 NO.
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/2ndRESULT.htm
May 25, 1998: srb bans all messages from FG
that contain his signature file:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/srb23.htm
September 9,1998: America Online (AOL) places a
Bahai-inspired TOS against FG; AOL
removes the TOS after considering both sides of the
issue, i.e., Bahai messages attacking and threatening
him:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/AOL.htm
September 14, 1998: soc.religion.bahai extends its ban on
FG's signature file to include all URLs from
all posters, allowing only email addresses and the name of the
poster:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/srbban.htm
The 3rd proposal is scheduled to be submitted before the end
of September.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For past discussion of censorship on soc.religion.bahai and
other issues, including censorship within the Bahai community,
see the Web site below.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
WEB SITE:
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAILING LIST:
bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) For Web subscription
& List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com
To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 19, 1998 6:04 AM
To: Michael McKenny
Subject: talk.religion.bahai
Michael,
The third talk.religion.bahai RFD ought to be posted to
news.groups by about Friday. Anything you might be
able to do would be highly appreciated.
Hope all is well....
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 19, 1998 6:28 AM
To: FG
Subject: NEWS RELEASE
NEWS RELEASE
For immediate release. . . [or]
For Use the Week of September 20th. . .
Contact: FG (xxx) xxx-xxxx or
FG@hotmail.com
Baha'is Debate Freedom of Speech and Conscience
The third interest poll is beginning for talk.religion.bahai,
a proposed unmoderated newsgroup on the part of the
Internet known as Usenet. Critics charge members of the
Baha'i Faith have opposed its creation now for more than a
year and a half because they would not be able to exercise
the kind of control they exert over soc.religion.bahai, a
moderated newsgroup.
Under the Usenet guidelines for discussion groups, if a
newsgroup is moderated, a single moderator or panel of
moderators chooses which messages are posted for all
subscribers to read. There seems to be a classic struggle
between Baha'is and ex-Baha'is of liberal sentiment and the
elements of a conservative orthodoxy. With recent clashes
even taking place on America Online, and soc.religion.bahai
now banning any links to any web sites whatsoever, both
appear ready for another stormy battle on news.groups, the
discussion group where the creation of a new forum is always
debated.
With three Americans and an Australian proponent, the
controversy has become truly international with people
contributing from Scotland, England, Poland, and elsewhere
around the world. Many have pointed out that the very nature
of the discussion about the Bahai Faith has only become
possible because of the far-flung and open nature of the
Internet.
One such critic even goes further. Dr. Juan Cole of the
Department of History at the University of Michigan, a
former Baha'i who withdrew from the Faith after more than
twenty years, has asserted there is widespread, pervasive
censorship and distortion of information throughout the
religion that belies the gentle and tolerant universalism of
its Founders. Recently, Dr. Cole has said, "The checks
and balances . . . will have to come from public opinion,
within the faith and without."
A poet and literary critic who remains a Baha'i after more
than two decades of membership, FG,
one of the proponents of talk.religion.bahai, has developed
a web site, "The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of
Conscience," documenting numerous instances of
interference with free speech by the moderators of
soc.religion.bahai and the Baha'i Administration:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm
Whatever the outcome of the third interest poll, the more
than 30,000 messages posted to alt.religion.bahai, a less
accessible newsgroup than the one wanted, shows Baha'is
and others have a lot to say on the matter!
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 19, 1998 8:08 AM
To: K. Paul Johnson
Subject: Fw: NEWS RELEASE
Paul,
Any ideas for improving this news release? I'll be
emailing it to about 75 major and local US newspapers.
Rick's an unbelievably dense ass.... You've handled him
well! I seldom respond to any of them any more.... People
have finally helped me to understand it's best for me not
to do so, not being able to control myself enough.
Fred
-----Original Message-----
From: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
To: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
Date: Saturday, September 19, 1998 7:28 AM
Subject: NEWS RELEASE
> NEWS RELEASE
>
>For immediate release. . . [or]
>For Use the Week of September 20th. . .
>
>Contact: FG (xxx) xxx-xxxx or
>FG@hotmail.com
>
>Baha'is Debate Freedom of Speech and Conscience
>
>The third interest poll is beginning for talk.religion.bahai,
>a proposed unmoderated newsgroup on the part of the
>Internet known as Usenet. Critics charge members of the
>Baha'i Faith have opposed its creation now for more than a
>year and a half because they would not be able to exercise
>the kind of control they exert over soc.religion.bahai, a
>moderated newsgroup.
>
>Under the Usenet guidelines for discussion groups, if a
>newsgroup is moderated, a single moderator or panel of
>moderators chooses which messages are posted for all
>subscribers to read. There seems to be a classic struggle
>between Baha'is and ex-Baha'is of liberal sentiment and the
>elements of a conservative orthodoxy. With recent clashes
>even taking place on America Online, and soc.religion.bahai
>now banning any links to any web sites whatsoever, both
>appear ready for another stormy battle on news.groups, the
>discussion group where the creation of a new forum is always
>debated.
>
>With three Americans and an Australian proponent, the
>controversy has become truly international with people
>contributing from Scotland, England, Poland, and elsewhere
>around the world. Many have pointed out that the very nature
>of the discussion about the Bahai Faith has only become
>possible because of the far-flung and open nature of the
>Internet.
>
>One such critic even goes further. Dr. Juan Cole of the
>Department of History at the University of Michigan, a
>former Baha'i who withdrew from the Faith after more than
>twenty years, has asserted there is widespread, pervasive
>censorship and distortion of information throughout the
>religion that belies the gentle and tolerant universalism of
>its Founders. Recently, Dr. Cole has said, "The checks
>and balances . . . will have to come from public opinion,
>within the faith and without."
>
>A poet and literary critic who remains a Baha'i after more
>than two decades of membership, FG,
>one of the proponents of talk.religion.bahai, has developed
>a web site, "The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of
>Conscience," documenting numerous instances of
>interference with free speech by the moderators of
>soc.religion.bahai and the Baha'i Administration:
>https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm
>
>Whatever the outcome of the third interest poll, the more
>than 30,000 messages posted to alt.religion.bahai, a less
>accessible newsgroup than the one wanted, shows Baha'is
>and others have a lot to say on the matter!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 19, 1998 8:14 AM
To: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca
Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai
Michael,
You might find interesting the recent attempt of
Bahais to get me kicked off AOL:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/AOL.htm
It's all the same lies and deceit....
-----Original Message-----
From: McKenny Michael <bn872@freenet.carleton.ca>
To: FG@hotmail.com <FG@hotmail.com>
Date: Saturday, September 19, 1998 7:41 AM
Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai
>Greetings, Frederick.
> If you are well, it is well.
> Many thanks for letting me know this. I'll try to follow the thread
>concerning this. My opinion is that the best chance for quick effective
>change was last time. Personally, I have really reached the conclusion
>that the extreme authoritarianism of the Baha'i leadership combined
>with its unethical and fundamentalist nature make it more dangerous than
>Christianity of the Dark Ages. Fortunately, it seems unable to progress
>in the democratic countries in this form.
I worry about this too and feel all the more that a more accessible
and open forum must be created for the good of both the Bahais
and society in general....
> Nevertheless, I will continue to do whatever I can to ameliorate the
>situation. This is limited not only by the many other demands on my time,
>but by the way I played the game, if you'll forgive the term. It was my
>move, if you will, in response to the apparent innovation (as I presented
>it) of freedom of speech on the Baha'i Internet (i.e. my reading of the
>letter from the UHJ which did not instruct Baha'is to vote NO and the fact
>hundreds of NO voters first time did not oppose second time round) to say
>now that there was such freedom of speech, then I could disappear from
>Baha'i cyberspace. I don't think it would be appropriate for me to post
>new material unless there is new evidence of efforts to suppress freedom
>of speech.
See AOL....
> Nothing, however, prevents you from retrieving past posts of mine and
>placing these into the discussion this time round, if these seem to fit.
>Also, I would be delighted to receive any and all evidence of attempts
>by the UHJ since February to suppress freedom of speech. You may send
>this as personal e-mail. I have moved on to such an extent that I'm not
>at all up to date on what's going on. I'd be happy to have a look at the
>Ridvan message from the UHJ or any other recent material from them, if
>there are indications therein that they are seeking to suppress free
>speech.
It's all undercover with the lackies up front.... I don't believe I could
post your old messages. The real value of your opinions would
be what they are now currently to most readers after considerable
time for reflection or the wounds to heal or scab over....
Sincerely best wishes,
Fred
> Again, many thanks for keeping me informed of this.
> Thrive Ever,
> Michael
>
>
>>
>>Michael,
>>
>>The third talk.religion.bahai RFD ought to be posted to
>>news.groups by about Friday. Anything you might be
>>able to do would be highly appreciated.
>>
>>Hope all is well....
>>
>>FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
>>https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
>>talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
>>Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
> (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
>
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 20, 1998 5:29 AM
To: Timothy F. Mulligan
Subject: Re: Censorship at alt.religion.bahai
-----Original Message-----
From: Timothy F. Mulligan <tmulligan@Central.UH.EDU>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai
To: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
Date: Saturday, September 19, 1998 4:53 PM
Subject: Re: Censorship at alt.religion.bahai
FG wrote:
> Rich himself, a month or so ago, was extremely derisive
> and insulting to Timothy Mulligan. All the "good" Bahais stood
> by and said nothing.... A fine demonstration of Bahai "unity."
I wouldn't say that he was derisive and insulting. Snide, yes. Rick
twice insinuated that I was "avoiding an issue"; first, he said (or rather,
hinted) it was my homosexuality, and toward the end of our ongoing exchange,
he said it was the alleged self-evident divine origin of Baha'u'llah's
writings. In neither case was he correct. I found this tactic to be more
annoying than insulting.
Glaysher:
(Little arrows aren't going in. Sorry.) You're forgetting or missed in the
heat of the battle a sentence or two in which he said - I can't remember
the exact words - something like you were an idiot etc.... I wish I had
save it at the time because it was a rare slip up.
You:
What also annoyed me about Richard is the way he moves the goal post.
I've seen this in his exchanges with others, as well. He will invariably
claim that his opponent makes insufficient or superficial arguments, or that
an argument lacks supporting evidence. And he'll just keep saying that,
over and over and over.
It's called the Bahai technique, you see.... It's a game, Tim, you've got
to understand, because they've got you playing it. READ the REVISED
version of "The Bahai Technique" on arb or on my web site, if you
haven't already.... Schaut in more than a year and a half has never
posted a single word otherwise than the kind of fundie attack you're
refering to....
The RFD will be posted by Friday. Hope you stay around. You've
been through a lot lately. We need you.
Fred
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 20, 1998 6:03 AM
To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com
Subject: Re: Bahai TOS on AOL now on web site
I had somehow neglected to put the most important message
regarding the AOL incident on my web site. It is now available
there:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/AOLremove.htm
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
FG wrote in message <6to696$jp8@news1.newsguy.com>...
>I think of John Milton's sonnet "On the New Forcers of Conscience
>under the Long Parliament," especially its final line:
>
>"New Presbyter is but Old Priest writ Large."
>
>Given the techniques of Bahais on AOL, the inescapable
>conclusion must read:
>
>"New Bahai is but old Mullah writ Large."
>
>FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
>https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
>talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
>Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>FG wrote in message <6tj52t$1d7@news1.newsguy.com>...
>>All the relevant messages to this incident on AOL
>>can now be found at
>>https://members.tripod.com/~FG/AOL.htm
>>
>>FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
>>https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
>>talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
>>Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 20, 1998 6:20 AM
To: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca
Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai
Michael,
Somehow I failed to put the most important message
on the AOL page! Thanks for bringing it to my attention:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/AOLremove.htm
On other matters, I understand how you feel....
-----Original Message-----
From: McKenny Michael <bn872@freenet.carleton.ca>
To: FG@hotmail.com <FG@hotmail.com>
Cc: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca <bn872@freenet.carleton.ca>
Date: Saturday, September 19, 1998 6:06 PM
Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai
>Greetings, Frederick.
> If you are well, it is well.
> Many thanks for your message.
> I went to the URL you provided and quickly scanned some of the
>material there. I don't understand the message from AOL if that's
>who it is. It seemed to me they said after a review of the material
>they saw no reason to remove the warning, but that this would
>automatically vanish at the end of six months.
> Reading the material from Baha'i sources has me realizing how far
>these are from my current position. The Baha'is have always stressed
>authority. It is the foundation of the religion. I can recall that I
>did it myself in the old days. I would say to non-Baha'is who wished
>to begin with whether or not there was a god, "No, first we assess the
>claim by Baha'u'llah to be a Manifestation of God; if he is, then,
>there has to be a god."
> The covenant, the line of infallibly correct spiritual guidance,
>makes sense only if there are alruistic and spiritual leaders. Yet, in
>reality if you have altruistic and spiritual leaders the influence of
>their lofty thoughts and noble deeds do not require the kind of power
>over conscience which this covenant grants. When I began to present in
>very convincing language the case for women on the Universal House of
>Justice, the men holding and preparing to hold such power saw the threat
>of my reasoning. It permitted them to allow women on the UHJ, but they
>did not want that.
> Also, they did not want the kind of world where the influence of
>ethical behaviour or principled action could cause a reversal of the
>ruling of the supreme council. They want a religion whose believers
>will unquestioningly obey any command soever from the UHJ. How better
>to identify such believers than to present them with an intolerable
>belief, and say this must be accepted.
That's it. You've got it....
> Also, power for the guys at the top is better assured through the
>existence of others, enemies. This is completely contrary to the new
>way of all-inclusiveness possible to perceive in the Baha'i Revelation.
>All-inclusiveness is something quite necessary for any effective and
>ethical adoption of the Baha'i world view by humanity as a whole. Yet,
>the current members of the UHJ and the other high leaders are not at
>all interested in this. They seek to rule today a religion, and it is
>more effective if some number of people can be convinced to obey any
>and all commands, and if these believers can feel threatened by some
>evil enemies.
> I am aware of this mentality in the Baha'i Faith. I do not agree to
>bolster their hold on power by playing the role of an enemy.
Food for thought, for me.... I too do not wish to play the enemy....
I do not consider myself an enemy of the Bahai Faith. I even, still,
hope that it could change, become less oppressive and
manipulative and more open and accepting of diversity of views.
That's all I basically ask. The response I've received for more
than a year and a half now is deafening.... I don't know how it will
end for me. They may denounce me officially as a covenant breaker
when they think the moment's right, as some have warned me....
Yet I do not consider myself a covenant breaker. Indeed, I believe
I have tried to defend the covenant from the grossly fanatical
distortion it is for the fundamentalists.... I have sacrificed so much
time and energy and made so little headway with Bahais. Very
discouraging....
However, alt.religion.bahai has become very firmly established
and can never be removed now and my web site will continue.
It's in all the search engines. So even if talk.religion.bahai is
defeated a third time, I feel some progress has been made
and the fanaticism of Bahais is on record where those who can
think for themselves can find it and consider it....
There's a chance, though, vote YES, if you would, and bring
any friends you have along with you.
> They have demonstrated the inappropriateness of their religion to
>serve humanity. If someday there are women on the Universal House of
>Justice and an abandonment of the present immoral insistence that any
>command at all by those at the top has to be obeyed, regardless of
>morality and conscience, then perhaps this religion will be worthy of
>consideration.
> I do not criticize you. The universe is a wonderful place, because
>it has such vast diversity. Personally, I believe the Baha'i Faith was
>potentially of great benefit, and that it has withered and died. This
>goes back further. Actually, religious intolerance is almost wholly
>the result of dogmatic insistence derived from monotheism. Those guys,
>Moses, Muhammad, Jesus, who insisted, or whose followers insisted on
>their behalf, that there was only one god and only one valid spiritual
>path are wrong, IMHO, both in their theology and in the consequences
>this had for humanity.
> Yet, within whatever context you choose to labour, may your efforts
>be blessed.
> Be very sure to let me know of any official action by Auxiliary
>Board Members etc to silence you or anyone else. I am also interested
>in other attempts, such as Wendy's to silence you. However, it is the
>official action which has my keenest interst.
They always use the lackies in the front lines and hide behind
them, you see....
> I will have to reflect very carefully on what action to take in
>response to open attempts by Baha'i authorities to squash freedom of
>speech.
They don't make open attempts but always much more
ambiguous. Srb has just banned all URLs in signature files,
for instance.... They banned in May any message from me
that contained my signature file because it pointed to my web
site which has a link to Yahoo's Bahai page which has links
on it to covenant breaker's sites! Completely absurd, but
that's where fanaticism is getting them....
As you can see from the above, I really have moved quite far
>from the context of the Baha'i Faith, and I do not really believe it is
>effective for me to play the role of an enemy to these people, whom I
>now see as inconsequential, anyway.
> May this find you very well, and may the future be ever better than
>we can imagine.
> All the Best,
> Michael
>
>>
>>Michael,
>>
>>You might find interesting the recent attempt of
>>Bahais to get me kicked off AOL:
>>https://members.tripod.com/~FG/AOL.htm
>>
>>It's all the same lies and deceit....
>>
>>
>>
>
>--
>"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
> (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
May the gods bless you....
Fred
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 21, 1998 5:04 AM
To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com
Subject: Re: On soc.religion.bahai - brief quotations
Why don't you email it to each one of them then? You
can easily tell what people need to read it.... I won't
recite all their names here.... It probably won't do any
good, but, who knows, miracles supposedly even
happened in this religion.
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
Kent Johnson wrote in message <6u006r$1tl$1@as4100c.javanet.com>...
>I have the information. It convinced me, but I am reserving it for those
>who defend the behavior of those partisan Baha'is who run the srb. If they
>say it isn't true, well, I can show them it is.
>
>Other than that, I see no reason to drag their names through the mud. In
>fact, I only have personal experience with three of the moderators. Maybe
>the rest are okay.
>
>Regards, --Kent
>
>
>>The purpose would not be for convincing fundamentalists Bahais.
>>Nothing anyone can say can reach or help most of them.... But
>>it could help people of a more open mind who can still think for
>>themselves, especially when added to the already overwhelming
>>evidence of censorship and duplicity....
>>
>>FG....
>
>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 21, 1998 5:13 AM
Subject: Moonies & Bahais
Anyone watch 60 Minutes last night? There was a
fascinating segment on about "reverend" Moon,
Leader of the Moonies. His former daughter-in-law
has written a book titled In the Shadow of the Moon,
about her life with Moon's drug addict, philandering,
abusive son and watching Moon from the inside
duping people of millions. A real holy experience.
She mentioned at one point that Moon too had a son
from an adulterous relationship while preaching the
sanctity of matrimony and the family.
It all reminded me of Iranian Bahais I know of....
FG....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 21, 1998 5:54 AM
To: FG
Subject: 4th ROUGH DRAFT - talk.religion.bahai
[This is a rough draft only. You may not vote at this time. ]
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
unmoderated group talk.religion.bahai
This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to create an unmoderated
worldwide discussion group called talk.religion.bahai. This is not a
Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural details
appear below. All followup discussion should be crossposted to
news.groups,alt.religion.bahai.
Newsgroup line:
talk.religion.bahai Discussion of the Baha'i Faith.
RATIONALE: talk.religion.bahai
Currently, the only newsgroup on the Big 8 heirarchies, which exists
specifically for discussion of the Baha'i Faith, is moderated. A
need exists for an unmoderated forum, and this proposed newsgroup
would meet that need.
From January 17, 1997, the posting of the first proposed RFD, until
March 27, 1997, more than 759 messages were posted concerning
talk.religion.bahai, 11 messages per day for 70 days.
From April 1, 1997, to September 27, 1997, over 2,863 messages
have been posted on alt.religion.bahai from people with highly
varying points of view on the Baha'i Faith, resulting in 16 messages
per day for 179 days, and 477 messages a month for six months.
Since www.dejanews.com does not pick up all postings, an
additional conservative 5 percent, roughly 150 messages, have
probably been lost from the archive. During this time period,
approximately 513 different individuals posted on over
1,200 threads.
From September 28, 1997, to September 21, 1998, over 31,000
messages have been posted to alt.religion.bahai resulting
in 90 messages per day for 341 days and 2,583 messages per
month for nine months.
These numbers may be verified by searching www.dejanews.com
for talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai for the relevant time
periods. Please note that despite the poor propagation of the
alt.* hierarchy the high rate of posting demonstrates significant
interest, justifying the forming of an unmoderated newsgroup on
the Bahai Faith on the talk.* hierarchy. It is only reasonable
to conclude that the easy accessibility of the talk.* hierarchy
will lead to even higher rates of posting by interested people.
As a further indication of interest in an unmoderated newsgroup,
it should be noted that the web site "The Bahai Faith & Religious
Freedom of Conscience" has had more than 3,680 hits on it
since May 8, 1998:
https://members.tripod.com/~FG/bahai.htm
The proponents intend that talk.religion.bahai will complement,
rather than supplant, the existing moderated group
soc.religion.bahai, and will provide those without access to
alt.religion.bahai, on the less well propagated alt.* hierarchy, the
opportunity to participate, especially since many people who
voted YES on the first proposal were unable to join in on
alt.religion.bahai, their ISPs not carrying the hierarchy. It is
anticipated that alt.religion.bahai will evolve along as its users
see fit and will complement talk.religion.bahai as an alternative
unmoderated newsgroup.
CHARTER: talk.religion.bahai
All topics or ideas relevant to the Baha'i faith -- its history,
teachings, theology, etc. -- would be appropriate areas for
discussion.
Postings may take any point of view with regard to the Baha'i Faith.
Whilst this allows criticism, including criticism that might be
uncomfortable or hurtful to some, it also fully opens the door
for enquirers to see with their own eyes and not through the
eyes of their neighbours by asking questions and reading replies
from anyone who is interested in their question. Talk.religion.bahai
also fills the need for the first and only universally accessible
Internet forum about the Baha'i Faith. As the Internet is clearly
becoming an indispensible part of modern life, such access for
those interested in the Baha'i Faith will, in the future, be
as important a civil right as the right to free speech in non-
electronic forums. Thus talk.religion.bahai is clearly in the
spirit of Baha'u'llah's injunctions supporting a free press.
As Baha'u'llah taught, a free press has both rights and
responsibilities. Therefore some Baha'is might fear misuse of
the facility, especially postings by covenant-Breakers. However,
Shoghi Effendi has addressed this question:
"First, the civil rights of Covenant-breakers must be scrupulously
upheld."
From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice
to a National Spiritual Assembly, October 29, 1974. Lights of
Guidance, Page: 186.
Further, it is permitted for Baha'is to read and post material in an
open Internet forum:
"In general, the House of Justice has no objection to Baha'is'
participating in public, unmoderated discussions about the
Faith, whether those discussions take place in person or
through some form of electronic communication."
Department of the Secretariat, DATE: 14 October 1997 U.S.A.
Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette and voting
procedure in their use of this newsgroup and during its creation.
Readers are asked to observe Baha'i standards of conduct and not
to start or prolong flamewars in the group, but to focus instead on
articles and threads written in more moderate terms.
The posting of articles not specifically relevant to the Baha'i Faith
is strongly discouraged. Also discouraged are personal messages,
large ASCII graphics, binaries, special-format files, pornography,
spam, and any postings of a purely commercial nature.
Crossposting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers
are encouraged to redirect followups to reduce excessive
crossposting. Readers may also post articles that have been
rejected from soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to this
charter.
As is true for other groups devoted to discussing a particular
religion, including supposedly soc.religion.bahai, the
talk.religion.bahai newsgroup is not an official organ of any
institutional faith.
END CHARTER.
PROCEDURE:
An instructive passage by Russ Allbery might fruitfully be
considered by all:
"There is no official 'list of acceptable reasons for voting'; Nothing
of the sort is enforced. There's no way of knowing why people vote
the way they do. There *is*, however, a general *consensus* that
certain *patterns* of voting constitute abuse of the system. Block
voting on religious, cultural, ethnic, or political grounds is one of
the things that is frowned upon. It is unlikely that even extreme block
voting would cause a result to be overturned, but it's practically
assured that block voting *will* earn an extremely bad reputation for
the group doing the block voting. In other words, yes, the Baha'i
*could* vote down the newsgroup en masse and be successful.
This would, however, also earn the Faith a reputation (fairly or no)
amongst those people who followed the proposal as a religion that
advocates censorship. I think it's in the best interest of Baha'is and
the Baha'i Faith to avoid that."
The process of creating newsgroups is twofold. First is the RFD
stage, when someone writes a Request for Discussion (RFD) outlining
the purpose of the proposed group. The RFD appears in
news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, and other relevant discussion
groups. Anyone may publicly comment on the RFD in news.groups for a
three-week period. During the discussion phase, proponents may modify
the RFD in response to suggestions from posters on news.groups.
The second stage is the Call for Votes (CFV) stage. The proposal must
pass a Usenet-wide vote with a 2/3 supermajority -- and at least 100
more votes in favor than against -- to be created. Anyone with an
e-mail address may cast a ballot. A neutral votetaker from the Usenet
Volunteer Votetakers (UVV) conducts all CFV's.
This RFD attempts to comply with the Usenet newsgroup creation
guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and
"Writing an RFD" and available for perusal on news.groups or
news.announce.newgroups. Please refer to these documents if you
have further questions about the process.
DISTRIBUTION:
This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,soc.religion.bahai,
alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human
and the following four mailing lists:
Talisman
Subscribe: jsgreen@umich.edu
Bahai Studies
Subscribe: major@johnco.cc.ks.us
h-Bahai h-Bahai@h-net.msu.edu
Subscribe: jrcole@umich.edu
bahai-faith bahai-faith@egroups.com
Subscribe: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com
or https://www.eGroups.com
Pointers will appear in the following newsgroups:
soc.religion.unitarian-univ,soc.religion.eastern,
soc.religion.gnosis,soc.religion.hindu,
soc.religion.paganism,soc.religion.quaker,
talk.religion.buddhism,talk.religion.newage,
uk.religion.misc,uk.religion.interfaith,
uk.religion.other-faiths,news.admin.censorship,
alt.atheism,alt.atheism.moderated,
alt.religion,alt.religion.christian.biblestudy,
alt.religion.christian.last-days,
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic,
alt.religion.christian.pentecostal,alt.individualism,
talk.philosophy.misc,alt.activism,talk.atheism,
talk.philosophy.humanism,talk.philosophy.misc,
alt.philosophy.debate,aus.religion.christian
Proponent: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
Proponent: Ron House <house@usq.edu.au>
Proponent: Fran Baker <fran@crhc.uiuc.edu>
Proponent: Frank Baker <fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu>
----------
From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 21, 1998 6:04 AM
Subject: 4th ROUGH DRAFT - talk.religion.bahai
[This is a rough draft only. You may not vote at this time. ]
REQUES
|