From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: Internet Crackdown Date: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 12:27 PM Greetings, Rick. Well, here's one where the ad hominem is followed by the expression of personal opinion. I do hope, monsieur, that you agree it's your own viewpoint, your thought, your opinion that is being expressed. It's a bit, how do we say, discouraging of the Baha' attitude of open mindedness to read your references to others having no more knowledge now, or of not answering your questions "correctly". Your opinions are valid, as your opinions, but the views of others are equally valid, and what is incorrect is any effort to squelch others' views, such as by trying to crackdown on the Internet, by defining people as non-Baha'is, etc. Merci, Monsieur, for stating that there are imperfections in the way those holding power in Baha'i have been and are doing things. We are very much in agreement on that point. The principle flaw in Baha'i, in my opinion, is the notion, the idealogical idol, to use Abdu'l Baha's concept (He's the guy who said that at least if you pray to a stone, the stone has existence, as a stone, but when you worship something in your mind, that has no concrete reality) that there's perfection in Baha'i administration. This has reached the level that President Bush has the capacity and authority to admit he was wrong on something anytime he likes, but the guys running the Baha'i show have to pretend they're better than the Wizard of Oz. I like the answer the Wizard of Oz gave, "Oh, no; I'm not a bad man, just a bad wizard." The Baha'i Faith contains the perspective that there is no positive evil, that there is a deficiency of good, just as poverty means not that there is something, but rather a lack of something, money. So, the guys in charge, the men at the top, being, as is quite common in organizations, not easy in handling change, not eager to hand over power to successors, not enthusiastic with allowing the led to perceive them as all too human, (Oh, I know that any man on the UHJ is just a man, but the mental idol is that when all nine human males decree something, it's not human), have compounded their imperfect leadership, by taking actions that contradict the raison d'etre of the organization they head. In my opinion, anyone truly serious about exploring imperfection and it's remedy will eagerly explore this issue of the idol of perfect leadership at the top. It has been posted here that the quote which has been rendered in English "Infallible" means something like, "Pure", and also, the concept has been posted here that there are admonitions to leaders in such expressions as "Wellspring of Guidance" and "Source of All Good", that is, "Endeavour to rule, as if you were, strive to be, have as your goal," etc. Bien, Monsieur, do you agree that one major step in acknowledging this problem and in seeking to remedy it is for Baha'is, especially the guys at the top to admit to themselves and openly that imperfection, even mistakes came from the top and now is as good a time as any to act so as to rectify the consequences of these, not evil, so much as impoverished previous decisions. I await with keen interest your response. Au Revoir, Michael "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@home.NOSPAMcom) writes: > "Curious" wrote in message > news:3c3ac2dc@dnews.tpgi.com.au... >> Leads him to conclude that it is perfect, can do no wrong, requires no >> reform and is under attack by miscreants who seek no more than >> division and strife. > > Hello, Rod. It's nice to see you too. > > For those who've only recently come to these newsgroups, I have the distinct > honor of being the very first Baha'i Rod ever insulted, and Rod has the > distinct honor of being the first Baha'i to respond with insults to a > question I had asked in all sincerity. To be perfectly honest, I don't know > if Rod has ever given a straighforward answer to that question. Much of > what Rod has had to say to me ever since then has been peppered with > personal invectives. > > And, for the record, no. I do not believe the Baha'i Administrative Order > is perfect in every way, that it can do no wrong nor that it requires no > reform. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. I have been quite > willing to entertain reform from those who have demonstrated sufficient > knowledge of the issues about which they propose reform. > > So, Rod, your issue is due process. I have asked you a rather simple > question regarding who the "accusor" is in the due process right to face > one's accusor. While you've made several rather obnoxious attempts to > answer that question, you still haven't answered it correctly. Can you put > personalities aside long enough to actually discuss the meaning of the terms > you've used? That certainly would be the most Baha'i thing to do. > > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: Disenrollment, et al Date: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 9:18 AM Greetings, Susan. > Shoghi Effendi's statement that he was relegating to himself the right to > declare people Covenant breakers was time-bound to begin with. Another response to this situation is to view the world in such a way that there are no Covenant Breakers, to cease the policy of viewing the world as inhabited by us and them, we the good and they the evil, and to consort with the followers of all religions, including other Baha'is, in a spirit of amity and fellowship and to demonstrate the harmony of humanity. By the way, Susan, if you've failed to find any poems I posted to Baha'i cyberspace, one thing you're more likely to have and which I would also like to have is any and all responses I've made to communications fromthe UHJ, other than that specifically dealing with my case. I seem to recall that I replied to the letter on Individual Rights and Freedoms as well as the letter on homosexuality, and there may be others. If you or anyone else can supply me with these, I'd be very grateful. Thrive, Michael -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. You may do a web search for "michael mckenny" and "brehon law" to see that I have considered legal systems. Somewhere out there is the site where my review of Fergus Kelly's A GUIDE TO EARLY IRISH LAW is rated Five Star and "Excellent". This is not the system of law I advocate as superior to the existing (Old World Order) one. However, I have considered the point you mention. In a way, the Old World Order system we're used to in Perry Mason, if nowhere else, is based on a combination of things such as the Justinian code, the evolution of the Anglo Saxon and Norman and Biblical ideas, etc. It's not perfect, but I'll take the Magna Carta and trial by jury any day over the nine kings in Haifa can do anything at they please, with no consideration of individual rights and freedoms at all, with no restraints, with no trial, with no jury, with no need to produce evidence, without even allowing someone to know that even a kangaroo court is being held. On a dispassionate basis, purely on the issues and devoid of all reference to personality, which is preferable, the flawed Old World Order system of justice, imperfect as it is, or the non-existence of any system at all within the current Baha'i Faith, where leadership simply decrees and defines what is right and what is wrong and there is no due process at all. By all means, take the admirable features of Justinian and Cicero, of the pagan Celts, of the bible, of Islamic jurisprudence, of Napoleon, of ancient China, not to forget Baha'u'llah (who said the best thing was justice -- and this is not a word meaning the decrees of the guys in charge -- of anyone else you like, and allow a full and democratic input, and what you have, flawed as it is will likely do a lot more to bring justice and harmony than the lack of due process currently inflicting such serious harm on the Baha'i Faith. To the Future, Michael > > I'm glad that we agree on a relatively inconsequential point designed to > illustrate the larger scope of the general problem. However, you haven't > discussed the larger scope of the general problem at all. Do you have any > thoughts in the depth of the issues that arise when one endeavors to > incorporate notions of "due process" from disparate systems of administering > justice into a single, coherent system. > ... > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. In what way does "Discernment" go beyond "Merely thinking for yourself". Do you mean that there are sub-categories of "Dictated" that you approve? Most important, are you willing to admit honestly that there may be times when the dictates coming from the nine men at the top of the Baha'i AO are wrong. Have you that capacity of discernment? Can you admit that there may be dictates coming from the nine men at the top of the Baha'i AO are in conflict with ethics to the point that these dictates cannot be obeyed? I await an honest answer very attentively. To the Future, Michael > > Seeing, Michael, has to do with the quality of discernment. It goes beyond > merely thinking for oneself. > > As for how this might related to the thinking and acceptance of "dictated > thoughts," well, that depends on precisely what you mean in your use of the > word "dictated". > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Karen. Many thanks for your kind words. Actually, the web page on geocities is still under construction, and I was aiming at formally announcing it on Imbolc (February 2nd). It's mainly focused on topics of special interest to me, and Baha'i is a small part of that, as anyone who checks it out will see. Also, the Baha'i material is deficient; it's missing my responses to at least two, probably more, letters of the UHJ, and it's missing the links I want to put in to other Baha'i sites of interest. If I don't have a link to your site by February 2nd, don't hesitate to give me a gentle reminder. I think it is truly great to be providing the service you are of helping those wronged within Baha'i. I tend to be too preoccupied with other things to be able to contribute much to e-lists. And, I feel that what time I can spend in Baha'i cyberspace is most constructively spent here, in the open, where so many have been so unjustly made fearful to be seen. However, feel free anytime to share any comments I post here with any one. Thrive Ever, Michael "Karen Bacquet" (karenbacquet@hotmail.com) writes: >> So, I guess I've got some time to check out >> what Rick posts. I've always maintained personality is irrelevant; it's >> content that's valid. >> I'd like to thank you for your presence and role here.<< > > Dear Michael, > > I don't believe I've ever been so gently and charmingly corrected. I think > you're an absolute darling, and I'll check out your website soon -- I've > been busy with some writing of my own, which I'll tell everybody about soon. > > Love, Karen > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. Such "Parochialism", if it is the parochialism that stems from the Magna Carta, the jury system, British common law, etc., for all its warts, blemishes and imperfections is much to be preferred to that Non-Parochialism" which needs no trials, no juries, no presentation of evidence, no opportunity for defence at all, simply the decree by the men running the show that such a penalty has been rendered, and indeed the penalty may even be decreed without notification. Here's to Parochialiam. Michael "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@home.NOSPAMcom) writes: > "Randy Burns" wrote in message > news:kBM_7.379$gt2.110120@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net... >> It ain't Justice till its Justice! > > Except when "Justice" is nothing more than a culturally determined notion of > "justice". Then it's not justice at all. It's just parochialism. > > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. By all means, I very much invite you to restate your words, if I get them wrong. In my opinion, you have pontificated, which is fine, when it is pointed out. You speak as if your point of view is the only one and, of course, you mean, in your opinion, in your view, you think that the mistakes made by the nine guys running the show and the idol that these nine guys can do no wrong is not an issue. Perhaps it is not an issue for you. However, to return to an accurate quote, "The substance of controversy," unless you actually agree that the nine guys running the show have made mistakes and that the requirement now within Baha'i is to follow the advice of Abdu'l Baha and overcome the idol worship of the concept of the perfection of the decrees emanating from the nine men in charge -- "The substance of controversy" very much is that there are those within Baha'i worshipping this idol and the nine men in charge are not seen as having the authority to admit honestly their imperfect and incorrect decrees, a preliminary step to rectifying the mess into which their very much fallible leadership has resulted in. If you agree and all others agree, then let this admission and this correction of past impoverished decrees begin. If, as I suspect, you do not agree with me, then this very much is, "The substance of controversy." To facing facts, admitting truth, following the advice of Abdu'l Baha and the harmonious consultation on and resolution of all thorny and difficult issues. The human being has been endowed with a very remarkable capacity to overcome obstacles, figure out solutions to problems, solve complex issues, on the condition that effort to do so is undertaken, and honest and sincere facing up to issues, consulting on such problems with an open and unbiased mind and heart, listening to others very deeply takes place. May you and all within Baha'i, especially those who hold positions of responsibility honestly, sincerely, prayerfully open your minds and your hearts and really observe the situation as it exists, really assess what is going on, really listen to the diverse rainbow of opinions that can be embraced by the Revelation of Baha'u'llah, really consult on the substance of controversy, really listen to all viewpoints, really reach for answers, resolutions, decisions that address the real issues, and really promote the world embracing, world encompassing, world harmonizing potential of the Revelation of Baha'u'llah. To the Future, Michael "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@email.msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > "Michael McKenny" wrote in message > news:a1flt5$91v$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... >> This thread's appropriately titled enough. You said you wanted to >> converse politely about issues. > > Again, Michael, you misqute me. I was keen on discussing the issues that > are actually the substance of controversy. I'm not at all keen on repeating > a discussion you and I have already had way too many times before without > any hope of increased understanding and/or mutual admiration or agreement. > Where you and I are concerned, perhaps the only polite thing for us to do is > agree to disagree. > > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. I will try to reply to your questions and I invite you to be very specific in expressing your opinion and to underline wherever you feel I have failed to state my opinion on an issue. I may do the same. You have invited a polite exchange of views. I have repeatedly said that any and all remarks directed at the person are irrelevant, and any and all comments I direct at you rather than your points are equally irrelevant. In my opinion, it doesn't cut water to maintain that dictatorships can keep information secret and then say our dictatorship cannot be assessed because you lack information. Release all the information and demonstrate why obvious injustice isn't injustice, due to specific and exceptional circumstances or be assessed as any other dictatorship. To the Future, Michael "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@email.msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > "Michael McKenny" wrote in message > news:a1fnog$bsj$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... >> You are correct, in my opinion, that not the accusor, necessarily, >> but the accusation and all its details are deserving of being seen by >> any accused. > > I'm glad that we agree on a relatively inconsequential point designed to > illustrate the larger scope of the general problem. However, you haven't > discussed the larger scope of the general problem at all. Do you have any > thoughts in the depth of the issues that arise when one endeavors to > incorporate notions of "due process" from disparate systems of administering > justice into a single, coherent system. > >> Within a Baha'i context, one very serious problem is that some >> folks are being accused of expressing opinions not in favour among the >> hierarchy. That is a serious injustice. > > Actually, with in the Baha'i context, a far more serious problem is people > accusing the Universal House of Justice of perpetrating injustices not based > upon a review of all the relevant facts but based upon their own inability > to imagine alternative, yet equally reasonable, explanations for those facts > that are known. When we know that we don't know all the relevant facts, > then the only just thing to do is to refrain from voicing a judgement. > > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Whatever it is, obedience to dictates by nine men in heaven doesn't make one ethical, as is demonstrated by the shoddy treatment these nine men have rendered Baha'i. Dave Fiorito (bighappymonkey@yahoo.com) writes: > Michael, > > What is the standard to judge what is ethical and what is not? > > Cheers, > > Dave -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings. The Universal House of Justice has full authority to legislate, as it perceives the needs of the time. It is one of the fundamental principles of legislating that Parliament may not bind its successor. To the Future, Michael "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@home.NOSPAMcom) writes: > "Randy Burns" wrote in message > news:oxM_7.376$gt2.109276@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net... >> Are statements of the House of Justice binding on future UHJ's? > > When I wrote: > > "To go beyond this point is to enter the realm of speculation. In other > words, whether or not the Universal House of Justice might revise a > pronouncement on a question that's obscure is, itself, a question that's > obscure. I'd suggest that those who really care about the matter should > write the Universal House of Justice." > > I thought I was answering precisely that question. > > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: Internet Crackdown Date: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 7:14 PM Greetings, Rick. Many thanks for your frank and honest reply. In your opinion, at this time, you think that it is possible for you to come to the conclusion that the decrees from the nine men at the top could be seen as so unethical that obedience could not be rendered. You further, it seems to me, very strongly hold the view that ethically you would then be bound to declare yourself a non-Baha'i. That is, in my view, one very valid viewpoint. It is not the only viewpoint possible. As on many issues, humans were not created as clones; there is a rainbow of perception possible, and, on this issue it is conceivable that an individual could conclude that the Revelation of Baha'u'llah consists in more than merely obeying any decree so ever that comes from the nine guys in charge. Were you yourself to express this opinion some time in the future, I would not say anything against you. As Baha'u'llah said, human opinions are varied and even the same individual will modify his views and change his mind over the course of time. What is contrary to my understanding of the Revelation of Baha'i is to accuse others of hypocrisy for holding a viewpoint at variance to your own. In my opinion, the Faith Baha'u'llah intended to harmonize the human species calls on individuals to focus on personal spiritual development, to plow one's own line as straightly as one kind without calling others names. In my opinion, the Baha'i Faith may be perceived in a rainbow of varied ways, but, personally, I believe it was meant to be more than a group of people obeying anything at all that may be decreed from HQ. I applaud all those who have the spiritual fortitude to live a life that is based on spiritual principles transcending decrees to ignore or repudiate such spiritual principles. I think there are a vast number of understandings believers may have and still very much be believers. I applaud your forthright statement of your opinion today concerning your right to call yourself a Baha'i. I will not say a word against you, if in the course of time you change your mind. I certainly do not say a word against, or criticize anyone who has not made your so emphatic statement, and may have another understanding. To the Future, Michael "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@email.msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > >> Most important, are you willing to admit honestly that there may be times >> when the dictates coming from the nine men at the top of the Baha'i AO are >> wrong. > > Absolutely. And, whenever such time as that might happen, I will cease to > call myself a Baha'i. To do otherwise is to be a manifestation of > hypocrisy. > > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: excommunication Date: Saturday, January 12, 2002 12:48 PM Rick, Zamyatin wrote a letter to Stalin saying he'd like to leave the Soviet Union and return when writers didn't have to please little men. Stalin let him go. Zamyatin lived in France. The Soviet Union was an objectionable place not because Zamyatin was allowed to live in France, nor because other Soviets were not allowed to live in France. It was an objectionable place, among other things, because those in charge abused their authority within the country, opposed freedom of speech within the country, got involved with permitted scientific research within the country, did not permit openness within the country, and used the tools at their disposal to perpetuate their domination within the country, whatever consequences this had for those residing within the country. So, if the Universal House has no other difference to present to its treatment of those within the Baha'i Faith, except that it encourages more people to follow Zamyatin's response to Stalin and move out, if within Baha'i there is the same abuse of leadership within the religion, identical opposition to the freedom of thought and expression, to independent uncensored academic research, to openness, the same use of the tools at its disposal (sending Counsellors out to notify communities of believers that those among them daring to protest injustice are "The Calamity" may not be the same thing as putting said people in mental asylums, but then the tools at their disposal are not yet up to Stalin's. What, pray tell, my wife said I should ask, is to happen to people in the expected world domination by Baha'is. When the whole world is under the control of the Universal House of Justice, will those wanting human rights still have the freedom to move, to some other planet? And, I wonder, if the current guys in the Universal House of Justice had the same tools as Stalin had, why should they be expected to act differently?). Yes, Rick, I consider any answer mentioning freedom to leave as a very bad sign of the state of Baha'i. this is intensified when it's remembered that ideally Baha'i was intended to bring harmony, among many other outstsnding things. If the rot at the top extends to urging and forcing people to move away, it is quite serious. To the future, Michael. "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@email.msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > "Michael McKenny" wrote in message > news:a1nq94$lk0$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... >> Do you honestly not perceive how bad it sounds when say that the >> distinction between the Baha'i Faith and the Soviet Union was that in >> Baha'i you're allowed to leave? > > Given that freedom is precisely the difference between the two, no. How bad > does it "sound" Michael? Is freedom simply not that important any more? > > Do you honestly not perceive how ridiculous it seems when people equate > returning your membership card with putting you in a mental hospital? Is > this how you justify hyperbole? > > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Hi, Susan. Is this the letter where they said Michael had deficient understanding and seemed uninterested in being instructed? To the Future, Michael Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> >>I hate to say this Susan, but the UHJ's letter to Michael is reminiscent of >>"Soviet Psychiatry's" attempt to define people who opposed communism as >>"social deviants" or worse. > > I don't see them saying anything about Michael even remotely similiar to this. > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. Do you honestly not perceive how bad it sounds when say that the distinction between the Baha'i Faith and the Soviet Union was that in Baha'i you're allowed to leave? To a Better Future, Michael "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@email.msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > "Randy Burns" wrote in message > news:arG%7.89$VD1.78373@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net... >> I hate to say this Susan, but the UHJ's letter to Michael is reminiscent > of >> "Soviet Psychiatry's" attempt to define people who opposed communism as >> "social deviants" or worse. The basic idea being that opposing the Soviet >> dictatorship was nothing more than a mental illness. > > So where did these attemps ever say anything like, "One is entirely free to > reject the system of Soviet Socialism. Soviet Socialism is a system of > governance which believes ardently in the freedom of socialistic choice. No > one is--or can ever be--compelled to be a Soviet Socialist." > > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Randy. Have you ever read Zamyatin's WE. Zamyatin was an old Bolshevik imprisoned in Tsarist times, but when the early 20s came along he wrote this amazing novel (I have a copy of the first edition published in the XUSSR -- in 1989 (sic!), about the perfect society the hero is inhabiting. The greatest disaster is when on Unanimity Day, when all are supposed to publically acclaim the Benefactor and sit in sacred silence when, "Any opposed?" is asked, some people actually do say they oppose the Benefactor. However, newspapers next day carry the reassuring news that since one would have to be insane to say no to the re-acclaimation of the Benefactor, he was indeed re-acclaimed by all sane citizens. This book was available in the West during the Cold War (I like the translation by Mirra Ginsberg best). Indeed, having read such works as this and also the Mediaeval tale below, made me quite aware of the category of people with whom the men currently in charge of Baha'i were aligned. A Mediaeval Story: Once upon a time there was this Jewish guy who travelled to Rome and when he returned to his home town he promptly converted and became a Christian. The locals smiled and said, of course, the spirituality he witnessed in Rome could leave him no alternative. He replied, "Oh no. You wouldn't believe what I saw in Rome. those at the top were doing everything in their power to ruin Christianity, and, yet, despite them, I see Christianity flourishing. I could only conclude God was favouring it." To the Future, Michael "Randy Burns" (randy.burns4@gte.net) writes: > I hate to say this Susan, but the UHJ's letter to Michael is reminiscent of > "Soviet Psychiatry's" attempt to define people who opposed communism as > "social deviants" or worse. The basic idea being that opposing the Soviet > dictatorship was nothing more than a mental illness. > > Cheers, Randy > > > > -- > > Susan Maneck wrote in message > news:20020111013028.25477.00001211@mb-fc.aol.com... > SNIP > > >> "The mission that has been laid by Baha'u'llah on those >> who recognize and would follow Him is the promotion of the >> unification of the earth's peoples in one global society guided by >> Divine principle. In order for the Baha'i community to discharge >> this responsibility, it must itself remain united. It must >> demonstrate to a skeptical age that human beings, in all their >> diversity, can learn to live and work as a single people in one >> global homeland. >> >> "The means by which Baha'u'llah has chosen to preserve the unity >> of Baha'i society is the institutions established in the Covenant >> which He made with those who accept Him. His Writings make it >> indisputably clear that the spiritual and social teachings thus set >> forth cannot be separated from the institutional means their Author >> has provided for their promotion. Particularly is this true of the >> interpretive functions with which the Guardianship has been endowed >> and the ultimate decision-making power invested in the Universal >> House of Justice, both of which are assured of unfailing Divine >> guidance. >> >> One is entirely free to accept or reject the system of belief >> Baha'u'llah teaches. The Baha'i Faith is a religion which believes >> ardently in freedom of spiritual choice. No one is -- or can ever >> be -- compelled to be a Baha'i, nor does any discredit attach to >> one who, having decided, for whatever reason, that he or she cannot >> continue to accept the Teachings, may decide to renounce them. What >> one cannot properly do is to behave in a way that undermines the >> unity of the Baha'i community, by challenging the institutional >> authority that is an integral part of the Faith one professes to >> have accepted." >> >> To put in a single word, the key issue here was the Covenant. Now the >> consequence to opposing the Covenant is, as you well know, being declared > a >> Covenant breaker. But in the cases of those who were removed from the > rolls, >> the determination of the House of Justice was, as they put it in regards > to >> Michael, >> " the Universal House of Justice reached the conclusion that he >> neither understands the basic implications of Baha'i membership nor has > any >> real desire to do so." >> >> As such he could neither be expected to abide by the provisions of the >> Covenant, nor punished for failing to do so. >> >> >I just have a hard time accepting the >> >idea that Baha'u'llah would create such a powerful Institution yet >> >leave the individual believers so powerless. >> >> Perhaps we are not as powerless as you imagine. But we are a religion, not >> simply members of a social or political movement. As such we attempt to > respond >> to the revelation given by God, not make God in our own image. >> >> warmest, >> >> >> Susan Maneck >> Associate Professor of History >> Jackson State University >> >> "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no > time >> left to start again . . " >> Don McLean's American Pie >> https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ >> > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. No one challenged the authority of the Universal House of Justice. No one held an election to which women could be voted on the Universal House of Justice. Everyone stated that women would be elected to the Universal House of Justice when the proper authority, the Universal House of Justice, so legislated. There was no challenge to the authority of the Universal House of Justice. What was opposed was essential spiritual Baha'i principle, and this opposition came from the men currently in power violating Baha'u'llah's command that there be freedom of thought and expression within Baha'i. This astounding letter, in which the UHJ at last provided some at least of its reasoning has been very convincingly rebutted by Juan among others. It is an outrageous thing that the current administration utilized its mandate of authority as an instrument to divide the graet spiritual movement of Baha'u'llah. If President Bush were to rule that only the Republican viewpoint may be expressed in the US, if he were to seek to drive out of the USA any articulate democrat he could not silence, if he were to legislate the non-American status of convincing democrats who refused to be silent and did not succumb to pressures to move, he, not the democrats would be the source of any reduction in the prestige of the presidency, and of any division within America. Personality is invalid. If it would so for President Bush, it is so for the men currently in power in Baha'i. And, now this moment has passed. I believe I'm off at least until the afternoon. Have Fun. To the Future, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>The UHJ has declared people >>"not Baha'i" for disobedience......where is the balance on the other >>side? > > No, Milissa, not disobedience. Listen carefully to what the House is saying. > Again quoting from its letter to Michael's wife: > > "What one cannot properly do is to behave in a way that undermines the unity of > the Baha'i community, by challenging the institutional authority that is an > integral part of the Faith one professes to > have accepted." > > Disobeying an Institution may cause you to loose your voting rights. But > challenging its institutional authority is challenging the Covenant. Had the > House of Justice determined that these people were in fact Baha'is they would > have had no choice but to declare them Covenant breakers. > >>The UHJ stated in a previous letter that there were no set >>procedures in place (ie no due process) for these kinds of issues. > > "These kinds of issues" is a little to broad, Milissa. What the House has said > is that in cases where a Baha'i is accused of violating a Baha'i law each > community should decide what proceedures are most appropriate. But this kind of > thing is decided only by the House. To my knowledge they have never said there > was no set proceedure in place. > >>When I ask Baha'is in person, all I get are these vague and general >>quotes about the UHJ being free from all error and quotes about how >>the AO is suppose to be nice to the individual believers. > > Perhaps it is the House of Justice you need to ask regarding its own > proceedures. I think you will find they are more consistent than you imagine. > > warmest, > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. Many thanks for your response. You have stated a valid personal opinion. Now, my own take on the matter is that we're all human beings here, so all one has to do is try to obey the legislation of Baha'i institutions, including the UHJ. When it comes to quite obvious, for me and for some others, complete opposition to fundamental spiritual principle, then anyone, in my opinion, is fully valid, in holding the view that spiritual principle more defines Baha'i than the dictates, the decrees, the legislation, the orders, what have you, of the UHJ, and anyone not choosing to resign nor to obey where obedience would, to her or him, be perceived as hypocrisy and un-Baha'i, is completely coherent in her or his perception that s/he is a Baha'i. To the Future, Michael. "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@email.msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > "Michael McKenny" wrote in message > news:a1l5u0$fiq$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... >> Greetings, Rick. >> Actually, I understand your response to the subsequent paragraph >> in my original letter, where you stated you could conceive of the UHJ >> dictating something you'd consider unethical, but then you'd have to >> resign as answering this. > > I'm still not sure I fully understand. Do you mean "dictate" being > something that I'd have to obey, or do you mean "dictate" being an assertion > of a truth to which I'd have to give my conscientious assent? > > It's my understanding that I'm obligated to obey what the Universal House of > Justice commands me to do, and should I find myself unable to > conscientiously obey such a command then I'd have to resign from the Faith. > ... > Regards, > Rick Schaut > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) You cut my answer Baha'u'llah out of your reply. "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@email.msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > "Michael McKenny" wrote in message > news:a1noqg$jjp$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... >> Greetings, Rick. >> What to you, Rick, is a >> Baha'i? This is not a trick question. > > It may not be a trick question, but it certainly seems like it's a way for > you to avoid answering mine. So, to be fair, I'll answer your question > right after you answer mine: > >> "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@email.msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: >> > Slow down. Where do these "spiritual principles" come from? Who, or > what, >> > defined them? > > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. I'm all ears, eyes, etc. What is then the distinction between the practises within Baha'i that we call injustice when we encounter them in the second or third world or, indeed first world, too? I know that my ogham fews (traditional Irish pieces of wood used for divinations) are available only a few feet from this computer, but I suspect that's not what you mean. Well, then, out with it. If it's available, what is it? To the Future, Michael "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@email.msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > "Michael McKenny" wrote in message > news:a1ncto$2bl$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... >> There's an old quote that justice must not only be done, it must be >> seen to be done. It's invalid to perpetrate what looks, smells, tastes, >> sounds and feels like injustice, and to claim it isn't on the basis of >> concealed knowledge. > > When did I talk about "concealed" knowledge? I talked about people reaching > conclusions when they didn't have sufficient information. I mentioned > nothing about the availability of that information. > > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. I said "so outrageously". It's a question of balance and moderation. It is not acceptable that any command whatsoever be issued, and all principle, other than the principle of obedience, be eliminated. We are not consulting about a hypothetical capacity of authority to legislate and be obeyed, even though one feels strongly about an issue, for example, as I already mentioned, that some people think it is terrible Canada is doing so little in Afghanistan and some people think it is terrible we are there at all. "So outrageously" means that the defining characteristics of the Baha'i religion: "Independent investigation of truth, freedom of thought and expression, welcoming a variety of humanly valid opinions, balance of all things, particularly science and religion, faith and reason, equality of women and men, etc., including justice." are being opposed by those asserting obedience is the only thing. You do agree, Susan, that there is a significant and wide range of very serious conscience issues here, not merely a circumstance where some people feel inclined one way and some people feel inclined the other? To the Future, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> if, indeed, they >>didn't seek so outrageously to rule contrary to conscience, then there >>would be a very reduced number of occasions calling on conscience against >>the dictates of leadership. > > Dear Micheal, > > They will always rule contrary to someone conscience because consciences don't > agree. > > warmest, > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Our newspapers have not reported any revolt either by those saying it's terrible we're in Afghanistan or by those saying it's terrible we have so few troops in Afghanistan. Methinks claiming those saying the Universal House of Justice will decide when women will sit on the Universal House of Justice have raised a standard of revolt and sending Counsellors around to tell communities that those writing letters of protest are the Calamity is a tad on the excessive side of Baha'u'llah's statement that whatsoever transcends the bounds of moderation causes harm. Would you agree? To the Future, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> >>And when the UHJ invents new "non-punishments" for summarily >>dismissing those who ask questions in the wrong tone, or post >>their personal, Baha'u'llah centred opinions too widely, they make >>the Baha'i Faith a create-it-yourself religion, too. > > Dear Paul, > > The House of Justice does not do anything to anyone who asks them questions. As > to the extent to which they can promulgate opinions in direct opposition to the > Universal House of Justice, it was 'Abdu'l-Baha, not the House which pronounced > on this: > > "Beware lest anyone falsely interpret these words, and like unto them that have > broken the Covenant after the Day of Ascension (of Bahá'u'lláh) advance a > pretext, raise the standard of revolt, wax stubborn and open wide the door of > false interpretation. To none is given the right to put forth his own opinion > or express his particular conviction. All must seek guidance and turn unto the > Center of the Cause and the House of Justice. And he that turneth unto > whatsoever else is indeed in grievous error. " > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. There's a similar thing in one of L. Sprague de Camp's stories. It goes, from memory, like this: The hero is visiting this despot who says to him, "When you leave here, close the gate; I don't want my animals to get out." "Fine, by the way, I've come looking for my fellow countryman; they say he was up this way; did you see him?" "Yes." "Where did he go?" "He didn't close the gate, so I killed him, of course." To a better future, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>Rick expressed >>the opinion that it would be difficult to know what a warning would >>be - so I sat down and wrote one in 30 seconds to illustrate >>what I think would be a clear warning. >> >>If I can do that, why can't the UHJ? > > Dear Paul, > > People have the right no be warned when their actions are inappropriate. Those > kinds of warnings people were given or attempts were made to do so.They do not > necessarily have a right to know what the exact consequences of continuing to > act in that manner would be. If this were the case then obedience, would > simply be a response to a specific threat of punishment rather than a > fulfillment of ones obligation to abide by the Covenant. > > warmest, > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Many thanks for your comment. The reality is very complex, as is the case with many things. I am a Celtic Reconstructionist. As I perceive it this means striving to live as would have lived our Pagan ancestors, were they now alive. It is an excellent choice in the sense that very little religious discord seems to have existed in Pagan socieities, at least in the West. religious conflict seems to be more a product of monotheistic religions, intolerant of the human diversity of views, even within them. If you would like a glimpse of the serious efforts by modern take a look at the Pagan section of my geocities web page. Most of the books reviewed there are on reading lists of Pagan organizations such as ADF and Imbas. These are actually academic texts on archaeology, early literature, etc. Thrive, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>Since I had been telling Pagans since the mid 80s that had >>I not given my allegience to another Faith, I would openly be Pagan, > > Dear Michael, > > You made a good choice. Neo-paganism is a create-it-yourself religion. > > warmest, > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. By the way, if it's available to you, but not to the many that have been saying they perceive injustice, then, obviously, its availability has not been adequate to permit justice to be seen to be done. To the Future, Michael. "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@email.msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > "Michael McKenny" wrote in message > news:a1ncto$2bl$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... >> There's an old quote that justice must not only be done, it must be >> seen to be done. It's invalid to perpetrate what looks, smells, tastes, >> sounds and feels like injustice, and to claim it isn't on the basis of >> concealed knowledge. > > When did I talk about "concealed" knowledge? I talked about people reaching > conclusions when they didn't have sufficient information. I mentioned > nothing about the availability of that information. > > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. There's an old quote that justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. It's invalid to perpetrate what looks, smells, tastes, sounds and feels like injustice, and to claim it isn't on the basis of concealed knowledge. to the Future, Michael. "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@email.msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > "Michael McKenny" wrote in message > news:a1l5h2$f45$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... >> Greetings, Rick. >> Because there are a lot more people who have observed the lack >> of Baha'i justice than have observed you beating your wife > > I don't think you've quite followed me on this one. Whether or not there is > a "lack of Baha'i justice" is not something one can "observe". Justice is, > by it's very nature, a subjective concept. We can observe things that we > think are not just, but our perception of what is and is not just is almost > completely defined by cultural values. > > To claim objectivity where no objectivity is possible is to beg the > question. As I said, you might as well ask me if I've stopped beating my > wife. You've no more "observed" me beating my wife than you've "observed" > any lack of Baha'i justice. > > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. Baha'u'llah. A far more fascinating question Rick, is how do you define the Baha'i Faith? What are the qualities, characteristics and attributes of this religion? People have gotten into trouble with the hierarchy because they identified their religion more intimately with spiritual principles than with current administrators. I'd be very interested in hearing how one who has no, or at least less, difficulty with the hierarchy perceives his spiritual identity. What to you, Rick, is a Baha'i? This is not a trick question. I will mention that whatever you say, in my opinion, cannot exclude the understandings of others. And, your definition of Baha'i, your description of its qualities, in my view, has significance in any consideration of current reality in the Baha'i Faith. To the Future, Michael "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@email.msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > "Michael McKenny" wrote in message > news:a1ncmh$20l$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... >> When it comes to quite obvious, for me >> and for some others, complete opposition to fundamental spiritual >> principle, then anyone, in my opinion, is fully valid, in holding the >> view that spiritual principle more defines Baha'i than the dictates, >> the decrees, the legislation, the orders, what have you, of the UHJ, > > Slow down. Where do these "spiritual principles" come from? Who, or what, > defined them? > > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. The point is that we have a different understanding of the words, "Challenge their authority". The Prime Minister of Canada and the Parliament of Canada have decided that Canada join in the military activities in Afghanistan. Canadian troops have been in the country and more are going. Now some people say it's terrible they're there and other people say it's terrible there are not more of them. But, neither of these freely expressed opinions is a challenge to the authority of our Prime Minister, nor of our Parliament. They are an indication of the health, vigour and vitality of this much envied country, whose authorities exercise authority and do not feel so insecure thay cannot hear opinions other than their own. Within Baha'i, the harm inflicted on the authority of the Universal House of Justice comes from the Universal House of Justice. They do not have the authority to limit the authority of their successors. Any attempt they make to do so calls them into question. They do not have the authority to interfere in freedom of thought and expression. Any attempt they make to do so calls them into question. Do you not agree that had the Universal House of Justice showed the same wisdom as the Canadian Prime minister and the Canadian Parliament, had they simply legislated according to their understanding and not bothered with what their successors had the authority to do, nor with trying to shut up those, Baha'is for crying out loud, expressing their opinions on spiritual principles, that the authority of the Universal House of Justice would be healthier than is today evident? To the Future, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>Everyone stated that women would be elected to the >>Universal House of Justice when the proper authority, the Universal House >>of Justice, so legislated. > > Dear Michael, > > That statement is in direct contradiction to what the House itself said, as you > well know. To continue to insist on this *is* to challenge their authority. > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. Many thanks for your honesty. My response is that if those who are supposed to be guiding the Faith as a world-harmonizing, spiritual Source of All Good, obey Baha'u'llah's command to allow individuals freedom of thought and expression, to balance faith and reason, science and spirituality, to have in this age equality (real equality, not all-male leadership called equality), of women and men, to consider true justice really important, etc., if, indeed, they didn't seek so outrageously to rule contrary to conscience, then there would be a very reduced number of occasions calling on conscience against the dictates of leadership. To the Future, Michael "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@email.msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > "Susan Maneck " wrote in message > news:20020110164555.15106.00001214@mb-ba.aol.com... >> Whether certain individuals were declared non-Baha'is 'without warning' > that >> would depend on what 'without warning' is understood to mean. > > Yes, that's where I was headed. Thanks for making the point clear. > >> If what is meant by 'without warning' is were specific threats issued as > to the >> consequences of continuing to act this way, then I suppose it could be > said >> that no such warning was issued in any of these three cases. > > One problem with a direct threat is how to convey such a threat without > impinging upon the individual's right of conscience. I don't think I have a > solution to that one. > > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. And, at any time the top legislators of Baha'i may have another perception of what is embedded in the text, and, at that time, they possesses full authority to legislate on their then understanding, unlimited by the understandings, rulings and decrees of their predecessors, whatever semantics is used by people today is seeking to avoid Shoghi Effendi's admonition not to try to freeze the Faith in the mold of current limited perceptions. to the Future, Michael Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> >>Are you saying that official *elucidations* are being given the status of >>*interpretations* by the Guardian and thus can never be changed? > > Dear Randy, > > Not usually. But in this case the wording of the elucidations themselves > suggest that they can't be changed. I couldn't find the reference to it not > being possible to elect another Guardian but here is how they state the > exclusion of women from the House: > " As mentioned earlier, the law regarding the membership of the Universal House > of Justice is embedded in the Text and has been merely restated by the divinely > appointed interpreters. It is therefore neither amenable to change nor subject > to speculation about some possible future condition." Letters of the Universal > House of Justice, 1988 05 31. > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Randy. Actually, this is a fundamental point. According to the brilliant vision of Baha'u'llah, human harmony was promoted by permitting a rainbow of valid personal perceptions whose authors all realized that other views were equally valid, and by having a centre of authority and guidance whose legislation was to be obeyed. Even the Perfect Exemplar often said of his interpretation that this was one way of understanding, but that on reflection others would occur. The attempt to replicate hierarchies of previous monotheistic religions and create an authoritative Baha'i doctrine is at variance to the teachings of Baha'u'llah, and, in actual practise, has been no more successful in creating harmony in the Baha'i Faith today than it was in previous systems above whose errors Baha'u'llah strove to elevate his followers. to the Future, Michael "Randy Burns" (randy.burns4@gte.net) writes: > Susan > > What is the textual authorization for the UHJ calling its elucidations > "authoritative" and not just current understanding of the subject matter. > If it is their statement of their understanding of the texts and authorized > interpretations then it is still just an understanding and not an authorized > interpretation. How do they pin authorized on their current understanding > and say it can never be changed? > > You say it can only be changed based on new information, but couldn't the > change also come from changed perceptions of the UHJ members? What exactly > prevents that? How can they not continually discover new meanings in the > texts? > > Cheers, Randy > > -- > > Susan Maneck wrote in message > news:20020110132951.13601.00001171@mb-fo.aol.com... >> >> That is correct. However the cases I named were elucidations. Now while an >> elucidation is an extension of the legistlative power of the House of > Justice >> it is not exactly legislation per se. It is simply an explanation of what > has >> already been laid out in the Writings and in authoritative interpretation. > It >> seems clear to me that such an explanation could only be changed on the > basis >> of new information regarding what is in the Writings or authoritative >> interpretations. >> >> warmest, >> >> >> Susan Maneck >> Associate Professor of History >> Jackson State University >> >> "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no > time >> left to start again . . " >> Don McLean's American Pie >> https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ >> > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. Can't say as I recall having read such a paper. I agree that there may be perceived distinct categories of interpreting, even legitimate ones, but, in my opinion what is done by the Universal House of Justice is legislating, not interpreting. The further point, overlooked by those seeking to add interpretation by whatever synonym to the Universal House of Justice is that were there now accepted by those people who currently do not do so a Guardian, the authority of this Interpretor is not limited by the pronouncements of predecessors. It is not essential that anything specifically stated by Shoghi Effendi be explained as of limited scope in time or circumstances, but a living Guardian, or other individual exercising this function, has full authority to explain the revelation as it applies to the time in which said interpretor resides. So, all that entertaining foot work doing the limbo and the twist, in order to permit the Universal House of Justice to exceed its scope of legislation, so that the Faith can be frozen, contrary to Shoghi Effendi's admonition, falls flat. Whether the rulings of the House are called elucidations or anything else, whether they are somehow present interpretations declared legal or not, whatever function, manner, gender, what have you, of entity they are, the current Universal House of Justice retains full authority to stir, shake or put to sleep such creatures of its predecessors. Considering what some of these things look like, all I can say is, thank Goodness. To the Future, Michael "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@email.msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > "Michael McKenny" wrote in message > news:a1no83$ir7$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... >> Logically, if they are interpreting, they are interpreting, whether >> or not they seek to conceal the fact. > > You exclude the possibility of legitimately distinct categories of > "interpreting". I recall mentioning Dr. Cole's paper on this subject. Have > you never read it? > >> The essential point is that inasmuch as the legitimate sphere of >> the Universal House of Justice is legislation, whatever they do may be >> defined as legislating, subject to reassessment, modification, correction, >> what have you, at any time. They don't have to appoint a Guardian, or, >> to use this example of the Counsellors, in lieu of Hands, someone like >> a Custodian in lieu of a Guardian, but they have full authority to so >> legislate, if they choose to do so. > > They have full authority to legislate, but only on matters not expressly > written in the Writings. They may not simply legislate on whatever issue > they choose. > > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. Since, as I understand it, the Universal House of Justice is explicitly prohibited from straying into the realm of interpretation, whatever categories one creates for responsibilities of the UHJ, all such categories, I suspect, are legislative, whether one deduces this, intuits it, perceives it, or whatever. If they are the legislative body and they are prohibited from interpreting, they are not, legitimately, able to do other than legislate. Rick, with all due respect, I am among those many humans that frown gravely upon dictatorships seeking justification for keeping information secret. Knowledge is power is an Old World saying, and these guys at the top of Baha'i act as if they really believed this old World idea. Logically, if they are interpreting, they are interpreting, whether or not they seek to conceal the fact. The essential point is that inasmuch as the legitimate sphere of the Universal House of Justice is legislation, whatever they do may be defined as legislating, subject to reassessment, modification, correction, what have you, at any time. They don't have to appoint a Guardian, or, to use this example of the Counsellors, in lieu of Hands, someone like a Custodian in lieu of a Guardian, but they have full authority to so legislate, if they choose to do so. To the Future, Michael "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@email.msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > "Michael McKenny" wrote in message > news:a1n7he$gms$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... >> Greetings, Randy and Rick. >> Forgive me for stepping in in the middle of this. I find this a very >> puzzling question. There seems to be a contrast between the concept of >> "Pronounce upon", which, to me, has the ring of "Legislate" and >> "Elucidate", which to me has the ring of "Interpret". I had thought the >> standard Baha'i understanding was that the Universal House of Justice >> was a legislative body, but not an interpreter. It can legislate >> according to its understanding on all issues obscure and illuminated, >> but it cannot impose an authoritative interpretation, not even by >> selecting a synonym for "interpretation" and imposing that. > > `Abdu'l-Baha's Will and Testament accords three, distinct areas in which the > Univeral House of Justice has authority: matters which have caused > differences to arise, questions that are obscure, and matters not covered by > the Writings themselves. Of those three, the only one that's explicitly > connected to the act of "legislating" is with respect to anything not > covered by the Writings themselves. > > We do know that "questions that are obscure" can involve, but are not > necessarily limited to, matters that are covered in the Writings themselves > but under circumstances that those Writings didn't anticipate, e.g. Shoghi > Effendi passing without being able to appoint a successor. Since the > Universal House of Justice cannot interpret, they cannot tell us what the > texts mean. They can, however, arrive at a conclusion as to what might or > might not be done by way of leglislation in order to address the > circumstances. > > There are two examples of this, both involving the passing of Shoghi > Effendi. The first example is what might or might not be done regarding a > successor to Shoghi Effendi in light of circumstances not anticipated by > `Abdu'l-Baha's Will and Testament. The Universal House of Justice's > statement on the matter is that they found no way to appoint or to legislate > a way to make it possible to appoint a successor to Shoghi Effendi. At that > time, the Universal House of Justice also concluded that they could find no > way to appoint or to legislate a way to make it possible to appoint more > Hands of the Cause of God. They have never explained the reasoning behind > those conclusions. I suspect that's because to do so would be to stray into > the realm of interpretation. > > The other example has to do with carrying on the functions of the Hands of > the Cause in light of the fact that the Universal House of Justice could > find no way for new Hands of the Cause to be appointed. In this case, the > Universal House of Justice created, by way of legislation, a new > institution, i.e. the Continental Boards of Counselors, that would carry on > the functions of the Hands of the Cause. > > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Randy and Rick. Forgive me for stepping in in the middle of this. I find this a very puzzling question. There seems to be a contrast between the concept of "Pronounce upon", which, to me, has the ring of "Legislate" and "Elucidate", which to me has the ring of "Interpret". I had thought the standard Baha'i understanding was that the Universal House of Justice was a legislative body, but not an interpreter. It can legislate according to its understanding on all issues obscure and illuminated, but it cannot impose an authoritative interpretation, not even by selecting a synonym for "interpretation" and imposing that. Believers have full freedom to perceive reality, according to the divinely created diversity of human perceptions, to share that imperfectly human discernment, while obeying the legislation of the Universal House of Justice. This is my understanding of what used to be taught as standard Baha'i concepts of the distinction between the Scriptural (an ocean of revelation transcending the rainbow of imperfect human perceptions, all valid on the condition they attentively considered the rest) and the Administrative (legislating according to the spiritual principles of the revelation, including the principles of consultation). Is there are distinction between this and the understanding of each of you, and, what specifically is the basis for that question that struck me as so curious? To the Future, Michael Rick Schaut (rsschaut@msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > On 1/9/02 6:11 PM, in article vL6%7.818$A61.96421@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net, > "Randy Burns" wrote: > >> From what statement flows the authority of the House of Justice to pronounce >> upon questions that are obscure? I wasn't aware that there were any, I >> thought they only elucidated? > > I quoted it not but a handful of messages back up in this thread. It's from > `Abdu'l-Baha's Will and Testament. > > To to true seeker, and search through `Abdu'l-Baha's Will and Testament for > the words "questions" and "obscure". You'll find it in Section II. > > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: Mistaken Beliefs Date: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 7:27 PM Greetings, Rick. The Universal House of Justice today may have an opinion about an issue that is obscure. The Universal House of Justice a generation from now may have an opinion about the same matter that varies. That's fine. If the Universal House of Justice acts on its opinion at any time, that action is a legislative action. Even a ruling not to place an item on the agenda is a legislative matter, and this does not in any way prevent the matter from being considered in the future. You may recall, that someone came into Baha'i cyberspace, possibly to this newsgroup, quite upset that years ago she had received aletter from the Universal House of Justice saying that the Universal House of Justice would decide when women could be appointed to the UHJ and this had very much turned her off Baha'i and made her mad. She was completely unaware of the significance of her statement in a more recent Baha'i history where such a letter would be quite remarkable for those holding a view that the House is bound by previous administrations. It is not an issue of newspeak, of trying to say this is legislation and this may be altered, but this is interpretation, or elucidating and elucidations by the guys in year 1 are elucidated for a thousand years. If the House has the authority today to legislate, including to rule on obscure issues, this authority does not diminish with the passage of time. The House is fully authorized to rule on all issues as it sees fit. Parliament cannot not bind its successor. To the Future, Michael "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@email.msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > "Michael McKenny" wrote in message > news:a1hjls$4lv$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... >> The Universal House of Justice has full authority to legislate, as it >> perceives the needs of the time. It is one of the fundamental principles >> of legislating that Parliament may not bind its successor. > > Except that this dicussion isn't about the Universal House of Justice's > legislative authority. It's about their authority to pronounce upon > questions that are obscure. > > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: Disenrollment, et al Date: Thursday, January 10, 2002 3:16 PM :) Greetings, Susan. Great catch. Well done. See why I consider you such a great quarterback. I recognize the potency of this question, and think it's fitting I gotta run now. My team deserves my response, and I will later. That doesn't take away one iota from the splendid work you're doing. Thrive, Michael Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>By the same token, there is no scriptual basis for viewing the >>Baha'i Faith as administered without a Guardian. > > Dear Michael, > > Sure there is. It wasn't even mentioned before the Will and Testament. But > references to the House of Justice are to be found in the Aqdas. > >>There's nothing I know of >>in Baha'i Scripture specifying a necessity to perceive Covenant Breakers >>into a future without a Guardian. > > As long as there is a Covenant there exists the possibility that people will > break it. But perhaps you like to envisage a world without the Covenant? > > warmest, > > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan By the same token, there is no scriptual basis for viewing the Baha'i Faith as administered without a Guardian. There's nothing I know of in Baha'i Scripture specifying a necessity to perceive Covenant Breakers into a future without a Guardian. If one can envisage the Faith being administered without a Guardian, one can envisage the world as not containing Covenant Breakers. I also feel, to transcend limitations of dualistic options that one can perceive a Baha'i Faith with a Guardian and without the concept of Covenant Breakers. To the Future, Michael Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> Another response to this situation is to view the world in such a way >>that there are no Covenant Breakers, > > Dear Michael, > > I'm afraid there is no scriptural basis for doing that. -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. How about "michael mckenny" and any key words you like from the letters of the Universal House of Justice on Homosexuality, on individual rights and freedoms (though not that phrase as that's likely to generate material on the McKenny case, rather than my replies to those letters) and was there another significant letter to the USA NSA? And, gosh, did I not respond to a Ridvan message or two? As I recall, my method was to quote the letter and comment on it; I don't promise to agree now with what i said then, but I'd like to look at this material and decide whether to add it to the place that's been waiting for it on the geocities web page. Many thanks for taking the trouble to look. Thrive Ever, Michael Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>I'm pretty sure I wrote at least some of these things before TRB. >>Were they on Baha'i Studies, Talisman, SRB? > > Well, can you give me some key words? > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Many thanks for your reply. I'm pretty sure I wrote at least some of these things before TRB. Were they on Baha'i Studies, Talisman, SRB? Anyway, if you happen to notice any posts of mine where I'm replying, paragraph by paragraph as I recall, to letters by the UHJ, I'd be grateful to have these. Thrive, Michael Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: > > If you are referring to things that appeared in this newsgroup, I would not > have downloaded them onto my hardrive as AOL doesn't easily provide me the > means for doing this. But you should be able to get them from Google. > > warmest, > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. Really? Are you actually incapable of visualizing a variety of other understandings besides your own, even if you think them less correct than yours? What is your understanding that would necessitate the absence of free will? Why must someone have free will removed, or else be declared a Covenant Breaker? That strikes me as one of these dual option entities you objected to earlier. To the Future, Michael "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@email.msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > "Michael McKenny" wrote in message > news:a1hjgd$4b8$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... >> > Shoghi Effendi's statement that he was relegating to himself the right > to >> > declare people Covenant breakers was time-bound to begin with. > >> Another response to this situation is to view the world in such a way >> that there are no Covenant Breakers > > Precisely how does one do this without obviating the existence of the > Covenant? The only way I know of is to remove people's free will. > > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. I've just posted my comparison of the current practise of the Baha'i AO - there being no Baha'i justice system currently in place - and the similarity this has to what is called unjust when encountered in Third World dictatorships. Personality is invalid. If its unjust in third world dictatorships, it's unjust in current Baha'i AO practise. The name of the entity performing the injustice does not render it other than injustice. You specify precisely what the difference is between my description of current Baha'i AO performance and how you see current AO performance. To a Better Future, Michael "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@email.msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > "Michael McKenny" wrote in message > news:a1ikqi$kv9$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... >> We are exchanging views. Always feel quite free to clarify any point >> that's unclear, to state as precisely as you can what you wish to say, >> especially if you feel I'm not comprehending. By all means. How do you >> differentiate precisely the "caricature" from existing Baha'i practise? > > The caricature is a thing you've manufactured for the sake of rhetorical > argument. The general term for such a beast is "straw man". Existing > Baha'i practice is, well, far closer to reality. > > Give me an accurate description of existing Baha'i practice, and then I'll > tell which one I choose. > > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. Possible also includes points of view that vary from your own, and, while doing so, are coherent. It is even coherent to feel that Baha'u''lah has commanded obedience to world harmonizing principles, rather than to an intellectual construct thrust up by the human mind on the surface of the ocean of his revelation, or to anything at all to which nine men attach the name Baha'i. It indeed is one possible perception of reality that the Baha'i Faith is anything at all nine men say it is, and they are to be obeyed even when they encourage those having a world-embracing vision to resign from the Faith. And, it is completely coherent to understand that the Baha'i Faith is world-embracing (not only in the sense of having someone living in Michigan, Ottawa and New Zealand, but in the sense of accomodating a wide variety of viewpoints, a rainbow of personal opinions, more than one of which is coherent. It is completely coherent to believe Baha'u'llah meant what he said when he said (in the Tablet of Wisdom, I believe) that everything carried to excess was harmful, and that such harm also comes from excessive obedience. While being the Source of All Good and the Wellspring of Guidance, the leadership is owed obedience, but when the leadership opposes itself to the essential principles of the revelation, ceases to promote harmony even among Baha'is and instead acts consistent with continuing the office holding of incumbants as the primary policy, obedience becomes harmful. This is a consistent, reasonable and coherent view. It may not be yours, but it is a valid opinion. Those people holding the completely coherent position that Baha'u'llah was correct when he said that anything carried to excess is harmful, and refusing to render excessive obedience, refraining from obedience to orders contrary to the spiritual principles of Baha'u'llah, are the exact opposite of hypocrits. It is a valid perception that those people who deny Baha'u'llah on this point of excess and render obedience to hierarchy opposing the spiritual principles of the revelation are the hypocrits. Personally, I don't think anything is gained by the use of such words as hypocrit, nor by insisting, contrary to Baha'u'llah's advice to perceive a rainbow of valid opinions, that all but one viewpoint is not coherent. My posts in this dialogue of personal opinions are meant to uphold the legitimate right of each and every Baha'i to plow her or his own path, within Baha'i, unopposed by those who'd insist it's hypocritical or non-Baha'i to follow the example and the words of Baha'u''lah and see with one's own eyes, think according to one's own understanding, feel in response to the sensations of one's own heart and share openly the harvest of such experience, attentive to the rainbow of other valid opinions. I don't care with which consenting adults those nine men sleep, or anything else connected to their private trek along their spiritual paths. However, when power is used to oppose the spiritual principles of the revelation, to confront Baha'is trying to live the life and share their honest view, fully coherent, even to deprive the friends of their religion, (How many Baha'is have run out the back door because of the powers that be?) such despotism is not to be concealed under the rug and perfumed with sweet sounding, though significantly inexact, designations. When power is abused to the harm of the community, the powerful have done more than simply walk a personal path. To a Better Future, Michael On 1/9/02 4:14 PM, in article a1imdi$nj5$1@freenet9.carleton.ca, "Michael McKenny" wrote: > Many thanks for your frank and honest reply. You're welcome. > It is not the only viewpoint possible. Does "possible" include points of view that are incoherent? > As on many issues, humans were > not created as clones; there is a rainbow of perception possible, and, on > this issue it is conceivable that an individual could conclude that the > Revelation of Baha'u'llah consists in more than merely obeying any decree > so ever that comes from the nine guys in charge. Frankly, it's difficult to see how such a view would be tenable. Does not Baha'u'llah command obedience? Note that we're talking about obedience, here, not mere agreement and/or disagreement. I am quite free to disagree with the Universal House of Justice on an issue and still remain a Baha'i. However, to actively oppose the Universal House of Justice's stated view on a matter is a behavioral equivalent of disobedience insofar as both Baha'u'llah and `Abdud'l-Baha have commanded obedience, and proscribed opposition, to that Institution. > What is contrary to my understanding of the Revelation of Baha'i is > to accuse others of hypocrisy for holding a viewpoint at variance to your > own. Well, I don't recall accusing anyone of hypocrisy. Nor, for that matter, was my reference to hypocrisy limited to someone holding a viewpoint that's at variance to my own. My reference to hypocrisy was with respect to calling oneself a Baha'i and behaving in a manner that's logically inconsistent with that stated claim. > In my opinion, the Faith Baha'u'llah intended to harmonize the human > species calls on individuals to focus on personal spiritual development, > to plow one's own line as straightly as one kind without calling others > names. Does that include referring to the members of the Universal House of Justice as "despots"? Was the post to which I'm replying intended to plow your spiritual line or my spiritual line? Regards, Rick Schaut -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. I take that as a yes. To a Better Future, Michael. "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@email.msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > "Michael McKenny" wrote in message > news:a1il5e$lf5$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... >> Greetings, Rick. >> Are there sub-categories of the word "Dictated" of which you approve >> according to meanings of this word you have in mind? If so, could you >> kindly specify which meanings these are. > > You chose the word, Michael. Why are you asking me what I think it means? > Why don't you explain what you meant when you first used the word? > > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. Yes. I'm typing fast in order to type at all. Typos will be there. The question remains. You objected to "Thinking for oneself" and spoke of "Discernment." What do you mean in this discernment that trumps "Merely thinking for yourself"? To Baha'i, Michael "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@email.msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > "Michael McKenny" wrote in message > news:a1ikug$l3f$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... >> Greetings, Rick. >> Yes, it is. How do you perceive "Discernment" going beyond "Merely >> thinking for yourself". > > Then the absence of a question mark is merely a typo, and there is no > intended word play on the shades of meaning between "perceive" and > "Discernment"? > > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. I don't claim that I lack sufficient information to claim the Baha'i practise at present is unjust. There are individuals declared non Baha'is without warning. This is done because people have expressed their God- given, Baha'u'llah-given right to have a variety of opinions and to say what they think, on the understanding that what they think is their own viewpoint, subject to change as they progress along the path of life. There is no trial, let along jury of peers, presentation of evidence, statement of charge and ability of the accused to speak to the charges. The very existence of a system where information is concealed to that extent is unjust. The semantic quibble that we do not allow the public to have much information, if any, would not be accepted in the case of a third world dictatorship. Personality is invalid. If a third world dictatorship is assessed unjust for the same practises Baha'is AO currently practise, so is the Baha'i AO. To a Better Future, Michael "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@email.msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > "Michael McKenny" wrote in message > news:a1ikf6$khe$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... >> Greetings, Rick. >> My wife was looking over my shoulder when I read this, and she said >> that you're communicating that you agree with me. > > Tell your wife that I think she's funny. > > That said, do you mind explaining how one can admit to lacking sufficient > information to claim that a thing is injust and also claim that the same > thing is an obvious injustice? > > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. As I have said before, although I am a liberal democrat and am one who does not see the existence of such a monarchical personnage as necessarily intrinsically superior to an elected body, constititionally, there is no impediment to the Universal House of Justice reversing its decree that there cannot be a guardian. Parliament may not bind its successors. The Universal House of Justice has complete authority to reverse any and all decisions of its predecessors. This does not mean it has to appoint a guardian. It merely means it constantly possesses the authority to reassess situations and to rule according to its current understanding, unimpeded by the understandings of previous administrations. To the Future, Michael Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> >>What exactly prevents the UHJ from doing this? If there is nothing in the >>writings to prevent them then they are permitted to do this, should they >>wish to, by legislation I would think. > > Dear Randy, > > In one of the few acts of the Universal House of Justice which they called an > 'elucidation' they stated that it was not in their purview to appoint another > Guardian. > > warmest, > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan Surely someone else remembers this. As I recall, she came on (TRB or was it SRB? She certainly doesn't strike me as one who'd have signed on an e-list) gave us all a blast for the reason I mentioned and was gone before those of us who understood what she was saying could communicate with her. Does anyone else remember this? Perhaps the UHJ itself could produce this and any other such letters from its archives. Personally, as I've been saying, I feel the Universal House of Justice is not bound by the rulings of previous administrations, but such letters would be still of significant historical interest. Thrive Ever, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> You may recall, that someone came into Baha'i cyberspace, possibly to >>this newsgroup, quite upset that years ago she had received aletter from >>the Universal House of Justice saying that the Universal House of Justice >>would decide when women could be appointed to the UHJ and this had very >>much turned her off Baha'i and made her mad. > > Huh? What in the world are you referring to? And where is this supposed letter? > > >>She was completely unaware >>of the significance of her statement in a more recent Baha'i history >>where such a letter would be quite remarkable for those holding a view >>that the House is bound by previous administrations. > > I don't know of anyone who has held that the House is bound by previous > administrations. But they are bound by the authoritative interpretations of the > Guardian. Otherwise the Cause would be mutiliated. > > warmest, > > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Again, this is not intrinsically a restriction on the constitutional authority of the Universal House of Justice. If at some time, the House felt that a Guardian should be appointed, they retain full power to rule that the changed circumstances, where the functions of the Hands are now being conducted by Counsellors, the actual as opposed to the literal, compliance with the directives on this topic would best be met by the Counsellors, or the International Teaching Centre, or to specify any alternative, including the appointment of an individual fulfilling the functions and responsibilities of the Guardian, but with a designation other than "Guardian", say, Protector, Benefactor, Elucidator, whatever. The essential point is that the authority to act resides in the UHJ and they choose to act or not, as they see fit; they are not prevented from acting by the decrees of their predecessors, etc. To the Future, Michael Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> >>Even if that were to happen there will be no Gaurdian as Shoghi >>Effendi needed to appoint his heir _during_ his own lifetime. >> > > And it had to be approved by the Hands of the Cause. We only have two left and > both are in their 90's. > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Your opinion is fully valid, and it is equally valid that at any time the opinion of the Universal House of Justice is that their elucidation may be changed without further quotes, they have the authority to rule according to that understanding, undeterred by any previous rulings. Thrive Ever, Michael Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> The Constitutional issue is that they have the authority at any time >>to legislate as they perceive the best interests of humanity and the >>Faith require. > >> such rulings may >>be altered at any time with no further quotes being required. > > > Dear Michael, > > That is correct. However the cases I named were elucidations. Now while an > elucidation is an extension of the legistlative power of the House of Justice > it is not exactly legislation per se. It is simply an explanation of what has > already been laid out in the Writings and in authoritative interpretation. It > seems clear to me that such an explanation could only be changed on the basis > of new information regarding what is in the Writings or authoritative > interpretations. > > warmest, > > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. The Constitutional issue is that they have the authority at any time to legislate as they perceive the best interests of humanity and the Faith require. Parliament may not bind its successors, so no new quotes are required for example in setting what specific times inhabitants on Mars are to fast or commemorate certain Holy Days, and such rulings may be altered at any time with no further quotes being required. To the Future, Michael Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> In other >>words, whether or not the Universal House of Justice might revise a >>pronouncement on a question that's obscure is, itself, a question that's >>obscure. I'd suggest that those who really care about the matter should >>write the Universal House of Justice." >> >>I thought I was answering precisely that question. >> > > Dear Rick, > > My guess is that the would revise an elucidation only in light of new evidence > from the Writings which they might have been unaware of when they made their > original elucidation. For instance the House has called their decision > disallowing the service of women on that body as well as their decision that > there cannot be another Guardian elucidations of what is already in the sacred > text. I would think therefore in the case of the Guardianship, the House would > only change this if something quite unseen were to happen, for instance > discovering a will written by the Guardian or a hitherto unknown Tablet > allowing women to serve. > > However, the House has invented new institutions to replace the functions of > the old ones. For instance, the institution of the Counsellors was formed to > replace the function of the institution of the Hands. Similiarly the House > could conceivably appoint a chief executive to fulfill some of the functions > which the Guardian might otherwise have fulfilled. But obviously the holder of > that office would not possess infalliblity. > > warmest, > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susam. I did not mean I knew what the personal preferences of specific individuals are. I meant that it could be perceived to be so. One can always maintain that honestly, really and actually he doesn't wish to be a member of the Universal House of justice for life. What I meant was that the actions of legislating in such a manner that he (all nine of him) has a much better opportunity of remaining a member of the Universal House of Justice for as long as he wishes, can be perceived as acting so as to further personal agendas. That's why I said "consistent with". "Grounded in the Writings" is a highly suspect phrase in such contexts, on the grounds that when you have an ocean of revelation, then a tremendous amount of things can be claimed to be "Grounded in the Writings." Now, I hold that freedom of thought and expression is "Grounded in the Writings." I hold that were Presidennt Bush to act so as to cause the flight or the involuntary exile of those most coherent in expressing a democratic, rather than a republican vision of America and to say his actions were grounded in the Constitution, his perception of grounded in the Constitution would then be lacking something. Personalities are invalid in formal logic. If it would be reprehensible for President Bush, it is equally unacceptable for the members of the Universal House of Justice. To a Better Future, Michael Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>Constitutional provisions >>have been used in manners consistent with furthering the personal agendas >>of those currently in power > > And just how does it do that? Do you even know what the 'personal agendas' of > those in power might currently be? On what basis do you know it and know it to > be just a 'personal agenda' rather than something grounded in the Writings? > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. This is not necessarily so. It is possible for communication to be quite quick these days. I would also like to mention that both pagan organizations to which I belong have a "Members Advocate" to consider any and all complaints brought forth against the administration. This is means of seeking to protect the interests of the ordinary member. In my opinion, the major obstacle for Baha'is is the attitudinal, issue that has some people, particularly those who have sacrificed a great deal of time and resources into the specific form of structure, believing the Baha'i Faith is an entity defined by that specific structure and that anyone running into difficulty with the structure is wrong per se, rather than entertaining the possibility the structure itself, especially as applied in the hands of real live imperfect humans, is causing a lot of grief to fellow believers. Thrive Ever, Michael Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>> Again and >>> again, I hear from people who try to appeal unjust decisions, only to have >>> the NSA take virtually forever to deal with it, or to rely on the reports >>of >>> the very local officials being complained about as a basis for the >>decision. >> >>The above is so far removed from my own direct experience as to be almost a >>completely different reality. > > Dear Rick, > > Surely you would have to agree with at least one of Karen's assertions above, > that it takes forever for the NSA to deal with these matters. On the other > hand, adopting complicated proceedures of due process would only make that > situation worse, not better. > > warmest, > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: Disenrollment, et al Date: Thursday, January 10, 2002 4:54 PM Greetings, Susan. well, let's see, if this can quickly fit in here. Actually, the reason that your question is so potent is the fact of the crises within the Baha'i Faith. What has happened within Baha'i is that there's been this indoctrination, so that one understands that this term "Covenant" is the most important aspect of the religion. Now, personally, my opinion is that it's a telling argument that the Baha'i Faith can overcome the sectarianism of all previous religions due to the existence of this Covenant which provides a designated God-given Spiritual Centre, clearly, in the handwriting of the Prophet, etc. So, there can be no confusion, no possibility of error, discord, etc. As is the case with communism and a good many other theories, hard reality and imperfection in human make-up confront humans with something other than such a theory. The human race, although it contains a large number of individuals who can be compelled to do something, is not a totality of clones. And, Baha'u'llah was not wrong when he said that anything carried to excess would result in harm. This applies just as much to "The Covenant" as to anything welse. I fully approve of legitimacy, of elected representatives, of the concept of giving those in charge a chance to administer so they can quickly perceive that their decision isn't working because it isn't so good, not because there's resistence to it. However, if carried to excess, these things are productive of harm. This is the current situation within Baha'i where leadership has acted as if it can command obedience to anything at all, even the exact opposite of those spiritual principles which were the distinguishing and admirable features of the religion. I fully understand that one can look at the ocean of Baha'u'llah's words and extract from this ocean some literal remarks that urge obedience of anything at all. However, some divinely-created human diversity will perceive such words as transcending literal mundanity, just as admonitions to leave not a single believer alive in the central provinces of Iran need not impel what may literally seem commanded. The obedience of anything at all, to the extent of opposing the very basic principles of spirituality, is not possible, thank goodness. It is a very valid human perception that the very act of teaching that the first thing one must do within Baha'i is surrender any morality one possesses to any dictate soever from the men at the top, such an act against morality and god-given humanity is an indication that the leadership so teaching and then so decreeing opposition to Baha'u'llah's spiritual guidance are unfit for leadership of a Baha'i entity. The reality is that some human beings will obey the dictates of leadership; some people drink poison Koolaid, or whatever. But, the act of obeying anything at all is not acceptable for them, for officials in totalitarian states, or for Baha'is. Personality is invalid. If it is reprehensible for followers of cults and dictatorships, it is reprehensible within Baha'i. So, here's to the Covenant, to the "Wellspring of Guidance", to obedience of the world-harmonizing advice inspired by Baha'u'llah. And, here's to justice and seeing with our own eyes and discerning what is contrary to the capacity of humanity (thank goodness) from the actual nobility of this concept of "Covenant." Not everyone can obey unjust opposition to the spirit of Baha'i, but leaders can reflect those principles and overcome the natural causes of the decline of religions. They don't have to be perfect, but they will be more likely to be Sources of Good adding benefit to the species if they are perceived to be advancing the spiritual wisdom of Baha'i'llah above their own apparent continuation in power. This is the central issue. It's not concluded with this post, but to the extent it's seriously addressed by all within Baha'i, in particular, of all with responsibility, to that extent the future well-being of the religion depends. To the Future, Michael Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: > > Dear Michael, > > As long as there is a Covenant there exists the possibility that people will > break it. But perhaps you like to envisage a world without the Covenant? > > warmest, > > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: Internet Crackdown Date: Friday, January 11, 2002 7:34 AM Greetings, Susan. I'm awake and have a moment to look this over in detail, I hope. As I mentioned yesterday, the basic concepts you present: that people were told that, "Certain behaviour", i.e. freely expressing personal opinions, was not desired by the men in charge, was not acceptable was made quite clear. However, no one was told, "Okay, either you stop posting now, or else." And, no one was told or imagined that the "or else" that was not communicated would be this novelty of being told one was not a Baha'i. Now, personally, my position was similar (not exactly so) to Rick's. That is, I, unlike Rick, hold that Baha'u'llah is correct when it comes to balance being needed in everything, that is, that all things that are carried to excess are harmful, and this includes the concept of the Covenant and obedience. But, I perceived the Baha'i Faith as meant to be a harmonizing entity, unlike other religions which fragmented easily. What had happened in my case, according to my perception, was that I had been proclaimed a heretic, such a concept being in violation of the efforts of Baha'u'llah to prevent sectarianism, by commanding that there be within the Baha'i Faith freedom of thought and expression. The Universal House of Justice has violated that command by Baha'u'llah and has promoted sectarianism within Baha'i by interfering with the freedom of thought and expression. This is an aspect of that balance, by the way. On the one hand there is freedom of thought and expression, and there is the responsibility of those in charge to alter policies that are demonstrated not to work. On the other hand, there is obedience even of what one disagrees with. No one who thought excluding women from the UHJ was wrong held an election. All said that women would serve when the UHJ said so. This was balanced. Demanding silence was contrary to essential Baha'i balance. It remains so, as does the very harmful continuation of policies of sectarianism by driving Baha'is out of the organization headed by the Universal House of Justice, by trying to re-create Baha'u'llah's Faith as that faction of believers who can be intimidated into being silent, if they don't agree with specific literalist definitions reversing the spiritual foundations of the religion. Anyway, I understood Baha'i to be an entity lacking heresy and sectarianism. Since I had been telling Pagans since the mid 80s that had I not given my allegience to another Faith, I would openly be Pagan, and since the authorities of that Faith had defined me as being outside, no impediment remained to openly stating I am Pagan. However, very valid opinions, perceptions and world views exist that differ from Rick's and my response to such unjust, imbalanced and non-Baha'i legislation by the UHJ. I fully recognize and applaud anyone who acknowledges herself or himself a Baha'i, after the incompetent, harmful and divisive deeds of those who have the responsibility to guide as if the Source of All Good, the Wellspring of Guidance and the World-Harmonizing Centre of Spirituality. My moment is up. Maybe more later. To the Future, Michael Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>The above are conclusions of fact where the >>verifiability is subject to evidence we don't have in our posession. > > Dear Rick, > > Well, Michael would certainly have the evidence regarding his own case. :-) And > those of us who were around when these events transpired have a pretty good > take on what happened. > > Whether certain individuals were declared non-Baha'is 'without warning' that > would depend on what 'without warning' is understood to mean. If by that it is > meant that the individuals involved were not told that their behavior was not > acceptable, then I think it is fair to say every effort was made to communicate > this. In Fred's case he rejected an attempt to make such a communication. In > Michael's case as I recall he told the Auxiliary Board Member he met with that > he would not engage in certain behavior after writing his letter to the House, > but he changed his mind after he received the response to his letter. In > Alison's case, meetings were held in her community which she attended which > described what kind of behavior was not acceptable but she was not singled out. > > > If what is meant by 'without warning' is were specific threats issued as to the > consequences of continuing to act this way, then I suppose it could be said > that no such warning was issued in any of these three cases. But is the House > of Justice entitled to expect obedience of Baha'is only when there are > sufficient threats made? If so, can such persons even be really considered > Baha'is? The assumption was that if they had so little regard for the House of > Justice as they were demonstrating on the internet, they were not really > Baha'is or beholden to His Covenant. If the intent had been to declare them > Covenant breakers then they would have received a clear warning. > >>we'd have to hear from the >>institutions as to whether or not they thought they had given warning. > > Sure we have. There are letters written to Michael's wife and to others > regarding Alison. We know in Michael and Allison's case they did think they had > been adequately warned. The question revolves around the issue of what > constitutes 'warning' as I suggested before. Before Michael was removed from > the rolls I don't think any of us knew this could happen. > > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: Notice: Mild Usenet annoyance, Fred "Baha'i in *Perfectly* Good Standing" Gleysher, STILL at it! Date: Thursday, January 10, 2002 5:18 PM Greetings, Susan. Uhm, perhaps refusing to half of the adult Baha'i membership the possibility of standing for election, of not allowing the full and free expression of personal opinion, nor even the publication of research that would promote the viewpoint all adult Baha'is are eligible to serve on the UHJ, of encouraging, or permitting the encouragement, that those most outspoken in expressing other understandings resign from the faith and, even decreeing the non-Baha'i status of some people articulately expressing such views, thus, to speak according to general political analysis, in Old World political terms, both driving out those who could be perceived as outstanding competitors and strongly discouraging any other such competitors from being noticed. Again, personality is invalid; if it's reprehensible in a third world dictaorship, it's reprehensible in Baha'i. To a Better Future, Michael Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>What I meant >>was that the actions of legislating in such a manner that he (all nine >>of him) has a much better opportunity of remaining a member of the >>Universal House of Justice for as long as he wishes, can be perceived >>as acting so as to further personal agendas. > > Dear Michael, > > What particular legislation and constitutional provisions do you have in mind > here which help them stay in power? > > warmest, > > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: Mistaken Beliefs Date: Friday, January 11, 2002 12:56 PM Greetings, Rick. Shoghi Effendi admonished Baha'is against the temptation to strive to freeze the Faith according to their limited current perception. An enormous amount of twisting semantics has been undertaken by some (who feel disinclined to follow this admonition) in striving to define a distinction between interpretation (outside the mandate of the UHJ, whatever semantic synonym is selected) and legislation, to permit those now, by definition not inhabitants of the future, to freeze the Faith according to their limited current perception. The Parliamentary principle is fully operational in this case, and Shoghi Effendi is very much correct. Anything decided by the Universal House of Justice may be reconsidered by future administrations, according to their perception then, unlimited by previous opinions, thoughts, decrees, dictates, or whatever other synonyms those listening to Shoghi Effendi and those unaware of, uninterested in and unaccepting his admonition choose to use. To the Future, Michael Rick Schaut (rsschaut@msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > > The only statement that explicitly grants the Universal House of Justice > authority to repeal something established by the Universal House of Justice > at an earlier date refers explicitly to the Universal House of Justice's > legislative authority. > > The Universal House of Justice's authority to deliberate on questions that > are obscure is stated in a separate clause from the clause that explicates > the Universal House of Justice's legislative authority. > > There are a number of questions that aren't explicitly answered by the text. > These include whether or not the Universal House of Justice's authority to > deliberate on questions that are obscure exists independently from the > legislative authority, and, if so, whether or not the Universal House of > Justice can alter a decision on a matter that's obscure either with or > without a change in circumstances. > > I'll repeat: these questions are not explicitly answered by the text. We > might infer answers to the based on the text, but they are not answered by > the text itself. > > Given that these questions are not explicitly answered by the text itself, > any opinion you or I might give on whether or not the Universal House of > Justice may alter a particular decision, with or without a change in > circumstances, falls within the realm of speculation. Such an opinion would > also, given the division of authority within the Baha'i Faith, have no > binding authority on anyone. > > Lastly, the only principles that govern the extent and limits on the > authority of the Universal House of Justice are those that can be found in > the text of the Baha'i Writings. Any rules or principles involving > Parliament are irrelevant. > > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: Mistaken Beliefs Date: Friday, January 11, 2002 1:12 PM Greetings, Susan. You have expressed a completely valid perception of reality. In my opinion, everything the Universal House of Justice does is legislation, and they cannot, within their mandate interpret (by any semantic twisting, either), and everything the Universal House of Justice decides, whatever words are used to refer to the decision, may be reconsidered by the Universal House of Justice at any time it sees fit. What counts, of course, is the opinion on the matter by the members of the Universal House of Justice. However, I imagine that should it happen that the House take this line of reasoning, the conservatives would have no trouble accepting the ruling when it comes, or am I being ludicrously naive? Would Rick or others face their moment of truth were the House to make some liberal reconsiderations, in the absence of additional quotes, or can conservatives be counted on to obey even if the House decides Parliamentary procedure does apply to it? To Baha'i, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> The Constitutional issue is that they have the authority at any time >>to legislate as they perceive the best interests of humanity and the >>Faith require. > >> such rulings may >>be altered at any time with no further quotes being required. > > > Dear Michael, > > That is correct. However the cases I named were elucidations. Now while an > elucidation is an extension of the legistlative power of the House of Justice > it is not exactly legislation per se. It is simply an explanation of what has > already been laid out in the Writings and in authoritative interpretation. It > seems clear to me that such an explanation could only be changed on the basis > of new information regarding what is in the Writings or authoritative > interpretations. > > warmest, > > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: Disenrollment, et al Date: Friday, January 11, 2002 5:48 PM Greetings, Rick. And among the precepts laid down by God for maintaining the security of the peoples of the world is that whatsoever transgresseth the bounds of moderation is harmful. And among the precepts laid down for maintaining the security of the peoples of the world is that faith and reason, science and religion agree. And among the precepts laid down for the security of the world is the independent investigation of truth, seeing with one's own eyes and not with the eyes of others. And among the precepts laid down for maintaining the security of the world is that justice is the best beloved of all things. And among the precepts laid down for maintaining the security of the world is that in this day women are rulers. They that have violated these commandments of God do have Baha'u'llah to answer to. In the meantime they have caused enormous grief to pure and radiant hearts, and to him will they answer for that, as well. Here's to a better future, Michael. "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@email.msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > "Michael McKenny" wrote in message > news:a1l2j5$b17$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... >> Actually, the reason that your question is so potent is the fact of >> the crises within the Baha'i Faith. What has happened within Baha'i is >> that there's been this indoctrination, so that one understands that this >> term "Covenant" is the most important aspect of the religion. > > "They whom God hath endued with insight will readily recognize that the > precepts laid down by God constitute the highest means for the maintenance > of order in the world and the security of its peoples. He that turneth away > from them is accounted among the abject and foolish. We, verily, have > commanded you to refuse the dictates of your evil passions and corrupt > desires, and not to transgress the bounds which the Pen of the Most High > hath fixed, for these are the breath of life unto all created things. The > seas of Divine wisdom and Divine utterance have risen under the breath of > the breeze of the All- Merciful. Hasten to drink your fill, O men of > understanding! They that have violated the Covenant of God by breaking His > commandments, and have turned back on their heels, these have erred > grievously in the sight of God, the All- Possessing, the Most High." > (Baha'u'llah, Kitab-i-Aqdas) > > You know, we might quibble over whether it's indeed the _most_ important > aspect of the Baha'i Faith, but I don't know that it's possible to claim it > is anything but an _indespensible_ aspect of the Baha'i Faith. It would > rather be like having a constitutional government without a constitution. > > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: Disenrollment, et al Date: Saturday, January 12, 2002 1:35 PM Actually, Susan, you state the exact opposite of the whole point of the Covenant. The whole point of the Covenant is that God has provided humanity with spiritual principles, one of which is that whatsoever transgresses the bounds of moderation is the cause of harm, and also of a centre of guidance. Obedience of that centre of guidance is admirable, within moderation. When this centre, the very fallible men currently in office, act in such an imbalanced manner, including seeking to indoctrinate believers that no moderation is necessary, that the Covenant has only the single wing of obedience, this is the opposite of the Covenant, as the harm, so great a disregard for the principles has actually, demonstrably, really produced in Baha'i. To a Better Future, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>This is the current situation within Baha'i where leadership has >>acted as if it can command obedience to anything at all, even the exact >>opposite of those spiritual principles > > Dear Michael, > > The whole point of the Covenant is that we not place our own personal > understanding of 'spiritual principles' above the the considered rulings of the > House of Justice. > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: ABMS Warning Baha'is About Darrick Evenson? Date: Monday, January 14, 2002 12:01 PM Greetings, Susan. Personalities are invalid when it comes to validity of opinions, etc. I do foresee the day when some people will wonder about the various characters who strode through the stage of Baha'i cyberspace. This name looks familiar. Is this Brent Porier not the same guy who participated as a member of the early e-lists before he was appointed an ABM? And, if he is no longer an AMB, does he hold any other position(s) in either or both the so-called appointed and/or elected arms of the Baha'i administration? To the Future, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: > > Actually, Brent has been very careful not to say things about you, at least to > me. Although he is a good friend of mine I had to deduce from your own > statements that he was the Board Member sent out to talk with you. He wouldn't > tell me even when I asked him point blank. > > And by the way, he is no longer a Board Member. > > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Actually, while there are other ways of saying things, it is a quite valid expression to say that the whole point of driving is to stay on the road, to be moderate and avoid heading into either of the ditches, the ditch either side of the road. Similarily, it is indeed a quite valid expression to say that Baha'u'llah intended his spiritual movement after him to keep out of either of the immoderate extremes which had ditched, in his view, the religions of Muhammad and other Prophets. Baha'u'llah sought to avoid Baha'i Karbilas. Now, one of the sides of this balance was to leave a written will, striving to do all he could to designate a successor. However, stepping back from indoctrination and fanaticism, seeing with one's own eyes and not with the eyes of those whose agenda is to stress the distinction, in actual fact, there is no difference in the faith of those who believe Jesus said Peter was to succeed him. The designation of a successor is only asserted to be different in Baha'i; those accepting successors in other religions do not believe less in the succession. Further, the most relevant aspect concerning what Baha'is may term the Covenant of Christianity is not the issue of belief that Jesus had named Peter to succeed him, but that those through the course of time coming to power at the top of Christianity, those whose legitimacy to office was not denied, failed to live up to the responsibilities of the position. Not their legitimacy to rule, but the manner of their ruling, their lack of moderation, caused the objections and the splintering of their religion. Similarily, it is not the legitimacy of the Universal House of Justice, although the longer it persists that half the eligible adult Baha'is are denied consideration, the more understandable is the concept that those announced as heading the ballot are not correctly elected, that is the issue, but rather the manner of their ruling. There are defining characteristics of Baha'i, meant to keep it on the road of universalism and out of ditches such as Karbila. Naming as clearly as possible a successor is one aspect of this. However, if you drive with the wheel held as far to the right as possible, if you insist that the only essential thing in the Covenant is commanding and obeying anything at all (even the opposite of freedom of thought and expression within Baha'i, of the equality of women and men, of the agreement of science and faith, of the independent investigation of truth, indeed, of justice itself) you will not remain on the road. And, this is not a hypothetical remark, but an observation supported by the actual record of recent Baha'i history, where the ability to command immoderately, unbalanced by anything else, including the attributes of the Baha'i Faith, has observably resulted in the hitting the ditch, instead of travelling harmoniously along the universal highway. To the Future, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>Doesn't Baha'u'llah say moderation applies to all things? > > Dear Michael, > > Sure, He just doesn't make it the 'whole point of the Covenant' as you had > asserted. > > warmest, > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Doesn't Baha'u'llah say moderation applies to all things? Doesn't he say that "Whatsoever transgresseth the bound of moderation the same will be the source of harm" or words to that effect? It is convenient to the men currently in positions of responsibility to overlook this, but this whatsoever, this balance, this moderation does indeed apply to the issue of leaders' commands and obedience. How could it not? Dispassionately examined, free of prejudice and indoctrination, is it not true that a very great deal of harm has been inflicted upon human beings and human societies because monotheistic religious chiefs have transgressed the bounds of moderation in their commands and their followers have transgressed the bounds of moderation in their obedience? Does not recent Baha'i history confirm the validity of Baha'u'llah's words in exactly the same situation? To the Future, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>The whole point of the Covenant is that God has provided >>humanity with spiritual principles, one of which is that whatsoever >>transgresses the bounds of moderation is the cause of harm, > > Dear Michael, > > Can you show me where this is articulated as part of the Covenant in those > Writings we associate with the Covenant such as the Will and Testament or the > Kitab-i Ahd? I don't deny that what moderation is a Baha'i principle but I > never heard it mentioned specifically in connection with the Covenant, much > less presented as the 'whole point of the Covenant.' > > warmest, > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. No doubt, then, you're all set to argue the distinction between deficient understand and insanity and to assert that had the UHJ any control over institutions for the mentally deficient, Michael McKenny would be treated so very differently than had he resided in the old Soviet Union. Michael McKenny is so delighted to be denied the occasion of learning whether such assertions are trustworthy. To the Future, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>Is this the letter where they said Michael had deficient understanding >>and seemed uninterested in being instructed? > > Dear Michael, > > Yes, in explanation of why it is that they did not simply remove your > administrative rights or declare you a Covenant breaker. > > warmest, > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Randy. Many thanks for your comments. Yes, WE is a very good book. One of the most effective aspects is how the hero is writing so full of praise for things we recognize as reprehensible. He's full of praise for the glass walls of appartment buildings facilitating the great work of the guardian angels (secret police), etc. I think it's Ursula K. LeGuin who wrote that she considered this the best SF novel ever written. And, those who've had experience with the Universal House of Justice will be right at home here. To the Future, Michael. "Randy Burns" (randy.burns4@gte.net) writes: > Hi Michael, > > No I haven't read this book, but in fact I do have a paperback copy (the old > Grove Press edition). I think there is a new translation of this out now, > but not sure. Anyway you make it sound so interesting I will have to dig > out my copy and read it. Thanks for bringing it up! > > Cheers, Randy > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. This is actually a very key point. In my opinion, the only reason for the existence of the Baha'i Faith was that it was a marvellous conceptual solution to this inherent defect of monotheism, that it was a universalist movement granting validity to the quite observable vast variety of human discernments, realizations, perceptions. Anyone could have an understanding and share that understanding, attentive to the valid perceptions of others. That those at the top of Baha'i have so greatly opposed this essential remedy renders them impotent to heal the basic disease fundamental to monotheistic thought, religions and societies. To the Future, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> It is an excellent choice in the sense that very >>little religious discord seems to have existed in Pagan socieities, at >>least in the West. religious conflict seems to be more a product of >>monotheistic religions, intolerant of the human diversity of views, > > Dear Michael, > > That is true. Monetheistic traditions are rather adamant about the notion that > there is only one Truth. > > warmest, > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Many thanks for your comments and the quote you include. This is the flaw in all text based religions, the disease that Baha'u'llah tried, it seems in vain, to cure. Literalist fundamentalists extract from such texts what justifies oppressing the people, believing they and no one else have the only take on spiritual truth, conceptualizing humanity as composed of me and those like me and them the bad guys, against whom so much is justified, because they are wrong and evil. Within the context of the Baha'i Revelation and of its background, what is being stated here is that no one other than the authoritative centre may issue commands, pass laws, legislate. No official statement may be made by those who are not legitimately in power. However, the right of human beings to think and to express what each very validly perceives to be true, acknowledging other valid views, according to that particular part of the elephant each is touching is inherent in Baha'i. There is no essential difference between the laudable freedom of thought and expression in Canada and that which is embedded in Baha'u'llah's thought. The difference is that those at the top of Baha'i, acting in a manner consistent with Old World totalitarian leaderships, and arguably for the same reasons of insecurity and incapacity to continue in the face of that free flow of thought and expression which best facilitates the expansion of human awareness, have opposed Baha'u'llah and are seeking to suppress the free expression within Baha'i. It should not go unnoted that a literal interpretation is also an interpretation, and the selection of quotes, especially when the major portion of the writings of someone who died not last century, but the one before that, is very problematic. This is underlined in the case of quotes, taken out of the context of those other passages strongly urging moderation in all things and those spiritual attributes, attitudes and practices without which harmony is impossible. Suppressing thought and expression, something Baha'u'llah came to remedy and for which he suffered enormously, was demonstrably impossible, even to those possessing the full resources of the Twentieth Century totalitarian state. It is no more approved by Baha'u'llah, whatever literal quote one can scoop up from the ocean of his words, nor possible of accomplishment, because those who ought to know better seek to command it in his name. To the Future, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> The point is that we have a different understanding of the words, >>"Challenge their authority". > > Dear Michael, > > I think the point is your understanding of challenging the House's authority > differs from their own. > > >The Prime Minister of Canada and the >>Parliament of Canada have decided that Canada join in the military >>activities in Afghanistan. Canadian troops have been in the country >>and more are going. Now some people say it's terrible they're there >>and other people say it's terrible there are not more of them. But, >>neither of these freely expressed opinions is a challenge to the >>authority of our Prime Minister, nor of our Parliament. > > Granted. But then your constitution like our own in the US does not say > anything remotely resembling what is written in the Will and Testament which > forms the basis of the "Baha'i constitution." > > "To none is given the right to put forth his own opinion or express his > particular conviction. All must seek guidance and turn unto the Center of the > Cause and the House of Justice. And he that turneth unto whatsoever else is > indeed in grievous error." > > warmest, > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. No, actually, I asked you what are the characteristics, attributes and qualities of the Baha'i Faith, as you discern them? Do you have a reply, or are you incapable of telling me this? This ought to be answered delightfully, not avoided shamefully? It's very telling that you have no reply to this, very telling, indeed, alas. To a Better Future, Michael. Rick Schaut (rsschaut@msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > On 1/12/02 9:16 AM, in article a1pr1u$naq$1@freenet9.carleton.ca, "Michael > McKenny" wrote: > >> You cut my answer Baha'u'llah out of your reply. > > Sorry. Must have missed it. > > That is, however, the same answer I'd give to your question. So, it seems > we begin from a point of agreement. > > The next question is, what did Baha'u'llah tell us we should do if we didn't > understand something in the Writings? > > > > -- > Regards, > Rick Schaut > The "Reply-To" line has a bogus e-mail account for SPAM blocking purposes. > If you wish to reply by e-mail, send to rsschaut at attbi dot com. > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. I hope so. To the future, Michael. "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@email.msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > "Michael McKenny" wrote in message > news:a1vaa0$1ps$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... >> Greetings, Randy. >> Well, I would hope not, but from the shameful silence of Rick on >> this question, I fear you've hit the nail on the head. > > "Shameful silence." A bit premature, don't you think? > > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. But the issue isn't one of not understanding something in the writings. The writings: the purpose of Baha'i is to be a source of harmony by means of: the independent investigation of truth, the harmony of faith and reason, the acceptance of the validity of the religions of the past, the oneness of humanity's diverse classes, races, languages, sexes, thoughts, opinions and beliefs, etc. There is no lack of understanding on this. To the Future, Michael. Rick Schaut (rsschaut@msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > On 1/12/02 9:16 AM, in article a1pr1u$naq$1@freenet9.carleton.ca, "Michael > McKenny" wrote: > >> You cut my answer Baha'u'llah out of your reply. > > Sorry. Must have missed it. > > That is, however, the same answer I'd give to your question. So, it seems > we begin from a point of agreement. > > The next question is, what did Baha'u'llah tell us we should do if we didn't > understand something in the Writings? > > > > -- > Regards, > Rick Schaut > The "Reply-To" line has a bogus e-mail account for SPAM blocking purposes. > If you wish to reply by e-mail, send to rsschaut at attbi dot com. > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Jay. Yes, now that I've read them, that's what I meant, the aim of Baha'u'llah was to promote the harmony of huanity. And, he provided principles by means of which this could be attempted. Here we have cribs called "Coles notes". Are these called "Cliff notes" where you're from. Thrive, Michael. "Jay Paine" (jaypaine@lyndalls.globalnet.co.uk) writes: > Michael McKenny wrote in message ... >>Greetings, Rick. >> But the issue isn't one of not understanding something in the >>writings. The writings: the purpose of Baha'i is to be a source of >>harmony by means of: the independent investigation of truth, the harmony >>of faith and reason, the acceptance of the validity of the religions of >>the past, the oneness of humanity's diverse classes, races, languages, >>sexes, thoughts, opinions and beliefs, etc. There is no lack of >>understanding on this. >> To the Future, Michael. > > Dear Michael > > I'm not sure of what you mean by the phrase "the purpose of Baha'i". But I > think I get the drift. > > I went into the Immerse data base, pulled up Gleanings and entered the word > "purpose". There are a lot of references. > > Here's three. Are these addressing your question? > > "The Purpose of the one true God, exalted be His glory, in revealing Himself > unto men is to lay bare those gems that lie hidden within the mine of their > true and inmost selves. That the divers communions of the earth, and the > manifold systems of religious belief, should never be allowed to foster the > feelings of animosity among men, is, in this Day, of the essence of the > Faith of God and His Religion. These principles and laws, these > firmly-established and mighty systems, have proceeded from one Source, and > are the rays of one Light. That they differ one from another is to be > attributed to the varying requirements of the ages in which they were > promulgated." > > (Bahá'u'lláh, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 287-288 ) > > "The Great Being saith: O ye children of men! The fundamental purpose > animating the Faith of God and His Religion is to safeguard the interests > and promote the unity of the human race, and to foster the spirit of love > and fellowship amongst men. Suffer it not to become a source of dissension > and discord, of hate and enmity. This is the straight Path, the fixed and > immovable foundation. Whatsoever is raised on this foundation, the changes > and chances of the world can never impair its strength, nor will the > revolution of countless centuries undermine its structure. Our hope is that > the world's religious leaders and the rulers thereof will unitedly arise for > the reformation of this age and the rehabilitation of its fortunes. Let > them, after meditating on its needs, take counsel together and, through > anxious and full deliberation, administer to a diseased and sorely-afflicted > world the remedy it requireth...." > > (Bahá'u'lláh, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 215-216 ) > > "The Great Being saith: Regard man as a mine rich in gems of inestimable > value. Education can, alone, cause it to reveal its treasures, and enable > mankind to benefit therefrom. If any man were to meditate on that which the > Scriptures, sent down from the heaven of God's holy Will, have revealed, he > would readily recognize that their purpose is that all men shall be regarded > as one soul, so that the seal bearing the words "The Kingdom shall be God's" > may be stamped on every heart, and the light of Divine bounty, of grace, and > mercy may envelop all mankind. The one true God, exalted be His glory, hath > wished nothing for Himself. The allegiance of mankind profiteth Him not, > neither doth its perversity harm Him." > > (Bahá'u'lláh, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 260 ) > > As for my own personal understanding of the "purpose of Baha'i", I'm afraid > I have none. "My understanding" is merely a rehash of what anyone could read > for themselves. Why read Cliff notes when you can read the original? > > Jay > >> >>Rick Schaut (rsschaut@msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: >>> On 1/12/02 9:16 AM, in article a1pr1u$naq$1@freenet9.carleton.ca, > "Michael >>> McKenny" wrote: >>> >>>> You cut my answer Baha'u'llah out of your reply. >>> >>> Sorry. Must have missed it. >>> >>> That is, however, the same answer I'd give to your question. So, it > seems >>> we begin from a point of agreement. >>> >>> The next question is, what did Baha'u'llah tell us we should do if we > didn't >>> understand something in the Writings? >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Regards, >>> Rick Schaut >>> The "Reply-To" line has a bogus e-mail account for SPAM blocking > purposes. >>> If you wish to reply by e-mail, send to rsschaut at attbi dot com. >>> >> >> >>-- >>"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." >> (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) >> > > > > > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. It's not trivial when it comes to punishing people without having provided such a warning. This began, I believe with some objection to the statement that the guys in charge of the baha'i Faith had been punishing without warning. If you say, the composition of a warning is an easy matter (trivial), agreeing that one can whip off a good one in half a minute, then you agree that the men leading Baha'i indeed did punish without warning, without spelling out the consequences. In my opinion, it would go a long way to answer your question, were the guys currently in charge of Baha'i to accept the validity of what Baha'u'llah had to say about the freedom of thought and expression, which must also apply within his movement, if his whole intent of being universalist is not to be subverted. If they stop acting contrary to the advice, the admonitions and the warnings ("Whatsoever transgresseth the bounds of moderation will be the source of harm," or words to that effect) of Baha'u'llah, then they would not be faced with the problem of how to issue warnings that are not compulsions. By the way, this issue of not issuing commands because such would be an impediment to free will, but then booting people out of their religion is one of the more amazing things I've read in Baha'i cyberspace, and that is quite a category of items. if people are going to be punished, they deserve, in all justice to be so advised and the advisement has to mention the penalty for disobedience. If there's any problem with this concept, just maybe it's because the command and the penalty are at fault. To A Better Future, Michael. Rick Schaut (rsschaut@msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > On 1/12/02 6:55 AM, in article 3c40505e@212.67.96.135, "Paul Hammond" > wrote: >> Rick expressed >> the opinion that it would be difficult to know what a warning would >> be - so I sat down and wrote one in 30 seconds to illustrate >> what I think would be a clear warning. > > Oh, it's trivial to come up with a warning. That wasn't the point I had > expressed. How do we come up with such a warning that isn't _also_ a form > of compulsion in a matter of belief where the right of individual conscience > need to be upheld? > > > -- > Regards, > Rick Schaut > The "Reply-To" line has a bogus e-mail account for SPAM blocking purposes. > If you wish to reply by e-mail, send to rsschaut at attbi dot com. > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. I made the point here, where a World War II vet had been arrested for saying at an airport that his wife had a bomb in her change purse, that in ancient China they at least posted taboo words. If the word bomb is to be a chargeable offence, then they should let people know this word is taboo. The prosecution chose not to proceed with this case, saying that justice would not be served by bringing the case to trial. It is indeed justice to warn people what is considered criminal and what the consequences are for such criminal behaviour. To the Future, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> >> Um......Yes....I believe there are a number of "warnings" required..."You >>have the >>right to remain silent...anything you say can and will be used against you >>in a court >>of law....you have the right...." > > LOL. My point is that you don't have to warn them they shouldn't rob banks > before arresting them for doing so. > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Anyone has the freedom to walk out of a Baha'i deepening, I hope, and, if this action or any other is considered criminal in Baha'i these days, justice demands that individuals be so advised, before being penalized, especially by such a penalty as expulsion. How are we to know that a deepening is being used as a means of such significant warning? No, a decent warning, a just warning reads, as already posted here, by one taking half a minute to compose it, "Dear X, if you do Y, the consequence will be Z." To the Future, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> >>My point is that a warning is a communication. If no communication >>has taken place, then no warning has been given > > Dear Paul, > > As you know, it takes two to communicate. Attempts were made to communicate > with Fred, he rejected them. You suggest that Alison walked out on a meeting > when they started saying things she didn't want to hear. Whose fault is that? > It is the Institutions responsibility to present their position. It is the > believers responsibility to listen and respond appropriately. > ... > warmest, > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Gee, Susan, don't you think that if posting certain opinions to the Internet is going to be treated as such an offence that people are going to be declared unbelievers for doing it, that the entity doing that declaring ought to be the one posting the warning to the Internet? If they're so ashamed about having the information get out, possibly it's because the information is worth being ashamed about and the facts would be better were they different. This helps modify behaviour, even of despots. to the Future, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: > >> No, a decent warning, a just warning reads, as already posted >>here, by one taking half a minute to compose it, "Dear X, if you do Y, >>the consequence will be Z." > > I don't think so. They had a responsibility to inform people that certain > behaviors were unacceptable, not to issue threats. > If you or Alison and received such a threat what would you have done with it? > Alison indicated that she would have posted it on the internet. What would you > have done? > > warmest, > > warmest, > > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. You are completely wrong in this. To be a fair warning the Universal House of Justice has to make it explicit. They have to state clearly: "To the Baha'is of the World, our interpretation of the words, "Raising the standard of revolt," and, "Challenging institutional authority," is for you to make posting to e-mail lists and newsgroups expressing disagreement with our infallible decrees. Indeed, you may not even say that we have the authority to reassess such decrees in the future. Anyone continuing to post such disagreeable material may suffer the consequence of being pronounced an unbeliever. You have been warned." This may be considered unjust on other grounds, but not because it fails to issue a clear warning. To the Future, Michael >Good point. This being the case then > Michael's experience have served as sufficient warning to Alison not to do the > same thing. This statement from their letter to his wife, which Alison was > well-aware of, would have forewarned her as to where exactly they were drawing > the line. > > "What one cannot properly do is to behave in a way that undermines the unity of > the Baha'i community, by challenging the institutional authority that is an > integral part of the Faith one professes to > have accepted." > > There would have been no doubt in Alison's mind that this statement referred to > certain kinds of internet postings which Michael had made and which Alison was > quite familiar with. And she then proceeded to make exactly the same kinds of > postings. > > warmest, > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. Well, I've already said that I don't think it's relevant who brought the charges and what is relevant is what specifically the charges are. I am missing context in your reply. I insist that anyone and everyone has a right to express the opinion that s/he has a right to face an accusor, as defined as the person who first brought the charge. You may mean that current practise in the state of X, in the Baha'i Faith, or wherever makes that not so. I fully accept any statement of fact, documented, if necessary. And, I absolutely reject any insistence that anyone be refused the opportunity to opine that current practise, if such it is, ought to be different. To the Future, Michael. "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@email.msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > "Michael McKenny" wrote in message > news:a1utf6$cb3$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... >> You mean, Rick, in your opinion; validly one may feel that one has a >> right to face the individual who brought the accusation. > > No, Michael, I mean to say that the question isn't a matter of opinion. > > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Do you really think someone incapable of thinking of the word "Projectile" fits the definition infallible? Do you really think one who'd expel a child from school for elastic bands he hasn't thrown fits the definition of just? This reminds me of a family story. When my son was very young, possibly under two, I asked him, "What do you have in your mouth, Kevin?" He replied, "No elastic bands." To the future, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: > > But certainly some people would have obeyed, at least nominally. > Often times what the Institutions find is that when they explicitly tell > someone they can't do this and that, they find that while they will obey the > specific order, they will just turn around and find a different means of doing > essentially the same thing. That is pretty much what the LA group would do. > Sort of like the kid in the class room. You say don't throw spit wads or you'll > be sent to the principles office so he starts shooting rubber bands instead. > Then when he is reprimanded he protests, "But I was obedient!" > > warmest, > > warmest, > > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Sorry, you fumbled that one. It only fits in with newspeak to redefine deepening as an attempt to communicate a warning. It is not accepted in justice, and I'd like to see Perry Mason run with this ball. "So, she's allowed to walk out of a deepening,wasn't it a deepening." "Er, yes, but it was also a warning." "Er, no, it was a warning." "Well, was she told it was a warning?" "Er, no, but she already knew..." "So, she had already received an earlier warning?" "Er, well she knew what had happened to Michael McKenny." Sigh. To a Better Future, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>Anyone has the freedom to walk out of a Baha'i deepening, I hope, >>and, if this action or any other is considered criminal in Baha'i these >>days, > > Dear Michael, > > Not the issue. The issue is that attempts were made to inform the community as > to what kind of behavior was not acceptable and Alison chose not to avail > herself of that information (which I think she knew anyhow.) > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Well, I don't visit airports, and the funny thing is this point was not made in any of the media coverage of this story. I strongly suspect that whatever state you're in, or maybe the whole country down there, is more advanced than at least some airports here on that point. Three cheers to those who have put up such notices. Thrive, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> I made the point here, where a World War II vet had been arrested >>for saying at an airport that his wife had a bomb in her change purse, that >>in ancient China they at least posted taboo words. > > And they post warnings at airports telling people not to make these kinds of > jokes. > > > It is indeed justice to warn people what is considered criminal and >>what the consequences are for such criminal behaviour. > > And the statements of 'Abdu'l-Baha which I posted earlier should constitute > sufficient warning. > > warmest, > > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. Are you actually saying that a clear warning is not impinging conscience? I am not being cute. That's how I read this question as stated here. Previously I read you as asking about a conundrum of stating a warning, but also avoiding putting pressure on conscious. I agree a clear warning is not impinging on conscience. And, Rick, if you've seen nothing else in this exchange of views, I hope you've seen that "clearly" is not at all seen the same by you and everyone else in the world, and that your opinion is not accepted, even by Baha'u'llah as the only one, excluding all others. To Open-mindedness, Michael. "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@email.msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > "Michael McKenny" wrote in message > news:a1v293$j5l$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... > > My apologies, but I thought much of the remarks leading up to this didn't > speak to the point. If you believe otherwise, then perhaps you should > restate your views. > >> By the way, this issue of not issuing commands because such would be >> an impediment to free will, but then booting people out of their religion >> is one of the more amazing things I've read in Baha'i cyberspace, and that >> is quite a category of items. > > This, however, is a misstatement of my position. The question is how one > might construct a warning that explicitly states some consequences for > behavior that's clearly contrary to `Abdu'l-Baha's Will and Testament > impinging the individual's right to conscience. > > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) And, Rick, its unity is unattainable unless and until the spiritual principles designed to achieve that unity are acted upon. Until there is recognized and practised the freedom of thought and expression, the independent investigation of truth, the harmony of religion and science, of faith and reason, the equality of women and men, etc., this unity will not be accomplished, as is demonstrated within Baha'i today. To the Future, Michael. "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@email.msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > "Michael McKenny" wrote in message > news:a1v1c8$i0k$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... >> Greetings, Rick. >> But the issue isn't one of not understanding something in the >> writings. The writings: the purpose of Baha'i is to be a source of >> harmony by means of: the independent investigation of truth, the harmony >> of faith and reason, the acceptance of the validity of the religions of >> the past, the oneness of humanity's diverse classes, races, languages, >> sexes, thoughts, opinions and beliefs, etc. There is no lack of >> understanding on this. > > Baha'u'llah says, "O ye children of men the fundamental purpose animating > the Faith of God and His Religion is to safeguard the interests and promote > the unity of the human race..." He's also written: "The well-being of > mankind, its peace and security, are unattainable unless and until its unity > is firmly established." > > Either you've used some source other than the Writings to define the > "purpose of Baha'i" or there is a substantial misunderstanding here. > > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Jay. Many thanks for your comments. I mean purpose, as generally understood, the point, the aim, the reason for its existence, why its founder bothered to create a movement, to open his mouth, to suffer imprisonment. He didn't do this in order to replicate the kind of authoritarian leadership and oppressive society he encountered at home. He didn't do it to add yet one more divided and contending religious ingredient to the boiling pot of antagonistic faiths and sects. He did it to encourage humans to get along with one another, and, exclusive reliance on the commands of authoritarian leaderhip has failed to do this even when the authorities had the full resources of a Twentieth Century state. The Soviets and the Taliban could make people miserable, but they could not succeed in having harmony. Baha'u'llah has provided the means for this, these principles I've mentioned often above, and will gladly repeat if you ask. Insisting that the only purpose, aim, goal, method or means is commanding and thoughtlessly obeying anything at all, even the opposite of these principles is identical to demanding that the wheel of a car must be held as far to the right as it will go. Such a command and such obedience is conceivable, but then so is the consequence, as recent Baha'i history has demonstrated. You went to the trouble of posting these quotes, and I'll read them, with the understanding that whatever I perceive in them, a vast variety of human perception lies embedded in such words and the ocean of revelation from which they emerge. To insist on only one possible understanding is contrary to Baha'u'llah's teaching. To the Future, Michael. "Jay Paine" (jaypaine@lyndalls.globalnet.co.uk) writes: > Michael McKenny wrote in message ... >>Greetings, Rick. >> But the issue isn't one of not understanding something in the >>writings. The writings: the purpose of Baha'i is to be a source of >>harmony by means of: the independent investigation of truth, the harmony >>of faith and reason, the acceptance of the validity of the religions of >>the past, the oneness of humanity's diverse classes, races, languages, >>sexes, thoughts, opinions and beliefs, etc. There is no lack of >>understanding on this. >> To the Future, Michael. > > Dear Michael > > I'm not sure of what you mean by the phrase "the purpose of Baha'i". But I > think I get the drift. > > I went into the Immerse data base, pulled up Gleanings and entered the word > "purpose". There are a lot of references. > > Here's three. Are these addressing your question? > > "The Purpose of the one true God, exalted be His glory, in revealing Himself > unto men is to lay bare those gems that lie hidden within the mine of their > true and inmost selves. That the divers communions of the earth, and the > manifold systems of religious belief, should never be allowed to foster the > feelings of animosity among men, is, in this Day, of the essence of the > Faith of God and His Religion. These principles and laws, these > firmly-established and mighty systems, have proceeded from one Source, and > are the rays of one Light. That they differ one from another is to be > attributed to the varying requirements of the ages in which they were > promulgated." > > (Bahá'u'lláh, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 287-288 ) > > "The Great Being saith: O ye children of men! The fundamental purpose > animating the Faith of God and His Religion is to safeguard the interests > and promote the unity of the human race, and to foster the spirit of love > and fellowship amongst men. Suffer it not to become a source of dissension > and discord, of hate and enmity. This is the straight Path, the fixed and > immovable foundation. Whatsoever is raised on this foundation, the changes > and chances of the world can never impair its strength, nor will the > revolution of countless centuries undermine its structure. Our hope is that > the world's religious leaders and the rulers thereof will unitedly arise for > the reformation of this age and the rehabilitation of its fortunes. Let > them, after meditating on its needs, take counsel together and, through > anxious and full deliberation, administer to a diseased and sorely-afflicted > world the remedy it requireth...." > > (Bahá'u'lláh, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 215-216 ) > > "The Great Being saith: Regard man as a mine rich in gems of inestimable > value. Education can, alone, cause it to reveal its treasures, and enable > mankind to benefit therefrom. If any man were to meditate on that which the > Scriptures, sent down from the heaven of God's holy Will, have revealed, he > would readily recognize that their purpose is that all men shall be regarded > as one soul, so that the seal bearing the words "The Kingdom shall be God's" > may be stamped on every heart, and the light of Divine bounty, of grace, and > mercy may envelop all mankind. The one true God, exalted be His glory, hath > wished nothing for Himself. The allegiance of mankind profiteth Him not, > neither doth its perversity harm Him." > > (Bahá'u'lláh, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 260 ) > > As for my own personal understanding of the "purpose of Baha'i", I'm afraid > I have none. "My understanding" is merely a rehash of what anyone could read > for themselves. Why read Cliff notes when you can read the original? > > Jay > >> >>Rick Schaut (rsschaut@msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: >>> On 1/12/02 9:16 AM, in article a1pr1u$naq$1@freenet9.carleton.ca, > "Michael >>> McKenny" wrote: >>> >>>> You cut my answer Baha'u'llah out of your reply. >>> >>> Sorry. Must have missed it. >>> >>> That is, however, the same answer I'd give to your question. So, it > seems >>> we begin from a point of agreement. >>> >>> The next question is, what did Baha'u'llah tell us we should do if we > didn't >>> understand something in the Writings? >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Regards, >>> Rick Schaut >>> The "Reply-To" line has a bogus e-mail account for SPAM blocking > purposes. >>> If you wish to reply by e-mail, send to rsschaut at attbi dot com. >>> >> >> >>-- >>"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." >> (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) >> > > > > > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Rick, you stand convicted of running away from what should have been answered with gratitude. Here you are in a newsgroup that can be read by anyone in the world who feels like it, and you are actually asked what are the characteristics, attributes and qualities of the Baha'i Faith? Anyone in the world taking the trouble to read this can see that you are uncomfortable with this question, ashamed it seems of the entity's attributes. Perhaps someone else can step forward and actually post here a response to a question that should be seen as a godsend. Well, I'll treat you than that, I'll answer your question for the second time and with a different answer. In a post already posted above I s aid there is no such misunderstanding and this Faith is perceived according to the following principles (what you've refused to do, I've done repeatedly on this newsgroup). However, since you so hesitate, perhaps indeed there is misunderstanding. So, I answer thusly. Baha'u'llah wrote that no one entirely understands the revelation, that a variety of valid imperfect opinions, discernments, perceptions are natural within the diversity of the human species, that no one alive today (including the leaders of the Baha'i Faith) has the authority within Baha'i to interpret the revelation, nor to insist on a specific understanding. Accepting the truth, validity and wisdom of Baha'u'llah, Baha'is, I hope, will accept that the rainbow of human thought may be expressed, attended to and accepted as subjectively valid. What no one, I hope, would dream of doing would be to insist on one understanding as the only one permitted thought or at least expression in Baha'i. To a Better Future, Michael. "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@email.msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > "Michael McKenny" wrote in message > news:a1v127$hgg$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... >> No, actually, I asked you what are the characteristics, attributes and >> qualities of the Baha'i Faith, as you discern them? > > I'm sorry you thought my answer to be too brief. Unfortunately, you ask me > to provide an answer the length of which would be far too copious to provide > in a forum such as this. I happen to believe that a mere statement of a set > of principles is far too superficial an answer for me to be comfortable with > it. > > However, if you want some kind of summary statement, I'd have to say that > `Abdu'l-Baha's statement that "Service to humanity is my perpetual > religion," manages to capture my thoughts on the question rather well. > > I trust, now, we can go back to my question: what did Baha'u'llah tell us we > should do if we didn't understand something in the Writings? > > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Randy. Well, I would hope not, but from the shameful silence of Rick on this question, I fear you've hit the nail on the head. To a Better Future, indeed, Michael. "Randy Burns" (randy.burns4@gte.net) writes: > Dear Michael > > The chief characteristic of a Baha'i is Obedience, the chief attribute of a > Baha'i is radiant acquiescence in Obedience, and the chief quality of a > Baha'i is discernment of radiant acquiescence in the Obedience of other > Baha'is. > > To a Better Baha'i Future, > Randy > > -- > > Michael McKenny wrote in message > news:a1v127$hgg$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... >> Greetings, Rick. >> No, actually, I asked you what are the characteristics, attributes and >> qualities of the Baha'i Faith, as you discern them? Do you have a reply, >> or are you incapable of telling me this? This ought to be answered >> delightfully, not avoided shamefully? It's very telling that you have no >> reply to this, very telling, indeed, alas. >> To a Better Future, Michael. >> >> (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) >> > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) No, Susan, it means allowing everyone to perceive and to express a rainbow of personal perception, not to insist that there is only one specific understanding permitted. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>Many thanks for your comments and the quote you include. This is the >>flaw in all text based religions, the disease that Baha'u'llah tried, it >>seems in vain, to cure. Literalist fundamentalists extract from such texts >>what justifies oppressing the people, > > Dear Michael, > > It is a very convenient argument to say to anyone who presents a source to > support their position that the very presentation of sources constitutes > literalistic fundamentalism. And you do that without even offering an > alternative interpretation of the passage in question. It seems that being > non-fundamentalist and non-literalistic to you means to pick and choose from > the Writings whatever you please. > > warmest, > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Absolutely not, Susan. Actually, if you really believe that, as I (I hope wrongly) understood you, we are vastly different in our perception of reality. I very much incline to the Buddhist parable of the elephant. One can say there is one elephant, but one cannot say it is one in the sense that all those who say it's something other than a wall are wrong. Human perception by definition is imperfect, and the Australian aborigines speaking of the churingas and the dreamtime are not wrong. Wrong seems most harmfully to enter spirituality as a consequence of some people believing truth is one and they know what the only truth is. This is an attitude Baha'u'llah tried to remedy. I grieve for the extent he has failed. To the Future, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>This is actually a very key point. In my opinion, the only reason >>for the existence of the Baha'i Faith was that it was a marvellous >>conceptual solution to this inherent defect of monotheism, that it was >>a universalist movement granting validity to the quite observable vast >>variety of human discernments, realizations, perceptions. > > And the Baha'i Faith does indeed try and do that. But at the end of the day > Truth is still One. And we are called to respond to revelation not our own > imaginings. > > warmest, > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. To this list? This is crazy. I've been sitting here off and on for several hours, and still missed this! Well, maybe I'll hunt it up and comment, though the essential point is that a vast variety of views, not one alone, even of the understanding of Shoghi Effendi, be allowed. Anyway, this is too much. In my humble estimation and according to my perception, enjoyable, delightful and stimulating as it is to post here, to continue at such length into the indefinite future would constitute transgressing the bounds of moderation. You all have more than enough posts from me to hang up on your wall and kiss or toss darts at, as seems most pleasing. I will still post here to demonstrate how I so very much believe in freedom of thought and expression and because it seems many others have the feeling all but one spectrum of the rainbow of human opinion is viewed as tossing elastic bands, and I who can't recall ever enjoying that particular pleasure in school, being so obedient, am only too willing to do what I can when the issue is freedom of thought and expression. But, all things in moderation. Have fun, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> Perhaps, you could respecify it, especially if Rick has not done so. > > Dear Michael, > > I'm referring to the qualifications of membership as given by Shoghi Effendi in > Baha'i Administration. John McLeod reposted that statement last night. > > warmest, > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Perhaps, you could respecify it, especially if Rick has not done so. To the Future, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>People have gotten into trouble with the hierarchy >>because they identified their religion more intimately with spiritual >>principles than with current administrators. > > Dear Michael, > > More precisely, what gets people in trouble is insisting that their own > concepts of the spiritual principles take precedence over the way in which they > are implemented by the Universal House of Justice. > > As far as what constitutes a Baha'i, I believe Shoghi Effendi has already > specified stated that. > > warmest, > > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) You mean, Rick, in your opinion; validly one may feel that one has a right to face the individual who brought the accusation. There are a variety of valid opinions, not merely yours. This is, in my view, the chief issue with fundamentalism, that it considers wrong, even that it refuses at times to allow spoken any opinion except one. Michael. Rick Schaut (rsschaut@msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > On 1/11/02 11:45 AM, in article 3c3f4150@212.67.96.135, "Paul Hammond" > wrote: >> Robert Little wrote in message >> news:F5x%7.6081$ql6.2226201@typhoon.socal.rr.com... >>> Who is the accuser, Michael, that is the question. > >> The person who brings the accustion to the LSA, Robert, that is >> the answer > > Not if we're talking about a right to face one's accuser. That is, in fact, > the wrong answer. Demonstrably so. > > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Not in the least. We are completely and totally responsibe for our own actions. What you suggest is one of the evil consequences of the monotheistic paradigm, as abused by literalist fundamentalists. It is posited that human beings are incapable of acting in accordance with what is proper and are compelled to perform improper deeds, on the grounds that their literalist understanding of text from previous generations demands such improper behaviour. This is rejected. The revelation of Baha'u'llah, the Writings of Abdu'l Baha and the explanations of Shoghi Effendi do not insist on a literalist interpretation of passages, so that improper behaviour is the result. (By the way, I deny any re-definition of proper so that improper behaviour in newspeak is asserted to be proper.) Baha'is or anyone else may choose to do what is improper, but I reject any attempt to pass the responsibility for their actions to anyone other than the actual authors of the improper deeds. Other understandings of texts, especially in the context of the totality of the Baha'i revelation, of the totality of revelation in human spiritual history, are possible, and one of the evils of fundamentalism is that it opposes Baha'u'llah's command that the rainbow of human understandings be permitted thought and expression. People are not compelled to commit evil deeds, due to their exposure to quotes which may appear to condone such evil deeds. Each human has spiritual responsibility for her/his own action, and if it seems one is being granted license to do what's wrong, rather than call it good and do it, considerthat spiritual revelation quite likely signifies something else, besides the so often harmful consequences of a simple literal quote. There is enough in Abdu'l Baha and the rest of the Baha'i revelation to permit freedom of thought and expression, to overcome fundamentalist literalim (especially the insistence of a single opinion to the exclusion of all others, which is what this is largely about), to transcend the normal totalitarian corruption by those holding power that he and others of previous generations escape blame, even were it legitimate to pass the buck of responsibility to those who died before we were born. To the Future, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: > > I don't think we have to pretend to refrain from opposing. But if doing that > makes us totalitarian, isn't it only fair we blame 'Abdu'l-Baha for this rather > than the House? > > > warmest, > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Goodness gracious, Susan, if I didn't take independent investgation of truth, freedom of thought and expression, harmony of faith and reason, etc. seriously, then I wouldn't be posting here. Substituting the word seriously for literally is cute, but it still projects that actually everyone else's views are wrong and only one is right. You do agree, i hope, that the chief issue is not the expression of a literalist view, but the insistence that all other views are wrong. And, specifically, wasn't that point I'd made in e-mail lists that had us wondering if this is was how my understanding was deficient and I wa unwilling to be instructed that I had said words to the effect that it didn't matter whether there was a quote by the Bab saying "Leave not a single unbeliever alive in the central provinces of Iran" because we have enough awareness, including the teachings of previous manifestations, to seek an appropriate non-literal understanding of such texts which appear to authorize improper deeds. Certainly, each human must act properly, and to none is given the valid excuse to do wrong because of taking such texts literally, seriously or any other way. To the future, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>(By the way, I deny any re-definition of proper >>so that improper behaviour in newspeak is asserted to be proper.) > > Dear Michael, > > So then you get to define what is proper or improper instead of the > Manifestation? The real issue here is not whether one takes the Writings > literally or not (I don't) it is whether on takes them seriously. > > warmest, > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. How is posting opinion to e-mail lists "To make a campaign of opposing that policy?" Methinks here again we've driven off the road of moderation into the ditch of suppression of freedom of thought and expression. To the Future, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: > > Well, I'd say that it is a different thing to say that you'd like a certain > policy to be different and another thing to make a campaign of opposing that > policy. After all, I'd like to see women on the House as well. > > warmest, > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. I wish they would constantly play commercials twice or thrice a day. To the Future, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>How is posting opinion to e-mail lists "To make a campaign of opposing >>that policy? > > Dear Michael, > > The same way constantly playing a commercial on TV opposing a certain bill is a > campaign. You were really good at that. > > warmest, > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Karen. I do have a standing request, if you or anyone going through old archives from Talisman notice any poems I wrote I would be very grateful if you could send me a copy. Somehow I lost my copy of a poem I posted I believe to Talisman at Umich.edu, I think about July 1996. I am especially interested in this one not so much for what it tried to say (which I recall was something like, how contentious is Baha'i cyberspace, but because my recollection is this poem, however poor a poem it may be, is a very patterned example of rhyme surpassing "Envoy's Lament" in this respect. If you or anyone else finds this one or any other poems I wrote, please kindly let me have it (them). Thrive, Michael. "Karen Bacquet" (karenbacquet@hotmail.com) writes: > Yes, I am aware that the archives are incomplete, although I have seen Juan > post additions there, so I'm hoping they will be complete eventually. And > this means what, exactly? That I'm to assume the UHJ was justified in > threatening these people with excommunication until I have examined all the > posts that were there? Don't think so. > > Karen > > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Karen. I'm too busy to reply with the detail this post suggests. You've actually raised some very fundamental concerns here, that some folks may not have noticed. There is the whole issue of simply assuming something is a flame that can be ignored, when it is a matter of the defining essence of the Baha'i revelation (broad, open-minded, alert attention to every other opinion except what a literalists assumes (contrary to Baha'u'llah's advice, by the way) is the gospel truth. If what Karen writes about being brain-dead merely strikes some readers as a flame, and those readers know what the single gospel truth understanding is, all others being clearly wrong, then, such readers, in my opinion, are a defining feature of the extent to which Baha'u'llah has failed in his attempt to overcome fundamentalism. I'll try to address this issue at greater length tomorrow. I will say again that it is not the expression of a literalist understanding that is objectionable. By all means, express what opinion soever you have. Why Karen is not to be thoughlessly dismissed as just flaming here is because the quite objectionable thing is for literalists and fundamentalists and those of any single spectrum of thought to so strongly insist that no other opinion except that single one may be thought, or if thought, spoken out loud. And, it is surely a mighty great insistence when it's decreeing those who dare to follow the teaching of Baha'u'llah to speak about their understanding of Baha'i principles are unbelievers. To the Future, Michael "Karen Bacquet" (karenbacquet@hotmail.com) writes: > -- > https://www.angelfire.com/ca3/bigquestions/Bacquet.html > Susan Maneck wrote in message > news:20020113023011.23489.00001685@mb-md.aol.com... >> >If the UHJ really >> >wants to know how to take the wind out of the sails of the dissidents, > then >> >the answer is very simple: Leave them alone. >> >> Dear Karen, >> >> For the most part that is exactly what they are doing. Removing them from > the >> rolls and leaving them alone.<< > > Oh, for the love of God, Susan!! Why should I even talk to you if you're > going to sound like the most obdurate, brain-dead, fundamentalist? Kicking > somebody out of their religion, without warning or explanation, essentially > declaring that the faith that is at the center of their lives is > nonexistent *is* doing something to a person. Duh. > ... > Karen > > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. The point is that the actions of the Universal House of Justice seem to be perfectly consistent with "dubious" Old World political bosses reacting to others lifting their heads up a bit above the masses. I can't speak for anyone, other than myself, but I surely had no desire to serve on the Universal House of Justice, had enough political experience in a variety of organizations to decline even a cousin's suggestion that we form a clan council and to understand that one truly aspiring for membership on the Universal House of Justice could take more practical steps towards such a goal than upholding openly in a forum of some several score people a non-conservative viewpoint that were it accepted would double the number of competitors. It is not that those expressing liberal viewpoints in cyberspace were actually (and lamentably ineffectively) campaigning for seats on the universal House of Justice. It is that they were treated by those actually holding such seats, in a manner completely consistent with being perceived as a political threat by those currently in power. To the future, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> Uhm, perhaps refusing to half of the adult Baha'i membership the >>possibility of standing for election, > > Dear Michael, > > No one 'stands for election' in the Baha'i system. > > >of not allowing the full and >>free expression of personal opinion, nor even the publication of research >>that would promote the viewpoint all adult Baha'is are eligible to serve >>on the UHJ > > Sounds like you are suggesting that such free expression on the internet and in > publications would be for the purpose of electioneering. A dubious purpose in > Baha'i terms, at best. > > warmest, > > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: ABMS Warning Baha'is About Darrick Evenson? Date: Monday, January 14, 2002 10:27 PM Howdy, Brian. The distinction is as follows. A) Personalities are invalid in that a point is neither correct nor incorrect because it was made by you, me, nor any other person. Points stand or fall on their own, devoid of personality. B) As time passes, people may wish to know something about the individuals who participated in Baha'i cyberspace. Point B is not refuted or confirmed, because it was made by a student of history. Anyone can make it. You are free to agree or oppose point B and point A too, if you like. You remind me, what is the answer to this query: Is Brent Porier the same individual who was a member of early e-lists and then became an ABM? Is Brent Porier, now that he's no longer an AMB, holding any other position in the Baha'i administration, either in the so-called appointed or elected arms? To Baha'i, M. "Brian Walker" (bfwalker@net-yan.com) writes: > Hi Michael > > you say "personalities are invalid when it comes to validity of opinions > ...."and then go on to write about a personality. This reminds of of your > constant vigilance against ad hominems, provided they come from those > perceived to be supporters of the AO. > > Brian > > > In article , "Michael McKenny" > wrote: > >> Greetings, Susan. >> Personalities are invalid when it comes to validity of opinions, >> etc. I do foresee the day when some people will wonder about the various >> characters who strode through the stage of Baha'i cyberspace. This name >> looks familiar. Is this Brent Porier not the same guy who participated >> as a member of the early e-lists before he was appointed an ABM? And, if >> he is no longer an AMB, does he hold any other position(s) in either or >> both the so-called appointed and/or elected arms of the Baha'i >> administration? -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Wow, Susan. That's quite a statement. I guess we have to look at your definition for religion or for "organized religion", and see how you distinguish the undeniable organization in pre-Christian societies from that of Christianity. I mean these earlier guys had priesthoods, temples, quite a considered pantheon of deities, calendar of rituals, etc. Just how was Christian organization different? It wasn't even different in the sense of its denial of all the other deities, as the Jews did that before Jesus. This will be very interesting. As to Milissa's point, the question of moderation comes in on the other side, too. Just because Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union abused the institution of the Twentieth Century state, doesn't mean that it is the Twentieth Century state that's the problem. The problem within the Baha'i Faith is not that it is organized, but that the men who are at the top have used this organization in the same immoderate and oppressive manner as those Twentieth Century political leaders. Not organization in religion per se, but the use of such organization in order to oppress is wrong. To the Future, M. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> >>Just a rhetorical question but I wonder why God has to have His/Her >>religion organized in the first place. > > Dear Milissa, > > Throughout most of history there has been no distinction between religion and > society as a whole. In some ways Christianity as the first 'organized > religion.' > > warmest, > > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) A text, Susan? Did Baha'u'llah only write one, or, indeed, is this even by Baha'u'llah? No, I guess it isn't. It's not from the Writings is it? Susan, I was interviewed by the media about the Baha'i Faith in the early 70s. I was one of four, I believe. We were able to communicate without this barrier to understanding. The question remains, what are the characteristics, qualities and attributes of the Baha'i Faith? I understand that since these have been repudiated by the bosses, you're not keen to breathe a word about them. It's not merely introducing this pseudo-answer to paraphrase Robert that defines fundamentalism; fundamentalism comes from tossing out the ocean of the revelation that sought to promote human harmony by means of independent investigation of truth, the freedom of thought and expression, the validity of the rainbow of human understanding, the agreement of science and religion, faith and reason, the equality of women and men, etc., from straining every nerve to divide even the Baha'i Faith into those accepting a single party line, imposed by those specifically prohibited from messing with interpretation and personal understandings, and yet still pronouncing the syllables and sounds, "Whatsoever has been revealed by their pen" as if these meant anything in the context of such tossing this whatsoever away. To Baha'i, M. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: > Dear Michael, > > Well, I don't ignore what Shoghi Effendi says because it won't play well in the > media. But I suppose that is fundamentalism to you. In my field it is called > reading a text. > > warmest, > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Is this it? "Whatsoever has been revealed by their pen"! Don't you guys have a publicity department or something? How do you think this would play in the media? Here I am interviewing Ms. Susan Maneck, Mr. John Macleod and Mr. Rick Schaut about their religion. Well, tell me, just what is this Baha'i Faith? What are it's characteristics, attributes and qualities?" "John R MacLeod" (jrmacleod@consultant.com) writes: > "full recognition of the station of the Forerunner, the Author, and the True > Exemplar of the Bahá'í Cause, as set forth in `Abdu'l-Bahá's Testament; > unreserved acceptance of, and submission to, whatsoever has been revealed by > their Pen; loyal and steadfast adherence to every clause of our Beloved's > sacred Will; and close association with the spirit as well as the form of > the present day Bahá'í administration throughout the world-" > Huh? To Answering Questions Clearly, Michael -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. One problem here is the interpretive one of what is clearly contrary to the provisions of Abdu'l Baha's Will. What seems so literally true to you may not seem so clear to someone else. As I understand it, this will was an effort by Abd'l Baha to carry forward beyond his time, the principle of a single centre of authority in Baha'i. He did this in a highly imaginative way, by stating the hereditary principle would be the centre of authority for resolving scriptual issues, while the democratic institutions enunciated in the writings of his father would legislate on matters not specifically covered in scripture. What I was taught as a Baha'i was that the action contrary to the Will was to support or indeed to aspire personally to the position of successor to Abdu'l Baha and Shoghi Effendi. I understand that now there are people on this newsgroup demonstrating the assertion that the Baha'i Faith has no sects was a trifle, hmm, exaggerated, and it is already clear from their postings here that "Contrary to the Will" has been perceived in more than one way, even at this level. Yet, in the context of what was said on the Baha'i e-lists in the last millennium and people being pressured to leave, investigated, expelled, etc., none of them, to my knowledge questioned the legitimacy of the current members of the Universal House of Justice at Haifa. So, whatever you think is clear is your opinion, but not the opinion of everyone else. As history, including Baha'i history has clearly demonstrated, insisting that every other opinion except your own is wrong, is the cause of great harm and division. Now, to the point of your question, frankly, it looks to me like the questioner is rather saying, how can we get people who would obey such a command, even though they think it's wrong. Susan has stated this openly with her point about those told to avoid spitballs then shooting elastic bands. No, if there's going to be a punishment, justice requires this be spelled out, "Dear X if you do Y the consequence will by Z." If conscience leads one to do Y anyway, fine, and, if one submits, then it's not a true conquest of conscience. To justice. Gotta run. Hope I wasn't so pressed for time, I lost clarity. M. "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@email.msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > "Michael McKenny" wrote in message > news:a1vdu1$7dj$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... >> Are you actually saying that a clear warning is not impinging >> conscience? I am not being cute. > > My apologies. I had intended to say: > > The question is how one might construct a warning that explicitly states > some consequences for behavior that's clearly contrary to `Abdu'l-Baha's > Will and Testament without impinging the individual's right to conscience. > > > Regards > Rick Schaut > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. How can you say that you would oppose the command to kill people and still consider such a command God's will? M. "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@home.NOSPAMcom) writes: > > Agreed. Indeed, were the Universal House of Justice to issue such a > command, I believe I'd be forced, in all good conscience, to oppose that > command. On this, too, I think we would both agree. > > To find oneself in opposition to the Universal House of Justice is, in > `Abdu'l-Baha's word, to oppose God. > -- > Regards, > Rick Schaut > The "Reply-To" line has a bogus e-mail account for SPAM blocking purposes. > If you wish to reply by e-mail, send to rsschaut at attbi dot com. > > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. According to my perception, to obey the Universal House of Justice in opposing the independent investigation of truth, in opposing the freedom of thought and expression, in opposing the harmony of science and religion, of reason and of faith, in opposing the equality of women and men, in opposing the harmony of humanity as enunciated by Baha'u'llah is opposing more than a basic tenet. And, I repeat, according to the full context of the revelation, to the full agreement with the long history of human spirituality, to the full essence of the agreement of faith and reason, of personal responsibility for spiritual action, of the complete agreement between humanity and the divine, the Covenant requires the believers to obey and the humans entrusted with power to command what is moderate, what is in accord with the spiritual principles commanded by Baha'u'llah, what can be obeyed by more than fanatics (God does not test one beyond one's capacity and fanaticism is explicitly forbidden in the Most Holy Book) According to my perception, opposing what Baha'u'llah taught, even when this opposing comes from the men who've come to rule the Faith is renouncing belief in Baha'u'llah. I was not being cute when I told a fundamentalist here earlier that he was a non-Baha'i. The attributes, qualities and characteristics of the Baha'i Faith are either believed and honestly attempted or, if they're repudiated, even by the men at the top, Baha'u'llah has been repudiated. Those repudiating fanaticism, those repudiating commands to repudiate the spiritual essence of Baha'u'llah, those repudiating the cause of sectarianism are very much demonstrating their acceptance of the divine Covenant, the revelation of Baha'u'llah, the wishes of Abdu'l Baha, the harmony of humanity. Here's to everyone, especially those in positions of responsibility equally living the life, as admonished by Baha'u'llah. To Baha'u'llah, M. "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@home.NOSPAMcom) writes: > This command comes from `Abdu'l-Baha. His authority to command comes from > the pen of Baha'u'llah. To oppose the Universal House of Justice is to > oppose `Abdu'l-Baha, which is to oppose Baha'u'llah. It's the logical > equivalent of repudiating Baha'u'llah's claim to be the Manifestation of God > for today. Thus, to oppose the Universal House of Justice is to repudiate a > basic tenet of Baha'i belief. > > -- > Regards, > Rick Schaut > The "Reply-To" line has a bogus e-mail account for SPAM blocking purposes. > If you wish to reply by e-mail, send to rsschaut at attbi dot com. > > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Karen. Yes, I've just answered one of Rick's posts where he said that he'd have to conclude Baha'u'llah was not a Manifestation, were he to find fault with anything emanating from the UHJ. This, in my opinion, is not very reasonable. However, what I especially take issue with is for him or anyone to insist that his way of seeing things is the only way. He uses a phrase like "It's clear" about his personal opinion, even when this clarity has him rejecting the very valuable spiritual gifts Baha'u'llah brought. Juan once wrote that it was indeed possible to argue against and to reject these elevating principles and transform the Baha'i Faith into a fundamentalist church, but, Juan continued, what would be the value of that when the world already has so many other fundamentalist churches? One aspect of this, as I understand it, is that, despite Baha'u'llah outlawing clergy, commanding the independent investigation of truth and the validity of a vast variety of viewpoints, Baha'i authorities are contending with him and sending out clergy (if one expounds the only single truth to be found in scripture, one is clergy) instructing believers that what we've been hearing from Rick is the only true way of perceiving reality on this issue. Such instruction, with its very convenient encouragement for those who can't in good conscience agree with the policies of the current members of the Universal House of Justce to repudiate Baha'u'llah, or at the least resign from the Faith, may promote the political careers of the guys currently in charge, but Baha'u'llah really did outlaw clergy, really did enjoin independent investigation of truth, really did reveal more than a fundamentalist church, really did establish a Faith that would not require anyone to denounce Baha'u'llah for the faults of those administering it. To the Future, M. "Karen Bacquet" (karenbacquet@hotmail.com) writes: > -- > www.bahai-faith.tk > Michael McKenny wrote in message > news:a21nrm$ltp$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... >> Greetings, Rick. >> According to my perception, to obey the Universal House of Justice >> in opposing the independent investigation of truth, in opposing the >> freedom of thought and expression, in opposing the harmony of science and >> religion, of reason and of faith, in opposing the equality of women and >> men, in opposing the harmony of humanity as enunciated by Baha'u'llah >> is opposing more than a basic tenet. > > Dear Michael, > > This is very well said, and points up what is perhaps the primary difference > between Baha'i liberals and conservatives. For the Baha'i liberal, the > basic principles of the revelation are of supreme importance and outweigh > any particular interpretation of any specific verse. For the Baha'i > conservative it is the adherence to the outward sense of the verses that are > supremely important -- a ready example is Rick saying that if the UHJ > required him to commit a heinous act, he would be forced to renounce not > only loyalty to that body, but to Baha'u'llah Himself. Why? Because > Baha'u'llah said the House of Justice would have divine guidance, and if it > does something that is clearly wrong, then that promise is false, and > ultimately, so is Baha'u'llah. But for me, and I think most liberals, for > the House of Justice to violate the broad principles of the revelation does > not negate the truth of those principles, or of that revelation. It simply > means that things have gone wrong, as they often do in this human world. I > don't see my faith as dependent upon human actions, but upon the eternal > truths that > Baha'u'llah proclaimed. > > Love, Karen -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Baha'u'llah has forbidden you to insist that only your single perception of the Baha'i revelation is authentic. He has commanded his followers to respect the validity of a vast variety of personal understandings. He has commanded independent investigation of truth, freedom of thought and expression, moderation in all things, agreement of faith and reason. The quotes in the writings containing emphatic language and using terms such as "This is the day that shall not be followed by night" can not legitimately be interpreted exclusively so as to authenticate any command soever, even literal jihad, or the opposition of the principles of the revelation. Baha'u'llah forbids such insistence on one hue in the rainbow of valid opinions. What may legitimately be presented as one meaning, among many, is that those finding themselves with free will and in power in Baha'i are being commanded to obey the Founder of the Faith, to follow his spiritual directions and guide the believers accordingly, so that the Karbilas and the sectarianism that overtook other religions not be inflicted upon the Baha'is. These Baha'i authorities have the personal freedom to disregard the admonisions of the Founder of the Faith and inflict such discord and suffering upon the believers. So, of course, such promises mean a great deal; they mean even more, I suspect than you're able to admit in public. To the Future, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> I >>don't see my faith as dependent upon human actions, but upon the eternal >>truths that >>Baha'u'llah proclaimed. > > And 'Abdu'l-Baha's promises of Baha'u'llah's protection mean nothing to you? > > warmest, > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Jay. Thanks. I recall one of my professors from the other side of the Atlantic telling me with a smile that they were so discouraged from using cribs like these, and here he was when he was a young scholar and in need of money actually writing some. Thrive, Michael. "Jay Paine" (jaypaine@lyndalls.globalnet.co.uk) writes: > Michael McKenny wrote in message ... >>Greetings, Jay. > >> Here we have cribs called "Coles notes". Are these called "Cliff >>notes" where you're from. >> Thrive, Michael. > > Greetings Michael > > Yes, the same thing. We used to use them occasionally in high school. Got > them at the local stationary store. > > Jay > > > > > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Do you suspect that it could be possibly so? m. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: > >> You know, of course, that Baha'u'llah himself, unless he's changed >>his mind about a great number of things, would not agree with a lot of >>what the current members of the UHJ have done in recent years. > > I know nothing of sort. > > warmest, > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) How is it not an issue, Susan, or do you mean one may independently investigate truth until one thinks otherwise than a single dictated party line, or is it independently investigate till the cows come home, only keep your mouth shut. M. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>I still wonder how you can recite the mantra of all of >>it, and leave out independent investigation of truth, > > Dear Michael, > > I can't see that the independent investigation of truth is even an issue here. > > warmest, > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Actually, you tend to use the word "seriously" I've noticed as a modifier for your own interpretation. Above in this same post, which I answered separately, you quoted Abdu'l Baha commanding Baha'is not to insist on their own opinion as the only true and valid one. Using the word "seriously" as a synonym for only true and valid one does not, in my opinion, comply with Abdu'l Baha's command which I do take seriously. As to the serious nature of the Covenant, most of the people I've seen, or at least the views they've posted, in Baha'i cyberspace have taken the Covenant very seriously, even if, in accordance with the reality of this observable world (that, by the way, may be an aspect of faith and reason, science and religion being in agreement; one may wish very hard, and believe very strongly that everyone think one single fundamentalist way or else just go away, but experiential reality and some interpretations of spiritual revelation agree on something else), their very serious understanding is not identical with your one single true and valid opinion. So, one very serious understanding of the Covenant, among many, is that there has been designated authority, and, very seriously, that authority has been commanded to implement the principles revealed to promote harmony within and without Baha'i, and, very seriously, the believers try to carry out the legislation of that authority, which, very seriously, is prohibited from getting involved in the business of interpretation, of personal understandings, of the very serious vast variety of views, and, very seriously, so long as those in authority are doing their job and legislating, according to their very serious mandate, moderately, avoiding the very serious prohibition in Baha'i against fanaticism, then, very seriously those holding a vast variety of personal opinions, even while exercising their very serious right to think for themselves, and to speak their mind are to strive to implement such legislation. It may not be a single true and valid opinion, which, very seriously, would be in violation of Abdu'l Baha, but, it remains a serious one. To the Prohibition on a single true and valid opinion, Seriously, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: > > No, I think recent history suggests that a lot of Baha'is no longer take the > Covenant real seriously. > > warmest, > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. Without independent investigation of truth, freedom of thought and expression, the validity of a variety of viewpoints, not even the full might of the Twentieth Century state, not Nazi Germany, not the Soviet Union was able to achieve unity, not as Baha'u'llah uses the term. It is not a question of using newspeak and saying what Baha'u'llah says "conduces to" isn't necessary. History, even Baha'i history demonstrates unity is not attainable, even within Baha'i, except by driving people out and saying the remnant is united, but you haven't got there yet, there's still lots around who thought they'd entered something containing the characteristics, attributes and qualities you are afraid or ashamed to mention, unity is unattainable without these principles. Well, if unity depends on justice, let that entity with justice in its name transcend the Soviet type of wordplay and not simply designate any lack of due process and punishment without warning by that word. The quote doesn't say whatsoever you call justice, the same slall so be. It says, "Whatsoever transgresseth the bounds of moderation, the same shall be the cause of harm." This law that strikes terror in all men likely includes the concept that in this day women are rulers. Such emphatic prophetic exclamations were designed to permit Muslim men, as well as the men in American by the way, who at the time of Baha'u'llah would not let a woman run for president, or even vote, to admit women to power. The very great harm inflicted on humanity comes from folks who are so certain only their own logical connection of a series of such quotes is the only possible understanding of them, that no other understanding may be spoken, who, of course, fail to include any quote about the necessity of moderation in all things, and act as have acted those before them in a manner and way that has always produced division, sorrow and grief to humanity. The essence of your quotes is this: "God appoints a source of authority for you Baha'is; let those who occupy seats of power live the life of obedience to this revelation, guide the people according to what God commands will produce harmony among men, although such things as the equality of the races, peoples and kindreds of the world will task the inhabitants of many lands, although allowing everyone the freedom to investigate reality for himself without clergy will be hard for mortals to imagine, although tolerantly accepting that more than one opinion will have a portion of the truth will be difficult for many people to do, although accepting the equal rights of women to rule will be quite hard for some guys to take, etc., but I God) cauton you to guide as "The Source of All Good, and I command the people to obey these means for rising above the religious sectarianism, the racial, sexual, class, etc. bigotries of the past, and, at last, by such means, by equity, by justice, by moderation, the children of humanity will be united in their divinely created diversity. Beware lest you make the Cause of God the instrument of discord." To the Future, M. "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@home.NOSPAMcom) writes > "Michael McKenny" wrote in message > news:a1vdfn$6lj$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... >> And, Rick, its unity is unattainable unless and until the spiritual >> principles designed to achieve that unity are acted upon. > > Actually, Baha'u'llah only says that these things _conduce_ to the > appearance of unity. What we need is some notion of what's _necessary_ for > the appearance of unity. > > What, then, do you make of the following statements: > > "The purpose of justice is the appearance of unity among men. The ocean of > divine wisdom surgeth within this exalted word, while the books of the world > cannot contain its inner significance." > (Baha'u'llah: Tablets of Baha'u'llah, Pages: 66-67) > > "Know verily that the essence of justice and the source thereof are both > embodied in the ordinances prescribed by Him Who is the Manifestation of the > Self of God amongst men, if ye be of them that recognize this truth. He > doth verily incarnate the highest, the infallible standard of justice unto > all creation. Were His law to be such as to strike terror into the hearts > of all that are in heaven and on earth, that law is naught but manifest > justice." > (Baha'u'llah: Gleanings, Page: 175) > > "The first duty prescribed by God for His servants is the recognition of Him > Who is the Dayspring of His Revelation and the Fountain of His laws, Who > representeth the Godhead in both the Kingdom of His Cause and the world of > creation. Whoso achieveth this duty hath attained unto all good; and whoso > is deprived thereof hath gone astray, though he be the author of every > righteous deed. It behoveth everyone who reacheth this most sublime > station, this summit of transcendent glory, to observe every ordinance of > Him Who is the Desire of the world. These twin duties are inseparable. > Neither is acceptable without the other. Thus hath it been decreed by Him > Who is the Source of Divine inspiration." > (Baha'u'llah: The Kitab-i-Aqdas, Page: 19) > > Seems so simple and straighforward. Unity comes from Justice. Justice > comes from obedience to God's laws. Obedience to God's laws is an integral > part of our Covenant. Erego, the existence of a Covenant is necessary for > the appearance of unity among humanity. > > > -- > Regards, > Rick Schaut > The "Reply-To" line has a bogus e-mail account for SPAM blocking purposes. > If you wish to reply by e-mail, send to rsschaut at attbi dot com. > > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Are those people saying it's terrible Canada is sending troops to Afghanistan and those people saying it's terrible Canada is sending so few troops to Afghanistan contending with the Canadian government? Do you define that is posting one's opinions to the Internet "Contending" if those opinions, divinely created to be varied, happen not to coincide with the single spectrum of a party line? To freedom of thought and expression, M. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: > Dear Michael, > > Because I insist that Truth is one, does not mean that I am insisting that I > necessarily know it. In that sense I accept the parable of the elephant. But > the fact of the matter is that as Baha'is we have been given a ultimate > authority and that currently is the Universal House of Justice. Now one can > have different perspectives on what they say as well. To insist on the right to > contend with them is to put oneself out of the sphere of what it means to be a > Baha'i. > > warmest, > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. And, as I've said before, you particular interpretation of any passage(s) of Abdu'l Baha cannot be imposed on anyone else. You would be in violation of the commands of Baha'i scripture to insist on your own interpretation. What Baha'i scripture says may be perceived in a vast variety of valid ways, perceptions and understandings. And to none, not even the men at the top, is given the right to meddle, within Baha'i, with interpreting scripture. So, no one, not even you, must resign from the Baha'i Faith because reason and faith, mind and heart, human awareness of the totality of more than a single passage, or string of passages, leads you to another or a different understanding than the single one you now hold. To Baha'i, M. ck Schaut (rsschaut@msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > On 1/15/02 10:45 PM, in article 20020116014526.25538.00002687@mb-fc.aol.com, > "Susan Maneck" wrote: >>> Well, exactly whose understanding did Baha'u'llah instruct us to turn to, >>> Karen? > >> There can be two very different answers to that question. He tells us >> to turn towards 'Abdu'l-Baha but He also says to see with our own eyes >> and not through the eyes of another. > > And, as I've said elsewhere, if what I see with my own eyes brings me to the > point of turning aside from `Abdu'l-Baha's instructions, then I can't really > call myself a Baha'i. > > > -- > Regards, > Rick Schaut > The "Reply-To" line has a bogus e-mail account for SPAM blocking purposes. > If you wish to reply by e-mail, send to rsschaut at attbi dot com. > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. I accept that you believe what you write. I do not believe that, and I have no evidence to support the assertion that harmony (unity implies uniformity which is contrary to human nature; in my opinion, this word unity has been used by some people within Baha'i to deny the Baha'i concept of unity in diversity) does not depend on the spiritual principles (they need not be called spiritual, if one objects to the term; it is just that in the context of this newsgroup I consider that objection unlikely) stated. I stand by the point that even within totalitarian modern states (Canada has people residing in it who were born in a great many other countries, some of whose leaders have used their power to oppose these principles; none of such lands which opposed these principles, in my opinion, is as close to the Baha'i concept of harmony, as is Canada, which is further along the road to their application than the current practise of the guys now running the Baha'i show, which, as is only logical, lags behind Canada, in its approach to Baha'i harmony. Open-mindedness is one of these principles, so, go ahead, name me one totalitarian state, one land following the example of the UHJ and not the principles of Baha'u'llah which you assess as having shown this harmony may be achieved without these peinciples. To the Future, M. Rick Schaut (rsschaut@msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > On 1/15/02 12:19 PM, in article a222sl$8ju$1@freenet9.carleton.ca, "Michael > McKenny" wrote: >> Without independent investigation of truth, freedom of thought and >> expression, the validity of a variety of viewpoints, not even the full >> might of the Twentieth Century state, not Nazi Germany, not the Soviet >> Union was able to achieve unity, not as Baha'u'llah uses the term. > > Actually, both were rather effective at maintaining unity. Their downfall > stemmed from Economic problems that arose from either fighting an impossible > war or preparing to fight an impossible war. It might be nice and romantic > to believe that the winds of liberty somehow blew such oppressive regimes > away, but, as usual, the real causes comes down to the tradeoff between guns > and butter. > > There is no doubt that such principles as the independent investigation of > truth, the validity of a wide variety of viewpoints and the oneness of > humanity make unity a far more palatable existence. They are not, however, > _necessary_ for the establishment of unity. > >> It >> is not a question of using newspeak and saying what Baha'u'llah says >> "conduces to" isn't necessary. > > It certainly is newspeak to say that the two words are interchangeable > without loss of meaning. > >> The >> quote doesn't say whatsoever you call justice, the same slall so be. > > Nor, for that matter, have I employed it in that manner. The quote says > that God's Law is justice; that justice is to be found in our obedience to > that law. Obedience to that law is our obedience to the Covenant. > >> It says, "Whatsoever transgresseth the bounds of moderation, the same >> shall be the cause of harm." This law that strikes terror in all men > > If the above statement is to be accorded the strength of a law, then one > wonders why it doesn't appear in Baha'u'llah's Book of Laws. Indeed, the > only instance of the word "moderation" in the Kita-i-Aqdas refers to one's > dress. > >> The essence of your quotes is this: "God appoints a source of >> authority for you Baha'is; let those who occupy seats of power live the > > Sorry, Michael, but I don't see anywhere in that passage that limits the > obligation of obedience to merely those elected to Baha'i institutions. > Nor, for that matter, do I see anything that would suggest the rank and file > believers have the authority to define what does and doesn't constitute > obedience. > > But, let us say that this is merely a disagreement between the some members > of the community as to the meaning of obedience. I'll, again, ask you, what > does Baha'u'llah say we should do when such difference arises? > > > -- > Regards, > Rick Schaut > The "Reply-To" line has a bogus e-mail account for SPAM blocking purposes. > If you wish to reply by e-mail, send to rsschaut at attbi dot com. > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. It just occurred to me to ask whether you've ever read a story called "Fayduhl and the Blue Toad"? There's a charming illustration of the toad perched on the end of Fayduhl's nose as he delivers his lecture on the absence of evidence for the existence of such toads. Thrive, M. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> Do you suspect that it could be possibly so? > > Dear Michael, > > I see no evidence of that. And I am quite certain that the members of the House > of Justice strive to uphold Baha'u'llah's Teachings in their entirety. > > warmest, > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Precisely. And, it is not the people being accused of holding various impermissible views who have been doing that insisting is it? How can you read this newsgroup without realizing who is upholding the validity of a variety of views and who has strayed away from these words you quote and is demanding only one true and valid opinion? To the Future, M. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: > > freedom of thought >>and expression, > > I don't recall this every being presented as one of the basic Baha'i > principles, though I'll grant you that 'Abdu'l-Baha does talk about it in some > of His talks. If we balance those with other talks He gave such as this one we > might see what He means: > > "The purpose of the Covenant was simply to ward off disunion and differences so > that no one might say, "My opinion is the true and valid one." > > warmest, > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Well, we are told that there are a rainbow of valid opinions, and the history of humanity contains a lot of examples of people being able to play the acordion with sacred text, and insist they are upholding the entirety of it. I still wonder how you can recite the mantra of all of it, and leave out independent investigation of truth, freedom of thought and expression, harmony of science and religion, of faith and reason, equality of women and men, even, this rainbow of valid understandings, so that one dictated party line is all that's allowed freedom of expression, and say you're certain they strive to uphold all of it. If your assertion be granted, that they strive to uphold all of it, do you suspect, just possibly recent Baha'i history indicates such a striving could perhaps not have been a perfect success? To the future, M. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> Do you suspect that it could be possibly so? > > Dear Michael, > > I see no evidence of that. And I am quite certain that the members of the House > of Justice strive to uphold Baha'u'llah's Teachings in their entirety. > > warmest, > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Uhm, on what grounds do you base this, or is it simply that most Baha'is believe there won't be any prophets at all for a thousand years, however it's dated (from 1863, 1892 or any other point)? You know, of course, that Baha'u'llah himself, unless he's changed his mind about a great number of things, would not agree with a lot of what the current members of the UHJ have done in recent years. Now, do you select a synonym for "Oppose" or say Baha'u'llah's no longer a Prophet? To Baha'u'llah, M. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: > > Dear Robert, > > I'm not sure where he is coming from. This dispute arose regarding my attempts > to demonstrate on soc.religion.bahai that there cannot be any prophets in the > next thousand years, greater or lesser who could contradict or oppose the House > of Justice. > warmest, > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. Your logical perception is still your perception, and Baha'u'llah forbid his followers from insisting on one single perception; he commanded them to accept the validity of the rainbow of personal understandings, including some, Rick, that would not be considered logical. Logically, as I see it, as Baha'u'llah, in agreement with human spiritual experience, calls for moderation in all things, as this has demonstrably been applied by him when it comes to the literal interpretation of sacred scripture, as he has condemned clergy, as he has written quite openly to the absolute monarchs and the fundamentalist religious leaders of his time stating their divine duties, as he has not approved slavery, as he has enunciated personal responsibility, one very valid understanding is that passages you assume apply exclusively to the ruled actually direct those who find themselves in power to guide as if the Source of All Good and so as not to come into conflict with the his prescriptions for the ills of humankind. It is not at all necessary to find fault with Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l Baha or God, if those directed to guide the Faith according to spirituality, aiming at harmony (not totalitarian dictated uniformity of viewpoint), neglect their responsibility and select interpreting scripture in a fundamentalist manner instead. I very much understand that one single strand of literalist perception may strike some mentalities as logical, even if such logic leads to denouncing Abdu'l Baha, Baha'u'llah and God. It's just that Baha'u'llah himself denounced insisting on such a strand of literalist perception as the only truth, and, as I've just shown, one may, even logically, perceive reality in other ways. To the Future, Michael. Rick Schaut (rsschaut@msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > On 1/15/02 9:11 AM, in article a21nrm$ltp$1@freenet9.carleton.ca, "Michael > McKenny" wrote: >> According to my perception, > > But, at this point, perception isn't the issue. Logic is what sways. > >> to obey the Universal House of Justice >> in opposing the independent investigation of truth, in opposing the >> freedom of thought and expression, in opposing the harmony of science and >> religion, of reason and of faith, in opposing the equality of women and >> men, in opposing the harmony of humanity as enunciated by Baha'u'llah >> is opposing more than a basic tenet. > > And begging the question is not a compelling argument. If you believe that > the Universal House of Justice is doing the opposite of what God commands, > then you must conclude that `Abdu'l-Baha's assurances about the Universal > House of Justice were false. These conditions are mutually exclusive. > Either one is true or the other is true. > >> According to my perception, opposing what Baha'u'llah taught, > > And when upholding one's perceptions of Baha'u'llah's teachings (the Ocean > cannot fit into the thimble) involves doing what Baha'u'llah commanded us > not to do, what then, Michael? > > -- > Regards, > Rick Schaut > The "Reply-To" line has a bogus e-mail account for SPAM blocking purposes. > If you wish to reply by e-mail, send to rsschaut at attbi dot com. > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. No, Rick. A Baha'i is one who does not insist that her or his personal understanding is the sole possible interpretation there is, believes God has consistently provided spiritual guidance to human beings, accepts the spiritual principles, especially moderation in all things, contained in that guidance, strives to serve humanity harmoniously, accepting the value of human diversity, and admits the worth of the teachings of the founders of all religions, including of the Baha'i Faith. If your personal perception of these twin duties would cause you to commit heinous deeds, then Baha'u'llah has commanded you not to commit these. Has he not said that under such circumstances it would be better not to have religion at all? To Baha'i, M. Rick Schaut (rsschaut@msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > On 1/15/02 5:02 PM, in article u49juf5s5d8g2a@corp.supernews.com, "Karen > Bacquet" wrote: >> But for me, and I think most liberals, for >> the House of Justice to violate the broad principles of the revelation does >> not negate the truth of those principles, or of that revelation. It simply >> means that things have gone wrong, as they often do in this human world. I >> don't see my faith as dependent upon human actions, but upon the eternal >> truths that Baha'u'llah proclaimed. > > In other words, a "liberal" is someone who places principle, or, more > accurately, his or her own understanding of the meaning of that principle, > above obedience to Baha'u'llah. That's a noble idea, and I'm trying to be > sarcastic. > > There's just one problem. What are the "twin duties" that Baha'u'llah > proscribes for the servants of God? > > > -- > Regards, > Rick Schaut > The "Reply-To" line has a bogus e-mail account for SPAM blocking purposes. > If you wish to reply by e-mail, send to rsschaut at attbi dot com. > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. There is still guidance in the revelation revealed by Baha'u'llah, though most of that is still kept untranslated. There is also the guidance of the UHJ; they are still guiding, only not so very well, as can be seen from the mess they've made of things in recent Baha'i history. The good news is that anything they've done in recent Baha'i history may be reassessed, modified and corrected by the UHJ at any times. The greater difficulty for one who has driven off the road into the ditch is refusing to acknowledge the error and insisting, notwithstanding the evidence of reality that actually one is a flawless driver with a very valid driver's license, whose pedigree may be traced to Henry Ford and so, all that's necessary is to perceive "road" to mean "an inclined grassy surface having a bottom" and those who are striving to move along that upper level paved thing are non-drivers rejecting the testimony of Henry Ford. To Guidance, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>The revelation is in human hands, > > Dear Karen, > > If it is in human hands and not under the protection of the Bab and Baha'u'llah > as 'Abdu'l-Baha promised, how can it be revelation to begin with? > > >Prophecies and promises for the future that occur in a religion are not as >>important as spiritual truth and guidance. > > But Karen, what you are basically saying is that we are no longer guided. > > warmest, Susan > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Sigh. Rick, Baha'u'llah has forbidden humans from insisting that their personal perception is the only one possible. He has also forbidden them from making the arrogant assumption that they have an absolute grip on things, that they know it perfectly, that they have total comprehension. He has said that humans are imperfect (as I think agrees with science) when it comes to knowledge, discernment, understanding and perception. In my opinion, anyone who knows absolutely what the single truth is and insists that either whatever emanates from the Universal House of Justice has to be defined as God's will and obeyed (even if it's killing people) or else Baha'u'llah is false has already made the logical determination that Baha'u'llah is not a manifestation of God. How in the world can you claim someone is from God when you don't accept what he says? Baha'u'llah outlawed jihad on the very first day of his revelation (although jihad in the symbolic sense that Muslims take it, in the sense of that urging by Krishna of Arjuna to fight, in the sense, personally, I feel may lie behind some of the traditional material in the Tain, in the sense of struggling against human flaws, including this very human flaw that has one believe, contrary to the admonitions of Baha'u'llah, that what one believes must be believed by others, or they are wrong, jihad in this sense was not outlawed by Baha'u'llah), so if the Universal House of Justice proclaims a jihad, in the literal sense of kill unbelievers, then, not Baha'u'llah, but the Universal House of Justice may quite reasonably, in full accord with agreed reason and faith, be understood to be acting contrary to the explicit spiritual commands of God for this age. The principle is identical when they contend with Baha'u'llah on independent investigation of truth, on freedom of thought and expression, on the agreement of faith and reason, on the equality of women and men, on the requisites for human harmony, even on the need for authorities to modify policies demonstrably failing. It is not your single line of reasoning that is universally and perfectly true; other opinions are valid, as you can find in the ocean of Baha'u'llah's words and, stepping back from ego, in actual experience. And, Rick, were I to leave a body of writings, the example of my life, a son and a will, and a hundred years after my death those charged with administering the implementation of those writings to oppose my stated directions, where would the justice come in blaming me, dead a century and more, for their action in contradicting what I urged? Is it not more reasonable, and more spiritual, to accept the validity of those viewpoints that include the understanding that the Founder of the Faith enjoined certain actions upon his successors, his emphatic, revelatory, drawn from the inspired aspect of being, words about the Source of All Good, etc. were intended as admonitions to those finding themselves in that position, and his words about obedience, of course, rationally, spiritually, are in full accord with the totality of his revelation and of the history of human spirituality, including the most essential principle that whatsoever exceeds the bounds of moderation, the same shall be the source of great harm. Those whose duty it is to guide according to the spiritual principles of Baha'u'llah may choose to oppose these principles, but this does not necessitate all humans to blame Baha'u'llah for their demonstrable failure to obey him. To Baha'u'llah, M. "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@home.NOSPAMcom) writes: > "Michael McKenny" wrote in message > news:a21m9l$jnp$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... >> Greetings, Rick. >> How can you say that you would oppose the command to kill people >> and still consider such a command God's will? > > I believe the point is precisely that I wouldn't consider such a command to > be God's will. However, should such a command eminate from the Universal > House of Justice, one would have to conclude, on the basis of simple, > straighforward logic, that Baha'u'llah is not the Manifestation of God for > today. > >> "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@home.NOSPAMcom) writes: >> > >> > Agreed. Indeed, were the Universal House of Justice to issue such a >> > command, I believe I'd be forced, in all good conscience, to oppose that >> > command. On this, too, I think we would both agree. >> > >> > To find oneself in opposition to the Universal House of Justice is, in >> > `Abdu'l-Baha's word, to oppose God. > > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. I have repeatedly said that Baha'u'llah was correct when he said that whatsoever passeth the bounds of moderation, the same will be the cause of great harm, that Baha'u'llah was correct when he enunciated his spiritual principles, and I'll add that he was correct when he spoke of the abolition of slavery and the personal spiritual responsibility of each human being. Rick, I would very much hope that you would agree that were the UHJ to present you with this quote of, "Leave not a single unbeliever alive in the central provinces of Iran" or the central states of the USA, if you prefer, that you would understand that God was not asking you to participate in the murder of human beings (and he was not playing any newspeak game and redefining all residents except some of these states to be non-human). Moderation in all things. God is not in the least interested in literalism to the point of inflicting serious harm and to the point of thoughtless obedience of the opposite of spirituality. The quote means "Command and obey moderately." It certainly can be understood to mean something worse, and crusades are fought and heretics are burned for precisely the reason that some folks thoughtlessly obey commands that are contrary to moderation and principles of spirituality. To the Covenant, M. "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@email.msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > "Michael McKenny" wrote in message > news:a2015l$6rr$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... >> Greetings, Rick. >> One problem here is the interpretive one of what is clearly contrary >> to the provisions of Abdu'l Baha's Will. What seems so literally true >> to you may not seem so clear to someone else. > > Well, Michael, then please tell us what: > > "Whoso obeyeth him not, neither obeyeth them, hath not obeyed God; whoso > rebelleth against him and against them hath rebelled against God; whoso > opposeth him hath opposed God; whoso contendeth with them hath contended > with God; whoso disputeth with him hath disputed with God; whoso denieth him > hath denied God; whoso disbelieveth in him hath disbelieved in God; whoso > deviateth, separateth himself and turneth aside from him hath in truth > deviated, separated himself and turned aside from God." > > might mean in a non-literal sense. > > Or are you claiming that "opposeth them" cannot take the form of a campaign, > conducted on the internet, that's clearly designed to induce the Universal > House of Justice to venture into an area of authority they have explicitly > stated is outside their area of authority? Or is this must be the > "newspeak" you keep talking about? > > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. The question remains, what are the qualities, characteristics and attributes of the Baha'i Faith? As to membership qualifications, these have changed from time to time; when I was in India people were not required to swallow this one. In fact, my recollection is that Ruhiyyih Khanum explained that this specific quote was perceived by Shoghi Effendi himself as a barrier. To Baha'i, M. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>What are the characteristics, qualities and attributes of the >>Baha'i Faith? > > Dear Michael, > > I was referring to the qualifications of a believer for membership in the > Baha'i community, not the characterisitics of the Baha'i Faith. > > warmest, Susan > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. Hmmm, looks to me like each of us is missing something from the other. The only ad hominem thing about my remarks is that there is no content from you; it is not ad hominem in the sense of saying the content of your post is invalid on account of who you are. This one even goes to the point of "Let anyone reply with content", which seems pretty much the opposite of personality, in my view. However, not only are you saying you haven't read my reply when I wrote here's the second response, but you ask what didn't i like about a response which is novel to me, not previously noticed. I had not noticed "service to humanity is my perpetual religion." Hmmm, this answer is admirable as a focus of one's life. I don't want to argue against the concept of service to humanity. However, I asked, "What are the characteristics, qualities and attributes of the Baha'i Faith?" do you sincerely believe "service to humanity" answers that question? What I said in one post was there's no misunderstanding and cited characteristics of Baha'i myself, actually my take, in part, on this very question I've been asking you, and in the second post I said that since we've been told that none of us alive, even the guys at the top, has the authority to interfere in the freedom of thought and expression, that each of us may think and feel and say what thought and feeling has produced, on the condition that we accept that our opinions are not the only truth, but everyone contributes to a rainbow of valid perceptions, what we do is accept the diversity of our creation, speak our opinions, listen to the valid rainbow of diverse views others have, and live together in harmony. Division, disunion, disservice to humanity comes from demanding no opinion except your own be tolerated. Harmony, Peace, service to humanity comes from accepting one's one view is not the only view and very many other opinions are valid and very much worthy of expression. I trust this is clear. To the future, Michael. "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@email.msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > "Michael McKenny" wrote in message > news:a1vvrr$55q$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... >> Since you refused to answer the question, I invited anyone to >> reply. > > Gee, Michael, that's two ad himinems from you in one day. Pretty good. > > But tell me, precisely what did you find unsatisfying about "service to > humanity is my perpetual religion," as an answer to your question. You > could have discussed that instead of engaging taking the discussion to my > person. > > You could, also, have answered my question as to what Baha'u'llah instructed > us to do when we disagree on what the Baha'i Faith is about. For some > reason, you chose not to answer that question as well. Why? > > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. Since you refused to answer the question, I invited anyone to reply. Susan suggested someone else John had already done so, but on checking that out, I either failed to find the proper post or what was there failed to answer the question as well. What are the characteristics, qualities and attributes of the Baha'i Faith? Rick or anyone, feel free to address the issue. To the Future, Michael "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@email.msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > "Michael McKenny" wrote in message > news:a1vd6o$6bv$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... >> Rick, you stand convicted of running away from what should have been >> answered with gratitude. > > Ad hominem, Michael. > > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Karen. Precisely. Thrive, Michael. "Karen Bacquet" (karenbacquet@hotmail.com) writes: > > Maybe actions that can't hold up under the light of day shouldn't be done in > the first place. > > Love, Karen > > > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Catherine Woodgold" Subject: Re: Internet Crackdown Date: Sunday, January 20, 2002 1:06 PM Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> >>Someday soon there will be 300 million pages of letters and elucidations >>from the UHJ that all Baha'is will have to live in fear of, for breaking the >>commandment of even one line of one letter might merit an expulsion. > > Oh, nonsense Randy. As you know full well, everyone who was removed from the > rolls knew exactly what they were doing. Michael knew what he was actually doing, but he didn't know what others were deeming him to be doing, nor what the people sent to talk to him were deemed to be doing. > And there is little reason to think > they didin't know the consequences. There's tremendous reason to think Michael didn't expect to be expelled. He had a longstanding strong belief that no-one is ever expelled from the Baha'i faith for their beliefs or for sending petitions to the Universal House of Justice; and he was the first ever in the whole world to be expelled in this way. It was completely unexpected. > Michael had been told by his Board Member > what the problem with his behavior was Really? He didn't give me that impression. How would you know what was said in a private unrecorded meeting? He was offered some guidance and given some advice and there were some discussions. If during these discussions someone said there was a problem, how would Michael be supposed to know that that was intended as a command? And if the command was not stated precisely and explicitly, how would he be supposed to know that his later communications contravened the command? > and he agreed not to oppose the House > anymore on the internet. Michael never opposed the Universal House of Justice on the Internet before his expulsion. Those who thought he did so misunderstood what he so carefully wrote. To send a petition, or to give advice, is not to oppose. To warn is not to insult. > Not only did he not keep his promise but he had > arrangements all made for an alternative religion. Susan Maneck, you have stated two falsehoods about my husband in one sentence. I resent these false statements, whether they are plain lies, or based on wishful thinking, or copied from lies fabricated by others. You should know better than to say things like this. Michael was not expelled for breaking any promise. If anyone really believed he had broken a promise, it was a misunderstanding. In the letter from the Universal House of Justice to me, I find it striking that they on the one hand claim that Michael is incapable of understanding certain things no matter how many times they're explained, and on the other hand claim that certain ideas were made quite clear to him. IMO there was a breakdown in communication. And IMO it was not because Michael failed to express himself clearly. What really riles me, Susan, is your statement that Michael had arrangements "all made" for an alternative religion. This is false. Michael was a Baha'i. He felt no need to make any arrangements for any "alternative religion": he already had a religion. He believed in God. He believed in Baha'u'llah as a manifestation of God. He believed literally in the words of Abdul Baha. He spoke with enthusiasm about the positive aspects of the Baha'i faith as he saw it: about its "openness", the way each person interpreted the Writings themselves without intervention by a priest; about how, unlike all other major religions, it had gotten through its first hundred-odd years without a schism and would never have a schism because of how everything was cleverly and clearly laid out in Abdul Baha's Will; etc. (All this has since been seen to be false.) He followed Baha'i rituals daily. Michael did not make any "arrangements" for any "alternative religion" before the shock of receiving a letter indicating him to be, in effect, the first person to be expelled from the Baha'i faith for expressing individual beliefs. Will you please take care, Susan, not to make any more false statements about Michael. -- Cathy Woodgold TISSATAAFL Ottawa, Ontario, Canada https://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~an588/ an588@freenet.carleton.ca "1. What's happening right now? -- Starvation of 3 to 4 million people." (Noam Chomsky transcript, Oct 18, 2001)From: "Catherine Woodgold" Subject: Re: Internet Crackdown Date: Monday, January 21, 2002 9:35 PM Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: > When they remove someone from the rolls, it is > a statement that they've given up on you because you don't accept enough of > the stuff Baha'is are expected to believe ... Exactly. -- Cathy Woodgold TISSATAAFL Ottawa, Ontario, Canada https://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~an588/ an588@freenet.carleton.ca "1. What's happening right now? -- Starvation of 3 to 4 million people." (Noam Chomsky transcript, Oct 18, 2001)From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: Internet Crackdown Date: Thursday, January 17, 2002 4:06 PM Greetings, Susan. Again, it could be the irrefutability that's getting you down, or whatever. It is your personal opinion that the Will and Testament says that you may disregard the advice of the UHJ and use intemporate language to refer to the normal human disagreement with government policy. And, it certainly is not the opinion of people posting opinions to cyberspace, generally anyway, and definitely in the old days of just the e-lists and no unmoderated newsgroups that the Will and Testament authorized an absolute totalitarian state, the expression of disagreement with the policies of the UHJ requiring the one so disagreeing to be perceived as actually rebelling and repudiating the authority of the UHJ. There is validly, seriously, honestly a vast spectrum of opinion, and exactly as I said for President Bush, Baha'is do not have to have your particular, forgive me, quite extreme, take that any disagreement expressed in cyberspace is a repudiation of legitimacy and a revolt. It is one interpretation of Abdu'l Baha's Will and Testament, and one particular manner of blending the information of this Will with the Ocean of the Revelation that has it equated with a Soviet or Totalitarian viewpoint that absolute authority resides with the bosses at the top and the masses have no responsibility except unquestioned obedience of each and every command from above. My senses report the existence of this point of view, of this interpretation. However, this interpretation, the gods be praised, is not the exclusive one that deity allows entrance into human minds. Many people, many Baha'is, have different takes on reality. They see a Baha'i administration that would be more benefit and less grief to pure and sincere believers were it to take more seriously admonitions to moderation and not ignore or redefine all there is in Baha'i as subserviant to an emphatic "You, mature or maturing, adults of the new day, don't think, don't speak, just obey!" As has been said, irrefutably, it is not a particular literalist understanding that is wrong; it is the refusal to tolerate any other opinion freedom of expression within Baha'i. To tolerance, harmony, Baha'i, M. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>d those who think it's terrible Canada has sent >>so few troops to Afghanistan. They are able to think and speak as they >>please, and they are not reported to be repudiating the authority of the >>Canadian government > > Michael, > > You're repeating yourself ad nauseum. A Canadian citizen is bound by his > constitution. We are bound by the Will and Testament. They say different > things. > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. In your opinion. In my opinion, it had two purposes; one to urge those who'd find themselves in positions of responsibility to behave themselves and guide in a manner that would secure obedience, the other that any reasonable and honourable legislation from the UHJ be obeyed. A contract (which is the definition of the word "Covenant" ) has two parties, generally. God provides a set of articles, (spiritual principles) and agents (UHJ) charged with seeing these are provided to humanity, and humans have a duty to follow the specific directions of these agents in order to best promote these principles. However, if the agents repudiate the agreement, break the contract and oppose what was agreed upon, what individual humans signed on to, then it's ludictous to expect these people to understand the contract demands their obedience to this opposite of what God agreed to provide. God's language is as much meant for those who are his agents here, as for those whom these agents are supposed to guide according to God's directions. Fundamentalists get the nickers in knots over such things. Abdu'l Baha said there would be world peace by the end of the Twentieth Century not in order to allow us to call war peace, but to urge us to strive to put an end to war. It is the same thing with quotes about the unfailing ability of the UHJ to guide so as to be worthy of obedience. These quotes are not intended to have what isn't worthy of obedience defined as worthy of obedience, but to urge the UHJ to guide so as to be worthy of obedience. To Peace and What is Worthy of Obedience, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> >>Baha'u'llah, in the Iqan, tells us the story of Noah, and how a promised >>prophecy didn't occur. > > Dear Karen, > > This wasn't a prophecy in that sense. It was a promise made explicitly for the > purpose of securing obedience to the House of Justice. > > warmest, > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Actually, the word is irrefutable. Otherwise we'd have read the refutation. Well, Susan, uhm, it's not a dictated party line if people are allowed to think and express contrary opinions without being declared unbelievers. The whole thing about divorcing personalities from issues (that is, of presenting the opposite of ad hominems) is that if it's a dictated party line when Stalin is the father, the same critter is also a dictated party line if its paternity is nine men in Haifa. The names of those inflicting it on humanity would be ad hominem, but what has been inflicted is the valid topic of consideration. As to fundamentalist, I tend to use this term pretty much to mean one who repudiates the Baha'i concept of the validity of a vast variety of personal viewpoints and insists that there is one true and valid opinion, all others being wrong, and, indeed, impermissable. Frankly, the most surprising thing that I encountered on entering in Baha'i cyberspace where, (and this is a matter of record; e-list archives will confirm it, if they're complete) one of the topics of particular interest to me was how we could with vision transcend fundamentalist fears in other Faiths to be expected on successful Baha'i entry by troops, was Baha'i fundamentalism. I now see that it's not so unexpected that the same mentality that afflicted previous intolerant monotheistic entities can insert itself into Baha'i, but I honestly expected Baha'i safeguards to hold. It's a text based religion, and when mere mortals read such texts, some of them get to feeling they really know, and nothing valid can be other than what they really know. A toast to my ancient ancestors who valued spirituality too highly to allow this mentality license to write it down in words and letters and bother people with one single literal permissable interpretation. To Freedom of Thought and Expression. To the Recognition of the Validity of a Rainbow of Personal Opinions. To Baha'i, M. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>Now, it actually doesn't matter as deliberate distortions is an ad >>hominem > > And styling the views of others as 'fundamentalism' or reciting a "mantra" > isn't? Calling the rulings of the Universal House of Justice a " dictated party > line" is not ad hominem? You're getting rather tiresome. > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Everyone, specifically the Universal House of Justice, is forbidden from insisting on one specific interpretation. What is commanded is the acceptance of the validity of a vast variety of personal understandings and the freedom of thought and of expression of a rainbow of human percetion. To Freedom of Thought and Expression, within Baha'i, and the legitimate legislating of the Universal House of Justice. M. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>Baha'u'llah has forbidden you to insist that only your single >>perception of the Baha'i revelation is authentic. > > Dear Michael, > > That's right. He insists that we turn towards 'Abdu'l-Baha and 'Abdu'l-Baha > insists we turn towards the Guardian and the House of Justice. > > warmest, > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. I consistently express to any who resort to expletives or flames that I delight in these, as they are a testimony by the person doing the expleting and the flaming that the content of what I've posted is irrefutable. The principle is clear, and the question stands. You have said that there are three circumstances under which the UHJ enters into such matters. It seems these could be perceived as having universal application and authorize the totality of the writings to be set aside. Anything can be considered as causing dispute and the definition of obscure is open. And, the essential question is: "If a matter is covered in the Writings, and there is some obscure aspect about it, or it is causing dispute, do you believe the UHJ has the authority to Interpret the Writings and/or to legislate freely on the issue?" The question I asked is a clear and serious example: "If someone insists on a jihad, this is a case of dispute, presuming there's not universal approval of a jihad. Does the UHJ on the grounds there is a dispute have the authority to rule there be a jihad? If one advances the opinion that a jihad is a war between two religions, and a conflict with Marxists would be a war against a non-religion, but others insist jihad includes wars of only one religion, this could be seen as a question of obscurity; does this authorize the UHJ to rule there be a war against Marxists? These are very serious questions, because they address the point, is the UHJ authorized to consider and to legislate on any matter falling under any one of these three categories, regardless of whether it is covered in Text or not? To the Prince of Peace, M. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>Say, Rick insists there should be a Baha'i >>jiha. That means there's difference. Do you understand this authorizes >>the UHJ to call a jihad and declare anyone who opposes such a war an >>unbeliever? > > Dear Michael, > > This is sheer nonsense. If you have a real question feel free to ask it. > > warmest, > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Randy. That would appear to be the case. Thrive, M. "Randy Burns" (randy.burns4@gte.net) writes: > Susan Maneck wrote in message > news:20020117112331.08386.00000511@mb-fc.aol.com... >> > Everyone, specifically the Universal House of Justice, is forbidden >> >from insisting on one specific interpretation. >> >> The House of Justice is called upon to "deliberate upon all problems which > have >> caused difference, questions that are obscure and matters that are not >> expressly recorded in the Book." But we've been here before. > > I don't see in the quote from the W&T where the UHJ is called upon to force > the Baha'i world to accept a single doctrinal point, all it says (which is > plain to see) is that they are called upon to deliberate on the issue. > Where does it say that they are to insist on one specific interpretation. > > Perhaps that is "their" interpretation? > > Cheers, Randy > > > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Let me get this straight. Say, Rick insists there should be a Baha'i jiha. That means there's difference. Do you understand this authorizes the UHJ to call a jihad and declare anyone who opposes such a war an unbeliever? Say, Dave calls for a war against Marxists, opining that the word jihad is a war between two religions, but Marxism is not a religion, so if the Baha'is take up arms against Marxists this is not a jihad. This could call on all three of your conditions. Does this mean the UHJ is authorized to call for a war against Marxists and to declare anyone who'd speak out against such a war as an unbeliever? Is this really what your saying? To the Prince of Peace, M. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> Everyone, specifically the Universal House of Justice, is forbidden >>from insisting on one specific interpretation. > > The House of Justice is called upon to "deliberate upon all problems which have > caused difference, questions that are obscure and matters that are not > expressly recorded in the Book." But we've been here before. > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. If people are permitted to express a variety of personal opinions without being cast out of the Party, then the entity, perhaps is not a Party, perhaps there really are no dictated party lines, But, Susan, it's not ad hominem to apply the same standards and define the action, the behaviour to use a favourite term of the guys in charge. I know that the guys in charge and they who defend them, exactly as the communists in the Soviet Union and others like them, are very concerned about selecting words describing themselves. However, the Baha'i Faith is that movement launched by Baha'u'llah; it is a vast universalist entity containing people thinking, feeling and expressing a rainbow of opinions; that many of these people have been hounded out of the organization headed by nine men in Haifa, because only one shade of thought is allowed expression, means the nine men are insisting on one line and acting in the same manner as the heads of single party states. It would be ad hominem not to call this insisted on only allowable view a party line. M. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> Well, Susan, uhm, it's not a dictated party line if people are >>allowed to think and express contrary opinions without being declared >>unbelievers. > > Michael, > > It isn't a dictated party line if there is no party. Otherwise it is simply ad > hominen. > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Sigh. Whether or not, you are deliberately distorting scripture, what was posted under your name was a very strenuous insistence on one single understanding. This went to the amazing extent of calling other perceptions "Deliberate distortions." Now, it actually doesn't matter as deliberate distortions is an ad hominem. A point stands or falls on its own merrit, not because of any characteristic of the person who said it, even if s/he doesn't believe what s/he is saying. This reminds me of a rather remarkable radio broadcast I heard back around 1970. Herbert W. Armstrong, or his son, Garner Ted, really let it all hang out and told us what the Book of Revelations meant. You see God and Jesus and all these angels were going to come down out of the sky, and despite this evident display of power some folks were not going to accept God. They were going to contend with him. They were going to take up arms, can you believe it, against God and his angels. It was useless to resist, of course. God's angels could read your mind and if you were clutching a weapon against them you'd be zapped dead. but, if you were one of the supporters of God, why you'd be right up there placed in a position of power. You could be in charge of some place like, Lima, Peru. Well, when I and my friends were discussing this the next day, we actually did consider the fact that he was deliberately distorting scripture. We noted that this broadcast was quite consistent with the kind of propaganda an invading alien power could use to soften up its target for conquest. Telepathic forces armed with superior weapons would match what was described, with the only difference being that the quislings who'd choose to be in charge of Lima, Peru instead of dying in defence of their home planet would not likely meet with our approval. The essential point is that it doesn't matter whether you believe or don't believe what you write; that is an irrelevant ad hominem. To deny all other understandings freedom of expression is insistence on one single opinion, and insistence on one single opinion is contrary to Baha'i scripture. And, even if it isn't, even if Herbert W.'s or Garner Ted's invading alien force arrive to back a totalitarian UHJ's domination of this planet, the divinely created vast variety of human viewpoints, will certainly include those who would no more approve, nor accept this totalitarianism than approved and accepted they the mastery of the Soviets or the of Taliban. To arising above the insistence of one single interpretation. To the acceptance of the validity of a rainbow of human perceptions. To the freedom of thought and expressions. To the principles for which Baha'u'llah suffered for so many years. To Baha'i, M. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> you quoted Abdu'l Baha commanding Baha'is not to >>insist on their own opinion as the only true and valid one. Using the >>word "seriously" as a synonym for only true and valid one does not, in >>my opinion, comply with Abdu'l Baha's command > > Dear Michael, > > I think you are rather deliberately distorting what 'Abdu'l-Baha is saying. He > is saying that rather than insist our own position is right, when there are > difference we should turn towards the Center of the Covenant to resolve them. > > warmest, > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. I've been treasurer, at least as early as 1975 and we were given pretty clear instructions, at least here then, too. Thrive, M. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: > Dear Alma, > > Nice hearing from you! > >>An audit sounds great -- if it were feasible, Susan. But the treasurer on a >>LSA, like others may be an amateur at keeping books, etc. And the books may >>be meaningless. > > Nowadays treasurers are given pretty explicit instructions as to how to keep > the books, and audits are supposed to be conducted yearly. > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Repudiates is a very strong word. My dictionary (the one closest to hand, the O.E.D. is elsewhere) defines it specifically as rejecting the authority of... I could not use this word, in this sense, of those who accepted the legitimacy of the UHJ to make a ruling, who did not strive to implement the opposite of that ruling, but did insist on the freedom of thought and expression to say they believed this ruling was not right, and, indeed, that the legitimate institution itself would legislate the correction of the ruling that was honestly perceived to be wrong. This is a serious problem in totalitarian societies, that such very strong black and white, need we say total adversarial, things are the conception, language and action by those, quite often very insecure due to their inability to face a free and open discourse, sharing of views and leadership candidates. This is their perception, I repeat; it is they who tend to view the world in such a light. Again, in Canada we have those who feel it's terrible Canada has sent troops to Afghanistan and those who think it's terrible Canada has sent so few troops to Afghanistan. They are able to think and speak as they please, and they are not reported to be repudiating the authority of the Canadian government, or raising the standard of revolt or any of these other excessive terms that flow so freely from the pens of those defenders of the current seat holders on the UHJ on encountering views differing from their own. Isn't there a quote, or a letter or something from the UHJ addressing the excessive use of language these days and advising Baha'is to write in moderation; methinks they can cast an eye towards Canada and the reports here of the validity of varied views concerning government policy. Our media may be surprised, but dispassionately considered, it would seem our media could serve as a model for Baha'i defenders of the UHJ to moderate their language, to select more temporate and precise terms in describing what is not really "Raising the standard of revolt" "Repudiating the authority", etc. One doesn't have to either think the policies of President Bush are mannah from heaven or else repudiate his authority and raise a standard of revolt. To Moderation in All Things, M. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> What is your understanding of the word "contending"? > > Dear Michael, > > My understanding of contending would be that one very explicitly repudiates a > ruling of the Universal House of Justice. Now you say you never denied their > legitimacy. But later one you say that they didn't hold up their end of the > bargain (the Covenant) and therefore we don't have to hold up ours. If their > legitimacy rests upon their ability to hold up your understanding of their end > of the bargain you have effectively denied their legitimacy by denying that > they have. > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Nope, you haven't clearly answered the question, because you used the same word, when it's the definition, as you see it, of the word that's being questioned. What is your understanding of the word "contending"? Is it the posting of views to cyberspace that do not accord with those of the Universal House of Justice? If someone asks me what is fundamentalism, I can't, if communication is intended, use fundamentalism as my answer. Fundamentalism is, or at least includes, insistence on one single, generally literal interpretation of scripture and often refusal to tolerate exposure to varied alternative views. This is prohibited by the Prophet Founder of Baha'i and his authorized successor, according to the Covenant, though some folks may not take this Covenant, seriously, in Susan's opinion. To Freedom of Thought and Expression, M. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>Do >>you define that is posting one's opinions to the Internet "Contending" >>if those opinions, divinely created to be varied, happen not to >>coincide with the single spectrum of a party line? > > Dear Michael, > > They are contending if they contend with the House of Justice. It's as simple > as that. > > warmest, > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: Internet Crackdown Date: Friday, January 18, 2002 9:23 AM Greetings, Susan. By the way, where does this come from? The only passage that I could think of that has this feel is the one in which Baha'u'llah says it is going to be a thousand years before the next Manifestation comes. I can recall years ago saying, without being contradicted, that there was only that one passage in Baha'i scripture where Baha'u'llah was insisting on one specific interpretation. Is this quote from that passage, or is it from somewhere else, and, if so, where? To the Future, M. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> Your logical perception is still your perception, and Baha'u'llah >>forbid his followers from insisting on one single perception; he commanded >>them to accept the validity of the rainbow of personal understandings, > > Funny, I don't remember Baha'u'llah ever talking about rainbows. I do remember > this passage however: > "Whoso interpreteth what hath been sent down from the heaven of Revelation, and > altereth its evident meaning, he, verily, is of them that have perverted the > Sublime Word of God, and is of the lost ones in the Lucid Book." > > warmest, > > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. To whom he wrote it is ad hominem, although this use of context here opens the vast issue of context in general. First, though, could you kindly state just what is this point I've made that you consider disingenious? Do you actually mean that I've referenced this passage dealing with variety of views on the nature of Baha'u'llah and asked if it's possible to have a variety of views on the nature of Baha'u'llah why not on the nature of the UHJ? Is it this that you find disingenious? This is an honest question. I'm not being sarcastic or anything, simply unclear as to what you find disingenious. To the Future, M. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>Juan quoted a passage on what one >>would consider a pretty important issue where Baha'u'llah said it was >>normal, natural and fine that someone consider Baha'u'llah a man and >>someone else consider Baha'u'llah god, etc. > > >Tell me, Susan, do you interpret contrary to the clear and evident >>text that there is such freedom of a variety of viewpoints, freedom of >>thought and expression, even on the issue of the nature of Baha'u'llah? > > Dear Michael, > > I've been thinking about this particular question. As you are probably aware > the person to whom Baha'u'llah addressed this Tablet was Jamal Bourjerdi who > later became a Covenant breaker when he rejected the authority of 'Abdu'l-Baha. > I expect that he might have contended that he was only expressing his personal > viewpoint regarding the issue of the nature of 'Abdu'l-Baha. Like Muhammad Ali > he believed 'Abdu'l-Baha had overstepped the station Baha'u'llah had given Him. > But such an argument would have been as disingenous as the one you propose. > > warmest, . > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Many thanks for this. Maybe you or someone could post the entirety of that section, unless this is it, this comes from. Possibly, you or someone could post any other passages stating the text is to be read literally, and not otherwise. I'm not saying this one demands only one literal interpretation, by the way. As I've said before, very harsh language, excessive language, would be the case were Baha'u'llah insisting only one understanding was possible. This word, "Pervert" which is being prohibited is not the normal variety of valid understandings, but something, such as proclaiming jihads. Possibly you or someone could post passages advising that there are a variety of valid opinions. And possibly, you or someone else can also post passages advising that moderation is called for in all things. To the Future, M. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>By the way, where does this come from? > > It is from the Aqdas, KA105. > >>The only passage that I could >>think of that has this feel is the one in which Baha'u'llah says it is >>going to be a thousand years before the next Manifestation comes. > > The passage you are thinking of reads: > > "Whosoever interpreteth this verse otherwise than its obvious meaning is > deprived of the Spirit of God and of His mercy which encompasseth all created > things. Fear God, and follow not your idle fancies." > > It is in reference to the verse "Whoso layeth claim.. . . " > > warmest, > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Howdy, Rick. Rick, you don't get it, if I perceive Baha'u'llah to be telling me that there's equality of women and men in the Baha'i Faith, and I perceive saying this openly to be exactly what Baha'u'llah commanded me, then there is no contradiction in me saying so. If I perceive that the UHJ is a legislating body whose legislation is to be followed, until it is revised, that it would be against the command of Baha'u'llah for me to have a sex change and go to Haifa seeking to sit on the UHJ, then my not having said sex change, not having booked the flight to Haifa and not attempted to sit on the UHJ was very much avoiding what I've been told to avoid. You may have other perceptions, and you are welcome to live your life accordingly, but there is no inconsistency in my logical understanding, my perception of reality, varying from yours and me living my life in accordance with mine, not yours. To Tolerance and Understanding, M. "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@email.msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > "Michael McKenny" wrote in message > news:a2440q$9cj$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... >> Your logical perception is still your perception, > > One doesn't escape a logical conclusion by merely declaring it to be > "perception". > >> It's just that Baha'u'llah himself denounced insisting on such a strand >> of literalist perception as the only truth, and, as I've just shown, one >> may, even logically, perceive reality in other ways. > > You still haven't answered my question, Michael. Here it is: > > And when upholding one's perceptions of Baha'u'llah's teachings (the Ocean > cannot fit into the thimble) involves doing what Baha'u'llah commanded us > not to do, what then, Michael? > > > -- > Regards, > Rick Schaut > The "Reply-To" line has a bogus e-mail account for SPAM blocking purposes. > If you wish to reply by e-mail, send to rsschaut at attbi dot com. > > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Now, Susan, just who has been interpreting what hath been sent down from the heaven of Revelation? There are other quotes with clear and evident meaning prohibiting interpretation, and upholding the unfettered right of the variety of understandings. Juan quoted a passage on what one would consider a pretty important issue where Baha'u'llah said it was normal, natural and fine that someone consider Baha'u'llah a man and someone else consider Baha'u'llah god, etc. He urged the freedom of such personal understandings, and prohibited insisting on one interpretation. No liberal has insisted on one interpretation. Tell me, Susan, do you interpret contrary to the clear and evident text that there is such freedom of a variety of viewpoints, freedom of thought and expression, even on the issue of the nature of Baha'u'llah? Do you think it's alright to have such freedom of thought and expression concerning the nature of Baha'u'llah, but not concerning the nature of the UHJ? To the freedom of thought and expression? To the freedom of expressing the divinely created vast variety of human perceptions, the rainbow of valid understandings. To the overcoming of the temptation to insist on one single interpretation. To Baha'u'llah, man, god, or whatever admirable entity in between he was, M. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> Your logical perception is still your perception, and Baha'u'llah >>forbid his followers from insisting on one single perception; he commanded >>them to accept the validity of the rainbow of personal understandings, > > Funny, I don't remember Baha'u'llah ever talking about rainbows. I do remember > this passage however: > "Whoso interpreteth what hath been sent down from the heaven of Revelation, and > altereth its evident meaning, he, verily, is of them that have perverted the > Sublime Word of God, and is of the lost ones in the Lucid Book." > > warmest, > > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Telling the truth about what? Who says it is an ad hominem. What is said is the issue. What is being said that you consider untrue? M. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>What is the issue being contested. > > The issue is whether Darrick might be telling the truth, and for that purpose > credibility is everything. > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. This is ad hominem. What is the issue being contested. To the Future, M. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>But ... I think he is a truthful person > > Dear Kamran, > > I don't think you can call somebody truthful that says he is somebody he is not > in a radio interview or who misrepresents himself in a telephone conversation > as Darrick has already admitted he has done. We have a situation here where > either Daniel Orey is lying or Darrick is lying. There is no doubt in my mind > as to who to believe. > > warmest, > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. By the way, are some of yours stuck in such a time warp? I'm still missing a reply to "What are the qualities, characteristics and attributes of the Baha'i Faith?" among others. To the Future, M. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>What time warp did these posts come through? You've got several of >>them that just showed up here, but they're dated Monday the 14th > > I was trying to figure that out myself. > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Are you honestly testifying that you find it contradictory for one to accept Baha'u'llah as one who has delivered a spiritual message from God and also accepts the contents of this message as s/he understands it? To a Better Future, M. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>"Her faith is full of contradictions." Could you provide examples of >>such contradictions? > > Dear Michael, > > By that I mean she accepts Baha'u'llah but refuses to accept the Covenental > authority established by Him. > > warmest, > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Do you honestly, Susan, not see the inherent logic in the position that if the Papacy is commanding contrary to the teachings of Jesus, a Christian is duty bound to follow Jesus, rather than the Pope, and that this principle retains its consistency, even were the Vatican to produce a will and testament authenticated with Jesus's thumb print saying, "The Pope won't get it wrong."? It may not be your opinion, but it is a consistent and logical viewpoint. Or are you truly unable to see any logic or consistency except in your own opinion? To the Future, M. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> Are you honestly testifying that you find it contradictory for one to >>accept Baha'u'llah as one who has delivered a spiritual message from God >>and also accepts the contents of this message as s/he understands it? > > I'm saying that is contradictory not to accept the authorities which > Baha'u'llah established in His revelation from God. > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Thanks. My mother always said things come in threes, and this is the third funny thing I've seen in cyberspace today. The first two were poems that arrived in my e-mail. To the Future, M. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> Susan, how about asking them for a copy of >>every letter they've written on the topic of women serving on the UHJ and >>check the consistency. > > Why would I? That would be a lot of trouble the World Centre and I have no > reason to believe that such inconsistencies exist on that topic. > > warmest, > > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan and Randy. Yes, I rather think there's at least a normal amount of contradictory material in those archives. Susan, how about asking them for a copy of every letter they've written on the topic of women serving on the UHJ and check the consistency. My memory may not be up to it and/or that poster to cyberspace may have miscommunicated, but I think it possible at least one letter says the UHJ will decide when it's time for women to be elected to the UHJ. Of course, they can change their mind. But, if they change it once, they can change it twice. To the Future, M. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>But what is the status of these letters? It sounds like they are scripture, >>the same as the writings of Baha'u'llah and Ab'dul-Baha. > > Dear Randy, > > They are not called scripture. That doesn't make them any less authoritative. > >>Also I wonder how many letters they write each day, how many since 1963, and >>how many contain the inevitable contradictions? > > Pretty careful files are kept and referred to when similiar issues come up. I > expect the same thing applies to the letters of the House of Justice as applies > to letters written on the Guardian's behalf. ""As regards Shoghi Effendi's > letters to the individual Baha'is, he is always very careful not to contradict > himself."Baha'i News, February 1933 (No. 71, pp. 1-2) > Of course, the case of the House of Justice is somewhat different as they can > change previous rulings. > > It does seem to me that the Century of Light statement did appear to contradict > earlier statements they had made on the Lesser Peace however. But that's the > only major inconsistency I have seen. > >>Won't this volume someday >>triple the Talmud in size? or has it already? > > Yep, and I expect the fact that the internet has made writing to the House so > much easier this volume has increased. But thank God for search programs! > > warmest, > > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Many thanks for your reply. That's a first down. What a marvellous ad hominem. The 12 principles come from Abd'ul Baha, but by way of Mason Remey. Now, whether it was Abd'ul Baha, Mason Remey or Popeye who came up with them, the issue is that there are these twelve principles which are among the teachings of the Baha'i Faith, but the Baha'i Faith consists of more than only those twelve principles. This is what I understand you to be saying, and, if I've got you right on that, then, we are in agreement. That is also my understanding. To the Future, M. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> Are you saying the 12 principles are not characteristics of Baha'i? > > As I said, I'm not going to go around and around with you on this. The 12 > principles were those selected from 'Abdu'l-Baha's talks by Mason Remey. They > are part of the Teachings, but not its defining characteristics. > > warmest, > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Do you admit that it is inherently consistent for one to deduce that such things as seeking to achieve world harmony through the acceptance of human diversity of race, of class, of sex, of viewpoints, through overcoming previous assumptions of superiority of caste, of race, of income level, of nationality, of education, of belief system are a significant indication that Baha'u'llah enunciated a worthwhile message, even, possibly, a divine message, even if those who rule a century and more after his death decide they're not particularly fond of such a message? Speaking of worthy people producing unworthy successors, it's always been felt Marcus Aurelius was a very good emperor, even though what came after him was the opposite. His value, in my opinion, is only all the more illuminated by the inadequate performance of his successor. Susan, asked to choose between such elevating attributes as the independent investigation of truth, agreement of faith and reason, freedom of thought and expression, equality of women and men, etc. and the infallibility of men who disagree with these principles, I see it's quite reasonable to accept Baha'u'llah got it right with his elevated spiritual principles, even if those who find themselves in power are disregarding Baha'u'llah's command to uphold these principles and to guide as if the source of all good, choose not to listen to him. There has long been the fundamentalist mindset, insisting on a single, often literalist interpretation of sacred text. That's why Baha'u'llah had such a rough life. If Baha'u'llah really had wanted only to establish an infallible succession without reference to his spiritual principles, he could simply have kept his mouth shut and left a will. If he had really wanted humanity to enjoy fundamentalist religion, he could have thanked God for the favour of being born in such a blessed age, and went happily to his death, his life's work accomplished before his birth. To a Better Future, Michael Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>Do you honestly, Susan, not see the inherent logic in the position >>that if the Papacy is commanding contrary to the teachings of Jesus, >>a Christian is duty bound to follow Jesus, rather than the Pope, > > Dear Michael, > > If you are going to be a Protestant, sure. But not if you are going to call > yourself a Catholic, believing in the infallibility of the Pope and Apostolic > succession. > >>this principle retains its consistency, even were the Vatican to >>produce a will and testament authenticated with Jesus's thumb print >>saying, "The Pope won't get it wrong."? > > It would also have to say I was duty bound to obey the Pope for it to be > equivalent of what we have as Baha'is. And were that the case, no it would not > be following Jesus to ignore the Pope in that case. > And if Jesus were so wrong about something as essential as His successor, there > would be absolutely no reason for me to believe the rest of His message either. > > > So it seems to me the only alternatives are to rethink my own personal > understanding of Jesus' teachings or to admit that Jesus' was so wrong about > something so essential there is no real reason to accept His teachings as > binding anyhow. If they are that fallible I might as well believe whatever I > want anyhow. > >>It may not be your opinion, but >>it is a consistent and logical viewpoint. > > It may be your opnion but it is far from consistent or logical. > >>Or are you truly unable to >>see any logic or consistency except in your own opinion? > > Rhetorical question and therefore meaningless. But yes, some people have > opinions I completely disagree with but are quite logical and consistent. Ian > Kluge and William Hatcher being prime examples. > > warmest, > > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Only in newspeak. What the UHJ may legislate is the membership rolls of the organization of which they are the head. They may no more say who is a Baha'i, than can the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Pope in Rome say who is a Christian. To a Better Future, M. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> >>So, how is you telling us that they weren't *really* Baha'is anything >>different from *you* projecting what you want to be true onto them? > > Dear Paul, > ... > And ultimately it is the decision of the Universal House of Justice, > not ones personal faith, which determines who is and who is not a Baha'i. > ... > > warmest, > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Paul. What time warp did these posts come through? You've got several of them that just showed up here, but they're dated Monday the 14th. As far as I know it's Friday the 18th. Thanks. You make some very good points replying to originals I don't recall. I'll try to have a look at these either tonight or tomorrow. I just came on to sneak a peek, and here are two excellent contributions (from you and from Dermod). very Best Wishes, M. "Paul Hammond" (pahammond@onetel.net.uk) writes: > Susan Maneck wrote in message > news:20020113183018.23502.00001978@mb-md.aol.com... >> >Kicking >> >somebody out of their religion, without warning or explanation, > essentially >> >declaring that the faith that is at the center of their lives is >> >nonexistent *is* doing something to a person. >> >> Dear Karen, >> >> Quite frankly I don't think the Faith was at the center of the lives of > any of >> the people who were removed from the rolls. > > I dispute that, on the basis of the posts of Alison and Michael that > I have seen. Alison is *still* a Baha'i - the rulings of the nine men on > the hill cannot change the promptings of her heart. Michael has moved > on two a different spiritual life - but it's a bit much to complain about > the future loves of an ex-lover when it was your decision to kick > him out on his arse and throw his possessions into the street. > > The central fact remains, that depriving someone of membership in > their Faith community is definitely *not* either a "non-punishment" > (angels on pinheads notwithstanding), *or* "doing nothing". > > Fred was not active in his Baha'i >> community at the time and Alison was largely inactive as well, as she > admitted >> to me when I visited her in New Zealand. > > Alison was very active in developing her own spiritual life. She used > to do this by stepping into a local christian church and praying there, > because she felt at home in such a place. I've read her site, and > she is still much devoted to Baha'u'llah. > > As for Michael, he has admitted here >> that he had been making contingency plans for an alternative religious >> community if this one didn't work out at the time he was removed from the >> rolls. That sure doesn't sound like someone who has made the Faith > 'central' to >> their life! >> > > I'm sorry. I read Michael's posts too - I thought he was doing what > Baha'is are supposed to do - mixing with the followers of all faiths > and none in a spirit of fellowship, love and understanding. Is he > wrong because he didn't go into the fellowship of pagans with > an attitude of arrogant condescention such as you displayed here, > by characterising pagans as nothing more than "followers of > a self-made religion"? Just because the Pagans, unlike the > Mormons, don't have the Shoghi sanctioned seal of approval, > does that make them automatically wrong? > > It's hardly fair to criticise Michael for what he did *after* his > summary dismissal. Spurned lovers often find new girlfriends. > >> I think the real issue here, Karen is that the Faith was central to *your* >> life. But you weren't kicked out. You left. >> > > LOL - well, at least you're not lining up with all the others to tell > Karen that she wasn't *really* a Baha'i. It's just Fred, Alison and > Michael who were never *really* Baha'is in the first place (on the > UHJ's say so - so it must be true!) Priceless! > >> >> >(I saw a definite change in Alison because of her disenrollment, >> >too, but of course that was later.) >> >> That's not where I saw the change. I observed the change after her return > from >> California when she met with several of the dissidents in person. >> > > Ah! Spiritual poison. Maybe they met some Covenant breakers > out there? > >> >Dialogue was the very >> >soul of tact and obedience compared to the voices we have now. The >> >administration took believers, people that were essentially on their > side, >> >and made them into vocal critics. >> >> No, they weren't Karen. I knew them at the time, remember? They were vocal >> critics of the AO way back in the days of the LA Study Group when they > would >> routinely compare it fascist forms of government. I remember how gleefully > they >> looked forward to the time when these old fuddy-duddies would die and they >> would be left running things. >> > > But, is this the kind of tone that appeared withing the pages of > Dialogue, which were put through the review process, regardless > of the fact that most of its Editors opposed review? A practical > example of obedience, I feel. Apart from this, your negative > appraisal of these people might well be to do with *your* contact > with spiritual poison from other sources, rather as you think > Alison was infected by mixing with dodgy semi-Baha'is. Maybe > you are focusing on the negative because that's what someone > else wanted you to focus on? > > Paul > > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Well, Susan, I stepped into the middle of some ad hominem stuff from you, asked you what the issue was, got the reply that the issue was the truthfulness of so and so, replied that is an ad hominem, what was the issue, what was it you found untrue, and if you answered me, it hasn't yet made it through a time warp, and then I notice this piece where you're admitting that this guy was (uhm, the recipient) of a (uhm, suggestion) by a Counsellor that this group be (uhm, discontinued). Now, this is your admitted version of what happened. What was the version that you considered untruthful, that the group continues to function? To a Better Future, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>This would appear to be the issue where you suggested a lack of >>veracity had taken place. Let's see, if you freely admitting what you >>say below, just what was it you don't think was true? > > I have no idea what you are talking about, Michael. > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Uhm, do you mean that any time there's an announcement in the media that one side to a dispute is willing to talk, that side is merely doing a ploy and is uninterested in talking? Do you mean that any time there's a response to a call for talks which attaches conditions, such as "Well, if they'd asked us directly, instead of announcing it in the press, we'd have been interested," these conditional, out of the public awareness chaps are the ones seriously interested in talking? to a Better Future, M. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> How is calling for a conference with counsellors another attack? > > I'm saying if you want to talk to someone you don't ask for a meeting at the > same time you are posting all kinds of attacks against them. I'm also saying > you ask them directly for such a meeting rather than post it on to the > Internet. Posting it publicly is obviously just a ploy, not a serious attempt > to consult. > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. And, he said that his interpretation was only one possible understanding. He did not oppose a variety of understandings. He provided a unifying understanding. It is argument that is something he wished to overcome, not a variety of views. And, unlike the universal house of justice, he had the authority to interpret. The very significant point is that if there is an acceptance of a variety of personal opinions, especially in the absence of authority able to interpret these days, if there is no insistence that only one point of view is correct, then there is no argument. The argument does not flow from the divinely created reality that there are a variety of personal understandings; argument comes from insisting all but one are wrong and even may not be uttered. You are well aware who they are who are insisting only their one understanding may be spoken, and who we are who are saying that all opinions may be spoken. To the Future, M. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: > > Dear Dermod, > > He also insisted they should turn towards Him for a resolution instead of > continuing to argue. > > > warmest, > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. You've highlighted the word purge. What's your understanding of "purge"? Would it allow one BIGS in cyberspace to be declared a non- believer, three? Or does it mean that you really have no reason to believe any BIGS at all in cyberspace is facing the prospect of such a declaration? To a Better Future, M. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>Are you really saying that no one is going to >>be bothered in future for what they post to cyberspace, or are you only >>saying that anyone who has already resigned or been declared a non Baha'i >>won't be bothered, and all people who are officially Baha'is remain fair >>game? > > I'm saying I know of no plans for a 'purge' of people in cyberspace and no > reason to think there will be one. > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. I still haven't got a defenite reply. Are you saying that not one single Baha'i to your knowledge is now in danger of being declared a non believer because of postings to cyberspace? I came in after the thread got started, so missed, I think, the context. However, you seem to be trying to provide a reassurance to what would be understandable apprehensions. I'm just seeking to clarify the reassurance. To the Future, M. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>Nope, wasn't me. Again, I'm responding to what I read here. "Certainly >>no one I know of on this list." And, no one you don't know of on this list, >>and no one on any other e-lists or newsgroups, either? > > What are talking about, Michael. I guess it is just Fred who used the term > 'purge.' But that has been the implication in the ongoing thread "Internet > Crackdown." > > warmest, > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Ah! The things once misses even when spending too much time here! But, they teach, negates everything before it. I take it the relevant individuals should understand this letter as signifying they're in deep trouble. Perhaps, they can come on here one by one, and after each one steps forward, the question can be put about their iminent declaration by the UHJ to be non-Baha'is. However, we do at least have your opinion that no one will be declared never ever to have been a Baha'i. Susan, are you claiming authoritative ability to read texts? Are you asserting that your fellow believers, or a great number of them can not read texts? To a Better Future, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>I can only >>conclude that such plans do indeed exist with regards to people who are >>not on "this list". > > Dear Michael, > > I don't know anything of plans, but I can read a text. And in this case the > relevant text would be the recent letter to the ITC on membership. That has > already been posted here. > > warmest, > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. I considered it a valid question, and was able to reply that I wasn't distorting anything, merely responding to what someone else had posted. I am delighted to read your comments that there's not been, and it seems is not intended to be any revisionist "Never ever was a Baha'i" stuff. Cheers, m. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> >>Susan, is that not a rhetorical question? > > More of an expression of frustration. > > warmest, > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Since you were asked straight out and answered as you did, I can only conclude that such plans do indeed exist with regards to people who are not on "this list". You do indeed have the option of stating it straight out that actually you meant to include other lists, too, but having twice refused to do that, why should you do it now. Prove me wrong. Are there indeed plans to crack down on people who are not now on this newsgroup, but elsewhere in Baha'i cyberspace? I understand, solely from your remarks, that there definitely are such plans. To a Better Future, M. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>Are you saying that not one >>single Baha'i to your knowledge is now in danger of being declared a >>non believer because of postings to cyberspace? > > Dear Michael, > > I'm saying there are no plans, so far as I know, to do that in regards to > anyone currently paricipating on this list right now. But if anyone really > wants to know if they are safe they should just read the letter the House of > Justice wrote to your wife where they very clearly put forth the bottom line. > >>However, you seem >>to be trying to provide a reassurance to what would be understandable >>apprehensions. I'm just seeking to clarify the reassurance. > > The thread "Internet Crackdown" began nearly three weeks ago with someone > calling themselves Paul Atreides asking: "What are these rumors of a crackdown > by the Insitutions on dissidents > on the Internet? How would it be accomplished?" I suspect he was trolling. I > note no other message from that particular SN has ever been posted here > before. Now which science fiction/fantasy buff on this list might have posted > that message? > > warmest, > > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Nope, wasn't me. Again, I'm responding to what I read here. "Certainly no one I know of on this list." And, no one you don't know of on this list, and no one on any other e-lists or newsgroups, either? I can understand why people would be apprehensive, considering the recent Baha'i history. And, my opinion has not changed that interfering with the freedom of thoughts and expression in cyberspace, as elsewhere, harms those doing the interfering. To the Future, M. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>You've highlighted the word purge. What's your understanding of >>"purge"? > > Dear Michael, > > I didn't use the word, you guys did. > > > Or does it mean that you really have no reason to >>believe any BIGS at all in cyberspace is facing the prospect of such a >>declaration? > > That is what I was saying, yes. Certainly on one I know of on this list. > > warmest, > > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Many thanks for your comments. I'm unclear, though. Are you really saying that no one is going to be bothered in future for what they post to cyberspace, or are you only saying that anyone who has already resigned or been declared a non Baha'i won't be bothered, and all people who are officially Baha'is remain fair game? To a Better Future, M. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: > > >Thanks to you for one thing - for confirmation as to the shape of >>things to come in the imminent Internet purge and clampdown. > > Paranoia lives! And who exactly do you think they are going to purge on the > Internet? Most everyone here is no longer a member of the Baha'i community. > There's no one to purge. > > warmest, > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Another indication of the problems within Baha'i. There is no principle of Baha'i that prohibits individuals from announcing their intent to communicate with the institutions, and these institutions are supposed to be responsive and avoid giving the impression of aloofness. The system you outline seems very much one designed to give the impression of aloofness. Whether I spoke to people about Northern Ireland, or I spoke to people about Israel and the Palestinians, or I spoke about any dispute whatsoever, my position has always been, and it remains, those who insist on preconditions before talking are not interested in talking. If you are serious about talking, then you are ready to talk without preconditions. To a Better Future, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> Uhm, do you mean that any time there's an announcement in the media >>that one side to a dispute is willing to talk, that side is merely doing >>a ploy and is uninterested in talking? > > Dear Michael, > > In the Baha'i context, yes. If a person wants to speak to a member of the > Institutions the appropriate thing is to contact them directly. That's why the > House wouldn't answer your letter which you posted to the internet but did > answer your wife's which was sent to them directly. > > warmest, > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. How is calling for a conference with counsellors another attack? To the Future, M. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>So are you going to >>take up Fred's call for a conference > > If Fred really wanted a conference he would ask the Counselors, not post it on > the internet along with all of his other attacks. > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. No, not me. I was responding to something I read here. Well, your reassurance on that point is one indication the most extreme point has not been reached. Frankly, this thing about the refund cheques is only one of the glaring difficulties with such a policy, were it under consideration. Susan, issues are what count. If no such elucidation has come or does come from the men at the top, then all you have to do is say, "Aint so," and no documentation can be produced to contradict you. However, if we receive any such revisionism, then let it be accompanied by the refund cheques, and we'll still have fun pointing out other inconsistencies in the functioning of the Baha'i Faith with these never ever were Baha'is. To the Future, M. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>If they go the route of saying the people they turf out never ever were >>Baha'is, well, then, they better send along the refund cheques > > They never did say that as all of you know. Why do you insist on distorting > this? > > Never mind, I know why. > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Dermod. Excellent post, replete with that quote from the Tain. But what's this about never having been a Baha'i and refunds? Yes, it's supposed to be policy that they can't accept cash from non-Baha'is. If they go the route of saying the people they turf out never ever were Baha'is, well, then, they better send along the refund cheques, or face charges now they're money grubbers violating that policy. Hey, lads, keep me up to date on this one. All those contributions every nineteen days must add up to something after twenty six years. Thanks Dermod for your splendid prose and the fine thoughts it contained. Thrive, M. "Dermod Ryder" (Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com) writes: > "Susan Maneck " wrote in message > news:20020117222306.05429.00003763@mb-mq.aol.com... >> >People seem to contend with the UHJ and it contends with them. >> > >> >Where there is contention - wasn't it Abdul Baha who said that both >> >sides were wrong? >> >> So are you saying you're wrong Dermod? > > Nope! > > What I am saying, and I think Abdul Baha would agree with me on this > one, is that where two sides contend with each other, continue so to > do, insist that the one is right and the other wrong and both refuse > to consult/negotiate on their differences such as to reach an amicable > resolution thereof and/or a modus vivendi, then both are wrong! > Polarisation leads to contention and polarisation breeds extremism on > both sides - the direct antithesis of the golden mean of moderation in > all things. Been there! Done that! Lived that! Attended the funerals! > Said that here and elsewhere, time after time! Totally pissed off > stating the bleeding obvious on this matter to people who are on both > sides of the great divide or, indeed, refuse to recognise the > existence of that divide and are so far up their own backsides they > can do internal navel studies! And, by Christ, I have no intention of > saying it any more to a load of befuddled BIGS and their equally > obtuse opposite numbers! > > As for the UHJ - it's a body that is very strong on having its > *authority* recognised, acknowledged and kow-towed to - in direct > breach of many of the interpretations, on which you place such > emphasis. You forget however that interpretation is not the law - for > that we have to go back to the original. Interpretation can vary from > day to day according to the vagaries of the times. Having expounded > the dictum that that which the interpreter says must be accepted, you > have indeed laid the rails for the eventual shunting aside of all > Baha'u'llah ever stated, in favour of the elucidations/interpretations > from Boys' Town on the hill in Haifa. Furthermore, as you well know, > he who relies on quotations has the letter but not the spirit of the > law behind him. Shame on me - I always thought the spirit was more > important! > > If you knew anything about authority you would know that it requires > the respect, of those under its yoke, to be recognised. Respect, > unfortunately for the old grumpies, has to be earned in this as in > every other age. A body in authority may manage to rule, without > respect, by brute force alone, for some considerable time but > eventually it will crumble - only authority, which has the love and > respect of those in its charge, can or will survive. Isn't that why > the Papacy succumbed to the Reformation - the sale of "indulgences" > and eternal salvation, for the Terraces of the Vatican? Did not the > Founding Fathers rebel against a blind but discredited authority? Are > not the troubles in mine own land the result of dictatorial authority > that refused absolutely to see naught but its own point of view and > pursued its own agenda to the exclusion of all others and the ultimate > discredit of itself? Was the AO not ordered to go forth and earn the > respect of those it served? Do dogs shit on the lawn - (rhetorical)? > > I don't intend to get sucked into debate or discussion here - 'twould > be contrary to my stated intention to GTF out of Bahai Wars and good > excuse for you to do the usual thing of ignoring that you can't > answer. Indeed I only came back because I heard that Evensong was on > one of his periodic rampages and I purely love ass-kicking a bigot. > But temptation to review what else had transpired since my departure > was strong and, as the blessed Oscar once said, to get rid of it I > just had to succumb. > > Poor Rick! With Freethought and the Reaper gone he must have thought > it was safe to emerge from hibernation - only to have his tail well > waxed by my old buddies, Rod and Michael. And whatever your attempted > self contradictory obfuscations, it "doesnae take a braw Hieland > chukter" to determine that Counselors and their lackeys demand strict > obedience to the "loving guidance" which emanates from the collective > wisdom(?) of Mount Olympus. And, of course, this is not the place > where Counselors explain their actions - they haven't the cajones to > do it in public, to justify their existence and actions before those > who just might have the temerity to challenge them! Well why should > they, when they have a "diagonal steam trap" to do the job for them? > It's the sheer hypocrisy of all of this crap that really gets up my > tits! > > And talking of hypocrisy - I'd almost forgotten yet another of your > little slips - the little matter of proof that Martin was scheming to > be made a CB and that the advice being tendered to him to be > circumspect and precautionary in dealing with the rottweilers was in > the nature of "machinations." Only to a perverse and obdurate AO > mind, that is as thick as "champ," would such precautions become > "machinations" - doubtless if "Plod" ever takes you into custody, you > will eschew all services of the legal eagles and waive your rights > under the Fifth. Such things are but "machinations" to deprive the > State of its victims and "society" of "justice." > > Thanks to you for one thing - for confirmation as to the shape of > things to come in the imminent Internet purge and clampdown. All > those who will be the subject of this will be glad to know that > they're being turfed out because they never were BIGS in the first > place - even though they signed the cards, forked out the dosh and did > without the grub when required to! And they've no chance of getting a > refund - as the A Onions have had to turf out the inhabitants of the > Twilight Home for lack of readies, those about to be unenrolled will > have to just look on the experience much like the stockholders in > Enron - but, at least they'll get some dividend in the next world! > Truly things have gone to the far up celestial kingdom! > > Now if you're true to form - you'll either ignore this entirely or > abstract one or two lines for a (supposedly) devastating response. > Hint - see above for suggested lines to cite! > > But Medb - tempt ye not Cuchulainn! > > "I had a dream last year: > whoever, at the time appointed, > opposes the Hound on the slope, > let him beware. > The Hound of Emain macha, > in all his different shapes, > the Hound of plunder and battle > - I hear him and he hears." > (For Michael - via Thomas Kinsella and the 'Tain Bo Cuailnge') > > > > > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: [*.religion.bahai] Date: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 4:57 PM Howdy, Doc. Many thanks for your suggestion. I'm sure there's a number of people here could well desire a variety of FAQs. I'm not sure I caught your helpful hint that people can also go to SRB (Soc.Religion.Bahai), a censored (er "moderated") newsgroup where sanitatized respect for the leaders of the Haifan sect is guaranteed. Inasmuch as this is the only major Baha'i newsgroup (alt isn't carried as widely) where freedom of speech on this topic is guaranteed, I'm sure you'll appreciate that you may well encounter the real, rather than the censored, picture, as varied and, uhm, imperfect as one would expect. By all means, stick around, post what you like, flame free if you're able, and be aware that just as talk.politics.usa won't carry absolutely no posts viewing President Bush as something other than the most beneficial gift to America since the Revolution, similarily this newsgroup will carry some less that absolutely flattering remarks about the men who happen currently to be warming seats on the mountainside in Haifa. Use killfiles, if you wish. I never do, so whatever you say may or may not draw remarks unread by you. That should be fine. Any who wish to read uncensored views can read to their hearts content, and any who wish otherwise can do as they please, well, other than shut other people up, that is. To a Better Future, Michael. Doctor Electron (globalservices1@remove.yahoo.com) writes: > WOW! and just in time .... It's the > > [*.religion.bahai FAQ] -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Isn't there something about the spirit and the letter of the law? It's one of the marvels of fundamentalism that what would appear to be the lofty spiritual intent of a noble soul can be reversed by people who play the text like an accordion, and take a command to rise above naming people heretics and non-believers as actually, you know, we can still say they aren't Baha'is and remove their nemes from the rolls; we can still let them be called believers. We won't actually say they're heretics. But, if they insist on mentioning their erroroneous beliefs (What's your definition of heretic), we'll say they're non-Baha'is. Looking at this with one's own eyes, stepping back from prejudice, focusing on justice, would strongly encourage something other than what happened. To a Better Future, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: > >>the valid point that the declaration of heretics and >>unbelievers is prohibited in the Sacred Text, > > No, calling people kafirs or infidels is prohibited. But they didn't use the > word heretics or unbelievers either. They said the people in question 'are not > Baha'is.' > > > warmest, > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Actually, you're simply playing with words and using them in a manner inconsistent with unbiased definitions. Dispassionately considered, stepping back from prejudice, where you use the word believer, the word Baha'i is the correct designation. You are not using believer to mean one who believes in Epona, Oghma or in Muhammad as the final messenger from God. You are using it to mean one who believes in Baha'u'llah, hence, a Baha'i. And, where you use the word Baha'i, you mean a subset of Baha'is, those who still officially are carried on membership rolls in Haifa, so some such term as Haifan is more appropriate. The concepts underlying your terminology are fully consistent with the comparison between your church and the RCs within a splintered Faith. It was not my view of Baha'i, but it is the view you are advancing, and it is precisely this view the UHJ has been straining every nerve to make reality. To a Better Future, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: > >> as you indicate, your concept and possibly the UHJ's concept, >>is that what the UHJ is head of is merely equal to Catholicism within >>splintered Christianity, and not equal to Christianity itself > > I indicated nothing of the sort. I said there was a difference between being a > believer and being a Baha'i. And I wouldn't presume to pronounce on the former > while it is up to the Institutions to decide on the latter. > > warmest, > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. And the answer is that it is unjust to expell one without giving a clear warning. "Dear X, if you do Y, the consequence will be Z." To a Better Future, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: > > Sorry, Michael. But the issue Randy raised is whether someone can be expelled > for doing something they were not even told was wrong. Whether or not that has > ever in fact happened as is being represented, *is* germaine. > > > warmest, > > > > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Well, then, you'll be the last person to complain that my own memory of any promise to Susie Tamas doesn't match what you think it was. Now, just for the historical record, to ensure faulty memories aside we've a clear knowledge of one aspect of this situation, would you be so good as to post here any post of mine between the dispatch of my letter to the UHJ and the receipt of their response, in which I'm strenuously advocating women are eligible to serve on the UHJ. My letter was dated March 23, 1997; their's some time before Ridvan. It's on web sites and, I believe, dated. Would you kindly refreshen our memories on that point. To a Better Future, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: > > That I don't remember. > > warmest, > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Although our media has yet to report any minutemen storming Mount Carmel, so perhaps this word "Rebel" is a mite more than what the UHJ recommended when they encouraged Baha'is to use the language with due respect, I will express gratitude for your confirmation that Baha'i institutions believe that they don't have to rule worthily, but they still expect people are duty bound to obey them. Yes, I think this is pretty much a consistent belief system of totalitarian leaderships. Thanks again for sharing with us the belief system of Baha'i leaders. To a Better Future, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: > >>My perception is that your Universal House of Justice does not act as >>if it understands an agreement requires both sides to abide by it. > > If by that you mean that the Baha'i Institutions reject the Lockean notion that > one is free to rebel if one does not believe the legitimate ruler has fulfilled > their obligation as a ruler, you are right. > > warmest, > > > > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: > When they remove someone from the rolls, it is > a statement that they've given up on you because you don't accept enough of > the stuff Baha'is are expected to believe ... Exactly. -- Cathy Woodgold TISSATAAFL Ottawa, Ontario, Canada https://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~an588/ an588@freenet.carleton.ca "1. What's happening right now? -- Starvation of 3 to 4 million people." (Noam Chomsky transcript, Oct 18, 2001) Well, let's see: We believed in the independent investigation of truth; we believed in the harmong of faith and reason, of science and religion; we believed in the freedom of thought and expression; we believed in the validity of a variety of viewpoints; we believed in the equality of women and men; we believed in the importance of justice; etc. Hmmm, we didn't believe all the above could be interpreted by the UHJ not to apply. I say we were seen as accepting too much, rather than too little. To a Better Future, Michael. Catherine Woodgold (an588@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes: > Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> When they remove someone from the rolls, it is >> a statement that they've given up on you because you don't accept enough of >> the stuff Baha'is are expected to believe ... > > Exactly. > > > -- > Cathy Woodgold TISSATAAFL Ottawa, Ontario, Canada > https://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~an588/ an588@freenet.carleton.ca > "1. What's happening right now? -- Starvation of 3 to 4 > million people." (Noam Chomsky transcript, Oct 18, 2001) -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Possibly. What precisely do you mean when you use the words making arrangements? To a Better Future, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>Do you honestly feel empowered on the basis of the above statements >>to say the passport, lease on the appartment in Toronto, Ontario Health >>Insurance card, etc. were obtained prior to, rather than after, the US >>authorities escorted this individual across the border? > > I wasn't saying anything equivalent to that. > >> I thought you said >>you could read texts. > > Perhaps you're having difficulty reading my text. > > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Yes, since the early or mid 80s. However, if you followed Talisman talk and my attempt at universalism with Bruce the Buddhist (rather than tell this Buddhist scholar he didn't know what Buddhism was, like some Baha'is on the list) in dealing with the concept of no god, and you weren't quite so keen to have polytheist Baha'is drop their erroneous beliefs, even if it takes generations, you might be able to rise above the limitations of sectarianism and understand the concept that it was the UHJ that unjustly interfered in beliefs, not individuals planning to move away. To a Better Future, Michael Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> >>You had said "arrangements all made". > > Dear Catherine, > > By that I meant simply that he had already decided on his alterantive religon. > > warmest, > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Then, Susan, did Eric Pierce get it wrong when he said there were Baha'is in India worshipping the snake goddess? What background have you in Irish Catholicism? Check into it. That's the montheistic background I grew up in. One of my friends has said that the average Irish Catholic is more pagan than the average Canadian Wiccan. The conceptual problem you're expressing is based on a fundamentalist monotheistic allergy to universalism. It's a very easy thing for one who is universalist to see the light from whichever lamp it's shining. I'd always thought that was the Baha'i outlook. If you can convince animists in Africa and polytheists in India to declare themselves Baha'is at once, it should not surprise you that the reverse process is equally possible. Whether you convince polytheists to believe their spirits and gods are aspects of deity, or one asserts the aspects of deity are spirits and gods, the identification is equally reasonable. To Tolerance and Understanding, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: > I find it a little hard to believe that one would suddenly go from being a > monotheist to being a polytheist overnight. Nor is it easy to understand why a > monotheist would say on encountering pagans, "this fits me" while still holding > to a monotheistic religion. > > warmest, > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. As I ever state when presented in cyberspace with ad hominems and flames, these are a testimony by the one presenting them that my points are irrefutable. Thanks and To a Better Future, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> Thanks for clarifying you perceive freedom of speech to be the same >>thing as violating the Will and Testament. > > Michael, > > You are a master of rhetoric and distortion. > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Thanks for clarifying you perceive freedom of speech to be the same thing as violating the Will and Testament. Fortunately, there neither evolved, nor did any deity create on this planet a race of clones, and thus your opinion is not unanimous. To a Better Future, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: > And any Baha'i who keeps it in the bedroom you won't have any problems either. > Its not what you believe that gets you in trouble, it is violating the Will and > Testament. > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> >>You had said "arrangements all made". > > Dear Catherine, > > By that I meant simply that he had already decided on his alterantive religon. > Susan, can I take that as a retraction of your statement that Michael had "arrangements all made" for an alternative religion? -- Cathy Woodgold TISSATAAFL Ottawa, Ontario, Canada https://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~an588/ an588@freenet.carleton.ca "1. What's happening right now? -- Starvation of 3 to 4 million people." (Noam Chomsky transcript, Oct 18, 2001) Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >[Michael wrote:] >>Do you honestly feel empowered on the basis of the above statements >>to say the passport, lease on the appartment in Toronto, Ontario Health >>Insurance card, etc. were obtained prior to, rather than after, the US >>authorities escorted this individual across the border? > > I wasn't saying anything equivalent to that. You had said "arrangements all made". What part of "arrangements all made" are you defining weirdly? -- Cathy Woodgold TISSATAAFL Ottawa, Ontario, Canada https://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~an588/ an588@freenet.carleton.ca "1. What's happening right now? -- Starvation of 3 to 4 million people." (Noam Chomsky transcript, Oct 18, 2001) Greetings, Susan. "And, if they kick me out of the US, I can always go and live with my relatives in Canada." "I never even joined my relatives, but after being escorted across the border sought out a new residence." Do you honestly feel empowered on the basis of the above statements to say the passport, lease on the appartment in Toronto, Ontario Health Insurance card, etc. were obtained prior to, rather than after, the US authorities escorted this individual across the border? I thought you said you could read texts. You haven't demonstrated that with your interpretation below. To a Better Future, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: > Michael stated on H-Bahai that he already told his pagan friends that if he > ever decided to leave the Faith he would join their religion. That sure sounds > like making arrangements for an alternative religion to me! > > warmest, > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Catherine. Oh. Well done. I missed this, but then it's so hard to read it all. Yes, we're told, "People aren't unenrolled for what they believe," and here she is saying the opposite. Many thanks for that keen eye, and To a Better Future, Michael. Catherine Woodgold (an588@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes: > Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> When they remove someone from the rolls, it is >> a statement that they've given up on you because you don't accept enough of >> the stuff Baha'is are expected to believe ... > > Exactly. > > > -- > Cathy Woodgold TISSATAAFL Ottawa, Ontario, Canada > https://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~an588/ an588@freenet.carleton.ca > "1. What's happening right now? -- Starvation of 3 to 4 > million people." (Noam Chomsky transcript, Oct 18, 2001) -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> >>Someday soon there will be 300 million pages of letters and elucidations >>from the UHJ that all Baha'is will have to live in fear of, for breaking the >>commandment of even one line of one letter might merit an expulsion. > > Oh, nonsense Randy. As you know full well, everyone who was removed from the > rolls knew exactly what they were doing. Michael knew what he was actually doing, but he didn't know what others were deeming him to be doing, nor what the people sent to talk to him were deemed to be doing. > And there is little reason to think > they didin't know the consequences. There's tremendous reason to think Michael didn't expect to be expelled. He had a longstanding strong belief that no-one is ever expelled from the Baha'i faith for their beliefs or for sending petitions to the Universal House of Justice; and he was the first ever in the whole world to be expelled in this way. It was completely unexpected. > Michael had been told by his Board Member > what the problem with his behavior was Really? He didn't give me that impression. How would you know what was said in a private unrecorded meeting? He was offered some guidance and given some advice and there were some discussions. If during these discussions someone said there was a problem, how would Michael be supposed to know that that was intended as a command? And if the command was not stated precisely and explicitly, how would he be supposed to know that his later communications contravened the command? > and he agreed not to oppose the House > anymore on the internet. Michael never opposed the Universal House of Justice on the Internet before his expulsion. Those who thought he did so misunderstood what he so carefully wrote. To send a petition, or to give advice, is not to oppose. To warn is not to insult. > Not only did he not keep his promise but he had > arrangements all made for an alternative religion. Susan Maneck, you have stated two falsehoods about my husband in one sentence. I resent these false statements, whether they are plain lies, or based on wishful thinking, or copied from lies fabricated by others. You should know better than to say things like this. Michael was not expelled for breaking any promise. If anyone really believed he had broken a promise, it was a misunderstanding. In the letter from the Universal House of Justice to me, I find it striking that they on the one hand claim that Michael is incapable of understanding certain things no matter how many times they're explained, and on the other hand claim that certain ideas were made quite clear to him. IMO there was a breakdown in communication. And IMO it was not because Michael failed to express himself clearly. What really riles me, Susan, is your statement that Michael had arrangements "all made" for an alternative religion. This is false. Michael was a Baha'i. He felt no need to make any arrangements for any "alternative religion": he already had a religion. He believed in God. He believed in Baha'u'llah as a manifestation of God. He believed literally in the words of Abdul Baha. He spoke with enthusiasm about the positive aspects of the Baha'i faith as he saw it: about its "openness", the way each person interpreted the Writings themselves without intervention by a priest; about how, unlike all other major religions, it had gotten through its first hundred-odd years without a schism and would never have a schism because of how everything was cleverly and clearly laid out in Abdul Baha's Will; etc. (All this has since been seen to be false.) He followed Baha'i rituals daily. Michael did not make any "arrangements" for any "alternative religion" before the shock of receiving a letter indicating him to be, in effect, the first person to be expelled from the Baha'i faith for expressing individual beliefs. Will you please take care, Susan, not to make any more false statements about Michael. -- Cathy Woodgold TISSATAAFL Ottawa, Ontario, Canada https://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~an588/ an588@freenet.carleton.ca "1. What's happening right now? -- Starvation of 3 to 4 million people." (Noam Chomsky transcript, Oct 18, 2001) Greetings, Susan. And I'm saying my poor memory if there was any agreement at all, it was that I'd be quiet and they'd address concerns I'd write them about. Failing to address the issues obviously would negate any such agreement, if there was any such agreement at all. You seem to be testifying that you believe I did not speak out during the specified period. You have my full permission to repost this communication. You will note that the freedom of thought and expression was one of those concerns, and my poor memory is that it wasn't addressed, except by this expectation that people shut up. Freedom of thought and expression is one of those characteristics of Baha'iness you're so keen to refrain from admitting. To a Better Future, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>be so good as to post >>here any post of mine between the dispatch of my letter to the UHJ and the >>receipt of their response, in which I'm strenuously advocating women are >>eligible to serve on the UHJ > > Michael, > > I'm talking about what you did *after* you received their response. > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Ah! here's an added embellishment. What a fine tale they'll be telling three hundred years from now. First of all, this is typical irrelevant ad hominem, comment directed at the person, rather than at the issues. Whether we were the magi, or hockey players, or welders, or participated in group astral sex on the moon is invalid comment with reference to any issues, topics and matters of discussion, including the valid point that the declaration of heretics and unbelievers is prohibited in the Sacred Text, even if the guys in charge have interpreted their own constitution as empowering them to do this. Second of all, the information is, uhm, inexact. This inexactitude is in part your misunderstanding my perception at the time (as Baha'u'llah says opinions change with time) of the Baha'i Faith, and definitely of paganism. Taking Baha'i first, at that time I accepted the Universal House of Justice as the sole determinator of Baha'iness. I still think the intent of Baha'u'llah was to prevent the existence of heresy, and since, as you indicate, your concept and possibly the UHJ's concept, is that what the UHJ is head of is merely equal to Catholicism within splintered Christianity, and not equal to Christianity itself, today I have no trouble at all with the consistency of the thought of those who are Baha'is, although not on the membership rolls at Haifa. In the summer of 1997, my opinion was that one could not be Baha'i without the approval of the UHJ. I strongly believed, not specifically because it concerned me, because of the terrible consequences for the concept within Baha'i that heresy does not exist, that the UHJ had very gravely harmed the movement launched by Baha'u'llah in proclaiming a heretic. I refused to contend with them. Among the many challenging concpts of paganism for many traditional monotheists is that generally one does not become a pagan. When I first encountered modern pagans in the early or mid 80s, there was a strong resonance. This is normal. Many pagans will say that what they discovered was that there were others and there was a name for what they already felt. Now, as one of my insightful friends pointed out at the time, I had changed nothing. I had gone from being a universalist within Baha'i to being a universalist as a pagan. I remained a universalist, and it was the guys in charge of Baha'i who had rejected universalism, not I. On encountering pagans I said this fits me, and I have already given my allegience elsewhere. Following the analogy, Randy I think it was, used, I said, "I'm married." I made no arrangements to join any pagan group while I was a Baha'i, and actually never joined the group of pagans who were closest to me and whom I kept up to date on Baha'i happenings. Only after what I perceived as a declaration of heresy, did I state that I was pagan. Only then did I seek out and officially join pagan groups with whom I had not been in contact before. So, the ad hominem that, well, this guy was already sleeping around, and had made arrangements to move in with a mistress, is false. When I met with Susie Tamas, I told her I wanted closure on this issue. I did decide subsequently to write an effective letter. Still, had the reponse been negative and also a reply that seriously addressed the issues I raised, it is my belief that I would have accepted it. It was not that they said no; it is that they said we won't address what you raised, except for this, and this was not handled adroitly. Not the negativity of the reply, so much as the lack of consideration caused my dissatisfaction. Susan, you yourself received communication from me sincerely expressing the opinion that this letter had not been read by any member of the UHJ. You don't have to agree, but you at least know that was my understanding. My perception is that your Universal House of Justice does not act as if it understands an agreement requires both sides to abide by it. To a Better Future, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> >>Someday soon there will be 300 million pages of letters and elucidations >>from the UHJ that all Baha'is will have to live in fear of, for breaking the >>commandment of even one line of one letter might merit an expulsion. > > Oh, nonsense Randy. As you know full well, everyone who was removed from the > rolls knew exactly what they were doing. And there is little reason to think > they didin't know the consequences. Michael had been told by his Board Member > what the problem with his behavior was and he agreed not to oppose the House > anymore on the internet. Not only did he not keep his promise but he had > arrangements all made for an alternative religion. In the case of Fred he > refused to talk to his ABM and instead wrote the House saying he didn't care > about his status as a Baha'i. And Alison, well she knew from the House's letter > to Michael's wife exactly what the bottom line was and she chose to ignore. And > when she was removed she said she knew along this would happen and wasn't upset > about it. > > warmest, > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. No, Rick. I understood the Covenant to mean that Baha'is had a legitimate succession and centre of authority commanded not to stray into the realm of interpretation, to rule as the source of all good, on the basis of the altruistic spiritual principles of a divine and benevolant revelation. The fundies are the ones in Baha'i who equate it with obeying any command soever, no matter how remote from altruism, spirituality, the source of all good, and even decent humanity, exactly as those living under unsavory regimes, or actually forming a part of such regimes. I certainly agree that it is quite sad for Baha'i. To a Better Future, Michael. "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@home.NOSPAMcom) writes: > "Michael McKenny" wrote in message > news:a2ehvn$60b$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... >> Obedience of anything at all from the guys in charge in no way >> distinguishes you from a lot of rather unsavory regimes. > > Is this all that the Covenant means to you, Michael? How sad. > > > -- > Regards, > Rick Schaut > The "Reply-To" line has a bogus e-mail account for SPAM blocking purposes. > If you wish to reply by e-mail, send to rsschaut at attbi dot com. > > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Yellowness, insisting that any command soever be obeyed, regardless of its remoteness from the principled writings of a predecessor, does not become another colour, simply because the predecessor's urging of his successors to be altruistic has been cast aside by rulers who have a problem with principles. It is a fully rational position that evidently, according to the clear evidence of our senses, Baha'u'llah was a Manifestation of God, that he was bang on when it came to his spiritual efforts to uplift humanity, that he left humans free will, including those whom he advised to rule so as to be worthy of obedience, and they exercised that free will so as to replicate the errors of the past. You are free to believe what you like, and I very much respect the variety of views that see Baha'u'llah as divine and those freely not ruling according to his wishes as something other than divine. To the Future, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> I'm saying the yellowness of insisting >>on any order soever from Stalin, regardless of its relationship to the >>writings of Marx and Engels is the same as the yellowness of insisting >>on any order soever from the UHJ, regardless of its relationship to the >>writings of Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l Baha. > > Well, if Marx and Engels had written something to the effect that Stalin was > under their protection and that whatever he said goes, you might have a good > analogy here. But in that case it would make more sense to disavow Marx and > Engels rather than just Stalin. > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. No, Susan, I'm not saying the UHJ is the reincarnation of Stalin or any such metaphysical point. I'm saying the yellowness of insisting on any order soever from Stalin, regardless of its relationship to the writings of Marx and Engels is the same as the yellowness of insisting on any order soever from the UHJ, regardless of its relationship to the writings of Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l Baha. To a Better Future, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> Actually, the Communists, certainly under Stalin and the like, also >>had the concept that one's duty was to obey whoever happened to be in >>power. Obedience of anything at all from the guys in charge in no way >>distinguishes you from a lot of rather unsavory regimes. > > Let's break down the logic of your argument: > > Lemons are yellow > Grapefruits are yellow > Therefore lemons are grapefruits > > Somehow, it does work. > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. Actually, the Communists, certainly under Stalin and the like, also had the concept that one's duty was to obey whoever happened to be in power. Obedience of anything at all from the guys in charge in no way distinguishes you from a lot of rather unsavory regimes. To a Better Future, M. "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@email.msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > "Michael McKenny" wrote in message > news:a2cfs2$3f2$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... >> The Red Cross, the United Nations Association, the Communist Party, >> the Salvation Army and a great many other entities can claim they are > doing >> service to humanity, but this does not define the organizations or >> communicate what are the qualities, characteristics and attributes of any >> outfit. > > Which of those would claim service to humanity as a _definiing_ attribute? > Not likely either the UNA nor the Communist Party. I would say that both > the Red Cross and the Salvation Army, at the very least, come far closer to > what Baha'i is about than anyone expounding the twelve principles that Mason > Remey extracted out of one of `Abdu'l-Baha's public talks. > >> How would you distinguish Baha'i from such organizations as listed above? > > The Covenant. > > -- > Regards, > Rick Schaut > > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. This by the way was what I recommended people do back in the days of just the e-lists and "moderated" SRB. It's cyberspace's perfect use of freedom of speech. Anyone can have her/his say, and no one has to read what they don't like. Don't you think if everyone had followed it from the start, instead of trying to shut people up, encourage them to resign from the Faith, legislating them non-believers, etc. things would be in a lot better shape today? To Freedom of Speech, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: > > I killfiled Michael, too. That may actually let you get through the lesson. > > warmest, > > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. I have never killfiled anyone in cyberspace. I may not read everything, but I want the opportunity. Many thanks for the testimony that you find my comments irrefutable. I take it that this means you're not at all keen on posting the correspondence between me and the UHJ, that actually such correspondence would not be conducive to demonstrating your take on things. Anyone who has yet to read this may simply do a web search and there should be no difficulty, touch wood, in finding them. I will continue to read you, and will feel quite free to comment on any points that call for comment, in my opinion. When some people were so upset by what I posted to e-mail lists, it was that they didn't want other people reading what I wrote. Well, other people may still read what I write here, whether or not you choose to reply. To a Better Future, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: > > I killfiled Michael, too. That may actually let you get through the lesson. > > warmest, > > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Because irrelevant ad hominems instead of issues met my eyes. So, the distinction between this version you assert is untrue and what you claim is true is the identity of the individual Baha'i authority who made the, uhm, suggestion that this support group be, uhm, discontinued. No, that's not it. It's the assertion that there was a Baha'i official who lacked a mediaeval homophobic mindset and advised gay Baha'is to lay low, not make noise and the future would be more civilized. Yes, I can understand how you'd consider that a cause for debating the definitions of libel and slander. To a Better Future, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> >>Well, Susan, I stepped into the middle of some ad hominem stuff from >>you, asked you what the issue was, > > Dear Michael, > > If you stepped into the middle of a thread you knew nothing about then why go > on and on about it? I had not particular desire to repeat Darrick's slander > (or libel for Pat's benefit.) But here was the key exchange. > > _________________ > >>Deceit? YES! I made Daniel Orey (Baha'is...head of the Gay Baha'i >>Fellowship) think I was pro-Gay over the telephone and he told me that >>Robert C. Henderson told him to "be patient" and that he and other >>gays and Lesbians would eventually get everything they wanted, but >>they had to "lay low" and not make too much noice. I DO use deceit in >>order to expose Hypocrisy, and that is not "hypocritical" of me >>because I admit to it. > > I just checked out this story with Daniel Orey. He asked me to point out that > the Gay Baha'i Fellowship was disbanded many years ago "in instant and exact > obedience" to Counselor Birkland's request. Furthermore, Daniel has never > spoken to Mr. Henderson, let alone heard him say the things Darrick claims. > Nor has Daniel ever told anyone else that Mr. Henderson said such things. > > So it would seem Darrick is very fond of deceit indeed. > > > > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Any one thinking I'd use a pseudonym and not say openly what I think hasn't been paying attention these past several years. M. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: > by the Insitutions on dissidents > on the Internet? How would it be accomplished?" I suspect he was trolling. I > note no other message from that particular SN has ever been posted here > before. Now which science fiction/fantasy buff on this list might have posted > that message? > > warmest, > > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Well, why was that so hard to spit out? It was your own tap dancing that had me figure there must be something under your foot. if we wake up tomorrow and find out something's transpired and you're insisting, "Well, what I said didn't cover that situation, did it?" I, for one, won't be surprised. To a Better Future, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> Perhaps, they can come on here one by one, and after each one >>steps forward, the question can be put about their iminent declaration >>by the UHJ to be non-Baha'is. > > Michael, > > Actually, I have no reason to think anyone will be taken off the rolls in the > near future. >>However, we do at least have your opinion >>that no one will be declared never ever to have been a Baha'i. > > Why would I speculate about a non-event unless there were some hint that might > be the case? > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: Danger to the Charter of this newsgroup Date: Thursday, January 24, 2002 11:15 AM Howdy, Doc. Right you are. This sort of thing predates the Internet. I think you mentioned CB, but it goes back beyond radio. I was a radio operator in the Canadian reserves (even won a trophy for being the best in the regiment one year), but never did ham radio. However, I was especially thinking of the whole Amateur Press thing. Personally, I was into that since Yule 1984, but, check into it, and you'll find that's something that stretches back into the 1800s. If you've run into H.P. Lovecraft, then you'll perhaps know he was very much involved in that scene from at least the 19 teens, and, human nature being what it is, flaming by whatever other name was a part of the landscape. Now, I came into Baha'i cyberspace with the experience of the main general SF apa in the Nation's Capital (sorry, that's Ottawa, not Washington; more than one nation on this planet) where one of the rules was one could say whatever one thought about the President and anyone who wasn't a member, but "Snarking", as it was called against members was a no-no. Besides, as I never hesitate to say, I delight in irrelevant ad hominems as such are testimony what I've said has been judged irrefutable, otherwise we'd be reading the refutation and not the snark, flame. Thanks for your contribution here. Thrive, Michael. Doctor Electron (globalservices1@remove.yahoo.com) writes: >> > Yeah, I think you got the idea Michael. Actually, the "Doctor > Electron" (and that's just one of 'em) arose before any look at this > newsgroup and has nothing whatever to do with the Baha'i Faith. One > rationale often cited by experts is use an alias may help avoid > identity theft. Your points are well-taken and your decision is to be > respected. As far as the internet goes, I tend to give more > credibility to someone who uses an alias (you can always get to know > the person if you want to, assuming they give a valid email address) > than some one who doesn't, because it indicates the person is well > informed generally and is not a "newbie" to the internet. > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Howdy, Doc. Well, you know, as Baha'u'llah among others said, one can change his mind as time passes, so, even apart from specific factors dealing with anonymity in Baha'i so as to prevent repercussions from powers that be (gosh, can you imagine after a few weeks of posting here and reading the rest of the stuff here Doc comes to feel the nine on the hill are not the most delectable cheeses to emerge in human history; we wouldn't want them to have to have a byelection up there, not after we'd finally got one to communicate, listen and see what diversity of views means, etc.) so you lot back in 1985, F.S. Winterspring, Squiggle, Moonstone or whoever you were, here's a belated admission that pseudonyms are a part of the scene. I still won't do it myself. Even if I use a religious name here like "Green" or Yahoo signs me "Solarguard" it's not to conceal who I am; I rather doubt I could do that anyway. There's a certain way I have of speaking my mind that makes pseudonyms inapplicable and ineffective, but for you, Doc, and any others so inclined, go to it. It's all ad hominem anyway. Who said it is not relevant, not valid according to Baha'i consultation and to the rules of formal logic. So, speak your mind, let us know what you think and the content of your posts will demonstrate what it will. To Tolerance and Understanding, Michael. Doctor Electron (globalservices1@remove.yahoo.com) writes: > > Two different people. OK, Derwood, it might be too advanced at this > stage; but even those headers can be falsified. Mine aren't, not that > they can't be; but I'm not hiding from anyone. > >>He who >>shelters behind a pseudonym has nefarious intent in mind. > > Do some research, man. Aliases should definitely be used in public > forums on the internet. Aliases precede the internet. Ever heard of > CB radio? Ham radio? There's nothing suspicious about that. Why, > sir, do you need to know the name of some one, say, me, that you don't > know anyway. Wanting to know the real name is what is suspicious; > using an alias is just good common sense. Read and learn. -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Howdy, Doc. Pardon my lack of clarity. I meant Baha'i wise TRB is a beacon of uncensored light. I understand, and have posted to some in my time, that many and diverse are the unmoderated newsgroups in the vast reaches of non-Baha'i cyberspace. Heck, you can even read uncensored stuff in the print media, excluding Baha'i. Thrive, Michael. Doctor Electron (globalservices1@remove.yahoo.com) writes: > > NOT! My thing here has over 34,000 news groups listed and I bet not > more than 1% have any moderation or censorship at all. So it does not > follow that that could be a reason for this group to exist. There is > a reason though, namely to discuss a topic named in > alt.religion.bahai. -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Howdy, Doc. That's gotta be it, Doc. Don't let anyone ever tell you that you're challenged in the rational thinking department. Wow! What slouches we have been. Here I've been shaving since President Johnson was in power (Well, not the first one, just LBJ) and I couldn't get a handle on Ol' Occam's razor. Thanks for showing me how it's done, Doc. Of course, that's gotta be the answer. The simplest, most reasonable explanation. If there are communications arriving fulminating against the Baha'i principles, saying that independent investigation of truth, the harmony of science and religion, reason and faith, the freedom of thought and expression, the validity of a vast variety of personal understandings, the equality of women and men, etc. are so terrible that if one posts support for these to the Internet one may be declared a non-Baha'i (Well, actually not issuing any such warning, just, you know, sending out a notice out of the blue stating that one has ceased to be a Baha'i), and these communications are signed "The Universal House of Justice", obviously the simplest answer is that we're dealing with an identity thief. Somebody has been sending out messages in the name of the Universal House of justice, but, had we only thought things through, we'd have realized it couldn't possibly be the Universal House of Justice. The Universal House of Justice would never attack the Baha'i principles, nor would it, without any concern for justice, go around violating Scripture, including the prohibition on naming people non-believers, and certainly not for posting to e-mail lists or newsgroups their support for the Baha'i principles. Yes, you're right, Doc. This is a no brainer and we've all been a bit slow on the uptake. Thanks for setting us straight, helping us out and providing the remedy to the lack of harmony in Baha'i cyberspace. Obviously both those suggesting the UHJ is doing wrong and those trying to find means of expression whereby wrong can be defined to be proper ('cause the Universal House of Justice can't be wrong, well, certainly not to that extent) are both wrong. We're dealing with an identity thief. We'll know when the real Universal House of Justice is dealing with us when we see what claims to be the UHJ really is supporting the Baha'i principles, really is following the Writings rather than trying to interpret them out of existence and really is providing a universal support harmonizing within the Baha'i Faith those of the whole spectrum of understandings, not just one strand of fundamentalist thinking. Deepest appreciation, Doc. Thanks a lot. Sincerest gratitude. To the disappearance of the identity thief. To the emergence from obscurity of the real Universal House of Justice. To the Future, Michael. Doctor Electron (globalservices1@remove.yahoo.com) writes: > > Sounds like it may be "identity thief." That is, Person A wants to > make it look like Person B (i.e., Hooper Dunbar) is doing something > nasty or undesirable to Persons C-Z. This is technically doable and > from your description, rather easy (i.e., Person A wouldn't have to -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Howdy, Doc. Hooper Dunbar is that member of the Universal House of Justice who went on holidays (I think it was June 2000) and suddenly people on a private e-mail list, to which he was not subscribed, started receiving his automatic vacation message to their posts to the list. I think it was Juan came here and posted an example with his response, "Gee, this is frustrating. Had I known you were interested, I could have sent you a copy. can't you guys get efficient spies?" It outta be all there in the archives of this newsgroup, along with a number of posts by me for several months afterwards that would begin "Howdy, Hooper" or "Greetings, Hooper". You may understand why we feel it may not be necessary to forward him anything. Thrive, Michael. Doctor Electron (globalservices1@remove.yahoo.com) writes: > > Maybe you could forward this to Hooper Dunbar (who's he??) and Robert > Henderson and see if they appreciate being misrepresented in public. > > Cheers, > the real Doctor Electron > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Dermod. I think it was more of the kind of censorship gig, where this Mark Towfiq Baha'i computer guru guy tried to save the world from freedom of thought and expression, went through cyberspace tracking down as many people as he could find to vote No. When all these No votes were received some of the regulars on News.Groups sat up and paid attention. Like, in general, these proposals for new newsgroups are supposed to see if there's sufficient interest to bother, and no real technical objections. For so many people to come in and say No to an unmoderated newsgroup on this topic began to look like some folks really wanted to keep a lid on what was available on this subject. I mean, it's really unkosher for one gang to try to stop talk on a topic. Fortunately that was in the past, and those that love censorship can enjoy SRB or use killfiles, and just not think about all the urine sloshing around here. My favourite, uhm, "enlightened" opinion by one obviously more comfortable in a SRB style setting was the guy who told us free speech was as welcome as urine. But, then, I agree it's about as easy to prevent. To a Better Future, Michael. "Dermod Ryder" (Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com) writes: > > Although I wasn't about at the time, is there not some suggestion that > the rottweilers tried to prevent the advent of TRB/ARB by certain > suspect electoral practices of a kind pioneered in Chicago by one Al > Capone but brought to a peak of perfection here in Northern Ireland - > votes for the dead, those in possession of multiple identities and > "ringers" imported for the occasion. Sounds like the old Doc here is > heading that way. -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Brian. Karma it is, and I'll happily drink my cup. I complained about the pseudonyms in the early issues of 'Plexy, and I was less than one hundred per cent correct. Okay, I'll say it, I was wrong. Pseudonyms are a valid adornment, embellishment and decoration of the landscape of communication. And, clearly they underline the essential nature of content over personality. I mean, what Doc writes can be assessed on it's own merrit and appreciated for what it is, unveiled by the brilliant light of such a name as Hooper Dunbar, Al Gore, Margaret Thatcher or any other. Thrice Three Blessings, Michael. "Brian Walker" (bfwalker@net-yan.com) writes: > Doc, > > a personal word here from a doc. In my experience, anyone not able to > post using clear text, or hides from general view behind an alias, is > generally not a nice person. A bit of a coward. Liable to go shooting of > his/her mouth (or foot) > ... > > PS Grim Reaper aka Dermod, Freethought aka Nima, BIGSxxxx (it changes) > aka Fred - there are other aliases, but in general, we know who we are > talking with. It makes the place more comfortable, home-like. Some of the > people here I would like to strangle, but at least I know /who/ I will be > strangling. Probably vice versa too ... Do join the family, but do not be > a craven soul and hide behind a pretentious alias. -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Howdy, Ron and Doc and all. Many thanks for your views. Like it's an uncensored forum, an unmoderated newsgroup; I mean, that's the only reason it exists. They've got censorship everywhere else, but in cyberspace, and they've got SRB. So, here we are. Frankly, I think Doc may be the best player on their team. It's too early to see if s/he can carry the ball consistently up to the level of Susan Maneck (deep regrets, if it is Susan Maneck under the veil, because that only means there's still only one really good quarterback on the Haifan team. Anyway, Mickey Mouse can come in here and post an FAQ saying all we ought to talk about is cheese (colours, hues, tastes, points of origin, stores where available, etc.). That's fine. Doc's FAQ is great. There's just a need for a variety of these things. I mean, gosh, if the people here feel they've got to talk about cheese just because Mickey Mouse says they do and writes an FAQ about cheese, I'm gonna go back to sleep, hoping to wake up in the Sliders' World I was in last night. This is TRB, and where I come from you can't, gods be praised, prevent freedom of speech there. Doc, have a mighty nice day. I really hope you can demonstrate some of that broad minded, tolerance Baha'i started out with, but there's been a mite of opposition to it these past several years. And, Doc, don't let anyone get your goat; keep your cool. To Tolerance and Understanding, Michael. Doctor Electron (globalservices1@remove.yahoo.com) writes: > Long, long ago in far off talk.religion.bahai, Ron House > transmitted: > > > >>The Charter already states what is not welcome: >> >>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. > > > OK, so there's a Charter. Wow, a Charter for a usenet group. That's > something to think about. And voting? How? You mean everyone acts > like good boys and girls? No one would post hundreds or thousands of > votes for a particular position from all over the world each with a > different fictional sender/voter. Guys like me are pretty much set up > to tap a few keys and do something like that. Wow!! My head is > spinning. How could such a vote by done? Maybe snail-mail. > > Dumb me, I just thought it was more or less a "free for all." Maybe a > FAQ (*the* FAQ may not yet exist since I just posted a template) is > not needed. Maybe it is and should state that there is a Charter, > etc. > > I guess my FAQ template post was to get reaction. Thanks. If there > is to be a FAQ, maybe it should have a glossary section. Because I am > seeing all sorts of terms that are not familiar. > > > globalservices1_at_yahoo.com using @ instead of _at_. > > ===PEP [Pretty Excellent Privacy] encrypted message=== > The bytes above contain both the key and the message. -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Freethought. Thanks for the clarification. Personally, I agree. Anyone stepping back and seeing with one's own eyes, uninfluenced by either love or hate, IMHO, would see it's a valid view to hold there's something a mite (or mighty) wrong with the gods of a people, without being opposed (that's what anti-means, Susan) to the people stuck with such gods. Gosh, if we can feel the poor Soviets were stuck with unpleasant leaders before Gorbachev, and some may even feel modern Semites are poorly served in that department with Saddam Hussayn and that Sharon guy, without opposing such peoples, it stands to reason that complaining of the gods of these peoples doesn't make one anti Semite. In my view, it's the intolerance of these brutal gods, as interpreted by all-male clerical hierarchies, that's so unacceptable. As I understand history, at least in the west, it's pretty much only these intolerant monotheistic religions that transformed the realm of the sacred into one of warfare. Polytheists did fight wars, but not provoked by religious intolerance. Actually, this is the principal, in my opinion, objection to the coup that has taken place within Baha'i where those individuals supposed to be guiding harmoniously a universal movement have imported the old desert monotheistic intolerance (and "hard heartedness", to use the Biblical phrase), viewing themselves as a chosen people in opposition to the peoples of the world, rather than seeing the rainbow of valid personal opinions. On one point, however, you open yourself up to the argument that the magnificence of deity is demonstrated all the more clearly by the very shabbiness of the messenger. However, I reply to this that if what Moses and Muhammad had brought was not so easily transmuted into the dross of conflict, contention and warfare, this argument would have fewer holes in it. And, it is the same with Baha'i. If Baha'i was proving its capacity to create overarching harmony, instead of old world all-male clerical opposition to harmony, then its value would not be so easily questioned. To a Better Future, Michael. "Freethought110" (freethought110@bohemian.org) writes: > I am speaking about the psychotically deranged god of both Moses and > Muhammad. Susan reckons that if one rails against the deities and the bogus > religion of these desert semites it ipso facto makes one an antisemite. I > don't see it, either. But she does. However, as a rule of thumb with me, > anything that came out of the Indo-Iranian religions and philosophies of > India and Iran, or even religions/philosophies of China and the Far East for > that matter, are far, far superior than the contrived drivel of those > simpleton and unsophiticated desert barbarians in the wastelands of Sinai, > Canaan and Arabia. I mean, a delusional epileptic and lecherous womanizing > unlettered, ignorant Hijazi Arab camel merchant as a prophet/manifestation > of the Ground of Being! Give me a break! What the hell was this god thinking > giving the top job to a complete moron? Anyone would've made a far better > 'prophet' than this lizard eater. > > -- > Freethought110 > > "Michael McKenny" wrote in message > news:a2t51e$jkq$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... >> Greetings, Susan and Nima. >> Nima, I thought you were Persian. What does Susan mean here? Is she >> making a common mistake of saying Persians are Semites (instead of >> Indo-Europeans)? or is she informing us you're not Persian? Or what? Or >> are your non-semitic ancestors supposed to be rolling around because of >> what you think about semite gods? Haven't they anything better to do? >> I don't quite see the anti-semitism in referring to desert semite gods. >> Are you speaking about the god of Moses or the god of Muhammad? Or the >> god of Jesus for that matter? Maybe she snipped stuff I haven't read, but >> from the words on my screen there's no anti-semitism, unless saying there >> is a semitic god is taken as anti-semitism, but, gosh, uhm, like, that's >> basic history of religion isn't it? >> Anyway, to Tolerance and Understanding, Michael. >> >> Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> >>The world >> >>is full of Manichaean dualists especially those who profess the religion > of >> >>that desert semite god in one way or another. >> > >> > Including one who claims to have dissavowed this same desert semite God. > But >> > don't get anti-semitic on us, Nima. Your ancestors will be rolling > around in >> > their graves if they aren't already. >> > >> > warmest, >> > Susan Maneck >> > Associate Professor of History >> > Jackson State University >> > >> >> >> -- >> "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." >> (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) >> > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. There's that excess of language, again. What does the word "stress" mean to you, Susan? Is it identical to mention? To Tolerance and Understanding, to a Rainbow of Valid Opinions, to Freedom of Thought and Expression, michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: > > Only when one insists on stressing His 'semitic' origins. > > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan and Nima. Nima, I thought you were Persian. What does Susan mean here? Is she making a common mistake of saying Persians are Semites (instead of Indo-Europeans)? or is she informing us you're not Persian? Or what? Or are your non-semitic ancestors supposed to be rolling around because of what you think about semite gods? Haven't they anything better to do? I don't quite see the anti-semitism in referring to desert semite gods. Are you speaking about the god of Moses or the god of Muhammad? Or the god of Jesus for that matter? Maybe she snipped stuff I haven't read, but from the words on my screen there's no anti-semitism, unless saying there is a semitic god is taken as anti-semitism, but, gosh, uhm, like, that's basic history of religion isn't it? Anyway, to Tolerance and Understanding, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>The world >>is full of Manichaean dualists especially those who profess the religion of >>that desert semite god in one way or another. > > Including one who claims to have dissavowed this same desert semite God. But > don't get anti-semitic on us, Nima. Your ancestors will be rolling around in > their graves if they aren't already. > > warmest, > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Does this mean the house is now saying that it actually is infallible, that the word doesn't mean something like "Pure" ? Uhm, what's your definition of "Infallible" ? To a Better Future, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: > > If this is at all the case then I think we have to take the Guardian and > House's word for it when they say they are infallible in matters involving the > protection of the Cause. > > > warmest, Susan > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Sorry. I missed the reference to Guardians being unable to interpret. I understand the attitude that the Cause ought to be frozen according to the mindset of the Twentieth Century, but Shoghi Effendi condemned that attitude. There is no impediment from legislating (or, in the case of living guardians, from interpreting) according to the understanding and needs of the present. It's generally possible to acquire the capacity to see the validity of both the world view of the past and the world view of the present. It is not essential to see things in such black and white terms as abrogating, refuting, denying the value and validity of what was, as one complements it in performing the deeds that have value and validity today. To Tolerance and Understanding, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: > > Not so. If even a future Guardian cannot abrogate his authoritative > interpretation then surely the House or anyone else, who have no authority > whatsoever in matters of intepretation cannot do so. > > > warmest, Susan > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. There's that word seriously creeping in where your own opinion is being insisted on. There are other viewpoints, seriously. To Something Other Than Insisting on one's own Opinion, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: > > do that all that explicitly. Yet if we take the W&T statement to this effect > seriously: > > > warmest, Susan > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. When I was in high school during the time of the Six Day War, one of my friends and I decided that if it reached the point that US and Soviet troops were facing off in the Middle East we would try to hike some considerable distance north and meet say a thousand miles from here. Would you call that arrangements or arrangement? To a Better Future, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> >>arrange: "plan or settle beforehand > > Yeah. That's a good definition. Michael had already settled ahead of time which > religion he would join in the event he wasn't a Baha'i anymore. >> >>arrangements: plural of "arrangement" > > Would you feel better if I said 'an arrangement?' > > Okay, I retract arrangements. He apparently only made one. > > Satisfied? > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: > Thanks exactly why I decided to put him in my killfile Brian. I was wasting a > lot of time on someone who was simply going to twist whatever I said beyond > recognition. It's one thing to use a killfile. It's another thing to continue to post in a public forum derogatory statements such as the above about an individual human being, without listening to the individual's replies. -- Cathy Woodgold TISSATAAFL Ottawa, Ontario, Canada https://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~an588/ an588@freenet.carleton.ca "1. What's happening right now? -- Starvation of 3 to 4 million people." (Noam Chomsky transcript, Oct 18, 2001) Greetings, Susan. Wait a minute. What did I say derogatory to Hooper Dunbar? That he's a member of the Universal House of Justice? Ah, but Doc Electron set us all straight on that. It's been an identity thief that's been sending out those messages attacking the Baha'i principles, defining the entity as a fundamentalist church, urging people to get out, etc. in the name of the Universal House of Justice. And, Susan, this is not a private e-list with restricted membership. I mean, Hooper Dunbar is as free as anyone else to come and read here what's posted. You can't complain about what's published in the daily paper as being said behind your back, whether or not you bother to read the paper. And, gosh, do you honestly expect us to believe that a guy reading private e-mail lists to which he's not subscribed isn't reading TRB? That's not what my money would bet, were I a betting man. To a Better Future, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> >>It's another thing to continue to post in a public forum >>derogatory statements such as the above about an >>individual human being, without listening to the >>individual's replies. > > Dear Catherine, > > He is hardly one to complain seeing as he makes derogatory remarks > of people like Hooper Dunbar who aren't even here to respond. If I > choose not to listen to his replies, at least everyone else gets to. > > warmest, > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. And which posters to Baha'i cyberspace told the Ottoman authorities there is a revolt happening? Seems to me you're the one has been posting here your opinion about rebellions and revolts. Have you been sharing these with government authorities in the Sublime Porte or elsewhere? To Tolerance and Understanding, To Moderation in Speech, To the Rainbow of Valid Opinions, To the Future, michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: > > And what exactly did *any* Covenant breaker do other than express their > personal opinion? Even when Muhammad Ali told the Ottoman authorities that > 'Abdu'l-Baha was planning a revolt and the Shrine of the Bab was actually a > fort, that was just freedom of speech, right? > > warmest, > > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. I thought they were named Covemant Breakers because they claimed to be the Head of the Baha'i Faith, or they claimed to be followers of one claiming to be head of the Baha'i Faith -- one other than Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l Baha, Shoghi Effendi. That is more than freedom of speech. I mean, these right wing talk show hosts I mentioned say the Prime Minister is not handling things correctly, but none of them have claimed to be Emperor of Canada. And, no poster I've seen to Baha'i e-lists, etc. was claiming to be the President of the Baha'i Faith, right? To Tolerance and Understanding, To the Validity of a Variety of Views, To Human Harmony, To the Future, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: > > And what exactly did *any* Covenant breaker do other than express their > personal opinion? Even when Muhammad Ali told the Ottoman authorities that > 'Abdu'l-Baha was planning a revolt and the Shrine of the Bab was actually a > fort, that was just freedom of speech, right? > > warmest, > > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) > "Susan Maneck " wrote in message > news:20020126013843.14939.00000879@mb-fc.aol.com... >> >[CW wrote:] >> >It's another thing to continue to post in a public forum >> >derogatory statements such as the above about an >> >individual human being, without listening to the >> >individual's replies. >> >> He is hardly one to complain seeing as he makes derogatory remarks > of people >> like Hooper Dunbar who aren't even here to respond. If I choose not > to listen >> to his replies, at least everyone else gets to. You mean two wrongs make a right? -- Cathy Woodgold TISSATAAFL Ottawa, Ontario, Canada https://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~an588/ an588@freenet.carleton.ca "1. What's happening right now? -- Starvation of 3 to 4 million people." (Noam Chomsky transcript, Oct 18, 2001) Greetings, Susan. I completely agree with you. I'm not complaining in the least. I believe very strongly in the value of communication in cyberspace. Everyone gets to have her/his say in cyberspace, and, no one has to read what s/he doesn't desire. I'm all for it. Why, years ago, I recommended kill files to those sensitive souls who could only stand to read their single opinion. I honestly think it's a much better solution than urging people to resign from the Baha'i Faith if they dare to speak their minds or booting them out if they won't succumb to such urging. By all means, read what you like. You don't have to look at the irrefutable comments I post. And, right you are, everyone else is free to read them. And, have you been posting derogatory statements about me? Why, my deepest appreciation, sincerest thanks and most welcome gratitude. I delight when snarks and flames are sent my way; I understand anyone sending me flames is testifying, and in public, that s/he finds the content of my posts irrefutable; otherwuse, we'd be reading the refutation, rather than the irrelevant flame. To Tolerance and Understanding, To the Rainbow of Valid Personal Opinions, To the Future, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> >>It's another thing to continue to post in a public forum >>derogatory statements such as the above about an >>individual human being, without listening to the >>individual's replies. > > Dear Catherine, > > He is hardly one to complain seeing as he makes derogatory remarks of people > like Hooper Dunbar who aren't even here to respond. If I choose not to listen > to his replies, at least everyone else gets to. > > warmest, > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Same comment I made to Brian. Have fun. Go to it. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Demonstrate, show and prove wherever I am the one turning ye olde dictionary's awareness of the meanings of words into newspeak. To Tolerance and Understanding, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>He uses words as a game, getting more and more >>convoluted, wasting effort on a sport which begins in words and ends in >>words. > > Thanks exactly why I decided to put him in my killfile Brian. I was wasting a > lot of time on someone who was simply going to twist whatever I said beyond > recognition. > > warmest, > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>[CW had written:] >>Thank you for retracting the statement that >>Michael had had "arrangements all made for >>an alternative religion". > > Dear Catherine, > > I see you ignored my statement that I was only retracting the plural form in > that sentence. He had made 'an' arrangement rather than arrangements. How about the word "all"? Are you retracting the word "all"? -- Cathy Woodgold TISSATAAFL Ottawa, Ontario, Canada https://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~an588/ an588@freenet.carleton.ca "1. What's happening right now? -- Starvation of 3 to 4 million people." (Noam Chomsky transcript, Oct 18, 2001) "Dermod Ryder" (Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com) writes: > "Catherine Woodgold" wrote in message > news:a2f0v6$ri8$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... >> Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> >> Michael did not make any "arrangements" for any >> "alternative religion" before the shock of receiving >> a letter indicating him to be, in effect, the first >> person to be expelled from the Baha'i faith for >> expressing individual beliefs. >> >> Will you please take care, Susan, not to make any more >> false statements about Michael. > > Hi Catherine, > > Well and timely said! Thanks, Dermod. I really appreciated this reply from you. > I regarded the letter the House sent to you on Michael's expulsion as > one of its greatest faux pas - it was highly unprofessional, > indelicate and unethical to divulge information to you which should > properly have been dispensed to him in the first place. Right. They told him almost nothing about the reasons for his expulsion. In the original letter it said "behaviour" and I think one other similar word. Imagine if the police threw someone in jail and when they ask why they're there, they're told "because of your behaviour". And no opportunity for confronting witnesses, presenting a defense or having an appeal. Well, it was wrong not to tell him, but it was extremely inappropriate to tell me things that may have been private and that hadn't even been told to him yet. As if when you ask why you're in jail, the guard walks away from your cell, phones up your mother, and tells her. It felt strange to me to be put in that position. -- Cathy Woodgold TISSATAAFL Ottawa, Ontario, Canada https://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~an588/ an588@freenet.carleton.ca "1. What's happening right now? -- Starvation of 3 to 4 million people." (Noam Chomsky transcript, Oct 18, 2001) Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: > Why would you need witnesses to internet posts? I'll you need in the posts > themselves. Well, since the posts do not say "I hereby break a promise which I hereby acknowledge that I made to the UHJ", nor do they say "I no longer accept Baha'u'llah as a manifestation of God", you might want witnesses to, uhm, elucidate the posts. Michael was not even told which posts were allegedly a problem, let alone what was wrong with them. -- Cathy Woodgold TISSATAAFL Ottawa, Ontario, Canada https://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~an588/ an588@freenet.carleton.ca "1. What's happening right now? -- Starvation of 3 to 4 million people." (Noam Chomsky transcript, Oct 18, 2001) Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) had written: > Not only did he not keep his promise but he had > arrangements all made for an alternative religion. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) wrote more recently: > Okay, I retract arrangements. Thank you for retracting the statement that Michael had had "arrangements all made for an alternative religion". Now, please post a retraction of the other false statement you made in the same sentence: your statement that "Not only did he not keep his promise". -- Cathy Woodgold TISSATAAFL Ottawa, Ontario, Canada https://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~an588/ an588@freenet.carleton.ca "1. What's happening right now? -- Starvation of 3 to 4 million people." (Noam Chomsky transcript, Oct 18, 2001) Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>Susan, can I take that as a retraction of your statement >>that Michael had "arrangements all made" for an alternative >>religion? > > No. At most it is an acknowledgement that it didn't mean what you both > apparently took it to mean. > Susan, you had said "arrangements all made". arrangements: plural of "arrangement" plural: "denoting more than one ... more than one in number..." arrangement: "the action of arranging; the fact of being arranged..." arrange: "plan or settle beforehand the details of; give instructions for; cause to take place..." all: "the entire number of; the individual constituents of, without exception..." made: past tense of "make" past: "gone by in time; elapsed; over; that existed or occurred prior to the current time..." make: "produced by combination of parts or ingredients..." The above are quoted from The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 1993. What definitions were you using? -- Cathy Woodgold TISSATAAFL Ottawa, Ontario, Canada https://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~an588/ an588@freenet.carleton.ca "1. What's happening right now? -- Starvation of 3 to 4 million people." (Noam Chomsky transcript, Oct 18, 2001) Greetings, Susan. Ah, language is great, isn't it? I understand. Newspeak is quite a chore for us who grew up speaking the older version of the language. So, when you say "all arrangements made to leave Baha'i" you mean "associating with followers of other religions in fellowship and joy". Why in the world should that surprise us? When you use "Freedom of thought and expression" you mean "A) silence B) censorship", as she these are defined in ye olde dictionary, and when you use "equality of women and men" you mean "male supremecy" as ye olde dictionary would have it, and when you use "independent investigation of truth" you mean "thinking only approved thoughts" as ye olde dictionary knows the words, and when you use "justice" you mean "sentencing", charges, witnesses, trials, defence, even notification of sentence being optional, according to the pleasure or the whim of the men in command. Yes, I've no doubt we misunderstood you. Well, thanks for reminding us all you've an alternate way of speaking. To Tolerance and Understanding, as ye olde dictionary tells it. Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>Susan, can I take that as a retraction of your statement >>that Michael had "arrangements all made" for an alternative >>religion? > > No. At most it is an acknowledgement that it didn't mean what you both > apparently took it to mean. > > warmest, > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Catherine Woodgold (an588@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes: > By "take" you wouldn't in any way mean "interpretation", > would you? I hereby retract the above statement and apologize. Sorry, I got carried away. -- Cathy Woodgold TISSATAAFL Ottawa, Ontario, Canada https://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~an588/ an588@freenet.carleton.ca "1. What's happening right now? -- Starvation of 3 to 4 million people." (Noam Chomsky transcript, Oct 18, 2001) Greetings, Susan. How do you define opposition to the universal house of justice? Is posting messages to e-mail lists opposition to the universal house of justice. Like, we were quite silly, in your opinion, I take it, who thought this meant backing one of the living guardians, though, you know, since you're the one who's been writing as if Haifa is just Rome, and Catholics and Orthodox and Anglicans and Baptists don't actually have to oppose each other, even this isn't essential in a definition of the word. So, kindly give us your take on this phrase opposition to the universal house of justice. What do you mean by the phrase? And, how does your understanding of this word opposition apply in general, I mean, if you're the one insisting on literal reading of legal texts, then, if the word opposition really does apply in your view to posting e-mail views to the Internet, I guess the same word otta be applied to posts to soc. culture.usa, etc. that find fault with President Bush's policies, right? Oh, I understand that America has higher standards and won't arrest one for it, but you do still see it as opposition, no? I'm really sorry I missed any response to my remarks about Baha'is being asked by the Universal House of justice to treat the language with respect, to tone down the volume of clamour and speak with precise, soft and appropriate words. Could you kindly post again your response to this and how you intend to avoid using such excessive words as opposition, standard of revolt, etc. Or, would you be, uhm, in opposition to the UHJ on that point? To Tolerance and Understanding, To a Valid Variety of Views, To Human Harmony, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>Which law did she break? > > The one prohibiting opposition to the House of Justice. > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) >> > Sorry Dermod but I think the UHJ did the right thing and should do >> > it again if the situation warrants it. >> >> So you think it is right for the Apartment Block to expell a person >> without giving specific warning beforehand or reason afterwards. > Dave Fiorito (bighappymonkey@yahoo.com) writes: > Ignorance of the law is not a reason to break it without consequence. That's supposed to mean that people who break the law get punished. It's not supposed to mean that those meting out the punishment don't have to bother telling anyone what they're being punished for. -- Cathy Woodgold TISSATAAFL Ottawa, Ontario, Canada https://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~an588/ an588@freenet.carleton.ca "1. What's happening right now? -- Starvation of 3 to 4 million people." (Noam Chomsky transcript, Oct 18, 2001) Dave Fiorito (bighappymonkey@yahoo.com) writes: > The NZ NSA tried (poorly) and the UHJ based its decision on their > efforts. The UHJ is not omniscient. If they have missed something > then they should be contacted by the parties involved. If an error is > made unkowingly then the party at fault is the one that does not speak > up and seek resolution. Dave -- are you saying that someone should tell the UHJ that the UHJ has made a mistake??? ??? !!! -- Cathy Woodgold TISSATAAFL Ottawa, Ontario, Canada https://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~an588/ an588@freenet.carleton.ca "1. What's happening right now? -- Starvation of 3 to 4 million people." (Noam Chomsky transcript, Oct 18, 2001) Greetings, Susan. Did you or the House ever know that the Baha'i Faith advanced the independent investigation of truth, seeing with one's own eyes, the freedom of thought and expression, the validity of a variety of viewpoints, the validity of the spirituality of those who walked the road of life before us, the harmony of faith and reason, the equality of women and men, justice...? In other words, did you never know this or is it something you've lost sight of? To Tolerance and Understanding, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: > 3) The House of Judgement is not commenting one what they might have > understood in the past. Sometimes we lose sight of what we once knew. > > warmest, > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Well, you know, in my estimation it is content, issue, material that is assessed; personality is irrelevant. Some people may feel the author is significant. However, I believe that intolerance of the spirituality of our contemporaries, intolerance of the noble deeds and spiritual beliefs of our ancestors, opposition to the validity of a variety of viewpoints, insistence on a single ray of truth, suppression of women, fettering reason and faith in dictated bonds, refusing justice, and the like are reprehensible, whether the men who make them up have the balls to put their own name on them or whether they make them up and stick Baha'u'llah's name on them, or any other name. To Tolerance and Understanding, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> >>Is that the sense in which *you* were using the phrase? I thought >>you were intending that as a slight, either on Michael, or on >>pagans in general. Did I misread your intent? > > I don't have much regard for that kind of spirituality myself. > > warmest, > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Dermod. Yep, when one of my friends heard about this thing called the Universal House of Justice, he said: "Ah. A Holy Roman Empire." There was this thing called the Holy Roman Empire which students of history learn was not Holy, not Roman and not an Empire. To a Better Future, Michael. "Dermod Ryder" (Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com) writes: > > Problem - big problem in fact. There is an organisation which styles > itself the "Universal House of Justice." I'm not under its > jurisdiction and, AFAIK, it has no branches outside of this planet so > isn't "universal" a bit of a misnomer? As for "justice" - well > there's quite a few folk around here who wouldn't altogether agree > with that appelation either! > > Drat! Back to the drawing board! > > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Catherine Woodgold" Subject: Re: Internet Crackdown Date: Sunday, January 27, 2002 9:28 PM Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>What's the definition of "back-biting"? > > The definition of backbiting is to make false and malicious statements about a > person not present. Michael is present and my statements are not false. Nor are > they malicious, they are only expressions of my frustration with him. > In other words, you think it's fine to post pejorative remarks about Michael to a public forum. Twice when I've asked you about it you've claimed in reply that he also posts pejorative remarks (though you didn't quote any examples), but you won't admit that your reasoning either is or is not equivalent to "two wrongs make a right". You say that your allegations are not false, but you haven't provided evidence of that. Thanks for the definitions. To courtesy and respect, Cathy. -- Cathy Woodgold TISSATAAFL Ottawa, Ontario, Canada https://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~an588/ an588@freenet.carleton.ca "1. What's happening right now? -- Starvation of 3 to 4 million people." (Noam Chomsky transcript, Oct 18, 2001) Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: > That's not what I recall. But I'm sure Michael himself can tell us when he said > he was joining the Pagans. My recollection is that he made this announcement on > H-Bahai at the same time he posted the message that he had been removed from > the rolls. > Michael cared so much about the Baha'i Faith that he acted almost immediately to prevent the existence of a person in the impossible category of heretic. (Sorry, Susan, I pressed the wrong key and sent this by email by mistake the first time.) -- Cathy Woodgold TISSATAAFL Ottawa, Ontario, Canada https://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~an588/ an588@freenet.carleton.ca "1. What's happening right now? -- Starvation of 3 to 4 million people." (Noam Chomsky transcript, Oct 18, 2001) Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: > And thank you for confirming my recollection that Michael joined the > Pagans immediately. Please don't misquote me, Susan! I did not confirm that. > Michael did say something about joining the pagans for the > reason you mention. Didn't make any sense to me then, doesn't make any sense to > me now. And yet you think you understand the workings of Michael's mind well enough that you think you can deduce that he certainly must have "made an arrangement" ahead of time to join an "alternative religion", even though he himself says he made no such arrangement. -- Cathy Woodgold TISSATAAFL Ottawa, Ontario, Canada https://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~an588/ an588@freenet.carleton.ca "1. What's happening right now? -- Starvation of 3 to 4 million people." (Noam Chomsky transcript, Oct 18, 2001) > "Susan Maneck " wrote in message >> >What's the definition of "back-biting"? >> >> The definition of backbiting is to make false and malicious > statements about a >> person not present. Michael is present and my statements are not > false. Nor are >> they malicious, they are only expressions of my frustration with > him. Is a person "present" who is in a different city and has been killfiled? -- Cathy Woodgold TISSATAAFL Ottawa, Ontario, Canada https://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~an588/ an588@freenet.carleton.ca "1. What's happening right now? -- Starvation of 3 to 4 million people." (Noam Chomsky transcript, Oct 18, 2001) Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> >>And do you feel you have the right to post pejorative remarks >>about an individual? > > Come on, Cathy Michael posts pejorative remarks about me all the time, calling > me a fundamentalist and stuff. I'm speaking what I believe to be the truth. Do you mean that you believe that two wrongs make a right, or do you mean that there's nothing wrong with posting pejorative remarks about an individual? >>to you to post an inaccurate, misleading statement, retract >>that statement, and not bother apologizing? > > Give me a break! We were quibbling about semantics, nothing of subtance. I was not quibbling about semantics. I came onto this newsgroup because it came to my attention that you had posted false statements about Michael that made me angry because they trivialized what had been a big part of his life for many years, his faith in Baha'i, and which impugned his honesty and sincerity. > You objected to my using the word arrangements when he had only made one > arrangement. He had not made any such arrangement. To suggest that Michael did or could have made an "arrangement" for an "alternative religion" completely misrepresents the reality of the depth of his belief (at the time) in the Baha'i Faith. > My statements were by no means misleading. They were completely false. >> If you feel you >>have the right to post pejorative remarks, is that really, >>deep down inside, what you want to be doing and to be seen >>as doing? > > Deep down inside I want to be known for standing up for the truth. Is a pejorative remark about an individual the kind of "truth" you want to be known for standing up for? Does the Baha'i Faith allow the publishing of pejorative remarks about individuals? Do the targets have to be non-Baha'i's? Does the Faith encourage such remarks? What's the definition of "back-biting"? What's the definition of campaigning? -- Cathy Woodgold TISSATAAFL Ottawa, Ontario, Canada https://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~an588/ an588@freenet.carleton.ca "1. What's happening right now? -- Starvation of 3 to 4 million people." (Noam Chomsky transcript, Oct 18, 2001) Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: > > I mean, Michael has every right to respond. And I have every right to decide > who I will listen to. And do you feel you have the right to post pejorative remarks about an individual? Do you feel you have the right to post such remarks and not listen to responses? Does it feel right to you to post an inaccurate, misleading statement, retract that statement, and not bother apologizing? If you feel you have the right to post pejorative remarks, is that really, deep down inside, what you want to be doing and to be seen as doing? -- Cathy Woodgold TISSATAAFL Ottawa, Ontario, Canada https://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~an588/ an588@freenet.carleton.ca "1. What's happening right now? -- Starvation of 3 to 4 million people." (Noam Chomsky transcript, Oct 18, 2001)From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: A 4th McKenny Talisman 1 Post Date: Monday, January 28, 2002 11:29 AM Greetings, Here's another Talisman 1 Post. I have removed the name of a member and sincerely apologize for any names included in material I posted last night, except for my own of course. M. Date: Fri Apr 19 15:10:52 1996 From: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca (McKenny Michael) Subject: MASHRIQ To: talisman@indiana.edu Reply-To: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca Greetings. X posted a quote by Abdu'l Baha linking the Mashriqu'al Adkar with the process of entry by troops. I would be very interested in seeing this question explored in more depth. What is intended by Mashriqu'al Adkar? It is clear that our small communities cannot afford the construction of such imposing structures as we see in India etc. However, what is possible? What are the actions that can be undertaken now? I'm not asking this in the context of entry by troops. Frankly, I feel that the focus on conversion is misplaced at present among many of us. Were we to relax, be a bit more laid back, to use the idiom of the age, and just go about living a Baha'i life in a Baha'i context, acting as if really all religions do come from God, entry by troops would come about anyway. However, our focus may better be placed on forging our own communities. In this city there are Baha'i morning prayers at least once a week, and recently we have had a meditation group start up. I will, Inshallah, post more on this in a few days. I am very interested on the thoughts X and others may have as to how to go about now implementing what we can at this stage of the institution of the Mashriq. Very Best Wishes, Michael -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Date: Wed Apr 17 11:03:33 1996 From: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca (McKenny Michael) Subject: PRAYER AND ENTRY BY TROOPS To: talisman@indiana.edu Reply-To: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca Greetings. This is a second post on the basic requirements for entry by troops. 25 years ago the Baha'is of a town near Ottawa were facing the loss of their Spiritual Assembly. Ridvan was coming and they were less than nine. So, they gathered together and recited 500 times the Remover of Difficulties. Their Assembly was formed and, God knows how many times Ridvan has come since then with only nine adult Baha'is in a town, not just this one, and one of those nine someone who became a Baha'i as the result of those 500 Removers of Difficulties. I would be interested in other comments on the role of prayer, especially the very powerful prayers, in teaching and entry by troops. Very Best Wishes, Michael -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Date: Tue Apr 16 09:42:41 1996 From: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca (McKenny Michael) Subject: LETTER TO CHRISTIAN To: TALISMAN@indiana.edu Reply-To: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca Greetings, N, from Ottawa. It seems to be taking me a couple of days after I download TALISMAN posts before I can get around to reading them. Your title caught my attention and I thought any response ought to be sent soon. So, I read your letter out of order. How wonderful that you felt moved to respond to someone talking about the glory of God. Your intent is highly praiseworthy and the humility of asking for the comments of your fellow Baha'is along with prayer may well add spiritual force to your effort. My response is in the spirit of frank and loving consultation. Your letter asks a lot from the reader, who may have an easier time were it significantly shorter, written in a more simple style and included far less detail. A phrase such as "consultation, information-centered, progressive and self-correcting pattern" may be a bit too much like steak when the Master, I believe, encouraged us to start off with milk for most seekers. If you are posting this to a newsgroup surely there'll be those there who need the milk, even if you feel the person you're answering can handle steak. My experience is Christians tend to respond better to the general comment that all the major religions come from God (Actually, a hard enough test as it is) than to see right from the start the red flag of the word Islam. The information that only ten percent of the Writings have yet been translated seems an unnecessary detail and gives rise to questions as to what's being hidden. The comment about a living universe is possibly something most Christians don't believe. If there is something in the Writings on this I'd be happy for the source, as it's the kind of thing which may reduce the tests many pagans face when they meet the Faith. May this be of help to you. May others here also respond and whatever actually results may your intent and spirit see it lead to significant result. Very Best Wishes, Michael -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings. Here's a quote ofsomething I said on Talisman 1 on this topic. I have removed the name of the member and the reply to me. What is below is my comment. M. Date: Tue Apr 16 11:38:36 1996 From: X Subject: Re: LETTER TO CHRISTIAN To: talisman@indiana.edu ("Talisman") At 09:42 AM 4/16/96 -0400, McKenny Michael wrote: > The comment about a living universe is possibly something most >Christians don't believe. If there is something in the Writings >on this I'd be happy for the source, as it's the kind of thing >which may reduce the tests many pagans face when they meet the >Faith. -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Date: Sun May 25 08:29:12 1997 From: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca (McKenny Michael) Subject: Re: Thoroughly Modern Militant To: X Cc: irfan1@umich.edu Reply-To: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca Greetings. It is that the current Universal House of Justice, as valid as it is for the present, may not limit the ability of the Universal House of Justice in the future. This logically applies even when it comes to the issue of choosing whether or not to consider a topic for whatever reason. The Universal House of Justice at any time may choose to view the issue differently than a previous Universal House of Justice. That is, it may decide this issue is subject to legislation, it may decide it is covered by the clear scriptural grounds of the primacy of principle over the literal text seeming to abrogate principle. The authority and ability of the Universal House of justice may not be limited be any pronouncement of a previous Universal House of Justice. Peace, Michael > >Michael writes: >> My understanding is that the Universal House of justice is >>the supreme legislative body in the Baha'i system, that it is >>worthy of inestimable respect and that it cannot impose upon >>Terrans any understanding of Scripture, though it may legislate >>and according to its understanding (what else can it do?) its >>legislation is subject to change as its understanding evolves as >>well as the conditions on the planet. >> > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Date: Wed Apr 17 09:31:34 1996 From: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca (McKenny Michael) Subject: TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT To: talisman@indiana.edu Reply-To: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca Greetings especially to Joan and Alex. It was great to hear from you. I am glad, Joan, that you now feel that you can breathe after 26 years. Reading the paper on the Service of Women has given wings to my spirit as well. Yes, I think it's important to recognize that this great gift of an institution, The Universal House of Justice, is a treasure of guidance, whatever the composition of members. Alex, you are completely correct. The Baha'is are called upon to show such a spirit of service and love as is beyond previous notions of leadership and control. I used those expressions to show the point of view of the outside world. Those who are not Baha'is are much more apt to perceive a "ruling" and "control" and to react accordingly. May this find you very well and may that long continue. Very Best Wishes, Michael "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings. Among the material accessed on some old discs copied recently is the following personal file copy of something posted to at least one of the e-lists. Based on the text itself, e.g. the names (deleted below) and circumstance of reply, it's likely this is the original, in the event the text was used for postings to more than one list. If anyone has a copy of this after it was posted, I'd be grateful to have the information as to when (sometime in 1996) and where it was posted. Anyone happy with the exclusion of women from the UHJ may wish to cease reading here. To Spiritual Principles, Michael. Greetings from Ottawa. I believe the following adequately responds to X's request that I back up my assertion that people are being kept out of the Faith in troops, as well as Y's remark about there being more important things than the issue of gender equality and the Universal House of Justice. What follows is too incredible to be invented. I lived it. Around 1990 my wife and I were invited to a "fireside". I was amazed to discover that there was a whole circle of people holding these "firesides", pot luck suppers blended with stimulating conversation. There were a couple of dozen, I think, at the first one I attended, none of whom were aware that the term "fireside" had a Baha'i significance. None had been around when these firesides had started up years earlier, and no one could tell me their origin. While historical verification is not at present available, it is possible these firesides were linked to those of the same nature held in the same area by an active Baha'i who had moved a decade or so earlier. Some time later Ottawa Baha'is had a magnificent celebration of the birth of Baha'ullah, and believers were encouraged to present official invitations to prominent people they knew. My wife's old school friend, the same person who had introduced me to these firesides, received one of these invitations from each of the two Baha'is who had her as boss. She gave one to my wife and they went together. Actually, she was quite surprised to learn that my wife was not a Baha'i, as she had attended our Baha'i wedding and she was reading about the Faith, which seemed very attractive. I recall that she said to my wife, "Well, tell me something bad about the Baha'i Faith." My wife answered, "Women are not allowed on the Universal House of Justice." How was my wife able to say that? Well, in the late 80s the Universal House of Justice had called for the use of the Peace Message in leading to entry by troops. Not only had I presented a copy to pretty well everyone I knew, but I began to hold "Peace Talks" to which scores of friends and acquaintences were regularly invited, although generally only half a dozen or so would show up, seldom any other Baha'i. The people attracted to these "Peace Talks" over the years were people of capacity and included some pretty keen local activists, individuals who belonged to many groups and circles likely sympathetic to the social teachings of this Faith. And, I think it was at one of these "Peace Talks" that a non-Baha'i friend, said, "But women are not allowed to be on the Universal House of Justice." So, this information, which I had not seen fit to share even with my wife, was out in the open. How was my non-Baha'i friend able to say that? She and I were founding members of a writers' circle formed here in January of 1980. After years of patient attention, I succeeded in having her come to a fireside at the Ottawa Baha'i Centre. I was the speaker and the topic was "Humour in the Baha'i Faith". After I finished my talk and informal discussion had begun, one of the Baha'i men present said, "And do you want to know something else that's funny? Women aren't allowed on the Universal House of Justice. Ha, ha." X, the truth is that I do not know the total number of different organizations and circles exempted, as related above, from the opportunity of experiencing members, who are people of capacity, becoming enthusiastic new Baha'is. This is the story of one Baha'i in one city. Peace, Michael. -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings. Here is the welcome to T1 message received by bn872, i.e. Michael McKenny. This message is of interest both in itself in general and in pinpointing just when it was Michael McKenny joined Talisman 1. Kindly note this message is being posted for archival purposes only. Do not attempt to subscribe to this list. It ceased to exist a few months after this message was received. To freedom of thought and expression, Michael. Date: Tue Feb 27 09:02:10 1996 From: Majordomo@indiana.edu Subject: Welcome to talisman To: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca Reply-To: Majordomo@indiana.edu Welcome to the talisman mailing list! If you ever want to remove yourself from this mailing list, you can send mail to "Majordomo@majordomo.ucs.indiana.edu" with the following command in the body of your email message: unsubscribe talisman bn872@freenet.carleton.ca Here's the general information for the list you've subscribed to, in case you don't already have it: [Last updated on: Sat Dec 30 10:59:11 1995] TALISMAN is an unmoderated forum for discussion of issues related to the Babi and Baha'i Faiths: history, theology, social issues, etc. Content can include discussion of relevant issues, queries, announcements, advertisements of books of interest to the members, etc. The list owner is John Walbridge, Associate Professor of Near Eastern Languages and of Philosophy, Indiana University, Bloomington. 1. The service is provided through the University Computer Center of Indiana University. Participants are reminded that this service is paid for by the taxpayers of the state of Indiana, that the fundamental purpose of this list is scholarly, and that discussion should thus be conducted on the basis of evidence and rational argument. The list is open to anyone approved by the list owner. 2. The list is actually an automatic forwarding device. The list owner does not moderate content, nor does he wish to do so. Participants are free to argue for whatever views they wish, provided they do so courteously and on the basis of evidence and sound reasoning. 3. Any mail addressed to the list--TALISMAN@INDIANA.EDU--will be automatically forwarded as e-mail to all members of the list. 4. Participants are reminded that they are on the list as guests of the list owner. Violations of decorum will be punished by being dropped from the list. This sanction is solely at the discretion of the list owner and is not subject to appeal. 5. The list owner being a Midwesterner of philosophic temperament, participants are requested to refrain from abusive language, discourtesy, ad hominem arguments, accusations of heresy, and other forms of fallacious argumentation. On the other hand, this is an argumentative list, and members should be willing to defend their expressed opinions against spirited attack without taking it personally. 6. Please remember that all postings go out to all members. Sophomoric, overly long, irrelevant, and badly thought out postings waste everybody's time and someone's money. 7. Please refrain from unnecessarily including the text of the message you are replying to or passages therefrom in your postings. These clutter up the system and are a needless expense for those who personally pay for connect time. 8. No archive of messages is available, nor is there a list of participants. 9. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message to MAJORDOMO@INDIANA.EDU. Subj.: none The body should contain only the command: subscribe talisman or: unsubscribe talisman 10. To contact the listowner privately, e-mail to jwalbrid@indiana.edu. 11. A custom has developed on this list--based, it seems, on Maori etiquette--that new participants should introduce themselves at some point with a brief biography. -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings. Here's more on this topic from Talisman 1. I have deleted the name of the member concerned, as well as references to this member that could permit identification. M. Date: Fri Apr 19 10:18:54 1996 From: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca (McKenny Michael) Subject: PAGANS To: talisman@indiana.edu Reply-To: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca Greetings, X I was very interested to read your post mentioning pagans. I have met a great many here. Indeed I have joked that either the City is crawling with them or I seem to be especially attracted to them. From what I understand, there is a great deal of spirituality here, especially in connection with the reverance for the earth and nature, with the feminine aspect and with the harmony of individualism and community. ...X... It seems to me that the pagans I know face many tests on encountering the Faith. ...X... Thanks again for your interesting post. May this find you very well and may that long continue. Michael -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Karen. When I was an editor, people did write to ask what kind of stuff I published, but I never told them they couldn't write X at all, just that they'd have to look elsewhere to find a publication that took what they were writing. That's what some Baha'is have trouble with. Censorship per se and the interference in the work per se are not the same thing as editorial comment or academic review. There's nothing wrong with a lot of material Bahai's want censored. That is, from an academic or scholarly consideration; the flaw is in the facts being presented and the interpretation being placed upon them. In a free and democratic society, one has the freedom to present alternate understandings and additional facts. This is praiseworthy. Suppression of facts and understandings is reprehensible. Ad hominems, remarks addressed against individuals rather than the facts or the understandingings of facts, are invalid, To Tolerance and Understanding, Michael. "Karen Bacquet" (karenbacquet@hotmail.com) writes: > > You were trying to tell me how to write my paper, > and then saying I wasn't being truthful if I didn't follow your > instructions. Not even Juan gets to tell me how to write -- and he never > even tries to do that. If he did, though, he'd be told exactly where to get > off. Your assumptions are unfounded, and you know very well that in writing > a paper like this that the point isn't to "blame" anyone. A heavy-duty > propaganda piece is pretty unlikely to be published, especially for a person > without postgraduate work in related fields. I have to be doubly sure of my > facts, my documentation, and the soundness of my arguments. In my > forthcoming article, I discuss Baha'i attitudes towards covenant-breakers, > tracing it straight back to 'Abdu'l-Baha and the Will & Testament, because > that's what's historically accurate. I will do the same with this article. > But for damn sure I have no obligation to justify myself to you. > > Karen > >> > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Doc. There is an enormous difference between an editor and a censor. And, there is an enormous difference between a variety of target audiences, in which a plurality of views is permitted and a captive audience, such as the Soviet for example, where the entire population is prevented from reading material, not because it is poorly written or off topic (the editor thing), but because it is politically unacceptable to leadership (the censorship thing). Censorship clearly, plainly and unacceptably exists in Baha'i, along with Soviet style newspeak that calls thorns roses. This entity is neither red nor does it have a pleasant odour. It is sharp and painful and doesn't smell nice at all. It is designed to prevent the led from reading material leadership doesn't wish read. To Freedom of Thought and Expression, M. Doctor Electron (globalservices1@remove.yahoo.com) writes: > Long, long ago in far off talk.religion.bahai, > bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael McKenny) transmitted: > >>Heck, you can even read uncensored stuff in the >>print media, excluding Baha'i. > > With all due respect, Michael, I do not think you will be able to read > "uncensored stuff in the print media, excluding Baha'i." Those media > all have editors, who select material appropriate for the target > audience/market of the publication, i.e., in your terminology, > "censored." > > globalservices1_at_yahoo.com using @ instead of _at_. > > ===PEP [Pretty Excellent Privacy] encrypted message=== > The bytes above contain both the key and the message. -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Howdy, Doc. Not exclusively, Doc. "The Service of Women" Paper was to be published in a Baha'i publication, and, Doc, my memory is that it passed Baha'i review (I invite verification on this point) and it was squashed on orders from the top. No, Doc. whether we're talking about censorship of material to be published in Baha'i or in non-Baha'i publications, it is the identical critter, as oppressive of freedom of thought and expression as no decent person would wish to endure. Editing is one thing. And, academic review is another. However, controlling the views permitted publication is a beast of another colour entirely. To Freedom of Thought and Expression, Michael. Doctor Electron (globalservices1@remove.yahoo.com) writes: > Long, long ago in far off talk.religion.bahai, > bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael McKenny) transmitted: > >>Howdy, Doc. > > I think it's just the terminology. Let me try again. I will quote my > previous post with the addition of the words "by the Baha'i > Administration" and see if we are referring to the same thing: > > On another level, I am getting the impression that some authors here > use the term "censorship" to refer to the review process *by the > Baha'i Administration* for manuscripts destined to be published in > non-Baha'i media. That is, it (the reference to censorship) is about > that particular procedure. > > globalservices1_at_yahoo.com using @ instead of _at_. > > ===PEP [Pretty Excellent Privacy] encrypted message=== > The bytes above contain both the key and the message. -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Howdy, Doc. I have not seen any writer here use the word censorship to refer to academic review in the non-Baha'i world. Every time I've read the word here and certainly every time I've used the word here, I've seen it, or I've used it, to refer to Baha'i leadership refusing to allow publication of material on topic, but unacceptable because of what it says, or to refer to the same kind of prohibition by such totalitarian states as that endured in the days of the Soviet Union before glastnost. To Freedom of Thought and Expression, Michael. Doctor Electron (globalservices1@remove.yahoo.com) writes: > Long, long ago in far off talk.religion.bahai, > bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael McKenny) transmitted: > >>Greetings, Doc. >> There is an enormous difference between an editor and a censor. And, >>there is an enormous difference between a variety of target audiences, >>in which a plurality of views is permitted and a captive audience, such >>as the Soviet for example, where the entire population is prevented from >>reading material, not because it is poorly written or off topic (the >>editor thing), but because it is politically unacceptable to leadership >>(the censorship thing). Censorship clearly, plainly and unacceptably >>exists in Baha'i, along with Soviet style newspeak that calls thorns roses. >>This entity is neither red nor does it have a pleasant odour. It is sharp >>and painful and doesn't smell nice at all. It is designed to prevent the >>led from reading material leadership doesn't wish read. >> To Freedom of Thought and Expression, M. > > I'm just trying to understand what is going on. Is "Soviet" now > Russia and etc.? I assumed they now had something we could call a > free press. > > On another level, I am getting the impression that some authors here > use the term "censorship" to refer to the review process for > manuscripts destined to be published in non-Baha'i media. That is, it > is about that particular procedure. > > globalservices1_at_yahoo.com using @ instead of _at_. > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Karen. I'm very sad to see that ad hominems are being used against you. Comments about the person are invalid. You know, a publication is judged on its own merrit. Your article will stand or fall on its own weight. If it is flawed then let the corrections, improvements and enhancements be published. My activity on one of the pagan lists I'm on now is posting my notes and translations of passages of a scholarly text, MAGIE, MEDECINE ET DIVINATION CHEZ LES CELTES by Guyonvarc'h. This review and these notes may be published. And already a scholar on the list has posted his reply, disagreeing with much of what I've posted (i.e. with my presentation of Guyonvarc'h, not necessarily with my own views) and offered to write for publication a rebuttal. That's how it's done. If one objects to facts and to understandings, then let one present the additional facts and let one offer another valid human understanding. And, all issues of personality are irrelevant. The colour of your hair, the colour of your eyes, anything to do with your personal life is worth absolutely zilch when it comes to assessing the contents of any publication. Guyonvarc'h, whether he collects mickey mouse cards or watches racing cars, or any other inconsequential thing is assessed solely on the content (the facts and his understanding of them) of his work. As, validly, is any other such author, including you. May this find you very well, may tomorrow be even kinder to you, and may each day after that be better than the one it succeeds. Thrive, Michael. "Karen Bacquet" (karenbacquet@hotmail.com) writes: > I don't know who the referees were. You know I don't know who they were, > because you know very well that I would not be given that information. The > editor picked them, and I had nothing to do with it. All that happened was > that I expressed some anxiety about the article falling into the hands of > biased people, and he assured me that it would not because none of the > reviewers were Baha'is. I also know for sure that two of the three reviewers > were neither Baha'is nor ex-Baha'is. That's all I know. So you can just > take your innuendo and stuff it! > > What is this anyway? The opening salvo on the character assassination > that's going to occur because I've got an article published? Of course, I > can't get an article published, it all has to do with some behind the scenes > machinations on my behalf. Next thing you'll be doing is accusing me of > sleeping with the editor. > > Karen -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Dave. Could you kindly include a bit of my words as context to what you post? I don't recall saying anything about dogs at all. I have been posting against ad hominems, one of my favourite pastimes, but, man, you wouldn't be calling anyone here a dog, now, would you? To Clarity and Understanding, Michael. Dave Fiorito (bighappymonkey@yahoo.com) writes: > Michael, > > So what you are saying is that if i put my hand in front of a dog ten > times and do not get bitten, but I get bitten the eleventh time I > should do it again because logic says that patterns don't matter. > > Sheesh, > > Dave -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Brian. The point is that if you address the person (Juan) you are making an ad hominem. If you address an issue, whatever that issue is (Some fact Juan apparantly got wrong, doesn't matter how; what was it by the way? Kindly provide his error, along with your refutation.) you're on topic. If you talk about people (Juan or Mickey Mouse, doesn't matter) you're invalidly doing the ad hominem thing. Refute every point you like, and all you say about Mickey Mouse is irrelevant. You had something censored? Great. Post it here. There are no censors here. To learning how to speak a non ad hominem language, Michael. "Brian Walker" (bfwalker@net-yan.com) writes: > Hi Karen, > > meet another who has been incensed as indeed Pat has been. I wonder if > you see it quite the same way. Let me put my POV to you. -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Randy. Many thanks for this. Baha'u'llah agrees with her. He wrote that in this day women are rajul. Thanks again. I was quite delighted to read it. Thrive, Michael. "Randy Burns" (randy.burns4@gte.net) writes: > ... > One section which caught my attention was dealing with Azam > Taleghani's run for the presidency in the election of 1997. A woman > trying to get elected in the Islamic Republic to any office is > strange enough, but the presidency? > > Sciolino writes: > "The declaration of Taleghani's candidacy forced a serious debate on > a key provision of Iran's Constitution, which said that only a rajol - > a respected person of consequence - could run. In Arabic, the word > is masculine, but Taleghani argued that in Persian its meaning is not > so clear." She appealed to the religious scholars in Qom and they > debated endlessly on the subject. They couldn't decide - so she > decided that she was a rajol. > > Some clerics said women could absolutely not become president, but at > least one ayatollah said that women and men, and even hermaphrodites, > could become president. Some ayatollahs said that in theory women > could become judges, clerics and even Supreme Leader, but the > presidency was different. In the end she was disqualified from > running. Taleghani saw the exercise as a victory, because she was > not disqualified for being a woman, but because > "she was not a religious or political personality". > > *I am not familiar with the Islamic law about women and politics, or > their usage of the word rajol. Can someone on this list please give > us some background to this situation. It seems possible that in the > near future a women may be allowed to run for the presidency of Iran > and, therefore, by definition they would have reached the status of > rajol. > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: McKenny Talisman Post re 9 Brewers Date: Monday, February 04, 2002 6:21 PM Date: Thu Apr 11 10:31:08 1996 From: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca (McKenny Michael) Subject: This is true To: talisman@indiana.edu Reply-To: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca Greetings from Ottawa. I see that not everyone got it. Well, with this posting I clarify that "The Tablet of the Nine Brewers" was a typical Michael McKenny response to a situation such as the flame war which raged here recently. Most of my published fiction may be called humorous. I also have a degree in Latin and as Quintilian says "Satura quidem tota nostra est." ("Satire is entirely ours"; he means the one art form the Romans did not borrow from the Greeks.) To honour the Maori, I'll add that I was born here 46 years ago, accepted Buddha & Muhammad before I ran into the Baha'i Faith, was a leading world federalist youth leader and am a student of the Qabalah. I am a writer, translator (Russian) and editor. You may be interested to know that the AENEID reading list has demonstrated that flame wars are not an essential ingredient of cyberspace. May this find you all very well and may that long be so. Very Best Wishes, Michael "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings. Here's another personal copy of a post from old files I'm slowly going through. As with the other one, I'd be grateful for anyone having a copy of this after it was posted providing me the details as to when (1996, most likely) and to which list it was posted. I think Talisman more likely. To Freedom of Thought and Expression, Michael. Greetings from Ottawa. I thought you people considering democracy and loyal opposition would enjoy this totalitarian gem. This is a letter from the Roman emperor Trajan to his governor in Bythinia. It was written, I believe, between AD 104-107. "I have received your suggestion that it should be possible to form a company of firemen at Nicomedia on the model of those existing elsewhere, but we must remember that it is societies like these which have been responsible for the political disturbances in your province, particularly in the towns. If people assemble for a common purpose, whatever name we give them and for whatever reason, they soon turn into a political club. It is better policy then to provide the equipment necessary for dealing with fires, and to instruct property owners to make use of it, calling on the help of the crowds which collect if they find it necessary." This translation is that by Betty Radice in the Penguin edition THE LETTERS OF THE YOUNGER PLINY (letter X:34). Fare very Well, Michael -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Howdy, Doc. This is one mighty confused bit of work. What's the point in having a pseudonym if write like the authorities in Baha'i know who you are? My understanding of the content of this post is that you are trying to give the impression to some people here that you like sort of support freedom of thought and expression, while being able to demonstrate to the guys currently in charge that you are as anti-democratic as they are. That's all ad hominem and irrelevant to any issue, save Dave's point (Maybe this is what he meant and he's warning us about you) that no one with an ounce of prevention would come within biting distance, when, shucks, Doc, we've had quite a few bites from Baha'i authorities and their moles in cyberspace. Just to provide the opportunity for clarity, Doc, do you agree that freedom of thought and expression is a worthwile principle that ought to be practised now within Baha'i? Doc, do you think "review" as it's called has outlived any value it may have had? Do you think that Baha'is ought to be free without having to worry about membership status to post to e-mail lists and/or publish in hardcopy whatever thoughts and information they can contribute, and not have these vetted by religious "review"? To Clarity and Understanding, Michael. Doctor Electron (globalservices1@remove.yahoo.com) writes: > Long, long ago in far off talk.religion.bahai, "Paul Hammond" > transmitted: > >>> >Open the door for more victim-blaming. >>> >>> Don't. Leave it shut, pal. >> >>Sorry? Didn't I make myself clear? If you want the victim >>blaming door shut, then *you* leave it shut. > > I never occurred to me even to try to open it. My posts and those of > Curious and others all urge looking at the "perpetrator" not the > "victim." Check around. You will see what I mean. I hope you are > not another "wannabe victim." It's bad enough we one is really a > victim! > >>But, you feel it incumbent on yourself to speak up for their >>position nonetheless, regardless of your self-admitted ignorance >>on the topic? Interesting.... > > This is only your interpretation. Mine is (1) much-discussed topic in > TRB, (2) let's post some real facts that might be relevant. Read and > learn. > >>You did, and you did. You seemed to be saying that Baha'i >>review was not *really* so bad...... > > What is wrong with responded to what was said and not what "seemed to > be." What "seemed to be" is in your mind and may or may not have > foundation. In this case, not. At other points, you seek > clarification without accusation and that sounds more beneficial for > public relations purposes. > >>Well, clearly they didn't write him a letter telling him which pages >>to cut. Or did they? > > Nope. > >>Erm - I was giving a hypothetical - as things stand, he didn't have a >>choice. > > Everyone has a choice. > >>Hence, my use of the words "would have", to indicate a counterfactual. > > Lost me there! ;-) > >>That's kind of a dishonest way to describe the policy though, don't >>you think? > > It was not referring to any policy at all. It was referring to events > that happened. > >>Right. Baha'i review is free help. And monkeys might fly >>our of my butt! > > OK, I will assume you do not scan the media for "free" stuff, have > never downloaded "freeware," etc.... :o) >>Sure, so long as the colleagues don't realise that the work >>of every Baha'i academic that touches on the faith is being >>checked for heresies, that will be fine! > > Read the posts again! There was no indication of anything being > "checked for heresies." > >>Huh? Are you saying that there *is* no review any more? What >>exactly *are* you saying again? > > Again, read first, then post. Maybe some one can read over this stuff > with you or something. I have said repeatedly, "I don't know." > >>You just *did* post in favour of censorship. > > A posts X. B posts A posted not X. Did I get it right? > >>"obligatory adminstrative review" - I never got the memo that it >>was suspended - even though Shoghi Effendi said it was >>"temporary" around 70 years ago. > > Nor I, but I am not Mr. Important. You are expecting a memo? > >>By the way, did you hear how Alison Marshall was expelled from >>the faith for making naughty internet posts? > > I've seen some posts here referring to that, but do not know the > specifics. Take care, Paul, don't worry, freedom of speech on earth > will not die! > > globalservices1_at_yahoo.com using @ instead of _at_. > > ===PEP [Pretty Excellent Privacy] encrypted message=== > The bytes above contain both the key and the message. -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: Cowardice of the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States Date: Friday, February 08, 2002 5:13 PM Greetings, Juan. Many thanks for your comments. Personally, I wonder at the wisdom of having the Great Satan condemning Iran on behalf of the Baha'is, but perhaps it did some good. Your point is valid, that if condemnation is allowed in the case of Iran, then it ought to be allowed in the case of Afghanistan. I prefer a more constructive approach (one can read in the archives of soc.culture.pakistan my recommendations to the Taliban following the condemnation and demands by the US president). And, I am very much opposed to any first strike on Iraq, though I also already posted my opinion that Iraq should quickly move and demonstrate to UN inspectors it does not have weapons of mass destruction. I recognize the validity of the view that if Baha'is condemn Iran, then they ought to be free to condemn the attack against America. I feel other views are valid as well. One very significant issue in my opinion is that Baha'is ought to be able to express personal opinions concerning the actions of their administrative bodies, just as Americans and other democrcies permit the expression of opinions concerning the actions of their governments. The hasty and vehement denials by Rick (even informing us of his one correct way of reading Baha'i texts!) merely validate the existence of intolerant fundamentalism and of opposition to freedom of thought and expression. To a Better Future, Michael. Dear Michael: As always, your views are judicious and balanced and I am grateful for your comment. It is most unfortunate that the so-called 'universal' 'house of justice' (which is none of those three things at the moment) was unable to recognize your sincerity and tossed you out of your Faith summarily. However, I would like to insist that the Baha'i administration has spent millions of lobbying dollars to attempt to induce the US and European governments to condemn the government of Iran. They have also openly criticized Iran for its treatment of the Baha'is. It therefore cannot be concluded that they object to governments being condemned in principle. So when they ask us Baha'is to avoid condemning the Taliban government of Afghanistan for having harbored the terrorists that killed 3000 innocent Americans, what they are really doing is engaging in hypocrisy. Bob Henderson thinks it is fine to condemn Iran and engineer condemnations of Iran for mistreating Iranian Baha'is. But he forbids American Baha'is from condemning Taliban Afghanistan for its role in getting 3000 Americans killed. This is just selfishness. The fundamentalist Baha'is are always running around complaining about being persecuted. But they never condemn the persecution of anyone else. They even forbid Baha'is to belong to Amnesty International! Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha, by the way, both condemned the tyranny of despotic rulers in their own day. Here is what Baha'u'llah said about the duly constituted, recognized government of Sultan Abdulaziz of the Ottoman Empire: "O people of Constantinople! Lo, from your midst We hear the baleful hooting of the owl. Hath the drunkenness of passion laid hold upon you, or is it that ye are sunk in heedlessness? O Spot that art situate on the shores of the two seas! The throne of tyranny hath, verily, been established upon thee, and the flame of hatred hath been kindled within thy bosom, in such wise that the Concourse on high and they who circle around the Exalted Throne have wailed and lamented. We behold in thee the foolish ruling over the wise, and darkness vaunting itself against the light. Thou art indeed filled with manifest pride. Hath thine outward splendour made thee vainglorious? By Him Who is the Lord of mankind! It shall soon perish, and thy daughters and thy widows and all the kindreds that dwell within thee shall lament. Thus informeth thee the All-Knowing, the All-Wise." this is from a little book called "Kitab-i Aqdas." Just substitute "O people of Qandahar" and read it thinking about Mulla Omar, and you'll grasp what Baha'u'llah was trying to say. I wish Henderson actually knew anything about what Baha'u'llah said. cheers Juan -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Juan. Many thanks for your comments. My understanding of Baha'i is that Baha'is officially are not supposed to assign blame to governments. It is a valid thought that this policy is wrong, and that this is a specific glaring instance where Baha'is ought to be condemning a government. And, the letter as quoted urging Baha'is not to condemn is also a valid thought. Personally, I feel that there is a lot to be said for the approach of speaking positively and avoiding condemnation. I am also very much aware that if we enter into the condemnation game there is enough available to permit some to be received by the government of the United States, both for following a biased foreign policy in support of an extreme regime in Israel and for its failure to protect American citizens from the logical consequences of such bias. I am not here entering into the valid, whether correct or incorrect, human opinions that for reasons of increasing support for Israel or for the unelected president of the USA these attacks were deliberately allowed to proceed, if not carried out, by those acting on behalf of the parties concerned. The point, as I see it, is that unilateral imperialistic actions are highly problematic, and drumming up support for militaristic ventures by using words of highly emotive charge such as coward, however successful, are invalid in logic and according to the principles of Baha'i consultation. If one wishes to speak of courage, one of the central virtues of my spiritual tradition, one may very well ask how many people have joined me in speaking out both against terrorism (by the IRA, Palestinians and others) and also against injustice to such as the Palestinians? If the US NSA condemned the then government of Afghanistan, but refused to speak in support of Palestinian self-determination, to say nothing of criticizing Sharon's extremist policies, would it then be immune to charges of political partisanship? Thanks again for your views. And, I believe the Internet is of great value not only because it allows Baha'is to receive censored information and views, but also because it helps redress the vast imbalance Americans face in their normal news media. Issues tend to be highly complex and simplistic assertions of cowardice may win emotional points domestically, while making the pursuit of humane, ethical and universally beneficial foreign policy much less easy. To Tolerance and Understanding, Michael. Juan wrote >... First of all, you have pretended to hurt that I suggested that the US NSA was cowardly in its response to the horrible attack on the United State of September 11. But it is cowardly. In the NSA letter appended to the message of a private individual below, the NSA urges that Baha'is in the wake of September 11 avoid criticizing the Taliban Government of Afghanistan. We were not even supposed to "assign blame" to Osama Bin Ladin or al-Qaida! "above any mention whatsoever of government actions, assignment of blame . . ." Moreover, no Baha'i writing in as an individual to a newspaper was allowed to say, "I am a Baha'i, and I condemn this evil attack on the United States by virtue of my Baha'i values, of tolerance and respect for human life." Bob Henderson had the gall to tell us that we could not say this. What in the world does the Baha'i faith stand for if it doesn't even publicly stand against terrorism? If adherents cannot publicly associate themselves both with a condemnation of mass murder and with the Baha'i principles?? As for this minor issue of whether the NSA had planned to ban the saying of the Prayer for America, it remains murky. Not only I but the poster below, posting in the same period, had heard that it might. I heard the same things, and was not unusual in giving them credence. I am glad to publicly acknowledge that the NSA does not appear, at least openly, to have banned the saying of the prayer. What instructions it has given its legion of Secret Police (Assistants & ABMs) behind the scenes we do not know. A lot goes on in the inner core of the Baha'i faith that is hidden from outsiders, even from the rank and file Baha'is. So, Pat, you wanted to hear me say I got that detail wrong in the heat of the moment, and here it is. I got it wrong. Unlike some people, I don't claim infallibility. I correct my errors. Doug Martin and Farzam Arbab don't have to ever say they are sorry, because they are tinpot dictators. But I did not get the tenor of the NSA response wrong. It is cowardly. It is running for the hills. And I mind it. Because when the Iranian Baha'is needed the support of my government, the United States stuck its neck out for them. The US Congress passed resolutions, condemning the Iranian government for its persecution of the Baha'is. Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Clinton all condemned Iran on this issue. Don't you think that maybe American citizens could have been hurt by the Khomeinists in response? They did so at the explicit urging of the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United States, which maintained a $500,000 a year lobbyist for the explicit purpose of lobbying Washington on this matter. Firuz Kazemzadeh button-holed U.S. officials endlessly over this in public, while privately heaping scorn on the U.S. Congress. Now, when my country needs the support of everyone it can get, the National Spiritual Assembly announces that, well, no, it can't come out and condemn the Taliban government of Afghanistan. Sorry, USA. You did it for us but we're selfish cowardly s.o.b.s and we ain't doing it for you. So, Pat, say the Prayer for America all you like. But for the love of God also stand up and say that *the Baha'i Faith* condemns al-Qaida, the Taliban, and mass murder. Stand up to the pusillanimous Hendersons of the world. And just in case you don't get it, my advice to you is to get off my case. I didn't come out on TRB with that message to which you objected and I've got other things to do with my time these days that debate and condemn minor cultists. But if you keep bringing me up I will be coming after the cultists who have infiltrated and mutilated the Baha'i administration vocally, with good evidence, every day. I have file cabinets full of juicy stuff. I'd prefer to spend my time another way. But if you really want to have me spend it this way, just keep up your vacuous drumbeat. cheers Juan -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Brian. Well, important issues are worthy of consideration. Now, correct me, if I'm wrong. We've had Doc Electron saying this treason thing was the same thing as the complaint (from you, I believe) that Juan had called Herman Grossman names, but it seems, despite Electron, there's a distinction, and the charge is that Juan called not Herman Grossman, but the USA Baha'i NSA (which more likely means Robert Henderson, as it's less likely all nine members voted on this issue) names, on the grounds that they were advising Baha'is not to say the Prayer for America in public. I understand that some people get pretty emotional over such things, and still, stepping back, taking a deep breath and looking independently with my own eyes, devoid of personality, let me say that I think any lawyer defending that American caught with the Taliban would much prefer taking a case where the "traitors" were only accused of sending out a letter advising people not to say a prayer (even a prayer for America) in public. Strictly on the issue and devoid of personality, the thought that people who have decided to attack America at least partly because of American bias against Islam and for Israel ought not be provided yet another incentive to launch further attacks and it would be wise not to have Baha'is (seen by these extremist types as heretics) standing up in public and praying for America, is a valid and considerate opinion. It is possible to have other valid opinions, but those do not necessitate the invalidation of the one outlined above. Who said it is irrelevant. That's ad hominem. The opinion that the Baha'is after September 11th would be acting more in the best interests of peace and non-violence by avoiding such public prayer, whoever thought it, is valid, and calling people names such as cowards or traitors for such a thought is invalid. This, as I see it is the heart of the issue. It doesn't matter whether there are agents and double agents and changes of policy or not after the release of correct or mis information. Even if the information is true and the US NSA or Robert Hendreson was going to advise American Baha'is not to say the prayer for America in public, such advice would be a valid Baha'i act. Not the only one, but a valid Baha'i act. I hope I have addressed the issue to your satisfaction, Michael. Brian Walker (bfwalker@net-yan.com) writes: > Valid questions. Juan could clear this up quickly, either with an > apology, or presentation of proof. The issue is important enough to demand > closure. > -- > Brian F. Walker > > Linux Mandrake 8.1, kernel-2.4.8-34.1mdk -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Howdy, Doc. Uhm, but you see, this Juan Cole guy doesn't object to Nima saying Juan said it, if Juan said it. Juan now he's a pretty bright guy, but shucks he admits he can make mistakes. It's the guys who can't admit they make mistakes that give a species a bad name and have the Oikoumene (Civilization) wondering about barbarians swarming out of a solar system to wage jihads. Check my recent reply to Susan's post about barbarians. I'll address the actual issue of treason in another post. Three Cheers, Doc, to Thee for Succeeding in Reducing the Percentage of Posts Critical of the powers That Be and Increasing the Ad Hominem Ratio on the Newsgroup. It's not valid, but it was your mission and you are pulling it off. MM Doctor Electron (globalservices1@remove.yahoo.com) writes: > ... > the owner) and/or the owner of the group (Concept: a group has an > owner!!!) determine who will be able to be a member. Now the kicker > or punch line is....tah Dah!... someone posted here in TRB overnight > (Alma?) that Juan Cole is the owner! Truth is better than fiction! > Who would have figured, eh? So Nima took on Juan Cole? > > Nima (Freethought110) can forget about applying for renewal of > membership there. It seems that he (she?) had the figurative balls to > follow his conscience in his 10/20/01post of Dr. Cole's message > apparently in that group. So Nima stood up for freedom of information > by rejecting A above. The questions are unending? Did they show > freedom-activist Nima to the door? Or what? Some questions remain > but Nima (see other posts) has pretty much come clean; and as the > hours tick away, it still looks like supposed friends of Nima have > left him to take the heat alone. But I'm not worried about Nima > because it looks like Nima has some real guts and backbone! Stay > tuned! This looks like one that "just won't go away," as the > Washington news correspondents are fond of saying. > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. Great. Just how does the Baha'i fundamentalist vision really differ from that of the Islamists and the Caliphate? Is it that the Caliph will be a hereditary individual and the UHJ will be elected? Just how do you hound people like Juan out of the religion, send around Counsellors and ABMs to talk to people about the posting of appropriate understandings to the Internet, boot people like Alison Marshall out of the Baha'i Faith and say there's an enormous distortion, consisting a lie. By the Morrigan, mate, I can fully understand how someone like Juan could say that you've so distorted Baha'u'llah's vision of universal love, harmony and world peace that you've basically constituted a lie, but I do not at all see how wrong Juan is. Spell it out, bud. Just how do you distinguish the future role of the UHJ from that of the Caliph in Islam as envisioned by such as the Taliban (I reiterate that it is valid to postulate the Caliphate or the triumph of the UHJ as long as human rights etc are maintained) -- in the thoughtless obedience of any command soever, in the trampling on human rights, including the rights of women, in the opposition to reason, in the insistence on only one true reading of scripture, etc.? Fill us in, mate. What's the difference? Expectantly, Michael. > Baha'i theocrats substitute the House of Justice for the Caliphate and > envision it ruling the world. Again, a distortion of the truth so gross as to constitute a lie. Do Baha'is believe the Universal House of Justice will, some day, be the center piece of what is referred to as the World Order of Baha'u'llah? Yes. However, at that point, any similarity between what Baha'is envision and any Al-Qaida dream for establishing a caliphate ends. Dr. Cole also knows this to be true, but clearly seeks to brush aside any legitimate distinctions of which many can be made... -- Regards, Rick Schaut The "Reply-To" line has a bogus e-mail account for SPAM blocking purposes. If you wish to reply by e-mail, send to rsschaut at attbi dot com. -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. Juan's point is that Baha'i fundamentalists envisage the future day when the democratically elected secular government will dissolve itself and the administration of the affairs of the Baha'i world will be done by the Baha'i institutions. Do you deny this? Are you in a meditative mood? How fun it is to be blurry and say, "No way, we respect the elected government", (until we can take control)." > or of any effort to undermine existing governments in Baha'i activities. -- Regards, Rick Schaut The "Reply-To" line has a bogus e-mail account for SPAM blocking purposes. If you wish to reply by e-mail, send to rsschaut at attbi dot com. -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. Basically, you've simply been saying "Aint so," That doesn't constitute proof. Post what proof you like. This one is a dilly. I figure it matches the grand liberal conspiracy being hatched on Majnoon. How many people were involved in that one, and what constituted the grand conspiracy: "Hey, man, don't rouse things up by passing around petitions; go back to studying Arabic verbs." Gods, I bet the FBI would love to deal with that kind of conspiracy. Anyway, again I'm not telepathic and even were I telepathic these cells are not, Oghma be praised, within my line of sight. Sorry, calling Juan wrong don't make him wrong, and calling him deliberately wrong don't make that true either. To Tolerance and Understanding, Michael. > Baha'i theocrats have secret cells within the Baha'i community, and > recruit Baha'is at deepenings and other events into their twisted > world-view. A charge that's been repeated many times without substantive evidence to back it up. Yet, given the track record so far in this post, one has little faith in Dr. Cole's ability to produce any such evidence without twisting it to mean what he wants it to mean. -- Regards, Rick Schaut The "Reply-To" line has a bogus e-mail account for SPAM blocking purposes. If you wish to reply by e-mail, send to rsschaut at attbi dot com. -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Juan. Really? You could have fooled me. I thought this guy spoke in the accents of Mark Foster. Of course, that's all ad hominem, and, uhm, whatever Doc has been saying can logically be assessed on its own merit independent of personality. I thought he wrote as one with a mission to increase the noise ratio on the newsgroup, in the firm conviction that such would be in the best interests of those who feel the heat of any serious discussion here. Inasmuch as it's a no-brainer when there's a focus on issues such as the freedom of thought and expression, the independent investigation of truth, justice being so important and looking with one's own eyes and balancing faith with reason and the balanced wing of the equality of women, etc. and no matter who they send out to argue the indefensible, of course, fails miserably. It's not that they're aren't good players on the fundamentalist team; it's that fundamentalism per se is a poor thing to try to advance. The best quarterback there is can't throw a successful long pass when it's molasses instead of a football in her/his fingers. To the Baha'i Faith operating with the principles Baha'u'llah provided. To the Future, Peace, Michael. Juan Cole (jricole@my-deja.com) writes: > Dear Dr. Electron, i.e. Peter Khan: > > Pretty Good Privacy is just that--it is only pretty good. We can > easily trace your IP back to Haifa and see that you are actually Peter > Khan himself. > > Peter, really, you have to get an excercise machine and work on that > enormous gut. It is hanging down over your belt now, and maybe you're > too old to hear the snickering but it is most embarrassing for the > Faith. Plus it is deadly for your heart. > > Since you are an engineer, we're all expecting you to publish the > paper on how exactly you get your pants to stay up. You'd be > surprised how many bets are waged on whether they will stay up > throughout your long-winded harangues (yes, it is against the law of > the Aqdas to wager, but it is also against the law of the Aqdas to > read and quote the writings so much that you bore yourself and other > people). > > I know the Iranians hate seeing pear-shaped (really, really > pear-shaped) middle aged men in shorts jogging around the shrines > there in Haifa. Well, I guess really any of us would rather be spared > that sight. But you could get yourself an excercise machine and some > Jennifer Lopez tapes for your walkman. Well, maybe not J-Lo. That > might be bad for your heart, too, and there was that unfortunate > business with the dance club and Puffy. Anyway some music with a good > fast beat to jog to. Given your ideology, which seems to tend toward > Fascism, maybe a Dance Remix of Wagner's Ring Cycle. > > Of course, you could just lay off the Persian rice a bit, too. > > Naw-Ruz is just around the corner, and it is time to make those New > Year's Resolutions. > > By the way, a hint for you. Any man whose wife lets him let himself > go to that extent is probably looking for the insurance money. If she > keeps offering you huge pieces of cake and extra creamy ice cream, it > can't be good. > > > cheers Juan -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. What's the distinction? Sorry, I don't see it. You mean, that it won't be a question of seeking? You're not just going to try? You're going to succeed? Or do you see a distinction between the US Congress dissolving itself and "seek to substitute". My language skills aren't up to this. Spell it out, bud. What's the difference? To Tolerance and Understanding, Michael. > Baha'i theocrats despise parliamentary democracy and wish to > substitute their religious institutions, which are not freely elected, > for civil government. Yet another lie. Baha'i institutions are, indeed, freely elected. Nor, for that matter, do Baha'is seek to substitute Baha'i institutions for civil institutions. Baha'is believe that, some day, when the majority of the population had become Baha'i, Baha'i institutions will form the pattern by which civil government is exercised. That, however, is very different from simply seeking to supplant civil government with Baha'i institutions. -- Regards, Rick Schaut The "Reply-To" line has a bogus e-mail account for SPAM blocking purposes. If you wish to reply by e-mail, send to rsschaut at attbi dot com. -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. What Sliders' World did you fly in from? No force? What the blazes is in all those old archives I'm going through if not force? You have people like Rick Shaut, like Brent Porier, like Counsellor Birkman, etc. insisting on one true understanding on line, and, in the case of Birkland paying people like Juan visits on account of what they post to e-mail lists. You have people like Juan being hounded (forced) out of Baha'i. You have the UHJ booting people out who can't be pressured (forced) to shut up, as a warning that if one is articulate and wishes to be a Baha'i one must toe the party line. Are we supposed to believe that you guys who so altered the other stuff in Baha'i really are to be trusted, if you end up in political power a la Taliban that you won't use identical force a la Taliban? You may honestly believe that, but Juan or anyone else would sure as Blazes not be lying to express a quite valid alternate opinion. To Tolerance and Understanding, Michael. >to be true, but clearly seeks to brush aside any legitimate distinctions of >which many can be made, not the least of which is the complete absence of >any use of force... -- Regards, Rick Schaut The "Reply-To" line has a bogus e-mail account for SPAM blocking purposes. If you wish to reply by e-mail, send to rsschaut at attbi dot com. -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. Hey, man, I recall on the original Talisman I think this guy arguing with me on this very point, insisting there was no such thing as the Baha'i Faith planning to administer the world in the future. After I posted the appropriate quote he went away to meditate before refuting me, and he never posted a refutation. What are you objecting to here, that there is a Baha'i concept that the UHJ will administer the entire planet in a theocratic system, or that this will only come about in a democratic fashion. Are you insisting that it will come about in a non-democratic fashion? Are you talking about jihads and coups? To Tolerance and Understanding, Michael. > In this passage he basically argues for a Nazi-like tactic of getting > elected democratically and then abolishing democracy. Yet another outright lie. The statement refers to standing Baha'i policies regarding political non-involvement, which Dr. Cole knows forbits Baha'is from running for office within a democratic system that's premised on getting elected through membership in political parties. Dr. Cole knows that no Baha'i would countenance the notion of "getting elected democratically and then abolishing democracy." Thus, his statement cannot be regarded as anything but an outright lie. -- Regards, Rick Schaut The "Reply-To" line has a bogus e-mail account for SPAM blocking purposes. If you wish to reply by e-mail, send to rsschaut at attbi dot com. -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Rick. Methinks thine argument and thine frequent denials would be much more credible were Juan and other Baha'i liberals within Baha'i demonstrating to a sceptical non-Baha'i world how the universalist vision of Baha'u'llah and the actual respect in practise by Baha'is and their institutions for the natural diversity of human understandings differed from the intolerance of Islamic and other fundamentalism. To Tolerance and Understanding, Michael. "Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@email.msn.NOSPAM.com) writes: > "Juan Cole" wrote in message > news:619f1452.0202080921.188965bc@posting.google.com... >> The Baha'i faith stands for universal love, for tolerance, and for a >> separation of religion and state. > > Such is the Juan Cole official reinterpretation of Baha'u'llah. Shoghi > Effendi's statements on the matter, however, say otherwise. > >> Ian Semple, >> a member of the Baha'i Universal House of Justice, has for decades >> cast scorn on civil governments and spoken of his dream of a future >> when Baha'i Institutions will rule in their stead. > > Again, we get another outright lie from Dr. Cole, and the only thing that's > proferred to back this up is a pilgrim's note. I guess Dr. Cole is simply > too busy to actually take the time to address other forms of primary > evidence that would countradict a single pilgrim's note. > >> In this passage he basically argues for a Nazi-like tactic of getting >> elected democratically and then abolishing democracy. > > Yet another outright lie. The statement refers to standing Baha'i policies > regarding political non-involvement, which Dr. Cole knows forbits Baha'is > from running for office within a democratic system that's premised on > getting elected through membership in political parties. Dr. Cole knows > that no Baha'i would countenance the notion of "getting elected > democratically and then abolishing democracy." Thus, his statement cannot > be regarded as anything but an outright lie. > >> Baha'i theocrats substitute the House of Justice for the Caliphate and >> envision it ruling the world. > > Again, a distortion of the truth so gross as to constitute a lie. Do > Baha'is believe the Universal House of Justice will, some day, be the center > piece of what is referred to as the World Order of Baha'u'llah? Yes. > However, at that point, any similarity between what Baha'is envision and any > Al-Qaida dream for establishing a caliphate ends. Dr. Cole also knows this > to be true, but clearly seeks to brush aside any legitimate distinctions of > which many can be made, not the least of which is the complete absence of > any use of force or of any effort to undermine existing governments in > Baha'i activities. > >> Baha'i theocrats despise parliamentary democracy and wish to >> substitute their religious institutions, which are not freely elected, >> for civil government. > > Yet another lie. Baha'i institutions are, indeed, freely elected. Nor, for > that matter, do Baha'is seek to substitute Baha'i institutions for civil > institutions. Baha'is believe that, some day, when the majority of the > population had become Baha'i, Baha'i institutions will form the pattern by > which civil government is exercised. That, however, is very different from > simply seeking to supplant civil government with Baha'i institutions. > >> Actually, Kazemzadeh's version of the Baha'i institutions has been >> created by Kazemzadeh. > > Dr. Cole knows full well that Dr. Kazemzadeh's version of Baha'i > institutions has plenty of support in the writings of Shoghi Effendi, > particularly Shoghi Effendi's letter known as "The Dispensation of > Baha'u'llah." So, yet again, we get an outright lie from Dr. Cole. > >> Baha'i theocrats have secret cells within the Baha'i community, and >> recruit Baha'is at deepenings and other events into their twisted >> world-view. > > A charge that's been repeated many times without substantive evidence to > back it up. Yet, given the track record so far in this post, one has little > faith in Dr. Cole's ability to produce any such evidence without twisting it > to mean what he wants it to mean. > >> Baha'i theocrats demand absolute obedience to "the Institutions" and >> tolerate no dissent. > > Actually, Baha'i institutions tolerate a great deal of "dissent" when it's > voiced through proper channels. It is a very different model of governance > than that which is prevalent in common western democracies, and, of this, > there can be little doubt. Whether or not it can be accurately > characterised as an outright "theocracy" would only depend on the extent to > which one would highlight similarities while ingoring important differences. > > But one does have to wonder why Dr. Cole can't simply allow the Writings of > Shoghi Effendi to speak for themselves? Why does Dr. Cole have to resort to > either outright lies or distortions of the truth so gross as to be > indistinguishable from lies? > > > -- > Regards, > Rick Schaut > The "Reply-To" line has a bogus e-mail account for SPAM blocking purposes. > If you wish to reply by e-mail, send to rsschaut at attbi dot com. > > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Paul. Yes, I think you may have put your finger on the solution to the current situation within Baha'i. Exactly as the Hands of the Cause, to their credit, called for the election of the Universal House of Justice and announced they were not standing, I think it may be now time for the current members to call for the election of the Universal House of Justice with the entire adult Baha'i population acknowledged as eligible and, to their credit, announce they are not standing. To The Hands of the Cause Who Provided This Worthy Example, Michael. "Paul Hammond" (pahammond@onetel.net.uk) writes: > John R MacLeod wrote in message > news:a42ppf$1c78vs$1@ID-73584.news.dfncis.de... >> >> The habit of saying that it would become clear 'in the future' or 'some > day' >> seems to have started with Shoghi Effendi. But Abdul Baha was more >> specific - He said erelong. >> > > This is, in some ways, quite similar to (but less serious than) the > situation the Baha'i World was faced with on Shoghi's Death. > > Here was a situation that wasn't covered in the texts - the Hands > of the Cause were the centre to which the Baha'i World turned - > and they had to improvise, on finding no will. The result of their > deliberations was the eventual election of the UHJ in 1963, with > the Hands ruling themselves ineligible for such service. I think > they handled this crisis situation well, and come out of it with a > lot of credit. > > Similarly, now, we are faced with a situation where we look at > the words of Abdu'l Baha, and they seem not to cover this > situation - just like the W&T of Abdu'l Baha didn't cover the > situation in 1957. You are right that "90 years" is no erelong - and > there is no sign of the reason becoming clear. > > In this situation, it falls to the UHJ as the central authority to > resolve the situation - unfortunately, their attempts to close > down any open discussion of the men-only UHJ just go to > prove that they are *no* Hands of the Cause. > > Paul > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: Weirdness of the NSA of Baha'is of America Date: Monday, February 11, 2002 7:37 AM Greetings, Susan. We need less religious fanaticism, such as that which hounds people like Juan out of your religion because he confirms your Sacred Scripture that humans have a variety of valid opinions, he does not believe in one literalist spin which incidentally permits the trashing of spiritual principle and the consequent discrimination of women in your religion, the division of the religion into the fanatical elect and those they've hounded out or shut up, the identical mindset, as one points out, to the fanatics in Islam who launched these attacks. If you welcome inclusively a vast variety of valid views you follow the advice of your spiritual Founders on how to have harmony and overcome war. If you insist on one single literalist understanding and oppose the expression of varied views, even force those expressing them out, you are behaving as these fanatics and this is neither in the interests of Baha'i or of peace. To Women on the Universal House of Justice, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: > > We need less fanaticism in general, especially of the paranoid delusional > variety that sees not existent directives and imagines secret ones being given > behind the scenes, whispering about those who might have infiltrated our > religion. > > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: Nature of the Beast: UHJ Letter To An Individual Baha'i Date: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 6:16 PM Greetings, Pat. Sorry, must have been a different letter pop up on my screen. I was just over at soc.culture.israel and there seems there was aproblem there with cross-posting from alternate universes and items appearing from the JPost of some other place and not really the JPost of our world at all. So, I got no idea what came up on your screen, but what's showing here on mine has someone signing itself the Universal House of Justice going after an idividual publisher because he went about his business and promoted one of the best books in his specialized market there is. I read someone signing itself the Universal House of justice interfering in this guy's work, telling him he ought not promote this worthwhile tome and, indeed, that they had trouble with him having freely expressed his thoughts and opinions on e-mail lists. Treading on the innocent I indeed saw, only no doubt about the identity of the treader, inless we buy Doc's personality theft theory. The treaders signed their name Universal House of Justice. I wonder very much if any body that did not exclude women from membership would have written such a letter in such a manner. Maybe, but I'd sure like to see what's going on in the Sliders' Worlds where they have women on the Universal House of Justice. Maybe they have really pleasant headlines and stories in the JPost there. To Women on the Universal House of Justice, Michael. Pat Kohli (kohliCUT_THE_CAPS@ameritel.net) writes: > Bahai Faith wrote: > >> Thank you. So it was Kalimat or One World, the former, >> I suppose, and concerned the editor there, Anthony A. Lee. >> https://www.kalimat.com/ >> > > Well, I think we knew that would happen. What an odious business it is. Does > the party who gave Fred the letter feel better? I hope so! What a precious > business it is, trading in the innocent, maybe even trading in "friends". > Definitely beastly. > > Nima, could you at least point out how _unlikely_ it would be that Tony Lee, > someone who to my knowledge has never posted here, sent that letter to Juan? > Thanks! > > Blessings! > - Pat > kohli@ameritel.net > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: Nature of the Beast: UHJ Letter To An Individual Baha'i Date: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 7:13 AM Greetings, Alma. Yep. That's what puzzles the non Cultic mindset. It's just like you had a letter in which a signatory admits to raping someone, and there's discussion in support of the rapist and trying to pin guilt on the reporters who made the dirty deed public. Which reporter made the event public knowledge, which reporter got the name of the victim in the media, whether a reporter was correct in saying the rapist boasted about the rape to a number of people afterwards or not is not the central issue; the central issue is the rape itself. The letter per se is the issue, and unless you've been brainwashed to support vile deeds by leadership, you'd have no difficulty spotting such vile deeds and knowing them for what they are. As I said, heat without water equals desert. To Spiritual Principles, To Freedom From Oppression, To Women on the Universal House of Justice, Michael. "Alma Engels" (aelyria@earthlink.net) writes: > Can you tell me Susan why you and others are more interested in proving Juan > Cole guilty of something or other than in the contents of the letter? Don't > you find them important? > > Alma > Happily retired > This line available for advertising - contact me if you want to discuss > terms. -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: An Old Lie Aired Out (was: Nature of the Beast: UHJ Letter To An Individual Baha'i) Date: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 10:15 AM Susan, Susan, Susan, Everyone would have had, as they still have, a reason to complain. This letter is despicable, atrocious, vile and evil. It calls out for the indignation, repulsion and opposition of every principled spiritual being whose eyes are blighted by its odious presence. To Freedom From Oppression, To Spiritual Principles, To Women on the Universal House of Justice, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>Look at Juan's webpage more carefully. He received this letter *twice* -- >>once in its entirety from its original recipient, and once as a fax in >>excerpted form, which was the one being circulated. > > Dear Karen, > > What he originally posted represented neither the original letter, nor the fax > version which he supposedly received from another source. If he had put up only > the text of the fax and correctly identified its purpose, no one would have > any reason to complain. > > warmest, > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: An Old Lie Aired Out (was: Nature of the Beast: UHJ Letter To An Individual Baha'i) Date: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 6:51 PM Greetings, Susan. There's also the issue that the letter I wrote to the UHJ stated that I had been advised not to write to them, that it would be a bad idea to do so, and as a consequence of their response, I think people would understandably be leery about communicating with the UHJ. To Freedom From Oppression, To Spiritual Principles, To Women on the Universal House of Justice, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> >>Then why don't you fire off a letter to the UHJ, informing them of >>your opinion? Do you honestly think we need to be reminded, again and >>again, of your opinion regarding the UHJ? > > Calm down, Jay. > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. If in this modern age of computers, there isn't a treasurer's report posted every nineteen days at the official web site, that shows a less than complete use of the technology available for such purposes. There is no excuse for any lengthy delay at all. Secrecy and holding back on the availability of information that ought to be available, very poor response to legitimate correspondence, etc. ought not to be tolerated. The AO was designed to be a means for creating harmony, connecting the believers with each other, facilitating the vast variety of activities within the religion. It has the means with our computerized and wired world to do this remarkably swiftly, as predicted the Bab. Defeating Ptolemaic Egypt for how slowly a bureaucracy can respond and how much it can keep hidden is not what Baha'is Founder's envisaged for 2002. To Freedom From Oppression, To Spiritual Principles, To Women on the Universal House of Justice, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> >> >>Robert -- if you can show me anywhere the USA NSA has provided information >>in detail on how it handles the monies coming in, then there might be a >>point in my writing them. > > Dear Alma, > > The annual report does include a financial statement. And the last person who > wrote them regarding this fund did get an answer. > >> It seems to be a standard response of Susan's >>that others should write to the AO. > > I don't know what other response there can be to these kinds of questions. It > only makes sense that you ask whoever is in the position to know. > >>I tried that once on a minor level and >>got a reply months later where the person answering obviously wasn't paying >>any attention to what I wrote. > > Unfortunately getting responses months later is not unusual (though two years > is.) After all, they only meet once a month. > >> At the same time I wrote to a Counselor and >>never heard from him > > Sometimes you have to be persistent about these things. > > warmest, > > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Karen. Well, it stands to reason. There were those who organized against the worst of Nazi Germany (too bad the Fuhrer seemed so charmed at avoiding such). However, I'd much prefer the guys themselves to act in the best interests of harmony within the Faith. I don't like the insincerity of sycophants yeasaying wrong, all the time preparing to malign these guys after they've been unseated and/or died. The larger issue, even than the reputations in the history books of men who have the opportunity to be compared with the egoless Hands of the Cause or with the worst humanity has had to offer, is the whole question of where Baha'i goes from here. To discover that Baha'u'llah was right about this being an age in wnich one is supposed to see with one's own eyes and not the eyes of others, in which thoughtless obedience to any command soever is unacceptable before the divine presence, in which a variety of valid views exist, and priesthood, by whatever name, and the insistence on a single literal interpretation are outlawed, in which spiritual principles are superior to any excuse to suppress spiritual principle, in which women are, of course, eligible to serve at all levels, etc. does not in any way invalidate the path of the Baha'i. It would be natural to feel quite irate, sad, confused; however, one in no way need feel one has chosen wrongly or that one's life has been fruitless because of the mistakes, errors and misdoings that, in many cases, were done with good intentions. Humans are imperfect, and all are aware of this, even those who have so poorly handled being on the UHJ. However, this Baha'u'llah still said some very spiritual and worthy things, and anyone who wishes may still quite honourably seek to live the Baha'i life, even though the landscape change -- actually, as very different as a Canadian winter is from spring and summer, and hard to understand what's taking place when that change comes, it is a blessing not anything really to regret at all. I won't hold Rick to his word to resign in such circumstances and I certainly oppose any insistence that anyone else, who hasn't even made the promise, resign when things at last begin to move towards the harmonious middle path. To the Future, Michael. "Karen Bacquet" (karenbacquet@hotmail.com) writes: >> >> The organisation exists - it has no connection with Prof Cole because >> it thinks he is too soft, not militant enough, not committed to the >> overthrow of the present incompetent administration and its >> replacement by people thoroughly committed to the principles of the >> Bahai Faith, those its Founders expounded.<< > > I have heard, as well, that there are people, who have nothing to do with > the well-known liberals, and don't especially like them, but who see the > Baha'i leadership as a hopeless disaster and are quietly working to change > it. My information is pretty vague, I'm afraid, and I don't know much, but > I try to keep my ear to the ground on such things. > > Love, Karen > https://www.bacquet.tk > > >> Other than the existence of this organisation I can tell you nothing - >> I don't know who is in it or who runs it. What I do know is that its >> membership is professional - it has not, until now, even allowed >> knowledge of its existence to leak out save as it wanted that >> knowledge to be spread. BTW I have permission to say publicly what, >> until now, I could only say privately. >> >> So Doc - start your investigations. I don't think you'll get anywhere >> with them. This team knows what it is doing. At least one other >> participant on this list knows what I am talking about - whether >> she/he cares to confirm it or not is up to him or her - let's not be >> sexist about these things and seek in any way to force this person >> into talking. >> >> >> >> > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Are you saying that this is a new day in the sense that Baha'i leaders can get rich off of people, even though their Prophet provided a different example? The most glaring thing about this comment of yours, Susan, is that you are insisting on one personal interpretation of the sacred text. This time instead of "clearly" you are saying "obviously" to indicate your insistence on your view and your refusal to accept the validity of other understandings. The understanding that this quote covers "soliciting, in the name of the one true God, the riches which men possess" in the sense of asking for money, sending out begging letters, is a valid personal understanding. To the Freedom of Thought and Expression, To the Validity of a Variety of Views, To Women on the Universal House of Justice, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>"It would be impossible to conceive any act more contemptible than >>soliciting, in the name of the one true God, the riches which men possess." >> > > Dear John, > > Baha'u'llah is obviously referring to the fact that He personally isn't trying > to get rich off of people. It has nothing to do with fund raising. > > warmest, > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. Since the Covenant is spiritual principle plus obedience, and since the current seat warmers at the UHJ have been demanding obedience of the opposite of spiritual principle, they have, according to your own words, already commited the worst wrong possible. May these individuals follow the example of the Hands of the Cause, so that while still alive they may personally avoid the condemnation of history and restore the spirituality, principle and harmony of the Faith. To Freedom from Oppression, To Spiritual Principle, To Women on the Universal House of Justice, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>I am a Baha'i and you are a Baha'i. What is the worst crime the >>Administrative Order can commit? > > Dear Alma, > > To fail to uphold the Covenant. > > warmest, > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. The implication of this statement is that one is to obey thoughtlessly any command soever from authority. And, if authority order one to discriminate against women, the worst thing one can do is disobey? And, if authority order one to rape Bosnian women, the worst thing one can do is disobey?? And, if authority order one to gas Jews, the worst thing one can do is disobey? And, if authority order one to fly airplanes into American buildings, the worst thing one can do is disobey? Could you please distinguish yourself from al-Qaidah? To Spiritual Principles, To Freedom From Oppression, To Women on the Universal House of Justice, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >>I am a Baha'i and you are a Baha'i. What is the worst crime the >>Administrative Order can commit? > > Dear Alma, > > To fail to uphold the Covenant. > > warmest, > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) She didn't call you a fundamentalist; she said straight out of the fundamentalist handbook. The position that evil doers seeking to keep their misdeeds secret are justified in those misdeeds, and no one can speak up against their evil doing, on the grounds inadequate information is available is straight out of the fundamentalist handbook. You don't have to be a Nazi to quote from MEIN KEMPF, but it's completely valid to refer to the text as a Nazi book. To Freedom From Oppression, To Spiritual Principles, To Women on the Universal House of Justice, Michael. NightShadow (nightshadow@NOSPAM.hotmail.com) writes: > There was someone named "Karen Bacquet" who > once said...: > >>> It is easy to attack someone or an organization for a perceived wrong >>> when one does not have *all* the facts.<< >> >>Straight out of the fundamentalist handbook: "You don't really know what >>happened, so shut up." > > If one more person insists on calling me a fundamentalist anything, I > swear that I am going to blow my friggin' cork. Please stop it. I'm > not going around and calling other people names, so please don't do > the same to me. It's gettin' on my fuckin' nerves. -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, NightShadow. Au contraire. It is those who simply allow the authorities to conduct their inquisitions, pogroms, witchburnings, etc., that are in the wrong. This is very much the business of every decent spiritual individual. No one tolerates oppressive invasive authoritarianism and is able ethically to justify trying to shut up those who call a spade a spade, darkness what it is. This letter speaks for itself as to which evil doers (they signed the stinking thing) are butting into peoples lives. Perhaps, to survive one keeps quiet, knowing in one's heart that one abides in Hell, but feels one lacks the ability to do anything about it and fearful if the demons find out what's in one's heart. Anyone with eyes can read this letter and know it is evil. I fully understand that you've been programmed to see angels when you see the men of the UHJ, but, you know, when you read this letter it wasn't angels wrote it. This evil concerns everyone and telling people not to bother with evil, that this evil should be left hidden, a matter between the evil doer and the victim doesn't wash. To Freedom From Oppression, To Spiritual Principles, To Women on the Universal House of Justice, Michael. NightShadow (nightshadow@NOSPAM.hotmail.com) writes: > > I'm sorry to come off as a prick about this, but this isn't any of > your business. It certainly isn't any of ours. All that's being done > here is just airing other peoples' dirty laundry under the > thinly-veiled auspices of a witch-hunt. This is the kind of shit that > got Salem, Mass. into so much trouble, the kind of BS that kicked off > the Inquisitions... people butting into other peoples' lives like they > have a right to do so. -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: An Old Lie Aired Out (was: Nature of the Beast: UHJ Letter To An Individual Baha'i) Date: Saturday, February 16, 2002 2:50 PM Greetings, Susan. The response to Modernity is a quite valid theme for an historian to take in dealing with a figure of the 19th Century dwelling in Asia. It is the normal theme of the books I've read dealing with the Far East, and, even though JAPAN: AN INTERPRETATION by Lacfadio Hearn tries to focus on traditional pre-Meiji Japan, the "modern" is present in the book. How in the world one could write about Baha'u'llah and leave out the modern is beyond me. You are quite free to do so. Anyone, as far as I'm concerned can posit it was Fraulein Sprengel or the Hidden Masters or the Younger Brother of Jesus or Valen of Minbar who magically communicated hidden knowledge to anyone you like, on the condition neither you, nor the leaders of your religion send out divorce and Hellfire letters to someone promoting a book containing an alternate understanding. To Tolerance and Understanding, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: > the kind of evidence that would support the case which Cole attempts to build. > The stress on Enlightement thought is quite clear from the very outset of > Modernity and the Milleniun, for the introduction presents early Baha'i history > as a "response" to modernity... > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Susan, you still haven't posted what Juan left out -- anything more than what would identify the victim? To an End of Divorce and Hellfire Threaats, Michael Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: > Rather than put up a doctored form of the letter > > warmest, > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Ah, Susan, now you say there could have been a fax! And how many people received the fax? And did the fax contain the greetings and close you object to? The issue is that this piece of filth was written by something soiling the name Universal House of Justice. To Justice, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: > ... If there ever was a > fax this is likely what it consisted of. He should have posted that instead. > > warmest, > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Well, gee, Susan, when they were telling me about the Baha'i Faith in 1971, they didn't say, Michael, there's this great guy who brings us out of wondrous Persia: despotic monarchy, an all-powerful clerical system, male supremecy, the suppression of reason in the interests of faith, the suppression of unorthodox thought, the obvious inferiority of some peoples, races and classes to others, etc. I would think that it would be a very valid theme for a biographer to consider how come Baha'u'llah was a bit ahead of his time for one arising in the actual conditions of 19th Century Persia, as these are generally understood. I would think that if Baha'u'llah was writing about more modern and enlightened concepts it would be perfectly reasonable to look for the influences introducing such worthy concepts to Baha'u'llah. Now, you see a gap in the information and relevant evidence. Excellent. Write a book, ABSOLUTISM AND ASHCAN or whatever more pleasing title you choose. There's no problem with you writing a better book than Juan, you telling it like it really is, you putting in all the valuable material he left out, unless you or your religious leaders send out divorce and Hellfire letters to anyone promoting a book containing what does not accord with your own opinion. To MODERNITY AND THE MILLENNIUM, michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: > ... Virtually each chapter of book begins, not with a > discussion of the socail millieu in which Baha'u'llah operated, as one might > expect in an academic publication, but rather page after page descriping > various Western Enlightenment thinkers with only the most tenous evidence being > offered for supposed conduits of this thought to Baha'u'llah. > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. As I happily repeat, Mirza Yahya and such claimed to be ruling in Baha'i. No Baha'i liberal has done so. More, no Baha'i liberal, to my knowledge, has even tried to oppose the UHJ, as the word is normally understood. All said, for example, that women will serve when the UHJ says they will. There's not even, to my knowledge, been a petition on the issue. There is a distinction between telling people to avoid rival claimants to power and telling them not to promote the first academic biography of your prophet. To a Better Future, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: > > I suppose you could say that about Baha'u'llah when He urged people to stay > away from Mirza Yahya, 'Abdu'l-Baha when He told people to stay away from > Muhammad Ali's followers, or Shoghi Effendi when he insisted we stay away from > Ahmad Sohrab. Obviously they felt the preservation of the Covenant took > precedence over our notions of free speech. > > The House of Justice is doing nothing more than following their example. > > warmest, > > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Susan. The word Covenant means a bargain, an agreement, a contract. On one side of this agreement are the commands by Baha'u'llah to those who find themselves in positions of authority: these individuals are to respect, honour and promote the Baha'i principles of the unfettered investgation of truth, of the freedom of thought and expression, of the harmony of reason and faith, of justice as the best beloved of all things, of the equality of women and men, etc. On the other side of the agreement are the commands by Baha'u'llah that those individuals in positions of responsibility so promoting these principles be aided in the advancement of these principles. Juan has not violated the Covenant, nor has any other Baha'i liberal; these people have, at enormous cost, continued to obey Baha'u'llah's command to promote the essence of His Faith. The same cannot be said for those who failed to keep their part of the bargain. To the Essence of Baha'i, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: > >>So, promoting Juan's book could send you to hell now? > > Promoting Juan's agenda is deemed contrary to the Covenant. And violating the > Covenant is the worst thing a Baha'i can do, and carries the worst spiritual > consequences. You know that as well as know Baha'is don't speak in terms of > heaven or hell. > > warmest, > > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: An Old Lie Aired Out (was: Nature of the Beast: UHJ Letter To An Individual Baha'i) Date: Sunday, February 17, 2002 7:54 AM Greetings, Susan. If continuing to follow the spiritual principles of Baha'u'llah is what the oppressors on the Hill really will take as cause for declaring someone a CB, they are in for even a ruder awakening than now they've had. Baha'i has a rich and noble history of believers suffering, even to the point of death, inspired by the spirit of Baha'u'llah. That the Wolf is in power and fulminating against the spirit of Baha'u'llah would only mean anything if the spirit of Baha'u'llah was as impotent as is in reality any effort to suppress it. Susan, I postd years ago that it didn't matter whither I went, that the spirit of Baha'u'llah would raise up other believers to speak up for his spiritual principles. Look around. How many people are posting here who never were on T1? What is Karen reporting about those contacting her? Let the Wolf growl all it wants. It cannot suppress spirituality. I have no animosity against those poor souls trapped at the top of the Hill. I have done all I could to perpetuate their names in honour. However, if they choose, they will be swept onto the sands of history and despised and pitied. "To each his own way of earning fame." Michael Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: > I'm implying nothing of the sort. I'm talking about a letter which clearly > indicates that continuing to pursue a certain agenda may result in being > declared a Covenant breaker. > > warmest, > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: Note to newcomers to Unmoderated Bahai Newsgroups Date: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 11:55 AM Greetings, Dermod. Many thanks, Dermod. I understand the frustrations that led you to say what you did. And, I'm the ad hominem guy. I spend a great deal of my time in cyberspace and elsewhere urging that people pay no attention to irrelevant personalities and focus on the issues. I also wrote a testamonial to Susan Maneck on an earlier occasion when something like this was said against her (I'm pretty sure I wasn't mentioned then) and I invited her to repost it whenever she felt it was called for. I have also invited people to repost any of my posts, especially, if, as ought to be the case now with an issue of "Verdant Glyphs" to write in the next few days and that website lamentably unadded to recently, I fall relatively silent here. I very much object to comments against the intelligence of Susan Maneck. That's not the point. Dermod, I remember in High School there was a book of Irish history in the library, and it described a battle (it may even be that so much remembered Battle of the Boyne), and all I took away from it was that an English king had come racing into an Irish town lamenting: "They ran, they ran, my Irish troops ran away" to which a local had quipped, "Methinks the king has won the race," and that another local had added, "Switch kings and we'll fight you again." Dermod, this has nothing to do with the capacity or the lack of it of Michael McKenny and Susan Maneck. Send Susan Maneck out to play with a football and send us out to play with molasses and let the spectators observe the results. It's not who she is and who we are; it's what each side has to use. Performing with the spiritual principles enunciated by Baha'u'llah makes those urging such principles look good; acting against those principles and saying people ought simply to obey thoughtlessly what commands soever are issued by authority looks bad, especially when those in power are commanding the opposite of spiritual principle. If I led the charge of obey thoughtlessly the opposite of spiritual principles and Susan Maneck spoke in the accents of the spiritual principles warbled by the Nightengale of Glory, my fingers would be sticky with molasses and no one would be dissing her intellectual capacity. I would like to apologize to the newcomers for being so insensitive to you. It is now six years since I came into Baha'i cyberspace (not counting SRB) and it is hard to remember the condition I was in and the gradual growing awareness of the nature of the problem. Of course, many of you may be arriving very much aware, and that's fine; still, I think others there may be in for the unpleasant awakening to the facts here out in the open, and it's an added burden to read me and others saying it as harshly as we do. I'm sorry. I'll try to be as outspoken as ever, and as sensitive as I can to your constantly emerging presence. Thanks, Dermod, for your comments, and for being on the team of spiritual principles, and you're quite free to disagree (it's the other guys demand a single opinion be expressed), but my understanding is that we only look good, because of our echoing the melodies of the Prince of Peace. I feel if I tried to sing over and against that spirituality, I'd certainly sound no better than those now attempting to do that. To Being Asked to Obey Spiritual Principles, Michael. "Dermod Ryder" (Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com) writes: > Newcomers to these groups are advised to treat any posts by a Susan > Maneck, also known as the Diagonal Steam Trap, with great caution. > This person is not the intellectual power house she deigns to present > herself as. She has continually found herself bettered in argument by > certain posters here to the extent that she has "kill-filed" them. > > You are therefore advised to note with particular regard posts by > Michael McKenny who has persistently presented questions and arguments > that this dear lady has been unable to satisfactorily answer or > refute. His argument should therefore be accorded a higher status in > your thinking as it cannot be authoritatively refuted by she who is > commonly regarded as the voice of the Adminisrative Order here. > > You are also advised to treat posts by the author of this message in > the same regard. Not only has he been kill-filed but also awarded the > epithet of "spiritually corrosive" - the highest award bestowed by the > Administrative Order on a non-Bahai who successfully presents an > irrefutable case against it. > > This post shall be repeated at regular intervals for the benefit of > newcomers. > > > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: Textual Analysis of "the Letter" Date: Saturday, February 23, 2002 4:08 PM Greetings, Susan. Here you are insisting that your personal opinion is the only one allowed. You write, "It is clear", when you demand everyone follow your understanding, when you refuse the counsel of your prophet and his authorized successor to listen to the opinions of others without holding your views as the only clear understanding. The unity of humanity cannot be upheld by insisting that all opinions, except your own, are disallowed. Such a cult like insistence has in the past brought tremendous grief to the human species and is one of the reasons Baha'u'llah said that if religion was the cause of disunity (the only result that comes from you demanding no view except your own is permitted) then, it's better that religion not exist. Susan, it is not clear, or to restate that, "What is clear to one person is clearly wrong to another." The substantive issue is that obedience minus spiritual principle equals heat minus water. It is the duty of those in positions of responsibility to ask obedience of spiritual principle. As so often stated, humans have continued to prove Baha'u'llah correct about the essential nature of freedom of thought and expression (of which he was a prime example) even when the consequence was imprisonment, exile and death. Demanding the opposite of Baha'i spiritual principles, even if you do so using this war cry of Covenant, cannot make Baha'u'llah a liar. It is clear that history, including recent Baha'i history, has confirmed Baha'u'llah as a truth speaker in his upholding the necessity of freedom of thought and expression, as well as the other spiritual principles, as indispendible for unity. All your warring against him in the name of the Covenant cannot bring unity. To Tolerance and Understanding, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: > Yes, that is the substantive issue. And it is clear that the Covenant places > severe limitations on that sort of activity as being detrimental to the > preservation of the unity of the Cause. The answer to your question is provided > in such documents as the Will and Testament, the Kitab-i Ahd, The Individual > Rights and Freedom statement, and the 2 July 1996 letter from the Universal > House of Justice. > > warmest, > > > > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: Textual Analysis of "the Letter" Date: Saturday, February 23, 2002 4:25 PM Greetings, Karen. Don't bite. This is ad hominem. Whatever you have to say stands or falls on its own, regardless of this red herring. Of course, the most logical course of action for one who has only molasses to play with is to go after the person. You, your magazine, the people putting the magazine out -- such issues are the totality of the cards in her hand, because all content is non-existent in her hand. The issue alone has validity, the content of your work, and on that Susan and all playing on her team are as those standing on sli slopes in running shoes and space suits, firmly clutching jars of molasses. So, again don't follow this red hearing of an ad hominem. Focus on issues and the void is clear. To Tolerance and understanding, Michael. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> >> >>Check it out and judge for yourself > > Dear Karen, > > A journal run by the American Family Foundation hardly sounds academic. > > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: Baha'i Authorities Tamper with primary sources about Baha'u'llah Date: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 3:33 PM Greetings, Robert. The problem is neither a professor nor a publisher; it is the need for Baha'is to be people who live the life of their spiritual principles, promote independent investigation of truth, freedom of thought and expression, harmony of reason and faith, listening to a variety of views without insisting on one personal opinion, equality of women and men, etc. _Methods_ intended to distract attention away from the real problem to irrelevant personalities are hereby noted and indicated for what they are. To Spiritual Principles, Michael. "Robert" (rlittle1@socal.rr.com) writes: > The comparison was not with Juan, Nima and Stalin. I was speaking about > _methods_ whose purpose is solely to distract attention away from the real > problem onto a false or contrived problem. Pat seemed to me to be saying > that this method was used here to distract us to a publisher and away from a > professor. > > Robert A. Little -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Paul. Thanks for drawing this to my attention. Yes, I assume that there are comprehensive files kept in Haifa already. Doc, Susan Maneck once said, "But, the UHJ is commenting on something I think Michael only said on Irfan!" If they're reading what I posted to the private e-lists, of course, they're reading open newsgroups. However, go ahead with my blessing and send them anything you like. And, uhm, while you're at it, could you please ask them for two items I'm very keenly searching for. One is a poem I posted probably to T2 and possibly in July 1996. The theme as I recall is something like, drat aren't these e-lists contentious. I'd think you'd be delighted to throw those words back at me. However, I really want it because as I recall the second, fourth, sixth and eighth syllable of each line all rhyme, giving eight rhymes (4 X 2 lines) for each sound, and I did at least 4, if not 5, stanzas. Please post it. I'd very much like to have it. I consider "Envoy's Lament" a better poem, but I'd really like this other one as carrying the rhyming complexity of "Envoy's Lament" to an ultimate conclusion. The other item I'd really like to have is "The Tablet of the Nine Brewers". I posted it on or about April 7th or whatever 1996 on T1. Expectantly, Michael. "Paul Hammond" (pahammond@onetel.net.uk) writes: > Doctor Electron wrote in message > news:mlfl7u4lqp09i2bvvkuiqs54247sbq9gn3@4ax.com... >> Long, long ago in far off talk.religion.bahai, >> bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael McKenny) transmitted: >> >> >that a call for the assassination of the current seat warmers is, as I >> >read your words, the most likely literal interpretation. >> >> Michael. What can I say? What demons are tormenting you? This is a >> totally inappropriate thing to say anywhere, even in your dreams, man. >> >> Do you remember our little deal as posted here in TRB? You inquired >> whether I might report things to the BA? I promised to you >> specifically to post here first any such report re TRB activity in the >> future. Bingo! Note the destination of the email copy CC: of this >> post. Please read your stuff at least once with the question, "Do I >> really want or need to say this?" in mind. Thanks much. I try to do >> the same and often delete whole sentences and paragraphs, which are >> then gone for ever, before clicking the "Send" button. You can do >> that, too. > > > Michael always posts with the idea in the back of his mind that > he expects these words to find their way around the world, and > that he should not be embarrassed about what he says anywhere. > > When he posts, the first post he makes, even to "protected" > newsgroups with no-forwarding policies, is always to give > blanket permission for anyone who finds his words interesting > to reproduce them anywhere, in any forum - that way, it > doesn't bother him if people want to keep a file of his posts > anywhere. > > Doc - go find your grandma, and teach her to suck eggs. > > Paul > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Dermod, Paul and anyone interested in the Roman Way. Actually, Marcus Tullius Cicero did not commit suicide, other than by exercising freedom of speech and opposing Mark Anthony's less than perfect exercise of power. Oh, and there was that little wordplay -- one of those rijal like words that can get one into trouble. You know: "The boy is to be praised, honoured and extolled." Ha!Ha! Extolled, get it ("shoved aside"). But you know Plutarch says that Caesar ("The boy", Augustus) held out for two days and only on the third day did he give in to Mark Anthony's demand that Cicero's name be included: "A list was drawn up of the names of more than 200 men who were to be put to death. But what caused most trouble at their discussions was the question of including Cicero's name in this list. Antony refused to come to terms unless Cicero was marked down first for death; Lepidus sided with Antony, and Caesar held out against them both. They met secretly by themselves by the city of Bononia, and these meetings lasted for three days. They came together at a place surrounded by a river and at some distance from their camps. It is said that for the first two days Caesar kept up the struggle to save Cicero, but gave in on the third day and abandoned him. The terms of their mutual concessions were as follows: Caesar was to desert Cicero, Lepidus, his brother Paulus, and Antony, Lucius Caesar, who was his uncle on his mother's side. So all considerations of humanity were swept aside by their rage and fury; or was this, rather, a demonstration that no wild beast is more savage than man when his passions are armed with power." Plutarch, life of Cicero, in FALL OF THE ROMAN REPUBLIC, Penguin, transl. Rex Warner, p. 317 The story continues with the account of Cicero trying to escape the assassins, but his path is indicated to them, they come upon him, he orders his litter set down, he sticks his head out and his throat is cut. "He was in his sixty-fourth year. By Antony's orders Herennius cut off his head and his hands -- the hands with which he had written the Philippics."... "A long time afterwards, so I have been told, Caesar was visiting the son of one of his daughters. The boy had a book of Cicero's in his hands and, terrified of his grandfather, tried to hide it under his cloak. Caesar noticed this and, after taking the book from him, stood there and read a great part of it. He then handed it back to the young man with the words: 'A learned man, my child, a learned man and a lover of his country.'" To M. Tullius Cicero, Michael. "Dermod Ryder" (Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com) writes: > "Pat Kohli" wrote in message > news:3C7D8645.C7F176E1@ameritel.net... >> >> >> Paul Hammond wrote: >> >> > >> > I thought that an Emperor (Augustus?) made him "take the roman >> > way" after a lifetime of opposing the death of the republic. >> > >> >> I thought the Roman Way was bulemia, or something like it. > > The Roman way was to open your wrists with a knife whilst in a hot > bath! The Emperors often offered it to their enemies - it saved the > expense of a trial especially when there wasn't much in the way of > evidence. The inducement was that one's property remained with the > family and was not forfeit to the State. > > Could the A Onions make this popular - maybe declining to confer the > CB tag and consequent damnation if one did the decent thing .... ? >> >> >> > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Brian. Many thanks for your comments. I would like to say that I understand your frustration and I empathize with the language you have used as a consequence of that frustration. It is exactly the same, in a mirror image sort of way, that has come from those so terribly frustrated that the Baha'i Faith (that great religion of such universal and harmonizing spirituality) has been assailed from within and its spirituality, its essence, its soul attacked with the obvious signs of real people being pressured to leave the religion that is supposed to be uniting everyone. I think it is a first helpful sign to acknowledge the commonality of this frustration. On the one hand are those who feel that if everyone would just obey whatever is decided by the responsible authority then everything would be all right. We would all be pulling together. That is an understandable opinion, especially in a Baha'i context. Baha'is have been taught to respect authority. Baha'is have been asked to go to great lengths to obey constituted authority, even to suspend the operations of the administration, to cease holding communal gatherings, etc., if such be the decision of a government. And, notwithstanding so great a respect for constituted authority, Baha'is have been told that if an authority demand they recant their religion and deny it, then they may oppose authority even until death. The great divide in Baha'i is between those who focus on the authority and those who understand the authority to be requiring a denial of the religion. And, it is a very valid human understanding that a religion is more than who happens to be in charge of it. It is a very valid perception that there are characteristics, attributes and principles involved in spirituality. This problem has been identified. The obvious evidences of frustration in the words of those on both sides of this divide are noted. Now, what is required, in order to arrive at a harmonious agreement is an attitude of attentive, prayerful, practical consultation. You have referred to passages in Baha'i scripture dealing with legitimacy of authority. That legitimacy is not the issue. As I have stated repeatedly, where in other religions such a divide could well proceed to schism and sectarianism, those people in the Baha'i crisis who believe in the importance of the spiritual principles of the religion believe in the universality of Baha'i. They do not perceive the option of founding another church composed of like minded folk, notwithstanding that my perception is that any unbiased examination of the circumstances and events of this crisis would suggest the authorities have acted in a manner consistent with encouraging the formation of such a sect. The problem is not the legitimacy of authority, it is the situation in which the legitimate authority is seen as commanding opposition to the spiritual principles of the religion. I fully understand the comfort of the viewpoint that one simply obeys silently, regardless. I think it is clear that so comforting an opinion is not universally held, and, really, it is not the immorality of the folks asserting that spiritual principles must be adhered to which is the issue. Factionalists can, of course, dismiss anyone who uses or doesn't use holy pictures as evil, and see others as enemies by whatever name. Ditto for those who refuse principles or who refuse the principle of obedience. However, one does not consult to a successful resolution by this method, however comforting it may be. This post is long enough. If you have yet more in your post, I'll try to address that, as well as this issue of the defunct old world order further. To Harmony and Understanding, michael. "Brian F. Walker" (bfwalker@net-yan.com) writes: > > One of the spiritual principles is obedience to the command of God. People > can rightly say that if they believe in Bahá'u'lláh, then they are Bahá'í, > but then go on to ignore Gleanings II. Observance of everything which has > been revealed by God. > > We are given spiritual guidance on how to resolve difficulties, dealing > with opposing views, treating each other, holding unity in the highest > regard, prayer and fasting along with meditation as a tool for spiritual > health and so on. How is it that a Bahá'í can ignore these great principles > and continue to create difficulties, foment discord, abuse individuals of > differing understandings, disrupt unity, all the while mouthing sweet words > which are in fact modeled on party political systems of a defunct old world > order? > > This is not logical. > > It also matters not a whit, as I stated below, because the very Covenant is > the protection we need. Those who oppose the UHJ under whatever guise of > enlightened spirituality, have in fact broken the Covenant, and are > therefore placing themselves outwith the protection > > There is no need for discord. Let those who feel that the path chosen has > been misguided do the following: Take the Holy Writings, including the > Covenant, and do better. Let them stand up and proclaim the truth of their > venture, and in unity and harmony set an example for all to follow. The > very truth of their existence will shine forth. They will be united, in > harmony and grow in strength from day to day, because the power of God is > in their hearts. Unless, of course, the truth is in fact that they have > broken the Covenant, in which case all their schemes will fail. What is > there to be afraid of? > > Sniping at the BF, and the UHJ is just so much barking at the moon. If it > is wrong - do it better. Be a part of the solution, not a part of the > problem. Nike rules etc. Put up or shut up. Do a Martin Luther. Be clear > about it. This is truly not a problem for the BF - we expect opposition, > and we welcome it (did I mention the S&M bit? ... ah, I digress) > > >> This is not the same thing as ruling according to public opinion >> polls, but actually demonstrating a willingness to govern according to >> spiritual principles. There is a difference between commanding that >> faction that will obey anything and commanding the support of all because >> of the loftiness of your vision and guidance. And, I would like to >> underline the point that it is only the extent of the remoteness from >> spirituality that has presented a problem. In the grand scheme of human >> history, Baha'i dissidents are astonishing in that being Baha'is they were >> willing to accept a tremendous amount from leadership. It has only been >> the rejection by leadership of the very characteristics of the religion >> that has resulted in this current situation. This has allowed the posts >> to appear denying that there are characteristics to Baha'i and that it >> is defined according to the ad hominem of who is in charge. Such a >> position, while comfortable to those who enjoy being in the Party of the >> Best People, is not the basis on which to win support for broadly based >> human harmony. > > > Well, I quite agree. As I see it, the UHJ is doing not just a good job, it > is embodying all the hopes and wishes of Shoghi Effendi in doing a > wonderful job. But - they will not please all the people all of the time. > That just cannot be. And so we see malcontention, discord and > dissatisfaction. > > Bahá'í dissidents ... is actually IMHO a misnomer. Unless there is actually > opposition to the Bahá'í Faith, there is no dissent, just differing > understanding. The huge variety of understandings within the BF are part of > that unity in diversity. > > Dissident implies opposition, and within the contect of the BF, that > implies a rejection of part or whole of the Covenant in some form. This, in > turn, implies that the individual concerned is no longer a part of the > larger Bahá'í community, although s/he may deem herself a Bahá'í, and live > life according to such principles seem acceptable or valid. The bit about > obedience to the House of Justice is most often deemed unacceptable or only > partially acceptable. > > To summarize my opinion then (and I blame you Michael, for your unashamedly > long responses and multipart questions ...) the following: > > Covenant - we do claim copyright for the specifically Bahá'í understanding > of "The Covenant" > > Spiritual principles of the rulers - specifically as applied to the > application of the Covenant I feel that the UHJ has done everything > possible to protect and preserve that most important and unique instrument > for the safety of the Bahá'í Faith. Those who disagree have the same tools > available to them in every sense. Go do it better. > > Spiritual basis for those outwith the mainstream Bahá'í Faith - as they > seem to choose just which parts of the spiritual law they follow, I would > not think them such good examples, while at the same time I would defend > their right to make such decisions as they think fit. I would, however, ask > them to follow up on their dissent, and take the tools they have (as valid > as any the UHJ has) and set up the Bahá'í Faith as they think fit. We can > then judge them on the extent to which they manifest unity, harmony and > love. > > >> To the Mandate of Heaven, Michael. >> >> "Brian F. Walker" (bfwalker@net-yan.com) writes: >>> >>> In your words, that is a valid POV, but I do not agree with it. My read >>> of things as undertaken by the UHJ is entirely positive and supportive. >>> It is salutory, I think, to see that the UHJ is repeatedly working to >>> obey the Covenant as guided by Shoghi Effendi, and that those who are >>> opposing their efforts in ways large or small seem to express less regard >>> for it. That is just my observation, and I may be wrong. It is of no >>> consequence. >>> >>> What?!? I hear you call. Not of consequence? >>> >>> Indeed not. For you see, the Covenant is a strange thing. If we abide by >>> it, we will be as if in an arc of salvation. Those who oppose it in any >>> form, in any way - even if ther words be as sweet as honey - will not >>> flourish. So it is not of consequence precisely because we do keep within >>> the bounds of the Covenant, and therefore the agreement will be honoured. >>> >>> In other words, the Bahá'í faith will continue with the UHJ leading us, >>> and opposition, which is foretold, expected and welcomed as a sign of >>> further progress, especially attacks against the Covenent, will not be >>> seen as a problem, but rather welcomed (in a perverse kind of way ... but >>> there, the old S&M is showing itself again ....) as a sign of progress. >>> >>> All the best, >>> >>> Brian >> >> >> -- >> "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." >> (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) > > > All the best to you and yours, > > Brian > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Brian. Gods willing, I here conclude my response to your post which I spent some time on yesterday. You commented on the Old World Order and democracy. I think two main remarks are called for in return. The first is that it is a teaching of the Baha'i Faith that in this age though there be a jewel buried in a mountain it will be brought to light, that one sees the good no matter wheresoever it may be, that one is neither clouded by animosity, nor blinded by love. Thus, honestly considered, dispassionately viewed, seen with the perceptive eyes of true faith balanced by real reason one does not find fault with the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of Canada for addressing the government of Canada with the sentiment that democracy is the best form of government humans have achieved. Honest and impartial assessment of the evidence of human history vindicates that National Spiritual Assembly, and one of the most significant observations made concerning the governance of humans is the rarity of warfare between democracies. In the age of human maturity when the duty of the species is to overcome what Baha'i has called the greatest curse of the species, this observation merrits attention by all well-wishers of mankind. The second general comment in response to your remarks is that the individuals you criticize for being insufficiently versed in Baha'i and too much attached to the past are evidences of the influence of Baha'u'llah. They are arising out of the essence of Baha'i. They are speaking from the heart of the religion. They are signs of the potency of the spiritual principles of the Faith. I apologize for the use of terminology that challenged you. It would not be incorrect to use words that are more descriptive in a specifically Baha'i way. These people oppressed because of their identity with the spiritual principles of Baha'i may be described as "Weeping candles" as they are weeping their lives away in their love for their Lord, or they may be called "Living martyrs" as a consequence of the suffering they have and are enduring for the Prince of Peace and His spiritual principles, so indespensible for human harmony. I must be off. Very best wishes to you. To Spiritual Principles, Michael. "Brian F. Walker" (bfwalker@net-yan.com) writes: > regard, prayer and fasting along with meditation as a tool for spiritual > health and so on. How is it that a Bahá'í can ignore these great principles > and continue to create difficulties, foment discord, abuse individuals of > differing understandings, disrupt unity, all the while mouthing sweet words > which are in fact modeled on party political systems of a defunct old world > order? > > This is not logical. > > All the best to you and yours, > > Brian > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Brian. Many thanks for your comments. I apologize again for the extent to which I failed to convey in appropriate language the concepts I feel necessary to be expressed. I am sorry for the unrestrained use of words that were meat where it was milk that was called for. You are free to disagree with me. I uphold the validity of a variety of views. However, my assessment is that I, as well as others who are so keen to witness the acceptance of the spiritual principles of Baha'u'llah were able to consult in a more respectful manner, living a Baha'i example of handling the situation where there is a normal human division into two broad groups of attitudes. Just as the Christians in the East had very different views on the use of pictures and the Christians in the West disagreed on the correct day on which to celebrate Easter, so the Baha'is have such a disagreement on the necessity to live according to spiritual principles. I think it is natural for people who feel very strongly on one side of such an issue as on the other to express themselves strongly, and this is intensified when people feel they have been incapable of expressing themselves previously. the whole issue of freedom of thought and expression arises with information witheld, etc. This does not justify intemperate language, and I apologize for the degree to which my discourse has fallen short of the standard. In my opinion, and again anyone is free to disagree, it is possible to consult, even on the most contentious issues, to listen to a variety of valid personal opinions and with good will to arrive at agreement. As we were taught Baha'i consultation so long ago, there was an attitude of prayerful, considerate, practical approach to problem solving. The problem was identified, the understandings of those consulting shone upon this problem, the spiritual principles applying in this situation were determined and those seeking a solution prayed, listened, offered their opinion and through the divine pleasure arrived at a harmonious resolution of the situation. I am not satisfied that this has been done here adequately, and I believe it is possible to do it. It is the arrogance of each generation of old folks that they've blown it for all time and it's all over. In reality no matter how old one is s/he and humanity as a species stand at the dawn of all the future there is to be. You have written more, and I'll try to address that further, as well as consider your reference to a defunct old world order quoted here. To the Future, Michael. "Brian F. Walker" (bfwalker@net-yan.com) writes: > > One of the spiritual principles is obedience to the command of God. People > can rightly say that if they believe in Bahá'u'lláh, then they are Bahá'í, > but then go on to ignore Gleanings II. Observance of everything which has > been revealed by God. > > We are given spiritual guidance on how to resolve difficulties, dealing > with opposing views, treating each other, holding unity in the highest > regard, prayer and fasting along with meditation as a tool for spiritual > health and so on. How is it that a Bahá'í can ignore these great principles > and continue to create difficulties, foment discord, abuse individuals of > differing understandings, disrupt unity, all the while mouthing sweet words > which are in fact modeled on party political systems of a defunct old world > order? > > This is not logical. > > Brian > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Brian. I am very busy and have already replied with four posts to your previous post on this issue. Forgive my brevity and haste here. I may be able to reply in more detail at a later time. The principle point is that the word Covenant does not mean only that whoever is in power has a right to command thoughtless obedience of anything at all, including transforming a garden into a desert. This very word Covenant has two wings to it, not one. Covenant means spiritual principles. If one leaves out the spiritual principles, one is not describing the Baha'i Covenant, even though in a partisan way that can never result in human harmony the defenders of leaders opposing spiritual principles use the term, exactly in the manner of previous factionalists in human history seeking to appropriate words exclusively as their own. I indicate the partisan nature of the terminology and it's incorrect use if one is at all interested in more than partisan politics. To Transcending Partisan Politics and Sectarianism, michael. "Brian F. Walker" (bfwalker@net-yan.com) writes: > > I can agree that the word _covenant_ is not copyrighted, but I would assert > that the term _Covenant_ as defined by the Will & Testament of Abdu'l-Baha, > and Testament of Bahá'u'lláh incontrovertibly belongs to the successor of > Abdu'l-Baha - Shoghi Effendi. However much those who disagree care to > quibble, Shoghi Effendi did base the future understanding of the Covenant > on his interpretation, and there is no doubt that he is the one who was > given the sight and the authority to do so. Following on from Shoghi > Effendi, the Hands of the Cause, and later the UHJ were mandated to abide > by that understanding of that Covenant. > ... -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Brian. Many thanks for your comments. It is good to see so much agreement, especially on such vital, in my opinion, issues as the validity of a variety of views. My perception of frustration is based on such wording as "Those who attack the Covenant." This is not happening. Alyson Marshall and Juan and Karen and the very many people who have felt very oppressed as a consequence of their upholding the spiritual principles of the Baha'i Faith are not seeking leadership of the Baha'i Faith; they are not seeking to establish an alternate Baha'i church, although again, I believe, any unbiased consideration of the communications and events of recent Baha'i history would lead to the conclusion that Baha'i authorities have acted in a manner consistent with the formation of such a sect, instead of in a manner consistent with the worldview of those seriously perceiving they were providing universal guidance. I focus on spiritual principles, as a consequence of the fact that one side of the divide within Baha'i is arguing there is only the one wing of obedience of legitimate authority. I note happily that you are saying that the bird of the Covenant does have two wings and you agree on the importance (on the existence) of the wing of spiritual principle. I am quite happy to underline the existence and the importance of the other wing. I have said before, and I'm happy to say it again, that there is legitimate authority for the majority of the declared followers of Baha'u'llah. I am happy to repeat that to a tremendous extent those believers outspoken in upholding the spiritual principles of the religion have upheld also the right of the legitimate authority to be obeyed. It is important to note and to accept the significance of the fact that all, to my knowledge, accepted that women would be serving on the UHJ (or on some body with another designation, as a sensitivity to the literal minded) only after this was announced by the UHJ. No one held an election. Strong language has been used, and reflexively I have held up the mirror. However, such strong language and the perception of those who are calling for the living the life of the spiritual principles as attacking the Covenant is not the evidence of the successful influence of the Baha'i Prophet in his role as World Unifier. Once more, the legitimate authority is recognized, has been obeyed to a remarkable extent and there is a divide only on account of this legitimate authority being in a position where individual freedom of thought and expression, the independent investigation of truth, the harmony of reason and of faith, best beloved justice, the equality of women and men, etc. are treated by it as conflicting with it. I think I've already addressed the issue that no one alive, for those not accepting a living Guardian, has the authority to impose a single interpretation of the words and example of Shoghi Effendi. It is an invalid position to insist that since somewhere in the corpus of the writings of Shoghi Effendi such and such a quote occurs, there is one literal interpretation of these words and that single interpretation is the only one permitted to all the believers for all time. This is a violation of the spirit of the revelation and cannot be productive, except of intolerance, rigidity and disharmony. No one can insist validly on any interpretation, even of the words and example of Shoghi Effendi. To Both Wings, Michael. "Brian F. Walker" (bfwalker@net-yan.com) writes: > Greetings again Michael, > > Michael McKenny wrote: > >> snip > >> The principle point is that the word Covenant does not mean only >> that whoever is in power has a right to command thoughtless obedience of >> anything at all, including transforming a garden into a desert. > > Agreed - very much so! > >> This very >> word Covenant has two wings to it, not one. Covenant means spiritual >> principles. > > 2 wings, certainly. You then go on to discuss only spiritual principles. > This is a core of the Covenant. > > The point I was making - perhaps poorly - is that the Covenant, as defined > by the W&T, is a Bahá'í-copyrighted Covenant, which was open to > interpretation only by Shoghi Effendi, and nobody else. The spiritual > principles as well as the temporal issues should be taken as a whole, not > as separate parts. The 2 wings refer IMHO to the side of the Manifestation > (God revealing through Bahá'u'lláh) and mankind. > >> If one leaves out the spiritual principles, > > We can agree that one should not :) > >> one is not describing the Baha'i Covenant, > > and again we are in complete harmony. > > >> even though in a partisan way that can >> never result in human harmony the defenders of leaders opposing spiritual >> principles use the term, exactly in the manner of previous factionalists >> in human history seeking to appropriate words exclusively as their own. > > Precisely. Those who are attacking the Covenant are - in a partisan manner > - creating divides and fomenting discord. We can agree again. > >> snip > > All the best, > > Brian -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Brian. And, I would like to close my response to this post by underlining the concept of attack and response. It is Baha'i teaching that attacks against Baha'i are to be welcomed and responded to appropriately. One is to view the attacker as furthering the Faith, inasmuch as such is a heralding of the existence of Baha'i and on learning of its presence, then people will be attracked to it. Indeed, was not the citation provided at the time of the persecution in Iran in the 80s that the persecution of the Persian friends would result in entry by troops and the establishment of the Most Great Peace? And, here in Ottawa, as elsewhere the persecutions in Iran aroused tremendous interest and a very positive opinion of the Baha'is. Here an Assistant to the Auxiliary Board was especially charged with the duty of bringing the Faith to people of capacity, one of the first steps (based at least in part on awareness of the historical process of the spread of Christianity) identified by the UHJ, I believe, in entry by troops. And, as I recount in a post from 1996 reposted here recently I witnessed the initial interest of people of capacity, social and political activists and people from literary circles. And, this response ran into the desert of the absence of living the life of Baha'i spiritual principles. The woman entrusted with bringing the Faith to people of capacity herself resigned from the Faith, and as soon as people learned women were denied service on the UHJ all those previously checking out the Faith at the Peace Talks at my place dropped Baha'i like a hot potato. I recall another friend to whose place I went to see the televised World Congress in 1992. And, he said that this was a very creditable presentation. He was impressed until the appearance of the Universal House of Justice, and he asked, "Why is it only men?" And, in my opinion, the attitude of welcoming publicity from those who are imagining they are treating Baha'i negatively is a good one, and this publicity in order to benefit Baha'i requires spiritual principle. Why is it that people are not swarming into Baha'i as a result of the tremendous opportunity for publicity as a consequence of cyberspace and web pages and these global firesides of newsgroups? There is a quote that those attacking Baha'i are to be seen as the twittering of birds heralding the dawn of the New Day. Look up my name and twitter in the archives of this newsgroup. I repeat, if you see me as attacking, well, here I twitter. Demonstrate the Mandate of Heaven, show the capacity of Baha'i to grow a green and fresh garden as a result of this twittering, or if you prefer of this fertilizer. And, though you add fertilizer to soil, without the water of the spiritual principles, only a desert results. And, as previous posts responding to your comments mention, a group, a segment, a faction, a division of humanity can focus exclusively on obedience alone, and for human harmony, according to the Mandate of Heaven spiritual principles are also required. To the Mandate of Heaven, Michael. "Brian F. Walker" (bfwalker@net-yan.com) writes: > > Indeed not. For you see, the Covenant is a strange thing. If we abide by > it, we will be as if in an arc of salvation. Those who oppose it in any > form, in any way - even if ther words be as sweet as honey - will not > flourish. So it is not of consequence precisely because we do keep within > the bounds of the Covenant, and therefore the agreement will be honoured. > > In other words, the Bahá'í faith will continue with the UHJ leading us, and > opposition, which is foretold, expected and welcomed as a sign of further > progress, especially attacks against the Covenent, will not be seen as a > problem, but rather welcomed (in a perverse kind of way ... but there, the > old S&M is showing itself again ....) as a sign of progress. > > All the best, > > Brian -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Brian. Again, many thanks for these comments. I have already responded that the UHJ is management and that the Two Solitudes in Baha'i is a normal human arrangement. The point I would like to underline in this post is that there is a sweet temptation in such normal human divisions to use partisan terminology, and to console oneself that one's perception of reality is universal, rather than fragmented, on the basis of such linguistical conquests. I apologize for my undiplomatic behaviour and terminology, in simply tossing back as vigorously as you and others in your faction the partisan vocabulary. This apology does not negate the fact that this word Covenant is used by one side of the Great Divide as if it has total copyright to the word, exactly as a supporter of a Chinese dynasty in decline could assert the Emperor does have the Mandate of Heaven. That concept of the Mandate of Heaven is a very good one, for it justifies the transfer of power. While it is quite logical for supporters of an Emperor to assert he alone has the right to rule, it is also evident whether Heaven is granting enough prosperity and freedom from natural disasters to justify the claim. It is human nature that no matter how clear Heaven is indicating its disapproval of a current ruler, some people will defend the unapproved emperor. The chief point of this post is to indicate that the use of partisan terminology does not mean your vocabulary is universal. There is nothing much unusual in belonging to a faction and in using terminology that implies your faction, your defence of the last Shang emperor, your defence of the Papacy, your defence of the Soviet Union, your defence of the current members of the UHJ is general, that this one faction is all there is. In my opinion, the viewpoint that Baha'u'llah did not come simply to provide humanity with one additional sectarian theological grouping is valid. Now, within that validity, within the concept of Baha'i as more than one more religion, and as actually a universalist harmonizing framework for humanity, partisan positions become more problematic. Two wings exist in this Covenant, not only the support the emperor no matter how outrageously he abuses power faction, but also this Mandate of Heaven thing, in which the emperor has a responsibility to rule worthily. He is not automatically and unquestionably correct, no matter what he does, and, while humans for thousands of years have demonstrated that they will die for unworthy rulers, such really isn't the basis upon which human harmony can be established, because humans for thousands of years have also demonstrated that such defence of unworthy rulers guarantees contention and conflict. In my estimation, Baha'is who are willing to suffer for spiritual principles have demonstrated they accept harmony and for years they have refused to found a sect, notwithstanding the fact, as I believe any unbiased consideration of the evidence will confirm, that the current leadership has acted in a manner fully consistent with encouraging the founding of such a sect. As I see it, the Baha'i Faith continues to face the central issue that has confronted it throughout much of this generation, and that is for its leaders to rule so as to show they are indeed ruling according to the Mandate of Heaven. If truly you have people willing to follow regardless of whither you lead, and those who will walk only on the straight path of spiritual principles, then harmony is impossible without treading the straight path and proceeding according to the Golden Mean. This is not the same thing as ruling according to public opinion polls, but actually demonstrating a willingness to govern according to spiritual principles. There is a difference between commanding that faction that will obey anything and commanding the support of all because of the loftiness of your vision and guidance. And, I would like to underline the point that it is only the extent of the remoteness from spirituality that has presented a problem. In the grand scheme of human history, Baha'i dissidents are astonishing in that being Baha'is they were willing to accept a tremendous amount from leadership. It has only been the rejection by leadership of the very characteristics of the religion that has resulted in this current situation. This has allowed the posts to appear denying that there are characteristics to Baha'i and that it is defined according to the ad hominem of who is in charge. Such a position, while comfortable to those who enjoy being in the Party of the Best People, is not the basis on which to win support for broadly based human harmony. To the Mandate of Heaven, Michael. "Brian F. Walker" (bfwalker@net-yan.com) writes: > > In your words, that is a valid POV, but I do not agree with it. My read of > things as undertaken by the UHJ is entirely positive and supportive. It is > salutory, I think, to see that the UHJ is repeatedly working to obey the > Covenant as guided by Shoghi Effendi, and that those who are opposing their > efforts in ways large or small seem to express less regard for it. That is > just my observation, and I may be wrong. It is of no consequence. > > What?!? I hear you call. Not of consequence? > > Indeed not. For you see, the Covenant is a strange thing. If we abide by > it, we will be as if in an arc of salvation. Those who oppose it in any > form, in any way - even if ther words be as sweet as honey - will not > flourish. So it is not of consequence precisely because we do keep within > the bounds of the Covenant, and therefore the agreement will be honoured. > > In other words, the Bahá'í faith will continue with the UHJ leading us, and > opposition, which is foretold, expected and welcomed as a sign of further > progress, especially attacks against the Covenent, will not be seen as a > problem, but rather welcomed (in a perverse kind of way ... but there, the > old S&M is showing itself again ....) as a sign of progress. > > All the best, > > Brian -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: Baha'i Authorities Tamper with primary sources about Baha'u'llah Date: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 6:37 PM Greetings, Sekhmet. Many thanks for your comments and for supplying us with a copy of the infamous Majnun Conspiracy post. I had a very funny thing happen to me the first time I had an opportunity to view this. I believe it was in April of 1996 that a copy was reposted to T1. Now, at the time I was using an old computer with a Hard Drive capacity of 16 (sic) megabytes, eight of which were taken up with the program files. And, I was using these old large floppies with a capacity of a third of a megabyte or whatever. So, my normal procedure was to delete all the quoted portions of posts as I was downloading them unread. This saved space, and it had the amusing result that I read, "Okay, you want me to prove there's a conspiracy; what about this?" And, all after that had been deleted by me unread. A flame war erupted, people were deleted from the list, if I recall correctly, and I hadn't read the cause of it all. I think I've had a chance to since, but thanks for refreshing my memory. Frankly, my opinion is that Karen's analysis may be quite correct and this is an example of someone using humour in an attempt to defuse a situation. "Look, Laddie, there's others feel the same way as you do, but there are ways to do this within Baha'i, don't follow the methods of the CBs, do it the Baha'i way, look at what's already been done in the way of opening up the Faith. There'll be enough for you to get involved in later on; for now stick to studying your Arabic verbs." Only this was expressed humourously. Sekhmet, I've also been known to converse in a concessionary manner. So, let's assume that my charitable reading of this post is wrong. Let's assume that really there were a band of Majnun conspirators who had sworn an oath (conspiracy comes from the Latin and means breathe together, in the sense, I believe, of swear an oath) with 19 Allah'u'Abhas and nine- fingered handshakes that these (were there as many as 19 conspirators, or were there only nine of them?) oath swearers would not rest until they or their descendants had witnessed the end of review and the opening up of Baha'i to tolerance and the acceptance of the variety of opinions -- let's assume that this is all true. So, what? Sekhmet, do a web search for mckenny soc.culture.china and natural law and you ought to come across my reply to someone who posted what evil cultists there were in China and how they were claiming to be able to fly without airplanes. And these evil cultists, this poster asserted, deserved the full rigors of the law. My reply was that in the West we had found that if you persecute people this tends to add flames to the fire, and that in Canada we also had people who asserted they were Yogic flyers and could fly naturally (without needing to trouble with airplanes) and our response was to provide these people with publicity, to allow them to compete in our election as the Natural Law party while the media stood by eager to broadcast such natural flights. But, our air traffic controllers had no extra work to do and other people were elected to our Parliament. In my opinion, even if there was a grand conspiracy on Majnun by nineteen or nine Americans, to make Baha'i more tolerant and open, to react as if these guys had launched a jihad, or were into canibalism demonstrates more wrong with those reacting than with those alleged conspirators. Thanks again for posting this, and may everyone in Baha'i and outside of it be tolerant, open-minded and lovers of humanity. Thrive, Michael. Hi Michael, >Greetings, Susan. > Weren't you talking about the Grand Majnun Conspiracy which consists >of someone telling someone, "Stop worrying about petitions; get back to >studying your Arabic verbs." ? Is there another one? O Please tell us >about it! [snip] While it is true that the only person addressed directly by name in the infamous "Majnun" mispost is indeed told to get back to his verb tables, to imply that that's all there was to the "conspiracy" is such a serious misrepresentation of the contents of that post that I can only assume you have never seen it in its entirety. I suspect there are many others reading this newsgroup who haven't seen it either. So, in the interest of justice and the independent investigation of truth, here it is (with names altered to protect privacy, but all else completely intact): +++++++ Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 22:11:29 -0500 (EST) From: QQQQQ To: Talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Majnun: Reality checks Gentlemen and lady: I really must--uncharacteristically--agree with TTTTTT. 1. *Any* sort of an organization is an absolute nonstarter at this point. That is the one thing that will not in any way be tolerated. There is a clear precedent in the Guardian's handling of the New History Society. It will just get us all thrown out on our ears, force the decent people to back the scoundrels, and in all likely push the Faith back into the intellectual ghetto, much like happened after the expulsion of Sohrab. Let's forget it and erase the messages suggesting it. 2. Ditto *Modest Proposal II*. It didn't work last time and it won't work this time. It will just polarize the situation. 3. Ditto direct attacks on individuals. Leave them to dig their own graves; they have, after all, staff to help them. Attacks on members of the NSA by organized or perceived-to-be-organized agitators, particularly members of the notorious ex-West LA crowd, will force the House to rally to the defence of the NSA. 4. Let us remember that we have won three rounds recently: Talisman was not strangled in its cradle; the NSA seems to have backed down on attacking WWWW--according to rumor because they feared that EEEEEE University would sue them, I am gratified to say; and the NSA is standing its ground against the House on the issue of the Baha'i encyclopedia. 5. We have hit on a winning strategy, I think: a) Avoid direct confrontations whenever possible. b) If attacked, as in WWWW's case, indicate that we are prepared to stand our ground and make trouble. c) Get information and ideas into circulation. d) Keep the heat on whenever it can be done without direct confrontations. e) Do not allow ourselves to be painted as bad Baha's. f) Give the powers-that-be a graceful way out of their problems. They're starting to eat their horses inside the fortress; let's stay safely in the trenches and not jump up and charge the cannons. This means that we need to keep doing what we are doing: no committees, manifestos, or unnecessary martyrs. In particular, now is the time to lay on earnest charm. And, RRRR, as for you, I do not want any more of these inflammatory statements. You have no independent clout yet apart from whatever your family connections might be, and we will need you for the next generation's fights. There is no point in your getting thrown out now. So lay off the manifesto-making and work on your Arabic verb tables, or I will drop you from Talisman. What is the 8th form feminine plural imperative of Q-R-B? QQQQQ =END= -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Robert. A specific response to this post is that it is an ad hominem and hence invalid. You seem to be stating that while you believe one alive in the time of the Manifestation of God ought not consider the literal text of the words of the Manifestation of God as license to violate spiritual principle, you do consider the words of Abdu'l Baha as the license to violate spiritual principle. On the specific point you mention, divorced from personality and addressing solely the issue, there is no necessity for monogamy. The spiritual principle of the equality of women and men could demand an equal opportunity for each sex to marry an equal number of individuals and to have an equal opportunity for divorce, etc. However, in my view, the argument limiting the number of spouses according to justice, can equally be applied to the number of children, where two parents for only one child would lead to the constant reduction of the population. I do not say that this regulation of monogamy is wrong; I do say that other applications of spiritual principle could be equally valid. The most important aspect of your response, however, is that it appears to be asserting that while you would expect one alive at the time of the Manifestation of God to follow spiritual principle, instead of literal text, you would not follow even the spiritual principles of the Manifestation, if there was literal text from Abdu'l Baha that provided you an excuse to violate spiritual principles. This is an ad hominem position that lacks validity, and explains why I have replied as bluntly as I did to your question as to whether I assessed Baha'is (by which I understand you to mean fundamentalist Baha'is) as those following spiritual principle or not. It is not a matter of personal opinion. Those preferring any dictates soever from authorities to spiritual principles are not following spiritual principles, and the precise examples of such violation of spiritual principles are often stated on this newsgroup: independent investigation of truth, harmony of faith and reason, freedom of thought and expression, listening to a variety of views without insisting on one personal opinion (as you just did by opposing anything except monogamy as unspiritual), equality of women and men, etc. To Spiritual Principles, Michael. "Robert" (rlittle1@socal.rr.com) writes: > Hi Michael > > If I understand correctly, you are saying that today, as in the lifetime of > Baha'u'llah, one must live by the "spiritual principles", and understand > that if an individual offers an excuse to not live by those spiritual > principles, his listener ought understand the excuse in terms of those very > spiritual principles the one is avoiding. That the teachings of God, as > revealed to mankind by Baha'u'llah, have as their purpose, justice, and even > if one teaching may appear contrary to that purpose, or to other teachings, > the appearance is not the reality. As an example a man may _not_ have two > wives. The outer meaning was perhaps purposely designed to lead the adherent > to the inner meaning, as provided in this case, by 'Abdu'l-Baha', that it is > impossible for justice to occur were a man to have two wives, and that > therefore, Baha'u'llah meant monogamy. In order to achieve that purpose of > justice for all, there must of a necessity be an Interpretor, so that > misunderstandings may be avoided, conflict resolved and unity prevail. > > I agree that, to use the above example, were a man to offer the excuse that > Baha'u'llah said it is permissible to have two wives, such a man would be > offering an excuse and doing injustice as a result. > > We are in accord. > > Robert A. Little > > "Michael McKenny" wrote in message > news:a5vpmf$4rp$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... >> Greetings, Robert. >> Many thanks for answering the question. I have sworn to reply to a >> question of yours in exchange, and I would do so regardless of whether I >> assessed it as a trick question. >> I answer your question by saying that I try to live as I think my >> ancient ancestors would try to live were they alive in this day. They felt >> the divinity of the land. They strove to honour their ancestors. They >> strove to manifest truthfulness, courage, hospitality. They did not use >> faith as a cause for conflict. They strove to master many arts, including >> the art of the spoken word (and, in my opinion there is genetic capacity >> for liana-like embellishment of language and the many ways of preserving >> memory in the spoken word) and while written letters were used a bit, >> deliberately they decided to preserve spirituality from the snares of the >> written text. They were a mighty people, prizing individual accomplishment >> and exerting tremendous influence on human civilization, and, I believe, >> alive today they would have surpassed some characteristics of life two >> thousand years in the past. >> Specifically, I listed the spiritual characteristics of the >> independent investigation of truth, the harmony of faith and reason, the >> freedom of thought and expression, the listening to a vast variety of >> valid views without insisting that one personal opinion alone is correct, >> and the equality of women and men. As well as the characteristics listed >> in the above paragraph, I also try to live a life demonstrating these >> spiritual principles. >> In reply, I ask if one alive in the time of the Manifestation of God >> understands that the literal words of that Manifestation are to be >> understood so that they accord with spiritual principle, is this not so >> also for those alive today, does one not live in accordance with spiritual >> principles, perceiving any literal words providing excuses to avoid these >> spiritual principles as requiring an understanding in accordance with >> spiritual principles. >> As I have vowed, if you try to answer a question of mine I will try >> to answer a question of yours. Such reciprocity was a characteristic of >> my ancient ancestors and I will endeavour to live accordingly. Again, if >> my faulty memory ever has me forget my vow, simply remind me I have made >> it and I will try to honour it. After you answer this, I will also try to >> answer the other question you asked above as to what my opinion is on the >> endeavour of Baha'is today. >> Thrice Three Blessings, Michael. >> >> "Robert" (rlittle1@socal.rr.com) writes: >> > Son of a gun. I agree. >> > >> > Since the Source is One, all the teachings of that Source must of a >> > necessity be in complete accord and harmony, even if outwardly they > appear >> > to not be in harmony. Therefore, one will strive to attain to the > highest >> > understanding possible, where there is no beginning and no end, no > seeking, >> > no loving, just true poverty and absolute nothingness. >> > >> > Do you believe that there are Baha'is alive today who (strive to) live > by >> > that inner understanding of the spiritual principles? Without delving > into >> > the question of whether you are a Baha'i, do you believe that you live > by, >> > or try to live by, those spiritual principles? This is not a trick > quetion, >> > am not trying to trap, and not trying to produce the humble reply. >> > >> > Robert A. Little >> > >> > "Michael McKenny" wrote in message >> > news:a5t5ir$fgn$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... >> >> Greetings, Robert. >> >> Many thanks for your comments. It was very good to see an attempt > at >> > an >> >> answer to the question. I swear by the gods our people swear by that if >> > you >> >> try to give an answer to a question of mine, I'll try to give an answer > to >> >> a question of yours. If my poor memory fails me any time in the future, >> >> simply post this statement to refresh it. >> >> I answer that the responsibilities assigned to man are to follow > the >> >> spiritual principles and that this provides the litmus test as to > whether >> >> one is really following the Covenant. It is not really a question of > one >> >> or the other, in the sense that either one must kill all the > unbelievers >> >> in Iran or one must violate the Covenant. It is that one understands > that >> >> one is violating the Covenant by violating spiritual principle. Reason >> >> and Faith agree, or else it is superstition or materialism. One may > seek >> >> how harmony is to be attained when apparent contradictions arise, but > the >> >> bottom line is that one realizes one is violating the Covenant, one's >> >> responsibility to live according to the spiritual principles provided > to >> >> humanity if one superstitiously or materialistically acts contrary to >> >> spiritual principle, no matter the excuse. >> >> Do you agree that even alive in the time of the Manifestation of > God, >> >> one receiving a literal command from Him saying, "Leave not a single >> >> unbeliever alive in the central provinces of Iran," would understand > that >> >> spiritual principles would guide him not to violate the Covenant > through >> >> the attempted literal fulfillment of these words, but that he would > know >> >> he was clinging to the hem of the robe of the Covenant by seeking to > obey >> >> in a manner that was in harmony with spiritual principles, for example, > by >> >> living a life so in harmony with spiritual principle, others would be >> >> attracted to the source of his spirituality? >> >> Again, if you attempt to answer this question, I shall try to > reply >> >> to whatever question you may ask in return. >> >> Thrice Three Blessings, Michael. >> >> >> >> >> >> "Robert" (rlittle1@socal.rr.com) writes: >> >> > The Covenant is a contract between God and mankind, giving benetits > and >> >> > responsibilities to mankind, responsibilities to God. >> >> > >> >> > The virtues (spiritual principles) given, or regiven and elevated, by >> >> > Baha'u'llah, call upon mankind to develop its ability to know and to >> > love >> >> > God. These seem to be two different topics, virtues and the Covenant, >> >> > although they are of course connected. >> >> > >> >> > Where I have difficulty in following you is in this sentence "Clearly > if >> > a >> >> > mortal perceives such indication to involve the opposite of spiritual >> >> > principles...". Are you saying that Baha'is have a choice, to either >> > follow >> >> > the Covenant of God, or live a virtuous life? >> >> > >> >> > Robert A. Little >> >> > >> >> > "Michael McKenny" wrote in message >> >> > news:a5r31c$lnr$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... >> >> >> This one quoted by you in my message: >> >> >> >> >> >> "Robert" (rlittle1@socal.rr.com) writes: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > You're asking for fire, which I take to mean, content. I am, >> >> > unfortunatley, >> >> >> > short of memory, and my brief sessions here are usually stolen > from >> > some >> >> >> > other portion of my life. Therefore, I am not clear what > particular >> >> > piece of >> >> >> > content you wish to discuss. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The idea presented, not uniquely by this Celt, who is merely >> >> > repeating >> >> >> >> something said by those before him, is that the word Covenant > means >> > an >> >> >> >> agreement that spiritual principles are to be lived, as indicated > by >> >> >> >> Moses, by Jesus, by Muhammad, by the Bab, by Baha'u'llah, etc. >> > Clearly >> >> >> >> if a mortal perceives such indication to involve the opposite of >> >> > spiritual >> >> >> >> principles ("Leave not a single unbeliever alive in the Central >> >> > provinces >> >> >> >> of Iran."), then this agreement to live according to spiritual >> >> > principles >> >> >> >> preserves humanity from any departure from spiritual principle. >> >> >> >> Is there any fire? Can you respond to the content of this >> >> > statement, >> >> >> >> >> >> Well, can you? >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." >> >> >> (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." >> >> (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> -- >> "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." >> (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) >> > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: Formerly Fundamentalist Baha'i Resigns from the BF over Question of Evolution Date: Friday, March 29, 2002 2:12 PM Greetings, Susan. What Baha'u'llah taught was that no one at all had the legitimate right to interfere in the thoughts of His followers. Freedom of thought and expression is one of the things one accepts or is not following Baha'u'llah. I most emphatically reject any assertion that Baha'u'llah has anything to do with any fundamentalist imposition of a system of Baha'i theological orthodoxy. There cannot be Baha'i heretics, except inflicted by those who have rejected the fundamental principles of the Faith. Freedom of thought and expression and the acceptance of the command of Baha'u'llah to listen to (permit the expression of and understand the fallibly valid) opinions of others is a hallmark of His teachings. The distinction is very important that fundamentalism is not the belief that there is generally a literal understanding of scripture; it is the insistence, as you do here, that no understanding of scripture except your own is valid (that one single valid opinion usually being a literal one). to Freedom of Thought and Expression, Michael. PS I'm not really here, and am not reading much of this newsgroup. I'll let people know when I am back reading more than just glimpses. Pax vobiscum, Green. Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: >> >>Which is precisely what I am contending, religion's demands are absolute and >>uncompromising on individual conscience > > The only thing 'absolute and uncompromising' about religion is that it is > defined by a set of beliefs. If one doesn't believe those things then one is by > definition, not a believer. That is hardly an unreasonable burden to place on > an individual conscience. > Susan Maneck > Associate Professor of History > Jackson State University > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time > left to start again . . " > Don McLean's American Pie > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: MODERNITY AND THE MILLENNIUM (long) Date: Saturday, May 18, 2002 9:15 AM MODERNITY AND THE MILLENNIUM, Juan R.I. Cole, Columbia University Press, New York, 1998. This absorbing work examines the emergence deeply within the 19th Century Islamic world of a universalist movement aware of the modern thought of the contemporary West, assessing and expressing this in familiar terms. The Introduction (pp. 1-15) begins by contrasting absolutist rule, unequal status and censored thought of pre-modern life with the rule of law, individual freedom, and scientific enquiry forming the foundations of modern economic, technological and administrative developments. It proceeds to comments of the book's five main themes: religious liberty, political constitutionalism, nationalism and feminism. It addresses Western assumptions: Yet to posit the Middle East or Islamic culture as intrinsically antimodern is to commit two fallacies of essentialism, implying somehow that modernity is a unified phenomenon and that there is a single, civilizational Muslim or Middle Eastern response to it. p. 9 The reader is reminded that there was influence both ways in the encounter of East and West. The introduction then closes by underlining the book's focus of examining the thought of Baha'u'llah as a response to the initial wave of modernity in the Middle East. Chapter One, "Religious Liberty and Separation of Church and State" (pp. 17-47). looks at changing attitudes on this topic in the West, at traditional Islamic thought, and at the views of Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l Baha. An awareness of the diversity of human views, even within dictated conformity is conveyed. The mixing of state making with religion making had its successes, of course, but these were seldom total. English Catholics, French Huguenots, Ottomon Shiites, and Iranian Sunnis continued to exist, along with a host of other sectarian movements, despite the best efforts of government officials to establish religious monopolies in their territory. The state could never truly dictate the consciences of human beings, succeeding only in imposing a broad umbrella of outward conformity (especially in the cities) and a fear of speaking one's mind that impeded the progress of rational thought and scientific discovery. pp. 18-19 There is a mention of the differing concepts of church and state within Sunni and Shiite Islam, of the influence of Mongol concepts of rulership in later states. In these later empires the ruler issued laws and regulations that governed the functioning of the state and bureaucracy. But other sorts of law, such as that governing personal status, inheritance, and commerce, remained the purview of Muslim clerical judges (qadis) on the state payroll. Here we have not a separation of religion and state at all but a differentiation within the state of civil and religious functions, insofar as religious officers were appointed and paid by the state and performed their duties on its behalf. p. 22 There is mention of the Bab who claimed to be the returned Imam, of his execution and of the repression of his movement. After the Bab's death a number of Babi leaders and sects grew up. Some were antinomian, declaring all laws and restraints on behavior abolished, whereas others looked to the Bab's holy book, the Bayan, for guidance. Some followed one or another prominent disciple of the Bab, though by 1852 most of these were dead. p. 27 There is reference to Baha'u'llah's claim to succession and his views, as well as those of his son, on the central theme of this chapter. Baha'u'llah is in these passages making an argument for religious liberty and equal rights for all citizens, based upon the normative foundations of Iranian monarchy...Once he reached Akka Baha'u'llah on numerous occassions made it quite clear that he and his religion accepted the separation of church and state. p. 34 Chapter Two, "Baha'u'llah and Ottoman Constitutionalism" (pp. 49-77), begins by mentioning the impact of modernity on absolute monarchies and the increasing power of the modern state. It looks at the introduction of constitutionalism into the Islamic world, and the complex position of Baha'u'llah on this issue. There's the item that Sadik Effendi, an Ottoman clergyman, had preached against the Sultan and had been exiled at the turn of 1868/1869 to Akka where he likely interacted with Baha'is. There's reference to Baha'u'llah sending letters to rulers, to his view that absolute monarchy will die out and to his call for constitutional monarchy. Baha'u'llah called for political liberty, conscious of the excesses of the French Revolution, and stating the need for balance. Clearly, Baha'u'llah approved of political liberty as manifested in democratic institutions, but not of anti-religious libertinism (the other connotation of burriyah in nineteenth century Arabic). p. 66 In addition individuals had responsibilities. The chapter proceeds to examine the interaction in the 1870s of Baha'is and Young Ottomans. Baha'u'llah was in correspondence with Ebuzzia Teufik, Namik Kemal was a friend of Mishkin Qalam and Nuri Bey and Hakki Effendi were exiles in Akka fond of the Baha'is. Hakki Effendi paints a vivid picture of the Baha'is as cosmopolitan intellectuals who had their children tutored in European languages and took a keen interest in the international press. p. 69 There is a brief survey of the Ottoman political scene and the career of Midhat Pasha, who as governor of Syria asked Abdu'l Baha to meet him, and earlier as Minister of War had helped depose Sultan Abdulaziz. Then there's a return to Baha'u'llah's condemnation of absolute monarchy. Here he bestows a rationale on popular sovereignty, grounding it in universal reason. This privileging of rationality might seem strange coming from a prophet, except if we remember that Baha'u'llah had renounced claims for his religion upon civil governance, where he expected instead a communicative rationality he called "consultation" to be the mode of operation. And here he grounds democratic consultation in human reason. p. 73 Chapter Three (pp. 79-108) considers Iranian political reform. It looks at Abdu'l Baha's SECRET OF DIVINE CIVILIZATION as well as the parliamentary views of Fath-'Ali Akhunzadeh and the opinions of other reform-minded Persians. Beyond representative government, Abdu'l Baha called for economic development and eliminating poverty. And: He calls for a reform of the curriculum of Iran's schools and seminaries, so that more practical subjects would be stressed in the place of theology and metaphysics. Universal education should be provided; intellectuals should be free to publish books and articles that contain suggestions for improving the public welfare. An educated public opinion should be encouraged. p. p. 85 Next comes an examination of Baha'u'llah's encouragement of Baha'is to conduct their own community affairs by consultation, his personal attention to the care of indigent Baha'is and his setting up and delineating the jurisdiction of the house of justice. There is some consideration of technical terms, such as millat ("bounded religious community"p. 96) and umur-i siyasiyyih ("the imposition of sanctions" p. 96) as well as the use of mulham ("inspired" p. 96). Baha'u'llah never used the word ma'sum, or sinless, or infallible to describe these institutions and appears to have seen them more as instruments of spiritual republicanism than as inerrant centers of unchallengable dicta. p. 96 The point is made that such a focus on group leadership in the Baha'i community contrasted with the Shiite view of a single clergyman issuing decrees. There's then a look at the great civil unrest occasioned by the Shah's granting of the tobacco concession to a foreigner. The Shah later rescinded the concession, but the Englishman was paid, perhaps excessively, for his loss. A spectrum of Baha'i and general Iranian views on reforms and the means thereto is presented. It is mentioned that the official Baha'i opposition to adherents involving themselves in politics does not come from Baha'u'llah, and in his lifetime there were Baha'is in political positions. Chapter Four, "Disciplining the State" (pp. 109-138), begins with Baha'u'llah's words on this theme to Edward Brown in 1890, examines the Islamic concept of jihad, the broad minded views of the Mughal emperor Akbar, including his concept of emperor as "guarantor of universal peace (sulh-i kull)" and returns to Baha'u'llah's promotion of peace and his prohibition of jihad. Next it surveys European thought on international authority and peace from Emeric Cruce in the early 17th Century to Saint-Simon and his followers in the 19th. It mentions Rousseau's reference to such thinkers and concepts, significant because Rousseau was widely read and translated in the Middle East. It would be fruitless to search for a single conduit of knowledge about the later peace groups and their ideas into the Ottoman Empire. Nineteenth-century Middle Eastern political figures and intellectuals were keen observers of Europe, reading European books and newspapers, translating selections from both for the local press, and discussing developments at cultural evenings in their homes. The tradition of European peace thought was by the mid-nineteenth century a pan-Mediterranean one, and the network of intellectuals, statesmen and expatriote Europeans in which Baha'u'llah moved was aware of the issues it raised. p. 124 There follows Baha'u'llah's call for collective security, suggestive of the Crimean system and of calls for an international congress by Baha'u'llah and by Napoleon III. In 1898 Tsar Nicholas II succeeded in having such a congress held, although participants failed to set up a means for international arbitration. Next comes a look at education as an effective method of inculcating an awareness of identity as members of humanity and transcending aggressive and divisive actions. And, there's a look at the growth of European imperialism, with some details concerning its impact on the Islamic world, and Baha'u'llah's denunciation of imperialism and militarism. Chapter Five, "The Earth is But One Country" (pp. 137-161), begins by looking at 19th Century concepts of the nation and current awareness (e.g. modern genetics) challenging its assumptions. Also, A consideration of the state leads us to a recognition of the violence and coercion inherent in nation making. The state must subdue and encompass the peasants, often with much bloodshed, or must reorganize them into estates, or collectives, or must delegate such disciplining of their imaginations to big landlords and private property law. Gory peasant struggles against a local landed elite or against a colonial state have often figured largely in their accession to a nationalist consciousness. Through conscripting peasants into a national army and casting them against a foreign power, as well, the state employed massive violence to constitute them as a nation. p. 145 Among nationalist influences in 19th Century Persia was the view that Islam was introduced by barbarians to the detriment of the civilization of the homeland. Baha'u'llah encouraged a transcendence of particularism, as had the great mystic Rumi. This is considered in the sphere of religion where Baha'u'llah abolished the concept of ritual uncleanness of unbelievers and urged awareness of the varying valid perceptions of different humans. Baha'u'llah's concept of progressive revelation, validating the prophets and religions of the past, is mentioned. The Baha'i religion is therefore in his view only an essential restatement of the timeless truths embodied in past religions, along with a reformation of religious law and ideals so as to bring them into accord with the needs of a humanity verging on the creation of the first global civilization. p. 153 There comes a fascinating consideration of 19th Century states focusing on national standardized languages and of Baha'u'llah's position that a universal auxiliary language be chosen and taught in all the schools of the planet to foster global understanding and world peace. Chapter Six, "Women Are As Men" (pp. 163-187), looks at the milieu of reformist ideas on the role and rights of women. The new models of women's behavior arose from many sources. Accounts of Western women appeared in Middle Eastern periodicals and books, as did arguments for reform of women's position in Muslim societies. Some changes were brought about for practical reasons by middle- and upper- class Iranian families moving away from semifeudal styles of life to more "modern," often bourgois ones. p. 163 There is mention of Baha'u'llah's sometimes using feminine imagery in connection with the divine, of his support for the powerful Babi feminist Tahirih, of the significant role played by women in the early history of the Baha'i Faith, of Baha'u'llah's extensive correspondence with female believers, of the improved, though still unequal, status of women in Baha'u'llah's legal code, as contrasted with the Koran, and of his strong statements in support of concept of gender equality, including that forming the title of the chapter. The issue of the reservation of the Baha'i Houses of Justice for men, so poignantly at the heart of early 21st Century Baha'i life, is not absent from the chapter. It seems evident that humanity cannot achieve harmonious agreement that equality and women transcending male domination mean an all male Universal House of Justice. The relevant material from the period covered by this work is outlined. The Conclusion (pp. 189-197) begins by underlining the diversity of Islam and its vigorous consideration, overthe last two centuries, of modernity. It proceeds to the Baha'i Faith emerging in this milieu and conscious of both beneficial and constraining aspects of modernity. Hence, Bahai's sought to avoid the excesses of nationalism (war, colonialism, suppression of religion), and of socially irresponsible individualism (extremes of wealth, expropriation of peasants' land, famine), seeking the balanced utopian realism of enhanced individual rights within an inclusive and socially concerned global community. While it is hoped this review provides some exposure to the contents of this first academic book-length treatment of the Baha'i prophet, this reviewer honestly feels that anyone desiring a real appreciation of such material should realize the book itself is indespensible. -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: The Hidden Persuaders. Date: Monday, June 24, 2002 11:10 AM INVOICE: MM 1 TO: THE UNIVERSAL HOUSE OF JUSTICE SERVICES: Information that marketing of product would be enormously enhanced were women allowed on the UHJ, were the other universalist and broad minded principles of the Founder of the religion put into practise and such unpopular ex- Soviet models as censorship, expulsions, enemies of the state, spies, etc. be trashed. Fee: While there is no estimating the financial advantages, not to mention the spiritual ones, I believe a round figure of 95,000 dollars would be acceptable; after all, I've a fond spot in my heart for Baha'is. You likely have paid a lot more than that and got a lot less in return. Of course, if you wish to pay more that's fine with me. make the check out to Michael McKenny. I'm still at the same address I was when you had the Canadian NSA send me correspondence on your behalf in 1997. Hoping further marketing advice will henceforth be unnecessary, I remain, Michael McKenny. Thrice Three Blessings, Michael. "Dermod Ryder" (Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com) writes: > Word reaches me from usually reliable and well placed sources (the > interval between the Albuquerque complaint and the court case) that > strange goings on have been afoot in Haifa. Apparently the Grumpies > have been most unhappy at the lack of growth in the numbers of BIGS > and the consequent impact of that on their financial spreadsheets. > > I am given to understand, in accordance with guidance in the writings, > that they have sought and paid for professional help. No! They > didn't bring in nine couches and nine psycho therapists although that > might have been a cheaper option and just as effective. Indeed had > they come to me I could have done the job for a lot less than I'm told > they did in fact pay. > > Apparently the Grumpies engaged a top firm of international marketing > consultants to report on their marketing strategy; what little was > right about it and the rest, which is wrong as it is not producing the > desired results. The consultants took a long hard look at things, > went away off, sent in the invoice and told the Grumpies that they > would be better off with the "Back to Bahaullah" marketing strategy so > often expounded on this and other fora where people have managed to > keep the A Onions out of active participation i.e. censorship. > > It seems that an awful lot of people think that Bahaism is a political > movement linked to the United Nations rather than a religion. All of > the competitors actively market their Prophets and Founders in a big > way - "Jesus Saves!", "Muhammad is Mighty!" etc and the efficacy of > their spiritual practices, "Baptism washes whiter than white!", > "Salvation guaranteed or your money back!", "Bring back the Caliphate > and suffer for God's sake!" - all appealing to the higher or baser > instincts, dependent on how you view these things. Consumer reaction > to this is extremely positive - they are assured of getting something > for their money coupled with guaranteed salvation and a bit of > spiritual development on the side. > > Bahaism, on the other hand, is plugging the United Nations (definitely > not popular with some people), race unity (no bloody Irish in our > neighbourhood), entry by troops (noisy beggars who stop the hens > laying eggs), systematic planning (more bloody civil servants), > architectural extravaganzas (Mammon in concrete and marble), training > institutes etc ad nauseam - everything in fact that political parties > and governments promote, but absolutely no good old style hell fire > and damnation sermons, no local churches or meeting houses, no sense > of community, boring political conformity and the dross that people > meet with day and daily. Apparently the other faiths are recruiting > as they proffer a personal relationship with their own prophet/saviour > and this is what puts bums on seats. It seems that people expect a > clearly laid out path to salvation from their religion and Bahaism > just does not come up to expectations. > > I can't guarantee that the Grumpies will follow the advice for which, > or so I am told, they paid dear. But if there is a change in > marketing strategy - remember you heard it here first!! > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: THE BOOK OF RESTORATION Date: Thursday, June 27, 2002 12:16 PM Greetings. I have scanned the Book of Restoration. I am very busy and have many things to do as I tread my path within the forest. Yet, has a lot of my time this moon been given to what lies behind me. You can not consider that to continue indefinitely. And, so wrong is the attempt to silence the expression of sincere personal opinion I'll try to post here from time to time, exactly as I please. I apologize to so sympathetic a soul that I have not had time to read attentively this book. I have not noticed all the details, so ultimately inconsequential, compared to the essence of tragic regret that permeates this soul, this shattered religion and its many so sincere seekers. I did notice a reference to two living Hands and to Leland Jensen, and I apologize to them for my ignorance, and ask others to please correct my impression that these references place the likely origin of this document several years in the past. Alas, indeed, as says this individual who seems not to claim a revelation direct from God, but from Abdu'l Baha. I have so often upheld the validity of formal logic and of the principles of Baha'i administration that it is not the person who speaks, but the words which are spoken that deserve attention. In this valid consideration, a great deal of what has been written in the Book of Restoration is completely correct. Indeed, alas, that anyone had to say, much less to assert need for another revelation, even of a prophet inspired by Abdu'l Baha, in order to promote essential Baha'i principles. I understand the poignant history of recent years which has not left me unscathed and I feel so sorrowfully the agony of affliction that has so terribly blighted the more distant human past. In this sense, I realize the awesome difficulty, the tremendous test, the almost insurmountable barriers placed before mortal mind and human spirit. I do not believe in a supreme commander of evil, nor in the followers of such, and I acknowledge the lamentable reality that too many humans have looked upon those of their own species as evil. How tragic! May the day rapidly dawn when all humans may look upon each other as humans and delight in their common humanity. May the day rapidly dawn when the spirit of friendship, companionship and affinity will be the atmosphere inhaled by all the inhabitants of this planet. May the day rapidly dawn when any intelligent being coming in peace will be welcomed in peace by all the dwellers of the Earth. My very best wishes to all, Michael. -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: Daughter of Ross Campbell Date: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 10:52 PM Greetings, Martin. You shared with us: Martin (esperanto@excite.com) writes: > Dear friends, > > About Damaris, I found out that she didn't formally declared her faith > in either Baha'i group. She was expelled from the heterodox Baha'is > for asking questions, it seems. Many thanks for letting us know what's going on. Let's see, if you're correct as to the facts, a non-Baha'i, a seeker, can be shunned for her association with Baha'is of a different sect. Fascinating. Maybe Pat or someone can provide a viewpoint from within the fortress. I have already posted my opinion, that the opening up of the Internet ought to have provided a marvellous opportunity for Baha'is of all sects to overcome their anachronistic shunning of each other and demonstrate to a suspicious, distrustful and divided world, how to go about engendering harmony. This mediaeval shunning is part of the reason the fanatics in the Middle East have no example, except the example of Baha'i fanaticism. Does anyone wonder why Abdu'l Baha's promise of World Peace by the year 2000 failed? The answer is obvious. To you and yours, my very best wishes, Michael. > Sincerely, > > Martin -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: uhj members - spunk funk Date: Thursday, July 11, 2002 9:13 AM Hi, Beth. Those who'd fix the problem. This BS about the UHJ never being able to do anything but what the current lot say is nothing but BS. Time passes. If the guys now there lack the spirituality of the Hands who asked not to be voted for and lack Baha'i principle, let them join other enemies of Baha'u'llah in the history books, and a new race of men is raised up and offered that same choice as the ancient Icelandic saying goes, "To each his own way of earning fame." Does one wish to be remembered as an Arch hypocrit violating the teachings of Baha'u'llah and a Wolf scattering the people of Baha or as one embodying the spiritual principles of the Prince of Peace, the World Unifier, the One who taught we must overcome prejudice against women included, transcend hostility, animosity and conflict and avoid establishing a sterile single orthodox theology with its anachronistic consequences of heresy, disunion and fanaticism? To Baha'u'llah raising up those who will gather together those the wolves have scattered, live a Baha'i life and prove they are the source of all good, the healers of the fanaticism, bigotry and ninety-three other ills their predecessors, alas, bequethed. To a Better Future, Michael. Beth (beth9222@hotmail.com) writes: > In this day and age when we have International bodies preparing > treaties for the elimination of all discrimination against women > (CEDAW) one has to question and ask 'what kind of men would accept > positions on the uhj - knowing that women are not allowed to be voted > to that body? The problem is they made the law themselves which says > women will 'never' serve on the highest decision making body of the > Baha'i Faith and tried to blame it on Shoghi Effendi. When sperm goes > off they say the 'spunk is funk' and that is the day in which we are > living. If there were men who could be elected this coming term to > change that ungodly decision then those men would still have what it > takes to be elected. The problem is that those men who are worthy > don't have a chance as the moles for discrimination and totalitarian > hegemony are already 'men in waiting', and we can expect the same if > we look at where the members elected previously were positioned (ITC > and NSA Secretarys). Is there a way out of this for the Baha'i Faith? > Can people from all over the world be elected....can the body of the > membership of Baha'is see the results of the election, is there check > and balances on the counting? I'm all ears, otherwise the spunk is > funk. > Beth -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: uhj members - spunk funk Date: Thursday, July 11, 2002 9:35 AM Brian Walker (bfwalker@net-yan.com) writes: > > Yes, Beth, there is a way out. > > You decide that the UHJ does not reflect the will of Baha'u'llah, you > take the consequences and decide to reinstate the will of Baha'u'llah, > and go and do it better than the UHJ. > > You find a problem, you make the solution. Otherwise, your spunk is > funk. So now put up or shut up. The problem is fixed by the spiritual beings elected to the UHJ who live the Baha'i life and demonstrate they are the Source of All Good in more than name. After all, the despotic leader in WE (The inspiration of the later NINETEEN EIGHTY FOUR) is called the Benefactor and the secret police in that early Soviet novel (first published in the XUSSR after Openness) are called guardian angels. It is not calling oneself nice names while persecuting the Baha'is, telling them to accept the violation of Baha'i spirituality or get lost that makes one what one calls oneself. It is living the life of the equality of women and men, of independent investigation of truth, of justice the best beloved, of obeying the Aqdas and not creating fanatics, division, prejudice, etc. The solution, Brian, is obvious. Those called upon to solve it, if it remains unsolved next Ridvan, are the electors of the next UHJ. No current member can be worthy of re-election, if the problem has not been solved. And, the diversity of humanity, the capacity to do the job, including reining in the ITC etc, if they are unwilling to live Baha'i lives, and the willingness to be the Source of All Good are essential pre-requisites for election. Let us have this as open as possible. Let the world observe how much spirituality there really is in Baha'i. Will the darkness of political goings on in the Soviet Union continue to be the source of inspiration, or can this Manifestation of God inspire his followers to overcome such. Let us watch what you do, and see who you really are. I'd rather you turned out to prove Baha'u'llah has some capacity to spiritualize yourselves and be an example to others. Go to it. The ball is in your court. Good Luck, or, May the Prince of Peace, the World Unifier, the Universal Manifestation of God, Be With You, Michael > > Brian > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: uhj members - spunk funk Date: Sunday, July 14, 2002 5:14 PM Greetings, Brian. You shared with us: Brian Walker (bfwalker@net-yan.com) writes: > Good morning Michael, > > It was good to read your missive - much appreciated! > > May I assume you express a degree of surprise? Well, gee, Brian, wouldn't you be surprised to find yourself in an alternate universe? And, gee, like you really had me going. It wasn't like that time I read this pagan author talking about Caesar's conquest of Britain, did a little Sliders' twitch, and called a friend just to verify my impression somebody had played a little loose and fast with history as it happened here. You said there was no problem with the UHJ. That meant, it seemed to me, I really had come to a place where there are women on the UHJ, where the Baha'i Faith hasn't been pulled away from the universality of the Universal Manifestation of God, where fundamentalization hasn't happened, etc. That was quite an assertion, and I was sorry to read your reply. > I think the issue is really where your perceptions are. On the one hand, > a large body of believers is completely happy with the UHJ, If there are people "Completely happy" with discrimination against women, with the redirection of Baha'i from a universalist all-embracing Faith, to a fundamentalist sect, that in itself indicates a problem. Brian, in an atmosphere where people are declared non-Baha'is for expressing agreement with fundamental Baha'i principles, I would not expect there to be very many people who would say out loud what they really think, and I would be highly suspicious of relying on the old "silent majority" to assess the popularity of the lot in power. It's no secret, and you can check the archives of this newsgroup, that I've posted even that most shining defender of fundamentalism and the UHJ, Susan Maneck, IMHO, doesn't believe what she's saying, and is not believed by the lot in power, but her posted word suffices the powers that be. If you are a rational being with a heart as well, I do not believe you can be "Completely happy" that the Service of Women paper was not only disregared, it was censored and the UHJ published a rebuttal to what it would not allow people to read, and in that rebuttal it made the astounding effort to bind the hand of God and its successors. However unsatisfying it may be for mortal human rulers, especially of the despotic persuasion, one cannot prevent one's successors from assessing matters as such successors assess them, and acting accordingly. That statement alone in which they exceeded their capacity was a telling one. Now, if you say you, as a Baha'i, have been taught to obey whatever authority dictates, even when you're unhappy with the decree, that is another kettle of fish and I will believe that of you and of many of the others who call themselves Baha'is. > and on the > other hand there is a small body of Baha'is, ex-Baha'is and non-Baha'is > which is completely unhappy with the UHJ. > I want to make this as clear as I can. I was acting president of World Federalist Youth in Canada. I am a liberal democrat. I am entirely in favour of the ideal of an elected international council. I have told the supporters of Guardians here, and the archives should bear this out, that I do not see the need of Baha'i to be for a Pope to tell people what to think. Ditto for the new Prophet. There is nothing the matter with the concept of an international spiritual assembly (call it universal house of justice, if you wish). I am not at all unhappy with the UHJ per se, and from what I have read in Baha'i cyberspace, there is little opposition to the Universal House of Justice per se, albeit any dispassionate look at recent Baha'i history clearly indicates that Baha'i principle has not been followed, that the very same literalism Baha'u'llah fulminated against has been employed by the individuals occupying positions of responsibility to attempt an imposition of theological orthodoxy on Baha'i and a set of dogmas at that which do discriminate against women, which do remove the Faith from its universalist purpose and establish one more sectarian entity within the web of the world's religious organizations. Further, the consequences of such imposition has not only been the retrogression of the Faith, instead of entry by troops, it has been the very tragic, tear-stained, attacks against those sincere believers who have imbibed the fragrance of the revelation of the World Unifier, the Universal Manifestation, the Prince of Peace. History has not yet really begun to analyse the origins, course and extent of this aspect of Baha'i, and such a study, IMHO, will disclose a greater tragedy than the Khomeini era in Iran, in part because it is the very fruit of those suffering Iranians, the consequences of their glorious sacrifice, the future which fell victim to the fundamentalization of Baha'is highest officials. > The issue is therefore not about the UHJ, but about the individual > perceptions of the UHJ. Frankly, the issue is about the analysis of the state of Baha'i as assessed by senior officers of the institution of the learned and by senior officers of the elected arm of the Faith. The ITC and the Counsellors ought to be up to speed on the decline in Baha'i, not only statistical (declarations, funds, etc), but in the narrowing of the very appeal of the religion. It is not an issue of marketing a product so that people will buy it. It is an issue of observing the failure of Baha'is to live according to their own spiritual principles is negatively impacting on people's opinion of and response to Baha'i. Honestly, any sincere believer will arrive at this conclusion without having to hear it from me, and those who follow as a duty the affairs of the Faith around the world will know factual details confirming this assessment far more precisely than the general point made here. > snipped your vision of what a UHJ might look like, and your thoughts on > current problems > > LOL ...Having recovered control of my diaphragm ... > > I know you have problems with your concept of the UHJ, The issue is not personal. The issue is not that one person has a problem with the unprincipled, narrow, divisive decrees of those who are supposed to be guiding a universalist world faith. The issue is that any honest examination of the state of Baha'i will conclude that there was a choice to narrow the religion, to prefer doctrinal purity with a focus on a specific, extracted from context, understanding of the Faith fostering a continuation in power of the men currently in control, at least nominally. The individuals now occupying positions of responsibility are not necessarily presiding over a Faith flourishing to the extent it should, nor are they Guardians. Is it not true that only one member of the Universal House of Justice was described as "Member for life?" A very great cause of the malaise within Baha'i is that arising from systemic conferring of this aspect of Guardianship on all members of the UHJ. The natural, the normal, the very understandable consequences of this situation have led to many of the specific problems from which Baha'i suffers. Brian, it is not a faith issue. There is no need to say how very bad a place the world was twenty years ago, and how very nice in 1982 it was to be at the World Centre. I think you would be shocked if you were there today, and saw the degree of stress and paranoia. It is not an ad hominem issue or an issue of animosity. I have no animosity for Baha'i and I respond exactly as I would respond were I a Counsellor at the World Centre, indeed, a member of the UHJ. I am not perfect and I am attentive to the thoughts of others. And, in my opinion, this situation of the inability of incumbents to avoid re-election calls for visioned application of principles of Baha'i administration. There should be an awareness of the personal resources of the Baha'i Faith. There should be a drawing on the spiritual roots of the religion. In my fallible understanding, among the actions required is a comprehensive and widely available list of the members of the Baha'i NSAs and of the higher ranks of the Institution of the Learned. Who are these people, where are they from, what is their experience etc. This could include a webpage, very well maintained throughout the years. And, all Baha'is should be reminded that one of the greatest strengths of Baha'i is its diversity, and this diversity should likewise exist on the UHJ. Black Aficans, Native Americans, Southeast and East Asians, those of Hindu and Buddhist roots, slso deserve to be represented on the UHJ. I also believe that although Baha'is are asked in general to pray for leaders, this could be underlined from time to time, and, in general, it seems to me a very good idea that the Baha'i world be called on for special and intense prayer for the election of the UHJ. You asked Beth, I believe it was, to do something, instead of whine. I have done something. I have suggested measures practical and spiritual to enhance the functioning of the Baha'i administrative order. I look forward to the response. Thrice Three Blessings, Michael. > and you will > continue with those problems until either the UHJ does change, or you > change, or both. In the meantime, I think that, yes, they are in a > different place. > > Now before you go painting more word pictures at the detriment of my > ribcage, let me describe more fully. > > I went on pilgrimmage back in 1982. Shatila and Sabra had just been > wiped clean by the incumbent mass-murderer. Soldiers and weapons were > very evident, the security forces had taken a look at my beard, my > residence (W.Germany) my birthplace (Malaysia) my E.German and USSR > stamps and considered me a threat. > > Haifa seemed no different. 9 days later on leaving Haifa, leaving the > sacred precincts, leaving the threshold of Mazra'ih, I re-entered > Israel. It was as if I had left Lothlorien and gone straight to Emmyn > Muil (if you are a fan of Tolkien, you will see the vivid contrast) > > Looking back it seems to have been a dream, but I know that the UHJ > exists on a different plane of existence. It is the reality as it should > be, not as we have. > > Now, Michael, if we can accept that my tale is in your eyes nothing more > than a fairytale, but in my eyes is a statement of fact, then we have > the issue at hand. You judge by what your sense can tell you, and I > judge by what my faith tells me. As throughout history, there will be > conflicting opinions on the reality, and here we are in must such a > conflict. Thank you for both the humour and the friendliness of the > debate within that conflict. > > snip > > Agus slainte leat, mo ghraidh > > Brian > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: uhj members - spunk funk Date: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 10:32 AM Greetings, Randy. You wrote: "Randy Burns" (randy.burns4@gte.net) writes: > And what exactly did 'rijal' mean in the 19th Century when Baha'u'llah used > the word? > > You mean in 19th century Iran, Rijal something included women? It certainly did in Baha'u'llah's statement: "In these days women are Rajul" (rulers/men). Looking forward to Baha'is obeying Him. michael. > > Randy > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Subj: Re: Fundamentalism & Anti-intellectualism Date: 7/19/2002 12:54:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca (Michael McKenny) Reply-to: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca To: Fglaysh12002@aol.com CC: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca Greetings, Frederick. You wrote: > >Michael, > >It's all typical Maneck on AOL.... Same games as trb. She's been slandering >Juan lately again too. Incredible how unrelenting the fundamentalists are in >their distortions and dishonesty. Pathetic, really. > >What do you think of it all, these many years later? Thanks for providing the location for this. Is the aol site moderated? Personally, I've been boycotting aol for several years ever since it was announced and debated on soc.culture.irish that aol would not permit any posts in the Irish language. As to Baha'i, I think it's fascinating how the time passage now may allow a bit of historical perspective. We were too personally involved and too close to what was going on, in my opinion, to have that kind of detachment. Now, we can think about it (I think) a bit more as we can any other historical event. We all had been told to expect entry by troops and attacks against the Faith, including internal attacks. We were not expecting this internal attack to be conducted by members of the UHJ, nor were we prepared for Baha'is to attack the process of entry by troops. Some of the details of this have been and are being gathered. The more significant thing is the attempt to utilize internal points and thoughts to overcome the current mess. This is the main reason for my posts about setting up a list of the names, etc. of NSA members, etc. And this also provides an opportunity to document where Baha'i goes from here, who are the individuals who are making the decisions and what decisions do they make. It doesn't really relate to me, inasmuch as now that I have openly said I'm pagan and begun to follow this path, that will likely be where I am, at least for the rest of this incarnation. However, the future is wide open for all the rest of Baha'i. It could well be that officially it will stay fundamentalist for some time to come, but I don't believe in predestination. I don't think that's inevitable. And, since liberalism is more beneficial than fundamentalism, I'm happy to share my opinions on TRB and elsewhere as to how I think the fundamentalist era can be shortened. Very Best Wishes, Michael. > >Best, > >Fred >FG@comcast.net > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-xb05.mx.aol.com (rly-xb05.mail.aol.com [172.20.105.106]) by air-xb05.mail.aol.com (v86_r1.16) with ESMTP id MAILINXB54-0719125407; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 12:54:07 -0400 Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by rly-xb05.mx.aol.com (v86_r1.15) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINXB55-0719125342; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 12:53:42 -0400 Received: from freenet10.carleton.ca (freenet10 [134.117.136.30]) by freenet.carleton.ca (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6/NCF_f1_v3.03) with ESMTP id g6JGraP06281; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 12:53:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from bn872@localhost) by freenet10.carleton.ca (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6/NCF_smarthost_v1.01) id g6JGoMx24981; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 12:50:22 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 12:50:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200207191650.g6JGoMx24981@freenet10.carleton.ca> From: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca (Michael McKenny) To: Fglaysh12002@aol.com Subject: Re: Fundamentalism & Anti-intellectualism Cc: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca Reply-To: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: 2 - Prof. Cole, University of Michigan, "Fundamentalism in the Contemporary U.S. Baha'i Community....more "sectarian" Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 9:05 PM Welcome, Paul. You wrote: "paul saunders-priem" (saunders@priem.freeserve.co.uk) writes: > Err, I hate to puncture your hot air balloon but the democratically elected > Bahai Administration has leaders that are indeed *democratically elected * > and for you to disagree with that means you are against democracy . In the Amateur Press Association to which I belonged (and still do, by the way) a decade or so ago, such binary statements were called planets from the example, "Either a planet is composed of land or it is composed of water." Formal logic refers to this as the fallacy of the excluded middle. I believe that generally people feel entities that in the 21st Century restrict top positions for males and weight the electoral process so effectively all incumbents standing are re-elected are not precisely democracies. > Not only that, all people quite rightly know that " Fundamentalism" and > fundamentalists are not keen on democracy. The Bahai Faith is , and > democracy is a major Bahai Principle . If you can show the evidence for > vote rigging and stuff like that I am sure everyone would like to see it . If you say women cannot be elected, you have rigged the vote. If you only have the names of the incumbents widely known you have rigged the vote. It is a fact, however hot or cool it may be, that the people (the demos in the word democracy) in Baha'i elections vote for delegates who vote for delegates who vote for the top leadership, or has another level of delegates been added in the past several years? Doesn't matter, as again even the three storey critter would not easily be recognized by most people as democracy. I think there could be enough spirit in Baha'i to overcome some of the challenges of independent investigation of truth, freedom of thought and expression, tolerance of a wide variety of personal and imperfect understandings, the agreement of science and religion, the equality of women and men, etc. also in theory Baha'i principles, and attacks on them and on those mentioning them having the consequence of the unfortunate label (due to the regretable thing being described) of fundamentalist. I am keenly observing the response to this situation by a Faith said to possess such spirituality. To a better Future, Michael. > > As the Bahai Writings say : > > "Facts , actual states are what counts " > > Your hot air Freddy counts for very little , but the little it does is > really worth while because you draw a lot of peoples attention to the Bahai > Faith and they will make their own minds up . The oxygen of publicity !!! > > Take a deep > breath!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > Warmest regards, > Paul Saunders Priem > www.bahai.org > > > > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: Please come to Chicago Date: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 1:18 AM Greetings, Pat. You shared with us: Pat Kohli (kohliCUT_THE_CAPS@ameritel.net) writes: > > Ah, so, you suppose that others have such a policy. I too often imagine > taht others are like me. This > explains your remarks below; though you are not like me, Must be the pointed ears, or perhaps it's my adherence to essential Baha'i principles: independent investigation of truth, harmony of faith and reason, freedom of thought and expression, acceptance of the wide range of valid personal understandings, etc. you imagine that I am like you. > It is a very splendid and visionary idea of the Baha'i prophet, his concept that would end war forever and unify a species: that we are all like each other. The traditional Celts, as perhaps all the rest of human history failed to achieve so lofty a vision. For them, the concept of the "Other", the enemies, existed. I strive to cling to the vision of Baha'u'llah. This does not mean that there is not an apparent increase in the ammount of thick headedness and mere reiteration of party platform. It means that this observable characteristic of discourse (of posted words) does not automatically confirm lawful evil alignment for those so performing. > > No. Not at all. When the words were written, the "Spiritual Assembly" > meant "Spiritual Assembly". House of Justice meant what is now called spiritual assembly. She was asking, "Why can't I be on the Chicago House of Justice" (what today would be called the Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of Chicago) and she was answered in context: you can be on this committee and that committee, but not the House of Justice (the Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of Chicago). > The Chicago House of Justice dissolved and women were elected to the > Local Spiritual Assembly ofChicago. Precisely. And, it's overdue for them to be recognized as eligible to serve at the top. >By asserting that "is" meant "was" and "was" meant "is" you might have some > convoluted > explanation to entertain folks on how we got to the present moment, but > your playing the village > buffoon Many thanks for the flame. I delight in these. My understanding of attacks on me, on irrelevant ad hominems is you are saying, "Michael, you're right, darn it." Otherwise, the issue would be addressed, not the person speaking. Thanks again for that admission that really Baha'i Faith does mean an entity that should be living the life of freedom of thought and expression, the independent investigation of truth, the equality of women and men, the acceptance of the vast range of valid personal understandings, etc. Thank you for admitting Baha'i is something that should be so beneficial. It is good you say so. Now, it becomes an issue of are Baha'is people who can accomplish the deeds they should accomplish. I look forward to seeing noble and illuminated deeds in the near future. does not change the past, nor does your suggestion that your lack of > comprehension is entirely > due to prevarication on my part, make things clearer. Take the mud out > of your own eye. > Thanks again. If I say Baha'i is ideally a lofty and elevated path in which there is independent investigation of truth, harmony of faith and reason, freedom of thought and expression, acceptance of the validity of a variety of personal understandings, the equality of women and men, especially in eligibility for all positions of leadership, and you vehemently oppose this assertion, and argue strenuously that women should remain unequal to men, and only men should hold the top positions, to say nothing of pushing for a view of Baha'i as exclusive, opposing the harmony of faith and reason, the freedom of thought and expression, the acceptance of the vast variety of views, etc, then, Pat, just who is the one facing the problem of mud? Which one here is tossing mud at Baha'i? Answer in complete honesty. >> If one demands that the understanding of later generations be placed on >> words that did not mean what now they mean, do you then accept Abdu'l >> Baha was a sexual predator abusing children? > > Perhaps that question might be better asked of your borthers Darrell > and Daryl. > No, there is no one better placed to answer this question than one asserting the House of Justice mentioned by Abdu'l Baha in a question asking him about service on the House of Justice in Chicago must be taken as applying to an institution that did not exist until half a century after his answer. And, if in 3003 C.E. an institution should exist of human planets across a number of solar systems and that institution should happen to be called House of Justice, then you could also argue that now (in 3003 C.E.) women may not serve on this one, because the words House of Justice means this is what Abdu'l Baha was talking about. >> Now, will you verify the theory of the co-ordinated campaign by the >> supporters of individuals, instead of the administrative order and the >> faith? Will you come back and say, "But, golly gee, Mr. Spock, I just >> can't figure out what you said, but there's this quote that says House of >> Justice plain as day. > > It is all you, Michael. If after replying exactly as I predicted, you seek to assert I was wrong, the assertion is noted. If your assertion means this individual is all your position, you admit your emptiness of any valid point. The principles of Baha'i administration agree with the rules of formal logic that remarks addressing individuals are invalid. Issues have validity. Personalities are irrelevant. And, Pat, are you able and willing to answer the most fundamental question of all: If you pick a tarot card and it's the hierophant (the pope), are you able to draw on your spiritual principles and avoid discriminating against women, recognize that equality means, notwithstanding this choice of card, that women are eligible to serve on the Universal House of Justice? Ditto for dreams, visions, runes, watching the flight of birds, or the literal text? This is the most fundamental issue? >> I will remind you, as no doubt any benevolent Vulcan would, that >> whether you have a dream, or you hear voices, or you read the tea leaves, >> or you use the planchette, or you toss dice, or you read the entrails of >> sheep, cows, chickens, or goats, or you consult runes, ogham or I-ching, >> or you read words you consider sacred, if the message you get is that it's >> quite fine, pleasant and acceptable to rob banks, force people into bed >> with you, fly airplanes into buildings, or dicriminate against women by >> establishing an all-male leadership, then, your species has evolved to >> the point and its spiritual Creator has endowed it with the capacity to >> realize on the basis of heart and mind that such a conclusion is false, >> and fundamental spiritual principle prevails over the opposite of >> spiritual principle, even if this opposite seems confirmed by the sacred >> text, etc. Baha'is should be even more protected from such cultish sins, >> because Baha'u'llah made such a point of warning against the literal >> text. > < insert your response to the issue here, Pat> >> >> To spiritual principle. >> To the equality of women and men, >> To women on the UHJ, >> To the Future, Michael. > > To accepting Baha'u'llah as He is and was, following His guidance as > He gave it, rather than rationalizing why it should be ignored and > calling that obediance. > > - Full agreement here, Pat. To accept Baha'u'llah was a visionary inspirer of a spiritual movement advancing elevated principles of the independent investigation of truth, the harmony of reason and faith, the freedom of thought and expression, the validity of a vast variety of personal understandings, the equality of women and men (in this age women are rulers/men and women may serve in Chicago as anywhere else, including in Haifa) and not rationalizing why all the above should be ignored and calling the violation of such spirituality obedience. Right on, mate. I look forward to you demonstrating, to all those calling themselves followers of Baha'u'llah demonstrating,that they are obeying him and not rationalizing how to maintain male supremecy, censorship, exclusion, superstition (faith deprived of reason is superstition according to Baha'i scripture), etc. The ball is in the court of those whose words have yet to match their deeds. To women on the UHJ, Michael. Pat > kohli@ameritel.net > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: NSA letter Date: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 2:09 PM Greetings, Susan. You shared with us: Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: > I'm willing to bet there isn't a single member of the NSA that doesn't > think of themselves as a 'liberal.' Deja vu. I'm willing to bet there isn't a single member of the Politburo who doesn't think of themselves as a 'democrat'. > Such terms as 'liberal' and 'fundamentalist' are deliberately divisive. How much better would it be to actually behave as open-minded, universalist Baha'is than to apply the word, notwithstanding exclusivist (i.e. fundamentalist) opposition to liberal, open-minded, universalism. My apologies to all on this newsgroup that I have many other preoccupations. I have today posted the report on Scot Taylor's interview about the absence of justification for an attack on Iraq to such places as soc.culture.british, soc.culture.usa and soc.culture.australian. I'm overdue to reply further on soc.culture.african to a fascinating discussion there. My best wishes are with you. I am so very sorry fundamentalists took control of Baha'i, turned what was intended to be a source of harmony and a universalist remedy specifically potent against extremism from Baha'is Islamic roots into a cause of discord and disorder. Baha'i fundies have a lot to answer for. Inasmuch as Baha'i has been vitiated by its fundies, all I can do is urge you take the necessary treatment to cure you of fundamentalism, and I'll spend what spare moments I have to attempting to reduce the liklihood of a war that would never be threatened, if only the fundamentalists were living the Baha'i life. Peace, Michael. -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: For Robin: Cult Tactic: Questioning of Sanity Date: Friday, September 27, 2002 2:00 PM Greetings, George. You asked: "george.fleming2" (george.fleming2@btinternet.com) writes: > Paul is correct here Robin, > > Compared to the Catholic Church who only have a secret meeting of the > Cardinals in the Vatican when they elect a new Pope, the Baha'i Faith > involves all its members in a democratically elected system the Universal > House Elections are held ever Five years, Local and National assemblies are > democratically elected by Baha'is every year. > > What better democracy could one have than this? One which allows women to be elected to top positions. One which allows freedom of thought and expression. One which doesn't only publicize the names and deeds of the nine men now running the show, but allows all such bios to be available. Where are the bios of the members of the NSAs, ABMs, Counsellors, etc? Are you going t o wait until the elcetion is over to put them us? One which allows for real honest comment on the policies of the current office holders. One which does not have an atmosphere of fear. One which fosters harmonious acceptance of all points of view within, instead of seeking to guarantee continued domination by incumbents by means of forcing those who think differently out. One which praises, instead of fulminating against liberal-democracy. To the Future, Michael > > George > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: THE BOWER OF NIL (Review) Date: Friday, October 04, 2002 12:40 PM Greetings, Frederick. You're welcome. My son got enthusiastic playing a computer game and kicked the modem under the desk, disabling internet access. I asked Michel Boucher to put the review up on the solarguard webpage to keep my commitment to you to have that up Wednesday or Thursday, and, gods willing it's up now. This is being typed at the house of a friend. I'm using any time provided by my absence from these NGs and the WWW to prepare my review of THE STORY OF NIGERIA which should be posted to soc.culture.african after a few days, gods willing, and also posted to the African section of the solarguard webpage. Thanks again for your enormous contribution to Baha'i in your very persistent efforts to pierce the wall of official censorship enabling efforts to be made to respond more effectively to the fundamentalist coup that has transpired within Baha'i. To the prompt, harmonioous and successful resolution of that intolerable attempt to transform Baha'i into a fundamentalist cult. Thrice Three Blessings, Michael. "Frederick Glaysher" (earthrisepress@hotmail.com) writes: > Thanks, Michael. > > I'm grateful for your good words. Let me mention > that my books are available online at www.glaysher.com > Or on Amazon.com, www.barnesandnoble.com/ and > elsewhere as the days go by (they don't have copies in > their warehouses yet.) Available internationally, Canada, > UK, etc., with any major credit card!!! They take care of > the exchange rate. Or orders can be placed at any bookstore > through the major distributors Baker & Taylor and Ingram. > > The Bower of Nil: A Narrative Poem. > ISBN: 0-9670421-7-8. LCCN: 2002105728. > Cloth. Reverberations. $21.95. 71 pg. > Cover art: "Sulamith," Anselm Kiefer. > Publication date: October 2002 > Preferred: Online Orders with immediate delivery, > www.fglaysher.com > > (Hey, I may be a poet, but remember, I'm bucking > the poete maudit tradition, and I SELL houses too!) -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: Unbelievable! Date: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 1:47 PM Greetings, Sekhmet. You shared with us: >Michael wrote: [snip] >> Your last statement is factually incorrect. Juan is a Baha'i. >Maybe; that's between him and God. What I meant was that he's not an enrolled >member of the Baha'i Faith-- which I should have stated more clearly. This is being read by anyone in the world who wishes to read it and has the easy cyberspace access. I am going to answer your remarks here and below accordingly, and because some people do not have the patience to read far I'm going to strive to be brief, comprehensive and focused. Anyone who does read this post to the end will see this person is a normal human being and she even gets frustrated and says "dammit". The Baha'is try to be spiritual and while trying they include among them some who have not learned everything about the ideal spirituality of their own religion or others, exactly as is the case within all religions. That an American Baha'i could be quoted by Nima as supporting anti-Arabic American imperialism has no connection with the believers in Baha'i living in other countries, and no connection with the ideals of the Baha'i Prophet who agreed with Muhammad in advocating community, transcending particular animosities. That there are fundamentalists within Baha'i, even in charge of the Haifan sect, as evidenced by this sectarian assertion that Professor Cole, a defender of Islam among Westerners, and an avowed believer in the Baha'i Prophet, is not included, does not change the universalist vision of the Founder of the Faith, exactly as the universalist vision of Islam has not been eliminated by the tardiness of some individual Muslims to comprehend the wondrous composition of the entirety of the Koran. It is very much to be hoped that references on this very newsgroup to teams and Baha'i wars and shunning, etc. will in the near future evolve according to the true intention of Muhammad and Baha'u'llah, and all the Great Spiritual Beings of the human species, and, no doubt, of any other highly evolved life forms anywhere in creation, so that true community, harmony and understanding will flourish upon this planet, as upon all inhabited worlds. Having given this assurance to all that the Baha'is living around the world have no connection to the anti-Arab American imperialism quoted from an inadequately spiritualized individual American, whom one hopes is learning from his fellow believers the universalist, pacific and spiritual tenets enunciated by the Baha'i Prophet, let us turn to the more specifically Haifan fundamentalist fragmentation and alienation of its own membership. Anyone studying this newsgroup from its beginning can clearly observe that enormous spiritual harm has been inflicted upon many Baha'is by the fundementalization of the Haifan sect. As normal human beings, those souls so terribly hurt have responded in a typical variety of ways, and these include the quite logical rejection not merely of the excesses of fundamentalist leaders in Baha'i, but even to a rejection of the Baha'i Prophet and all Prophets. So, undoubtedly Nima can be quoted as denying the existence of God and the Prophets, although Nima, as far as I know, has been very much opposed to American imperialism, sharing the opinion of many people East and West, North and South that the peoples of every country in the world are precious because of their humanity and deserve better lives freed of oppression from external or internal oppressors. I will express the tremendous grief I feel that the intent of the Baha'i Prophet that the noble religion of Muhammad be elevated above the actual conditions of the Nineteenth Century and that the impact of Western colonialist attitudes be irrigated by such spirituality that Westerners who for a thousand years had not accepted Muhammad would embrace the truth of Islam and join with spiritual people of all backgrounds to promote, within the newly arriving global technology, a global community striving for the highest ideals of Islam and of all spiritual peoples on the planet -- this so glorious goal, purpose and aim was shattered by the narrow minded and the fundamentalist humans who emerged from Baha'i bureaucratic organization to power and then turned against the universalist harvest of the Baha'i Prophet and drove the most articulate, outspoken and visible of these people away from them. The great tragedy is that it is precisely Baha'i, with a century of teaching the universal truth of Muhammad and the Koran to Westerners and others, with a century of practise in striving to learn how to resolve disputes in an unbiased, constructive and spiritual manner, with a century in studying and living a life centred on humanity as a whole, rather than in vitiating, divisive particularism -- it was this harvest of a century which stood poised to provide the energizing remedy to a conflict of ill-informed Islamic fundamentalism and ill-advised American imperialism. Alas, ten thousand times alas, that the leaders of the largest Baha'i sect far from using modern technology, including cyberspace, as a glorious opportunity to demonstrate the harmonious spirituality within Baha'i, an occasion to consult publically and effectively on ending the divisions, lingering from previous generations, within Baha'i, so narrow-mindedly turned against the more universalist of the members of their own sect and generated further division. In place of a unified, vitalized, vigorous spiritual community shining as an example and cooling any misunderstandings between religious communities, instead of a vibrant, energized and thriving support for human, instead of national and factional, interests, the fundamentalists dominating Baha'i's biggest sect preside over a splintered, demoralized bunch of feuding individuals, few of whom wish to be associated with such fundamentalist bosses, even those who, publically, defend them, by all the tricks in the repertoire of despotism. Anyone who has arrived at this point has seen the clear explanation of how the Baha'is living in the Middle East and elsewhere have no connection to any American imperialist opinions expressed by an American Baha'i (although American Baha'is are just as well-wishing of their country's true happiness as Baha'is, and actually almost everyone, anywhere else are wishing the best for their homeland) and will see how it was the so tragic acquisition of power by fundamentalists in Baha'i that caused the wrathful words by one driven to atheism and yet still a well-wisher of the Arabs, Persians, Kurds and other residents of the Middle East, as indeed of all the peoples of the world. I did not really have the time to write this, but its importance caused me to write it anyway. I apologize if I am absent from much of what transpires on this newsgroup. However, surely with this post I have defended to the fullness of my capacity the Baha'is of the Middle East and elsewhere, I have provided the personal view as to the attitudes, behaviour and goals best for the Baha'is world wide, and I have sought to promote the happiness, well-being and peace of humanity. What more is needed? Peace, Michael. >>Nothing >>Juan or Nima has said compares to this rabid anti-Arabic American >>imperialism, but since I'm not reading it all, prove me wrong and quote >>them. >Quote who? Should I go to Google and dredge up some of Nima's references >to an "insane semitic desert god" or a particular Manifestation being a >child-molester? >>>> By the way, just because Bush said Saddam has weapons of mass >>>>destruction doesn't mean Iraq really has them. Indeed, I rather think >Iraq >>>>doesn't have them, because I figure if he really had proof we'd have seen >>>>it by now. >>> >>> Gee, that sounds just like some of us Baha'i "liberals" who are trying >to knock >> some sense into the folks on the message boards! > >> Unlike many others, I don't mind being proved wrong (well, generally >>I'd rather be proved wrong where I think something rather negative :) >>though my basic desire for the truth means I will accept any kind of >>factual correction). Well, I am in favour of freedom of thought and >>expression, so let anyone post what s/he wishes. It is just that the >>presence or the absence of fact may be noted in my response, which was all >>I did in this post to which you reply -- I note the absence of >>factual corroboration of Susan's assertion. >True. But in my interpretation Susan didn't tell me to supply "factual >corroboration" (which would be useless to Nima anyway, since he's immune to >reason and proofs from people with whom he disagrees), but a corroborating >opinion, which is what I gave. If I thought she _had_ wanted me to supply >quotes, I probably would have told her to go do her own dratted research! >;-) >> "A proof is a proof," to quote a great guy. And, it works in all cases. >>One isn't necessarily wrong in lacking proof, s/he just doesn't have proof >>and one can hardly be blamed for thinking in some cases people will >>conclude the absence of proof renders the issue likely leans the other >>way. >Keep that in mind the next time one of us "enrolled Baha'is" protests Nima's >refusal to provide evidence for one or another of his assertions in future; >perhaps then you'll have some sympathy for our POV. >>>>So, Sekhmet, your word just doesn't cut it. I mean, Susan. it's >>>>just as easy for me to say, "Hey, Michel, tell 'em, X" and Michel answers, >>>>"Right, X". That's not proof of anything, except that Susan and Sekhmet >>>>play on the same team, which we knew already. >Duh. I'd worry about you if you hadn't noticed that! ;-) >>> Well, I wish Susan hadn't asked me to tell you anything, but I didn't >think I >>> should leave her swinging in the breeze, since she _was_ telling the truth. >>> Of course, you only have my word for that... ;-) >> >> No, actually, your word is that Juan is the guy she was talking about, >>and I didn't even know he was posting to AOL, not reading AOL myself, and >>never intending to while the Irish language is prohibited there. So, you >>have not agreed with Susan's assertion. >Dammit, Michael! Susan did not refer to some amorphous "Baha'i liberals" as >you've been trying to suggest; she referred SPECIFICALLY to Nima and Juan! >Susan said in her first post in this thread: >There have been a few Baha'is on the AOL Baha'i Message Board who have >expressed similiar sentiments but most of these Baha'is, far from being >categorized as 'fundamentalists' are largely sympathetic to Nima and his >friends. [Sekhmet can confirm this.] Like Juan Cole they have been accusing >other Baha'is of treason for >not being sufficiently hawkish and for presenting Islam in too favorable >a light. Then Nima came back with: >These people would be sympathetic to me!? You're joking, right? They'd lynch >me and my kind from the tallest pole. >And _then_ Susan said: >Tell him, Sekhmet. >I may not have backed up what _you_ think I should have backed up, but I did >give a corroborating opinion to back up what Susan said! >You continue... >>And, if you had, my point would >>still remain. Until the quoted words are posted here demonstrating >>somebody posting on AOL is a liberal, and a supporter of anti-Arab US >>imperialism there is no proof of Susan's assertion. >I don't have to show that anybody is a "liberal"; I just need to show they >sound like Nima and/or Juan (well, actually I don't even need to do that, >since >it should be Susan's job to supply proof for her assertion if proof is >required, but what the hell...) >All of the following quotes are from the same guy, posting recently to the >AOL >Baha'i Message Boards. Frankly, I feel that Susan is inaccurate in that this >guy's posts are, in general, quite a bit milder in tone than a lot of what >we've seen in TRB from Juan and Nima (although I didn't go back and reread >them >all, so maybe I've missed some of the spicier ones). But the sentiments sure >sound familiar... > I resent arses like Peter Khan running >around saying demeaning things about >the Baha'is (recall that tape) as if he's >mature and we're not. This mentality runs >rampant in Baha'i politics and it'll never >change as long as those clowns forget >where they came from....from the screams >or muffled moans of their parents relieving >themselves for lack of anything better to >do when the urge hit. >Being an American means not turning against >your own country. And you both have done so, if your words are >any indication. Baha'is are very political despite their parroted >pronouncements of "not being involved in politics." Baha'is expect >absolute obedience to their high government (UHJ) leadership. And >yet some of the same Baha'is, clearly, think it's OK to flip their fingers >at our democratically elected leadership. Utter hypocrisy! > There is far more evidence that Professor Cole is >no threat to the Baha'i religion -- but you will disagree. >There is no evidence whatsoever that the so-called >"covenant-breakers" pose a threat to Baha'is. In fact, >the Muslims of Iran still represent the greatest threat >ever to Baha'u'llah's religion. You won't agree. You >also have no evidence that the "Covenant of Baha'u'llah" >protects anyone from huge "spiritual" egos. You won't >agree. > Islam and the Catholic Church are in decline. >The free world is taking them less and less seriously. >And rightly so. All organized religions are suspect. This one doesn't channel Juan or Nima; it's just to show that the guy's a hawk: > Secretary of State Colin Powell is naive about further inspections and it's >appropriate that he'll be leaving the Bush administration. At the end of the >Gulf War, Powell also opposed sending our forces into Baghdad to remove >Saddam. It proved itself to be a major blunder. Now that the current President >Bush has the backbone to correct the mistakes of his father, the doves are >repeating the mistakes of the past. And listen to Mandela who is self- righteously >telling the U.S. to subordinate itself the a UN that wants to bring our nation >down fifty notches, to their own level. The UN is a sham; a bandwagon for >small countries to bash and hamstring a Gulliver America because of their >own lack of vision, spite and jealousy. >If you need more or stronger quotes, maybe Susan will have time to provide >some. [snip] >> Well, since no quoted post(s) supporting Susan can be seen here, we'll >>have to tend in the direction of accepting at least one fundy frothed the >>astonishing words Nima quoted and which Susan accepted as authentic, and >>no liberals have been seen to agree with the aforementioned fundy froth. >I don't think a liberal would. But we weren't discussing liberals, we were >discussing Juan and Nima. And we already knew "fundies" are as capable of >frothing astonishing words as other sorts of extremists, having recently been >inundated by a plethora of excellent examples of excess from a certain >resident >of Northern Ireland who thankfully has not been posting here lately. >> If there is nothing to be seen, then there's nothing to be seen, and >>if >>there's no proof, then there's no proof, n'est-ce pas? >Yes, I agree completely. It's too bad that same test can't be applied to >other, more important, issues than this one. >--Sekhmet -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: AF Spies All Over the Internet Date: Friday, October 11, 2002 3:18 PM Greetings, Randy. You shared with us: "Randy Burns" (randy.burns4@gte.net) writes: > It might surprise you to learn when the monitoring activities really began > Pat! It was much earlier than the Majnun post (which in fact was late in > the game anyway). Apparently the entire network of Counselors and ABM's was > set up just for this purpose, and in fact I don't think the BAO would even > bother to deny this. What is very interesting on this topic is that one of the people of capacity who came to the Peace Talks held at my place more than ten years ago told me that he had encountered the Baha'i Faith back in the 60s in Toronto, checked it out and refused to join, precisely because he "smelled a rat" in this system of Counsellors and ABMs. Because he knew me so well, and I was so articulate and sincere he gave me the benefit of the doubt and responded to my invitations to the Peace Talks. Of course, like the rest, he ceased coming when the word got out that Baha'is are hypocrits who say they believe in equality of women and men, but really have a male supremecist leadership. The actual quotes describing the members of the institution of the learned describe the diffusion of the divine fragrances, etc. Doing this is a full time job and doesn't permit any spare time for straying into such areas as seeking to suppress the freedom of thought and expression, to say nothing of spying. If they'd been really living spiritual lives and promoting open-minded search for truth, understanding, listening respectfully to the variety of valid opinions, the freedom of thought and expression, the equality of women and men, the harmony of reason and faith, etc. then Baha'i would be as if indeed divine fragrances had been and continued to be wafted. Since they have failed to live up to the job description, and preferred to oppose the essential principles of Baha'u'llah, the consequences stare us all in the face. To a Better Future, Michael. > Cheers, Randy > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Sekhmet. You shared with us: Sekhmet (sekhmet209@aol.com.nz) writes: > Actually it's a suggestion that Nima can't be reasoned with, which is not the > same thing. There are lots of us posting here, and many more reading here. So, any time Nima can be refuted, let the refutation be posted. Everyone can see it. Everyone can reasonably determine its effectiveness and validity. The focus on Nima (the person saying something) instead of what is being said is invalid according to the rules of formal logic and the principles of Baha'i consultation. This approach concedes the point, matter and issue to Nima. Otherwise we would read the refutation and not the remarks about Nima. The statement that Nima cannot be reasoned with, as literally written, is incorrect. However, if, as seems the case, it is forked tongue for "Nima cannot be told to accept extremist fundamentalist viewpoints as his own, leastwise speaking them to him doesn't convert him" that, as I interpret it is likely a correct statement. I will note that insistence on one specific opinion is an aspect of fundamentalism, and the very opposite of the Baha'i principles of open-minded search for truth, the harmony of faith and reason, listening to a variety of valid opinions, freedom of thought and expression and consultation by focusing on the various ideas and not on personalities. > But either way, I'm sure Nima is proud of his "steadfastness", and doesn't see > it as an insult at all! I am so terribly sorry, Sekhmet, but the unpalatable odour of this very extremist and fundamentalist letter, as so very much else, from those so lamentably remote from the essential spiritual principles of Baha'i sticks to the source of such extremist fundamentalism and not the target of the extremist fundamentalists. To a Better Future, Michael. > --Sekhmet -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Nima and all. This is fascinating. I'll note the obvious that there's an admission that Nima cannot be refuted. You see, it's the old ad hominem/ ad rem thing. According to formal logic and to the fundamental principles of Baha'i consultation one focuses on the issue and any reference to personality is invalid and irrelevant. These guys by only addressing the individual, Nima, and ignoring the issue, concede they cannot speak to the issue, that Nima is, in fact, correct. So, well done, Nima. Here's a letter from a NSA testifying to your complete correctness and the irrefutable nature of what you say. Thrice Three Blessings, Michael. "Freethought110" (Freethought110@bohemian.org) writes: > This makes the infamous *Majnun: Reality Checks* post look like a walk in > the park. Obviously there is no answer to give regarding the AO's open > cavorting with pro-monarchists. Read it and weep.... > > > -- > > To: Dr. Susan Maneck > > Dear Baha'i Friend, > > Counselor Abdu'l-Missagh Ghadirian has shared with the National Spiritual > Assembly your email exchanges regarding Nima Hazini and NITV, and it has > asked that we provide you with the following guidance on its behalf. The > National Assembly deeply appreciates your vigilance in correcting erroneous > postings on the Internet related to the Baha'i Faith. Unfortunately, our > experience with Mr. Hazini has been that he is not open to the views of > others and that any response to him only tends to exacerbate the > situation.The National Assembly feels, therefore, that in this case it would > be best if you simply not respond to his postings and let the matter of NITV > rest. Be assured, however, that the National Spiritual Assembly is looking > into the various concerns that have been raised about NITV. For your > information, too, it is actually Dr. Homa Mahmoudi who is involved with the > NITV program. It is her sister, Dr. Hoda Mahmoudi, who was a former > Auxiliary Board > member and who is currently serving at the Baha'i World Center. > > Again, we are grateful for your conscientious efforts in defense of our > beloved Faith. > > With warmest Baha'i regards, > > David L. Rouleau > For the Office of the Secretary > > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Sekhmet. You shared with us: Sekhmet (sekhmet209@aol.com.nz) writes: > Personally I think the "Haifan" Baha'i Administration is in approximately the > right place-- too liberal for the likes of Darrick and the other far-fringe > "fundieloonies", and too conservative for the likes of Juan, Nima, and the > other die-hard "dissidents". The extremes are excluded, but the "included > middle" is very wide. The whole ad hominem thing has to be mentioned, not that I'm talking about any references to personalities above, but to make it clear that my words below are directed at the point, matter and issue. Sekhmet, it has been my positive experience to have encountered you, even in words appearing on the computer screen from half the world away. If sometime in this incarnation we can converse with the discord within Baha'i a chapter of history that will be truly marvellous. I look forward to that, and hope spirituality, beneficial ancestral influence, divine favour hastens that day. The specific issue you mention can be addressed. I say it is extremism and it is fundamentalism to extract from a letter to an individual words that can be instructed as telling her in the beginning of the 20th Century to accept male supremecy in Chicago at that time, a justification for male supremecy within Baha'i at the global level almost a hundred years later. I say moderation is the acceptance of a variety of valid views, the harmony of reason and faith, the unfettered investigation of truth, the freedom of thought and expression, the equality of women and men, the understanding that leaders are to guide as if they were the source of all good and the wellspring of guidance for all humans, the Universal House of Justice. Your position states that current extremism: male supremecy, censorship, imposition of a fundamentalist party line, redefinition of Baha'i from being a universalist world religion into being an exclusivist sect, the supremecy of passages extracted from the Ocean of the revelation and interpreted literally, the definition of the dictates of leaders as the source of all good and inerrantly correct, notwithstanding anything such dictates actually state, and the necessary primacy of such dictates to human reason and even to human conscience, the vehement opposition to the very principles enunciated by the Baha'i Prophet -- this you name moderation and I call extremism. Anyone reading this can decide what is moderation and what is extremism. You and anyone, including the infallible nine, are quite free to refute anything I say. I am busy, and I will still try to take the time to point out the stereotypical abuse of language by those defending, against their own convictions, the extremism of the despotic and fundamentalist male supremecists dictating to the largest, though demoralized and declining, sect of Baha'is. To True Harmonious and Moderate Spirituality, Thrice Three Blessings, Michael. > --Sekhmet > > Michael wrote: > [lots of interesting stuff snipped] -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: Unbelievable! Date: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 7:49 AM Greetings, Pat. You wrote: > > If you were the Center of the Covenant of the Baha'i Faith, I would agree with you > whole-heartedly, but you are not. If everyone follows the path they choose, this sounds > good, but when everyone expects others to follow such paths, things go bad. > That is an irrelevant ad hominem. What never ceases to amaze me is the extent to which literalist fundamentalist extremists transfer their literalist fundamentalist extremist interpretations to the words of someone such as Abdu'l Baha or Shoghi Effendi and assume they've stopped joining partners with God and ceased worshipping the idol of their own literalist fundamentalist extremist imaginings. Taking the literal, rather than the spiritual meaning of Shoghi effendi does not elevate this unspiritual practise above the same action taken towards the words of Muhammad, Baha'u'llah or anyone else. If it is intolerable to perform unacceptable deeds and to violate the spiritual principles of Baha'u'llah on the basis of literalist fundamentalist extremist interpretation of the words of Baha'u'llah, it is no more acceptable to perform unacceptable deeds and to violate the spiritual principles of Baha'u'llah on the basis of literalist fundamentalist extremist interpretation of the words of Abdu'l Baha or of literalist fundamentalist extremist interpretation of the words of Shoghi Effendi. As has been said before, the literalist fundamentalist interpretation of Shoghi Effendi is an interpretation, and saying his words must be followed exactly as obviously understood (literally) even when this violates the spirituality of the religion, is exactly the crux of the problem of literalist fundamentalist extremism, the insistence on a single literalist interpretation seemingly mandating intolerable action, in violation of spirituality. To Ceasing Insistence on Literalist Fundamentalist Interpretations, To Women Accepted as Eligible to Serve at All Levels, To Long Delayed and Much desired Universal Peace, Michael -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) Greetings, Sekhmet. Many thanks for this. From this it appears that Mirza Sohrab, who on internal inference only, comes across as being on the Chicago House of Spirituality, commented on the translation. This would appear to modify the original assertion that Susan made, i.e. it now looks as if only one translator was involved and that actually what was attempted was to locate other tablets where women are authorized to serve, instead of seeking additional translators. Additionally, the translator, Sohrab, admits the ambiguity saying he will contact Abdu'l Baha to clear it up, something he wouldn't have to do if it was clear from the original what was being said. I hold that both the understanding "general house of justice" (i.e. the Chicago consultative body; by the way comment is needed to confirm these minutes are actually from the Chicago House of Justice and not some other body, due to the fluidity of terminology at the time) and "universal house of justice" is intended are valid opinions. Personally, I tend to the option that the current fundamentalist Haifan view is a filioque, that is just as filioque was inserted into the Latin in early Christianity, similarily the male supremecists in the Haifan sect publish translations apparantly unambiguously saying UHJ, when the prevailing opinion at the time was that the words referred to the Chicago House of Justice, or were ambiguous. I appreciate the complexity of the issue with several letters involved, etc, and once the same phrase has been used and felt to apply to the Chicago House of Justice, it would be understandable that without a clarifying description such as "She can serve on anything currently existing as only the non-existent UHJ is reserved for men" further repetitions of the words "general house of justice" would not be accepted as clear enough for her to serve, as indeed is demonstrated here. Indeed, no one has addressed the point that she never was allowed to serve on the Chicago House of Justice, but that after Abdu'l Baha was in the West and understood the importance of the spiritual principle of the equality of women and men, he disbanded the House of Justice and called for the election of a Spiritual Assembly, open to both men and women, something he wouldn't have had to do were the matter of wording as plain as the filioque literalist fundamentalist male supremecists within the Haifan sect wish to have accepted. The issue of literalist fundamentalist extremism is, I'm happy to say again, not resolved by any of the wrangling about the wording of the translation of the letters of Abdu'l Baha obviously not effectively written to permit Corinne True to serve on the Chicago House of Justice, which she never did. As I mentioned earlier, even were there unanimity on the wording of the English translation, even were the original not ambiguous, this does not alter the issue of literalist fundamentalist extremism within Baha'i, exactly as unanimous agreement on the authenticity of certain passages of the Koran does not render acceptable suicide bombings. The crux of the issue of literalist fundamentalist extremism is that on the basis supposedly of the obvious (literal) passages of sacred text, therefore unacceptable actions are advanced as being the will of Deity. We had an editorial in the local paper recently defending Islam against the savage attacks that have been made precisely because of the existence in the Koran of such passages, which have been highlighted by Christian literalists. The writer of the editor stated that all sacred scriptures contain both very elevated and spiritual passages and those susceptible to criticism such as these from the Koran, but that all spiritual people were able to understand the limiting contexts of the unpleasant stuff and live upright lives, according to the spirituality of the elevated stuff. This is exactly the issue within Baha'i. The problem that faces the Haifan sect is that which has faced all those who have erected the idol of literalism and worshipped such partners with God. Baha'u'llah has said that it were better religion did not exist rather than it be the source of conflict. He has spoken quite sharply against Muslims acting unacceptably because of such literalist fundamentalism and his words on this topic of joining partners with God do not apply solely to Muslims. The entire procedure of demanding everyone accept such extracted passages as this one as mandating male supremecy within his call for the equality of women and men is the problem. The triumph of neither of the alternative views on the actual meaning of the obviously ambiguous "general house of justice" or whatever phrase is the issue. The issue is the spiritual principle, the correct action, the providing the essential pre-requisites for global peace, and this is accomplished by women serving on the Chicago consultative body and by women serving at the world level today. Many possibilities exist to accomplish this, but male supremecy and all the divisiveness and the decline consequently suffered by the Haifan sect because of such insistence on incorrect action based on literalist fundamentalist reading of such passages extracted from spirituality is not included among them. To Spirituality, To Long Delayed and Much Desired Universal Peace, To Women Accepted as Eligible to Serve at all Levels, Michael. Sekhmet (sekhmet209@aol.com.nz) writes: >>>>certainly the Chicago House of Justice did, though you are free to post >>any >>>>support for a position that anyone other than Corinne True understood >>it >>>>as referring to the UHJ, >>> >>> I got this information from the minutes of the Chicago House which are >>posted >>> on Jonah's website. but I don't have time to chase it down right now. >>I would >>> recommend you go have a look at those minutes, however. >> >> Poor recommendation. Whether or not this druid reads alleged minutes >>on >>some web page is insignificant; however, many people are reading only this >>exchange between us. You or anyone else are well advised to post your >>proof, if it exists, in plain view, here. > > Notes on Chicago House minutes during the period in question can be found here: > > https://bahai-library.org/resources/chicago.house/chs.1909-1912.html > > > An excerpt: > > +++++++++++++++++++ > Minutes of the House of Spir. > 31 Aug. 1909 > > T. Chase present. Mrs. True received a tablet about the "rights of women > to serve > in consultative bodies." "It was the opinion of those present that some > misunderstanding might be incurred by circulation of said Tablet." > > > Minutes of the House of Spir. > 7 Sept. 1909 > > "Mirza Sohrab stated that he had secured original of recent Tablet to Mrs. > True > regarding woman's rights and that he considered translation of same good, but > that he > would submit to Abdul Baha certain subjects which do not seem perfectly clear, > for > our information." > Miss Lillian James was Chicago's pianist. > Mirza Munir Zayn wrote about capitalization of pronouns referring to the > Bab, > Baha'u'llah, and `Abdu'l-Baha. > +++++++++++++++++++ > (end of excerpt) > > --Sekhmet -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: Professor Maneck's welcome wagon Date: Thursday, October 17, 2002 4:17 PM Greetings, Brian. You shared with us: Brian Walker (bfwalker@net-yan.com) writes: > > Well, I suppose we could say that the Persian and Arabic speakers who > are Baha'i today would be in a very good position to say if what is > current practice in any way deviates from the clear language of > Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi. Also, Shoghi Effendi gave > us clear instructions in English, and 1957 is not too long ago - I was > born before then. I will reiterate that the crux of the issue of fundamentalist extremism is this mentality and mindset that literal passages extracted from the ocean of a revelation exempt individuals from spiritual behaviour. The guidelines taught in all spiritual societies, groups and organizations is that if one perceives in any spiritual source (dreams, visions, divination, sacred scripture, whatever) the exemption of spiritual actions, the permission to conduct reprehensible deeds, whether suicide bombings, discrimination against women, shunning or what have you, then the transmission as perceived by the would be wrong doer has been garbled. This is the foundation of spirituality, and straying from this is the cause of suicide bombings, of discrimination against women and of shunning. Many opinions can be present, many thoughts and feelings show how the "clear" "plain" text does not really allow one to commit suicide bombings, or discriminate against women or commit the sin of shunning, notwithstanding the divine command that in this day of universality, the Baha'i is to associate with the followers of all religions in a spirit of fellowship, love and harmony. >So I would disagree with you on that, and ask what it > is that makes you want to pick a hole in what is essentially a clear anc > concise command? The shoe is on the other foot. What is it that makes you want to pick a hole in a clear and concise command that in this age the Baha'i is a well wisher of humanity, an upholder of the essential equality of women and men, one who associates in friendship, love and harmony with the followers of all religions? > So your basic issue is that you are unclear on the translation of the > words. I suppose that can be rectified. If - and when -that uncertainty > is cleared up, what do you propose to do about it? It is not in the least an issue of translation of mere syllables and sounds. It is obedience to spiritual principles, and avoiding interpreting sacred text according to a literalist (or a non-literalist) meaning that exempts one from spirituality. > Now this I find strange. I can accept your previous opinions as valid > questions of accuracy of translation, but the above statement has been > made in the absence of any evidence. So I must ask you to post the > evidence you have which suggests that Abdu'l-Baha would not shun a > Covenant breaker today? The evidence is very clear. The purpose of Baha'i is demonstration of the evolving maturity of the human species, the signs of which are aspects of the universality, the harmony, the spirituality of humanity, Baha'i was revealed as an antidote to the fractiousness and conflict of previous generations. Now, in the context of an era of poor communications and poorly spiritualized believers, remote from the sources of understanding of the revelation, the practical and temporary step was taken of shunning. In my opinion, this was susceptible to some of the same criticism as it is today, but those mitigating circumstances are mentioned. Today, with instant communication, with deepened believers, the issue is clear. As I stated in news.groups in the discussion leading up to the formation of this newsgroup, where it was argued that there should not be TRB on the grounds that CBs could post there, such arguing was a confession of defeat by Baha'i authorities. If President Clinton were to say there is this guy who claims to be the King or Emperor of the US and for the good of the country don't read what he writes, then the response is, "I don't understand how, but, golly gee, there must really be a legitimate American Emperor!" It is identical with Baha'i, by shunning those who claim to be Guardians and their followers you admit their legitimacy. Otherwise you would treat them as was treated Emperor Norton, and your legitimacy is not surrendered. The spiritual principle is associating with the followers of all religions and shunning is fundamentalist extremism, intolerable and unacceptable, as not only does it mark the perpetrator as lacking spirituality, but it concedes legitimacy to the one shunned. I believe Abdu'l Baha would live, as his father instructed him, according to the requirements of the age in which he lives, and the requirements of this age are association in fellowship, harmony and good will with the followers of all religions, as well as the living of a spiritual life in all the many other aspects, principles and ideals of the revelation, and that includes independent investigation of truth, freedom of thought and expression, validity of a variety of views, harmony of faith and reason, equality of women and men, etc. His spirit strongly calls for spiritual over material, principle over literal, actual over professed, compliance with spirituality. He would walk the talk. No condoning of discrimination and sectarian shunning from him. > Or is it the case that you have no issue with Abdu'l-Baha and CBs but > that you question whether Shoghi Effendi was correct in declaring > certain people to be CBs, and thus putting the whole baha'i world into a > situation where we have to shun those people too? No one is correct in shunning today. > > So the real issue is not with the concept of CB, but of Shoghi Effendi? > Is that a correct assessment of the issue? Not in the least. The crux of the issue in Baha'i today is that also visible in Islam and other religions. This age has confronted us with religious fundamentalist literalism. In Baha'i it is people interpreting Shoghi Effendi according to the "clear" "plain" (literalist) meaning of his words, and ignoring the spirituality of his decisions. One example is this issue of the spiritual principle of the equality of women and men. Abdu'l Baha and Shoghi Effendi walked the talk and used words in such a manner that the spiritual principle was upheld and enhanced. This example is what is required in this age when Baha'i belief is that world peace is unattainable unless and until there is equality of women and men. Yet, those worshipping the idol of the literal text and exempting themselves from compliance with the divine command have interpreted Shoghi Effendi in a way giving them the license to enthrone male supremecy. > Now here I can agree entirely. Nowhere in the Writings at all does it > state that a non-Baha'i is to be shunned in any way. On the contrary. > Although I do note the requirement to avoid the presence of the > "ungodly" ... to which you now allude .... > Nowhere in the writings is there justification for shunning anyone today, because the spiritual principle is the association with the followers of all religions in a spirit of friendship, fellowship and harmony. Indeed, to be blunt, the Baha'is invited the rulers and peoples of the world to note the embryonic world fellowship within Baha'i, and still we see them not even talking to each other, not even seriously showing they can associate with each other. This is a joke, or a tragedy and not only do you concede the legitimacy of Guardians, you refute the spiritual potency of Baha'i to solve human conflict and division even within Baha'i. Instead of this nonsense of shunning, the internet ought to have allowed you to clean up the mess of previous generations, consult openly, in public and effectively and unite yourselves, but persisting in blind idolotrous literalist fundamentalism Haifan authorities conducted the circus of using the internet as a reason to gnaw off some others from within their own sect. May the spirit of Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l Baha, Shoghi Effendi and all their holy followers who have ascended on high rescue those so removed from the spirituality of this age as to persist in literalist excuses to shun, to discriminate against women, to exempt themselves from the very spiritual principles for which these noble forebearers suffered so patiently, sacrificed so very much and bore such high hopes. To Associating With All in Friendship, Fellowship and Harmony, To Women Accepted as Eligible to Serve at all Levels, To Long Delayed and Much Desired Universal Peace, Michael. > > All the best to you and yours, > > Brian > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: Australin Authorities on Behalf of Nima Hazini (Re: Letter Date: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 9:17 AM Greetings, Paula. Many thanks for your message. I am very sorry that you have been so impacted here by the fundamentalism that has so savaged the Baha'i Faith. The answer to your question is that the fundamentalists have no grounds, in reason or in feeling, to refute those upholding the spirituality of your religion or any other. The spiritual principle that faith and reason are in harmony is a wise and beneficial concept, and those who have tossed it into the trash have no means whereby to convince even themselves of the superiority of their rejection of Baha'i principle, other than to speak of personality. Since this is their method, since this all they have, of course, it is not surprising that the response to this particular situation will be exactly as the response to any other. This person addressed the personality of the individual to whom she was responding, since she is accustomed to being powerless to refute content. I very much hope that there can be a consideration from some people here that rises above personality, as both formal logic and the principles of Baha'i consultation agree that references to personality are invalid. When personality is left aside, in accordance with Baha'i principle, and issues are considered per se, then spirituality can emerge from the place they trashed it, begin to permeate their souls and such unprincipled behaviour as drew this response from you become lamentable history, as the present and future are spiritualized. To you and yours, my very heartiest greetings. May today find you very well, may tomorrow treat you even more kindly and may each day after that be better than the one it succeeds. Thrice Three Blessings, Michael "Dermod Ryder" (Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com) writes: > "Rabia1844" wrote in message > news:20021022122519.28094.00000257@mb-fi.aol.com... >> >American Baha'i's Professor Susan Maneck and Pat Kohli need have > any fear of >> >me being elected to the Universal House, because from 21/10/02 Mr > Fleming >> >has just handed his card in, and ceases to be a member of a the > Baha'i Faith >> >> > > My name is Paula Ryder and I am what is commonly referred to as a > BIGS! I have been for quite a long number of years and I guess some > would say that my "credentials" are pretty good. This is the first > time I have engaged in a Usenet conversation. I feel the need to > first of all communicate my sadness at hearing that George Fleming has > "ceased to be a member of the Baha'i Faith", if, indeed, this is the > case! I find it truly distressing that anyone who has been a Baha'i > should, for whatever reason, feel the need to dissociate him/her self > from the wondrous writings and teachings of this religion. Whilst I > have been extremely upset by things Mr. Fleming wrote recently about > my husband (Dermod) and our family circumstances > (to the extent where I reported his actions to Belfast Local Spiritual > Assembly) and whilst I disagree strongly with his methods, I > nonetheless understand Mr. Fleming's motives. > > What I do not understand is how someone who purports to be a Baha'i > and who is involved in supposedly educating people - Susan Maneck, > alias "Rabia 1844", alias "Skorsiezak" - can write such a disgustingly > insensitive, uncaring and un-Baha'i-like message as follows here! > >> Dear George, >> >> I'm truly sorry to hear that though I can't say I'm surprised. It > was obvious >> to me from the time you began to spam the institutions that you were > more >> interesting in justifying yourself than in defending the Faith. >> >> I hope you don't use this as justification for falling off the wagon > as well. >> Or have you already done that? Certainly, that would explain your > sudden >> behavior change. If I'm wrong about this and you are still sober, > then I >> apologize and hope you stay that way. It is more important than > staying a >> Baha'i anyhow. > > I have never, ever - within my working career or as a Community > worker/activist or in my experiences in the counselling field or even > as a plain, ordinary human being! - come across such a duplicitous, > snake-in-the-grass, double-edged communication as this message of hers > to George Fleming. I can actually feel my anger and disbelief inside > me! > > How can an educated person - one who should know better - be so > hurtful as to disclose such personal information to the world? I ask > her here and now: "Does your insensitivity come naturally or did you > "play" with the words you used to your Baha'i brother, so that you > could insult and offend him in a "clever"/"double-entendre" kind of > way? Shame on you, that you feel free to cast stones and demean and > degrade someone at all - but especially in public! Do you have any > friends? I sure am glad that I'm not one of them!!!!!" > > Who does this woman think she is, that she writes in such a > condescending and patronising manner? Yes! I know I shouldn't be > judgmental and we are not supposed to argue over religion. But I just > can't let this pass! This supposedly intelligent woman is so very > arrogant and full of her own importance that it beggars belief!! I > have read several of her postings and I find it incredible that she > sets herself up as some kind of self-appointed authority who gives > absolution, solution and permission for other people's actions or > beliefs! > > Signing herself off with the word "warmest" is beneath contempt, when > she is obviously so insincere! How can anyone write pompous, hurtful > and disdainful material to another person and end it in such a manner? > Where's the warmth or basic love that Abdu'l-Baha spoke of in > expressing what is obviously such a lie? And why does she feel the > need to sign herself off by letting everyone know that she is a > Professor at Jackson University? So what? Big Deal! > People who feel secure in themselves and their abilities don't need to > do that! It smacks of a "superiority complex", elitism and certainly > NOT of equality!!! > > Perhaps "Ms. Maneck" - in all of her guises - should acquire some > integrity and common decency and learn how to communicate with the > human race in a responsible, mature and, most specifically, a > humanistic, truly Baha'i-like way! > > P.S. Susan. I don't need you to tell my husband whether I would or > would not approve of anything! > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: Steve's Dance (was Malefic Creator) Date: Thursday, December 12, 2002 7:26 AM Greetings, Pat. If you are intent on presenting a beneficial, illuninating and attractive impression of Baha'i, perhaps you can cool down a bit before posting. I appreciate the rage that can arise on encountering reality that conflicts with your yearned for vision of existence. Telling points are made by those who do not accept that obedience to what we see as the opposite of Baha'i spiritual principles, and these Baha'i spiritual principles are pretty attractive, potent and hard to refute. In my opinion, this is why Abdu'l Baha advised Baha'is to delight when the clergymen of Christianity stood up in the pulpit to attack Baha'i, to not be upset in the least, to understand that such attacks from the pulpit were to be perceived clearly as the warbling of the birds announcing the dawning new day. However you perceive reality, his advice remains good, in my opinion, and the so very often flamey nature of cyberspace conversation can best be handled by Baha'is in his manner. He also advised Baha'is to sincerely understand there are no enemies, that there are only those who do not understand the illumination of the Baha'i spiritual principles. He spoke as have spoken the most advanced of beings upon this planet when he conveyed such attitudes. Baha'i has the resources within it to overcome historical animosities and divisions. Take the time to cool off and demonstrate the influence of these resources upon you, notwithstanding the so very natural temptations of cyberspace for flamey responses. It was not to matter at anything the ministers said in their misunderstanding or opposition of the Baha'i spiritual principles; the true believer was to respond in a spirit of love, fellowship and harmony, to prove the efficacy of the antidote to the human disease of enmity. May the essence of spirituality upon this planet inspire all to quaff this so potent remedy. Thrice Three Blessings, Michael Pat Kohli (kohliCUT_THE_CAPS@ameritel.net) writes: > Saoshyant6 wrote: > >> > Ya Baqi'a >> >> LOL :)) It is is YA BAQI/BAAQEE, O illiterate pretentious pretender, O >> fraud and Letter of Perdition! Ya Baqi'a would mean "O the rest, the >> segment, etc" not the _Abiding_ (which comes from baqaa' >> [subsistence/abiding/with a hamza after the alef not an `ayn as your >> total linguistic inability in Arabic has shown above]." Try learning >> the language first and its rules before deigning to break its rules, >> as I am systematically setting out to do like the first Point. >> >> Perhaps the Dean of Jackson State should be shown this post as >> evidence of the return of Hajji Mirza Aqasi's dishonesty in her CV. >> >> She decieves, and they decieve, but verily She is the best of >> decievers! > > Consider my response to Michael in this thread as equally applicable to > you, Buzz. > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: Linda's eulogy Date: Sunday, December 15, 2002 5:56 PM Cal, what I meant was if you could e-mail it to me, then I'd post it myself. I see that Susan has posted something, but scanning it twice I miss the reference you make to why she is no longer Baha'i. The truth is that she was threatened with shunning if she continued to speak her mind in public and was pressured into leaving something that was the opposite of the universalist movement she had joined, and which remains Baha'i in essence, exactly as America remains America even were some (may it never happen) authority to define the word in accordance with only one party platform and seek to drive those thinking along the lines of the other party out of the country. She was Baha'i, one of the finest of this generation. Exactly, as Zamyatin, who died in exile in Paris, if I recall correctly, was one of the best Soviets of his generation, notwithstanding Stalin's abuse of ideals and of language. To a Better Future, Michael. Cal E. Rollins (crollins@webtv.net) writes: > Michael, I don't know anybody on H-Bahai who's on TRB and can post > John's eulogy of Linda and my response to it. I'll check around, > though. John does talk about her having been a Baha'i and why she no > longer was. In my opinion, his comments are quite restrained and > carefully handled. --Cal > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From: "Michael McKenny" Subject: Re: Who helped create TRB? Date: Tuesday, December 24, 2002 11:04 PM Greetings, George. A great many of the newsgroups do come under these 8. The main exception I think is alt* If you can access the archives of news.groups you can check into TRB there and follow the discussion and the vote results. Frederick Glaysher took the enormously difficult and time consuming effort to establish ARB and the more widely distributed TRB. Everything starting with soc* rec* sci* talk* and the other four (not alt*) does fall under the main 8 and there is the procedure of formulating proposals, consultation on proposals and voting on proposals for new newsgroups. With TRB, the first time Frederick Glaysher did not make a favourable impression on the computer types on news.groups during the consultative phase until seven hundred or whatever people voted NO and confirmed his allegations about censorship. Eventually the UHJ adopted a neutral position and it passed. Baha'i officialdom has still very poorly reacted to the freedom of thought and expression opened up here, an added bonanza of publicity in theory, only what is promoted would really be appreciated were it the spiritual principles of Baha'i. Thrice Three Blessings, Michael "george.fleming2" (george.fleming2@ntlworld.com) writes: > > > in article auaqns02t31@enews2.newsguy.com, Roger Reini at roger@rreini.com > wrote on 24/12/02 11:31 pm: > >> There is a well-defined process for the creation of any newsgroup in the >> so-called (rec.*, sci.*, talk.*, misc.*, etc.). The >> newsgroup "news.groups" is where discussions about newsgroup proposals take >> place. "news.announce.newsgroups" is where proposals, votes and results are >> announced. >> >> I remember participating in many of the discussions for TRB over the several >> years it took to create it. Initially, I was opposed to its creation, but I >> ended up abstaining from the first vote. For the second and third >> proposals, I ended up voting for it. > > Thank you Rodger > > I understand a little of this but not all. I am still in the dark of > What legal system does setting up such an unmoderated group on the internet > consist of? And why is there some 40,000 other newsgroups on the internet > which dont seem to come under the so-called "Big 8" hierarchies? > > George > > > > >> >> > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)