---

From Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nlWed Apr 10 18:52:27 1996
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 18:40:35 +0000 (EZT)
From: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: tribunal election


In response to several enquiries about the passage I posted
regarding the merging of the Tribunal and the Universal House of
Justice:
- I am sorry, the one sentence is all that is given in the
compilation, which was prepared by the Research Department in
a Memorandum to the Universal House of Justice and should be
available from them. It is a nice example of the weakness of
compilations: little light is generated unless there is a clear
conceptual framework.
- So far as I know, neither the compilation nor this specific letter
has been published.
- And yes, I know that a merger is in fact impossible, since the
methods of election of the two institutions are both stipulated in
Tablets of `Abdu'l-Baha and they are quite different (Unless, that
is, someone wanted to develop an interpretive strategy in relation
to the Tablet to the Hague, along the lines I suggested a week or
so ago, to justify replacing `Abdu'l-Baha's election method for
the Tribunal with the one which applies to the Universal House
of Justice). But impossible or not, that's what it says.

This is not the only oddity to be found in letters written on the
Guardian's behalf, and I don't put too much weight on it. If
almost anything else was substituted for 'merge' it would be no
problem (`Abdu'l-Baha talks in the Will and Testament about 'the
close *union and harmony* of these two forces', so this is not
U.S.-style separation). A second oddity is that this merging is
said to take place when there is a Baha'i State, whereas Shoghi
Effendi clearly envisioned that the Universal House of Justice
would not assume substantial constitutional powers until there
were a number of Baha'i States and a functioning Baha'i
Commonwealth. So I put this one down to a secretary having a
bad day. There's also a grammar mistake, and the Universal
Court of Arbitration and the International Tribunal are said to be
the same in the first sentence, but THEY are merged into the
Universal House of Justice in the second. Go figure

The relationship between the Universal House of Justice and the
Judicial arm of the world government is interesting. The religious
and civil orders, considered as two wholes, clearly stand as
distinct organs which should reinforce one another in their given
roles. But if a local House of Justice recognizes a marriage or
divorce, that has implications for the tax system of a Baha'i
state - assuming that such a state functions in conformity with
the laws of the Aqdas. So if we are looking not at the civil
government as a whole but just at the judicial system, the
judicial parts of the Baha'i administrative order (whether it is
elected bodies or judicial officers or a 'place of justice' is not
immediately relevant) appear AS IF they are a component of the
civil judiciary: their output (decisions) feeds into the rest of the
government system in the same way as the findings of other
courts do. And presumably if the tax authorities disagreed with a
decision ("this marriage is a sham to get tax deductions") they
would appeal it through the National Assembly and Universal
House of Justice. A judicial system can be a horribly complicated
affair: there are usually distinct systems for criminal and
contractual law at least, and dozens or even hundreds of national
and international quasi-judicial bodies, like the world body that
allocates the right to use radio wavebands (has no court of appeal
I think: tut tut). If you try to think of it as a single hierarchy and
figure who is top player, the actual richness gets lost. Law shades
into procedures, and courts into committees, and a high *level*
court may decline jurisdiction over something which is covered
by a *specialized* body, even at a lower level. It is a matrix
structure of levels and specializations. Place the Houses of Justice
and other Baha'i organs - in the judicial aspect of their
functioning - somewhere in this milieu of law.

Sen

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sen McGlinn ph: 31-43-3216854
Andre Severinweg 47 email: Sen.McGlinn@RL.RuLimburg.NL
6214 PL Maastricht, the Netherlands
***
When, however, thou dost contemplate the innermost essence of things,
and the individuality of each,
thou wilt behold the signs of thy Lord's mercy . . ."
------------------------------------------------------------------------





From nineteen@onramp.netWed Apr 10 19:02:00 1996
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 96 11:10:53 -0500
From: "Richard C. Logan"
To: Talisman ,
Arsalan Sadighi
Subject: Re: Membership

>In response to a number of complaints, I have unsubscribed Arsalan
>Sadiqi, as is my right under the list rules.
>
>John Walbridge
>List Owner

This is injustice! My tears and my sorrow prevent me from writing any
further about this.

Richard


Richard C. Logan nineteen@onramp.net
Maintain HomePage "The Baha'is of Lubbock"
http://rampages.onramp.net/~nineteen/

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
How manifold are the truths which must remain unuttered until the
appointed time is come! Even as it has been said:
"Not everything that a man knoweth can be disclosed, nor can
everything that he can disclose be regarded as timely, nor can every
timely utterance be considered as suited to the capacity of those who
hear it." --Gleanings from the writings of Baha'u'llah
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



From A.Aniss@unsw.edu.auWed Apr 10 19:02:15 1996
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 12:29:27 +1000
From: Ahmad Aniss
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: re INSTANCE # 2
Resent-Date: Wed, 10 Apr 96 08:18:13 CDT
Resent-From: Milissa
Resent-To: talisman@indiana.edu

Hey Ahmad --

When this was originally posted, Prof Walbridge made it clear that it was
a mistake it was sent to the list and apologized sincerely. Why can't we
leave it at that? I think everyone on this list needs 40 lashes with a
wet noodle or something.........ha ha

Milissa Boyer
mboyer@ukans.edu
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Dear Talismanians,

Having read the posting by Arsalan titled INSTANCE # 2 dated 9 Apr 1996
I have come to conclussion that we the members of talisman require clear
clarification from The list owner, Nima and Arsalan.

First of all, Arsalan should also send the first bit of the email that
details the transmision protocol of the message by john as it will tell
us much more information relating to whom that post was entended and
how was Arsalan come to its possession?

There are a number question that arise in one's mind when that letter is
studied. But most of all has john written that letter?
other questions such as below come in my mind:

1. Who are the Gentelmen and who is the lady that john is refering to?
2. what sort of organization they were thinking of forming?
3. what were the messages that have to be erased?
4. what are the list owners intensions about Talisman execpt
to those he has already stated as list rules? are there hidden
intentions?
5. this relates to section five of the letter listed as a to f:
a) direct confrontation with whom?
b) make what sort of trouble?
c) what sort of information and ideas to put into circulation?
d) what sort of heat?

I would like to see clarification on the following statement also:

>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.

In this letter Nima's name is mentioned. Is he envolved in something?
Nima has been recently very quite compared to months before, is he
following some sort of instructions? I think Nima also need to
clarify his stance in regard to this letter.

Having said the above I am not accusing any one of any thing, I like
enlightenment on what has expired and my God the content of the letter
can have implications for Talisman. So john should clarify the situation.

with regards,
Ahmad.
_______________________________________________________________________
^ ^
^ Dr. A.M. Aniss, Tel: Home [61(2)] 505 509 ^
^ Bio-Medical Engineer, Work [61(2)] 694 5915 ^
^ Neuropsychiatric Institute, Mobile 019 992020 ^
^ Prince Henry Hospital, Fax: Work [61(2)] 694 5747 ^
^ Little Bay, N.S.W. 2036, ^
^ Australia. Email: A.Aniss@unsw.edu.au ^
^ Web Page: http://acsusun.acsu.unsw.edu.au/~ahmada/ ^
^_______________________________________________________________________^



From belove@sover.netWed Apr 10 19:08:28 1996
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 96 12:50:14 PDT
From: belove@sover.net
To: talisman@indiana.edu, 748-9178@mcimail.com, TLCULHANE@aol.com
Subject: Talisman Crisis: Philip and the CB's

Speaking from what I learned in Graduate School about crises in a group:

For a group to grow a crisis has to happen. And the problem the system therapist has is getting the crisis to happen in a way that doesn't cause a melt down. There has to be a powerful unleashing or nothing changes, families stay stuck, people complain, individual suffer some kind of impoverishment and life is dreary.

The crisis on Talisman comes because, instead of quibbling, there is a mightly clash of conflicting opinions. It comes because we all really care about what we are talking about. This isn't just talk

How many times in a family does the conflict move to a crisis and then disappear because they fear the heat? Often. And the only thing that can be predicted is that the crisis will come again. And that is because the soul of the group needs the issue to be addressed.

Clearly, none of us know the answer. Shucks, we are barely able to formulate the question. We know that there is something on one side about the sanctity of the individual search for truth and there is something on the other side about the sanctity of the Covenant. And I expect there is some great deficiency in our wisdom that pits these against each other such that we fear one can only obtain at the price of the other. But our discussion is so far impoverished.

Our task is to find The Question.

Perhaps it is reasonable to acknowledge that, as a community, in certain essential respects, we really are still in the Valley of Search

I suggest that we acknowledge that we don't yet even know how to ask the question of the UHJ. (I also suggest that the individuals of the UHJ will depend on us to find the question to ask them. )

So now let me ask a part of The Question.


IN the course of asking this question I risk defining myself as a CB. I recognize this because I suspect an impertinence in my question. But I recognize I am also Old And Still Confused, so perhaps my impertinence will be excusably understood as the tinge of desparation.

My question is about Infallibility in the Institution. Perhaps I signed my card too quickly, but I have grave reservations about this concept as I am understanding it. Furthermore, I am coming to believe that an essential teaching of Christianity and Judaism is to distrust Institutions. I'm not sure how I am going to reconcile this with the claims of the UHJ.

Let me start with Myth. In the Passion of Christ, Jesus is brought before the Sandhedrin and they don't understand who he is or recognize him. This story is trotted out as a justification for Christian anti-semitism. But the story is really about the Church itself. It is about the fallibility of the Divines of a Church.

If you read this story naively you identify with the followers of Jesus. If read it more deeply you can also identify with Jesus and feel that part of yourself that remains innocent, yet must bear the consequences of the sins of your pride. However, I think an even deeper reading is to also identify with the Sanhedrin and to understand how, in your desire to uphold what you think is holiness, you violate what is truly holy.

A second example is the story of the Passover. We can identify with the Hebrew children and, to some small extent, with Moses. Or at least we can be inspired to identify with Moses as we are also inspired to identify with Jesus. But so rarely are we told to recognize our identity with Pharoah.

Yet how often has God sent catastrophe upon us and then we've had a change of heart, only to harden up again and have another catastrophe sent upon us? The story of Pharoah is the same as the story of the Valley of Love; the hardened heart being purified through pain and loss, always greater and greater loss.

The Pharoah within is an amazing character. He has gobs of information and shrewness. He is responsible. And he even has Moses within his household as a foundling.

Once again, here is the Institution. And once again the lesson is that it is not to be trusted.

I think my analogy also points to the Way Out. I am saying that, were we to acknowledge it, we would recognize an unclaimed part of ourself in this Pharoah and in this Sanhedrin. These are Shadow manifestations of Authority.

And it is quite possible that, when we see the UHJ -- and this means people from both camps, the adulators and the distrustors -- we see as yet a projection of our own shadow.

This is not an unusual idea. We already confess, have already been warned, that the God who inhabits our imagination is a highly limited vision of the God Who Is.

And seeing this doesn't free us from the sacrifices of ego it will take to see more clearly.

But it might help.

Philip


-------------------------------------
Name: Philip Alan Belove
Anagram: Plain Livable Hope
E-mail: belove@sover.net
Date: 04/10/96
Time: 12:50:14

This message was sent by Chameleon
-------------------------------------
Things should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler -- A. Einstein


From Wilgar123@aol.comWed Apr 10 19:09:54 1996
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 13:49:16 -0400
From: Wilgar123@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: kalkin avatar

Dear Friends,
I thought I might post an example of the Baha'i use of kalkin avatar in
Indian village teaching (in the 70s). This is from the text of one of the
bhajans I mentioned in an earlier posting:
Refrain -Arise O children of India, the kalkin avatar has come.
Vishnu's avatar has come with the name Baha'u'llah.

Nowhere in the entire world can the influence of religion be seen.
The wicked have obtained everything
The truthful have lost everything
According to the Gita, the time of Vishnu's avatar has come - Awake

Refrain

The Gita has said when circumstances are such
religion is again established, just as it has happened today.
In order to save righteousness, kalkin avatar has come - Awake

Refrain

Foolish people have not recognized that Vishnu's avatar has come again
Radha and Arjuna knew that this (Baha'u'llah) was the Lord's new abode
The eternal has once again manifested himself, the avatar of God.

Love and laughter, Bill G

From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comWed Apr 10 19:10:19 1996
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 96 12:31:01 -0400
From: Ahang Rabbani
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: women on all Houses

[This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII]


In response to my comment:

> ...I have a vague recollection that either Shoghi Effendi or
> Abdu'l-Baha said that women were permitted to serve on future
> local/national Houses of Justice.


One of the friends, wrote:

> In its letter of May 31, 1988 to the NSA of New Zealand, the
> Universal House of Justice writes:

> 'Shoghi Effendi, in a letter written on his behalf to an
> individual believer, provided the following authoritative
> elaboration on this theme:
> "As regards your question concerning the membership of
> the Universal House of Justice; there is a Tablet from 'Abdu'l
> Baha in which he definitely states that the membership of the
> Universal House of Justice is confined to men, and that the
> wisdom of it will be fully revealed and appreciated in the
> future. In the local, as well as the National Houses of
> Justice, however, women have the full right of membership. It
> is, therefore, only to the International House of Justice that
> they cannot be elected. . ." (28 July 1936)'


Thank God for this letter otherwise imagine the fight in every
Baha'i locality...

ahang.

From Don_R._Calkins@commonlink.comWed Apr 10 19:10:54 1996
Date: 10 Apr 1996 12:29:57 GMT
From: "Don R. Calkins"
To: 73043.1540@compuserve.com
Cc: TALISMAN@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Sacred Dances/Feast

John -
Actually, I think you'll find a fair amount of support for the views I
ascribed to you on this issue on talisman.

> Feast is indeed for consultation, but it is more than that,
Yes, however I see it's focus as the administration of the Faith, not
spiritual development or socialization as some Baha'is seem to believe.

> I was saying that sacred dances could play a role in Baha'i communities
That's possible, however I see no more value in this than integrating hymn
singing into the community. Music and the dance have traditionally had a
role in most communities, however as Feast developed with the administration
under Shoghi Effendi's guidance, I believe they should be a part of the
larger community life instead of Feast.

Don C



He who believes himself spiritual proves he is not - The Cloud of Unknowing

From richs@microsoft.comWed Apr 10 19:11:33 1996
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 11:20:11 -0700
From: Rick Schaut
To: "'Talisman@indiana.edu'"
Subject: RE: Membership

Dear Friends,

>From: jwalbrid[SMTP:jwalbrid@indiana.edu]
>In response to a number of complaints, I have unsubscribed Arsalan
>Sadiqi, as is my right under the list rules.

I recognize Dr. Walbridge's right to exercise this authority, and find
no fault in his actions. However, to those who have voiced their
complaints, whether in private or in public, I can only say that I find
this behavior to be absolutely despicable and demonstrative of the
utmost hypocrisy.

In the fracas about the issues between the National Spiritual Assembly
and a member of Talisman, Dr. Cole remarked that wrongly held ideas are
to be met with evidence and clear argument, not authoritative action
designed to silence the dissenting voice. It appears that this high
standard only applies to those members of the community whose views are
palatable to certain members of Talisman.

I should like to point out that not a single person has shown, devoid of
ridiculously pejorative charicatures of his remarks, precisely what
Arsalan has done wrong. He has been accused of hysterical behavior and
been besmirched in no uncertain terms without so much as a single quote
of the allegedly offending remarks. If this is what passes for
"evidence and clear argument", then I must confess to absolute ignorance
of what constitutes such. So far, I've seen nothing but circular
reasoning, begging the question, and critters of straw--pure sophistry
all.

I am thoroughly disgusted and absolutely outraged over this most absurd
behavior.


Rick

From 72110.2126@compuserve.comWed Apr 10 19:11:52 1996
Date: 10 Apr 96 14:36:28 EDT
From: David Langness <72110.2126@compuserve.com>
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Job Opening in Sunny SoCal

Dear Talismanians,

A Baha'i faculty member at the University of Southern California here in
Los Angeles asked me yesterday to notify those who might be interested
of a job opening there.

The job title: Dean of Religious Life

My friend, Professor George Jurasco, (who is on the faculty in the school
of Pharmacy, and not on the search committee) advises that the deadline
for application is May 1st. USC seeks someone who has a PhD in Religious
Studies or Divinity. Interested persons should call George at his office
(213-342-3143). The position comes with free beachfront housing and all
the theologians at your beck and call you could ever wish for...

Just kidding about that last part.

Love,

David


From 72110.2126@compuserve.comWed Apr 10 19:12:23 1996
Date: 10 Apr 96 14:49:02 EDT
From: David Langness <72110.2126@compuserve.com>
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Thanks for your Prayers

Dear Talismanians,

In response to the many of you who have asked about my son Tyler's health
and recovery, I wanted to report that his leg seems to be mending nicely,
thank you and thanks to the Big Gal.

I had an opportunity to look at the most recent x-ray yesterday (would that
it were so easy to x-ray our intents and purposes, no?) and saw the
amazing sight of bone growth beginning to occur. You can, of course,
clearly see the breaks, and the steel plates that hold the bones together
appear as bright white objects, but the faint ghostly pale tracery of
new bone now shows up, too, knitting the broken part back together.

Even though I work in healthcare, and see this sort of thing often, it
still has the power to amaze me.

The power of growth, of course, means that love is at work on a cellular
level, contravening entropy and holding up the flag of creation. In some
fundamentally mystical way, I feel the love that so many of you have sent
to my son and I actually helping that bone build its molecular bridges
and re-affirm its oneness.

Strongest in the broken places, indeed.

Love,

David


From jarmstro@sun1.iusb.eduWed Apr 10 19:13:16 1996
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 13:59:14 -0500 (EST)
From: Jackson Armstrong-Ingram
To: talisman
Cc: MCGLINN SEN
Subject: letters/etc.

To answer Sen's questions , taking the second question first:

My copy of the tablet on vivisection is from the microfilm of
original translations of tablets in the National Baha'i Archives in Wilmette.
(As I personally filmed these, I do have an advantage in knowing what is in
the Wilmette tablet collection.) The original with 'Abdul-Baha's signature
is also in Wilmette and I got a copy of that from the film of original
tablets so that I could confirm that an original did exist. Without a chance
to personally check every page of Star of the West, I am not going to say
definitely if the tablet was ever published, but I do not recall seeing it.

On Sen's first question: The following is from a letter to Emily Axford
dated December 20, 1938, it is published with a postscript:

Regarding your question whether there is any special ceremony which the
believers should perform when they wish to "name" a baby; the Teachings do
not provide for any ceremony whatever on such occasions. We have no
"baptismal service" in the Cause, such as Christians have. There would be no
objection, however, for the friends to come together on such happy occasions,
provided they do not hold an official public ceremony, and provided also they
strictly avoid uniformity and rigidity in all such practices. No rule
whatsoever that would tend to be rigid and uniform should be allowed in such
secondary matters, particularly as there are no specific instructions in the
Teachings regarding them.
(Arohanui, 47-48)

There is an early tablet of 'Abdu'l-Baha suggesting a program for 'naming' a
baby.

This letter on behalf of raises some other interesting questions. The
secretary's signature is given as "H. Rabbani" and the somewhat long-winded
and forceful presentation is typical of letters by him. If you will forgive
technical language for a moment, letters by him (and Soheil Afnan) tend to
exhibit a higher degree of signature (roughly speaking, input from the
character/taste of the individual) than letters by some other secretaries.
There are occasionally passages where both these secretaries are clearly
giving their own opinion on a topic or directly addressing a correspondent
they know personally on their own behalf.

In on behalf of letters by Ruhiyyih Khanum or Leroy Ioas, for example, there
is frequent usage of "the Guardian" or "he" throughout the letter reminding
the reader that the writer is intending to convey another's thoughts. An
interesting thing about this 1938 letter is that such attributive
referencing
is done in all the paragraphs except the one about naming a child. Thus, it
is not textually explicit that this passage is actually on behalf of rather
than
the secretary's own comment; it is also possible that it is a signatured
elaboration of a briefer comment he was asked to convey. The postscript
alludes to other aspects of the letter, but not to the naming.

It, of course, was the custom for many years to refer to such letters as
being from Shoghi Effendi "through his secretary" which almost implies that
they were dictated; however, Shoghi Effendi later said that this usage was
incorrect and that they should be referred to as "on behalf of" which
suggests a much less direct relationship between Shoghi Effendi and the text.


(To give credit where it is due: In the early 1980s I mentioned to the
Publishing Trust in Wilmette that their editorial policy of using "through
his secretary" was not according to Shoghi Effendi's wishes and that it
should be "on behalf of." They said they had never heard of this
instruction, but on seeing the letter giving it they immediately changed
their practice.)

I think it may be because of the indirectness of the relationship between
Shoghi
Effendi and the actual text that he discouraged placing too much emphasis on
the on behalf of letters to individuals saying that these were primarily for
the use of the individuals addressed. Statements that he considered of
general interest/importance were made in letters to the general community or
Assemblies and frequently in his own hand.

It is possibly going beyond Shoghi Effendi's intent to seek detailed general
guidance in letters on his behalf to individuals. Obviously, they can be of
considerable interest and help, but the actual tablets and Shoghi Effendi's
direct statements are of much more importance. In particular, it would
probably be unwise to base an elaborated position on the basis of one
reference in an on behalf of letter to an individual without a lot of
information about that letter beyond a simple snippet of text.

Jackson


From burlb@bmi.netWed Apr 10 19:13:40 1996
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 96 12:54 PDT
From: Burl Barer
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: YIPES!

Dear Squablers of the Blessed Beauty:

Well, I go off for a week to Hollywood where deals are struck, reporters are
slugged, women are clubbed, and the cops will treat you like a King and come
back home only to find the Talismanic All-Loving exemplars of Baha'u'llah's
World Order having another pie-fight at the banquet table of the Lord. Nice
to know that some things remain constant.
---
"Courtesy, reverence, dignity, respect for the rank and achievements of
others are virtues which contribute to the harmony and well-being of every
community, but pride and self-aggrandizement are among the most deadly of
sins" --

Universal House of Justice.
---

At the risk of becoming drenched in dream whip myself, I would like to
politely mention that any comparison between the Universal House of Justice
and the "authority" institutions of the past is not a comparison at all --
"Unlike the Dispensation of Christ, unlike the Dispensation of Muhammad,
unlike *all the dispensations of the past*, the apostles of Baha'u' llah in
every land, wherever they labor and toil, have before them in clear, in
unequivocal and emphatic language, all the laws, the regulations, the
principles, the institutions, the guidance, they require for the prosecution
and consumation of their task. Both in the administrative provisions of the
Baha'i Dispensation, and in the matter of succession, as *embodied in the
twin institutions of the House of Justice and of the Guardianship*, the
followers of Baha'u'llah can summon to their aid such irregutable evidences
of Divine Guidance that none can resist, than none can belittle or ignore.
Therein lies *the distinguishing feature of the Baha'i Revelation*." --
Shoghi Effendi, World Order of Baha'u'llah, pp21-21. Emphasis added by Burl.

The Baha'i Institutions are not, as the Guardian points out, "an innovation
imposed arbitrarily upon the Baha'is of the world....but derives its
authority from the Will and Testament [and] ...explicit provisions of the
Kitab-I-Aqdas...
to dissociate the administrative principles of the Cause from the purely
spiritual and humanitarian teachings would be tantamount to a mutilation of
the body of the Cause, a seperation than can only result in the
disintegration of its component parts, and the extinction of the Faith itself."

I know this is a longish post, and you probably deleted before you got this
far (figures) but for those of you who are still reading, consider this:
If you want to know your relationship with the Glory of God and His
Messenger to HumanityBaha'u'llah its easy to check: It is the same as your
relationship with The Universal House of Justice. Abdul Baha tells us that
to contend with the Universal House of Justice is to contend with God. To
love the Universal House of Justice is to love God. All the professions of
steadfastness and loyalty and blah blah blah melt away in the heat of this
most simple question:
"Dost thou love me, Simon Peter?"
"Love me that I may love thee."

Now, if you're gonna throw a pie....I'll take chocolat cream or pecan caramel.

Burl


*************************************
MAN OVERBOARD by Burl Barer is still only $19.95 and may be ordered from any
bookstore. ISBN#: 1-56901-815-4 Buy Yours Today!
********************


From gec@geoenv.comWed Apr 10 19:14:07 1996
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 16:10:19 -0400
From: Alex Tavangar
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Membership


At 07:29 AM 4/10/96 -0500, list owner wrote:
>>In response to a number of complaints, I have unsubscribed Arsalan
>>Sadiqi, as is my right under the list rules.
>>
>>John Walbridge
>>List Owner
>>

I am going to cherish even more my association and encounters with those
unassuming souls who "clinging to the hem of the robe to which have clung
all in this world and in the world to come," strive for a deeper
understanding of love and try to be "a gem on the diadem of wisdom,..., a
fruit upon the tree of humility."

(the above statement is not meant to be directed towards or elicit comments
from any individual or group)


P.S. Although his hurt feelings or tarnished pride may not allow him
(Arsalan), I believe that Dr. Walbridge should leave the door open for
him to rejoin Talisman. Frankly, I feel very odd (I'm being very diplomatic
here) about not allowing one participant to play when childish behavior
(temper tantrums, etc.) has been observed from many.


Best Regards,

Alex B. Tavangar





From PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.eduWed Apr 10 19:14:54 1996
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 12:38:52 PST8PDT
From: "Eric D. Pierce"
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: at the forefront!/ Re: "Colorblindness" & race unity

Hi Don/Talismanians,

Some random thoughts:

Don, thanks for the analysis. Just a guess: I would suspect that
when Abdul-Baha spoke of ignoring differences, he was addressing
whites since they (whites) saw those who were different (blacks)
as being "lesser", when he spoke of the beauty of diversity, he
was addressing oppressed minorities and certainly must have
wanted to boost their sense of being worthy in God's eyes.

Let's not forget that it is now estimated that tens of thousands
of blacks were subject "socially acceptable" acts of random
terrorism in the 100 or so years after slavery was abolished. As
I mentioned before, even though my father (Republican, career
military) was raised in a mostly racist southern family that had
been slave owners, he taught us to not be prejudiced. This was
because he had been so revolted as a small child by the smell of
a back man being burned at the stake (c. 1930) for being on the
wrong side of town after dark in his home town of Corsicana,
Texas. Also, one of his uncles was a minister who had supported
civil rights (probably to the embarassment of the rest of the
family, affluent farmers and merchants).

I had the honor of being involved in some of the "Healing
Racism" workshops and seminars around this area that started
about 7-8 years ago. It was a fantastic, sometimes difficult,
but always rewarding experience. Incredible things can happen
when the spiritual teachings are put into practice. By breaking
cycles of "denial" about racism, a sense of trust, understanding,
respect, and fellowship can develop. Such things probably won't
happen in a vacuum as appears to be presumed by many who have a
"traditional" dominant cultural perspective, which is typically
uninformed of the important specific guidance in the writings
about dealing with racism.

Taking methods from practitioners of social sciences and putting
them into Baha'i context seems like a good approach. I believe
that such an approach was "blessed" by the USA NSA when they set
up the National Race Unity Committee and published the statement
of that Committee on racism a few years ago.

Many of the race unity efforts include the use of the concept of
"axiology" (study of value systems in cultures), and explanation
of the "spiritual destiny" issue. While axilogy might be somewhat
useful on a surface level to get people to recognize the reasons
for cultural diversity, axilogy was criticized and more or less
debunked on talisman last year as not having much scientific
validity. Maybe people will want to go over it again now? As I
mentioned before, I think there is a slight danger that such
theories when misunderstood can contribute to "anti white" (post
colonial?) attitudes, but maybe we should just expect that to be
there regardless, and deal with it as part of the healing
process.

In Baha'i communities such as the one I'm in ("downtown"
Sacramento), where we have at least 20 Hmong (southeast asian)
families and a smattering of African and African American
believers that are community leaders, the old assumptions (eg,
since we are Baha'i, by definition there is no problem with
racism in the community) about what were appropriate Baha'i
attitudes and actions with regard to racism (that were very much
in force when I came here in 1984) have mostly been discarded.

I think of this discarding process as the "desuburbanization" of
Baha'i community life. Most of the attempts at straightening out
the considerable problems of the community here over the years
have floundered at least in part because they were imported from
successful middle class, mostly homogenous suburban communities.

I am now mostly just amused when the admin "experts" arrive, try
various traditional approaches to probem solving, and end up
running with their tails between their legs a few months or
years later. There has literally been a procession of such folks
that have migrated through over the years, and it is not unusual
for them to end up settling in smaller more "active" suburban
communities where they feel their teaching/admin efforts are
more effective. Maybe we need to be a bit more humble, and use
proven external development models (where the "natives" define
the agenda) for community building.

One of the most striking things that AB said was that blacks have
to overcome the understandable suspicions they have of whites and
the "unconcious sense of superiority" that white have, and whites
****have to*** overcome passive tendencies and take the
leadership role on this issue so that the dignity of the
minorities is maintained, and they won't be seen as begging or
groveling for their rights. As I have mentioned before, to show
consistency, I think that within broad limits this framework
should be extended to dissident groups within the community as
well. It seems to me that we shouldn't abandon tolerance except
in the most extreme situations.

One recently developing society-wide problematic we will probably
have to come to terms with is the remergence of racial tensions
as the culture of abundance (1940s-1970s) is replaced by a two
tiered economic system where scarcity influences the lives of
people in the low/middle tiers to a much greater extent than it
did during the period of abundance in which progressive advances
were made. Look carefully at the way "haves and have nots"
thinking has crept into subtle acceptance in americanized Baha'i
paradigms.

One of the differentiating characteristics of the Islamo-Baha'i
position on racism is that overcoming prejudice and racism is
seen as an aspect of a deeper process of self realization. There
are many "political" and mechanical aspects that must be attended
to, but the ultimate motivation for cleaning one's heart of the
defilement of prejudice is greater spiritual fullfillment. For
this reason, I find the life story of Malcom X to be incredibly
inspiring, and useful in consideration of the kind of separatism
that is becoming accepted and sometimes popular within minority
communites.

Dan Orey told me his perceptions about how much less race
orientation he noticed in Brazil last year, maybe he'll comment
on the connection between the progressive social climate and
political/economic situation there and race attitudes.

We are beginning to emerge from the half-light, but shouldn't
rest on the accomplishments we have made so far, we have a long
way to go, the struggle is a worthy one, and we should be
assured that our efforts will be rewarded and confirmed with
spiritual blessings as we carry out the specific instructions of
the Master and Guardian.

Sorry for rambling, any feedback is appreciated,

EP

ps, I almost forgot, it is also *a lot more fun* to be in a
community where people "do the right thing"!

> Date sent: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 16:57:08 -0400
> To: Talisman@indiana.edu
> From: osborndo@pilot.msu.edu (Donald Zhang Osborn)
> Subject: "Colorblindness" & race unity

> Allah'u'Abha! Here is another small piece of possible interest to the
> Friends. I wrote it a few years ago and shared it with some friends at the
> time. As I think about it, there has been no (or virtually none?)
> discussion of race on Talisman during the time I have been subscribed to it,
> even though racism is recognized in the Writings of our Faith and among many
> scholars as the/a key problem in American society (and the world).
> Interesting. The following is not very sophisticated, but perhaps it will
> get some reaction.
> Don Osborn osborndo@pilot.msu.edu
> _____________________________________________________________
>
> "COLORBLINDNESS" AND RACE UNITY IN ONE BAHA'I'S PERSPECTIVE
> Don Osborn

...snip

From m@upanet.uleth.caWed Apr 10 19:16:21 1996
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 13:59:21 -0600
From: M
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Membership: (And then there were 2)

Dear Friends:

John wrote:
>>In response to a number of complaints, I have unsubscribed Arsalan
>>Sadiqi, as is my right under the list rules.

Richard replied
>This is injustice!


I agree with Richard. In the 10 months or so that I have been
subscribed to Talisman, while I have thoroughly enjoyed and benefited from
most of the discussion, I have observed not only numerous violations of list
rules and ad-homoneim attacts galore but posts in which Baha'i
institutions, including the U.S. National Assemlby and the House of Justice
have been accused of heavy handed tactics, the silencing of dissidents and
intellectuals, the perpetuation of ignorance, and otherwise maligned.
Arsalan's "offence" i.e. stating that it was his perception that a
"sub group" on Talisman were "challenging and undermining the Convenant"
and, in effect lobbying the institutions of the Faith to alter the teachings
of Baha'u'llah may not have been expressed in the most tactful or scholarly
terms but was, nonetheless, a valid and understandable concern. Arsalan
stands accused of attempting to "silence" others by simply making this
observation. He was obviously not attempting to silence anyone nor does he
have the power or authority to silence anyone. John Walbridge evidently does
have that authority. Who is silencing who?! What hypocrisy!
How ultra U.S. American! How contrary to the teachings of Baha'u'llah!
I previously posted an item in which I stated that it was, in my
view, unfair to bring up the issue of the letter previously posted
accidentally by the list owner. In light of this silencing of a list
member, an action which I believe is hypocritical in the extreme,
considering the whining of certain individuals about the silencing of
"dissidents and intellectuals" within the Faith at large, and considering
the number of e-mails I have received in response to my "this is not fair
play" posting, I hereby retract those comments. Perhaps Arsalan's
perception is closer to the truth that I am willing to accept.
With deep regret and sadness I am unsubscribing and disassociating
myself from this forum.

As for you Arsalan, you shit-disturber, now you owe me a coffee for
dragging me into this. Good grief! where am I going to get my Baha'i
intellectual stimulation now?

G
**************************************************************
Human depravity, then, has broken into fragments that which is by nature one
and simple; men try to grasp part of a thing which has no parts and so get
neither the part, which does not exist, nor the whole, which they do not
seek. (Boethius; the Consolation or Philosophy, 524 A.D.)
**************************************************************


From nineteen@onramp.netWed Apr 10 19:16:41 1996
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 96 15:00:00 -0500
From: "Richard C. Logan"
To: Talisman ,
Arsalan Sadighi
Subject: FREE ARSALAN



Honored and Esteemed Members,

I can only tell you as a person who has cherished freedom of thought and
the rights of minorities of ONE if need be--the rights of one
individual--if those rights are threatened and indeed cut off all our
rights are theatened. Where are the voices that proclaimed freedom of
thought that now fall silent? Is partisan loyalty so dear that we can
no longer defend the right the other to say things we disagree with? If
this be "religious liberalism" it is only for some and not all.

A chill has fallen on this distinguished assemblage--an injustice that
cannot be forgotten. What is the purpose of this gathering? This
servant remarked at a another time that many individuals were being
driven off this forum by contentious and scornful attitudes from some of
the membership--now one who could not be cowed or silenced has now been
removed--exiled!

If this injustice is not remedied, then I ask that members reconsider the
value of their membership on this list in protest. I do not see how
anyone can ever feel comfortable again after such an action, without
some reconciliation of differences. It may be true that the list owner
is the overseer of the list but the People are the owners of the
University.

Richard



Richard C. Logan nineteen@onramp.net
Maintain HomePage "The Baha'is of Lubbock"
http://rampages.onramp.net/~nineteen/

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
How manifold are the truths which must remain unuttered until the
appointed time is come! Even as it has been said:
"Not everything that a man knoweth can be disclosed, nor can
everything that he can disclose be regarded as timely, nor can every
timely utterance be considered as suited to the capacity of those who
hear it." --Gleanings from the writings of Baha'u'llah
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



From jarmstro@sun1.iusb.eduWed Apr 10 19:17:50 1996
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 16:24:21 -0500 (EST)
From: Jackson Armstrong-Ingram
To: talisman
Subject: list maintenance

When I first saw that Arsalan had been unsubscribed, I felt that this was
a bit heavy handed but within the discretion of the list owner; although,
I had also agreed with Juan that such discourse as Arsalan had been using
lately would be unacceptable in any class ot seminar I taught (although
he is not alone in that!).

I think there is a basic confusion that fuels these problems; a confusion
that is evidenced again by several recent posts suggesting that quotes
form the writings be used in the list rules. This is _not_ a 'Baha'i'
list. There is no reason to suppose that posters to this list are
Baha'is or that they subscribe to the principles of the faith. I think
that there is also sometimes a lack of understanding that the first step
in scholarly endeavor is to frame questions not to find
support for predetermined answers.

This list is hosted at Indiana University and uses resources paid for by
Indiana taxpayers. I am an Indiana taxpayer and associate faculty at
Indiana University (not at the same campus as the Walbridges, whom I have
never met outside the realms of cyberspace), so I might be considered a
trebly interested party in how this list functions.

It is simply unlawful to apply a religious test to govern access to
publicly funded resources. To suggest that opinions should be excluded
from such a resource as this list because they are not in accordance with
a particular relgious set of beliefs is to advocate an illegal act.

There have been posts on this list that have not been in accord with my
understanding of the Baha'i concept of the covenant, including some by
Arsalan (and, Lord knows, there have been plenty that were not in accord
with my standards of good taste). I have always been free to respond to
the substance of such posts or ignore them as I chose, and that is the
most I have the right to expect.

Jackson


From Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nlWed Apr 10 19:20:06 1996
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 23:22:33 +0000 (EZT)
From: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: nothing in the writings on...

Jackson,
good questions (in the 'antiquated' posting). Not sure if there are
good answers. The problem, as I see it, would be reasoning
roughly along these lines: We have at least two examples
(vivisection and the age of maturity for marriage of girls)
showing that the Guardian was not familiar with all of the Baha'i
Writings which we now have available. [as an optional extra, the
4 letters regarding the 1902 Tablet to Corinne True show that he
did not know a relevant part of the the context of other writings.
The context is part of the message, yes? (being good postmodernists
here)]. These are really equivalent - not knowing about some text or not
having the information required to interpret it. And the Guardian
was dependent on the information available to him - which was
evidently inadequate as compared to what is now available. So...
About two steps further along this line of reasoning and the
Guardianship has become an irrelevancy, bypassed by superior
scholarship (not superior scholars, just the patient adding-up of
the contributions of many many people with little bits of the
puzzle, as we are doing here). I don't like this, but the contrary
option would be to say that 'we believe' even when we know it
ain't so, i.e., to deliberately operate on a reading of texts that we
know is not the best available to us. And that seems to me to be
the death of all faith, which needs a sustained search for that
elusive Truth to keep it alive.

One option which very much reduces the problem is to consider
as 'interpretation' only those statements which specifically 'say'
that they are interpreting a specific text. Like this one:
Regarding the method to be adopted for the election of
the National Spiritual Assemblies .... In one of His
earliest Tablets ... addressed to a friend in Persia, the
following is expressly recorded:-
"At whatever time all the beloved of God in each country
appoint their delegates, and these in turn elect their
representatives, and these representatives elect a body,
that body shall be regarded as the Supreme Baytu'l-'Adl
(Universal House of Justice)."
These words clearly indicate that a three-stage election
has been provided by 'Abdu'l-Baha for the formation of
the International House of Justice, and as it is explicitly
provided in His Will and Testament that the "Secondary
House of Justice (i.e., National Assemblies) must elect the
members of the Universal One," it is obvious that the
members of the National Spiritual Assemblies will have
to be indirectly elected by the body of the believers in
their respective provinces.

If it hasn't got something like this form, of close reading from an
identified text, then we can't be sure it is interpretation. This is in
fact how I understand Shoghi Effendi's thinking about his role as
Guardian, as distinct from his role as Head of the Faith. By this
criterion, little of his writing is 'interpretation' in the narrow
sense, so the risk that evidence will be found that one or other
such passage is based on inadequate knowledge is lessened
proportionately. It doesn't solve the *principle* of the problem at
all, just reduces the scope. Suppose a later Tablet was found in
which `Abdu'l-Baha said that the method of election for the
Universal House of Justice should be changed: would we be
bound to follow Shoghi Effendi regardless (in the 'Guardian
trumps all' model)? Or give up any notion that an interpretation
of the Guardian is final?

One way out of the either/or dilemma you pose (or I pose to
myself) might be to consider the importance of the Guardianship
for the spiritual station which it represents - to remind ourselves
that authoritative interpretation does not exhaust the significance
of the Guardianship. I would very much dislike seeing the
Guardianship progressively relegated to something in the past, as
our knowledge of the writings and their contexts increases, but it
does seem that, as the evidence is gathered, our ideas about the
Guardianship may have to change painfully

Sen

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sen McGlinn ph: 31-43-3216854
Andre Severinweg 47 email: Sen.McGlinn@RL.RuLimburg.NL
6214 PL Maastricht, the Netherlands
***
When, however, thou dost contemplate the innermost essence of things,
and the individuality of each,
thou wilt behold the signs of thy Lord's mercy . . ."
------------------------------------------------------------------------


From Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nlWed Apr 10 19:21:12 1996
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 23:23:36 +0000 (EZT)
From: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Cc: asadighi@ptialaska.net
Subject: fire extinguisher

John (W),

Perhaps it might be useful to consider a sanction something less drastic
than removing someone from the list - and then using it more often?
Like a 48-hour suspension for everyone who has got involved in a
flame war, right wrong or otherwise? No fault, no accusations, etc.
Since everyone has everyone else's direct address, they can sort it out
in a friendly fashion among themselves, or rip the livers out, or just
use 48 hours to cool off a bit before picking up the cudgels, all
without cluttering up the list. A discussion list can suffer a snowball
effect incredibly rapidly - it really depends on the first response to an
unwise posting: if that's not right 6 people will have a righteous
meaning and you can forget talisman for a week.

Arsalan's original question, so far as I can see (I don't read every
posting, and didn't file any of that hullabaloo) was something along the
lines of what should I do when I have all these instances of covenantly
suspicious goings on, and the Writings tell me I shouldn't argue and
cause dissension? (excuse me Arsalan, I'm reconstructing from your
reflection in the responses, and I only read a few of those). Had he got
a simple factual response FIRST things might have been different. And
once the to-and-fro has started its hard to be clear who is the outraged
victim and who the enraged attacker. I guess I'm saying that Arsalan
may have lit the match, but there was a lot of petrol lying around
already - and I think I noticed Arsalan throwing on a bit more. Who's
to blame? tough call. Better to suspend talisman entirely, if necessary,
to give the antagonists and the peacemakers time to work it out off-
list.

Arsalan,
I guess you've figured out the answer to your question by now,
something along these lines:
- don't save it up for months, it gives you heartburn
- if a particular posting makes your hair rise, covenentally speaking,
ask the poster how this squares with ....(whatever). But make it a
genuine enquiry, not an accusation, and be clear about what and who
you are responding to (half of the people who first jumped on you
probably thought you were *really* aiming at them. We all live in the
centres of our own universes. [I understand of course you were
referring to me, but they didn't catch that :-) ]. Such a direct enquiry
will very likely produce a discussion of the relevant aspect of the
covenant.
- monitor your own responses and NEVER raise the stakes (if you
understand the poker idiom). There's a wonderful satisfaction to
making a response along the lines of 'I'll match your response and raise
you one 'loyalty to the provisions of the Will & Testament' "
And the effect is roughly equivalent to juggling live grenades with the
pins out.

Sen


From sfotos@gol.comWed Apr 10 19:21:34 1996
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 06:49:37 +0900 (JST)
From: Sandra Fotos
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Instance 2

Dear Talismans,

Regarding a personal post by John Walbridge which was sent to the Talisman
list by mistake, all I can say is that many of us have done the same--sent
silly or inappropriate emails to the wrong people (eg, by mistake I sent
such an idiotic email to one member of this list that our good relationship
is permanently ruined!!).

When I read John's note, I figured from the informal, chatty tone and
strong choice of expressions that this was just such a personal email and
did not "overthink" its contents or draw unjustified conclusions.

However, its a good lesson for us all to check email addresses carefully!!

Best,
Sandy

***********************************

All that which ye potentially possess can,
however, be manifested only as a result of your
own volition.

Baha'u'llah

************************************



From sfotos@gol.comWed Apr 10 19:22:07 1996
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 06:49:50 +0900 (JST)
From: Sandra Fotos
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: RE: Women on the House (was: minority view)

Dear Ahang and all,

Thanks for all of your replies, both public and private.

Like many Baha'i women, I am not personally troubled by the fact that
membership on the Supreme body is restricted to men--this is probably a
social law rather than an eternal spiritual principle-- one which is quite
useful for this time for various reasons and which will most likely be
repealed by the next Manifestation, if not by House legislation before
then. But it is very problematic from a seeker's point of view especially
as we are advocating equality of men and women. I really feel that we need
to come up with something to say when these valid questions are raised...

You also commented that:

>>Further, I'm not sure if Textually its possible to exempt women
>from service on the Universal House of Justice and yet allow
>>their participation on future local and national Houses...

This perspective is very interesting and might provide the basis for an
elaboration which would go down well with seekers etc...

What with entry by troops as our mandate, this problem should be addressed
now because it is bound to be a big issue in the near future.

(Who wants to be on the House, anyway? It's not as though its fun!! Lots
of hard work and many, many problems!!!)

Best,
Sandy

***********************************

All that which ye potentially possess can,
however, be manifested only as a result of your
own volition.

Baha'u'llah

************************************



From abtavangar@geoenv.comWed Apr 10 19:22:44 1996
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 18:37:42 -0400
From: Alex Tavangar
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: FREE ARSALAN

I agree with Richard. The only reason that at times past I have not left
this discussion group has been its semi-openness to freedom of speech with
occasional observance of decorum. If even these are taken away, what
remains will not be worth the trouble of wading through mountains of chafe
to find a grain of wheat.

Regards,

Alex B. Tavangar


At 03:00 PM 4/10/96 -0500, Richard wrote:
>
>Honored and Esteemed Members,
snip>
>If this injustice is not remedied, then I ask that members reconsider the
>value of their membership on this list in protest. I do not see how
>anyone can ever feel comfortable again after such an action, without
>some reconciliation of differences. It may be true that the list owner
>is the overseer of the list but the People are the owners of the
>University.
>


From PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.eduWed Apr 10 19:23:10 1996
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 15:38:56 PST8PDT
From: "Eric D. Pierce"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: re (2): its not fair play!

Hi,

The "second" message that Gordon refers to:

: Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 09:19:31 -0500 (EST)
: From: jwalbrid
: To: Talisman@indiana.edu
: Subject: Apology
:
: Friends:
:
: I inadvertantly sent out a private flame out over Talisman. It was
: intended for a couple of individuals and was not very temperate anyway.
:
: It would be a much welcome sop to my injured dignity if you would all
: forget I ever wrote it, erase it from your systems, and think of me as I
: am when I am not feeling dispeptic.
:
: This plea for indulgence applies particularly to those I particularly
: offended.
:
: Yours awkwardly,
: john walbridge
:
:
:
: -- End --

Apparently the above message was regarding the following message
which should *not* have been reposted recently, but was anyway:

: Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 22:11:29 -0500 (EST)
: From: jwalbrid
: To: Talisman@indiana.edu
: Subject: Majnun: Reality checks
...

For those who don't remember, the Walbridge family was going
through a crisis related to one of their son's health at the
time. Even though I understand the concerns of some who feel
set upon over the recent membership defrocking and the
disagreement over issues that led to it, it seems incredibly
rude, insensitive, indelicate, ungracious and inappropriate
to resurface an old faux pas "in public" at this time.

If I recall a story in the "Revelation" book series correctly,
Abdul-Baha was present when one of the believers publicly offended
or threatened an important person (maybe a local official?) who
was an enemy after the official had insulted Abdul-Baha somehow.

Abdul-Baha smacked *the believer* in order to save face.


EP

> Date sent: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 16:54:16 +1000
> From: Ahmad Aniss
> To: talisman@indiana.edu
> Subject: re: its not fair play!

> Dear Talismanians,
> Dear Gordon,
>
> You wrote:

...snip

> > I was relieved by
> > John's second message and I promptly deleted the problematic post just as I
> > would hope others would have the courtesy to do for me in the event I made a
> > similar embarrasing gaff - which could quite easily happen.
>
> Why one has to delete that post without acertaining all its implications.
> If you can state such statements as is in the letter privately and it becomes
> public way should people think that your motives are honesty and have no
> intentions of mischief. I can not buy that, we need sound and acceptable
> resonning to be convinced that messages in that letter don't have implications
> that one can derive at after reading it.
>
>
> > It was apparent that the letter in question was written to vent
> > some frustration and anger. It was not apparent, except presumably to the
> > individuals for which the letter was intended, what situations,
> > circumstances, plans etc. were being alluded to and public speculation about
> > such would be, in my view, tantamount to backbiting.
>
> Again if it will be ambigious to others why is it not to you? don't tell
> me you where a recipient and you have full understanding of the background.
> If in case this is so, I beg you to enlighten the rest of the members of
> this list, as we are sitting in dark on this matter.
> questions that arise from your posting are:
>
> Are you envolved in that subgroup that Arsalan is talking about?
> where you one of the intended receipients of that letter?
> what are the frustrations and anger you are talking about?
> should there be any hidden situations, circumstances, plans, etc...?
>
> No my friend, I think we need full clarification regrading this matter.
>
> With regards,
> Ahmad.
>

From mfoster@qni.comWed Apr 10 19:24:12 1996
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 18:13:40 -0500
From: "Mark A. Foster"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Removing people from the list

Talismanians -

As someone who operates four Internet lists myself, I can understand how
tricky it is to make these decisions. Fortunately, I have not needed to
remove anyone from any of these four RSI (Reality Sciences Institute) lists,
and I hope that the occasion for it will never arise. However, it might (God
forbid), and I need to retain that option.

With the two lists I operate out of the college's listserver, I represent
the college (my employer) to the public. With the other two lists I operate
through the America Online listserver, I am, as America Online remote staff
(chief Baha'i chat host), bound by the TOS (terms of service) regulations
set by the company.

How I might have handled the situation had I been in John's place is, IMV,
immaterial. Ultimately, the listowner is responsible for the list, or lists,
she or he operates. If you are too strict, you will drive people away. OTOH,
if you are too lenient, never saying or doing anything, the list could
easily become disorganized, and people might leave en masse for that reason
as well.

Running an Internet list, which includes deciding how to deal with specific
situations, is a challenging and stressful job. I don't think that there are
any *perfect* decisions. No matter what you do, there will be some people
who will think you should have done something else. Two of the lists I
subscribe to (New Religions and Hermetica) require an application process.
While that may prevent some problem, it is not fool proof.

To the Light, Mark (Foster, Ph.D., Sociologist of Religion)
***************************************************************************
"The Prophets of God have been the Servants of reality; Their Teachings
constitute the science of reality." - `Abdu'l-Baha
"The sciences of today are bridges to reality; if they lead not to reality,
naught remains but fruitless illusion." - `Abdu'l-Baha
***************************************************************************


From Alethinos@aol.comWed Apr 10 19:24:25 1996
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 19:17:27 -0400
From: Alethinos@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: The big kill



Amazing. The mind reels . . . m-u-s-t m-o-c-k . . . W-a-l-b-r-i-d-g-e . . .
(transmission cut at source: apparent cerebral cortrex collapse at 1600 hours
from apparent overload of snappy comebacks causing neural cascade failure.)

jim harrison

Alethinos@aol.com friend of Arsalan. We shall not see his like until tomorrow
or the day after . . .


From lwalbrid@indiana.eduWed Apr 10 19:26:07 1996
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 11:38:14 -0500 (EST)
From: lwalbrid
To: talisman@majordomo.ucs.indiana.edu
Subject: England, Iraqis, and conscience

I have still not recovered from the trip, but I am back at the keyboard
and am so glad that everyone has been having such a good time in my
absence. Adrenaline therapy. NOthing like it.

While in London I stayed with an Iraqi who was one of the founders of the
Iraqi National Congress, an activist Shi'ite who is a brilliant and
dedicated man. He is married to a wonderful English woman with whom I
develped a very close bond in our time together. Anyway, one evening my
Iraqi friend and I got talking about issues of conscience. He said that
in Shi'ism one should always investigate the truth for himself, even if
that means ultimately determining that there is no God. One has to
follow one's conscience and abide by what one comes to for him/herself.
I asked him then how people such as Baha'is fit into this? What if a
person has sincerely thought through the issue that there is another
prophet after Mohammad and believes this so thoroughly that his
conscience would not permit him to deny it? His immediate response was
that the situation of the Baha'is is different, not for people born
Baha'is but for those who left Islam to become Baha'is. Then, I reminded
him of what he had just said. He stopped for a moment and thought about
it and then said, "you are right. I need to persue this matter
further."

I have only had a chance to glance at some of the postings, but once
again I am getting the message that a good many Baha'is feel that they
must listen to the institutions even if that is in conflict with their
consciences. My response to that is that this simply has the potential
to end up in fanatical, blind imitation - the very thing that Shi'ites
are now having to grapple with themselves. Some of them seem more
enlightened on this matter than Baha'is.

As for JOhn posting his errant message again and explaining it to
Talisman, I would like to invite all of you who think this is advisable,
to post your own private correspondence for us and give us all detailed
explanations. Ahmad, would you be so kind to begin this process.

BTW, Cheshmak is a very lovely person, but when one has to room with her
fro three days, tensions can build up. Things finally came to a head
when we were touring Warwick Castle together and we got into a nasty
sword fight. Someone took pictures. However, this is all that
happened. Anything else that Cheshmak says should not be taken
seriously. Linda

From richs@microsoft.comWed Apr 10 19:42:51 1996
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 11:20:11 -0700
From: Rick Schaut
To: "'Talisman@indiana.edu'"
Subject: RE: Membership

Dear Friends,

>From: jwalbrid[SMTP:jwalbrid@indiana.edu]
>In response to a number of complaints, I have unsubscribed Arsalan
>Sadiqi, as is my right under the list rules.

I recognize Dr. Walbridge's right to exercise this authority, and find
no fault in his actions. However, to those who have voiced their
complaints, whether in private or in public, I can only say that I find
this behavior to be absolutely despicable and demonstrative of the
utmost hypocrisy.

In the fracas about the issues between the National Spiritual Assembly
and a member of Talisman, Dr. Cole remarked that wrongly held ideas are
to be met with evidence and clear argument, not authoritative action
designed to silence the dissenting voice. It appears that this high
standard only applies to those members of the community whose views are
palatable to certain members of Talisman.

I should like to point out that not a single person has shown, devoid of
ridiculously pejorative charicatures of his remarks, precisely what
Arsalan has done wrong. He has been accused of hysterical behavior and
been besmirched in no uncertain terms without so much as a single quote
of the allegedly offending remarks. If this is what passes for
"evidence and clear argument", then I must confess to absolute ignorance
of what constitutes such. So far, I've seen nothing but circular
reasoning, begging the question, and critters of straw--pure sophistry
all.

I am thoroughly disgusted and absolutely outraged over this most absurd
behavior.


Rick

From sdphelps@phoenix.Princeton.EDUWed Apr 10 19:43:08 1996
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 13:39:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Steven D. Phelps"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Instance #2


Dear friends,

I agree with the recently expressed sentiment that it is time to clear the
air about the posting by the list owner (recently re-posted by Arsalan
Sadighi) that found its way to Talisman.

The reason for my concern is the clear implication that there is a group
of people, possibly with their own restricted email distribution list, who
have a particular agenda which they wish to impose upon the Institutions,
and who have planned a highly organized strategy to see this agenda
realized. Such activity runs contrary to the Covenant of Baha'u'llah as I
understand it, since the formation of partisan subgroups threatens the
internal unity of the Faith.

I must assume in good faith that all of us are firm in the Covenant, and
so am led to conclude either 1) that I have misunderstood the implications
of the aforementioned email, or 2) that my understanding of the Covenant
is in some way flawed. In either case, further clarification on this
issue is necessary.

In expressing this concern, I take courage from the recent letter on
behalf of the Universal House of Justice, posted to Talisman, which
directs the believers that "if any participant in an email discussion
feels that a view put forward appears to contradict or undermine the
provisions of the Covenant, he should be free to say so, explaining
candidly and courteously why he feels as he does."

That the message was originally posted inadvertently has by now become a
moot point. The issues raised in this email are far too important to be
set aside. I think that the list owner would do us all a great service by
clarifying the content and the implications of this email, so that he may,
in the words of the aforementioned letter, "explain why it is not contrary
to either the letter or the spirit of the Covenant", and so that the
suspicions which would otherwise inevitably arise among some of the
friends may be put at ease.

sincerely,
steven phelps




From sfotos@gol.comWed Apr 10 19:47:41 1996
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 06:50:03 +0900 (JST)
From: Sandra Fotos
To: Juan R Cole
Subject: Re: Women on the House (was: minority view)


Yes, please send me the paper.

SF



>Sandy:
>
>I'm glad things went well at the `Irfan colloquium.
>
>Nima is wrong; the word used in the Aqdas, "rijal", is gender-specific in
>Arabic, though it is applied by Baha'u'llah to both local houses of
>justice and the Universal House.
>
>I have written up the draft of a position paper on all this that explains
>the issues as I see them. Haven't I shared it with you? Would you like
>me to download a copy?
>
>
>cheers Juan

***********************************

All that which ye potentially possess can,
however, be manifested only as a result of your
own volition.

Baha'u'llah

************************************



From jrcole@umich.eduWed Apr 10 19:49:32 1996
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 19:42:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: Rick Schaut
Cc: "'Talisman@indiana.edu'"
Subject: RE: Membership



Rick and others:

I, like Richard Logan, would ideally like to see a situation in
cyberspace of absolutely free speech. However, this would require
absolutely responsible individuals, which are rare. I haven't ranged
widely in cyberspace, but even I have had people send me harrassing
private messages, and I have even on Talisman been quite frequently
flamed (Richard Logan has deplored this when it has happened; Rick Schaut
has not, to my recollection).

As Mark Foster notes, a completely freewheeling list can collapse into
rancor if one or two posters become abusive. This is not a desirable
outcome.

One solution is to have a monitored list. Nobody has the time for that,
and besides, John is against censoring people.

Another solution would be to have applications; but that is hardly
egalitarian.

A final solution is to have rules and to enforce them. Among Talisman's
rules is one that you may not accuse fellow Talismanians of heresy.

Rick wants to know what Arsalan did. He broke that rule; and when asked to
desist he proclaimed his intention to go on breaking it. In John's
estimation, this behavior was disruptive to the list, and the stated
intent to pursue it indefinitely was rather alarming.

Talisman is not civil society. I would be opposed to Arsalan being
prevented from publishing his opinions in a newspaper, as long as they
were not libellous. In fact, of course, Baha'is operate in a censorship
environment that would prevent Arsalan from publishing a good many of his
opinions. But what he appeared actually to want to do, ironically
enough, was to import that censorship environment into Talisman. This
latter, as Jackson notes, would be illegal.

Rick, that there are ironies in the establishment and maintenance of free
speech, such as that you may not libel people, does not mean that freedom
of speech is either impracticable or worthless. It does not, on the
whole, exist in the Baha'i community, as you know; and what is really
going on here is that some Baha'is resist it existing even in cyberspace.
They may resist it by any means but Inquisitorial accusations that smear
the reputations of innocent individuals.



cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan

From margreet@margreet.seanet.comThu Apr 11 01:07:45 1996
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 16:41:04 -0700
From: "Marguerite K. Gipson"
To: jwalbrid , Talisman@indiana.edu
Cc: "Arsalan J. Sadighi"
Subject: Re: Membership

Shame on you for doing so! How do you feel now? Feel Better? I did
not see where Arslan was any more on one side of the line than the others
were on their side of the line.

This makes me SICK!!!!! I thought pride was a bad attribute.

God will deliver justice....
Margreet

At 07:29 AM 4/10/96 -0500, jwalbrid wrote:
>In response to a number of complaints, I have unsubscribed Arsalan
>Sadiqi, as is my right under the list rules.
>
>John Walbridge
>List Owner
>




From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzThu Apr 11 01:08:44 1996
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 13:56:13 +1300
From: ***golden eagle***
To: "Marguerite K. Gipson" ,
talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Membership

M wrote:

>Shame on you for doing so!

I don't know Arsalan personally, but I have admired his intellectual and
spiritual beauty from afar. I have no trouble whatsoever with the thought
that we may stand together in eternity -- which is more than I can say
about a some other correspondents on this list. However, I am street wise
enough to not get too upset about this: truth-tellers have always placed
their heads on the block, and that is both their pain and privilege.
Through his courage, Arsalan has escape purgatory. Lucky man.

R



From nineteen@onramp.netThu Apr 11 01:09:22 1996
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 96 19:00:34 -0500
From: "Richard C. Logan"
To: Talisman ,
Arsalan Sadighi
Subject: Talking a good game.

Dear members,

I have seen arguments made here that I never thought possible. Phrases
like: Maintaining order! The Listowner's discretion. Arsalan stated
his opinion--one I would have strongly recommended against but defend his
right to say. The liberal wing of this list has insisted on certain
freedoms, I ask in Arsalan's behalf that he be granted those rights. I
would have never considered censoring or dismissing a student on these
grounds--this is Nixonian! We have to do better than simply talk a good
game.

Jackson says this isn't a Baha'i List--in my opinion this statement is
irrelavent--the expression of thought is a human rights concernn a civil
matter. Arsalan should have a right to appeal and also a jury of his
peers to decide his expulsion. There is too much power in the hands of
the Listowner. I would be honored to serve as his advocate and let a
jury of his peers decide so grave a loss of liberty.

I'm not saying that John Walbridge does not have the power--but he also
has the obligation to make the punishment fit the crime and also it is
obviously unfair at this late a date to inflict such draconian measures
upon Arsalan after many members having been so wayward in their verbal
behavior.

Richard


Richard C. Logan nineteen@onramp.net
Maintain HomePage "The Baha'is of Lubbock"
http://rampages.onramp.net/~nineteen/

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
How manifold are the truths which must remain unuttered until the
appointed time is come! Even as it has been said:
"Not everything that a man knoweth can be disclosed, nor can
everything that he can disclose be regarded as timely, nor can every
timely utterance be considered as suited to the capacity of those who
hear it." --Gleanings from the writings of Baha'u'llah
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comThu Apr 11 01:09:43 1996
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 96 19:46:01 -0400
From: Ahang Rabbani
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: women ... my last word ...

[This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII]

Dear Sandy,

I appreciate your concern about some seekers may be turned off
about exemption of women from service on the House of Justice
(BTW, as you've noted its only the *Universal* House that they
are exempt), but my answer to them is: well, that's the way it
is, take it or leave it.

Obviously, I will never say those actual words to a seeker, but
in the final analysis, in words of Baha'u'llah, this is the Day
of Judgment. Some will approach the new Revelation and be at awe
with its wonder, some will pick faults with it and leave it.
That's fine. We can't make the Faith conform to people's wishes;
it is the humanity who has to align itself with the Revelation of
Baha'u'llah -- and until we hear otherwise, the Revelation of
Baha'u'llah upholds exemption of women from service on the
Universal House of Justice.

And I have no problem explaining that to any seeker should I ever
be asked.

regards, ahang.

From A.Aniss@unsw.EDU.AUThu Apr 11 01:10:08 1996
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 12:23:41 +1000
From: Ahmad Aniss
To: jwalbrid@juliet.ucs.indiana.edu, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: re: membership

In response to a number of complaints, I have unsubscribed Arsalan
Sadiqi, as is my right under the list rules.

John Walbridge
List Owner

Dear Sir,
Dear Talismanains

I would like to complaint about the complainees. It was unjustified to
remove Arsalan from the list. questions put to list owner have not been
clarified or answeared. As such I am strongly thinking to remove my self
from the list if those questions are not clarified.

With regards,
Ahmad.
_______________________________________________________________________
^ ^
^ Dr. A.M. Aniss, Tel: Home [61(2)] 505 509 ^
^ Bio-Medical Engineer, Work [61(2)] 694 5915 ^
^ Neuropsychiatric Institute, Mobile 019 992020 ^
^ Prince Henry Hospital, Fax: Work [61(2)] 694 5747 ^
^ Little Bay, N.S.W. 2036, ^
^ Australia. Email: A.Aniss@unsw.edu.au ^
^ Web Page: http://acsusun.acsu.unsw.edu.au/~ahmada/ ^
^_______________________________________________________________________^







From lbhollin@uxmail.ust.hkThu Apr 11 01:11:47 1996
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 09:24:03 +0800 (HKT)
From: HOLLINGER RICHARD VERNON
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Civil Discourse


It appears to me that the adversarial style of discussion on Talisman has
reached such a point that areas of consensus, the recognition of which
is as important to consultation as the expression of disagreements, are
becoming difficult discern beneath the flurry of hostile exchanges.
Juan has suggested that freedom of speech is an American success story.
I would agree that legal protection of speech in the US is one of its
greatest accomplishments; but I don't think that the style of
public discourse in the United States, which is anything but civil, is
something we would choose to emulate in the Baha'i community any more
than we would choose to model our style of governance after the partisan
politics that prevent the US govenement from engaging in effective
leadership on almost any issue of significance. I have witnessed in other
countries, such as Britian (and, for that matter,
here in Hong Kong), issues as highly charged as those that dominate
Talisman discussed with *civility.* I think this may have been what the
House of Justice had in mind when they encouraged the development of an
etituette of discouse [my paraphrase].

At any rate I think there is perhaps more consensus on some issues
than meets the eye. The "democracy" question is a case in point. As Shoghi
Effendi explained, the Faith is
not a democracy, but it is democratic in its methods. The Baha'i institutions
are not answerable to either the mass of believers or (in the case of the
senior institutions) to the delegates who elect them. They are elected,
and they are obliged to consult with and listen to the elctorate, but they
are not bound to follow popular opinion. Well, neither is the
US Congress. In practice, of course, elected officials cater to
their constituencies in order to be re-elected. One hopes that such
motivations would have no place in Baha'i elections, and, indeed, it is
a detachment from such concerns that contributes to the ability of Baha'i
institutions to lead effectively.

Shoghi Effendi states that the concept of the social contract, which has
developed in Western political traditions, does not exist in the Baha'i
Faith. In practice, I am not sure how much difference this really makes.
The social contract has provided a rationale for revolutions against
non-representative governments, and for the formation democratically
elected governing institutions. In the Baha'i Faith there is a divine
mandate for the formation of democratically elected institutions, so we
have no need of social contract to justify them.

The social contract is also cited as a reason and justification for the kind
of catering-to-constituency politics that has emerged in Western
parliamentary democracies, but I think it has much more to do with the
personal and corporate interests of politicians, who are more concerned
about re-election than providing effective leadership. What are the
implications of the absence of a social contract from Baha'i political
theory? I have many times heard Baha'is argue that this
means that Baha'is cannot criticize the policies and decisions of
institutions, since those institutions are not anwerable to the
community. My own view is that it is precisely because they are not
answerable to the community that criticism should not be seen as a
threat, for nothing any of us say can challenge the their legitimacy or
authority. Consultation within the Baha'i community at all levels is an
obligation and is an inherent element of Baha'i administration, which
cannot be undertaken without criticism. But the Baha'i teachings would
certainly encourage us to do this with resepct, fariness, moderation, and
civility--those same qualities that are so brilliantly manifest on
Talisman :-).

Richard Hollinger



From A.Aniss@unsw.EDU.AUThu Apr 11 01:12:03 1996
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 12:29:26 +1000
From: Ahmad Aniss
To: jwalbrid@juliet.ucs.indiana.edu, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: re: re: INSTANCE # 2

Dear Sir,
Dear Talismanians,

you wrote:
The message referred to was sent by mistake to Talisman several months ago.

John Walbridge

I do not think this is a sufficent explanation to your mishap. I urge you
to clarify questions put to you. I have to say to stay silence means that
we can no longer hold confidence on staying on the list (me and those who
are in dark on true motives behid such actions).

With regards,
Ahmad.
_______________________________________________________________________
^ ^
^ Dr. A.M. Aniss, Tel: Home [61(2)] 505 509 ^
^ Bio-Medical Engineer, Work [61(2)] 694 5915 ^
^ Neuropsychiatric Institute, Mobile 019 992020 ^
^ Prince Henry Hospital, Fax: Work [61(2)] 694 5747 ^
^ Little Bay, N.S.W. 2036, ^
^ Australia. Email: A.Aniss@unsw.edu.au ^
^ Web Page: http://acsusun.acsu.unsw.edu.au/~ahmada/ ^
^_______________________________________________________________________^










From gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduThu Apr 11 01:14:53 1996
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 20:55:58 -0600 (MDT)
From: "[G. Brent Poirier]"
To: jwalbrid
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: re INSTANCE # 2


On Wed, 10 Apr 1996, jwalbrid wrote:

> The message referred to was sent by mistake to Talisman several months ago.

1. On the one hand, further discussion would have opened a can of worms.

2. This was sad, and is not a resolution.

3. I was about to recommend a cooling-off period.

4. Not a good precedent for the principle that parties to a dispute
shouldn't be the decision-makers. (OK, OK, not a principle I bought into).

5. I was about to post some things on the Iqan to light a candle; forgot
my disk at the office. This weekend.

Brent


From CaryER_ms@msn.comThu Apr 11 01:15:17 1996
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 96 02:56:10 UT
From: Hannah Reinstein
To: Talisman ,
Arsalan Sadighi ,
"Richard C. Logan"
Subject: RE: Talking a good game.

I urge the list owner, whom I greatly respect, to please reconsider his
action. If a graceful and face-saving compromise can be found that is
acceptable to all, why not reinstate Arsalan? I can't see any list rule that
he violated. Certainly, the list owner has a right to run the list as he
thinks best. Two other expulsions that I recall involved troublemakers, one of
whom appeared to be very disturbed, vulgar, and, to use the technical term,
nuts. But this is very different. Let's keep civil dialog going. This list is
very important to me. I learn and deepen from it every day. My freedom to
express myself here is something that I cherish. Granted, I have no quarrel
with any list members (welllll, maybe just one...), never use the dreaded C
word, and engage in no arcane, political, or personal arguments. Thus I'm
safe. But will the innocent inquiry that I posted yesterday also cause people
to complain about me and the list owner to boot me too? I hope and pray not.

Hannah

----------
From: owner-talisman@indiana.edu on behalf of Richard C. Logan
Sent: Wednesday, 10 April, 1996 17:00 PM
To: Talisman; Arsalan Sadighi
Subject: Talking a good game.

Dear members,

I have seen arguments made here that I never thought possible. Phrases
like: Maintaining order! The Listowner's discretion. Arsalan stated
his opinion--one I would have strongly recommended against but defend his
right to say. The liberal wing of this list has insisted on certain
freedoms, I ask in Arsalan's behalf that he be granted those rights. I
would have never considered censoring or dismissing a student on these
grounds--this is Nixonian! We have to do better than simply talk a good
game.

Jackson says this isn't a Baha'i List--in my opinion this statement is
irrelavent--the expression of thought is a human rights concernn a civil
matter. Arsalan should have a right to appeal and also a jury of his
peers to decide his expulsion. There is too much power in the hands of
the Listowner. I would be honored to serve as his advocate and let a
jury of his peers decide so grave a loss of liberty.

I'm not saying that John Walbridge does not have the power--but he also
has the obligation to make the punishment fit the crime and also it is
obviously unfair at this late a date to inflict such draconian measures
upon Arsalan after many members having been so wayward in their verbal
behavior.

Richard


Richard C. Logan nineteen@onramp.net
Maintain HomePage "The Baha'is of Lubbock"
http://rampages.onramp.net/~nineteen/

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
How manifold are the truths which must remain unuttered until the
appointed time is come! Even as it has been said:
"Not everything that a man knoweth can be disclosed, nor can
everything that he can disclose be regarded as timely, nor can every
timely utterance be considered as suited to the capacity of those who
hear it." --Gleanings from the writings of Baha'u'llah
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++




From A.Aniss@unsw.EDU.AUThu Apr 11 01:15:49 1996
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 14:18:02 +1000
From: Ahmad Aniss
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: re: ....and conscience

Dear Talismanians,
Dear LInda,

> I have only had a chance to glance at some of the postings, but once
> again I am getting the message that a good many Baha'is feel that they
> must listen to the institutions even if that is in conflict with their
> consciences. My response to that is that this simply has the potential
> to end up in fanatical, blind imitation - the very thing that Shi'ites
> are now having to grapple with themselves. Some of them seem more
> enlightened on this matter than Baha'is.

No body says that institutions are perfect and they can not make mistakes
However, this does not me we as individual have to gang together and
devise means and ways of underminding their authority. To respect
the institutions is not blind imitation and fanatical. In Baha`i
Faith there are means of respectful criticisim of the adminstrative bodies.
Baha'is should take action within the limits that have been set
by the writings. setting groups, putting manifestoes and deciving
plain individuals are surely not part of those guidlines.

> As for JOhn posting his errant message again and explaining it to
> Talisman, I would like to invite all of you who think this is advisable,
> to post your own private correspondence for us and give us all detailed
> explanations. Ahmad, would you be so kind to begin this process.

John by mistake has posted a personal letter which has great ramifications
to members of this group and if it is not dealt with properly.
we can no longer have trust and dignity for the messages being put on
Talisman and the list owner. No body is suggesting that you or John
must not criticise the adminstrative bodies. But the content of that
letter goes further, it is not content with criticisim. To a plain
person it looks as there is actual plans to underemind the authority
of the adminstrative bodies and also to win the trust of members of
the list for such endavour. I still think John must fully clarify
what that letter was about and enlighten us on the questions put to
him.
I am happy to say that you can start with me, as I do not have private
conversations that can match the letter seen.

> BTW, Cheshmak is a very lovely person, but when one has to room with her
> fro three days, tensions can build up. Things finally came to a head
> when we were touring Warwick Castle together and we got into a nasty
> sword fight. Someone took pictures. However, this is all that
> happened. Anything else that Cheshmak says should not be taken
> seriously. Linda

As yet I have not seen any messages from Cheshmak in regard to you and
what had expired between the two of you, which can have any implications
to the matter, but I have to say you last sentence got me shucked. You
say "Anything else that Cheshmak says should not be taken seriously", if
this is not flaming another member of the list what is then. Do you mean
that anything that Cheshmak can contribute to the list is silly and
has less merit to what you are contributing. Your statement is as bad as
flames perputrated by Arsalan at last moments of him being with us.

I hope you and John reconsider the situation carefully and reply to the
members in a civilised fasion.

With regards,
Ahmad.

_______________________________________________________________________
^ ^
^ Dr. A.M. Aniss, Tel: Home [61(2)] 505 509 ^
^ Bio-Medical Engineer, Work [61(2)] 694 5915 ^
^ Neuropsychiatric Institute, Mobile 019 992020 ^
^ Prince Henry Hospital, Fax: Work [61(2)] 694 5747 ^
^ Little Bay, N.S.W. 2036, ^
^ Australia. Email: A.Aniss@unsw.edu.au ^
^ Web Page: http://acsusun.acsu.unsw.edu.au/~ahmada/ ^
^_______________________________________________________________________^







From Alethinos@aol.comThu Apr 11 01:16:28 1996
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 23:24:43 -0400
From: Alethinos@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Dead & gone but the Issues remain . .

Well Arsalan's keyboard isn't even cold yet but his last words from the
Grweb.side still ring true. We can silence him but the issues remain.

Now lest anyone misunderstand the issue, as I have been stating for days,
(off to the side, much like a narrarator doing a voiceover at a hyena
slaughter) really isn't about women and the UHJ. There isn't an *issue* there
at all and we know this. The question has been decided and unless we want to
go South we have to live with it.

The real issue is the attempt to re-write the Faith to suit the desires of a
liberal-democratic agenda. I certainly don't think the Covenant is in danger
here (you can take your finger off the blackout botton Mr W) - it would take
a lot more than these lil' storms in our electronic teacup to be a threat.

But I do see a lot of problems with the theories, suppositions and
speculations put forward here with that dubious stamp of USDA Grade A
scholarly approval punched all over them.

For nearly a week I have been posting challenges to the notions expressed by
some that the UHJ and Administrative Order is either flawed or incomplete. I
have posted numerous quotes from the Guardian concerning the complete
distinction between the old world political forms and the emerging
Administrative Order. To date Juan has made some vague reference to it,
suggesting that the Guardian *really* meant etc, etc, etc, with regard to
democracy. Obviously folks were having too much fun tearing into the bowels
of Arsalan to pay much heed. And it is so much more difficult to escape the
harsh glare of the Guardian's words. Much better to ignore them and howl
about the terrible crimes of Arsalan.

Well Arsalan is gone folks. But I am still here. As are others. Let's see
what'cha got left in those chops, hmmmm?

jim harrison

Alethinos@aol.com

From friberg@will.brl.ntt.jpThu Apr 11 01:17:03 1996
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 96 13:28:31 JST
From: "Stephen R. Friberg"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Please reinstate Arsalan

Dear List-Owner:

I beg of you, please reinstate Arsalan. His removal, to my way of seeing,
is the height of unfairness.

I can not, in good conscience, remain on this list if it is to be
intolerant of diversity.

Perhaps others have seen the situation differently than I, and perhaps
you are under strong pressure to conform to their desires. But, I
have been struck by your sense of fairness and desire to combat
intolerance. Please consider this issue again.

>From my point of view, Arsalan was bullied. When he replied not
meekly, but vigorously and angrily, it was used as justification to
"prove" his guilt, and he was attacked even more unfairly and more
vigorously. Perhaps Arsalan is guilty of excess, but no more so
than those who goaded him into it.

Yours respectfully,
Stephen R. Friberg

From friberg@will.brl.ntt.jpThu Apr 11 01:17:16 1996
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 96 13:32:02 JST
From: "Stephen R. Friberg"
To: Alethinos@aol.com
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Dead & gone but the Issues remain . .

Dear Jim:

Sometimes, I just wish you would shut up! Now is one of them.

Your friend,
Stephen Friberg

From candy@pc.jaring.myThu Apr 11 01:17:36 1996
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 12:36:50 +0800 (MYT)
From: "Dr. Chandrasekaran"
To: brburl@mailbag.com
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: gita

Dear Burrill,
The term 'AVATAR' means 'descent'. Its meaning also ranges from
'coming over' signifying an 'advent' or a 'manifestation' of the divine from
the 'other side'.Though the general understanding of the hindus is one of
God incarnate but to me it does not differ very much from the concept of
Manifestation in the Bahai writings.Since our understanding of God
throughout eternity is the "Manifestation of God" and so far as we are
concerned He is God manifest.It is true that BAHAI THEOLOGY denies the
possibility that GOD could become incarnate(hulul) and that the worlds of
God could descend into the grades of he creatures.We find that the earliest
mention of the avatar of Vishnu is to be found in
Taittiriya-Samhita(Yajur-veda),1.7.6.12..."punar imam tokanipratyavaroha."
, Krishna,is the 8th avataram of Vishnu.While little
can be authenticated of the historical Krishna,he is mentioned in the
Chandogya- Upanishad as one who taught man's life as a sacrifice.He is also
mentioned in the earliest Pali canon(in the buddhist work Niddesa).The north
indians who are of the Aryan stock revere and worship him.Wherelse in the
south worship other pantheons of gods and there are few krishna temples.

The fact that Krishna is always painted blue is because he was actually dark
complexion and was of the dravidian stock.

with best regards,
DR.CHANDRAN


From richs@MICROSOFT.comThu Apr 11 01:42:41 1996
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 18:44:58 -0700
From: Rick Schaut
To: 'Juan R Cole'
Cc: "'Talisman@indiana.edu'"
Subject: RE: Membership

Juan and Friends,

>From: Juan R Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu]
>Rick, that there are ironies in the establishment and maintenance of
>free
>speech, such as that you may not libel people, does not mean that
>freedom
>of speech is either impracticable or worthless.

I quite agree. I believe we both acknowledge that there is speech which
is marginally acceptable. That is not the point.

Arsalan's remarks were marginal. He didn't name any individuals until
after he had been goaded into providing more specific quotations upon
which he based his belief. (Nice catch-22 there. He's hysterical if he
can't produce any evidence to support his opinion, but his efforts to
provide the requested evidence are used against him in another way.) In
fact, I believe Arsalan did his best to state his views as candidly and
as cordially as his conscience would allow. Arsalan's remarks were no
more inflamatory than another person's stated belief that the National
Spiritual Assembly had engaged in spin-doctoring the Universal House of
Justice's May 19, 1994 letter during the most recent national
convention.

The point is that some members of Talisman do not wish to accord leeway
for certain kinds of marginal speech, but are pretty vocal when other
forms of equally marginal speech meet with less than warm response by
the institutions of the Faith. This incident has made this point
abundantly obvious.


Regards,
Rick

PS, as for being flamed, Juan, you are right. You have not ranged very
widely in cyberspace. Try being a Microsoft employee working on Apple
Macintosh applications. My dear friend, forgive me for saying so, but
you haven't a clue about what constitutes a real flame, though it has
taken a great deal of restraint to prevent me from demonstrating one for
the benefit of the members of Talisman.

From jwinters@epas.utoronto.caThu Apr 11 01:43:31 1996
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 01:30:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jonah Winters
To: talisman
Subject: Final musings on it all

Greetings, Taliszens.
As one of the first to respond to Arsalan's posting, and perhaps
the author of the strongest response, let me wave a little fresh air back
around my computer following my blistered reaction to the posting which
set off our little earthquake. My reaction was not to dissidence, but to
what I perceived, in that post and numerous others Arsalan has posted, a
distrust of rational investigation. Certainly, I would not have responded
so "hysterically" had that been an isolated incident. I just wanted to
clarify; I'm not an ogre, even though I may have sounded like it in one,
well, isolated incident!
Though his postings occasionally demonstrated, to me, a belief
that the hegemony of instrumental reason continues to dominate rational
investigation, a fear which I think is resolved by the structure of the
Faith of Baha'u'llah, I do not wish his voice to be curtailed. Unlike
another subscriber who was once forcibly removed, I did not find Arsalan
to be fomenting discord as much as speaking in a deliberately offensive
way.
Yes, bygones are bygones; but as an initial counter-hysteric, I
just wanted to clarify what were and were not my grievances.

-J

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Jonah and Kari Winters
33 Endean Avenue / Toronto, Ontario / M4M-1W5 / (416) 461-3527



From friberg@will.brl.ntt.jpThu Apr 11 01:45:15 1996
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 96 14:33:45 JST
From: "Stephen R. Friberg"
To: TLCULHANE@aol.com
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Religion - Science

Dear Terry:

Your lastest posting has some very important insights, and raises
some significant questions. I'm not sure that I'm capable of
replying to them, but I would like to try.

Your questions require, in my opinion, that we broaden the discussion
to include the humanities. If we do so, we may be able to shed some
light on the origins of the persistent 'cultural conflict' that exerts
such a strong claim in our discussions on Talisman.

Briefly, physics and the natural sciences view the world as being
determined by natural laws. The world, we find, exhibits such
astonishing regularity in its behaviour that we can determine
what those laws are. A very important point: the nature of
those laws is not determined by the questions that we ask, nor
is it determined by the prevailing sentiments of the times.
These, of course, color the way we understand those laws,
or veil them from our view. But the laws are independent
of such sentiments.

Now consider what happens when we try to understand, certain of
the existence of those laws, more complicated aspects of reality:
society, culture, family, our purpose. Aware of the complexities
inherent in such social settings, we still look for laws. But, we
understand that such laws are of a different character: they ask
us to determine our own actions, rather than to react according to
the whims of our appetites. Those laws are of such overriding
significance, and our understanding is so constrained by the
particulars of our own individual lives, our own cultures,
and our own experiences, that they can not come from ourselves.
The can only be authoritative when they originate from God (or
Buddha - it doesn't make a whit of difference).

Clearly, then, our responsibility is to attempt to incorporate those
laws into our lives, our communities, and our societies. There are
those who quibble, attempt to modify the laws according to their own
personal understandings, claiming special insight. Every claim to an
improved understanding must come under careful, extensive, critical
examination, unhurried by the passions and their response to the
siren-songs of the times. But the claims MUST be investigated, as
I think more and more of us on Talisman are coming to understand.

In the humanities (which I understand poorly) the emphasis on "laws"
is in the background. Indeed, in the social realm, thought creates
actions which create social structure which create thought which in
turn creates new actions. And it does so in limitless, complex ways.
How can these complexities be contained, or described, by simple,
unvarying *laws*?

To understand the realities of people living, say, under the rule
of the Tokugawa shogunate in the later half of the 17th century,
we can not simply apply physics-like laws of social development
and expect to have anything even approaching a correct description.
Rather, we must study the particular conditions of the times, and
the only way that we can do that is to study the records that
have been left behind.

And, primarily, those records are texts. If we lack texts, we lack
knowledge. Even if we have texts, they must be interpreted to our
modern understandings, trying to limit the numerous errors and misunder-
standings that necessarily must enter. We must strive to build up
a self-consistent picture of the times -- only such a picture can help
us to understand the texts. Only the texts, supplemented with other
sources of information, can help us build a picture of the times.

All is filtered through our own picture of what is going on, a picture
necessarily relative - many different interpretations are possible.
Demanded, in fact, if we are to have an overall picture of what
was going on. This way of seeking understanding also applies to
the present, and even to the words of the prophets.

Understanding, in the method I describe above, is created by the
critical, probing mind, unconstrained by the thinking of a given
time and place. And a text, to be powerful - to have meaning that
is not just bound to a given time and place - must allow multiple
interpretations in keeping with the multiple demands placed upon it
by multiple cultural and social circumstances.

The differences between these two ways of understanding, the
scientific and the humanistic, are correlated to the two
sides we see in the conflicts that periodically erupt on Talisman.
I believe that, contrary to what some have said, we are not
seeing fundamentalism versus enlightened rationalism, but rather
science versus the humanities.

Anyway, please keep these introductory comments in mind when you
you read the following:

You said:

> I would be inclined to say that the current world view of physics, like
> all such worlds is a path resulting from certain choices made by physicists
> rather than exhaustive of *reality*. I suspect you would agree. For
> instance the argument has been made had de Broglie's view of quantum
> mechanics been adopted rather than Bohr's, the underlying unity or
> interconectedness of things would be more apparent . The problem was not with
> De Broglie's mathematics , the issue was the more reductionist world view
> which Bohr's views reflected and was more consistent with the "times".

See above. From the physicist's point of view, de Broglie's
contribution was of vital importance - an important *physical*
truth previously unknown. But its importance was in large part
because significant advances in establishing a quantum mechanical
theory had already been made (mainly by Bohr), and de Broglie's
contribution (he postulated that matter was both particle-like
and wave-like) filled the main remaining gap.

Once de Broglie's contribution was understood, a number of highly
gifted physicists, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Dirac, Born, and many
others (including Bohr, who served as mentor, father figure, and
source of funding for much of the effort) rushed quantum physics
into maturity before de Broglie, an aristocratic French prince,
had even time to react. de Broglie, like Einstein, held to the
older mechanistic picture (i.e., the clockwork universe) which
many people felt angry (they still do) about losing. But, I
think the mechanistic picture is the more reductionist, and the
less useful in giving insight into the interconnectedness of the
universe.

> Relativity and quantum mechanics do not overthrow
> earlier understandings - they simple point to their limitations. There is a
> parallel here, it seems to me, in religion when Baha'u'llah speaks of the
> "changeless faith of God." Earlier statements of that faith are not
> overthrown or negated, they are preserved and their limitations in the face
> of our evolving understanding become clear.

Here, you are 100% correct, in my opinion. This is the one thing
from 20th century physics that I wish everybody understood. It
is an extremely important point. Thank you very much for making
it so clearly.

Yours sincerely,
Stephen R. Friberg

P.S. Juan, if you are reading this. Any chance that you could explain
hermeneutics and other methods from the humanities? My efforts are
very feeble, and only intended to put the topic on the table, so to speak.

From jwinters@epas.utoronto.caThu Apr 11 01:46:35 1996
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 01:39:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jonah Winters
To: talisman
Subject: Paper on Origins of Shi'a Islam

Good morning talisfolks.
I have just finished my latest academic rite-of-passage, one on
the topic of evaluating the claims of Shi'ism regarding the authenticity
of its origins. Email me privately if you'd like a copy, especially if
you might be willing to read it and offer comments/suggestion. It's about
40pp. or 110 K.
I analyzed three key events--the Ghadir Khumm, the "pen and
paper," and the Saqifa Banu Sa'ida--through a few Shi'i and Sunni
sources, but primarily through all the relevant scholarship in English I
could get my hands on. Following this I concluded with observations on
the nature and function of history as self-definition.
Please, also, anyone who has papers/articles/essays/whatever, do
share them with us as well!

-J

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Jonah and Kari Winters
33 Endean Avenue / Toronto, Ontario / M4M-1W5 / (416) 461-3527



From Alethinos@aol.comThu Apr 11 01:47:00 1996
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 01:39:52 -0400
From: Alethinos@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Dead & gone but the Issues remain . .

From: friberg@will.brl.ntt.jp (Stephen R. Friberg)
>Dear Jim:

>Sometimes, I just wish you would shut up! Now is one of them.

>Your friend,
>Stephen Friberg


Why Stephen!!! I am impressed! You almost sound as if there is enough
testosterone coursing through those veins of yours to enable you to cut
through your usual Nutrasweet patter and call it like you see it, straight
forward and to the point. What next? A detailed list of my faults?! Cough it
up honey! There must be several dozen you can think of that I haven't
cataloged yet. Meanwhile you take over the discourse on free speech and the
lack of real comparison between the old world order and the Administrative
Order. I'll be over there wrapping duct tape around my mouth.

jim


From jrcole@umich.eduThu Apr 11 01:49:05 1996
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 01:42:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: Rick Schaut
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: RE: Membership



Rick:

I would point out to you that even an imperfect forum for free speech
such as Talisman does allow a defeated minority to publicly protest the
actions of someone in power. You and Richard Logan have said that you do
*not* believe, however, that an LSA or NSA decision can be publicly
protested by a defeated minority. I encourage you to rethink whether you
are being consistent in joining in this pleasurable activity here but not
there.


I don't have a problem with Arsalan disagreeing with everything said on
Talisman; I don't have a problem with his saying that such and such
statement makes him uncomfortable because of its covenantal implications
for such and such reason; I have a problem with him formally and
publicly charging that there is a "sub-group" on Talisman, made up of
specific individuals, who are deliberately and consciously attempting to
undermine the Covenant. He is not inside their heads and cannot know
that. There is no sub-group; it is a figment of his imagination, though
obviously there are some Baha'is who agree more with some others and may
talk more frequently (this would also be true of those with
"conservative" views). The charge he made is a very serious one in
Baha'i law. It is a libel. It contravenes the list rules.

Talisman is not like the body politic of a country, where all speech
should be protected. It is more like a classroom or a club; it has
membership rules. I have explained before that if a Catholic in my class
shouted "dirty schismatic heretic" at a Protestant, I would have to
intervene; such behavior at a state university such as the University of
Michigan would probably result in formal charges being brought against
the individual who shouted the epithet. This is because a state
university is governed by the state equivalent of the US First Amendment,
which says that the state shall not make any laws regarding the
Establishment of religion (Establishing a religion means giving
preferences to one religion or one set of religious views over another).
For a professor to allow a student of one persuasion to intimidate a
student of another persuasion with prejudicial epithets and cries of
heresy would make that professor an accomplice to the establishment of a
particular view in a State classroom, and that would not be permitted.
Clubs also have rules. I could set up a club that had in its by-laws a
rule that no member should ever use the word "heresy" while at the club.
Members who contravened the rule could be expelled from the club, as long
as it was a private club, despite the First Amendment.

None of this contravenes my belief that the First Amendment should grant
much wider free speech to completely public and political forums. This
is not hypocrisy. It is probably a form of situation ethics. In any
case, it is the only thing that would work. And I believe that the
Baha'i Faith, which aspires to be the framework for the publics of the
entire world, should be governed by rules closer to those of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights than to those that now prevail.


cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan

From gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduThu Apr 11 01:49:57 1996
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 21:30:28 -0600 (MDT)
From: "[G. Brent Poirier]"
To: belove@sover.net
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Accepting the Pharaoh within


I really enjoyed the way Philip worked with this issue. I think it's
healthy to look at the CB within us, the Pharaoh, the Sanhedrin. I find
it freeing. Terrifying, but liberating. Can't let the fear of
self-discovery chain me.

I see your examination of yourself as the rebel not to be a savoring of
the idea, or a commitment to it, but more what the psychologists might
call going with the flow instead of fighting an urge. Taste it,
experience it, let it go. Mildred McClellan used to give chastity
classes to the youth, and recommend that when overcome by lust, to go
"urge surfing." Don't act on it, but don't deny it. Live with it for a
time, with patience.

So, from here, I didn't hear a rebel at the core speaking, Philip.

On the other hand, I take a different ultimate view of how to reconcile
the matter. I think I understand what you are trying to do; integrate
the broken pieces, reconcile them, bind the loyalist urge and the
rebellious urge into You.

If we were working only with the inner identity, I'd agree. But I think
that the relationship to the House has a social aspect and consequences.
I personally don't relate to the House as an institution, and not as the
individuals who today hold that office. I see my relationship to it as an
aspect of my inner search, closer to prayer than to anything else in my
experience that falls into the category of "institution." I think that
moreso even than Self-integration is commitment of the self, throwing
head and turban, that which is on the head and in it, at the feet of the
Beloved. That's the first paragraph of the Iqan. I believe I will find
my