Logs of Talisman Discussions of Bahai Faith 4/96
From spurushotma@brahma.hcla.comSat Apr 13 13:04:34 1996
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 69 9:00:00 PDT
From: spurushotma@brahma.hcla.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: To Future Generations
Dear friends,
As this is a very dynamic Faith and we learn and evolve
from generation to generation ... I would like to make
a plea to future generations of Baha'is as they take
on the many tasks of service to the Faith, both as members
of Institutions and as individuals, on something
I feel very passionately about:
Please do not ever, ever, ever wherever possible
mix travel arrangements for individual Bahai's
with the work of Institutions of the Faith.
Think about it logically ... why is there a need to??
For future conferences etc, just assume individual Bahai's
either have enough frequent flier points or are friendly
enough with commercial travel agents to figure out their
own travel arrangements. Also, never, ever allow corrupt
useless business people to hid behind the name "Baha'i",
and warn the believers about them.
Both in 1991 and in 1992, on travel teaching trips to
Siberia (where you would think a "Bahai" travel agent
would be helpful) our groups were burned by these "Bahai"
travel agents. In 1993, on a pilgrimage my family was on,
a "Bahai" run travel agency that hid itself behind the Local Spiritual
Assembly of some place in South Carolia made all the believers
pay by cashiers check, when the time came for pilgrimage they said
"Oh ... we couldn't get your tickets, will you please pay again by
credit card". As soon as we got back from pilgrimage they filed for
bankruptcy. Thus, instead of $6,000 for a family pilgrimage,
the total came to $14,000 or so. When my father, a businessman
who has not yet declared as a Baha'i, questioned the travel agent
as to what the ^&$#@^ was going on ... she said:
"You don't have enough Faith that Baha'u'llah will deliver the tickets
to you!!"
Now what the %^^&@$ kind of answer is that to a non-Bahai???????
Luckily he has been fair enough to see in perspective the stupidity
of many of the believers he has encountered over the years,
and still respects the grand picture of the Faith and admires
the honest believers he has met.
So, to sum up:
1. Individual Baha'is ... always do your own travel arrangements
with commercial travel agents who cannot hide behind anything and
who know they can have the %^&*(@ sued out of them if they mess
around with you.
2. Institutions ... never let Baha'i travel agents hide behind you.
Where possible let believers do their own travel. Much better to
spend the time and energy on other things rather than arranging such
minute details that the believers can do by themselves.
I have incredible contempt for people who use the name "Baha'i" to
hide behind their commercial untrustworthiness. Let it be said
that one of the early believers who I intend to give a piece of
my mind to in the next world is the moron who told Phoebe Hearst that
Abdul Baha needed her money and then pocketed it all himself and
thus disenfrachised her from the Faith. May the wrath of God eternally
descend upon that idiot.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Shastri Purushotma
An individual Baha'i living in 1996, before the
Lesser Peace!!
From jjensen@welchlink.welch.jhu.eduSat Apr 13 13:05:03 1996
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 12:31:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joan Jensen
To: DEREK COCKSHUT
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Fwd: Scholarship on equality of women
On Fri, 12 Apr 1996, DEREK COCKSHUT wrote:
> I would be personally obliged if the ladies on Talisman posted what
> they require from Men in the Baha'i Community in order to have equality
> a living reality at the grassroots level as well as elsewhere.
In addition to the excellent examples of 'things' women require from men
in the Baha'i community, I would like to see men experience a paradigm
shift. Just as in junior high school when I first read "Black Like Me",
or when I heard about the Baha'i Faith and actually 'got it'.... the
entire creation came into focus in an entirely new way. I have found
that reading certain feminist literature has done this for me on the topic
of gender relations and equity. I am recommending a few books, and those
of you who take this seriously can read these or others while putting into
practice the suggestions that have been offered.
_In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development_
Carol Gilligan, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA, 1982.
_Women and Health in America: Historical Readings_
ed. Judith Walzer Leavitt, The University of Wisconsin Press, 1984
_Women's Ways of Knowing: The Development of Self, Voice, and Mind:
Mary Field Belenky, Blythe McVicker Clinchy, Nancy Rule Goldberger, Jill
Mattuck Tarule. Basic Books (A division of HarperCollins Publishers), 1986.
_Race-ing Justice, En-gendering Power: Essays on Anita Hill, Clarence
Thomas, and the Construction of Social Reality_
Ed. Toni Morrison. Pantheon Books, New York. 1992
Warmly, Joan
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joan Jensen
Baltimore, Maryland USA
*******************************************************************
"...love and affinity are the fruits of a gentle disposition,
a pure nature and praiseworthy character..."
Selected Writings of 'Abdu'l-Baha, p. 287
*******************************************************************
From SBirkland@aol.comSat Apr 13 13:05:43 1996
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 12:54:05 -0400
From: SBirkland@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Response from the Universal House of Justice
To David Langness
David,
After our discussion together in Los Angeles last month I was surprised and
disappointed that you decided to post your letter, dated March 19, 1996 to
the Universal House of Justice, on Talisman and continue to pursue the matter
in this way. My understanding was that you had decided to focus your energy
in another direction and I agreed that this was the most noble and honorable
approach.
I have just recently received a copy of the letter that the Universal House
of Justice sent to the National Spiritual Assembly in response to your letter
and I am aware that a copy has been sent to you. Is it your intention to
post this response in full on Talisman? If you are not planning to post it,
I will request the National Spiritual Assembly for permission to post it
myself.
Stephen Birkland
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 96 11:29 EST
To: "jrcole@umich.edu"
Subject: A private note
Juan, Allah'u' Abha
I hope you are fine and everything is going well with you.
I read with much interest your posting on the NSA subject and I do agree
totally with all of what you said and myself have the tape and listened to it carefully. I can not say anything about it on Talisman because I am afraid of possible retaliation from the Baha'i administration/institution in . . . and that is why I am writing it in private to you.
I wish I could express my deepest sadness toward the Baha'i administration and the way affairs are being handled. It is really sad and sometimes upsetting that as a Baha'i I can not express my sincere concerns even at the 19th day feasts because if I do that (which I did several times) the LSA calls me to their meeting to put me down and intimidate me ! I am very very upset about that.
They do not know how to handle it and do not listen to anyone either . . .
Let me very briefly to mention afew things that has happened here:
1) LSA has rented some spaces of the Baha'i center to a doctors office and
after some time the doctor sued the LSA and won the case and got paid more than $100,000.00 who paid? well LSA, which means you and I (then they announce we need money but do not say where the money goes).
2) Every month about $25000.00 goes to the local fund (contributions and
renting the hall) and only this month $23000.00 expenses. $10,000.00
salaries only !!! almost every month they are short.
3) About 1700 Baha'is more than 21 years old live in LA and only about 300
participate in the election and there are only two way for a change in the membership of the LSA : Death of someone, and leaving the city.
and many more....
But for all of the above there are questions:
1) How many new beivers every year?
2) Did the spirituality of the community grow?
3) Any deepening classes organized by LSA?
Dear Juan, here membership of the Institutions are *position* only and that we they get respect and recognition.
If I say a word they label me as a covenant braker or something like that and that is a shame. We have to live and just blindly obey and that is why that I just recently resined from the membership of a committee which works under the LSA.
Sorry to take you time with this stuff.
From lwalbrid@indiana.eduSat Apr 13 13:27:18 1996
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 12:09:14 -0500 (EST)
From: lwalbrid
To: talisman@majordomo.ucs.indiana.edu
Subject: being honest
Linda (the one who is always soft spoken and demure) feels that she
cannot avoid the discussion of women and their position in the Baha'i
Faith.
First, I want to applaud Milissa, Sandy, and Leigh on their forthright
statements. Sugar coating things only works for a little while. Sooner
or later the sugar wears off and your gagging on the hard to swallow
stuff. In my heart of hearts I don't really care who used the word
"exempt" from the UHJ. I think it is merely a way to make the idea more
palatable. We are excluded. Period. And there are many of us who don't
like it. And it is going to become a bigger problem as time goes on and
the world finds it increasingly acceptable to find women in places of power.
Frankly, I can't imagine how Baha'u'llah living in 19th Century Iran
could have advocated having women on the UHJ. It would have been
unthinkable at that time. It also would have caused so much trouble to
have been unimaginable. The Iranian Baha'is faced a great deal of
persecution, from what I understand, because men and women were
socializing together in Baha'i meetings when they should have been
segregated. While I don't want to overgeneralize, I have seen Iranian
women, mostly in the M.E., who even in the past couple of decades, would
not dare to speak up at an Assembly meeting or Feast for fear of
chastizement from their husbands. (Now, I know there are going to be
blasts at me for this statement. However, I know this for a fact - not
just from observation, but because the women told me of their fears.
Certainly this is not a universal situation, but it is indicative of the
fact that speaking up in public has been a real issue for Iranian women.
I am sure there are plenty of people on the list who will object to my
explaining this law in such specifically sociological terms. However,
why is it that we accept the fact that discrimination against women
occurred in past religions because of social conditions but won't accept
the fact that the Baha'i Faith was founded at a time when women in
Iranian society were living in seclusion? I don't understand the difference.
I have shocked people before by my statements that scripture is only a
small part of religion. REligion is a living phenomenon constantly being
shaped by social forces. The Baha'i Faith is no different in this
regard. If you go to Botswana you are going to find a different
expression of the Baha'i Faith than if you are in the U.S. There are a
few basic ideas that serve as unifying factors, but most of the religion
will be pretty much a cultural phenomenon.
I can't help comparing the situation with the Shi'ites with whom I am
working. These are all people who "live with scripture." Of all
Shi'ites, these are the ones most informed about what the ulama teach and
can quote the great ayatollahs about women's place, her "nature," her
limitations, etc. However, in spite of this I see a changing expectation
for women. Some of receiving college educations. Some are slowly
"coming out" and becoming a little more visible. And, what is most
interesting, I am meeting a lot of men who wish to see their wives and
daughters becoming more educated and informed of the world around them.
The fact that they speak so openly to me and deal with me on such equal
terms confirms my belief that, though they might know what their grand
ayatollahs might say about women's inferior station, the fact is that
they are faced with reality and are responding in intelligent, rational
ways to it. Yes, even the turbaned ones that are supposed to be so
backwards.
My point? Well, I guess it is just plod on. There are very good reasons
for modern women to feel unhappy with being excluded from the UHJ. This
is where major decisions are made. After all, everytime there is any
disagreement on Talisman, there are those who want to run to the UHJ and
ask them to solve the problem. So, we turn to the men - always - to
handle the really big issues, don't we? So, I don't think women need to
shut up about this. There are no scietific reasons to think that women
cannot make rational judgements and be just as logical as men. So, we
can just simply go on saying that "this is the law and it can't be
changed," but I don't see how long that sort of attitude is going to
continue in the modern world.
This is so much longer than I expected. Sorry, folks. If Burl and Derek
would let me on their very secret list, I could post all these ideas into
that vaccuum and you would never have to read this stuff. Linda
>
From burlb@bmi.netSat Apr 13 14:17:56 1996
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 96 11:02 PDT
From: Burl Barer
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Women's Problems
Richard asked:
> What is your response when you visit the home of Baha'i friends for
dinner, when both members of the couple are working fulltime, and the female
has worked all day, prepared dinner, and then gets up to clear the table &
do dishes? Do you follow her into the kitchen to help? Do you follow if her
husband does not?
HA HA HA! Yes, I did follow the wife into the kitchen and offered to help
and was promptly told that in "their culture" (they were not Americans) that
meant that I wanted to have sex with his wife and that I should behave
myself and go back into the other room and smoke a cigar or do something
else masculine like argue politics. So much for attempting to be courteous!
It is always wise to find out, if possible, what is appropriate behaviour
even when one is attempting to be helpfull. As for having sex with his wife
(in the kitchen, no less) the idea had honestly not occured to me -- at
least not until they brought it up -- similar to when Ranger Bob told the
Baha'i youth at Summer School never to toss their towels over the cabin's
support beam and then swing from the towel. The kids had never thought of it
and were thrilled that Ranger Bob had so many clever ideas!
I, however, neither swung from the beam nor in the kitchen.
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 burlb@bmi.netSat Apr 13 14:18:15 1996
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 96 11:03 PDT
From: Burl Barer
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Crimson Ark
Important serious question: why is the ark crimson? What does that color
denote? What does it mean?
Please reply ASAP direct to me if you know the answer.
Thanks!
Burl Barer
*************************************
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 jrcole@umich.eduSat Apr 13 17:48:01 1996
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 14:27:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Bardic Runes
For those Talismanians who enjoy a good Fantasy story, I want to recommend
*Bardic Runes*, a wonderful "little magazine". The subscription is $10
for three issues.
checks should be made out to the editor, our fellow Talismanian Michael
McKenny and sent to:
424 Cambridge Street, S.
Ottawa, ON K1S 4H5
Canada
Bardic Runes has a light touch and much whimsy, and no dark notes.
Number 11 (stand-alone cost, $4), has a short story about the ancient
Persian figures Faridun and the Simurgh by a midwestern Historian who
publishes under the nom de plume of Sean Durward :-)
enjoy!
Juan Cole
From L Sat Apr 13 17:48:28 1996
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 20:30:33 +0200 (MET DST)
From: L
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Fwd: Scholarship on equality of women
>_In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development_
>Carol Gilligan, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA, 1982.
This book has been roundly and deservedly critiqued. Without looking very
hard I have come across about 20 very well written and thorough critiques.
This is not to say that the book does not have its good points. It just
does not have enough good points to have acquired its cult status. For
those of you who are interested, you can begin your independent
investigation with the *Signs* issue that was entirely devoted to critiquing it.
Sincerely,
(Dr.) L
From jjensen@welchlink.welch.jhu.eduSat Apr 13 17:54:06 1996
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 16:11:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joan Jensen
To: Burl Barer
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Breast Feeding
Dear Dr Burl,
Now you have entered an area of interest to me ... breastfeeding.
Indeed, men can lactate, and lactation can be enhanced by the addition of
certain hormones. The only limitation appears to be on the quantity of
milk that men's admittedly smaller amount of breast-tissue can produce.
And I felt, while breastfeeding my infants, a most incredible sense of
unity and love that expanded to include the entire world. Whew!
I do pity men, who cannot experience this joy.
But the point I get from your post is; only through examining both
the differences and similarities between women and men will we learn
enough to ask the right research questions. How else will the reason for
women's exclusion/exemption from serving on the Universal House of
Justice become known, unless we ask the right questions and explore the
implications of similarities and differences in decision-making processes,
for example.
My dissertation research is a tiny step in this direction.
Coincidentally enough, I am examining women's decision-making about
breastfeeding. Why do women make the decision to breastfeed vs formula
feed? Preliminary analysis of the data supports Carol Gilligan's
framework of differences between women's and men's decision-making and
ethical frameworks. Briefly, men perceive things in a hierarchical or
linear arrangement, women as networks of affiliation and connection. Men
weigh things mathematically, one-up and one-down, black or white,
this.... or that; while women consider the impact of any action upon the
entire network of relationships.
If breastfeeding can be considered one of the powerful bonding experiences
of humanity, and healthier for both infant and mother, why don't most women
breastfeed?
Breasts have come to symbolize (in these United States) something sexual
rather than merely practical. As such, when a woman exposes her breasts
in public in order to breastfeed her infant, she is also exposing herself
and her infant to verbal abuse and actual physical danger. Women have
asked me what they are supposed to do if they are at the bus stop
breastfeeding, and a man walks up and begins to make sexually suggestive
remarks ("Hey, baby, how about giving me some?") Her male partner
may also object to her breastfeeding in public, because he does not want
other men to see 'his' partner's breasts. Thus the woman must weigh
the benefit of bonding and improved physical and mental and emotional
development of her infant against the potential harm to herself and
her infant from men, the scorn of some women who have absorbed these
values, and her continuing relationship with her male partner and the
impact THAT relationship will have on her and the infant. Many women
have told me that even if they are no longer involved with their baby's
father, the father himself still wants to be part of the infant's life.
But if she is breastfeeding, how can he take the infant for the weekend
to his house? For this infant, is bonding with its mother and the
value of breastmilk itself enough to compensate with losing the baby's
father and his extended family from involvement in its life?
Women's decision-making on this and other issues is very complex, and
Gilligan has documented in her research similar complex differences
between women's and men's thinking processes. The differences between
men's and women's mental processes that she discusses indicates to ME
that WOMEN would be more 'qualified' than men to serve on all
consultative bodies.
Thus the mystery deepens. What else do we need to find out, what other
questions can we ask, to understand this law?
Warmly, Joan
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joan Jensen
Baltimore, Maryland USA
*******************************************************************
"...love and affinity are the fruits of a gentle disposition,
a pure nature and praiseworthy character..."
Selected Writings of 'Abdu'l-Baha, p. 287
*******************************************************************
From Chris@baha.demon.co.ukSat Apr 13 17:54:48 1996
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 20:03:14 +0100
From: Maggie Manvell
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Unsubscribe
I have been asked by my wife to unsubscribe her from this list. Before
doing so, I would like to make a couple of comments.
Thank-you to Juan Cole and others for some excellent translation (esp.
Ode to the Dove). We will miss these gems and similar insights into
unexplored territory.
Thank-you to those of you who have helped deepen her understanding of
the Writings.
So why are we pulling out?
This group seems to have sunk to the level of the sort of backbiting and
in-fighting that I see in some of the public newsgroups. It seems to be
being used to pass personal banter between individuals which is neither
relevant to the Faith nor of interest to anyone but the individuals
themselves. We see parodying of the Writings in the form of fake
translations, which is, IMO, far from respectful to Baha'u'llah.
That is not to say that there are not very good posts on Talisman, but
they are so hidden among the chaff that she has given up in
exasperation. Her parting comment is "Why aren't these people expending
their time trying to teach the Faith? Why not look outwards instead of
looking inwards?"
Chris Manvell, p.p. Maggie (who is away at the present time).
--
===========================================================================
Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland.
O SON OF BEING! With the hands of power I made thee and with the fingers of
strength I created thee; and within thee have I placed the essence of My
light. Be thou content with it and seek naught else, for My work is perfect
and My command is binding. Question it not, nor have a doubt thereof.
(Baha'u'llah: Arabic Hidden Words, No.12)
From nineteen@onramp.netSat Apr 13 17:55:03 1996
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 96 15:47:52 -0500
From: "Richard C. Logan"
To: Burl Barer , Talisman
Subject: Re: Women's Problems
> HA HA HA! Yes, I did follow the wife into the kitchen and offered to help
>and was promptly told that in "their culture" (they were not Americans) that
>meant that I wanted to have sex with his wife and that I should behave
>myself and go back into the other room and smoke a cigar or do something
>else masculine like argue politics. So much for attempting to be courteous!
At Bosche I remember Sandy Fotos (I believe) describing you as a stud.
So maybe its not simply your American cultural habits that troubled the
poor man.
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 burlb@bmi.netSat Apr 13 17:55:38 1996
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 96 13:50 PDT
From: Burl Barer
To: Joan Jensen
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Breast Feeding
Joan Jensen, affable post-lactate researcher, wrote:
As such, when a woman exposes her breasts
>in public in order to breastfeed her infant, she is also exposing herself
>and her infant to verbal abuse and actual physical danger.
Burl sez:
At the 1974 Hawaii Youth Conference there was a young woman breast feeding
her baby. The young woman was most attractive and it was difficult not to
"stare" be ye male or female. Well, this unnerved some of the Baha'is (the
feeding not the looking) and Mrs. Guardian (ok, Madame Rabbani) was asked to
say something "about that young girl breast feeding." Well, as you can
guess, they didn't tell her what to say and figured that their request that
she "say something" conveyed that they wanted her to chastise her. Their
collective jaw dropped as Madame Rabbani took the stage, the microphone,
called everyone's attention to the young girls exposed breats and the
suckling child and praised her extensively for breast feeding her baby and
had everyone look at her and her child with admiration and a round of
applause. That, as they say, settled that.
Burl (raised on Pet Condensed Evaporated Milk which is about 90% sugar)
*************************************
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!
Visit my new home page: www.bmi.net/outlaw/burl.html
********************
From gladius@portal.caSat Apr 13 17:55:57 1996
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 14:31:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linda de Gonzalez
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Women's Problems
Helping with dishes = sex ??? Far out. I'll have to tell my husband that.
He'll be SO pleased.
Seriously, though, while I understand completely that it might have been
taken amiss in that household for you to do "domestic duties" , were you
able to share your own cultural perspective on this domestic duty with the
family in question? Did you inform them that, in their new country, some of
their assumptions about behavior might not be correct?
It's always amazing to me (okay, I amaze easily) the number of ways in which
humans justify their behavior as being "culturally appropriate" or not. In
that particular family, it is "culturally inappropriate" for a non-family
man to help with the dishes. Here's a truly disgusting example of that kind
of thinking carried too far.
And worse yet, it's a true story.
In 1987 or 88 (okay okay I'll look it up later), a 13-year-old Inuit girl in
Baker Lake, NWT, had sex (we don't know whether or not she consented, you'll
see why later) with 3 young Inuit men, aged 19 to 22. The girl was
"developmentally delayed", and had a mental age of about 6 or 7. The men
were charged with statutory rape, i.e. sex with someone under 14 years of
age. When the case came to court, the 3 young men got 3-month jail
sentences. The reason? The (white) judge (I won't name him publicly, you can
read the NWT Gazette if you want the info) stated that, in the Inuit
culture, girls were "ready" for marriage and sex at a much earlier age, and
that the statutory rape laws that applied to the rest of Canada were
"culturally inappropriate" to the Inuit way of life. You can imagine the
outcry from native women's groups over that.
The only appropriate culture for Baha'is is a culture which supports and
embodies Baha'i principles. If you must change your cultural beliefs for
Baha'i beliefs, well guess what personal transformation is all about. And
(news flash) the consultation will be painful.
Linda de Gonzalez
Gladius Productions
From gladius@portal.caSat Apr 13 17:56:04 1996
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 14:31:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linda de Gonzalez
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Breastfeeding
You *want* to be up half the night with a squirming, squalling, puking baby
chewing on your tender nipples? Be my guest. I'm happy to share this
"spiritual bonding" experience.
Having nursed 3 babies of my own, and a couple of friends' babies while I
was babysitting them, I can tell you that it's tough work. There are nice
bits, after all, you get to sit down or lie down while you are doing this,
and you can sing or read or pray at the same time. Sometimes the baby might
smile at you (in between puking all over your shoulder, biting you, beating
at your breast with tiny fists in an effort to make the milk come down
faster), and you feel warm & fuzzy all over. Then you realize the diaper
leaked!!!
I wish men *would* nurse babies too. I might not have spent 10 years in a
state of sleep deprivation if that were the case.
Linda de Gonzalez
Gladius Productions
From jjensen@welchlink.welch.jhu.eduSat Apr 13 20:54:45 1996
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 18:25:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joan Jensen
To: L
Cc: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Fwd: Scholarship on equality of women
On Sat, 13 Apr 1996, L wrote:
>> _In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development_
>> Carol Gilligan, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA, 1982.
> This book has been roundly and deservedly critiqued.
Dear L,
Its been six years since I delved into the feminist literature. Perhaps
you could recommend some books that reflect more current concerns and
understandings of the similarities and differences between women and men.
Warmly, Joan
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Joan Jensen
Baltimore, Maryland USA
*******************************************************************
"...love and affinity are the fruits of a gentle disposition,
a pure nature and praiseworthy character..."
Selected Writings of 'Abdu'l-Baha, p. 287
*******************************************************************
From sfotos@logosintl.comSat Apr 13 20:55:15 1996
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 07:30:44 +0900 (JST)
From: Sandra Fotos
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Breast Feeding
Dr Burl asks,
>Why are not men encouraged to breast feed babies? Some of you may think
>that men cannot breast feed babies because men are lactose free, sort of
>like Nucoa Margarine, but that is not *always* true. In fact, it is
>documented that men can and have breast fed babies in situations where the
>mother has died and it was imperative that the baby be fed -- "miraculously"
>the male began to lactate and the newborn lived. So...this shows that men
>can breast feed. Why then are we kept from participating in this intense
>bonding with our children?
**********************
It's hard to add to Joan's excellent discussion of breast feeding, but here
is a recent development that Dr. Burl might be interested in:
There are, in fact, "breast feeding packs" for men which enable them to
feed their babies in a simulated nursing manner. The packs are like baby
bottles and contain milk fed to the baby through a nipple but are worn on
the man's chest, are shaped like breasts, and have the feeding nipple in
the position where an actual breast nipple would be.
Several men I know have used this to feed their babies while the mother was
working (she expressed breast milk which was then used to fill the pack)
and these men have an especially close and loving relationship with their
children.
However, this is in Japan--where the breast is not a fetish item and breast
feeding is the norm. How would such a thing go down in the US, a place
where a popular restaurant chain is named "Hooters" and many women feel
they must insert toxic, grapefruit-shaped masses of silicon into their
breasts in order to receive male attention?
(Note: at a women's conference, an Indian psychologist suggested that the
reason why many Americans have a breast obsession is because the generation
born during and after WWII was NOT breast fed!)
While I was in Seattle, Hannah and I discussed gender differences and
agreed that gender should be viewed as a continuum rather than a bipolar
phenomenon. 'Abdu'l-Baha indicates this when he said that this is the day
when women's qualities are more desirable then men's--suggesting that men
also have these feminine qualities within them but need to draw them out
and express them.
In the future, "gender" will no doubt be very different that it is today.
As Sheila Banani suggests, the next Manifestation will clarify those things
that are troubling us at present about the role of women, but even before
then we'll see women at all levels of decision making and technological
institutions and men in the caretaking professions--even as wet nurses!
Best,
Sandy
**********************************
Sandra S. Fotos, Ed.D.
Associate Professor of English
Senshu University
2-1-1 Higashi Mita
Tama-ku, Kawasaki-shi
Kanagawa-ken 214, Japan
***********************************
All that which ye potentially possess can,
however, be manifested only as a result of your
own volition.
Baha'u'llah
************************************
From jjensen@welchlink.welch.jhu.eduSat Apr 13 20:55:31 1996
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 18:50:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joan Jensen
To: Linda de Gonzalez
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Women's Problems/cultural beliefs
Dear Linda,
Thanks for your sad story about the 13-year-old Inuit girl in Baker Lake,
NWT. I think it gives us one illustration of the relative
merits/demerits of holding cultural beliefs inviolate, even when they
violate members of that culture. Female genital mutilation is another
such sad story.
Here's another story, a little lighter, that was shared by the prof in a
class I took a few years ago on tropical environmental health. It seems
that a new type of out-house had been developed that was simple to
construct, odor-free, easy to maintain, and very private (for the
specifications, email me privately and I'll share). Dr. Shiff and
his group wanted to offer them for use in a certain village. He was told
in no uncertain terms that the people of that village would never accept
them, because men and women would NOT share such a facility, and building
two per household was not economically feasible. Well, they found a
family who agreed to let them build one, and soon EVERY household in
the village wanted one. The cultural constraint that men and women could
not eliminate bodily wastes in the same place was found to be irrelevant
to the villagers. You see, it was first formulated to protect the privacy
of individuals, but this new out-house did that effectively AND saved
minutes or hours a day because the individual's didn't have to walk
distances outside the village for the privacy they wanted. What was
thought to be an inviolate 'cultural constraint' to outsiders was easily
reinterpreted by the ones involved, since the underlying rationale was
respected.
Warmly, Joan
------------------------------------------------------------------
Joan Jensen
Baltimore, Maryland USA
*******************************************************************
"...love and affinity are the fruits of a gentle disposition,
a pure nature and praiseworthy character..."
Selected Writings of 'Abdu'l-Baha, p. 287
*******************************************************************
From meghas@sparcom.comSat Apr 13 20:56:29 1996
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 96 08:05 PDT
From: Megha Shyam
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Cc: spurushotma@brahma.hcla.com
Subject: Re: To Future Generations
At , you wrote:
>Dear friends,
>
>As this is a very dynamic Faith and we learn and evolve
>from generation to generation ... I would like to make
>a plea to future generations of Baha'is as they take
>on the many tasks of service to the Faith, both as members
>of Institutions and as individuals, on something
>I feel very passionately about:
>
>Please do not ever, ever, ever wherever possible
>mix travel arrangements for individual Bahai's
>with the work of Institutions of the Faith.
>
>Think about it logically ... why is there a need to??
>For future conferences etc, just assume individual Bahai's
>either have enough frequent flier points or are friendly
>enough with commercial travel agents to figure out their
>own travel arrangements. Also, never, ever allow corrupt
>useless business people to hid behind the name "Baha'i",
>and warn the believers about them.
>
>Both in 1991 and in 1992, on travel teaching trips to
>Siberia (where you would think a "Bahai" travel agent
>would be helpful) our groups were burned by these "Bahai"
>travel agents. In 1993, on a pilgrimage my family was on,
>a "Bahai" run travel agency that hid itself behind the Local Spiritual
>Assembly of some place in South Carolia made all the believers
>pay by cashiers check, when the time came for pilgrimage they said
>"Oh ... we couldn't get your tickets, will you please pay again by
>credit card". As soon as we got back from pilgrimage they filed for
>bankruptcy. Thus, instead of $6,000 for a family pilgrimage,
>the total came to $14,000 or so. When my father, a businessman
>who has not yet declared as a Baha'i, questioned the travel agent
>as to what the ^&$#@^ was going on ... she said:
>"You don't have enough Faith that Baha'u'llah will deliver the tickets
>to you!!"
>
>Now what the %^^&@$ kind of answer is that to a non-Bahai???????
>
>Luckily he has been fair enough to see in perspective the stupidity
>of many of the believers he has encountered over the years,
>and still respects the grand picture of the Faith and admires
>the honest believers he has met.
>
>So, to sum up:
>
>1. Individual Baha'is ... always do your own travel arrangements
>with commercial travel agents who cannot hide behind anything and
>who know they can have the %^&*(@ sued out of them if they mess
>around with you.
>
>2. Institutions ... never let Baha'i travel agents hide behind you.
>Where possible let believers do their own travel. Much better to
>spend the time and energy on other things rather than arranging such
>minute details that the believers can do by themselves.
>
>I have incredible contempt for people who use the name "Baha'i" to
>hide behind their commercial untrustworthiness. Let it be said
>that one of the early believers who I intend to give a piece of
>my mind to in the next world is the moron who told Phoebe Hearst that
>Abdul Baha needed her money and then pocketed it all himself and
>thus disenfrachised her from the Faith. May the wrath of God eternally
>descend upon that idiot.
>
>Thank you.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Shastri Purushotma
>
>An individual Baha'i living in 1996, before the
>Lesser Peace!!
>
>
Dear friends:
The expensive lesson I learnt a long time ago is to deal with arrangements
whether travel, hotels, or any other directly in a upfront business like
manner.
If I sensed any doubts, then my responbse was immediatel; yes I can be
demanding at times, but I was not willing to put up with any sort of
iurregularity.
I wanted full information all the time.
Some of this I guess comes from the many travel agents constantly
recommended to me by east indian friends on any travel to India. Many of
these travel agents were naive or outright crooks with no experience in
international
travel. They get their business by saving you $ 50 from their competition
at the expense
of pretty lousy service. We get sucked in by the $ 50 saving without thinking
of the overall travel experience.
In a similar vain, if baha'is like to go into a business venture together,
believe me, it is
best to spend the $ 300-400 with a lawyer and set up a set of principles
that outline the
nature of the business arrangement. I have seen many a behavior by Baha'is who
took full advantage of as an employee, and many of them had to be involuntarily
terminated. It brought great agony to me as an employer and discredited the
Faith
by their behavior.
While I do not want to be an alarmist, and want to have a basic sense of
trust in people,
my ground rules have been substantially changed by experiences of hiring
Baha'is.
(Over a period of 6 years I hired 11 people - none are working for me now;
best experiences
were with 2; one was my wife who worked for 6 months early in our company's
history
and a second one was an engineer who helped us a great deal for nearly four
years; 4 quit and
moved on, while the rest had to be involuntarily terminated). The largest
turnover in
our employment history is from Baha'is working here. I guess I must be
really a tough
boss!
I share this with the hope that others who are in a position to employ
people keep an eye and
always expect the best from everyone in the organization with no favoritism
shown to Baha'i
employees. That is what keeps your integrity as a Baha'i with the rest of
the employees in the
organization.
Any way I needed to get this off my chest.
Megha Shyam
From a003@lehigh.eduSat Apr 13 20:56:57 1996
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 19:45:43 EDT
From: a003@lehigh.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Science & Religion
Dear Terry,
Your posting all seems to make very much sense to me. Let's see if I've
got it.
Science (reason) is a means to knowledge of *being's* self-revealing.
Revelation is also a means. You equate Science with the masculine,
inquisitive principle and Revelation with the feminine receiving
principle.
In other words, Newton cannot tell us that for every action there is an
opposite and equal reaction without revealing something Divine. On the
other hand, Baha'u'llah cannot reveal that, "the earth is but one country
and mankind it's citizens," without revealing social, and even biological
truth...we are all descended from one woman several thousand years ago.
Three questions:
1. If all scientists are involved with revealing "the
divine", is there something "more divine" than something else?
In drama,
we can see the action of the hero in say,*Field of Dreams*, and recognize
the story is not about baseball. It is about the inner feminine, love of
beauty, spiritual action, in a world of material exigencies, and that this
is the process of spiritualizing our world...But how does this story
compare to that of the martyrdom of Badi? or Baha'u'llah's Revelation. It
is not the story of Baseball that is going to unite mankind.
Is there a parallel in science to that of literature, drama? Many
modern stories have no room for transcendence. They are simply melodramas
heading towards violence or sex. As Jung says, they are not transparent
to transcendence. Is science caught in the same bubble of consciousness?
3. How do we bring the sense of the Divine into that Bubble?
Your Baha'i brother, and hoping you don't mind me asking. I could really use
some help here.
Bill
*-----------------------------------------------------------*
* Phone:610-867-9251 William George *
* Theatre Artist *
* 908 E. 5th. St. *
* Bethlehem, Pa 18015 U.S.A. *
*___________________________________________________________*
From JGalata@aol.comSat Apr 13 20:57:34 1996
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 20:39:34 -0400
From: JGalata@aol.com
To: meghas@sparcom.com, talisman@indiana.edu
Cc: spurushotma@brahma.hcla.com
Subject: Re: To Future Generations
I just read my first Talisman message.. ooooooooo.. I just love honest
passion and passionate honesty!!! Can't wait to read more messages!
Baha'u'llah has stated that He has COME TO EXALT THE LOWLY. When I first
meet a Baha'i I've never met before..Until I see first hand some definitive
sign of an exalted spirit, mind, heart and energy..., I don't give my trust
to that lowly person. Once I see some evidence of humble exaltation... I give
my 100% trust to and in that exalted soul...but if that particular Baha'i
abuses my very precious and valuable sense of trust... back to the LOWLY BIN
they go! That's how I keep healthy and having fun running around within this
intercultural group of exalted lowly souls!
Finally, for all the Baha'is who have been misused by Baha'is regarding
travel... just think of how Baha'is disrespected the esteemed Universal
House of Justice.... That Divine Institution had- to my understanding - pick
up the tab in the $millions for the Baha'is who attended the World Congress
in New York but who didn't pay their own bills...God help any of us whom the
HOUSE deems "back to the lowly bin!"
Joseph Andrejchak Galata
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzSat Apr 13 20:57:51 1996
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 12:57:59 +1200
From: Golden Eagle
To: lwalbrid , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: being honest
Linda wrote:
>First, I want to applaud Milissa, Sandy, and Leigh on their forthright
>statements.
>Frankly, I can't imagine how Baha'u'llah living in 19th Century Iran
>could have advocated having women on the UHJ.
If I were a jockey, I'd be inclined to see the world with bow-legs, and
always dream of horses....
Robert.
From jjensen@welchlink.welch.jhu.eduSun Apr 14 12:42:04 1996
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 21:16:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joan Jensen
To: belove@sover.net
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: finding the Question
Dear Philip,
Your posting on 10 April about group crisis, growth, and framing the
question was very profound. The concepts you shared can be used for the
burning questions in my mind regarding the status of women and world peace,
and differences between women and men.
> Our task is to find The Question.
I speculate it will be difficult if not impossible to find the question,
let alone the answers to the question, until we come much further in
putting into practice in our personal and community lives the teachings
about the equality of women and men. How else will we know which
differences are imposed and which are innate? Which are desirable and
which are a barrier? Until we are obedient in this and other ways,
the truth may remain hidden.
Warmly, Joan
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joan Jensen
Baltimore, Maryland USA
*******************************************************************
"...love and affinity are the fruits of a gentle disposition,
a pure nature and praiseworthy character..."
Selected Writings of 'Abdu'l-Baha, p. 287
*******************************************************************
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzSun Apr 14 12:42:23 1996
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 13:23:24 +1200
From: Golden Eagle
To: l.droege@genie.com, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: women's problems
Dear Leigh,
>Um, Robert?
>Maybe you should go back and read sandy's and Milissa's posts again?
>Carefully?
>Nobody is asking men to solve women's problems;
I read Sandy's letter again, and I find no reason to change my letter...
Further, it seems to me to be old-world sexist to ask men -- because
they're supposed to be implicated in the "crime" (real or imagined) -- to
solve women's problems. I say: if you've got a problem, go figure it out
-- alone or in amicable consultation with others: don't try to solve by
engaging in utterly futile bitterly contested rancorous vindictive
treacherous weak-willed no-win contests. ;-\}
I am sure that men-blamers/haters do find men allies.... and I am very
pleased for them that this is the case... But I am not one of those
allies.
>There are two wings to this bird and if one wing is holding the
>other down we ain't even gonna hop, let alone fly.
We will always find an excuse for not accepting personal responsibility.
Men do that too, y'know... Some birds never gonna fly, no matter what.
Too bad.
R
From berny.munro@stonebow.otago.ac.nzSun Apr 14 12:42:38 1996
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 13:41:06 +1200 (NZST)
From: Berny Munro
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: gender issues
In "Paris Talks" page 161 Abdul-Baha says:
"In some repects women is superior to man. She is more tender-hearted, more
receptive, her intuition is more intense."
In "Dawn of a New Day" page 86 Shoghi Effendi says:
"From the fact that there is no equality of functions between the sexes one
should not, however, infer that either sex is inherently superior or
inferior to the other, or that they are unequal in their rights."
Kia ora koutou
Berny
From jjensen@welchlink.welch.jhu.eduSun Apr 14 12:43:03 1996
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 23:06:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joan Jensen
To: Sandra Fotos
Cc: John Dale <73043.1540@compuserve.com>, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Subjects We Are Not Discussing/Population Theology
Dear John and Sandy,
The public health take on population control is that it is an important
short-term means of addressing many social and economic problems in the
world.
"The combination of the following six factors is important in
effectively reducing the birth rate: broad-based primary education,
in increase in the income level, improved nutrition, a decline in
infant mortality, a rise in the social position of women, and
decisive governmental action in population policies."
Dr. Saburo Okita
Salas Memorial Lecture, 1988 (quoted in _Health
Research: Essential Link to Equity in Development_)
Except for the last, these are all factors that are implicitly or
explicitly supported by the Writings, and things we can all involve
ourselves in locally and internationally.
Sandy's summary of the situation in economically prosperous nations
is most important.
> Education and population:
> Generally, as education rises, the birthrate falls. This is a combination
> of decreased infant mortality caused by better medical attention, diet,
> etc. plus the entry by women into the work force. Demographics
> was continually on the agenda--when women could read, had health and
> dietary knowledge and access to primary care facilities, birth rates
> dropped, survival rates climbed and remarkable grassroots efforts were
> made to establish schools. Educating the women seemed to be the key to
> all types of economic and social transformation.
In fact, some of the more economically prosperous nations in the world can
only rise to zero populations growth through immigration! The birth rates
alone in those countries is unsufficient to maintain the population at
its current level, despite serious legislative and economic incentives
put in place by the governments to encourage the birth rate.
Thus, when we achieve what Baha'u'llah has directed us to do in our
social development, over-population will not be the problem that
currently overwhelms many of the places of the world.
Pretty fascinating, huh?
Joan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joan Jensen
Baltimore, Maryland USA
*******************************************************************
"...love and affinity are the fruits of a gentle disposition,
a pure nature and praiseworthy character..."
Selected Writings of 'Abdu'l-Baha, p. 287
*******************************************************************
From jjensen@welchlink.welch.jhu.eduSun Apr 14 12:43:12 1996
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 23:23:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joan Jensen
To: l.droege@genie.com
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: women's problems
Dear Leigh,
> There are two wings to this bird and if one wing is holding the
> other down we ain't even gonna hop, let alone fly.
Good point. 'Abdu'l-Baha said:
"When men own the equality of women there will be no need
for them to struggle for their rights!" (PT, p. 167)
What can men do to own the equality of women?
Warmly, Joan
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joan Jensen
Baltimore, Maryland USA
*******************************************************************
"...love and affinity are the fruits of a gentle disposition,
a pure nature and praiseworthy character..."
Selected Writings of 'Abdu'l-Baha, p. 287
*******************************************************************
From Alethinos@aol.comSun Apr 14 12:43:31 1996
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 23:26:16 -0400
From: Alethinos@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Unsubscribe: Now here's a novel thought . . .Women & UHJ
In a message dated 96-04-13 16:34:01 EDT, you write:
>That is not to say that there are not very good posts on Talisman, but
>they are so hidden among the chaff that she has given up in
>exasperation. Her parting comment is "Why aren't these people expending
>their time trying to teach the Faith? Why not look outwards instead of
>looking inwards?"
>
>
>Chris Manvell, p.p. Maggie (who is away at the present time).
What a genuine post. And thanks Linda for once again bringing the whole issue
down from its lofty position up on the mole hill down into the valley of
pathetic, boring rehash of rehashed late 20th century American (white
suburban) women's groaning. God forbid we should try to get past something we
are unable to do a damn thing about, (at least at this time) and GASP! an
even more horrible thought of perhaps at the very least asking ourselves if
we are approaching this *issue* from a completely wrong perspective. Once
again Linda dear you have provided ample evidence of being a scholar still
locked, vice-like - into your own axiology and unable (unwilling) to break
out of its comfortable mesocosmic warmth.
Oh, I'm sorry couch Friberg, I sort of jumped in there without checking in
with you.
When will we move on from this issue-that-is-not-in-our-hands?????? And begin
doing something about those issues that are???
jim harrison
Alethinos@aol.com
From l.droege@genie.comSun Apr 14 12:43:43 1996
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 96 03:38:00 UTC 0000
From: l.droege@genie.com
To: nineteen@onramp.net
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: women's problems
Richard (and all),
My apologies. This issue is one of my "hot buttons," and I tend to
get a bit, er, intemperate. My perception may indeed be mistaken;
in fact I hope it is, since I have great respect for many members
of Talisman. We shall see.
Leigh
From sfotos@logosintl.comSun Apr 14 12:44:19 1996
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 13:41:41 +0900 (JST)
From: Sandra Fotos
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: women's problems: this is how it works
Dear Talismans,
During the past few hours, many women who are usually silent on this list
have had a voice. They are asking very important questions and clarifying
their understanding of the role of women in this dispensation. They are
asking how to approach aspects of their beloved Faith so that when the time
comes, and they are standing on the line defending the Blessed Beauty, they
can represent the teachings of the Most Sacred Being ever to walk on this
planet.
The issues are real. The voices are real. The need for answers is real.
In response to their moderate and tentative questions has come verbal abuse
of frightening severity, vicious language directed at people by name.
This is how it works--minorities trying to be heard and when they are, the
abuse comes down. This is how people are silenced.
I take exception to personal abusive attacks against any members of this
list when they are, in good faith, trying to explore issues which are
important to them and are seeking, in consultative fashion, the opinions
and advice of other members.
If some list members see this exploration as threatening, irrelevant, or
uninteresting, they are free to hit the delete button when they see the
subject header or the name of the poster.
The negative remarks made about Linda's socio-historical interpretation of
some of the Writings pertaining to women (giving me and others a useful
handle for explaining those Writings to educated and sceptical seekers)
were saddening and unnecessary.
Sandy
**********************************
Sandra S. Fotos, Ed.D.
Associate Professor of English
Senshu University
2-1-1 Higashi Mita
Tama-ku, Kawasaki-shi
Kanagawa-ken 214, Japan
***********************************
All that which ye potentially possess can,
however, be manifested only as a result of your
own volition.
Baha'u'llah
************************************
From gladius@portal.caSun Apr 14 12:53:00 1996
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 22:17:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linda de Gonzalez
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Unsubscribe
Jim Harrison says:
> Once again Linda dear you have provided ample evidence of being a scholar
still
>locked, vice-like - into your own axiology and unable (unwilling) to break
>out of its comfortable mesocosmic warmth
What the heck???? I'm a *receptionist* at a psychiatric clinic. I am not a
scholar.
Furthermore, what the heck is "axiology"??? Is this where I get to take my
trusty axe to Talizenic heads? And yet further more and again, "mesocosmic"???
I never got past Paleozoic.
Sheesh. First Arthur, now they think I actually , like, know something.
Once and for all, it wasn't me, I wasn't here, you can't prove a thing, it
was my evil twin sister. Now can I sleep?
Linda de Gonzalez
Gladius Productions
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comSun Apr 14 12:53:29 1996
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 22:54:22 -0700
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Fwd: women's problems: this is how it works,
Dear Talismans,
During the past few hours, many women who are usually silent on this
list
have had a voice. They are asking very important questions and
clarifying
their understanding of the role of women in this dispensation. They are
asking how to approach aspects of their beloved Faith so that when the
time
comes, and they are standing on the line defending the Blessed Beauty,
they
can represent the teachings of the Most Sacred Being ever to walk on
this
planet.
The issues are real. The voices are real. The need for answers is real.
In response to their moderate and tentative questions has come verbal
abuse
of frightening severity, vicious language directed at people by name.
This is how it works--minorities trying to be heard and when they are,
the
abuse comes down. This is how people are silenced.
I take exception to personal abusive attacks against any members of
this
list when they are, in good faith, trying to explore issues which are
important to them and are seeking, in consultative fashion, the
opinions
and advice of other members.
If some list members see this exploration as threatening, irrelevant,
or
uninteresting, they are free to hit the delete button when they see the
subject header or the name of the poster.
The negative remarks made about Linda's socio-historical interpretation
of
some of the Writings pertaining to women (giving me and others a useful
handle for explaining those Writings to educated and sceptical seekers)
were saddening and unnecessary.
Sandy
My dear Sandy
I have noticed the unusual number of postings from the Ladies on the
esteemed Talisman list, I for one believe the Men should listen and
maybe we all both genders can learn a little .By the way the major
complaint women always have: is that men refuse to listen when a woman
has a serious or important point to make.So Gentlemen we might want to
be non-gender typical for once.
Kindest Regards
Derek Cockshut
From gladius@portal.caSun Apr 14 12:53:54 1996
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 00:20:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linda de Gonzalez
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re:Re: Women's Problems
On April 13, 1996, "Richard C. Logan" wrote:
>I cannot say I am free of sin....
The whole concept of sin has been abrogated by Baha'u'llah. The point is not
what you have chosen as a course of action in the past. The point is what
you will choose in the future. Or were you being sarcastic??? I couldn't
tell, so I decided to take you seriously.
>My spiritual mother told me that men should step back and support women
Well, she gave you rotten advice. Stand FORWARD and support women.
Linda de Gonzalez
Gladius Productions
From Alethinos@aol.comSun Apr 14 12:54:29 1996
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 03:47:14 -0400
From: Alethinos@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: This will be a tough one to take sitting down (or standing)
I certainly have listened and will continue to women and the problems they
see. I will listen to any human, man or women that speaks with a sincere
heart.
But friends we are wasting valuable time on a situation we can do absolutely
nothing about - not one thing.
And I will remind all here, for the hundreth time, that the accusation
against all the "horrible men" who are supposedly arguing "against" women
being on the UHJ is baseless and either results from a lack of careful
reading or worse calculated misrepresentation on a part of a few.
I, for my part, as well as a number of others have actually been falsely
accused of not wanting women to serve on the UHJ. Find me, at least in any of
my posts, where I have come even remotely close to suggesting this. Please. I
would like to read those words.
You can save yourselves the efforts. You will not find any. What this
*argument* (which is surely what it has become) is about is twofold. The
first is this: we literally do not know the reason for the exclusion of women
- that is if we believe the Master, the Guardian and the UHJ itself. We have
been told that eventually it will become apparent why the exclusion exists.
We have been told, in no uncertain terms by the UHJ that this is THE answer
on the issue. Period. Fine'. We were not asked if that would meet with our
apporval. That is just as it is. And the choice here is quite clear.
And what has been said, when various complaints were made initially, was that
unless one wishes essentially to challenge the UHJ and insist that it is
wrong then we have no alternative, as far as we can see at this time in our
history, but to accept it and go on. So it is a non-issue. An issue is
something that can be dealt with. Within the framework of what it means to be
a Baha'i the matter is settled.
With regard to seekers. To be pefectly honest, if any seeker, man or women is
going to hinge their acceptence of Baha'u'llah on what is, in this era,
essentially a socio-political issue of equality and power (AND PLEASE note
that I am NOT saying here that equality of women and men is not a moral
issue; rather that in this day, with the confusion that reins, a day when all
sense of moral balance and harmony are banished the question of equality has
been turned into one of, essentially,of materialistic concern) - if any
seeker were to rest their entire spiritual future on such a thing, well then,
I could only assume that they still have a long way to go. The Jews had some
real problems with Christ turning aside the Laws. They could not get past
their sad little litmus tests.
The real issue, and it is indeed an issue here at least, is the underlying
*questioning* of the fundamental nature of the Cause on one hand and the
Administrative Order on the other.
I see two very distinct groups, which until now have not been clearly
seperated. The first are those folk, men and women, truly concerned, confused
and angry over this question of women and the UHJ. They have had questions
for years, found things difficult on teaching etc. I have never dismissed the
concern or question irrelevent.
But I have pleaded that we not continue to take up bandwidth here to rehash
it. Two reasons. One, there are more critical issues facing _all_ of us right
now, esp. in America.
The second is that this issue plays into the hands of some who have done
nothing of positive note in moving the Cause forward since I have been here.
They tear into the senior institutions (whom God knows lack serious maturity,
at least here in the States) but their solutions, those that they offer carry
an explicit message that the fundamental nature of Baha'u'llah's Cause is
flawed. They have repeated their denounciations, castigations and
accustations while ignoring all suggestions that might offer solutions that
do not match their apparent agenda. Over and over and over they beat their
chests and cry out that they are the persecuted. Over and over and over they
point fingers, give velied hints about what they have heard but are not
allowed (on pain of cyber-death or worse) to speak of. And even though a good
number of their assesments match up with ones made by others, they will
refuse to actually come together to discover a solution. They are committed
to wailing and slinging terms such as *fascist* at whoever may disagree with
them.
In short they seem to have little or no regard for the Cause of God in
America. They have a personal score to settle. And they will choose any issue
that will cause the most heated emotions. I have yet to see them turn from
their course and truly investigate other avenues of achieving a healthy
community. They dismiss America's spiritual destiny with sniffs of disdain.
They scoff at the notion that they problems we face are due to a lack of
maturity. They rail against those who, quoting the Guardian himself, suggest
that the Administrative Order, let alone the Cause is not merely some cobbled
together, pathetic, late 19th century Persian Constitutional movement. They
scream Fascist!! all over again if it is argued that the Faith in America is
not destined to be some
"one-size-fits-all-liberal-democratic-doesn't-needs-ironing-won't-fade"
religion.
Are these folk covenant-breakers. I sure don't think they are. Not even
close. I have dealt with a good number of CB's and these folks don't fit the
bill. What I think is that they are old warriors who have become terribly
embittered. I think they are blinded by it. I think they struggled mightly,
each in their own way to awaken the American Baha'i Community and failed. Not
for lack of trying, but because of forces arrayed against them that no one
person, or small band could likely overcome. And I think they are stuck.
That is the only reason I stay on Talisman. I have been looking for old
warriors and new for a while now. Talisman has a big concentration of old and
new. But I have esp. been trying to reach the old ones. Because they know how
to fight. They've been there. So have I. There are many battles to be fought.
Many fronts, many skills and talents needed. But there is only one War. And
in this country at least our forces are small, scattered and terribly
depressed. We cannot win this way. Some would like to believe that this war
is far into the future. But it isn't. It is right here, right now. We are all
growing old and dying as it rages silently around us.
I know this is long. And I am tired tonight. Some dear lady suggested priv.
in a post that I am angry and growing angrier. Nothing could be further from
the truth. I have never been angry with this list, even when some have said
some terribly nasty things, publically and privately. I have punched back
hard, if only to shake things up and open a way to real discourse. Some have
suggested, (well ok more than just some) that a more *moderate* tone gathers
listeners. I have found that to be mostly untrue. I have seen brilliant
examinations of the issues above given by Kevin Haines (for example) and they
have been virtually ignored. He indeed might have said the exact same thing I
said, on the same night even. And yet I will rec. 20 responses either in
praise or blame to his 1. So you go with whatever works. Here the ends
justify a few squashed egos.
The storm is rising fast . . .
jim harrison
Alethinos@aol.com
But I am anxious. We have so much to do.
From burlb@bmi.netSun Apr 14 12:54:51 1996
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 96 01:15 PDT
From: Burl Barer
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Hark! The Arc!
Before I slip into unconsciousness
I would like to have another kiss
It was wonderful. The Clara Dunn Arc Crusade Campaign of Glorious Privilige
right here in Walla Walla, WA where Clara became a Baha'i oh-so-many years
ago before she became a Hand of the Cause.
Jack McCants of our beloved National Spiritual Assembly spoke quite on
target and he was thrilled to get an autographed copy of MAN OVERBOARD; Mark
Ravandahsk (spelling?) represented Arc Designs International and showed
spiffy slides; Gretchen Hewitt performed several numbers including the
composition that was such a big hit at the King Center observance of MLK's
Birthday. A splendid time was had by all and we raised money for the Arc.
NOW we still have some wonderful hand made roses, each adorned with the
name of one of the Baha'i martyrs in Iran since 1978.. You can have one
(rose, not a martyr) for your donation to the Arc via our Campaign.
Baha'i Fund
po box 2016
Walla Walla, WA
99362 USA
Please say that your donation is for a rose. Let us know if you want us to
send you the rose (include postage :-))
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!
Visit my new home page: www.bmi.net/outlaw/burl.html
********************
From gladius@portal.caSun Apr 14 12:55:12 1996
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 01:54:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linda de Gonzalez
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: This Will Be Tough
Hey, wait a sec. Wasn't it specified in the first post of this thread
(Milissa's) that this was NOT about wimminontheUHJ???
So far the only stuff I've read on this go-round about women on the UHJ has
been from men (except for a passing comment). So whose concern is it?
Maybe you are tired (4:00 a.m.???), and that is why you are over-reacting.
This is EXPLORATION of NEW IDEAS about EQUALITY. We know that we don't know
what equality is, in the sense meant by the new Revelation.
Absolutely it's about power: the power to speak, the power to vote, the
power to make a difference. Sorry, but that's not the Satan of American
materialism. It's the power of the soul working in and through a human body,
no matter it's color, no matter it's gender, no matter it's marital status.
Wanna hear some OLD ideas about equality??? Well, here's one: it's okay for
blacks to have separate schools, restaurants, & other facilities. Of course,
they're equal. They're just different. More rhythm, you know? And they don't
speak very good English, generally. And after all that fried chicken, I'm
sure it's affected their DNA or something. That's probably why they're so
good at basketball. They're different, but equal. And so they should have
different stuff from the rest of white North Americans.
Get some sleep, man. This whole thread is something new. I don't care about
wimminontheUHJ, because I'm desperately trying to get 8 or 10 Persian women
to speak at consultation during Feasts: a much more immediate and pressing
concern to our small community than the membership of the UHJ.
And thanks, Linda Walbridge, for your input about chastisement from
husbands: what would they be chastised about? Just speaking, and therefore
bringing attention to themselves? Or would the content be subject to
chastising as well?? I had suspected that some such dynamic might be going
on, but didn't want to believe it.
>The real issue, and it is indeed an issue here at least, is the underlying
*questioning* of the fundamental nature of the Cause on one hand and the
Administrative Order on the other.
I don't think so. What is being questioned on my part (and I believe on the
part of the other women participating--at last!--in this conversation) is
HOW to express the fundamental nature of equality that the Cause enjoins on
us as believers. What is it? What does it look like? What does it not look
like? What do the Writings say about equality that can offer guidance? The
fact that I don't like some of what is there is obviously not sufficient
for me to have left the Cause--I'm still here and kicking after 26 years.
And as far as "embittered old warriors", hey, you sound like one. Just don't
presume for one moment that I am another.
Linda de Gonzalez
Gladius Productions
From a003@lehigh.eduSun Apr 14 12:55:44 1996
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 07:49:04 EDT
From: a003@lehigh.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Women's Problems
Dear Sandy, Linda, Linda, Joan, Melissa, Roxanne, et al.,
I am so happy to be hearing your voices raised on this subject. I've held
off saying something because, like Derek, I wanted to listen. The recent
stinging comments from some quarter, I try not to pay too much attention,
have stimulated me to say please don't back off.
I know this doesn't have anything to do, on the whole, with the male
membership of the Universal House of Justice, and I realize some things
are said that perhaps are not totally fair or true, but please don't stop.
I realize also that "women's point of view" is not monolithic, and I look
forward to the development of the major issues into various differing
perspectives. I have questions I'd like to pursue, but at this point
would prefer to see how this develops.
It is stimulating excellent conversations between my wife, my daughter,
and myself (my 14 year old daughter has decided that the House of Justice
is all male because we are going to be invaded by space aliens sometime
within the next thousand years and they are going to attack the House.
But, because they are all genetically y-cromosomed they will be impervious
to the aliens devious machinations and the earth will be saved!). I must
also say I was more moved by her simple statement that, "that the House of
Justice is all male really hurts my feelings and my sense of who I am."
more than any intellectual argument...(but this isn't about whether the
House should be all male or not.)
But, speaking of houses, I've got to clean this one before Baha'i Class
here this morning...
Please accept my warmest support and enthusiastic
encouragement in speaking your mind in this electronic forum.
And to those men who criticize, please forbear.
I need this information. We need to hear it.
With Baha'i Love,
Bill
*-----------------------------------------------------------*
* Phone:610-867-9251 William George *
* Theatre Artist *
* 908 E. 5th. St. *
* Bethlehem, Pa 18015 U.S.A. *
*___________________________________________________________*
From l.droege@genie.comSun Apr 14 12:59:02 1996
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 96 13:13:00 UTC 0000
From: l.droege@genie.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: RE: RE: Women's Problems...
Jim and Robert J.,
You are both missing the point.
You are both trying to take over and shut down an important discussion.
Please Shut Up!!!
Leigh
From jjensen@welchlink.welch.jhu.eduSun Apr 14 12:59:25 1996
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 09:43:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joan Jensen
To: a003@lehigh.edu
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Women's Problems
Dear Bill,
> I've held off saying something because, like Derek, I wanted to listen.
Listening carefully is very important, and I really appreciate the
focused attention you are giving to the topic. In addition, I would be
grateful if this became CONSULTATION among both men and women. In John
Kolstoe's book on Consultation (p. 9) he summarizes four features of
consultation in this way:
"Baha'i consultation can be defined as a process for producing
a change in order to accomplish some definite purpose. This
involves a sharing and interaction of thoughts and feelings in
a spirit of love and harmony."
> I have questions I'd like to pursue, but at this point would prefer
> to see how this develops.
I suggest that this development will be nurtured and further thoughts
will be stimulated if you share your questions, outlook and experiences
right away, as they come to mind. Just as you shared the perspective
of your 14 year old daughter, I would love to hear parts of the
"excellent conversations" and ideas generated in your home on this topic.
Warmly, Joan
------------------------------------------------------------------
Joan Jensen
Baltimore, Maryland USA
*******************************************************************
"...love and affinity are the fruits of a gentle disposition,
a pure nature and praiseworthy character..."
Selected Writings of 'Abdu'l-Baha, p. 287
*******************************************************************
From jjensen@welchlink.welch.jhu.eduSun Apr 14 13:00:06 1996
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 10:08:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joan Jensen
To: lwalbrid
Cc: talisman@majordomo.ucs.indiana.edu
Subject: Re: being honest
Dear Linda,
You pointed out:
> The Iranian Baha'is faced a great deal of persecution, from what I
> understand, because men and women were socializing together in Baha'i
> meetings when they should have been segregated.
This reminds me of something an Iranian friend told me in 1974. He said
that when he learned I was a Baha'i his first thought was, "That can't be
possible, she's not like that!" When I asked him what 'like that' meant,
he shyly said that 'everyone' in his town knew that Baha'i women were
sexually loose women, and/or prostitutes. Thus, these ideas have not
abated 100 years later.
> While I don't want to overgeneralize, I have seen Iranian women, mostly
> in the M.E., who even in the past couple of decades, would not dare to
> speak up at an Assembly meeting or Feast for fear of chastisement from
> their husbands.
I know that this may be hard to believe, but I too have sometimes not
dared to speak up at an Assembly meeting or Feast for fear of
chastisement from my (ex) husband. He didn't like people to think that
I knew more than him, unless it was a topic traditionally considered
women's domain. However, if I was somehow able to weave comments into
the consultation that gave him credit for the genesis or development of
the idea, it became acceptable to him.
"Women may know their oppression but choose not to speak
out about it, judging the risk to be too great. They may
do nothing or, operating stealthily in the interstices of
power, they may resist through devious ways of speaking or
acting." (Emily Martin, _The Woman in the Body_, p. 182)
Warmly, Joan
------------------------------------------------------------------
Joan Jensen
Baltimore, Maryland USA
*******************************************************************
"...love and affinity are the fruits of a gentle disposition,
a pure nature and praiseworthy character..."
Selected Writings of 'Abdu'l -Baha, p. 287
*******************************************************************
From jjensen@welchlink.welch.jhu.eduSun Apr 14 13:00:53 1996
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 10:35:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joan Jensen
To: DEREK COCKSHUT
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: women's problems: this is how it works,
Dear Sandy and Derek,
Your comments brought to mind a passage discussing the relationship
between class position and consciousness.
Sandy Fotos wrote:
> This is how it works--minorities trying to be heard and when they are,
> the abuse comes down. This is how people are silenced.
Derek Cockshut replied:
> ... the major complaint women always have: is that men refuse to
> listen when a woman has a serious or important point to make.
"Because their class position insulates them from the
suffering of the oppressed, many members of the ruling
class are likely to be convinced by their own ideology;
either they fail to perceive the suffering of the oppressed
or they believe that it if freely chosen, deserved or
inevitable. They experience the current organization of
society as basically satisfactory and so they accept the
interpretation of reality that justifies that system of
organization... Oppressed groups, by contrast, suffer
directly from the system that oppresses them. Sometimes
the ruling ideology succeeds in duping them into partial
denial of their pain or into accepting it temporarily but
the pervasiveness, intensity and relentlessness of their
suffering constantly push oppressed groups toward a
realization that something is wrong with the prevailing
social order. Their pain provides them with a motivation
for finding out what is wrong, for criticising accepted
interpretations of reality and for developing new and less
distorted ways of understanding the world."
(Alison Jaggar, _Feminist Politics and Human Nuture_ 1983)
(pp. 370-371)
Examples of things wrong with the prevailing social order? Academic and
professional careers that do not flexibly accomodate family/social events
such as birth or adoption of a child, illness or death in the family, the
need to integrate further education to enhance one's ability to serve.
It is the exception rather than the rule to have inexpensive quality child
care available in a community for people who work or go to school.
Closer to home, how many men in this group have taught children's classes
within their Baha'i community or at summer schools, or regularly organized
events for the children at Feast? I have seen children GLOW when they
received focused attention from their male Baha'i teacher, perhaps
because this kind of attention from men in the community is so rare.
Joan
------------------------------------------------------------------
Joan Jensen
Baltimore, Maryland USA
*******************************************************************
"...love and affinity are the fruits of a gentle disposition,
a pure nature and praiseworthy character..."
Selected Writings of 'Abdu'l-Baha, p. 287
*******************************************************************
From nineteen@onramp.netSun Apr 14 13:01:07 1996
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 96 09:47:38 -0500
From: "Richard C. Logan"
To: Linda de Gonzalez , Talisman
Subject: Re:Re: Women's Problems
>Or were you being sarcastic??? I couldn't
>tell, so I decided to take you seriously.
>
>>My spiritual mother told me that men should step back and support women
I'm sorry you feel that way. I would never want to hurt you. I believe
Linda W. will tell you that I am a sincere person, though I cannot say
she will vouch for me, but I know my wife will most strongly.
It is very difficult to have gender issues discussed without people
getting the wrong idea. It would be nice if we could be patient with
each other despite how ignorant one might appear. The idea that there is
a time that men should be yelled at, may be just, but I do not know if it
is wise. I TRY to conduct myself as a gentle, Loving, understanding,
masculine figure. I have no idea if that is offensive or not.
As far as sin goes--I take sin to mean a transgression--and I was
admitting that I am a transgressor in the respects you mention--but on
the other hand, my wife is not interested in if I do the dishes, and
anyway our children should be doing those. But as to the fair
distribution of duties in the home I do feel that is dependent on the
wishes of individual familys--I do all the cooking.
I try to comply with my wifes requests and see to her emotional and
spiritual as well as material needs. The Baha'i women of my community
(who outnumber the men 2 to 1) I try to treat with love and
encouragement.
I have always felt that members of this list should speak forthrightly,
if that be their desire. I do not believe a persons integrity should be
challenged because that leads to contention and hurt feelings.
This should make another amusing episode for Derek to satirize me in.
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 jjensen@welchlink.welch.jhu.eduSun Apr 14 13:01:29 1996
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 11:16:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joan Jensen
To: Linda de Gonzalez
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re:Re: Women's Problems
Dear Linda (de Gonzalez),
> Stand FORWARD and support women.
This reminds me of a precious acknowledgement from John Woodall at the
New York (Solomon B. Hilton Baha'i Summer School). He spoke briefly
about how the long-suffering and patience of women in preserving
marriages (for example) has been ignored, or reduced to something
scornful ('women who love too much'). Then he read the following passage
from 'Abdu'l-Baha:
"Ere long the days shall come when the men addressing the women,
shall say: 'Blessed are ye! Blessed are ye! Ye are worthy of
every gift. Verily ye deserve to adorn your heads with the
crown of everlasting glory, because in science and arts, in
virtues and perfections ye shall become equal to man, and as
regards tenderness of heart and the abundance of mercy and
sympathy ye are superior.' (PT, p. 182-184)
And finally he asked all the men in the room to give a standing ovation
to the women present and absent. Even thinking about his public
acknowledgement, this symbol of respect for the suffering and work of
women, brings tears to my eyes. Like any symbol, its power to transform
the actions of the people who were present may be difficult to measure.
But it is an example of an attitude of joyful celebration and a
recognition of the individuals or groups whose contributions and
special perspectives enrich our lives.
Warmly, Joan
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joan Jensen
Baltimore, Maryland USA
*******************************************************************
"...love and affinity are the fruits of a gentle disposition,
a pure nature and praiseworthy character..."
Selected Writings of 'Abdu'l-Baha, p. 287
*******************************************************************
From lwalbrid@indiana.eduSun Apr 14 13:20:00 1996
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 11:50:57 -0500 (EST)
From: lwalbrid
To: talisman@majordomo.ucs.indiana.edu
Subject: defending some friends
First, I must say that I can't imagine that Jim Harrison was attacking
you, Linda Gonzalez. It had to have been me. I was about due my weekly
MDR of bile from Jim. But it is all right. I don't mind at all. Jim's
postings keep the adrenaline up which is something I require for
survival. I am much indebted.
I now must defend two gentlemen on Talisman. First, I testify that
Richard Logan is a very sincere person. Absolutely and without a doubt.
Second, the "Student" Dr. Burl who is a gentlemen par excellence and
whose virtue I should certainly defend did not make a mistake, in my
opinion, by bowing politely out of the kitchen without lecturing his
hosts on male/female relations. There is a huge difference between a
woman retiring to the kitchen to clean up and a young girl being raped.
Really, some balance is needed here. While I would certainly object to
seeing a woman in any society being abused, I do not think it is any of
my business to tell people how to run their lives in general. There are
plenty of women who would much prefer seeing their husbands doing just
about anything other than plunging their hands in the dish water - and
they aren't just from Eastern cultures. Many couples do extremely well
by having sharp divisions of labor. In fact, there is evidence out now
that in Scandanavian countries there is a great deal of boredom being
expressed in relationships because men and women are doing the same
things. So, please, let us not equate male/female equality with cleaning
up after meals. Such relationships are complex. Imposing our
"enlightened" views might be the worst thing that do for others.
Bill, your question about re: Baha'u'llah and the exclusion of women
from the UHJ is an excellent on - and I have no answer to that question.
I guess my sense of the situation is that it would have seemed so far
fetched at the time. While in the late nineteenth century M.E. ideas of
women becoming educated were certainly floating around, the idea that
women would be public leaders was not an issue to my knowledge.
Joan, I think of Tahireh's unveiling as symbolic of breaking with Islamic
law rather than a statement about women's liberation. I can't help
thinking that we in the west have imposed a lot of unjustifiable ideas
onto the image of Tahireh. While this act would have been a statement
about ridding religion of many of its trappings - ritual purity,
attention to miniscule, often silly ideas about what is permissable and
what is not - I don't know if we can leap to the notion that allowing
women to serve on a governing body would have been a logical next step.
I guess I am among those who believe that, if the Baha'i Faith is going
to remain relevant to the times in which we live, we are going to have to
have flexibility and stick with underlying principles, such as the
harmony of science and religion and the equality of men and women. If we
stick to particular, narrow rulings, then we will not have this
flexibility that will be increasingly needed in the future.
Linda Walbridge
From Alethinos@aol.comSun Apr 14 13:28:11 1996
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 13:23:10 -0400
From: Alethinos@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: This Will Be Tough
Actually Linda G, (and I am sorry if this causes a moment of embarrassment) I
was never really writing in response to your posts. I thought they were
interesting, but I was focusing on others. I am sorry if it seemed I was.
Now, do you need help off of YOUR high horse??
jim harrison
Alethinos@aol.com
From Alethinos@aol.comSun Apr 14 13:50:08 1996
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 13:23:12 -0400
From: Alethinos@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Suggestions for R & R and this mess over here
Good lord that is the last time I am going use the phrase "I'm tired" in a
post! I was talking figuratively people. I am not really tired! I work out
four times a week I eat . . . oh never mind.
What is more disturbing is this. The assumption that I, for my part, want to
silence women. Get a grip folks, read the damn posts! It is not about
silencing women. Didn't that come through the last post? In any of the posts
where I have mentioned names, I have only once referred to a women, my dearly
beloved vixen-wannabe (according to Burl and Derek) Linda WALBRIDGE, (did you
catch that Linda G.) All the other folk that I have either responded to or
mentioned were MEN, HELLLLOOOOO!
And it was not about exploring the difficult issue of WHY women are not on
the UHJ but RATHER the accusations that it was a plot, design, cabal by
fiendish sexist old men up on the hill, in league with all the other
card-carrying testosterone pumped humaniod bodies round the globe. AND there
were actually other MEN who were saying the same thing. All of which WAS
ignored as accusations did begin to approach hurlige speed that here again
men were trying to IN GENERAL silence women because of some gene that men
possessed and women didn't blah-de-damn-blah-blah.
I would have been, still am interested in exploring the question of why women
are excluded. It would be a interesting day or two of imaginative yet
essentally fruitless intellectual probing, but we could kick some good ideas
around. None of them would really count, we couldn't offer it really to
seekers as "Well here is the REAL reason Mary, although of course this is not
OFFICIALLY recognized by the UHJ, etc."
WARNING: THIS NEXT PARAGRAPH IS THE MAIN POINT. PLEASE IGNORE IT AND SKIP TO
THE END *********
The main issue has been the assumptions, presented almost entirely by MEN
that the Cause/Administrative Order is essentially flawed. AND that the issue
of women on the UHJ is simply one proof among many of this. THAT is the real
issue here. That has been what I have been struggling against.
Please no more soft, sweet-smelling female hands pressed to my electronic
brow saying, "here honey you just lie down over here ok? I'll get you a
blankie and a nice iced tea."
>From an untired, unangry (but I am going to get that way if you keep
insisting that I am) sufficiently coffeed and physically quite fit thank you
. . .
jim harrison
Alethinos@aol.com
From dann.may@sandbox.telepath.comSun Apr 14 13:51:29 1996
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 96 08:51:17 -0600 (CST)
From: dann.may@sandbox.telepath.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Women in the New Test.
Dear Milissa,
>From my study and reading both of the Bible and various commentaries of the
Bible, and from conversations with Christian clergy and students, I find
that the issue of the status of women is neither what the feminists make it
out to be nor what more traditional Christian's construe it to mean, nor
what most Baha'is read anachronistically into the texts. Furthermore, I
think we need to distinguish between Christ's treatment of women, the
treatment of women in the early Christian communities, Paul's response to
these early communities and the position of the Church as it developed in
later centuries.
I am currently teaching a course on Christian Ethics, and here are a few
insights my students and I gleaned from the various sources on the subject.
1. Jesus says little on the subject, but when we examine His treatment of
both men and women, it seems clear the He dealt with both sexes on the same \
\
basis, treating both equally. He spoke kindly and with due consideration to
both sexes, defended their rights, and aided the oppressed and sick
regardless of whether they were men or women. He repeatedly emphasizes that
every individual is of infinite worth in the eyes of God (cf. Matt.
6:25-33, 12:9-14; Luke 15). In the words of the Christian theologian Roger
Crook" "We can hardly escape the conclusion, therefore, that Jesus
considered men and women to be on the same level" (_An Intro. to Christian
Ethics_, 2d ed., p. 181).
2. No doubt on the basis of Christ's treatment of women, the earliest
Christian communities is such places as Corinth, Greece, women were
participating in the church's services and assuming leadership roles. In
the words of Crook: "We are usually so struck by Paul's stern affirmation
that women should behave themselves properly in worship services that we
overlook a crucial fact: The women were actually 'praying and prophesying'
in the services [1 Corinthians 11: 4-5]" (Ibid., p. 183).
3. I would argue that the Church's later more oppressive view of women, has
more to do with misunderstanding Paul's writings (i.e., literal readings
coupled with a blatant disregard for the context of his words) than what
Paul actually said. For instance, Paul insists that in Christian fellowship
distinctions of any kind are simply irrelevant: 'There is no longer Jew or
Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and
female; for all of you are one in Christ" (Galatians 3:28; cf. Romans
10:12, Colossians 3:11). What Baha'i could not agree with this statement?
Could this not be re-written from a Baha'i perspective as: "There is no
longer Muslim or Christian, poor or rich, black or white, educated or
uneducated, male or female; for all of us are one in Baha'u'llah?"
4. By the time of the writing of I and II Timothy and Titus (epistles
attributed to Paul, but probably written long after his death), the Church
had developed a more formal organization and women were now assigned a
secondary role.
W > I enjoyed your posting and agree that you have raised some important
W >questions. I just want to make a few comments regarding Christianity an
W >Women. The examples you choose for your hypothetical Christian answers
W >show how just about any position can be drawn from the Bible when one p
W >and chooses. There are of course numerous examples from the Bible (espe
W >the letters of Paul) where it can be shown that women were oppressed, a
W >indeed much of Christian history reflects this fact, sometimes in very
W >ways. If you haven't read Joachim Kahl's *The Misery of Christianity*,
W >especially the section of the defamation of sexuality and of Women,
Warmest greetings, Dann May, Philosophy, OK City Univ.
---
* WR 1.32 # 669 * Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end. Spock, Sta
From Alethinos@aol.comSun Apr 14 13:51:41 1996
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 13:39:05 -0400
From: Alethinos@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: defending some friends
In a message dated 96-04-14 12:51:43 EDT, you write:
>First, I must say that I can't imagine that Jim Harrison was attacking
>you, Linda Gonzalez. It had to have been me. I was about due my weekly
>MDR of bile from Jim. But it is all right. I don't mind at all. Jim's
>postings keep the adrenaline up which is something I require for
>survival. I am much indebted.
Not bile dear, reality check. To produce emotional bile one would actually
have to be attached to what is going on here.
jim harrison
Alethinos@aol.com
From spurushotma@brahma.hcla.comSun Apr 14 15:18:31 1996
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 96 11:22:36 PDT
From: spurushotma@brahma.hcla.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Guess What??
It has come to my attention that the very same
so called "Baha'i" travel agent who secretly
taped the conversation with the members of the
National Spiritual Assembly was 99% the same one
who cheated my family and numerous other
pilgrims in 1993 before filing for bankruptcy.
I will research the files when I get back to verify,
but so far everything is adding up and this
%^&&*@#$$% is the same one.
(You all know how my vocubulary can get in thinking
about people such as this ... I will refrain for
now ... but may we all learn our lessons for being
so gullible).
May all this lesson-learning benefit the future growth
of the Faith!!
Lv,
Shastri
From DAWNLIQU@fllab.chass.ncsu.eduSun Apr 14 15:19:03 1996
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 14:02:03 EST
From: QUANTA DAWNLIGHT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Oneness of Religion...?
Dearest...,
Just read this excerpt note below on soc.religion.bahai . I am very puzzled and also
very saddened both for what is happening to Baha'is in Iran and
how we may be perpetuating religious misunderstanding by statements
such as below. I am curious how others viewed this statement.
It's full text is in the newsgroup above. Apparently it is an excerpt
from the Voice of America program which goes globally.
love,
q.
p.s. it was typed in caps at soc.bahai. I am not shouting, promise!!!
"THE BAHA'I FAITH HAVING APPEARED IN THE 19TH CENTURY
AND PROFESSING BELIEFS SOME OF WHICH ARE UNPALATABLE TO
THE CLERGY, SUCH AS THE EQUALITY OF MEN AND WOMEN, SUCH
AS THE REJECTION OF THE CONCEPT OF RITUAL IMPURITY BY
THE BAHA'IS. YOU KNOW AMONG THE SHIITE MUSLIMS, IF A
MUSLIM TOUCHES A CHRISTIAN OR A JEW, HE THEN HAS TO
PERFORM ABLUTIONS IN ORDER TO CLEAN HIMSELF OF THE TOUCH
OF THE INFIDEL. WELL, THE BAHA'IS HAVE REJECTED THAT AND
THAT IS OFFENSIVE TO THE SHIITE CLERGY OR TO A
SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF SHIITE CLERGYMAN. SO THEY SEE THE
BAHA'IS AS A HERESY AND ALSO AS A THREAT." [END OPT]
From L Sun Apr 14 15:19:52 1996
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 20:11:10 +0200 (MET DST)
From: L
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Fwd: Scholarship on equality of women
Please excuse the shortness of this response. Today we started the process
of upgrading our computer so we can install Windows 95. These projects are
never simple for us so I expect I will be somewhat absorbed for the next few
weeks. (This is not a complaint Microsoft employees! It is an admission of
a lack of computer savoir-faire.)
The theory of difference seems, in some corners, to have evolved to a theory
of care. You can find articles on this in philosophy, law, and feminist
journals. You might also want to look at works by cultural feminists as
they are often seem to be Gilliganists. They are sometimes called
"maternalists". If you would like a good summary of critiques of Gilligan's
work, then you should probably read "Deconstructing Gender", Joan C.
Williams, 87 *Michigan Law Review* 797 (1989). Pay close attention to her
notes.
>On Sat, 13 Apr 1996, L wrote:
>
>>> _In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development_
>>> Carol Gilligan, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA, 1982.
>
>> This book has been roundly and deservedly critiqued.
>
>Dear L,
>
>Its been six years since I delved into the feminist literature. Perhaps
>you could recommend some books that reflect more current concerns and
>understandings of the similarities and differences between women and men.
>
>Warmly, Joan
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
> Joan Jensen
> Baltimore, Maryland USA
>
>*******************************************************************
> "...love and affinity are the fruits of a gentle disposition,
> a pure nature and praiseworthy character..."
> Selected Writings of 'Abdu'l-Baha, p. 287
>*******************************************************************
>
>
>
From banani@ucla.eduSun Apr 14 15:20:08 1996
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 11:45:17 -0700
From: Amin Banani
To: QUANTA DAWNLIGHT
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Oneness of Religion...?
What's wrong with the statement? It is true that Baha'u'llah
(Kitab-i-Aqdas) rejects the idea of "ritual impurity."
Sheila Banani
>Dearest...,
>Just read this excerpt note below on soc.religion.bahai . I am very
>puzzled and also
>very saddened both for what is happening to Baha'is in Iran and
>how we may be perpetuating religious misunderstanding by statements
>such as below. I am curious how others viewed this statement.
>It's full text is in the newsgroup above. Apparently it is an excerpt
>from the Voice of America program which goes globally.
>
>love,
>q.
>
>p.s. it was typed in caps at soc.bahai. I am not shouting, promise!!!
>
> "THE BAHA'I FAITH HAVING APPEARED IN THE 19TH CENTURY
> AND PROFESSING BELIEFS SOME OF WHICH ARE UNPALATABLE TO
>THE CLERGY, SUCH AS THE EQUALITY OF MEN AND WOMEN, SUCH
> AS THE REJECTION OF THE CONCEPT OF RITUAL IMPURITY BY
>THE BAHA'IS. YOU KNOW AMONG THE SHIITE MUSLIMS, IF A
> MUSLIM TOUCHES A CHRISTIAN OR A JEW, HE THEN HAS TO
> PERFORM ABLUTIONS IN ORDER TO CLEAN HIMSELF OF THE TOUCH
> OF THE INFIDEL. WELL, THE BAHA'IS HAVE REJECTED THAT AND
> THAT IS OFFENSIVE TO THE SHIITE CLERGY OR TO A
> SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF SHIITE CLERGYMAN. SO THEY SEE THE
> BAHA'IS AS A HERESY AND ALSO AS A THREAT." [END OPT]
Sheila Banani
E-Mail: Banani@UCLA.Edu (Sheila)
From DAWNLIQU@fllab.chass.ncsu.eduSun Apr 14 15:21:44 1996
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 15:07:22 EST
From: QUANTA DAWNLIGHT
To: Amin Banani
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Oneness of Religion...?
Dearest Sheila!
When we speak of teaching the Oneness of Religion to the entire
world via Voice of America reflecting our tragedies, it may prove
more beneficial to our purpose to refrain from points of disagreement
with other religions and create further antagony and prejudices.
If my family (moslems) heard that statement they will come to me
and say "this is the religion you belong to! we don't do such a
thing! why are you guys talking about moslems this way?" In the
communication psychology people do not differentiate between each
word. They respond to what effects them personally.
If, for instance I was a jew or christian, I would be angry at all
moslems by hearing that statements. If, I was a member
of any other religious persuasion I would get bad impressions of all
moslems. If, I was an aetheist or agnostic I might think here goes
another religion lambasting people of other religions. It is only MO.
with universal love,
quanta
Sheila Banani wrote:
What's wrong with the statement? It is true that Baha'u'llah
(Kitab-i-Aqdas) rejects the idea of "ritual impurity."
Sheila Banani
>Dearest...,
>Just read this excerpt note below on soc.religion.bahai . I am very
>puzzled and also
>very saddened both for what is happening to Baha'is in Iran and
>how we may be perpetuating religious misunderstanding by statements
>such as below. I am curious how others viewed this statement.
>It's full text is in the newsgroup above. Apparently it is an excerpt
>from the Voice of America program which goes globally.
>
>love,
>q.
>
>p.s. it was typed in caps at soc.bahai. I am not shouting, promise!!!
>
> "THE BAHA'I FAITH HAVING APPEARED IN THE 19TH CENTURY
> AND PROFESSING BELIEFS SOME OF WHICH ARE UNPALATABLE TO
>THE CLERGY, SUCH AS THE EQUALITY OF MEN AND WOMEN, SUCH
> AS THE REJECTION OF THE CONCEPT OF RITUAL IMPURITY BY
>THE BAHA'IS. YOU KNOW AMONG THE SHIITE MUSLIMS, IF A
> MUSLIM TOUCHES A CHRISTIAN OR A JEW, HE THEN HAS TO
> PERFORM ABLUTIONS IN ORDER TO CLEAN HIMSELF OF THE TOUCH
> OF THE INFIDEL. WELL, THE BAHA'IS HAVE REJECTED THAT AND
> THAT IS OFFENSIVE TO THE SHIITE CLERGY OR TO A
> SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF SHIITE CLERGYMAN. SO THEY SEE THE
> BAHA'IS AS A HERESY AND ALSO AS A THREAT." [END OPT]
Sheila Banani
E-Mail: Banani@UCLA.Edu (Sheila)
From gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduSun Apr 14 19:32:10 1996
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 13:47:30 -0600 (MDT)
From: "[G. Brent Poirier]"
To: r_wagner@foma.wsc.mass.edu
Cc: TALISMAN@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Trademarks and covenant breakers
Re: the NSA's suit against Sohrab, just a couple of comments. I do not
know a whole lot about copyright or trademark law. I do see that this was
brought in the "supreme court" of New York. That's not the court
generally thought of as the state supreme court; in New York, the regular
state court is known as the "supreme" court. It's the trial court where
lawsuits begin, not the appellate court. The judge said that the suit
should be dismissed without a trial. It's strange to me that the judge
did not cite *any* statutory law or case precedent for his decision. To
make any kind of comment, I'd need to look at the status of state and
federal trademark law in those days, as well as the federal copyright law.
Brent
From sscholl@jeffnet.orgSun Apr 14 19:35:35 1996
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 00:52:10 +0100
From: White Cloud Press
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Women's Voices/Jim's Voice
Dear Friends,
I have been deeply moved by the inclusion of more women's voices on the
women/UHJ/women's problems threads. Leigh, Joan, Sandy, Milissa, words have
laid bare new understandings for me. I was especially touched and impressed
by Leigh and Bill's daughter's second response to the issue of women's
exclusion from service within the Baha'i community "that the House of
Justice is all male really hurts my feelings and my sense of who I am."
Thank you all so much for raising your voices. Joan's recounting of her
experience in consultation was particularly illuminating. I am lucky to
serve on an LSA with 6 women with a woman as chair. It is rare that there
is ever more than 2 men at our LSA meeting at the same time. The quality of
our consultations is different from any other I have experienced, and is
but one more personal proof to me of the importance of an eventual change
in direction on current policy.
Jim Harrison. Ah, what can I say. Jim continues to moan that we are wasting
our precious time and resources by not following whatever vision he has in
mind but can't seem to explain to such dense heads as populate this
discussion forum. Jim continues to steam about how redundant certain
issues are and how it is clear that nothing new is being said or gained
from moving this or that thread forward. Yet we are accosted almost daily
with him saying the same thing over and over and over and over again.
Several folks chime in and say, "Whoa, Jim, actually I have gotten
something out of the women/UHJ thread." To which our indefatiguable pen pal
responds by noting how ignorant one must be to have such thoughts. He
posts, repeatedly, quotes from the Guardian and dares the "revisionists" to
explain them away. When a few of us take him on, he screams that we are
lost in the wilds of the liberal democratic tradition, yet he fails to put
forward a meaningful or coherent response. (I am getting rather tired of
having people try to dismiss a view by claiming that this or that Baha'i is
trying to conform Baha'i to current standards. Juan, for example, has put
forward detailed responses to Jim's diatribes which are firmly rooted in
Baha'i scriptures and further elaborated brilliantly by Juan's deep
understandig of 19th and 20th century Near Eastern and European history,
culture and politics. I am constantly amazed that Jim and others get so
cranky when Juan, Jackson, John or Tony try to provide context and meaning
to specific Baha'i texts and events.)
And yet Jim's talk becomes louder and louder and more abusive in tone. It
is as if Jim feels that if he can ONLY SCREAM LOUD ENOUGH AND IN AN ANGRY
AND MEAN-SPIRITED VOICE then he might catch our attention. But the rules of
this language game area call for people to put forward their arguments with
reason. Jim has failed to convince me, and I believe many others, of his
positions, in fact, I usually remain baffled as to what he is trying to
say. Furthermore, from the standpoint of respect and courtesy, traits that
Baha'is are suppose to strive for according to our sacred texts and which
are noted in Talisman list rules, Jim is the most violent provacateur and
breaker of rules within our cyber community. I would again ask Jim to
discontinue his monitoring of any thread he personally feels is pointless
and stop wasting our time with his rants about how idiotic those who find
merit in said thread are for keeping up the discussion. Statements such as
we found in a recent Jim post that the arguments in favor of change on the
exclusion of women are baseless mean nothing since there is no argument to
deal with, just an emotional outburst. The bulk of Jim's posts are
emotional outbursts that are difficult to respond to. Obviously there are
differences of opinion on the topic. Ahang, for example, has arrogantly
stated that he personally sees nothing wrong with research on the topic,
even though he is absolutely certain that no change will occur. I, on the
other hand, have stated with equal arrogance my unwavering position that in
the future women will be allowed to serve on the UHJ, a view based on my
reading of the texts and the historical context of said texts. But it seems
to me that Ahang and I are still able to discuss matters rationally and
with respect toward each other and our differing views.
Back to Arsalan's case: It seems to me that what Arsalan is reacting to is
his perception that people cannot be sincere Baha'is and at the same time
disagree with the Head of the Faith. This topic has been discussed long and
hard several times, but it seems to me to be at the heart of many of our
ongoing difficulties. Like the topic of women's service on elected bodies,
this issue will inevitably rear its head from time to time as newcomers
join our group. I think it important to recognize that unanimity on the
details of religion is not required to maintain unity within the community.
Just as we do not expect all Catholics to accept every papal pronouncement
as unerring, I do not expect all Baha'is to agree, or should they need to
agree, with every thing that Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi or
the House of Justice says. The world is too large and too complex for such
conformity of minds and it seems alien to the spirit of the faith, causing
more theological problems than does the allowance for wide latitude of
approaches. For example, I disagree with the House on many things, such as
their advice on teenage masturbation, their endorsement of the male as the
head of the Baha'i family despite no evidence for this in the sacred
writings, and, yes, the position on excluding women from service on the
House of Justice. I believe that my views are valid and I believe they are
firmly rooted in the Baha'i writings. The tough issue for the Baha'i faith
is: Will it muster up the intellectual requirements to transcend its 19th
century Islamic roots to become a truly universal faith. And what does it
take to become a universal faith? Well, as one scholar of world history and
religious conversions has noted, no faith ever became universal until its
scholars and intellectuals developed a meaningful framework for relating
the sacred revelation to the existing and emerging paradigms in science,
history, and philosophy. I can hear some cringing at this and thinking that
this is calling for compromise of the purity of the revelation. I think
not. I think it is just common sense and what Shoghi Effendi reminded us
when he noted the importance of having scholars who can relate the Baha'i
teachings to contemporary thought.
Steve Scholl
From gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduSun Apr 14 19:36:08 1996
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 13:55:35 -0600 (MDT)
From: "[G. Brent Poirier]"
To: "Arsalan J. Sadighi"
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Unions at the World Congress
I stayed at the Pickwick Arms hotel, near the UN, not an official congress
hotel. I stay there whenever I go to NYC, as it's centrally located (two
blocks from a great deli, two blocks to the UN, two blocks to the David
Letterman show). It's also a steal, by Manhattan standards; double rooms
were $90 per night. *BUT* the hot water wasn't on when Vickie and I
needed to get up to prepare for the Congress. Some Union fellow used to go
to several hotels and turn a faucet on the boiler. Turning on a faucet is
a union function. So we had cold showers till 7 a.m.!
Vickie was a producer of the classical music venue at the Waldorf Astoria.
We had musicians from Russia, Romania, Iran, Italy, etc. She handled
everything, until the union inspector came and demanded to know if the
union rules were being followed. She said, "Oh, my husband handles that."
He wanted to know if admission was being charged, but was satisfied that
only Baha'is attending the Congress could attend. He was ready to shut
down the show, otherwise.
From gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduSun Apr 14 19:36:21 1996
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 14:04:26 -0600 (MDT)
From: "[G. Brent Poirier]"
To: Babak Mohajerin
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: When is the commencement of "1000 years"?
There is a passage in God Passes By, in the chapter that contains the
description of the ascension of Baha'u'llah, where the Guardian states
that the period of divine Revelation had come to a definite conclusion,
and that there would not be another Revelator for at least another 1000
years.
From belove@maple.sover.netSun Apr 14 19:36:30 1996
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 96 02:36:52 PDT
From: Philip Belove
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Gender reading list
What would be a basic reading list of books for a university course on
gender? Let's make it for college juniors, but not necessarily for
graduate students.
I think I'd pick Deborah Tannen's book, You Just Don't Understand.
I'd like something better than Men are From Mars etc by John Gray. I
think his ideas start people thinking but are well framed in an
academic perspective.
Maybe In A Different Voice, but maybe also her later book about
Patterns. Help me someone with this title.
What would be a good Men's book? Iron John? Fire in the Belly? Others?
For women, what?
Is anyone teaching such a course? And syllabii? Internet addresses
for Syllabi?
Thanks.
Philip
-------------------------------------
Name: Philip Alan Belove
Anagram: Plain Livable Hope
E-mail: belove@sover.net
Date: 04/14/96
Time: 02:36:52
This message was sent by Chameleon
-------------------------------------
Things should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler -- A.
Einstein
From Alethinos@aol.comSun Apr 14 19:37:44 1996
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 16:46:14 -0400
From: Alethinos@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Women's Voices/Jim's Voice
Dear Mr. Scholl:
Good try. But it doesn't work. Your near brilliant attempt to acutally paint
me in colors that are reminiscent of the Freudian psycho-distortions used to
describe women as *hysterical* at the turn of the century - good touch.
Also your self-portrait as the ultimate sensitive-guy would win the
Cyber-award for best Alan Alda recreation. I almost sniffled there myself.
And you know, your attempt to distort the real issue just might work. We both
know that you contributed virtually nothing to the line of questioning I
raised a week ago, quoting the Guardian on the question of the Universal
House of Justice and on the lack of comparison between the Administrative
Order. Juan's contributions were negligible. He posted one weak repsonse
trying to suggest that the Guardian was really saying what Juan says all the
time. When I posted three quotes to show that the initial quote in WOB was
_not_ taken out of context Juan reposted, mentioned it off-handedly and then
went on to decry the fascist attempts to suppress freedom of speech and
quoted admirably from the writings showing support for that right.
Unfortunately that wasn't the original issue. Good try there Juan. But we
wern't talking about freedom of speech, we were talking about the role of the
Universal House of Justice in relation to the Baha'is and the misperceptions
that are currently finding moderate acceptence here on Talisman.
And of course no where have I ever referred to anything on this suject as
stupid. A waste of time -_when the posts were centered on the possibility of
somehow overturning the ruling of the House, that the UHJ was morally
inconsistant, (I believe that beauty belonged to you Scholl) etc., etc., etc.
- but never that the concern and confusion over this question was stupid.
That is your own lil manufacture.
Your attempts at distortions on the issue that you and Juan, along with Terry
have brought up along with shamlessly hoping up on the bandwagon of "opressed
women" is simply the latest attempt to silence any voices that stand opposed
to your limited agenda. A while back it was the liberal use of the word
*fascist* or variations thereof. Juan preferred *fundamentalists* and I
believe somelse liked *nazi*.
I imagine these distortions will continue. But there are too many who keep a
running record of what is posted here. So you can't escape by yelling fire
and pointing off in the other direction. Anyone who actually steps back two
weeks will see what much of the arguments with you, Juan, Terry and Dale, and
others centered on.
But go ahead with the lie. Stir up your *sisters* against the evil men who
wish to opress them. Offer up wild speculations based on ultra-thin evidence.
Duck the hard questions. I'm patient. I'll still be here. And you can't sling
enough mud to cover your tracks, let alone my character.
jim harrison
Alethinos@aol.com
From Wilgar123@aol.comSun Apr 14 19:37:57 1996
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 17:06:53 -0400
From: Wilgar123@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: LADIES
Dear friends (Linda, Linda, Sandy, Joan and others)
I, for one, find your recent postings related to women's issues extremely
important and enlightening. I hope your voices (and these issues) continue to
be found regularly on Talisman. I personally feel that one of the main
reasons so many men (both Baha'i and non-Baha'i) can treat women with varying
degrees of insensitivity is because they harbor intense feeling of resentment
(often subconscious) towards women based on even deeper feelings of fear. In
my opinion, it is a fear partly born of the possibility of rejection and/or
domination by a powerful mother figure (image) prominent in so many cultures,
and partly created as a result of the fear of identifying with the
weak-willed wife figure (image), also found in many cultures (indeed the two
often go hand in hand). I raise this point because I believe that the
essential conflicts between men and women will not be resolved only through
"legislation" or "religious proclamation." They also require soul-searching
honesty and a restructuring of family dynamics.
As an example (perhaps extreme), I teach in an elementary school where many
of my male students (6th grade) live with single mothers. Many have also
witnessed violence towards their mothers from their fathers and/or
boyfriends. These kids are constantly telling me how they don't want to
disappoint their mothers, and nearly all of them would fight in an instant if
their "mamas" were insulted. And yet, their general attitude toward women is
what I would call "degrading." They are constantly putting girls down, and
sometimes in very obscene ways. One of the two worst insults one boy can
level against another is to call him a girl (and not using this nice, middle
class term) The other, by the way, is to call him gay. My teacherly reminders
and punishments (laws) or my moral exhortations (preaching) do not seem to
have much lasting effect. Anyway, just thought I would share some ideas. I
look forward to future postings. Love and laughter, Bill G
From burlb@bmi.netSun Apr 14 19:38:06 1996
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 96 14:19 PDT
From: Burl Barer
To: White Cloud Press
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Women's Voices/Jim's Voice
>
>Just as we do not expect all Catholics to accept every papal pronouncement
as unerring, I do not expect all Baha'is to agree, or should they need to
agree, with every thing that Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi or the
House of Justice says.
I always agree with God, even if He thought of it first, even if I had a
different view, even if I don't always understand why -- I do understand
that God is the All Knowing the All Wise. If God, via His invioable Covenant
makes it clear that the Universal House of Justice is *freed from all error"
and that I should regard a letter from the UHJ as if it were a letter from
God, you bet your wiggly little bottom that I will agree with 100% faith
that it will be shown to be correct. It is the ultimate safeguard. To
contend with the Universal House of Justice is to contend with God. Period.
Fact, not opinion. Not interpretation. We know that. So, if your goal to to
contend with God, go right ahead. Why bother contending with smaller
oponents such as someone rude enough to quote the Sign of God on Earth
(Guardian), or any other mortal? C'mon, just tell God to put up his dukes
and take the Divine on two outa three falls. I aint puttin my bucks on you,
bucko. Somehow the phrase All-Powerful seems to imply He got muscles He
ain't even flexed yet.
As you certainly recall, God said to Abraham:
"You can do what ya want, Abe, BUT The next time ya see me comin' ya better run"
Burl (building bleachers out in the sun)
*************************************
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!
Visit my new home page: www.bmi.net/outlaw/burl.html
********************
From burlb@bmi.netSun Apr 14 19:38:41 1996
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 96 14:45 PDT
From: Burl Barer
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: In case you missed it..
"The main issue has been the assumptions, presented almost entirely by MEN
that the Cause/Administrative Order is essentially flawed. AND that the
issue of women on the UHJ is simply one proof among many of this. THAT is
the real
issue here."
Jim Harrison.
Jim: Anyone who subscribes to Talisman can discern that in (a) a matter of
hours, (b) a matter of days (c) a few weeks at most, depending on the posts.
In reality, The Cause of God is *not* essentially flawed. All the forces in
the Universe support the Covenant, the next four years are the most
important years of our life, and life is too short and time too precious for
us to drain each other of energy attempting to weaken the pillars of the
House of Justice. What people do speaks louder than what they say, although
on Email what they say is what they do. I have not met anyone on this list
that I didn't like. But I can be convinced over enough time and messages
that if someone keeps calling my Mommy rude names, I'm going to doubt their
friendship. If someone keeps saying rude things about The Center of God's
Covenant (Abdul-Baha) or the Sign of God on Earth (The Guardian) or the
Supreme Universal House of Justice you bet your cosmic bippy that I will not
be pleased.
For if you have seen the Son you have seen the Father. If you insult the UHJ
you insult Baha'u'llah. That's my view and your welcome to it. If you don't
like it, you are entitled to your own view. Repeated snide remarks about
the Cause of God do not make my heart dilate with joy - they ennervate me
and bring me sadness.
Rejoice with exceeding gladness. Arise for the promulgation of this Cause.
Read the books, for heaven's sake! World Order of Baha'u'llah! Advent of
Divine Justice! Letters from the House of Justice! Get ready for the Ridvan
Message -- if you want something to do, I am sure it will give you something.
If you want to contend with God -- its easy: simply contend with the UHJ. No
one will overpower God, so knock yourself out.
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!
Visit my new home page: www.bmi.net/outlaw/burl.html
********************
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzSun Apr 14 19:39:23 1996
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 11:48:28 +1300
From: sparrow hawk
To: l.droege@genie.com, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: RE: RE: Women's Problems...
Dear Leigh,
You wrote:
>Jim and Robert J.,
>You are both missing the point.
>You are both trying to take over and shut down an important discussion.
>Please Shut Up!!!
>Leigh
Thank you for the admonition. More power to you, sister!
R
From dan_orey@qmbridge.ccs.csus.eduSun Apr 14 19:39:31 1996
Date: 14 Apr 96 15:29:18 U
From: Dan Orey
To: belove@maple.sover.net, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Gender reading list
Reply to: RE>Gender reading list
Thanx Philip -
May I add to the list my current favorite: _Problem Solving Strategies and
Interventions for Men in Conflict_ Edited by Dwight Moore & Fred Leafgren Amer
Assoc for Counseling & Develpoment, Publishers (ISBN 1- 55620 - 067 - 6 ). This
is a tremendous book for those of us with testosterone poisoning, and the folks
that live with us. - Daniel
--------------------------------------
Date: 4/14/96 1:32 PM
To: Dan Orey
From: Philip Belove
Received: by qmbridge.csus.edu (2.01/GatorMail-Q); 14 Apr 96 13:32:36 U
Received: from roatan.ucs.indiana.edu by csus.edu with SMTP id AA08732
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Sun, 14 Apr 1996
13:31:04 -0700
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by roatan.ucs.indiana.edu
(8.7.3/8.7.3/1.10IUPO) id PAA32288 for talisman-outgoing; Sun, 14 Apr 1996
15:22:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: from cayman.ucs.indiana.edu (cayman.ucs.indiana.edu [129.79.10.63])
by roatan.ucs.indiana.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3/1.10IUPO) with ESMTP id PAA29188 for
; Sun, 14 Apr 1996 15:22:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from maple.sover.net (root@maple.sover.net [204.71.16.11]) by
cayman.ucs.indiana.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3/1.10IUPO) with ESMTP id PAA29109 for
; Sun, 14 Apr 1996 15:21:58 -0500 (EST)
Received: from belove.sover.net (pm0a21.bratt.sover.net [204.71.18.121]) by
maple.sover.net (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA20376 for ;
Sun, 14 Apr 1996 16:21:39 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 96 02:36:52 PDT
From: Philip Belove
Subject: Gender reading list
To: talisman@indiana.edu
X-Mailer: Chameleon V0.05, TCP/IP for Windows, NetManage Inc.
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-talisman@indiana.edu
Precedence: bulk
What would be a basic reading list of books for a university course on
gender? Let's make it for college juniors, but not necessarily for
graduate students.
I think I'd pick Deborah Tannen's book, You Just Don't Understand.
I'd like something better than Men are From Mars etc by John Gray. I
think his ideas start people thinking but are well framed in an
academic perspective.
Maybe In A Different Voice, but maybe also her later book about
Patterns. Help me someone with this title.
What would be a good Men's book? Iron John? Fire in the Belly? Others?
For women, what?
Is anyone teaching such a course? And syllabii? Internet addresses
for Syllabi?
Thanks.
Philip
-------------------------------------
Name: Philip Alan Belove
Anagram: Plain Livable Hope
E-mail: belove@sover.net
Date: 04/14/96
Time: 02:36:52
This message was sent by Chameleon
-------------------------------------
Things should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler -- A.
Einstein
From A.Aniss@unsw.EDU.AUSun Apr 14 19:40:02 1996
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 10:00:17 +1000
From: Ahmad Aniss
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: was the hands of Baha'u'llah bond?
Dear Talismanians,
Dear Linda,
You wrote:
> Frankly, I can't imagine how Baha'u'llah living in 19th Century Iran
> could have advocated having women on the UHJ. It would have been
> unthinkable at that time. It also would have caused so much trouble to
> have been unimaginable.
Historically this is not correct. The reason is that even as early as the
period of Badasht, when Tahireh removed her veil, Baha'u'llah was
supporter of emancipation of women from the hands of dogmatic laws
which were built up by the secular Shieht celergy. If he was so openly
trying to support Tahireh, wouldn't have He made provisions for a future
time in His writings pending a time when assumedly a time that could be
called "men and women are equal to sit on an administrative body".
In addition, a Manifestation of God when reveals laws, He reveals laws
that are for a span of time which last a number of generations and hence
having this in mind, He could have had no option but to specify in a certain
tablet that at a given time in future (with the vision of future that the
Manifestation of God would have had) a change would occur in his laws.
Now if someone says that Abdul'-Baha in his Tablets gradually changed
this law and that The Guardian misunderstood the so called Tablet of 1912
and specifically the word of "Umumi" (meaning universal) and as a result
the first UHJ and Hands of God got it wrong too, I remember when we
were talking about this topic last year when everything was dependent on
the word "umumi" which meant universal to some and local to others, I
quoted a Tablet (can provide if is required again) by Abdul'-Baha of the
same period, (meaning 1912) in which, Abdul'-Baha was addressing a
different topic (Universal language) but, nevertheless relevant, which starts
with an explanation of two words of "umumi" and "khususy" (meaning
private), He as a matter of fact goes in very detail to explain the difference
between these two words and then explain what a universal language can
do. Surely Abdu'l-Baha could have not attributed two different meanings
to the same word at the same time in history.
To say that Abdul'-Baha, then Guardian, and yet again the UHJ, all
misunderstood every thing and rely on our own interpretation of the
meaning of a single word "umumi" (knowing that Abdul'-Baha has
explained the meaning of this word in detail) and then drive an opposite
conclusions. If this is not man made what would be called the product of
our man made imagination.
Now having seen many tablets that pin point the difference in functionality
of the two poles of existence (male and female), then one must duel on the
functionality of men and women than just cry for a not understood equality.
What differences in functionality is there that prevent women from being
on the UHJ? this is the question that we are to find out in near future as
promised by Abdul'-Baha.
> The Iranian Baha'is faced a great deal of
> persecution, from what I understand, because men and women were
> socializing together in Baha'i meetings when they should have been
> segregated.
This is a true fact but does not mean that the manifestation of God would
have based a law that supposedly could last 500,000 years on just fears of
what mankind can do in a mere handful of years at the time of the
Manifestation himself. So I must refuse that historically the hands of
Manifestation of God was bond and he could not have stated what some
would like to hear now.
With warm 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 lwalbrid@indiana.eduSun Apr 14 19:40:13 1996
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 18:01:53 -0500 (EST)
From: lwalbrid
To: Alethinos@aol.com
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: defending some friends
Oh, dear, you are overtired, thirsty, AND detached as well? Jim, now you
are going to be besieged by female electronic hands stroking your brow.
No woman could resist. Linda
On Sun, 14 Apr 1996 Alethinos@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 96-04-14 12:51:43 EDT, you write:
>
> >First, I must say that I can't imagine that Jim Harrison was attacking
> >you, Linda Gonzalez. It had to have been me. I was about due my weekly
> >MDR of bile from Jim. But it is all right. I don't mind at all. Jim's
> >postings keep the adrenaline up which is something I require for
> >survival. I am much indebted.
>
> Not bile dear, reality check. To produce emotional bile one would actually
> have to be attached to what is going on here.
>
> jim harrison
>
> Alethinos@aol.com
>
>
>
From Don_R._Calkins@commonlink.comSun Apr 14 19:40:40 1996
Date: 14 Apr 1996 17:47:26 GMT
From: "Don R. Calkins"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Problems with talisman
The state of the current debate over the equality of men and women reflects
what I believe to be the underlying problem on talisman. Both the
discussions here in general and the equality debate in particular reflect not
the principles enunciated in the Baha'i Writings, but the over-masculinized
society in which we live.
I find it curious that tho' Abdu'l-Baha stated that it was necessary for
mankind to become more gentle and feminine, the current debate has been over
to what extent or when women will exercise those prerogatives associated with
stereotypical male status - power and authority. I don't remember any
individual being praised in the Writings for their power and authority; the
few references to individuals posessing these attributes seems to praise them
for expressing other qualities in spite of their power and authority. Why
then do we insist that women must exercise power and authority? Wouldn't it
be more in keeping with the tenor of the Writings for us all to work to
develop the other qualities named in the Writings and ignore the presence or
absence of either power or authority?
It appears to me that the true focus of talisman is towards power and
authority. Many (most?) of the posts here seem to assume that their
existance defines reality in spite of the admonitions in the Writings to be
detached from all save God. The often ostentacious self-deprecation seems
little more than passive aggression instead of humility.
It seems to me that until these problems of overweaning ego are resolved by
the average Baha'i within themselves that the issue of the status of women
has no chance of being either understood or resolved.
Don C
He who believes himself spiritual proves he is not - The Cloud of Unknowing
From Wilgar123@aol.comSun Apr 14 23:35:05 1996
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 20:30:58 -0400
From: Wilgar123@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Women and New Testament
Dear Dann,
Thanks for your input. I would be interested if you could comment from your
perspective on the following statements of Paul regarding women:
1. "I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head
of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God." (1Cor xi,3)
2. "For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory
of God; but woman is the glory of man.For a man was not made from
woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but
woman for man." (1Cor xi, 7-9)
3. "As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silence in
the
churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate,
as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them
ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in
church." (1Cor xiiii, 34-36)
Thanks, Bill G
From nineteen@onramp.netSun Apr 14 23:36:16 1996
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 96 19:35:10 -0500
From: "Richard C. Logan"
To: White Cloud Press , Talisman
Subject: Re: Women's Voices/Jim's Voice
> Well, as one scholar of world history and
>religious conversions has noted, no faith ever became universal until its
>scholars and intellectuals developed a meaningful framework for relating
>the sacred revelation to the existing and emerging paradigms in science,
>history, and philosophy. I can hear some cringing at this and thinking that
>this is calling for compromise of the purity of the revelation. I think
>not. I think it is just common sense and what Shoghi Effendi reminded us
>when he noted the importance of having scholars who can relate the Baha'i
>teachings to contemporary thought.
Dear Steve,
I can't agree with this-- after this much time on Talisman I wouldn't
cringe either.
In the eighth grade I told Sister Angela and the entire class of St.
John's Parochial School (at this time I was investigating the idea of
"Cosmic Consciousness") that the stories of the Bible were in my estimate
"mythological". I found it irrational to think Eve was created from the
rib of Adam. I have always been a rebel and still am. My only
allegience is to God. This idea that scholars are going to fix
things...well, good luck!
Being a scholar isn't a badge of authority to explain things to the
world. Everyone is entitled to their understanding and I want it that
way. I think it would be fine for you to hold that view, ( "I do not
expect all Baha'is to agree, or should they need to agree, with every
thing that Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi or the House of
Justice says."), but we are getting into John Lennon
territory--remember: "We are more popular than Jesus Christ".
*Agreement* in this context is a poor choice of words. The
administrative order is here to protect us from OURSELVES! We are a
stupid, stiff-necked people. We don't know what's good for ourselves,
and I'm sorry but scholars don't have the authority to tell us anything.
I won't say anymore because you have a wonderful smile and a beautiful
baby and I like you very much and I don't want to be offensive. I think
we have recieved enough assurances to let things develope for awhile
before we start jumping in trying to fix things. If I thought that's
what I had to look forward to--"better to have no religion at all".
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.eduSun Apr 14 23:36:54 1996
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 19:49:10 -0500 (EST)
From: Jackson Armstrong-Ingram
To: Linda de Gonzalez
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Women's Problems
On Sat, 13 Apr 1996, Linda de Gonzalez wrote:
> I have a big problem with Baha'i men being able to put aside their wives for
> not being virgins. Even though they are encouraged not to, according to the
> Aqdas. And I have another big problem with Abdu'l-Baha's suggestion (I don't
It should be noted that the concept of marriage in the Aqdas is the
contractual concept of Islam and much of the history of Christianity,
not the sacremental concept of post-renaissance Christianity. This
provision only
applies _if_ premarital virginity has been made a provision of the
contract. The grounds for repudiating the marriage are breach of
contract rather than breach of viriginity.
It is my understanding that
quite a few years ago the House ruled that brides have the right to make
a comparable provision in respect of the groom. It would probably be
helpful if the communication in which they did so was available to show
to those who always need ocular proof even though the principle of
mutatis mutandis makes it logically obvious that this would be the case.
Jackson
From Alethinos@aol.comSun Apr 14 23:37:11 1996
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 20:55:42 -0400
From: Alethinos@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: defending some friends
While I greatly appreciate the touch of a women, I am not sure that here, in
this context they would be applying any motherly love, let alone a whopping
good dose of womanly charms dear lady. More than likely it would be the
finely honed skill of applying an electric carving knife to my backside (and
I shudder to think of any others choice cuts that might seem tempting to them
. . .)
jim harrison
Alethinos@aol.com
From jarmstro@sun1.iusb.eduSun Apr 14 23:38:04 1996
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 21:01:37 -0500 (EST)
From: Jackson Armstrong-Ingram
To: Ahang Rabbani
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Overturning decisions by future UHJ
On Fri, 12 Apr 1996, Ahang Rabbani wrote:
> In a number of instances the House of Justice has declared that
> something is outside its sphere of pronouncements. For example,
> it declared that it can find no way to legislate another Guardian
> in existence. Or that appointment of the Hands was outside of
> its sphere of competence. In those cases, no future House of
> Justice an overrule the existing pronouncements unless they can
> demonstrate that *new* Text has been located (which is extremely
> unlikely).
I don't see the logic here. Why does it take 'new' text? Can't a future
house reach a different conclusion based on the same texts? Without a
Guardian to determine the sphere of action of the House, it seems that
any decision by the House of a limitation on its sphere of action is as
reviewable by a subsequent House as any other decision they would take.
Jackson
From jarmstro@sun1.iusb.eduSun Apr 14 23:38:25 1996
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 21:20:07 -0500 (EST)
From: Jackson Armstrong-Ingram
To: talisman
Subject: Re: Feast
To add to John's summary account of the development of the Feast and in
respect of some of the other comments that were made recently:
I think it is helpful to our conceptualization of the Feast to realize
that it has a spatial component that is not currently well expressed in
practice due to the circumstances in which communities are trying to
function.
The full institution of the Mashriqu'l-Adhkar includes both a "Center of
Worship" and an "Assembly Hall". The spiritual/devotional part of the feast
would
be held in the Center of Worship and hence be subject to the conditions
for devotional use of that place; the rest of the feast would be held in
the Assembly Hall and the administrative/consultative part could be
prefaced by
readings that set a suitable tone for that function. Without the spatial
distinction being available, there is often now a blurring between, or
commingling of, the devotional and the instructional/deepening type of
readings that lessens the efficacy of the spiritual part of the Feast.
The Assembly Hall would also be the location for many other types of
meetings and social occasions.
Jackson
From lbhollin@uxmail.ust.hkSun Apr 14 23:38:39 1996
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 10:32:58 +0800 (HKT)
From: HOLLINGER RICHARD VERNON
To: Dan Orey
Cc: belove@maple.sover.net, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Gender reading list
>
> What would be a good Men's book? Iron John? Fire in the Belly? Others?
Perhaps "Why Men Are the Way They Are," which while it is not terribly
sophisticated and does echo feminist rhetoric a bit too much for my taste
(aren't men oppressed too?), does examine and explain the experience of
men in contemporary Western culture.
Richard
> For women, what?
>
> Is anyone teaching such a course? And syllabii? Internet addresses
> for Syllabi?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Philip
>
>
> -------------------------------------
> Name: Philip Alan Belove
> Anagram: Plain Livable Hope
> E-mail: belove@sover.net
> Date: 04/14/96
> Time: 02:36:52
>
> This message was sent by Chameleon
> -------------------------------------
> Things should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler -- A.
> Einstein
>
>
>
>
>
From jarmstro@sun1.iusb.eduSun Apr 14 23:39:08 1996
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 19:49:10 -0500 (EST)
From: Jackson Armstrong-Ingram
To: Linda de Gonzalez
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Women's Problems
Resent-Date: Sun, 14 Apr 96 21:29:44 CDT
Resent-From: Milissa
Resent-To: talisman@indiana.edu
On Sat, 13 Apr 1996, Jackson wrote:
>It should be noted that the concept of marriage in the Aqdas is the
>contractual concept of Islam and much of the history of Christianity,
>not the sacremental concept of post-renaissance Christianity. This
>provision only
>applies _if_ premarital virginity has been made a provision of the
>contract. The grounds for repudiating the marriage are breach of
>contract rather than breach of viriginity.
Are you sure about this?
In the Synopsis made by Shoghi Effendi, he broke this law into two
sections (sections n and o) on pages 151-152. Section n states that this law
applies if the husband discovers it after the payment of the dowry. It is
section o that states it annuls the marriage if it was part of the contract.
Section n makes no reference to it as a provision of a contract.
So, whats the difference between sections n and o?
It seems that Shoghi Effendi is stating that is law applies whether it was
part of the contract or not.
>If I remember correctly, quite
>a few years ago the House ruled that brides have the right to make
> comparable provision in respect of the groom. It would probably be
>helpful if the communication in which they did so was available to show
>to those who always need ocular proof even though the principle of
>mutatis mutandis makes it logically obvious that this would be the case.
>Jackson
I am one of those who needs ocular proof. :) So if it is true that the House
has states this specifically, I would very much appreciate seeing the letter.
When it comes to this issue of sexual equality in the Faith, I can't assuem
anything, no matter how logical it is.
Thanks
Milissa Boyer
mboyer@ukans.edu
From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comSun Apr 14 23:59:02 1996
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 96 21:32:01 -0400
From: Ahang Rabbani
To: Jackson Armstrong-Ingram , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Overturning decisions by future UHJ
[This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII]
Dear Jackson,
It seems to me that once the House has defined a matter outside
of its sphere, it has closed the matter for all future Houses,
otherwise what's the point?!
Let's take an obvious example, the Guardianship. In 1963 the
House ruled that it was unable to legislate another Guardian in
existence -- hence defined the subject outside of its sphere
(which they did the same with the women membership on the House
too). Now, can some future House decides that in fact it can
legislate to bring Guardianship into existence?
If they use the same Text as in 1963 House, then they must arrive
at the *same* decision otherwise 1963 decision was in error which
is an impossibility by design. So, if an alternate decision is
arrived at, it must be based on *new* Text or evidence *not*
available to 1963 House.
Also, once a House decides a matter is outside its sphere of
competence, how can another House decide otherwise without
implying that the first decision was in error? So, again they
require *new* Text or information.
Let me throw in another complication. If we were to read the
Will and Testament literally, it really allows the House to
change the rulings of a previous one on matters of *law* and
nothing else. In other words, one could argue that
non-legislative pronouncements of the House of Justice, matters
pertaining to its function as the Head of the Faith, is permanent
and not amendable to change. Of course the way out of this is to
argue that external conditions have changed, hence the previous
ruling no longer applies.
I don't know if I make any sense, but there has to some mechanism
to protect *some* decision from future changes -- otherwise,
folks could walk around and say, heck, some day the House may
rule another Guardian into existence or bring the Hands backs or
allow women on the House.... or do some other crazy thing ;-\}
take care, ahang.
From gladius@portal.caMon Apr 15 10:42:17 1996
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 22:51:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linda de Gonzalez
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Women's Problems
Okay, so Jim has his anatomy "improved" with chain-saw surgery...NOW can we
please get on with the discussion???
Here is my understanding so far from what's been written:
1. We are corrupted by our materialistic North American society's ideas
about equality and we really have no idea what it means within the Faith.
Jim Harrison believes our concept is a "socio-political question of power
and authority", and essentially a "materialistic concern".
Well, maybe so. This sounds like a re-hash of the argument against suffrage
100 years ago: why would women want the vote, when they had the "real" power
of raising sons who would bring about needed changes "in their names".
Blacks have also faced the same kind of "blindness"; in fact, my
understanding is that gospel and blues were in large part a response to
their lack of "worldly" power: they believed they would see justice in the
next world, and developed a powerful means of communicating their hope in
the future and their despair of the present. (Don't tell me, I know already,
it's an oversimplification of a complex dynamic).
Other than the question of membership on the UHJ, there is no power or
authority within the Faith that is closed to women. We serve as Hands of the
Cause, as members of the Boards, as Auxiliary members of the Boards, in
short, in every position that could possibly be considered to have power or
authority, it is possible to elect or appoint a woman. Therefore, Jim's
point is not valid. We have "power and authority" as a group in the Faith.
What we often don't have is the power to choose: and this isn't a minor
materialistic concern, but in fact the evidence of the soul's working. We
got a life, we get to choose--it's called free will and it's a gift from God.
I notice, Jim, that you didn't respond to many of the points I made earlier.
While my horse may be of a different color, and it certainly has no name,
it's not particularly "high" -- more of a Welsh pony, in fact.
2. Leaving aside the question of membership on the UHJ, let's take a
look at some practical ways of determining what equality might be, in the Faith.
Let's compare what "equality" is for, say, blacks or natives, with what it
is for women. The same dynamics are at work; the same old arguments are
trotted out regularly to justify treating people differently based solely on
their color/gender.
Let's also exchange ideas on what we know for sure "equality" is not,
whether we are North Americans or not. (Perhaps I should say Western or not).
Because our souls (the most important part of us, right???) have no gender,
it makes no sense to give people different spiritual "rights" based on
gender. However, because of the undeniable biology involved, certain other
"rights" come into play.
According to the Aqdas, a woman has the right to be supported by her
husband. This is often only possible if the couple is wealthy; around the
world, both husbands and wives have to work for the family to survive. Does
this mean that if the husband is poor, the wife should demand her right to
be supported? Well, sure she can. Whether or not the family will survive is
a different question, one she has to grapple with *spiritually*, and
exercise her free choice. Since the mother is the first educator of the next
generation, she has the right to be educated, a right that has precedence
over her brother's right to an education. Does this mean that she *must*
stay at home with her own children? Maybe not. Maybe she will choose to
delegate that responsibility to someone else, and work outside the home.
Maybe she has to delegate that responsibility because her income is
necessary to the family's survival.
What is the loving-Baha'i thing to do in the following situation:
Husband and wife both work all day at their small business. They both get
home around 6:00. Husband takes 2 boys (aged 9 and 11) out to the park, or
they watch TV together, or they go out to the back yard & play catch till
wife has supper ready. They sit down to eat around 7:00. Mother cleans up &
does dishes while Daddy makes sure the boys get their homework done & get to
bed by 9:00. Mother then does one or many of the following: laundry;
ironing; washing floors; vacuuming; mending; you name it. While Daddy
watches TV. They both fall into bed around 10:00. Mother gets up around 5:00
a.m. to prepare supper, breakfast, and to prepare and pack lunches. Daddy
and the boys get up around 6:30, have breakfast, and everybody is gone to
work/school by 7:45. On weekends, Daddy mows the lawn & washes the car.
Daddy also takes the garbage to the curb once a week. Mother would like to
take another ESL course, but she cannot, as her domestic duties do not
permit her to (or so her husband tells her).
I realize I may be sounding like a rabid frothing at the mouth feminist
here. I am doing my best to figure out what Abdu'l-Baha would say and do, as
a witness to the above (real) situation. To my way of thinking, Mommy is
still doing all the things she would have done if she had no outside work.
She is exhausted and sleep-deprived. She spends very little "fun time" with
her sons, her husband, or even alone. I am not saying that it's the
husband's fault, or that he is a bad man. I am asking "Is a loving
intervention necessary for the woman's sanity and the family's overall
healthy functioning" and also "What would a loving intervention be?"
I don't pretend to know all the answers here (honest, Jim!). I have a whole
bunch of questions and I would really like to hear what other people have to
say about their own spiritual struggles with "equality". What I don't want
is to have to listen to more tripe about how corrupt North American society
is. So what -- does that mean we can't even discuss equality, we're so
corrupt???
Linda de Gonzalez
Gladius Productions
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 14:21:13 +0800 (HKT)
To: Juan R Cole
Subject: Re: Overturning decisions and Baha'i jurisprudence
Well done. This kind of brilliant, even-handed, innovative work we have
come to expect from you. It also provides a bit of maneuvering room.
> As the last part of this passage makes clear, the matters on which there
> is a difference of opinion (ikhtila:f) and the "obscure" matters
> (mubhamih) both have the implication of being *legal* matters. The House
> is not here being authorized to resolve *theological* problems, which
> would be a matter of Interpretation (tabyin) and thus the purview of
> `Abdu'l-Baha and the Guardian.
The obvious question is: Does interpretation encompass matters of Baha'i
law or it restricted to theological issues? The fact the Guardian
himself stated that he could not over rule UHJ decisions suggests that,
at least, in matters of Baha'i law his interpretations could not bind the
UHJ in their area of administration. If this case can be made convincingly
enough, I think the major hurdle has been crossed.
From burlb@bmi.netMon Apr 15 10:59:09 1996
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 96 23:24 PDT
From: Burl Barer
To: Linda de Gonzalez
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Women's Problems
>
>I don't pretend to know all the answers here (honest, Jim!). I have a whole
>bunch of questions and I would really like to hear what other people have to
>say about their own spiritual struggles with "equality".
There is another "fact" of life, at least in USA, with which you are
probably familiar -- creeping incompetence of males once they are married.
This is well documented. The longer men are married, the less they are able
to do (allowed to do? validated for doing? I don't know) within the domestic
realm. This plays some part in the puzzle of domestic role equality,
perhaps specialization and roles of assigned "expertise" but I am not sure.
Do you know more about this?
BB
*************************************
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!
Visit my new home page: www.bmi.net/outlaw/burl.html
********************
From Alethinos@aol.comMon Apr 15 10:59:59 1996
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 02:33:44 -0400
From: Alethinos@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Overturning decisions and Baha'i jurisprudence
In a message dated 96-04-15 01:20:18 EDT, you write:
>I should make clear that I think the final determination of this matter
>always lies with the Universal House of Justice; that I am satisfied
>that at any one time they have made the best jurisprudential decision they
>possibly could, in a morally immaculate (ma`su:m) fashion; and that
>studying such issues and attempting to formulate principles of Baha'i
>jurisprudence is only a form of individual interpretation, which is
>without authority and yet nevertheless open to every Baha'i.
Gee Juan, why didn't you just say this before, turn off the lights and close
the door?
jim harrison
Alethinos@aol.com
From lbhollin@uxmail.ust.hkMon Apr 15 11:01:09 1996
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 15:13:45 +0800 (HKT)
From: HOLLINGER RICHARD VERNON
To: Linda de Gonzalez
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Women's Problems
On Sun, 14 Apr 1996, Linda de Gonzalez wrote:
> I realize I may be sounding like a rabid frothing at the mouth feminist
> here. I am doing my best to figure out what Abdu'l-Baha would say and do, as
> a witness to the above (real) situation. To my way of thinking, Mommy is
> still doing all the things she would have done if she had no outside work.
> She is exhausted and sleep-deprived.
Rabid femnist???...you have to be kidding! You sound like a mainstream
middle-class American woman. The situation you decribe, which I presume
to be hypothetical, doesn't sound
like equality to me. I don't think equality in a family necessarily has
to involve identical rights and responsbilities at any given time, but I
do think that it must require reciprocity in rights and
responsibilities. When `Abdu'l-Baha visited the West, he commented that
the middle-class and upper-class women lived lives of greater privilege
than their husbands. Remember this was at a time when middle-class men
worked longer days and six-day weeks, middle-class women didn't have to
work [that, indeed, may have been the criteria for being middle-class]
outside the home, and middle-class families had live-in servants to do
the housework. Viewing this situation, the Master stated that women in
these classes did not do enough for their husbands.
Well times have changed, and now the servants have been relaced with
home appliances and most middle-class women now do work outside the home
in order to maintain a middle-class standard of living. The family and
community networks that helped support the women who did have to work in
the past have largely disappeared. And the bulk of the burden of this
crisis has fallen upon working women. I would suggest that a number of
adjustments
need to be made in order to respond to the situation: fairer distribution
of wealth, a social infrastructure that supports a decent and dignified
lifestyle with a lower income, the rebuilding of communities, and yes, of
course, more equitable distribution of housework.
Richard
From gladius@portal.caMon Apr 15 11:01:38 1996
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 00:17:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linda de Gonzalez
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Cc: burlb@ns.bmi.net
Subject: Re: Women's Problems
> -- creeping incompetence of males once they are married.
Well, yes, I'm familiar with the phenomenon. I believe it has to do with the
roles we learn, at home, by the time we are 5 years old.
A formerly self-sufficient and independent male becomes less and less "able"
to...do laundry, iron, scrape out the bathroom, etc. etc. only so far as he
believes (deep deep down in his 4-year-old heart) that it's not his job to
do so. He will do it very well as long as there is no alternative (i.e. no
female partner), but as soon as a female starts sharing living quarters,
lots of things become "her job" automatically (by that I mean without
conscious thought).
When you look at their early childhood, when they learned how mommies behave
and how daddies behave, they invariably had "maid mommies", women who,
whether they stayed at home or not, considered it their responsibility to
perform all the domestic duties. So, little Billy-Bob grows up, gets a job,
lives alone, keeps house for himself. As soon as he and Lurleen get married,
whoops, well, guess what, housekeeping is now Lurleen's job. Because that's
how mommies and daddies are.
It's gonna be painful for Billy-Bob and Lurleen to thrash out an equitable
distribution of chores, if they both are working outside the house. However,
to let Lurleen keep doing two jobs is exploiting her labour: her paid labour
contributes to the family economy, while her unpaid labour keeps her husband
in way more comfort and spare time than she herself has.
My own mother stayed at home, and I was an only child. I went to convents
starting at age 7. I never did get the hang of housework! So as soon as my
kids were old enough to understand instructions, they got to do chores: when
they were 3 and 4, picking up toys and putting them away. When they could
reach the sink, they "helped" with dishes. When they could reach the washing
machine controls, they started doing their own laundry. Now, I'm happy to
say, my two young men, aged 20 and 22, are self-sufficient and neither of
them sees housework as anything other than maintenance, work to be divided
by agreement among people who live together in a household.
Linda de Gonzalez
Gladius Productions
From candy@pc.jaring.myMon Apr 15 11:02:10 1996
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 15:17:14 +0800 (MYT)
From: "Dr. Chandrasekaran"
To: BRBUR1@mailbag.com
Cc: TALISMAN@indiana.edu
Subject: GITA-AVATARA AND BUDDHAHOOD
Dear BRUCE,
The hindus believe in 3 phases of the absolute and use their
terminology accordingly.In sanskrit they are BRAHMAN,PARAMATMA AND BHAGAVAN.
It is to the term bhagavan that term bahai Manifestation of God
applies.Though the hindus do go to the extreme of pantheistic ideas but
there does not seem much difference even if looked more closely.Help me out
here if I AM WRONG?As far as my knowledge goes there is only one Krishna the
avatar but it is mixed up with a lot of mythology.
Indologists often say that ancient Indians were content
with fables and had no interest in recording history.Yet some traditional
vedic scholars strongly disagree with this.For eg,Pandit Kota Venkatachela
has written a book giving an unbroken sequence of kings of Magadha from the
time of Mahabharata upto the invasion of India by Mohd Ghori in 1193 AD.He
uses the Puranas and related Sanskrit texts to give dates for the reign of
these kings.
Have you read this article?
It is Shankaracharya(788-820) who indeed started the death
blow to Buddhism but he did it by borrowing buddhistic ideas to form his
advaita-vedanta commentary.Buddhism is as bahais believe is God revealed
religion and it was extinguished by 15th century in India.Wherelse a hocus pocus
extremist religion like Jainism continued to progress.Can you comment?
regards
DR.CHANDRAN
From candy@pc.jaring.myMon Apr 15 11:02:40 1996
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 15:18:40 +0800 (MYT)
From: "Dr. Chandrasekaran"
To: lwalbrid@ophelia.ucs.indiana.edu
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: being honest
Dear Linda,
I had just gone to Iran and returned.I visited Ishfahan,Shiraz
and Tehran ,in most of this places
what was most fascinating was that most of the activities the women were in
the forefront.I met quite a number of young girls aged between 18-25yrs who
are doing research papers on topics like concept of tests in the bahai
faith.I have a persian wife who is so vocal at feasts that I have to hold
her down.The other Iranian women here are no exceptioni.e they are the
terror of town.Where in God's name is M.E.?
GREETINGS
DR.CHANDRAN
From rvh3@columbia.eduMon Apr 15 11:04:02 1996
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 05:21:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: Richard Vernon Hollinger
To: TLCULHANE@aol.com
Cc: Member1700@aol.com, 72110.2126@compuserve.com, 73613.2712@compuserve.com,
jrcole@umich.edu, jwalbrid@ucs.indiana.edu, lwalbrid@indiana.edu,
sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl, TLCULHANE@aol.com
Subject: Re: Desolation and Change
Dear Terry and all,
> ten percent of any population can have a significant impact
> on the direction and culture of a society. So all that has to happen is
> coming up with say 3000 Bahais who think community is more than
> administration and give them a home and a place to "act" in the context of
> the Mashriq and change starts to happen within the Bahai community. That does
> not strike me as an insurmountable goal . Those folks who become Bahais
> because of the Mashriq and its associated activities from scholarship ina
> university, to orhpans i.e the homelss to clinics to hostels for travelers
> are becoming Bahais for different reasons . rather than simple give them to
> community =administration we can create additional forms of participation in
> Bahai life and create the "organic " differentiation we need.
>
I think the Mashriq focus has considerable potential for transforming and
revitalizing Baha'i communities. As Victor Turner observed, rituals are
subersive to the social structure because they suggest the possibility of
a more egalitarian set of social relationships and therforre act as a
catalyst for social change. They will not elimkinate the administration
(and should not) but they could very well minimize its signifance in
Baha'i life (which is appropriate). Either administrators will
participate, and thereby legitimate the sense of community that the
Mashriq gives rise to, or they will not, and the Mashriq will serve to
foster a "subworld" within the community.
The last sea change that took place in the US Baha'i community occured as
a result of several factors, and the weight that should be given to each
will not be clear until the period has been studied more closely. First,
the New History Society and its allies discredited a liberal approach to
the Faith by breaking the Covenant and throwing under the cloud of
suspicion liberals within the community, such as Alfred Lunt. Almost at
the same time, the conservatives began to get ahold of the teaching
resources and machinery and, more important, control of the process of
enrollment. The community went through a (usually subtle but sometimes
rancorous) purging process during the early 1930's. There was a major
turnover in the membership in the Baha'i community during the late 1920's
and early 1930's and many of the old time Baha'is seem to have
disappeared from the roles then. At any rate, the conservative got
control of the administration and "orthodoxoxy" (the term used a the
time) became equated with loyalty to the administration. It didn't have
to tern out that way, the liberals were not against the administration
but against authoritarianism, and sometimes vied with the orthodox for
control (as when Lund was sec. of the NSA in 1932-33). But in the end
the liberals lost out.
What's the lesson in all of this. Get control of the teaching, shape the
paradigms of the next generation of Baha'is right from the beginning.
Richard
From Geocitizen@aol.comMon Apr 15 11:04:50 1996
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 05:36:58 -0400
From: Geocitizen@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: head of family?
Esteemed Steven,
In your enumeration of disagreements you have with the Universal House of
Justice, you refer to "their endorsement of the male as the head of the
Baha'i family despite no evidence for this in the sacred writings" as one of
several points of disagreement.
I am familiar with only one passage where the UHJ employs the phrase "head of
the family," and when read in context, it seems quite clear that what is
meant by the word "head" is quite different from the conclusion to which most
people leap when that word gets used. (In fact, the House itself places the
word "head" in quotes, perhaps to emphasize that an unusual and technical
usage of the word is intended.)
The context makes it clear that this usage of the word is quite limited, and
is drawn directly from those provisions of the Aqdas which make the male
primarily (not exclusively, but primarily) responsible for the economic
well-being of the family.
Thus, although I do not dispute your freedom to disagree with the House on
this point, your claim that there is "no evidence in the sacred writings" for
this description of the male role in family life seems, to me, to be stated
far too strongly. Insufficient evidence? Perhaps. "No" evidence? Hardly.
It is true that some Baha'is draw unjustifiably broad conclusions from the
phrase "head of the family," such as thinking it confers on the husband some
kind of "veto power" whenever both partners are unable to agree on a course
of action, but the full text of the letter from the House clearly disagrees
with such conclusions.
The letter to which I refer was dated December 28, 1980 to the NSA of New
Zealand, and appears in the Addenda to _Lights of Guidance_ (beginning with,
ironically enough, the subject heading "Inequalities Between Sexes
Negligible") on pp. 523-527.
Is your claim that the UHJ has made statements on this subject with "no
evidence in the sacred writings" to back them up based on some other source
of which I am unaware?
Curious,
Kevin Haines
From Geocitizen@aol.comMon Apr 15 11:05:51 1996
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 05:37:14 -0400
From: Geocitizen@aol.com
To: sscholl@jeffnet.org, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Women's Voices/Jim's Voice
Esteemed Talizens:
Way back when Jonathan Swift penned the original "modest proposal," one of
his greatest achievements was showing that even when one's writing style is
calm, cool, and collected one can still employ language to violent, even
vicious effect.
Of course, countless politicians, ecclesiastics, and certainly not least,
scholars, have employed this kind of violence both before and after Swift. A
case in point sprang up not long ago here on Talisman when Steven Scholl
opined, among other things,
>Jim continues to moan that we are wasting our precious time and resources by
not >following whatever vision he has in mind but can't seem to explain to
such dense >heads as populate this discussion forum.
There were a good number of other insults which Steven falsely attributed to
Jim, (whether in a conscious attempt to deceive or simply out of his own
carelessness in reading Jim is a moral judgement from which I abstain) but in
the interest of brevity I'll focus only on the central claim of the above
sentence.
If we go back enough months to those halcyon days of Talisman when the charge
of fascism was less frequently hurled, it will become clear that the vision
Jim has been trying to call us to explore is not his own, it is the vision of
the Persons and Institutions designated to lead the Cause of God.
Thus it is not Jim's responsibility to "explain" this vision to us, nor has
he ever claimed an exclusive understanding of it. It is our responsibility
collectively to explore, understand, and carry out this vision.
(Hmm. If I squint hard enough at Steven's post, I see him accusing Jim of
claiming to be the authority to whom all must turn, which would make that an
accusation of Covenant breaking, which would necessitate my calling for
Steven's expulsion from Talisman. Luckily for everyone here, I am less given
than some to acting upon what I can see only when I have to squint that hard.
:-)
My reading of what Jim has called upon us to realize is simply this: the
dynamic tension between our confusion, our doubts, our cultural perspectives
and considered convictions and hurt feelings over such issues as human rights
and the exclusion of women from UHJ membership -- between all these things
and the guidance provided to us by the Master, the Guardian, and the
Universal House of Justice, *can* potentially aid us to understand and spread
the healing Message of Baha'u'llah, but like any powerful force, this dynamic
tension can also lead us in useless or even destructive directions.
The directions that are *more* useful at this stage in the development of the
human race and of the Baha'i Cause have been clearly identified by the
Guardian and clarified by the Universal House of Justice. Why do we continue
to ignore this clear guidance?
"Alas! How strange and pitiful; for a mere cupful, they have turned away
from the billowing seas of the Most High, and remained far from the most
effulgent horizon."
"Ye turn your eyes toward the thorn, and name it a flower."
(Hidden Words, Persian #2 and #45)
There is another Hidden Word which I think applies to Talisman in a much more
flattering light, and in a way which I think agrees with what Jim has called
upon us to do (which, if I am right, would disprove Steven's and others'
claim that Jim holds us all in some kind of contempt):
O MY SERVANT!
Thou art even as a finely tempered sword concealed in the darkness of its
sheath and its value hidden from the artificer's knowledge. Wherefore come
forth from the sheath of self and desire that thy worth may be made
resplendent and manifest unto all the world.
(Persian #73)
Shall we?
Regards,
Kevin Haines
From berny.munro@stonebow.otago.ac.nzMon Apr 15 11:07:17 1996
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 22:21:08 +1200 (NZST)
From: Berny Munro
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Equality
Equality for me has never equated to sameness- I have never wanted nor
shall ever want to be a male. Frankly it's hard enough being female.
For a long time I felt sorry for men- they would be told to "improve" but
never how to achieve that, I guess that's why I'm enjoying the discussion
at the moment in so many ways it can be a learning and practical
experience.
In a letter from the Universal House of Justice dated 24 July 1975 it is
written:
"Equality between men and women does not, indeed physiologically it cannot,
mean identity of functions. In some things women excel men, for others men
are better fitted than women, while in very many things the difference of
sex is of no effect at all."
For me I hope that I can raise my children in an environment where they can
see equality in action so that it becomes part of their life from an early
age ie: sub-conscious. With that thought in mind I have always tried to
give my children choices and not limited them to a specific gender role.
Until he was 4 my son had long hair-his choice. My daughter chose to have
short hair at age 5 again her choice. All my children have pierced ears-
they chose. Granted with each of their choices I ascertained that that was
what they really wanted. I figure if a child can remember and tell me
regularly over a period of 12 months then they do know their own minds.
That is not to say I would allow them to make a bad decision but let them
learn HOW to make decisions.
Kia ora koutou
BERNY
From friberg@will.brl.ntt.jpMon Apr 15 11:08:22 1996
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 96 19:55:02 JST
From: "Stephen R. Friberg"
To: talisman@indiana.edu, friberg@will.brl.ntt.jp
Subject: Clouds Befuddling my Vision
Dear Kevin:
You take Steve Scholl to task. Perhaps he deserves it: there was nary
a paragraph break in his whole post, and my eyes kept slipping off of
the page!! :)
But in taking him to task, aren't you doing exactly what you are claiming
he shouldn't do: criticizing in a provocative, nay, even harmful way?
Talismanian logic is a bit wierd at times: are you saying that by
employing the tactics that you suggest Steve is using you are righting
a wrong, whereas he is "wronging" a right?
Anyway, let me try to answer your charges in an attempt to forestall
another flame war.
You wrote:
>If we go back enough months to those halcyon days of Talisman when
>the charge of fascism was less frequently hurled, it will become
>clear that the vision Jim has been trying to call us to explore
>is not his own, it is the vision of the Persons and Institutions
>designated to lead the Cause of God.
But, you will admit, it is now. Even Jim (Jim, please say some
thing positive here, will you!!) will admit that we are not all
expected to have a listing of the points he made in such halycon
days posted clearly in a conspicuous place next to our computer
screens. We DO need to have occasional reminders of the sins
of omission that we are committing by considering women's issues,
religion and science, and the like.
>Thus it is not Jim's responsibility to "explain" this vision to
>us, nor has he ever claimed an exclusive understanding of it. It
>is our responsibility collectively to explore, understand, and carry
>out this vision
Are we just supposed to pick it up by osmosis? Should I just lay my
hands on the computer screen when a message from Jim shows up,
just glom it directly into the cns?
I disagree with Steve about some points, but where I do agree with him
is that Jim has not been persuasive enough in giving us a "positive"
description of where he thinks we should go. Talisman is words, and
the warm glow of learning comes from words that inspire us. Lacking
such words, and feeling tongue-lashed, we naturally doubt at times
in the validity of the insights transmitted!
You then write:
>My reading of what Jim has called upon us to realize is simply this:
>the dynamic tension between our confusion, our doubts, our cultural
>perspectives and considered convictions and hurt feelings over such
>issues as human rights and the exclusion of women from UHJ membership
>-- between all these things and the guidance provided to us by the
>Master, the Guardian, and the Universal House of Justice, *can*
>potentially aid us to understand and spread the healing Message of
>Baha'u'llah, but like any powerful force, this dynamic tension
>can also lead us in useless or even destructive directions.\
\
This is fine! Why didn't you just say this in the first place?
Why the tongue-lashing, which caused everybody (I'm almost sure)
to ignore these nice, and easily accepted points.
Jim: can you elaborate on this a bit. Does Kevin "interpret"
you correctly?
Yours sincerely,
Stephen R. Friberg
P.S. Over the last week or so, you have been making excellent,
well-reasoned posts. But now, you seem to be finally sharing
the sense of frustration that has been going around. My urgent
question is this: how did you fight it off for so long? I
succumbed long ago!
From a003@lehigh.eduMon Apr 15 11:23:51 1996
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 07:28:43 EDT
From: a003@lehigh.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: women (and men's) problems
Dear Linda:
Your posts are very excellent. Excellent well, and fun to read.
It's true. This life is like a battle. It kills us. We all often feel
like we're at our rope's end in order to "progress".
Two things...one,
simplify and change priorities. This constant reaching out for more
things...even education, money, greater success...where is it leading us?
It's killing us. But, don't mistake me in thinking I don't think it's all
very important. Still, I do think we're in a rat's treadmill that is
causing much of this contention or competition between the sexes.
Two...we must support each other, we men and women. We need to be able to
look at the heart of the dream that lies within each of us and be willing
to take turns carrying a *greater load* than perhaps is fair in order for
our partner to have opportunities that will help keep that inner dream
alive. If we both are making sure that the pie is split evenly down the
middle *no matter what* the greater principle of happiness and mutual
love and support is in grave danger of being lost.
Also, for what it's worth, an report and a fairly respectable survey of
women and men in this morning's paper notes that it's the women who are
concerning themselves about important things like, the children's
education, and recycling, etc....It's the men who expend energy figuring
out geopoltical/world peace/meaning of existence type stuff. I'm
generalizing here, but it's interesting grist for the mill. In a way
there are two stereotypes this information (assuming it has any validity)
breaks. One is the thought of men being so practical and women being
unpractical. No, no, no, it's the women who are dealing with practical
issues while the men have got their head in the clouds. Two, is that the
men handle finances better than the women...the survey showed that it's
the majority of the women who are handling home finances--interesting in
relation to assumptions about power in the household.
With best regards and love,
Bill
*-----------------------------------------------------------*
* Phone:610-867-9251 William George *
* Theatre Artist *
* 908 E. 5th. St. *
* Bethlehem, Pa 18015 U.S.A. *
*___________________________________________________________*
From 73043.1540@compuserve.comMon Apr 15 11:24:26 1996
Date: 15 Apr 96 07:23:57 EDT
From: John Dale <73043.1540@compuserve.com>
To: "Richard C. Logan"
Cc: BAHA'I-TALISMAN-LIST
Subject: The Notion of Moral Consistency
Dear Richard,
Several days ago, you wrote about the idea of moral consistency:
> The idea that morality is somehow axiological (moral
>consistency) is on numerous occasions definitely rejected by Baha'u'llah.
> Morality is not absolute it is relative or contingent. "He does
>whatsoever He willeth." He goes so far as to say that if He were to
>declare all that was permissible to be forbidden and all that was
>forbidden to be permissible all must unhestitatingly accept. How can one
>seriously talk about consistency given such a level of moral contigency
>as stated by Baha'u'llah. <
COMMENT: I do not recall exactly what other people have responded to on
this post, but we've been reading a lot about literalism lately, and this may be
another instance of the need to be careful. Religious truth is relative. It
looks like we have an absolute statement here, but I think we'd better look
twice, or several times, before we leap.
There are really a number of ideas here that may be getting seriously
mixed up. First, for God to change, for example, the site of the kiblih from
Jerusalem to Mecca as He pleases, is one thing. It makes no difference in the
essential nature of moral reality or of a religious moral system for the kiblih
to be in one location or another.
The same thing can be said about the numbers of wives or husbands a
spouse may legally have. Revelation has varied on this point. It makes no
difference to the basic concept of love or intimacy if one has one spouse or
more than one spouse. All the changeable social laws are of this kind, e.g.,
hair-length, calendars, holy days, etc. All of these things can be changed by
divine decree, as God Himself says. And nothing essential is changed by all of
that. In relation to the Good, all of these changing instrumentalities and
conventions are ethically neutral.
However, has God really told us that we can transfer this notion to every
level of morality, to the essence of every moral idea? To transfer this notion
of alterability from this level of changeable "conventional morality" to a
deeper level of morality, and to say that there is no valid notion of moral
consistency and that all morality whatsoever is changeable "at God's whim" so to
speak, is really quite a radical view which I was not aware I was buying into
when I joined this Faith. And I do not think most people are aware that this is
what they are buying into when they become Baha'is. Perhaps the Surgeon General
needs to order us to put a "Warning!" label on Baha'i products which spell out
what a radical Faith we really belong to, and that the Baha'i God may be
dangerous to your health. :-)
For what the position you are adopting means is that there is no inherent
stability to the idea of the Good. The Good is not something inherent in the
nature of God and thus in the nature of reality, something that God Himself
cannot change. The Good is simply something totally arbitrary that some entity
which calls itself "God" keeps revealing to us from time to time. This "God"
would have us believe He can literally order us to do something completely
contrary to the divine nature, that He can become His own opposite, that He can
literally anull the law of love and replace it by a law of hate, can literally
talk peace one minute and total annihilation the next, and be morally
consistent. One minute He could tell us to love all humanity. The next minute
He could equally legitimately order the Baha'i Community to begin a holy war
against all other religions. Nothing He has said in the past binds Him against
any future decree. All decrees, no matter what their content, are equally
valid, equally moral, and equally to be obeyed.
This is the logical consequence of what you are proposing, as far as I
can see. This is what taking this concept literally leads to. The concept of
good and evil simply loses any rationality whatsoever. It is replaced by the
idea of mere obedience. Somehow obedience is good, and anything else is evil.
This morning, God tells us it is good to love our children. By noon, however,
He could change His divine mind and tell us that we must gouge all their eyes
out, and it would be good and morally consistent.
To start making basic notions of morality completely arbitrary in this
way, which is the consequence of what this idea of totally changeable morality
leads to, is the path to complete intellectual madness, in my opinion, and it is
to make a complete and utter mockery of the notion of deity. I'm not flaming
you personally here. I'm just flaming the idea.
>Naturally, one could pass this off as rhetoric
>but the core of Baha'u'llah's message I believe is contained in those
>statements. We are here to learn selflessness towards God and each
>other. We are all lowly servants. <
COMMENT: Did you ever wonder why God did not simply build cyborgs rather than
human beings? If all He wants is obedience, He could have gotten a lot more
reliable results by simply building an army of slave robots. If learning
selflessness towards God and being a lowly servant means learning peace one
minute and following a Divine Order to push the nuclear trigger to end
civilization the next, thanks but I'll become an atheist. I do not need a God
who is unreliable, who could suddenly decide that the Good consists in doing
evil.
>Take the example of Abraham and Isaac. God told Abraham to kill
>Isaac--if Abraham had argued this is morally inconsistent and refused he
>would have failed God's test. <
COMMENT: How do you know that? If a gang leader tells you to kill someone, how
do you know that it is not God speaking through him, and that He is really
testing your faith in Him? Why don't you go ahead and follow His command? I
seem to recall that Jonestown was based on a faith such as this. Cults always
are.
>The idea that we can tell God what the
>right thing to do is--is the real root of the problem.<
COMMENT: I disagree. The idea that the right thing can be anything at all is
the root of the problem.
> I noted when reading "A Year Amongst the Persians" that Browne kept harking
back to
>the question of must one kill if the Manifestation orders it? The
>Baha'is he asked this question of readily admitted that they must, but
>Browne found this totally indigestible. I imagine he found this morally
inconsistent with his notions of Christian pacifism.<
COMMENT: No major religion that I am aware of, except possibly Buddhism, I'm not
sure, says that there are NO situations in which it is not justified to take a
human life. I do not know the context of the question Browne was asking and
getting answers to. But to think that a Manifestation could ARBITRARILY order
the innocent to be executed is to make a complete mockery of the notion of
justice. This is the kind of notion of God that gives God a really bad name.
> The Bab asked his
>companions, it is recounted in Nabil's Narrative to kill HIM the night
>before His scheduled execution because he preferred to be killed by his
>loved ones.<
COMMENT: The Baha'i position on assisted suicide is thus completely clear: it
is permissible. I in fact have no problem with this, but it is not relevant to
the idea that God is whimsical in His own nature as the Good.
> Krishna explained on the battle field to one of his
>disciples, in the Gita, that killing under the particular circumstances
>the disciple was being asked was permissible because it was being done
>for the sake of Krishna and was not a personal act.
COMMENT: As others have pointed out, Krishna was in a moral situation in which
those killings were justified.. They were not the savage brutal murders of a
serial child-killer.
> Acts of Faith seem to take presidence over consistent acts. Consistent
acts find favor with reason but not with God.<
COMMENT: this conclusion doesn't follow at all. The act of faith in your view
is consistently the act that must be chosen. It is precisely this consistency
which makes the believer a good believer. Your whole dichotomy of acts of faith
versus consistency is internally incoherent. Consistent acts of faith find favor
with God for some reason, in your view, even if they involve the commiting of
evil.
> This is not a polemic against reason but expatiation on the depth of
commitment required of the believers >and the lesson of acceptance of His will
as true morality. The believers are bound to be uncomfortable at >times with
those things they are unable to rationalize i.e. women not at this time being
allowed on
>the UHJ, but we at least can be thankful are not being asked to kill some one.
>Richard
COMMENT: Thank God for small favors that He is not asking us to go out and kill
people. Richard, this is not a personal flame against you. But I find the
position you take here as logically totally outrageous. Can you imagine the
damage this kind of notion will cause to the Faith? If you seriously think that
the Baha'i Writings indicate that the Baha'i God may -- you never can tell --
tomorrow morning start ordering you to kill innocent women and children and that
you would be obliged to follow His commands, then I would advise you to RUN to
the nearest psychiatrist and spiritual detoxification center IMMEDIATELY. I
would further advise you to report to the highest public authorities in this
country that THERE IS A PSYCHOPATHIC DEITY AT LOOSE WITHIN THE BAHA'I WRITINGS
and that these writings, in the hands of overly literalistic and psychologically
deluded people could lead to all kinds of serious crimes and disorders.
I recall some recent conversations with a Buddhist friend who is of the firm
opinion that this "God" who has given us the religions of Judaism, Christianity,
Islam, and now the Baha'i Faith is simply a quite real but rather savage tribal
desert deity who is deluded about Himself and who is in need of enlightenment.
If the Baha'i writings lend themselves so readily to the notion of an irrational
and potentially murderous Deity, maybe my friend has a point! :-)
With highest regards,
John Dale
From a003@lehigh.eduMon Apr 15 11:24:46 1996
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 07:38:13 EDT
From: a003@lehigh.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: gender lists and stuff
Dr. Burl the most sweet, Jonah, and anyone listening,
Ummm. This sounds a little bit like a complaint, but it's not. It is a
concern though. All this gender stuff, reading lists, what we really
think about men or women, is embarrassing.
I've noticed that particularly when men start talking about men, from a
feeling point of view, some men start going into the humor mode. Now
that's a defence, quite possibly. It certainly cuts short any future
emergence of certain expressions, feelings, thoughts.
Just thought I should point this out.
It's a003 again,
Bill
*-----------------------------------------------------------*
* Phone:610-867-9251 William George *
* Theatre Artist *
* 908 E. 5th. St. *
* Bethlehem, Pa 18015 U.S.A. *
*___________________________________________________________*
From Alethinos@aol.comMon Apr 15 11:25:22 1996
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 09:02:51 -0400
From: Alethinos@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Clouds Befuddling my Vision
Stephen: Thanks for asking me to add something in my defense? Had I been
arrogant enough to lay out some grand strategy I would hope someone would box
my ears.It is true we have never gotten far with the issue of America's
spiritual destiny on this list. But the exploration of it cannot really begin
until we all agree (at least us Yankees) that this is THE main issue facing
us. This has not happened. Most the discourse has been just trying to prove
that it is important. Arguing over whether we do have a destiny in the
immediate future or not; what has gone wrong in the past, analyzing it and
suggesting alternatives, etc. Basically we have never gotten out of the gate.
Partly because in trying to bring the focus to the issue it has been
necessary to insist that others may not be as critical at this moment as they
would appear to be here on Talisman.
I have to go now. I will attempt to expand this later.
jim harrison
Alethinos@aol.com
From Alethinos@aol.comMon Apr 15 11:25:45 1996
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 09:02:43 -0400
From: Alethinos@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Women's Problems
It is a very large problem Ms. G. But lets look at it from another angle -
that of current socio-historical evidence. While women have made significant
gains (as have Blacks, Natives, Latinos etc) in the political arena and
somewhat less so in the business arena we continue to hear complaint that
something is missing, that the equlaity just isn't there. And they are right.
It is not there.
Because as important as the gains are that have been made legislatively we
cannot legislate honesty of spirit in men's heart. WE can't erase the
attitude of the husband at home who doesn't pull his weight, and we can't
releive the reality that both the man and the woman have to work like dogs
just to stay afloat - at least at the moment.
You see we are trying to clean out this massive mess in our closet here; but
we haven't figured out how to open the door so we can throw a lot of junk
out. Our perceptions, notions, hopes, frustrations, prejudices, etc.
This is a big subject, and I am in a rush this a.m. Please don't think by the
shortness of the response that I do not care. I do. One more thing though. It
would be a grave error if we begin to lay down the old templete of our
perception of *political power* on the Administrative Order. If that starts
to become the *big prize* we will simply replace the old crap we have dealt
with for so long with fresh new smelling horse dung.
jim harrison
Alethinos@aol.com
From jjensen@welchlink.welch.jhu.eduMon Apr 15 11:28:20 1996
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 09:07:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joan Jensen
To: Linda de Gonzalez
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Women's Problems
Dear Linda,
Thanks for providing a real-life situation that many women face.
> What is the loving-Baha'i thing to do in the following situation:
> Husband and wife both work all day at their small business.
>
> Mother would like to take another ESL course, but she cannot, as her
> domestic duties do not permit her to (or so her husband tells her).
The spiritual principles that seem to apply here include:
Woman's responsibility:
#2196 "...woman must prove her capacity and aptitude, must show forth
the evidences of equality. She must become proficient in the
arts and sciences.... Woman must especially devote her energies
and abilities toward the industrial and agricultural sciences,
seeking to assist mankind in that which is most needful..."
'Abdu'l-Baha
#2199 "Woman must endeavor then to attain greater perfection, to be
man's equal in every respect..." 'Abdu'l-Baha
Man's responsibility:
#2195: "...the assumption of superiority by man will continue to be
depressing to the ambition of woman,... On the contrary, we
must declare that her capacity is equal, even greater than man's."
'Abdu'l-Baha.
#2199 "When men own the equality of women there will be no need for
them to struggle for their rights." 'Abdu'l-Baha
Thus the wife has the responsibility to increase her education in
practical things (an ESL course sounds about right), and the husband has
the responsibility to encourage her, facilitate her desire to improve
herself and her ability to serve. My nine-year-old daughter makes dinner
once a week, and certainly both children can do many of the 'things'
around the house. That is, assuming they get their homework done between
the time school is out and the time their parents pick them up. Its a
question of consultation, understanding, and WILL. Since this family has
household chores divided along traditional USA male-female lines (gosh,
when I was growing up I was not ALLOWED to mow the lawn or take out the
garbage, just as my brothers were not allowed to wash dishes or fold
clothes!), it may be harder for both of them to make the break. Not only
will the husband and sons need to 'own' the household maintenance, but
the wife may have to let go of certain standards.
This sounds easy. Its not. In my married life my (ex)husband
assumed most household chores, shopping, cooking, cleaning, took
responsibility for our two daughters, as well as working full-time,
while I attended classes full-time and studied in the evenings and on
weekends. He actually got more sleep than I did, and had more
recreational time, because I was enrolled in a very demanding course of
study. Interestingly, that was the best year of our marriage. In the
second year he insisted I resume some share of the domestic realm even
though my class load remained the same, because he wanted more time to
play; but he had also gotten a taste of power, having had complete control
of financial decisions within our household (and had spent us into great
debt the year before). So upon resuming some of the household chores,
I also requested more input into how he was spending money... and he
refused to share that power. He said the only thing that made staying
in this city tolerable was that he could spend as much money as he wanted
on things he wanted, implying that he would just leave if I attempted to
curtail his spending.
Although to outward seeming he was doing a tremendous amount to facilitate
my education, I think he began to panic that he was losing his place as
the most powerful person in our home and sought to assert his power in
other areas. Why did he even agree to the first year of assistance? He
later told me it was because he was feeling guilty about his conduct in
previous years of our marriage (I won't go into details), and because he
was looking forward to living overseas and being supported by me after I
graduated.
My point is that these issues are always more complicated than they seem,
involving not just logic and fairness, but all sorts of hidden agendas
and expectations.
Warmly, Joan
------------------------------------------------------------------
Joan Jensen
Baltimore, Maryland USA
*******************************************************************
"...love and affinity are the fruits of a gentle disposition,
a pure nature and praiseworthy character..."
Selected Writings of 'Abdu'l-Baha, p. 287
*******************************************************************
From bn872@freenet.carleton.caMon Apr 15 11:30:06 1996
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 11:06:21 -0400
From: McKenny Michael
To: TALISMAN@indiana.edu
Subject: TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT
Greetings from Ottawa.
Well, someone posted here something like seekers coming upon
the Baha'i practise of an all male world leadership just had to
take it or leave it.
What follows is true. I was there. I was the guest speaker at
a fireside on humour in the Baha'i Faith. And another writer who
had published humour had come at my invitation. This was the
culmination of several years of association and mentioning the
Baha'i Faith. And one of the Baha'i men there looked at this
tall capable woman and said, "You want to know something else
that's funny? Women aren't allowed on the Universal House of
Justice. Ha ha ha."
Then there was the call my wife, a scientist, got from a
school friend, a manager in a big high tech company. Two Baha'is
were working for her and had interested her in the Faith. She
had thought my wife had become a Baha'i and was quite surprised
to be informed otherwise. "Well, tell me something bad about the
Baha'i Faith," she asked. "Women aren't allowed on the Universal
House of Justice," my wife answered.
There are other reasons why we don't have entry by troops in
this part of the world. However, from where I sit this one looks
like a big part of the problem.
The very fascinating and spiritual thing involved here is that
it requires the men ruling the world to give up their absolute
control. Giving up control is a very rare thing, even if this New
Age has given us the example of the Hands of the Cause asking not
to be elected to the Universal House of Justice. When it happens
there may well be an enormous amount of spiritual energy released.
We have been told repeatedly that religion and this Faith are
evolutionary and progressive. There is no threat in this to us
who like things defined and certain. Just as the lovliest
blossoms may still advance into the choicest nourishment, our
present practise of the "men of the house of justice" can attain
a House containing representatives of both genders. The scholars
of our Faith have provided us with the understanding to allow the
noon day sun to shine. May its rays bring light and joy, not only
to the Baha'is, but to all the people of the world.
Very Best Wishes,
Michael
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From gec@geoenv.comMon Apr 15 11:34:35 1996
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 11:05:18 -0400
From: Alex Tavangar
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Overturning decisions and Baha'i jurisprudence
Juan, your argument regarding the technical ranking of the various questions
and issues before the House of Justice (i.e., us.u:l, furu:, ijtihad, etc.)
is clear enough. I'm not sure however, that adopting the Shi'a
jurisprudential mechanisms and procedures lock stock and barrel would be
entirely appropriate in this Dispensation. Particularly in light of
Baha'u'llah's numerous cautionary notes and even criticisms of relying on or
adopting wholly the established methods of pre-resurrection era to evaluate
post-resurrection questions. Similarity of some of the terminology used by
Baha'u'llah or Abd'ul-Baha to traditional Shi'a terms need not necessarily
bind the House to their previous definitions (even if by some fluke there
were agreement among the Shi'a doctors about the exact application of such
terminology).
Best Regards,
Alex B. Tavangar
From bn872@freenet.carleton.caMon Apr 15 11:34:50 1996
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 07:01:09 -0400
From: McKenny Michael
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: BARDIC RUNES
Greetings from Ottawa.
Thanks, Juan, for the mention of BARDIC RUNES, Canada's
magazine of traditional and high fantasy, i.e. stories of
magic and adventure, many of which are written in the way
the best such stories were prior to 1937. This definition
of "traditional" can be explained if anyone's interested.
There are some funny stories here. There are also some
more serious, such as Anna Kitaeva's "A Name As Soft As A
Sigh", the first Russian fantasy from glastnost days
available for the English reading person.
Steve Bedingfield is one person on this list who has
read all 12 issues. And he's the one who has shown me how
to subscribe to TALISMAN, thus making it so terribly hard
for me to get my work done and the 13th issue out for the
deadline of this Ridvan.:)
Very Best Wishes,
Michael
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From jrcole@umich.eduMon Apr 15 11:39:20 1996
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 01:15:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: Jackson Armstrong-Ingram
Cc: Ahang Rabbani , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Overturning decisions and Baha'i jurisprudence
I think there is room for compromise between Ahang and Jackson here. I
think Ahang is interested in upholding the finality of the Universal
House of Justice's finding that no further Guardians can ever arise.
Jackson is interested in stressing that the Universal House of Justice's
1988 conclusion that women may not serve on the House cannot bind future
Houses. (I think it is important to point out that Jackson has said
explicitly that he does not think the 1988 ruling indicates any prejudice
whatsoever on the House's part toward women, and I agree with him; I
think it also was the right decision for the time).
I would argue that the finding that there can be no further Guardians cannot
be overturned because it is based upon a clear and unambiguous set of
provisions in `Abdu'l-Baha's Will and Testament. Such unambiguous
conclusions about Law in Islam are called "us.u:l," basic principles.
For instance, the five pillars of Islam are us.u:l; there is no doubt of
the need to fast or to perform the pilgrimage. Therefore, it would be
improper for a jurisprudent to subject these clear basic principles to
question (these texts are called by `Abdu'l-Baha "the explicit holy
text," implying that there are Texts that are not explicit). In our case,
the text of the Will and Testament says:
"It is incumbent upon the Guardian of the Cause of God to appoint in his
own life-time him that shall become his successor, that differences may
not arise after his passing." He goes on to say that the successor does
not necessarily have to be the first-born of the Guardian, but may be
"another branch" if the first-born is not suitable.
This passage does not allow for a Guardian to be appointed by anyone
but the Guardian. This provision is in accordance with the tenets of
Twelver Shi`ism, and echoes the story of the way in which Ja`far
as-Sadiq, the 6th Imam, set aside his eldest son Isma`il (ancestor of the
Agha Khan and therefore distant relative by marriage of Rita Hayworth)
in favor of a younger son, Kazim, who became the 7th Imam.
Shi`ites held that the appointment was a *nass* or secret, esoteric
textual knowledge that was only possessed by the Imam.
Therefore, the finding of the Universal House of Justice is final and
cannot be ever overturned, since there is a clear text. All the House
did was confirm what was obvious to everyone, that this is a basic
principle (us.u:l) clearly spelled out in the inspired Text, and
therefore not subject either to further jurisprudential reasoning
(ijtihad, istinba:t.) or to independent Cameral legislation (tashri`).
Among the many duties laid upon the Universal House of Justice is
legislation. The 8th Ishraq is explicit that the House may repeal its
own legislation. The Will and Testament also says:
"It is incumbent upon these members (of the Unversal House of Justice) to
gather in a certain place and deliberate upon all problems which have
caused difference (ikhtila:fi:), questions that are obscure (masa'il-i
mubhamih), and matters that are not expressly recorded in the Book
(ghayr-i mans.u:s.ih). Whatsoever they decide has the same effect as the
Text itself. Inasmuch as the House of Justice hath power to enact laws
that are not expressly recorded in the Book and bear upon daily
translations, so also it hath power to repeal the same."
As the last part of this passage makes clear, the matters on which there
is a difference of opinion (ikhtila:f) and the "obscure" matters
(mubhamih) both have the implication of being *legal* matters. The House
is not here being authorized to resolve *theological* problems, which
would be a matter of Interpretation (tabyin) and thus the purview of
`Abdu'l-Baha and the Guardian. Since the Universal House of Justice
says there is no explicit Text appointing men the heads of households,
I think we must view its declaration that men are
the head of the household as a piece of legislation; it certainly
could be repealed in the future.
Another duty laid upon the House is jurisprudential elucidation
(istinba:t.; see Compilation of Compilations, 1:355-56, Rahiq-i Makhtum,
1:203-204).
. Istinba:t. is a technical term in Islamic jurisprudence. It
was not to my knowledge used in Islamic culture to refer to theological
reasoning or to scriptural exegesis or interpretation. It is a
*legal* term. Istinba:t. is broadly synonymous with the word
ijtihad. Both mean the application of juridical reasoning to a scriptural
text with the intent of deriving positive law. In the Shi`ite culture in
which `Abdu'l-Baha was steeped, istinba:t. or ijtihad was a *process*
that inhered in the reasoning of the jurisprudent. Should the
jurisprudent reconsider a problem and come to a different conclusion than
the first time, he and his followers *must* in Usuli Shi`ite law
thenceforth uphold the *second* ruling. I believe this sort of
flexibility is inherent in the cultural baggage that a word like istinba:t.
carried with it.
There are many issues in which the revealed or inspired Texts are
ambiguous or even contradictory. These issues have to do, not
with us.u:l or obvious basic principles apparent to virtually all
reasonable persons, but to secondary matters open to dispute. In Islamic
law, these secondary matters are called furu:`, and it is upon the
secondary matters/furu:` that istinba:t./jurisprudential reasoning is
carried out.
My argument is that some matters may at first appear to the Universal
House of Justice to be obvious basic principles, which, upon the
excavation of further texts and contexts, appear less and less
straightforward and clear, with contradictory Texts or inconsistencies
emerging. This eventuality could only be ruled out if the House were
omniscient, which it is not. In this case, the issue would be demoted from
basic principle/us.u:l to secondary matter/furu` and would become open to
the jurisprudential reasoning/istinba:t. of the House, and possibly then
even open to Cameral (that is from the House) legislation (tashri`). In
the instance of the appointment of another Guardian, the available texts are clear,
unambiguous, and not contradictory to one another. It is highly unlikely
that this principle can be demoted to a secondary issue, or that any
heretofore unknown texts pertaining to it will emerge.
On the other hand, I should think it is obvious from our discussions and
investigations during the past year and a half that the issue of women
serving on the House is *not* without the sort of ambiguities and
contradictions and disagreement among large numbers of reasonable
individuals that might demote it from basic principle to secondary issue
and thus make possible a jurisprudential and legislative reconsideration of
it by the Universal House of Justice. That is, I would class it as
among the masa'il-i mubhamih/obscure matters that `Abdu'l-Baha puts in
the purview of the Universal House of Justice. I personally think that the
problems in `Abdu'l-Baha's correspondence can be resolved in favor of the
possibility of women serving. The greatest bar is the four letters
written on behalf of the Guardian on this issue. But these letters
appear to show lack of contextual knowledge of the 1902 Tablet, raising
questions about their finality. The Guardian was not empowered
independently to legislate (tashri`), only to Interpret (tabyi:n). Where
his interpretation was based on inadequate factual or contextual knowledge,
he often changed it in his own lifetime. Moreover, one of the friends has
seen a letter from the Guardian in the US Baha'i archives in which he gives
lesser authority to letters only written on his behalf, as compared to
letters actually in his own hand.
I should make clear that I think the final determination of this matter
always lies with the Universal House of Justice; that I am satisfied
that at any one time they have made the best jurisprudential decision they
possibly could, in a morally immaculate (ma`su:m) fashion; and that
studying such issues and attempting to formulate principles of Baha'i
jurisprudence is only a form of individual interpretation, which is
without authority and yet nevertheless open to every Baha'i.
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From gec@geoenv.comMon Apr 15 15:24:46 1996
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 12:00:38 -0400
From: Alex Tavangar
To: Juan R Cole
Subject: Re: Overturning decisions and Baha'i jurisprudence
Juan,
Thanks for the clarification. I agree that study of the terminology used in
the Writings is important for defining the parameters of our belief system
as well as our own general understanding. perhaps your treatment of the
subject came across more definitive than you had intended at this point. A
precautionary note about the preliminary nature of some of the discourse at
the present juncture would partly alleviate misinterpretations.
Respectfully
Alex B. Tavangar
From mcfarlane@upanet.uleth.caMon Apr 15 15:25:02 1996
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 09:10:13 -0600
From: Gordon McFarlane
To: jwalbrid@indiana.edu
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: attn. John Walbridge
Dr. Walbridge.
Just a short note of apology for my posting of 10/04/96 in which I
made made reference to the tactics of "extreme right wing and white
supremist groups". Both the exaggerated analogy and overall tone of the
letter were innapropriate, and contradicted the intent of the message. I
regret having sent it.
Sincerely
Gordon A. McFarlane.
From spurushotma@brahma.hcla.comMon Apr 15 15:25:34 1996
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 96 9:41:51 PDT
From: spurushotma@brahma.hcla.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: American Heritage Tours
"Whoso dealeth dishonestly with God will, in Justice,
be exposed".
(From Huquq'u'llah compilation).
I have checked the files. The same individual who secretly
taped the conversations with the members of the National
Spiritual Assembly is in fact the same person who
fraudulently cheated numerous pilgrims in 1993.
American Heritage Tours filed for banktruptcy on April
1st 1994 (a bunch of April fools!).
I had composed an e-mail which, in no uncertain terms
and using creative vocubulary, contained what I thought
about this individual and his behaviour. However, in view of
the guidance in the May 19, 1994 letter and individual
rights and freedoms letter about speech and the effects
thereof, I have withdrawn
and deleted that e-mail (not even for posting on Derek's
ultra secret list).
The above public facts speak for themselves.
Now you know with whom you are dealing, and can draw your
own conclusions about the worth of the individual in
question.
From lwalbrid@indiana.eduMon Apr 15 15:26:06 1996
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 11:19:28 -0500 (EST)
From: lwalbrid
To: talisman@majordomo.ucs.indiana.edu
Subject: Iranian women
I knew I would be hearing from people who would want to set me straight
when I spoke so generally about "Iranian women." I will not argue this one.
This post does remind me of a conversation I had with an Iranian Baha'i
living in London. More about him in a minute. Anyway, he said that the
situation among the Baha'is has changed drastically in Tehran. Their
outspokenness and renewed commitment that he reports would suggest that
this is a good atmosphere in which women can grow and develop a strong
sense of independence.
Now, about this Persian/English bloke. Wonderful guy. Intelligent,
witty, kind, sincere, handsome, generous, considerate, hard working,
prosperous - just to name a few of his characteristics. Oh, yes. He is
also single and in his 30s. There wouldn't be anyone interested in this
information, would there? Linda
From gec@geoenv.comMon Apr 15 15:26:39 1996
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 12:24:52 -0400
From: Alex Tavangar
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT
Mike,
First I must say that "out of the flowering of your thoughts and hopes,
fragrant emanations have come my way." Your post was very thoughtful and
enlightening.
Now, please allow me to quote you totally out of context. You wrote:
> The very fascinating and spiritual thing involved here is that
>it requires the men *ruling the world* to give up their *absolute
>control*. (emphasis is mine)
Without going into much detail, these are not the qualities that I tend to
attribute to the House of Justice or its members. Furthermore, ruling the
world or having absolute power are not, to my knowledge, part of the House's
mandate. Trusteeship is.
While I would rejoice with most others the day when our sisters are
presented the opportunity to serve humanity in one more capacity, I think
that in the meantime we need to think about ways to affect a paradigm shift
in the global notions of power and control. These topics have all been
discussed in detail already.
warmest Regards,
Alex B. Tavangar
From lora@creighton.eduMon Apr 15 15:32:48 1996
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 12:04:30 CST
From: Lora McCall
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Women's Voices/Jim's Voice
Dear Steve --
Wonderful post! Thanks for stating so many things that needed to be
said, this is my opinion anyway.
It's fascinating to watch a man who feels he isn't being heard in
the group -- he does get louder and louder and louder. He is
outraged that his voice isn't being heard. Yet, women are expected
to accept with dignity the insult conferred by a group which ignores
her voice. If she gets louder and louder and demands to be heard,
she is very quickly labeled "disunifying" (and that's the nicest word
anybody uses to describe her). We do tolerate aggressive outbursts
from men, in general, and we are shocked and dismayed at any
similar outbursts from women.
Since the question was raised by someone "What can men do to begin to
own women's issues and make the situation better for everyone" I
would like to suggest that one simple place to start is by letting
women speak, scream, yell and curse, if they want to -- and NO ONE
gets to make a federal case out of it. No one gets to criticize her
or try to silence her -- and the Assembly needs to back her up too.
Now, obviously, if she is calling people names, spreading vicious
rumors, or something like that the LSA should address that. But if
all she is doing is venting her frustrations at not being heard, what
harm will it do to HEAR her??? Believe me, it makes a powerful
difference in a community when a man stands up and says, "Hold it,
Lora was speaking, and I want to hear the rest of what she has to
say." And yes, Terry Culhane and other men in this community have
done that for me and other women. At first it annoyed me that a man
*had to* stand up for me, but I quickly came to realize that this
was at least a strong step in the right direction. Change may
happen slowly, but at least it happens!
Sometimes this kind of discourse gets a little ugly, but it is NOT
disunifying to have a spirited clash of opinions at Feast or
community gatherings. And the LSA has the obligation to see that
all voices are heard, that no one gets dissed (overtly or covertly)
during consultation. This is a very serious matter.
Sorry for rambling. My point is: Let women ramble if they want to.
:) We want and need to be heard. Sometimes the words will be
rough and unpalatable -- especially for those people who think they
have the exclusive right to judge what is and is not appropriate
language for "ladies". Things will change because people are trying
to transform themselves. I think a lot of harm is done because the
social standards for *appropriate conduct* tend to be much higher (in
general) for women than for men. The more I'm heard, the less
frustrated I'll become, and the fewer expletives I'll want to use.
Let women be HUMAN and don't freak out over an offhand "goddammit"
when the pressure gets high. We're just people, let us off the
pedestals.
This doesn't mean we're ignoring Baha'u'llah's high standards for
conduct -- but give us some room to grow and stop judging us. (A
little irreverence doesn't mean I don't love Baha'u'llah.) Okay,
that would be my second point. :) Thanks for letting me ramble.
Fighting for the right to curse if I want to :) :) :)
And don't call me lady,
Lora McCall
From nineteen@onramp.netMon Apr 15 15:32:58 1996
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 96 12:10:00 -0500
From: "Richard C. Logan"
To: John Dale <73043.1540@compuserve.com>
Cc: Talisman
Subject: Re: The Notion of Moral Consistency
> For what the position you are adopting means is that there is no inherent
>stability to the idea of the Good. The Good is not something inherent in the
>nature of God and thus in the nature of reality, something that God Himself
>cannot change. The Good is simply something totally arbitrary that some
>entity
>which calls itself "God" keeps revealing to us from time to time. This "God"
>would have us believe He can literally order us to do something completely
>contrary to the divine nature, that He can become His own opposite, that
>He can
>literally anull the law of love and replace it by a law of hate, can
>literally
>talk peace one minute and total annihilation the next, and be morally
>consistent. One minute He could tell us to love all humanity. The next
>minute
>He could equally legitimately order the Baha'i Community to begin a holy war
>against all other religions. Nothing He has said in the past binds Him
>against
>any future decree. All decrees, no matter what their content, are equally
>valid, equally moral, and equally to be obeyed.
Do not worry my brother, I am not concerned with whether this is a flame,
or if you find the thoughts I expressed were of any value. I saw
nothing personal in what you wrote. I take your bravado and histronic
characterizations of my thoughts to be a manifestation of your
personality, and that you feel the colorfulness of your remarks adds to
the strength of your argument in the forensic sense. Frequently, though,
the forensic aspect of our discussions here, takes precedence over a
serious attempt at true understanding. I'm guilty like everyone
else--its human nature. As to our previous discussion:
1). I wrote in response to your ideas of moral consistency that I
believe true morality consists in the elimination of every wayward
thought and action that does not conform to His good pleasure. This is a
state of "being" or consciousness. The Book must be inscribed upon the
heart otherwise it is simply a code. The law is spirit with an outer
form that preserves human order. In its most essential aspect, the
purpose of the law (morality) is to guide us--since we are
self-willed--to the highest state of awareness His will and His will
alone guiding our actions.
Baha'u'llah states in the Aqdas:
Were He to decree as lawful the thing which from time immemorial had been
forbidden, and forbid that which had, at all times, been regarded as
lawful, to none is given the right to question His authority. (Aqdas, p.
77 )
Earlier in the Writing He states, "Upon it must depend the acceptance of
every goodly deed" ("He shall not be asked of his doings"). So even
moral but blind acts are not acceptable. As a result, every act is
conditioned upon His good pleasure. As Jesus said, "Call Me not good
for only the Father in heaven is good. Thus there is no morality
*outside* of his good pleasure or rather there is no morality of *real*
significance outside of His good pleasure. Binary notions of good and
bad simply don't apply IMO in a higher sense.
One explanation of this would be pragmatic, that is, one is seeking the
result of selflessness in one's person. If the process of selflessness
or the elimination of self, the ego (the *oneness* aspect of this process
is Faith in His commands) IS transpiring, then forces of a higher
consciousness, a new vision of the world, free from intellectual dilemas
occurs. One sees the end in the beginning, nay! neither beginning nor
end. The division of the "Good" into moral opposites as a "real"
explanation has a rational and ordering effect within limits, but only
fills us with dismay as we view a painful and cruel world as *WE* see
it--filled with injustice, natural catastrophe, disease, unfair
distribution of talent, and resources. The world IS in fact disagreeable
to US, and God DOES appear to be the cruel "Watchman" ("PSYCHOPATHIC
DEITY") "Surely...he is a tyrannt of men seeking to harm me" but, "He
had driven one who was afar, into the garden of nearness, had guided an
ailing soul to the heart's physician." (Seven Valleys pp. 14-5). He
says, "Heaven is nearnes to Me, hell is thine own self."
Further in His discourse in the Seven Valleys He goes on to say, '"
Absolute Unity excludeth all attributes.'...Wherefore, relevent to this
Khajih 'Abdu'llah--may God, the Most High sanctify his beloved
spirit--hath made a subtle point and spoken an eloquent word as to the
meaning of 'Guide Thou us on the straight path' which is: 'Show us the
right way, that is, honor us with the love of Thine Essence, that we may
be freed from turning towards ourselves and toward all else save Thee,
and may become wholly Thine, and know only Thee, and think of none save
Thee'" To me this means WE have no REAL knowledge of the "Straight path"
and we struggle to allow His Knowledge or Spirit it inhabit our hearts
and guide us. We have His written word but we have not attained to an
understanding of it in a *real* sense until we know it without self.
Thus varying degrees of understanding lead to disagreement. Each places
emphasis on what they do not know with varying emphasis.
Morality in my opinion transcends the limitations of consistency,
because, I believe, Baha'u'llah defines Morality or what is "Good for us"
as an expression of divine will. Not what is "good" in and of itself
seperate from Him. This morality simply does not exist--it is an
intellectual construct. It is the supposition of that personal knowledge
(knowledge of attributes--human understanding) supercedes "Absolute
Unity" or that there can be any constraint whatsoever to His Being which
we are absolute non-being in comparison to. His desires cannot be
contained within a moral code, nor can his will be subject in a "REAL"
sense to description as I understand His teachings.
We have free will, but it is to the erradication of free will by our own
efforts that we are called. "Say: True liberty consisteth in man's
submission unto my commandments, little as ye know it." (AQDAS, P. 63)
Thus no inference can be drawn that it is being said He intended to build
"Cyborgs". It is the limit's being placed on the meaning of "obedience"
that causes the confusion.
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 jjensen@welchlink.welch.jhu.eduMon Apr 15 15:38:17 1996
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 13:27:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joan Jensen
To: McKenny Michael
Cc: TALISMAN@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT
Dear Michael,
Thank you for sharing examples about the uncomfortable positions you find
yourself in concerning the instruction about women not serving on the
Universal House of Justice. I was also very moved by the comment from
his daughter that Bill (a003) shared us.
This teaching is a great burden to my heart, but one that I am accustomed
to and usually try not to mind. When I first read the posts on talisman
discussing the writings where Baha'u'llah refers to women being accounted
as 'rijal' and 'rajul' (gentlemen), that burden was briefly lifted and my
heart had wings. I was overwhelmed. I felt I could finally breathe!
Now, I've been a Baha'i since 1970, so 26 years of not breathing has been
quite a feat! I've also worked the night shift for years... I forget
what its like to be well-rested, just as I had forgotten what it was like
to breathe.
My continuing unwavering acceptance of what the Universal House of
Justice has shared with us about this teaching does not lessen the burden
on my heart, but the apparent paradox leaves me subdued, and just the
tiniest bit hesitant about sharing the Faith with others. Its something
I struggle with. The consolation to my heart is that the Universal House
of Justice is part of the mighty Covenant, and no matter the makeup of
the membership, it will be guided by Baha'u'llah.
Warmly, Joan
From jjensen@welchlink.welch.jhu.eduMon Apr 15 15:38:29 1996
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 13:41:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joan Jensen
To: belove@sover.net
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: finding the Question
Dear Philip,
> I do think the question has to be in a certain parallel form.
> ...all great questions have this reflexive, yin/yang quality.
> This is so because, in the realm of the living, the spiritual
> world, if you will, things always exist in relationship to one another.
What are women, that they cannot serve on the Universal House of Justice?
and
What is the Universal House of Justice, that women cannot serve thereon?
Joan
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Joan Jensen
Baltimore, Maryland USA
*******************************************************************
"...love and affinity are the fruits of a gentle disposition,
a pure nature and praiseworthy character..."
Selected Writings of 'Abdu'l-Baha, p. 287
*******************************************************************
From jarmstro@sun1.iusb.eduMon Apr 15 15:39:00 1996
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 12:43:33 -0500 (EST)
From: Jackson Armstrong-Ingram
To: Linda de Gonzalez , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Women's Problems
> >If I remember correctly, quite
> >a few years ago the House ruled that brides have the right to make
> > comparable provision in respect of the groom. It would probably be
> >helpful if the communication in which they did so was available to show
> >to those who always need ocular proof even though the principle of
> >mutatis mutandis makes it logically obvious that this would be the case.
>
> >Jackson
>
> I am one of those who needs ocular proof. :) So if it is true that the House
> has states this specifically, I would very much appreciate seeing the letter.
> When it comes to this issue of sexual equality in the Faith, I can't assuem
> anything, no matter how logical it is.
>
> Thanks
> Milissa Boyer
> mboyer@ukans.edu
>
What I understand is that a marriage was to take place between a western
Baha'i woman and an eastern (not Iran) Baha'i man. His Muslim relatives
insisted that the marriage contract include a virginity provision re
her. She said fine as long as she got to make the same provision re
him. A check with the House confirmed the legitimacy of the
proceedings. As I am not going to discuss the specifics of someone;s
virginity on Talisman!!, I am not going to name the individuals.
However, if anyone out there does have any written record of the event,
it would be of interest to have it posted without personal indentifying
information.
Jackson
From jarmstro@sun1.iusb.eduMon Apr 15 15:39:21 1996
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 12:54:22 -0500 (EST)
From: Jackson Armstrong-Ingram
To: Burl Barer
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Breast Feeding
On Sat, 13 Apr 1996, Burl Barer wrote:
> Why are not men encouraged to breast feed babies? Some of you may think
In Bali a distinction is made between nursing for food and nursing for
comfort. Any adult, male or female, lactating or not, may nurse a baby
to comfort it.
...
> parental and nurturing. In how many households is the role of the father
> reduced to disciplinarian or corporate corporeal punisher while the mother
> is extolled in poem song and culture -- the Mother of Jesus is worshiped but
> do you ever see a statue of Jesus' Dad? Tahirih is praised for the
I saw a truly sickening t-shirt last year which had emblazoned on the front:
Thank Mamma for the cooking,
Thank Daddy for the whupping,
Thank God for you.
I suppose this is what passes as traditional family values in the
American heartland. What made it more appalling was that it was worn by
a woman under 30 sitting at breakfast with her husband and children. So
much for the responsibility of the mother to be the first educator of the
children, what about when the mother has been indoctrinated into being
part of what they need to be educated away from (as does she)?
I was scared to mention it during our previous discussion of a topic I am
not going to start again, but Burl might be pleased to hear that in the
late middle ages it was decided that there needed to be more attention
paid to Joseph and as part of that there was developed the doctrine of
the perpetual virginity of Joseph (now you know why I was afraid to
mention it).
Jackson
From jjensen@welchlink.welch.jhu.eduMon Apr 15 15:39:57 1996
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 14:06:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joan Jensen
To: "Don R. Calkins"
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Problems with talisman
Dear Don,
Thank you for your insightful observations.
One of the main differences I notice between talisman (mostly men) and
bahai-women-converse (exclusively women, except occasionally the rare man
who gets on by mistake) is the means of communication.
I am not just referring to 'tone', for that can vary on both groups.
Men "begin from a theoretical platform that is already in place", and
elaborate on that. Women circle iteratively between their personal
experiences and feelings to the more abstract concepts and back again;
reflecting on the implications for action and the impact of those actions
on those around them. Is this women's empirical epistemology that Robert
Johnston commented on last fall? In any case, this difference allows the
women to make many more 'I' statements and many fewer 'you' statement.
Fortunately (and this gives me great hope) some men and some women are
bilingual. So I have great hope we all can learn 'man-speak' and
'woman-speak'. Again, I'm NOT talking about simple courtesy and
sugar-coated phrases, but the willingness to share actual vulnerable
feelings and revealing personal anecdotes that serve to illuminate the
abstract concepts.
I dare ya to!
Joan (striving towards bilinguality) Jensen
------------------------------------------------------------------
Joan Jensen
Baltimore, Maryland USA
*******************************************************************
"...love and affinity are the fruits of a gentle disposition,
a pure nature and praiseworthy character..."
Selected Writings of 'Abdu'l-Baha, p. 287
*******************************************************************
From jarmstro@sun1.iusb.eduMon Apr 15 15:42:05 1996
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 13:23:40 -0500 (EST)
From: Jackson Armstrong-Ingram
To: Burl Barer
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Joseph (was Breast Feeding)
Yes, there was a considerable cult of Joseph for several hundred years.
He never got quite the status of Mary, of course, but he did get up there.
The distinction between them is probably neatly summed up in that Mary
was conceived immaculately and Joseph was conceived normally but
miraculously cleansed from the stain of sin while in the womb.
However, after birth both of them were preserved from concupiscence, thus
their marriage was entirely asexual in thought and deed. The figure of
Joseph was used to try to develop a model of true Christian fatherhood
but was as problematic as the use of Mary as a model of motherhood for
similar reasons.
Jackson
From sscholl@jeffnet.orgMon Apr 15 15:44:24 1996
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 23:26:04 +0100
From: White Cloud Press
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Voices in my head
Dear Richard, Burl, Jim, and the rest of y'all:
Richard. I think you read more into my statement than was there. I am not
asking you or anyone to bend your knee, and definitely not relinquish your
mind, to the ideas of any particular individual. My reference was to the
cultural process by which a new religion goes from cult status to emergence
as a universal faith and creator of civilization. This is not an overnight
process. But the evidence is there that no faith has become universal and
been able to shape a civilization until its scholars and intellectuals have
been able to translate revelation to societal needs and evolutionary goals.
The great religions have all found a way to foster learning via
institutions that have shaped the faith and the understanding of the faith
by the believers and allowed it to go beyond its historical origins as a
radical revolutionary movement within an older tradition. Our central
figures have extolled learning and scholarship but we have not paid much
heed to their call and sadly we have developed a rather anti-intellectual
attitude within our small new religious movement. I believe that this
anti-intellectual prejudice has deleterious long-term consequences for the
faith. Please recall Juan's comments on worldwide demographic trends toward
urbanization and the crisis of faith (Catholic and Baha'i) in France.
Dr. Barer. This is very difficult for me to say in light of the recent
accusations here on Talisman. I have been trying to hold back but Burl's
message has taken me over the edge. Burl's comments on God's muscles
clearly are not in the CB category. No, much worse, they must be seen as
out and out heresy and I formally charge Burl Barer with imputing God to be
muscular and masculine in nature. Yes, Burl is--the very words are
difficult for me to say--Burl Barer is an a-n-t-h-r-o-p-m-o-r-p-h-i-s-t
heretic of the worse kind. And I find it totally repugnant that he uses
this forum in an attempt to gain compliance among other Baha'is with such
clearly heretical theological teachings. As many of us have noted, God is
feminine in Her highest knowable dimension. She is a God of compassion and
mercy. The God of Abraham who roams Hwy 61 was clearly an old Canaanite
deity of inferior status. Sorry Burl. This hurts me more than it does you.
However, I expect a Talisman retraction and apology.
Jim. I will gladly respond to you when you say something substantive. Till
then, by all means, keep hammering away with your "this is a waste of time
posts." However, I must object to your mean-spirited reference to me as an
Alan Alda wannabe. Alda is a wimpish bleeding heart liberal. Woody Allen,
in his excellent documentary, Crimes and Misdemeanors, exposed Alda as a
sexist pig who only uses his apparent feminism as a way of picking up
women. I, on the other hand, am not a bleeding heart liberal but a bleeding
breast liberal. You see I also heard that under the right circumstances men
can breast feed. With our new baby, Willa, I was determined to share the
burden so I began a tortuous regime to prepare myself for fatherhood. I
read that males can develop the lactose dispensing threshold by pre-birth
exercises that apply sucking action to the nipples. For two months I spent
6 hours a day with a Dust-Buster alternating suction on my breasts.
Gradually I increased the suckling action until I was using first a Hoover
floor model and then an industrial strength Shop Vac. It was the Shop Vac
that produced my bleeding liberal breasts.
Still, like any expectant parent, I worried whether I would be able to
fulfill my genderless duties as parent. After Willa was born, Janice's milk
let down on the 3rd day. No doubt due to anxiety my milk did not let down.
But finally on the 9th day (the spiritual significance here is obvious to
all but I thought I would note it nonetheless since it also coincided with
Naw Ruz and the Spring equinox, Willa being born on March 12) my milk came
in like Old Faithful and I spent the next 6 months sharing breast feeding
duties with Janice.
The results of this male milk, as many Talismanians who attended the
Mysticism Conf. at Bosch will testity, have been breathtaking. None other
than Dr. Barer, prior to his turn toward heresy, commented many times that
Willa is "an angel baby" and many others (Sandy, LuAnn please confirm) that
there is something rather special about Willa. For those who stayed up late
Saturday night doing dhikr, Willa served as the qutb, the pole and
spiritual leader of our session guiding us into the mysteries. She also
dispensed darshan to a few special souls (Bill Garlington among them) who
recognized her as Shiva incarnate. My feeling is that because of this
totally non-sexist breast feeding of young Willa, she may indeed be the
first representative of a new race of women who will in due course come to
serve on the Universal House of Justice. So, to come full circle, you see
my view on women's exclusion from service on the House of Justice is not
just academic but rooted in seeing within my daughter unlimited potential.
Americans tend to speak of their children as living in the land of
opportunity and that little Greg or Sarah may grow up to be president of
the country or at least head of their own Amway network. As a Baha'i my
vision is much more Universal and world-embracing.
Finally, I promise at the 2nd Annual Mysticism conf. to show my nipple
scars to any who might doubt the truth of my story.
With a whole lotta love,
Steve
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comMon Apr 15 15:44:47 1996
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 11:28:57 -0700
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Fwd: Re: Women's Voices/Jim's Voice
) Thanks for letting me ramble.
Fighting for the right to curse if I want to :) :) :)
And don't call me lady,
Lora McCall
My dear Lora
As I always refered to you as a Lady before we met. I shall continue to
do so since we have, and will deal with any male who refuses refers to
you in such a manner.
Kindest Regards
Dr.Uncle Derek
From jarmstro@sun1.iusb.eduMon Apr 15 15:45:26 1996
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 14:38:19 -0500 (EST)
From: Jackson Armstrong-Ingram
To: talisman
Subject: gender books
An interesting and thought provoking collection of essays is Yearning:
race, gender, and cultural politics. by bell hooks (yes, she doesn't use
capitals for her name). Some of these essays are a bit challenging in
technical vocabulary, but many of them were written for a general
audience and are quite accessible.
Another superb book for anyone interested in the interconnected issues of
gender, sexuality, race, and institutions is Conduct Unbecoming: Gays and
Lesbians in the U.S. Military. by Randy Shilts. Yes, I know 700+ pages
of small print is off-putting but it's a real page turner. The title is
a bit misleading, apart from the intro section, it deals with the period
from the US's first involvement in Vietnam to 1990, and it's not just
about gays and lesbians but also about how the implementation of the
military policy impacts on the total institution and everyone in it. The
book shows well how although the avowed policy is to exclude gays and
lesbians from the military the real aim is simply to be able to _say_ that
there are none.
Jackson
From asadighi@ptialaska.netMon Apr 15 18:32:22 1996
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 11:52:29 -0800
From: "Arsalan J. Sadighi"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: WOMEN OF TALISMAN: PLEASE READ
I find this to be a superb idea. Please do us (men) a favor and tell us
where you think improvements that can be made in our relationships with our\
\
wives, daughters, colleagues, etc. Please do not assume that we already know
or should know this or that, because at least I admit to being very ignorant
about such issues. What we need is an atmosphere where we are not attacked
for just being men, and second where we can be educated.
I am very concerned about this subject. I am worried that my attitudes and
general behavior is affecting my own daughter in ways that I am not
comfortable with at all. So, please consider this a sincere plea for help
and do give us your suggestions and heartfelt admonitions, but do it in a
loving manner.
Gratefully yours,
Arsalan
P.S. Do repeat yourself as some of us might have missed suggestions that
have already been made.
>My dear Sandy and Melissa.
>I am coming round to the opinion that too many Men are voicing 'The
>true picture of Equality of the Sexes'.I would be personally obliged if
>the ladies on Talisman posted what they require from Mem in the Baha'i
>Community in order to have equality a living reality at the grassroots
>level as well as else where.If we get some working examples maybe
>something can happen.Many months ago I suggest we considor practical
>ways to assist like scholarship funds in the USA and for third world
>countries without a single voice being raised in support by the men who
>were leading the charge for symbolic gestures.
>Kindest Regards
>Derek Cockshut
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsalan J. Sadighi
"Things are never quite as scary when you've got a best friend."
Calvin and Hobbes
From asadighi@ptialaska.netMon Apr 15 18:32:39 1996
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 12:01:39 -0800
From: "Arsalan J. Sadighi"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: No, no, Ahang can't go
Mr. Walbridge,
Pleas do not unsubscribe Ahang no matter what he says or does. He is to be
the first hostage on Talisman as a lesson to future generations to come.
I am sorry Ahang, but you are stuck and no where to flea to. Whatever
happened to 'radiant acquiescence' heh?
>[This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII]
>
>Dear Jackson,
>
>It seems to me that once the House has defined a matter outside
>of its sphere, it has closed the matter for all future Houses,
>otherwise what's the point?!
>
>Let's take an obvious example, the Guardianship. In 1963 the
>House ruled that it was unable to legislate another Guardian in
>existence -- hence defined the subject outside of its sphere
>(which they did the same with the women membership on the House
>too). Now, can some future House decides that in fact it can
>legislate to bring Guardianship into existence?
>
>If they use the same Text as in 1963 House, then they must arrive
>at the *same* decision otherwise 1963 decision was in error which
>is an impossibility by design. So, if an alternate decision is
>arrived at, it must be based on *new* Text or evidence *not*
>available to 1963 House.
>
>Also, once a House decides a matter is outside its sphere of
>competence, how can another House decide otherwise without
>implying that the first decision was in error? So, again they
>require *new* Text or information.
>
>Let me throw in another complication. If we were to read the
>Will and Testament literally, it really allows the House to
>change the rulings of a previous one on matters of *law* and
>nothing else. In other words, one could argue that
>non-legislative pronouncements of the House of Justice, matters
>pertaining to its function as the Head of the Faith, is permanent
>and not amendable to change. Of course the way out of this is to
>argue that external conditions have changed, hence the previous
>ruling no longer applies.
>
>I don't know if I make any sense, but there has to some mechanism
>to protect *some* decision from future changes -- otherwise,
>folks could walk around and say, heck, some day the House may
>rule another Guardian into existence or bring the Hands backs or
>allow women on the House.... or do some other crazy thing ;-\}
>
>take care, ahang.
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsalan J. Sadighi
"Things are never quite as scary when you've got a best friend."
Calvin and Hobbes
From PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.eduMon Apr 15 18:33:52 1996
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 13:08:45 PST8PDT
From: "Eric D. Pierce"
To: gladius@portal.ca, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: dissin' axiology: the basics?/ was Re: Re: Unsubscribe
Howdy Linda G./talismania!
Am trying to scan bits and pieces of the weekend email avalanche,
so I don't know if someone else answered the axiology/mesocosmic
question. I'll simply restate what I have heard. I haven't done
much independent reading and no research, but I do try to keep my
ears perked up when folks discuss this stuff.
As you probably noticed, Jim H. and Linda Walbridge (the list
owner's wife) were arguing, as usual. Generally tedious but
actually quite amusing if you are the right mood, especially if
read in small increments after a 2-3 day break from talisman.
I'm hoping that the mood around talisman will improve once the
income tax submission deadline is over, but maybe that is just
a vain imagining or idle fancy. Community elections are upcoming,
so even more frustration, angst and venting of spleen are
probably on the agenda.
Anyway, the short definition of axiology that I have heard is
"the study of value systems in cultures". I guess it is derived
from the term *axis*, where there is a "central" or maybe
"pivitol" core characteristic around which other values/cultural
behaviors, etc. revolve or are caused by.
Mesocosm is apparently a similar concept (which has been popularize
by the writer Joseph Cambell?), and may have a bit more spiritual/
metaphysical flavor.
The three main oversimplified/overgeneralized axiological groups
that are used in some Baha'i race unity seminars/workshops:
* Northern/Central European: "object" oriented axiology.
* African/Latin: "person to person" axiology.
* Asian: "person to family/group/tribe" axiology.
So, since Europeans (especially males) primarily value their
relation to "objects", many dominant cultural aspects can be
seen as expressions of that primary value. Per the standard
explanation, materialism is not directly connected to an
object oriented axiology, since the object oriented axiology
supposedly developed when the northern peoples had to highly
value possesions (food/shelter) to survive in harsh cold
unproductive climates. I think that status and knowledge can
also be seen to become types of objects, in the sense that
they are given primary valuation, especially to the exclusion
of valuation of relationships to people/family/tribe.
I personally think this "ecological" model as the basis for a
critique of european culture is suspect, but have not looked at
the underlying research to be able to try to understand if there
are meaningful consistency problems. Eg what about eskimo's and
why have they held to an original asian axiology in an even more
extreme climate... why are the climate extremes and ecological
stresses of an arid (desert/steppe) climate, not causing the
formation of similar axiology in N. Africa, middle east,
central asia etc. Are there length of tenure issues...
In the African/Latin (american) axiology, the relations between
individual people are of primary value. Hence misunderstandings
and disagreements develop where a white "boss" doesn't see why
a preemptory morning greeting to latino/black staff are taken
as arrogant or condescending. The African/Latin culture puts
much importance on communication and social/emotional bonding,
and what is simply an "efficient" social greeting to a european
is overly terse to an Afrian or Latino. Higher levels of
violence in poor minority communities is explained as being
frequently a result of the breaking of all important social
bonds between individuals, eg, most murders are by someone
that the victim was related to or was a friend of.
Asian axiology is about the relation between an individual and
their extended family/clan/tribe. Communication problems arise
when asians deal with people from more individualistic cultures
since asian individuals usually do not speak out, but instead a
family or clan leader speaks for the group. The interests of the
family are of much greater importance than those of or between
the individuals in the family.
Obviously it is very easy to slip into stereotypes and such
when using such generalities, I have simply repeated my general
impression of how those who advocate the use of axiology to see
the structural reality of differences between broad cultural
groups have used the concept when analysing the roots of racism.
In reality, culture is complex, values are layered and mixed in
various ways such as by gender, education, economic class and/or
trade classes. etc.
The kind of stark simple generalizations of behavior as are
described in the simplified axiology model may occasionally come
about at times of great social/ecological stress, epidemics, food
scarcity, climate disaster, wars, economic dislocation or whatever,
but then as living conditions normalize, a complex, diverse,
layered behavior reflecting a matrix of many different values is
probably more adaptive.
For instance, in northern europe, even if in ancient times,
object valuation was more predominant than in cultures of warm
climate, there were many other contrasting and balancing values.
The vast historical epidemics and the process of urbanization,
industrialization and colonialization may have severly disrupted
the balancing act, resulting in particular form of war-oriented
materialistic culture.
EP
> Date sent: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 22:17:20 -0700 (PDT)
> To: talisman@indiana.edu
> From: gladius@portal.ca (Linda de Gonzalez)
> Subject: Re: Re: Unsubscribe
> Jim Harrison says:
> > Once again Linda dear you have provided ample evidence of being a scholar
> still
> >locked, vice-like - into your own axiology and unable (unwilling) to break
> >out of its comfortable mesocosmic warmth
>
> What the heck???? I'm a *receptionist* at a psychiatric clinic. I am not a
> scholar.
>
> Furthermore, what the heck is "axiology"??? Is this where I get to take my
> trusty axe to Talizenic heads? And yet further more and again, "mesocosmic"???
>
> I never got past Paleozoic.
>
> Sheesh. First Arthur, now they think I actually , like, know something.
>
> Once and for all, it wasn't me, I wasn't here, you can't prove a thing, it
> was my evil twin sister. Now can I sleep?
>
> Linda de Gonzalez
> Gladius Productions
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Money can buy you a fine dog, but only love can make it wag its tail."
Kinky Freidman
From asadighi@ptialaska.netMon Apr 15 18:34:59 1996
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 11:52:29 -0800
From: "Arsalan J. Sadighi"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: WOMEN OF TALISMAN: PLEASE READ
Resent-Date: Mon, 15 Apr 96 15:13:44 CDT
Resent-From: Milissa Boyer
Resent-To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Hi Arsalan--
>I am very concerned about this subject. I am worried that my attitudes and
>general behavior is affecting my own daughter in ways that I am not
>comfortable with at all. So, please consider this a sincere plea for help
>and do give us your suggestions and heartfelt admonitions, but do it in a
>loving manner.
>Gratefully yours,
>Arsalan
I am glad you asked! Perhaps you could be a little more explicit about which
attitudes/behaviors you are worried about? Then we could address those more
specifically.
Since I have no idea how old your daughter is, I can only guess that she is
under 18. Has she started puberty yet? The reason I ask is because Dads are
very important to young girls, especially at puberty time. The worst thing
a Dad can do, IMO, is to be critical of her body. DON'T ever say anything
critical about her body. Its bad enough if you think men think you are ugly,
its even worse if you think Daddy thinks you are ugly, too.
Just a thought.
Hang in there, Arsalan
Sincerely,
Milissa Boyer
mboyer@ukans.edu
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comMon Apr 15 18:35:31 1996
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 13:49:57 -0700
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Fwd: being honest
----
Dear Linda,
I had just gone to Iran and returned.I visited
Ishfahan,Shiraz
and Tehran ,in most of this places
what was most fascinating was that most of the activities the women
were in
the forefront.I met quite a number of young girls aged between 18-25yrs
who
are doing research papers on topics like concept of tests in the bahai
faith.I have a persian wife who is so vocal at feasts that I have to
hold
her down.The other Iranian women here are no exceptioni.e they are the
terror of town.Where in God's name is M.E.?
GREETINGS
DR.CHANDRAN
Dear Dr.Chandran
You are a lucky chap to be able to hold down your Persian wife, I have
been married to a Persian lady for almost 30 years God help me if I
even thought of holding her down. M.E. is Miss Mildred's Endowment and
the Head Office is in Walla Walla Washington State. The famous Dr Burl
obtained his degree in manners from the Academy that Miss Mildred's
Endowment founded.
From lwalbrid@indiana.eduMon Apr 15 18:37:19 1996
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 16:11:58 -0500 (EST)
From: lwalbrid
To: talisman@majordomo.ucs.indiana.edu
Subject: vacuums on his bosom?
Dear Steve, I didn't have much time to concentrate on your lengthy post
but did I get this straigt? You nursed a hoover so that your daughter
Willa could have direct contact with a she-God that Burl has refused to
recognize so that she - because of this direct line - could serve on the
UHJ? I certainly hope that Jim will not say that we have already hashed
this one out before, so why bother to go on?. Rather, it might be
best if he ignored this post altogether.
Burl, what have you unleashed here this time? I told you that this male
breast feeding stuff would just lead to strange things. But would you
listen? Linda
From Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nlMon Apr 15 18:37:47 1996
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 23:29:52 +0000 (EZT)
From: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Feast
John,
I generally liked the Feast article, except where you say:
Communities with fewer than nine believers often have feasts,
although this is not strictly necessary since there is no local
spiritual assembly.
Source please! This rather gives the impression that
the Faith exists to administer itself - where no
administration is possible, the institutions of the Aqdas
are purely optional.
Quite apart from the non-administrative functions of the Feast
and the fact that it is enjoined in the Aqdas, groups need
a Feast to consult on their plans and administrative matters
even more than small communities with Assemblies
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 richs@microsoft.comMon Apr 15 23:47:45 1996
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 15:42:16 -0700
From: Rick Schaut
To: "'talisman@indiana.edu'" ,
"'gladius@portal.ca'"
Cc: "'burlb@ns.bmi.net'"
Subject: RE: Women's Problems
Linda, Burl and Friends,
At last, a subject for which I'm fully qualified! Having been wed for
nearly a decade, I am well versed in post-marital creeping incompetence.
Linda writes:
>A formerly self-sufficient and independent male becomes less and less
>"able"
>to...do laundry, iron, scrape out the bathroom, etc. etc. only so far
>as he
>believes (deep deep down in his 4-year-old heart) that it's not his job
>to
>do so. He will do it very well as long as there is no alternative
>(i.e. no
>female partner), but as soon as a female starts sharing living
>quarters,
>lots of things become "her job" automatically (by that I mean without
>conscious thought).
>
I think the explanation is far simpler. Having lived in a number of
different households, I've noticed that standards of "competence" in
household chores differ from one family to the next. My grandmother
regularly cleaned the walls on the inside of her closets (both my mother
and I took the cleanliness of Gran's closets as a sign of a miss-spent
life). It took a number of years before my mother and I figured out
that my mental picture of a clean room and her mental picture were not
exactly the same (and our relationship improved drastically once we'd
come to this realization).
When my wife and I were first married, we decided that I should go back
to school and study computer science (in retrospect, a very sound
decision from a financial perspective). So, we lived with my parents
for a while. It took Beth (my wife) a few months to figure out that I
was looking over her shoulder just to learn how she did things--that I
was not interested in making sure that she did the job "right".
I could fill a good-sized book about the different conceptions of
domestic competence we both brought to this marriage, and I'd be willing
to bet that a great deal of this phenomenon, post-marital creeping
incompetence, has more to do with these different notions of how to fold
clothes, put dishes away, fill the dishwasher or vacuum the rug (should
you move the furniture or just vacuum around it) than it has to do with
the roles in which we saw our parents. How many times is a husband
going to fold the clothes when his wife dumps them out and refolds every
time he does?
Traditional roles may add a dimension to this observation. It's
possible that most men learned how to do these tasks "well enough to get
by" while most women learned how to do them "right" (i.e. cultural
conditioning may well produce in women higher standards of competence,
on average, than in men). But I don't think it's a case of men, either
consciously or unconsciously, deciding that the work is "her job".
I can say that this is somewhat true for me. Rather than spending the
extra time and effort to get those last two plates into the dishwasher,
I'd rather just run the dishwasher, leave the plates for the next load,
and spend the rest of my time reading a decent book, like Man Overboard.
My wife, on the other hand, prefers to try to get every last dish she
possibly can into this load. I don't often load the dishwasher (but,
for penance, I often get to scrub the floors).
Warmest Regards,
>Rick
From nineteen@onramp.netMon Apr 15 23:54:59 1996
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 96 14:36:45 -0500
From: "Richard C. Logan"
To: Juan Cole , Rick Schaut
Cc: Talisman
Subject: RE: criticism of NSA policies
>So, is this sort of public criticism of NSA policy allowed?
I do not know if this should be handled as a public matter--but as a
seasoned traveler I was critical at the time of the prices offerred and
was quite sceptical that better rates would not be available. One is
always critical of pricing!
Perhaps it would be good for you to formulate in this spirit a question
for the House on this issue we could sign. I would be happy to join you
in petitioning for some clarification on a recommended proceedure for
handling matters in a way that would not burden the mass of believers
with doubt and possible contention over the dignity of the institutions
when policies.
I personally would be happy to join in adding my name.
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 TLCULHANE@aol.comMon Apr 15 23:55:38 1996
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 19:49:14 -0400
From: TLCULHANE@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: re:science/religion/liberalism
Dear Bill (Garlington) ,
Goodness knows what I was describing as a "dhikr " experience with
regard to chastity is not easy or automatic. If it were it would not require
the force of Prophetic "disclosure" to open us to that reality or dimension
of being .
I dont read in the remarks of Baha u llah which I quoted a condemnation
of the experience you decribed at Mills College. Contrary to much current
androgenous thought it is not our similarities which excite us; it is our
differences. Ask any adolescent boy or girl .
What I find in Bahau llahs statement on "chastity" is a call to another
dimension of being in humanity in general and women in particular. The mid
19th century in the Middle East was not an environment hospitable to women
entering the noosphere (world of mind and culture ) let alone the theosphere
( the world of soul ). The mid 19th century anywhere was struggling to
attain the "legitimacy " of women entering the world of mind/culture. This
reality is what is so exciting to me about Suzanne Croisant's paper on Susan
B. Anthony as a Bahai civil saint.
Let us suppose for the moment that the "names "of God are real and that
they constitute our most complete or inclusive "being " as humans . Let us
suppose further that these "names" are reflected in human beings. Let us
again supoose that women are ontologically real human beings and not a subset
of the race or defective forms of it. These assumptions are not now
universally recognized nor where they in the later 19th century.
Let us suppose that women and men have a biological presence in the
phenomenal world and that this biological presence is a reflection of the
interaction of the "names" of God in the phenomenal world; there masculine
and feminine properties. I think it is reasonable to assume that as humans we
would respond with a certain measure of delight , joy and excitement at the
embodied presence of those "names". I think Bahau lah would concur and that
nothing in His statement would contradict this . Unlike Augustine he did not
hold out celibacy as the highest attainable state of human existence . He did
have children and we all know how children attain existence in the phenomenal
world. That we ignore this fact sems to me a carryover from not only a
puritan heritage but the more longer lasting Augustinian heritage of
misogeny. There is a different model presented to us by the Prophet from
what we in Christendom have come to acept as normative for the spiritual
life. It is a model rich in appreciation for the manifold beauty of the
physical world which includes men and women. I think it reasonable to assume
that if someone found no beauty in the biological differences between human
beings that their's would be an impoverished life.
Let us suppose that humans have this thing called "mind " a capacity of
the soul and that women as humans share in this capacity. And that the
expressions of mind by human beings are or can be very beautiful and a source
of delight , joy and excitement whether in the form of mathematics . poetry ,
music . philosphical reasoning, biology , new understandings of history and
so forth. These expressions are available to be appreciated whether they come
from women or men . I think we would assume that someone who did not find the
expressions of the mind a source of beauty would be leading an impoverished
life. Something would be missing just as there would be if no biological
differences were present.
Let us assume that humans have a "soul" a source through which the "names"
take biological and mental expression in the phenomenal world . And that
contained within this soul are , in potential , all the "names" of God and
that the range of expression these "names " can manifest is infinite .
Further let us suppose that while these "names " fall on a spectrum that
over time we have identified as "masculine" or" feminine " but at this level
or dimension of existence they are not gendered and are present in each soul
. The expression of these "names" among human beings falls on a continuum
from extremely feminine to extremely masculine and that this expression of
the "names" while having some correspndance with biology are not restricted
to biology - that is the "feminine " Names of God are not restricted to women
nor are the "masuline" Names of God restricted to men. If this were the case
we would have a hard time explaining why we are attracted - biologically to
some women or men and not others. I will leave it to others nore capable than
I to determine if this attraction is a complementary one or one of
resemblence. (probably both).
The "names" at the level of soul or theosphere embody themselves in
ethical attributes and virtuous qualities . Baha u llah frequesntly speaks
of the true glory or happiness of human beings in terms of this level of
existence . I think His statement on "chastity" is in relation to to this
level of our reality. he does not say you would not recognize the existence
of a biological different form of human being . e.g. a women . He says you
would not have a desire to possess her beauty. This is to me another way of
saying you would not reduce her "reality" to that of her physical beauty and
restrict it to that level . After all historically men have responded to
women as possessions e,g, I possess her beauty , it is my property . What I
believe Bahau lah is saying is that this beauty is a result of the embodiment
of one or more of the "names' of God and is not mine to possess. This is not
the same thing as denial of recognition or genuine appreciation or attraction
due biological diferences between men and women. It is a recognition of the
source of this beauty and all other attractive qualities.
Bahau llah , it seems to me is preserving the fact of those differences
but providing a context in which those biological ifferences may be
transcended and appreciated at a more inclusive dimension of being. This
occurs first at the level of mind and culture and is the context in which I
understand His statements that "women are acounted as men(rijal ) in this
day. This does not deny my undeniable attraction to women as a man or of a
woman to a man - some clearly more than others. It does provide me with a
context in which that experience can be more inclusive that of expressions of
the mind and that these are more significant of our humanity than is our
biology. (All mammals can reproduce)
In turn , I believe , he is saying that the most significant aspect of
our humanity is the manifest state of the "names " of God emanating from our
souls. These in turn provide an even more inclusive expresion of our humanity
than that of mind or biology . Ones ethics and virutes as expressed in the
world , most particularly with regards to our service to humanity constitute
the true basis of our delight , joy and excitement.
I can not claim to always approach the model of Bahau llah (as I
understand it ) . I can say that I have recognized and experienced this level
of soul or theosphere with respect to a women and it is an incredilbre source
of delight , joy and excitement . It is every bit as real as the delight and
joy and excitement I have experienced with respect to a woman and her
mental expressions and with respect to her biological reality . I do not wish
to sound purient bit I can say my biologcal experiences have been wonderful ,
some more than others. I can also say that my mentally shared experiences
with women ( and men ) have been wondeful .And yet best of all those that
have been the most delightful , joyful and exciting are the ones that have
arisen from a "spiritual sharing" in my cases specifically the experience of
some aspect of the revelation of Bahau llah in prayer or worship . It is the
women (and men) who I have shared this experience with who I am most
attracted to and look forward to spending time in their company . It is this
level of experience that i think Bahah u lah is pointing us toward . And
precisely because it is this level - soul/ theosphere that is so inclusive
and so attractive that he mentions the issues of chastity . He says to me
dont restrict or confuse the experience of this womens "names " with her
biology. It is more than that . This has ethical and spiritual implications.
He also addresses this , I believe , because at this level the
experience can be so profound one can easily confuse this experience , given
prevailing cultural patterns which define the "meaning " of our experiences
with one another. More than once I have stepped back after a particular
attraction to a woman and asked what "brought " this recognition to the fore.
I have been surprised that , frequently what was translated to me by my mind
as biological was in fact a response to a particularly brilliant insight, a
story well told, the chanting of a prayer , the singing of a song , an
expression of a particular virtue.
The power and beauty of this noospheric and theospheric dimension of
our being as men and women, has been restricted by law and custom,0 has been
trivialized by popular culture and media. Bahau llah , it seems to me , is
attempting within the limitations of language to explain the importance of
and more inclusive dimensions of our being and calling us to there
recognition AND observance. It does not imply that biological attraction
will cease to exist . It does draw us to additional dimensions of our being
that these might become manifest and become as powerful and beautiful a
source of attraction as currently we experience and associate with respect to
our biology. These expressions include , on a continuum, gender differences
but transcend them in a more inclusive field . Once we begin to get it -
recognition- and create a culture that respects all these dimensions -
observence - then I think we will have begun to approach with delight , joy
and excitement what the oneness of humankind could possible mean.
warm regards ,
Terry
From TLCULHANE@aol.comMon Apr 15 23:56:12 1996
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 19:48:21 -0400
From: TLCULHANE@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: re: Womens voice/ Jim's voice
Dear Jim ,
Mercifully I have not been on Talisman for six weeks or so nor am I at
the moment subscribed to Talisman. Considering what seems to be the name
-calling level of much of the discourse it is a good thing . I am relying on
some forwarded posts to respond to this issue .
Why do you think my attempt to make reasoned sense or nonsense of the
current exclusion of women from the House in light of the principle of the
oneness of mankind constitutes a "distortion ". That does not sound like a
reasoned argument but a rhetorical attempt to impugne motives. Considering
our many off -line discussions in the past I am surprised at this approach
You seem to want to paint those who dont share your particular vision of
the faith as seriously misguided at worst or ignorant at best .Your attempt
to reduce Steve Scholls comments to rhetorical psychobabble is what you end
up doing in much of your own post. You are doing the same thing and I would
ask you to step back a moment and reflect.
In your comments you use the folowing words to describe the understandings
and points of view of some on Talisman as:
" attempt to distort"
" contributions were negligible"
" one weak response"
" good try there Juan "
" misperceptions that are finding moderate acceptance here on Talisman "
" attempts at distortions"
"shamelessly hoping on the bandwagon "
" these distortions wil continue"
" go ahead with the big lie"
" offer up wild specualtions "
" duck the hard questions "
Now Jim all of these comments are ones which in a linguistic sense are
rhetorical and meant to castigate the views of another . They are not
statements which constitute a reasoned response or refutation of evidence or
argument . Since I know from previous conversations you have considerable
reasoning skills I must say this one was a disappointment.
In one sense this issue , at least on the surface , is not the most
pressing one facing humanity . At another level it may extremely important
to the lethergy and inertia of the Bahai community. If it produces cognitive
dissonance, moral dilemna's or confusion for many individuals- and the
evidence for better or worse is that it does- then it impacts the level and
quality of their teaching and involvement with the Bahai community . I think
we are going to have to face up to the fact that the previusly shallow level
of Bahai community , growth and development and discourse may well be
implicated in the denial of any such dissonance , dilemna's or confusion
within the community. Our happy guys approach to life is related to this in
my view.
When we speak to those who are not Bahais and they raise questions about
one or more aspects of the Faith it seems to me the model is the one provided
by Baha u llah which was to respond to the question in a reasoned way and in
a language which the questioner could understand. To simply say to people
this is the way it is or it will become clear as the noon day sun therfore
dont ask because the UHJ has the authority to decide on matters which are
obscure etc does not convince many people. This has generally been the
approach taken within the community to the "hard questions". My experience is
that it has the opposite effect , it leads people to believe we are
unthinking and yes in some cases hypocritical . My attempt to explore this
issue in light of the oneness of mankind can be understood in this light as a
response to repeated questions of seekers .
Never let it be said I am one to "duck the hard questions " . This issue
is itself one of the hard questions. Since I am not familiar with the quotes
you referred to from " . . . the Guardian on the question of the Universal
House of Justice and on the lack of comparison between the Admoinistrative
Order." . . would you please forward those to me and I will be more than
willing to give you my reasoned response to those statements and the issues
I assume you suggested that they raise .
warm regards ,
Terry
From gladius@portal.caTue Apr 16 00:02:06 1996
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 17:09:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linda de Gonzalez
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Founding a New Business
Having just been through the torturous process of producing a 40-page
business plan, complete with 3-year financial projections, balance sheets, &
income statements (talk about creative writing!!), AND furthermore our
marriage having survived this joint endeavour (you wonder why I would like
to fix his brakes, hmmm?), well, so far anyway, I hereby volunteer to do the
books for whatever ends up being Talismaniac business. I promise you will
never make a profit.
I also promise you will have the most interesting business plan ever seen in
the history of commerce. We're talking high-class, here, at least as good as
the one used to garner Federal funds for the DeLorean! And look how much
money THEY made!!
Yours in non-exploitative cooperative capitalism,
Linda de Gonzalez
Gladius Productions
From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comTue Apr 16 00:23:59 1996
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 96 11:40:01 -0400
From: Ahang Rabbani
To: talisman@indiana.edu, jrcole@umich.edu
Subject: No Guardian??!
[This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII]
I for one very much appreciate Juan's well thought-out posting on
the issue of overturning a decision of the House and Baha'i
jurisprudence (though on the latter issue, I'm a bit closer to
brother Tavangar's position ... but more on that later).
The question of circumstances under which a future House can
overturn an earlier decision is an important one and has broad
ramification, so I hope you don't mind if I share some further
thoughts.
Its interesting to read Juan's view that the the decision about no
more Guardian was so straight forward. He is right; it is *now*.
In fact its "clear as sun on high noon."
But it wasn't so clear back in 1957-63. In fact right after Shoghi
Effendi's passing, a now-deceased Hand of the Cause was going
around Iran in public meetings assuring folks that the Shoghi
Effendi's son is well and alive and soon will assume his duties as
the new Guardian. And this from a Hand of the Cause!
Perhaps the friends needed to hear this sort of thing in 1957, as
it was generally agreed that the a break in the Guardianship was
unthinkable.
In fact it wasn't at all clear to the Hands that there was not
going to be another Guardian all through 1957-1963 period. If it
was, they would have said so. Nobody knew how to resolve the
problem. On one hand the Guardian had died with no successor, and
on the other, the Administrative Order was designed with a Guardian
in mind. This was the single most important debate of that era.
Talk to any Baha'i of the time and they tell you the huge debates
going on all over about it. Of course, a lot people knew that the
House would resolve the issue.
When the House was elected in Ridvan 1963, the resolution was
anything but clear to them. How could the Administration proceed
without a Guardian? Yes, Juan is right, the Will and Testament
outlined the manner of appointment of future Guardians but on the
other hand both Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi had repeatedly
stressed the important of this figure in the scheme of things.
Some argued, if we couldn't have a Guardian how about a
pseudo-Guardian in form of "his representative", as the W&T called,
to chair the meetings of the House. Could the Hands appoint one to
head the House? Could the House itself vote to have a permanent
chair?
The issues were so complex that the House decided that it was not
going to address the matter until all of its 9 members were present
in Haifa before consulting on this issue. This occurred in Oct 63.
And then the House secluded itself at the Mansion of Bahji. From
what I understand the concerns were many and the debate lively
(much like Talisman ;-) But after some time it finally arrived at
its decision and the Baha'i world was relived.
The only reason that I'm rehashing this bit of history is to
illustrate that what may seem as straight and clear cut to us
standing some 3 decades after the decision, was not at all clear to
anyone back then. It seems to me that there is an important lesson
in this for many other "controversial" subjects
And as far the women on the House issue is concerned, I think a
more useful analogy is the question of the appointment of the
Hands.
Again, it was not clear to anyone whether there was going to be
additional Hands appointed. Granted the W&T spoke of appointment
by the Guardian, but did this function now transferred to the
House?
The decision of the House was a stroke of genius! It didn't mess
with the institution of the Hands (and hence with the Sacred Text),
but brought into being their own version of the Hands, ie.
Counsellors.
I think this provides the solution for the question of the women on
the House. The Text is solid as concrete on this subject: women
can't and won't serve on the House, and there is nothing the House
can do about it, much the same that the House can't appoint Hands.
But they could form important institutions staffed solely by women.
John Walbridge suggested in the past the ITC be staffed by women
Counsellors. I have a different proposal: upgrading the Holy
Places Office in Haifa to a major institution and staff it
exclusively with women.
If the House (the administrative arm) is served by male membership,
it makes sense to have the spiritual arm (Holy Places,
Mashriqu'l-Adhkar etc.) served by women.
regards, ahang.
From spurushotma@brahma.hcla.comTue Apr 16 00:25:03 1996
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 96 18:36:11 PDT
From: spurushotma@brahma.hcla.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Talisman Heritage Tours
Dear Derek and Burl,
I have read your business plan for
Talisman Heritage Tours that you posted
on secret list 4.
Question number 1:
You say this is supposed to be a "Baha'i"
business. However, the Talisman list
seems to always invoke the fact that it is
operated under the University of Indiana, and
therefore can sue any Baha'i Institution if
the list shows disrespect to it. Should
Talisman heritage tours also operate on purely
secular principles?? If so, should we make
out to the believers that we are a "Baha'i"
business that will operate on anything close
to "Baha'i" principles??
Question number 2:
If anyone questions our adherance to purely
secular principles ... we should say that
they are not allowed to judge us.
After all, aren't Baha'is not supposed to
judge anyone??? That will let us get away
with complete disrespect for the Institutions
and no-one will be allowed to "judge" us.
After all, they are all just gullible sheep
anyway. We can competely take them for a ride
and then say they don't have enough Faith and
are not allowed to judge us.
Let me see the revised business plan when
you have incorporated the above into it.
From richs@microsoft.comTue Apr 16 00:25:36 1996
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 18:14:06 -0700
From: Rick Schaut
To: "'TALISMAN@indiana.edu'" ,
"'bn872@freenet.carleton.ca'"
Subject: RE: TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT
Dear Mike and Friends,
Regarding the membership of the Universal House of Justice:
>From: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca[SMTP:bn872@freenet.carleton.ca]
> There are other reasons why we don't have entry by troops in
>this part of the world. However, from where I sit this one looks
>like a big part of the problem.
I'm afraid I have to disagree with this. Who is Baha'u'llah? We
haven't had entry by troops in this part of the world (North America)
because we have either failed to fully aprehend the answer to that
question or have failed to adequately and wisely convey the answer to
our friends, acquaintences and family members.
Certainly, to a certain extent, the unwisdom we have demonstrated in our
approach to this issue has been a veil many people have been unable to
pierce. At the same time, how many people have turned away from the
Faith because someone unwisely decided to say that Baha'u'llah is the
return of Jesus Christ (or a thousand other things which Baha'is often
say without thinking through what they're about to say)?
If anything, the root cause is that we have not adequately striven, to
the best of our ability, to raise our own conduct to the standards
enunciated by Baha'u'llah. If we don't spiritually transform ourselves,
should we be surprised if others aren't tranformed by our message?
Warmest Regards,
Rick
From jarmstro@sun1.iusb.eduTue Apr 16 00:26:07 1996
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 20:40:55 -0500 (EST)
From: Jackson Armstrong-Ingram
To: Ahang Rabbani
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu, jrcole@umich.edu
Subject: Re: No Guardian??!
On Mon, 15 Apr 1996, Ahang Rabbani wrote:
>
> But it wasn't so clear back in 1957-63. In fact right after Shoghi
> Effendi's passing, a now-deceased Hand of the Cause was going
> around Iran in public meetings assuring folks that the Shoghi
> Effendi's son is well and alive and soon will assume his duties as
> the new Guardian. And this from a Hand of the Cause!
It was a common belief in the US _before_ Shoghi Effendi's death that he
did in fact have children but that their existence was concealed because
they would be in danger from Covenant breakers.
...snip...
> John Walbridge suggested in the past the ITC be staffed by women
> Counsellors. I have a different proposal: upgrading the Holy
> Places Office in Haifa to a major institution and staff it
> exclusively with women.
I'm sorry Ahang, but this sounds awfully like 19th century separate
spheres, angel of the hearth, women are the homemakers, so let them run
the altar guild and arrange the flowers, while the men run the vestry,
thinking to me.
Jackson
From richs@MICROSOFT.comTue Apr 16 00:36:03 1996
From lbhollin@uxmail.ust.hkTue Apr 16 00:36:42 1996
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 10:11:18 +0800 (HKT)
From: HOLLINGER RICHARD VERNON
To: Ahang Rabbani
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu, jrcole@umich.edu
Subject: Re: No Guardian??!
On Mon, 15 Apr 1996, Ahang Rabbani wrote:
>
> In fact it wasn't at all clear to the Hands that there was not
> going to be another Guardian all through 1957-1963 period. If it
> was, they would have said so.
Actually, I believe they did say so in a statement that they all signed
at the first convocation of Hands. Nevertheless, it is true that
privately they disagreed about this and several Hands continued to
believe and state privately that there would be another Guardian. But in
the stories I have heard they never cited any textual basis for this to
occur (except for Mason Remey's attempt to find a textual basis for his
own claim). It was simply emotionally too hard to accept that there
would be no Guardian. Hence the stories about the Guardian's son that
circulated. Indeed, there are still a few Baha'is who believe that there
is a Guardian in occulation who will be "revealed" at the appropriate
moment in history. However, feelings aside, there is no
reasonable way to read the text that would allow for the appointment of
another Guardian by the House of Justice, and that is Juan's point.
Richard
From margreet@margreet.seanet.comTue Apr 16 00:37:09 1996
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 19:20:23 -0700
From: "Marguerite K. Gipson"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Is it a dirty word???
Hello all.. After a long day at work.... I sat down--finally, to read the
American Bahai...
On Page 10 is an article on the Encyclopedia project...
How come it was never mentioned here on Talisman? Our own Robert Stockman,
Dr. Robert Stockman is on the project along with Gayle Morrison *Move the
World* book... My congradulations to them both for this accomplishment and
appointment.
Looks like something will come about here soon... I wish the project well!
Warmly, Margreet
From burlb@bmi.netTue Apr 16 00:37:26 1996
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 96 20:30 PDT
From: Burl Barer
To: spurushotma@brahma.hcla.com
Subject: Re: Talisman Heritage Tours
Shastri, ever the astute businessperson, wrote:
>I have read your business plan for
>Talisman Heritage Tours that you posted
>on secret list 4..... should we make
>out to the believers that we are a "Baha'i"
>business that will operate on anything close
>to "Baha'i" principles??
According to the revised THT business plan:
Tell them whatever they need to hear, do you want Talisman Heritage Tours
to be trusted or not?
>
> We can competely take them for a ride
>and then say they don't have enough Faith and
>are not allowed to judge us.
>
> Brilliant observation. Should we ever be called on the carpet, we can
plead that the carpet itself was once donated by an honest relative and then
say we were picked on by vigillantes. So, I suggest everyone send us money
toot-sweet
as I hear Patagonia is delightful this time of year...the cactus are in
bloom and the arannas are bigger than ever.
Dr. Burl, business consultant.
*************************************
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!
Visit my new home page: www.bmi.net/outlaw/burl.html
********************
From burlb@bmi.netTue Apr 16 00:37:57 1996
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 96 20:41 PDT
From: Burl Barer
To: HOLLINGER RICHARD VERNON
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: No Guardian??!
>
>
>
>This is a wonderful and important topic, and deserves much study and
thought. The book about the Hands of the Cause (something or other
Custodians -- its upstairs and I am downstairs) is swell, and of course the
House's letters on the topic found in Wellsprings of Guidance.
Just had another nice talk with Dr. McCants of our friendly NSA. Called on
his dime, which I appreciated. Talking about the importance of people
becoming Baha'is because of Baha'u'llah, not because they support a
particular principle.
Luckily, that is the way I learned the Faith -- I became a Baha'i because
Baha'u'llah is Baha'u'llah whether I like it or not and God does not need my
permission or validation for Revelation, Institutions, Laws, Ordinances, or
whatever.
As for men or women or woodchucks on the UHJ, Baha'u'llah could have
ordained that it be 9 dolphins. I don't recall Baha'u'llah asking for a
show of hands when he wrote the Aqdas.
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!
Visit my new home page: www.bmi.net/outlaw/burl.html
********************
From Wilgar123@aol.comTue Apr 16 00:38:33 1996
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 00:15:10 -0400
From: Wilgar123@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Hinduism
Dear Friends,
I think it is important to point out that the word Hinduism can be very
misleading, as it tends to suggest a unified body of religious belief and
practice as one might historically find in Shiah Islam, Catholicism or
varying Protestant denominations. Actually, Hinduism is a non-Indian term
(originally coined, I believe, by conquering Muslims) that has been used to
put under one label the great diversity of religious thought and practice
found in the subcontinent. In reality there are numerous "religions" within
the "Hindu" fold with different deities, theologies, mythologies etc. It is
true that there are certain "unifying" themes like the samsara-karma-dharma
paradigm, and belief in rebirth and caste (even here one can find exceptions)
but there are also significant and often fundamental differences. This is due
to the fact that there is no "Church" in a sociological sense that determines
proper belief and practice for all "Hindus." Each "religion" has its own
scriptures and traditions, and since the majority of their followers live in
villages their religious lives are often influenced by regional caste
councils. There are also numerous "sects" within each "religion" whose
members follow their own gurus, acharyas, swamis etc. And then there are the
various groups of sadhus (holy men who have renounced the world) who have
their own leadership hierarchies. Actually, using the word Hindu to apply
Indian religious life (not including Indian Christians, Muslims, Buddhists )
is like using the term Semitic to apply to European and Middle Eastern
religious life where Semitic would be the word we used to describe all
varieties of Judaism, Christianity and Islam as well as their secular
offshoots. I raise this point because I have found that many Baha'is believe
that all "Hindus" accept Krishna as an avatar/manifestation (don't grimace
Bruce) when, in fact, Krishna is the focal point for only a certain segment
of "Hindus" (even though most would likely acknowledge him in some fashion).
Moreover, within those communities where Krishna is primary, the tradition is
rich enough to allow for a great diversity of theological speculation. I know
that we are exhorted to study Islam as the background culture from which the
Baha'i Faith emerged, but I would like to also make a plea for Baha'is to
give greater study to the area of the world which contains the largest Baha'i
community - India. I cannot help but believe that Indian culture which has
such a rich and diverse history will not influence the future development of
the Baha'i international community. With love and laughter, Bill G
From Wilgar123@aol.comTue Apr 16 00:38:44 1996
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 00:18:06 -0400
From: Wilgar123@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: science/religion/liberalism
Dear Terry,
Thank you for your in-depth reply to my question related to chastity. I
am sure that it will take several readings to draw out the wealth of
ideas/insights you have incorporated into your response. With loe and
laughter, Bill G
From gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduTue Apr 16 00:39:13 1996
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 22:16:45 -0600 (MDT)
From: "[G. Brent Poirier]"
To: Jackson Armstrong-Ingram
Cc: Ahang Rabbani , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Overturning decisions by future UHJ
> > its sphere of competence. In those cases, no future House of
> > Justice an overrule the existing pronouncements unless they can
> > demonstrate that *new* Text has been located (which is extremely
> > unlikely).
>
> I don't see the logic here. Why does it take 'new' text? Can't a future
> house reach a different conclusion based on the same texts? Without a
> Guardian to determine the sphere of action of the House, it seems that
> any decision by the House of a limitation on its sphere of action is as
> reviewable by a subsequent House as any other decision they would take.
The specific text in the Master's Will states that legislative enactments
by the House may be annulled by a later House, conditions having
changed. However, a statement by the House that the Texts and the
Guardian's interpretations have defined the sphere of the House such that
a given action is beyond the scope of the House, is not a determination
by the House, not a ruling, but a recognition that something is beyond
its authority. This, the House has stated in one of its letters on the
House and the Guardianship, is immutable, and an aspect of the binding
terms of reference within which the House functions.
Brent
From Wilgar123@aol.comTue Apr 16 00:39:23 1996
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 00:24:13 -0400
From: Wilgar123@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Moral Consistency
Dear friends,
I believe John Dale has made an important distinction between "relative"
or "conventional" morality and "depth" morality. Surely at some level the
very "nature" of God must be associated with the "Good" and not only with
Power. When the notion of Omnipotence is separated from Goodness because
Goodness is seen as a limitation of Power, then, as John points out, one
arives at some truly horrendous possibilities. I believe Calvin took this
idea to its ultimate conclusion and thus arrived at a predestination theology
in which salvation was based almost entirely on the grace, some would say
whim, of God. With love and laughter, Bill G
From gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduTue Apr 16 11:06:15 1996
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 23:04:00 -0600 (MDT)
From: "[G. Brent Poirier]"
To: Ahang Rabbani
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu, jrcole@umich.edu
Subject: Re: No Guardian??!
On Mon, 15 Apr 1996, Ahang Rabbani wrote:
> In fact it wasn't at all clear to the Hands that there was not
> going to be another Guardian all through 1957-1963 period.
> This was the single most important debate of that era.
The book "Ministry of the Custodians" is most interesting and important
reading. Marguerite Sears spent the weekend in Las Cruces, and stayed in
our home. She brought out her original pilgrimage notebook, which I
stayed up reading, and about which I asked her some questions. It was
something to read the letters of Bill to the Hands arguing that the Hands
did have the right to expel Remey, and that they should do so, and then
be able to visit with Marguerite. I wanted some insight into those
days. Bill was one of the Hands in the Holy Land for part of that time.
She said that they were difficult days, and that the Remey affair was
sad. Somehow, that was enough. I had wanted more in-depth discussion of
what had happened. But Marguerite is very straightforward, very together
on matters Baha'i, and I felt satisfied with her answers. Though she
told us she is an "old lady" and has to take it easy (she's 83) she had
quite a whirlwind weekend, gave four marvelous talks, aided in 3
declarations, and brought together folks from all over the region.
Whatever the stature of his other services, Bill's services in the Holy
Land were greater. One of Marguerite's notes from the Guardian was that
protection of the unity of the Faith far outweighs the importance of
teaching.
> The decision of the House was a stroke of genius! It didn't mess
> with the institution of the Hands (and hence with the Sacred Text),
> but brought into being their own version of the Hands, ie.
> Counsellors.
This is based on a couple of points in the Teachings. One is that the
functions of teaching and protection are within the scope of the House's
authority, so it was appropriate to create an institution for those
purposes. The other is that Shoghi Effendi stated in a letter to Persia,
quoted in one of the compilations, that the House would create
institutions in the future. I assume that this is the source of it's
authority for doing so. Or, to be more precise, this is an explicit
interpretation which elaborates a Text which implicitly gives this
authority.
Brent
From gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduTue Apr 16 11:07:55 1996
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 23:56:02 -0600 (MDT)
From: "[G. Brent Poirier]"
To: Talisman
Subject: Protective efforts
Some of the well-meaning friends have found statements made on Talisman to
be beyond the pale -- to question the unquestionable, to undermine the
Faith. In response, they have criticized, questioned motives, and flat
out accused others on Talisman of the most grievous of wrongs.
I think these messages do more harm than good. In an effort to make the
situation better, they cross lines, they violate spiritual principles of
how we should deal with one another, and assume functions that they cannot
handle. They are well out of their depth. If a Talisman subscriber
really crosses a line, I say, inform the institutions; and then, trust the
institution. Inform the NSA, inform the House, inform the Counsellors.
Say your piece, then let it go. But some of us on Talisman are not happy
with the leniency of the House. We think more drastic action is called
for to protect the best interests of the Faith. However, we are not
called upon to protect the Faith; others are. Let's let them do their
jobs. When we try to do it for them, we pollute the Talisman atmosphere
with bad vibes, we create conflicts that we cannot resolve. We have to
let it go, and trust the system; trust that Baha'u'llah will keep His
Faith clean, in His own ways, through His methods.
One of the friends on Talisman has found an action of the National
Spiritual Assembly to be beyond the pale -- to be an abuse of power. He
has criticized the NSA, questioned its motives, and accused it of the most
grievous of wrongs, including violating federal law.
In an effort to rectify the situation, I think his message makes it worse.
It is an assumption of a role that is out of his depth. Such things
should be referred to the House, and then let go. In this case, the House
has already examined the whole issue of the World Congress, the
accusations of the Baha'i who made the tape recording, the finances, and
so on, and has given the NSA a clean bill of health.
But this friend is not happy with the decision of the House. He thinks
stronger action is called for to protect the best interests of the Faith
from domineering NSA members.
The House has met in person with the NSA. The House has written a letter
to the NSA, and used it as a foil to address the entire US Baha'i
community. The bulk of the admonitions in that letter are addressed to
the individual believers, not to the NSA. In the same letter in which the
House criticizes the attitudes of some of the NSA members, the House calls
on the believers to trust the NSA *more*. We have our responsibilities;
but the NSA has its. There are limits to our responsibilities.
When we feel that the House is not doing enough, and we take the
responsibility into our own hands, we are trying to do its job for it. In
an effort to remedy a situation, we bring terrible vibes into our
discourse. I think you should let it go, and trust the system, and trust
the principles and methods Baha'u'llah has set up to keep His Faith
pristine.
Can a believer say such things? I question the wisdom of doing so.
That's quite a thing for me to say, given some of the postings I've made
in the past. But I do hope that looking at this principle, of speaking in
a way that educates one another, and that accepts the limits within which
an individual believer can properly function, will help us.
Brent
From 73043.1540@compuserve.comTue Apr 16 11:08:08 1996
Date: 16 Apr 96 01:52:26 EDT
From: John Dale <73043.1540@compuserve.com>
To: BAHA'I-TALISMAN-LIST
Subject: Proposed Letter to a Christian
Dear Friends,
I would like your help in evaluating the communicational effectiveness
and tone of the following letter I am proposing to send to a Christian who
posted a touching "big picture" of the glory of God's cosmic creation on a
debate forum the other day. How well does it convey its message? How well does
it promise to touch the heart of the recipient? (How does it touch your own
hearts?) What specific Baha'i quote might I add to make the letter not simply my
words but also His?
Let's do this kind of thing more frequently, so that the spirit of
cooperation in the task of formulating the message of Baha'u'llah in our modern
setting may arise among us and more strongly guide our discussions.
Lovingly yours,
-- John Dale
____________________
Dear Jeff,
I was really touched by your post "A Step Back" of several days ago and
by your call to step back and look in awe and reverence at "the big picture" of
God's Creation.
The big picture, in my opinion, is that the glory of the Lord is
everywhere, literally, and that it must, of necessity, reveal itself to beings
progressively as their capacity for perception advances. The religion of the
God of this great cosmos must be inherently progressive, and the manifestation
of that progressiveness is not only in the realm of human sciences that work on
reading the book of Creation, but in the form of Revelation itself from God,
the source.
I invite you to ponder the possibility that Revelation from Christ
returned in the glory of the Father may already have established itself on
Earth, and that His new name (Rev. 3:12) may be precisely The Glory of the
Lord, which in Arabic is "Baha'u'llah."
The Faith of The Glory of the Lord which we follow and contribute our
lives to is the Baha'i Faith, the word Baha'i meaning 'radiant' or 'glorious'.
From the writings of The Glory of the Lord, revealed in the Persian and
Arabic languages in the 19th century, we learn that God's worlds are endless,
that we are but a small part of a living universe, and that revelation to us
here on Earth has been continual and progressive and includes Islam as well as
the other great faiths and insight traditions of the world. The source of all
insight is God. The source of all faith is God.
The worldwide community of The Glory of the Lord is the garden of all
humanity, and it contains the consultative, information-centered, progressive,
and self-correcting pattern by which humanity will learn to govern itself
globally, nationally, and locally according to new levels of justice and human
rights, and in sustainable harmony with nature.
Baha'u'llah was born in Iran in 1817. His personal name was Husayn
Ali-Nuri. His family was of ancient and royal lineage which it traced itself
back to Abraham through his third wife, Keturah. Iran is the Biblical land of
Elam mentioned prophetically in the Book of Daniel. I say this to help link The
Glory of the Lord to your own tradition. We now have about ten percent of His
writings available in English. Books describing how the prophecies of the Bible
included Islam and how they have been fulfilled by Baha'u'llah are now
appearing. The Bible has been unsealed.
The last thing on Earth Christians expect to hear is that the spirit of
Christ is not about to return in the near future, but already did return and
departed again in the glory of the Father in the Middle East in the 19th
century, that through His return God deposited a treasury of spiritual guidance
and institutions that would last for the next 1,000 years, that from His
God-decreed imprisonment at the hands of the Muslim clergy and rulers of that
time He announced His mission to the kings and rulers of the Earth in most
eloquent appeals for them to investigate His Cause, which was the Most Great
Peace, the Kingdom on Earth, that none of them investigated, and that the
political desolation and devastation of the 20th century has been the result of
their failure to turn toward the foundations of peace which He revealed. Christ
verily returned "as a thief in the night," we believe. Before the household of
humanity could wake up, the "thief" was gone.
In accordance with the ageless and Biblical Covenant of God, the faith of
The Glory of the Lord is now centered in Israel on Mount Carmel, and due to its
global strategy of grass-roots dispersion, it has attained the rank of the
second most widely-spread religion on Earth. One of its central global
strategies is the advancement of women and the bringing of the feminine into
center arena in terms of achieving a global civilization of balance and human
dignity. The other is the harnessing of the powers of science and religion and
government everywhere together in cooperation to bring about the Lesser and then
the Most Great Peace.
We are entering the stage of global maturity as a planetary species, and
our task is to use all our combined resources to create an ever-advancing
civilization in both the inner and outer senses of that word. At the same
time, the inner dimensions of spiritual consciousness must be explored and
deepened, the rebalancing of gender roles and economic standards must continue,
community must be recreated on Earth with the help of the illumined temples of
the human heart, and the journey outward toward the solar system and the rest of
the universe must procede and its pace must increase. At the foundation of
society we must establish a consultative form of self-government based on
inclusiveness and the spirit of reverence for Truth from whatever source it
shines and in whatever language it is uttered.
I lovingly urge you to taste the sweetness and power of the words He has
given us and to join with even fuller consciousness into the forces of God
everywhere who are working to create global self-government guided by God.
Search under "Baha'i" in the Internet, and may the spirit of the Lord
confirm the bigness of the picture you see. It may be bigger still! :-))
With loving best wishes,
John Dale
From candy@pc.jaring.myTue Apr 16 11:08:23 1996
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 14:48:06 +0800 (MYT)
From: "Dr. Chandrasekaran"
To: wilgar.123@aol.com
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: hinduism
Dear Wilgar,
You are right .The word 'Hinduism' is derived from the name of
a river in present day Pakistan,the Sindhu(also known as Indus).Beginning around
1000AD,invading armies from the Middle East called the place beyond the Sindhu
"Hindustan" and the people who lived there the "Hindus".(Due to the invaders
language,the s was changed to h).In the centuries that followed,the term
"Hindu" became acceptable even to the Indians themselves as a general
designation for their different religious tradition.
Now they feel that the proper term would
be to be named "VEDIC DHARMA"
with love for knowledge,
Dr.Chandran
From forumbahai@es.co.nzTue Apr 16 11:19:40 1996
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 96 00:47 GMT+1200
From: Alison & Steve Marshall
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Gayle Morrison and encyclopedia project
Margreet wrote about Rob Stockman and Gayle Morrison being on the
encyclopedia project now. Most of us know Rob, but Gayle may need some
introduction. For those of you who have been wondering "What's Gayle
Morrison been doing since she left Hawaii?", let me tell you she's been in
New Zealand. She was a Counsellor here and a lovely, warm, intelligent,
approachable, caring, down-to-earth one. If there's one word I'd use to
describe her, it's "ordinary", and I mean it as real compliment. I can't
comment on her qualifications for working on the encyclopedia project, but
as a person she's just great!
ka kite ano,
Steve
p.s. The Marshalls now have a web page - the address is in the tag-line.
You're welcome to drop by. We plan to be a repository for information on
that endangered species known as "independent Baha'i magazine" -- Forum,
Arts Dialogue, Parenting in the New World Order...
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alison and Steve Marshall
Email: forumbahai@es.co.nz
90 Blacks Road, Opoho, Dunedin/Otepoti, Aotearoa/New Zealand
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/3751
--------------------------------------------------------------
From belove@sover.netTue Apr 16 11:20:04 1996
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 96 20:48:02 PDT
From: belove@sover.net
To: Joan Jensen , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: RE: finding the Question
Dear Talisman friends,
Joan Jensen has found the form of the Question:
What happens to the debate when we serve up the question this way:
What are women, that they cannot serve on the Universal House of Justice?
and
What is the Universal House of Justice, that women cannot serve thereon?
I think this form of the question reveals much. First of all, it shows that there is a comment on the nature of women inherent in the proscription.
In my thinking the question needs to be qualified by a context statement: "What are women in the Bahai view, etc." And this context marker suggests something limited in the Bahai view. Or at least I think it does. Any opinions?
Philip
----------End of Original Message----------
From bn872@freenet.carleton.caTue Apr 16 11:22:07 1996
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 09:42:41 -0400
From: McKenny Michael
To: TALISMAN@indiana.edu
Subject: LETTER TO CHRISTIAN
Greetings, John, from Ottawa.
It seems to be taking me a couple of days after I download TALISMAN
posts before I can get around to reading them. Your title caught my
attention and I thought any response ought to be sent soon. So, I
read your letter out of order.
How wonderful that you felt moved to respond to someone talking
about the glory of God. Your intent is highly praiseworthy and the
humility of asking for the comments of your fellow Baha'is along
with prayer may well add spiritual force to your effort.
My response is in the spirit of frank and loving consultation.
Your letter asks a lot from the reader, who may have an easier time
were it significantly shorter, written in a more simple style and
included far less detail.
A phrase such as "consultation, information-centered, progressive
and self-correcting pattern" may be a bit too much like steak when
the Master, I believe, encouraged us to start off with milk for most
seekers. If you are posting this to a newsgroup surely there'll be
those there who need the milk, even if you feel the person you're
answering can handle steak.
My experience is Christians tend to respond better to the
general comment that all the major religions come from God (Actually,
a hard enough test as it is) than to see right from the start the
red flag of the word Islam.
The information that only ten percent of the Writings have yet
been translated seems an unnecessary detail and gives rise to
questions as to what's being hidden.
The comment about a living universe is possibly something most
Christians don't believe. If there is something in the Writings
on this I'd be happy for the source, as it's the kind of thing
which may reduce the tests many pagans face when they meet the
Faith.
May this be of help to you. May others here also respond and
whatever actually results may your intent and spirit see it lead
to significant result.
Very Best Wishes,
Michael
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
From Alethinos@aol.comTue Apr 16 11:22:52 1996
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 10:09:36 -0400
From: Alethinos@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Womens voice/ Jim's voice
Actually, my dearest brother Terry, I have not been following _any_ of the
posts you have been writing, simply for lack of time, so I have not referred
to anything you have written at all. I am not sure where you recieved that
impression.
Yes my words of late have been harsh. Quite. It is difficult to *reason* when
those who promote these lines of thinking (that many have found
objectionable) simply ignore the reasoned arguments offered. I have been here
long enough to see this go around and around, with the same suggestions by
Juan and Scholl et al, and counter suggestions by others. It essentially goes
nowhere. I have to start wondering what the motives are when a question that
has been clearly answered for us, _at this time_ continues to be drug out and
banged on like a war drum, as part of a larger program that is consistantly
directed against the Institutions. It is not as if this is one isolated
incident. Let us use our memories people. The over all cry from these folks
is constantly that the institutions are to some degree fascist in nature,
that the Administrative Order is essentially flawed, etc, etc. It isn't just
one little question about women and the UHJ. Why don't you step back and look
at the larger pattern.
And it is important to have our ideas fight and struggle in this arena and to
probe and punch. Brent is of course right - it is no one's job to play the
role of an assembly here. But it sure is anyone's job to battle against ideas
that seem to them harmful given their possible effects in the future.
I am sorry if the harsh language I used to stir up feelings upset many. For
that I apologize. But I will not apologize for seeing a dangerous trend here.
I never accused anyone of being a CB - quite the opposite. But our Faith,
esp. in this country already suiffers from a plethora of strange admixtures
of late 20th century superstitions and idle fancies. The last thing we need
is another healthy dose finding its way into it. Let's slug it out here and
see if the ideas can stand the heat here. If they win let them go.
But it is hard to say it is a fair fight when the counter arguments from so
many people, Brent, Burl, Kevin, you, Rich S, Ahang, etc, etc, etc, etc, are
completely ignored with a "Well that is what I believe and that is what I am
going to tell everyone, regardless of your proofs to the contrary!"
jim harrison
Alethinos@aol.com
From MBOYER%UKANVM.BITNET@pucc.PRINCETON.EDUTue Apr 16 11:23:33 1996
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 96 09:30:53 CDT
From: Milissa
To: Jim
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Womens voice/ Jim's voice
Hello Jim--
I wish you would understand how important it is (for me anyway) to discuss
this issue. I love Talisman because it is the only place it can be discussed,
like I said in my previous post (which I haven't heard back from you on) if
I wanted men to tell me to shut up I could just go to Feast or have stayed a
Christian!
You wonder why we don't have entry by troops. No women on the UHJ is not the
only reason. The average non-Baha'i woman reading the Aqdas will probably be
horrified. Therefore, I was also wanting to explore the laws in the Aqdas and
how they effect women. I specifically stated that my post was not about women
on the UHJ, but still all you *seem* to say is "shut up."
If you have responded I have missed your post, so please resend it. In the
meantime, please let me try to resolve these things with the help of this
list. In fact, I probably wouldn't be a Baha'i anymore if it weren't for
Talisman and THE VERY PEOPLE YOU CRITICIZE AS UNDERMINING THE FAITH. Now,
I really don't expect you to care about me specifically, but I just wanted
to tell you that I don't see them the way you do.
Sincerely,
Milissa Boyer
mboyer@ukans.edu
From sindiogi@NMSU.EduTue Apr 16 11:23:52 1996
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 08:49:02 -0600 (MDT)
From: Eric Indiogine
To: "Marguerite K. Gipson"
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Is it a dirty word???
Actually it was mentioned here on Talisman. It was some time ago.
Since electronic comunication media are much faster than printed ones, it
was known and commented a couple of months ago here. It was welcome news.
Bye,
On Mon, 15 Apr 1996, Marguerite K. Gipson wrote:
> Hello all.. After a long day at work.... I sat down--finally, to read the
> American Bahai...
>
> On Page 10 is an article on the Encyclopedia project...
> How come it was never mentioned here on Talisman? Our own Robert Stockman,
> Dr. Robert Stockman is on the project along with Gayle Morrison *Move the
> World* book... My congradulations to them both for this accomplishment and
> appointment.
>
> Looks like something will come about here soon... I wish the project well!
>
> Warmly, Margreet
Eric Indiogine (sindiogi@nmsu.edu), Dept. Civil, Agricultural,
and Geological Engineering, New Mexico State University,
Las Cruces, New Mexico, U.S.A.
## True loss is for him whose days have been ##
## spent in utter ignorance of his self ##
-* Baha'u'llah, Words of Wisdom #21 *-
From mfoster@qni.comTue Apr 16 17:21:01 1996
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 10:38:36 -0500
From: "Mark A. Foster"
To: Talisman
Subject: Re: LETTER TO CHRISTIAN
At 09:42 AM 4/16/96 -0400, McKenny Michael wrote:
> The comment about a living universe is possibly something most
>Christians don't believe. If there is something in the Writings
>on this I'd be happy for the source, as it's the kind of thing
>which may reduce the tests many pagans face when they meet the
>Faith.
Hi, Michael -
I have had many dear friends who are Wiccans and Neopagans over the years.
In fact, I was briefly one myself back in the late 60s (before it was
popular ). I find much beauty in the various branches of Gerald Gardner's
religion. It has many attractive ideas - especially from an environmental
perspective. It seems to me that Matthew Fox's creation spirituality borrows
extensively from Gardnerianism.
Since I do not know the original languages, I can only refer to what has
been translated. However, I think that there is enough material available in
English to respond compassionately to the concerns of a Wiccan/Neopagan.
The Master said that the mineral kingdom has a life appropriate to its
stage. As I see it, all things can, in a sense, be said to be living in that
they are animated by a degree of spirit (stepped down from the Loving and
Knowing power of the Holy Spirit). IMHO, the material universe itself is
generated by the mineral, vegetable, and animal degrees of spirit.
Ultimately, spirit is the law of love. In the kingdom of names and
attributes, the material universe, it is expressed in the linking which
connects atoms into minerals; planets, moons, and stars into solar systems;
animals into herds, packs, etc. and mating relationships; plants to
nutrients and sunlight; and humans in community, i.e., as society is, to use
the Guardian's term a sort of organism.
I hope that is somewhat helpful.
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
***************************************************************************
}
Return to Talisman
Translation Page
Baha'i Studies Page
J. Cole Home Page
Last Updated 11-17-96
WebMaster: Juan R.I. Cole
jrcole@umich.edu