From jarmstro@sun1.iusb.eduTue Apr 16 17:22:16 1996
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 10:49:25 -0500 (EST)
From: Jackson Armstrong-Ingram
To: talisman
Subject: Re: Fwd: Is it a dirty word???

Speaking as someone who was asked to write a number of articles for the
encyclopedia project and did, I would have been happy to post something
about its revival on Talisman if anyone had told me it had been revived.
The first I heard about it was reading the article in TAB yesterday.
Obviously, for there to be an article in TAB the revival happened some
time ago but there does not seem to have been any hurry to inform those
who spent the time and energy to write the articles. Perhaps before
suggesting we authors are keeping stuff to ourselves, a simple enquiry as
to whether we know anything about what is going on would be an idea? Or
an enquiry to Rob as to his not having given the news on Talisman?

Jackson

From lwalbrid@indiana.eduTue Apr 16 17:22:39 1996
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 10:58:28 -0500 (EST)
From: lwalbrid
To: DEREK COCKSHUT
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Fwd: vacuums on his bosom?

I am so glad you are on record on this issue, Derek. Who is our
archivist? Eric, is it you? Please make sure you file this post
correctly. I am sure it will be considered one of Talisman's great
treasures, up there with the Ninja posts.

BTW, anytime any organization is made exclusively women it automatically
is diminished in prestige and considered not serious. So, let's forget
about instituting an all female establishment. I agree completely with
Jackson on this one.

Linda

On Mon, 15 Apr 1996, DEREK COCKSHUT wrote:

> ---- Bulk
>
> 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
>
> My dearest Linda
> I have to go on record as saying in my view nothing will ever replace
> Ladies' breasts, male breasts are a sad joke in comparison.I refuse to
> look at male breasts horrible hairy things in the main.
> Kindest Regards
> Dr.Uncle Derek
>

From spurushotma@brahma.hcla.comTue Apr 16 17:24:05 1996
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 96 10:24:08 PDT
From: spurushotma@brahma.hcla.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Instance #1234567

To Super Secret List Number 5:

I think we have hit upon a winning strategy:

1. Continually confuse everyone including ourselves.
After all, what are we trying to achieve, the betterment
of the Faith? Great -- lets spread confusion, disorder, "circulate
ideas", "keep the heat on", and attack the Institutions. Wow!!
Aren't we going to achieve a lot.

And as for you Derek, I don't want any more of
your inflamatory comments about Sherman the Cat.
Leave Sherman to dig his own grave.
What is the quadrilateral root of Shermans toenail??
We need you for future generations and for your upcomming
Convention Reports where you can spin doctor to your
heart's content (especially since you will not even be there).





From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comTue Apr 16 17:24:34 1996
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 96 11:43:01 -0400
From: Ahang Rabbani
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: all women institution

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

Dear Linda,

You wrote:

> BTW, anytime any organization is made exclusively women it
> automatically is diminished in prestige and considered not
> serious. So, let's forget about instituting an all female
> establishment. I agree completely with Jackson on this one.

I think you guys are right. But more importantly, an all-women
institution is illegal to begin with. Abdu'l-Baha wrote that in all
institutions *both* men and women must serve, save the Universal House
of Justice.

As such, I wonder if all those women-only meetings that Persian ladies
had in Iran was not in fact illegal. Also, what about this women
internet discussion group? In light of Abdu'l-Baha's comment, I
wonder if that list is legal and perhaps steps should be taken to
dissolved it.


On a different subject, I wrote Rob a couple of weeks ago and at the
end of my note congratulated him on appointment to the Ency Board. He
was surprised that I knew and asked where I learned about it. (Truth
is, rumors been circulating about Morrison/Stockman appointment for at
least 4 months. Where you guys been?? ;-)

ahang.

From Loni.BramsonLerche@ping.beTue Apr 16 17:25:36 1996
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 19:08:56 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Loni Bramson-Lerche
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Women's Problems

>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).

This situation is not hypothetical. It is a living reality for almost every
women I know, even those with "liberated husbands" who "believe" in the
equality of women and men. In another vein, I have pointed out at many a
Baha'i occasion and to many young Baha'i couples that Baha'i mothers of
young children complain of two things. One is that they are perpetually
exhausted. The second is that those who have chosen to stay at home with
the children deplore that they do not have enough time to truly be with
their children and relate to them in the manner implied in the Baha'i
writings. Many people, until it is too late, do not realize that taking
care of a young child in an appropriate manner is a full-time job. There is
no time to do all the domestic chores as well. But fathers tend to feel
that if they are out all day working and the mother is at home, then she has
ample time to shop, do the laundry, run all the errands, clean the house,
cook, etc. The mothers have been socialized to believe this as well. The
end result is that the mother educates the child in the following way:
"Sweetie, sorry, but I do not have time for you right now. I have to ...."
This type of sentence is repeated over and over again to the child. The
child is definitely being educated--educated to believe that it is not so
very important after all.

The equality of women and men is going to require a massive paradigm shift.
After reading the majority of the posts on this issue, I do not believe that
most of the men on this list realize just how massive a shift is required
and just how far down in their souls they are going to have to dig in order
to change, in my opinion, of course.

Sincerely,

Loni Bramson-Lerche



From sfotos@logosintl.comTue Apr 16 17:27:08 1996
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 09:20:39 -0800
From: Sandra Fotos
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: WOMEN OF TALISMAN: 2 suggestions

Dear friends,

Arsalan has repeated Derek's post of a few days ago, and is asking whot we
can do to promote equality of women. This is one of the key issues facing
us as we prepare for entry by troops. The new Plan calls for the
establishment of institutes for teaching the Faith, and the equality of men
and women will be right up there!!

Postings exploring this theme by women who are usually silent (while many
male list members ruminate on the history of the future, the nature of
gnostic reality, hermeneutics and other useful matters guaranteed to bring
the troops flocking in) and the absolutist responses from some male list
members who feel that these issues are irrelevant and want to deny the
women their right to discuss them in open forum--these have convinced me
that our generation is pretty well trapped in its own agendas.

People from other cultures often comment that Americans feel it is their
right--if not their duty--to speak their mind at all costs, regardless of
the consequences. This is one of the tests of the American community, and
those American pioneers living overseas in areas which don't function this
way have had to learn to keep their mouths shut and remain silent while the
local friends solve problems according to *their* cultural procedures.
Oddly enough, things eventually seem to work out without the direct
confrontation and explicit criticism that characterize American
problem-solving approaches.

So maybe there is another way...??!! In _Memorials to the Faithful__
'Abdu'l Baha praised those who were humble and "observed silence", not
those who shot off their mouth abrasively whenever they disagreed with
someone.

And Joan has noted that women's discourse is much less confrontive than
men's and has suggested that we become "bilingual", being able to be direct
in some situations and more tentative in others, but always mindful of
others' feelings.

So my first suggestion is that men must learn to moderate their discourse
and present their arguments in a more tentative way. If people disagree,
then they do. Repeating the argument at increasing levels of pitch and
hostility will not change this fact. A better strategy is to find out what
the nature of the disagreement is, then try to reach consensus by building
on those areas where agreement is shared.

My second suggestion is that we look to the future by funding scholarships
to educate the next generation, both men and women, in such a way that they
will be freed from our limitations and insidious cultural agendas. For
example, there are students from Latin American countries at Maxwell
Baha'i School right now who will not be able to continue their education
unless scholarship funds are provided. If any communities are interested,
the school's address is:

Maxwell International School
Bag 1000
2371 East Shawnigan Lake Road.
British Columbia, Canada VOR 2WO
Tel 604-743-7144
Fax 604-743-3522

Best,
Sandy





From derekmc@ix.netcom.comTue Apr 16 17:27:42 1996
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 10:25:35 -0700
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Fwd: Re: Fwd: Is it a dirty word???

---My dear Jackson and fellow Talismanians
Clearly you did not read my post on the matter , Gayle Morrison who
Allison and Steve who think we may not know her Stateside actually
amongest other things wrote the excellent biography of Hand of the
Cause Louis Gregory 'To Move the World'.Rob although he will be helping
let me assure you from what I hear Gayle is running the show very
professionally.The reason why I find the biography excellent it is not
an hagiography.That augues well for a project that will satify most
people.Gayle of course is well known in the States.
Kindest Regards
Derek Cockshut

Speaking as someone who was asked to write a number of articles for the

encyclopedia project and did, I would have been happy to post
something
about its revival on Talisman if anyone had told me it had been
revived.
The first I heard about it was reading the article in TAB yesterday.
Obviously, for there to be an article in TAB the revival happened some
time ago but there does not seem to have been any hurry to inform those

who spent the time and energy to write the articles. Perhaps before
suggesting we authors are keeping stuff to ourselves, a simple enquiry
as
to whether we know anything about what is going on would be an idea?
Or
an enquiry to Rob as to his not having given the news on Talisman?

Jackson



From nineteen@onramp.netTue Apr 16 17:28:13 1996
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 96 13:23:06 -0500
From: "Richard C. Logan"
To: "[G. Brent Poirier]" ,
Talisman
Subject: Re: Protective efforts

>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.

Brent can you or someone else post this letter or send me a copy because
I keep hearing about the 1994 letter but I'm not familiar with its
contents.

Richard

From gladius@portal.caTue Apr 16 17:29:00 1996
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 11:35:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linda de Gonzalez
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Women's Problems

The situation I described in a earlier post is not hypothetical at all. It
is the real-life situation of a family (not members of my community).

One of the things this situation brings up for me, besides the exploitative
nature of the relationship, is this: The point of sharing household tasks is
NOT because equality means equal work (it may or it may not, depending on
the circumstances and the amount of support the adult members of the family
can reasonably provide), it's that when one member of a family is overloaded
with domestic duties, it leaves them no option to do any of the following:

- participate in community activities
- have some "quality time" with the kids
- read a book
- take a course
- spend time with friends outside the home
- join an outside organization

Thus, their entire sphere of experience/action/participation is strictly
limited to the home and the family. I am NOT suggesting that home and family
is bad; I am saying that it must be a choice.

And, friends, get real: it doesn't do the other partner any good spiritually
to benefit so greatly from another person's unpaid, unrecognized, unvalued
labour. Unvalued? Well, maybe not. After all, when the labour stops being
performed, there's generally a lot said about it. It therefore must be
valued...logically, wouldn't you think????

I think that Abdu'l-Baha's comments about middle-class American women at the
turn of the century were spot on. I, however, never lived like that, nor
have any of my friends. My life and that of my husband and family is lived
from one paycheck to the next, and one meal to the next. I guess we never
made it to the middle class.



Linda de Gonzalez
Gladius Productions


From derekmc@ix.netcom.comTue Apr 16 17:31:06 1996
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 12:00:04 -0700
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: The House and moral consistency.

My dear Steve
Thank -you for responding to my delicate and gentle question on
your post regarding the function of the Universal House of
Justice.I have been busy with family and had no time to finish
my reply to you until now.

I noted that you chose to divide my question into two separate
ones.

I suspect the real reason why we seem to look at the Faith and
the functioning of the Institutions differently is primarily in
the way in which the Holy Text is regarded. I believe the Word
is Uncreated and therefore able to transform the individual as
a diverse separate soul. So the transformation for each person
is different but all based upon the Uncreated Word of God. I do
not accept that the Word of God achieves its highest consummat
ion by fusing with the human intellect and is therefore the
Created Word of God. The resulting expression a blend of the
mortal and divine giving the guidance required for living on
this planet. I believe we have sufficient historical background
to make us suspicious of such an approach. The Revelation of
Baha\rquote u\rquote llah has come to allow the individual to achieve a
serenity with God , themselves and the rest of humanity. I look
to the Uncreated Word fusing with our spiritual side and that
expression giving the guidance for living on this planet and
the rest of our lives throughout the Worlds of God. That
process I have come to accept is one that we have to learn as a
species, this the opening of our inner eyes.

You posted that in your view the House of Justice reached their
current views in an honest and faithful way and that they are
acting in good faith. You then stated:\rquote that to some degree we
are all immoral if we take a legalistic approach.\rquote As the main
thrust of our discussion lies in the field of morals not legal
jargon we have to define where morals come from.Are they a
legal requirement or a religious one. For a Baha\rquote i it must
always stem from scripture especially in the case of the
Institutions. So morals from that perspective are religious not
secular in a Baha\rquote i context.

So to state the House only acted in good faith and therefore
in spite of the good intentions acted immorally in some degree
from a legalistic standpoint means that from your perspective
the House can and does act in an immoral manner however
innocent of intent the Institution is. This would seem to
imply in your view the Institution is subjected to the sort of
human frailty that is enshrined in Christian theology relating
to the fall of man from grace.I do not believe the Supreme
Institution of the Faith is subjected to the type failure that
such ideas promote. Indeed the precise promise in the Will and
Testament is that the Institution is under the unerring
guidance of the Exalted One , who is the Primal Point , the
Bab. To state that such any Institution which is under as well
the care and protection of the Blessed Beauty additional could
therefore act in any manner that is not with divine guidance is
to deny the literal meaning and the spiritual meanings of such
statements. The Institution has the power and authority to
bring in the secondary laws of this Religion, and for the
entire Dispensation dispense such. What we are witnessing and
part of is the unfoldment of the first Institution of a
religion that is endowed with the infallibility that requires
informed submission by the individual to those laws, rulings
and ordinances of a secondary nature, because the Institution
is assured to have the shelter , unerring guidance, care and
protection of the Twin Manifestations of God who have brought
this Religion to mankind.In that respect to deny the truth of a
law , ruling or ordinance from the Universal House of Justice
is to deny any of the Laws, rulings and ordinances that
Baha\rquote u\rquote llah gave us. The fact that the House may change its
laws , rulings and ordinances as it wishes does not invalidate
the requirement for each and every Baha\rquote i to accept,follow and
put into practice those instructions.This does not mean the
various rulings of the House are the same as the words of
Baha'u'llah just that we must give the same obedience.

In respect of the individual and the explanation you gave of
trying to overcome the lower self. I do not accept that as a
good explanation.By Baha\rquote i belief each person is conceived with
a pure soul and is born into the world with such. We have to
apply the Word of God in our lives.In that we use our intellect
and our senses in trying to grasp and understanding of how we
proceed the result may be flawed in respect of our rational
faculty. Regardless the soul remains pure and is not
contaminated by whatever is the lower nature of human beings.

The failure to submit to the Will of God could be of major
interest and concern.Baha\rquote u\rquote llah requires we submit to His Will
which I have always understood relates to His Word i.e. the
Writings.In the Writings Baha\rquote u\rquote llah further explains that as
informed submission to the Will of God. That does point in the
direction of having to give up at some juncture the supposed
power of the human intellect in relationship to the Scripture
of the Faith and the Uncreated Word.. If we place our
understanding or interpretation as being co-equal to the
Supreme Institution we have failed to submit to the Will of
God. Informed as I comprehend it,is not that we must have the
detail and background of every decision explained to us. But
rather we inform ourselves as to the nature and position of the
Institution that has these powers and responsibility conveyed
upon by Baha\rquote u\rquote llah through the Master, accept and submit to
that authority.

The area we need to consider goes into the aspect of
interpretation. When the Will and Testament of the Master is
read, we see the powerful statement regarding the protection of
the Twin Institutions of the House of Justice and the
Guardianship, In part one on page eleven in the second
paragraph starting with: \lquote The sacred and youthful branch,....\rquote
the role and response of each believer to those two
Institutions is stated in very emphatic terms. The precise
sentence of:\rquote The mighty stronghold shall remain impregnable and
safe through obedience to him who is the Guardian of the Cause
of God\rquote makes it very clear the nature of our relationship to
the Guardian. The House of Justice has the following protective
words:\rquote Whatsoever they decide is of God\rquote the paragraph
continues and states: \lquote whoso contendeth with them hath
contendeth with God\rquote . You on the other hand believe that debate
and discussing has to become a necessary aspect of Baha\rquote i
community life. Whereas I have no problem with individuals
discussing, making suggestions and recommendations indeed it is
a healthy and desirable aspect of Baha\rquote i community. It does
seem you were alluding to something else than community
discourse but rather an elite group who will make
recommendations that the House can enact.Such an elite group
clearly would be regarded as having the capacity of being an
authoritative source. That only is valid if you do not accept
that the Word of God is Uncreated but Created and is
accordingly in need of revision from time to time.

There does come a moment when a person has to decided when the
Institutions ruling has to give way to ones own wishes and
personal desires.Indeed the statement in the Will and
Testament: \lquote Unto the Most Holy Book every one must turn and all
that is not expressly recorded therein must be referred to the
Universal House of Justice. That which this body, whether
unanimously or by majority doth carry, that is verily the Truth
and the Purpose of God Himself.\rquote , very emphatically clarifies
that for the time such laws , rulings or ordinances are in
force they carry the same weight as the Uncreated Word itself
and therefore informed submission is required from us all.

The nature of your remark in a later posting \lquote The Guardianless
World\rquote , I found of interest in respect of this matter and the
understanding of how a believer needs to relate to the Writings
and the Institutions of the Faith. Some years ago I was
approached by several believers who apparently had been
attending the study classes in the LA area at which I was given
to understand you were one of the participants. They posed to
me an interesting query in how does one approach the
development of the Faith in terms of individual and collective
belief and interaction with the Administration of the Faith.
The question, although more complex than the simplified
version I will outline for the sake of brevity, related to
infallibility and was as follows:
The Bab and Baha\rquote u\rquote llah are Manifestations of God and therefore
Their writings and utterances are not in question. Abdu\rquote l-Baha
was a direct appointee of Baha\rquote u\rquote llah through His will to be
the Interpreter and that therefore is not in question. The Will
and Testament of the Master created the Institution of the
Guardian in the role of interpreter and this is not in
question.The Universal House of Justice was created by
Baha\rquote ullah and the role of and form of creation/election
delineated and refined in the Will and Testament of the Master
and this is not in question. Therefore everything is beyond
question and there is no problem except.In the Will and
Testament of the Master those two Institutions are supposed to
work together. Since the Master died in 1921 and the House did
not come into existence until 1963 then we have never had the
form of the Will and Testament in the Two Institutions working
together. Accordingly the Guardian was not able to function as
planned and now the House as there is no Guardian is also
unable to function as planned now it seems the Faith has a
problem.How do we function in a world without a Guardian and as
the Guardian functioned in a world without a House of Justice
surely this means everything since 1921 needs re-examining.How
do we resolve these problems now that the Baha\rquote is live in a
Guardianless World ?

I found the question to be paradoxically. In the first place
there is nothing in the Will and Testament that required the
two Institutions to be formed simultaneously in order to
operate. Secondly by the terms of the Will the Secondary Houses
of Justice needed to be formed to perform the election of the
Universal House.Thirdly the basis of the election method was
one of universal suffrage that is by all the believers. The
paradox in the question lies in that the Master was fully aware
that by the terms of the Will it would be impossible for the
Universal House of Justice to come into being until those
necessary second and third mentioned steps had been put into
place.I am aware that He did consider when His life was in
jeopardy of calling into being the House. That also points to
the fact that the actual joint functioning of the two
Institutions was not necessary for either Institution to
discharge their respective duties. At that time Shoghi Effendi
was very young and would have had to take on the mantle of
responsibility later. The flaw in the proposal was that to
question the Will by assuming some parts of the operation of it
were suspect, for it casts doubts on the Station of the Master.
If you cast doubt on the Station of the Master then you cast
doubt on Baha\rquote u\rquote llah Himself. This goes back to informed
submission to the Will of God. We do not live in a World that
is Guardianless that is a contradiction in it\rquote s self. Shoghi
Effendi existed, his writings are with us, the House has stated
they will and do find ways of ensuring the continued
functioning of the Guardianship. It is not true to say that if
there was a Guardian the House would make different decisions
or if there had been a Universal house of Justice during the
time of the Guardian, the Guardianship would have made
different decisions. That constitutes idle speculation around a
reality that did not happen, we simply do not know because it
never happened and will not.

So I believe it truly goes back to how one understand the
sacred text and ones relationship to it.
Kindest Regards
Derek Cockshut






From asadighi@ptialaska.netTue Apr 16 17:31:23 1996
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 11:09:53 -0800
From: "Arsalan J. Sadighi"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Womens voice

Dear Millisa,

Let me start by saying that I am willing to shut up and listen with the
intent to really understand whatever you have to say. I want to know how I
can change and for that I need your help. I am too much of a chauvinist to
listen to my wife sometimes, but I think this is a fairly 'safe' environment
to discuss these issues without making them too personal or painful. I can
not talk for anyone else and I will not, but I am sure there are many more
hearing ears out there than you think. So, please tell us whatever you think
we need to hear. You may want to direct your remarks at me so you can speak
freely and at the same time your remarks are not viewed as attacks on anyone
else.

Now I shut up.

Arsalan


At 09:30 AM 4/16/96 CDT, you wrote:
>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 a003@lehigh.eduTue Apr 16 17:31:43 1996
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 15:09:59 EDT
From: a003@lehigh.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Finding the Question


I think we're quite possibly going at it wrong if we look at the question
from the perspective of what is it about women that discludes them from the
House. This is why, perhaps, we are always coming up with the conclusion that
it's insulting to women, when that's not the point or the logical conclusion.

I think the answer can more easily be found, given all we know...(i.e. the
equality or superiority of women to men as we are taught in the Faith), if
we ask "what is it lacking in men or *for* men that is mitigated by making
the House of Justice being all male?".

sincerely,
Bill
*-----------------------------------------------------------*
* Phone:610-867-9251 William George *
* Theatre Artist *
* 908 E. 5th. St. *
* Bethlehem, Pa 18015 U.S.A. *
*___________________________________________________________*

From banani@ucla.eduTue Apr 16 17:31:57 1996
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 11:28:26 -0700
From: Amin Banani
To: Derekmc@ix.netcom.com
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Talisman Heritage Tours

Just let me know when you get to the stage of "eating your horses," oops, I
mean "losses," so I can sell my stock.
Sheila





>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.

Sheila Banani
2320 Alta Avenue, Santa Monica, California 90402
Tel (310) 394-5449
Fax (310) 394-6167
E-Mail: Banani@UCLA.Edu (Sheila)



From fszaerpo@olympic.ctc.eduTue Apr 16 17:32:11 1996
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 12:22:00 -700 (PDT)
From: Farzaneh Zaerpoor
To: Loni Bramson-Lerche
Cc: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Women's Problems



On Tue, 16 Apr 1996, Loni Bramson-Lerche wrote:
>
> The equality of women and men is going to require a massive paradigm shift.
> After reading the majority of the posts on this issue, I do not believe that
> most of the men on this list realize just how massive a shift is required
> and just how far down in their souls they are going to have to dig in order
> to change, in my opinion, of course.>
>

I do think this is true. The world is not ready for that. Each religion
has moved us one step ahead toward this equality. Bahau'llah has done a
great job. Look to see how many of us shout that we are ready and want it.
But, unfortunately it is not enough.

Regards,
Farzaneh Zaerpoor


From a003@lehigh.eduTue Apr 16 17:32:46 1996
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 15:39:03 EDT
From: a003@lehigh.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: RE: Women's (and men's) Problems

Dear L, and those following this thread:

I couldn't help but be struck by your last paragraph referring to how (and
I paraphrase) "given the postings of most men on this forum, we have still
a major paradigm shift to make, that we're gonna' have to dig down to our
very sense of selves and change." It was something like that. I liked
it, but I want you to go on. What do you mean Loni?

I'd also like to add that I am so pleased that this thread still seems to
be progressing. These electronic forum have a tendency to splinter into
pieces every three or four days. It's just hard not to get distracted
into other topics. A topic naturally cools off and then heats up when
something interesting is kicked over, then a rapid fire exchange and
cooling off. Biggest problem of all is when, in the rapid fire exchange
somebody says something hurtful, the whole thing spins out into he said,
she said, no I didn't say, you shouldn't say, real
Baha'is shouldn't say, etc. etc. and finally apologies or whatever and
we've forgotten what we were talking about or have lost the drive to
continue with it.

I'm very thankful to Joan and all the other women who've been driving
this, that it has stayed on target pretty much (what was that about vacuum
cleaner beasts?) and has led to a number of fruits:

1) The development of a good reading list on these issues.
2) The beginning of individual stories (though not too many of these yet)
that help illustrate the problem and help us implement change at a
personal level.
3) The House of Justice question which is presently being framed and
acknowledged as a cause of pain for women and an apparent roadblack (for
good or for bad) in teaching the Cause.
4) The emergence of strong female voices leading the focus of
consultation on Talisman.

I hope this line of discussion will continue, though I admit I am a little
fearful of the ground we will be covering if we can make it to the next
level of consultation.

Yours sincerely,

Bill









*-----------------------------------------------------------*
* Phone:610-867-9251 William George *
* Theatre Artist *
* 908 E. 5th. St. *
* Bethlehem, Pa 18015 U.S.A. *
*___________________________________________________________*

From lwalbrid@indiana.eduTue Apr 16 17:32:55 1996
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 14:38:00 -0500 (EST)
From: lwalbrid
To: talisman@majordomo.ucs.indiana.edu
Subject: dirty word?

Dear Jackson, you think you were out of the loop on the Encyclopedia!
John used to be its chief editor and he was surprised by the article. Linda

From MBOYER%UKANVM.BITNET@pucc.PRINCETON.EDUTue Apr 16 17:33:49 1996
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 96 14:39:11 CDT
From: Milissa
To: "Arsalan J. Sadighi"
Cc: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Womens voice

Well Arsalan,

One thing that would be nice when the issue of women on the UHJ comes
up again, which it inevitably will, to just NOT do the following (this is
not directed at you specifically):

1) Don't tell me not to talk about it
2) Don't question my loyalty to the Faith
3) Don't accuse me of being materialistic
4) Don't accuse me of just having an ego problem
5) Don't accuse me of being power hungry
6) Don't call me uppity
7) Don't tell me that non-Baha'is who critize us about this "just don't
understand"
8) Don't tell me "you are just having a mental test"
(as I already know)
9) Don't equate this issue with people who want to find an excuse to do
drugs or fornicate

In addition, when asked about this by non-Baha'is don't give these reasons

1) Don't say its because women don't reflect God's attributes equally or
that men are God's highest creation! (one Baha'i here on Talisman has
written a paper that says just that!) To me, this is really scary!

2) Don't give the lame excuse "well the condition of society in the future
will be so different...." I have heard this a lot and still don't know
what people mean by it.

3) Don't say things like "well we can't be judged by the world's standards
or concepts of equality" and then appeal to those same standards when
its to our benefit
_________

Now these points deal with a specific issue, but as far as in general goes,
I think the most important point is that if an issue is important to someone
and they want to talk about it, please let them.

Obviously, the "you" and "me" in the above section is not talking about you
and me specifically. Hope you got that!

But again, I think its important to note that no women on the UHJ is NOT the
ONLY problem issue in relation to women and the Faith.

Ahang mentioned the all-woman's list. I am not on it. Believe it or not, I
really do prefer mixed-gender groups. I suppose I would get a lot more
sympathy from the woman's list, but I think its important to discuss women's
issues with men, too. I really do like hearing what men say about these
things.

I hope you or Jim did not view my post as an attack. Actually Arsalan, I don't
want anyone to shut up really. Don't let me give you the impression that
I don't want entry by troops. My view is that we won't have entry by troops
until we come up with some good answers. Even if you believe the ban on women
is permanent, I think even Rick S agreed that how we respond is very important
and that we hurt ourselves with bad answers.

Also, until I can resolve these issues (the UHJ NOT being the only one) I am
afraid I will not be an effective teacher of the Faith. These exercises in
understanding the issues really benefit me personally.

We just need to
come up with some good responses when people ask. So far, the best response I
have heard is that, while the members of the UHJ personally would love to
have women serve, they just don't have the authority to legislate it. While
I don't know for sure if I buy this argument (need to think about it some
more) it does, at least, avoid any idea of inequality. But surely there will
be even a better answer later.

Thanks for asking Arsalan. Please don't shut up, as I am listening to you,
too. I don't think you are anti-woman or anything like that.

Waiting for the sun to rise,
Milissa B.
mboyer@ukans.edu

From belove@sover.netTue Apr 16 17:34:24 1996
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 96 16:14:35 PDT
From: belove@sover.net
To: talisman@indiana.edu, 748-9178@mcimail.com
Subject: woman and uhj and men

Just want to expand on Joan's excellent suggestion:

Here question was:

What is the UHJ such that women are not allowed to serve on it and what are women such that they are not allowed to serve on the UHJ?

To this we must add:

What are men such that they are the ones to serve on the UHJ and what is the UHJ such that only men may serve on it?

With these questions it appears that the Faith takes a position regarding the difference between Men and Women. Is that conclusion justified? If so,

what is the position of the Faith regarding the difference between men and women such that only men serve on the UHJ, and what, in turn, does this say about Justice.

Regards,

Philip


-------------------------------------
Name: Philip Alan Belove
Anagram: Plain Livable Hope
E-mail: belove@sover.net
Date: 04/16/96
Time: 16:14:35

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


From Don_R._Calkins@commonlink.comTue Apr 16 17:35:36 1996
Date: 16 Apr 1996 15:13:42 GMT
From: "Don R. Calkins"
To: sfotos@logosintl.com
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Re: WOMEN OF TALISMAN: 2 suggestions

> So maybe there is another way...??!!
<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>
Sandy -
I think this is a very important point.

The vast majority of posts I have read on this subject seem to me to be
stereotypically male and implicitly deny the source of the problem. From my
perspective, this is a spiritual, not a social or psychological problem.
What we claim to be the socio-psychological problem is really just an
expression of the underlying lack of spiritual developement that is found
among both men and women. So long as we give the most attention to those
who are the loudest or otherwise most agressive, these problems are going to
continue.

We, as individuals, must remember that our ultimate reality is defined by the
soul, not the physical expression of our existance; and that the goal of the
development of the soul is detachment from all things save God. The
underlying problem here is that people are defining themselves not in terms
of their detachment from this world but the extent to which they are paid
attention to in this world.

There are two aspects to this. Those who are more out-going and vocal use
this trait for self-aggrandizement; and those who aren't feel they are
worthless. Men tend to be of the former type and women of the latter. I can
not for the life of me see any superiority to either position. Ultimately,
the problem will be solved only thru' the spiritual development of the mass
of humanity.

As with many illnesses, it is sometimes necessary to treat the symptoms
before curing the disease, and I feel that your two suggestions are among the
best methods of doing this.

The confrontational and aggressive forms of discourse that result from our
lack of conection with God must be eliminated. This can be done by not
automatically giving more weight to the loudest or most insistant speaker.
This may in some cases mean largely ignoring what they say, not responding
other than to acknowledge they have spoken.

On the other hand, those who tend to be quiet can have their self-confidence
raised thru' education. About 5 years ago, there was an excellent example of
this in a 3rd world country dominated by a single political party that was
widely known for its corruption. A Baha'i couple instituted a local school
system for the education of young women about 10 years ago. There was no
discussion of partisan political affairs. It had been the general rule that
the women voted in the elections according to the wishes of their husbands.
However after about 5 years of having this school educate the young women,
suddenly the dominant political party was summarily voted out of office in
that area. This was done in spite of the fact that so far as the Baha'i
couple could determine, there was absolutely no campaigning by the women
against the entrenched political party.

Don C



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

From jjensen@welchlink.welch.jhu.eduTue Apr 16 17:38:18 1996
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 16:59:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joan Jensen
To: belove@sover.net
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: RE: finding the Question


Dear Friends,

What are women, in the Baha'i view, that they may not serve
on the Universal House of Justice?

What I'm sharing below is not new, its just a review and synthesis.
To those who have hashed this out previously, please forgive me and
delete this post.

Most of the writings comparing men and women emphasize their similarities
on the spiritual realm. (#2103: ... men and women alike are the
revealers of His names and attributes, and from the spiritual viewpoint
there is no difference between them. COC/women).

The distinctions that 'Abdu'l-Baha has elaborated about the differences
between women and men is in their function;
-- women as first educators of children,
-- women exempt from military engagements,
-- membership of the Universal House of Justice confined to men,

and that women are superior in certain qualities;
-- more tender-hearted,
-- more receptive,
-- her intuition is more intense,
-- abundance of mercy and sympathy,
-- mental alertness,
-- the spiritual qualities of love and service,
-- inflexibly opposed to war and are lovers of peace,
-- greater moral courage,
-- she has special gifts which enable her to govern in moments of
danger and crisis.

It is easy to see why women are exempt from military service and are
the first educators of children, following the qualities elaborated by
'Abdu'l-Baha. The same does NOT follow easily for confining service on
the Universal House of Justice to men. For example, all else being
equal, we would want to elect someone to the Universal House of Justice
who was mentally alert, had moral courage, was able to govern in moments
of danger and crisis.

In discussion this issue (#2102/COC), 'Abdu'l-Baha advised:
"Ye need to be calm and composed, so that the work will
proceed with wisdom.... 'Abdu'l-Baha will tactfully take
appropriate steps. Be assured. In the end thou wilt thyself
exclaim. "This was indeed supreme wisdom!" I appeal to you to
obliterate this contention between men and women..."

On the 'women' side of the equation, the only answer I can imagine is
that there is SOMETHING DIFFERENT about women's style of decision-making
(my research interests are exploring this realm) or consultation/use of
language (anything in this, Sandy?). These undiscovered or unelaborated
differences are not due to her soul, but due to her brain re: female
hormones/ or something like that. Can anyone think of ANY examples? I
can't. But if you think of them, I can design studies to test them!

So lets turn our attention to the function of the Universal House of
Justice.

What is the Universal House of Justice,
that women cannot serve thereon?

Historically we know that service on local Spiritual Assemblies was
temporarily confined to men due to the immaturity of the believers at
the time (an oversimplification, but you get my point).

Let me ask two other questions.
1. Why was Persia of the 1800's chosen by God to be the cradle of
the Faith?
2. Why was American of the 1900's chosen to be the cradle of the
Administrative Order?

My understanding of the answers to question 1) and 2) was that this was
PROOF of the transforming power of this Faith.

So, folks, this is part of what I've been able to come up with.
Does any of this stir any thoughts?

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.nzTue Apr 16 17:38:34 1996
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 10:21:34 +1300
From: dove
To: Sandra Fotos , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: WOMEN OF TALISMAN: 2 suggestions

Sandy, whose letters I find most stimulating, has suggested that men
moderate their discourse and become less "confrontive", so that real issues
(such as entry by troops) might be better addressed in an atmosphere of
gender harmony...

Do men really generally talk loudly and angrily about nonsensical things,
like "the history of the future" or hermeneutics? Perhaps they do.

But what I would like to know now is this: are there any shortcomings to
women's discourse that might be addressed (by themselves: I wouldn't dare)?
I (and I do not speak for all men) might be better prepared to "own" some
of the criticisms, if I felt sure that critics turned the same critical eye
upon themselves, and showed ownership of some of their own stuff....
(please excuse the repetitiveness repetitiveness repetitiveness
repetitiveness of that sentence!)

Don't get me wrong. I am delighted that Talisman women are speaking up.
Milissa's letter that I got a few minutes ago was a beauty, and I'm sure
that Arsalan must feel as stimulated by it as a Swede would by a mid-winter
sauna..y'know: where they heat themselves up, thrash themselves with
branches, and then go and jump in an icy lake... Pure joy.

"They think I'm crazy, but I don't care"... was that Ren or Stimpy?

R



From gec@geoenv.comTue Apr 16 17:39:09 1996
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 17:29:51 -0400
From: Alex Tavangar
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: woman and uhj and men

At 04:14 PM 4/16/96 PDT, Philip wrote:
>Just want to expand on Joan's excellent suggestion:

>What are men such that they are the ones to serve on the UHJ and what is
the UHJ such that only men may serve on it?
>
>With these questions it appears that the Faith takes a position regarding
the difference between Men and Women. Is that conclusion justified? If so,
>
>what is the position of the Faith regarding the difference between men and
women such that only men serve on the UHJ, and what, in turn, does this say
about Justice.
>

I need to hurry up to go and get my allergy shot ... joy!

But here's a thought: I think that the position of the Faith is abundantly
clear that there is *no* difference in worthiness between men and women
before God (In this world however, as attested by AB, women excel in certain
qualities which is one reason why as a man I'm grateful to Baha'u'llah for
unequivocally establishing the principle of the equality of men and women).

If we must explore this issue in great detail *before* the sun hits its high
noon position, I would look at global social evolution and historical as
well as collective and individual irf'an (that mystic and ever changing
"true knowledge/understanding) parameters not differences between brothers
and sisters in the sight of God. He loves us all infinitely.

Warmest Regards,

Alex B. Tavangar


From jrcole@umich.eduTue Apr 16 18:40:32 1996
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 17:49:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Kazemzadeh Voice of America Interview



THE BAHA'IS By DEBORAH COOPER/WASHINGTON


DATE=4/11/96
TYPE=CLOSEUP
NUMBER=4-09064
TITLE=THE BAHA'IS
BYLINE=DEBORAH COOPER
TELEPHONE=619-1874
DATELINE=WASHINGTON
EDITOR=PHIL HAYNES

CONTENT= (INSERTS AVAILABLE IN AUDIO SERVICES)

INTRO: IN FEBRUARY, REPORTS THAT AN MEMBER OF THE BAHA'I FAITH
IN IRAN HAD BEEN SENTENCED TO DEATH GALVANIZED
EXPRESSIONS OF AMERICAN OUTRAGE, INCLUDING A STRONG
REBUKE FROM THE U-S STATE DEPARTMENT. IRAN'S SUPREME
COURT HAS SINCE REJECTED THE ISLAMIC REVOLUTIONARY COURT
VERDICT. BUT IT WAS JUST THE LATEST INCIDENT IN A
PATTERN OF REPRESSION BY IRAN AGAINST ITS BAHA'I
MINORITY SINCE THE OVERTHROW OF THE SHAH IN 1979.

THE BAHA'I FAITH HAS SOME SIX-MILLION ADHERENTS IN
VIRTUALLY EVERY COUNTRY OF THE WORLD. IN THE UNITED
STATES THE COMMUNITY NUMBERS ABOUT 110-THOUSAND. IN
THIS REPORT, VOA'S _________TAKES A LOOK AT THE
REPRESSION OF THE BAHA'IS IN IRAN AND PROFILES ITS
COMMUNITY HERE IN THE UNITED STATES.

TEXT: SINCE THE EARLY 1980S, THREE AMERICAN PRESIDENTS HAVE
SPOKEN OUT AGAINST RELIGIOUS REPRESSION IN IRAN. FOR
ITS PART, THE U-S CONGRESS--WITH OVERWHELMING BIPARTISAN
SUPPORT IN THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--HAS
PASSED A HALF-DOZEN RESOLUTIONS CONDEMNING IRAN'S
SYSTEMATIC DENIAL OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS FOR MORE THAN
300-THOUSAND BAHA'IS.

FIRUZ KAZEMZADEH [FIR OOZ KA ZEM ZA DAY) IS SECRETARY
FOR EXTERNAL AFFAIRS OF THE NATIONAL SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLY
OF THE BAHA'IS OF THE UNITED STATES. AS THE MAIN
SPOKESMAN ON INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS FOR THE AMERICAN
BAHA'I COMMUNITY, HE HAS TESTIFIED FREQUENTLY IN THE
U-S CONGRESS CONCERNING THE REPRESSION OF BAHA'IS IN
IRAN. HIS PERSISTENCE IN POINTING OUT THE PLIGHT OF
MORE THAN 300-THOUSAND FOLLOWERS OF THE BAHA'I FAITH IN
IRAN HAS TURNED AN INTERNATIONAL SPOTLIGHT ON CONTINUED
RELIGIOUS REPRESSION BY THE COUNTRY'S ISLAMIC LEADERS.
MR. KAZEMZADEH EXPLAINS THE ORIGIN AND PRINCIPLES OF THE
BAHA'I FAITH.

TAPE: CUT ONE - KAZEMZADEH

"THE BAHA'I FAITH ORIGINATED IN IRAN IN THE 19TH
CENTURY. IT MAINTAINS A BELIEF IN GOD EXACTLY THE SAME
WAY AS JUDAISM, ISLAM OR CHRISTIANITY. BUT IT ALSO
BELIEVES IN WHAT THE BAHA'IS CALL PROGRESSIVE
REVELATION, WHICH MEANS THAT NO RELIGION IS FINAL, THAT
GOD SPEAKS TO MAN OVER THE AGES CONTINUOUSLY IN A STREAM
OF MESSENGERS THAT BRING DIVINE WILL TO HUMANITY. AND
THE BAHA'I RELIGION IS THE LATEST SUCH RELIGION IN THE
WORLD. THAT IS PRECISELY WHY THE MUSLIM ESTABLISHMENT IN
IRAN OBJECTS TO THE BAHA'IS -- BECAUSE MUSLIMS BELIEVE
ISLAM IS THE FINAL RELIGION."

TEXT: THE PRINCIPLES OF THE BAHA'I FAITH ARE CENTERED AROUND
THE NOTION OF THE UNITY OF HUMANITY. ACCORDING TO MR.
KAZEMZADEH, IT IS A RELIGION WHICH ADVOCATES WORLD
PEACE, OPPOSES RELIGIOUS OR RACIAL DISCRIMINATION, AND
BELIEVES IN GENDER EQUALITY. IT IS VERY STRONGLY
INTERNATIONALIST IN ITS SPIRITUAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL
LIFE. IT IS A FAITH VOID OF THE RITUALS COMMON TO MOST
RELIGIONS.

TAPE: CUT TWO - KAZEMZADEH

"THE RITUALS ARE MINIMAL. THERE IS FOR INSTANCE A SHORT
SENTENCE WHICH MUST BE PRONOUNCED AT THE TIME OF
MARRIAGE. THERE IS A PRAYER THAT MUST BE SAID FOR THE
BURIAL OF THE DEAD. THERE IS AN OBLIGATORY DAILY PRAYER
THAT EVERY BAHA'I MUST SAY. THERE IS A PERIOD OF
FASTING EVERY YEAR AND THAT JUST ABOUT EXHAUSTS THE
RITUALS. MEDIATION AND INDIVIDUAL PRAYER IS VERY
HIGHLY-PRIZED IN THE BAHA'I FAITH AND BAHA'IS ARE
SUPPOSED TO ENGAGE IN THAT DAILY. BUT THEN THEY WANT TO
TRANSLATE THE INSPIRATION THAT COMES FROM PRAYER AND
MEDITATION AND WHAT YOU WOULD REFER TO AS RITUALS. THAT
HAS TO BE TRANSLATED INTO SOCIAL ACTION. IT HAS TO SHOW
ITSELF IN BEHAVIOR, IN RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS
AND AMONG A COMMUNITY, SO THAT THE BAHA'I FAITH VERY
MUCH EMPHASIZES THE ETHICAL ASPECTS OF RELIGION, THE
TRANSLATION OF ABSTRACT SPIRITUAL IDEALS INTO COMMUNAL
ACTION."

TEXT: IN THE 1960S, BAHA'IS WERE VERY ACTIVE IN THE CIVIL
RIGHTS MOVEMENT AND TODAY THEY SUPPORT SUCH
ORGANIZATIONS AS AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL. BAHAI'S ARE
NON-POLITICAL AND WHILE THEY VOTE, THEY DO NOT RUN FOR
PARTISAN OFFICE. FIRUZ KAZEMZADEH SAYS THE BAHA'I
COMMUNITY IN THE UNITED STATES CONTINUES TO GROW.

TAPE: CUT THREE - KAZEMZADEH

"IT GROWS IN SPURTS. THERE ARE YEARS IN WHICH THE
PROGRESS SEEMS TO BE SLOW, THEN IT PICKS UP. I CAME TO
THE UNITED STATES DURING THE SECOND WORLD WAR. AT THAT
TIME THERE WERE FOUR-THOUSAND BAHA'IS IN THE UNITED
STATES. NOW, ACCORDING TO THE LATEST COUNT, THERE ARE
ABOUT 120-THOUAND IN CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES. IT IS
NOT ENORMOUS, GIVEN THAT THIS TOOK PLACE OVER THE LAST
50 YEARS, BUT IT DOES GROW. NOW IN SOME OTHER PARTS OF
THE WORLD THE GROWTH HAS BEEN MUCH FASTER AND MORE
SPECTACULAR. IN INDIA, FOR INSTANCE, IN THE LAST 50
YEARS THE BAHA'I FAITH WENT FORM SOME TEN-THOUSAND TO
ABOUT A MILLION, 200-THOUSAND MEMBERS. A LARGE BAHA'I
COMMUNITY SPRANG UP IN THE AFRICAN COUNTRIES SOUTH OF
THE EQUATOR. IT HAS BEEN MUCH SLOWER IN THE UNITED
STATES, AND EVEN SLOWER THAN THAT IN EUROPE, ALTHOUGH
EUROPE DOES HAVE WELL-ESTABLISHED BAHA'I COMMUNITIES IN
GREAT BRITAIN, GERMANY AND IRELAND."

TEXT: SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE IRANIAN REVOLUTION IN THE
LATE 1970S, MORE THAN 200 BAHA'IS IN IRAN HAVE BEEN
KILLED AND THOUSANDS IMPRISONED. BUT IT HAS BEEN FOUR
YEARS SINCE A BAHA'I HAS BEEN PUT TO DEATH BY THE
IRANIAN REGIME. THE BAHA'IS' U-S SPOKESMEN SAYS HE
BELIEVES THE THREAT TO THE IRANIAN BAHA'I COMMUNITY HAS
DIMINISHED SOMEWHAT.

TAPE: CUT FOUR - KAZEMZADEH

"I THINK THE BAHA'IS WILL CONTINUE TO BE PERSECUTED,
DENIED THEIR HUMAN RIGHTS, BUT THE WORLD COMMUNITY,
WORLD PUBLIC OPINION, HAS ALREADY HAD SUFFICIENT IMPACT
ON THE IRANIAN GOVERNMENT TO PREVENT THE MOST TERRIBLE
POSSIBILITIES WHICH WERE OPEN EARLIER IN THE
REVOLUTION."

TEXT: MR. KAZEMZADEH ADDS THAT HE BELIEVES RESOLUTIONS SUCH AS
THOSE PASSED BY THE U-S CONGRESS HAVE CHANGED THE
BEHAVIOR OF IRAN'S ISLAMIC REGIME.

TAPE: CUT FIVE - KAZEMZADEH

"I THINK THAT THEY HAVE VERY SIGNIFICANT EFFECT, NOT
ONLY DIRECTLY ON THE GOVERNMENT OF IRAN, BUT ON
INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC OPINION. SUCH RESOLUTIONS MAKE THE
POSITION OF THE UNITED STATES CLEAR AT THE UNITED
NATIONS. THEY MOBILIZE THE SUPPORT OF OTHER COUNTRIES
THAT OTHERWISE MIGHT NOT EVEN BE INTERESTED IN THE CASE.
AND THAT CREATES A CLIMATE OF OPINION, CREATES AN
ATMOSPHERE IN WHICH THE IRANIAN GOVERNMENT FINDS IT MORE
AND MORE DIFFICULT TO VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL NORMS, TO
IGNORE ITS OWN COMMITMENTS UNDER THE VARIOUS CONVENTIONS
THAT IT HAS SIGNED OVER THE YEARS."

TEXT: [OPT] THE IRANIAN GOVERNMENT RECOGNIZES CHRISTIANITY
AND JUDAISM BECAUSE BOTH RELIGIONS ARE MENTIONED IN THE
KORAN. FIRUZ KAZEMZADEH EXPLAINS WHY THE CLERICAL
REGIME REFUSES TO ACCORD THE BAHA'I FAITH THE SAME
RIGHTS.

TAPE: [OPT] CUT SIX - KAZAMZADEH

"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]

TEXT: DESPITE IRAN'S REPRESSION OF ITS BAHA'I COMMUNITY, FIRUZ
KAMANZADEH BELIEVES THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY, GIVEN
THE CURRENT POLITICAL SITUATION IN THE WORLD, HAS DONE
ITS BEST TO ALLEVIATE THE SUFFERING OF THE BAHA'IS.

TAPE: [OPT] CUT SEVEN - KAZEMZADEH

"I THINK THAT THE BASIC APPROACH HAS BEEN CORRECT,
CONCENTRATING ON THE DEFENSE OF THE RIGHTS OF THE
BAHA'IS AT THE U-N. I THINK IT'S A HUMAN RIGHTS
COMMISSION OF THE UNITED NATIONS, THE RAPPORTEUR ON
RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE AND OTHER AGENCIES OF THE U-N THAT
CAN EXERCISE THE GREATEST PRESSURE WITHOUT MAKING THE
ISSUE OF HUMAN RIGHTS A BONE OF CONTENTION BETWEEN TWO
COUNTRIES WHERE IT CAN ASSUME THAT ASPECT AGAIN OF A
POLITICAL STRUGGLE." [END OPT]

TEXT: IN FEBRUARY, THE U-N HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION ISSUED A
REPORT WHICH ONCE AGAIN CALLED ON IRAN TO END THE BAN
ON BAHA'I INSTITUTIONS AND OTHER OPPRESSIVE MEASURES
AGAINST THE BAHA'I COMMUNITY. (SIGNED)

NEB/DC/PCH

12-Apr-96 8:18 AM EDT (1218 UTC)
NNNN

Source: Voice of America


From TLCULHANE@aol.comTue Apr 16 18:40:54 1996
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 18:14:43 -0400
From: TLCULHANE@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu, TLCULHANE@aol.com
Subject: science/religion/Houses

Dear Bill ,(George)

Sorry for the delay in responding to your comments . I received a copy of
your post yesterday .

With regards to me view that the "knowledge of science is as
ontologically real as the knowledge of revelation " you wrote :
" The logical extension of this is that the seperation of Church and
State is an artificial one."

I think the logical implication of granting science (applied reason) is
that the seperation of church and state is not at all artificial but is
inherent in the unfolding of *being *. The manner in which this has been
understood in Western history may be artificial to a degree but one of the
results of that seperation has been the rise of an autonomous activity we
call science . The logic of my view is that this seperation is inherent in
the unfolding of *being *.

Perhaps a bettter way to say this would be to refer to the
"differentiation" rather than "seperation" of religion and science or Church
and State . In my view such differentiation is here to stay. Seperation, in a
strict sense, may be seen as another form of the "fractured dualism " of
contemporary life . The differentiation of life forms both human and
pre-human is not seperation but it is also not disassociation , all these
forms are still embedded or woven in the "feminine " ground of *being*. In
other words no one form will dominate , dictate , or control any other form .
On other words the House of Justice has virtually no province when it comes
to determining the methods or validity of truth claims with respect to the
domains of science . In turn science has virtually no province in determining
the truth claims of a Prophet.

Where this differentiation overlaps and is differentiation not
seperation is the ends to which both religious knowledge and scientific
knowledge are directed . Reason has a role to play in understanding the
application of revelation to events in the phenomenal world especially so at
the most significant or inclusive levels which constitute the human rather
than pre-human world - the world of mind and culture. In turn revelation
has something to say about the "ends" to which scientific knowledge is
directed most especialy when it comes to the most significant dimensions of
the human rather than pre-human world. Both of these dofferentiated spheres
are embedded in the ground of being and are in *reality* interconnected in a
vast ocean of oneness. it is is this sense that I believe we can speak of
the harmony of science and religion without assuming that religion will
dictate to science its methods , validity, or truths anymore than science
will determine whether Bahau llah was a recipient of divine revelation or
whether something called divine revelation has ontological reality. That is
scientism and constitutes a form of applied orthodoxy outside its sphere. At
the same time religion if it attempts to dictate the truths of science has
stepped outside its sphere. The harmony comes in recognizing the
differentiation and that all knowledge religious ot scientific is grounded in
*Being * and meant to further an ever -advancing civilization.

My logic again leads me to conclude differently than you wrote " . .
then it is more important than ever to logically recognize the authority of
the Universal House of Justice over science." " . . and as you have clearly
shown in your logic , it must rule over science."

I do not know in what sense my logic would conclude this . I
unequivocally do not grant the UHJ authority over science . In what sense
could this possibly be true . Do you mean that the UHJ will arbitrate between
competing cosmologies in astrophysics? or that it will determind the proper
sequence of dna interaction in the genetic code? I do not recognize such a
role for the UHJ in a differentiated world . If you mean the UHJ can
ethically exhort scientists and socioeconomic institutions to direct the
knowledge of science - say an understanding of the genetic code - in a manner
which will re-bound to the benefit of all human beings in the elimination of
disease or the "sharpenning and refimement of the human brainas Shoghi
effendi noted in the _Unfoldment_ essay then i would agree. This would be a
proper role of the UHJ in their capacity as "trustees " of the Merciful.
That the UHJ could lend its moral authority and eventual economic power to
ends more fully beneficial to the entire human race would be fully in keeping
with its mandate of assisting in the realization of the oneness of humankind.
However this is not a role unique to the UHJ , you and I have the same
responsibility. The UHJ is an institutional expression of this responsibility
and would , hopefuly exercise it in conjunction with all other humane and
progressive forces on the planet.

I understand what seems to be the desire for "existential " security"
in granting such a role to the UHJ . I have experienced it myself . Part of
the process of increasing differentiation in the "modern" world is a movement
towards increasing individuation and globalization. Individuation carries
with it an undeniable responsibility to live the teachings of Bahau lah in
the case of Bahais . The UHJ can not do this for me . In other words the UHJ
cannot "save" the world.

I believe that at the heart of this transformation, which is often
confused with a regression to earlier less differentiated forms of life ,
lies the House of Worship. The ionstitutinal complex known as the Mashriqu l
Adhkar is the "spiritual center "(in the words of the UHJ) of every Bahai
commmunity and it is the spiritualization of human life on this planet that
is the goal of Baha u llah. I think this means contrary to what I have been
taught by many is that it is only with the flowering of the Mashriq will we
begin to get a sense of the appropriate place of the UHJ and the
administrative institutions. Bahau llahs' purpose does not seem to have neen
to erect a set of administrative institutions as the fundamental purpose
ofHis revelation. We far to often , in myview, have longed to have the UHJ
assume a role more fitting to an earlier undifferentiated world and an
childlike psychology which rejects the implications of the "age of maturity".
It is the individual as agent -in- communion who is the primary bearer of the
revelation . The institution which is the outer expression of that maturity
on worshi and servoce to humankind is the Mashriq . The Admin . institutions
are , in my view, meant to "protect and safeguard" this process of individual
maturation in all spects of life . It is the role of the Mashriq to extend
the sense that all life is meant to be an act of *remembrance*. (Dhikr) To
expect that the UHJ can or ought to somehow become the arbiter of all
thoughts and acts in allaspects of life is to place a burden upon it which it
could not undrtake even where it so inclined. If the world were a mass of
undifferentiated cells to extend the metaphor then maybe it would be possible
to se the UHJ in this role . It is in fact what existed in much earlier and
less differntiated times when the emporer and priests mwediated all knowledge
and authority in a society . We are now speaking of forms which are not
simply medieval , in the European sense, but ancient in that they go back not
500 years but 2500 years or more in the context of the Eurasian landmass.

Previosly I have said I do not need revelation or the UHJ to determine the
nature of the evolution of life on this planet . I do look to Bahau llah to
tell me what it "means" and how to live in conscious recognition of it .
Allow me an example .

Science has acquired a good deal of knowledge . relative to the course of
human history, of the workings of the natural world the porcesses by which it
developed and continues ,,our understanding of the laws of nature if you will
. I find this marvelous ! I find its more inclusive or complete meaning in
the recognition that all created beings are "signs" (ayat) of God. In this
sense I agreew that Newton coud not help but disclose something of the Divine
in his work . He in fact though that was what he was doing . One of Bahau
llah's prayers in _Prayers and Meditaions_page 272 is one of the most
personally meaningful reflections of Bahau llah on this revelatory and
mystical truth.
" I am well aware ,O my Lord, that I have been so carried away by the
clear tokens of Thy loving-kindness, and so completely inebriated with the
wine of Thine utterance, that whatever I behold I readily discover that it
maketh Thee known to me unto me . ."
Do we suppose that such a recognition could be legislated or that it
somehow conflicts with the findings of science about the evolution of life on
this planet ?
it gets better , Bahau llah continues " . . I swear by Thy might , O Thou
in Whose grasp are the reins of mankind, and the destinies of nations! I am
so inflamed with the wine of Thy oneness, that I can hear from the whisper of
the winds the sound of Thy glorification and praise, and can recognize in the
waters the voice that proclaimeth Thy virtues and Thine attributes, and can
apprehend from the rustling of the leaves the mysteries that have been
irrevokable ordained by Thee in Thy realm."

There is nothing in this which would conflict with science I think it in
fact is a marvelous compliment to the efforts of applied reason. As one who
has experienced this sense of "nature mysticism " as it would be described
today , I can say that the fruits of science add to the richness of the
inebriating effect of such experience. The central figure in this experiemtal
drama is an individual being who has cometo recognize and observe the truth
"That Thou art God and no God is there besides Thee." Thus is not a
realization that can be given by or assumed by an institution for me . It is
a recognition I must come to as a mature being . I believe this is the call
of Bahau llah in the age of maturity.

The free will we have is not an obstacle to this realization it is in fact
the prerequisite to such recognition . The winds move in accord with the
"will' of God , the waters are what they are and all testify that "Thou art
God."

It is humans who can alter , change become something more than or
different than we were. The free will we have been granted is , in my view
not something which can be obliterated or dispensed with . This freedom is a
call by the Divine Beloved to "participate" consciously and freely in the
continuouse and infinite unfolding of Being that we might live always in the
Presence of Being . It is this that makes for me the Faith of Bahau llah a
distinclty modern religion. It is in this that I see that every created
being is in its essence a House of Worship, each reflecting the presence of
Being. As humans we have a fuller measure of this "presence" and cannot if we
would be faithful to the ancient Covenant of God give that resonsibility
away. We are , I believe ,called to participate in writing the script and
living its performance as awesome and as terifying as that can sometimes be.
And I have experienced a little of both, some of the Siyah Chal and some of
Ridvan.

warm regards ,
terry

From sindiogi@NMSU.EduTue Apr 16 19:26:53 1996
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 16:57:51 -0600 (MDT)
From: Eric Indiogine
To: John Dale <73043.1540@compuserve.com>
Cc: BAHA'I-TALISMAN-LIST
Subject: Re: Proposed Letter to a Christian

Dear John:

I find your letter very beautiful and compelling. In the case that the
recipient is somewhat paranoid like I am with Biblical history and
trivia, I would suggest a couple of corrections. :-)

On 16 Apr 1996, John Dale wrote:
[snip]
> 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."

Actually, Glory of God. Todays Bibles often replace in the Old Testament
the tetragrammaton YHWH, the personal name of God, with Lord = Adonai
(actually, my lord). In the New Testament most often Lord = Kyrios, is
referred to Jesus of Nazareth.

[snip]
> Iran is the Biblical land of
> Elam mentioned prophetically in the Book of Daniel.

Elam is actually only the area surrounding the old city of Shusha, and
not the whole of Iran.
Its population was related to the Dravidians of India. Indeed, Elam in
Dravidian means 'people. This area was west of Sumeria and the site of an
equally ancient civilization. Later is was conquered by the
Indo-european Persians and Shusha became one of the Imperial Capitals
with Persepolis, Ectbatana, and Babylon. I think that the area of
ancient Elam corresponds to todays province of Khuzistan/Arabistan.
Todays population is comprised of Shia Arabs.

Elam is mentioned several times in the Bible. Daniel received visions
while living in that area. However, I suppose that you are referring to
the prophecy by Jeremiah: 'in Elam I shall place My throne', rather than a
prophecy in the Book of Daniel.

On the side, I have a question relating to this prophecy. Usually Bahai
apologists (I am using this term in a positive way, I like to consider
myself one of them), use the above mentioned prophecy to point to the
city of Shiraz. My understanding is that the area of todays Shiraz was
not part of the ancient Elam. I could certainly be wrong, actually I
hope to be wrong. Any input?

Bye,

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 TLCULHANE@aol.comWed Apr 17 00:54:57 1996
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 19:21:12 -0400
From: TLCULHANE@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu, TLCULHANE@aol.com
Subject: more science and Houses

Dear bill and all ,

As an addendum to my previous comments on the autonomy of science and
the role of the "twin Houses" allow me to add the following .

The practice of science in a Bahai setting will take place within one of
the dependencies of the Mashriqu l Adhkar. Since this is an activity which
will be conducted in in the universities and research centers wihtin the
Mashriq and I assume all such activites will be directed towards the
furtherance of the remembrance of God and its expression of service to the
world of humankind. In this setting it is inconceivalbe to me that the
knowledge of science would be directed to such ends as the creation of
weapons of destruction nuclear or biological and chemical . Such activity
would clearly not be in the intersts of the oneness of humankind. I would
hold the same to be true if someone were to advocate a philosophy of racial
superiority within the precincts of a Bahai university.

As one of the mandates of Baha u llah to the Houses of Justice in the
Kalimat is to "protect and safeguard men women and children " and inasmuch as
weapons of destruction are antithetical to that end i would expect the Houses
of Justice to prohibit such scientific activities within the precincts of the
House of Worship . I would also expect that individual Bahais woud refuse to
support such activities, financialy or otherwise. It would be my hope that
the Admin . Institutions of the Faith and individual Bahais would support
financialy and intellectually those scientific artistic and spiritual
activities that rebound to the betterment of the human condition irrespective
of race , class , religion or gender and would be a richer example of this
than we currently see in the world.

The knowledge of science in modernity has been placed, most heavily, in
the service of the nation- state and large corporate interests. My
assumption is that Bahais could take a large role in freeing science from
being held hostage to such national or corporate interests and its fruits
made available to the generality of humankind. I think the Houses of Justice
could stand as a "safeguard and defender of this process ,in the same way
that the Houses of Worship stand as a reminder that religious truth is
relative and are dedicated to the recognition of the One True God and all His
Prophets and Messengers and that religion not be held hostage to the
fundamentalism and "world devouring flame" of "religious fanatacism and
hatred."

We must of course truly clean our own "houses" individually and
institutionally of any such religious or national prejudices if we hope to
offer the world an alternative to the dis-eases of modernity.

warm regards,
terry

From derekmc@ix.netcom.comWed Apr 17 00:54:57 1996
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 16:28:38 -0700
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Fwd: Re: Fwd: ah... ventura/ Re: Founding a New Business

Dear Villian Eric
I am glad to see your wife has been reading the posts on Talisman and
sent you outside as a penance,you need to watch those Catholic girls
they are experts on penances.This is Linda's strong suit making John do
his penances and she is no longer a Catholic.
When you win the large amount on the State lottery Dr.Burl and Dr.Uncle
Derek will be happy to purify your ill-gotten gains and still leave you
enough monies to purchase the Temple land of your dreams.Stop whining
and wondering win first ask questions after, just send the check to us.
Shastri is designing the Talisman music label even as we post, we are
going for travel rap song first do E'Mail Shastri and give your credit
card number he has a friend he could forward it to. Somebody called
Pickled onions I understand, but shastri knows best.
Kindest regards
Dr.Uncle Derek


Dear Blessed Dr. Uncle Derek,

As usual, after your brilliant expositoria, I now feel that the
pitch fork is firmly in the center of the compost pile, ready to
be leveraged to whatever lofty purpose serendipity decrees as
the muses sit firmly in your lap warming the cockles and ginger
snaps.

As far as racoons and skunks, my wife already made me start
camping in the back yard in order to frighten them off (bar-b-q).
Of course being a closet optimist type, I took advantage of the
"silver lining" in this situation to 1) quietly meditate under
the stars about unique new world order business opportunities,
2) carefully collect data on the number of audible gunshots
in my neighborhood.

For instance, if I was to win a large sum in the lottery (yes
it is ok for Baha'is to "gamble"), I would of course buy a
small piece of land to build a House of Worship in the
crime ridden transitional neighborhoods just to the south of
our house so that we could develop special Baha'i devotional
night music set to the sounds of random semiautomatic gun
fire, police sirens and squealing tires. Can you help with
the recording, marketing and distribution? Is there a
"talisman" music label yet?

EP

> Date sent: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 14:20:18 -0700
> From: derekmc@ix.netcom.com (DEREK COCKSHUT )
> Subject: Fwd: ah... ventura/ Re: Founding a New Business
> To: talisman@indiana.edu

..Any more Pierce and one telephone call to your wife will
> have you sorted out. Sleeping outside with the racoons and skunks
will
> be your fate mark my words.
>
> By the way Linda dearest have you and Chessie got the blue woad off
> your face yet?
> Kindest Regards
> Dr.Uncle Derek, with Dr.Burl your local Talisman Business
Consultants.
> With Shastri's help designing a business plan to pick your pockets
> clean.We will be of course using nothing but the best quality audio
> tape in all recordings anhd charging at least triple on every
> transaction.
>



From jrussell@bsl1.bslnet.comWed Apr 17 00:54:57 1996
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 16:40:05 -0700 (MST)
From: Judith Russel
To: "Arsalan J. Sadighi"
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: WOMEN OF TALISMAN: PLEASE READ

Dear Arsalan,

Thank you for your post. Several suggestions come to mind:
1) Read and study the compilation of Baha'i Writings about women.
2) Before reacting negatively to a woman's words, ask for clarification.
3) Do some writing (in a journal or on pieces of paper which could then
be disposed of) about what the problem is as you see it. The more you
make efforts to deal with a problem, the more assistance you receive.
Writing as well as prayer and meditation are ways of personally dealing
with a problem.
4) Trust your instincts.
5) Dare to be unconventional.

If one is working on an issue like the equality of men and women, God
will surely help him.

Judy Russell

From alma@indirect.comWed Apr 17 00:54:58 1996
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 16:42:33 -0700
From: Alma
To: DEREK COCKSHUT , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Women's Voices/Jim's Voice

Dear Dr. Uncle Derek,

I do not find it hard to refer to you with the titles you yourself use for
yourself.
(Shesh a ratio of four 'you' to one 'I' -- does that mean I am humble.) But
I wonder if you cannot offer the same courtesy to Lora -- and I might add me
for I do not want to be called a lady either. I find it demeaning. The
title lady comes with all sorts of expectations of behavior, dress, language
-- expectations which I think are the result of men 'putting women in their
place.' I do not mean to imply that you are doing that. Most likely, you
haven't thought of the term in that manner. Woman is a more dignified term.

BTW I don't usually refer to those of the male gender as 'gentlemen.'
Partially because this binds them with expectations but also because an old
dictionary of mine defined gentlemen as those who were 'discrete in their
affairs' -- and I do not think that this meant any kind of business except
'monkey business.' ;-)

>) 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 derekmc@ix.netcom.comWed Apr 17 00:54:58 1996
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 16:52:53 -0700
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: Women's Voices/Jim's Voice

My dear Alama
I believe your remark is redundant, the fact is: that I will not treat
any female of the human species with anything but the courtesy that is
due to a lady and that is really my concern.One does not tell a Lady
how to behave, she knows.In my opinion having met Lora and finding her
a delightful charming lady how could I ever think of her in any other
terms.
Kindest Regards
Dr.Uncle Derek
Who always opens doors for all Ladies of whatever age.

Dear Dr. Uncle Derek,

I do not find it hard to refer to you with the titles you yourself use
for
yourself.
(Shesh a ratio of four 'you' to one 'I' -- does that mean I am humble.)
But
I wonder if you cannot offer the same courtesy to Lora -- and I might
add me
for I do not want to be called a lady either. I find it demeaning.
The
title lady comes with all sorts of expectations of behavior, dress,
language
-- expectations which I think are the result of men 'putting women in
their
place.' I do not mean to imply that you are doing that. Most likely,
you
haven't thought of the term in that manner. Woman is a more dignified
term.

BTW I don't usually refer to those of the male gender as 'gentlemen.'
Partially because this binds them with expectations but also because
an old
dictionary of mine defined gentlemen as those who were 'discrete in
their
affairs' -- and I do not think that this meant any kind of business
except
'monkey business.' ;-)

>) 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 richs@microsoft.comWed Apr 17 00:54:58 1996
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 17:03:01 -0700
From: Rick Schaut
To: 'Milissa'
Cc: "'Talisman@indiana.edu'"
Subject: RE: Womens voice

Dear Milissa and Friends,

First, Milissa, I want to thank you for one of the most level-headed
posts I've seen in quite some time. I found it very refreshing.

I'll offer two thoughts. The first is a minor correction to an answer
one might give to non-Baha'is about why women don't serve on the
Universal House of Justice:

>From: Milissa[SMTP:MBOYER%UKANVM.BITNET@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU]
>We just need to
>come up with some good responses when people ask. So far, the best
>response I
>have heard is that, while the members of the UHJ personally would love
>to
>have women serve, they just don't have the authority to legislate it.

It would be more fact and less opinion if we merely noted that the
Universal House of Justice doesn't feel it has the authority to
legislate on the matter.

Of course all of this implies that we've incorporated the major
provisions of the Covenant into our discussions at a very early stage in
the teaching process. It might be worth talking about ways that this
might be done.


My second thought is the fear that Jim Harrison has not been very well
understood. If I understand him correctly, he's concerned that efforts
to try to find a way to allow women to serve on the Universal House of
Justice may be keeping us from questioning some of our underlying
assumptions. Without questioning those underlying assumptions, we have
little way of knowing whether those assumptions are based upon
materialism or a true understanding of the principles of the Faith.

I think the root of the misunderstanding lies in what we understand
"materialism" to be. It's not merely a desire to have material things.
It goes far deeper than that, and reaches into the very heart of our
value systems (or axiologies as Jim puts it).

A pertinent example will, perhaps, illustrate this. In a materialistic
axiology, ascendancy over other members of society, what is commonly
referred to as "political power", is a thing to be valued. The rich,
the famous the "powerful" are all people who, for some reason or
another, catch the public fancy. Indeed, the core issue in liberal
democratic thinking is the distribution and exercise of this temporal
power, or ascendancy over other members of society. In some ways, it is
the sole thing that matters.

Yet, I think a close reading of Baha'u'llah's Writings would lead to a
completely different conclusion. Power, is not something to be valued.
Read His admonitions to the kings and rulers of the world. Who, in
their right mind, would want to bear the responsibilities Baha'u'llah
lays at the feat of those who manifest God's power in this realm?

The reason materialism is so harmful is because it elevates to the level
of virtue that which is only virtuous if it is exercised or used in the
right way. Ascendancy isn't a virtue, but the way one exercises it can
be. Intelligence isn't a virtue, but the way one uses one's
intellectual capacity can be. And, if I'm reading Jim correctly, the
root cause of a vast majority of our problems can be traced back to some
way in which we have allowed these values to sneak into our thinking
about an issue.


So, let's rexamine our take on the fact that women cannot serve on the
Universal House of Justice. Is our reaction in any way based upon a
materialistic value system? What happens when society as a whole begins
to adopt a very different value system (one which values true vitrues
and doesn't value those things which are not, in themselves, virtues)?

Unless I miss my guess, _these_ are the kinds of questions Jim would
like us to ask. They're damn tough to answer, though. I fear my own
thoughts are simply to disparate and random for me to form a coherent
answer. Though I'm very interested in what other people's rambling
thoughts are.


Warmest Regards,
Rick Schaut

PS, those who are looking for contributions to the Patagonia fund can
get extra credit if they can outline the salient features of an economic
system within a society which does not operate on western materialistic
values.


From burlb@bmi.netWed Apr 17 00:54:58 1996
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 96 17:24 PDT
From: Burl Barer
To: Amin Banani
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Talisman Heritage Tours

>Just let me know when you get to the stage of "eating your horses," oops, I
>mean "losses," so I can sell my stock.
>Sheila
>
Oh, you must be referring to the "Tabarsi Bar and Lounge Tour" we have
planned -- a horseback parade to various cocktail lounges with Middle
Eastern motifs. This requires a double deposit and a course in alcohol
poisoning prevention.
Send your money right away to me, marked personal.

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 burlb@bmi.netWed Apr 17 00:54:58 1996
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 96 17:35 PDT
From: Burl Barer
To: Judith Russel
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Fwd: Scholarship on equality of women (was: last words)

>Dear Dr. Burl,
>
>I just have to tell you how hilarious I find your postings, how much I
>enjoy them, and how I'd love to develop a dry wit like yours.
>
Perhaps the dry wit explains why people are always telling me to go soak
my head.

On the subject of women -- I was one temporarily -- I suggest that men take
some time to pretend that they are women. When they sit in a meeting,
pretend that they are Bea Arthur or Christie Brinkley and behave
accordingly. Maybe attend LSA with a Margaret Thatcher or Vampirella mindset
-- participate in consultation imagining that they are the lady next door, a
female co-worker, or their wife's sister.
It helps. Of course, the proper outfit helps.

Dr. 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 spurushotma@brahma.hcla.comWed Apr 17 00:54:58 1996
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 96 18:23:11 PDT
From: spurushotma@brahma.hcla.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Uncle Derek's Irfan Card

Derek,

I tried to process your Irfan Express Card so I
could rip you off on the startup investment capital.
It came back with the following response:

UNDERSTANDING OF GUARDIANS INFALLIBILITY WITH RELATION
TO WRITINGS INVALID STOP HALT ALL IRFAN CREDITS

I called Irfan Express and got the following clarification:

"Dear Talisman Heritage Tours Owner,

You totally blew it in regards to your theories about the
Guardian not having read the Questions and Answers by
1954. How do you know in what context "Marriage"
is used in the Kitab-i-Aqdas better than the Guardian?
Is it arranged marriage or current Western style of marriage?
Would you allow your daughter to get married to some punk
at age 15? Her marriage is conditioned on
your consent at any age. Do you pay her dowry by
credit card or cashiers check or both?

Regarding the Tablet of Medicine, how do you know
what is meant by exercise in the Tablet
of Medicine?? What was the context? What was the context
of the question that was asked to the Guardian?
If you don't know the answer to these questions, we
suggest that you have a little more humility than
to jump to the conclusion the Guardian did not know
what he was talking about.

Sincerely,

Irfan Express
Writings Department

c.c. Covenant Department

Derek ... what shall we do about this???
Our Irfan credit rating is in trouble and we
will have to all pay by cashiers check and
you know that will bounce so .... help!!

From PayamA@aol.comWed Apr 17 00:54:58 1996
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 21:03:12 -0400
From: PayamA@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Baha'i Encyclopedia

Rob Stockman has always been associated with this project. Gayle Morrison was
asked to serve as the chief editor several months ago. She moved to her
office at the National Center last month.
As far as the contributors are concerned, I'm sure a letter will go to them
soon. But some have already opted to publish their essays elsewhere. One
book of articles is already at press and two others are in the wings.
Payam

From margreet@margreet.seanet.comWed Apr 17 00:54:58 1996
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 18:10:15 -0700
From: "Marguerite K. Gipson"
To: spurushotma@brahma.hcla.com, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: American Heritage Tours

Hello all Let's wait one cotton picking minute.... I had a wonderful
pilgrimmage from Robert Pickering, of American Heritage Tours in May/June
1985... and I came to know him personally... I do know he suffered a heart
attack some time back and others took care of the business while he was
recouperating (spel?) Whether or not he did these things or not is not
important... Can we move on to other topics please...

I do not see a point to hash out old--years old stuff....

Let's move on!
Margreet


At 09:41 AM 4/15/96 PDT, Shastri Purushotma wrote:
>"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 jjensen@welchlink.welch.jhu.eduWed Apr 17 00:54:58 1996
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 21:19:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joan Jensen
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: When men own...


Dear Friends,

I would love to have a dynamic exchange with the friends on this
quotation, because I think it is one of the keys to actualizing the
principle on this plain of existence.

"When men own the equality of women there will be no need
for them to struggle of rights!" 'Abdu'l-Baha, PT (p 171)

And to get the discussion started.....

When someone 'owns' something, they take responsibility to care for it.
They have the responsibility to nurture it. Thus the equality of women
is not just women's problem, it is equally men's problem. Women,
however, may already recognize that they 'own' the problem, and are
struggling with it. How can we bring men into this process?

Just like in a marriage, one person alone cannot build a healthy marriage.
Both people have to feel responsible for maintaining, building, nurturing
the RELATIONSHIP and each other, not just themselves. Women have been
given specific guidance about their role in bringing about the equality
of women and men. We're supposed to educate ourselves, and our children,
while retaining all of those special qualities of the soul that
'Abdu'l-Baha pointed out women have (tenderness of heart etc). Don
Calkins pointed out that this age must become more imbued with feminine
qualities. So women have the added responsibility of figuring out how
to transform our institutions, our organizations, our schools and
universities, our businesses, to REFLECT women's special qualities.

Men have the responsibility to FACILITATE this transformation, to mentor
women, but even more so men must become bilingual (learning woman-speak
as well as they know man-speak). Men also have the responsibility to
internalize those 'feminine' qualities.

When I was pioneering, it struck me forcefully that my role as a
pioneer was not to serve the Faith, but to facilitate OTHERS to serve
the Faith in that land. Similarly, men somehow have to LET GO of the
power, and do what women have done for thousands of years. Be the power
behind the throne. Become invisible. Be the wind beneath the wings of
women. Encourage, support, listen, be a mirror, a sounding-board.

That's my first take on it. What do you think?

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 l.droege@genie.comWed Apr 17 00:54:58 1996
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 96 01:57:00 UTC 0000
From: l.droege@genie.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: men/women/uhj/etc.

[The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set]
[Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set]
[Some characters may be displayed incorrectly]

Sorry for posting a half-formed thought here...
I haven't yet had time to read today's inundation of e-mail in any
detail, but as I was downloading it something caught my eye:
Somebody (didn't catch who, sorry) asked the "men on UHJ" question
in juxtaposition with "Why was Persia chosen as the cradle of the
Baha'i Faith?" and "Why was America chosen as the cradle of the
administrative order?"
We know the answer to those last two. Maybe you/we are on to
something with the first. The thing we seem to sometimes lose
track of is that the UHJ is not the ultimate Rulers, but the
ultimate _Servants_. Just maybe men are chosen for this office
because they most need to learn to _\'e9]serve_ (this is not to say that
there are no men who are humble or no women who are power-mad)>
I'm thinking of the eschatological angle on this (have been inspired
because I'm currently spending my lunch hours with Chris Buck's
_Symbol and Secret_). There is that bit in the Bible about "the last
shall be first and the first shall be last"-- ties into all three
questions I think.
I think we're going to have trouble achieving America's Spiritual
Destiny (hi there Jim) until we, at the grassroots level and
within our hearts, realize that life is not about _winning_. Winning
seems to be the focus of \'ff\'fbthis male-dominated western culture, from
Corporate America to politics to Academia to Sports (although those
of us who were raised as fans of both the Chicago Cubs and the
Northwestern Wildcats may have slightly different ideas of the
importance of winning ).
This is where women's influence is going to make the difference, IMHO.
Sorry about all the rambling...
Leigh

From dcrafts@earthlink.netWed Apr 17 00:54:58 1996
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 19:28:00 -0700
From: Denise Crafts
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: equality of men and women

Jim Harrison wrote:

"But friends we are wasting valuable time on a situation we can do
absolutely nothing about - not one thing."

". . .we literally do not know the reason for the exclusion of women [from
the Universal House of Justice.]"


First of all, if I may be so bold, I would suggest that this thread is not
a "wasting of valuable time." I have known at least a half a dozen women
who have either declared their faith in Baha'u'llah and then withdraw, or
simply could not embrace the teachings of Baha'u'llah in the first place
because of this single issue. I have yet, in almost thirty years as a
Baha'i, to meet more than a hand full of Baha'i women who are completely
satisfied with the current resolution of this issue. They are all steadfast
and radiantly acquiescent on the issue, but they still don't understand the
exclusion. Therefore, may I suggest that any issue which is of such a
concern to so many declared Baha'is and a stumbling block to many other
persons from declaring their faith in Baha'u'llah must be definitely well
worth the time required to attempt to understand the issue. If Baha'u'llah
had said that only Persian Baha'is could serve on the Universal House of
Justice, I think there would be an entirely different view of these discussions.

Secondly (forgive me Jim I don't mean this as a flame, but since you
presented this statement I'll use it as an example) this and some of the
other ideas you expressed in this post are exactly the type of things that
men bring up at women conferences when they attend. It seems to me, Jim,
that it is just all too simple to say: "Baha'u'llah excluded women from the
Universal House of Justice; we don't know why, and that's that's. What's
the next topic for discussion." (I know you didn't say those words. The
quotes are to indicate that it is a composite of the words and attitude that
I have heard here and elsewhere.) It is not that simple, and it is not just
simply the question of women on the Universal House of Justice. The issue
of membership is only a focal point for the much larger issue.

To me the question is: If one of the primary points of the revelation of
Baha'u' llah is the equality of men and women, then why did Baha'u'llah
exclude women from membership? There must be a reason for this exclusion.
I don't think it was a mistake by God or Baha'u'llah as God's spokesperson.
There must be a purpose to this in God's plan. I believe there is an
answer to these questions, and in answering them we can find some
understanding to the larger issues of the spiritual reality of the equality
of men and women.

The essence of human identity is not simply gender, any more than it is
race. Human identity, both individually and collectively is more ecological
or systematic or as Baha'u'llah put it: organic. When the Writings tell us
that we are the leaves of one branch, or the waves of one sea, or one soul
in many bodies, Baha'u'llah is --at a minimum-- implying both sameness and
uniqueness exist, or can exist, simultaneously within the collective
identity. He is calling us to manifest the spiritual equivalent to what
Einstein enunciated in his quantum theory of the dual nature of light.
Understanding this only begs the previous question: Why did Baha'u'llah
exclude women from the Universal House of Justice?

One answer that has been expressed both here and elsewhere is that
Baha'u'llah was caught "within the language constraints of the time." I
have to reject that argument out of hand. As the divinely appointed
manifestation of God, Baha'u'llah would not be constrained by language. So,
we're back to the same question: Why?

Again, Baha'u'llah calls us to an organic unity. He calls us to a unity
that is so powerful that it can envelop the whole earth. How is "this
human body-politic [to reach] a state of absolute unity" to which
Abdu'l-Baha calls us, when we are automatically divided into those who can
serve on the Universal House of Justice and those who cannot? How do we
create such a unity when the One Who calls us to create it, Himself
separates us?

I believe the problem is in how we view the world and therefore, how we
state our questions about it. In the case of understanding the equality of
men and women our present view of the world severely hampers our ability to
understand what Baha'u'llah has told us and the station to which He calls us.

In general, we humans are desperate to discover a set of rules from which
we can derive principles and define relationships. We have to put
everything in nice neat simple boxes. We want machines in which we can drop
a quarter in one end and get a candy bar out the other end. Isn't this the
way fundamentalist Christianity is? Believe in Jesus and you are saved.
When we can't define things neatly, we get frustrated. Right here on
Talisman this frustration is demonstrated by people not wanting to listen to
'threads' in which we are struggling to find rules which work for us.

Baha'u'llah says: Men and women are equal; be unified, but no women on the
Universal House of Justice. Our frustration, our inability to understand,
and even the misery in the world at large is found in the fact that the
holistic or organic perspectives required to understand this principle and
indeed the Revelation of Baha'u'llah eludes us.

There is no simple 'believe in Baha'u'llah and you go to heaven' any more.
Instead it is 'believe in Baha'u'llah and you have taken one more step in
your spiritual growth.' You put the quarter in but you don't always get the
candy bar. The simple, straight forward, methodology that Descartes and
Newton taught us would unlock the secrets of our world not longer work.
Even the spiritual methodology of Jesus is now inadequate. They do not work
and are inadequate because mankind has grown beyond them. Our mechanistic
view of the world has worked in the past, but today Baha'u'llah calls us to
a more world embracing view. We must move out of our object and process
oriented view of the world and learn to view it in terms of ever changing
and growing relationships.

The revelation of Baha'u'llah is a set of dynamic relationships. It is
organic, holistic and systemic. The relationships He has enunciated are
simultaneously independent and dependent upon each other. Ask yourself
which is more important: The oneness of mankind or the equality of men and
women; the Universal House of Justice or Local Spiritual Assemblies, or
giving to the National Fund or the Arc Fund. Neither is more important;
each is most important. Everything Baha'u'llah has revealed is designed to
work together in a dynamic relationship with every other part of His
revelation: as an organic, ecological system. Everything functions as an
individual whole and is at the same time interconnected in a web of
relationships with every other part, and all function with one major theme
--The unity of all of creation through God.

I believe that the Writings tell us that we are at a critical juncture in
the history of mankind, and that juncture is founded in our changing how we
view our the world. We must change from our present mechanistic and
methodological view where we dominate everything to an organic and dynamic
view in which we become a part of that world: equally important as every
other part and at the same time no more important than any other part of it.
I also believe that the Writings tell us that Baha'u'llah has only set us on
the first step of that journey. Future manifestations, as past
manifestations have, will continue to guide us on this path. The fact that
we are on the beginning of this new journey, I believe, is why membership on
the Universal House of Justice has been restrict to only men.

Adrienne Rich has pointed out in "Of Women Born" that the history of
Western society as well as most other cultures have been based on
philosophical, social, legal, and political systems ". . .in which men --by
force, direct pressure, or through ritual, tradition, law and language,
customs, etiquette, education, and the division of labor-- determine[d] what
part women shall or shall not play, and in which the female is everywhere
subsumed under the male." Given this statement which I find irrefutable, I
submit that if Baha'u'llah had allowed both men and women to serve on the
Universal House of Justice, it would have been no different than if He had
excluded men. However, if that supreme body is comprised of only men, and
one of the pivotal tenets of the Faith is Equality of men and women, then
men must learn to listen and work establishing an organic unity with women,
or violate this principle of Baha'u'llah. Baha'u'llah stated the principle
of the equality of men and women, but he clearly places the onus for
implementing it on men. Men who have always held power must, while still
holding that power, learn to share in a manner where they are no more
important and no less important than women. The responsibility for
establishing the equality of men and women are on those who, for what ever
reason good or bad, made it unequal.

Men serving on the Universal House of Justice is not an honor that is
denied women. It is a responsibility for men to undo what they have over
thousands of years have done. It is the responsibility of women to agitate,
as one talisman put it in reference to Corinne True, the men of the
Universal House of Justice to establish this organic unity which Baha'u'llah
has inaugurated. It has been said that Horace Holly was the anvil upon
which Shoghi Effendi hammer out the administrative order. I imagine if Mr.
Holly had been Ms Holly it would have been agitation instead.

As far as I am concerned the dialogue that goes on here or on other forums
is a part of the growth process that is required in order to create the
organic unity to which we a called.


Denise Crafts







From TLCULHANE@aol.comWed Apr 17 00:54:58 1996
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 22:39:42 -0400
From: TLCULHANE@aol.com
To: rvh3@columbia.edu
Cc: 72110.2126@compuserve.com, 73613.2712@compuserve.com,
jarmstro@sun1.iusb.edu, jrcole@umich.edu, jwalbrid@ucs.indiana.edu,
lwalbrid@indiana.edu, sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl, Member1700@aol.com,
TLCULHANE@aol.com
Subject: Re: Desolation and Change

Dear Richard and all,

I am most inrigued by what you said regarding the "sea change" of the
1930's . This may sound like an ignorant question : How do you find this
sort of information? Is it in archival documents letters and so forth? I
really would like to no more . I guess Santayana's dictum that those who are
ignorant of history are condemned to repeat it I took to heart a long time
ago. The strange thing though is that American Bahai history is almost
nonexistent . Sometimes I feel like a man without a past in this regard. It
is weird . It's like as a community we just stepped out of the pages of the
W.O.B. letters and presto here we are with a little ADJ thrown in for flavor
. Many of you are historians so this may not seem as acute. When I talk to
Bahais about this they have even less sense of it than I do. I can ask "how
do you suppose we came to be who and what we are as a community. Usually the
response is a blank look, a dumb smile, and well gee the Guardian guided us
here I guess. Its madenning !

Our story seems to go something like this . Once upon a time there were
these people called dawnbreakers , they died ,along with the Bab and then
Bahau llah came along and was in prison , wrote a lot of stuff magically from
thin air about unity ,he died , Abdul baha came to America wasa great guy ,he
died and then were NSA's set up by the Guardian , he died , and now the UHJ
is God , the Prophet , the Guardian and with NSa they will and we will live
eternally . End of story .

I must say this drives me crazy . It also is a bit unsettling in that
people without a history do not know who they are or how they came to be
which makes them very susceptible to all kinds of totalitarian nonsense.
Sometime I think I must be living in Animal Farm or worse Alice in
Wonderland.

So Richard etal where does one begin to get a sense of American Bahai
histroy . I have read Jackson's book and Stockmans but there must be more.

Do you have information on the New History Society and what about Alfred
Lunt/ Where there others like him? What are some of the factors you mentioned
that contributed to this 30's sea change? I feel like its a time warp and we
are stuck 60 years in the past calling it the present or worse the eternal
now. Does anyone else have this experience or is it a laymans affliction.
Any thoughts ?

Terry



From Eonist2@aol.comWed Apr 17 00:54:58 1996
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 23:12:00 -0400
From: Eonist2@aol.com

url,


>On the subject of women -- I was one temporarily -- I suggest that men take
>some time to pretend that they are women. When they sit in a meeting,
>pretend that they are Bea Arthur or Christie Brinkley and behave
>accordingly. Maybe attend LSA with a Margaret Thatcher or Vampirella mindset
>-- participate in consultation imagining that they are the lady next door, a
>female co-worker, or their wife's sister.
>It helps. Of course, the proper outfit helps.

Close but no cigar sir! I would suggest you don't have a clue.

Gale



From gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduWed Apr 17 00:54:58 1996
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 20:43:42 -0600 (MDT)
From: "[G. Brent Poirier]"
To: John Dale <73043.1540@compuserve.com>
Cc: BAHA'I-TALISMAN-LIST
Subject: Re: Proposed Letter to a Christian

John, I like the tone of your letter. I'd suggest that you link Rev.
3:12 which says that the name of the Holy City, the New Jerusalem, is His
own New Name, with Revelation 20 (21?) where John again sees the Holy
City, "having the glory of God."

Brent

From rmonjazeb@ghgcorp.comWed Apr 17 00:54:58 1996
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 23:55:43 -0500
From: Ramin Monjazeb
To: Ahang Rabbani , talisman@indiana.edu,
bahai-texas@wxs.com
Subject: Re: update on Mr. Mahrami's case

This message was send to PI reps from NSA , I thought to add this to Mr.
Rabbani's update on mr. Mahrami's case.

Office of the Secretary for external affairs
For immediate release

Congress Urges Religious Rights for Iran's Baha'is
Adopts Resolution Condemning Iran's Persecution of Religious Minority

The U.S. House of representatives today urged Iran's government to
"emanicipate the Baha'i community" and grant religious rights to Baha'is,
Iran's largest religious minority group. Since the Islamic Regime took
power, more than 200 Iranian Bahais have been executed and thousands
imprisond, solely on account of their religious beliefs.

The resolution approved today by a vote of 408 to 0 is the seventh appeal
for the baha'is adopted by Congress since 1982. House International
Relations Committee Chairman Ben Gilman (R_NY) toled the House that this
measure"allows us once again to express outrage and revulsion with regard
to the brutal and systematic denial of one of the most basic human
freedoms-freedom of conscience, which has been denied by the Mullahs of
Iran."

Nearly 70 members of Congress co-sponsored the resolution, which was
introuduced by Rep. John Edward P