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 Porter (R_IL). An identical appeal has been
introuduced in the Senate by Senator Nancy Landon Kassebaum (R_KS), with 31
co-sponsors.

American Baha'i community spokesman Firuz Kazemzadeh welcomed Congress'
support for the persecuted Baha'i community and emphasized the importancr
of "keeping the light on" the Iranian Government's actions. He noted that
the repression of Baha'is is a deliberate government policy, as evidenced
by official Iranian documents which have been published by the United
Nations Human Rights Commission.

The U. N. Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance, who visited Iran las
December, issued a report las month recommending"that the ban on the Baha'i
organization be lifted," and that court-ordered death sentences for Baha'is
accused of APOSTASY be annulled.

Three Iranian Baha'is are currently under sentece of death on acount of
their religious beliefs. On February 15, the U.S. State Department issued a
strong appeal for the freedom of a Baha'i who had been condemned to death
by the Islamic Revolutionary Court of Yazd for "apostasy" because he had
allegedly converted from Islam to the Baha'i Faith. Following this appeal
and intercession by U. N. officials and representatives of other
governments, the Iranian Supreme Court set aside the Yazd verdict and
remanded the case to civil court.

there are 120,000 American Baha'is, active in communities in every state.
The Baha'i Faith, which emerged from Islam in the mid-19th century,
emphasizes the unity of humankid, equlity of the sexes and races, tolerance
and world peace.





At 1:51 PM 4/9/96 -0400, Ahang Rabbani wrote:
>[This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII]
>
>
>The following correspondence was transmitted electronically from
>the Baha'i World Centre and is shared for your information. ahang.
>
>
>
>
>2 April 1996
>
>To all National Spiritual Assemblies
>
>
>Dear Baha'i Friends,
>
> In the last days of 1995, the Universal House of Justice received
>news of a very disturbing case of persecution in Iran. Mr.
>Dhabihu'llah Mahrami, a Baha'i in Yazd, a city where the harassment of
>the friends has been severe and continuous in recent years, had been
>charged by the Revolutionary Court with apostasy (abandoning the Faith
>of Islam). The outline of the case is as follows.
>
> The Baha'is in Yazd had been under such pressure from the
>authorities that a non-Baha'i work colleague of Mr. Mahrami, in order
>to save him from losing his job, placed his photograph in the
>newspaper, together with a statement that he had recanted the Baha'i
>Faith. As Mr. Mahrami unfortunately did not disavow this at the time,
>the community accepted that he should not be considered a Baha'i.
>When the situation was ultimately clarified, some years later, his
>membership in the Baha'i community was restored.
>
> Having discovered that Mr. Mahrami had been reinstated as a
>Baha'i, the Security Department of Yazd questioned him about his
>return to the Baha'i community. He answered truthfully, stating his
>belief and his actions. Mr. Mahrami was arrested by the public
>prosecutor of Yazd and charged with apostasy, for which the prosecutor
>demanded the death sentence. Mr. Mahrami denied the charges against
>him, charges which themselves represented a gross violation of his
>human rights. It was reported that Mr. Mahrami, although in prison
>and in danger of being executed, remained firm in his faith and faced
>his peril with detachment.
>
> Hitherto, whenever Baha'is in such circumstances in Iran have
>attempted to engage a lawyer to defend them, the lawyer has been
>subjected to intimidation and has refused to act. On this occasion,
>however, for the first time, the Friends in Iran were able to engage
>for the defence of Mr. Mahrami a Muslim lawyer who is a man of
>exceptional courage, compassion and sagacity.
>
> A number of National Spiritual Assemblies were advised of the
>circumstances and asked to take up the case with their governments,
>seeking to apply pressure on the Government of Iran, without publicity
>at that stage. The United Nations Office of the Baha'i International
>Community also informed the offices of appropriate agencies of the
>United Nations.
>
> At the end of January 1996, the Universal House of Justice
>learned that the court had sentenced Mr. Mahrami to death. His lawyer
>had lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court of Iran. Selected
>National Assemblies were asked to obtain media publicity for the case
>and to seek the active and open support of their governments in
>condemnation of the action taken against Mr. Mahrami. The Government
>of Iran was faced with the protests of agencies of the United Nations
>and the censure of many of the world's governments, while the deep
>concern of a number of national Baha'i communities was expressed
>through Iranian Embassies.
>
> Our knowledge of the precise situation in Iran was obscured by
>the difficulty of obtaining confirmation of reports on the development
>of the case, but we are now relieved to learn that the Supreme Court
>of Iran has rejected the verdict of the Revolutionary Court of Yazd,
>and has referred the case to a civil court. Although neither Mr.
>Mahrami nor his lawyer has been officially informed of the outcome (an
>official silence which is the usual practice in Iran as far as Baha'is
>are concerned), confirmation was contained in a letter from the Charge
>d'Affaires of the Iranian Embassy in London who, in answer to the
>enquiries of a member of the European Parliament, wrote, "the proposed
>death sentence was quashed" by the Supreme Court. Although Mr.
>Mahrami's life therefore appears not to be in danger, the civil court
>has yet to decide on the charges against him, and pressure is being
>maintained on the Iranian authorities to persuade them that Mr.
>Mahrami should be discharged without penalty.
>
> An episode of this dimension always proves the solidarity of the
>Baha'is worldwide. It will surely also move Baha'i communities,
>inspired by the sacrifices of the Baha'is in Iran for the
>glorification of the Cause of God, to exert even greater efforts to
>spread the Message of Baha'u'llah, the only means of healing the
>wounds of present-day society.
>
> With loving Baha'i greetings,
>
> [SIGNED: THE UNIVERSAL HOUSE OF JUSTICE]
>
>
>cc: The Hands of the Cause of God
> International Teaching Centre
> Counsellors
> Baha'i International Community,
> Office of the Secretary-General
> Office of Public Information, Haifa and Paris
> United Nations Office, New York and Geneva


From cenglish@aztec.asu.eduWed Apr 17 00:54:58 1996
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 20:46:51 -0700 (MST)
From: "THOMAS C. ENGLISH"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Dorothy Baker



Dear Taliswomen and men:

May 12

I'm giving a talk on Hand of the Cause Dorothy Baker
at the Salt River (Arizona U.S.A.) Valley 'East Valley
Baha'i School. My references thus far are _From Copper
to Gold_ by Dorothy Freeman and 'Herald of the South' vol.
27, April-June, 1991. It would be most pleasing to me
to add to these materials. My main focus is how Dorothy
Baker applied prayer to grow as a Baha'i. I know there are
scholars out there who dive in the apocrypha of The Faith,
an opportunity I don't get very often. There may also be
a person or two out there that came in contact with her.

Any help is appreciated.

I'll pause here to brag on our school. A decade ago it began
in a living room with children from two communities. We grew
through homes and a library public room. We overran the
meeting rooms at the Arizona State University Student Union.
We now fill a Jewish Community Center that used to be a
middle sized elementary school. Members of up to nine
communities attend. One family drives 320 kilometers
(200 miles) one way. There are 70 elementary and pre-schoolers,
60-70 youth, and 30-40 adults attending each week.

Our youth group, The Eternal Flame(s) ;) travel and perform as
time and money allow. Invite them to your town. Maybe they'll
come. An early youth group went to Belize. They have
adapted Stepping from African-American fraternity competitions,
do light to heavy drama and dance.

We are looking for a big building of our own so we don't pay
rent to others. If you're coming to Phoenix on a Sunday,
and you have an excellent lecture topic, let me know. We'll
book you.

--
Chris English Be melting snow
P.O. Box 10 Wash yourself of yourself
Phoenix, AZ 85001 A white flower grows in the quietness
602.379.4511 Let your tongue become that flower. - Rumi

From gary@olis.mtx.net.auWed Apr 17 00:54:58 1996
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 13:37:01 +0930
From: Gary Crook
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Cc: odadgar@sitgbsd1.telstra.com.au, Ailsa Hedley ,
Axel Anders <73070.171@compuserve.com>, clcrimme@pen.k12.va.us,
Jaellayna & John Palmer ,
Michelle Oliphant , oafnan@newbridge.com,
robbie@booray.ash.interpath.net, ac174@virgin.usvi.net,
Timbrannan@aol.com, tjcro1@student.monash.edu.au
Subject: Lighten up time!

Students in France don't seem to know their Scriptures very well,
judging by the following answers to test questions. But it sure is a
lot more colorful this way:

o Adam and Eve were created from an apple tree.

o Noah's wife was called Joan of Ark.

o Lot's wife was a pillar of salt by day and a ball of fire by night.

o The Jews had trouble thoughout their history with the unsympathetic
Genitals.

o Samson slayed the Philistines with the axe of the apostles.

o Unleaved bread is bread made without ingredients.

o Moses went to the top of Mt. Cyanide to get the 10 Commandments.

o The seventh commandment is: Thou shalt not admit adultery.

o Joshua led the Hebrews in the battle of Geritol.

o David fought with the Finkelsteins, a race of people who lived in
biblical times.

o Solomon had 300 wives and 700 porcupines.

o Jesus was born because Mary had an immaculate contraption.

o The people who followed Jesus were called the 12 decibels.

o The epistles were the wives of the apostles.

o One of the opposums was St. Matthew.

o Salome danced in 7 veils in front of King Harrod's.

o Paul preached holy acrimmony, which is another name for marriage.
o A Christian should have only one wife. That is called monotony.

[ Part 2: "Included Message" ]

Date: Tue, 16 Apr 96 11:54:21 IDT
From: Jean Putters
To: gary@olis.mtx.net.au
Subject: welcome and humor!?

We hope you can arrange dropping in either to Ont. or back..let us know so we
can pick you up, and arrange the royal traetment!!!...............

thot i'd add a little humor to this one!!

Subject: Students in France....
Cc:


don't seem to know their Scriptures very well, judging by the following answers
to test questions. But it sure is a lot more colorful this way:

o Adam and Eve were created from an apple tree.

o Noah's wife was called Joan of Ark.

o Lot's wife was a pillar of salt by day and a ball of fire by night.

o The Jews had trouble thoughout their history with the unsympathetic
Genitals.

o Samson slayed the Philistines with the axe of the apostles.

o Unleaved bread is bread made without ingredients.

o Moses went to the top of Mt. Cyanide to get the 10 Commandments.

o The seventh commandment is: Thou shalt not admit adultery.

o Joshua led the Hebrews in the battle of Geritol.

o David fought with the Finkelsteins, a race of people who lived in
biblical times.

o Solomon had 300 wives and 700 porcupines.

o Jesus was born because Mary had an immaculate contraption.

o The people who followed Jesus were called the 12 decibels.

o The epistles were the wives of the apostles.

o One of the opposums was St. Matthew.

o Salome danced in 7 veils in front of King Harrod's.

o Paul preached holy acrimmony, which is another name for marriage.

o A Christian should have only one wife. That is called monotony.



From Alethinos@aol.comWed Apr 17 00:54:58 1996
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 00:06:30 -0400
From: Alethinos@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Men who cause problems on Talisman & the women who love to hate them



Actually Rick has done an admirable job in encapsulating what I have been
saying for a long time, but I want to give everyone a much larger target to
hurl their anger at then lil' old Rick.

I am going to lay this out in simple sentences so that there is no mistaking
or missing what I have said.

1.) I have not said that the question of why women are excluded from the UHJ
is: stupid, unimportant, irrelevent, ego-driven, or fruitless.

2. I have said that the continued attempt to make this an *issue* primarily
backed by a number of men on this list who have a long history a railing
against the Institutions and subsequently engaging in a protracted debate
about it _is_ a waste of time because:

A.) The Universal House of Justice has made its decision,

B.) We are not going to have it overturned by popular revolt (as was
essentially suggested earlier this year when this debate came up the first
time),

C.) That we have been told by Abdu'l-Baha', the Guardian and the UHJ that _we
do not know the answer as to why the exclusion is in place at this time_ and
that further the Guardian and the House did not know, and that consequently;

D.) Both the sincere questioners on this issue, (which in my mind include
most of the women and a fair number of men posting here) and the more merky
agitation on the part of others will not serve to really illuminate the issue
at this time, and,

E.) despite the difficulties this causes for us personally and in teaching
some folk we have to get beyond this and move on to issues and concerns we
can address now.

F.) that the speculations voiced by some will not assist us and are
essentially useless in teaching because they could never be given with any
authority at all and will sound like we are grasping at straws - that they
more than likely will not satisfy the discerning seeker anyway.

I realize this will come as a horrible shock to most the women who have so
showered me with their concerns over my emotional well-being, but I was
actually never responding to any of your posts initially. I was responding to
posts by Juan, Dale, Steve, Tony and Linda.

When I did respond, in this past week to any women it was to attempt to
explain that I was NOT addressing any of you to begin with. That I had never
told any of you to shut up, be quiet, stop talking, etc. etc.


Please, find just one post where I wrote that to any of you.

My post to Linda was along somewhat different lines because this had been an
on-going discourse strung out over nearly a year's time.

My primary concern was to refute the notion, put forward by those I have just
mentioned above that the Universal House of Justice is some legislative body
resembling the U.S. Senate or Congress. That it was beholding to the
*constituent* i.e. the Baha'is of the world. That the Administrative Order
should be treated in some fashion like a variation of the currently existing
political orders, specifically the democracies, etc.

Further I was contending that, given the history of the lines of arguments
put forth by these people that the *issue* of women on the UHJ was simply a
mechanism, one among many, to continue their campaign against the
institutions, esp. the the NSA. This history is long and well documented here
on Talisman. So I was strongly suggesting that while their concerns over the
question might be to genuine that they were being disingenuous in their
promotion of this as a critical issue. Their assertions that this was some
kind of litmus test for the Baha'i Faith and that the UHJ should seriously
reconsider its position based on their scholarly research was simply one
plank in their platform to bring about the reforms they feel are imperative.

I am deeply sorry to have caused many of you to develop the impression that
somehow I was uncaring or disinterested in this question or the difficulties
it has caused some of you. I have repeated this numerous times.

My harsh words were directed at people who well know the game they are
playing. I was refusing to play the diplomat/scholar/ game of never really
calling it like you see it; of never calling someone out on an issue. Why?
Because as I said before I had watched a larger pattern taking shape over a
period of months. And I was not seeing an *exploration* by these folk. What I
was seeing was rhetoric, with a larger design. And I have argued against this
approach toward reform that these people want to see occur. Change and
maturity are desperately needed. But not like this. We have much more to
explore.

jim harrison

Alethinos@aol.com

From gladius@portal.caWed Apr 17 00:54:59 1996
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 21:12:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linda de Gonzalez
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Womens Voices

On April 16, 1996, Rick Schaut wrote:

> 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.

Rick, baby, have I got news for you. It's been done. Called "If Women
Counted", by a woman who was a former New Zealand prime minister. She was
the one who was responsible for the campaign to have New Zealand declared a
nuclear-free zone (somehow the French didn't appreciate it, nor the
Americans!!). I have unfortunately forgotten her name, and I gave the book
away. She is an economist, and talks about how economies work. She has a
really refreshing viewpoint: she says, for example, that land has no value
except for the use it's put to. Farmland has worth as farmland; if it were
to become a mine, it would be "worth" $x much more than as farmland. It
seems that in our perverse economic system, land worth increases with the
increase of abuse heaped upon it. Once the mine is mined out, the land then
has "negative value" because no use can be made of it until it's cleaned up
-- i.e. more money poured into it. Seems that none of the brilliant economic
minds have figured out that NO amount of money can bring back clean air,
water and land if they've been abused enough.

Well. She says a whole lot more, and her explanation of GNP and world
economics is clear (astoundingly enough) and easy to grasp. She talks about
the appalling economics of women around the world: women do 80% of the
labour, worldwide, earn 20% of the wages, and own less than 5% of the
capital (land, equipment etc.).

Find her book. Read it.
Linda de Gonzalez
Gladius Productions


From gladius@portal.caWed Apr 17 00:54:59 1996
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 21:12:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linda de Gonzalez
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Talisman Heritage Tours

On April 16, 1996, Burl Barer wrote: (and he can't deny this!!!)

>horseback parade to various cocktail lounges with Middle
>Eastern motifs

First of all, tell me if there will be any male belly dancers, you know, the
ones who dance with a lit candle on their heads, and a curvy sword thingy
hanging from a colorful rope around their slender hips....

This might be worth a few saddle-sores!!!

heheheh
Linda de Gonzalez
Gladius Productions


From gladius@portal.caWed Apr 17 00:54:59 1996
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 21:15:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linda de Gonzalez
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Womens Voices

Joan, I really really liked what you had to offer as speculative food for
thought about women and the UHJ. Thank you. That would never in a million
jillion years have occurred to me.

So, now, lemme get this straight...speculatively speaking, of course, we're
not going back on the UHJ rag I hope...women don't serve because men are so
desperately in need of transformation in the area of communications &
decision-making?

Hell yes. Sounds right to me!!!

Bwahhahahahahahahhhhhhhhhhh

(I'm on IRC while I write this, so I'll sign off with my usual...)

Babette levitates herself gracefully off the couch and floats to the door,
where she waves to all and *POOF* disappears in a puff of smoke!!

Linda de Gonzalez
Gladius Productions


From gladius@portal.caWed Apr 17 00:54:59 1996
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 21:24:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linda de Gonzalez
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Choral Concert in Vancouver

Aurora Celebration Choir will be giving a concert at Marpole United Church
on Sunday, April 28, 1996 at 7:30 p.m. Marpole United is at Hudson & 67th, 3
blocks west of Oak St. Admission is by donation.

Aurora sings a varied repertoire of music from around the world, in
different languages. Most of the music is devotional, since 95% of choral
music was written as devotional music.

More than half the members of Aurora are Baha'is; if any of you are in
Vancouver, please take the time to come and hear us. I promise you'll have fun!

Linda de Gonzalez
Gladius Productions







From A.Aniss@unsw.EDU.AUWed Apr 17 00:54:59 1996
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 15:43:07 +1000
From: Ahmad Aniss
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: world news and issues

Dear Friends,

Last few days after some peaceful hours at works (9 to 5), I went
back home and turn on the TV to see what was on. I have to tell
you I can not think of a time that so much news was coming out
of different parts of the world. It seemed like something has hit right
over this planet and so hard that it has affected all parts. You may
ask what does he mean, let me elaborate a little bit. I hope I won't
bore you with rehashing the news.

In the past weekend and so, so many things happen in the world
which shows how engulfed we are in calamity. One wonders what
is human race doing to itself?
Just to mention some:

1. Israel and Hezbu-llah being at it again. reporter was saying over
1000 shells were fired over land. Many were killed. Hezbu-llah in
turn firing rockets back on the northern area of Israel.

2. Bowsnia's conflict persisting, (war lords still at large and in full
control)

3. Civil war broke in Lyberia. (innocent individuals being killed
among the war fighting sides)

4. Bombing a hospital in Pakistan. (Hospital suppose to be a healing
place and not a killing slather house)

5. fire in a German airport and mistaken announcement that
passenger must go to direction of fire and as a result 16 people die.

6. Court case of the man accused of back packers killings.

7. 25000 people dieing every year and many more injured as a result
of planted land mines in a number of countries that were in civil war
or arm conflict.

8. Despite all medical advances more people are dying of different
diseases and diseases such as cancer are on the rise.

9. Death of a 7 year old pilot and her father and coach in an
acceptable weather.

10 Documentary on Saudi Arabia regarding to execution or more
correctly public beheading of some foreigner workers for crimes.

These were just an examples and only occurred in matter of few
days. So definitely humanity is in deep crises and it most at some
stage come to a point to asses the confronting issues. when would
that be? What is our contribution to solve these problems?
What are solutions that our Fiath has for these problems?

I hope we can discuss these issues and find constructive answears.

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







From Brian_Murdoch@mindlink.bc.caWed Apr 17 17:43:17 1996
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 23:11:09 -0700
From: Brian Murdoch
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Womens' Voice

Friends;
I was deeply touched by the posting of Milissa 16/04/96 on the above
subject, and have spent the evening trying to study the Writings and arrive
at a cogent response to the issues raised. I must admit to being
unsuccesful, but would encourage her to set forth some examples that compel
her to write "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 would encourage the members of the list to
pursue her request.

In general terms, that may not address her detailed questions, I found the
Research Department's memorandum on "Issues Concerning Community
Functioning" to be helpful. It specifically addresses 'facilitating change
within the Baha'i Community', and as such offers implicit guidance on, inter
alia, the change of attitude and behaviour that is required for the
community of the Most Great Name to come to meaningful terms with all
gender-related issues. Interestingly, their memorandum approaches the
question of change within the Baha'i community under the following headings:
Individual Example; Assisting the Local Spiritual Assembly; Recommendations
to Institutions; Consultation with Auxiliary Board Members; and,
interestingly, Appeal to the National Spiritual Assembly.

The compilation was published by Baha'i Publications Australia in 1993, and
hopefully is readily available in the US.

May the following words, taken from p18 of that compilation and excerpted
from a letter of the Guardain to an NSA fuel the spirit of our exploration
of the questions Milissa has raised, "because the people will never embrace
[the Cause] until they see in its community life mirrored what is so
conspicuously lacking in the world: love and unity."

Sorry for the length
Brian


From CaryER_ms@msn.comWed Apr 17 17:43:17 1996
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 96 04:20:05 UT
From: Hannah Reinstein
To: talisman@indiana.edu, Eonist2@aol.com
Subject: Sorry, Not Funny

Dear Burl,

I feel the need to second this post. There is no such thing as "one
temporarily." People who are transsexual or transgendered deal with the
alienation and pain of knowing that their minds and bodies don't match. They
know that from early childhood. That holds even if they are Baha'i and they
understand that the Creator sends powerful tests. No matter what spiritual
spin they put on it, they suffer profoundly until modern medicine makes it
right. Their condition is natural but typically accompanied by great pain. As
much as I love humor, there's nothing light about this. "Of course, the proper
outfit helps" is a comment that--maybe unintentionally--demeans us profoundly
and callously demeans all genetic women as well.

I would comment further but I'll lose my equanimity and get scolded
(rightfully so) by the list owner. In other words, I'll go ballistic.

Sorry but I call 'em as I see 'em,

The Artist Formerly Known As Cary :-)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Upon that misty night In secrecy,
Beyond such mortal sight, Without a guide or light
than that which burned so deeply in my heart,
The fire 'twas that led me on.."
----------
From: owner-talisman@indiana.edu on behalf of Eonist2@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, 16 April, 1996 20:12 PM
To: talisman@indiana.edu

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. .

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

Gale




From derekmc@ix.netcom.comWed Apr 17 17:43:17 1996
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 23:37:51 -0700
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Fwd:


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

My dear Gale
My best friend Dr.Burl has given up smoking even cigars and to mention
such is a real low blow.Linda used to be a Arthur is that who you mean
Burl?Oh I am in trouble now we are not suppose to mention that are
we.So how is the blue Woad Linda dearest?
Kindest Regards
Dr.Uncle Derek
Still holding doors open for all Ladies in spite of character
assination attacks.



From derekmc@ix.netcom.comWed Apr 17 17:43:18 1996
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 23:49:55 -0700
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Fwd: Re: Talisman Heritage Tours

k

On April 16, 1996, Burl Barer wrote: (and he can't deny this!!!)

>horseback parade to various cocktail lounges with Middle
>Eastern motifs

First of all, tell me if there will be any male belly dancers, you
know, the
ones who dance with a lit candle on their heads, and a curvy sword
thingy
hanging from a colorful rope around their slender hips....

This might be worth a few saddle-sores!!!

heheheh
Linda de Gonzalez
Gladius Productions
Send your check and credit card number and it will be arranged.
Kindest Regardsd
Dr.Uncle Derek




From derekmc@ix.netcom.comWed Apr 17 17:43:18 1996
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 00:00:45 -0700
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Fwd: Uncle Derek's Irfan Card

----k

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!!
.........................................
Reply:
My dear Shastri
I believe you are using certified checks from Montana and stole the
wrong card, you are in need of assistance try Linda Walbridge also
Linda I am into Male Belly dancers.One quick idea try
opening a door for a Lady as a penance.Have you forgotten your pills
again?, do you think England will thrash Australia when they play for
the Ashes?
Kindest Regards
Dr.Uncle Derek
Who opens doors so fast you do not relaise it happened.

From burlb@bmi.netWed Apr 17 17:43:18 1996
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 96 01:43 PDT
From: Burl Barer
To: Hannah Reinstein
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Sorry, Not Funny

My friend Hannah commented concerning women:
There is no such thing as "one
>temporarily."


To which Burl replies:

Nonsense. There certainly is. I am proof. My doctor is just as good as your
doctor and you can't say he isn't. That's what he said and that's what the
specialist who tested me said. If you don't like it, go argue with modern
medicine.

People who have been pumped full of female hormones, even synthetic ones,
over an extended period of time ( such as I was), and then have the process
reversed, have every right to say "temporarily". When *my doctor* ( a
specialist just as special as yours) defines it thusly, I have every right
to do so as well. This is not meant to deny you your pain, dismay, crises
etc. of knowing your mind and body didn't match. I know you had that
situation from early childhood, and I only had it for five years. I lovingly
suggest you resist wearing your past pain like a laurel wreath and discard
any temptation to think that those of us who have not lived your pain are
not entitled to learn from our own. I do not consider myself callous nor
insulting to genetic women, hormonal women, or any other kind of woman, or
those who's exteriors do not match their psychological/emotional interiors
-- even temporarily. You are the first women ever to accuse me of such
behaviour, and I'll leave it at that. I am surprised that you, who spent
several thrill packed days in my company, would think of me as callous or
insulting. I imagine I could be, however, if I put my mind to it. But I
would rather be my usual affable, supportive self.

And I am *perfectly serious* about the value of gender image role play.

I happen to believe that "putting on a different head" is often a mind
expanding and consciousness raising experience. Therefor I suggested it. If
the outfits helps, more power to you. There is no law against costumes to
help one get in character. [ Writers avail themselves of this technique
quite often.]

I hope this clears it up. I don't want you going ballistic, you are too
high a calibre.

Give my best to your son, I got quite a kick out of him on our excursion to
Bosch.

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/burlb
********************


From dann.may@sandbox.telepath.comWed Apr 17 17:43:18 1996
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 96 14:16:21 -0600 (CST)
From: dann.may@sandbox.telepath.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: HINDUISM


While I support your thoughts about the use of the word "Hindu," your
comments about the other religious traditions being a "unified body of
religious belief" are misleading. The historian of religion W.C. Smith
argues in his book _The Meaning and End of Religion_ that all religious
traditions are diverse -- both in thought and in practice. Indeed, he
argues that we should not speak of Christianity, Catholicism, Islam,
Buddhism, etc., but the Christianities, the Catholicisms, the Islams, the
Buddhisms. He goes on to argue that we need to stop using the word
"religion" altogether, since it perpetuates the notion of a unified system
when in fact we are dealing with a rich and diverse tradition which is
perhaps best understood as a process like a flowing river and not as some
discrete "hermetically sealed" set of beliefs and doctrines.



W > I think it is important to point out that the word Hinduism can be ver
W >misleading, as it tends to suggest a unified body of religious belief a
W >practice as one might historically find in Shiah Islam, Catholicism or
W >varying Protestant denominations. Actually, Hinduism is a non-Indian te
W >(originally coined, I believe, by conquering Muslims) that has been use
W >put under one label the great diversity of religious thought and practi
W >found in the subcontinent.


Warmest greetings, Dann May, Philosophy, OK City Univ.
---
* WR 1.32 # 669 * A wise man hears one word and understands 2. Jewish prove

From dann.may@sandbox.telepath.comWed Apr 17 17:43:18 1996
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 96 14:16:23 -0600 (CST)
From: dann.may@sandbox.telepath.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: God is good.


As Socrates said in the _Euthophro_: "Is virtue pleasing to the gods
because it is good, or is good because it is pleasing to the gods?"

In other words:
1. Is virtue good because it exists independently of God and even God
recognizes it as good and must conform to it? Therefore God is not
omnipotent (in the literal sense).

2. Is virtue good because God arbitrarily says so. God commands whatever It
wants to, so it is good on the basis of God's command alone? Why does God
command something? Because God felt like it. Therefore, if God choose
tomorrow to say lying is good, then we would have to lie in order to be
faithful.

Response: God would not command such a thing.

But: This implies an objective moral standard, by which both humans and God
must conform to.

W > I believe John Dale has made an important distinction between "rela
W >or "conventional" morality and "depth" morality. Surely at some level t
W >very "nature" of God must be associated with the "Good" and not only wi
W >Power. When the notion of Omnipotence is separated from Goodness becaus
W >Goodness is seen as a limitation of Power, then, as John points out, on
W >arives at some truly horrendous possibilities. I believe Calvin took th
W >idea to its ultimate conclusion and thus arrived at a predestination th
W >in which salvation was based almost entirely on the grace, some would s
W >whim, of God. With love and laughter, Bill G

Warmest greetings, Dann May, Philosophy, OK City Univ.
---
* WR 1.32 # 669 * Old musicians never die, they just decompose.

From a003@lehigh.eduWed Apr 17 17:43:18 1996
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 06:42:30 EDT
From: a003@lehigh.edu
To: TLCULHANE@aol.com
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: (fwd) science/religion/Houses

Dear Terry,
I was wondering why I hadn't heard, but now it seems all the candy's on
the floor.
Let's start with your summary of our situation:

With regards to my (Terry's) view that the "knowledge of science is
as ontologically real as the knowledge of revelation " you (Bill)
wrote: " The logical extension of this is that the separation of
Church and State is an artificial one."

You went on to explain that essentially you disagree:

Perhaps a better way to say this would be to refer to the
"differentiation" rather than "separation" of religion and science
or Church and State . In my view such differentiation is here to stay.
... In 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.
... 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.

... 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."

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?

Simply,
from the principle that *being* is in an ongoing process of
"self-revealing", and that Revelation is one of two primary ways towards that
ontological reality, the other being Science
and
given the purpose of the Universal House of Justice's authority over
interpretation of all things Divine (i.e. *being*).

If the House of Justice did not have authority over Science, then it
would not have authority over interpretation of all things Divine, for you
have made it clear that Science is an avenue to *being* (i.e. Divinity). If
the House does *not* then have authority over all things Divine, it has no
validity or use to society as the means to unity. It simply becomes one of a
myriad channels of Divinity. Nature and literature is full of such channels.

It is therefore logical to conclude that the House of Justice has authority
over science *if it so dictates*. This is logical. It's also practical.
If one continues to postulate a "differentiation" with two seats of authority,
Science and House, then one runs into problems of authority and interpretation,
i.e. the Virgin Birth. These are very real problems but not close to the
kinds of problems that will be run into down the line once the
"differentiation" is allowed to follow its course. In other words, the death
of the Cause.

Furthermore, I suspect you may have the male and female principles
backwards. Science, rationality, is not, perhaps, the male principle, as
you've described it, but the female (such language is confusing but perhaps
it will lend some insight). For science does not dictate, it's whole purpose
is to reflect, provide models. Though the intellect probes material reality
to find the way towards *being*, it's relationship to the world of society is
like a tool. That tool is a means for the intellect to approach *being*.
With the House of Justice, *being* approaches us. We are acted upon by
*being*. On becoming a Baha'i, one agrees to recognize the House of Justice
as the Word of God, *being*. This is admittedly arbitrary. One is not saying
that the House is not capable of choosing solution "A" and if a different
group of men were making the same decision they might have come up with "B".
We know this rationally, but we agree, on becoming a Baha'i, because
Baha'u'llah has said it *and* because we also know, rationally, that we must
have this authority for there to be unity in the world, to allow whatever the
the Universal House of Justice says to represent the Living Word of God, the
closest thing to "Good" that can be found in our existence, the Law.

Also, we've been speaking of Science, but there is no Science. If there
were, all scientists would be in agreement. They're not, and they never will
be. It's a fiction to speak of Science in such a way. There is only science.
There is no authority of rationality other than the individual, in the end.

Terry, I've been dealing with this at a relatively general level, but you
are concerned about the integrity of science if the House of Justice should
meddle with it. You said:
Do you mean that the UHJ will arbitrate between competing cosmologies
in astrophysics? or that it will determine the proper sequence of dna
interaction in the genetic code? I do not recognize such a
role for the UHJ in a differentiated world.

Neither do I. What we are discussing here is authority. But, now that the
logic is clear, I hope, you brought up a number of other comments that were
subjective and personal such as:
... I understand what seems to be the desire for "existential "
security" in granting such a role to the UHJ.

This has nothing to do with existentialism. Cognitive dissonance is what I'm
trying to overcome.
... 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. The UHJ cannot "save" the world.

I see in no way does this conclusion imply that the House is going to save the
world. It's simply a logical conclusion based on our beliefs and rational
choices in order to achieve the "Good". It does not abrogate our
responsibilities as individual Baha'is or rational thinkers. If the House of
Justice legislates unwisely, it is our duty to leave the Cause for it no
longer represents what we feel to be God's will. We no longer believe it
represents what Baha'u'llah said it represents, and then go on. That's the
deal. It does not abrogate our responsibilities to live a moral life to the
best of our abilities, the existential reality still exists; perhaps some day,
as our Faith grows, the pain will not be so great.

You also added:
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 House of Worship can't be anything other than a reflection of the Cause in
miniature. The issue that we discuss effects directly the spirit that will
animate the Mashriqu l Adhkar. One cannot turn to the branch and say the
solution is there, when one has not dealt with the problem in the root. The
Root is the House of Justice and its relationship to the individual. In other
words, the Covenant.

Very tellingly you note:
We far to often, in my view, 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.

You seem to feel that submission to the House in all things is immature. You
know, I think that, probably, this is the issue more than anything else. All
I can say is that submission, in my view, is a sign of maturity and
rational; it is not a submission that denies individual freedom of thought or
respect for the individual. Like a marriage, one willingly submits in order
to obtain a reality greater than that that can be achieved alone. But, the
child is not so bad that we need be afraid; what sort of future are we making
for ourselves that rejects our ancient child. As Christ said, there is much
wisdom to be found there.

In the end you wrote:
"That Thou art God and no God is there besides Thee." This is not a
realization that can be given by or assumed by an institution for me.
It is recognition I must come to as a mature being. I believe this
is the call of Bahau llah in the age of maturity.

What institution is taking this right away from you? You have come to a
conclusion that I don't understand, and I don't think you can maintain.
That the House of Justice is Divine Guidance and an
agreed center for unity in case of disagreements regarding the
"self-realization" of *being* is a basic tenant of the Baha'i Faith. It is
the root of our connection to Baha'u'llah. That basic root has as it's inmost
heart the validity of one's individual integrity--"That Thou art God and no God
is there besides Thee," as you've said, belongs to the individual. No
institution can come in between us and God. Certainly not the House of
Justice. It is we who agreed to allow the House to be what it is, as a Baha'i.
It is what it is by the logic of its role in the Faith. If it ever comes
between us and our beliefs of what God desires us to do or what is right, we
must leave the Faith. That is our existential duty. But, we cannot stay in
the Cause and at the same time not admit that the House of Justice is
*being* acting upon us. This, as a mature being, is an acknowledgment of the
contract into which we have entered.

Bill

You know, Terry, I woke up at 4 a.m. thinking about your post, and here it is
6:29 a.m. I don't know. Something's going on here. I hope it's just not all
words.
With love.



From bn872@freenet.carleton.caWed Apr 17 17:43:18 1996
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 09:31:34 -0400
From: McKenny Michael
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT

Greetings especially to Joan and Alex.
It was great to hear from you.
I am glad, Joan, that you now feel that you can breathe
after 26 years. Reading the paper on the Service of Women
has given wings to my spirit as well.
Yes, I think it's important to recognize that this great
gift of an institution, The Universal House of Justice, is
a treasure of guidance, whatever the composition of members.
Alex, you are completely correct. The Baha'is are called
upon to show such a spirit of service and love as is beyond
previous notions of leadership and control. I used those
expressions to show the point of view of the outside world.
Those who are not Baha'is are much more apt to perceive a
"ruling" and "control" and to react accordingly.
May this find you very well and may that long continue.
Very Best Wishes,
Michael




--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)


From jjensen@welchlink.welch.jhu.eduWed Apr 17 17:43:18 1996
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 09:39:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joan Jensen
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: When men own...


Dear Friends,

I mis-typed the quotation. Here is the corrected version.

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


From belove@sover.netWed Apr 17 17:43:18 1996
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 96 19:50:44 PDT
From: belove@sover.net
To: Joan Jensen , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: The Circular Question: women and UHJ

Dear Joan,

Bravo. Very good. I really liked your summary of the issues and your suggestions.
I liked:
THe summary of statements about the equality of men and women.
The summary of qualities in which women are superior to men.

I share your intuitions (If that is the word) that the restriction might have something to do with, not the superiority of men, but perhaps the primitiveness of ... our civilization, men, something. Actually someone else had this suggestion as well. And, in private moments, I've said that only men were on the UHJ because, maybe that's how other men would need it to be. Or maybe because men need it.


All this gets to the shadow side of the circular question: What are men that they would be the ones to be on the UHJ and what is the UHJ, etc.


But, more. I'm sure.

I am interested in your comment that you can do research on these matters.How so?

I am trying to design a course for undergraduates that addresses gender roles. I would like for it to be an even handed exploration. Any thoughts for texts?


Regards,

Philip





-------------------------------------
Name: Philip Alan Belove
Anagram: Plain Livable Hope
E-mail: belove@sover.net
Date: 04/16/96
Time: 19:50:44

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


From lua@sover.netWed Apr 17 17:43:18 1996
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 10:06:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: LuAnne Hightower
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Educating women= promoting economic development

Thank you, Sandy for the opportunity to plead for assistance (especially
from the male members of Talisman) in the economic development of LuAnne
Hightower, a mere (pregnant, I might add) woman who has to earn her living
as a musician, because she has been exempted from service on the UHJ :-(((

You see, guys, I am hoping to unleash a CD of uplifting, inspirational, and
love inducing music and non-music (see Jackson's latest article in Arts
Dialogue) on the Baha'i community by July (before the baby arrives and turns
our lives into chaos and my brain into milk). I am attempting to
self-produce and, hence, maintain a modicum of control over the quality of
the final product. In order to do so, I need to secure 75 more pre-paid
orders (this is and is not charity that I am hoping to elicit - you actually
get a CD AND the warm fuzzy feeling of helping out one of your sisters) in
order to complete the editing and press the CD's. THAT's CD's NOT CB's....

So how about it, ya'll??? You can make a difference. You can help to bring
this project to fruition AND uplift the sagging hearts of bunches of Baha'is
whose devotional lives are perilously in want of a recharge. You might even
like the material........


Here's a sample:

Healing Prayer
Free Thyself
Say: God Sufficeth
Surah Hashr
Amazing Grace
Listen (text: ibn 'Arabi)
and others totalling 11 (special abjad significance)
selections in all!!


Here's how:

Send $17 ($15 for the CD + $2 shipping & handling) to:

LuAnne Hightower
139 Main Street, Room 403
Brattleboro, VT 05301

Include your name, address, and phone, please.

And now back to our regularly scheduled lofty discussions.

In love and gratitude,
LuAnne


From bn872@freenet.carleton.caWed Apr 17 17:43:18 1996
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 11:01:39 -0400
From: McKenny Michael
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: TIME AND ENTRY BY TROOPS

Greetings from Ottawa.
This is the first of a number of posts meant to respond
to those such as Jim who feel that there is an imbalance in
the amount of time devoted to important issues on TALISMAN.
There are a number of basic assumptions about reality
which it may well be interesting to explore. It is possible
that the modern (and not necessarily Baha'i) way of life
is significantly responsible for the difficulty we are
facing in achieving entry by troops.
Several years ago, at a fireside here, someone said that
there was a native prophecy that there would come a time
when the natives would slow down time. This was mentioned
in the context of the hectic, and perhaps less than perfectly
worthwhile, constant activity of our present society.
Expressed differently, this suggests that there is just
so much going on here that we don't have much time to live
in a manner that permits us (as non-Baha'is) to discover the
Faith or (as Baha'is) to form the friendships and live in
the manner which would better attract others.
This is actually a vast topic. It includes the fact that
the desire of most families to own a house and at least one
car is the premise which leads to the conclusion that both
parents of the diminishing traditional family must work. The
whole issue of the necessity of daycare stems from this.
We have increased leisure time, though how we spend it
seems in part derived from our attitude to time. Many of us
rush from one event (Baha'i and non-Baha'i) to another. How
does this effect our physical well-being, to say nothing of
our emotional and spiritual capacity to be magnets for the
souls of others.
This is only one person's attempt to begin responding to a
request here. I look forward to reading others.
Very Best Wishes,
Michael



--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)


From bn872@freenet.carleton.caWed Apr 17 17:43:18 1996
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 11:03:33 -0400
From: McKenny Michael
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: PRAYER AND ENTRY BY TROOPS

Greetings.
This is a second post on the basic requirements for
entry by troops.
25 years ago the Baha'is of a town near Ottawa were
facing the loss of their Spiritual Assembly. Ridvan was
coming and they were less than nine. So, they gathered
together and recited 500 times the Remover of Difficulties.
Their Assembly was formed and, God knows how many times
Ridvan has come since then with only nine adult Baha'is
in a town, not just this one, and one of those nine someone
who became a Baha'i as the result of those 500 Removers of
Difficulties.
I would be interested in other comments on the role of
prayer, especially the very powerful prayers, in teaching
and entry by troops.
Very Best Wishes,
Michael



--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)


From belove@sover.netWed Apr 17 17:43:18 1996
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 96 11:17:03 PDT
From: belove@sover.net
To: talisman@indiana.edu, Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.org,
Bahai-Singles@BCCA.Org
Subject: LuAnne's CD


Dear friends,


You heard it from Luanne. Here it now from me, too.

Never mind that I live in the same town and have the priveledge of watching her get sweller every day. And never mind that twice I actually got to play guitar along with her amazing voice.

Luanne is a thrilling vocalist. She has a voice like Annie Ross in her prime. When not recording devotional tunes she occassionally gives concerts in Brattleboro playing with two or three totally brilliant jazz musicians singing lovely jazz standards and taking several solo chorus in scat, a beautiful alto sax of a voice. Great tone, intonation, rhythm and taste. Yes, folks, musical taste like that of the Great Ladies of American Song.

And that is why, in Brattleboro, a town that is home of several internationally reknown classical musicians, three music schools, the best Bach Chorus in the country, and three fine music festivals, ... in that town, with those high standards, LuAnne brings out the crowd to hear her sing Jazz.

And, were that not enough, she also sings lovely Persian Sufi Chants.

And now, you can support her project to bring this same American Musical Sensibility to a collection of Bahai songs.

I've had the bootleg tape of most of this CD for about a year and it is lovely. Buy this CD. It is as good as any collection of Bahai Music available.


Here is what LuAnne said on her last posting:

I am hoping to unleash a CD of uplifting, inspirational, and
love inducing music and non-music on the Baha'i community by July (before the baby arrives and turns
our lives into chaos and my brain into milk). I am attempting to
self-produce and, hence, maintain a modicum of control over the quality of
the final product. In order to do so, I need to secure 75 more pre-paid
orders (this is and is not charity that I am hoping to elicit - you actually
get a CD AND the warm fuzzy feeling of helping out one of your sisters) in
order to complete the editing and press the CD's. THAT's CD's NOT CB's....

So how about it, ya'll??? You can make a difference. You can help to bring
this project to fruition AND uplift the sagging hearts of bunches of Baha'is
whose devotional lives are perilously in want of a recharge. You might even
like the material........


Here's a sample:

Healing Prayer
Free Thyself
Say: God Sufficeth
Surah Hashr
Amazing Grace
Listen (text: ibn 'Arabi)
and others totalling 11 (special abjad significance)
selections in all!!


Here's how:

Send $17 ($15 for the CD + $2 shipping & handling) to:

LuAnne Hightower
139 Main Street, Room 403
Brattleboro, VT 05301

Include your name, address, and phone, please.

And now back to our regularly scheduled lofty discussions.

In love and gratitude,
LuAnne








-------------------------------------
Name: Philip Alan Belove
Anagram: Plain Livable Hope
E-mail: belove@sover.net



From belove@sover.netWed Apr 17 17:43:18 1996
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 96 11:42:02 PDT
From: belove@sover.net
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: The Medium Obligatory Prayer



Since none of the Bahai that I knew at the time could answer the question, I decided to understand the third paragraph of the medium obligatory prayer as follows:

"He, in truth, hath manifested Him who is the Dayspring of Revelation"

...The first one in the sequence. So I figured it meant Abraham..

"Who conversed on Sinai"

...Moses...

"through Whom the Supreme Horizon hath been made to shine.."

...I felt this indicated the boundary between Life and Death, and so I suspected this refered to Jesus the Christ.

"and the Lote-Tree beyond which there is no passing hath spoken..."

I looked up Lote Tree and found that it meant Lotus tree, the same as in the myth of the Lotus eaters. Also that it meant the tree that marked the end of a town, therefore the boundary between humans and wilderness. Could this then be a reference to Muhammed?

... and what to make of the syntax: ..."hath spoken"... I don't know.

"and through Whom the Call hath been proclaimed unto all who are in heaven and on earth: 'Lo, the All-Possessing is come."

"Is this the Bab?", I wondered.

Eagerly awaiting enlightenment. Or at least an interesting conversation. I'm old and modest in my wishes.


Philip




--------------------------------
Name: Philip Alan Belove
Anagram: Plain Livable Hope
E-mail: belove@sover.net
Date: 04/17/96
Time: 11:42:02

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


From lwalbrid@indiana.eduWed Apr 17 17:43:18 1996
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 10:55:57 -0500 (EST)
From: lwalbrid
To: Ahang Rabbani
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: all women institution

Dear Ahang, this is your droll sense of humor shining forth, right?
Love, Linda

On Tue, 16 Apr 1996, Ahang Rabbani wrote:

> [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 burlb@bmi.netWed Apr 17 17:43:18 1996
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 96 09:01 PDT
From: Burl Barer
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Sexism

Gayle, eager for free tacos, wrote:

" be a good boy and go back to what men do well"

A comment such as that may get you a taco from Phyllis Shaffly or Young
Republicans for Jesus -- probably simply a surgically altered "pigs in a
blanket" from the Universal House of Pancakes -- but such "demeaning sexist
language" will not get you any freebies from Tino's Tacos [the BEST asada
tacos in Walla Walla and only $1.00 each. Hannah ate there (vegetarian
burrito to go) on our way to Bosch )and was well nigh amazed by the impact
on her sensitive system.

I will however treat you to frijoles when you run low, so when I say that
you are full of beans it will be accurate.

Actually, I'll treat you to tacos anytime simply because it is the way a
*gentleman* should treat a *lady*

Until that happy day when we lock eyes over the cilantro,
"be a good girl and go back to doing what women do well."

Warmest flour or corn regards,

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/burlb
********************


From gec@geoenv.comWed Apr 17 17:43:18 1996
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 12:11:48 -0400
From: Alex Tavangar
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Educating women= promoting economic development

I knew it... I knew it!

The classic bait and switch routine. First get all the bleeding heart
liberals and all the other mostly males with pent up guilt to open up to the
issue of women's empowerment, and ..Wham! hit them with the sales pitch.
Best of all, sell the idea as a genuine social and economic development
project through which the perennial "talking heads" can feel happy about
their acts of valor.

Well sign me up - I want to hug one of those CD's (not CB's!). I am also
particularly partial to pregnant women since my wife was one not too long
ago (not to mention Madonna who is exploring yet another frontier of her
womanhood).

I'm looking forward to hearing the final product. The brief description was
enticing.

Best Wishes,

Alex B. Tavangar

P.S. Do you know if its a boy(God help him) or a girl(God help her too)?
Have you picked a name?


From sscholl@jeffnet.orgWed Apr 17 17:43:18 1996
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 21:29:58 +0100
From: White Cloud Press
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Bahaiisms

Dear Friends,

The discussion on Hinduisms by Bill Garlington, Dann May and others has
pointed out the difficulty in categorizing faiths. Dann points to WC
Smith's penetrating insight about it being more appropriate to refer to
Islams, Catholicisms, Buddhisms, etc. Perhaps what we are beginning to see
here on Talisman are the many different kinds of Baha'iisms that exist
within the Baha'i faith. The question, I guess, is how can we develop a
healthy pluralism while maintaining unity? My view is that we will need to
become much more flexible on matters that burn us all up on Talisman if we
expect to maintain unity amongst our little group of today let alone if we
expect to become significantly larger. Which takes me back to my recent
statement that I do not feel it should be a requirment or some kind of
litmus test that one need to accept every single aspect of the Baha'i
teachings in order to be a Baha'i. Historically we have seen a gradual
loosening of requirements for acceptance of new believers (we no longer
make converts go through long study classes and take a
test--oral/written--before they can sign the card). For example, does one
need to share Abdu'l-Baha's views on soul (where his categories are derived
largely from Ibn Sina's medieval understanding) in order to be faithful?
Does one have to believe in a personal God in order to be a Baha'i? Such
are just two theological questions and one can also raise matters of cult
and laws of personal status. For example, in the major religious traditions
one of their strengths appears to be their flexiblity over many matters
dealing with the individual and conscience. Not too many religions are as
hung up about the technicalities of marriage as are Baha'is. Violation of
marriage procedures is, I think, the number one cause for loss of Baha'i
rights. And as I noted recently the Catholic church, even in its most
conservative and authoritarian modes, appears more flexible than current
Baha'i administration when dealing with Catholics who disagree with offical
positions on birth control, abortion, the papacy, and the like.

Yet it seems clear from our discussions and from official statements from
Baha'i administrative bodies that there is a big fear of allowing
"Baha'iisms" to emerge within the community. Any thoughts?

Willa's father




From lwalbrid@indiana.eduWed Apr 17 17:43:18 1996
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 11:29:42 -0500 (EST)
From: lwalbrid
To: Alethinos@aol.com
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Men who cause problems on Talisman & the women who love to hate them

Dear Long John Derek, Jim is accusing me of not being among "Most of the
women who are sincere." Take him on one of your tours, will you. You
can give him one of your old pairs of long johns as a special enticement.

And, women of Talisman, don't you like the way Derek provided an
outstanding example of "male" talk in his recent "breast posting?" This
indeed was at least to me of great help in trying to sort out the issue
of differences between male and female styles of communication. Now I
understand at a very deep level why only men are on the UHJ. (I mean,
Joan, Milissa, Sandy, Linda, Leigh, et al, would you want to be serving
on an institution day in and day out where you were exposed to this sort
of stuff?) Enough of my wisdom for the day. Linda

From Encyclopedia@usbnc.orgWed Apr 17 17:43:18 1996
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 96 10:34:11
From: Encyclopedia
To: jarmstro@sun1.iusb.edu, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Encyclopdia



Dear friends:

We have received a forwarded message from Jackson Armstrong-Ingram,
posted on Talisman on April 16, reflecting his concerns as a
contributor at not having been contacted about the status of the
Bah?'? Encyclopedia project.

The Board had every intention of writing the contributors before an
article was published in the April 9 issue of *The American Bah?'?.*
We were well aware of the apparent discourtesy of releasing a public
statement before communicating with those who have put much effort
into the project. However, during the period since the deadline for
the article, unforeseen difficulties and delays made it impossible
to produce the letter on schedule. The office is literally still in
boxes and working with one inadequate loaner computer. But the
primary challenge has been to develop a current mailing list, the
last update having been done in 1993. At this moment, the letter is
prepared, final corrections to the computerized list are being made,
and the letter will be mailed imminently.

We regret having given offense to any contributor. Please be
assured that we are doing our best to overcome the inevitable
difficulties of reestabishing the editorial base for the project.

With warm Bah?'? regards,


The Editorial Team
(Betty Fisher, Gayle Morrison, Robert Stockman)
for the Editorial Board of
the Short Encyclopedia of the Bah?'? Faith

From mfoster@qni.comWed Apr 17 17:43:18 1996
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 11:51:50 -0500
From: "Mark A. Foster"
To: Bruce Burrill , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: ENTRY BY TROOPS

At 10:56 AM 4/17/96 -0500, Bruce Burrill wrote:
>ENTRY BY TROOPS.
>
>Could someone please explain this rather unfortunate sounding expression.

Hi, Bruce -

I think that the assumption here is that the body of Baha'is are "the army
of light" (or, as the Master said in _Tablets of `Abdu'l-Baha Abbas_, "the
lower concourse"), and that, due to various factors, some a direct
consequence of Baha'i activity and others a result of global changes,
legions of souls will enter the Baha'i Faith.

I don't know how many individuals it would take to make up a troop or if it
can even be quantified. It seems to me that whenever members of a particular
racial, religious, or ethnic category become Baha'is, they would constitute
a "troop." But that is only my opinion.

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


From brburl@mailbag.comWed Apr 17 17:43:19 1996
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 12:06:58 -0500
From: Bruce Burrill
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Bahaiisms

>
>Yet it seems clear from our discussions and from official statements from
>Baha'i administrative bodies that there is a big fear of allowing
>"Baha'iisms" to emerge within the community. Any thoughts?
>


Judging from what I have seen here on this list, there are already multiple
"Baha'i-isms" which the administrative bodies and the conservative and the
liberals Baha'is (fostering their own Baha'i-isms ) are trying to contain.


From jjensen@welchlink.welch.jhu.eduWed Apr 17 17:43:19 1996
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 13:05:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joan Jensen
To: belove@sover.net
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: The Circular Question: women and UHJ


Dear Philip,

> All this gets to the shadow side of the circular question: What are men
> that they would be the ones to be on the UHJ and what is the UHJ, etc.

We have the compilation on women (shedding light on the role of women, and
differences/similarities between men and women); and we have the
compilations on the local Spiritual Assemblies and the National Spiritual
Assemblies. Is there a compilation on the Universal House of Justice?
This would allow us to START addressing the side of the question
"What is the Universal House of Justice that men serve thereon,
and women do not serve thereon?"

I still think that the most fruitful approach would be to try to explore
women's roles, clarify similarities and differences between men and
women. We know there are differences, and we know that when women assume
a more prominent role in world affairs then war will cease. This is the
most salient feature of the thread for me; what do men and women need to
know, and do, so that war will cease? Thus my interest in doing research
on this topic.

> I am interested in your comment that you can do research on these matters.
> How so?

Just off the top of my head, the steps in researching this would include:

First, discover the right questions to ask. This is done by first
studying the literature (and talking with the Friends on talisman) and
seeking to learn what we think we 'know' and even more importantly what
we DON'T know on the topic.

Second, decide to focus on one aspect of the topic that might 'represent'
some of the differences.

Third, write up a proposal and find funding for the study!! Fortunately,
there are a lot of secular groups that are also interested in this question.
The Baha'is don't have to pay for this one.

Fourth, using qualitative (ethnographic) methods, begin to explore the
meanings and the processes within a culture or cultures or subcultures
on that focused aspect, and its relationship to the lives of the people
by talking to the people, and observing them. Learning from them.
Experience with them. They are the experts, I am the ignorant.

Fifth, design and test a quantitative questionnaire or other quantitative
instrument, using all of the things learned thus far.

Sixth, administer the questionnaire, and use quantitative (statistical)
methods to explore the relationships between aspects of the topic,
comparing and contrasting women's and men's perspectives.

Seventh, study the information and try to formulate understandings from
this qualitative and quantitative data, share it with the respondents,
and begin the process again.

Joan


From jarmstro@sun1.iusb.eduWed Apr 17 17:43:19 1996
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 12:10:15 -0500 (EST)
From: Jackson Armstrong-Ingram
To: Encyclopedia
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Encyclopdia

Thank you for the clarifiacation.

Jackson

From lua@sover.netWed Apr 17 17:43:19 1996
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 13:26:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: LuAnne Hightower
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: CD

Thank you Philip, for your very kind words. Do you suppose you could pull
that stunt with the mistakenly repeated messages, say one a day for
starters, so that the esteemed and the less steamy members of this list
would all put in orders just to shut you up?

Or I could do periodic updates:

2 responses so far, 73 to go!!!!

Or appeal for further (positive?) reviews from Talismen in the know.

Or offer one red cent for each order to the Patagonia Fund - Burl, is that
little incident you mentioned the origin of the saying, "If you can't stand
the heat....?"

Or pull the "I'm just a singing secretary" routine?

Or petition the Almighty (is this or is is not okay, Burl - did it work for
you?)

Or wait in radiant acquiescence, EXPECTANT and FULL OF HOPE????

Th-th-th-that's all folks! I'll stop for today. Maybe.



Signing off singing,
LuAnne


From jarmstro@sun1.iusb.eduWed Apr 17 17:43:19 1996
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 12:42:32 -0500 (EST)
From: Jackson Armstrong-Ingram
To: Joan Jensen
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: When men own...



On Tue, 16 Apr 1996, Joan Jensen wrote:

>
> 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)

I suspect "own" was being used here by the translator in a different sense
than most people are taking it. The word can also mean to acknowledge
the truth of something. So that the statement could be reworded "When
men acknowledge/recognise/accept/believe in the equality of...."

Jackson

From jarmstro@sun1.iusb.eduWed Apr 17 17:43:19 1996
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 13:03:11 -0500 (EST)
From: Jackson Armstrong-Ingram
To: White Cloud Press
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Bahaiisms

I think it would take the stress on everybody down considerably if the
word "unity" was always used as the phrase "unity in diversity."
When used alone it much too readily becomes a synonym for "uniformity."

Jackson

From Don_R._Calkins@commonlink.comWed Apr 17 17:43:19 1996
Date: 17 Apr 1996 12:32:27 GMT
From: "Don R. Calkins"
To: belove@sover.net
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu, jjensen@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu
Subject: Re: The Circular Question: women and UHJ

> All this gets to the shadow side of the circular question: What are
> men that they would be the ones to be on the UHJ and what is the UHJ, etc.

As I have suggested before, perhaps women have more important things to do.

I still believe that a fundamental reason this is an issue is because of our
reliance on power and authority to organize society. Baha'u'llah has stated
'From two ranks hath power been seized, kings and ecclesiastics'. While this
has been commonly interpreted to refer to the old world order, and
particularly to the fall of the Papacy and the Imamate, it is my belief that
it is a statement of a new reality in which power is no longer exercised by
either secular or religious authorities.

If this idea is true, then it stands our entire understanding of
administration on its head. It would mean that in the functioning of
society, administration is one of the least important roles, tho' a necessary
one. (Someone needs to inspect the sewers, too.) The hackneyed aphorism of
the future may be 'He who can, does; he who can't, administrates'.

If this line of reasoning is correct, then the entire question becomes
nonsense, like asking if God can make a stone so large He can't pick it up.

Don C



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

From TLCULHANE@aol.comWed Apr 17 17:43:19 1996
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 14:50:15 -0400
From: TLCULHANE@aol.com
To: a003@lehigh.edu, talisman@indiana.edu, TLCULHANE@aol.com
Subject: Re: (fwd) science/religion/Ho...

Dear Bill ,

If you are up at 4:00 am wondering about my thoughts this sounds
analogous to an experience Ihad a over a year ago with respect to some of the
same issues.
My reference to "existential security " is what you called " cognitive
dissonance". When this dissonance reaches levels of ultimate meaning then we
have arrived at existential issues in the brodest sense of that term . I do
relate to your questions and concerns . I have simply come to a different
understanding.

I do not think reason and revelation are the only avenues to an
understanding of *being*. It is only that I have focused on them in this
discussion since it is along these lines that the primary fractuers appearto
me . I think art , music any activity which discloses the "meaning " of being
is a path to this .

Your comments seem to hinge on or at least our differing view hinges on
the notion that the House of Justice is an "interpretive body ." I do not
accept that conclusion and do not think there is any scriptural bais for such
a view . What you are describing is a view held by the Catholic Church in the
late middle ages and which Aquinas tried to modify . My remarks are an
attempt to better understand my own origins. Bill I really do understand the
dissonance issues here and I am not saying this in a patronizing way. They
are very real.

You wrote :" .given the purpose of the Universal House of Justice's
authority over interpretation of all things Divine(i.e *being)"

In the Dispensation of Bahau llah letter the Guardian states : " it is
made indubitably clear and evident that the Guardian of the Faith has been
made the Interpreter of the Word and that the Universal House of Justice has
been invested with the function of legislating on matters not expressly
revealed in the teachings."

The House is a legislative body it is not an interpretive body . One of
the challenges of the age of maturity in my view is to accept the fact that
there is no longer a living Interpreter.there is no way to make the UHJ into
the *interpreter*. Furhermore the Guardian disavowed any interpretive
authority over matters of science , economics , history. So no my logic
does not lead in the direction of the UHJ assuming authority over science .
What my logic suggests is a recognition of the evolving differentiation of
life on this planet , the self -disclosure of being* and the recognition of
distinct spheres of action much as the Guardian distinguished between the
sphere of the Guardian and the sphere of the House of Justice.

You seem to conclude that the logical outcome of "differentiation" is the
"death of the Cause." I must say this only makes sense to me if one assumes
that the Administrative institutions are "THE CAUSE" which I obviously do not
. The Bahai Faith is more than the administrative institutions and the CAUSE
OF GOD is more than the Bahai Faith -see the Guardian on the Major and Minor
Plans of God. We are the minor which by definition means we do not subsume
all things Divine or that the Faith let alone the House has jurisdiction over
all things Divine.

On feminine /masculine . I do see the working out of "science" in the
world as the pracitce of the "masculine" principle- independent agency and I
believe revelation is the "feminine" principle -receptive communion . This is
what the Manifestation does initially is recieves the self -disclosure of
being . Now as I have hoped to make clear both of these principles are
present in both activities reason and revelation . Historically we hace
focused , in my view, on the masculine dimension. This has given us a one
sided view of *reality*.Reality is in my perspective, as I have mentioned
before, always "agency-in-communion". Our task is to better grasp this and
develope a richer understanding of the evolving presence of being on this
planet. I think that means living with the inherent ambiguity of life as the
House of Justice has pointed out in another context and allowing the creative
tension of such a situation to disclose more and deeper aspects of reality*
to us.

How do you conclude that upon becoming a Bahai " one agrees to recognize
the House of Justice as the Word of God, *being* . perhaps here is another
of our primary differences . I id not on becoming a Bahai recognize the UHJ
as the *LOGOS* . God forbid , I did recognize Baha u llah as the earthly
representaive of the *Logos* the *Word* . The UHJ I recognize as havinbg the
authority to legislate for the community on those matters not expresweely
recorded in the book. A very diferent thing. Toi ewuate thr UHj with the
*Word* is in my view close what the Islamicists called 'shirk" having joined
partners with God. Mu submission or heart surender is not to the UHJ it is to
Baha u llah as the embodied presence of the Wprd of God or in mypersonal
sense of the Maiden - the Divine Feminine. I obey the decisions of the House
becuase they have been grsnted the authority tolegisalte byBaha u llah . they
do not have the authority to tell me what the revelation *means*.

You also wrote ;" wev'e been speaking of Science , but there is no
Science. If there were, all scientists would be in agreement. Th're not, and
they never will be. It's a fiction to speak of Science in such a way."

if there were no "Science" as you say we would be unable to recognize its
activities as forming a distinct international community with rules . agreed
upon standards and so forth. The nominalist argument that you make would have
been plausible 600 hunded years ago. What has happened in the course of
'time" the self-disclosure of being in the phenomenal world- is that science
has begun to develop into Science.

The same thing is true within the Faith . It would appear that since there
is not unanimity among Bahais there is no such thinh as The Faith . I think
there is and it does not require unanimity for its existence.

The House of Worship . I have spent to much time with this ove the past
year to cover al that ground . We disagree . All I can sugest is that you are
presenting me a view which appears to asume that the Admin. institutions and
especially the UHJ are the center of the Cause. I obviusly dont accept that
perspective.The Mashriqu l Adhkar is much more than a branch and somehow an
epiphemonema compared to the Admin. Institutions . Please check the Guardian
in Bahai Admin. about the Purpose of the Mashriq and the relationship of the
Admin Institutions to it. It is these "twin Houses' in tandum which will
give life to the Faith as the Guardian makes clear in the above referenced
work. The Guardian also states with regard to this System that " .. the seat
round which its spiritual, its humanitarian and administrative activities
will cluster are the Mashriqu'l-Adhkar and its Dependencies."

And no I dont think it all comes down to authority. I dont think
"submission to the House in all things is immature" it is simple impossible
because it is not within the purview of the UHJ to requie or expect
"submission" in all things. That is not its function. Its function is as ,
the Guardian has said is to "legislate". Bill as I have said before I do not
need the UHJ to do the kinds of things you appear to want from it . And this
has nothing to do with submission or authority.i think it does have a lot to
do with existential security. If what we are looking for is existential
security or the reduction of cognitive dissonance, I can only suggest that it
is in the House of Worship understood as both an inner and an outer *Reality*
that we will be able to obtain the same. As Baha'u'llah Himself notes with
respect to His divine command, to "build ye houses of worship" in the
Kitab-i-Aqdas K31, "verily, by His remembrance, the eye is cheered, and the
heart is filled with light."

That we have very significant differences of understanding and emphasis
about the role of the UHJ and the HOW, reason and revelation, does not
preclude us from both being Baha'is or, in our own ways, contributing to an
ever-advancing civilization. The challenge, it seems to me, is to create a
religious community which can recognize and observe the multiple perspectives
about what consitutes the Faith of Baha'u'llah.

I will close with the following fron Abdul Baha in relation to the
building of the Mashriqu l Adhkar. " its completion marks the inception of
the Kingdom of God on earth."
Perhaps at this point it would be better to move on to other topics as
our differing emphasis may have reached a cul de sac. And that too is all
right.
warm regards ,
Terry

From mfoster@qni.comWed Apr 17 17:43:19 1996
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 13:53:49 -0500
From: "Mark A. Foster"
To: Talisman
Subject: "Baha'iisms"?

Talismanians -

As the existence of various "Baha'iisms": Although I do not, personally,
like this term, there clearly are (IMHO) multiple approaches to the Baha'i
Faith. Certainly, this diversity of understanding is evident here on
Talisman and other Baha'i-focused lists. I suspect that, to some extent,
these variations in thinking will continue. However, I also believe that the
existence of basic metaphysical differences are a result of our membership
in "the generation of the half-light."

I feel that a Baha'i-oriented educational process, pioneered by folks such
as Marian Lippitt (in her Ph.D. dissertation on the Science of Reality) and
Dan Jordan (ANISA - based largely on his study of Marian's work), will
gradually teach us to think and feel based on the paradigm of reality given
to humanity by the Prophets and the Master. As the Master said, a spiritual
education must take root before puberty or else the individual will likely
find her/himself falling back into old patterns of behavior.

The key to unlocking one's thinking patterns is, IMO, the mental magnetism
(or will power) that links us (through a rational loving process) with a
desired object. If one can gradually change one's focus from the material
and rational levels to the spiritual Kingdom (and begin to apply the
principles necessary for successfully living as a citizen of that Kingdom),
one will find that one's attitudes, views, and feelings will change.

As I see it, the basic reason for the differences in perspective that we see
here in cyberspace is that we often try to force the Baha'i Teachings into
our own limited a priori frameworks. That is natural. We are, to an extent,
living both in the old and new world orders. However, over time, I think
that will change, and fundamental differences in world view will no longer
exist.

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


From nineteen@onramp.netWed Apr 17 17:43:19 1996
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 96 14:38:13 -0500
From: "Richard C. Logan"
To: dann.may@sandbox.telepath.com, Talisman
Subject: Re: God is good.

>As Socrates said in the _Euthophro_: "Is virtue pleasing to the gods
>because it is good, or is good because it is pleasing to the gods?"

Dear Dan,

I think you have more or less summed it up.

This discussion originally evolved out of a discussion of women on the
UHJ. The contention by certain members that morality must contain the
quality of consistency. Thus women must be allowed on the UHJ otherwise
it would be immoral because disallowal constitutes a contradiction of the
principle of the equality of men and women.

Personally I am not philosophicly convinced that this difference
constitutes inequity but there is a prima facia case to that effect.

I have argued that the notion of inherent or intrinsic good outside of
God's will is illusory. We are speaking merely of OUR knowledge and OUR
understanding. Eternity and the universe are His creation, a
manifestation of His being there can be nothing independent of that. We
are told time and again that no description can adequately characterize
Him. Indeed, the language and thought of mortals can never hope to
ascend to such a transcendant level. His attributes themselves fall
short of His "Absolute Unity".

Veiled from this was Moses
Though all strength and light;
Then thou who hast no wings at all,
Attempt not flight.
(Seven Valleys p.17)


I do not care to rehash those arguments but suffice it to say morality
is Karmicly based, that is, needs based. What happens is neccesary as a
matter of natural spiritual law. In other words as Baha'u'llah points
out--at a certain stage the wayfarer recognizes that everything is from
God. There is not bad or good. "Say, all is from God" (Qur'an 4: 80).

Baha'u'llah says: "For some there are who dwell upon the plane of oness
and speak of that world, and some inhabit the realms of limitation, and
some the grades of self, while others are completely veiled."

I believe there is ample evidence to support such conclusions as I
previously outlined from the statement of the Prophets and Baha'u'llah
himself. From what I can tell or understand the most important aspect of
morality is the general guidlines it provides, but when taken to
individual cases, or specific applications then morality becomes very
dependent on circumstances and is described as contingent. This is why
such horrible institutions as Slavery,and Polygamy (Clearly immoral by
modern standards) if handled fairly or with human understanding and
sanction by the prohets could have been seen as moral in the past. But
this morality just as the teaching of a particular time was formulated
according to the capacity of those it was being addressed to.

Thus it could be seen as immoral to try and enact what we see as moral
extrapolated without permission because this *really* is the essence of
morality--obedience to God's commands. This, in my estimate, provides us
with the most auspicious karmic environment in which society and the
individual can grow.

Richard

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

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



From L. Wed Apr 17 17:43:19 1996
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 21:41:26 +0200 (MET DST)
From: L.
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 would not feel comfortable in telling people how they should change. To
be honest, I do not even know. However, I found Arsalan's sincere statement
illuminating, that he felt he could not discuss these issues with his wife.
Massive social changes begin at the foundation, in this case in the family.
Marriages today are mostly power struggles cloaked in love. Transformation
requires an individual to nakedly and honestly look at his or her inner self
in order to really comprehend one's actions, emotions, and thoughts and try
to understand why they are, what needs to be changed, and how to begin and
complete the change. Noone alive today exemplifies or understands the
virtue of equality. (This belief comes from my interpretation of the
Universal House of Justice's statement that Baha'is have not yet implemented
this principle.) At this point I believe that both women and men need to
dialog together. But from what I have seen at attempts to initiate such a
dialog, most men are not willing to open themselves up and risk the painful
giving up of who they are for what they could be. Women, perhaps because
they have little to lose and a lot to gain, are usually more willing and
capable.

This topic brings to mind "a talk" I once gave on this issue at a supper
fireside for people who wanted to practice English. To kick off the
discussion I had everyone explain how they arranged their lives in terms of
gender relations. One Danish couple was very proud of coming from
egalitarian Denmark. They told us how, when they got married, they
consulted on who was going to do what. To simplify what they said,
basically the man worked outside the home and took care of car repairs,
because this was what he liked to do. The woman stayed at home and did the
gardening, because that was what she liked to do. I did a quick
classification for them and showed them that the relationship they described
followed the model of what is considered by many to be a standard sexist
relationship. Then I asked them if they understood why they liked to do
what they did (the man repairs, etc., and the woman domesticity, etc.) and
if this was really what they wanted to do and if the apparent outcome was
what they really wanted. I saw on their faces that they were overcome with
the realization that they did not know and this was not what they had wanted
for their marriage. Husbands and wives are called to consult together on
these issues, but there are many traps.

Sincerely,

L.


From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzWed Apr 17 17:43:19 1996
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 07:46:17 +1200
From: canary
To: Joan Jensen , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: When men own...

Joan cited:

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

(1) Who are the "them" -- men or women -- or both?

(2) It is inevitably dangerous to give one sentence from the Writings undue
emphasis.

(3) I completely accept that men (and women) must genuinely take on board
the equality matter.

(4) I suspect some feminists might object to the passage, viewing it as yet
another example of patriarchy's hegemonic "appropriation" of cultural
capital. If men "own" this matter, does it mean that women don't?

(5) In all things we must seek the balance, and this involves each person
"owning" their own relationship to God, regardless of gender. Ask Tahirih.

R



Wed Apr 17 17:43:19 1996
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 96 08:43 GMT+1200
To: Juan R Cole ,
Subject: Haifa gossip about Talisman

FYI. More evidence for what people are saying about Talisman in Haifa.

>
>Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 22:31:02 +1200
>Subject: Talisman
>
>Don't know if you know X . . . Her parents . . . are
>working at the World Centre at the moment.
>
>>
>>"Get off the online network Baha'i-Talisman before you allow yourself
>>to become embarrassed. Talisman grew from a 1970s "group" of Los
>>Angeles Baha'is, who didn't like the way the insitutions of the Faith
>>were doing things and wrote and distributed papers etc. For a while
>>there opinions were published in a magazine called "Dialogue"
>>(1980s), then came the Internet and so the magazine evolved into
>>"Talisman". The net-work is monitored by a "leader" and things have
>>been hotting up on the network the past week or so and one
>>subscriber was "expelled" (they believe in free speech and questioning
>>things) for his pointing out of some things. The past 48 hours has
>>shown big infighting and so the House may be intervening. Keep
>>away, no matter how interesting you may have found the group.
>> -- `Course you may not have joined, well that's okay, just passing
>>on some advice! Please don't say too much and upset people, but a
>>bit of friendly advice for anyone you do know who subscribes
>>wouldn't go wrong so long as no contention or arguments arise
>>about the group."
>



From asadighi@ptialaska.netWed Apr 17 17:43:19 1996
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 12:32:50 -0800
From: "Arsalan J. Sadighi"
To: talisman@indiana.edu, Doug_Moore@admin.state.ak.us
Subject: Re: Bahaiisms


Dear Sir,

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought the Universal House of Justice
offered the Baha'i experience as model to mankind. Now, it seems to me, you
are offering the Islamic, Christian, Buddhist experiences as a model to the
Baha'i world. Is that correct?

I don't think these religious orders you are referring to have been able to
deal with the problems the world is facing, have they? Why then do you think
a fractured Baha'i community, along the lines of 72 sects of Islam and
thousands of Christianity, where moral principles are compromised routinely,
can address these problems?

You say, "Which takes me back to my recent statement that I do not feel it
should be a requirement or some kind of litmus test that one need to accept
every single aspect of the Baha'i teachings in order to be a Baha'i."
Perhaps we need to clarify this issue. What do you consider 'Baha'i
teachings?' There are those teachings I consider as fundamental verities of
the Revelation of Baha'u'llah, and there are also statements made by a host
of institutions and individuals that are not part of this definition. My
understanding is that we must accept these fundamental verities otherwise
what is the point of declaring our belief and allegiance to His Cause? Even
if one disagrees with some of these 'verities' there is no litmus test that
I know of that has caused anyone to be deprived of their rights, whereas
acting on the basis of these beliefs is cause for concern. Was it not
Baha'u'llah Himself that talked about reward and punishment as means of
preserving order?

The question becomes what do we consider to be the 'fundamental verities' of
His Revelation? I don't see any other way than to rely on the Guardian's
interpretations and House's clarifications. Otherwise chaos would be the
norm within our communities, and the community of the Greatest Name will be
reduced to many splinter groups each advancing its own agenda. There has to
be something that we can all agree with and the institutions of Guardianship
and the House of Justice, in my opinion, are what can unite us better than
any other social, philosophical, liberal, or conservative movements.

I find an attempt to reduce the station of Abdu'l-Baha to a mere philosopher
whose understanding is derived from some other individual misleading. I
guess it is not for us mere humans to really be able to understand the
station of 'Mystery of God." IF one can not even accept Abdu'l-Baha as being
above these sorts of skepticisms, why be a Baha'i in the first place?

You say, "For example, in the major religious traditions one of their
strengths appears to be their flexibility over many matters dealing with the
individual and conscience." What strengths are you referring to exactly? If
this flexibility and these strengths were sufficient then why Baha'u'llah
brought His Revelation to mankind? Anyone reading the Most Holy Book will
testify that flexibility is not of the most outstanding features of that
Holy document. It is very rigid and quite clear, to the point that it has
caused severe tests for some of the believers. It appears to me that the
Lord of Hosts saw fit to reveal His Revelation with some rigidity built in.
Who am I to argue?

Are you implying that we need to change according to the times and not to
uphold basic moral standards of the Faith? Is that what the world really
hungers for? I think not. It is my considered belief that the more society
changes and turns its back against God, Baha'is need to do the following:

- Declare their unwavering adherence to the provisions of the Covenant and
try with heart and soul to gain a better understanding of its
characteristics and implications;

- Uphold the standard of morality as clearly outlines within the Writings;

- Vigorously support our institutions at the local and national level with
joy, patience, love and understanding;

- Try to liberate ourselves from any doubt or hesitation that may stand in
our way of serving His Cause;

- and above all, become promoters of unity and not to sow seeds of doubt in
anyone's heart.

Sir, you asked for our thoughts and I have offered my thoughts within the
frameworks of and the spirit of Baha'i consultation.

Sincerely,


Arsalan


At 09:29 PM 4/16/96 +0100, you wrote:
>Dear Friends,
>
>The discussion on Hinduisms by Bill Garlington, Dann May and others has
>pointed out the difficulty in categorizing faiths. Dann points to WC
>Smith's penetrating insight about it being more appropriate to refer to
>Islams, Catholicisms, Buddhisms, etc. Perhaps what we are beginning to see
>here on Talisman are the many different kinds of Baha'iisms that exist
>within the Baha'i faith. The question, I guess, is how can we develop a
>healthy pluralism while maintaining unity? My view is that we will need to
>become much more flexible on matters that burn us all up on Talisman if we
>expect to maintain unity amongst our little group of today let alone if we
>expect to become significantly larger. Which takes me back to my recent
>statement that I do not feel it should be a requirment or some kind of
>litmus test that one need to accept every single aspect of the Baha'i
>teachings in order to be a Baha'i. Historically we have seen a gradual
>loosening of requirements for acceptance of new believers (we no longer
>make converts go through long study classes and take a
>test--oral/written--before they can sign the card). For example, does one
>need to share Abdu'l-Baha's views on soul (where his categories are derived
>largely from Ibn Sina's medieval understanding) in order to be faithful?
>Does one have to believe in a personal God in order to be a Baha'i? Such
>are just two theological questions and one can also raise matters of cult
>and laws of personal status. For example, in the major religious traditions
>one of their strengths appears to be their flexiblity over many matters
>dealing with the individual and conscience. Not too many religions are as
>hung up about the technicalities of marriage as are Baha'is. Violation of
>marriage procedures is, I think, the number one cause for loss of Baha'i
>rights. And as I noted recently the Catholic church, even in its most
>conservative and authoritarian modes, appears more flexible than current
>Baha'i administration when dealing with Catholics who disagree with offical
>positions on birth control, abortion, the papacy, and the like.
>
>Yet it seems clear from our discussions and from official statements from
>Baha'i administrative bodies that there is a big fear of allowing
>"Baha'iisms" to emerge within the community. Any thoughts?
>
>Willa's father
>
>
>
>
>


From jarmstro@sun1.iusb.eduWed Apr 17 17:43:19 1996
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 16:20:58 -0500 (EST)
From: Jackson Armstrong-Ingram
To: talisman
Cc: Milissa
Subject: Synopsis notes

A few days ago Milissa posted a question in respect of IV-C-n & o in the
Synopsis. Both of these derive from question 47 in Q & A:

47. QUESTION: Supposing that a man hath wed a certain woman believing her to
be a virgin and he hath paid her dowry, but at the time of consummation it
becometh evident that she is not a virgin, are the expenses and the dowry to
be repaid or not? And if the marriage had been made conditional upon
viriginity, doth the unfulfilled condition invalidate that which was
conditioned upon it?

ANSWER: In such a case the expenses and the dowry may be refunded. The
unfulfilled condition invalidateth that which is conditioned upon it.
However, to conceal and forgive the matter will, in the sight of God, merit a
bounteous reward.


The fact that q.47 is treated in two notes in the synopsis suggests a
disconnection of the two parts of the question that may be misleading.
However, the English presentation is somewhat ambiguous and probably needs
clarification from the original. (It would also probably help if the
translation were plain English rather than this ersatz "hath"-y stuff which
doesn't aid clarity. It is one thing to use this kind of diction for
devotional/meditative/poetic works, but plain English for what was intended
to be instructional and explanatory would seem likely to be more helpful.)

It would have been an assumption when arranging a marriage contract that a
girl (I use girl rather than woman as youth is a safe assumption) who had not
been previously married was a virgin and there would have been an implicit
understanding that such was generally warranted by entering into a marriage
contact whether or not this was spelt out in contract itself. It would have
been generally accepted because of this that any woman not previously married
who turned out not to be a virgin on her wedding night could be repudiated
and that the husband and his family had been greatly insulted by the woman's
family. The woman's family would lose considerable face which could only be
regained by killing the woman.

To say that the Mediterranean culture complex in which most Islamic societies
participate has a fetish about female virginity is an understatement. As a
result there was a minor medical specialty in faking virginity for just such
occasions. (Also common in the brothel trade of 18th century Europe and
still useful for those exporting European prostitutes to the Middle East
assisted now by the wonders of Swiss plastic surgery.) In modern times,
physicians may provide certificates of virginity before the marriage to
prevent the possibility of any dispute (I don't know of any discussion of the
possibility of disagreement between a physician's judgment and a husband's!).

To suggest that such a breach of implicit or explicit terms of marriage be
concealed AND FORGIVEN (not used as a guilt bludgeon for the next 50 years)
is truly radical and well in accord with the other aspects of the Aqdas and
Q&A which downplay the importance of sexual transgressions generally
regarding them as peccadillos rather than capital offences.

Jackson


From jarmstro@sun1.iusb.eduWed Apr 17 17:43:19 1996
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 16:25:33 -0500 (EST)
From: Jackson Armstrong-Ingram
To: talisman
Subject: criticizing NSA

When I worked in Wilmette in the early 1980s, it was usual to have periodic
national center staff meetings in Foundation Hall. There was some excitement
before one of these meetings because Hushmand Fatheazam was going to address
the national center staff and any visitors who happened to be around that
day.

I was quite excited myself as I had met him at his brother's house in England
some years previously and found him to be a very engaging speaker. I had
been particularly impressed that every time he referred to the House he had
always said "the House" this or that and never "we."

There was a fair number of people in Foundation Hall when he began to speak.
But after the usual pleasantries about how pleased he was to be present, most
of his talk had about every jaw there dragging on the floor. Here he was in
front of the employees of the NSA and any Baha'is who were guests of the
national center that day and he chose to criticise at length the NSA for not
complying with a request of the UHJ. He emphasized that he was speaking as
an individual and not as a member of the House, but he stated that the House
had asked the NSA repeatedly to do a particular thing for several years,
that it
was a simple thing, that the House really wanted to have it done, that it had
not been done, and that this was inexcusable. He went over this at some
length and with some force.

Now, he did emphasize that he was speaking as an individual, nervertheless
his talk contained frequent references to the House wanting, asking, feeling,
etc. It would seem unreasonable to suggest that we should view statements by
individual members of institutions as inherently suspect, or should assume
that these individuals are untrustworthy. After all, who
should have a better idea of how an institution "feels" about something than
a member? At the same time such statements obviously represent the member's
best understanding and might be mistaken.

Equally obviously, any statement I make about this occasion can represent
nothing more than my best understanding of what was going on. The talk was
astounding, to say the least, and not at all what had been expected, which
had to be known to the speaker. It was my distinct impression, as a national
center staff member, that it was given to bring a topic into the open before
the national center staff in a quasi-public (in a Baha'i sense) forum and to
solicit their support/aid in having the House's request fulfilled after the
House had basically given up on expecting results from requests about this
matter to the NSA. At the very least, it suggested to the national center
staff that what the NSA had them doing on other projects was not necessarily
seen by the House (as those feelings were interpreted and represented by this
member) as the most important things to be doing. The House's request was
filled some time later.

Jackson




From burlb@bmi.netWed Apr 17 19:01:56 1996
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 96 15:21 PDT
From: Burl Barer
To: "Arsalan J. Sadighi"
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Bahaiisms

Arsalan said:,
Baha'is need to do the following:
>
>- Declare their unwavering adherence to the provisions of the Covenant and
>try with heart and soul to gain a better understanding of its
>characteristics and implications;
>
>- Uphold the standard of morality as clearly outlines within the Writings;
>
>- Vigorously support our institutions at the local and national level with
>joy, patience, love and understanding;
>
>- Try to liberate ourselves from any doubt or hesitation that may stand in
our way of serving His Cause;
>
>- and above all, become promoters of unity and not to sow seeds of doubt in
anyone's heart.
---------------
Will someone give Arsalan an award, please.
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/burlb
********************


From 72110.2126@compuserve.comWed Apr 17 19:01:56 1996
Date: 17 Apr 96 18:32:22 EDT
From: David Langness <72110.2126@compuserve.com>
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Trooping

Dear Talismanians,

Apologies to those of you who have sent me messages over the past few days,
as I've had some of that dreaded server trouble and several dozen of the
incoming messages have been bounced back. Please resend, if you would be
so kind, all of the good stuff. Don't send the bad stuff.

Bruce asked about that phrase "Entry by Troops," (the acronym of which --
EBT -- baffled my long-inactive-but-returning-to-activity Baha'i friend
when he heard at at his first feast in five years) and several other
people wondered about its Baha'i etymology.

NSA member and learned Southerner William C. (that's middle initial *C*)
Davis helped me a few conventions ago when he said that the dictionary
definition of a troop listed, as one meaning, a "group of between seven
and fifteen."

Maybe Bill had an OED, I don't know, but my Webster's alternatively lists
troop as a flock; a group of persons; a body of soldiers; a cavalry
regiment subdivision that corresponds to a company of infantry; a union
of boy scouts or girl scouts under an adult leader; or, a group of actors.

Pick your favorite. I like the first definition, myself, for its
spiritual symbolism, but I also like the cavalry regiment image for its
visual, and the boy and girl scout reference reminds me of that old joke:
"What's the difference between the Democratic (or Republican, depending
on your persuasion) Party and a Scout troop? The Scouts have adult
leadership."

Seriously, a troop means many people at once entering on a path of
discovery, all headed for a common destination. At least, that's what
it means to me. When it happens, as it did in my high school lo these
many years ago -- fifty Baha'is in a few months -- or in rural Alabama
towns where entire African-American church congregations learn about
Baha'u'llah and wish to become Baha'is simultaneously, it is truly a
wondrous thing to behold.

Love,

David


From jrcole@umich.eduThu Apr 18 00:38:49 1996
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 19:01:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: entry by troops



The phrase "entry by troops" derives from the Qur'an, Surah 110, called
"Help" (NaSr):


It goes roughly like this:


1. When comes the Help of God, and Victory,

2. And thou dost see the People enter God's Religion in troops--

3. Then Celebrate the Praises of thy Lord, and pray for His forgiveness;
for He giveth another chance.



the phrase "in troops" comes from afwa:jan in the Arabic; afwa:j can mean
a crowd, a large number of people, a body of troops. It could be glossed
as "in large numbers." This is a Medinan Surah, somewhat late (one of
the last in the Qur'an, probably), and reflects the heady enthusiasm
coming with the conquest of Mecca and the establishment of an Islamic
polity in the Hijaz, with hopes that many of the Arab tribes would now
become Muslims.

Although the Baha'i Faith stands for Peace, it often appropriates for
spiritual uses the more militant language of Islam. Thus, the ten-year
World Crusade was in Persian a jiha:d, but in the sense of a spiritual
struggle; entry by troops is a similarly inoffensive concept, and refers
to that situation when there is large-scale conversion to the Baha'i
faith in a particular area, as has occurred in Malwa in India and
elsewhere in the Third World.

As for entry by troops in the US, I don't think it is likely until the
message taught by Baha'is ceases being conformism, silent assent to
authority, suppression of individualism, and so forth. We Amerkins don't
cotton to that thar message.


cheers Juan Cole, History, Univ. of Michigan

From asadighi@ptialaska.netThu Apr 18 00:38:49 1996
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 15:28:17 -0800
From: "Arsalan J. Sadighi"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: RE: Women's (and men's) Problems

I need to clarify something here. I recognize I have a problem. I don't
think I am the only one. I am hesitant to change because somehow the
social/cultural garbage I carry tells me that I am a 'man' and that I have
to act like a man, whatever that means. I can learn a lot from this
discussion if only friends were willing, 1) to approach this subject
lovingly and see themselves as educators, and 2) not to take offense at what
someone might say and start a battle where the goal is completely lost in
the middle of grenades being hurled at you.

As I said, I am willing to shut up and take all types of insults with the
hope of learning something that will help me become a better father, husband
etc. I want those lionesses on the list to teach me a lesson no matter how
painful it may turn out to be!

I am not interested in discussions of why women are forbidden to serve on
the House of Justice, or the virginity issue and so on. These are issues
that are a couple of steps removed from the problems I have to deal with on
a daily basis. So, please be patient and don't feed me steak when what I
really need is a lollipop.

Putting all the unkind remarks and attacks and counter-attacks aside, I see
great potential if some of us are willing to really listen and some are
willing to put their hurts aside, and try to offer us the best of their
thinking on the subject. I have already learned a good deal but I don't
think the matter has been given its due attention.

Let me give you an example. I am sure you have heard all those jokes of you
are a red neck if..... How do I recognize that I am behaving in a sexist
manner in a Baha'i meeting? How do I approach my daughter so she does not
grow up carrying anger and contempt against the opposite sex and would
function as 'whole and complete' person in society? What do I do when I come
home exhausted, turn on the TV, and wait for my wife to come and make dinner
for me knowing full well she is more tired and probably needs the rest more
than I do, and yet I am unwilling to do anything about it? These might
appear as stupid questions from a stupid man, nevertheless they are my
problems and I need to deal with them somehow. So, please, for once let's
put aside our hurtful remarks and try to deal with the problem and not each
other. Can we do that?

I think humor can go a long way in diffusing a potentially dangerous
situation. For example we can start a thread of say "You are sexist if
you...." or "you are a Baha'i nerd if you..." etc.





From spurushotma@brahma.hcla.comThu Apr 18 00:38:49 1996
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 96 17:12:35 PDT
From: spurushotma@brahma.hcla.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Schwartzkopf Strategies

A quick note on Entry by Troops,

Something I noticed in Russia and a few places here ...
When in an Entry by Troops campaign.. it often helps to
use the Schwartzkopf Gulf War strategy of having
first a massive "air strike" (lots of radio, TV, fliers,
newspaper articles) and then have lots of ground marine
moves shortly after that (public meetings, smaller visits
in homes etc).

The combination works wonders in Troops coming into the Faith.

From TLCULHANE@aol.comThu Apr 18 00:38:49 1996
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 19:51:01 -0400
From: TLCULHANE@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu, TLCULHANE@aol.com
Subject: science/religion/houses 3

Dear Bill and all,

I failed to address one of your points towards the end of your post
which deserves a response.

You wrote with respect to the role of the House that " . .It is what
it is by the logic of its role in the Faith. If it ever comes between us and
our beliefs of what God desires us to do or what is right , we must leave the
Faith. That is our existential duty. But we cannot stay on the Cause and at
the same time not admit that the House of Justice is *being* acting upon us
."

Needless to say we are not in agreement on this point . :)

First of all I do not think the House is equivalent with the Cause nor
does it existence exhaust the meaning of the Cause. I am able to disagree
with the House and remain in full communion as a Bahai . I accept the
authority of the House to legislate on matters not expressed in the book .
That I disagree with a decision of the House is not the same thing as
disagreeing with it having the authority to so rule. I have absolutely no
question that the House of Justice has the authority to so rule .

I dont think the House of Justice exhausts the action of *being * upon us
. Reason also is *being* acting upon us and so is music and and and. I
think the limitation of beings action in the world to the House is a
misreading of what infallibility could possibly mean. I think it is that the
House will act in ways which are not harmful to the Faith. This ought not be
equated with Omniscience. This is a quality of which the House does not share
. Since the House may abrogate its own legislation as conditions change or
new knowledge comes to light I may disagree with a decision of the House and
it just may turn out that the position I expressed will at some point in the
future be adopted by the House. In the meantime I have the responsibility to
abide by their decision.

I think the linkage of obediance with its opposite, disobediance, and
existential duty to withdraw is a little too Aristotelian for me. It is
quite possible that a decision of the House and the views of an individual or
group of individuals are both correct . In fact when the House truly matures
in its legislative function it is highly probable that its decisions will
reflect the views and reasoned knowledge of a considerable body of scholars
and sages those individuals who Bahau llah characterizedas "eyes to the body
of mankind." The decisions of the House wil not be made in a vacuum.

It is not so much a question of who is right and who is wrong in an
absolute Aristotelian sense and therefore "existential " as it is a question
of which views seem to best express the needs of the Faith at this time and
are consistent with the needs ofthe greatest number. That my needs at any
given time or my views of the needs of the Faith , locally or globally may
not coincide with a position taken by the House does not mean I am wrong ,
the House is right and therefore I must conclude the House is acting in ways
inimical to the best interests of the Faith and therefore must be duty bound
to withdraw from the Faith. It can well mean both views or several competing
views are "right" and the role of the House of Justice is to determine which
among several potentialy competing views are most congruent with the needs
of the Faith. This is the authority Bahau llah granted it and which Abdul
Baha affirms . It is in this authority that the unity of the Faith is
maintained . This unity is not however the same thing as uniformity nor does
it need to be if one does not limit this issue to Aristotelian categories.
This authority to decide - to legislate - doe not mean to me , that if I
disagree or hold a different view that I am existentially compelled to
withdraw . It does mean I am not free to set up an alternative source of
authority around my needs and views and hold that the House as no
jurisdiction over my action . This is schism or in political terms seccession
from the union Baha u llah established. I am free to hold my views as a
matter of conscience and am not compelled to relinquish them . I am prevented
from establishing the First reformed orthodox Bahai church . And thank god
for that. It is this that prevents the anarchy which you seem to be
concerned about.

The differentiation issue seems to continue to vex us. I think the
biological metaphor Bahau llah uses so beautifully in the Surah Haykal may be
valuable in understanding my perspective. In this the Voice of God ( the
Maiden ) addresses Bahau llah in the form of various "organs " of the body or
"temple". These organs represent the embodiment of various *names * or
*Attributes* each of which has a distinct function and purpose. The heart in
relation to its own activity is autonomous in that its function cannot be
performed by the lungs or the stomach. The same is true of each organ . Yet
each distinct organ , each differentiated function within the body (the
temple) is interwoven and embedded within a larger organic unity that is the
body itself - the "feminine" ground of being. The Houses of Justice are one
such organ with its distinct purpose and function . They are not the Body
itself nor are they the phenomenon of Life (being) itself . The Houses of
Worship constitute another such organ . The exercise of reason as applied in
science is another such organ . The arts are another such organ. each has a
distinct function no one of which is subordinate to another . The heart
cannot perform the function of the stomach. Yet without each of these organs
functioning harmoniously the body dies. But to say that any one organ is more
important or more essential is to miss the overall intergrity of the body
itself. It is the combination of them all in the context of the evolving
self disclosure of *being * , the pattern mutually disclosed via reason and
revelation which maintains the integrity of the whole.

To try and hold up one organ as determining for them all is to miss the
importance of the dna in creating the patterns which appear in the world.
Reason assists us to uncover the pattern of the dna of *being * , revelation
assists us to understand what it all means. And the two of them ( and all the
other forms) together mutually reinforcing and influencing one another in
relation to the over all "disclosure" of *being * Life itself, it is this
which allows us to achieve a more inclusive form of unity in an ever evolving
and differentiated world without lapsing into anarchy. That is a challenge
unlike anything the human race has undertaken in the past where one or more
organs were presumed to dominate the "body" of humanity. It is this beauty in
diferentiated forms which i find so compelling about Bahau llah and which
underlies my experience of the "oneness" of it all ( not the undifferentiated
sameness) and why I am a Bahai . I think Bahau llah just plain makes more
sense , is aestheticaly more pleasing and is more comprehensive in His
description of the evolving nature of *being * and creates more possibilities
for its realization - unity in differentiated diversity - than anyone who
walked .

warm regards ,
Terry

From Wilgar123@aol.comThu Apr 18 00:38:49 1996
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 20:04:02 -0400
From: Wilgar123@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Hinduism/Other Traditions

Dear Dann,
Thanks for your response. I certainly understand that the various religious
traditions are not one dimensional, and that one can find within each of them
a great variety of religious thought and expression. If my phrase, "unified
body of religious belief and practice" was misleading in that it implied the
opposite, then I certainly would withdraw it. My main point was that there
are numerous "orthodoxies" which define in some way (regardless of whether
they are understood or followed) what it means to be a ________. For example,
although it may well be that many Presbyterians are not completely aware of
the contents of the Westminster Confession of Faith, it still remains the
basic document of that denomination and defines (theoretically, at least)
what Presbyterians believe. In "Hinduism" there is no such orthodoxy for the
very reason that there is no "Hinduism" just as there is no "Semiticism."
Rather there are numerous orthodoxies ( for example, various Vaishnavite and
Shaivite orthodoxies) which have been lumped together by many in the West
under one term. Indeed my initial reason for writing the previous post was
that I have come across many Baha'is who seemed oblivious to this fact.
Again, if my statements were misleading in the way your post suggests, then I
regret that I was not as clear as I could have been in expressing myself.
With love and laughter, Bill G

From friberg@will.brl.ntt.jpThu Apr 18 00:38:49 1996
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 96 10:00:36 JST
From: "Stephen R. Friberg"
To: Bruce Burrill
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Question

> Is anyone getting multiple msgs to "undisclosed-recipients:;" from my
> address? If so, damdifino where they are coming from. I'll see what I can do
> to stop it. It obviously some sort of strange loop.

Dear Bruce:

I am.

By the way, I picked up an excellent book on Buddhist philosophy by a
professor at the the University of Hawaii. Your approach is very much
correlated with this professor's approach, so I suspect that you know
his work quite well.

When I'm home, I'll forward his name and the name of the book, which is an
update on an earlier monograph.

Yours sincerely,
Stephen R. Friberg

From dan_orey@qmbridge.ccs.csus.eduThu Apr 18 00:38:49 1996
Date: 17 Apr 96 18:06:41 U
From: Dan Orey
To: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: hugs and a way forward

Reply to: hugs and a way forward
Sen & Sonja -

Thanks so much for your recent post. I have been overwhelmed by work, midterms,
grant writing, feelings of loss, and Talisman. So to be honest I wasn't
reading things as much as I had liked UNTIL I got your post -hugs and a way
forward- a few days ago. I am deeply touched by the way the Blessed Beauty
sends his love to many of us thru the Friends, especially when I am close to
going back into hiding. It is a continuous wonder to me.

I want to tell you all how much I depend on the kindness, ideas, and honest
dialogue going here on Talisman. I am mystified, tho, as to why so many folks
are so afraid of tough consultation. My own experience, painfully learned thru
living in Latin America, graduate school, a job in higher education, and by
being both a parent, and a gay male is that polite is nice, but honesty is
healthy.

We need to ask questions, we need to be challenged, we need to be up front.
Hiding our true selves only goes towards increasing the dishonest front, that I
believe causes folks to turn away from the Baha'is. To me, its really ok that
we have imperfections, sinners, and failures in the Baha'i community. Its
extremely dishonest to suggest, indeed pretend that we are perfect. The image
that we give to the public is to me is often so extremely false, that I fear it
is one reason that most people reject our message. My Methodist, Presbyterian,
Episcopal, Unitarian, Unity, Quaker, Jewish, and MCC friends would NEVER, I
repeat NEVER, remove some one's rights for the majority of the reasons that our
Institutions do - they are far to busy _saving the world_. They are often much
more interested in diversity, REAL HONEST TO GOD DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND, A
TEST TO ACCEPT SOMETIMES diversity. They enjoy the challenge, and they seem to
be growing, at least at a rate that humbles if not surpasses Baha'i communities
here in N. California.

I was once told by a friend in Guatemala, who is a member of the LSA of
Guatemala City, that when confronted by a member's _problems_ they love them,
encourage them, then ask the individual in question how they are going to help
them with the current project / goals the community has. They have realized
that if they concentrate on the LAW / RULES they get lots of challenges re: the
law (insert covenant if you want). But if they concentrate on unconditional
love, they will be given ample opportunity to extend their unconditional
love. Some how, I do not really see the Baha'i community really engaged in
unconditional love - I see many individual Baha'is (thank God for you all)
working at loving unconditionally - but as a goal, as a Nat'l trait, nope, and
sadly, neither do my seekers, colleagues, or friends.

Sen, I have taken a few days to mull your truly wonderful message re: Mashriq
over, and I think I am beginning to _catch your drift_ if I might use a term
used here in the semi-rural western USA.

Its funny because yesterday in my gym, a gay male (insert non-Baha'i
hetersexually challenged or non-straight here) friend of mine was entertaining
me with stories of dating - he placed an add in a local paper to try and meet
someone. He, by the way, has been celibate for a year after a particularly
painful break up of a long term (12 years) monogamous relationship (this is
becoming common amongst gay folks, and its cool to me because its mirrors the
year of patience). He is a very spiritual soul, runs a number of spiritual
retreats, and we enjoy talking about more deep things... at the gym of all
places! Well, anyway, it seems that he is disgusted with the lack of interest
in the folks he meets with spiritual matters- he's very handsome, and I can see
why other men might want to skip the formalities and go right for the gusto. He
won't - and he's learning as well as enjoying the growth it produces. At any
rate, we have decided to begin a series of _spiritual potlucks_ where folks can
share their spiritual tradition with a group of other interested souls in a
safe environment that is inclusive. I have shared the idea of the Baha'i long
healing prayer that we do when a group of gay & lesbian Baha'is were meeting -
we would begin by naming those we know that went before us, then one of us
would read the prayer, very moving, and ends up inviting them to come the
circle. When I read it to the group, I felt them all there, my grandparents, my
friends.... very moving. He wants to learn about it.

So your idea of mashriq intrigues me. Lets keep up the dialogue, and I will
share my findings and ideas as the _potluck_ ensues. We have set a possible
first one for about three weeks from now, Inshallah.

- Daniel (proudly wearing his _sterkte_ and his steel toed boots)




From brburl@mailbag.comThu Apr 18 00:38:49 1996
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 20:18:54 -0500
From: Bruce Burrill
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Question


>By the way, I picked up an excellent book on Buddhist philosophy by a
>professor at the the University of Hawaii. Your approach is very much
>correlated with this professor's approach, so I suspect that you know
>his work quite well.
>
>When I'm home, I'll forward his name and the name of the book, which is an
>update on an earlier monograph.
>
>Yours sincerely,
>Stephen R. Friberg
>

I suspect that you are referring David Kalupahana's A HISTORY OF BUDDHIST
PHILOSOPHY. An interesting and provocative work, well worth the read. Also,
nice of you to make the point about my approach after being accused by
several here on this list of presently a solely idiosyncratic approach to
Buddhism.

Thanks,

Bruce


From lbhollin@uxmail.ust.hkThu Apr 18 00:38:49 1996
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 09:48:27 +0800 (HKT)
From: HOLLINGER RICHARD VERNON
To: L.
Cc: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: RE: Women's (and men's) Problems



On Wed, 17 Apr 1996, L. wrote:

> At this point I believe that both women and men need to
> dialog together. But from what I have seen at attempts to initiate such a
> dialog, most men are not willing to open themselves up and risk the painful
> giving up of who they are for what they could be. Women, perhaps because
> they have little to lose and a lot to gain, are usually more willing and
> capable.

I very much agree that men and women have to dialogue together on the
issue of gender equality, and I also agree that men are less involved in
this process than women, but I am not so sure it is simply the case men
are afraid of what they have to lose. The voices of men, describing
their views and their experiences have been largely absent from such
discussions within the Baha'i community, and the issues of gender
equality have been so fully shaped by the experiences of women and the
oppressor/oppressed paradigm that it is very difficult for men
to come away from such discussions without feeling they have been bashed
for the crime of having been born male.

There are a number of reasons why men have not been as fully involved in
these discussions, I suspect. For one, the traditional roles of men in
Western culture do not allow for as much expression about the personal
experiences and feelings. Hence, while in some ways the public discourse
of the feminist movement represents continuity with women's traditional
roles, men's relative silence on such issues represents continuity of
their traditional roles. Moreover, speaking for myself (but I
suspect for other men on this forum as well), I am far more reluctant to
discuss in public what I perceive to be inequities in family life than
many women seem to be. This is not because I am afraid to express myself or
afraid of some loss, but because it would be destructive to my family,
and because it would seem like a betrayal. At a gut-level it seems
disonorable, a feeling that I know that many men share.

Having said this, may I point out just a few ways in which I feel this
discussion has been shaped (and in my view, skewed) by the lack of men's
involvement as full participants--that is particpating as though, as men,
they actually had something valid to add to the discussion. There has
been a pattern of blaming men, no matter what the situation. For
example, men are blamed for not listening to women; for dominating the
discussions; and for not speaking enough about gender issues. Nobody
has suggested that men don't talk about gender issues because no one
cares what they think. There
seems to be an assumption that the way women communicate is inherently
virtuous, while the way men communicate is inherently flawed.
(Incidentally, I reject the notion that Talisman represents male
discourse. Talisman represents mixed-gender discourse; the way men
communicate among themselves is different, in my experience.)
I suggest that if communication is to take place, all parties have to
take some responsibility. Blaming is both disempowering and destructive,
even when it is deserved, in my view.

Another pattern that I have observed in these discussions is that the
"reality" of modern family life has been constructed in a particular way
that reflects the experience of women, while ignoring if not invalidating
the experience of men. The traditional areas of women's responsibility,
housekeeping and childcare, are always represented as burdens; the
traditional areas of men's reponsibility are always represented as
sources of power and even self-actualization. Consequently, women
seek the *right* to have jobs and careers. But that is not necessarily
how men experience it; they have an *obligation* to be financially
successful and their masculinity is in question if they are
not. I doubt that even women who are supporting families can understand
the kind of psychological pressure that this puts on men. Every man I
know personally wants to spend more time with his children. Every single
one. They feel guilty about spending so little time with them, but they
also feel in a double-bind, because the pressures of their primary male
role as breadwinner not only
cause them to work long hours but to make career decisions that are not
based primarily on their personal interests. Consequently, the men that I
know
often see involvment in child rearing as a privilege rather than a burden.
In the literature of the men's movement is usually referred to as a
"right" that men have to demand and a source of power--after all, women
have had tremendous power in their role as mothers to influence future
generations.

I would suggest, then, that if progress is to be made towards gender
equality men have to be involved in the discussion of issues as full
partners. That means having a role in framing the issues, not simply
taking on responsibility for implementing the vision of equality
articulated by women.

Richard

From jjensen@welchlink.welch.jhu.eduThu Apr 18 00:38:49 1996
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 21:58:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joan Jensen
To: "Arsalan J. Sadighi"
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: RE: Women's (and men's) Problems


Dear Arsalan,

You are exhibiting extreme courage to share these things. Thank you.
You've asked some important questions, too many to cover in one post.
Each one could probably be a long thread on its own! I love your ideas
about using humor, and hope some of our wisest on this list will fulfill
your hearts desire on that one.

Let me share a few thought on one of the points you raised.

> What do I do when I come home exhausted, turn on the TV, and wait
> for my wife to come and make dinner for me knowing full well she is
> more tired and probably needs the rest more than I do, and yet I am
> unwilling to do anything about it?

That you have NOTICED this (or any other tendency) is the first step.
(Sandy Fotos -- help us out here!)

It would be easy for me to suggest you start small, maybe set the table
or do one of the little things your wife would be doing to prepare dinner
for the family. But if I were the wife, I would most appreciate my
husband asking me "What can I do to help?" Or better yet, let her know
the things you've noticed, and some of the ideas we have discussed here,
and ask her what changes in action or attitude SHE would find most
helpful from you. Who know, maybe fixing dinner is the first time she
can be alone during the day to unwind, and she just wants to be left in
peace while she does this restful thing. Or maybe she would like some help
but hears the voice of her mother in her head saying it is inappropriate
for her husband to assist her in the kitchen; and it would cause more
anxiety to her. So maybe afterwards she would like a backrub or foot
massage. Or maybe she would like you to read to her while she prepares
dinner. Or maybe she would like you to take total responsibility to
clean up the kitchen after everyone eats. Or maybe.... but you get my
point. Notice things, pray about them and consult together.

At least that's a start, a lollipop. :)

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 gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduThu Apr 18 00:38:49 1996
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 20:57:59 -0600 (MDT)
From: "[G. Brent Poirier]"
To: Bruce Burrill
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: ENTRY BY TROOPS

On Wed, 17 Apr 1996, Bruce Burrill wrote:

> ENTRY BY TROOPS.
> Could someone please explain this rather unfortunate sounding expression.

I've read a description by 'Abdu'l-Baha in which He compared people
entering the Baha'i Faith, to rain. At first, a few sprinkles; then a
rain; then a deluge. He says that every Revelation passes through these
phases.

The above expression is from another analogy; first individual recruits,
then entry by troops, then the masses.
Brent

From belove@sover.netThu Apr 18 00:38:50 1996
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 96 22:38:20 PDT
From: belove@sover.net
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: A confluence of threads


Here are the threads: gender issues, the differences between men and women, equality, the circular question, the relationship between individual conscience and the Institutions.


Something happened in one of my classes that so mirrored a discussion on Talisman I simply had to share it.

In my class on Communications I just facilitated a series of group discussions about the nature of leadership. I had the men gather in a small group while the women observed, then the women worked in a small group while the men observed. Then we discussed the differences in the groups processes.


Two of the men observed that the women's group was quieter, more orderly and that they seemed to get a lot more work done. They listened to each other more carefully and quietly. They drew each other out and thought about each one's answers. The men observing said that they would rather have been in the women's group.

It did seem that the men's group was louder,more confrontational and argumentative. It was also funnier.

Two other men got upset. One said he resented that his way of communicating, a man's way, was being put down. He felt there was something right about his way of working an issue and it was not being appreciated. "I'm a man, this is how I'm constructed, this is how I like to deal and I don't think it's right to ask me to be different." He didn't know what to say beyond this and it took him quite a lot of group time just to get a hearing for this much.

Once we were able to hear him, he took the argument further. He said, "I hold a position and don't agree with what someone else is saying until I hear good reasons. When I stand up for my individual opinion, I learn more about the other person's thinking than when I act like I agree."

He seemed to believe that by insisting on his individual opinion, regardless of the opinion of the group he was, in fact, contributing to the developing wisdom of the group. He was *forcing* more information into the open where all could see it. He felt this was as valid a way of thinking as making the soft nurturing noises that sounded like agreement. He further said that this was his male way of thinking.

Two of the women said that they didn't want to talk to him because he was too loud and they didn't believe he was seriously interested in what they had to say. One women confessed that she'd gone along with a group decision with which she had significant disagreements because she didn't think the men would listen to her. Then another woman told the loud man that, even though they didn't like hearing his stridency, they still loved him.

We ended the discussion there for the night but all the drive back to my house I kept thinking about his statement and mentally comparing it to the sorts of things Juan has been saying about the importance of individual conscience.

I hear Juan talking about a solemn duty to bring individual concience with all its misgivings right into the heart of Bahai life. *Even if it means disagreeing with the Institutions and suffering those consequences, you still have to be true to your own deepest feelings* If that is what he is saying, I agree with it in my gut.And tonight -- prompted by the integrity of my young male student -- I began to wonder, is this a guy thing? And if it is, maybe it is an important contribution.... as obnoxious as it might be to some women.


I mentally relate all of this to something I just read by James Hillman in his book on power:

"We can immediately see why political feminism has focused on hierarchical organizaton as the keystone of "patriarchical consciousness." Hierarchy subordinates; power becomes domination and depspotism. So, dismantle the table of organizationand hte declension of power downward from above. Restructure, either in utter equality or into flexible, cooperative, leaderless groups so as to remain horizontal and not pinnacle upward.

For this radical shift in direction, sideways rather than up and down, new sins replace the old. Ruthless leveling -- no head dare stick up too high. No one to look up to is the price of not looking down on anyone. Respect,m admiration awe go by the board. Other kinds of conformism and political correctness begin to dominate. A new tyranny emerges: the absolutism of equality. "


Okay, I'm done.
As the Emperor said in "Amadeus," "Well, there you have it."


Philip







-------------------------------------
Name: Philip Alan Belove
Anagram: Plain Livable Hope
E-mail: belove@sover.net
Date: 04/17/96
Time: 22:38:20

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



From jrussell@bsl1.bslnet.comThu Apr 18 10:34:58 1996
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 23:19:04 -0700 (MST)
From: Judith Russel
To: McKenny Michael
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: TIME AND ENTRY BY TROOPS

Michael - I work in an agency in which all but 5 whites are members of
the Native American or African American tradition.

I believe that the idea that Native Americans will slow down
time fits in my life, because, even though no one is "late for work" or
such abuse of time, in the agency time is taken for communication, much,
much more than any other place I have ever worked.

Communication means talking face to face or on the phone for a
number of minutes to clarify situations or ask questions.

As a result, there is a spiritual bonding that happens between
the individuals concerned, a genuine concern for the well-being of each.

I feel that true communication slows down time.

I hope this is in the spirit of the question you asked.
Also, in other parts of the agency, there are whites. And in another
division, more Native Americans.

It's called Intermountain Centers for Human Development.

Judy Russell

From sohazini@onthenet.com.auThu Apr 18 10:34:58 1996
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 17:08:15 +1000 (EST)
From: Soheil Hazini
To: tarjuman@umich.edu
Cc: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Unvoweled Aqdas

Dear friends--

Greetings from sunny Queensland, Australia! I have a question regarding the
new edition of the Arabic text of the Kitab-i-Aqdas that was recently put
out: Why is the text unvoweled and what are the specific reasons for leaving
it such?

Intrigued, Nima


From CaryER_ms@msn.comThu Apr 18 10:34:58 1996
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 96 06:32:34 UT
From: Hannah Reinstein
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: RE: hugs and a way forward

Dear friends,

Earlier tonight I thought seriously about unsubscribing. I can handle almost
anything these days except for insouciant callousness, bashing, or lies.
Generally, that doesn't appear on Talisman. I think there's too much arguing,
too much dead horse beating, too much political correctness, too much
criticism of the decisions and members of Baha'i institutions, too much old
baggage being dragged along, too much whining, too much male domination and
male-centric chest-beating, too much condescension toward the women on this
forum, too much sarcasm, too little netiquette, too darn many posts
altogether. And there's that occasional purely stupid, doesn't know when to
stop, unfunny rudeness that gets posted now and then. The last one really
bummed me. It angered me. I'll get past it. I'm gaining some equanimity but
detachment will take much longer. I don't have to like clueless comments about
me, my motivations, my past, or that of any of my friends. I don't need to
justify this feeling. That's just the way that it is.

But whenever I think that I'm completely disgusted, I read a wonderfully
sensible post by my friend, Rich Schaut, or a compassionate and thoughtful
reflection by Sandy Fotos, an impassioned entreaty motivated by a profound
sense of justice that characterizes Linda Walbridge, a patient, detached, and
spiritual post by Dan Orey, an intense dose of reason and yearning for
understanding from Milissa Boyer, the common sense and patient scholarship of
Derek Cockshut, the loving and gentle thoughts of Joan Jensen, and those gems
of provisional translations, the original poetry, the discoveries, the sharing
of healing and pain, the idealism, the thin shafts of clear and radiant light
shining through the imperfect cracks, the insights, the support.

Thanks, Linda. You're a dear soul. Thanks all. I will probably unsubscribe
though. I have hundreds of unread messages in my Inbox. It's far too much. I
don't know to what other forum a sensitive person can turn. Or an honest
question can be asked and not elicit a flood of unnecessary platitudes. Or
where a person can show the courage to share their pain and know that almost
nobody will kick them. Treasure this space, folks. It's very rare. And for
God's sake, take better care of it!

Hannah, whose reality meter is running in the red zone [\\.....|.....]
~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~
"God loves me..... That knowledge humbles me..... I am
a big bird winging over high mountains, down into serene
valleys. I am ripples of waves on silver seas. I'm a
spring leaf trembling in anticipation." Maya Angelou
~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~

From: owner-talisman@indiana.edu on behalf of Dan Orey
Sent: Wednesday, 17 April, 1996 3:06 AM
To: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl; talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: hugs and a way forward

I want to tell you all how much I depend on the kindness, ideas, and honest
dialogue going here on Talisman. I am mystified, tho, as to why so many folks
are so afraid of tough consultation. My own experience, painfully learned thru
living in Latin America, graduate school, a job in higher education, and by
being both a parent, and a gay male is that polite is nice, but honesty is
healthy.

We need to ask questions, we need to be challenged, we need to be up front.
Hiding our true selves only goes towards increasing the dishonest front, that
I
believe causes folks to turn away from the Baha'is. To me, its really ok that
we have imperfections, sinners, and failures in the Baha'i community. Its
extremely dishonest to suggest, indeed pretend that we are perfect. The image
that we give to the public is to me is often so extremely false, that I fear
it
is one reason that most people reject our message. My Methodist, Presbyterian,
Episcopal, Unitarian, Unity, Quaker, Jewish, and MCC friends would NEVER, I
repeat NEVER, remove some one's rights for the majority of the reasons that
our
Institutions do - they are far to busy _saving the world_. They are often much
more interested in diversity, REAL HONEST TO GOD DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND, A
TEST TO ACCEPT SOMETIMES diversity. They enjoy the challenge, and they seem to
be growing, at least at a rate that humbles if not surpasses Baha'i
communities
here in N. California.

From jwinters@epas.utoronto.caThu Apr 18 10:34:58 1996
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 03:22:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jonah Winters
To: Soheil Hazini
Cc: tarjuman@umich.edu, Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Unvoweled Aqdas

Well, I have a good idea why the text is unvowelled, but let me throw in
another question, as well.

In answer to the first, look at how much trouble Islam has had in its
history with vocalizing the Qur'an. And the final solution, arrived at
after 1300 years, was that the best they could do was limit the possible
variants to seven. Imagine, seven authoritative, though slightly
different (minimally, I know, but still different) readings of a holy
book! So I guess the answer must be that, with no Guardian, there is no
Baha'i body with the authority to interpret a text, which vowelling would be.

Now my question. Given that vocalizing a text amounts to interpretation, I
wonder what the degree of arbitrariness is? My knowledge of Arabic is
minimal, so I can't see where ambiguities lie. Do the different possible
readings amount to little more than, say, passive versus active
participles? Or is there significant room for interpretation?

PS- the beautiful frontispiece made me wonder, are there any editions
available of books in Mishkin al-Qalam's hand?

-J

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



From lbhollin@uxmail.ust.hkThu Apr 18 10:34:58 1996
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 16:09:46 +0800 (HKT)
From: HOLLINGER RICHARD VERNON
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Perspectives and Truth


The exchanges on Talisman, especially those of the last few weeks, have
caused me to harken back to an experience I had in graduate school, more
than a decade ago. I was in a seminar on conflicts and conflict
resolution. One of the activities of the seminar was a simulation, in
which groups of students were tasked with representing various factions on
the political scene of a Middle Eastern country. We were placed in
sound-proof cubicles, and could communicate with each other only by
e-mail--then a very novel medium. We could send e-mail to the entire
group (a public announcement) or to select groups, or a particular
group. We could also communicate with the professor and systems
operator, who occupied a cubicle with master controls, whom we jokingly
referred to as God during this exercise, to negotiate during the
simulation over the rules of the "game."

My partner and I represented the President. We were, apparently, not cut
out for this kind of leadership role. Suspicious of every faction within
and outside of government, we constantly responded to what we perceived
to be threats in ways that were intended to protect us from a coup, or
assasination, or popular revolt. We viewed every friendly communication
with suspicion, and every honest communication of difference as a threat
or ultimatum. The simulation ended when we fled the country, believing
that the palace was about to be attacked by the army.

When the exercise had ended, we all assembled in a seminar room and were
presented with a printout of every communication that had taken place
between any of the participants. My partner and I were stunned to see that
all of
the groups represented in this simulation were making honest efforts to
cooperate with and be coopted by us, and they were turning against us only
when we acted in ways that they felt threatened their existence. They
were astonished to see how paranoid and vulnerable we felt, especially
with regard to the army, which we felt to be our only bulwark against a
popular movement for our removal.

This experience left a deep impression on me, and I often reflect on it.
As a historian I have had to deal with extremely contradictory accounts
of the same events, and try to make some sense of them. In real life, of
course, one never gets the complete record as we did in this exercise.
One always works with fragmentary documentation and incomplete evidence.
Still, it is usually possible to piece together what happened with a
reasonable degree accuracy. But what actually happened often does not
tell us very much. In the simulation exercise desribed above, there
are many "facts" that all participants would agree on, but the significance
attributed to them were worlds apart--that is, until the end of the game.

In real life, though, the game never ends. On Talisman, in recent weeks
and months, we have been presented with a number of contradictory posts
about persons and events, which sometimes draw
conclusions based on the most fragmentary of evidence. I would suggest
that these be approached with a health dose of skepticism, as I have read
descriptions of events in which I was a participant described in ways that
were barely recognizeable to me. We may know what happened (in some
instances we may not even know that), but we should be very careful about
ascribing intentions and motives to others, especially when the source
for these are third parties who may have their own axes to grind. I often
think that it is useful to engage in the mental exercise of trying to
imagine what picture we would draw of events, if the game suddenly
ended and we were presented with a transcript of all the
communications, private and public.

Richard

From richs@microsoft.comThu Apr 18 10:34:58 1996
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 01:28:04 -0700
From: Rick Schaut
To: "'talisman@indiana.edu'" ,
"'gladius@portal.ca'"
Subject: RE: Womens Voices

Dear Linda and Friends,
>
>From: gladius@portal.ca[SMTP:gladius@portal.ca]
>On April 16, 1996, Rick Schaut wrote:
>> 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.
>
>Rick, baby, have I got news for you. It's been done. Called "If Women
>Counted", by a woman who was a former New Zealand prime minister.

I believe I've heard of it (probably on NPR sometime around the Women's
Conference in China). How does she approach the employment problem?
(Employment, in most advanced economies, is consumption bound, i.e.
reduced consumption => reduced demand for goods and services => fewer
opportunities for employment. It's the conundrum of this whole issue.)

>She is an economist, and talks about how economies work. She has a
>really refreshing viewpoint: she says, for example, that land has no
value except for the use it's put to.

Well, her viewpoint, at least vis-a-vis the "value" of land, is
accurate. I'm not sure what other adjectives I'd give it.

I wasn't talking so much about a reduction in greed, though that's a
component. What happens to a society's economy when, say, intelligence
is no longer considered a virtue?
>
>Well. She says a whole lot more, and her explanation of GNP and world
>economics is clear (astoundingly enough) and easy to grasp.

Having majored in Economics, I'd probably not understand it--the price
one pays for having successfully worked to understand the obtuse.

>She talks about the appalling economics of women around the world:
>women do 80% of the
>labour, worldwide, earn 20% of the wages, and own less than 5% of the
>capital (land, equipment etc.).

Of this I have little doubt.
>
>Find her book. Read it.
>
It's on my list. Thanks for suggesting it.


Regards,
>Rick

From simon.mawhinney@hertford.oxford.ac.ukThu Apr 18 10:34:58 1996
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 09:52:31 +0100 (BST)
From: Cu Chulain
To: Dan Orey
Cc: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: hugs and a way forward



>You wrote,
> We need to ask questions, we need to be challenged, we need to be up front.
> Hiding our true selves only goes towards increasing the dishonest front, that I
> believe causes folks to turn away from the Baha'is. To me, its really ok that
> we have imperfections, sinners, and failures in the Baha'i community. Its
> extremely dishonest to suggest, indeed pretend that we are perfect. The image
> that we give to the public is to me is often so extremely false, that I fear it
> is one reason that most people reject our message.

I agree that it is foolish and potentially damaging to present to
ourselves (and the world) too rosy a portrait of the Baha'i
Community. I
would further agree that it is natural to have 'failures' and heretics
and (!) quasi-covenant-breakers (if I may be so judgemental, though I
feel I'm reflecting a common conception of many talispeople regarding
other talispeople) in our community. This is human nature, and we shall
always have a small percentage of heterodox believers, just as we always
have Baha'is who are saints or mystics or teachers - and sometimes a
mixture of all of them. It just seems to me that this micro-community
that is Talisman has an unusually high percentage of such people. This is
to be expected. Only a certain group of people who have computers will
have email and of those Baha'is, a smaller number will wish to receive
fifty messages a day (such people will already have a focused interest in
certain topics such as are discussed on this network) and of those who
subscribe to the group, only a voluble few will regularly participate. It
is the same throughout all walks of life: the vocal minority dominates,
and consequently, often offends. I think it is up to the
hardline/orthadox/traditional Baha'is who are most affected by arguments
supporting moral laxity and dubious adherence to the Baha'i model to face
up to the fact that the 'herecies' they are hearing do not threaten to
submerge the rest of the Community. We should tolerate it, or put up with
it, or am I being iconoclastic?

You further wrote:
> My Methodist, Presbyterian,
> Episcopal, Unitarian, Unity, Quaker, Jewish, and MCC friends would NEVER, I
> repeat NEVER, remove some one's rights for the majority of the reasons that our
> Institutions do - they are far to busy _saving the world_.

And now for something completely different let me qualify my above
statements by referring to your comment regarding other group's policies on
reward and punishment. I feel that groups who are busy trying to save the
world - such as evangelical Christians - are fairly often morally
compromised, and frequently this is worked into their personal theologies
by some antinomian logic. Another good example is cited by His Holiness
Baha'u'llah, when He refers to the Jews who stopped invoking the death
penalty for adulterly because such a sanction would have decimated the
Jewish population. The groups who likewise inforce no sanction and have to
silently endure inappropriate behaviour are doing themselves an injury, and
it is
because of this that they will not save the world. Doesn't Shoghi
Effendi state that the advent of Divine Justice depends upon moral integrity
and complete chastity? Stringent administration is therefore imperative:
*let* the thieves have marked foreheads, *let* the murderers be permanently
removed,
and *let* the flagrantly immoral (and by definition anti-Baha'i) face the
removal of voting rights.

In conclusion I shall state that I hold with the emphases in both my
comments. Let us tolerate with love the widely differentiated views of
all our brothers and sisters in Baha'u'llah; but let us also apply His
laws with sincerity, and truly uphold His wondrous concept of reward and
punishment.

simon mawhinney, colaiste Hertford, Oxford

From sohazini@onthenet.com.auThu Apr 18 10:34:58 1996
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 18:55:01 +1000 (EST)
From: Soheil Hazini
To: Jonah Winters
Cc: Talisman@indiana.edu, tarjuman@umich.edu
Subject: Re: Unvoweled Aqdas

In reply to my question, Jonah said:


>In answer to the first, look at how much trouble Islam has had in its
>history with vocalizing the Qur'an. And the final solution, arrived at
>after 1300 years, was that the best they could do was limit the possible
>variants to seven. Imagine, seven authoritative, though slightly
>different (minimally, I know, but still different) readings of a holy
>book! So I guess the answer must be that, with no Guardian, there is no
>Baha'i body with the authority to interpret a text, which vowelling would be.



My initial thinking exactly. However, I have seen in the past MS's of the
text fully vocalized. Baha'u'llah's Arabic (especially in the Aqdas), unlike
that of the Bab's (which is almost incomprehensible), or the Quran's, is
very straightforward. So I don't think there are any disputes over points of
inflection, vocalization, etc., of this particular Text.

Has anyone ever done a study of this issue?

Still intrigued, Nima


From jjensen@welchlink.welch.jhu.eduThu Apr 18 10:34:58 1996
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 08:33:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joan Jensen
To: "Arsalan J. Sadighi"
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: RE: Women's (and men's) Problems


Dear Arsalan,

> How do I approach my daughter so she does not grow up carrying anger
> and contempt against the opposite sex and would function as 'whole and
> complete' person in society?

Since I have two daughters, I have read a lot, thought a lot, and talked
with many people about this very important topic.

I think that the most important thing a father can do to assist his
daughter is to TREAT HER MOTHER with the utmost dignity, respect,
courtesy and love. Behave towards her mother as you would want your
(future) son-in-law to behave towards your daughter. Your daughter
will internalize many of the values you have towards women and will carry
the same anger and contempt OR love and respect that she sees mirrored in
your life. She will also tend to choose friends and a husband who
reflect these values. She will be drawn toward the familiar, even if
consciously she recognizes the destructive nature of some of those values.

This is one of the bounties of having children. I have often found
myself growing, reaching, striving for the sake of my children in ways I
would not have 'bothered' if 'just' for myself!

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 belove@sover.netThu Apr 18 10:34:58 1996
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 96 09:03:09 PDT
From: belove@sover.net
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: FW: Re: The Medium Obligatory Prayer

Thanks, Juan.

The paragraph I want to understand this time is the one that begins, "God testifieth that there is none other God but Him. ...

and ends... "the Possessor of the Throne on high and of earth below!"

The middle section of the paragraph begins "He, in truth, hath manifested ..."

And then goes on to list (I presume) five Manifestation -- at least, grammatically, I think this list of five are all subjects of the verb "hath manifested." The five are:

1. Him Who is the Dayspring of Revelation

2. Who conversed on Sinai,

3. through Whom the Supreme Horizon hath been made to shine

4. and the Lote-Tree beyond which there is no passing hath spoken,

5. and through Whom the call hath been proclaimed...


My main question is, do the five refer to specific manifestations. If so, which ones? I can see the Moses reference. What about the others?

A secondary question concerns the syntax of the phrase number 4 and how I am to understand the addition of the verb, "hath spoken."

Thanks again.

Philip



---------------Original Message---------------


Sorry, Philip: I need to have the cite again to answer the question.


cheers Juan


----------End of Original Message----------

-------------------------------------
Name: Philip Alan Belove
Anagram: Plain Livable Hope
E-mail: belove@sover.net
Date: 04/18/96
Time: 09:03:10

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


From bryan.graham@pembroke.oxford.ac.ukThu Apr 18 10:34:58 1996
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 14:11:45 +0100 (BST)
From: Bryan Graham
To: Cu Chulain
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: HETERODOX / ORTHODOX / PUNISHMENT


Now that that mythological Irish hero Cu Chulain is back on line I
thought I should take some time to respond to his post.

On Thu, 18 Apr 1996, Cu Chulain (a.k.a: Simon Mawhinney) wrote:

> This is human nature, and we shall always have a small percentage of
> heterodox believers, just as we always have Baha'is who are saints or
> mystics or teachers - and sometimes a mixture of all of them.

Your use of the word heterodox is suggestive for it implies an orthodox
opposite. I think the institutional response to heterodoxy should reflect
what component of the Baha'i teachings is being "challenged" (to use your
terminology). To this end it is useful to divide the teachings into
several groups (this is just a provisional/off hand list):

1. Teachings/Laws relating to personal conduct
2. Teachings relating to spiritual, mystical, and theological truths
3. Teachings relating to the administrative/political organization\\
of the Faith and the world.

What troubles me in your post is your implicit linking of "heterodoxy"
with immorality. I don't link this link is accurate or constructive. The
Aqdas provides a body of "laws" relating to personal conduct and seems to
be heavily centered on teachings of type 1 above (and possibly of type 3
as well). Immorality could be associated with the violation of these laws
(e.g drinking, arson, killing, chastity). However I don't think that
there is an incredible lack of consensus regarding these laws and I don't
think that this is a principal source of heterdoxy within the community
(I will dicuss heterodoxy later; now let me review your words on
"punishment"). You suggest that administrative sanction against individuals
who violate these laws is entirely appropriate (Please bear with me).

> And now for something completely different let me qualify my above
> statements by referring to your comment regarding other group's policies on
> reward and punishment. Doesn't Shoghi Effendi state that the advent of
> Divine Justice depends upon moral integrity and complete chastity?
> Stringent administration is therefore imperative: *let* the thieves have
> marked foreheads, *let* the murderers be permanently removed, and *let*
> the flagrantly immoral (and by definition anti-Baha'i) face the
> removal of voting rights.
>
> simon mawhinney, colaiste Hertford, Oxford

While the view expressed above (i.e. the zealous handing out of sanctions
in response to immoral conduct) can be justified within the context of
the Aqdas I think it betrays some of the most radical concepts of the
Aqdas - namely the repeated praise of forgiveness - in connection with
virtually every given law. For example the death penalty link to
arson/murder, virginity and marriage etc. In some respects this is not
new: "He who is sinless cast the first stone." etc. Furthermore
forgiveness is not the same as condoning an act.

Thus I assert that there are definite times where the removal of
"voting rights" is not constructive. In the U.S. this is primarily done
for violating marriage laws. And while I have no wish to belittle the
importance of adhering to Baha'i provisions the effect (via my
observation) has been in general to alienate the individual believer from
the rest of the community. Is this really worthwhile? It would seem to me
that patience and an attempt to "right" a "wrong" would be more constructive.
Especially when under such circumstances the strength, love, and
encouragement of the community is most needed by the "offending"
believer. Printing a person's name in the American Baha'i doesn't seem to
cut ice here.

Ultimately however stringent orthodoxy regarding adherence to certain
laws, and punishment for violation, of type 1 troubles me less then
stringent orthodoxy regarding laws of type 2 and 3. To illustrate via
example:

A.> I do not find the concept of a personal God constructive or in
harmony with my intuitions. What I mean by a personal God is something along
the lines of the Old Testament Yaweh with strong anthropomorphic
characteristics. This notion of the divine, as a personality/intelligence
"out there" guiding things "down here" has dominated the Judaic-Christian-
Islamic theology of which the Western Bahai's are inheritors. We can see
rhetoric which harmonizes closely with this view in the letters of the
Guardian and the messages of the House. So am I being un-Baha'i for
holding this view? I hope not! The writings talk about an unknowable
essence and works like the Hidden Words and the Seven Valleys are at
times almost hostile to this view. I don't take this evidence that I'm
write and your wrong - rather I view it as an indication of how
mysterious and incomprehensible the divine reality is. However to have a
dynamic and vital Faith we need to have room for these differing
theologies underneath a matrix of unity (not uniformity).

B.> In regards to the Future World Order, I would submit that its future
shape is hardly well specified in the writings. However I have often seen
Baha'is get visibly upset when their preconcieved views are challenged.

Acceptence of diversity is not un-Baha'i, nor is diversity immoral -
killing, burning, and raping people may be - but to think differently,
critically, and to constantly challenge ideas is, in my understanding,
one of the most "Baha'i" things an individual can do.

Hasta la Vista, baby! Bryan Graham Pembroke, Oxford



From belove@sover.netThu Apr 18 10:34:58 1996
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 96 09:14:10 PDT
From: belove@sover.net
To: Joan Jensen , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: RE: Women's (and men's) Problems

Of course Joan's point goes in both directions.

To support her point: I once went out with a lovely woman who had a teenage son and occassionally her son was very rude to her. I figured it was because his father was also rude and also, he was angry about the divorce, etc. and she was guilty enough to accept his emotional abuse. It was true that when he was hard on her she would cry and confess that she feared she'd made a terrible mess of things rearing him alone. To atone, she'd accept his abuse.

One day I had to drive him to his job and I decided to talk to him. I waited until we were all the way to the McDonalds before I spoke. After he'd opened the door, I said, "By the way, If I treated your mother in front of you the way you treat her in front of me, you'd never want her to see me. Isn't that right?"

I waited to the last minute for several reasons. I didn't want to discuss it with him so he could argue with me. I felt that simply saying it and leaving him with it was a kind of "guy" way of showing respect -- as in "Here's the Truth, I'm sure you'll know what to do about it." And finally, I wanted to leave the whole transaction unfinished in his mind so he'd have to turn it over and over.

That's my story of how men teach younger men to respect women. The chivalrous impulse is always alive and quite powerful. But sometimes a guy needed to be reminded of it.

Joan's point works the other way as well. And this needs to be pointed out. Many women do not respect the men in their lives or their past and many of them send a message to their son's "don't be like your father." It is an emasculating message and very disturbing and confusing because young men will be like their fathers. The issue is that they need to be able to realize a potential for masculine nobility within themselves and perhaps their father did not know how to realize it within himself. But still, a boy will at best be a better version of his father, never different.

I know a woman who sadly wonders whether she will ever be married. In her youth her mother and father played a terrible game. The Mother isolated and ignored her father and created an enclave of love within the family which included Mother and Daughter and excluded Father and son. Father, who was not the sort of man who would have affairs, responded by having fits of rage in the house and having a love affair with Golf. So, from this unhappy family game, this woman learned to expect the worst from men and to defend herself by maintaining tremdous privacy... except behind this privacy there was a well of loneliness.

Clearly the Sins of the Fathers (and Mothers) are passed on.


And there you have it.
Philip


---------------Original Message---------------

Dear Arsalan,

> How do I approach my daughter so she does not grow up carrying anger
> and contempt against the opposite sex and would function as 'whole and
> complete' person in society?

Since I have two daughters, I have read a lot, thought a lot, and talked
with many people about this very important topic.

I think that the most important thing a father can do to assist his
daughter is to TREAT HER MOTHER with the utmost dignity, respect,
courtesy and love. Behave towards her mother as you would want your
(future) son-in-law to behave towards your daughter.

-------------------------------------
Name: Philip Alan Belove
Anagram: Plain Livable Hope
E-mail: belove@sover.net
Date: 04/18/96
Time: 09:14:10

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


From nineteen@onramp.netThu Apr 18 14:32:50 1996
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 96 10:26:28 -0500
From: "Richard C. Logan"
To: Talisman , Alex Tavangar
Subject: Philosophic Underpinnings of a New World Order

Dear Talisman friends,

All too often, IMV, analysis of Baha'i questions are done from a
persective of how a particular aspect of the Faith effects us personally,
as we see it, at a particular stage in one's development. Or hold it to
standards devised by ourselves. The transcendent character of this Cause
is ignored in favor of explanations that serve our personal needs as WE
see them.

In many ways it seems that some of us prefer a kind of moral/spiritual
stalemate. That is, the admonitions of Baha'u'llah, the Master and so on
are very beautiful and sugary, but are viewed with a jaundiced eye as
unrealistic, and largely unrealisable except for a very small percent we
call saints or the like who cannot have any real impact on our
institutions and thus the world continues to be the world. It is argued
that the institutions are flawed and at any rate they are a sideshow in
terms of a greater picture of the world. Many say: we have seen the
worts, gone beyond the mythos, and have accepted the unfortunate truth.

Perhaps, however, we are only expressing our painful awareness of our
ownselves, the actual limitations of the intellect deprived of a mystic
vision via the heart, and a troubling doubt of the unknown. A person
can conduct themselves, for the most part, in a very praiseworthy
manner--display virtues that others apparently lack, and have
extrordinary abilities few possess, but still not have established a
spiritual link that makes one susceptible to the spiritual forces that
continuously renew the individual. Baha'u'llah has said:

"Whoso hath not recognized this sublime and fundamental verity (He shall
not be asked of His doings)...the winds of doubt willl agitate him, and
the sayings of the infidels will distract his soul....Such is the
teaching which God bestoweth on you, a teaching that will deliver you
from all manner of doubt and perplexity..."

What Baha'u'llah is alluding to, in my estimate, is a state of being or
consiousness--a "most exalted station...endowed with the most perfect
constancy." As such, one must CONNECT with Him using these most basic
protocols (implicit Faith in what He has revealed) in order to glimpse
the reality of being and become atuned to Its operation. This
meta-rationality or attainment to spiritual sight requires IMV from
readings and meditations upon this Revelation a higher rational approach
to life that includes:
1). downsizing of the ego
2). Reliance on God instead of ourselves
3). realization of spiritual growth

Baha'u'llah says "Love me that I may love thee" In other words, one must
of their own efforts, establish this relationship because of our gift of
free will--our right to accept or reject. Every time we have to know of
our own knowledge ( mentally encompass and assert the ego) instead
instead of being receptive the connection is broken or is too noisy with
self to function meaningfully. Of course this is good too because
testing periods are essential. We have to be receptive and actively
seeking in order to maintain a connection and grow. Otherwise one's
higher spirit withers in the darkness of self.

Richard

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

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



From nineteen@onramp.netThu Apr 18 14:32:50 1996
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 96 10:41:18 -0500
From: "Richard C. Logan"
To: Jackson Armstrong-Ingram ,
Talisman
Subject: Re: criticizing NSA


Dear Jackson,

Though you don't say this specificly--I read you to be saying that there
is a very important precident or example being set by so distinguished a
member of the highest body of the Faith engaging in overt criticism of
the NSA. Seemingly, though, you don't say so, it would logically follow
that we can do the same given appropriate circumstances--perhaps the
"Baha'i Travelgate" incident cited by our beloved Dr. Cole. And also
perhaps we'd be alot better off if we weren't so mealy mouthed about the
wrongs we see in the Baha'i community. Correct me if I am mistaken on
this because I don't want to put words in your mouth just understand the
purport of your message.

Richard

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

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



From jarmstro@sun1.iusb.eduThu Apr 18 14:32:51 1996
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 11:29:18 -0500 (EST)
From: Jackson Armstrong-Ingram
To: Bruce Burrill
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: entry by troops



On Wed, 17 Apr 1996, Bruce Burrill wrote:

> Just as an impressionistic response, I have to agree with you. From my
> first contact with Baha'is almost thirty years ago till now, the pressure
> of conformity has been very much part of what I have observed about
> Baha'i as it operates on the ground. Never mind all the hifalutin lip
> service given to the idea of diversity, independent investigation of truth,
> and all that, I have seen repeatedly a strong pressure to conform to the
> party line, and a lot of the sparks and fire on the list have been because
> of that. I have a great deal of respect for you outspoken liberals, but I
> wonder if the problem is inherent in the very structure of Baha'i.

No, the problem is inherent in all socio-cultural situations where people
are not aware of the historical development of the status quo and
cognisant of its inherently provisional character. Generally, the
current taken-for-granteds are simply assumed to be how it has always
been, is, and will be unless we make a conscious effort to understand how
we got where we are and to recognize that change is a given of all human
systems. The denial of the fact of change with the concomitant
assumption of a moral rightness about the supposedly eternal present is
at the root of many socio-cultural problems generally. To date, the
Baha'i community has not made a conscious effort to avoid this problem,
and it can only be avoided by a conscious effort.

Jackson

From simon.mawhinney@hertford.oxford.ac.ukThu Apr 18 14:32:51 1996
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 17:43:39 +0100 (BST)
From: Cu Chulain
To: Bryan Graham
Cc: Cu Chulain , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: HETERODOX / ORTHODOX / PUNISHMENT



On Thu, 18 Apr 1996, Bryan Graham wrote:

> >
> What troubles me in your post is your implicit linking of "heterodoxy"
> with immorality. I don't link this link is accurate or constructive. The
> Aqdas provides a body of "laws" relating to personal conduct and seems to
> be heavily centered on teachings of type 1 above (and possibly of type 3
> as well). Immorality could be associated with the violation of these laws
> (e.g drinking, arson, killing, chastity). However I don't think that
> there is an incredible lack of consensus regarding these laws and I don't
> think that this is a principal source of heterdoxy within the community
> (I will dicuss heterodoxy later; now let me review your words on
> "punishment"). You suggest that administrative sanction against individuals
> who violate these laws is entirely appropriate (Please bear with me).
>
Dear Bryan,
I did not mean to associate a heterodox inclination with inherent
immorality; I think challeneges to some traditional preconceptions are
healthy and in some cases quite vital. Issues which spring to mind might
include the idea that Dawn-Breakers is in some way infallible, or even
the appalling fundamentalist interpretations of what calamity will occur
to precede the lesser peace - such as the destruction of America or
nuclear winters or other such rubbish gleaned from the entertaining world
of pilgrim notes. If the recorded history of the Faith doesn't evolve in
precision and clarity simply because the fundamentalists are offended
then we will be in a lot of trouble. However, progressive thought can be
dangerous when it is allowed to permit damaging interpretations. I am
thinking of recorded (if badly researched) incidents which claim to
undermine the Holy station of the central figures of the faith, such as
apparent contradictions. An example is the law on head-shaving. The Aqdas
proscribes it, the Surry-i-Hajj prescribes it. Without Baha'u'llah's own
explanation some historians would take it upon themselves to announce the
existence of the discrepancy - that is, if they weren't armed with
steadfastness, which would lead them not to the discovery of a
contradiction, but which would impell them towards proving that there can
be *no* discrepancy. With an orthadox understanding they would not make
the mistake of doubting the validity of the Holy Text.
The point is that there has to be a balance between heterodox belief
and orthadox; moreover, heterodoxy should serve to strengthen faith and
to help build the Faith, and to purify the beliefs of its adherents.

> While the view expressed above (i.e. the zealous handing out of sanctions
> in response to immoral conduct) can be justified within the context of
> the Aqdas I think it betrays some of the most radical concepts of the
> Aqdas - namely the repeated praise of forgiveness - in connection with
> virtually every given law. For example the death penalty link to
> arson/murder, virginity and marriage etc. In some respects this is not
> new: "He who is sinless cast the first stone." etc. Furthermore
> forgiveness is not the same as condoning an act.
>
> Thus I assert that there are definite times where the removal of
> "voting rights" is not constructive. In the U.S. this is primarily done
> for violating marriage laws. And while I have no wish to belittle the
> importance of adhering to Baha'i provisions the effect (via my
> observation) has been in general to alienate the individual believer from
> the rest of the community. Is this really worthwhile? It would seem to me
> that patience and an attempt to "right" a "wrong" would be more constructive.
> Especially when under such circumstances the strength, love, and
> encouragement of the community is most needed by the "offending"
> believer. Printing a person's name in the American Baha'i doesn't seem to
> cut ice here.
>
Of course you are right, forgiveness must play an important role,
and I think any punishment should accompany this. We do not kill
murderers for revenge, we do it for our own protection as a society. This
act should be carried out objectively. Similarly the removal of voting
rights is necessary only whenever the act is besmirching the public
image of the faith. It has to be a policy of 'cruel-to-be-kind.' Personal
trespasses should be completely ignored, of course. Your last statment is
surely to be applauded.

>
> Acceptence of diversity is not un-Baha'i, nor is diversity immoral -
> killing, burning, and raping people may be - but to think differently,
> critically, and to constantly challenge ideas is, in my understanding,
> one of the most "Baha'i" things an individual can do.
>
> simon mawhinney, colaiste Hertford, Oxford
>
>

From jarmstro@sun1.iusb.eduThu Apr 18 14:32:51 1996
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 12:12:39 -0500 (EST)
From: Jackson Armstrong-Ingram
To: "Richard C. Logan"
Cc: Talisman
Subject: Re: criticizing NSA



On Thu, 18 Apr 1996, Richard C. Logan wrote:

> Dear Jackson,
>
> Though you don't say this specificly--I read you to be saying that there
> is a very important precident or example being set by so distinguished a
> member of the highest body of the Faith engaging in overt criticism of
> the NSA. Seemingly, though, you don't say so, it would logically follow
> that we can do the same given appropriate circumstances--perhaps the
> "Baha'i Travelgate" incident cited by our beloved Dr. Cole. And also
> perhaps we'd be alot better off if we weren't so mealy mouthed about the
> wrongs we see in the Baha'i community. Correct me if I am mistaken on
> this because I don't want to put words in your mouth just understand the
> purport of your message.
>
> Richard

Sometimes I post an anecdote because I think it bears thinking about.
Thinking about this one, I don't consider it a "precedent" but I do think
it speaks to the legitimacy of individuals publicly expressing opinions
about institutions. I do think it is an example of the kind of frank and
free comment that Shoghi Effendi thought should characterize conventions,
for example. I also think it speaks to the issue of how should we regard
statements made by individual members of institutions about those
institutions in the absence of direct comment from the institution per
se; again, I'm not saying it gives answers but it speaks to the
question. And the other issue I think it speaks to is the assumption
that what is being done by one level of administration is necessarily under
the direction of the levels above.

I think all of these issues have been
raised on Talisman and that the case provides food for thought on them;
reason enough for me to post it. The process of reaching conclusions
requires fuel. I always try to bear in mind the tenet recommended by C.
Wright Mills to never write more than three sentences without a specific
(not hypothetical but real) case in mind. I think Talisman discussions
often get greatly carried away into abstract possibilities. The odd
'case study' can be helpful for focus.

Jackson

From gladius@portal.caThu Apr 18 14:32:51 1996
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 10:33:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linda de Gonzalez
To: Rick Schaut
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: "If Women Counted" by Marilyn WARING

Marilyn Waring, author of "If Women Counted: A New Feminist Economics",
Harper Collins, 1988. She was not prime minister of New Zealand, as I said
earlier; she was the youngest, female MP ever elected to the House of
Parliament in New Zealand and brought down the government in 1984 over the
issue of a nuclear-free New Zealand. The National Film Board of Canada
produced a remarkable documentary featuring her and her ideas, called "Who's
Counting".

she says, for example, that land has no
>value except for the use it's put to.
>
>Well, her viewpoint, at least vis-a-vis the "value" of land, is
>accurate. I'm not sure what other adjectives I'd give it.


I guess I should have been more accurate: what she says is that, under
current economic doctrine, land has no value other than its use. She
proposes that land has an intrinsic worth. That is, when calculating the
value of land used for mining or timber, the cost of damage to the land by
the use its put to must also be calculated, since damage must be repaired at
some point, and some types of land damage have severe repercussions in other
areas. Soil erosion due to clearcut logging, for example, can harm entire
watersheds and cause subsidence (mudslides during rainstorms that wash out
roads and bridges). But logging companies never ever have to pay for that,
they just get to clear the logs (and profit).

Hey, makes sense to me.

She does discuss employment; it's been 5 years since I read it, so I don't
recall very clearly. I can share my own understanding with you, though,
which is based on what I learned from her.

Western-style economy is manufacturing and consuming-based. That is,
consumption of manufactured goods provides the wealth which drives more
manufacturing (and thus employment). This is the economic paradigm which
Western aid providers have been exporting to developing countries. However,
this economy is on its last legs, and we are beginning to see the emergence
of an information-based economy.

That the manufacturing economy has reached a decline is demonstrated by the
following:

There is an inherent limit in consumption, which is based on the wealth that
is available to the consuming population. In economic terms, if wealth is
tied up in equity (investments, equipment), then the remaining wealth is
what is available for consumption. It seems that more and more of Western
wealth is being "tied up" into equities in the hands of fewer and fewer
people, and therefore less and less is available to the rest of the
population for spending.

Dang, this is going to be a LONG post. Sorry. Didn't realize what I got into
when I started it.

In the information-based economy, available wealth follows information
distribution. Sort of, "money follows ideas", not "ideas follow money".
Thus, earning power is not limited to manufacturing capabilities, but to
information-generation capabilities.

She foresees an economy where people spend a whole lot less time "at work",
and the work they do will be a whole lot less dependent on raw materials &
processing raw materials into consumables.

What can I say. Read the book.
Linda de Gonzalez
Gladius Productions


From fszaerpo@olympic.ctc.eduThu Apr 18 14:32:51 1996
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 10:34:19 -700 (PDT)
From: Farzaneh Zaerpoor
To: Soheil Hazini
Cc: tarjuman@umich.edu, Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Unvoweled Aqdas



On Thu, 18 Apr 1996, Soheil Hazini wrote:

> Dear friends--
>
> Greetings from sunny Queensland, Australia! I have a question regarding the
> new edition of the Arabic text of the Kitab-i-Aqdas that was recently put
> out: Why is the text unvoweled and what are the specific reasons for leaving
> it such?
>
> Intrigued, Nima
>

Dear all,
This question was discussed in my community in detail too, but we didn't
come to any point. Another question is this: Is the English translation
done without voweles in the Arabic text?

Regards,
Farzaneh Zaerpoor


From Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nlThu Apr 18 14:32:51 1996
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 19:39:55 +0000 (EZT)
From: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: dating Ishraqat



I have received a response from the Research Department
regarding my question as to the dating of the Ishraqat.
Unfortunately their response got cut off half-way in the
email transmission, so I will delay posting the whole reply
until I actually have it. From the first part of the letter,
however, it seems likely that the date of revelation, at least
of the section on infallibility, is 9 Dhi Qa'dih 1302 (21
August 1885). The Research Department has also identified
source tablets for some sections of the Ishraqat. From what
I can see, the final redaction of the tablet might be in
November 1886 or even a month or two later, but more
likely in August 1885.

Could I go on record as saying a big thank-you to the staff
of the Research Department who have worked on this
question.

Sen

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sen McGlinn ph: 31-43-3216854
Andre Severinweg 47 email: Sen.McGlinn@RL.RuLimburg.NL
6214 PL Maastricht, the Netherlands
***
They who disregard and neglect the divines and learned
that live amongst them -
these have truly changed the favor
with which God hath favored them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


From Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nlThu Apr 18 14:32:51 1996
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 19:40:45 +0000 (EZT)
From: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Entry by troops


I've posted this before, but that won't stop me beating my drum:

... a Mashrak-el-Azcar will soon be established in
America. The cries of supplication and invocation will
be raised to the Highest Kingdom therefrom and, verily,
the people will enter into the religion of God BY TROOPS
with great enthusiasm and attraction.
(Tablets of `Abdu'l-Baha Abbas p. 681)

This is the earliest use of the idea of entry by troops
(in the Baha'i writings) that I have come across thus
far. It seems possible that there was a deliberate echo
of Surah 110 - that is, that `Abdu'l-Baha had in mind
the sort of general (but not universal) acceptance of
the Faith which Islam achieved in the Medina period.
Could that mean that 'building the Mashriq' is
analogous to Muhammad's building of a mosque and
a Muslim community & institutions when He was in
Medinah? i.e., that the 'entry by troops' in the case of
Islam occurred because the Revelation was being
translated into a community centring on the Mosque
(after all, there were believers and a Prophet in
Mecca, but this was apparently not enough to lead to
entry by troops), and that, by analogy, the same is to
be expected when the Baha'is create such
communities?

Sen

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



From sscholl@jeffnet.orgThu Apr 18 14:32:51 1996
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 22:50:20 +0100
From: White Cloud Press
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Baha'iisms Cont.

Dear Arslan and Friends,

First, please call me Steve. "Sir" is really not necessary. Should anyone
prefer to refer to my honorific title, the appropriate one would be "Dr.
Scholl." This is not a title I earned at university but was bestowed on me
by a very distant cousin of mine who made his fortune in the design and
manufacturing of foot odor eaters, bunion pads, and other assorted foot
related products.

Arsalan, thanks for your calm and even handed post. I am afraid, as usual,
that I wrote down a half-baked idea and it was only partially digestable to
many. I will try to be more clear this time round.

1. I was intrigued by Dann's use of Cantwell Smith's terms "Islams",
"Catholicisms" etc. I think it is accurate in recognizing that no faith is
monolithic in terms of how it is lived and practiced by adherents. I was
mainly trying to flesh out what that might mean for Baha'i. For example,
Arsalan, you state that (paraphrase) whatever the central figures say must
be accepted. If Abdu'l-Baha says that reincarnation is not an accurate or
correct religious belief, then we must not believe in reincarnation. I also
mentioned lack of belief in a personal God or belief in any God as other
examples. My question remains: is it necessary for the Baha'i faith to
require such beliefs of its adherents? Has, for example, the NSA of India
stated that all Baha'is in their jurisdiction must not believe in
reincarnation? If not, why not? Is it because the NSA of India feels that
right belief (to borrow a Buddhist phrase) is not essential to the
development of the Baha'i community? I have no idea what the situation is
in real terms and maybe Megha or Bill or someone with more experience can
enlighten me on the Indian scene.

But what I am getting around to here is thinking out loud on how large can
we make the Baha'i vision so that it remains faithful to the fundamental
verities and still flexible enough to embrace a much wider diversity of
views and beliefs than we now see in the fold.

Arsalan states: "I don't think these religious orders you are referring to
have been able to
deal with the problems the world is facing, have they? Why then do you think
a fractured Baha'i community, along the lines of 72 sects of Islam and
thousands of Christianity, where moral principles are compromised routinely,
can address these problems?"

Well, here I must disagree with you. I think that most of the other
religions are doing a better job at dealing with the problems of the world
than we are as Baha'is. They have better resources (financial, educational,
etc) and they have a head start on us. This, to me, is one of those
knee-jerk Baha'i reactions that assumes that the "old faiths" are corrupt
and moribund and it is only the Baha'is who have true knowledge on the
evils of the world and how to re-shape it. Yet would someone please give me
some examples of how Baha'is have made greater, or even significant,
contributions to a deeper understanding of the forces at work in our age
than those leaders of thought and action who are doing the intellectual
ground work and forming networks for change the world over? Baha'i
literature simply does not compare favorably with the best thinking of our
age and we have not been able to speak beyond our boundaries to make a
major contribution to the building of the new world order. Most Baha'i
literature (writings by Baha'is and not the sacred texts) is derivative and
usually takes the best of what is already out their in the non-Baha'i world
and puts a Baha'i spin on it. As someone who works in the field of
publishing, I am painfully aware that no Baha'i book has ever registered
with the non-Baha'i world. We still are talking primarily among ourselves.
Arsalan's comment, which is repeated often among Baha'is, reflects a lack
of awareness of what is going on within other faiths.

(That is the downside. On the positive, I recognize that the mere existence
of a growing faith--well not here in the States but elsewhere, like in
India--that teaches the basic Baha'i principles is a powerful force of good
in the world and will eventually transform the world. Hey, I really am a
Baha'i!)

Arsalan also asks: "Are you implying that we need to change according to
the times and not to
uphold basic moral standards of the Faith? Is that what the world really
hungers for?"

I think you have read into my post things that are not there. No, I am not
saying that at all. This is a charge that keeps coming up and is not what I
or many others are trying to say. What I am saying is that we begin with
the sacred texts and we seek to apply the foundational principles and
values enshrined in them to meet the needs of our age. This is not the
Middle East in 1879. Let me turn the question around: Are you saying that
the faith of Baha'u'llah is frozen in the 19th century world that it was
born in as reflected in many aspects of its formal expression? Yes, the
Aqdas is rigid, but Abdu'l-Baha softened much of it. For example, marriage
laws and the treatment of criminals. The Aqdas reflects the sexual
segregation and unequal status of women of that time and I don't believe in
that sense that it will be the blueprint for a future society. The Aqdas
cannot be divorced from the rest of the revelation. That is to say, I don't
think we will be following the letter of the law in every detail because
Abdu'l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi and the House have intepreted the letter of the
law, in several instances, to be inappropriate in light of the full context
of the revelation and its foundational principles.

So, this is not about a few Baha'is trying to mold the faith to fit with
current views popular in America. Like most thinking people, I am a rather
harsh critic of what passes for culture and politics in my native land.
What I am interested in is relating my faith to the real world. What I
would like to see, in fact, is a much more bold program where the American
Baha'i community engages concrete issues of concern in our country.
Abortion, gay/lesbian rights, the military budget, pornography, the gutting
of education in the guise of tax reform, to name but a few. And yes, on
some issues we would stand with the Left on others the Right. We need to be
firm in our faith, and we need to continue to explore these issues on
forums such as this.

With love,
Steve







From jarmstro@sun1.iusb.eduThu Apr 18 18:45:49 1996
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 15:37:55 -0500 (EST)
From: Jackson Armstrong-Ingram
To: talisman
Subject: unity in diversity

Given the number of recent posts that referred to the issues of a static or
changing conception of the faith in relation to the world around it and the
issue of a linear continuity from the pronouncements of the Guardian to those
of the House, I thought the following from a letter of the House to an NSA
dated March 9, 1965, might be useful:

There is a profound difference between the interpretations of the Guardian
and the elucidations of the House of Justice in exercise of its function to
"deliberate upon all problems which have caused difference, questions that
are obscure, and matters that are not expressly recorded in the Book." The
Guardian reveals what the Scripture means; his interpretation is a statement
of truth which cannot be varied. Upon the Universal House of Justice, in the
words of the Guardian, "has been conferred the exclusive right of legislating
on matters not expressly revealed in the Baha'i Writings." Its
pronouncements, which are susceptible of amendment or abrogation by the House
of Justice itself, serve to supplement and apply the Law of God. Although
not invested with the function of interpretation, the House of Justice is in
a position to do everything necessary to establish the World Order of
Baha'u'llah on this earth. Unity of doctrine is maintained by the existence
of the authentic texts of Scripture and the voluminous interpretations of
'Abdul-Baha and Shoghi Effendi, together with the absolute prohibition
against anyone propounding "authoritative" or "inspired" interpretations or
usurping the function of the Guardian. Unity of administration is assured by
the authority of the Universal House of Justice.

"Such," in the words of Shoghi Effendi, "is the immutability of His revealed
Word. Such is the elasticity which characterizes the functions of His
appointed ministers. The first preserves the identity of His Faith, and
guards the integrity of His law. The second enables it, even as a living
organism, to expand and adapt itself to the needs and requirements of an ever-
changing society."

.............................

This informs my understanding of the relationship between the sacred text,
the Guardianship, and the House. The text itself represents and preserves
the unity of the Faith. The administrative order is a means to bring that
text into creative interaction with the world.

I think it can be seen how statements that the House's pronouncements on
texts are "authoritative' or "inspired," or that the House having commented
on a text is the same as if Shoghi Effendi had, are to _me_ covenantly
disturbing. I am reluctant to use such a phrase, but as positions which to
me are fully in accord with the above statement have been questioned on the
same basis, I think it is only honest and frank to let those who feel that
way know on what grounds I find their feelings both unnecessary and
problematic.

I am always willing to attribute such sentiments to an excess of enthusiasm
and loyalty, but as in many things even in enthusiasm and loyalty moderation
is probably preferable. I often think that Shoghi Effendi's characterisation
of true patriotism as being sane and intelligent needs to apply to religious
as much as national identity.

Jackson



From richs@microsoft.comThu Apr 18 18:47:21 1996
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 13:47:21 -0700
From: Rick Schaut
To: "'Richard C. Logan'" ,
'Jackson Armstrong-Ingram'
Cc: 'Talisman'
Subject: RE: criticizing NSA

Dear Richard, Jackson and Friends,

Richard asked about Jackson's anectode in which a member of the
Universal House of Justice criticised the US National Spiritual
Assembly. Jackson replied:

>Thinking about this one, I don't consider it a "precedent" but I do
>think
>it speaks to the legitimacy of individuals publicly expressing opinions
>
>about institutions. I do think it is an example of the kind of frank
>and
>free comment that Shoghi Effendi thought should characterize
>conventions,
>for example.

I agree wholeheartedly. Note that the criticism consisted of pointing
out the extent to which the National Spiritual Assembly had failed to
act in accordance with the guidance and wishes of the Universal House of
Justice. I do seem to recall someone suggesting that criticism is best
and most productive when it's based upon guidence we've received from
the Universal House of Justice.

But this isn't the kind of criticism we've seen on Talisman. On
Talisman, we've seen criticisms levelled at the actions of individual
members of an institution with little, or no, groundwork given to show
that these actions are, indeed, representative of the policies of the
institution itself. (There are also problems involving the integrity of
the evidence upon which some of these criticisms have been based, but
that's a separate issue.)

>I also think it speaks to the issue of how should we regard
>statements made by individual members of institutions about those
>institutions in the absence of direct comment from the institution per
>se; again, I'm not saying it gives answers but it speaks to the
>question.

I don't think so. Absent any direct comment from the institution per
se, any attempt to assess the extent to which the thinking of the
institution as a whole has influenced an individual member's thinking is
nothing but pure speculation.

>And the other issue I think it speaks to is the assumption
>that what is being done by one level of administration is necessarily
>under
>the direction of the levels above.

This is true, but I wonder about the value of addressing this assumption
when, to the best of my knowledge, no one has made it. I have seen
people suggesting this as a possible explanation for some policies of a
lower institution, and I believe their intent was to forestall premature
conclusions about the basis for an institution's policies. But I have
not seen anyone state this as an assumption.
>
>I think all of these issues have been
>raised on Talisman and that the case provides food for thought on them;
>
>reason enough for me to post it. The process of reaching conclusions
>requires fuel. I always try to bear in mind the tenet recommended by
>C.
>Wright Mills to never write more than three sentences without a
>specific
>(not hypothetical but real) case in mind. I think Talisman discussions
>
>often get greatly carried away into abstract possibilities. The odd
>'case study' can be helpful for focus.

In this, I also concur. More case studies would be very helpful, but I
want case studies which clearly involve decisions of an institution, and
not just actions of individual members when our knowledge of the basis
for their actions is as limited as the case studies we've looked at in
this thread.

In fact, a collection of useful case studies might be a reasonable
project for someone with the time and interest. Alas, while I'm long on
the latter, I'm short on the former.


Regards,
Rick
>






From banani@ucla.eduThu Apr 18 18:54:41 1996
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 11:37:42 -0700
From: Amin Banani
To: belove@sover.net
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: A confluence of threads

Philip,

Marvelous observances--thank you for sharing your class experience. No, I
don't think it's just a "guy thing" (individual assertiveness) but, when
done by a woman (generally) in a group which includes men, it tends to be
viewed (I think by both sexes) as a form of "battering" and is generally
disliked. Women, generally, prefer to be "liked" and, therefore, will
"back down" faster when they perceive others' negative reactions while men
(generally) are willing to "pay that price" (of becoming "disliked"). As
you can see from all my parentheses, these remarks are indeed
generalizations but, in my experience, they are predominantly what I have
observed.

Sheila



>Here are the threads: gender issues, the differences between men and
>women, equality, the circular question, the relationship between
>individual conscience and the Institutions.
>
>
>Something happened in one of my classes that so mirrored a discussion on
>Talisman I simply had to share it.
>
>In my class on Communications I just facilitated a series of group
>discussions about the nature of leadership. I had the men gather in a
>small group while the women observed, then the women worked in a small
>group while the men observed. Then we discussed the differences in the
>groups processes.
>
>
>Two of the men observed that the women's group was quieter, more orderly
>and that they seemed to get a lot more work done. They listened to each
>other more carefully and quietly. They drew each other out and thought
>about each one's answers. The men observing said that they would rather
>have been in the women's group.
>
>It did seem that the men's group was louder,more confrontational and
>argumentative. It was also funnier.
>
>Two other men got upset. One said he resented that his way of
>communicating, a man's way, was being put down. He felt there was
>something right about his way of working an issue and it was not being
>appreciated. "I'm a man, this is how I'm constructed, this is how I like
>to deal and I don't think it's right to ask me to be different." He
>didn't know what to say beyond this and it took him quite a lot of group
>time just to get a hearing for this much.
>
>Once we were able to hear him, he took the argument further. He said, "I
>hold a position and don't agree with what someone else is saying until I
>hear good reasons. When I stand up for my individual opinion, I learn more
>about the other person's thinking than when I act like I agree."
>
>He seemed to believe that by insisting on his individual opinion,
>regardless of the opinion of the group he was, in fact, contributing to
>the developing wisdom of the group. He was *forcing* more information into
>the open where all could see it. He felt this was as valid a way of
>thinking as making the soft nurturing noises that sounded like agreement.
>He further said that this was his male way of thinking.
>
>Two of the women said that they didn't want to talk to him because he was
>too loud and they didn't believe he was seriously interested in what they
>had to say. One women confessed that she'd gone along with a group
>decision with which she had significant disagreements because she didn't
>think the men would listen to her. Then another woman told the loud man
>that, even though they didn't like hearing his stridency, they still loved
>him.
>
>We ended the discussion there for the night but all the drive back to my
>house I kept thinking about his statement and mentally comparing it to the
>sorts of things Juan has been saying about the importance of individual
>conscience.
>
>I hear Juan talking about a solemn duty to bring individual concience with
>all its misgivings right into the heart of Bahai life. *Even if it means
>disagreeing with the Institutions and suffering those consequences, you
>still have to be true to your own deepest feelings* If that is what he is
>saying, I agree with it in my gut.And tonight -- prompted by the integrity
>of my young male student -- I began to wonder, is this a guy thing? And
>if it is, maybe it is an important contribution.... as obnoxious as it
>might be to some women.
>
>
>I mentally relate all of this to something I just read by James Hillman in
>his book on power:
>
>"We can immediately see why political feminism has focused on hierarchical
>organizaton as the keystone of "patriarchical consciousness." Hierarchy
>subordinates; power becomes domination and depspotism. So, dismantle the
>table of organizationand hte declension of power downward from above.
>Restructure, either in utter equality or into flexible, cooperative,
>leaderless groups so as to remain horizontal and not pinnacle upward.
>
>For this radical shift in direction, sideways rather than up and down, new
>sins replace the old. Ruthless leveling -- no head dare stick up too high.
>No one to look up to is the price of not looking down on anyone. Respect,m
>admiration awe go by the board. Other kinds of conformism and political
>correctness begin to dominate. A new tyranny emerges: the absolutism of
>equality. "
>
>
>Okay, I'm done.
>As the Emperor said in "Amadeus," "Well, there you have it."
>
>
>Philip
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-------------------------------------
>Name: Philip Alan Belove
>Anagram: Plain Livable Hope
>E-mail: belove@sover.net
>Date: 04/17/96
>Time: 22:38:20
>
>This message was sent by Chameleon
>-------------------------------------
>Things should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler -- A. Einstein

Sheila Banani

From lua@sover.netThu Apr 18 18:54:41 1996
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 16:12:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: LuAnne Hightower
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: CD

Dear Ones,

Thanks for the encouragement and support.

To date, the running total is:

16 orders...59 to go!!!

Any takers??? Persistent, am I not?

Like a (hopeful and expectant) gnat,
LuAnne


From fszaerpo@olympic.ctc.eduThu Apr 18 18:54:41 1996
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 13:22:13 -0700
From: Farzaneh Zaerpoor
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: change of address

Dear the list owner and other friends,

I sent a message yesterday asking for change of e-mail address. well,
please let my e-mail address be the old one: fszaerpo@olympic.ctc.edu.
I am sorry for any inconvenience.

Farzaneh Zaerpoor


From PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.eduThu Apr 18 18:54:41 1996
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 13:22:13 PST8PDT
From: "Eric D. Pierce"
To: Talisman
Subject: Re: criticizing NSA (+new election units + LSA vote/prayer)

Hi,

Jackson, curiosity got the cat, so please indulge me: what the
heck was the specific guidance from the Univeral House of
Justice that having been ignored by the NSA, the individual from
the BWC wanted to bring to light in public?

On another (?) topic, has anyone had any strange thoughts about
the list of new district convention election units that was
published in the American Baha'i newsletter?

I'm sure that the overall purpose of redistricting was good
(reducing variances between units), but for instance in
California (especially central and northern), the geography is
almost totally defined by north/south orientation of coastal
mountains (with small intermediate valleys), then a central
valley 300 miles long, then the Sierra Nevada. Some of the new
election units are oriented east/west even though most travel
routes are north/south! There was apparently at least an
attempt to mitigate travel problems by drawing the east/west
lines in such a way that the center of a unit correlates with
major roadways over the mountains.

Living in the middle of the central valley, people in my community
(downtown sacramento) will be forming new friendships at district
convention with Baha'is on the other side of the river (Davis), and
from the ag communities to the north. We will no longer see the
friends from the eastern suburbs or foothill communities at
district convention. The old "metro area" election unit has been
split up into three pie slices that extend out to rural and mountain
areas that were previously in other units.

None of this is realted to the above mentioned transportation
problems, but if I lived in a north-coast community, I would be
having to travel way (150 miles?) over the sparsely populated
mountains (same as some of the friends in the central border
area of southern Oregon) to a central location! Maybe local
sub-unit election meetings will become much more popular with
these type of new boundries?

Another curiosity I have is that there seems to be due
administrative attention paid to the overall numbers involved
in the equation, but the *demographics of participation* aren't
being addressed. Eg, my observation is that most of the people
attending convention are middle to upper middle class, "active",
establishment types who can tolerate a 3-6 hour meeting that
closely resembles a combination school board meeting and boring
church service. The only siginificant exceptions I have noticed
from my community is when the convention is held in an area
geographically VERY CLOSE (< 5 miles) to the residences of
the lower income (minority) members, and/or the convention is
set up with lots of entertainment, food and socializing. This
has only been tried a few times, usually when dangerous liberal
types were "mistakenly" asked to organize the convention!

On still another issue, I was wondering if anyone has any
thoughts on attitudes appropriate to voting for LSA members
since it is coming up this weekend. I vote in a "pragmatic"
manner that might not be in the best spirit. I look over the
list of those qualified (about 175), and highlight all people
that I personally am acquainted with that are good people that
have 1) a decent knowledge of Baha'i principles as well as
2) at least some experience in admin or potential to implement
the prerequisites for successful consultation and/or 3) have
made a significant contribution to community activities and
would therefore know specific things of important or critical
interest to the LSA as it develops the community's plan for
the new year.

After I have highlighted all these (usually about 20 people),
I have to narrow the list down to nine. I usually exclude those
who meet the above criteria, but would find serving too much of
a burden (cognitive dissonance related stress, family
responsibilities, etc.). I try to be "fair minded", but I don't
feel that I have a big enough problem narowing the list down to
9 qualified people to need to deeply pray or reflect on my
choices. I always vote weeks before election day, and usually
send in my vote as an "absentee" even though I go to the annual
meeting.

Does anyone feel there is a way to improve this voting methodology?
Any quotations or other info that might be pertinent?

Thanks,

EP

ps, even though I feel that that are many people that could do
an equally bad job, I almost never vote for more than a few of
the people that have been previously elected to the LSA, which
merely shows that my voting choices are usually different from
those whose vote was more "successful" the year before.

> Date sent: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 12:12:39 -0500 (EST)
> From: Jackson Armstrong-Ingram
> To: "Richard C. Logan"
> Copies to: Talisman
> Subject: Re: criticizing NSA

...snip
> (not hypothetical but real) case in mind. I think Talisman discussions
> often get greatly carried away into abstract possibilities. The odd
> 'case study' can be helpful for focus.
>
> Jackson
>

From jarmstro@sun1.iusb.eduThu Apr 18 18:54:41 1996
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 15:37:55 -0500 (EST)
From: Jackson Armstrong-Ingram
To: talisman
Subject: unity in diversity

Given the number of recent posts that referred to the issues of a static or
changing conception of the faith in relation to the world around it and the
issue of a linear continuity from the pronouncements of the Guardian to those
of the House, I thought the following from a letter of the House to an NSA
dated March 9, 1965, might be useful:

There is a profound difference between the interpretations of the Guardian
and the elucidations of the House of Justice in exercise of its function to
"deliberate upon all problems which have caused difference, questions that
are obscure, and matters that are not expressly recorded in the Book." The
Guardian reveals what the Scripture means; his interpretation is a statement
of truth which cannot be varied. Upon the Universal House of Justice, in the
words of the Guardian, "has been conferred the exclusive right of legislating
on matters not expressly revealed in the Baha'i Writings." Its
pronouncements, which are susceptible of amendment or abrogation by the House
of Justice itself, serve to supplement and apply the Law of God. Although
not invested with the function of interpretation, the House of Justice is in
a position to do everything necessary to establish the World Order of
Baha'u'llah on this earth. Unity of doctrine is maintained by the existence
of the authentic texts of Scripture and the voluminous interpretations of
'Abdul-Baha and Shoghi Effendi, together with the absolute prohibition
against anyone propounding "authoritative" or "inspired" interpretations or
usurping the function of the Guardian. Unity of administration is assured by
the authority of the Universal House of Justice.

"Such," in the words of Shoghi Effendi, "is the immutability of His revealed
Word. Such is the elasticity which characterizes the functions of His
appointed ministers. The first preserves the identity of His Faith, and
guards the integrity of His law. The second enables it, even as a living
organism, to expand and adapt itself to the needs and requirements of an ever-
changing society."

.............................

This informs my understanding of the relationship between the sacred text,
the Guardianship, and the House. The text itself represents and preserves
the unity of the Faith. The administrative order is a means to bring that
text into creative interaction with the world.

I think it can be seen how statements that the House's pronouncements on
texts are "authoritative' or "inspired," or that the House having commented
on a text is the same as if Shoghi Effendi had, are to _me_ covenantly
disturbing. I am reluctant to use such a phrase, but as positions which to
me are fully in accord with the above statement have been questioned on the
same basis, I think it is only honest and frank to let those who feel that
way know on what grounds I find their feelings both unnecessary and
problematic.

I am always willing to attribute such sentiments to an excess of enthusiasm
and loyalty, but as in many things even in enthusiasm and loyalty moderation
is probably preferable. I often think that Shoghi Effendi's characterisation
of true patriotism as being sane and intelligent needs to apply to religious
as much as national identity.

Jackson



From lwalbrid@indiana.eduThu Apr 18 18:54:41 1996
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 15:43:37 -0500 (EST)
From: lwalbrid
To: DEREK COCKSHUT
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Men who cause problems on Talisman & the women who love to hate them

Dear Brother Long John Derek of the Saintly Order of Cappacino Makers,
does not Brother James of the Abbey know that a lady who is not a
trollop but one of peculiar and particular motivation and perpetually
wired could not be understood by a gentleman of his gender? Has he not
been reading his Talisman postings of late? They will clearly instruct
him on what he is capable or not capable of comprehending because of his
particular chromosomal problem.

Linda (who is far to humble to give herself lofty titles)

On Thu, 18 Apr 1996,
DEREK COCKSHUT wrote:

> Dear Jim
> Of the noble order of get them rascals and tea not guilped here.
> I shall inform my dearest Linda that you do not question her
> sincerity.She only wishes to give a good thrashing to Richard Logan and
> rightly so.
> Kindest Regards
> Derek Cockshut
>
> Dear brother Derek of the high order of Espresso under the watchful Eye
> of
> Our Lady of Perpetual Wiredness:
>
> Please inform that spiritual trollup, known here as Linda Walbridge,
> that I
> do not suspect her sincerity of heart but rather her particular and
> peculiar
> motives regarding the larger agenda to which I referred.
>
> Brother James of the Abby of the Electric Perk, Portland Oregon
>
>
>
>
> Alethinos@aol.com
>
>
>

From richs@microsoft.comThu Apr 18 18:54:41 1996
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 13:47:21 -0700
From: Rick Schaut
To: "'Richard C. Logan'" ,
'Jackson Armstrong-Ingram'
Cc: 'Talisman'
Subject: RE: criticizing NSA

Dear Richard, Jackson and Friends,

Richard asked about Jackson's anectode in which a member of the
Universal House of Justice criticised the US National Spiritual
Assembly. Jackson replied:

>Thinking about this one, I don't consider it a "precedent" but I do
>think
>it speaks to the legitimacy of individuals publicly expressing opinions
>
>about institutions. I do think it is an example of the kind of frank
>and
>free comment that Shoghi Effendi thought should characterize
>conventions,
>for example.

I agree wholeheartedly. Note that the criticism consisted of pointing
out the extent to which the National Spiritual Assembly had failed to
act in accordance with the guidance and wishes of the Universal House of
Justice. I do seem to recall someone suggesting that criticism is best
and most productive when it's based upon guidence we've received from
the Universal House of Justice.

But this isn't the kind of criticism we've seen on Talisman. On
Talisman, we've seen criticisms levelled at the actions of individual
members of an institution with little, or no, groundwork given to show
that these actions are, indeed, representative of the policies of the
institution itself. (There are also problems involving the integrity of
the evidence upon which some of these criticisms have been based, but
that's a separate issue.)

>I also think it speaks to the issue of how should we regard
>statements made by individual members of institutions about those
>institutions in the absence of direct comment from the institution per
>se; again, I'm not saying it gives answers but it speaks to the
>question.

I don't think so. Absent any direct comment from the institution per
se, any attempt to assess the extent to which the thinking of the
institution as a whole has influenced an individual member's thinking is
nothing but pure speculation.

>And the other issue I think it speaks to is the assumption
>that what is being done by one level of administration is necessarily
>under
>the direction of the levels above.

This is true, but I wonder about the value of addressing this assumption
when, to the best of my knowledge, no one has made it. I have seen
people suggesting this as a possible explanation for some policies of a
lower institution, and I believe their intent was to forestall premature
conclusions about the basis for an institution's policies. But I have
not seen anyone state this as an assumption.
>
>I think all of these issues have been
>raised on Talisman and that the case provides food for thought on them;
>
>reason enough for me to post it. The process of reaching conclusions
>requires fuel. I always try to bear in mind the tenet recommended by
>C.
>Wright Mills to never write more than three sentences without a
>specific
>(not hypothetical but real) case in mind. I think Talisman discussions
>
>often get greatly carried away into abstract possibilities. The odd
>'case study' can be helpful for focus.

In this, I also concur. More case studies would be very helpful, but I
want case studies which clearly involve decisions of an institution, and
not just actions of individual members when our knowledge of the basis
for their actions is as limited as the case studies we've looked at in
this thread.

In fact, a collection of useful case studies might be a reasonable
project for someone with the time and interest. Alas, while I'm long on
the latter, I'm short on the former.


Regards,
Rick
>

From derekmc@ix.netcom.comThu Apr 18 18:54:41 1996
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 13:54:38 -0700
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: Men who cause problems on Talisman & the women who love to hate them

Dearest Linda of the flaxen locks,
Brother Jim is a dear soul who only wishes to
understand you better.Whilst you oh sweetness and light
of the Blue Woad face only wish to impale Richard Logan on a suitable
post.But I will convey to Brother Jim he needs his chromosones
checking.Is that a sort of 5000 mile service that one needs to
undergo?Linda is the Maiden of the still operating super secret list of
Dr.Burl and Dr.Uncle Derek.
Kindest Regards
Dr.Uncle Derek
Still holding doors open for ladies and receiving sweet smiles from the
fairer gender.
...............................................................

Dear Brother Long John Derek of the Saintly Order of Cappacino Makers,
does not Brother James of the Abbey know that a lady who is not a
trollop but one of peculiar and particular motivation and perpetually
wired could not be understood by a gentleman of his gender? Has he not

been reading his Talisman postings of late? They will clearly instruct

him on what he is capable or not capable of comprehending because of
his
particular chromosomal problem.

Linda (who is far to humble to give herself lofty titles)

On Thu, 18 Apr 1996,
DEREK COCKSHUT wrote:

> Dear Jim
> Of the noble order of get them rascals and tea not guilped here.
> I shall inform my dearest Linda that you do not question her
> sincerity.She only wishes to give a good thrashing to Richard Logan
and
> rightly so.
> Kindest Regards
> Derek Cockshut
>
> Dear brother Derek of the high order of Espresso under the watchful
Eye
> of
> Our Lady of Perpetual Wiredness:
>
> Please inform that spiritual trollup, known here as Linda Walbridge,
> that I
> do not suspect her sincerity of heart but rather her particular and
> peculiar
> motives regarding the larger agenda to which I referred.
>
> Brother James of the Abby of the Electric Perk, Portland Oregon
>
>
>
>
> Alethinos@aol.com
>
>
>



From spurushotma@brahma.hcla.comThu Apr 18 18:54:41 1996
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 14:11:29 -0700
From: spurushotma@brahma.hcla.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: FYI: Theological View of the World
Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Apr 96 14:36:09 PDT
Resent-From: (Shastri Purushotma)


Comments :

------------------------[ Original Message ]--------------------
To : Suresh Gopalan@Eng@REACH,Nagaraj Kulkarni@Eng@REACH,Arun Lekha@Eng@REACH,mmk@Eng@REACH,Raghavendra T Nagappa@Eng@REACH,Shastri Purushotma@Mkt@REACH,R.Srinivasan@Eng@REACH
Cc :
From : Gangadhar Bathula@Eng@REACH
Date : Thursday, April 18, 1996 at 1:46:29 pm PDT



> ...Many important theological questions are answered if we
> think of God as a Computer Programmer:
>
> Q: Does God control everything that happens in my life?
> A: He could, if he used the debugger, but it's tedious to step
> through all those variables.
>
> Q: Why does God allow evil to happen?
> A: God thought he eliminated evil in one of the earlier
> versions.
>
> Q: What causes God to intervene in earthly affairs?
> A: If a critical error occurs, the system pages him
> automatically and he logs on from home to try to bring it up.
> Otherwise things can wait until tomorrow.
>
> Q: Did God really create the world in seven days?
> A: He did it in six days and nights while living on cola and
> candy bars.
> On the seventh day he went home and found out his girlfriend
> had left him.
>
> Q: How come the Age of Miracles Ended?
> A: That was the development phase of the project, now we
> are in the maintenance phase.
>
> Q: Who is Satan?
> A: Satan is a MIS director who takes credit for more powers
> than he actually possesses, so people who aren't
> programmers are scared of him.
> God thinks of him as irritating but irrelevant.
>
> Q: What is the role of sinners?
> A: Sinners are the people who find new and imaginative ways
> to mess up the system when God has made it idiot-proof.
>
> Q: Where will I go after I die?
> A: Onto a DAT tape.
>
> Q: Will I be reincarnated?
> A: Not unless there is a special need to recreate you. And
> searching those tar files is a major hassle, so if there is a
> request for you, God will just say that the tape has been lost.
>
> Q: Am I unique and special in the universe?
> A: There are over 10,000 major university and corporate sites
> running exact duplicates of you in the present release
> version.
>
> Q: What is the purpose of the universe?
> A: God created it because he values elegance and
> simplicity, but then the users and managers demanded he
> tack all this senseless stuff onto it and now everything is
> more complicated and expensive than ever.
>
> Q: If I pray to God, will he listen?
> A: You can waste his time telling him what to do, or you can
> just get off his back and let him program.
>
> Q: What is the one true religion?
> A: All systems have their advantages and disadvantages, so
> just pick the one that best suits your needs and don't let
> anyone put you down.
>
> Q: How can I protect myself from evil?
> A: Change your password every month and don't make it a
> name, a common word, or a date like your birthday.
>
> Q: Some people claim they hear the voice of God. Is this
> true?
> A: They are much more likely to receive email.
>


From m@upanet.uleth.caThu Apr 18 18:54:41 1996
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 14:20:03 -0600
From: M
To: spurushotma@brahma.hcla.com
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Individual Rights and Freedoms Letter

>What I would like to suggest is a paragraph by paragraph study
>of the Individual Rights and Freedoms Letter of 1989.

I enthusiastically support the idea
G.

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



From jarmstro@sun1.iusb.eduThu Apr 18 18:54:41 1996
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 16:24:29 -0500 (EST)
From: Jackson Armstrong-Ingram
To: L.
Cc: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Homosexual "identity"



On Thu, 28 Mar 1996, L. wrote:

> Although I am suspect of her examples, Person's theory is interesting. She
> examines the importance of sexuality for an individual's identity and how it
> is mediated by gender and what she calls a "sex print", that is one's sexual
> preferences are "progressively narrowed between infancy and adulthood" (p.
> 620). The question she raises is that if this is learned behaviour, then
> why is it virtually impossible to unlearn? Her question is an important one

I had hoped there might be a continuation of this thread, however
although there has not been I wish to comment on this point as it is very
important.

For the last hundred years or so it has been argued in psychology/biology
as to whether homosexuality was 'innate' or 'acquired.' The argument has
not simply been an academic question but also one that had implications
for social policy.

To start with the basic point in the quote above: The fact that
something is 'learned' would not in itself suggest that it could be
'unlearned.' Walking is learned; talking is learned; reading is
learned. Can we imagine 'unlearning' any of these? No doubt given
enough incentive through the application of sanctions we could be
persuaded to substitute something else; to do something else as well as;
or to deny that we any longer knew how to do what had 'unlearned.' But
it is highly unlikely that anyone reading this could 'unlearn' to read.

This apparently logical, but deceptively so, argument that there is a
necessarily volitional element in persisiting in what has been 'learned' has
been used to
stigmatize as it implies that those who continue with disapproved
'learned' behavior are recalcitrant and blameable. This is why there has
been such a determination to argue the inherency of the condition: to
remove the concept of blame (although it does not, automatically, remove
the stigma of inferiority and leaves the stigmatized just as
vulnerable). Some specialists who did not actually believe
in the inherency of homosexuality argued for it in their published work
for political reasons. In particular, a thorny issue if homosexuality is
regarded as acquired is the fear of 'recruitment' of 'normal' people
through homosexual missionizing (essentially the argument used to exclude
homosexual teachers from schools).

The either/or nature of this argument is specious. The
possibilities for each individual are contained in the genotype, the
expression of those possibilities can only be phenotypically expressed in a
particular physical and socio-cultural environment. It is not possible for
anything to be exhibited in the phenotypoe that is not provided for in
the genotype. There is no solid evidence that any complex human
behavior pattern is laid down in its specifics in the genotype; but any
actual pattern cannot be built on anything other than possibilities
contained
there. It is not possible for any behavior exhibited by any human being
to be 'unnatural' in any biological sense; and all behavior patterns are
learned apart from one or two very trivial exceptions (ducking at
unexpected loud noises; flinging out the arms when falling; and the
peri-natal rooting reflex, are about it).

Jackson

From briann@bbs.cruzio.comThu Apr 18 18:54:41 1996
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 96 14:38:46 PDT
From: Brian and Ann Miller
To: spurushotma@brahma.hcla.com
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Individual Rights and Freedoms Letter

Dear Shastri and friends,
I like the suggestion to study this important letter from the House of
Justice paragraph by paragraph. Several times recently I have promised myself
to review this document and have yet to look at it. I think it contains
guidance relevant to our discussions on Talisman and would be interested in
our various perspectives regarding it. I would also like to wish you all,
somewhat in advance a very joyous Ridvan festival.

Warm regards,
Brian Miller [briann@cruzio.com]


--


From briann@bbs.cruzio.comThu Apr 18 18:54:41 1996
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 96 14:52:13 PDT
From: Brian and Ann Miller
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Groan for Noah

Dear Talizens,
My dear wife and companion inflicted this apocryphal story of the Holy
Manifestion of Noah upon me. I thought you would enjoy sharing my pain.

Shortly after waters of the Great Flood receded, His Holiness Noah
wandered the hill near Ararat, spreading the divine fragrances. He came upon
a pair of snakes weeping bitterly. He asked them why they grieved during such
a time of joy and rebirth. They replied, " Our Lord, please forgive us! You
commanded us to go forth and multiply. Alas we are merely adders."

Sigh.

Brian


--

From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comThu Apr 18 18:54:41 1996
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 96 16:05:01 -0400
From: Ahang Rabbani
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: new districts

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


Whoever came up with the new scheme for the district conventions
was clueless as what to do.

As far as our situation in Texas is concerned, the best way I can
describe the new districting is for you to think of 3 concentric
circles, each having its own district:

1. the city of Houston is in the centre;

2. a second region, consists of all suburbs of Houston (70 miles
from one end to another). Think of a donut.

3. all the cities outside of Houston, within 120 miles from
downtown Houston (hence nearly 370 miles from one end to
another). Think of a giant donut.

So, folks in the first district are fine. I live in the second
one and have to drive about 50 miles to the Convention which
starts at 9 am!

The third region is about the size of Switzerland. I mean this
literally; I've compared the two.

So, I must ask: Do they not own a map of Texas in Wilmette?


ahang.

From gladius@portal.caThu Apr 18 18:54:41 1996
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 15:01:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linda de Gonzalez
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Baha'iisms Cont.

It was my understanding, received at a conference put on for prospective
pioneers to China, that the Faith was being presented to Chinese seekers in
ways which Western (orthodox) Baha'is might find ... erhm ...unusual, to say
the least.

For example, because the Chinese don't have a concept of God in the Western
sense, it is impossible to present Baha'u'llah as Messenger from God. The
average Chinese would view this as simply insanity. Therefore, Baha'u'llah
as a person is introduced as a "Great Teacher", somewhat like Confucius.

So, in terms of the discussion on Baha'i-isms, we certainly do already have
them, and in far more variety than Westerners think we do. After all, how do
you present God's Message within a culture where the *same concept* of God
does not exist? That is not to say that Chinese culture does not value
spiritual beliefs or virtues, that is absolutely not true, virtue and
goodness are historically highly valued. It's simply that *our* i.e. Western
concept of God is perceived by the Chinese as lunacy, and not because of the
purges of Communism. I'm not sure that I have the whole idea completely
clear in my own head, but it's something like this: A Chinese would see the
"anthropomorphic" Old Testament type of God as a "ghost", someone who is on
the spiritual plane of existence. That a ghost talks to you and sends you
messages is insane. That someone starts a religion based on messages from a
ghost is also insane. The Chinese concept of God is way more amorphous,
inclusive, and indefinable. Well, at least I can't define it. I know I don't
understand it.

Maybe someone with more knowledge on the Chinese concept of God can help us
out here.

Linda de Gonzalez
Gladius Productions


From Don_R._Calkins@commonlink.comThu Apr 18 18:54:41 1996
Date: 18 Apr 1996 16:17:21 GMT
From: "Don R. Calkins"
To: gladius@portal.ca
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: "If Women Counted" by Marilyn WARING

Linda -
Good point, tho' I don't agree completely. The problem is, I believe, that
we have tended to see 'economic' and 'accounting' as meaning the same thing.
The care of the land has an *economic* value even if it is an accounting
debit. The problem that Marilyn Waring is pointing out is one that has
afflicted many companies the last 30 years; the attitude that the only thing
that is important is the condition of todays bottom line. Preventive
maintainance, pure research, and the like are seen in such a philosphy as
being a drain on profits and thus to be minimized at all costs. In reality,
free resources such as the land and the air can be used up, and there is a
long term cost associated this this process. This long term cost can be at
least approximated, but because it does not represent out of pocket costs is
typically ignored.

There is, by the way, an accounting specialty devoted to these problems
called Management Accounting, and there is a certification program, like for
public accountants. The recipients are CMA's, Certified Management
Accountants. Part of their responsibility is to determine the long-term
effect of management decisions on the viability of the company or enterprise.
It is, however very new; the first CMA was granted only about 8 (?) years
ago and there are still very few of them.

A fundamental question in all this is, "What is more important, pleasure
today or happiness next year?"

Don C



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

From derekmc@ix.netcom.comThu Apr 18 18:54:41 1996
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 15:28:01 -0700
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Dr,David Ruhe!!!

Dear Talismanians

I received notice yesterday that Dr, David Ruhe on Sunday at 1o'clock
had a triple by-pass heart operation, a serious operation but very
serious for aperson 85 years old.for those on Talisman who are not
Baha'is David Ruhe has served the USA Baha'i community with honor for
decades and was on the Universal House of Justice for many years.
Please remember him and his dear wife Margaret in your prayers.I have
fond memories have sitting with him at Bosch many times, and admiring
the clear concise mind and the warm of his devotion.I pray that can
continue.

Kindest Regards
Derek Cockshut


}

---

---

Return to Talisman

Translation Page

Baha'i Studies Page

J. Cole Home Page