From derekmc@ix.netcom.comFri Dec 1 16:01:17 1995 Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 09:48:59 -0800 From: DEREK COCKSHUT
You wrote: > My dear Juan Had the person had any prior contact with the National Office on this their version of Baha'i history? Warmest Regards Derek > > >Derek: > >In one recent case the NSA instructed a Baha'i to publicly retract >statements that Baha'i had made about recent Baha'i history, on the >grounds that the statements contradicted the account of the NSA. The >certified letter that arrived at the believer's house was preceded by no >warning concerning this particular incident. It gave the believer a >two-week deadline to recant publicly or his rights would be removed. > >And that, dearest Derek, is how there could be an emergency. > > >cheers Juan >
From DAWNLIQU@fllab.chass.ncsu.eduFri Dec 1 16:01:44 1995 Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 13:05:16 EST From: QUANTA DAWNLIGHT
Dear Saman,
What is absolute love? I can tell you that even when we fail the 5 conditions it does not indicate lack of love. So, when I fail in courtesy and patience, would you still love me? y best My best friends are those with whom I can let my hair down sometimes. And yes, I can love the most unloveable, unconditionally. Whether they want it or not, it will remain unexpressed, as wished. By the way, I remember stories when Abdul'baha got pretty upset. The believers "should powerfully sustain one another " He said. You powerful prayers on my behalf will be my sustenance.
lovingly not always gently,
quanta...(*_*)
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comFri Dec 1 16:02:38 1995 Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 10:43:46 -0800 From: DEREK COCKSHUT
My dear Linda I must say how shocked I am at your attack upon my dear friend Juan . When Juan and his twin leather clad female teenage cousins shared time with our dear friend Burl at ABS . Juan was inspired by Burl accomplishments in the field of literature . Juan has been taking secret and unknown classes from Burl in writing fiction and non-fiction . Burl in order to keep this fact a secret has been sending to me Juan's short stories to review . This is based on the principle telling another keeps the secret fresher . The Widget story was Juan's first attempt to contact a slightly wider audience than Burl and myself . In invisible ink he had dedicated the story to you as his inspiration . Burl is now worried that Juan might stop writing altogether and he will not write the great American Novel. You must console Juan to get him over this problem I appeal to my fellow Talismanians to Flood Linda's In box with the following message : Please Help Juan . Kindest Regards Derek Cockshut
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzFri Dec 1 16:03:12 1995 Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 08:16:16 +1200 From: Robert Johnston
Ffolks,
I love it. The richness. The humour. I'm talking about the exchanges between Tony and Jim I mean. Couldn't stop laughing. (Have I become perverse Steve [F.]?)....Samples from the canine section:
Tony: ... you seem to be under the impression that we all spend our lives (or at least our Baha'i lives) glued to computer screens bitching about the Baha'i community.
Jim: If you can't run with the big dogs T. than you better stay on the porch.
Tony: But, since you are a big dog and I am not, I guess I will stop trying.
My woman mentor tells me that she too has been known to scream and storm out, slamming doors. But I am not disenchanted with her or the other friends or myself, because I figure that the screaming is just the old world fleeing in the face of love..
Robert (don't pee on my hubcaps) Johnston
Yes: I know that Quanta's sabredance poem wasn't about me..
From rstockman@usbnc.orgFri Dec 1 16:06:30 1995 Date: Fri, 01 Dec 95 14:04:02 From: "Stockman, Robert"
Some say all acts are political acts: similarly, one could say that all speech is theological. I would be surprised if your story had no theological point to begin with.
Thank you for further information about the high priest's peculiar traits. I'm glad I don't know him.
-- Rob Stockman
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: widget goes to Indiana Author: Juan R Cole
With regard to my little short story, Rob Stockman offered a theological reply.
> > It's too bad the high priest of widgets didn't have infallible divine > guidance; furthermore, it's too bad he didn't believe in consultation; > and even sadder, that he didn't consult.
> --Rob Stockman
1) Don't you think that you are reading the high priest of widgets in a literalist way as having a single referent easily identified and defended with reference to infallible divine guidance? There are some possible referents for this character of which this would not be true, after all.
2) I regret to report that the high priest had on numerous occasions consulted with the monks about the problem, and they had concluded after consultation that nothing could be touched, and that this consultative process did not in the end prevent them from being blown to kingdom come.
Apparently the problem is that mere consultation is not a guarantor of being right. And while the monks usually benefit from pulling behind their leaders and following the results of consultation, there also has to be a mechanism for *evaluating the outcomes of consultation* in the short and the long run, and of *reconsidering decisions and policies that appear to have flaws.* Otherwise, kablooie.
cheers Juan Cole, History, Univ. of Michigan
From 72110.2126@compuserve.comFri Dec 1 16:07:42 1995 Date: 01 Dec 95 15:32:38 EST From: David Langness <72110.2126@compuserve.com> To: Talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Our Discourse and E-Prime
Dear Talismaniacs,
Reading Donald Zhang Osborn's post about E-prime a few days ago made me a happy man. I would point to posts such as his, and to the wonderful suggestions made here regarding reform, Baha'i human rights, and mysticism [Register Now For The Talisman Mysticism Conference at Bosch Baha'i School -- February 23-25, 1996!!!] as more than sufficient reason for Talisman's existence and continuing good works. Below, for those who didn't see it when I posted it last winter, another few thoughts on E-prime and its use in a Baha'i context:
Dearest fellow travellers,
Observing some of the most recent flames, flares and hurt feelings here on my/our beloved net made me want to mention a discovery I came across a few years ago while teaching a writing/composition class here in Los Angeles. Not only helpful with writing and in speaking, this new technique improves the consultation skills of everyone I know who uses it.
Called E-Prime (sometimes written as E') and more or less invented by a general semanticist named Alfred Korzybski and a linguist named David Bourland, this tool/technique calls for using the English language minus the verb 'to be.'
E-Prime eliminates the 'to be' family from our written and spoken utterances, with the goal of improving the way we deal with ourselves, with reality, and with others. It does so by deleting "be" absolutes, often spoken or written as "The NSA is terrible" or "This is the truth," from all communication. This little, unassuming, fascist verb asserts the validity of being as stasis, freezing meaning and inducing passivity in language. This assumption -- things stay the same -- flies in the face of Baha'u'llah's teaching that life means change.
A claim that something simply "is" usually leads to conflict, and I see so many is-forms in our Talisman language that I sometimes cringe at the implications. Psychologically and philosophically, E-Prime nudges its users closer to a dynamic, relativistic universe and away from old notions of fixed, bipolar, unchanging Aristotelian absolutes. E-Prime also removes much of the ego from writing and speech, by forcing each user to identify ideas and assertions actively rather than hiding them behind the passive, authoritarian, God-like declarative of "It is." (And its unwritten corollary, Because I Say So.) In my developing view on this subject, I now see statements like "The earth is one country, and mankind its citizens" as the sole purview of the Central Figures, while believing that our human statements sound better and reflect more humility when taken out of the realm of the absolute "is." The effect? Fewer pronouncements from on high, and a growing sense of humble fellowship generated by usage in the speaker. The benefits? -- clearer, more critical thinking skills, better, livelier discussion, and less insistence on one's point of view, leading to wiser, shorter and more spiritual consultation.
I found that using E-Prime helped me in my writing and in my speech, but especially in consultation as an LSA member. One book explains it best: To Be or Not: An E-Prime Anthology, edited by David Bourland and Paul Dennithorne Johnston, International Society for General Semantics, San Francisco, 1991. It contains several wonderful and only a few excessively technical essays about removing is-forms from our language. Reading it made me think about and long for a universal language purged of the omnipotent, declarative verb. If English finally encircles the globe and becomes the universal language, may I nominate E-Prime instead?
Perhaps if the Baha'i community practiced ridding itself of this one verb and its traps, we might discover a more conflict-free landscape. Anyone want to give it a try on Talisman?
All my best,
David
From rstockman@usbnc.orgFri Dec 1 16:32:41 1995 Date: Fri, 01 Dec 95 14:04:01 From: "Stockman, Robert"
At the Central Congregational Church in Brooklyn on 16 June 1912, he said: "Just as in the world of politics there is need for free thought, likewise in the world of religion there should be the right of unrestricted individual belief. Consider what a vast difference exists between modern democracy and the old forms of despotism. Under an autocratic government the opinions of men are not free, and development is stifled, whereas in a democracy, because thought and speech are not restricted, the greatest progress is witnessed. It is likewise true in the world of religion. When freedom of conscience, liberty of thought and right of speech prevail--that is to say, when every man according to his own idealization may give expression to his beliefs--development and growth are inevitable." (PUP 197)
Juan, I wonder how you reconcile this statement of `Abdu'l-Baha's with the fact that He expelled people from the Faith as Covenant-breakers. It seems to be that such an action clearly implies the existence of limits on discourse in the community. Perhaps not severe limits--it does not imply the existence of review, for example--but certainly it implies you can't read completely free and unrestricted discourse into this statement of `Abdu'l-Baha.
And, of course, `Abdu'l-Baha made this comment in the overall context of His establishment of review, so obviously the above passage cannot be taken to mean He rejects all attempts to set limits on discourse.
Now, turning to your comment that you do not think `Abdu'l-Baha would want review to be continued into the late twentieth century: would you consider the Universal House of Justice a good judge of this matter? Have they not said on thhree or four occasions in the last few years that review should continue? Does this mean you feel the House of Justice does not know `Abdu'l-Baha's wishes as well as you do?
I also wonder about your comment that a few "elder Iranians" have turned review into a censorship process beyond what `Abdu'l-Baha had in mind. Which elderly Iranians are these? Perhaps we should report them to the House of Justice. The only possibility in the United States I can think of is Firuz Kazemzadeh, who presumably has taken the same "hippocratic oath" to protect the free speech of academics as you. But I doubt you are referring to him. Perhaps there are elderly Iranians in the Research Department in Haifa who somehow have been taking actions inappropriate to the Cause? The only Iranian there I can think of, Vahid Rafaati, is not elderly; furthermore, he has a Ph.D. degree from the same institution as you, and thus presumably understands this hippocratic oath you refer to pretty well. Perhaps the "elderly Iranians" are a few members of the House of Justice? I suppose, then, you conclude that it is a shame the Baha'i world has elected them. Should we abolish the Baha'i ban on electioneering in order to get them removed? Perhaps you imply this, somehow.
-- Rob Stockman
From alma@indirect.comFri Dec 1 23:48:20 1995 Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 14:12:25 -0700 From: alma@indirect.com To: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu, talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Re: breathing space
I too am more comfortable with gay men than lesbians. But I attribute this more to a change in romantic/sexual attractions. If a man is gay, we can be good friends without worrying about any romantic involvement. But a lesbian woman might be romantically attracted to me and a friendly relationship now may have other implications. The whole situation becomes too complicated.
Once quite a few years ago I went to a twelvth-step meeting that was announced as a woman's meeting. One format of such a meeting is to have someone tell her story with emphasis on the group's purpose. Since I was new and they hadn't heard me, I was asked. And spoke quite freely for after all, these were all women. It was not until the next meeting that I realized these were lesbian women and their outlook on what I had said was probably different from mine and in retrospect, I was embarrassed. Never went back to that meeting and shortly there after the announcement included the fact that it was a lesbian group. In peace, Alma At 09:52 AM 11/29/95 EWT, LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu wrote:
>Now, to change the subject a bit. Quanta, I thought your comment about gay men >and lesbian women was very interesting. Since we are bearing our souls, I will >tell you that I have exactly the same experience as you. I feel far more >comfortable with gay men than with lesbians, something I am not particularly >happy about. However, I don't believe that it is helpful to deny one's >feelings. With lesbians I often have the sense that there is a degree of >hostility towards both men and towards femininity that I am uncomfortable with. >I do not sense anti-female or anti-male attitudes in gay men. It is not as >though I have a great deal of experience and knowledge in this matter. This is >simply based on the experience I do have. > >Also, I have read that women are far more likely to become or to realize their >homosexual orientation later in life - often in their post child bearing years. >Men, on the other hand, seem to recognize (at least at some level) their >homosexuality early in life. This leads me to wonder if male and female >homosexuality
aren't two quite different phenomena. > >Dan mentioned Middle Eastern homosexuality in his posting. He raises a very >important point. "Homosexuality" is not a single thing. It takes different >forms. We should remember that in Baha'u'llah's day it took the form of grown >men having sex with young boys. Perhaps that is why Baha'u'llah speaks so >strongly against it. > >Must go. Linda > >
To tread the path of Love Alma Engels Is no mere game. alma@indirect.com For only one Out of many thousands Can persevere in His Love. (Tahirih)
From jrcole@umich.eduFri Dec 1 23:50:19 1995 Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 16:31:19 -0500 (EST) From: Juan R Cole
Rob:
You raise the excellent point about limits on speech even within Abdu'l-Baha's generally "liberal" schema of free speech and freedom of individual conscience (azadigi-yi vujdan).
In all free-speech regimes, as Marcuse and others have pointed out, there are nevertheless limits beyond which one cannot go. Marcuse thought this boundary problem invalidated democracy, but I disagree. European Marxists, like Middle Eastern intellectuals, have never on the whole quite realized what a magnificent accomplishment Jefferson and Madison effected. In the U.S. free-speech tradition (which I think Abdu'l-Baha admired and of which he knew through writers like Draper) there are several sorts of speech that are prohibited:
1) Treasonous speech, as in plotting to overthrow the government or conspiring with the enemies of one's country.
2) Speech that poses a real and present danger of causing public disturbance and riot. That is, one could give a speech before a crowd in which one alleged that a large department store had obscene mark-ups and deserved to be stolen from. But one could not say, "Come on, let's trash that store and loot it."
3) Pornographic speech is prohibited as an affront to public morals; especially child pornography, though pornographic speech is notoriously difficult to define.
I don't actually see why the same three limits on speech cannot be operative within the Baha'i Faith. The covenant-breakers (surely they do not deserve to be capitalized?) were expelled for treason against the Baha'i leadership and community, since they explicitly denied the authority of the Head of the Faith and attempted to replace him with someone else.
The "clear and present danger" criterion (from Holmes, I think), likewise would subject someone to sanctions for disrupting Baha'i meetings & etc. I don't think we have a problem with pornography, except for the Twins, and they only exist in Burl's and Derek's feverish imaginations. Leather is much too cold to be useful in Michigan.
With these boundaries, we could *both* be true to Abdu'l-Baha's mandate of free speech *and* retain for the Institutions necessary controls on treasonous or immediately dangerous speech.
In this way, we could avoid having people's administrative rights threatened because they hold to a different version of recent Baha'i history than does some Baha'i bureaucrat somewhere. (This does not pose a "clear and present danger" to anything.)
As for my comment about culture, I am pointing out that the Baha'i Faith as a world religion inevitably contains within itself culture clashes, people with wildly different political cultures and experiences of the world, and that I think those who demonize "Western liberals" are simply trying to impose a single political culture on the Baha'i Faith, to its detriment. Nor do I think those people even have a very good idea of what Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha were about. I'll decline your invitation to get into naming names :-).
By the way, you shouldn't be so annoyed with me; I might be more of a friend than you even know.
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From s0a7254@tam2000.tamu.eduFri Dec 1 23:51:31 1995 Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 15:50:56 -0600 (CST) From: Saman Ahmadi
Dear Quanta,
You wrote:
> Dear Saman, > > What is absolute love?
I don't really know.
>I can tell you that even when we fail the 5 > conditions it does not indicate lack of love. So, when I fail in > courtesy and patience, would you still love me?
I kinda of think that we all should be so close as to be thought of as siblings - brothers and sisters fight but there is always that connection which is rarely severed.
My own case: my sister, who is four years older than me, and I used to to fight when we were young. As we have grown, our arguments are more about susbstance and contain a lesser amount of low blows.
> y best My best friends are those with whom I can let my hair down > sometimes. And yes, I can love the most unloveable, unconditionally. > Whether they want it or not, it will remain unexpressed, as wished. > By the way, I remember stories when Abdul'baha got pretty upset. > The believers "should powerfully sustain one another " He said. > You powerful prayers on my behalf will be my sustenance. > > lovingly not always gently, > > quanta...(*_*) >
take care, sAmAn
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 13:52:45 -0800 To: Juan R Cole
You wrote: > My dear Juan As I pointed out , there has to be due process ,did the person point this fact out or not ?.I do agree in principle that an alternative version of history should not be the basis for the loss of rights . I can think of grounds for loss of rights though on such an issue . A person named Bill Smith decides despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary that one Juan Cole helped himself to a percentage of the monies that were generated at ABS in San Fransico . The relevant Institution receives the allegation investigates and informs Bill Smith that there is no truth in his allegation . Bill Smith insists there is and he can prove it. The Institution allows Bill Smith to have access to the all the financial accounts and the use of his own accountant . Despite all of these efforts Bill Smith decides his version of the financial History of the ABS affair is the correct one. He intends to publish this as fact what would you do apart from sueing and the Institutions do not as a rule sue.The Baha'i course of action in that case is , as the obedience and trust is involved and the protection of 'your' good name , is to say this proposed action of yours will result in the loss of rights . You and I both agree that blind Obedience is contrary to Baha'i belief , Baha'u'llah states informed submissionn to the Will of God . If you have been informed you therefore need to submit. Warmest Regards . . . ?
> >Derek: > >There was no prior warning that the specific point at issue would trigger >loss of rights. > >And the very idea of an alternative version of history being the basis
>for loss of rights is positively Orwellian and unacceptable. > > >cheers Juan >
From sbedin@gov.nt.caSat Dec 2 00:04:55 1995 Date: Fri, 01 Dec 1995 16:17:07 MST From: Stephen Bedingfield
Greetings Friends,
Just nitpicking Juan's posting "Re: freedom of speech and its discontents".
Quoting Juan:
> The covenant-breakers (surely they do > not deserve to be capitalized?)
Of course, they (the Covenant-breakers) do not deserve to be capitalized. However, it is quite appropriate to capitalize covenant as a proper noun, and then create the hyphenated word "Covenant-breaker", as opposed to "Covenant-Breaker". Personally, I would be happier if they would content themselves to being "coconut-breakers"
Loving regards,
stephen -- Stephen Bedingfield | "We desire but Box 115, Cambridge Bay NT X0E 0C0 | the good of the world and Canada (403) 983-2123 | the happiness of the nations" email: sbedin@inukshuk.gov.nt.ca | - Baha'u'llah
From belove@sover.netSat Dec 2 00:09:47 1995 Date: Fri, 1 Dec 95 18:41:31 PST From: belove@sover.net To: talisman@indiana.edu Cc: 748-9178@mcimail.com, Jim Blake <0006596916@mcimail.com> Subject: form for bio please
When I first signed onto Talisman I was too shy to do a bio.
But this is more fun than, than, than, well a personal growth weekend.
And maybe it's more like the fun of graduate school... Fun, but not more fun than five hours of rhythm and blues. Nor more than watching my children argue over how to impersonate me on a bad day. That's a different kind of fun.
And it's not like the fun of being the only one who is right and then later on, having everyone recognize it and tell you. (This last being number 4 on the list of top ten wrong reasons why people can become a Bahai.) More like the fun of being wrong and learning what's right without it costing.. Sorry. Clearly there's No accounting for taste. Especially one's own.
Can I have a form for a bio?
------------------------------------- Name: Philip Belove E-mail: belove@sover.net Date: 12/01/95 Time: 18:41:31
This message was sent by Chameleon ------------------------------------- Things should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler -- A. Einstein
From richs@microsoft.comSat Dec 2 00:12:53 1995 Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 17:30:56 -0800 From: richs@microsoft.com To: jrcole@umich.edu, talisman@indiana.edu Subject: RE: freedom of speech and its discontents
Dear Juan and Talizens,
From: Juan R Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] >In the U.S. free-speech tradition (which I think Abdu'l-Baha >admired and of which he knew through writers like Draper) there are several
>sorts of speech that are prohibited:
>1) Treasonous speech, as in plotting to overthrow the government or >conspiring with the enemies of one's country.
>2) Speech that poses a real and present danger of causing public >disturbance and riot.
>3) Pornographic speech is prohibited as an affront to public morals; >especially child pornography, though pornographic speech is notoriously >difficult to define.
I think you left out a fourth class of speech:
"For the tongue is a smoldering fire, and excess of speech a deadly poison. Material fire consumeth the body, whereas the fire of the tongue devoureth both heart and soul. The force of the former lasteth but for a time, whilst the effects of the latter endureth a century.
"That seeker should, also, regard backbiting as grievous error, and keep himself aloof from its dominion, inasmuch as backbiting quencheth the light of the heart, and extinguisheth the life of the soul." (Kitab-i-Iqan)
Note: backbiting is also condemned in the Kitab-i-Aqdas, and I don't believe it falls into the category of laws which are between the individual and Baha'u'llah.
But beyond all of the legalities, the statement on _Individual Rights and Freedoms in the World Order of Baha'u'llah_ calls us to a different standard. I've seen a number of people, at least in the United States, who go about ensuring freedoms by pushing back at the boundaries of acceptable conduct; never really stepping over the line but always dancing close to the edge. The sense I get from the House is that the maturity to which they have called us wouldn't countenance such behavior.
I sometimes wonder as to the extent to which our difficulties involving speech are caused by the extent to which we have not risen to this level of maturity.
Warmest Regards, Rick Schaut
From LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduSat Dec 2 00:14:57 1995 Date: Fri, 1 Dec 95 21:36:20 EWT From: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: fresh torments
Dear Joan, please do not encourage Derek. You suggested that his posting coud be the first chapter of a book on Baha'i singles. Believe me, he would want to write the whole damn thing. Chapter II would be a steamy thing in which he would have Sherman, dressed in robe and turban, passing for a Sufi saint, seducing some poor young thing with his desires to have a "mystical experience" with her. It would become very lewd and he might even post such a thing on Talisman. Those of us with finer sensibilities would be very shocked and we would have another storm on Talisman. As if we didn't have enough.
Now, dear Derek and Burl, just because Juan writes brilliant books such as Shi'ism in India and Miraces and Metaphores, and just because he comes up with cool ideas relating to Baha'i courts, hardly means that I am going to flatter him about his "Widgets Goes to Washington" story. Look, we all know that if this high priest gave someone like this Donna person such a hard time, she'd just take her widget tightening wrench and bop him over the head. Where is the drama? Where's the suspence? How about the action?
BTW, Juan, Dick Bulliet has threatened to put me in one of his novels and I would be called - you won't believe this - Donna!
Melissa, you e-mailed me and I tried to respond but I couldn't get through to you. You want to try again? Linda
From Sat Dec 2 00:29:00 1995 Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 22:24:20 -0500 To: jrcole@umich.edu Subject: Re: defending the Institutions
Juan:
You know where I stand. I have fought long and hard against the *establishment* too: our goals are for all intents and purposes identical. I have had and still do have *deep ears* inside NSA and World Center both. While I have not heard of this particular bit of news (which I of course will keep to myself) it does not surprise me in the least.
We (meaning those who are a unity of thought) wrote to the UHJ two years ago now. We presented our views on America's spiritual destiny - asked if we were on track or way off. The letter we rec. back was great - nothing but confirmations. But the one thing it lacked was a note that the House was going to straighten things out over here - at least w/r to this issue. The message in that letter was clear: this is an issue the Americans are gonna have to figure out - if they can't get their act together - oh well!
We had not written to the NSA because we knew we would rec. a deaf ear, if not heat. Finally tho after the letter from the House we wrote to National, risking it. It was a great letter and we included our original letter to the House and their response. Nothing, nada, squat. No response. We called. No response. We wrote again. Nothing.
Our second letter (the UHJ) telling them that we were still trying happened to be read by the House while the *historic* meeting took place between the NSA and the House. I had first hand information from people there that gave a true description of how it went.
Well guess what? Did we ever get a big old "Gee how nice to hear from you!" letter from the NSA one week after they returned. How odd. It was filled with all sorts of fluff-fluff, *we're concerned too* stuff - you know the line . . .
The question Juan, is how to deal with all this. Frankly a lot of people in the know have given up on trying to get the NSA's attention. They are just too caught up in their own narrow views. So, we need a different way to shake the monkey from the tree. Personally I prefer the John Deere 347 TreeShaker . . . watch them nuts drop.
We are only gonna get our asses kicked sitting here on this list - if we do not quickly expand the circle. And the best way to do this, in my estimation, is to rouse the American Baha'i community with the Guardian's vision. Give the community a dream to follow. It must be real - a real assesment of what has gone wrong, and what we need to do to fix it. It must be multi-face
ted and multi-functional - able to appeal to the scholar and the ditch digger. In many ways it must be similar to what Gandhi did in India. Complex enough to appeal to the urban English educated fellows and yet retaining its power to invoke loyalty to the peasent farmer in the field.
Obviously I am throwing just a scant amount of our thoughts at you. But yes Juan, I do agree with the fast majority of what you are concerned with . . . the question is one of tactics and strategy...
From burlb@bmi.netSat Dec 2 00:36:27 1995 Date: Fri, 1 Dec 95 11:59 PST From: Burl Barer
1. The appelative, "Little Interruptions," is the term of endearment with which Juan and I addressed the twins between sessions at the ABS. The twins, well coifed and charismaticly attired in ebony lustered cow-hide, were cute as matching buttons. Hence, they were also termed "cuteus interruptus" on occasion, but that led to a slight misunderstanding which required a thorough study of Ahmad's theory into the wee hours.
2. Juan is a talented and creative writer who's light has been sadly obscured under a bushel of translations, treatises, and other material which your average Middle School truant, not knowing any better, would term dry as tinder, if they knew of tinder, which they don't, so they would say "dry as a prestolog" which has a more contemporary Americanacultural resonance. Juan's translations of Mirza Abu'l Fadl's brilliant "Miracle & Metaphores" is enough to enshrine Prof. Cole forever on a pedestal of admiration and gratitude -- as we say at Passover, "Dyanu" (that would have been enough). But Juan has gone on to give us so many selfless gifts, is it not time that he burst from his scholarly shell with the same verve and dynamism as Clark Kent from a phone booth? How long shall the Phoenix of novellas stay ensnared in the web of academics? Juan is even as a beautifull collection of butterflies pinned behind glass. Let us pull the frame from the wall, open the glass, pull the pins from out his wings, and toss him out the window, calling: "Be free! Be fee! Be the wind! Be the wind!" Of course, if you try this with a real butterfly collection the little suckers just fall on the floor all stiff and stuff 'cause they be dead a long time, but this is a miraculous metaphore for those favored with insight.
3. It is my firm and unalterable conviction that Juan, if (a) encouraged, and (b) allowed sufficient time and leisure, could become one of our most glorious authors of pure escapist literature -- delightful diversions flavored with the spice of spiritual insight and curried by multicultural sub-references so oblique they would astonish even Dennis Miller.
In summary:
Be nice to Juan. Encourage Juan. The twins do, and so do I.
PS: Someone portaryed as Juan and I being on different "sides." We have never been on different sides. We have always loved the very same ONE and both TWINS. Good thing we are not Trinitarians. And we both appreciate the warmth, love, support, and honest encouragement offered without restraint by Linda Walbridge who has layed herself on the line for us on more than one occasion, at great risk to her personal safety and reputation. God bless her and all those who circle round her and her chafing dish of beans and franks.
Love,
Burl (who is about to sue a recalcitrant publisher for contract violation) Barer
******************************************************* Order MAN OVERBOARD, the new book by Burl Barer today! *******************************************************
From cbuck@ccs.carleton.caSat Dec 2 10:03:47 1995 Date: Sat, 2 Dec 95 1:39:59 EST From: Christopher Buck
Donald and Stephen: 2 Dec 1995
Shi`is and Sunnis have clashed over Quran 3:7 for centuries. It's not so much a grammatical issue as an interpretive one. I discuss this verse briefly in *Symbol & Secret*, p. 83. But I think Todd Lawson has gone into this verse in some depth. I'll keep an eye out for the reference and will post it later if I find it.
-- Christopher Buck
From 76101.3361@compuserve.comSat Dec 2 10:14:55 1995 Date: 02 Dec 95 03:29:11 EST From: Habib Riazati <76101.3361@compuserve.com> To: BlindCopyReceiver: ; Subject: 1) Passage in Quran 2) Th Imams 3) Infallibility
Dear Friends, Allah'u'abha
I read your thoughtful messages concerning the verse in Quran and your question concerning the Baha'i interpertation of the passage " Them that are well-grounded in knowledge" which appears in the following Surih of the Holy Quran.
" He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: in it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part there of that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except God and those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord"; and none will grasp the Message except men of] understanding." (The Family of Imran (Al-Imran)- Surih 3 verse 7 )
His holiness the Bab is Persian Bayan bab 6 of vahid 7 as well as the bab 11 of vahid 7 (* pages 245 and 253 respectively *) indicate that by "Those who are firmly grounded in knowledge " is meant the holy and sanctified Imams.
As to the Infalliability of the Imams, His holiness Baha'u'llah in the Tablet of Ishraqat(* Meaning Splendours *) addressed to Jalil-i-Khui who has asked the Most Exalted Pen to explain for him the meaning of the "Most Great Infalliblity"; describes the aspects of infallibility and makes the clear distinction between the "Most Great" and "Conferred" infallibilities. This tablet has been translated into English and published in * Tablets Of Baha'u'llah * (* Tablets after Aqdas *)pages 101 through 134. According to this tablet His holiness Muhammad was the one who had the "Most Great Infallibility" while the holy Imams had acquried their infallibilities from Muhammad. We also see that In the Most Holy Book, Aqdas, Pragraph 47 Baha'u'llah states that the " Most Great" or as the Master in Some Answered Question section 45 calls it " Essential Infallaibility" belongs only to the Manifestation of God and no one has partnership in this with the Manifestations (* Supreme Manifestations *).
The beloved Master in Some Answered Question Chapter 45 on page 171 explains these very clearly.
The examples of the Infallibility in the Baha'i faith are: The Bab and Baha'u'llah have " Essential Ifalliablity" while the Master ,the beloved Guardian and the Universal House of Justice, have "Conferred" infalliability. In Islam , Muhammad has the Most Great infallibility while Imams have the Conferred one.
Now in the light of this infalliblities, we can say that the TRUE interpertation of the Quranic passages could only come to us by either Muhammad himself and the holy Imams. After them, the Bab, Baha'u'llah , Master and the Guardian give us the ultimate meaning of the SYMBOLIC verses.
With warmest regards; Habib Riazati
From pjohnson@leo.vsla.eduSat Dec 2 10:17:49 1995 Date: Sat, 2 Dec 95 9:49:44 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson"
> > I don't actually see why the same three limits on speech cannot be > operative within the Baha'i Faith. The covenant-breakers (surely they do > not deserve to be capitalized?) were expelled for treason against the > Baha'i leadership and community, since they explicitly denied the > authority of the Head of the Faith and attempted to replace him with > someone else. This is not the impression I get about the family of Shoghi Effendi, who neither denied his spiritual authority nor attempted to replace him. So some other criterion would seem to be required to justify their expulsion.
From LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduSat Dec 2 10:19:19 1995 Date: Sat, 2 Dec 95 10:13:52 EWT From: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: homosexuality
The other day I indicated that I wanted to say a few words on the subject of homosexuality, but, you may recall, there were these perpetual interuptions by gentlemen who believe that they have artistic contributions to make to Talisman. We will pity the poor souls, but since they are relatively quiet now, maybe I can squeeze in a few words.
A few weeks ago I had lunch with a young man from Bahrain who, in the course of the meal, told me he was homosexual and, of course, I questioned him about what it would be like being a homosexual in a place such as Bahrain. Needless to say, there are very few people there who are privy to this information, including his parents.
I was struck, once again, by that sense I get whenever I speak to homosexuals - at least males - that being homosexual has absolutely nothing to do with choice. It is for them what being female is for me. Simply a given. There is no chance that they or I could be anything else. I read every article that appears in newspapers or general consumption magazines on the subject. Everything leads to the same conclusion. Homosexuality is something that is inherent in the person. We are even learning that part of the brain structure is different.
How, then, can we compare this with something such as drug addiction? While a person may be predisposed genetically to addiction, a person is not necesssarily a drug addict. We know that it is a condition that can be dealt with. A person who is a drug addict or alcoholic at one point in his life may not be one at another point. I know of no cases personally where a person has gone from being gay to straight. I know men who have tried to be straight, but there lives have been miserable and the lives of their wives have, if anything, been worse. Then, there are the suicide rates for gays who simply cannot endure the stigma. While research is ongoing, while we stil don't really understand the nature of homosexuality, why can't we withold any judgment about the condition? In a few years we will probably know much more. This is a religion where science and religion are supposed to be in harmony. If research proves beyond a doubt that homosexuality is a condition one is born with and that it is not a psychological illness, can we not discuss it in those terms and find a place for homosexuality in our community? And this idea that is bandied about regarding lifetime celebacy seems to unrealistic to me. Sexual expression seems so very basic to life that I find it incomprehensible that we could blithely tell others that they must be deprived of it.
I would like to make it very clear that I am not one who feels that the teachings of the Baha'i Faith should be twisted to conform to modern standards of morality. Believe me, the idea is repugnant. I certainly do not advocate couples living together before marriage just because it is the thing that we do in modern American society. I don't think we should be smoking pot because it has become so acceptable today. These are very different issues to me. I believe ardently in family. I think that promiscuity leads to perhaps more social problems than anything else. It would be lovely if we could all be nice respectable, monogomous, heterosexual human beings and raise lovely families. But I am afraid the world just isn't quite constructed like that. If, indeed, people are "born" homosexual, then they have to have a place in it. As Baha'is they too need to avoid promiscuity, but can there be no sexual outlet for them?
I will await the blasts of protest to this posting. Your considered thoughts will be appreciated. Linda
From jrcole@umich.eduSat Dec 2 11:22:38 1995 Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 10:44:43 -0500 (EST) From: Juan R Cole
On Sat, 2 Dec 1995, Stockman, Robert wrote:
> > Dear Juan: > > I think in general terms your three criteria are useful,
[I had suggested limits to free speech consisting of 1) treason, 2) disturbing the peace, and 3) pornography.
> but Shoghi > Effendi nuances them more than you do.
Shoghi Effendi often did things on an ad hoc basis in expectation that the House would legislate on the issue later on. The Guardian did not have the prerogative of legislation. Nor could any "nuances" in his precious writings detract from the freedom of speech and of conscience guaranteed us by the writings of Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha.
> Review is the obvious example; > it fits under number two, perhaps, for it exists to prevent some sort > of danger to the Faith.
Review is actually irrelevant here because it was a temporary measure, not a legal principle.
> And the example you give of some sort of > disagreement about an event could very well fall under number one, for > the reason why the variant interpretation is held might very well be > "treasonous" (Ruth White's views about the Will and Testament, for > example).
Treason as I define it would have to involve an explicit declaration that the Head of the Faith is not legitimately so. You can't impeach someone for treason because they write a book in which some historical event is described differently from what it is in the messages of the NSA or the House. Even Shoghi Effendi's *God Passes By* will be revised by future historians, by the Guardian's own admission.
. Furthermore, the time an individual crosses the boundary in > any of these cases is determined not by a democratic vote and free > speech, but by institutions,
Rob, you are an intelligent man. How in the world can you bring yourself to give us this pap and drivel? Aren't you afraid of showing up in someone's book saying this nonsense? Are you trying to tell me that an "institution" (let us say the NSA of Dystopia) can brand any particular act of speech "treasonous," arbitrarily, secretly and without the least justification; that it could on this basis take away someone's administrative rights; and that this entire transaction cannot be commented on by anyone else, cannot be criticized publicly, cannot be scrutinized?
This is a recipe for totalitarianism and is a profound betrayal of everything Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha spent years in prison and exile for. They *explicitly* wanted a rule of law, and *explicitly* wanted the arbitrariness of high officials curbed by the latter's need to be elected and to keep on the good side of public opinion (SDC). You wish to remove all accountability from Baha'i officials and give them the authority to act entirely arbitrarily and unchecked. Good luck. As the community grows in importance, there will be journalism about the Faith in which statements such as yours above will not look good; and already in cyberspace there is a growing Baha'i public opinion that Baha'i officials are simply going to have to get used to. You'll all survive.
> and ultimately the Universal House of > Justice (to which everything is appealed).
The Universal House of Justice simply cannot be an effective route of appeal in a community of 6 million; most cases will be turned back for lack of time on their part; and this problem will get worse as the community grows.
. Everyone has the right of > appeal, and after that there is no principle in the Baha'i scriptures > that one should agitate to change the House's position, nor spread > around one's version of what happened. >
-- Rob
There is a difference between accepting the authority of an institution to make a ruling and accepting the goodness of the ruling. The NSA of Dystopia has made a number of bad rulings. Even the House, as in the Salmani affair, has on occasion made a bad ruling. You cannot keep intellectuals from discussing past rulings publicly in an effort to understand what their significance is and how the community might be improved. Or, you could (as you seem to want to do). But you would end up with a form of fascism.
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
> ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ > Subject: freedom of speech and its discontents > Author: Juan R Cole
From pjohnson@leo.vsla.eduSat Dec 2 11:23:41 1995 Date: Sat, 2 Dec 95 11:13:28 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson"
Hi everyone-- I'm back in hopes that the digest option will soon be available. That will combine all postings from a day into a single post-- making it much easier to keep up with high volume.
The big news in the Theosophical world at the moment is a referendum submitted by the National Board of Directors listing a number of by-laws revisions. 19 are substantive and to be voted on individually. Several seem doomed to defeat; especially revelant to the free speech discussion here is #9, "add a provision for rescinding membership in accord with international rule 36." The only way I'd vote for such a thing is if I get to decide who gets kicked out :) Seriously, I think Theosophists in general will be pretty outraged at the idea of membership being rescinded at the behest of the administration. Adyar has expelled entire national sections (Denmark and Canada most recently) for some flimsy reasons, in the Canadian case because they couldn't/wouldn't change their by-laws to suit the international society. So it's conceivable that the American Section, by voting NOT to amend in accord with dictates from Adyar, could get expelled in toto. Of course the amount of income and the number of eminent members lost would suggest that they might think twice.
Democracy in any spiritual organization is always endangered, it would seem.
From 100725.315@compuserve.comSat Dec 2 11:23:57 1995 Date: 02 Dec 95 11:15:10 EST From: Janine van Rooij <100725.315@compuserve.com> To: Talisman
Dear Quanta,
Sabredance is an old dance performed in several parts of the world, a dangerous dance in which the sabrecarriers can express their skills. As it suits my somewhat fighter nature, I chose it as nicknames.
And then.... Abdu'l-Baha often speaks about Warriors, and Soldiers.... my sabre cuts, but the cloth of love is in my other hand.
janine
From 100725.315@compuserve.comSat Dec 2 11:24:15 1995 Date: 02 Dec 95 11:14:51 EST From: Janine van Rooij <100725.315@compuserve.com> To: Talisman
Dear Melissa and others,
I think the solution lies in what is said in the Synopsis, that IF the marriage is conducted on the assumption that the wife is still a virgin and after that is proven not, the dowry has to be paid back. I don't have the Synopsis here right now, so I do not remember the exact wording. My understanding is that if it is explicitly stated that the wife is a virgin, and then it is proved she lied, the marriage can be annulled.
It is one of the laws which may never be referred to, I mean it is possible that people understand the true basis of marriage, which is love and understanding and total acceptance, so well in future that dthis will be regarded as an act nobody would do. I view it more as a token of God's understanding of the several stages of development humanity is in, a strong reminder to be forgiving and loving and acceptance of cultural difference.
Once again, I still think this law is only valid when it was formally agreed by the two parties involved that the marriage was conducted on the understanding that the woman was still a virgin.
Janine
From jrcole@umich.eduSat Dec 2 11:26:18 1995 Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 11:17:40 -0500 (EST) From: Juan R Cole
To my list of proscribed speech in the Baha'i Faith (which I desire to be short), it has been suggested that we add backbiting.
It is true that backbiting is condemned in the Baha'i Writings, as in the scriptures of other religions. And it should certainly be avoided. However, it is an ethical matter, not a legal one. It is extremely difficult to operationalize in law. One person's legitimate criticism in another person's backbiting.
For instance, say someone lived on an Island in the South Pacific. And this Baha'i thought that the NSA of South-Pacifica was not spending enough money on the National Teaching Committee budget, and said so publicly (I mean by publicly, not at Feast and not in a letter to the NSA). Some members of the NSA might consider this criticism backbiting. In fact, such incidents have actually occurred.
I would therefore not wish to see "backbiting" enter into matters of law (as opposed to ethics), unless it reached the point where it was libellous. Even libel is only grounds for a civil action, not a criminal one, in US law, and if someone is libelled (which is to say, deliberately lied about in such a way as to cause him or her monetary harm in a non-political context), then there are civil remedies.
In Saudi Arabia, an absolute monarchy with an absolutist Wahhabi religious establishment, sometimes religion and state clash. Talal Asad in *Genealogies of Religion* has given an interesting account of what happened when a group of religious thinkers addressed an open letter to King Fahd criticizing some of his policies and giving moral advice (nasiha):
"It is said that some of the King's supporters who commented on the original letter by word of mouth claimed that the manner in which it was delievered rendered this so-called nasiha (morally corrective discourse) into something close to *ghiba* [backbiting]--that is, speaking of someone's faults in his or her absence (and by extension also calumniating or slandering someone). *Ghiba* is strongly condemned in Islamic moral theology, so it is not surprising that the letter writers dismissed this analogy as absurd. But the point of likening moral criticism addressed publicly to the king to the sin of backbiting in private was, of course, to suggest malicious intent, a feature that irretrievably damages the integrity of *nasiha* [moral advice]." (Asad, *Genealogies of Religion*, p. 224.)
Asad's point in the essay was to show that the moral reasoning and political position of the Saudi Muslim clergy was not so different from or inferior to that Kant (who also lived under an absolute monarchy). But I have to say that the effect on me as an American of reading this essay was to provoke a profound pity for the poor Saudis, victims of absolutism in both politics and religion. And when I see backbiting brought up as an issue in what might be called Baha'i community politics, it reminds me of Asad's chapter and suggests to me that we still have not escaped from absolutist authority [as-sultah al-mutlaqah] into a realm of communicative rationality (al-`aql) as Baha'u'llah wanted us to.
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From JWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduSat Dec 2 16:13:53 1995 Date: Sat, 2 Dec 95 12:11:16 EWT From: JWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Free speech
With regard to the debate between Rob Stockman and Juan Cole:
1) In this century treason as a category of prohibited speech has come under suspicion precisely because it is so vague and liable to abuse. This is why it is so difficult to make Baha'i notions about shunning covenant-breakers and avoiding covenant-breaker literature convincing to outsiders.
2) Baha'u'llah was, on the basis of bitter experience, very suspicious of "leaders of religion." He abolished the priesthood in the Christian sense in the Baha'i Faith, limited the authority of scholars over the consciences of believers (the abolition of taqlid "blind obedience"), and made it clear the members of Houses of Justice were "trustees." I am now old and cynical enough to think that becoming a Baha'i does not necessarily wash away the sins of Adam from each of us, so it therefore seems reasonable to me to suppose that some Baha'i leaders will stray from the path of administrative virtue. This certainly happens; the House of Justice from time to time defrocks a national spiritual assembly or some of its members for abuses of one sort or another.
3) This being so, it seems to me that it would be preferable to protect against such problems by systematic administrative safeguards: a professional national Baha'i court, rules governing conflicts of interest, clearly stated rules of procedures for disciplinary matters, etc.
4) The alternative, it seems to me, is the situation we have now, where abuses result in gossip, ill-will directed at institutions as such, and gradually erosion of the credibility of particular Baha'i instititutions.
john walbridge
From friberg@will.brl.ntt.jpSat Dec 2 16:24:48 1995 Date: Sun, 3 Dec 95 3:09:18 JST From: "Stephen R. Friberg"
Dear Friends:
After some of the posts that I read today, I am starting to think that maybe "America's Destiny" is to collapse into discourse that is so rude and abusive that everybody will stop talking each other.
Some of our friends are so determined to elevate America to godly spiritual heights that they are calling others dogs. The person that they insult is the one person who has been replying to their postings and keeping their thread alive. Yet, still he is made the target of abuse. Go figure!
Another of the friends is so enamored of scholarly discourse that he, no doubt as a favor, suggests that someone else's ideas are "drivel and pap". It has been suggested that anti-intellectualism is rampant in the Baha'i community. Well, here it is, folks, right before your eyes!
We might do well to ponder a bit on how to get back on track. I'm not in favor of discontinuing discussion just because of some rough spots. But, it is clear that frustrations that others "just don't get it" or "are being too critical" boil over quite frequently.
Perhaps we should consider some of the ideas of Jurgen Habermas, the most highly regarded philosopher of the day. Coming to age in Germany after the war, he was associated with Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, who published the #Dialectic of Enlightenment#, which suggested that the pursuit of enlightened reason and freedom engender new forms of irrationality and repression. Adorno later published #Negative Dielectics#, arguing that reason is domination. Habermas, strongly critical of such negativity, has worked to salvage reason and the enlightenment rationality. He bases his philosophy on how communication is carried out in a positive way.
In his #The Theory of Communicative Action#, Habermas spells out the preconditions for rational communication. Speech, he says, consists of two parts: speakers saying something (asserting a proposition) and doing something (establishing a relationship). For mutual understanding, speech requires reflexivity (I, you, we, they) and reciprocity.
Nancy Love (Penn State) describes his thinking thus: "Competent speakers must be able to give reasons for their claims and be willing to grant others the same rights as themselves. (Habermas) defines ideal speech as 'intersubjective symmetry in the distribution of assertion and dispute, revelation and concealment, prescription and conformity among the partners of communication.' (He) presents these symetries as linguistic conceptions of truth (unconstrained consensus), freedom (unimpaired self-representation), and justice (universal norms), respectively. When these symmetries exist, communication is not hindered by constraints arising from its own structure - it is rational."
Translated into plain speech, this means that good communication, the kind that strengthens society and advances humanity, is based on give and take. If you expect someone to listen to you, the
n you must listen to them. You must be willing to give reasons for your claims, and also you must listen to other's reasons for their claims. Without this, speech becomes irrational.
Now, Habermas, who is still very active, goes on into a study of many, many things based on this analysis of communicative action. One of his major concerns is to understand how to advance society forward from the trap of a capitalism that "blinds itself to anything, however, important, that cannot be expressed as a price". It goes without saying that his command of philosophy is second to none. All of this has excited me.
Also, what has excited me is that his descriptions of good and bad communications seem so apt as I watch what works and what doesn't on Talisman. And his goal resonates strongly with ours: to achieve significant social and intellectual maturity through continuing discussions.
Well, it really is 3 o'clock in the morning, so I must retire.
Yours sincerely, Stephen R. Friberg
From margreet@margreet.seanet.comSat Dec 2 16:24:55 1995 Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 10:16:49 -0800 From: "Marguerite K. Gipson"
Hello Linda and all, I have to laugh, LOL cause as a single, heterosexual female, I have to live a life of celibacy. I don't want to, I would love to marry one day. I do have some *gay* friends.. both men and women. When I was about to adopt two small boys about 4 years ago, I did research on the brain, and its development from the moment of conception----I just spent hours in the Libraries including the University of Washington Medical Library.... not disecting brain matter... And no where in any of But we each have our road to travel, and our tests in this life.
At 10:13 AM 12/2/95 EWT, LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu wrote: And this idea that is >bandied about regarding lifetime celebacy seems to unrealistic to me. >Sexual expression seems so very basic to life that I find it incomprehensible >that we could blithely tell others that they must be deprived of it. > >I would like to make it very clear that I am not one who feels that the >teachings of the Baha'i Faith should be twisted to conform to modern standards >of morality. Believe me, the idea is repugnant. I certainly do not advocate >couples living together before marriage just because it is the thing that we do >in modern American society. I don't think we should be smoking pot because it >has become so acceptable today. These are very different issues to me. I >believe ardently in family. I think that promiscuity leads to perhaps more >social problems than anything else. It would be lovely if we could all be nice >respectable, monogomous, heterosexual human beings and raise lovely families. >But I am afraid the world just isn't quite constructed like that. If, indeed, >people are "born" homosexual, then they have to have a place in it. As Baha'is >they too need to avoid promiscuity, but can there be no sexual outlet for them? > >I will await the blasts of protest to this posting. Your considered thoughts >will be appreciated. Linda >
From rstockman@usbnc.orgSat Dec 2 16:25:17 1995 Date: Sat, 02 Dec 95 12:22:55 From: "Stockman, Robert"
I am afraid my workload will preclude my contributing to Talisman for the next two weeks. I have over 50 homework assignments for the Wilmette Institute to grade and our students have been enthusiastic writers, turning in small books for each week's exercises. I also have a huge amount of work to do for the Wilmette Institute to keep the program running. Finally our Arjmand-sponsored conference in Newcastle, U.K., next weekend will take a lot of my time for last minute preparations. In short, the work of doing Baha'i scholarly things is pressing Talisman onto a back burner for a while.
-- Rob Stockman
From rtaeed@marlin.utmb.eduSat Dec 2 16:26:22 1995 Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 13:06:57 -0600 (CST) From: Roozbeh Taeed
Ho, Ho, Ho
I read the Baha'i Writings and find that Baha'u'llah's message is open to investigation (i.e., critical thinking)--how else could the word of God stand in this Age? The Faith of God does not stand on a foundation of blind obedience.
I feel relieved and reassured that this Faith, my faith, can withstand such investigation and remain relevant.
I sometimes think that I still have a naive trust in the Faith and look upon some of the discussions, spirited tho' they be at times, as froth on the sea.
To paraphrase Rilke (the exact quote is unavailable as I search)
"Do not be bewildered by the surfaces, In the depths, all becomes law."
Lloyd Partridge, sometimes at this address
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Roozbeth Taeed roozbeth.taeed@utmb.edu University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston --------------------------------------------------------------------
From rstockman@usbnc.orgSat Dec 2 16:26:49 1995 Date: Sat, 02 Dec 95 13:03:13 From: "Stockman, Robert"
. Furthermore, the time an individual crosses the boundary in > any of these cases is determined not by a democratic vote and free > speech, but by institutions,
< This sounds like the sort of *ad hominem* attack that Talismanians are supposed to avoid: an effort to disagree with the Baha'i writings by accusing the person who presents the Baha'i position as an idiot. I'm not at all afraid of being quoted, though I do worry about being misinterpreted. But that is not my problem; it is the problem of the misinterpreter. -- Rob From rstockman@usbnc.orgSat Dec 2 16:27:26 1995 Date: Sat, 02 Dec 95 13:03:14 From: "Stockman, Robert" < We have the body to which you refer already: it is called the Universal House of Justice. Furthermore, while the Baha'i writings have not guaranteed infallibility to any sort of national or international Baha'i court, they have to the House of Justice. Regardless of the debate on "infallibility" on Talisman, how can we do better? And I don't buy the argument the House is too busy to rule; right now the number of cases they have to deal with is not that numerous. If they become numerous, then the larger Baha'i world community will also have the resources to establish an international Baha'i court. The House will decide when to do this. The House will also decide when to tighten the existing rules of procedure, based on problems that arise with the current rules. In all this debate about what rules should be followed in the handling of personal status matters, I wonder why no one has asked the NSA or House what rules *already* exist? There are probably more safeguards and procedures than people think. -- Rob Stockman P. S.: Sorry, this is probably my last posting before my disappearance; very busy. From margreet@margreet.seanet.comSat Dec 2 16:29:38 1995 Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 13:19:53 -0800 From: "Marguerite K. Gipson" At 10:16 AM 12/2/95 -0800, Marguerite K. Gipson wrote: Opps, I sent it out by mistake, but forgot to finish it... It should read further... And no where in any of my research did any of the books state a third or fourth concept of brain... Meaning female brain, male brain, a female who likes females brain, and a male who likes male brain. All I could find was that there only 1 brain, it all starts out the same... (Now these names of stuff were at least 80 characters long) all set up the same, and some gender/hereditary/neuron attachment based development for that particular person all before the birth of the child. Also I read studies on brains of adults, both men and women, but I do not care to go there... ( Read Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus) and Dr. Gray's other books too.... But we each have our road to travel, and our tests in this life. I honestly feel that somehow society is so *bent out of shape* that the so-called Doctors of the Mind have just invented some lame-excuse for the illness of homosexuality, not wanted to really deal with it, and to make society really just accept it as the norm. No where else in Nature is this possible... you have male and female animals, plants... and then there are the asexual plants for various reasons for survival..... Then you have some animal species who's genders are mixed up somewhat... LOL LOL Like it is the seahorse male who births takes care of the babies.... and the worker bees are all females.... with the males (drones) just good for one thing in the hive.... (hey, my housemate is a bee keeper 2 hives.) One of my girlfriends' co-workers came into the office while I was there, and announced she was no longer wanting a relationship with a male, as she was tired of all the games, and the actual lack of good men... so decided to find a female to be her companion, making the DECISION to go to the other side... so she advertised for a lady-friend in the local paper (this was last year) and will have a *companion ceremony* at Christmas. Yukkers... Now I have finished... Thanks..... Margreet > >At 10:13 AM 12/2/95 EWT, LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu wrote: > And this idea that is >>bandied about regarding lifetime celebacy seems to unrealistic to me. >>Sexual expression seems so very basic to life that I find it incomprehensible >>that we could blithely tell others that they must be deprived of it. >> >>I would like to make it very clear that I am not one who feels that the >>teachings of the Baha'i Faith should be twisted to conform to modern standards >>of morality. Believe me, the idea is repugnant. I certainly do not advocate >>couples living together before marriage just because it is the thing that we do >>in modern American society. I don't think we should be smoking pot because it >>has become so acceptable today. These are very different issues to me. I >>believe ardently in family. I think that promiscuity leads to perhaps more >>social problems than anything else. It would be lovely if we could all be nice >>respectable, monogomous, heterosexual human beings and raise lovely families. >>But I am afraid the world just isn't quite constructed like that. If, indeed, >>people are "born" homosexual, then they have to have a place in it. As Baha'is >>they too need to avoid promiscuity, but can there be no sexual outlet for >them? >> >>I will await the blasts of protest to this posting. Your considered thoughts >>will be appreciated. Linda >> > From burlb@bmi.netSat Dec 2 16:48:54 1995 Date: Sat, 2 Dec 95 11:50 PST From: Burl Barer , I wonder why no one has asked the NSA or > House what rules *already* exist? There are probably more safeguards > and procedures than people think. > Good point, Rob. In fact, I have the distinct impression that a recent posting regarding "due process" (not referring to cheese) which appeared on Talisman dealt with exactly that. It seemed that the contents of that post, which I think came from Derek, were well informed and informative, but I did not see any followup comments from the Talismasses -- am I the only one who saw it? Burl ******************************************************* Order MAN OVERBOARD, the new book by Burl Barer today! ******************************************************* From jrcole@umich.eduSat Dec 2 16:52:12 1995 Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 16:47:16 -0500 (EST) From: Juan R Cole Burl: Actually, I wonder why nobody asks Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha what safeguards *they* put in place. Derek's so-called safeguards do not actually work in practice and some of their provisions can be set aside at will by an NSA, and there is nothing anyone can do about it except appeal. In some cases a two-week deadline has been set by an NSA for an individual's public confession of error, which means that, were the individual to find this procedure unpalatable, the rights would be removed long before an appeal could be answered. It is known in one's own community that one's rights have been removed, and may become known quite widely in the national community. Why an NSA should be able arbitrarily to remove a believer's rights and ruin his reputation in this way, sometimes over simple matters of speech, I am unable to fathom. I am reminded by this whole discussion of medieval Islamic philosophy such as that of al-Farabi. He imagined a city of virtue and a city of the virtuous, where virtue was practiced, and he urged his model on Muslim rulers. Unfortunately, of course, the rulers often preferred to act arbitrarily and cut people's heads off. And you know what? There is nothing in al-Farabi's system to prevent them doing so. Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha, on the contrary, had an excellent sense of what keeps rulers from behaving arbitrarily: democracy,a free press, public scrutiny, the need to be elected, accountability, the codification of law, a rule of law, and so forth. The attempt of some Baha'is to repeal the City of Virtue described in *Secret of Divine Civilization* baffles me. cheers Juan Cole, History, Univ. of Michigan On Sat, 2 Dec 1995, Burl Barer wrote: > , I wonder why no one has asked the NSA or > > House what rules *already* exist? There are probably more safeguards > > and procedures than people think. > > > >Good point, Rob. In fact, I have the distinct impression that a recent > posting regarding "due process" (not referring to cheese) which appeared on > Talisman dealt with exactly that. It seemed that the contents of that post, > which I think came from Derek, were well informed and informative, but I did > not see any followup comments from the Talismasses -- am I the only one who > saw it? > > Burl > > ******************************************************* > Order MAN OVERBOARD, the new book by Burl Barer today! > ******************************************************* > > > From Kkonline@aol.comSun Dec 3 11:12:12 1995 Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 17:50:27 -0500 From: Kkonline@aol.com To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Fwd: Please forward to Talisman --------------------- Forwarded message: From: banani@ucla.edu (Amin Banani) To: Kkonline@aol.com Date: 95-12-02 15:04:19 EST Dear kk-- Well (and I wish you'd transfer this post for me to Talisman), I suppose one "spin" I could put on Burl's post about the TWINS is that he is referring, in a deep insightful way, to the "twin Mani festations of God." His use of "leather-cladding" is an equally prescient, and obscure, reference harking back to the use of the word "sufism" which, as all you middle east experts out there know, probably refers to the rough, woolen- wear the Sufis wore to separate themselves from the ostentatious, silken-clad other "believers." Really, Burl, I congratulate you for overcoming the deficiencies some of us have WHO DO NOT YET HAVE THEIR OWN DECODER RINGS and, therefore, truly appreciate your coded language. Juan too, no doubt, is proficient in this activity. Long may Talisman live! Your hidden and admiring fan, Sheila Banani PS/ Any responses may be posted to me directly since I am not on Talisman (think what you will about that!) > > >--------------------- >Forwarded message: >From: burlb@bmi.net (Burl Barer) >Sender: owner-talisman@indiana.edu >To: talisman@indiana.edu >Date: 95-12-01 15:10:24 EST > >1. The appelative, "Little Interruptions," is the term of endearment with >which Juan and I addressed the twins between sessions at the ABS. The >twins, well coifed and charismaticly attired in ebony lustered cow-hide, >were cute as matching buttons. Hence, they were also termed "cuteus >interruptus" on occasion, but that led to a slight misunderstanding which >required a thorough study of Ahmad's theory into the wee hours. > >2. Juan is a talented and creative writer who's light has been sadly >obscured under a bushel of translations, treatises, and other material which >your average Middle School truant, not knowing any better, would term dry >as tinder, if they knew of tinder, which they don't, so they would say "dry >as a prestolog" which has a more contemporary Americanacultural resonance. >Juan's translations of Mirza Abu'l Fadl's brilliant "Miracle & Metaphores" >is enough to enshrine Prof. Cole forever on a pedestal of admiration and >gratitude -- as we say at Passover, "Dyanu" (that would have been enough). >But Juan has gone on to give us so many selfless gifts, is it not time that >he burst from his scholarly shell with the same verve and dynamism as Clark >Kent from a phone booth? How long shall the Phoenix of novellas stay >ensnared in the web of academics? Juan is even as a beautifull collection of >butterflies pinned behind glass. Let us pull the frame from the wall, open >the glass, pull the pins from out his wings, and toss him out the window, >calling: "Be free! Be fee! Be the wind! Be the wind!" Of course, if you try >this with a real butterfly collection the little suckers just fall on the >floor all stiff and stuff 'cause they be dead a long time, but this is a >miraculous metaphore for those favored with insight. > >3. It is my firm and unalterable conviction that Juan, if (a) encouraged, >and (b) allowed sufficient time and leisure, could become one of our most >glorious authors of pure escapist literature -- delightful diversions >flavored with the spice of spiritual insight and curried by multicultural >sub-references so oblique they would astonish even Dennis Miller. > >In summary: > >Be nice to Juan. Encourage Juan. The twins do, andry attempt to do so- self manifested exaltation- would be blasphemous in that court or something to that effect Baha u llah says . What we have here it seems to me is an ethical imperative that grows out of metephysical and epistemological truths . I think this is what Baha ullah is trying to get at with the oneness of human kind . He is attempting to create the ethical political / cultural conditions in which each soul may testify in the station of the manifestation to the form of its Lord and "recognize " the forms in which that same BEING as Lord appears . This is where we get to Jefferson and Democracy . The spiritual *station * Ibn Arabi describes and for which Baha u llah provides ethical prescriptions is nothing less than a spiritual democracy, an *Irfan Republic* . This would seem a condition in which all beings have the capacity to testify in that *station" of manifestation that Being is One , that the Self manifestations of the Absolute appear in an infinite variety of forms corresponding to the "dominant " name in that soul . For this to occur on any large scale supposes that the general capacity of human beings has "developed" and that the non exaltation of one from over another needs an embodiment in sociocultural forms of the world of Nasut that corresponds to its analog in the world of Malakut which in turn reflects the * Command * to be in the realm of Jabarut . At the level of Nasut the non exaltation or dominance of one form over another is known as Democracy . The spiritual expression of democracy can be found in such statements as " We hold these truths to be self evident that all men have been endowed by their Creator with certtain inalienable rights . . . " The subsequent history has been the gradual emanation / expansion of this *Truth* to increasingly larger segments of humanity and throughout increasing "domains" of human existence . Democracy becomes the ethical/political expression of the means by which the Covenant of Alast can be answered in the affirmative by every human being . The *West * has developed the perspecftive and tradition of Democracy - Jefferson- , the * East* has developed the tradition of Irfan, Ibn Arabi . One brings the social political expression of the *Presence of Being * to the table(T) of all Food and the other brings the sense of spiritual reality its ontological underpinnings to the table(T) of All Food . If we marry the two - Ibn Arabi and Jefferson - we have , in my view , Baha u llah . The goal of Baha u llah is to create the conditions within human existence where one may experience BAHA U LLAH . So what I am left with is the Active Intellect ( my and Baha u lah's Maiden :) ) emanating the forms in which all beings may return to their Lord pleasing in Her sight . That form in the world of Nasut is Democracy. I conclude with the thought that Democracy is then an emanation of the Active Intellect/ Maiden - the expressiom of the Will of the Divine Feminine- from the world of malakut in the world of nasut in observance of the Command , the world of jabarut to "taste the sweetness " and to observe for the love of My beauty." And She is a Beautiful Being who loves B/beauty . I think She loves democracy ! My left brain is asking for aspirin . Any thoughts ? In Her service , Terry From Member1700@aol.comSun Dec 3 11:18:42 1995 Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 19:15:52 -0500 From: Member1700@aol.com To: Talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Re: Just when things were getting interesting Very regretfully, I must sign off of Talisman for a few days. I will not be at home much because I must attend to other work, and the prospect of facing four or five hundred messages when I finally get back is a little more than I can take. So, see you soon. Everybody be nice! OK? Tony From PayamA@aol.comSun Dec 3 11:24:31 1995 Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 20:13:51 -0500 From: PayamA@aol.com To: talisman@indiana.edu Cc: derekmc@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: The policy of due process of Administrative Rghts! Dear Derek Just a point of clarification. "5. The matter of removal of rights comes to the NSA in session , it is not a single staff person decision or a delegated one " When you say the entire membership of the Institution decides on removal of rights, does that also apply to the threat of removal of rights? Payam From s0a7254@tam2000.tamu.eduSun Dec 3 11:25:23 1995 Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 19:42:46 -0600 (CST) From: Saman Ahmadi Dear Juan, Linda and All, 1. Baha'u'llah compares backbiting and calumny to murder and adultry in the Aqdas - I personally think His analogy is much more than a literay device. I also think one of greatest reforms that the NSA of United States can put in place is punishment for backbiting - something like being unable to contribute to the Fund for a length of time maybe. While the fine edges of what is considered backbiting can be fuzzy, there are certainly things that are definitely clear: I personally have no interest in knowing who was seen with whom holding hands in the mall. And I would suggest that nothing short of a sanction will stop these kind of people from idle gossip. 2. On what scripritual basis can we say that a particular decision of the House is "bad" - and here I am not talking about clerical errors but the Houses's pronouncements and decisions regarding the Salmani manuscript, for example? While the House of Justice may change its mind (about the Salmani manuscript in the future, for example), whatever its decision, at any given moment, is of the same quality as any consequent, and perhaps contradictory, decision. I fail to see any other possible reading of the W&T of Abdul Baha. 3. I think that the House's recent letter acknowledges that homosexuality may be an inherent characteristic (though I wish the science would be cited - researchers of the hypothalmus (?) like LeVay, admit that no definite conclusions can be made to date). What if we assumed that homosexuality is actually a good thing, but that Baha'u'llah has forbidden it anyway - what then? The Bab prohibited eating garlic - eating of which is shown to be healthy. regards, sAmAn P.S. What's with all the name calling? You guys are making the U.S. budget negotiators look good. From gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduSun Dec 3 11:26:06 1995 Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 19:10:37 -0700 (MST) From: "[G. Brent Poirier]" On Sat, 2 Dec 1995, Juan R Cole wrote: > > Shoghi Effendi often did things on an ad hoc basis in expectation that > the House would legislate on the issue later on. The Guardian did not > have the prerogative of legislation. Juan, I'd like to ask for examples. The *only* example I know of where the Guardian made a provisional rule in language that indicates to me that he was, under his authority as Head of the Faith making a provisional rule that properly lay in the purview of the House of Justice, was in the matter of the age of the electors being a minimum of 21. He states that this is provisional, pending the election of the House. I will look again, but I don't see him with any regularity indicating that his statements were on an ad hoc basis. Where we differ is, apparently, that you feel that there are more ad hoc statements of the Guardian than does the House, which refers to the interpretations of the Guardian, if I recall correctly, as the "binding terms of reference" for the House of Justice. I have a letter, and I sent you a copy of it, from the House, in response to my December 1986 letter in which I asked the House about permissible limits of political activities for the friends and for the NSA. The House said that changes must obviously occur over time, in the application of the principle of non-intervention in politics. So I don't think it's any great news to the House that the administrative statements of the Guardian were often provisional in nature. I don't think this was legislation on the part of the Guardian; both he and the House were empowered to administer the Cause and lead the Assemblies, under the general power that all must "turn" to the Guardian and the House. The House fully recognizes, however, that many of the statements of the Guardian were statements of administrative principle which elaborated the implications of the Word, and which cannot be varied. My view is that the House makes the determination as to what are the interpretations of the Guardian, and which of his statements have temporary application. Love Brent From derekmc@ix.netcom.comSun Dec 3 11:29:35 1995 Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 18:52:14 -0800 From: DEREK COCKSHUT My dear Payam The three letters normally come prior to the NSA decision although there would be nothing to stop the matter coming to the NSA and the final third warning be from the NSA or a fourth direct from the NSA.In general there is a real effort to try and resolve the matter at the staff level and try not to burden the NSA with the problem whilst there is hope it can be resolved .If you have ever served on an LSA and be informed a member of your community has had their rights removed for whatever reasons it is to say the least a painful experience . The NSA here does make an earnest good faith attempt to preserve the privacy of the person whose rights have been removed , in the USA Baha'i community it is not announced in the American Baha'i who had their rights taken away. Nobody wants to see anybodies rights removed , there is not a program of removing a certain number of rights each month . I have to confess some of the postings , I am NOT refering to anyone in particular , left me with the impression it was felt there must be such a plan . I intend to post in respect of Juan's posting on Free Speech and the Secret of Divine Civilization .I would make the point the safeguards I mentioned are not mine but are from the Guardian and the Universal House of Justice. Kindest Regards Derek Cockshut From tan1@cornell.eduSun Dec 3 11:30:49 1995 Date: Sun, 3 Dec 1995 11:01:48 -0400 (EDT) From: "Timothy A. Nolan" In message Sat, 2 Dec 1995 10:44:43 -0500 (EST), Juan R Cole > There is a difference between accepting the authority of an institution > to make a ruling and accepting the goodness of the ruling. Juan, please explain, in the light of Abdu'l Baha's Will and Testament, why you think this principle applies to the Universal House of Justice. It is my understanding, from the Master's Will, that decisions made by the Universal House of Justice are good *by definition*. I think that, with regard to the Universal House of Justice, there is *no difference* between accepting its authority and accepting the goodness of its rulings. juan> Even the House, as in the juan> Salmani affair, has on occasion made a bad ruling. The "good" is not correctly defined by human likes and dislikes. That which is right and good is properly defined by God, Who after all is the very Source of all good. As you surely know, Abdu'l Baha has plainly stated that the Universal House of Justice is "the source of all good and freed from all error", and that their decisions are "the truth and the purpose of God Himself." Do you disagree with Abdu'l Baha? Do you believe Abdu'l was mistaken on this point? If you claim as a *principle* that Abdu'l Baha could be mistaken on a matter so central and fundamental to the Faith, then it follows that you must believe He could have been mistaken about other weighty matters such as the oneness of humankind, the need for compassion, independent search for truth, and so on. Once a person holds to a *principle*, there are certain consequences which are unavoidable. If a person adheres to the *principle* that Abdu'l Baha was mistaken about so important a matter as the infallibility of the Universal House of Justice, then from that *principle* must follow, ineluctably, the conclusion that He cou ld have been mistaken about other issues. The unavoidable end of this process is that any Baha'i can pick and choose which of Abdu'l Baha's statements to believe. Is that how you see the Baha'i Faith? It has always been my understanding that Abdu'l Baha is always right, that His statements were always God-given truth, not to be challenged by any believer. Granted that some of Abdu'l Baha's statements were intended symbolically, not literally; still His meaning in the Will is as plain as plain can be. Please explain to me how the "Source of all good", whose decisions are the "truth and the purpose of God Himself" can possibly be bad. Perhaps I'm dense, but I just don't get it. 8^). Tim Nolan, who is trying to be more polite and gentle. From tan1@cornell.eduSun Dec 3 11:31:11 1995 Date: Sun, 3 Dec 1995 11:07:30 -0400 (EDT) From: "Timothy A. Nolan" Juan, Near the end of my reply to you, I wrote incorrectly. I said something like "Please explain how the Source of all good......could be bad" Of course you never said the House itself was bad, only that some of its decisions were bad. This is what I hope you will explain. And I ask that in your explanation you explain specifically whether you agree or disagree with the Master's statements about the Universal House of Justice. Thanks, Tim Nolan From burlb@bmi.netSun Dec 3 11:42:31 1995 Date: Sat, 2 Dec 95 20:46 PST From: Burl Barer Item #1 Boise, Idaho doesn't much come to mind when contemplating anything except potato chips, but this week is different. One of my wife's favorite students was murdered in Boise a few days ago and his body thrown off a cliff. The folks who killed him didn't even know him. Only an hour after they killed him they used his checkbook to buy pizza for a party with their friends. Why did they kill him? It was an initiation. To join a particular "club" they had to kill someone. They picked him. Real sweet kid who had gone to Boise to visit his mom. The killers were his age -- late teens early 20's. Isolated incident. Indicitive of something. These, obviously, are sick kids. No moral compass and all that. Due process: give em a fair trial and hang em. Item #2 We were recently informed that a 17 year old Baha'i youth, "a spiritual angel," will soon be in our area -- in prison, serving at least 25 years for murder. Seems he and some pals conspired to beat another kid with a baseball bat and then the Baha'i kid provided the gun used in the murder. The kid has all the excuses in the world -- fell in with bad crowd, family problems, etc. and all the Baha'is who knew him from children's classes wrote letters to the judge on his behalf. Now, my wife knows the victim and the family in incident #1. She knows the family of the perpetrator in incident #2. We have heard nothing but the most wonderful things about the murderer in #2 -- how he is so spiritual and really into the writings -- he is blooming like a rose behind bars. I have heard nothing wonderful about the murderers in Item #1, but I am sure they have great potential and are much in demand, especially when it is time to buy pizza. Is there a point to all this? I doubt it. Two kids are dead --one was a sweetheart; the other I know nothing about. You'd have to ask his parents and teachers if he was more worthy of death at an early age than the other guy. As for the prisoners? Well, one them won't have his administrative rights for quite a while. Burl. ******************************************************* Order MAN OVERBOARD, the new book by Burl Barer today! ******************************************************* From JWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduSun Dec 3 11:47:09 1995 Date: Sun, 3 Dec 95 01:53:58 EWT From: JWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: The policy of due process of Administrative Rights! Derek: With all due respect, the procedure that you have outlined for the removal of administrative rights does not require 1) that the person know the evidence against him; 2) that the person have the opportunity to answer the charges; 3) the final judgment be made by persons not party to the case. I have seen at least one case where this procedure was properly followed, but when the person accused denied that he had done what he was accused of, he was refused, in writing, the right to see the evidence on which the charge was based. He thus could not defend himself in any meaningful way. When he appealed the ruling and again asked to see evidence, he was told that he knew what he had done and had no need to see the evidence. Moreover, the case was a dispute between the individual and the NSA involving a large amount of money. The case was handled directly by the NSA, with Community Administration only brought in to write some letters at the end. It is possible that the individual was guilty, but the documentation made it look like he was railroaded. I have no doubt that the procedure works very well with matters such as violations of marriage law. I see less evidence that it works well in (a) cases where the facts are in dispute and (b) cases that in the outside world would be called "political." Pace Rob Stockman, the House of Justice is not a substitute for procedural safeguards. There is no way that they can handle all possible cases. Moreover, suppose we are dealing with a badly handled case. The House is faced with either undermining an NSA or tolerating a possible injustice. They are a long way from the facts, cannot know the circumstances as well as the local people, and therefore will be nervous about intervening unnecessarily. It's not realistic to rely on the House ase the substitute for doing things right the first time. Re Tim Nolan's assertion that what the House does is good by definition: 1) Why then do they need to consult? 2) What ought one to think in cases where one believes a particular House decision to be in some sense wrong: ill-informed, wrongly reasoned, or whatever? A cousin of mine used to be a counsellor and got the House to change his country's plan goals on the grounds that they were based on unrealistic assumptions. Surely, the first decision can only be considered "good" and "infallible" in some very weak sense--"well meaning" or "legitimate," say. 3) I am very nervous about making any institution the sole guide of right and wrong. Baha'u'llah, after all, routinely appealed to abstract standards of justice in letters to kings and the like. We have had very unfortunate experiences with this theory of right and wrong in our enlightened century. I am aware that Baha'u'llah says that "He doeth whatsoever He willeth", but he was dealing with people who thought that God was not allowed to change the law of ablutions. Baha'u'llah had experience with rulers by divine right and didn't like it. Thus he was very careful to make clear that members of houses of justice were "trustees." john walbridge From Don_R._Calkins@commonlink.comSun Dec 3 11:49:13 1995 Date: 03 Dec 1995 01:56:49 GMT From: "Don R. Calkins" A few thoughts on Derek's post - I think violation of marriage laws is probably the most common reason for removal of administrative rights today; however cohabitation was a common reason in the 70's. In some communities 10-15% of the registered Baha'is lost their administrative rights for this reason. I think that is the reason why so many people from that time are listed as being without administrative rights. Also, violation of marriage laws is subject to immediate removal of administrative rights; I believe the only other situation where that is the case is when a person is institutionalized. Regarding the length of time to process the removal of rights - It has been my experience that it is rare for it to take less then 3 months after the recommendation has gone to National. Also that it is not unusual for Community Administration to request additional information from the local Assembly before consultation by the national Assembly. As to how long a person is without administrative rights - there is never a specified length of time. Rights are restored only after one of two conditions are met and the individual meets: either a situation has been rectified (such as meeting the requirements of the marriage laws or de-institutionalization) or the Assembly is convinced that the behavior will not occur again. BTW, the individual is not required to admit the charges against them. Tho the Auxillary Boards are not in a decision making position, they can be involved in the process in certain circumstances, such as being the cause of disunity. In such cases they may have been involved in the situation at the request of a local Assembly; therefore they may be asked for their opinion. I also know of one situation where an Auxillary Board member requested that the National Assembly delay making a decision while they attempted to resolve the issue. Over 30 years, there have been a number of cases where I suspected that administrative rights were removed inappropriately. In every case, the individuals who lost their rights failed (and in one case refused) either to inform the Assembly of their side of the case or to appeal the decision. In the cases where their side was presented with a request for reconsideration, administrative rights were restored. Don C - sent via an evaluation copy of BulkRate (unregistered). From Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nlSun Dec 3 11:50:36 1995 Date: Sun, 03 Dec 1995 15:08:38 +0100 (MET) From: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: homosexuality Linda, I'm not sure that the evidence to hand supports the conclusion that ALL homosexuality is innate, since there are cultures in which homosexuality or homosexual pederasty is an accepted alternative for heterosexuals when women are not available. One would also have to distinguish between adolescent experimentation and adult character. An adolescent does not know his sexual identity, and may mentally or physically try various identities out. So homosexual behaviour does not equate with homosexual identity. However we certainly have to assume that the overwhelming majority of adult men who say they are homosexuals by nature have neither choice nor cure available to them. So what is open to them? The Aqdas forbids pederasty, and the letter from the UHJ includes a quotation from Baha'u'llah forbidding "adultery, sodomy and lechery." This in itself rules out some specific acts but not homosexual relationships per se, or living together, or full participation in the Baha'i community, or forms of (homo)sexual expression other than sodomy & pederasty. But the UHJ letter also contains this citation from the Guardian's secretary, dated March 26, 1950: "No matter how devoted and fine the love may be between people of the same sex, to let it find expression in sexual acts is wrong. To say that it is ideal is no excuse. Immorality of every sort is really forbidden by Baha'u'llah, and homosexual relationships He look upon as such, besides being against nature. In which the first sentence would bar any sexual realisation of homosexual relationships, and the third sentence would bar homosexual relationships per se. I'm not sure that this is definitive. In the first place, it seems unlikely that this was one of those letters that the Guardian dictated. I haven't seen any texts in Shoghi Effendi's own writings in which he draws on natural theology (the idea that one can make deductions about human morality by reading 'the book of nature'), and the formulation certainly does not sound like Shoghi Effendi. [By the way, should the text read 'he looks upon' or 'He looks upon'?. The text is not in my version of REFER.] In the second place, although the House of Justice has treated this as an interpretation of the Baha'i Writings, there is nothing in the extract they cite which makes this certain. If the He refers to Baha'u'llah then one would have to ask where Baha'u'llah refers to homosexual relationships as being against nature. If the 'he' is Shoghi Effendi, then this a reporting of Shoghi Effendi's feeling about it, as a supplement to his statement that "immorality of every sort is really forbidden by Baha'u'llah". In either case a problem arises if, as appears, adult homosexuality and other kinds of cross-gender identities are genetically determined, and thus not 'against nature'. In the third place, this would appear to pastoral advice to an individual, and whether or not it is adopted as a guideline for legislation is a matter for the Universal House of Justice, which can also change its mind, and even over-rule the Guardian in legislating if it so chooses, since "the Guardian ... cannot override the decision of the majority of his fellow-members" [of the House of Justice]. But this is only a solace for the future, no help at all with the present. If the secretary's letter above, and another such letter of 21 May 1954 cited in A Chaste and Holy Life, p. 58, are not definitive then homosociality & homophile couples would not be formally against Baha'i law. However the 1954 letter says that "Homosexuality, according to the Writings of Baha'u'llah, is spiritually condemned" which is still pretty heavy (although there's no indication of where in the Writings this is stated). It also says that "we do not believe that it is a permissible way of life", which is perhaps the crunch of the issue. Do 'we' still believe this (given the understanding which is gradually emerging from scientific research), do we have a right even if we do believe it to impose community norms on this basis? I recall an NSA that felt that living in communes was not an acceptable way of life, but that too has passed. Sen From SBirkland@aol.comSun Dec 3 13:08:36 1995 Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 17:08:21 -0500 From: SBirkland@aol.com To: jrcole@umich.edu Subject: from Birkland 12/2 Juan, I have been taking some time this afternoon to think about the term "justice" in the Baha'i Writings and I am aware that there may be more than one word in the original Persian or Arabic that has been translated to the English word "justice". If you can take a few minutes, I would be very grateful if you can share with me what Persian or Arabic words have been translated to "justice" and the various meanings as you understand them. Thanks for your kind consideration of this request, Stephen From jrcole@umich.eduSun Dec 3 13:09:50 1995 Date: Sun, 3 Dec 1995 12:32:12 -0500 (EST) From: Juan R Cole Brent: You have in the past suggested a "default" in which we assume that the Guardian was speaking for all time unless he explicitly says otherwise. My default is the other way around: I assume that where he appeared to be legislating, what he was doing was ad hoc and subject to revision unless he explicitly says otherwise. Look again even at his language when he bans campaigning in Baha'i elections, how tentative it is. My default, it seems to me, makes more sense than yours. First, the Guardian himself explicitly denied he had any prerogative of legislation. Second, many of his policies were clearly temporary (excluding Baha'is from politics, e.g.) and in some cases he set aside principles of `Abdu'l-Baha and even Baha'u'llah temporarily. (`Abdu'l-Baha, e.g., insisted that American Baha'is as citizens of a republic, had a responsibility to play a role in public life, implying an involvement with politics that the Guardian later f orbade). Your default freezes us in the 1950s forever. Mine not only accords better with all the facts, but restores to us a flexibility and a hope we can ultimately reach the sort of democratic society envisaged in *Secret of Divine Civilization.* cheers Juan Cole, History, Univ. of Michigan From dawnliqu@fllab.chass.ncsu.eduSun Dec 3 23:39:56 1995 Date: Sun, 3 Dec 1995 13:46:31 EST From: QUANTA DAWNLIGHT My heartfelt sympathy and sorrow for both young people. The situation of youth in America is deeply sad, indeed! Unfortunately, only those whose families are able to send them abroad, teaching projects, Maxwell school and many other lofty places makes the American Baha'i News. So, we keep thinking that everything is "okay". "Der Kaiser hat schoene Kleidung, sehen sie da!". In my community alone the % of youth declaring their beliefs is deplorable low. Some of those who do, have the adverse influence of society inflicting their lives in many forms. This Friday my son's school was raided by the local authorites and 73 young people were arrested for drug dealing. Majority of the kids were from middle class white community. It was terrible for him to see his class-mates haulded away while everyone watching. I thank God! and ask His assistance and protection of my children everyday. We are planting seeds in a soil contaminated with pathogens, toxins, and lacking proper nutrients. Not all seeds will grow into health plants. If you see life in a matrix. It is everything influencing everything else, government, education, television, materialism, etc. etc. etc. It is like swimming against a current trying to reach the shore in a race. deeply sorry, quanta...(*_*) From dawnliqu@fllab.chass.ncsu.eduSun Dec 3 23:40:29 1995 Date: Sun, 3 Dec 1995 14:02:43 EST From: QUANTA DAWNLIGHT Dear Jim and Friends, I would like to express my deepest sorrow for having caused you any pain during an interaction last week. I truly respect and admire Jim for his keen insight to the problems of the American society and the way it has effected Baha'is as well. Especially, that he so courageously and honestly shares his well thought out concerns. Perhaps, my own pain in being so close to some of the problems in the society and his lack of knowledge of individual cases were some of the ingredients of the situation, which led to the whole misunderstanding. Jim! I hope you can forgive and continue with sharing your thoughts on "Axiology". I want to hear more of them. P.S: I must confess that my minor in college was Communications and German Literature. It didn't do me much good, huh! lovingly, quanta...(*_*) From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzSun Dec 3 23:41:07 1995 Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 11:14:12 +1200 From: Robert Johnston ffolks, >From afar I have ever been a lover of things American so I have no trouble swallowing Terry's blueberry pie and cream version of his nation's destiny. Indeed, his vision does square with 'Abdu'l-Baha's (I suppose), anyway. But I have a nagging sense that there is something missing from the picture. And I think it is a careful analysis of the Guardian's dark vision as presented in "Citadel of Faith", and which is still present in House messages. Taherzahdeh (excuse spelling) wrote in one of his books that whenever Baha'u'llah rewarded or praised someone you could be sure that person was in for some pretty severe tests. Maybe it is possible to extend this rule to 'Abdu'l-Baha and America. Clearly America is not going to willingly (in telethon fashion) divest itself of the evils of which even Terry writes (1 [see footnote]). So the blessed nation must inevitably have to go through the cleansing fires before it finds its destiny, in my view. Let's consider time-span. As we all know, the lesser peace is to be achieved this century: as I have been led to believe (somehow), the first glimmerings of the Most Great Peace will be apparent around the middle of next century. Which means that through the next 50 years -- during the lifetime of some of us -- the cleansing fires will most probably burn high... So, (if you'll excuse my presumption!) the element that seems to be missing from Terry's picture is a steady and unwavering fix on the reality of America as it is at this particular place in time. Of all the letters I have read it seems to me that the montane punk balladeer Jim "Jeremiah" Harrison, and the Quixotic Burl (camel but no hump) Barer are closest to getting it right -- that is: closest to seeing it like it is, and prescribing the remedy. Terry: re: " More on that if anyone is really interested." Yes please. Robert. ******************************* (1) Examine the following two passages from Terry: "When people parade to Feast or Holydays or Conferences in auto mobiles that cost more than the majority of Americans earn in a year - not to mention the world- objects which are clearly meant to be status symbols and to elevate some and make distinctions based on material wealth, or dress in very expensive designer clothing that is has no value from a quality standpoint but is meant to make a status statement ; why is this not a disgrace to a community in which the Founder disapproves of the pagentry of wealth and riches. Perhaps the repeated pagentry of wealth at Bahai gatherings so clearly contrary to the Bahai teachings should be subject to administrative sanctions ." "...that every evil known to humanity has been perpetrated in America . It had raped ,pillaged and plundered people and the earth just as had EVERY GROUP OF HUMAN BEINGS TO HAVE EVER LIVED ON THE PLANET . So the sins of America evidently did not blind Abdul Baha to the promise of America . This was and is a nation steeped in materialism , racism and all manner of ills ." From derekmc@ix.netcom.comSun Dec 3 23:42:37 1995 Date: Sun, 3 Dec 1995 14:59:12 -0800 From: DEREK COCKSHUT My fellow Talismanians You will all be delighted to hear the following news. In the days of summer Rob Stockman posted the scandal of the proposed Temple rabbit cleansing on Talisman . Veteran observers were amazed at the intense level of feuding that emerged . Clearly we became divided between Rabbit stew and non-Rabbit stew . Certain worthies proclaimed their devotion to the liberal cause by pointing out this was a classic case of big stomach I mean big brother mentality in the Faith. Others had their liberal cards canceled for yelling Lets have Rabbit stew at the Mystical Conference . I thought in those dangerous days that Talisman was finished the Rabbit scandal was more than one could bare . I understand from powerful influential and secret sources 27.75 Talismanians were suspended from this list for cyperhopping on to opponents in boxes and electronic big ear wagging . Only because John threatened to turn Linda loose on us did the storm abate . Rob then posted that he and his best friend Ken had at dead of night slunk on to the Temple Campus and rescued the little bunny family . Sherman you will all recall offered to embrace the little darlings fully and completely . Well one has often asked what happened to the bunnies Robbie , but no reply . However this weekend I found out for Talisman what happened : Rob and his best friend Ken stuffed the little rabbits and had Roast Rabbit for lunch . No thats a joke , at Bosch this weekend who should be over from Wilmette but Ken's fiancee Theresa . I mentioned the Rabbit incident to her .No you must be mistaken she said .No I replied it was not Talisman so it must be true , Ken rescued the little rabbits . Look you , she said I know the man I am marrying . If he had done that he would have told me. Ask him I said and don't forget to ask about Jean too . Jean,she said who is Jean . I smiled ask him about the rabbits I really should not have mentioned Jean , Ken doesn't like to talk about her . Well this morning Theresa gave me an update she said it is true about the rabbits . Ken said how does anybody know . Theresa said: I told him it was on Talisman . Well the Rabbits under Ken's care grow to adulthood and he released them into the wild . Sadly though Theresa did not believe him when he said: I do not know anyone called Jean . It will be an interesting meeting in Chicago tonight . So Linda do you think I have helped their relationship ? Kindest Regards Derek Cockshut From gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduSun Dec 3 23:42:52 1995 Date: Sun, 3 Dec 1995 18:59:47 -0700 (MST) From: "[G. Brent Poirier]" On Sun, 3 Dec 1995 JWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu wrote: > Baha'u'llah > was very careful to make clear that members of houses of justice > were "trustees." John, what are the implications you see attached to that word? Brent From gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduSun Dec 3 23:48:41 1995 Date: Sun, 3 Dec 1995 19:32:12 -0700 (MST) From: "[G. Brent Poirier]" On Sat, 2 Dec 1995, Robert Johnston wrote: > Let's consider time-span. As we all know, the lesser peace is to be > achieved this century: as I have been led to believe (somehow), the first > glimmerings of the Most Great Peace will be apparent around the middle of > next century. Which means that through the next 50 years -- during the > lifetime of some of us -- the cleansing fires will most probably burn > high... Well, I'd like to join the conjecture game. My guess is that the year 2000 will come and go with no international conference fixing the boundaries of the world and forming a world police force based on enforceable international law. The House has written (in the compilation on peace there is a letter) that the Lesser Peace could come as early as 2000. I have not seen any guidance from the House that tells us to book our reservations for the conference. On the other hand, implicit in the drive to complete the Arc building by the year 2000 is a recognition of the importance of that date. I recall that Stephen Lambden translated a Tablet of Baha'u'llah revealed in the Garden of Ridvan in Baghdad in 1863, in which He declared that the Law of Holy War was annulled. In another Tablet, He then revealed that this was the inauguration of the 1000 years of peace promised throughout the ages. That is, the peace did not begin with the condition of outer peace, but with the declaration of peace, with the utterance of the Word by the Manifestation. In like manner, my understanding of the lesser peace is that its foundation is in the mentality of the people. The world's political leaders will not establish any world institutions unless the people of the world provide the political support for them. We seem miles away from that mentality at present, in these days when the voices calling for the U.S.A. to get out of the United Nations come from higher and higher offices. My understanding is that the result of the tribulations of the age, will be that humanity will universally recognize that we are human beings first, and nationals of a given country, second. The calamities will bring us together and drive nationalism out of our souls. This is the necessary prerequisite for any declarations by the world's leaders. This can be arrived at by Plan A (become a Baha'i, work on yourself, cleanse yourself of all prejudices) or Plan B, (which is the unpleasant route.) As for the date of the Most Great Peace, in Baha'i World Vol. 13, in her essay on the Guardian, Ruhiyyih Khanum says that the Guardian hinted that the Most Great Peace would occur in the later centuries of the Baha'i Era. All of that said, since I'm not going to be around for much of this, I try to not focus too much on what century what will occur in, and keep focused on what the House directed the US Baha'is to do to clean up our act, in the June (May?) 1994 letter. Brent From JWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduSun Dec 3 23:49:10 1995 Date: Sun, 3 Dec 95 21:53:24 EWT From: JWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Trustees In Islamic thought, the concept of "trust" is very important as an ethical concept. The unfaithful trustee is condemned severely in the Koran. When we moved from Michigan, we left some odds and ends with a Muslim friend to sell at their next yard sale. When we came back four years later, our friend still had the $20 or so waiting for us. Juan could probably discuss the implications better, but my reading is that it is a rebuke and contrast to the Muslim clergy--and clergy in general--who did well by doing good, who spent money that was rightfully held in trust for the imam, and saw themselves as leaders rather than as servants. john From s0a7254@tam2000.tamu.eduSun Dec 3 23:51:08 1995 Date: Sun, 3 Dec 1995 21:42:19 -0600 (CST) From: Saman Ahmadi Dear Friends, I think the difference of opinion on this matter lies in the following: Assume that the House has complete/perfect information about a subject and renders a decision. Some disagree with the conclusion of the House - that is, based on the same exact information which the House posses, some reach a different, and perhaps contradictory, decision. It seems to me this is exactly where the infalibilty (however one wants to define it) of the House of Justice comes into play - their decision is the Will of God. Now we, as falible individuals, may not understand the wisdom of the House but I don't feel comfortable with characterizing their decision as bad. Where is the flaw in what I have proposed? regards, sAmAn From Alethinos@aol.comMon Dec 4 00:18:01 1995 Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 00:06:10 -0500 From: Alethinos@aol.com To: jrcole@umich.edu Subject: Re: defending the Institutions I know how you must feel. I was so angry from 1987 to 1992 I spit acid. Didn't do a damn bit of good. That is when Councelor Anello's words came back to me - he said them to me in '87 - "Until the American Baha'is live, eat and breath the Guardian's words - his vision - they will constantly meet failure." Hard words to hear. But he was right. Juan this struggle has to be expanded beyond these narrow confines - if we ever hope to blow this crap out the back door. It is hard but don't let it become personal. We have to do an end run around these fools; pull the carpet right out from under them. It is either that or bail. And I am serious there. I have been working for about nine months on trying to find a position in the Caribbean. College or good secondary school. Working with Counsellor Smith right now. Also Puerto Rico. Hell, why not hit the beach. Two classes in the morning, on the beach in the afternoon and hit the clubs at night. then write a big bestseller and watch America rip itself to shreads . . . gotta go now. Burl told me you were a nice guy . . . talked with him on the phone today, he was in Portland. Said he wished we wouldn't fight . . . if he doesn't like our pillow fights what is he going to do when those forces the Guardian spoke of turn on us . . . jim harrison Alethinos@aol.com From Alethinos@aol.comMon Dec 4 00:18:15 1995 Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 00:06:06 -0500 From: Alethinos@aol. com To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Re: PUBLIC APOLOGY! Quanta: "He who takes offense has sinned more than the one who gave it." The Bab. And since you didn't give offense as far as I am concerned . . . you can put away the Haagen Dazs double chocolate deluxe . . . jim harrison From jrcole@umich.eduMon Dec 4 00:19:47 1995 Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 00:10:56 -0500 (EST) From: Juan R Cole One more brief comment on the idea of a body having `ismat, which the Guardian translated as "infallibility." `Abdu'l-Baha writes in *Secret of Divine Civilization,* pp. 21-22 of the Persian, Hal, anjam-i umur va masalih-i `ibad dar kaff-i kifayat-i nufus-i mujtami`ih dar majalis aftad, va agar an nufus bi taraz-i *`ismat* va `iffat muzayyan shavand, ya`ni adhyal-i muqaddasih ra bi ashya-yi na-layiqih nayalayand, albattih ta'yidat-i ilahiyyih an nufus-ra mabda'-i khayrat-i `alam gardanad. Literally, this says: "Now, the implementation of these matters and of the best interests of the servants is in the hands of persons gathered in assemblies. If these souls become adorned with the ornament of Infallibility (`ismat) and purity, that is, if they avoid sullying the hems of sanctity with unworthy things, then certainly the divine confirmations (ta'yidat-i ilahiyyih) will render those souls the source of benefit to the world." This passage is about the Universal House of Justice, right? Nope. The passage is about the Iranian cabinet of 1875. And, of course, the trick is that I have rendered `ismat as "Infallibility," as if that were its only meaning. Marzieh Gail, p. 16, translates it as "pure". And she is right that this is what the Master meant. But `Abdu'l-Baha thought the *Iranian cabinet* could have `ismat, and that if it did it would receive "divine confirmations"! In fact, Baha'u'llah more than once makes it clear that he thinks that democratic consultation (mashvirat) attracts divine confirmations. So, a literalist understanding of `ismat as "Infallibility" in the Ultramontane Catholic sense, is not warranted by `Abdu'l-Baha's usage of the word, and he used it of other bodies than the Universal House of Justice. He meant by it something like purity of heart, avoidance of sin/error (khata'). cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan From rstockman@usbnc.orgMon Dec 4 00:24:16 1995 Date: Sat, 02 Dec 95 07:00:04 From: "Stockman, Robert" Dear Juan: I think in general terms your three criteria are useful, but Shoghi Effendi nuances them more than you do. Review is the obvious example; it fits under number two, perhaps, for it exists to prevent some sort of danger to the Faith. And the example you give of some sort of disagreement about an event could very well fall under number one, for the reason why the variant interpretation is held might very well be "treasonous" (Ruth White's views about the Will and Testament, for example). Furthermore, the time an individual crosses the boundary in any of these cases is determined not by a democratic vote and free speech, but by institutions, and ultimately the Universal House of Justice (to which everything is appealed). Everyone has the right of appeal, and after that there is no principle in the Baha'i scriptures that one should agitate to change the House's position, nor spread around one's version of what happened. -- Rob ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: freedom of speech and its discontents Author: Juan R Cole Rob: You raise the excellent point about limits on speech even within Abdu'l-Baha's generally "liberal" schema of free speech and freedom of individual conscience (azadigi-yi vujdan). In all free-speech regimes, as Marcuse and others have pointed out, there are nevertheless limits beyond which one cannot go. Marcuse thought this boundary problem invalidated democracy, but I disagree. European Marxists, like Middle Eastern intellectuals, have never on the whole quite realized what a magnificent accomplishment Jefferson and Madison effected. In the U.S. free-speech tradition (which I think Abdu'l-Baha admired and of which he knew through writers like Draper) there are several sorts of speech that are prohibited: 1) Treasonous speech, as in plotting to overthrow the government or conspiring with the enemies of one's country. 2) Speech that poses a real and present danger of causing public disturbance and riot. That is, one could give a speech before a crowd in which one alleged that a large department store had obscene mark-ups and deserved to be stolen from. But one could not say, "Come on, let's trash that store and loot it." 3) Pornographic speech is prohibited as an affront to public morals; especially child pornography, though pornographic speech is notoriously difficult to define. I don't actually see why the same three limits on speech cannot be operative within the Baha'i Faith. The covenant-breakers (surely they do not deserve to be capitalized?) were expelled for treason against the Baha'i leadership and community, since they explicitly denied the authority of the Head of the Faith and attempted to replace him with someone else. The "clear and present danger" criterion (from Holmes, I think), likewise would subject someone to sanctions for disrupting Baha'i meetings & etc. I don't think we have a problem with pornography, except for the Twins, and they only exist in Burl's and Derek's feverish imaginations. Leather is much too cold to be useful in Michigan. With these boundaries, we could *both* be true to Abdu'l-Baha's mandate of free speech *and* retain for the Institutions necessary controls on treasonous or immediately dangerous speech. In this way, we could avoid having people's administrative rights threatened because they hold to a different version of recent Baha'i history than does some Baha'i bureaucrat somewhere. (This does not pose a "clear and present danger" to anything.) As for my comment about culture, I am pointing out that the Baha'i Faith as a world religion inevitably contains within itself culture clashes, people with wildly different political cultures and experiences of the world, and that I think those who demonize "Western liberals" are simply trying to impose a single political culture on the Baha'i Faith, to its detriment. Nor do I think those people even have a very good idea of what Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha were about. I'll decline your invitation to get into naming names :-). By the way, you shouldn't be so annoyed with me; I might be more of a friend than you even know. cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan From snoopy@skipper.physics.sunysb.eduMon Dec 4 10:44:27 1995 Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 07:40:14 -0500 (EST) From: Stephen Johnson On Sat, 2 Dec 1995, Juan R Cole wrote: > Even Shoghi Effendi's *God Passes By* will be revised by future > historians, by the Guardian's own admission. Juan, Could you provide this quote if you happen to have it handy? (I'm not questioning your words...I just would like to use this quote in a conversation I'm having with another Baha'i.) Thanks, stephen From LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduMon Dec 4 10:52:08 1995 Date: Mon, 4 Dec 95 10:28:07 EWT From: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: why I am not shocked There have been intermittent postings - public and private - on the issue of the Aqdas's statements on viginity and women. I am going to venture to add my thoughts on this, though I probably will just ramble and muddy the issue by doing so. Rather than ask why there is something of a double standard in the Aqdas, I have always marvelled at the fact that it was so mild - almost inconsequential. First, in Middle Eastern society, family honor and female chastity are inseparable. Girls hold their family's honor in their virginity. Should it be reputed that the girl might not be a virgin, or if she is actually caught with a man, her life is ruined, if not completely over. Of course, this is extreme, however, such condemnation of unchaste females is not limited to the Middle East. How long has it been in the U.S. that a woman was not condemned or sneered at or thown out, or whatever, for not being a virgin before she was married? Read Victorian novels. While there is little reference to men's sexual goings on, it is certainly implied that the man is having his little romps while the woman is safeley ensconsed in her family's home. I don't think this is necessarily all a conspiracy against women either. It has a great deal to do with inheritence of property for one thing. A family wanted to be absolutely sure that it was leaving the family estate to the correct heir. A man wanted to be sure that the offspring was his before he would support a woman's child. Joan posted part of a report on sexuality that she had read recently. I saw the same report. It approaced scientifically what everyone has known without the studies: male and female sexuality are quite different. Sex generally means something quite different to men and women. In view of this, and more, it is quite a wonder that there is so little differentiation of expectations of male and female sexual behavior. Remember, Baha'u'llah himself grew up in a society where polygyny was very acceptable. He himself had more than one wife. A single reference to female virginity is extraordinarily mild. Furthermore, it is qualified by imploring the man who finds that his wife is not a virgin to overlook this matter. Perhaps it is because I have spent so much time around Arabs and focused on Middle Eastern society, that I find it very difficult to become distressed by this slight differentiation. I do not see in any way where the sexual liberation movement has helped women at all. To me, it has been another shackle, another means for women to fail to attain what she might in this world. The sexual liberation movement has only led to more single women, more poverty, more troubled children. Baha'u'llah haS made it quite clear that chastity is the way. However, He has also let us know that God recognizes our human frailties and is forgiving. If I am going to get worked up over things, (of course, thank God, I never do), it will be on other matters: freedom of speech, for example. So, sorry, you won't catch me playing religious fanatic Ninja on this particular issue. Carmen, don't tell me that you have been infected by the Derek and Burl virus too. Perhaps we need to start an arts forum for the likes of all of you. There's the Dead Duck school of art, so maybe this forum would be appropriately called "Dead Rabbit," in view of the current postings. Perhaps I won't be signing on just now. I seem to be lacking the inspiration in this direction. And, Derek, this Jean business backfired on you terribly. She called me last night. She thinks that this business with Ken and Theresa was just your way of letting her know you are still interested in her. She is flying to California this week to see you. You might consider joining Ahmad and I'll make sure that CNN does Derek updates so that we can keep track of you. Linda From s0a7254@tam2000.tamu.eduMon Dec 4 19:11:16 1995 Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 10:02:48 -0600 (CST) From: Saman Ahmadi Dear Juan and All, As I understand it, the "infallibity" of the House of Justice is not something which *they* strive for - it is something that was conferred upon them. (did I misunderstand you?) A couple of questions: Can we determine if a decision of the Universal House of Justice is in fact infallible? If so, how? A hypothetical question: what if Abdul Baha had simply said that the Universal House of Justice would be the highest governing body in Baha'i Administration? What would be the difference between this hypothetical institution and the actual Universal House of Justice? regards, sAmAn From rvh3@columbia.eduMon Dec 4 19:20:33 1995 Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 12:08:26 -0500 (EST) From: Richard Vernon Hollinger On Mon, 4 Dec 1995, Saman Ahmadi wrote: > A hypothetical question: what if Abdul Baha had > simply said that the Universal House of Justice would > be the highest governing body in Baha'i Administration? > What would be the difference between this hypothetical > institution and the actual Universal House of Justice? In practice, I don't think it makes too much difference. What is the difference between believing that what the UHJ directs us to do is the will of God and believing that it is the will of God that we obey their directives? Personally, I find the latter belief easier to accept, but I don't think it carries significant differences for my actions, except that believing that every specific decision does not represent the emobdiment of the will of God means that I might ask the House of Justice to reconsider a decision.. Richard From rvh3@columbia.eduMon Dec 4 19:20:59 1995 Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 12:15:40 -0500 (EST) From: Richard Vernon Hollinger On Mon, 4 Dec 1995 LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu wrote: > I don't think this is necessarily all a conspiracy against women either. It > has a great deal to do with inheritence of property for one thing. A family > wanted to be absolutely sure that it was leaving the family estate to the > correct heir. A man wanted to be sure that the offspring was his before he > would support a woman's child. I think Linda is right on the button with this, which is why virginity is not usually much of an issue where there is no private property to pass on to heirs. This also explains an early argument (circulating around the turn-of-the-century) for why men in the Baha'i Faith were allowed two wives, but the converse could not be allowed. You see, if a man has two wives, it is clear who the father and mother of a child are; but if a women has two husbands, it would not be certain who the father is. Richard From 73613.2712@compuserve.comMon Dec 4 19:21:44 1995 Date: 04 Dec 95 12:15:11 EST From: Steven Scholl <73613.2712@compuserve.com> To: Talisman Dear T-People, Was reading through the new American Baha'i and was struck by Allegra Kazemzadeh's article on the recent ABS conference held in San Francisco. I was only able to attend the conference for a few hours but the big buzz at Hyatt was Juan Cole's talk on human rights. NSA member Dorothy Nelson described it from the podium as one of the most important presentations on the Faith and one that should be published and made available to every Baha'i community. Interestingly, Juan is totally absent from Ms. Kazemzadeh's report of the conf. My intepretation of Juan's invisibility is that this is more than just an example of "spinning" and event, but an effort to eliminate Juan's research by ignoring it. It will be interesting to see if ABS follows through on Judge Nelson's recommendation to publish and distribute Juan's human rights paper. Steve Scholl From derekmc@ix.netcom.comMon Dec 4 19:21:56 1995 Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 09:48:35 -0800 From: DEREK COCKSHUT My dear Linda . Actually the Jean who is refered to in the case of Ken is actually Jean Robinson and she lives at 119 Despair Villas , Misery , Indiana . Please go and see the young lady she is so distressed over Ken and close by . Now the Jeans in my background let me see. Well there was a Jean Standing , Jean Frost , Jean Ingham and Jean Holden which one are you refering to? As far as virginity and the Kitab-i-Aqdas is concerned it seems to me there is nothing to stop a woman requiring virginity from her intended husband if he requires virginity from or even if he does not from her .In any case there is no requirement for the proof of virginity to be shown to the community and the families after the marriage is consumated.With the modern style of living for women the determination of virginity surely will be regarded as the purity of her life not the symbolic physical chasteness .I would personally recommend to any woman if the man you are thinking of marrying doubts your purity by demanding that virginity be regarded as part of the marriage package he is not the man to marry. It means he has doubted your word and regards you as untrustworthy .Maybe that is one way of looking at that particular aspect Kindest Regards Derek Cockshut From 72110.2126@compuserve.comMon Dec 4 19:24:44 1995 Date: 04 Dec 95 13:38:44 EST From: David Langness <72110.2126@compuserve.com> To: Talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Service to the Poor Works Dear Talismanians, Welcome to Adrian, Bronwyn, and the many others who have joined us most recently. Talisman, as you can probably already tell, ranges from the ridiculous -- rabbit liberation at the House of Worship -- to the sublime, as in Terry's most recent post, which sent little bolts of recognition through both left and right brains all over the talis-world. I wanted to reply to a short portion of Jim Harrison's recent post, which said: "In the midst of all this you have people trying to operate on a higher plateau -- trying to do the right thing, sticking up for human rights, helping the poor, etc. Great people. I've been there. I've done it, for a long time. Doesn't work... And 'Abdu'l-Baha knew it didn't work." While I often agree wholeheartedly with you, Jim, in your analysis of what troubles our Baha'i community and America as a whole, I must beg to differ here. If studying 'Abdu'l-Baha's life helps us live a better life, and if His example serves to teach us about the optimum way to function as a follower of Baha'u'llah, perhaps we might want to reevaluate service to humanity, especially service to the poor, in that light. The Master spent an entire lifetime dedicating his energies to the least fortunate and the most needy. He immersed himself in service, and told us repeatedly that "servant" was His only title, His only station, His only desire. The testimony of that life implores the Baha'is to do the same. So I would insist, at least for myself, that it does work. The time I have spent working to assist the poor and the destitute has served me -- and them, hopefully -- better than any other activity I can recall. It has given me a new appreciation for my own bounties, has provided a clear window to a new level of consciousness, and maybe most importantly, has allowed me to find a new way to give the Baha'i message through action instead of words. I think that the Universal House of Justice has called upon us all to engage ourselves in such service, as witnessed in the many letters on the subject of social and economic development they've written in the past decade or so. Maybe if we all taught as the Master taught, with service as the goal instead of numbers of declaration cards, we would have risen a little closer to our destiny as a people and a nation and a world faith by now. When I think about teaching the Faith, I try to imagine 'Abdu'l-Baha in the same situation and then follow my heart. I cannot imagine -- and I'll readily admit that this may be the poverty of my own processes at work -- that He would, for instance, go door to door and teach the Faith in the salesmanlike way we often do in the West. Instead, I imagine that He would immediately set to work, in whatever community or situation He found himself in, toward service to the poor. That place, after all, always yields the tenderest hearts and the most receptive souls. Love, David From dawnliqu@fllab.chass.ncsu.eduMon Dec 4 19:25:02 1995 Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 13:47:31 EST From: QUANTA DAWNLIGHT Dear Jim Quanta: > "He who takes offense has sinned more than the one who gave it." The Bab. Yes! indeed I have sinned a million times and a seven. >And since you didn't give offense as far as I am concerned . . . Thank you! That is taken half of the total above! > you can put away the Haagen Dazs double chocolate deluxe . . . Geee! You mean you are not going to sit down and chow it down with me? You know that it is an insult to refuse an offer where I am from. You must always graciously accept an offer such as. That calculates against your total today! But, you are forgiven. "Either appear as you are, or be as you appear" said Rumi. lovingly, jim harrison quanta...(*_*) From LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduMon Dec 4 19:25:18 1995 Date: Mon, 4 Dec 95 14:08:53 EWT From: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Jeans and virginity Well, Derek, I suppose with all the "Jeans" in your background, this would be a topic of considerable interest to you. Isn't it nice that we have reversed roles here? I am the one coming down on the side of "righteousness" and you are feeling a bit hemmed in by it. While, of course, a modern, American or European lady does not wished to undergo inspection about such matters and does wish to find the liberal, right thinking type of man who would never judge her by her past actions, I do not think that it is not unreasonable that many societies would hold on to views of chastity and virginity regarding women. Obviously, Baha'u'llah is admonishing people to - as we say these days - lighten up on the issue. He would prefer that a man not base his judgment of a woman on whether or not she is technically a virgin. However, the issue of who a woman sleeps with is extremely important because of the matter of whose baby she might be carrying. But if I don't get back to work and stop reading Talisman, I will have to unsubscribe so as not to have temptation placed in my path. And then who would Derek and Burl have to pick on? (Of course, they seem to be tormenting poor Ahmad in abstentia. So, I suppose I do need to stick around to defend myself.) Linda From dan_orey@qmbridge.ccs.csus.eduMon Dec 4 19:28:07 1995 Date: 4 Dec 95 11:31:10 U From: Dan Orey Reply to: RE>Re: breathing space Alma I have been told in a number of places, professionally, that women prefered gay men to work with, because we are much more fun, and the "sexual" energy is different, besides we both have something in common ...... relationship problems with men. Daniel From burlb@bmi.netMon Dec 4 19:29:57 1995 Date: Mon, 4 Dec 95 13:07 PST From: Burl Barer I recently returned from a quick trip to Portland to attend an open house hosted by Michael Henderson of Freinds of Moral Rearmament -- what a gathering! What wonderful people who actually *do things* all over the world to safeguard the interests and promote the unity of the human race, and foster the spirit of love and fellowship. The fact that a perusal of their magazine, detailing fantastic projects all over the globe for the transformation of society undertaken by diverse groups sharing common goals for the betterment of mankind reveals no mention of the Faith, nothing about any Baha'i community anywhere -- not even on the sidelines. What's the deal? The Faith, of course, was mentioned at this gathering because I was there (can't shut me up), and Velma Sherrill's husband's grandson, Patrick, (not a Baha'i) was there also asking for more info about the faith. One woman mentioned that she had been a Baha'i about 20 years ago, and after I told her about the race unity and human rights activities we instigated and sponsored in Walla Walla, she noted that it was wonderful that the Baha'is were actually finally doing something. FMA is the type of non-political organization that attracts people of all faiths and races because it does things. This is the type of organization that innactive Baha'is or ex-Baha'is hook up with to do those things that Abdul Baha said to do and that the Baha'is in America mostly don't do -- outer directed acts of selfless service to humanity. Mr. Henderson praised the Baha'is as "the most wonderful people...they gave me a peace award a few years ago" then commented that he hadn't seen or heard much from the Baha'is for the past two years...although he knew there were Baha'is on the faculty of the college and that there was a Baha'i book for children written by a couple in Vancouver that he felt was excellent. That's it. I would have cried but I was too busy thinking, of all things, of Linda Walbridge! You see, there was a big chafing dish of beans and franks and that reminded me of Talisman..... It is dandy that this gaggle of diverse dedicated souls is arising to serve the needs of a distacted and distressed humanity, but what saddens and distresses me is that we (the Baha'is) are still an isolated congregation is the USA more concerned with internal wrangling than external healing. I have jumped on this soap box so many times that I feel like a Hyde Park statue. Some one tell me what their community is doing, in cooperation with other like minded folks such as FMA, to be of service to humanity. Someone must be REALLY doing (not 10 Baha'is in the park having a potluck) SOMETHING. Hello? Burl (the Cadbury wafers were good too) Barer PS: I gave an 8 hour intensive fireside/deepening ( four hours to Portland, 4 hours back) to two fellas...one is a teenage exchange student from Slovakia. Something better come of it because I am getting irked. ******************************************************* Order MAN OVERBOARD, the new book by Burl Barer today! ******************************************************* From burlb@bmi.netMon Dec 4 19:30:07 1995 Date: Mon, 4 Dec 95 13:09 PST From: Burl Barer Several years ago, two young followers of Rev. Billy James Hargis (of Cristian Crusade fame and the dynamic presentation "Communism, Hypnotism, and the Beattles") were married. On the wedding night, they decided to begin their life together with no sexual secrets. The bride revealed that she was not a virgin, but had taken one lover before being married. But it was OK, because her sex partner was Rev. Hargis. The hubby, in turn, disclosed that he too had a previous sexual partner -- Rev. Hargis! Somewhat affronted that their mentor had shared his sexuality with both the hubby and his beloved, the couple went to the press with this information. When confronted by eager reporters, Rev. Hargis did not deny that he had enjoyed sex with both male and female followers. His statement was rather, in effect: "Everyone has their spiritual battles, everyone has their weakness. I do not deny my frailties or my temptations. Yes, I had sex with both of them, but it is not my fault. The problem is in my genes." And the newscaster said: "And he should have kept it there." Burl (Mr. 501) Barer ******************************************************* Order MAN OVERBOARD, the new book by Burl Barer today! ******************************************************* From osto4159@tao.sosc.osshe.eduMon Dec 4 19:30:28 1995 Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 13:33:05 -0800 (PST) From: Maziar Ostovar On Wed, 29 Nov 1995, Milissa wrote: > Hi Maziar-- > > I wish I could answer the concerns you raised in this post but I admit to > having some of the same concerns as you, and don't really know what to make > of them. > > However, a couple of things seem to really stand out to me. First, it appears > that in order to "get caught" one would have to be violating the laws regarding > sex in a blatant way. Otherwise, the Assembly would have to spy on people to > know if they are breaking any Baha'i Law. I think that this certainly should be true, but it seems in practice, that there are many other ways to get caught in the Baha'i community. Often, there is a secondary, but perhaps equally troubling issue of conflict between parents and children (as in the hypothetical case of the unwise teens). Baha'i parents sometimes seem to regard it as being correct (or at least within their rights) to distrust their children inherently when they reach a certain age, and furthermore, to attempt to control and regulate their childrens sexual impulses and feelings through external means which often include the threat of spiritual (and perhaps social) reprimand for "non-Baha'i" or "easy" behavior. The subjective and personal nature of understanding and applying this particular Baha'i law (of chastity and purity) is, I believe, clearly stated by the House of Justice (in it's letter quoted in the Chaste and Holy life compilation, to an individual who had asked for a clear set of specific guidelines for chaste or unchaste behaviors and the House had refused saying it was both impossible and unwise and in the end it was up to the individual believer to consienciously read the writings and apply them to their life) and this, as well as the principle of non-judgementalism (is there a specific word that is the opposite of judgement?) would seem to be violated by the zeal and intrusiveness with which many parents seem to dig into their childrens lives. Now, I can hear my Persian father (who I love very dearly) in the back of my mind say "son, you just can't understand how much you want to be protective and save your lovely children from being hurt. Someday you will have your own kids and then you'll know how I feel". While this may be true, I have yet to see where the standard arguments that I have heard for parental intrusiveness and protectiveness, which are pretty much (to my mind at least) based on emotional appeal ("..but I can't let my son date that kind of girl!!! You never know where it might lead!!! She's dangerous and easy!!!" etc, etc) or regard for children as incapable of following Baha'i law on their own -even if they have reached the age of maturity- ("you just can't expect a fifteen year old girl/boy to be very smart or in control of themselves, so you have to make up rules to protect them" etc., etc.), are substanciated in the writings, or good for the community. In fact, what I have seen (and this is only my personal observation and so quit possibly wrong) is that what has developed in many of the Baha'i communitys I have been in, is a deep rift of silence and secrecy between the thoughts, feelings and actions of the youth, and their parents, as well as the entire adult Baha'i community. I seriously doubt that this is good for the unity o f the community, and I know that it is certainly not good for the youth, who feel alienated and even angry and distrustful of a stage of life which they themselves will soon grow into and struggle with. On a whole different tract, the implied or stated threat of Baha'i community censure is enough to generally perpetuate a state of powerlessness and aloneness which often results when youth feel like they have overstepped a boundary and gotten into trouble. Rather than turning to a parent, or a trusted friend who may have the ability to counsel and encourage and offer resources (as many youth want to do when they are in times of trial) the fear of judgement and public humiliation leaves them to try and muddle through by themselves even when they are often scared, emotionally exhausted, inexperienced, and unable to see beyond their immediate experiences and gain some desperately needed perspective. I have had a large, large number of tear-filled conversations with youth (often, but not always, new believers) who are feeling tortured by their struggles with chastity (even when they may or may not be actually doing much of anything, just the struggle is often painful enough) and want some understanding and wise advice, or at least some sympathy, but feel choked off in dread of coming to the "veteran Baha'is" or the "adult Baha'is" (who are apparently preceived as the more judgemental and punishment oriented Baha'is). The Beloved Guardian's statement that the friends do not draw nearly as much strength and love from each other as they could comes to mind at times like this. This is a bit of a tangental point to the adultery issue, but at the heart this issue is, in my opinion, the fact that the Baha'i community is divided (and growing more so as we lose our youth and all the energy and power they should bring to our community lives and our teaching) and the heart of the division is, in my opinion, a view of judgement and law and punishment and sexuality which I think may be deeply flawed by the "excessive and biggotted puritanism" which is a deep undercurrent in America (as far as I can see), and against which the Guardian warned. In my desire to learn how to dispense with this attitude, I am trying to understand the laws of the Aqdas at a deeper level, but it is perhaps necessary to flesh out all of the problems and difficultys that one type of approach to Baha'i law may induce in order to learn to shift our attitudes in more healthy, spiritual directions. >However, blatant seems to have its > own problems....obviously if you are caught doing it in the park or become a > porno star you are breaking a Baha'i Law. Certainly this is true, but I am still wondering what is the wisdom of publicly exposing those few Baha'i porno stars out there (could they indeed be legion and because this law is not in effect we don't know :-)? I can't dream of a group of people who would be more moved to love and trust Baha'u'llah than those that have been so degraded and objectified by human lust and desire). In all seriousness, I also cannot help but think of the additional stress to me as an uninvolved individual (when I hear about some else's fine for breaking Baha'i law) in keeping a mind and tongue undefiled by breathing the sins of others. It is partially for this reason that I cannot quite understand the arguments for this type of social control as necessary, since it seems to add to the over all burden of materialistic and detracting forces in society which we must ignore and detach from. >On the other hand, what if a teenage > couple make a mistake and the girl ends up pregnant. Well it would be obvious > that she and her bf had broken the Law, although technically the act was not > blatant, even though the result (pregnancy) is. It is in this kind of > situation that I am most concerned....since she is pregnant she can't claim > she didn't have sex (it worked for Mary but nobody else!) This is an excellent point. In fact, I think that the whole determination of blatant (and flagrant) is perhaps, the crux of where socially ingrained attitudes come into play and can be changed. It is obvious in the above case that the fornificators were not intending to be blatant or flagrant, but were mearly weak (or rebellious or stupid or something...) but the individual and community view of their actions will be the operational force in assigning consequences (rather than God, or conscience) (although the pregnancy itself is quite a serious consequence). It is cases like this, and more often the fear of dealing with cases like this that seems to be shivering apart the hearts of the youth from the rest of the community. > but lets say she > wanted to protect the father of the child, for whatever reasons, and would > not give out his identity (ala Scarlett Letter). Do we force her to tell or > give a DNA test so we can hunt him down? Can the punishment for adultery be > imposed on only one of the two parties involved? All of this seems to be terrifically against the grain of the Faith and the loving, non-prying nature of the Institutions, and if it were seen to be a logical part of the adultery law, then I would think that the Baha'i community has really fallen off the deep end of conservatism and puritanical narrow-mindedness. (Not that I necessarily think we have- I would see this as a pretty unlikely "worst case scenario"). On the other hand, if it is possible to simply punish one of the offenders of the law, and by the nature of how it is determined this always means the women, then this seems like a clearly sexist application of Baha'i law (which I think puritanically colored thinking easily allows). It seems clear to me that for this reason, the law should not be applied in this case, although, in many a Baha'i community, I have seen most everyone shame and even shun young women (and some not so young ones too) who have turned up pregnant (whispers at feast, and a general feeling of dislike, distrust, murmers of "you don't want to turn out like her" being common and inciting all sorts of other Baha'i principles to be broken on the back of "well it's obvious and this is part of what happens when you break the law"). > And then there is that virgin- > ity law in the Aqdas where your husband can claim you weren't a virgin and get > rid of you. Would you then be punished twice, having the adultery penalty > imposed after your new husband has dumped you? It seems that God has a double > standard, according to some Baha'is, and thinks chastity is more important for > women than for men....see the introductory book by Ferraby as an example. I think, that the whole virginity issue is being addressed by others, so I won't talk about it now (this message is already a bit long!). As far as God having a double standard, I guess that is the whole point of my passion in dealing with this issue. God could not have a double standard as I see it- everything Baha'u'llah says about equality of the sexes (especially on a spiritual plane) forbids this! It is we, the traditionally weighted, culturally influenced, very fallible individuals who must be reading in a standard (or two) that are not there. > On the other hand, it could be worse. A fine is definitely not as bad as 100 > lashes! > > Sincerely, > > Milissa Boyer > mboyer@ukanvm.cc.ukans.edu True, although I think 100 lashes might be preferable to the disunity and walls of silence that are being built in some of our communitys, at least as far as the future of humanity is concerned. (Although 100 lashes probably is as much a source of public humiliation as a fine, so my argument is moot, or rather the whole of it, stands against them both) Thanks for your thoughtful reply, it sure raised a lot of ideas for me. I hope you don't mind the length of this response- I just got rolling and couldn't stop :). Warmest regards, -Maziar From rvh3@columbia.eduMon Dec 4 19:34:28 1995 Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 16:48:04 -0500 (EST) From: Richard Vernon Hollinger On 4 Dec 1995, David Langness wrote: > When I think about teaching the Faith, I try to imagine 'Abdu'l-Baha > in the same situation and then follow my heart. I cannot imagine -- and > I'll readily admit that this may be the poverty of my own processes at > work -- that He would, for instance, go door to door and teach the Faith > in the salesmanlike way we often do in the West. Instead, I imagine that > He would immediately set to work, in whatever community or situation He > found himself in, toward service to the poor. That place, after all, > always yields the tenderest hearts and the most receptive souls. David, I certainly agree with you that `Abdu'l-Baha would not teach *only* by going door to door, for that is not how he lived his life. But he does not seem to have been much concerned with the outward appearance of dignity when he came to promoting the cause. For example, he agreed to be filmed by a newsreel company when he was in New York City in order to publicize his tour, even though motion pictures were regarded as an extremely undignified form of entertainment and the theeatres they were shown in were then regarded a very "seedy"--perhaps comparable to businesses in red light districts today. Some of the Baha'is were shocked that he agreed to do this, but he saw nothing wrong with this. `Abdu'l-Baha, as the head of the faith, probably would have been too busy to teach door-to-door, but I doubt that he would have disapproved of it if was culturally acceptable in the area in which it was undertaken. Richard From Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nlMon Dec 4 19:35:53 1995 Date: Mon, 04 Dec 1995 22:44:19 +0100 (MET) From: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: response to Dan & co., >From Sonja van Kerkhoff Re: Quanta's posting >No matter how liberal minded a heterosexual is, deep down inside the act of homosexual behaviour does >seem repugnant to them. This is not true. I don't find homosexuality repugnant and I feel comfortable with lesibans. When I was 16 and met my first gay man (a lovely gay guy) I was repulsed but that was because I didn't know any better. I believe the repugnanance that heterosexuals have towards homosexuals is due to fear and ignorance. Dan's analogy to race, is that this is something that part of his very being and it is intolerance to see it otherwise. I myself have no idea whether one's sexual orientation is conditioned or inherited or both. The homosexuals that I have known seem to be as diverse as the heterosexuals I know. What is difficult is that we look at homosexuality as something 'wrong', when it is 'different'. How many heterosexuals question their sexual orientation? Funnily I know someone who has moved from being homosexual to heterosexual, but this 'happened' not long ago so I don't know whether this is permanent or not. He seems much happier, saying that he didn't feel really happy being gay. Though most homosexuals I have known could not be otherwise, and most I know have been incredibly unhappy when they tried to be heterosexual. My view is that there are many shades in these areas, just as no one is either black OR white. For some, perhaps whether one is hetero or homo is a choice, for others: the other type of sexual orientation is repugnant, for others either is just fine, and as Carey has so beautifully expressed a sense of no particualr sexual orientation is also a variety of our human species. There was a moving story in this week's Volkskrant (a national daily) where 2 transexuals talked about themselves. What was so moving was that there were no cliches. These were compassionate 'normal' responsible human beings who were born in the wrong sex, who had a love of life and relationships with the community at large. One told of being thrown out of a Green party women's emanicipation group because she wasnt feminine enough and the group was worried that their image would be damaged. This (new ) women understood that she may not understand the issues of women having not been raised female, but she was awakened to feminism when she became a women and discovered how women were treated. The article was written in response to some recent research here, that indicates that some parts of the brain of transexuals is the same as a women's brain. But you'll have to ask someone else for details of this. This was not elaborated on here. What struck me was how these women felt. How even though after their operations when they were legally women, they knew that they could not be invisible as women as they could have been as males. But for both of them it was easier to live with an altered body that was truer to how they felt inside than to live a lie. As a women who is aware of the male-nisms that abound in the day-to-day, I could relate to that. How would I like it if I was told that I had no right to feel female and to express this, because it is abnormal from the male (system). --- Well, I've just discovered the letter from the Universal House of Justice, and in response to Burl, where he quotes the only paragraph in the letter where there is tolerance shown. I asked myself why was this paragraph placed AFTER 25 paragraphs in which homosexuality was compared with evil, immorality...etc... Actually Burl, I don't see how you can make the comparision with taking drugs. Very very few homosexuals would choose a life style where they could never be as acceptable as a heterosexual one. It is clear to me that this letter states that there is intolerance for homosexual Bahais. It saddens me that the letter was phrased so harshly where the same message could have been expressed without associating homosexuality with evil, 'against nature' and so on. Whether or not homosexuality is 'conditioned' or 'inherited', as Bahais I feel our attitude should be one of acceptance, which is not the same as to accept 'immorality'. One definition of immorality, i would vochour, is sex outside of marriage. But, really, I don't know how to respond to this letter. Dan I wish I could give you a hug. I am glad you are there. I am glad that Sen is taking the attitude of examining the texts more closely. My response is to go and put my head in the snow ( and luckily there isn't any here (yet)). arohanui Sonja From caryer@microsoft.comMon Dec 4 19:36:12 1995 Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 14:17:34 -0800 From: caryer@microsoft.com To: talisman@indiana.edu, margreet@margreet.seanet.com Subject: RE: Re: homosexuality I'm sorry to say this--although someone really must--but your concepts of brain, gender and sexuality are not only unscientific, but they are also surprisingly callous. I am not gay by any means but I'm a transsexual person who will eventually have surgery to correct a hormonal/prenatal/brain problem. I am neither perverted, immoral, nor unnatural. And, quite frankly, the institutions of the Faith have no problem with who I am or what I'm becoming. Your note, however, indicates that you might. I am simply correcting a mold that went wrong in the womb and putting it back into its intended configuration. You may want to read up on this or consult some serious research before you spout off publicly. You may have inadvertently not looked far enough or else read the Reader's Digest version. For all you or I know, homosexuals face similarly profound physical problems. I would not be so quick to write them off. I've dealt with my issues through therapy (psychological and hormonal) and eventual surgery. I've also chosen a celibate lifestyle. Homosexuals may not feel that they have much choice so I'd advise a touch of compassion for them. I do not say to condone any particular non-heterosexual or non-monogamous lifestyle. I do advise that before you published your outburst and entirely unjust response to L inda's letter, you should have done more serious research or kept silent. I have 'just a brain' but it's now known that the hypothalamus of male transsexuals is identical in size and other configuration with that of a person born female. Think about that for a bit. And let's not make so light of presumed honest attempts to understand these powerful and uninvited dilemmas, please. Cary (at least I used to be...or , ummh, used to look like him, that is At 10:16 AM 12/2/95 -0800, Marguerite K. Gipson wrote: Opps, I sent it out by mistake, but forgot to finish it... It should read further... And no where in any of my research did any of the books state a third or fourth concept of brain... Meaning female brain, male brain, a female who likes females brain, and a male who likes male brain. All I could find was that there only 1 brain, it all starts out the same... (Now these names of stuff were at least 80 characters long) all set up the same, and some gender/hereditary/neuron attachment based development for that particular person all before the birth of the child. Also I read studies on brains of adults, both men and women, but I do not care to go there... ( Read Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus) and Dr. Gray's other books too.... But we each have our road to travel, and our tests in this life. I honestly feel that somehow society is so *bent out of shape* that the so-called Doctors of the Mind have just invented some lame-excuse for the illness of homosexuality, not wanted to really deal with it, and to make society really just accept it as the norm. No where else in Nature is this possible... you have male and female animals, plants... and then there are the asexual plants for various reasons for survival..... Then you have some animal species who's genders are mixed up somewhat... LOL LOL Like it is the seahorse male who births takes care of the babies.... and the worker bees are all females.... with the males (drones) just good for one thing in the hive.... (hey, my housemate is a bee keeper 2 hives.) One of my girlfriends' co-workers came into the office while I was there, and announced she was no longer wanting a relationship with a male, as she was tired of all the games, and the actual lack of good men... so decided to find a female to be her companion, making the DECISION to go to the other side... so she advertised for a lady-friend in the local paper (this was last year) and will have a *companion ceremony* at Christmas. Yukkers... Now I have finished... Thanks..... Margreet > >At 10:13 AM 12/2/95 EWT, LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu wrote: > And this idea that is >>bandied about regarding lifetime celebacy seems to unrealistic to me. >>Sexual expression seems so very basic to life that I find it incomprehensible >>that we could blithely tell others that they must be deprived of it. >> >>I would like to make it very clear that I am not one who feels that the >>teachings of the Baha'i Faith should be twisted to conform to modern standards >>of morality. Believe me, the idea is repugnant. I certainly do not advocate >>couples living together before marriage just because it is the thing that we do >>in modern American society. I don't think we should be smoking pot because it >>has become so acceptable today. These are very different issues to me. I >>believe ardently in family. I think that promiscuity leads to perhaps more >>social problems than anything else. It would be lovely if we could all be nice >>respectable, monogomous, heterosexual human beings and raise lovely families. >>But I am afraid the world just isn't quite constructed like that. If, indeed, >>people are "born" homosexual, then they have to have a place in it. As Baha'is >>they too need to avoid promiscuity, but can there be no sexual outlet for >them? >> >>I will await the blasts of protest to this posting. Your considered thoughts >>will be appreciated. Linda >> > From Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nlMon Dec 4 19:37:24 1995 Date: Mon, 04 Dec 1995 23:22:01 +0100 (MET) From: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: infallibility Saman, the 'flaw', if I may borrow your word, is that your 'assume' is based on a condition: "Assume that the House has complete/perfect information about a subject.." and this condition is at best unlikely. Even if it does occur in some cases, or at least the information is so close to 'perfect' that it could be accepted as a sufficient approximation, there are other cases in which the information is clearly not perfect, and leads to incorrect or suboptimal decisions. And whatever infallibility means, it clearly should be a consistent quality. Infallibility based on near-enough-to-perfect information in some cases would be unreliable, and infallible-if-only-perfect-information-were-available is chimerical - it strips the doctrine of any practical meaning. Also if the meaning is only that the decision has authority, then the doctrine is redundant, since an LSA decision has authority without requiring infallibility. In the light of Juan's posting on `iSmat, and somebody else who helpfully pointed out that the Guardian's statement that he was 'not a stainless mirror' might refer to his life as a individual person, while he could still be 'free of sin' when functioning as the Guardian in interpreting the Holy Word, I am veering back to 'infallibility model 2' (which is just what Juan has been telling us all along). As applied to the House of Justice, infallibility remains a moot point for me, since the symmetry of the two- spheres model which Shoghi Effendi applies in the Dispensation of Baha'u'llah, coupled with his statement "The interpretation of the Guardian, functioning within his own sphere, is as authoritative ..." seems to me to require that the Universal House of Justice would be authoritative (as distinct from having authority, which an LSA has) only within its own sphere, which is defined as legislation. And I am not clear that the House has, thus far, 'legislated' in any instance. Still it might do so, and it is certainly practically important to figure out what infallibility means in relation to the Guardian, so the question is worth discussing. Dear Tim, thank you for being polite. I believe that most of the difference between your reading and Juan's arises because you are referring only to the Will and Testament, and not to the Guardian's interpretation of it, as a sort of constitutional law, in 'the Dispensation of Baha'u'llah'. The language of the Will and Testament is indeed very sweeping and absolute: Shoghi Effendi's interpretation is considerably more nuanced (and a thing of beauty comparable to the American constitution). The Will and Testament says THIS and THIS (it empowers without limits), Shoghi Effendi reads it as meaning THIS and also 'NOT THIS'. Sen From SFotos@eworld.comMon Dec 4 19:37:58 1995 Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 16:29:21 -0800 From: SFotos@eworld.com To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: re: The invisible Juan Cole Dear Talismans, I couldn't agree more with Christopher Bucks' posting. Juan Cole's plenary was a profound example of the very best sort of Baha'i scholarship, and his delivery, complete with elegant pronunciations of the various Persian and Arabic terms, made me proud that the western Baha'is have produced such a scholar. The paper must appear. He was also the chair for the Hasan Balyuzi Memorial lecture, given on the poetry of Tahirih by Dr. Amin Banani (who else!). His preliminary remarks honoring Dr. Banani were so touching and gracious that tears came into my eyes. In Juan, we have a very precious resource. I can appreciate how hard it must be for him, for Robert Stockman, for our list owner, and the other Baha'is in the fields of Religious/Near Eastern Studies and how brave these academics must be to function productively in their part of the academy. Hooray for Juan!!! Hooray for them all!!! Best, Sandy Fotos From cbuck@ccs.carleton.caMon Dec 4 19:56:05 1995 Date: Mon, 4 Dec 95 14:43:27 EST From: Christopher Buck Similarly, there were two reports in *The American Baha'i* on the Aqdas conference in Wilmette. The first report listed all of the papers given. The second report, which provided summaries of the papers, omitted mine entirely (*Sacralizing the Secular: The Proclamatory Aqdas as a Response to Modernity*) as well as Tony Lee's paper, and perhaps one other as well. Since I no longer have these issues (my thanks to Stephen Menard for sending them to me!), I cannot cite the exact date and page of publication, but the omissions were nevertheless there. Juan's ABS-SF paper made me proud to be a Baha'i. The survey of texts was no mere compilation. The sources Juan adduced were woven into a conceptual tapestry that created an unmistakable impression that the Baha'i Faith stood foursquare for human rights, and that it clearly had the potential for moral leadership. My only disappointment was that Juan did not advocate the formal reinstatement of human rights as a basic Baha'i principle, i.e. as one of the privileged, numbered principles selected by `Abdu'l-Baha on at least two occasions as one of the fundamental *principles* of the Baha'i Faith (I had posted these on Talisman). My only hope is that the *Journal of Baha'i Studies* will publish this paper in its entirety (Juan--have you submitted the text of your paper yet?), and accord it the Association's *Award of Excellence in Baha'i Studies* in either the University or Open categories. Juan's revisioning of the Baha'i teachings through a return to the primary sources of Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha especially and Shoghi Effendi as well is nothing short of thrilling. Unfortunately, because of his forthright criticism of certain current policies, I think that perhaps some in the higher eschalons of Baha'i administration may have turned a deaf ear to Juan. But I think that sheer journalistic responsibility at least ethically should have required reportage of Juan's important paper. This is another instance in which the Baha'i teachings say one thing and Baha'is might do another. I invite Stephen Lambden to post his translation of Baha'u'llah's *Tablet to the London Times* to reacquaint us all with baha'u'llah's teachings on freedom of the press and on the rights and responsibilities of journalists. I am far more concerned about the implications of Baha'i teachings on human rights, freedom, and democracy than I am about review. (My compromise proposal seems to have bit the dust, BTW.) I hope that in Juan's forthcoming book on Baha'u'llah and modernity, the Baha'i teachings are laid out and elucidated with such stark clarity as to dazzle and fire the imagination of Baha'is as well as non-Baha'is. I believe that Talisman should be a sounding board for works-in-progress such as Juan's, and that at least some of the threads should refocus on such projects. Then every Talismanian will have the opportunity to throw a fresh vegetable into the *Stone Soup* that might nourish the ideologically-impoverished wasteland that today characterizes Mad Max individualism and ethically-indifferent capitalism. I am counting on Juan to prove that the Baha'i Faith at its core is really the first democratic religion in history, not just electorally but on ideological frontiers as well. Sometimes the *cutting edge* can go *over the edge*, but I, for one, am willing to take that risk. Christopher Buck From jrcole@umich.eduMon Dec 4 19:58:03 1995 Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 19:52:52 -0500 (EST) From: Juan R Cole Beloved friends: I am really undeserving of any praise for my presentation at ABS; all I did was assemble some of the gems left to us by Baha'u'llah , `Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi, inspired in part by the Peace Statement of the Universal House of Justice (which praised the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as among the foundations of world peace). And it was only at the invitation of ABS itself and its gracious conference organizer, Sheila Banani (assisted in early stages by our dear and indefatigable Rob Stockman) that I got off my duff to assemble the paper. I am quite sure that Ms. Kazemzadeh did her best to report the conference, which was a large one with many panel sessions, to the best of her ability; I spoke only in one half of one panel, and although the presentation was warmly and generously received by the Friends, so were many others and I'm sure mine merited no special mention. I don't think too much should be read into all this. I have been given strict instructions to submit my paper to JBS when I have revised it, and am now in the process of doing some more reading to put it in publishable form. JBS has been kind enough to ask me, through Christine Zerbinis, on a number of occasions for a submission, and I am very pleased to send them this one. I think every paper must be refereed rigorously, and do not think the editors are under any obligation to publish any particular piece; in academics, one never gets to the point where one stops worrying about whether something one has written is publishable, and although I've been published in some fine journals, I've been turned down by others. Let's let the procedure take its own path; I believe in the justice of the referee system, and admire Christine Zerbinis enormously for the careful job she does in soliciting referee comments from experts. Will be back next week from the Middle East Studies Association conference in D.C. Any of you in the D.C. area who want to join us may come to our Persia Religiosa meeting, which will have Babi-Baha'i presentations, at 6 pm on Saturday Dec. 9 in the Chevy Chase Room of the Washington Hilton and Towers. much love to all - Juan Cole, History, Univ. of Michigan From think@ucla.eduMon Dec 4 19:58:42 1995 Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 16:26:18 -0800 (PST) From: SAFA SADEGHPOUR Salutations, For those interested in obtaining more information about this may want to look at: A difference in Hypothalamic Structure between Heterosexual and Homosexual Men. Simon LeVay. Science. 253(1034-7), Aug. 30 1991. Evidence for a biological influence in male homosexuality. Simon LeVay and Hamer. Scientific American. 270(5), May 1994. The matter resumes into the following: LeVay measured the INAH3 (a structure in the hypothalamus) volume of 16 gay men (who died of AIDS) and several men and women of (presumed) heterosexual disposition. It was found that not only was the men's sizes of this structure twice/three times bigger than those of women, but also that homosexual's INAH3 sizes were about one half of those of heterosexual men. It must be said that a similar struture in rats exists, and which size has been shown to correlate quite nicely with prebirth androgen levels. Females who were injected androgen before birth would have this structure to be at about the same size as males. Similarly, males who had deficient androgen levels before birth would come to possess pseudo-female hypothalamic structures. All this is quite difficult to interpret by itself insomuch that quite a number of factors might have caused these differences. For instance, this might be result of a faulty recessive gene which should have controlled the amount of androgen at that early age but which due to mutations didn't. Another explanation might come by saying that random biological fluctuations in the prenatal environment might cause a small sample of babies to have lower levels of their correct hormones. It must also be said that it has also been shown that homosexuality is not a entirely genetic phenomenon in other experiments. For instance, it is known that identical twins (sharing same DNA) hold about 50% chance of being gay if their sibling is homosexual. If homosexuality was purely genetic, one would expect something close to 100%. The high correlation percentage (compared with about 2% in general population) might be due to a shared growing environment. As all things like this, it is unlikely that a phenomenon as complex as homosexuality is purely genetic or purely environmental. In contrast to dualistic philosophy, the law of the excluded middle tends not only to be prohibited but also exchanged for a law of the *enforced* middle. Take care. Safa From derekmc@ix.netcom.comTue Dec 5 00:14:37 1995 Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 17:09:50 -0800 From: DEREK COCKSHUT In reference to Virginity in the Kitab-i-Aqdas and Linda's posting back on it . I happen to think there is a link to the discussion on sex and shame on this . I am well aware that a girl's sexual chastity as demonstrated by an intact hymen is regarded in many parts of the world as tied to family honor. The reason I posted there is nothing to stop a woman from asking from her intended spouse the same pledge is that is also honorable that a man should have been chaste before marriage. Baha'u'llah does enjoin chastity upon all especially the women , that does not mean a woman who because of past situations and is not a virgin is any less chaste or honorable than a woman who is a physical virgin . For example a young woman living Europe becomes a Baha'i when she is nineteen years old , there is a reasonable chance based on the social climate there just as here in the USA , she is not a virgin . She immediately embraces the laws and teachings of the Faith and becomes a model all would wish to follow . Three years later she is asked by a young man for her hand in marriage , she agrees and they obtain parental consent from both families . The wedding date is then fixed , the young man suddenly says you are a virgin of course . When told she has been chaste since becoming a Baha'i , but is not physically a virgin he rejects her as being damaged goods . I do not think the law in the Kitab-i-Aqdas is for that purpose . The reason I mention the above is that about 6 years ago a young woman asked me that precise question . She had been a Baha'i for 2 years was a lovely person spiritually and physically . She had been told in deepening classes , that a young woman who had not been married previously and not a virgin should not have high expectations for a decent marriage in the Faith . This she found to be very distressing as you can imagine . A woman who has been widowed or divorced it is highly unlikely is a virgin. Does this mean she should be regarded also as a less than desirable partner for marriage . I happen to believe righteousness falls with the innocents If a person has embraced the Faith and remolded their lives on those teachings , they are virginal in the sight of God . As to who a woman sleeps with From s0a7254@tam2000.tamu.eduTue Dec 5 00:15:37 1995 Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 19:11:31 -0600 (CST) From: Saman Ahmadi Dear Sen, Richard and All, Sorry for sounding impolite. I have no problem with the idea that the UHJ has authority only within its own sphere - it there something on which they ruled which is thought to be outside of their sphere? I also have no problem with asking the House of Justice to reconsider a decision, as Richard stated. Since my first assumption regarding complete/perfect information may be improbable, what if we just assumed the second part of what I suggested - that is, the House has the same exact information that others have. However, the UHJ reaches a different conlcusion than the other interested parties. Does that make the decision of the UHJ "bad"? I feel that the "infallability" of the House, whatever model is the right one, at least should have the effect that their decisions are not charateized as bad in public. I may be nittpicking but I too was rather disappointed that Juan's name appeared neither in the ads publicizing the ABS Conference nor in the report of the event in the most recent issue of the "American Baha'i". I am just suggesting that this may not be the best way to get people to listen to the substance of what people have to say. regards, sAmAn From DAWNLIQU@fllab.chass.ncsu.eduTue Dec 5 00:17:28 1995 Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 20:45:09 EST From: QUANTA DAWNLIGHT Dear Friends, As I was seraching the subject in the AQdas one of the clause for repay of dowry included this statement "To conceal the matter, however, is highly meritorious in the sight of God." The question came to my mind is: Is there a requirement of a dowry for a divorced or, a widowe? For remarrying of course. lovingly, quanta...(*_*) From burlb@bmi.netTue Dec 5 00:31:09 1995 Date: Mon, 4 Dec 95 18:10 PST From: Burl Barer Steve Scholl called from under the bed to say: My intepretation of Juan's invisibility is that this is more than just an example of "spinning" and event, but an effort to eliminate Juan's research by ignoring it... Burl says: Maybe it is just incomplete coverage tempered at the fountain of volunteer, amatuer journalism. After all, I bet there was also no coverage of my dynamic example of literary hucksterism -- a living research paper and on-site study in the active/recipient theory of literary advancement and materiality -- nor were there any statistical figures on the number of Persian-American ingenues in black leggings ( "Cultural Heritage or Romantic Allure? -- Motivations in Limb Adornment at the ABS") I heard Juan's talk -- and I thought it was swell -- but I nodded off for a moment during the engine warm-up phase and dreamt that I stood on top of my chair in the middle of his presentation and started interrupting him, asking for clarification of points, and making a horrid nuisance of myself. Then when I came to a more awake state , I could not tell if I had really done that or had only imagined it. I was completley conscious when Juan did his full-suplex battle royal over the top rope finale to the cheers of a crowd so on fire with human rights that they were thirsting for blood -- really, Juan's climax (the speech, folks, the speech) had a rhythmic, near C.L. Franklin structure -- it was rather like hearing a Jewish Cantor rapping Rufus Thomas with a firm and loving lilt. So, maybe the reporter missed all that...perhaps she was in the foyer counting leggings for a future feature. Burl ******************************************************* Order MAN OVERBOARD, the new book by Burl Barer today! ******************************************************* From JWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduTue Dec 5 00:40:28 1995 Date: Mon, 4 Dec 95 21:37:18 EWT From: JWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: to Burl from Linda Dear Burl, I read your message, including the part where you describe becoming completely distracted upon seeing a casserole of beans and franks, which forced your mind to wander towards thoughts of me. I can assure you such flattery will not get you to square one with me, Burl. I am accustomed to far better than this, even from a phlegmatic Midwesterner. Now, I have to give the computer back to John so that he can finish reading his e-mail. I trust he did not notice the casserole item. And, Derek, I called Jean. I am afraid you are sadly mistaken about her. It has always been you, Derek, not Ken. You are going to have an interesting weekend. Love, as always, Linda From rstockman@usbnc.orgTue Dec 5 00:41:12 1995 Date: Mon, 04 Dec 95 20:49:58 From: "Stockman, Robert" By the way, the rabbits that Ken and I rescued from the Temple last July were raised for about two weeks in my condo in Evanston. I was in Europe so Ken put them in my bedroom in a big cardboard box. But the rabbits kept jumping out of the box and hiding in the room, they made a lot of noise (Ken told me they were so noisy he couldn't sleep at night, if you can imagine little baby bunnies that loud!) and they ate voluminous quantities of lettuce, so Ken finally released them on the Evanston gold course. They seem to have done fine there. By the way, working at the House of Worship and the Baha'i National Center proved surprisingly good for Ken's soul. He declared in mid September, after 18 years of hearing about the Faith. He is now an active Baha'i. And that's the rest of the story . . . -- Rob Stockman ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: The update on the Temple Rabbit Scandel ! Author: derekmc@ix.netcom.com (DEREK COCKSHUT ) at INTERNET Date: 12/3/95 5:31 PM My fellow Talismanians You will all be delighted to hear the following news. In the days of summer Rob Stockman posted the scandal of the proposed Temple rabbit cleansing on Talisman . Veteran observers were amazed at the intense level of feuding that emerged . Clearly we became divided between Rabbit stew and non-Rabbit stew . Certain worthies proclaimed their devotion to the liberal cause by pointing out this was a classic case of big stomach I mean big brother mentality in the Faith. Others had their liberal cards canceled for yelling Lets have Rabbit stew at the Mystical Conference . I thought in those dangerous days that Talisman was finished the Rabbit scandal was more than one could bare . I understand from powerful influential and secret sources 27.75 Talismanians were suspended from this list for cyperhopping on to opponents in boxes and electronic big ear wagging . Only because John threatened to turn Linda loose on us did the storm abate . Rob then posted that he and his best friend Ken had at dead of night slunk on to the Temple Campus and rescued the little bunny family . Sherman you will all recall offered to embrace the little darlings fully and completely . Well one has often asked what happened to the bunnies Robbie , but no reply . However this weekend I found out for Talisman what happened : Rob and his best friend Ken stuffed the little rabbits and had Roast Rabbit for lunch . No thats a joke , at Bosch this weekend who should be over from Wilmette but Ken's fiancee Theresa . I mentioned the Rabbit incident to her .No you must be mistaken she said .No I replied it was not Talisman so it must be true , Ken rescued the little rabbits . Look you , she said I know the man I am marrying . If he had done that he would have told me. Ask him I said and don't forget to ask about Jean too . Jean,she said who is Jean . I smiled ask him about the rabbits I really should not have mentioned Jean , Ken doesn't like to talk about her . Well this morning Theresa gave me an update she said it is true about the rabbits . Ken said how does anybody know . Theresa said: I told him it was on Talisman . Well the Rabbits under Ken's care grow to adulthood and he released them into the wild . Sadly though Theresa did not believe him when he said: I do not know anyone called Jean . It will be an interesting meeting in Chicago tonight . So Linda do you think I have helped their relationship ? Kindest Regards Derek Cockshut From MBOYER%UKANVM.BITNET@cmsa.Berkeley.EDUTue Dec 5 00:41:25 1995 Date: Mon, 04 Dec 95 21:17:25 CST From: Milissa Boyer Hi Derek-- Thanks for your response, but one question! You state: "Baha'u'llah does enjoin chastity on all, especially women" Where do you get the "especially women" part from? Milissa Boyer mboyer@ukanvm.cc.ukans.edu From PayamA@aol.comTue Dec 5 00:42:35 1995 Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 22:43:44 -0500 From: PayamA@aol.com To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Fwd: Re: Fwd: The Invisible Juan Cole --------------------- Forwarded message: From: banani@humnet.ucla.edu (Amin Banani) To: PayamA@aol.com, 73613.2712@compuserve.com (Steve Scholl) Date: 95-12-04 22:39:26 EST Dear Steve (and Payam), I would appreciate it if you would post this on Talisman for me. I saw Allegra Kazemzadeh's coverage of the ABS conference in the last issue of THE AMERICAN BAHA'I too. It is obvious that she chose to highlight the "outreach" aspects of this year's conference (the "Local Community Challenges" seminar which had the most attendees of any of the Thursday/Friday seminars--100 people--many of them non-Baha'is; and the presence of two non-Baha'i plenary speakers --there were actually three but she didn't mention the Stanford Professor of Development Ben Crow). If you had read the ABS Program Book you would have seen that there were over 80 (!) presenters at the conference as well as 15 plenary presenters. The article could not do justice to all of the outstanding presentations, of which Juan's was certainly one. Juan cooperatively sent his paper (by e-mail) in advance of the conference and it has been received by ABS--Ottawa for submission for publication in THE JOURNAL OF BAHA'I STUDIES. Of course it must make its "rounds" of review/critiques as all papers. Another particularly outstanding presentation, I thought, and which I hope will also appear in JBS, was Steven Gonzales' plenary presentation/paper on Sunday morning on "Affirmative Action and the Jurisprudence of Equitable Inclusion: Towards a New Consensus on Gender and Race Relations"--a very timely topic. This, too, was not mentioned in Allegra's article. Love, Sheila >--------------------- >Forwarded message: >From: 73613.2712@compuserve.com (Steven Scholl) >Sender: owner-talisman@indiana.edu >To: talisman@indiana.edu (Talisman) >Date: 95-12-04 12:31:35 EST > >Dear T-People, > >Was reading through the new American Baha'i and was struck by Allegra >Kazemzadeh's article on the recent ABS conference held in San Francisco. I >was >only able to attend the conference for a few hours but the big buzz at Hyatt >was >Juan Cole's talk on human rights. NSA member Dorothy Nelson described it from >the podium as one of the most important presentations on the Faith and one >that >should be published and made available to every Baha'i community. >Interestingly, >Juan is totally absent from Ms. Kazemzadeh's report of the conf. My >intepretation of Juan's invisibility is that this is more than just an >example >of "spinning" and event, but an effort to eliminate Juan's research by >ignoring >it. It will be interesting to see if ABS follows through on Judge Nelson's >recommendation to publish and distribute Juan's human rights paper. > >Steve Scholl Sheila Banani 2320 Alta Avenue, Santa Monica, California 90402 Tel (310) 394-5449 Fax (310) 394-6167 E-Mail: Banani@UCLA.Edu (Sheila) From DAWNLIQU@fllab.chass.ncsu.eduTue Dec 5 00:43:53 1995 Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 21:31:35 EST From: QUANTA DAWNLIGHT I realized that I gave a culturally conditioned response regarding homosexuality, when I said heteresexuals find the act of homosexuality repugnant. I also found words such as in the writings referring to (I think) to all kinds of illicit sexual behaviour. I live in a neighbourhood where two doors down from me lives a lesbian couple whom I really like. We are poor, rich, black and white, and other international students living withing a .25 square mile from each other. It is the most richest diversely concentrated group of people you can find. My ideal world would be living with any human being homosexually married or not, or any other category, as long as they are kind to one another. Truly, I don't care personally. But, I am almost 50yrs. old and carry the garbage of my conditioning. I hope I will be rid of some of it by the time I die. lovingly, quanta...(*_*) From gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduTue Dec 5 00:44:33 1995 Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 21:56:42 -0700 (MST) From: "[G. Brent Poirier]" On Sun, 3 Dec 1995 JWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu wrote: > Baha'u'llah > was very careful to make clear that members of houses of justice > were "trustees." On Sun, 3 Dec 1995 JWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu wrote: [...] > Juan could probably discuss the implications better, but my reading is > that it is a rebuke and contrast to the Muslim clergy--and clergy in > general--who did well by doing good, who spent money that was rightfully > held in trust for the imam, and saw themselves as leaders rather than > as servants. I don't see leadership and servitude as incompatible concepts. To me they speak of the extraordinary authority endowed on the institution of the House, and the simplicity and humility that its members should possess. The same was true for Shoghi Effendi, and for that matter, for the Master. Onlookers often spoke of their majesty in one breath, and their unparalleled humility and meekness in the next. The same was true for the Greatest Holy Leaf. In his extraodinary eulogy of her, the Guardian stated that her lack of pretension enhanced manyfold the stature of her station. However, both the Master and the Guardian were unequivocal in the authority they possessed as head of the Faith. I am not sure I am getting your point about the importance of the House members as Trustees. My impression of your first posting was that you saw some limitations on the House, based on that term. In your second posting you are providing some helpful history about the use of the term in Islam. What is the original word? Can you think of other places where it appears in the Writings? How do you reconcile that term with the other terms such as "members" and "ministers" and "Men of Justice?" I'm not trying to set your agenda, but to understand. Brent From gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduTue Dec 5 00:47:28 1995 Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 22:03:19 -0700 (MST) From: "[G. Brent Poirier]" On Mon, 4 Dec 1995, Juan R Cole wrote: > `Abdu'l-Baha writes in *Secret of Divine Civilization,* pp. 21-22 of the > Persian, > souls become adorned with the ornament of Infallibility (`ismat) and > purity, that is, if they avoid sullying the hems of sanctity with > > The passage is about the Iranian cabinet of 1875. And, of course, the > trick is that I have rendered `ismat as "Infallibility," as if that were > its only meaning. Marzieh Gail, p. 16, translates it as "pure". And she > is right that this is what the Master meant. When the Master refers to the infallibility of the House, does He use this term ismat?? What about in SAQ in the chapter about endowed infallibility or sinlessness (in the earlier English translation the chapter title is sinlessness, not infallibility.) Likewise with the Most Great Infallibility -- all the same word, ismat? Thanks Brent From SFotos@eworld.comTue Dec 5 00:47:50 1995 Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 21:05:07 -0800 From: SFotos@eworld.com To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Baha'i Literacy programs (was Service to the Poor Works) Dear Talismans, In Tokyo this past September there was a UNESCO consultation of Literacy NGOS held to assess the midway point in the Literacy and Education for All Decade. Martha Schweitz, (a law professor from Fukuoka who was in the US at Princeton last year) and I were the delegates representing the Baha'i International Community. Although the Baha'is didn't have the range of programs Burl described, still, considering our few numbers and quite limited financial base compared to other organizations, Martha and I could report that BIC has 72 adult literacy programs in 46 nations and over 350 localities. Eight programs are oriented specifically toward women and even among programs that are not gender specific, women comprise about 75% of the learner population--roughly the same proportion as they do among illiterate totals. Some examples of programs are "Yo Puedo" in Bolivia, linked with Nur University in Santa Cruz, "Baha'i Literacy Programme" in India, "Conquistando la Palabra" in Colombia and "Literacy for Empowerment" in Africa. In many of these programs, the teachers are Youth Year of Service, involving local as well as overseas high school and college graduates as volunteer teachers. It seemed impressive to the conference attendees that the Baha'is began their work within the Baha'i community itself, aiming to integrate literacy skills with the individuals' roles and contributions to the communities (rather than 'learn and leave'). And the Baha'i programs particularly were aimed at enhancing local development. Martha and I also found that we were one of the few groups talking about the need to make the moral dimensions of literacy work more explicit. BIC was a recognized presence and we heard the Chair repeatedly mentioning "the intervention of the Baha'i community." So things are happening. Teachers are needed. Anyone? Baha'i International Community 866 United Nations Plaza - 120 New York, NY 10017-1811 Tel: 212-756-3500 Fax: 212-756-3566 Best, Sandy Fotos From JWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduTue Dec 5 00:48:19 1995 Date: Tue, 5 Dec 95 00:13:42 EWT From: JWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Trustees The original word is "amin" pl. "umanA'". My take on it is that it is a title chosen because it gives responsibilities but not privileges. As for other titles, members would presumably be "a`d.A'", which is a pretty generic term. "Men of the House of Justice," as we have heard ad nauseum, has two possible connotations: simply a restriction of the membership to men or a vaguely chivalric sense. You can take your choice--either opening the membership to women or downplaying the individual status of members, but not both :-<)}. The Guardian, on the other hand, is as far as I can tell more or less identical with the Shi`ite imam. john walbridge From gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduTue Dec 5 00:48:41 1995 Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 22:27:14 -0700 (MST) From: "[G. Brent Poirier]" On Tue, 5 Dec 1995 JWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu, who stays up real late at night posting, wrote: > > The Guardian, on the other hand, is as far as I can tell more or less > identical with the Shi`ite imam. I think there is a letter from the Guardian through his secretary that confirms this. In the Priceless Pearl, Khanum writes that Shoghi Effendi's translation as "Guardian" actually downplays the authority inherent in the word. Any information you'd like to share about the original word/s translated as Guardian? Thanks Brent From jrcole@umich.eduTue Dec 5 00:49:21 1995 Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 19:11:04 -0500 (EST) From: Juan R Cole Saman: I'm going out of town for a week, so can't get into details: On Mon, 4 Dec 1995, Saman Ahmadi wrote: > > Dear Juan and All, > > Can we determine if a decision of the Universal House of > Justice is in fact infallible? If so, how? > A hypothetical question: what if Abdul Baha had > simply said that the Universal House of Justice would > be the highest governing body in Baha'i Administration? > What would be the difference between this hypothetical > institution and the actual Universal House of Justice? > > regards, > sAmAn > This is Juan: I personally believe that `Abdu'l-Baha's attribution of `ismat/"infallibility"/immaculacy to the House is simply a spiritual or symbolic way of affirming that it is the highest authority in the Baha'i system. I don't personally think there is some sort of magical process whereby they are guaranteed always to make the right decision. On the other hand, I have the deepest respect for all the House's decisions, whether I agree with them or not, and I try my best to comply whenever my conscience will allow me. cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan From gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduTue Dec 5 00:51:14 1995 Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 22:49:42 -0700 (MST) From: "[G. Brent Poirier]" Boy are we gonna have fun in your absence. Happy DC Love Brent