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