Talisman Bahai Archives Dec. 24-27, 1995
Dec. 24-27, 1995
Talisman emails received 12/24/95
---------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 1995 23:50:46 -0700 (MST)
From: Sadra
To: Robert Johnston
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: RJ's Crocodile Tears (Re: Outrage..)
Robert, what's this victim-martyr act your playing now? You sent your
message to Talisman itself with the subject heading to "majordomo" and
not an unsubscribe message to majordomo. What kind of nincompoops do you
take us for? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the 4th time
(February, June, September and now) that you've decided to unsubscribe
from Talisman in "self"-righteous indignation, only to come back a few
weeks, or a few days, later, making tacit apologies and pleading for
moderation, only to jump back in and resume your acrimonious vitriolics
again with full force. Come on, man! Grow up! We weren't born yesterday,
you know! Unfortunately it seems some of our new subscribers have bought
into Robert's story hook-line-and-sinker. People, for the love of God,
stop being such gullible push-overs.
You, Robert, constantly hold peoples loyalty to the Baha'i Faith
contemptuously in question, insinuating in the strongest possible terms
that they're Covenant Breakers etc., imposing your arrogant
self-righteous views on everybody on the list, and then turn around with
this proverbial song and dance and have the gaul to say that you didn't
mean it that way. vAghe'an keh yA Abu'l-Fazl! What way _did_ you mean it
exactly? Shall I bring out the violins for your solliloqouy (sp?) ??? ;-)
And stop playing the victim, for God sakes; it doesn't suit your
personality, you cheapen yourself in the eyes of any sensible person of
any intelligence and it is, to say the very least, highly, highly
unflattering of you.
You wanted frank and honesty, you got it!!! And don't waste your time with
any renewed antics, `cause "frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn" ([c] Gone
With the Wind). Consider this my last ever communication with you on any
level. I am disgusted...
Nima (calling Robert's bluff)
p.s. There's saying in EST (a.k.a. The Forum), "The Truth will set you
free, but first it'll p*** you off." Take heed!
---
O God, cause us to see things as they really are - Hadith
"In the mirror of their minds, the forms of transcendent realities are
reflected, and the lamp of their inner vision derives its light from the
Sun of Universal Knowledge" - Secret of Divine Civilization
=END=
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 1995 23:32:13 -0800
To: talisman@indiana.edu
From: margreet@margreet.seanet.com (Marguerite K. Gipson)
Subject: Re: RJ's Crocodile Tears (Re: Outrage..)
Sounds like we need hip waders too... not just violins.
Will all this matter in 100 years... I think not.
Margreet, who will spend Christmas reading all of Talisman to understand
all this....
=END=
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 1995 23:35:47 -0800
From: derekmc@ix.netcom.com (DEREK COCKSHUT )
Subject: Talisman Rules .????
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Dear Talismanians .
Taking a short break from the session I am involved in at Bosch to
discover warfare has broken out on our esteemed List . Please a liitle
more kindness a little less anger . The only person who has the right
to take a person off Talisman other than the person themselves , is the
List owner John Walbridge , Talisman is not a democracy . We are all
supposed to behave as intelligent human beings with a sense of decorum
and not insult each other .
Please go gentle with Love in your hearts for the Twin Blessed Ones .
Kindest Regards
Derek Cockshut
=END=
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 1995 02:18:37 -0700
To: talisman@indiana.edu
From: mcfarlane@upanet.uleth.ca (Gordon McFarlane)
Subject: Re: unsubscribing
Brent wrote:
>By way of information and not of encouragement, to unsubscribe from
>Talisman -- folks please take note so that John doesn't need to do it
>manually for us
>send the message:
>unsubscribe talisman
>to:
>majordomo@majordomo.indiana.edu
>I think that's the ticket.
A better ticket seems to be to send the message to . . .
Majordomo@majordomo.ucs.indiana.edu
I have subscribed and unsubscribed on several occasions with out much delay
time and without having had the message posted to all list members. I
haven't got a clue what the "ucs" is for but it seems to hasten the process.
While I'm here I wish to add
1. That while I think it's unfortunate anyone would feel as though they were
being attacked or invited to leave this list by other members, it seems to
me that the so called controversy which has our friend R.J. (who's postings,
for the most part, I rather enjoy reading) hesitatingly standing at the exit
with the door wide open and the cold air pouring in, has been blown out of
all proportion. I have become accustomed to more "hostile" debate during 14
years of assembly service than I have seen here on Talisman. Please Robert,
make up your mind one way or the other and shut the door. I't cold in here.
2. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that this list is
owned and operated by John Walbridge and that it's John W. who, from time to
time, reminds us of the rules. It seems innappropriate to me that any one
other than John Walbridge should suggest that another member, (guest) should
be delisted. I don't buy this "impersonality of cyberspace" business and
feel that the same rules of common curtesy should apply here as elsewhere.
3. As for actual or inferred ad hominem attacks, sometimes perhaps the best
and most effective response is no response. Retaliation = escalation.
4. And thanks to all of you! My time on Talisman is time well spent and it
has proven to be a valuable tool in deepening my understanding of the Faith.
Gordon (Learned in Blah Blah) McFarlane.
---
Gordon McFarlane e-mail: MCFARLANE@upanet.uleth.ca
Public Access Internet
The University of Lethbridge
=END=
From: Geocitizen@aol.com
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 1995 05:14:26 -0500
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: reply from a "gullible push-over"
In what I can only assume is an honest, yet sadly, a self-defeating effort to
curb the resurgence of "acrimonious vitriolics" on Talisman, Nima wrote the
following words (among many others) to Robert Johnston and the list as a
whole:
"Come on, man! Grow up! We weren't born yesterday, you know!
Unfortunately it seems some of our new subscribers have bought
into Robert's story hook-line-and-sinker. People, for the love of God,
stop being such gullible push-overs."
Although Nima generously refrained from referring to me by name, I am the
only one who has posted a message failing to explicitly condemn Robert's
actions since his recent announcement of his intention to withdraw from
Talisman. This seems to bestow upon me the dubious honor of being the most
prominent representative of the gullible push-overs whose existence Nima
posits.
I suppose I should take very seriously the responsibilities that accompany
this position -- and I am sure the participants of Talisman will make every
effort to keep these exalted duties from inflating my ego. :)
But seriously, there is a fatal flaw in this theory, and I hope Nima will
read very carefully what I write next. The issues I am attempting to dredge
out of this mess entirely transcend the issue of Robert Johnston's true
character and motives. Even if the sinister picture Nima has painted is
completely accurate in its depiction of Robert's aims and methods, I consider
that to be, quite frankly, none of my damn business.
Nowhere in the Writings of this Faith have I found a single word even
suggesting that I could ever know the true spiritual worth of Robert as a
person, much less anything telling me that I am entitled to turn my back on
his ideas and exile him from the community of thought in which I participate.
I am the first to admit that I lack deep scholarship in the Writings.
Nevertheless, I am confident in my conviction that none of them contain
words that might be paraphrased like this: "... of course, the commandments
that we love one another and overlook one another's faults are merely general
statements of an unattainable ideal. If you have tried really, really hard
for a really, really long time to get along with one of the friends, and he
still seems like a real jerk to you, you are perfectly justified in cutting
him out of your life, silencing his voice in the community, and publicly
vilifying his character..."
Leaving behind my ham-handed attempt at subtle irony, let me state this
directly: the argument in which Nima has squared himself against Robert is
of no concern to me whatsoever, and I take neither side in it. I assume both
sides to have the best possible motives (although not necessarily the best
possible expressions of their motives :) not because I am naive and gullible,
but because I am convinced that assuming the best motives is the most
constructive approach to this situation.
Even if the worst accusations are true, and Robert really has been
consciously attempting to disrupt this list and generally cause trouble --
even if it were possible to know this beyond doubt, which in fact is beyond
the power of human knowledge -- still, I can see no way to justify condemning
him, because it is definitely true beyond question that redemptive
transformation is among the central themes, if not *the* central theme, of
the Baha'i message when applied to individual life, and forgiveness of
injuries is the central theme of how we should conduct our relationships with
one another. There is only One who has any business condemning anybody; the
rest of us have no such right. Both toward Robert and toward Nima, the only
attitude I can justify is an open heart and an open mind.
Until our relationships toward one another reflect this revolutionary idea,
how can we possible hope to even begin healing the deeply scarring wounds on
the souls of the billions who have yet to hear of Baha'u'llah's healing
Message?
It is toward this lofty goal that I call our discussions to turn. I know
that all of us are capable of turning our backs on the vitriol that has
filled this list in the past. There is absolutely no doubt that we *can* do
it. The only question is: *will* we?
With the most _loving_ slap of the gauntlet across all of your faces,
Kevin
=END=
From: Kavikpakak@aol.com
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 1995 10:06:40 -0500
To: Kavikpakak@aol.com, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Will of God
Dear folks on Talisman,
Please forgive the use of the reply feature, (if this shows up on
Talisman with the original subject listed, it will seem to make no sense).
Until I talk to a computer- knowledgeable human, this seems to be the only
way my messages get though.
I am asking for thoughts, passages, insights, ANYTHING about the will
of God.
Last fall, and again this summer, I actually left my town, which is extremely
rural in setting, and not connected by road to anywhere in the universe, and
I got to talk to some Baha'is (other the Baha'is I know and love very well
here at home). I was presented with a concept of the Will of God that I just
can't seem to get, even though it makes sense of the passage, "All are His
servants and all abide by His bidding". Here is the concept, (which I fear
may be blindingly obvious to all but me): that the Will of God is anything
that happens to you, and the way you react to anything that happens to you.
I'm having a hard time reconciling this with free will. And any
association with predestination for specific mortals is just annoying.
So, please, any thoughts, etc. will be most greatly appreciated.
And I will get to fly out to a Baha'i function next week, so I may even come
back with some new thoughts on this. Meanwhile...I appear to be in the realm
of the clueless on this one.
Pakak
P.S. If it helps folks to ponder any answers, I am a Baha'i and have only
been a subscriber to Talisman for about a week.
=END=
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 1995 11:28:56 -0600 (CST)
From: Saman Ahmadi
To: talisman
Subject: help
Where is Sheila Banani when we need her?
sAmAn
=END=
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 1995 09:24:51 -0800
To: talisman@indiana.edu
From: margreet@margreet.seanet.com (Marguerite K. Gipson)
Subject: Cyber-Fights... Gees...
Once upon a time, I got into a *fight* with the neighbor girl down the
street... I was 10 OK.... I just told her I did not like her anymore and no
longer wanted to be her friend. --forget the reason now.
When my mom found out, all she asked me was what would I do in the next
world when Abdul'Baha asks me about my friend. My retort was somethink
like well I did not like her any more because she was _____________ ( I
forgot, insert something...) well, Abdul'Baha will want an answer to that,
as we are to love our enemies, as in the Tablet of Ahmad, *Be thou as a
flame of fire to My enemies and a river of live eternal to My loved ones...*
Somehow, I had to become friends with her again, but later like weeks, her
family moved with no warning... There was wisdom and justice at work.
Never heard from, or about ever again.
Just a thought in this Christian and Jewish Season of Joy, Happiness, and
Peace.
Happy Kwanza, Merry Christmas, Happy Hannakkah
Margreet
=END=
From: michelem@s2.sonnet.com
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 1995 09:25:57 -0800
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: House interpreting the Text
>Michelle, please give an example of where you feel that the House has
>interpreted the sacred Text.
>Thanks
>Brent
>
Every time it inserts (UHJ) after the word Guardian, it is interpreting
text. The UHJ is not the Guardian.
By claiming the Huq'u'llah, which was intended for the Guardian, it is
interpreting text.
Many of the "commentaries" added to the official translation of the Aqdas
are interpretations of text.
Michelle
=END=
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 1995 12:03:24 -0700 (MST)
From: Sadra
To: Geocitizen@aol.com
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: New Age Therapy (Re: reply from a "gullible push-over")
Dear Kevin--
Thank you for your passioned dismissive, but, honestly, you have more than
proven my case about gullible push-overs. I make no apologies; I meant every
word of it! Some of us have been here for almost a full year and have
repeatedly been subjected to the vitriol of the said person, where
charges and insinuations of covenant breaking and harboring motivations
of leadership to the Baha'i community have been continually leveled again
and again. Now, let me ask you, is this person a Hand of a Cause, CBC, the
collective body of the Universal House of Justice or the embodiment of
the Will of God where such judgements are being made in public and with
complete impunity? This is unacceptable on any level -- enough is enough!
You are new here and are more than obviously not party to all the facts
and occurences, but we are! Furthermore what you are doing is
aggrandizing this persons wilfull attention-seeking on the list. Cut it
out!! In other settings this is called being an accessory (sp?) to a deed.
Forgive me, but the Baha'i Faith I believe in says not to make the
Faith the plaything of the ignorant and that unity is the appearance of
justice amongst men. Sorry, but I'm really getting sick and tired of all
this fluffy New Agey humanistic psych nonesense about forgiving any Tom,
Dick and Harry that comes along with perverted intentions bent on getting
away with murder and is finding willing participants in his/her scheme who
are letting him/her go scott-free in the name of forgiveness. I was not
under the impression that the Baha'i Faith is supposed to be about some
kind of collective New Age therapy session where, no matter how heinous
the deed, flackey, and usually insincere, offers of unconditional
forgiveness etc., are being made. I was tought the virtue of accountability
and responsibility as being the summum bonum's of life.
You say my post was self-defeating; you are fully entitled to your
opinion. I see it as making a once-and-for-all stand about what is right
and am not about to let those who insist on employing colorful euphemisms
justify other peoples longstanding record for malicious slander and turn the
perpetrator into a victim.
Regards,
Nima
---
O God, cause us to see things as they really are - Hadith
"In the mirror of their minds, the forms of transcendent realities are
reflected, and the lamp of their inner vision derives its light from the
Sun of Universal Knowledge" - Secret of Divine Civilization
=END=
From: Alethinos@aol.com
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 1995 14:53:14 -0500
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: As our energies seep away . . .
This is really quite sad. For so long we've wasted our time here on issues
of secondary importance and now we band together like a pack of hyena to
chase off one fellow who doesn't seem to know when its best to shut up.
And still the critical issue of America's spiritual destiny lies
prostrate. It is really a fascinating study in psychology. A good number of
the members of this list will spend countless hours arguing over trivial
points or being the great defenders (as if there were a need) of liberal
democratic principles and attempting to stretch and twist the Faith to
conform to the latest trend in victim rights advocacy.
But let one post come up that actually tries to bring our attention to the
fundamental cause of all our woes and the silence is crushing. Everytone sits
and blinks. And then, possibly realizing that in order to actually _do_
something about this illness would require not only a significant degree of
sacrifice on their part, but would mean a serious change in their world. No
longer would they be able to simply sit back and post and whine and complain
and lament. They would actually have to come together and DO!
How sad that as a community we can't seem to find a handful of brave
hearted warriors who would arise to see the Guardian's vision become a
reality. How disheartening to see some of its best minds wasting precious
time on arguments best left on the front porch on a warm summer evening.
I imagine if there are any responses to this post they will be as they
have been in the past. Like small dogs nipping at the heel they will be
composed of remonstrates about some personal sacrifices that have been made
and then the big bite - with a husky bark - stating "Well! What is YOUR plan
let's hear your ideas etc., etc."
And I again will have to state that the issue at this moment is not for
each of us to toss out our ideas - as one Counsellor once said to me of
Americans -"Good Lord we don't need more ideas! Give an American a napkin and
fifteen minute and he'll have devised a workable paln to take over the entire
planet! What we need is a unity of thought and a will to see it through
_first_!"
But I doubt we'll get that far. Most those that post here will be content
to go on arguing about the angle of one's outstretched arms during the long
obligatory prayer and how science has now proved that homosexuality _is_
genetically normal and it is heterosexuality that is off the beam . . . and
don't you know just how important THAT is to enkindling the hearts of
millions with the love of God and overcoming hatreds long planted.
jim harrison
Alethinos@aol.com
=END=
From: belove@sover.net
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 95 13:59:14 PST
Subject: RE: Outrage..
To: Robert Johnston ,
talisman@indiana.edu, 748-9178@mcimail.com
I felt the uproar which ended with Robert slamming the door had a
deeper level. Here is my hunching on it.
On Sun, 24 Dec 1995 13:48:25 +1300 (NZDT) Robert Johnston wrote:
The Writings make it clear that all
>genuine human stations are stations of servitude, and not of
personal
>exaltation.
I have been saying that this thread gets personal and painful.
Maybe this is the spot in it for me.
1) I wish I did (maybe) but I don't think I know how to live in
"servitude" -- it is the deepest struggle of my life as a Bahai.
I think this is where I used to become impatient with people who
spoke of this glibly. I remember reading Scott Peck's last book in
which he said that he is embarrassed by the glibness that he hears in
Road Less Traveled.
Servitude spins me around. I suspect "servitude" is like "humility."
You can't "do" humility. It has to be arrived at through experiences.
(At least that has been my experience.) Probably the same with
servitude.
Kabir Helminski once said to a group of us: When you bow, do you
know what you are bowing to?
When is "servitude" refusing to serve or bow down? When is it
standing up in protest? How do I, a beginner along the path, with
such little discernment, discern?
When do I know which "still small voice" inside of me is the voice of
God?
(2) In the context of a policy of separation of scholarship
>from religion and of the appropriation of stations of distinction,
there is
>-- logically -- progressive movement towards ever darker
manifestations
>of co-partnership with God. This was the trend which I wished to
indicate.
>Really, I was being rhetorical and provocative in saying that Juan
would
>next be after the Guardianship. In my heart, I feel that this
cannot be
>literally true.
Robert, I suspected that you were stating the mature implications of
a nascent trend, but the tone and manner suggested you saw it already
in place.In other words, I read the discussion on this issue as
emerging in a very "either/or" and un-nuanced manner.
So I believe this is one of those issues which, as humans living in
an imperfect world, we have yet to learn how to hold in tension and
balance --Wasn't this the meaning of the tight rope walker at the
introduction to Nietzsche's Thus Spake Zarathustra.
It is the same issue as in my first point: How can I know with my own
knowing and not that of another and still be in submission to the
Will of God? This has to be Valley Four, already, a stage certainly
beyond me.
And, if we are all wandering in Vales one thru three, how are we
going to treat each other?
it was only a matter of time before the forces of perversity
>would encircle me and and seek to slay me with their envious swords.
Now
>we have reached this situation. I am departing and there's Alison
throwing
>rocks at my back. How could not not but bring her endless and
enduring
>shame? What has she contributed? So little. So very little. And
now
>this. May God forgive her, and the others, and me also.
>
>
>Robert.
>
>
It does sound like you feel terribly betrayed and cast out, hurt and
reviled even though you meant only to defend the Highest Principles.
It's hard to fault you for lashing out, although I wish there were
other ways for you to register your protest.
Love
Philip
-------------------------------------
Name: Philip Belove
E-mail: belove@sover.net
Date: 12/24/95
Time: 13:59:15
This message was sent by Chameleon
-------------------------------------
Things should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler -- A.
Einstein
=END=
From: belove@sover.net
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 95 16:32:56 PST
Subject: Merry Christmas. God Bless you All.
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Thank you dear friends for a wonderful party.
Love from
Philip
-------------------------------------
Name: Philip Belove
E-mail: belove@sover.net
Date: 12/24/95
Time: 16:32:56
This message was sent by Chameleon
-------------------------------------
Things should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler -- A.
Einstein
=END=
From: belove@sover.net
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 95 16:42:40 PST
Subject: RE: New Age Therapy (Re: reply from a "gullible push-over")
To: Sadra , talisman@indiana.edu
On Sun, 24 Dec 1995 12:03:24 -0700 (MST) Sadra wrote:
This is unacceptable on any level -- enough is enough!
I'm really getting sick and tired of all
>this fluffy New Agey humanistic psych nonesense about forgiving any
Tom,
>Dick and Harry that comes along with perverted intentions bent on
getting
>away with murder and is finding willing participants in his/her
scheme who
>are letting him/her go scott-free in the name of forgiveness.
I see it as making a once-and-for-all stand about what is right
>and am not about to let those who insist on employing colorful
euphemisms
>justify other peoples longstanding record for malicious slander and
turn the
>perpetrator into a victim.
Nima,
In defense of humanistic psychology, please.
Forgiving someone does not mean forgiving their actions.
I agree that much of Robert's attacks were out of place, damaging and
needlessly provocative.
I also found his name-calling distasteful.
But I do not believe that justifies (key word) returning his behavior
in kind. His personal attacks do not justify your personal attacks.
Personal attacks are out of line, period.
He is as much a victim of attacks from you as you are from him.
The challage is to maintain our collectedness.
Philip
-------------------------------------
Name: Philip Belove
E-mail: belove@sover.net
Date: 12/24/95
Time: 16:42:41
This message was sent by Chameleon
-------------------------------------
Things should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler -- A.
Einstein
=END=
From: belove@sover.net
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 95 16:48:00 PST
Subject: FW: RE: As our energies seep away . . .
To: talisman@indiana.edu
On Sun, 24 Dec 95 16:34:51 PST belove@sover.net wrote:
>
>On Sun, 24 Dec 1995 14:53:14 -0500 jim harison wrote:
>>
>>
>> This is really quite sad. For so long we've wasted our time here
>on issues
>>of secondary importance and now we band together like a pack of
>hyena to
>>chase off one fellow who doesn't seem to know when its best to shut
>up.
>>
>
>
>
>jim, I believe that learning to resolve these small differences is
>only the beginning of what we have to learn to bring unity.
>
>Your constant comment that we should ignore or suspend or leave
>behind these, as you call them "secondary issues" suggests that you
>do not find "worthy" these problems we have to solve.
>
>But I suggest these are small tests and preparation for the big
ones.
>Skipping over these matters will not prepare us. I think we have
>first to learn to take care of our own and these annoying problems
>are nothing compared to the big stuff ahead and yet, we can't find
>answers to these small ones.
>
>I don't agree with your call here.
>
>
>Philip
>
>
>
>-------------------------------------
>Name: Philip Belove
>E-mail: belove@sover.net
>Date: 12/24/95
>Time: 16:34:52
>
>This message was sent by Chameleon
>-------------------------------------
>Things should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler -- A.
>Einstein
>
-------------------------------------
Name: Philip Belove
E-mail: belove@sover.net
Date: 12/24/95
Time: 16:48:00
This message was sent by Chameleon
-------------------------------------
Things should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler -- A. Einstein
=END=
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 95 11:10 GMT+1300
To: talisman@indiana.edu
From: Alison & Steve Marshall
Subject: justice and the covenant
Nima said: "I see it as making a once-and-for-all stand about what is right
and am not about to let those who insist on employing colorful euphemisms
justify other peoples longstanding record for malicious slander and turn the
perpetrator into a victim."
I think Nima has got it in one.
This may seem to many of you as a big fight that really doesn't become a
bunch of Baha'is, but this is not a cat fight on the side walk. This is THE
issue, it is the issue in our communities as well, and the Talisman
community is playing out a recreation of the drama. Until we are able to
agree on what justice is, we will never build communities.
I agree with Nima that we have the impression that the "Baha'i Faith is
supposed to be about some kind of collective New Age therapy session where,
no matter how heinous the deed, flackey, and usually insincere, offers of
unconditional forgiveness etc., are being made. I was tought the virtue of
accountability and responsibility as being the summum bonum's of life." As I
mentioned earlier, this one is a classic for situations of family violence.
It also crops up when a privileged male in a community is acting out.
Look again at the penalties in the Aqdas. We should spend more time looking
after victims, and not so much time worrying about why offenders commit
crimes.
On the other hand, when we Baha'is get a bee in our bonnet about someone -
usually because we have made some extra-judicial assumptions about their
'firmness in the covenant', 'obedience', 'guilt', we slam them for all we're
worth. We make demons where there are none. My 'obedience' has been called
into question on occassions when I have spoken out because I felt strongly
about an issue. Many different Talismanians have posted messages describing
situations they have experienced.
I suspect that we'd be amazed at the number of Baha'is who have been
alienated by the operation of these two processes.
The fact that we can't agree on who should be at the receiving end of the
legitimate operation of the authority of the institutions is proof to me
that we cannot agree on what justice is, and are therefore unable to build
stable, flourishing communities. The issue is not that the institutions
should have such authority - this is not a 'firmness in the covenant' issue,
we are all Baha'is and accept their authority.
We disagree about who should get their butt whipped and why, how we
determine that, and how we deal with the perpetrator.
Alison
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alison and Steve Marshall
Email: forumbahai@es.co.nz
90 Blacks Road, Opoho, Dunedin/Otepoti, Aotearoa/New Zealand
--------------------------------------------------------------
=END=
From: Alethinos@aol.com
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 1995 18:59:53 -0500
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: RE: As our energies seep away . . .
A very wise woman who had served the Guardian for years - travelling the
world over for him once told me this:
"Wisdom comes from realizing we don't solve our tests . . . we transend
them."
It is a flight if late 20th century psycho-babble that if A and B disagree
it must be because they simply aren't *communicating* very well - and that if
they would just improve their *listening* skills they would discover this. A
is not *sensitive* to B's needs etc., ad nauseam.
Americans a miracle workers when it comes to avoiding the central issue.
Look at our history. We ignored the race issue (and continue to.) It exploded
in our face, we didn't know what to do. Finally we did what our
materialisitic bent told us to do. We threw huge sums of money at it - felt
good about our war on poverty etc. We passed some laws (which we are past
masters at skirting) and patted ourselves on the back.
Why on earth would anyone, after surveying the field of our social history
allow themselves to think that by following our national obsession of
devouring our own intestines we will sove anything? We have been in this
particular mode for almost a generation now and there is no end in sight.
It isn't a matter of *solving* these little differences dear sir - they
won't let themselves be solved because the egos that project them don't want
a solution they want control. Do we honestly think that unity in the Baha'i
sense is some giant homogenizing process??? We'll all just accept everything
coming from everybody?? Really? Let's think about this. Where are the
boundaries? Do we dare say - after watching the display here on Talisman for
the last year that they are in the Writings? Well we have certainly seen what
a show stopper a quote from one of the Central Figures has been. Yah, that'll
put a cap on it.
We are in the grips of our own axiological disease, just as the Guardian
and the Universal House of Justice has stated, repeatedly. The American
community shows every sign of suffering from what the larger American
community suffers from.
But it really is no wonder. After years of being spoon fed the sweet mush
from those who would wish us to simply maintain the status quo; to not arise
to take our place as the spiritual descendents of the dawnbreakers here in
this country; to never really challenge the foundations of racism and
prejudice and materialism but simply mouth wonderful phrases that have
eventually become nothing more than platitiudes that inspire only those
sitting about their cozy suburban homes content because they had another race
unity picnic and *people of color* showed up (who also happen to be driving
'95 Lexuses.)
We are not going to *solve* anything by pretending. By thinking that the
problem just lies in *communication skills*. That it is all the fault of the
White Male System. That is Them or Her or Him. We are Baha'is - must of us
here. We have a mission. We don't belong to some damn debate team in high
school. We are not a part of some self-help group. We are to be spiritual
physicians. Not federal mediators in a barginning session.
We transend by looking up from the dust. You can tinker with the engine
until the cows come home but unless there is gas in the tank, a key in the
ignition, a foot on the pedal and a hand on the wheel it isn't going anywhere
- no matter how pretty it is.
If we wait until everyone is comfortable, everyone is happy, all the
points of contention are resolved . . . the sun will have long burned to a
black husk. We have to stop deluding ourselves with current definitions of
unity. But you've got to say one thing for it: it has certainly frozen us in
place for a wonderfully long time.
jim harrison
Alethinos@aol.com
=END=
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 1995 17:02:04 -0700 (MST)
From: "[G. Brent Poirier]"
To: michelem@s2.sonnet.com
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: House interpreting the Text
Michelle Ma'ani wrote to Talisman, intimating herself to be a seeker. She
said that she is not a Baha'i, in part because the House of Justice
interprets the sacred Text. I wrote to her about the House, not realizing
at first that she is an active follower of the Covenant-breaker Jamshed
Ma'ani. My guess is that Michelle Ma'ani is related by marriage to Mr.
Ma'ani. Mr. Ma'ani claims to have a revelation direct from God, and was
expelled from the Cause by the Universal House of Justice.
Ms. Ma'ani, you will understand that I cannot discuss any matters related
to the Baha'i Faith with you. Such consultation is prohibited explicitly
by Baha'u'llah, as quoted by the Master in His Last Tablet to America, by
the Guardian, and by the House of Justice. May God aid you. Good Bye,
Brent Poirier
=END=
From: michelem@s2.sonnet.com
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 1995 16:07:31 -0800
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Will of God
>Dear folks on Talisman,
> Please forgive the use of the reply feature, (if this shows up on
>Talisman with the original subject listed, it will seem to make no sense).
> Until I talk to a computer- knowledgeable human, this seems to be the only
>way my messages get though.
> I am asking for thoughts, passages, insights, ANYTHING about the will
>of God.
>Last fall, and again this summer, I actually left my town, which is extremely
>rural in setting, and not connected by road to anywhere in the universe, and
>I got to talk to some Baha'is (other the Baha'is I know and love very well
>here at home). I was presented with a concept of the Will of God that I just
>can't seem to get, even though it makes sense of the passage, "All are His
>servants and all abide by His bidding". Here is the concept, (which I fear
>may be blindingly obvious to all but me): that the Will of God is anything
>that happens to you, and the way you react to anything that happens to you.
>
> I'm having a hard time reconciling this with free will. And any
>association with predestination for specific mortals is just annoying.
> So, please, any thoughts, etc. will be most greatly appreciated.
> And I will get to fly out to a Baha'i function next week, so I may even come
>back with some new thoughts on this. Meanwhile...I appear to be in the realm
>of the clueless on this one.
> Pakak
>P.S. If it helps folks to ponder any answers, I am a Baha'i and have only
>been a subscriber to Talisman for about a week.
The way I've had it explained to me is:
We have free will in the daily operation of our lives. Certain events are
sent in our direction to test us, but the choices we make when faced with
them are ours alone. Not everything that happens to us is as a result of
God's intervention.
The grand scheme of events, the direction the world is moving, is under
God's direction. Humanity really has no choice in this, although it always
tries to tell God what He can or cannot do (but in our Holy texts, is says
that God promised us or said this...). Because His is such a complex system,
seemingly trivial events sometimes turn out to be crucial in God's plans.
As individuals, God knows what choices we will make, but that does not mean
that He is not allowing us to make the choices.
Michelle
=END=
From: michelem@s2.sonnet.com
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 1995 16:30:07 -0800
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: UHJ interpreting text--false accusations
>Michelle Ma'ani wrote to Talisman, intimating herself to be a seeker. She
>said that she is not a Baha'i, in part because the House of Justice
>interprets the sacred Text. I wrote to her about the House, not realizing
>at first that she is an active follower of the Covenant-breaker Jamshed
>Ma'ani. My guess is that Michelle Ma'ani is related by marriage to Mr.
>Ma'ani. Mr. Ma'ani claims to have a revelation direct from God, and was
>expelled from the Cause by the Universal House of Justice.
>
>Ms. Ma'ani, you will understand that I cannot discuss any matters related
>to the Baha'i Faith with you. Such consultation is prohibited explicitly
>by Baha'u'llah, as quoted by the Master in His Last Tablet to America, by
>the Guardian, and by the House of Justice. May God aid you. Good Bye,
>Brent Poirier
>
>Dear Brent
Before you make wild accusations, you should be aware of your facts. I am
not a follower of Jamshid Maani. You have previously made this accusation
, but I was unaware of it before several months had gone by because I did
not have full Internet access. I decided to let the matter ride then, but I
cannot do so again. But your unjust and untrue accusation is the reason I
did not give my name--because it's like a scarlet letter. People
automatically treat me like a Covenant breaker, even though I'm not. Just
because my last name is the same does not mean I am one of his followers.
Jamshid Maani has no followers at this time. People would have to be real
idiots to continue following him.
I am not a Baha'i, nor have I ever been. Yes, I am related by marriage to
Jamshid Maani. So are a lot of people, not all of them were Baha'is, and
not all of them became followers of his. NOt all people with the last name
of Maani were expelled from the Faith, either. In fact, I believe that
there is a woman--a cousin of Jamshid's--who does translation for the UHJ.
Are you going to treat her like a Covenant Breaker?
So, do I have no right to discuss the Faith because of my last name?
Because I am related by marriage to a person who was a Covenant Breaker? I
was not trying to hide facts, I was trying to avoid an unpleasant
situation--which it is obvious I cannot.
I am not a Covenant Breaker, nor am I an enemy of the Faith. I was being
honest in my reasons for not becoming a Baha'i. I thought this was a forum
for open and frank discussion. But perhaps I should add to the reasons the
one that I am branded with a last name which is like poison. How would you
like to be treated like poison when you have done nothing wrong? Is this
Baha'i love?
Michelle
=END=
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 95 20:04:40
From: "Stockman, Robert"
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re[2]: Back to Baha'u'llah??
Juan noted:
>>Thus, with regard to politics, it is very clear that Shoghi
>>Effendi's total ban on politics was not a forever-binding
>>interpretation of Baha'u'llah's principles, but a temporary and
>>ad hoc policy that in many ways runs contrary to Baha'u'llah's
>>own example of defying royal absolutism in the Ottoman Empire and
>>Qajar Iran by calling for parliamentary and democratic
>>governance. Shoghi Effendi as Head of the faith had every right
>>to institute the policy. The question is whether it is
>>permanently binding, and how to determine this. One final
>>arbiter in my view has to be the Writings and intent of
>>Baha'u'llah.
*I am told* that there is a letter of the Guardian stating the policy of
avoiding politics is a "temporary strategy"--I *think* those are the words--and
that the House of Justice can gradually lift the policy. This is what the House
has been doing in the External Affairs work; otherwise it is not clear how the
Baha'i institutions could be involved in such worthy but politically
controversial efforts as getting the U.S. Congress to ratify the genocide
convention.
This helps answer Juan's question "how to determine" whether a decision of the
Guardian and `Abdu'l-Baha are permanent or temporary; they often said so. But
we don't always have all the texts published, and even when they are available
there are so many of them we often have trouble going through them and finding
all the context and principles we need.
I seem to be, at least temporarily, on Talisman. Majordomo apparently received
my complaint that the messages were being "BCC"ed to me twice and fized the
problem, and the messages received before December 22 were removed from my
computer by a colleague in the office so they would not interfere. We'll see
how long my e-mail works. Meanwhile, anyone wishing to write me should use
research@usbnc.org, as it is working fine.
-- Rob Stockman
=END=
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 95 20:05:11
From: "Stockman, Robert"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Disunity
I hesitate to add my own words to this thread, because I think it's a
thread that should disappear. But here goes.
1. It's not clear to me anyone was actually called a Covenant-breaker
(though I have read very few postings lately). I think we can all
agree that calling someone a Covenant-breaker is inappropriate; it
should be left to the House of Justice. But I don't think Covenantal
issues should be ignored or avoided either. And I don't think people
should automatically react to the issue being raised by calling the
person raising the issue a fundamentalist. That's just as
inappropriate and ad-hominem. Covenantal issues, raised intelligently
and clearly, are appropriate on Talisman, just as emotional
discussions of history or other scholarly subjects are inappropriate.
I would add that I suspect Robert Johnson is right if he is arguing
that some of the discussions on Talisman are Covenentally suspect.
But that does not mean someone is a Covenant-breaker, for the latter
involves not just the arguments, but the motivations for making them.
Judging someone's motivations is extremely tricky and judgmental. We
may have private opinions about the motivations of others, but we have
to leave it to institutions to render judgments.
2. Calling someone a "ninkampoop" is as much an ad-hominem attack as
anything else.
3. The biggest problems on Talisman result from emotion, primarily
anger. There is nothing wrong with "passion" if it results in
better-argued, clearer arguments. Otherwise, anger just gets others
upset as well.
-- Rob
=END=
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 95 20:05:12
From: "Stockman, Robert"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Newcastle conference
I doubt this will result in a thread, but maybe it will be more
interesting than many of the exchanges of the last three days.
-- Rob Stockman
---------------------------------------------------------------
Irfan Colloquium Meets in Newcastle-upon-Tyne
Newcastle-upon-Tyne, the birthplace of the Irfan Colloquium,
was the venue of the joint gathering of the eighth Irfan
Colloquium and the semi-annual meeting of the Religious Studies
Special Interest Group of the Association for Baha'i Studies of
English-speaking Europe. The Irfan Colloquium is sponsored by
the Haj Mehdi Arjmand Memorial Fund and the Institute for Baha'i
Studies (Wilmette, U.S.A.). The colloquium took place at the
Department of Religious Studies of Newcastle University on 8-10
December, 1995. Forty-five researchers and others interested in
the academic study of religion and scripture participated in this
joint meeting.
The theme of the program was "Anti-Baha'i Polemic," or
attacks on and criticisms of the Baha'i Faith and ways of responding
to them. The colloquium was opened by two presentations. Dr. Iraj
Ayman briefly described the aims and objectives of the Irfan
Colloquium and then presented a biographical sketch of Haj Mehdi
Arjmand, a well-known scholar-teacher of the Baha'i Faith. He
also summarized the contents of a few of the tablets of Baha'u'llah
and `Abdu'l-Baha and the letters of Shoghi Effendi to Haj Mehdi
Arjmand. Dr. Robert Stockman spoke on "The Limits of Discourse
in the Baha'i Community and their Consequences," focusing on the
needs of any community to define boundaries of internal discourse
in order to preserve its unity. He focused on two issues that
have been raised by non-Baha'i critics of the Faith about its
internal discourse: the treatment of Covenant-breakers and the
existence of prepublication review. Continued development of the
review process to make it more consultation-based will resolve
much of the criticism of it.
Saturday morning Dr. Udo Schaefer spoke about "Anti-Baha'i
Polemic in German-speaking Countries," focusing primarily on a
lengthy attack on the Faith by a Covenant-breaker, Francesco
Ficichia, published in 1981; the work's gradual acceptance as an
impartial scholarly treatment by academics, journalists, and
ecclesiastics; the failure of a policy of ignoring the work; and
the lengthy rebuttal by himself and two other German Baha'is just
published by a scholarly press. Dr. Moojan Momen presented on
the basis of persecution of the Baha'i Faith in Islamic law by
describing different Islamic legal categories (such as believer,
unbeliever, people of the book, and heretic) and noting how those
categories had been used by Muslims and Baha'is in actual court
cases.
Saturday afternoon had four presentations. Dr. Margit
Warburg, a professor of the sociology of religion at the
University of Copenhagen who devotes much of her research to the
sociology of the Baha'i community, spoke about "Religious
Definitions and Religious Polemics: Baha'i in Popular Handbooks
of Religion." She had read about fifty descriptions of the
Baha'i Faith published since 1920 in books describing two or more
religions. She found no handbooks published since World War Two
that described the Baha'i Faith as a sect of Islam; most authors
accept the Baha'i Faith as a "religion"; a few called it a
"sect," but those few were usually not writing against the Faith;
those opposed to the Baha'i Faith were far more likely to refer
to it as a "cult" than neutral scholars.
Dr. Kamran Ekbal then spoke on "Taqiyih and Kitman:
Reflections on the Practice of Dissimulation in the Babi and
Baha'i Religions." Dr. Ekbal noted that the term taqiyih in
Shi'ih Islam covers a range of meanings from denial of one's
faith to mere concealment of it; that the Baha'i prohibition of
denial of one's faith was not fully understood or implemented
until the time of Shoghi Effendi; and that concealment of one's
faith is a form of taqiyih allowed to Baha'is.
Dr. Nichola Towfiq then presented a paper on "E. G. Browne's
Misconceptions." The paper noted various misinformations Browne
presented about Mirza Yahya, such as the statement that the Bab
appointed him His vali (successor) when in fact no such
appointment was made, and described various Azali interpretations
of the Bab's allusions to a future Manifestation of God as
referring to the advent of the next Manifestation in 1501 or 2001
years.
The afternoon closed with Dr. Khazeh Fananapazir's "Mirza
Abu'l-Fadl's Contribution to Baha'i Polemic and Replied to Anti-
Baha'i Polemic." The paper described arguments made in the
Brilliant Proof and the Fara'id.
Sunday morning Stephen Lambden gave a brilliant paper on
"The Position of Mirza Yahya Subh-i-Azal: Some Aspects of Azali
Anti-Baha'i Polemic and Baha'i Apologetics." The paper noted the
critical need to examine the writings of the Bab and Baha'u'llah
in far greater detail, for they will reveal aspects of the
station of Azal usually not considered and will likely make it
clear he was never granted a formal position of successorship by
the Bab; that a life of Yahya and a much more thorough study of
his movement is necessary to correct some misinformation
properly; and that a more thorough examination of Baha'u'llah's
relationship to Yahya will reveal many important details.
The morning closed with Lil Abdo's "Possible Criticisms of
the Baha'i Faith from a Feminist Perspective." She noted that,
ironically, the chief "feminist criticism" of the Faith was
offered eighty years ago by very patriarchal Presbyterian
missionaries, who criticized the slowness of the emancipation of
Iranian Baha'i women. A much more thorough exploration of the
Baha'i conception of sexual equality, and a more frank
exploration of its differences from secular feminism, are crucial
for responding to attacks on the Baha'i Faith's treatment of
women.
During the lunch period some attendees visited the cemetary
where Edward G. Browne is buried. Afterward a short business
meeting was held to discussion possible themes for future
conferences. The theme tentatively selected for 1996-97 is "The
Baha'i Faith and Christianity"; for the subsequent year "The
Baha'i Faith and European Culture" will be considered. Next
year's Irfan Colloquium in Europe will be held in late autumn at
the Acuto Baha'i School in Italy.
The Newcastle conference was characterized by scholarly
rigor, openmindedness, and warmth. The participation of many
participants from Germany, compared to previous years, was most
welcome. The abstract booklet for the colloquium is available
for $3 from the Institute for Baha'i Studies, 1233 Central St.,
Evanston, IL 60091, as are booklets of many previous conferences.
=END=
From: TLCULHANE@aol.com
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 1995 23:03:07 -0500
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Therapy, Forgivness and Justice
Dear Friends ,
Having been on talisman for 13 month I must say Nima is quite correct
in the pattern he decribes with respect to Robert's actions in print . I
dont pretend to know his ultimate motivation but I do find his actions
consistently reprehensible .
As for forgivness I can be quite capable of forgiving an individual or
more accurately have compassion for the distress of any soul, the "demons"
which haunt any soul . That out not be confused with, as Nima has remarked ,
some new age mush about forgivness .
The order of the world Baha u llah has pointed out is reared on justice
not forgiveness .Talisman is a form of order and principles of justice need
to govern its operation not principles of forgiveness . forgiveness is
applicable with regard to my personal and private stance towards those whose
actions destroy order . The actions however must still be opposed. And
sometimes as much as I wish otherwise strong measures need to be expressed
and taken to expose and yes remove from our midst someone whose actions are
consistently disruptive and have repeatedly resorted to name -calling .
As I have stated before talisman is an exercise in civil society and as
such people can be requested to move on to a different party if they
consistently dispupt the party . This is not the same thing as "removing "
someone from society . Though that is an option in societies when the
disruption is severe . In the case of voluntary associations of civil society
people always have the option of going elsewhere where the environment is
more suited to their taste . Talisman is not and does not have to pretend to
be for everyone . Whether it is Robert or anyone else . If the form of
discouse and its rules which exist on Talisman are not to someones liking
find another home where the content is more to your liking .
One of the major challenges it seems to me for Bahais is to stop looking
for some place where everey action , every attitude every understanding
somehow has to fit just so . That is really a call for a univocal world . If
we have not figured it out by now there are a lot of voices in the world .
The great challenge of democracy is that it allows all of them expression
.What it does not tolerate and can not accept is the attempt to
"demonize"ones opponents. That does not mean it allows all of then
expresssion at the same time and the same place . Being committed to a
democratic republic I am more than willing to allow a variety of
understandings to be expressed . That does not mean I am willing to listen to
them all . If the noise level is to high such that it interferes with the
reason Talisman was created, which was to create a space in which people who
had scholarly interests could express those interests and explore issues
without being accused of undermining the integrity of the House , cavil at
the Writings or have their devotion to Baha u llah constantly called into
question . There is enough of that in the larger Bahai community. This is an
exercise in creating a civil scoiety within the Bahai community . Anyone who
thinks Talisman is or ought to reflect the dominant understanding current in
the American Bahai community is going to be disappointed . There is nothing
in the nature of Talisman which suggests the paricipants who are here ought
to tolerate anyone attempting to enforce that dominant view . Those so
inclined ought to look elsewhere for an outlet.
In this regard I must support the anger expressed by my friend Nima .
It is in my view the rightous anger expressed by someone who has experienced
and seen others within the Bahai community be subject to the accusations of
lacking firmness etc. There are many of us here who have experienced the
same. In this sense Talisman is a safe haven for all those who are in fact
willing to abide by the rules of reasoned discourse and not resort to ad
hominems as a form of argument . To confuse Nima's anger or reduce it to
equivalency with the anger of one who would impose a literalist view of
scripture and faith upon others and then become more angry when they dont
accept the same is to miss the point and make a serious category mistake .
Nima is right it is time to grow up . Part of that growing up is
realizing that there are many understandings of the Faith of Baha u llah and
the existence of Talisman is proof that they exist. Any attempt to silence
those additional understandings on Talisman by name-calling ought to be
resisted . I am quite glad Nima had the courage, which I lacked, to to
publically do so . Next time I am sure he will consult me first for editing .
:) Having just been thru a situation where my Baha Maiden dialogue
presentation was construed as arrogant and critical of the institutions and
lectured on my necesssity to be:" . . absolutely obedient to the Institutions
at all times " this by a committee, ( no It was not in Omaha or Texas ) I
am not overly sympathetic to anyone assuming Talisman ought to become a
reflection of that attitude and that those who think differently can be
vilified with impunity and that noone ought to say enough is enough .
On that note I am getting ready to attend midnite mass at an Orthodox
Catholic Church It will be a traditional high mass in Latin. I do not
share their theology but I do share their love of God . They are not trying
to convert me and I am not trying to convert them, because of that we have a
marvelous dialogue and can actually respect one another. For me it is an
experience of what an Irfan Republic would be . As Baha u llah says with
respect to Jesus the Christ : " He it is who purified the world. Blessed is
the man who , with a face beaming with light , hath turned towards Him."
Merry Christmas to you all ,
Terry
=END=
[end of 12/24/95 session]
Talisman emails received 12/25/95
---------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 1995 23:46:33 -0800
From: derekmc@ix.netcom.com (DEREK COCKSHUT )
Subject: RE the Question of the House of Justice and the Huququ'llah .
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Dear Talismanians ,
Michelle raised the question that payment of the Right of God from her
understanding was to be made only to the Guardian as her example of
interpretation . I will be happy to forward to Michelle the relevant
material free of charge if she will send me her mailing address.
As quick note : ...... The Huququ'llah should be kept in the custody of
trusted individuals and forwarded to His holy court through the
Trustees of God .
: There is a prescribed ruling for the Huququ'llah . After
the House of Justice hath come into being , the law thereof will be
made manifest , in conformity with the Will of God .
The above two references are from Baha'u'llah .
From Shoghi Effendi dated December 26th 1927. : .....All matters not
specifically provided by Baha'u'llah are to be referred to the
Universal House of Justice .
I believe if you are interested Michelle you will; find that the Right
of God correctly falls under the domain of the House of Justice . Do
let me know if you want the literature .
Kindest Regards
Derek Cockshut
=END=
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 95 01:57:01 -0500
From: "Ahang Rabbani"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Michelle Maani's case
[This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII]
Brent is someone whose words I take very seriously on such
matters. I suggest we wait for John Walbridge's return before
any further communication with Michelle Ma'ani -- John can then
sort the matter out with Wilmette's help. If it turns out that
indeed the specifics of the case are otherwise and she is a true
seeker as claimed, then we will all extend her a warm welcome and
take the discussion from there. But for the next few days, until
John can ascertain the specifics of the case, Brent's advise
seems very prudent to me. Certain principles cannot be
compromised -- protection of the Faith is one of them.
ahang.
=END=
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 1995 04:10:05 -0500 (EST)
From: Cheshmak A Farhoumand
To: bahai-discuss@bcca.org
Cc: Talisman@indiana.edu, bahai-women@bcca.org
Subject: Goodbye!!
Dear friends, just a quick note to let you know i have unsubscribed for
the next three weeks as i will not be in town and can not possibly read
the hundreds of messages that i am sure will accumulate in the next three
weeks. I will miss reading all your entries and look forward to
subscribing again when i return.
In the meantime, if anyone needs to communicate to me, please send a
message directly to my address as i will not be on the listservice and
will not receive any messages sent through the general address.
Hope you all have a great holiday. i know i will. I am in some need for
mommy's hug therapy.
Love to you all,
Cheshmak Farhoumand
=END=
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 1995 04:23:21 -0500 (EST)
From: Cheshmak A Farhoumand
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Majordomo results: unsubscribe (fwd)
Dear friends, i need to unsubscribe from Talisman before i leave and no
matter what i send, it comes back unacceptable. Can someone please let me
know how i can unsubscribe or give me John's e-mail address so i can send
a message to him directly. THanks
Cheshmak
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 1995 04:17:31 -0500 (EST)
From: Majordomo@indiana.edu
To: cfarhoum@osf1.gmu.edu
Subject: Majordomo results: unsubscribe
--
>>>> unsubscribe talisman cheshmak farhoumand
**** unsubscribe: 'cheshmak farhoumand' is not a member of list 'talisman'.
=END=
From: Geocitizen@aol.com
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 1995 05:32:33 -0500
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: back to conscience
To my admired fellow-Talismanians Nima, Christopher Buck, and Robert
Stockman,
First, to Nima:
You are still grievously misreading my intentions if you think I am defending
the actions and words of Robert Johnston that you have found reprehensible.
I have been here longer than you think I have, and have seen more of his
postings than you think I have, and yes, many times his approach has
contained unfortunate flaws (as far as my own imperfect perception could
ascertain -- and also by his own public admission). I neither defend the
rightness of his approach in these cases, nor attack the details of his
actions, because I see nothing to be gained for anyone by doing so.
Instead I have sought, and still seek, to transcend the particulars of this
case, rise to the level of principle, and thus gain a greater insight into
the spiritual problems plaguing our communities.
I saw your previous post as well intentioned but self-defeating because in
essence you are opposing vitriol with vitriol, and now you are directing the
same at me, although as far as I can tell I have generated no vitriol myself
(correct me if I am mistaken on the latter point, please).
Robert Johnston has been accused of arguing from authority and claiming
superior knowledge in an attempt to gain others' submission to his views. It
is right to oppose such actions; but ironically, you oppose them by
vehemently ordering me to submit to your superior knowledge as a greater
authority on the character of Robert Johnston than I am. My logical and
moral point here is that if you are right in refusing to submit to him, then
I am also right in refusing to submit to you.
Nima, I sincerely admire your knowledge and character, but must respectfully
refuse to abandon my conscience and obey your orders on this matter.
Does this mean I am taking Robert's "side," as you accuse me of doing? Most
emphatically, NO! It means I am taking the "side" that has both you and
Robert on it. It means I choose to leave this interpersonal battle behind,
because there are far greater battles to be won in the refinement of my own
character and the development of the life of the community -- from the
intellectual life of the relatively small community on Talisman to the
spiritual life of the greater community in which we are all interdependent,
no matter how offended we choose to be at one another.
Second, to Christopher Buck:
The hour was late when I completed my posting of last night, and so
regretfully I neglected to mention the life-giving hope I derived from your
response to my initial effort to begin coaxing a lotus blossom from the mire
of this dispute concerning Robert J.
I heartily agreed with your enumeration of Robert's virtues and the valuable
contributions he has made to the discourse on Talisman. Even if some of his
actions have been unworthy of our support, it would be wrong to ignore his
actions that have been praiseworthy. We would all be outcasts if the
presence of our flaws meant that our virtues had to be ignored.
Also, you were quite correct in assuming that I would not condone attacking
any person's fidelity to the Covenant. Consensus on this principle would be
valuable not only within the Talisman community, but also throughout the
Baha'i community as a whole. Indeed, I think it already exists in some form
in the Writings that instruct us on how to treat one another in our community
relationships. Only the properly-constituted Institutions can determine
whether or not any individual has broken the Covenant, or is "close to"
breaking the Covenant.
Here on Talisman, of course, we have a moderator who is empowered to decide
when any of us has crossed the line from principled discussion of Covenantal
issues into the unacceptable area of personal accusations. I am glad he is
here to do this (most of the time :) because it means I don't have to, and
can focus my energies elsewhere, as I am trying to do now.
Most importantly, Christopher, I thank you for the loving and humble spirit
of your response -- virtues which would serve us well if we incorporated
their strengths more fully into our discussions here. Thank you for helping
to move us in the right direction.
Third but not least, to Robert Stockman:
Your post under the heading of "Disunity" exemplifies many of the virtues I
am convinced we need to allow Talisman to function as the powerful
constructive tool it has the potential to become. Most of what you wrote
needs no commentary or response beyond my heartfelt agreement with it, but
there was one thing to which I wanted to respond: your feeling that this
thread should disappear.
I started this thread in the hopes that it could be something other than what
it currently is (hmm... haven't I read Juan making such a comment about a
thread he started recently? :), and continue it only in the hope that it
might still be turned in that positive direction. So I quite agree that it
should disappear in its present form; and if it becomes clear that it cannot
be transformed, I will abandon it and move on to more constructive threads.
I thank you for lending your considerable powers to the possibility that
something good may yet come of all this.
With sincere regards to all three of you, as well as to all those whose
responses I have failed to acknowledge,
Kevin Haines
=END=
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 1995 23:43:19 +1300 (NZDT)
To: TLCULHANE@aol.com, talisman@indiana.edu
From: robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nz (Robert Johnston)
Subject: Re: Therapy, Forgivness and Justice
ffolks,
I am thankful for the wonderful displays of colour from Nima, Terry and
Alison. These letters are like precious messages from God, conveying
insights from the unseen. Be thankful that your penetrating words shall be
perpetually engraved on my heart, and on tablets of crysolite...
Perhaps we should some day discuss the basis of reasonable discourse....and
other interesting matters...
With abundant affection,
Robert.
=END=
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 1995 04:41:28 -0700 (MST)
From: Sadra
To: Geocitizen@aol.com
Cc: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: White Flags & Doves (Re: back to conscience)
Dear Kevin--
I'd like to drop this whole thread, if it's ok, as it has drained me, and
move on to something else. Robert Johnston is gone for now -- or maybe
not! -- so let's just leave it at that. I meant no personal disrespect to
you, Keven, but wholeheartedly disagree with your position -- that is all.
Let's just "agree to disagree" on this one. And, no, I do not want you to
follow my orders or anyone else's. Hey, I'm one of the counter-elitists
here, remember ;-) Everyone's opinion counts to me so along as it
doesn't seek to label mine or those of others on this list as heretical or
disloyal to the covenant, etc.. _Beware_ the next time to those who seek
to do so. The last thing this Faith needs right now are Khomeinists. I've
heard enough of this junk from other arch-conservative religionists
(i.e. fundamentalist Christains, Muslims and Jews) to last me a couple of
lifetimes. Please, let us let a hundred flowers bloom...Amen to that!
Regards,
Nima
---
O God, cause us to see things as they really are - Hadith
"In the mirror of their minds, the forms of transcendent realities are
reflected, and the lamp of their inner vision derives its light from the
Sun of Universal Knowledge" - Secret of Divine Civilization
=END=
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 95 09:41:01 -0500
From: "Ahang Rabbani"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Newcastle Conference
[This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII]
With many thanks to Rob for posting a report of the 8th Irfan conference
at Newcastle, and I for one am very pleased to see this topic, namely,
anti-Baha'i polemic, is receiving some scholarly attention and analysis.
There were a couple items in Rob's report that in particular caught my
attention.
"Dr. Robert Stockman spoke on "The Limits of Discourse
in the Baha'i Community and their Consequences," focusing on the
needs of any community to define boundaries of internal discourse
in order to preserve its unity. He focused on two issues that
have been raised by non-Baha'i critics of the Faith about its
internal discourse: the treatment of Covenant-breakers and the
existence of prepublication review. Continued development of the
review process to make it more consultation-based will resolve
much of the criticism of it."
I like to hear a bit more about these non-Baha'i critics who have raised
these issues about our internal discourse and what sort of things do they
exactly say. What motivates them to focus on these two issues?
"Dr. Moojan Momen presented on
the basis of persecution of the Baha'i Faith in Islamic law by
describing different Islamic legal categories (such as believer,
unbeliever, people of the book, and heretic) and noting how those
categories had been used by Muslims and Baha'is in actual court
cases."
If Rob has kept some brief notes on this presentation, would love to hear
them.
"Dr. Nichola Towfiq then presented a paper on "E. G. Browne's
Misconceptions." The paper noted various misinformations Browne
presented about Mirza Yahya, such as the statement that the Bab
appointed him His vali (successor) when in fact no such
appointment was made, and described various Azali interpretations
of the Bab's allusions to a future Manifestation of God as
referring to the advent of the next Manifestation in 1501 or 2001
years."
Again, I very much like to hear a bit more detail if available. The
Baha'i response to Azali claims and the business about the year 1501 or
2001 are all well discussed by Baha'u'llah Himself, so I'm particularly
intrigued to see what additional ground is being covered by Dr. Towfiq.
Sounds like a fascinating paper.
" Sunday morning Stephen Lambden gave a brilliant paper on
"The Position of Mirza Yahya Subh-i-Azal: Some Aspects of Azali
Anti-Baha'i Polemic and Baha'i Apologetics." The paper noted the
critical need to examine the writings of the Bab and Baha'u'llah
in far greater detail, for they will reveal aspects of the
station of Azal usually not considered and will likely make it
clear he was never granted a formal position of successorship by
the Bab; that a life of Yahya and a much more thorough study of
his movement is necessary to correct some misinformation
properly; and that a more thorough examination of Baha'u'llah's
relationship to Yahya will reveal many important details."
Rob may be well aware of this (and if not, Dr. M. Derakhshani (whom I
believe is known to Rob ;-} can provide him with details), about a year
ago, a Persian believer in Australia wrote a massive book on Azal and
Azalis, drawing from a large body of Tablets, including extensive study
of the Kitab-i Badi` (Baha'u'llah's most important response to Azali
charges). I'm only mentioning this as Rob may wish to put Lambden in
touch with this Australian researcher so they can collaborate and
synergies.
Also, as I know there are a couple of Baha'i publishers on Talisman, they
may wish to contact this believer in Australia for possible publication
of this pretty comprehensive study. If interested, suggest contacting
Dr. Derakhshani at Wilmette.
Question for Rob: what are the plans for publishing these papers? And
also will the papers from the previous 7 Irfan conferences be published
as well?
Again, thanks to Rob for raising the level of discourse.
regards, ahang.
=END=
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 1995 11:19:17 -0600 (CST)
From: Saman Ahmadi
To: talisman
Subject: Re: back to conscience
Dear Everyone,
I think Kevin makes some very interesting points.
I have a question: should the members of Talisman be able to
be true to their conscience and say openly what they feel?
The rules of Talisman are such to allow open discussion without
question of the members' motive.
Another question: how are non-traditional ideas going to be
accepted in the wider community if they are not developed by
critical dialogue?
The reason for the anger is because we are not talking about
what kind beam to use to build a bridge - we talking about
essence of everyone's conscience.
regards,
sAmAn
=END=
From: l.droege@genie.geis.com
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 95 17:34:00 UTC 0000
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Christmas
Am sitting here watching a performance of Handel's "Messiah" on PBS--
not only an affirmation for Christians but for us Baha'is as well...
"Arise, shine, for thy light has come, and the Glory of the Lord has risen
upon thee."
Merry Christmas.
Leigh
=END=
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 1995 13:14:51 -0500 (EST)
From: Cheshmak A Farhoumand
To: bahai-discuss@bcca.org
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu, bahai-women@bcca.org
Subject: Christmas Mass
Something really funny happened last night so i thought to share it with
you all. I went with a friend to a Methodist Christmas Service. It was so
so beautiful and moving. I have gone to Christmas mass in the past but
only to Catholic and ANglican. So, this was a bit different. We sang
Christmas Carols, listened to a wonderful Christmas message from the
Minister and then had a candle light ceremony while we sang silent night.
The most beautiful part of the service was when they played silent night
on bells. i had tears in my eyes, it was so moving.
ANyway, when my friend and i were leaving, the Minister was at the door
saying goodbye to everyone. When my turn came, i told him how much i
enjoyed the service and he said "i noticed you. you were sitting on the
far right by the wall, right?" i said yes. He said, "i could tell you
were paying real close attention and when we prayed you were
concentrating, so thank you for your attention." i told him again that it
was a beautiful service and i wish i could have told him i am a Baha'i,
but there was a line up of people waiting to say goodbye. I did notice
though that the comment made an impression on my friend who is Methodist.
Anyway, just wanted to share this with you to i guess make the point that
i think it is so important for Baha'is to get out and be involved with
other people and groups. We are different and people notice. When they
notice, they will ask and we can open a dialogue of mutual learning and
fellowship.
At one point in the service, there was the lighting of the candles on the
alter. As the second candle was lit, the following phrase was said, "the
second candle represents the return of our Lord, Jesus Christ, may God
open our eyes and heart so we can recognize him." i was so touched and
thought to myself, don't these people at least need to hear about
Baha'u'llah's claim so they can investigate it. I am now thinking of
going again to this church and speaking to the Minister. Perhaps he will
allow someone to make a presentation to his church on the Faith.
Nice talking to you all, sorry to have taken up your time.
Regards,
Cheshmak
=END=
From: Geocitizen@aol.com
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 1995 13:34:34 -0500
To: nima@unm.edu
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: White Flags & Doves
Dear Nima,
I will be most happy to peacefully abandon this thread, as you have
suggested. I especially appreciate your using the phrase "agree to
disagree," as it indicates we both respect one another's views and sincerity.
We simply find our difference of opinion on this one matter irreconcilable,
and agree that it would not be constructive to further discuss it. So let us
move on to matters on which we can find some agreement, or at least on which
our disagreements can yield more nutritious fruit. :)
Regards,
Kevin
=END=
From: Geocitizen@aol.com
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 1995 13:34:43 -0500
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: secondary and tertiary (was re: energies...)
Hoping that I have been successful in my attempt to leap out of the frying
pan (with much-appreciated help from Nima :) here I go right into the fire,
which has most recently shown up in an exchange between Jim Harrison and
Philip Belove.
Jim contends that many of the issues usually occupying center stage in the
Talisman discourse are really secondary and tertiary issues, and that the
core problem from which the other problems spring has been mostly ignored.
Philip responded by saying that we cannot afford to ignore the problems that
Jim calls secondary and tertiary. By now, no one who has read more than two
of my postings should be surprised to find that I agree with both of them.
;)
But on the question of where our priorities ought to lie, Jim Harrison
carries the day. His categories of tertiary, secondary, and primary issues
may be clarified for some if I use a medical metaphor in which we consider
symptoms, the disease or disorder itself, and the root cause of the disease
or disorder.
Suppose I and a friend are eating in an expensive restaurant to celebrate
some joyous event, when suddenly my friend begins a display of embarrassing
symptoms. His face contorts; grotesque, strained sounds come from his mouth;
his arms and legs begin to flail about, rattling the silverware and fine
china on the table, and people at neighboring tables begin to stare. At this
point in my embarrasment I might urgently tell my friend to stop all that,
not understanding that he *can't* stop, because these are symptoms of a
deeper problem. Here we are at the tertiary level, where everything is
important and nothing can be ignored, but neither can anything much be
accomplished by trying to "solve" these symptoms without probing for the
deeper problem.
As the waiters and other diners gather around to criticize my friend's rude
disruption of their evening, somebody who once had a friend who took a first
aid course remembers something about situations like this. Noticing that my
friend's face is beginning to turn purple, the man shouts, "He's suffocating!
He needs air! Open a window!" Now we've reached the secondary level, where
the problem is correctly identified, but proposed solutions still may not
help anything until we probe still deeper.
Finally, just before my friend slumps into unconsciousness, an actual doctor
arrives for her dinner reservation, rushes over, and administers a swift
Heimlich maneuver, dislodging the small bone that had been stuck in his
esophagus. As we all praise the physician for her decisive and correct
diagnosis, my friend gradually regains his natural vigor, and our celebration
of the joyous festival can continue. This is the level of action to which
Jim has repeatedly called us, although he has not claimed the status of an
all-knowing physician (we are all but students of the One Physician :).
The symptoms the Baha'i community is exhibiting can be embarrassing: we
question each other's loyalty to the Cause whenever we feel our narrow
understanding of this Revelation is threatened; many local communities live
in abject fear of any real change or the influx of large numbers of
"outsiders" into our ranks. The disorder is severe enough that nearly a
whole generation of scholars feels stymied in any effort to develop advanced
forms of Baha'i scholarship.
These problems are important and cannot be ignored, but if we are to solve
them, we must find and correct the root cause or causes. It is in this
context that time spent focusing on the symptoms might be much better spent
focusing on the core issue. This is all Jim has said, and I find it utterly
mystifying that he has been met with either opposition or silence every time
he has proposed this.
I hope we can overcome this tendency, and turn the great potential of this
list toward solving the root problem.
Regards,
Kevin Haines
=END=
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 1995 12:48:51 -0700 (MST)
From: Sadra
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Ma'ani
Dear Brent, Ahang and Talizens--
This latest episode feels really spooky, if you ask me. I
don't know the specifics of the case regarding Michelle, but for the
record a large part of the Ma'ani family are still committed Baha'is. Dr.
Daryush Ma'ani who lives in Graz, Austria, and is the brother of Jamshid
Ma'ani, is a Councillor (or was it an ABM -- I can't remember). He's also
the author of a highly important study of the Hidden Words, Ganj-i Asrar
(The Treasured Secrets), and the HW entry in the now defunct Baha'i
Encyclopedia was written by him. There is also a Ma'ani, another close
relative of Jamshid's, who is (or was) a member of the National Spiritual
Assembly of the Baha'is of New Zealand. And of course, there's a
Ms. Ma'ani who works for the Baha'i World Centre. So let's be careful
before passing sweeping indictments of the entire Ma'ani family.
Regards,
Nima
---
O God, cause us to see things as they really are - Hadith
"In the mirror of their minds, the forms of transcendent realities are
reflected, and the lamp of their inner vision derives its light from the
Sun of Universal Knowledge" - Secret of Divine Civilization
=END=
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 1995 13:59:48 -0700 (MST)
From: "[G. Brent Poirier]"
To: Talisman
Subject: Policy of non-interference in government
Juan noted:
>>Thus, with regard to politics, it is very clear that Shoghi
>>Effendi's total ban on politics was not a forever-binding
>>interpretation of Baha'u'llah's principles, but a temporary and
>>ad hoc policy that in many ways runs contrary to Baha'u'llah's
>>own example of defying royal absolutism in the Ottoman Empire and
>>Qajar Iran by calling for parliamentary and democratic
>>governance. Shoghi Effendi as Head of the faith had every right
>>to institute the policy. The question is whether it is
>>permanently binding, and how to determine this. One final
>>arbiter in my view has to be the Writings and intent of
>>Baha'u'llah.
Rob Stockman wrote:
*I am told* that there is a letter of the Guardian stating the policy of
avoiding politics is a "temporary strategy"--I *think* those are the words--and
that the House of Justice can gradually lift the policy. This is what the House
has been doing in the External Affairs work; otherwise it is not clear how the
Baha'i institutions could be involved in such worthy but politically
controversial efforts as getting the U.S. Congress to ratify the genocide
convention.
This brings up the subject I referred to a few days ago, the power of
the House to infallibly apply the Teachings. This power is referred to
in these words by the Guardian:
"This Administrative Order is fundamentally different
from anything that any Prophet has previously
established, inasmuch as Baha'u'llah has Himself
revealed its principles, established its institutions,
appointed the person to interpret His Word and
conferred the necessary authority on the body designed
to supplement *and apply* His legislative ordinances.
Therein lies the secret of its strength, its
fundamental distinction, and the guarantee against
disintegration and schism."
(The World Order of Baha'u'llah, p. 145; also see pp.
19-20 where the Guardian says that the House of Justice
and the Guardian are empowered to infallibly apply
the principles of the Faith -- in addition to the laws)
I wrote to the House and asked if the fact that the NSA got involved in
encouraging passage of the Genocide Convention, meant that the principle
of non-involvement in politics was suspended for individuals. I have
sent copies of my letter and the reply from the House to several of you.
In part, the letter from the House, which is in the compilation on
"Peace" states:
"The general policy already enunciated by Shoghi
Effendi in 'The World Order of Baha'u'llah,' pages
63-67, should be scrupulously upheld by the friends.
However, as the Faith emerges from obscurity, the
application of certain aspects of this policy will
require the clarification of the House of Justice.
With the passage of time, practices in the political
realm will definitely undergo the profound changes
anticipated in the Baha'i writings. As a consequence,
what we understand now of the policy of non-involvement
in politics will also undergo a change; but as Shoghi
Effendi has written, this instruction, 'at the present
stage of the evolution of our Faith, should be
increasingly emphasized, irrespective of its
application to the East or to the West.'"
Brent
=END=
From: "Mark A. Foster"
Subject: Various Subjects
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 1995 15:07:13 -0600 (CST)
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Talismanians -
I have just returned from Orlando, the SED conference, and Epcot
(the food was great, BTW, in the Moroccan restaurant).
FAYI (for all y'all's information - as folks used to say back during
my days in Mississippi), I will be incorporating several subjects into this
message.
First Subject:
John, The name of the fellow who did the computerization of the
Qur'an and decided (with some textual support, apparently) that it was
written in multiples of nineteen (the abjad value of vahid/unity) is Rashad
Khalifa. I knew him (a bit) through several phone interviews. I also
have all his English-language books.
Rashad was not too friendly to the Faith, and I never told him I
was a Baha'i. In fact, he had allegedly been "accused" of being a Baha'i
by some people and was very defensive about it.
His organization is called the United Submitters, and the
headquarters is Masjid Tucson (in Arizona). Members are quite active on
the major online services (CompuServe, Prodigy, America Online, etc.).
However, the Submitters' postings are regularly attacked by other Muslims
(especially on CompuServe) who argue that they have no business in an
Islamic message area.
Strangely, many of the Submitters seem to like the Baha'i section on
CompuServe. They will sometimes post questions about the Faith, (all
friendly). I suspect that it derives from a feeling of brotherhood (?)
with Baha'is, given that orthodox Muslims by and large do not like
either group. The Submitters have also promoted their version of the
Qur'an (which emphasizes nineteen) in the Baha'i section. As section
leader, I have always been polite to them. And they are certainly
treated better in the Baha'i, than in the Muslim, section.
As you say, Khalifa was murdered. He also pled no contest to a rape
charge several years before that! As would be expected, that is a highly
sensitive area for the Submitters.
About Farrakhan: One of the other Black Muslim groups (in the same
line from Fard Muhammad) is called the Nubian Islamic Hebrews. Their
theologies are very similar. However, my impression, based on the
possibly biased sample of my conversations with members of both groups,
is that the Nubians are more doctrinally oriented than the Nation of
Islam. The majority of Nubians I have met know qur'anic Arabic, while
most of the members of the Nation of Islam I have spoken with do not.
I have a book written by the Nubian founder which is entirely
devoted to the number nineteen in the Qur'an and which claims that
Rashad Khalifa stole the idea from him! I do not know whether his
correct. However, I would suggest that Farrakhan might have gotten his
views on qur'anic numerology from the Nubians. But I have no clue
whether the idea goes back to Fard Muhammad or to Elijah Muhammad.
Next Subject:
To all: The Baha'i Chair at the University of Maryland is having
severe financial problems. Unfortunately, they have not had the time to
publicize it. However, I had a conversation with some people (at the SED
conference) who do some of the coordination for that activity, and I
offered to post a message on Talisman, etc. making folks aware of the
problem. From what they told me, unless they get the needed support, the
Baha'i Chair might be disolved. If you are interested in helping out,
please address all correspondance to:
Baha'i Chair for World Peace
Center for International Development
and Conflict Management
Tydings Hall
University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742 U.S.A.
Next Subject:
And, again, to all: It seems obvious to me that the term "learned in
Baha" applies to anyone who is *learned in Baha* - and not just
those in the institution of the learned. Although I have not seen
*anyone* refer to themselves directly as learned, others seem to have
been reading all sorts of such things into people's postings.
Can't we just accept that there are certain people who, *in the*
*sight of God*, are learned, that these are not necessarily the same as
those with academic credentials, and that we can all leave it to God
and, perhaps to others to some extent, to make that determination?
Shouldn't we all selflessly engage in whatever jobs or services we feel
that can best perform and forget about all the divisive labeling,
name-calling, and speculating over who has a right to this or that
distinction?
Next Subject:
Re: democracy, it seems to me that the Baha'i institutions (and
perhaps the civil governments which will, as Juan said, exist along side
of it) are democratic in the sense that they are governments of the
people. That is to say, the methodology is democratic. Rulers are
popularly elected, and, now that we have no living Guardian, the
Counselors, the highest position to which any Baha'i can now be
appointed, are selected by the institution of the rulers (the House).
However, the Baha'i system can also be considered aristocratic (the
Guardianship), autocratic (in the sense that the rulers are, while
consulting their communities, not to base their decisions on special
interest groups or lobbies but on their own, hopefully, depersonalized
consultations), and theocratic (in that the institutions are established
under Baha'u'llah's Covenant and are, to varying degrees, inspired).
Warm Greetings,
Mark
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*Mark A. Foster, Ph.D., Sociologist of Religion (Structuralist) *
*President (1995), Kansas Sociological Society *
*Academic Director (and Kansas Dir.), Foundation for the Science of Reality *
*Founding President, Two-Year College Sociological Society *
*Address: Department of Sociology, Johnson County Community College *
* 12345 College Blvd., Overland Park, KS 66210-1299 U.S.A. *
*Phones: 913/469-8500, ext.3376 (Office) and 913/768-4244 (Home) *
*Fax: 913/469-4409 Science of Reality BBS: 913/768-1113 (8-N-1; 14.4 kbps) *
*Email: mfoster@tyrell.net or mfoster@jccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us (Internet); *
* 72642,3105 (Staff, Three CompuServe Religion Forums);UWMG94A (Prod.);*
* Realityman (America Online Ethics and Religion Forum Remote Staff); *
* RealityDude (MSN);Realityman19 (CNet);Realityman (Interchange) *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
___
* UniQWK #2141* The manifested Unity of God emanates in His creation's diversity
=END=
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 1995 09:14:22 +1300 (NZDT)
To: talisman@indiana.edu
From: robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nz (Robert Johnston)
Subject: genuine psychological understanding
Talismans,
The question that has arisen in in my mind is just how we should deal with
viciousness when we meet it in our fellow Baha'is. What if I am the target
of slanderous, hypocritical and deceitful attacks? What should I do?
Clearly an attitude of forgiveness is enjoined in the Writings. We are
asked to show love towards our enemies. How much more should we show love
to those who are supposed too be our friends. Heartfelt consultation
between the parties would seem to be a genuine act of love. But what if
the attacks persist and bring real damage? What should we do then?
Attack back in kind? I see no approval for this in the Writings. What
then? The obvious answer is to take the matter to the institutions of the
Faith. To the local assembly, or to national assembly, or to the House
itself. These are options legitimately open to all believers. Less
desirable -- but nonetheless possible -- would be the taking of civil
and/or criminal legal action. At the end of the day, though, the problem
is intensely personal and would seem to require some kind of spiritual
adjustment on the part of the aggrieved person. Sometimes people carry
their wounds to the grave, hoping/believing that on the other side they
will achieve peace of mind, and redress for their complaints. I wonder how
many Baha'is fear death; and I wonder how many do not fear death. It may
be an sure index of spiritual health. I do not think that the blameworthy
would welcome their impending meeting with God. It seems to me that true
courage only arises from the overcoming of the fear of death...
What are slander and deceit and hypocrisy? It seems to me that they may be
considered forms of unthruthfulness. Afterall truthfulness is the
foundation of all virtues. The slanderer, the deceitful person and the
hypocrite all contravene Covenantally enshrined values, and on a continuum
the Covenant Breaker -- though I have no wish to discuss this creature at
this moment -- is probably best seen as a liar, in my view.
Again, what does this mean for a discursive setting like Talisman? It
means that vicious persons are unable to engage meaningfully in rational
discourse -- discourse which requires a truth-seeking motive, and the
reaching of understanding and agreement on matters. Aristotle (whose ideas
on this find parallels in the Writings -- particularly those on the
relationship between science and religion) understood this very clearly.
He said that the human spirit, the purpose of which is the manifestation of
the evidences of rationality, has both an ethical and an intellectual
propensity. If these are out of kilter then rationality is impossible.
So an immoral person, according to this view, is unable to achieve
rationality, even where the intellectual function is strong. (In the Faith
our source of morality is the Writings...)
Logically, a person who fails to be rational, is -- by degrees --
irrational. An irrational person's viewpoint is not to be trusted, because
it reflects a very circumscribed reality -- the reality of the irrational
person's mental and mortal veils. Extreme irrationality shows as madness.
Curiously, 'Abdu'l-Baha states (in SOW) that friends who prove false will
be visited by madess...
Where does this madness originate? According to psychoanalytic thought
(etc), this kind of mental illness arises because of unresolved childhood
conflicts -- conflicts with parents and siblings. Essentially, the
mentally ill person remains in an infantile condition until these conflicts
are worked through. It is possible for these conflicts to be worked
through in the context of general life processes. So, even here on
Talisman, it is possible that participants will be resolving their
conflicts as a part of their discursive trip. This is not so hard to
accept, if we take the achievement of "wholeness" as the major end of all
education, and so on... Of course there will be some who find the normal
day-to-day wear and tear of life provides insufficient assistance in the
removal their veils. Such people require specialised expert assistance.
It is not accidental that House member Peter Khan said that The Calamity is
being experienced in the West as severe mental tests. It is my hope that
Baha'is will become better attuned to the causes and manifestations of
mental suffering, and learn to become more effective in dealing with it.
It seems to me that genuine psychological understanding is pretty rare in
our communities...
Robert.
=END=
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 1995 14:34:49 -0700 (MST)
From: "[G. Brent Poirier]"
To: Sadra
Cc: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Ma'ani
On Mon, 25 Dec 1995, Jinab-i Haji Mirza Sadra Albuquerquiyyih wrote:
> record a large part of the Ma'ani family are still committed Baha'is. Dr.
> Daryush Ma'ani who lives in Graz, Austria, and is the brother of Jamshid
> Ma'ani, is a Councillor (or was it an ABM -- I can't remember). He's also
> the author of a highly important study of the Hidden Words, Ganj-i Asrar
> (The Treasured Secrets), and the HW entry in the now defunct Baha'i
> Encyclopedia was written by him. There is also a Ma'ani, another close
> relative of Jamshid's, who is (or was) a member of the National Spiritual
> Assembly of the Baha'is of New Zealand. And of course, there's a
> Ms. Ma'ani who works for the Baha'i World Centre. So let's be careful
> before passing sweeping indictments of the entire Ma'ani family.
Mrs. Ma'ani in Haifa is a refined and marvelous person. Anyone who merits
working so closely with the Head of the Faith for so many years -- that
speaks volumes to me. Her daughter is a cherished friend of mine, and a
member of the Board of Directors of the Baha'i Justice Society. When I
hear the name "Ma'ani" I think of them, and of Dr. Ma'ani in Austria, whom
I met when I was a student in Austria in 1982. I never criticized the
family or this distinguished family name.
Brent
=END=
From: cbuck@ccs.carleton.ca (Christopher Buck)
Subject: Doctors, Farmers, Scientists, Artists
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 95 16:52:50 EST
There are many mansions in Baha'u'llah's Paradise. There are
recompenses and lofty stations for all kinds of service in the Faith.
Doctors and farmers receive the highest praise in the Writings of
Baha'u'llah. Agriculture and medicine, among all other occupations, appear
to have an importance in the eyes of Baha'u'llah that exceeds all others.
Similarly, artists and scientists have a great right among the
people, according to the beloved Master.
For one drop of blood shed in the path of the Beloved, *myriads of
oceans* will be recompense. The station of one who takes up his/her pen in
defense of the Faith will excite the envy of the Concourse on High.
The Institution of the Learned seems to have had its roots in the
practice of having full time, deputized teachers of the Faith among
various Baha'i communities in Iran (see Taherzadeh's *The Covenant*).
Among all of these high stations, there may be different *ranks*.
A Baha'i teacher or a Baha'i scholar *might* belong to the individual
class of the Learned, which is distinct from the Institution of the Learned.
This is where I believe this entire misunderstanding arose. Juan
was talking about the origins of the concept of the Learned and what
Baha'u'llah might have originally meant by it.
Now of course the Learned has evolved into an Institution of the
Faith, and that is where the emphasis and primary identification of the
Learned resides.
But simply saying that there is also an individual class of the
Learned is a far cry from equating any outstanding Baha'i teacher or
scholar with a Hand of the Cause.
Unfortunately, a misunderstanding of this point touched a raw
nerve and various accusations of elitism were leveled at Juan. Let's
pretend for a moment that Juan is the other kind of *Doctor*--a physician.
Now Juan might be a good physician or a poor physician. Either
way, Juan belongs to the class of physicians whose profession happens to
be ranked alongside farmers as occupying the highest profession.
Simply classing *Dr. Cole* in the class of physicians does not
make him Dr. Albert Schweitzer or Dr. Ruhe or any of the many marytrs of
the Faith who were physicians. No claim of elitism is being made here.
No charges of elitism that I know of were voiced when the teaching
pamphlet, *Farmers Are First*, was published. But the moment someone
suggests that a Baha'i academic *might* be classed with the Learned (as
the Master's gloss on the Aqdas verse indicates), all hell breaks loose.
And let's suppose I am wrong on this. I would invite Robert
Stockman to consider that that which is doctrinally suspicious is not
necessarily *Covenantally-suspicious*.
For example, Counsellor Jacqueline Delahunt, NSA member Patricia
Locke, and Dr. David Ruhe believe there were Native Manifestations of God.
Dr. Ruhe's statement that Dekanawida was a Prophet is now on video and
Counsellor Delahunt's statement that White Buffalo Calf Woman was a
Manifestation of God has recently been published in a book.
In light of the recent letter from the Universal House of Justice
that Robert Johnston received, what are we to conclude? That Dr. Ruhe and
Counsellor Delahunt are somehow wrong?
Considering that the House's role is not to interpret per se, but to
refer to the authorized interpretations of the Master and the beloved
Guardian, I would simply observe that there is a plurality of understanding.
Even when a statement by the Guardian is adduced, we still have to
contextualize it, and ask some fundamental questions regarding the domains of
conferred infallibility.
In Boston, on August 13th, 1994, I personally heard Dr. Ruhe explain
why we must not be dogmatic about certain statements of the Guardian (such
as the statement, *We cannot possible add names...*) that *might not* fall
within the three spheres of the Guardian's conferred infallibility.
Therefore I second Ahang's request that Robert Stockman discuss his
conference paper online, so that we can benefit from his reflections on
the limits of discourse and the morality of knowledge.
-- Christopher Buck
**********************************************************************
* * * * * *
* * * Christopher Buck Invenire ducere est.
* * * Carleton University * * *
* * * Internet: CBuck@CCS.Carleton.CA * * *
* * * P O Box 77077 * Ottawa, Ontario * K1S 5N2 Canada * * *
* * * * * *
**********************************************************************
=END=
From: "Mark A. Foster"
Subject: Politics
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 1995 16:08:51 -0600 (CST)
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Talismanians -
While there certainly are some temporary measures instituted for
various reasons (such as review), I am not sure that involvement in
politics, correctly understood, is one of them.
To my understanding, the prohibition is against engaging in partisan
politics - not politics in general. For example, becoming a judge is
sometimes involves a political appointment, and yet we see members of
the American NSA who are judges.
Therefore, I do not think that this prohibition against partisanship
will be abolished. Rather, the rules of the game will change. There
will, in the future, be no electioneering (at least as it presently
exists) and no political parties. These changes may, at the discretion
of the Universal House of Justice, allow greater political involvement
by the believers.
Warm regards to all,
Mark
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*Mark A. Foster, Ph.D., Sociologist of Religion (Structuralist) *
*President (1995), Kansas Sociological Society *
*Academic Director (and Kansas Dir.), Foundation for the Science of Reality *
*Founding President, Two-Year College Sociological Society *
*Address: Department of Sociology, Johnson County Community College *
* 12345 College Blvd., Overland Park, KS 66210-1299 U.S.A. *
*Phones: 913/469-8500, ext.3376 (Office) and 913/768-4244 (Home) *
*Fax: 913/469-4409 Science of Reality BBS: 913/768-1113 (8-N-1; 14.4 kbps) *
*Email: mfoster@tyrell.net or mfoster@jccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us (Internet); *
* 72642,3105 (Staff, Three CompuServe Religion Forums);UWMG94A (Prod.);*
* Realityman (America Online Ethics and Religion Forum Remote Staff); *
* RealityDude (MSN);Realityman19 (CNet);Realityman (Interchange) *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
___
* UniQWK #2141* The manifested Unity of God emanates in His creation's diversity
=END=
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 1995 15:14:49 -0700 (MST)
From: "[G. Brent Poirier]"
To: Talisman
Subject: Hmmm
To make things more interesting, I have verified that Michelle Ma'ani is
*not* subscribed to Talisman! I think she just posted here.
=END=
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 1995 16:27:09 -0600 (CST)
From: Saman Ahmadi
To: talisman
Subject: the Ma'ani family
Dear All,
I too am related to Jamshid Ma'ani. One of his brothers, Manuchehr,
was a Knight of Baha'u'llah - he passed away before Jamshid made his
claims - Mrs. Ma'ani who serves in Haifa, was the wife of Manuchehr.
Most of Jamshid's brothers, there were 8 in all, I think, remained
faithful - some live in the U.S. I can ask my dad, through whom
I am related to Jamshid, about other particluars if anyone is
interested.
Meanwhile, Ahang's suggestion of following Brent's move seems
prudent to me - lets wait.
regards,
sAmAn
=END=
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 1995 15:41:47 -0700 (MST)
From: "[G. Brent Poirier]"
To: "Mark A. Foster"
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Politics
On Mon, 25 Dec 1995, Mark A. Foster wrote:
> To my understanding, the prohibition is against engaging in partisan
> politics - not politics in general. For example, becoming a judge is
> sometimes involves a political appointment, and yet we see members of
> the American NSA who are judges.
In American constitutional law, the executive and legislative branches of
the government are referred to as the "political" branches. The judicial
branch is supposed to be non-political. That's why more types of protest
are permitted under US law at the White House and at the Congress, than
are permitted at the Supreme Court: The Supreme Court is not supposed to
be swayed by public opinion; it's supposed to interpret the law.
The Federal Courts are not permitted to rule on what US law terms
"political questions." These are matters within the exclusive purview of
one of the two political branches of the government (e.g. whether or not
to extend diplomatic recognition to this or that foreign government).
Judge Dorothy Nelson was appointed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals,
and was confirmed by the U.S. Senate, based on recognition of her
abilities and her temperament. That's the basis on which *all* judges
are supposed to be appointed. The fact that many judicial appointments
are highly politically motivated, does not change the underlying
principles; nor is the judicial system so politicized that an impartial
judge cannot function inside of that system.
Also, I think it's important that she did not need to run for this office
in a general election. Neither did Jim Nelson, when he was a municipal
judge in Los Angeles; he was appointed by Governor Ronald Reagan, and had
to stand for a "retention" election. I don't think he actually campaigned
during these elections.
In New Mexico, I don't think a Baha'i could be a judge; that's because in
order to be appointed by the governor, you must declare membership in a
political party, and the first election thereafter is an open election in
which you must declare a party candidacy. Thereafter, you face occasional
retention elections, during which you need not have declared a party
affiliation. But I don't think a Baha'i could get that far.
One more point. I think that more than partisanship is prohibited to
Baha'is. Certain state department appointments, or UN appointments, even
if nonpartisan, involve "matters of state" which I think are at present,
off limits to us. We can hold administrative positions, carrying out
such policies; but cannot be involved in *making* them.
=END=
From: Don_R._Calkins@commonlink.com (Don R. Calkins)
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: radical/conservative/progressive/etc
Date: 25 Dec 1995 18:13:39 GMT
"He urges you to exert your utmost to get the ... Baha'is to put aside
such obnoxious terms as "radical", "conservative", "progressive", "enemies of
the Cause", "squelching the teachings", etc. If they paused for one moment
to think for what purpose the Bab and the Martyrs gave their lives, and
Baha'u'llah and the Master accepted so much sufering, they would never let
such definitions and accusations cross their lips when speaking of each
other. As long as the friends quarrel amongst themselves their efforts will
not be blessed for they are disobeying God"
((from a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, 24 February 1950, to an
individual, cited in the compilation 'Living the Life', in the Compilation of
Compilations, Vol II, p21, #1325))
- sent via an evaluation copy of BulkRate (unregistered).
=END=
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 1995 20:58:04 +0000 (MULTINET_TIMEZONE)
From: maeissin@ichange.com (Michael Eissinger)
Subject: There is a power...
To: Noorbakhsh.Monzavi@hibo.no
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu, bahai-faith@bcca.org, nmo@postman.hibo.no
Forgive me if this is redundant, but...
the following quote was posted as a daily reading...
> "There is a power in this Cause, a mysterious power, far far far
> away from the ken of men and angels.
> That invisible power is the cause of all these outward activities.
>
> It moves the hearts.
> It rends the mountains.
> It administers the complicated affairs of the Cause.
> It inspires the friends.
> It dashes into a thosand pieces all the forces of opposition.
> It creates new spiritual world.
>
> This is the mystery of the Kingdom of God."
>
> -'Abdu'l-Baha'-
Although this saying has often been attributed to the Beloved Master, it
is one of those sayings that has entered the popular culture of the
Baha'i Faith, but is not scripture. It is often quoted at firesides and
deepenings and bantered about, however, I don't believe there is an
authenticated tablet containing this text anywhere.
I believe that, like the Marriage Tablet, this is not 'Abdu'l-Baha, but
rather the words of Ahmad Sohrab paraphrasing the Master. It was
included in Baha'i Scriptures, p. 304, and referenced back to "Mirza
Ahmad Sohrab, Diary Notes, July 7, 1914. I believe that Baha'i
Scriptures should have referred to Sohrab's diary, dated Port Said,
Egypt, 8 July 1913, which reads as follows...
"After dictating several wonderful Tablets Abdul Baha laid stress upon
the fact of the great _power_ exising in this Cause, a mysterious power,
far, far, beyond the ken of men and angels. That invisible power is the
source of all these outward activities. It moves hearts. It rends
mountains. It administers the complicated affairs of the Cause, it
inspires the friends. It dashes into a thousand pieces all the forces of
opposition. It creates new spiritual worlds. This is a mystery of the
Kingdom of Abha."
You can see that this is not a quote, but rather an explanation of what
the Master had said. Other direct quotes in the diary are clearly
indicated as such, both in the form of translations of Tablets and
letters, and in conversations.
You can find this on page 39 of "Abdu'l-Baha in Egypt", published by
Rider & Co, London. This is only part of Sohrab's diaries, and, as far
as I know, the only part that ever made it into print. My copy of the
book has no publication date, however, it does indicate that it was
approved for publication by the _Publishing Committee of the National
Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United States and Canada_.
Michael Eissinger
Los Angeles
=END=
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 1995 20:19:28 -0600 (CST)
From: Saman Ahmadi
To: talisman
Subject: Re: Hmmm
On Mon, 25 Dec 1995, [G. Brent Poirier] wrote:
> To make things more interesting, I have verified that Michelle Ma'ani is
> *not* subscribed to Talisman! I think she just posted here.
>
Dear Brent,
Unless someone is forwarding articles to her, how is she able to
read Talisman?
And now for the $64,000 question: how did you verify her subscription?!
Ahhh... the mysteries of internet :-)
take care,
sAmAn
=END=
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 1995 19:01:16 -0800
To: talisman
From: margreet@margreet.seanet.com (Marguerite K. Gipson)
Subject: Re: Hmmm
Boy, I can't wait for the holidays to be over, and John finds this mess...
He will never leave it again. And where is Burl?? I just finished his book.
So, do I smell a book in the making called *tali-antics*???
Margreet
At 08:19 PM 12/25/95 -0600, Saman Ahmadi wrote:
>On Mon, 25 Dec 1995, [G. Brent Poirier] wrote:
>
>> To make things more interesting, I have verified that Michelle Ma'ani is
>> *not* subscribed to Talisman! I think she just posted here.
>>
>
>Dear Brent,
>
>Unless someone is forwarding articles to her, how is she able to
>read Talisman?
>
>And now for the $64,000 question: how did you verify her subscription?!
>
>Ahhh... the mysteries of internet :-)
>
>take care,
>sAmAn
>
=END=
From: Kavikpakak@aol.com
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 1995 21:58:46 -0500
To: cfarhoum@osf1.gmu.edu, bahai-discuss@bcca.org
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu, bahai-women@bcca.org
Subject: Re: Christmas Mass
What a wonderful story!! I think it must be a fairly common event for
Baha'is to attend a Christian service, be moved by the music (for me,
especially at Christmas), and to think, "If only these lovely people had any
idea that all this hopes and prayers have already been answered!" I have
never figured out a to point this out without seeming to come to the service
with an agenda. (This is probably much more a reflection of my timidity than
of reality.) I would really appreciate hearing if you are able to speak to
the minister, and what his/her reaction is. Pakak/Nycki
Saxton
=END=
From: Stephen Bedingfield
Subject: INTRUDER ALERT (Klaxons Wailing)
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 1995 20:59:22 MST
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>INTRUDER ALERT>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
sAmAn (that guy with the two lumpy A's in his name) asked how one could
post to Talisman without being on the list.
Well, if you're reading this message friends it means you do NOT have to be
a list member in order to post to the list.
"Mr Worf, get security down to list engineering right away. Mr Data you
have the Walbridge."
BTW sAmAn, to get a listing of talisman's members send an email to:
Majordomo@majordomo.ucs.indiana.edu
with the following in the body of text: who talisman
Loving regards,
stephen
khs1@gov.nt.ca a.k.a. sbedin@gov.nt.ca
--
=END=
From: Don_R._Calkins@commonlink.com (Don R. Calkins)
To: mfoster@tyrell.net
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Politics
Date: 25 Dec 1995 21:25:48 GMT
> To my understanding, the prohibition is against engaging in partisan
politics
Mark -
I would add electioneering also, tho' I suppose that it could be argued that
this is included in 'partisan politics'.
There have been a number of Baha'is that have been elected to local offices
in small towns. You may know of Clay Schiffelbein, a Baha'i in Missouri who
was either Mayor or Town Counsel member until recently. (He and Gretchen
lived near Indianola IA in the mid 70's, which is where I am now.) As I
understand it, he allowed his name to be placed on the ballot but neither
campaigned nor allowed anyone else to run a campaign on his behalf. And I
have been told that there have been several instances in Alaska. The biggest
problem in many small towns is finding someone who will serve. During the
municipal elections this last November here in Iowa, there were 50 towns in
Iowa in which there were no candidates for mayor and 5 of them ended up with
the person elected by write-in refusing to accept the postion.
Don C
- sent via an evaluation copy of BulkRate (unregistered).
=END=
[end of 12/25/95 session]
Talisman emails received 12/26/95
---------------------------------------------------------
Date: 26 Dec 95 01:32:57 EST
From: Steven Scholl <73613.2712@compuserve.com>
To: Talisman
Subject: Welcome Michelle
Just a note of welcome to Michelle. It seems that Robert Johnson has left the
door open, which must account for the cool reception you have received from some
of your fellow guests in this forum.
Ahang, please remember that Talisman is not a Baha'i institution. I always get
nervous when Baha'is on board feel that this is a closed forum for the faithful.
Certain Talisman principle cannot compromised. If someone comes on board to join
our party, and if you do not want to listen to their comments, you are not
obligated to pick up their messages.
With warmest Baha'i love to all (and to all a good night)
Steve Scholl
=END=
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 1995 01:09:30 -0600 (CST)
From: Saman Ahmadi
To: talisman
Subject: Re: INTRUDER ALERT (Klaxons Wailing)
Dear Stephen (it's so cold in Cambridge Bay .....),
Thanks for the info.
What I was wondering is how someone could get posts from others
without being subscribed. I suppose a message from anyone who sends a
email to "talisman@indiana.edu" will be read by us - but a person
who is not a member should theoretically not be able to posts
from others sent to "talisman@indiana.edu".
going where no men have gone before,
sAmAn
=END=
From: Stephen Bedingfield
Subject: Re: INTRUDER ALERT (Klaxons Wailing)
To: s0a7254@tam2000.tamu.edu (Saman Ahmadi)
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 1995 0:49:03 MST
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Greetings my friend, sAmAn:
> Dear Stephen (it's so cold in Cambridge Bay .....),
-40 C with a brisk west wind
> What I was wondering is how someone could get posts from others
> without being subscribed. I suppose a message from anyone who sends a
> email to "talisman@indiana.edu" will be read by us - but a person
> who is not a member should theoretically not be able to posts
> from others sent to "talisman@indiana.edu".
Of course you are correct. I was occupied with the thought of both posting
to and reading from the list. When a non-list member posts to a list, then
that non-list member will be sent copies of all Group replies. So it is
possible that one can start a thread and follow it without being a member.
But you are right when it comes to reading posts straight from the list.
Warmest Arctic smiles,
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
=END=
From: Don_R._Calkins@commonlink.com (Don R. Calkins)
To: s0a7254@tam2000.tamu.edu
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Hmmm
Date: 26 Dec 1995 05:54:11 GMT
> And now for the $64,000 question: how did you verify her subscription?!
You don't suppose that he's a closet hacker! 8-)
Don C
He who believes himself spiritual proves he is not - The Cloud of Unknowing
=END=
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 95 08:09:01 -0500
From: "Ahang Rabbani"
To: "73613.2712@compuserve.com" <"73613.2712@compuserve.com"@esds01.mrgate.bmoa.
umc.dupont.com>,
talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: RE: Welcome Michelle
[This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII]
Steve (Scholl),
I have no intention of discussing this particular individual
until John Walbridge has ascertain the details.
> Ahang, please remember that Talisman is not a Baha'i
> institution. I always get nervous when Baha'is on board feel
> that this is a closed forum for the faithful. Certain Talisman
> principle cannot compromised. If someone comes on board to join
> our party, and if you do not want to listen to their comments,
> you are not obligated to pick up their messages.
While it is true that Talisman is not a Baha'i institution per
se, it is ran by a Baha'i and the vast majority of its
participants are Baha'is who uphold the principles of the Faith
and discuss matters related to the Faith. And while it is also
true that Talisman has a number of rules, the principles of the
Faith and specifics directives of the Central Figures will not be
subordinated to any man-made rule(s).
If it turns out that there is indeed Covenant-breaker(s) on
Talisman, and John knowing that has nevertheless decided to keep
said person(s) on this forum, then I will leave immediately! I
will not now, or ever, be party to a forum that has such
individuals on it.
I want to emphasize that neither Brent nor myself are stating
that Michelle Ma'ani is a CB. All we are saying is to let
Walbridge determine the facts and make a decision as the list
owner. It is his decision, and not ours. After he has made his
determination, then we each can decide how to individually
respond to it -- and I've indicated above how my decision process
will unfold.
There are two important points to keep in mind:
1. For me, there cannot be a conflict between rules of a
particular club or organization (such as Talisman) and the laws
and principles of the Faith. For example, I will not join a golf
club which is exclusive to while men only. So, to me rules of
Talisman cannot be in direct conflict with the laws of
Baha'u'llah -- and presently they are not. The rules of the
Faith regarding association with CBs are well known and must be
upheld.
2. Let's suppose that there is a CB on Talisman. How are we to
maintain the integrity of the discussions or the openness of its
discourse? It not just the question of not wanting to read what
they have to say, but also not wanting them (declared enemies of
the Faith!) to read our open remarks. Steve Scholl doesn't post
very often on Talisman so this may not be an issue for him, but
for some one like myself who gets engaged in a wide range of
issues on Talisman, this will be a practical problem. For
example, at times Talismanians discuss certain shortcomings of
the past or present administration. They do so out of the purity
of motive to gain a deeper understanding of the situation and be
able to better the process. These thoughts are shared with a
group of believers who have the best interest of the Faith in
forefront of their thoughts -- there are also one or two
non-Baha'is on Talisman who are friends of the Faith (though at
times I wonder!, but clearly have no malicious intents towards
the Faith). But why would we want these comments to be read by a
declared CB, someone who has no interest of the Faith in heart
whatsoever and has every intention of harming it? What guarantee
is there that such individuals will not take comments made on
Talisman and echo them in publications against the Faith? Do we
want to *knowingly* put ammunition in their hands?
So, you see, the issue is a bit more complicated than just
saying, well, don't read their stuff. There is the legitimate
issue of the Faith's protection which must squarely be dialed
into our thinking.
Walbridge has so far done a nice job of protecting Talisman and
*us* from such situations and I like to see it continued.
ahang.
=END=
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 1995 11:30:28 -0600 (CST)
From: Saman Ahmadi
To: talisman
Subject: BTW..
Dear Ahang,
I forgot to mention that there is a little paragraph in
the "Encyclopedia of Religions"? (I am not sure of the
title of the book) about the "Orthodox Baha'is". There
are a couple of other groups: the two Remey groups and
Jamshid Ma'ani.
I think internet is one those parallel processes that
the Guardian spoke about - a while someone posted the quote
from "World Order of Baha'u'llah" about a "means of communication..".
take care,
sAmAn
=END=
From: "Bud Polk"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 1995 12:38:17 +0600
Subject: Flames, wars, lists and Talismaniacs
Dear Taliswomen and Talismen,
I am saddened and aggravated by the time, words and bandwith wasted on
petty quarreling on this list. I am neither pro- nor anti-, gullible
or world-weary as regards any issue or person on this list. I find the
flames and wars on this list to be so very similar in tone and style
to those on several other lists to which I subscribe. Perhaps it is
the medium itself -- assertion, rebuttal, argument, counterargument
until no one even recalls what a thread is about. And add a liberal
dose of argument ad hominem. I belong, for example, to a list for
manic-depressives on which there are "literalist" pro-ECT
(Electroconvulsive therapy) and "progressive" anti-ECT factions. Both
accuse the others of heterodoxy. Flame wars erupt from time-to-time,
but sniping is as constant as it was in Sarajevo. Were I to substitute
"UHJ" for "ECT" the two lists might merge without anyone noticing.
Botanists argue over Gleason and Cronquist's recent attempt to update
and standardize Gray's Botany (Fernald, 1950) into one grand scheme.
The botanists, too, resort to rock throwing and name calling.
The only differences I see on Talisman as compared to other lists is
that the arguments are more convoluted and the flames are more witty
but not one wit less vitriolic. (Also, it seems that to be of any
significance, a post must exceed 2,500 words :-) Few women flame on
Talisman. A research question: do Talismen have higher testosterone
levels compared to the general population?
When I became a Baha'i 25 years ago, there was not a single
schorlarly work available to a Baha'i who wanted something more than
the euphemistic popularizations then available -- and still available.
It was during a discussion with an insistent and intolerant Christian
that I first learned that Baha'u'llah had three wives. Our history
were whispered to me in the darkened hallways of the House of Worship
as if they were a part of some Baha'i Kabbalah or Gnosticism. So how I
rejoiced -- then and now -- with the publication of each new work of
scholarship. Each new work has sent me back to the Writings on a
quest for more knowledge. So I came to Talisman to lurk and learn and
to contribute at times.
My life and those of my family depend on women and men who work in
nearby steel mills, factories, shops, and construction sites. They
are very ordinary people who measure the passing of the year by the
fishing and hunting seasons. But they have the good sense to
recognize a fire and put it out before it spreads. They are the
Volunteer Fire Department of Porter, Indiana, population 3,000.
Support your local fire department,
Bud Polk
=END=
From: Member1700@aol.com
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 1995 13:55:53 -0500
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Back again
I just got back from a few days in Palm Springs with the kids and three of
their cousins. It was fun--balmy and in the 70s with everybody spending most
of the time in the swimming pool!
But, of course, I missed you all. So, here I am back, ready for more
stimulating discussion of issues. (No food fights, please.)
Love to all,
Tony
=END=
Date: 26 Dec 95 14:31:35 EST
From: Steven Scholl <73613.2712@compuserve.com>
To: Talisman
Subject: Re: Welcome Michelle
Dear Ahang and Friends,
Regarding Covenant-breakers on Talisman and the frosty welcome for Michelle:
1. It seemed to me that Michelle was being branded because of her name. I felt
that Brent and Ahang's responses were uncalled for and had the air of spiritual
posturing (e.g. I cannot associate with you but "May God aid you"). My concerns
were identical to Nima's. I object to such knee-jerk reactions. A more
appropriate response, it seems to me, would have been to ascertain the facts
before jumping to conclusions. And this could have been done discreetly rather
than posting first on Talisman. Michelle has informed us that she is not a
Covenant-breaker though she is related to Jamshid Ma'ani. That, for now, is good
enough for me.
2. I had not, and have not, really thought out the implications of having a
Covenant-breaker join Talisman. To be honest, I do not know what to think about
it. But I do know that I am uncomfortable with the notion that we cannot have an
open forum. This is not a Baha'i-only fo