Logs of Talisman Discussions of Bahai Faith 11/95, pt. 1
From mcfarlane@upanet.uleth.caWed Nov 1 11:37:02 1995
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 1995 01:16:58 -0700
From: Gordon McFarlane
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Is Science on a Par with Religion?
Dear Chris B., Rob J., Dan O. Stephen R.F. et. al.
Concerning the question, "'is science on par with religion" and "can
science ever constrain statements in the Baha'i writings re. the physical
universe" - i.e "every fixed star has its planets and every planet its
creatures" I have several observations.
1. Someone said in a previous post " . . . I have heard some Persian
Baha'is say that the *science* referred to in the Baha'i principle of the
harmony of science and religion is not really Western science as we know it.
Any comments?
I would go further and suggest that "western science" as we know it today is
not the same as the western science that was known during the mid to late
19th and early 20th centuries. Science is evolving, and hopefully our
understanding of our Faith has been evolving with it.
2. Etymologically, "science" simply means knowledge. It comes via Old
French science from Latin scientia, a noun formed from the present
participle of the verb scire= "know". It early on passed via "knowlege
gained by study" to a particular branch of study, "but it's modern
connotations of technical mathematical, or broadly 'non-arts' studies did
not begin to emerge until the 18th century. (my own note: this was the
Northern European Renaissance period that resulted, in large part, from the
contact with Islamic and other cultures) The derivative scientist was
coined in 1840 by William Whewell: (Ayto's "Dictionary of Word Origins)
Interestingly "religion" originally meant "obligation or bond " and was
derived from the verb religare= "to tie back, tie tight" and came to denote
the "bond between human beings and the gods".
It does often seem that religion "ties back" or constrains the knowlege,
for better or for worse. In the Baha'i Faith, it seems to me than religion
is intended to channel, or direct knowledge rather than bind or constrain
it, just as it was during the formative age of the Christian, Islamic and
other dispensations. (It's also true that there is a lot of superfluous
knowledge which is rather a waste of intellectual energy and I, for one, do
not have a great deal of intellectual energy to waste on superfluosities.
Therefore I have no objections to having my reins pulled and being steered
back in a direction in which my energies can be put to best use. These
restraints, constraints- call it what you will, are not imposed upon me - I
have submitted myself to them).
3. Abdul' Baha seems to have stated quite unequivocally that science
IS on a par with religion in a talk recorded in Promulagation of Universal
Peace (pg 394)
". . . religion must conform to reason and be in accord with the
conclusions of science. For religion, reason and science are realities;
therefore, these three, being realities, must conform and be reconciled. A
question or principle which is religious in its nature must be sanctioned by
science. Science must decalre it to be valid, and reason must confirm it in
order that it may inspire confidence, If religious teaching, however be at
variance with science and reason, it is unquestionably superstition. The
Lord of mankind has bestowed upon us the faculty of reason whereby we may
discern the realities of things, How then can man rightfully accept any
proposition which is not in conformity with the process of reason and the
principles of science? Assuredly such a course cannot inspire man with
confidence and real belief.
4. If a passage in the Baha'i writings clearly conflicts with the
process of reason and principles of science, how then, are we to reconcile
it with our Faith in the infallible guidance of Baha'u'llah. I consider a
number of possibilities.
a) That there is an intended metaphorical meaning to this
statement, just as there is to Abd'u'l Baha's assertion in TDP that -
"Should in Greenland the fire of the love of God be ignited, all the ices of
that continent will be melted and its fridgid climate will be changed into a
temperate climate . . . " (pg 49)
b) Our faculties of reason, and our science are far less advanced
and sophisticated as we would like to believe.
d) That the passage was not intended as a "piece of revelation" but
only an observation based on the state of "scientific knowlege" at the
time. ( We can be rather certain, that much of what we believe today to be
scientific truth will be scoffed at 100, or even 10 years from now just as
martians, leeching (which I've heard Baha'u'llah also acknowledged as a
valid medical treatment) or the idea of a "luminiferous ether" is scoffed at
now). Again useful metaphors can be derived from discredited theories.
3. Is acceptance, or non acceptance of this particular passage, as
"divine revelation", relevant to the central theme of the Baha'i
dispensation i.e. the oneness of the world of humanity? Does it
constitute an "ordinance" which all Baha'is are called upon to "observe"?
I don't think so. If I refuse to accept the "every fixed star line, as
literal truth, It is not a rejection of the infallibility of Baha'u'llah's
guidance but only a reflection of my own lack of understanding of the
significance of those words. The existence of extra-terrestrials
is certainly and interesting and entertaining subject to speculate about but
it is pretty much out of the realm of practical considerations, at least for
the time being.
4. > The prosecution of this vast enterprise [the creation
> of a global civilization] will depend on a progressive
> interaction between the truths and principles of
> religion and the discoveries and insights of scientific
> inquiry. This entails living with ambiguities as a
> natural and inescapable feature of the process of
> exploring reality.
The last sentence of this passage should not come as a startling
revelation to anyone - least of all scientists - were it not for ambiguities
(ie. an idea, a statement or expression capable of being understood in more
than one sense), there would be no need to need to delve as deeply into
reality. Thank God for ambiguities!!!
>______________
>In response to the questions . . . .
Is science really on a par with religion? ABSOLUTELY!!!
>Can science ever constrain statements in Baha'i texts regarding the
>physical universe? AMBIGUITIES ARE UNCONSTRAINABLE !!
I have a poster, (which perhaps many of you have seen) designed by
James R. Norquay - It bears the words "And God Said:" ( followed by
Planck's Constant which I can't duplicate on my keyboard - - -) " . . . and
there was light!" I'm not a physicist so I haven't got a clue what Planck's
Constant is all about but I have no doubt that it is as valid as the words -
"let there be light" . Neither the words "let there be light" nor
"Planck's constant" constrain one another - nor does either phrase bring
us a thousandth of a hairsbreadth closer to an understanding of that mystic
utterance of the Almighty that packed such an infernal whollop! But
meditation upon either of them may give us a glimmering of the infinite
magnificance of creation.
A number of years ago I wrote an essay on "Science and the Romanitc
Imagination", dealing with the polarization of science, arts, humanities
and religion, which had it's most extreme expression during the Romantic
period in literature. This period immediately preceeded and overlapped the
early days of the Baha'i Revelation. Since that time there has been a
reconvergence of science, arts, humanities and religion. I was prompted,
by this question on Talisman to dig out that paper and begin reworking it.
Because it's quite long, I'm reluctant to post it on Talisman but I would
appreciate some suggestions from anyone who is interested in looking it over.
Forgive me my wordiness
L.B.G's Gord.
---
Gordon McFarlane e-mail: MCFARLANE@upanet.uleth.ca
Public Access Internet
The University of Lethbridge
From TLCULHANE@aol.comWed Nov 1 11:38:00 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 02:13:50 -0500
From: TLCULHANE@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: re: reforms and elections
Dear Friends,
While I am not sure that incumbancy is a problem in and of itself but
I offer the following by way of a solution to problem number six mentioned
in Juan's post.
6) The Bahai electoral system
Solution : a) Seperate or distinguish the "Executive " function fron the"
Legislative one ." This would mean treating secretary and treasurer positions
for example as paid staff positions . This would allow the membership of the
NSA to focus on strategic issues and consultation appropriate for a
legislative body rather than being involved in day to day administrative
details which are properly staff functions.
b1) Expand the membership of the NSA from nine to - say- nineteen
members . Given the current voting patterns this would probably result in a
good deal of natural turnover . David Langness could probably tell us how
many people would be elected with a few votes as a result . This also has the
benefit , it seems to me of broadening the range of voices that are taken
into account in the consultative process and render the consultation
potentially more reflective of the hopes joys and sorrows of the believers
.b2) A subset of this proposal would be to divide the country into
representative electoral disricts from which members of the NSA would come.
This could be done via Tablet of the Divine Plan regions for example as has
been suggested with regard to de-centralization . I am not aware of anything
which would preclude members of the NSA from being elected on the basis of
electoral regions. This would have the benefit of greater personal
familiarity by the believers with the views and qualities of those they were
electing . I assume this would reqiure approval of the House of Justice .
There is my two cents worth .
warm regards ,
Terry
From mfoster@tyrell.netWed Nov 1 11:38:40 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 01:13:18 -0600 (CST)
From: "Mark A. Foster"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Talking about it, maybe
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Bud Polk wrote to talisman@indiana.edu:
C >I said in my first post to Talisman that regarding mental illness the
C >Baha'i community is:
C >1. ignorant
C >2. prejudiced
C >3. patronizing
C >4. lacking in compassion
C >5. full of "happy" and empty platitudes
C >6. in denial
Bud -
I have a close Baha'i friend from Long Island (New York) who has
suffered since I have known him (25 years) with schizophrenia. He has
had periods of relative well-being alternating with hospitalization,
paranoia, delusions, perceptual distortions, etc. He is a wonderful
soul, a jazz pianist, and a poet. However, he has almost never been able
to hold down a job and continues to be on SSI (supplimental security
income - which, as I understand, comes out of U.S. Social Security
funds). He is now 47 years old and, although he is of above average
intelligence, there is, unless by the grace of God, little chance that
his situation will change.
My friend has, for the most part, not been treated (by Baha'is) in
either a prejudicial or patronizing fashion. Rather, I think that the
problem relates to your first point: ignorance. Most people, Baha'is
included, do not know how to deal with this issue. I think that there is
a feeling of powerlessness. Well, I know that I have often felt that in
dealing with him. I have always wished that I could do something to help
him. But I never knew what to do - other than to be there for him when
he wanted to talk.
To me, part of the answer, at least from the standpoint of human
relations, is in recognizing that mental illness is a physical problem
which, although it may prevent the power of the soul from manifesting in
the body, cannot directly harm the soul. Therefore, I think that part of
the answer is to deal with our problems with materialism - with
attributing so much importance to this physical vehicle which will,
after all, as Meher Baba liked to say, drop away in a few years leaving
only the spiritual substance.
In interacting with each other, the challenge, I believe, is to look
at one other with God's eyes, i.e., from the perspective of the divine
teachings. I cannot take away someone else's hurts, but I can begin to
see the other in a continual state of potentiality. It is this potential
character of spiritual development which makes it not only wrong, but
actually impossible, to judge another soul. I have no idea what the
destiny will be of another soul. I can only observe, using my inner
vision, that person's manifested spirituality and pray for and support
that soul in its future progress.
Loving greetings,
Mark
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 07:20:58 -0800
From: an assistant to the auxiliary board
To: 'Juan R Cole'
Subject: RE: election turnover
Dear Juan,
From: Juan R Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu]
>Thanks for your (private?) reply.
You're welcome. And, yes, it was private. Do you have any
reason to believe otherwise?
Since I was not amongst the people present when the National
Spiritual Assembly hashed over the Dialogue affair, I don't
know the facts. I am, therefore, not in a position to say
precisely what is fact and what is conclusion. I'd like
to say I trust your judgement in this, but, to be frank, I
don't. That's not because I disagree with your views or
I think the reforms you press are bad reforms. It's based
upon my experience with other statements you've made, some
of which I've already brought to your attention.
I can, however, address your specific salary question:
>So I would be very interested in an Economics 101 explanation of why the
>Secretary, whose previous business has now failed, should not wish to
>hold on to his well-paying job (which, I will admit, pays in the right
>range considering the $17-million budget he oversees).
You're claiming that an inequality is true (present remuneration >
opportunities outside the National Spiritual Assembly). However
your factual information, up until the above quoted paragraph, has
consisted solely of data which lies on the left-hand side of that
inequality. Moreover, the one bit of information you've offered
about the right-hand side of that inequality has been completely
misrepresented.
Robert Henderson's business has failed. Why? Is it because
he's not skilled at running a business? Can't be. He wasn't
there to screw it up. We have to turn to a different question.
What were the prospects of continued success in that
business before he was elected General Secretary of the
National Spiritual Assembly?
What are Mr. Henderson's prospects for gainful employment,
self or otherwise, outside the National Spiritual Assembly,
and what are Mr. Henderson's perceptions of those prospects?
I don't know the answers to these question, and my point
isn't to attempt to answer them. I ask them in order to
point out the speculative nature of the questions that must
be answered if you want to adeqately support the conclusion
you have reached.
So, your line of reasoning is based upon a mathematical
inequality, but you haven't adequately developed both
sides of the inequality. You've done very little to
establish the outside-the-NSA side of that inequality,
and it would be pure speculation for you to even attempt
to do so. And you do all this in order to justify an
imputation of the motives of another human being--an
elected member of a National Spiritual Assembly no less.
Above all, I think you already knew, at least intuitively,
evertying I've said above before I ever brought it to
your attention. Hence, I remain very firm in the belief
that you are pressing arguments which are not worthy of
your abilities.
Warmest Regards,
Rick
From caryer@microsoft.comWed Nov 1 12:12:30 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 07:56:49 -0800
From: "Cary E. Reinstein"
To: "'David W. House'" ,
Talisman
Subject: RE: Arguments
Dear David,
What an glorious post! If all of us cited the spiritual writings first and
foremost and cooled it just a bit on the legalism, linguistics, and
personalities, what a rich and wondrous resource Talisman would be to the
entire Baha'i world. Well, actually I think is already is such a resource but
it might benefit from a little self restraint.
I find Talisman challenging and enriching to a great degree. However, I confess
to deleting many posts after just a glance because of their tone or other
characteristics that vaguely discomfort me. I treasure and save all of yours
and Rich Schaut's as well (he's also a fellow Microserf!), and of course, all
of Quanta's poetry.
I'm glad that you are attempting to refocus the discussions. Keep it up, my
friend,
With love and respect,
Cary
----------
From: David W. House[SMTP:dhouse@cinsight.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 31 October, 1995 10:50 AM
To: Talisman
Subject: Arguments
Dear friends,
I note that some of us have been discussing argumentation, criticism, etc.
recently. I wonder if it seem to any of you to be valid that the tendency to
argument and criticism (which I share) is an expression of our belief,
nurtured culturally, that God will not establish justice; therefore its up
to us to do so.
That is, if we had certitude, would we not realize that we should:
Consort with all men, O people of Baha, in a spirit
of friendliness and fellowship. If ye be aware of a
certain truth, if ye possess a jewel, of which others
===============================
"There are worlds out there where the sky is burning, the seas sleep, and the
rivers dream; people made of smoke, and cities made of song. Somewhere there's
danger; somewhere there's injustice, and somewhere else the tea is getting
cold! Come on Ace, we've got work to do!" (Dr. Who)
From s0a7254@tam2000.tamu.eduWed Nov 1 15:07:30 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 11:12:03 -0600 (CST)
From: Saman Ahmadi
To: talisman
Subject: Re: reforms and solutions
Dear Juan, Terry and All,
1. The American Baha'i: in response to David Langness' letter,
the NSA mentioned that the American Baha'i was never intended
as a newspaper; it was designed as a means of communication from
the National to individual Baha'is. I think that this is a valid
reason.
However that does not mean that there could not be (an)other
publication(s) which could function as a newspaper - presently
that would entail review. But with the emergence of electronic
discussion, there are already unreviewed (if "uncola" can be a word
so can "unreviewed" ;-) groups; Talisman happens to be the global
one and there are numerous and ever-growing regional Baha'i
mailing lists.
For the time being the US NSA and Universal House of Justice
have not said anything that would stop these email groups - in
fact they see great potential here. I think it is a good guess
that depending on the development of the various *open* email groups,
we may see the emergence of more accessible print media.
2. NSA Salaries: from the NSA's Annual Report one can deduce that
the highest paid member(s) [three members in all] of the US NSA
earn(s) in the neighborhood of $75,000. Is that fair compensation?
I think so - the NSA states that they use the salaries of
charitable organizations as a guide which seems reasonable to
me especially knowning that some of the bigger ones have executives
that earn six and nearly seven figure salaries. And I would want
someone who is working full-time for the Faith to not have
to worry about his/her finances - he/she can be better focused.
I really do not see a problem here: the US NSA has a lot of
responsibility and there is no way to accomplish all of the
work without paid NSA members - I personally think that making
the Secretary an appointed position would reduce the efficiency
of the consultation.
But I do have a couple of suggestions:
a) as suggested by others: increase the term of service
on the NSA from one year to two or three - this would
add continuity and some security for those who are elected
to paid offices.
b) reserve a fund for paid officers who do not get re-elected;
something like 75-80% of the original salary for one year or
when he/she finds a job, whichever comes first.
Even though it does not occur often, there is no guarantee
that a person will get re-elected to the NSA and re-elected
to the same office.
3. I like Terry's suggestion about expanding the number of
NSA members [I believe that the Seat of the House of Justice
has 19 offices for House members] - I think Baha'u'llah simply
required it to be higher than nine and if is more it is also O.K.
Terry's point about representation based on population is a good
one also.
regards,
sAmAn
From dhouse@cinsight.comWed Nov 1 15:09:58 1995
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 1995 09:10:28 -0800
From: "David W. House"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: reforms and solutions
Juan, friends,
At 01:10 AM 11/1/95 -0500, you wrote:
>A. Problem 1: Lack of civil society; the lack print space for frank and
>open discourse; censorship practices.
>
>Solution 1: In my view, if Review is abolished, everything else can follow.
> ...
>[discussions take place,] But for it to flourish, the governing institutions
>must withdraw from censorship practices and agree to press freedom,
>uncensored stage plays, and so forth.
I'm not sure who would do this, given that such reviews were established at
the behest of the Guardian. If anyone is not aware of this, I will offer the
requisite quotes. In any case, evidence offered by this forum does not lead
me to believe that uncensored is better.
>B. Problem 2: Derailing of the Baha'i [Encyclopedia] for silly reasons...
Forgive me for being so ignorant of this issue, but I am not aware of the
history. From discussions which I have seen, however, I thought this was a
decision of the Universal House of Justice. If so, then following a logical
syllogism, it would seem that what is being said... well, I will not
specify. It should be clear.
>Solution 3: Why not just be open with the Baha'i community and
>publish the details of NSA salaries and perks?
If such information would inspire more such discussion, I would suggest that
we never be offered the opportunity. Far better for us to be sheep than
wolves, if that is our only choice. What is clear, at present, judging by
the level and nature of discourse on Talisman, is that we are not mature
enough to properly integrate this information. As Americans, we clearly
mistrust our institutions, and that mistrust has exacerbated the problems of
the Institutions of the Faith in this country immensely, profoundly, deeply.
Beyond this, many implications unfold from the reality that Baha'i
Institutions do not have a constituency. The fact of the matter is that the
NSA is not bound to provide this information, and while we might, with the
greatest deference and humility, request it (although I, for one, cannot
imagine that it is of any significance to us), the National Spiritual
Assembly of the United States may choose not to offer it. If we cannot
accept that, we have accused ourselves of immaturity, demonstrating the
initial point.
>Problem 4: Widespread disgruntlement with the NSA
>judging cases where it or its members are interested
>parties.
This is presumptive, in the sense that no evidence of this is provided. I
hesitate, however, to point this out, since it would seem to be a request
for such information, and I can assure you that I do not want it.
The generic point is that such issues are the exclusive perview of the
Institutions, and the only possible outcome of raising it publicly is to
diminish the general level of understanding that such is the case, and to
provide grist for the mill that would grind up the Faith, if it could. That
is, in response, as these words are in response, we begin to discuss the
pros and cons of this as if we had either some right to do so (and if we do,
it would have to be a *much* more civil and indeed more in the form of a
deepening, discussing the implications of various quotes), or more
pertinently, as if we had some power to choose or change, which we clearly
do not.
>E. Problem 5: Baha'i individuals who have their rights removed do
>not have the right to see the evidence against them; do not have the
>right to confront their accusers; and, indeed, have no rights at all
>except that of appeal (which the NSA insists be done through it!).
Sigh. See response above...
>Solution 5: A bill of rights for Baha'i individuals needs to be
>devised and appended to the NSA by-laws.
A th roughly American solution, no doubt. Have we forgotten that the by-laws
of the NSA were approved by the Guardian? If the thought is that these
by-laws have a fundamental flaw, then what is being said about the Guardian,
and indeed the Covenant? How often, in the past, have calls which appeal to
an incompletely realized understanding of the Covenant led to mischief and
suffering? A reading of the history of the Cause should cause us to fear for
the life of our very souls, should we determine to do battle with the
Institutions of the Faith.
>Problem 6: The Baha'i electoral system does not work very well
>and tends to produce a sort of elective dictatorship. All criticism of
>policy is cast as "negative campaigning," leading to a virtual ban on
>creative thinking.
It may also be that valid responses to such comments have not yet been
addressed. So far, I have not seen even a modest fiction of an analysis
which would demonstrate that there is an iota of truth in the assertions
being made. As I previously pointed out, statistical analyses of the past
are interesting, but not predictive, and thus cannot provide proof of the
assertion. Was any other evidence provided? If so, my apologies, for I
missed it. Apparently it bears repeating that when we say that we believe
errors which are glaring, fundamental, structural, and of long history exist
in the NSA and its workings, then we are necessarily saying that the
Universal House of Justice cannot or does not or will not address these errors.
The system being criticized was established through the workings of the
Covenant, and it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the Covenant is
therefore under attack, although my profound hope and current assumption is
that this is not the motive.
I for one feel drained, aghast, shaken, and stunned as if I had been bitten
by a snake. I am not being pejorative, truly; I am rather trying to share
something of my emotional state, and the response which my cells provide to
me, in order to offer some insight into any intemperance my words might reveal.
Beyond this, if such discourse, with such a tone and so wounding to the body
of the Cause continues, I intend to recommend, as one member of the
Community of the Most Great Name, that the National Spiritual Assembly
consider closing down this forum.
[I cannot as yet imagine the response that will get... Batten the hatches!
The smoking lamp is out! Dive, Dive! Ahhhooogahhh! Ahhhooogahhh! Torpedoes
incoming!]
I do not intend to offer this as a threat and I apologize if, in context, it
might seem as such. I very much enjoy discussion, and look forward to
reading the latest on Talisman. Indeed, since joining I have spent far too
much time reading and writing; and it has been, for the most part, a source
of considerable enjoyment to me. But friends, let's face it: if we continue
on this course, it will not matter if we request it ourselves, for it will
be done in any case.
Freedom of any sort implies commensurate responsibility. We cannot insist on
our rights without being passionate about our responsibilities, and I
believe we are too ready, in some instances, to do the former without
undertaking the latter. When the balance has been too greatly ignored, it is
no longer a personal issue: it becomes a community issue, and requires that
the community act to protect itself.
If I found the content merely offensive, I would simply quietly slip away.
But this, for me, is becoming a Covenant issue, and I feel about attacks on
the Covenant like I feel about attacks on my children. I must fight to
retain a sense of balance and to make appropriate responses. Absent the
Covenant, mankind will certainly plunge into irredeemable darkness, and my
children, and my children's children, will certainly suffer. If I must
choose between my suffering and theirs, I will choose mine.
As such, although it would clearly be unjust, and would cause difficulties
for some, if we cannot discover our proper boundaries then I cannot see that
such discourse serves the community, and some of us must suffer the
dissolution of this forum as the price of our inability to police ourselves.
I would also suggest that many of the painful decisions (painful for either
them or us) made by the Institutions have this sort of damned if you do and
damned if you don't quality. I think of Solomon offering to cut the child in
half for the two disputing women. In the end, however, that scene is
instructive, for the two women (the ruled), by their insistence on their own
position, provided Solomon (the ruler) with no better choice. Our own
misdeeds, ignorances, immaturities, and refusals to change our course when
offered gentler advice will also lead to similar consequences.
And if we blame the Institutions, we are far too cavalier regarding our own
part in the problems.
d.
David William House (dhouse@cinsight.com)
From 73613.2712@compuserve.comWed Nov 1 15:10:52 1995
Date: 01 Nov 95 12:58:25 EST
From: Steven Scholl <73613.2712@compuserve.com>
To: Talisman
Subject: Election/Convention Reforms
Dear Friends,
We have all noted that Shoghi Effendi praises turnover of membership on NSAs,
and we have observed that turnover is not the case. Term limits has been
advanced as one solution, but some argue that this conflicts with the ideal of
the delegates having the freedom to vote with their conscience. The difficulty
is that once the community grows to a certain level it is impossible to have
personal knowledge of who the best candidates are for the job. Especially under
the current system where there is very little access to information about the
quality of our elected leadership, their beliefs, their goals, backgrounds, etc.
Two solutions come to my mind. First, we need a more open community with
independent publications that will have the freedom to ask hard questions of our
leadership. Baha'u'llah praised journalism as did Abdu'l-Baha, and Shoghi
Effendi encouraged the development of *INDEPENDENT* Baha'i periodicals. Review
must end and greater openness must evolve before we can even begin to get down
to revisioning and finetuning the system for the needs of an ever-advancing
civilization. I find it a tragedy that the Baha'i community has less
intellectual vigor and a more tightly controlled system of censorship than the
Mormons, Christian Scientists, and, geez, even the Fundamentalist churches. As
has been argued before on Talisman, we need not fear frank and open consultation
of our affairs once Review is abolished. Sure, some dirt will get out to the
public from time to time, but the dangers of maintaining our closed community
will be disastrous.
Second, I suggest that we move to a two-step election process for our NSAs.
Shortly after the election of delegates, there could be a first stage by mail
vote for the NSA. The top 19 (or 27 or whatever number makes the most sense)
individuals receiving votes will then be the pool for choosing the next NSA.
Those 19 or 27 individuals will submit a brief background statement along with a
description of their vision for the community, and specific ideas they have
regarding national affairs. These statements will be published in The American
Baha'i. At National Convention in the Spring, the delgates would come together
and vote from the first stage pool. This would eliminate the objection to having
nominations in that there would be no nomination process but merely a means for
developing a wider group of knowable worthy potential members who are able to
address some of the issues prior to the second stage vote. The two-step voting
system thus establishes a wider group of potential NSA members without the
unsightly and un-Baha'i process of self-promotion. The delegates are simply
going through a more systematic way of finding qualified candidates. I am
familiar with the basic core of teachings and principles on Baha'i elections and
do not see anything that should cause this two-step approach to be
objectionable. I would love to see whatever pros and cons others may see with
regard to this suggestion.
I also suggest that the NSA form an ad-hoc committee comprised of delegates and
individuals with relevant experience and background to examine how to reform
national convention. This should be a task force that will look at how our
national convention works and does not work and consult on how to make it
reflect fundamental Baha'i principles and yet evolve to a new level of maturity.
The task force should also look at how other groups, religious and secular,
handle their national conventions to see if there are good models being
developed that will be of help to us. The committee should be given at least two
years to fact find and develop suggestions. Their suggestions should be
presented to the community via The American Baha'i and then discussed at Feasts
and town hall type meetings and regional conventions. After there has been a
full round of discussion within the community, then let the NSA, the
Counsellors, and relevant staff begin implementing the fruits of this
consultation.
I believe that we have to find ways of bringing the entire community in on
developing new ideas and solutions in a fashion that is systematic and produces
greater consensus on major issues.
With love,
Steve Scholl
From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comWed Nov 1 15:13:47 1995
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 95 11:36:01 -0500
From: Ahang Rabbani
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Administrative reforms
[This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII]
Just a quick note saying that I've very much enjoyed this thread
and hope that we continue having energy for it. I also
appreciate the fact the everyone is trying to keep their comments
to a pH level of 6-8.
An important principle to keep in mind with various suggestions
towards reform, in my view, is that they should be universally
applicable. Often it seems that some of the suggested reforms
make sense only in the context of American Baha'i community or of
interest to a relatively small segment of community.
I suggest we adhere to the Guardian's call: Let your vision be
world-embracing.
With that:
1. I like to second Saman's excellent suggestion that the term
of office for National Spiritual Assemblies be extended from its
present annual to 3 years duration. As he pointed out, this
ensures increased continuity and since over 75% of our NSA are at
least 15 years old, then I believe its propitious for the House
of Justice to consider this possibility.
2. I further suggest that national conventions continue to be
held on annual basis (including district conventions) and that in
the two interim conventions (when elections are not taking
place), a detailed and open consultation take place about the
condition of the community and its strength and opportunities.
3. Due to relatively immature state of local elections and large
quantity of "newer" LSAs, for now, the election of the Local
Spiritual Assemblies to remain annually.
4. The problem that I see with increasing the membership of the
NSAs to 19 or whatever other number significantly larger than 9,
is that it will greatly increase the meeting cost for many of our
third world NSAs. Further, I'm not sure that at this stage NSA
members are so overburdened that they need some significant
relief in form of added members. And further, many of our
younger NSAs (less than 20 years old) are still struggling with
developing good consultative habits. As such, increasing its
membership will unduly make consultation more difficult for them.
5. The difficulty with using some kind of proportional scheme to
elect NSA members, is that in so many countries of the world, the
Baha'i population data is unreliable for such purposes or can
easily be manipulated. For example, its relatively easy to
launch a massive mass teaching campaign and significantly alter
the election base. Therefore, in that setting, any mass teaching
effort will be looked upon with suspicion. Therefore I think
that the present scheme of members coming from the totality of
Baha'i population serves the global interest of the Faith best.
6. Much like Saman and others, I am against publishing the NSA
members compensations here in the United States. People have a
right to privacy. It is unheard of in industry to publish
people's salary. In fact, in DuPont there are severe
administrative punishment for discussing or disclosing one's
compensation; its simply a private matter. Members of NSAs
should have their privacy protected. How much they are
compensated is simply no body else's business -- it is between
them and the NSA and God.
Again, want to say how much I have enjoyed this discussions and
hope that we'll be able to explore them a while longer.
much love, ahang.
From burlb@bmi.netWed Nov 1 15:21:37 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 95 10:53 PST
From: Burl Barer
To: "David W. House"
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: reforms and solutions
>
s
>for some, if we cannot discover our proper boundaries then I cannot see that
>such discourse serves the community, and some of us must suffer the
>dissolution of this forum as the price of our inability to police ourselves.
>
>Dear David:
As Bugs Bunny would say: "Unlax, Doc. Ya sound like yer goin' for the
conclusion jumping competition in the '96 Olympics!"
Before some one flames you and politely refers to you as some sort of
fascist neo-nazi suppressionist from Hell (no one would *really* do that!)
let me assure you that I have *never* for a moment doubted the loyalty to
the Covenant by anyone posting on Talisman, let alone someone as steadfast
and dedicated as Juan Ricardo Cole. The free exchange of ideas, the
exploration of concepts, the God-given right to make mistakes, misunderstand
and be misunderstood, and the right of the individual to self expression are
all part of the fundamental purpose of the Baha'i Faith: to safeguard the
interests and promote the unity of the human race, and to foster the spirit
of love and fellowship.
Diversity of thought, temperment, and opinion are to be welcomed lovingly.
Juan and I do not agree on the things in this pile: <....>, but we agree
100% on the things in this pile:
<.....................................................................>
Plus the Baha'is are all united, even though it is unity in diversity,
because our purpose is harmonized -- we all desire to exalt God's Word.
To eliminate or suppress conversations (Don't talk about THAT!") is contrary
to the spirit of the Cause, as is Censorship. Read the Guardian's
statements about the press in the future, freed from control by religous and
political interests, giving exposure to the full range of human thought and
opinion. Within the stronghold of the Covenant we have nothing to fear but
God. We are big kids. We can talk. We can disagree. We can go out to dinner
together and have a good laugh and a hearty discussion and then go to a show
or bowling or give a fireside together. I know I am opinionated. It is no
secret..but I don't mind being wrong so I can be corrected in my opinions. I
learn from everyone, even those I disagree with. Hey, I even got into it
with Mrs. Ruhe in the Pilgrim House back in '78! Saw her again recently and
she remembered me :-) Got a letter from Dr. Ruhe yesterday where he
mentioned that he was pleased to see that I was as outspoken and opinionated
as ever!
So, lighten up, David, whichever David you are....or otherwise I will have
to police what you say, or tell you to stop saying it in public, then in
private, then not to think it, or even think about thinking it....:-)
Your pal,
Burl
PS: in the meantime, I am writing up a slip and placing it in your file. Two
more of these and I'm sending a note home to your parents.
*******************************************************
Order MAN OVERBOARD, the new book by Burl Barer today!
*******************************************************
From LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduWed Nov 1 15:31:18 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 95 14:12:35 EWT
From: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: DWHouses' comments
David, I do not have time to respond to your entire message. I had no
intention of writing anything today as I am extremely busy, but I must say a
few words.
First, I want to comemnt about your remarks on the Encyclopedia - something
about which you know nothing. My husband was the general editor of that
Encyclopedia for years. Indeed, when we lived in the U.P. of Michigan, he
would leave me and the boys behind in the middle of winter to go to meetings
re: the Encyclopedia. This might not sound like anything to you, but it was like being stranded in Siberia. Still, It was for the Cause... so I didn't complain.
Then, he was hired full time to manage the Encyclopedia. He was paid a paltry
salary and a good part of our home was taken up by the project. Our life was
often in turmoil because of this project. I won't go into details but I often
regretted that he was involved. However, when I read some of the articles
being produced and saw what a magnficent publication it would be, I felt proud
that John was the editor of it. I also thought that the Faith was
extraordinarily fortunate to have people such as him, Will van den Hoonard,
Todd Lawson, Hesmat Mooyaad, and others on the Board. Will and John wrote many
of the articles and both are brilliant scholars. But they were hardly the only
ones. Baha'is who were pioneers, counselors, even a couple of UHJ members
wrote articles, not to mention our other brilliant scholars, such as Moojan
Momen, who took over the project int the early 90s.
Even when John was not paid any salary, he spent a good part of his time
working on the Encyclopedia. There was no monetary compensation. He should
have been working on his own scholarly things, but he has always been too
dedicated to put himself first. So, he continued to edit and write.
Then, suddenly, like a bolt, we are told that the tone of some of the articles
is not exactly what is desirable. Which articles? the Board asks. Figure it
out yourselves, the UHJ replies in so many words. I wish for the life of me
that I were free to post the correspondence. Even this is going to get my
husband mad at me. But, I don't really care. As far as I am concerned, no one
has the right to assume that there is any justifiable reason for closing down
the Encyclopedia Project. When I talk about the institutions "throwing good
people away" this is one of the matters I am speaking about.
No regard was taken for the personal sacrifice - years of it - that were made
by individuals and their families. The closing of the project makes it look as
thought there was some flaw in the people who worked on it. I know the people
who worked on it. One of them has been my husband of many years and few
people are as brilliant or saintly as he is.
So, please refrain from making comments on something of which you know nothing.
You also made the serious mistake of insulting another dear friend of mine -
Juan Cole. How Juan endures the abuse he takes on Talisman and from all sorts
of directions, I don't know. But he keeps on plugging. I don't know whether
to admire him for his tenacity or just declare him insane. If you don't like
his ideas, then argue with him - just as Ahang did over the issue of elections.
Don't declare him a Covenant breaker.
Sorry if this upsets the meeker members of Talisman, but I won't sit by and
allow people who mean something to me to be abused. Linda
From cbuck@ccs.carleton.caWed Nov 1 15:33:25 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 95 14:42:32 EST
From: Christopher Buck
To: "David W. House"
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Covenant and Criticism
David House writes:
__________________
The system being criticized was established through the workings
of the Covenant, and it is difficult to escape the conclusion that
the Covenant is therefore under attack, although my profound hope and
current assumption is that this is not the motive.
I for one feel drained, aghast, shaken, and stunned as if I had been
bitten by a snake. I am not being pejorative, truly; I am rather trying
to share something of my emotional state, and the response which my cells
provide to me, in order to offer some insight into any intemperance my words
might reveal.
Beyond this, if such discourse, with such a tone and so wounding to
the body of the Cause continues, I intend to recommend, as one member of the
Community of the Most Great Name, that the National Spiritual Assembly
consider closing down this forum.
_________________
RESPONSE:
Covenant and criticism are not antithetical. Only what the
beloved Guardian termed *vicious criticism*. When criticism is
constructive, it can lead to transformations that further evolve the
World Order of Baha'u'llah.
It should not be assumed that, just because the present
Administrative Order came into being through the operation of the
Covenant, that criticism undermines the Covenant itself. It may be
that criticism is an expression of fealty to the Covenant when the
best interests of the Faith are at heart.
Juan Cole has dedicated his life to serving as a pioneer on
frontier of the Academy. The threat David House has posted is
understandable as a gut reaction, but there is nothing serpentine
about frank and candorous consultation.
It takes courage to openly discuss shortcomings in the present
system, and to suggest possible solutions for refining it. Is this not
one of the reasons Shoghi Effendi valued the advice of Horace Holley?
-- Christopher Buck
From LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduWed Nov 1 15:34:06 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 95 14:55:35 EWT
From: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: a bit more
Excuse me for writing twice in one day. I am not sure the system can handle
it.
However, I would like to correct Juan. He said that the reasons for closing
the Encyclopedia down were "silly." As far as I could determine they were
non-existent. Therefore, there could be no discussion. Linda
From PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.eduWed Nov 1 15:34:39 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 12:15:32 PST8PDT
From: "Eric D. Pierce"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: reforms and solutions (go sit in the corner/I love you)
Hi,
re:
> Date sent: Wed, 1 Nov 95 10:53 PST
> To: "David W. House"
> From: burlb@bmi.net (Burl Barer)
> Subject: Re: reforms and solutions
> Copies to: talisman@indiana.edu
...snip
> Before some one flames you and politely refers to you as some sort of
> fascist neo-nazi suppressionist from Hell (no one would *really* do that!)
Thanks for the wonderful message, because of it I was able to delete
a file containing a nasty response instead of sending it to talisman!
...snip
> So, lighten up, David, whichever David you are....or otherwise I will have
> to police what you say, or tell you to stop saying it in public, then in
> private, then not to think it, or even think about thinking it....:-)
...snip
> PS: in the meantime, I am writing up a slip and placing it in your file. Two
> more of these and I'm sending a note home to your parents.
>
> *******************************************************
> Order MAN OVERBOARD, the new book by Burl Barer today!
> *******************************************************
>
Just wanted to add that reactionary language leads to yet more
reactionary language, do we really need to keep doing this
dysfunctional waltz of polarization, or can we try to use reason
and inspiration to focus on the specific problems and issues
that are begging for our attention that relate to building the
foundation of an advancing world civilization?
EP
From cbuck@ccs.carleton.caWed Nov 1 15:35:31 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 95 15:24:56 EST
From: Christopher Buck
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Cc: Christopher Buck
Subject: Open Letter to UHJ re: Encyclopedia
Is there any support for an open letter to the House regarding
the Baha'i Encyclopedia Project? Would it do any good? Are open letters
sanctionable, or acceptable?
If this is seen as a positive, if not necessary action,
permission from the past editors would have to be forthcoming, I
presume. If so endorsed, I would come forward to collaborate on a draft.
A dialogue with the House is an expression of fidelity to the
Covenant. After all, the Baha'i Encyclopedia Project came into
existence as a mandate from the House (correct me if I am mistaken).
I ask David House: Which is more faithful to the Covenant: to
support the Baha'i Encyclopedia Project or not? Juan is supporting it
by raising a question about the issues involved.
Had we a clearer understanding of the House's reasons for putting
the Project on ice, then perhaps the academic community as a whole
could enter into a dialogue with the House that might somehow result in
a transformation of how Baha'i scholarship is undertaken and perceived.
I had previously posted a letter from the beloved Guardian in
which he had NOT capitalized person pronouns for which the Master was
antecedent. No one seems to have picked up on the significance of this
precedent for Baha'i scholarship. Will my book, _Symbol and Secret_,
fall under attack for the way in which pronouns were not capitalized?
Even though I only wrote three articles, I would be just as
concerned had I wrote none.
From the Ivory Tower opposite the Watchtower in the Crimson Ark,
Christopher Buck
From barazanf@dg-rtp.dg.comWed Nov 1 15:56:11 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 15:42:05 -0500 (EST)
From: Farzin Barazandeh
To: Talisman
Subject: subtleties of the Covenant
In "The Vision", the Juan's translation of Kahlil Gibran,
it is written:
"No, my brother, do not make inferences about the reality of a man
on the basis of appearances, and do not take some saying or some
deed of his as a token of his innermost essence. Many a person you
consider ignorant - because he lacks eloquence or speaks in a
colorless tone - has an awareness that leads to wisdom and a heart
that serves as a cradle of revelation. And many a person you despise
because of repulsive features or a vile livelihood nevertheless was a
gift from heaven and a breath from God...
No, my brother, days and nights are not their outward appearances, and
I - I who am walking in the pageant of days and nights - am not these
words that I cast before you, except insofar as these words convey to
you something of my silent interiority. Do not reckon me ignorant, then
, before you probe my hidden essence, and do not imagine me genius before
you strip me of this acquired essence. Do not say...R, call me not
carefree until you touch my bleeding wound."
Perhaps, a tone which is royal to the inner and dictates of the soul
is more appropriate and beautiful and more faithful to the covenant than a
tone which is pretty but insipid and much concerned with the appearance.
Perhaps that is why the one which was ready to strangle the Bab on the
Last night became His dearest companion.
There are many subtleties in the way of God.
Farzin
From jrcole@umich.eduWed Nov 1 15:59:05 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 15:53:50 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole
To: "David W. House"
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: reforms and solutions
Dear David:
I am sorry that my post so upset you. It was meant to be constructive.
If it did leave you shaken, then I can only suggest that Talisman may not
be your cup of tea. This is not meant in a mean-spirited way, as a "love
it or leave it" sentiment. It is heartfelt. Talisman is a subculture,
and is not for everyone. Why upset yourself?
I am sorry you chose not to reason with my points, but to engage in a
litany of "you cannot say that." I can hardly reply, having been
forestalled by being silenced. There is no argument for me to engage.
In some instances you admitted you knew nothing about the issues
involved, and did not want to know. So you will excuse my inability to
respond to your points; it is not meant as a slight.
I find your invoking of the Covenant in order to silence me deplorable.
(Have you, by the way, ever risked your life for the Covenant?)
But it is good in a way for us all to be reminded of this ultra-Right
political culture that has such sway in the American Baha'i community.
What a wonderful New World Order, where we are all dictated to and if
anyone raises a peep, she can be shouted down by the word "Covenant." I
sigh, I weep. Please read Orwell and think again.
As for the threat to "have Talisman closed down," this is also deplorable
and unacceptable. I can understand and respect your saying "I want no
part of this." But to take it upon yourself to decide what discourse the
rest of us can engage in is arrogant and authoritarian. I am
unimpressed, by the way. When I was pioneering in war-torn Beirut, I was
working for a newspaper and had occasional problems with the Syrian
censor. Now, the Syrian government slaughtered 10,000 of its own
citizens in Hama just three years later. So I have been censored by the
best. These stiff-necked American Baha'is cannot measure up to Hafez
al-Asad, however fearsome they think they are.
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From s0a7254@tam2000.tamu.eduWed Nov 1 18:20:47 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 15:10:47 -0600 (CST)
From: Saman Ahmadi
To: talisman
Subject: Re: reforms and solutions
Dear David, Steve and All,
1. I think David House's comments serve a very good
purpose. He is emptying his cup and being frank in his
expression - basically what many say is lacking in the
Baha'i community. The difference is that he is saying what
is labled as "the party line".
I for one don't have a question about the motives of any
one on Talisman - as Burl said, we all are trying to advance
the Cause of Baha'u'llah.
But lets say that instead of David, a new Baha'i who has not
yet learned about the workings of the Faith was hearing
the tone of our discussion. Or an internet-wise youth. Is the
possible damage less important than the adjectives that some feel
must be used? For the life of me, I just don't understand.
Without a doubt there is a need for a more open way of
discussing issues facing the community - while I understand it,
it is troubling that the Baha'is in Houston (only 100 miles
away and I had very little idea of the recent challenges) did not
feel that they could openly express their concerns to
Dr. Henderson and Mrs. Conrad. If we are one family, then
we have to find the way.
I hope David stays.
2. Two-step elections: it seems to me that the goal of Baha'i
Administration is to identify the best ideas and implement
in the most efficient way - the individuals elected to an
Assembly may not necessarily be the originators of those
ideas.
I can understand that some of Institutions of the Faith
are not as efficient as desirable. But I think the solution to
the problem lies in making the process work better.
I think if we have a system where a few express their goals
and desires for the future of the community, they would
in effect become responsible to their constituency.
regards,
sAmAn
From JRuhl@tchmail01.tchden.orgWed Nov 1 18:21:40 1995
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 95 15:17:00 PST
From: "Ruhl, Jordis"
To: 'talisman'
Subject: Goodbye for now
Taliswomen and Talismen,
This is the deal.
I sit here at my computer at work, spending sometimes upwards of three hours
a day pouring over Talisman postings. My boss keeps walking by, looking
into my office. She can't understand why I'm always reading my email.
(Evidently, she's never gotten 173 email messages over a long weekend.)
Truth be told, I'd much rather read Talisman than anything else here at
work. Since my job is an inconvenient, but undeniable, reality, I'm
temporarily signing off.
Before I leave you, I want to say that the thing that's struck me about
Talisman is the honesty of the communication. Forget "tone." I am much
more interested in getting the straight, gut response rather than a
contrived, sweet-smelling version, which is what many of us Baha'is confuse
with "proper tone." Proper tone to me, and I'm sure this is culturally
based, is honesty, gentleness and passion.
I hope to return to you one day, when I'm a lady of (more) leisure.
Thank you all.
Jordis Ruhl
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comWed Nov 1 18:22:10 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 13:30:35 -0800
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Personal Attacks !!!!!
My dear Talismanians
As I notice the lovely subject of Review , Censorship , NSA reform and
the Covenant
are once more come upon us . May I request the honourable members do
not doubt the
beliefs of each other and engage in discussion of the issues only which
ever end of the
mythical thought spectrum you considor the other to be . I thought that
is what we had
agreed too the last time around.
As far as my good friend the much maligned Juan Richardo Cole is
concerned.
I know you all will be delighted to hear he was awarded a major honour
this
week and now has the letters C. G. S. P. after his name , a little
respect is in
order I think .
Kindest Regards Derek Cockshut
From 100725.315@compuserve.comWed Nov 1 18:22:28 1995
Date: 01 Nov 95 16:37:08 EST
From: Janine van Rooij <100725.315@compuserve.com>
To: talisman
Subject: metaphysician, alchemist, sorcerer
Sheila, you made me really laugh with your apt answer!!!
<>
(still laughing)
janine van rooij
amsterdam, holland
From DAWNLIQU@fllab.chass.ncsu.eduWed Nov 1 18:22:59 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 16:45:45 EDT
From: QUANTA DAWNLIGHT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: subtleties of the Covenant
>Do not say...R, call me not
>carefree until you touch my bleeding wound."
Dear Farzin;
In a different context, generally speaking:
Will I you cut in me another wound?
Will you leave me behind bleeding too?
Or, are you androgynous?
For none is Bab! Many have done the above.
lovingly,
===========================================================
"When diverse shades of thought,temperament and character
are brought together, under the power and influence of one
agency,then, will the glory of human perfections be made manifest"
===========================================================
From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comWed Nov 1 18:26:26 1995
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 95 14:39:01 -0500
From: Ahang Rabbani
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: various
[This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII]
My apologies for posting a second time today too. But can't help
it ...
1. I deeply appreciate and was very much touched by Linda's
defense of the main editors of Encyclopedia project. From the
few articles that we've seen posted on Talisman, one can tell
that when it comes out, without any doubt or exaggeration, will
be among the community's most important literary contribution.
2. I also my grateful that she spoke up in Juan's behalf, as I
appreciate Burl and Chris' postings too. Its getting extremely
tiresome to see people for no good reason at all, constantly
flame, insult and in general pick on Juan Cole. I think its best
for newer people to lurk for a while on Talisman and figure out
the caliber of the people that they are dealing with, before
passing judgment. There are many issues that I argue with Juan
or with other esteemed members -- after all what Talisman is for
-- but it turned my stomach to see accusation of
Covenant-breaking. How dare people insult fine, indeed
exemplary, believers as such!
3. I'm against discussing the Encyclopedia project or writing to
the House of Justice. The reason is I like to see the process
unfold in the privacy of Haifa's Council chamber and editorial
board. The rest of us can only damage this process. The reason
I say this is I think (and its only a guess!) that even on the
House of Justice there are multiplicity of views about the Ency.
-- some members like it, some don't and some are in between. If
we force the issue into the open, start a letter writing campaign
or begin to discuss it openly on Talisman or other places,
invariably, the House of Justice will shut it down just to remove
the subject as a source of disunity. (Lets learn from the
"Service of Women" episode of late 80's.) I sincerely encourage
those who like to see this book to come out, to please continue
exercising self-restraint and avoid commenting.
best wishes, ahang.
From 100725.315@compuserve.comWed Nov 1 18:30:42 1995
Date: 01 Nov 95 17:13:06 EST
From: Janine van Rooij <100725.315@compuserve.com>
To: talisman
Subject: yes... I am back
Hi everybody!
For those of you who were here last June/July when I unsubscribed, yes, I am
back. Somebody kept forwarding me Burl Barer's posts and I finally I could not
resist longer and out of fear to miss anything funny (and besides that,
worthwhile) I decided to subscribe again. So, here I am again, mainly because of
Burl, of whose posts I have become a great fan, but also for Mark Fosters very
gentle and sensible contributions as well as Brent Poirier's. Robert Johnston's
postings have always interested me. To my happiness I see that there are more
women contributing here and I am very grateful about that. This is too much a
men's list!!!
I do not know whether I will be able to contribute much. I do not have much time
or patience right now.
For those who were not here in June/July: something happened here on Talisman,
what, that I will not want to bore you with, which made me feel obliged to
unsubscribe. I was not in agreement with the way that particular situation was
handled, and i still am not. However, I do not bear a grudge to anybody and I am
sure that most of the people involved, especially the listowner, had good
intentions. For those who are really interested to know, you can always email me
and i will tell you my view on the matter.
greetings,
janine van rooij
amsterdam, holland
From osborndo@pilot.msu.eduWed Nov 1 18:31:59 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 17:18:35 -0500 (EST)
From: Donald Zhang Osborn
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: reforms and solutions
Allah'u'abha! I've two questions re: possible new structures to increase the
possibility of more frequent turnover of membership in the NSA-US.
1. Are there any statistics (in any country or worldwide) to indicate that
during or immediately following periods of large expansion of a Baha'i
community, there is more turnover of membership in National Spiritual
Assembly? If so, then perhaps one of the key areas for reforms or solutions
might be on the level of teaching--i.e., increasing & making it more effective.
[BTW (and tangentially) why are some people "opposed" to mass teaching, in
Houston or elsewhere? It's not my preferred approach to teaching, but I see
an important place for it in the Baha'i community.]
2. Is it possible that decentralization reforms already underway in the US
(to create regional councils) might help create a larger pool of experienced &
visible people with a real possibility of being elected to the NSA? What has
been the effect in this regard of similar decentralization (whether involving
regional committees or elected state/province level assemblies as in India)?
BTW, there are some interesting ideas being discussed on this thread - I don't
mean to discount those by asking the above questions.
Don Osborn osborndo@pilot.msu.edu
Michigan State University
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzWed Nov 1 18:32:43 1995
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 11:29:30 +1300 (NZDT)
From: Robert Johnston
To: Juan R Cole , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: reforms and solutions
Here we go again:
We should always be careful to select our friends wisely and I have to
suggest to David House that he need not consider me his buddy, even though
I -- alone and unarmed among the multitudinously arrayed Talismanic guns --
am about to offer him support. Damn it: why does the tenured doctor get
all the support when he says things which are downright stupid and
offensive? I don't give a stuff that Juan Cole did anything with his
life. I don't give a stuff if he outsmarted some halfwitted middle eastern
censor, or was a pioneer to whereever. I do give a stuff when he says a
decision of the House was "silly", and so on.
Not that I am mad about it, mind you. I am a veteran of Cole conflict. I
generally ignore what he writes. In my view, it is shameful crap mostly.
What I am mad about is the fact that I see all these SILLY letters of
support. I expected more from certain Talismanians.
Chris Buck had a good idea: write to the House about the Encyclopaedia.
Let's do it.
Did you know that flax smells like horse sweat?
I told you I could be uncouth.
Robert ["Talismanic but definitely not of Juan Cole's fictional
subculture"] Johnston
From Dave10018@aol.comWed Nov 1 18:38:45 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 17:37:38 -0500
From: Dave10018@aol.com
To: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Men,symbols, continuity in art(reply to Sonja)
In a message dated 95-10-30 14:37:07 EST, Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl writes:
>Subj: response to dave taylor's post
>Date: 95-10-30 14:37:07 EST
>From: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl
>Sender: owner-talisman@indiana.edu
>To: talisman@indiana.edu
>
Sonja, I know this is an inflamatory subject. I merely suggested(admittedly
at great length last time out) that the rule against women on the House may
have a justification in historically based symbolism which -may- I perhaps
too optomistically suspect, ultimately be disentangled from their historic
association with sexism, an association which may have been inevitable
earlier in human development but may(indeed, must) be severed now. This
allows me to categorically reject all statements which involve deducing some
inability of women or men serving together with women(Dan Osborne) from the
rule about the House of Justice. By asserting that the rule is a holdover
from religious history, a minimal remnant of a symbolic system of patriarchy,
I point to such history as a source of the symbol, and I am arguing that it
is an effect of history which it is ours to minimize in practical effect as
much as possible by women having a voice everywhere, including Haifa, (or
even, if the House comes to feel it can, by changing the rule)and by our
realizing that the rule is not in any case a statement about the abilities of
women.The House has already said that the rule is not to be seen as a
statement about the abilities of women. In particular I want to emphasize
that I made this argument to dismiss "practical" arguments in favor of the
rule against women because such arguments do have sexist implications. In
order to do this I make a distinction between sexist implications drawn from
symbols and symbols and the things represented by the symbols. This series of
distinctions is important to the logic and consistency of my argument which
allows me to envision the House as it is functioning in a non-sexist society.
Now, it is a theoretical argument. I do not have it as revealed writ of
course, and may be barking up the wrong tree, but that is my argument and if
you simply refuse, as you do, to allow for the categorical distinctions I
make it makes little sense. I admit readily that the rule should be seen
almost as a ritual exclusion to be minimized in practice as much as possible.
To me the great practical difficulty is all in how explicitly this may be
done if we are not able to immediately change the rule. Perhaps this cannot
be done to your satisfaction or even to mine at present and the best we can
do is hope people will be willing to overlook it as the people who put
together the Beijing conference pamphlet were doing when they wrote about the
prominence of women in Baha'i administration without daring to mention it.
I make a distinction between the use of old forms in the translations of the
Writings (a decision made by Shoghi Effendi) and "sexism in the language of
the Writings" for the same reason and to the same purpose. I agree that we
should not ape Shoghi Effendi's style, and agree wholeheartedly that we would
do better to speak more of the oneness of --humanity-- and note with pleasure
that at least since "Promise of World Peace" the House Itself is doing so
more and more. I am sure also that our image of the Divinity is becoming and
will continue to become more abstract, but there may, I would humbly suggest,
be reason for both the male and female imagery used. It may be as simple as
Baha'u'llah having been male and the phrase "He is God" referring to Him, but
if we admit that symbols and the meanings we ascribe to them are not the same
things it becomes, I think, easier to talk about them. .
For instance I wrote:
>"The impulse to throw out all symbolism tainted by sexism is
>understandable, and many have symbolized their devotion to feminism
>(a good cause!) by attempting to do so, but this impulse runs counter to
>this organic method of development."
You reply:"I interpret a rejection of sexism in a similiar light to a
rejection of
>racism" equating symbols tainted by sexism, or at least their use, with
sexism. Symbols are signifiers which may have a number of uses and fill
various needs. To equate a signifier with one of the things it may signify
for some people makes talking about that signifier and its possible meanings
more difficult. It is a way of talking that forecloses discussion.
Now, you had some objections to my ideas "as an artist" which I found
surprising.
I wrote:
>"New forms grow out of old forms in such a way as to preserve
>connection."
You reply:
>As an artist I find this a funny idea. New forms grow out of old forms
>because that is where the artist/writer or whoever, is coming from.
As an artist I find your view of artmaking puzzling. If art is always totally
new then what is it? You seem to view artmaking as unrelated to history, as
if it were always and automatically one activity and an artist's use of her
or his environment and choice of materials and forms a mere accident of
history. I do not believe in mere accidents. Every sequence of events, no
matter how painful, becomes meaningful narrative as we look back at it. This
is the way our brains work and the way our spirits work. As Yoko Ono sang on
"Walking on Thin Ice", the song she and her husband had just finished when he
was shot,"When our lives return to Ashes, it'll be just a story."
>Artists such as Cezanne, Picasso, even van Gogh or to mention some
>more contemporary artists, John Cage, Meret Oppenheim, Eva Hesse, or
>Joseph Beuys were concerned with discovery and search not
>continuation.
Of course large groups of artists in the fifties and sixties( Beuys, Yoko
Ono and other members of the Fluxus group as well as Cage and other members
of his circle such as Jasper Johns and Robert Rauschenberg and Allen Kaprow,
who invented "happenings," Oldenberg, Warhol(in the sixties) and many others
including pop and minimalist artists,dancers, the first video artists and the
first performance artists and conceptual artists) devoted themselves to an
ideal first propounded by the Futurists and then by the Dada group after
World War I especially and most brilliantly Marcel Duchamp. That is, in a
nutshell,they sought to dissolve the boundary between life and art and make
every activity art and every person an artist. This is a beautiful radical
and fruitful ideal and has generated much art of all kinds and many ideas.It
has generated, in spite of itself, a tradition that continues to unfold and
to be memorialized in publications and collections and museums. To some
extent these "neo-avant-gardists"(to use the term coined by Marxist
theoretician Peter Burger) have been successful in popularizing to a degree
their outlooks and procedures. To some extent they have failed as their
predecessors did. The recognition of this partial success and partial failure
is the basis for postmodern art theory. If the avant garde had succeeded we
would not be talking about building a new world order because artists would
have brought it and we wouldn't be talking about "art" as a discrete activity
of "artists" because "art" as such would have ceased to exist.
Now, to characterize Cezanne or Van Gogh or even Picasso as avant-gardists in
the same sense as Joseph Beuys is more than a stretch. Cezanne did make a
remark about wanting to burn down the museums, but he wasn't very serious
about it. More typical of him was his ambition to combine the color and light
of the Impressionists with the solidity of the works in the museums. Neither
he nor Van Gogh contemplated an end to tradition. Rather both sought to plumb
the depths of their art, which they both saw primarily as an art of
representing things in front of them, through devotion to working from life
but also through studying and even copying the work of other, especially
earlier, painters and sculptors. As for Picasso and Matisse, surely you do
not really think the Fauve Matisse or the Matisse who made the paper cutouts
was less radical than Picasso, or the "neoclassical" Picasso of the twenties
or the surrealist Picasso of the thirties less interested in the forms and
heritage of the art of the past than Matisse! Even at the height of hermetic
cubism Picasso's "search" involved a search for the values of tradition. Not
only did the cubists seek to build on the formal lessons of Cezanne and the
conceptual and formal strategies, as they understood them , of "primitive"
art, but in rejecting color contrast (until 1911 or so) in favor of value
contrast and using a palette of browns and greys, they sought to evoke the
sombre atmosphere of painting before impressionism. Gertrude Stein of course,
collected both of them.
If one is worried about continuation, one is likely to
>reproduce what already exists, which is fine if you want to make art
>like Matisse did. He said he wanted his art to relax a man in an easy
chair ....But I think you as an artist know how dangerous it is for
creativity to
>be dominated by a concern with retaining 'continuation'.
I merely said that continuity is a value as innovation is a value. For most
artists both values are operative to some degree. Painting, especially, is
tied to tradition, which is why minimalism was sculpture and why so many
times artists and artwriters have said that painting is dead.
Of course, Mary Cassatt was a great painter, an impressionist. I am at a loss
as to what this fact has to do with anything.
>Creative acts are all about looking for the new, seeking, and moving on.
Yes. In a way. Inconsistency and paradox are important. In particular the
insistence that everything be practical and exist on the same level of
utility I find a very unasthetic and (pardon me)flimsy idea. Once again, if
the distinctions I have made between signifier and thing signified are not
allowed, my argument makes no sense. Making those distinctions, I think it is
--possible-- to conceive of both the anomalous rule of membership on the
House of Justice and the many patriarchal images in the Writings as"He is
the King" et cetera as not contradictory to feminism.
cheers!
david taylor
From 100725.315@compuserve.comWed Nov 1 18:38:56 1995
Date: 01 Nov 95 17:13:09 EST
From: Janine van Rooij <100725.315@compuserve.com>
To: talisman
Subject: Where's Jeff & another laugh :)
Robert, thank you very much for the great laugh I had through your funny style
of writing!!!
The neighbours came to see why I was laughing so hard, and found me on the
floor.... :)
as always,
janine van rooij
amsterdam, holland
From richs@microsoft.comWed Nov 1 18:39:36 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 14:36:14 -0800
From: Rick Schaut
To: 'Ahang Rabbani' ,
"talisman@indiana.edu"
Subject: RE: Houston's teaching project
Dear Ahang and Talizens,
First, Ahang, I want to commend you for sharing some
information with us about what must be a difficult process
for you to go though.
I just want to shed some light on one of your comments. Before
I do, I'd like to point out that I've been rather heavily involved in the
effort to bring Sai'd Khadivian to Seattle and to institute the process
of entry by troops here. I've participated in a number of meetings
with members of the Auxiliary Boards, their assistants, members
of Local Spiritual Assemblies and members of the National Teaching
Committee.
From: Ahang Rabbani[SMTP:rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.com]
>3. Its a great mistake to involve NTC with such projects. Our
>perception is that when there was a great deal of enthusiasm and
>positive publicity, NTC was more than happy to get involved
>(really to hold up the banner and claim all the credits, as if
>they actually had anything to do with the project!), but at the
>first sight of troubled waters they begin to act like fine
>bureaucrats that they are and put as much mileage as they could
>between themselves and Houston.
I think these remarks are very unfair to the members of the NTC.
I've met, and had a chance to discuss this process, with both Ken
Bowers and Sylvester Scott (as far back as July of this year). At
no time did I get any indication from them that they wanted to take
credit for the process. They were delighted that the process had
begun and wanted to play whatever supportive role they could play.
In fact, both of them have made great pains to say that the National
Teaching Committee neither endorses the process used in Houston
nor do they say that the friends should avoid employing many of
the same techniques in other areas.
Ahang, I don't know where you got the impression you convey above,
but the information I have would seem to indicate that your impression
is very wrong--180 degrees wrong.
Warmest Regards,
Rick Schaut
From HGEYER@KENTVM.KENT.EDUWed Nov 1 18:43:57 1995
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 95 17:48:36 EST
From: theo cope
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Comments/accusations
Well...finally out of lurching i am.....
Like Linda, i couldn't just sit back, reading this latest and not
commenting about it. I know both of the parties in this Juan and David House
discussion, and not that this gives me any insights, i think i will stick my
neck out here:
It is apparent that David felt threatened by what he has read from
Juan, and read into it what was not the intent of the author. It has taken
much courage for Juan to continue to voice his thoughts and ideas in the hope
that some good would come from it, even though i think he has received little
in the way of confirming this. It seems that David's tone was more reflective
of his attitude, of his position, than it was of Juan's perceived threat to the
Covenant of Baha'u'llah, but i may be wrong. Projections are tricky things...
When many of us discuss religion, mayhaps especially "our religion",
emotions often preceed rationality, as it is a very emotional issue.
I never read in Juan's post that he was advocating that we undermine
the Covenant nor administrative system, but, like he has been wont to do since
Talisman began last year, voice his concerns, ideas and basis for what he sees
as ways to "encapsulate" the issues and problems as he sees them...which is,
as i grasp the covenant, what we should be doing. I served on an LSA before,
and, i made one tragic mistake (among many others, perhaps) one day. I said
aloud: "I wonder why we even bother meeting, as it seems that we never accom-
plish anything." Well, i was literally shut down by a couple of folks on the
LSA, and even though i was the elected Chair, and quit attending the meetings,
NO ONE EVER BOTHERED TO TALK ABOUT IT WITH ME!!! I would much rather have had
it "out" with them, and heard their words, and them mine...but this was not to
be.
I recall that in the realm of conscience, as the Master said, only God
and the soul has sway...or should.
What would the service otothe Cause be to have this format shut down?
Dispassionate discussion is indeed a formidable challenge when it is
about "our religion", but as can be seen here, it needs to be done.
Threats to shut down a medium by accusing members of being bordering on
"Covenant breaking" seem simplistic and overreactive...to assert that one will
investigate this is surely within one's rights....it happened with "dialogue"
magazine and happened because of rumors and inuendoes, not facts.
Some of us lovers of the Blessed Beauty remain quiet when it comes to the
administrative system...it allows us to adhere to His Love without getting
frustrated and lose interest......others, like Juan, take the opposite approach
and has intimate concern for this system.......and risks what some of us would
pale under........
take deep breaths.....become detached....threats don't serve much.....
theo (wart) cope
From s0a7254@tam2000.tamu.eduWed Nov 1 18:46:28 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 17:22:45 -0600 (CST)
From: Saman Ahmadi
To: talisman
Subject: Re: reforms and solutions
Dear Robert and All,
Something must be up when you see me argue with Robert J. in public.
WARNING: Mild Mail Bonding Alert!
I save most of the things that Juan posts and
I don't think that I am the only one (sounds kinda like
John Lennon :)
What I wish is that we found a way where no one would be
personally hurt by the comments of another - people on the right,
people on the left, people on the fence, those who pinoneer to one
side or another on occasion and Burl ;-)
So lets "imagine" a little.
not working on what I should be working,
sAmAn
P.S. The sale of concentrated sodium hyroxide will probably go up.
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comWed Nov 1 18:46:44 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 15:24:49 -0800
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: C.G.S.P. The Honour given to a fellow Talismanian .
What is C. G. S. P. : Many , in fact 12 , have posted to me asking what
is this , only the Giver of the award and the One who receives it
should inform . I believe the person to ask would be Juan Ricardo Cole
who may chose not to inform , a sense of decorum has to be observed you
know in these cases .
Kindest Regards
Derek Cockshut
From cbuck@ccs.carleton.caWed Nov 1 18:47:15 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 95 18:26:41 EST
From: Christopher Buck
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Cc: Christopher Buck
Subject: Three Strikes & You're Out Review
An open letter
to our beloved Robert Stockman
and esteemed Talismanians:
As some of you know, I do submit my work for review.
At the same time, I happen to agree with many of the points of
criticism Juan Cole and John Walbridge have raised in the past. But I
am simply trying to do the best I can to work within the system.
I'm sure to the amazement of some, _Symbol & Secret_ actually
passed Baha'i review. Without the rarefied sensibilities of Robert
Stockman, a Harvard Ph.D., I am not sure the review system could have
handled a work quite like _Symbol & Secret.
So I was not trying to "buck" the review system when I made my
*three strikes and you're out* proposal on Talisman. I was wondering
what you (Robert & Talismanians) thought of it?
In case anyine online had not read it, I proposed that the review
system waive the requirement of review after an author has passed
review on three consecutive publications (not simply submissions), so
that the review system, in effect, can be seen as a *temporary* restriction
within the author's lifetime.
This proposal could be subject to a safeguard stipulation in which,
on specific, preordained grounds, the NSA could reserve the right to
*review* the integrity of an author's post-review writings if
problems arise.
Unless concrete proposals are put forward from time to time,
there might otherwise be no other tangible outcome of the Talisman
experience in terms of making a contribution of some kind to the
Faith, in which words can function as deeds.
Christopher Buck
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 15:21:31 -0800
From: an assistant to the auxiliary board
To: 'Juan R Cole'
Subject: RE: election turnover
Dear Juan,
From: Juan R Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu]
>Nor do I see that as thinking, spiritual human beings we are in a
>position always to suspend judgment.
As a thinking, spiritual human member of the Baha'i Faith, I
must, at all times, endeavor to ensure that my own behavior
conforms to the guidance and principles of the Faith.
Among this guidance is the following:
"The greatest need it seems everywhere inside the Cause is to
impress upon the friends the need for love among them. There is a
tendency to mix up the functions of the Administration and try to
apply it in individual relationships, which is abortive, because the
Assembly is a nascent House of Justice and is supposed to administer,
according to the Teachings, the affairs of the Community. But
individuals towards each other are governed by love, unity,
forgiveness and a sin-covering eye. Once the friends grasp this
they will get along much better, but they keep playing Spiritual
Assembly to each other and expect the Assembly to behave like an
individual."
(Shoghi Effendi: Directives of the Guardian, pages 41-42)
That is how I believe I should treat members of these institutions
regardless of their faults or misbehavior. It also forms the basis
for how I would choose to handle the information the friends had
sent to me about their circumstances. I believe I'd turn whatever
facts I had in my possession, while maintaining the strictest
confidentiality, over to a member of the Auxiliary Board or to
a member of the Continental Board of Counselors (Stephen
Birkland or Jacquiline Left-Hand Bull Delahunt seem likely
candidates to me).
There are other bits of guidance. Baha'u'llah's constant
insistence on detachment from all things save God is one that
I've discovered to be very important. The constant striving to
make one's deeds acceptable to Baha'u'llah (and to have no
other motive) is another. This one actually has a number of
implications for me. I can discuss them if you'd like, but I
prefer not to be a burden on these things.
Let me be clear. I'm only trying to convey to you the thinking
which lies behind my approach to these problems. We, each,
have to live by the dictates of our own conscience and live
with the consequences of our choices.
Warmest Regards,
Rick Schaut
From margreet@margreet.seanet.comWed Nov 1 18:57:26 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 15:51:23 -0800
From: "Marguerite K. Gipson"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: reforms and solutions
I guess this means that nobody has heard tape or read the transcription of
Peter Khan's talk in Wilmette?
It is a real eye-opener
Margreet
From 100725.315@compuserve.comThu Nov 2 00:17:44 1995
Date: 01 Nov 95 18:58:46 EST
From: Janine van Rooij <100725.315@compuserve.com>
To: talisman
Subject: Copy of: Comments/accusations
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
From: Janine van Rooij, 100725,315
TO: theo cope, INTERNET:HGEYER@KENTVM.KENT.EDU
DATE: 2-11-95 0:55
RE: Copy of: Comments/accusations
Hi theo,
that was a nice post. What you said about the "mistake" you made while serving
on the LSA, I recently have thought the same.
One of my friends (a BAhai) said, when i expressed this, that yes sure we have
to grow and mature and many seem to take the view of the world around us to
assembly meetings, so instead of being spiritually originated, they are full of
the things of this world. We feel important, we feel the duty, and we only know
how models of importance and duty behave and we try to have the same attitude.
Which only results in our meetings becoming very business like without any real
contact between the members. WE are acting, without really experiencing unity.
But in this process we learn, and through this process, the Bahai concept is
kept alive, in form, not so much in spirit, but in time the spirit will take
over the form. Until that time it is necessary that some order, some way is
kept. This was a concept I could work with. Maybe I do not see any growth, but I
can draw strength from the idea that at least by attending the meetings, and
trying to be as connected as possible to the spiritual realm, I can contribute
in keeping the form alive. I am currently feeling burnt out and slowly
recovering from that (burnt out as to the bahai community). For some time I did
not see the value or anything of anything that had to do with the community. I
was doubting the practicality of the system as created by Baha'u'llah, and it
was pretty awful, I can tell you! Because somewhere somehow I know it must work.
I think I experienced one of those crises in faith which some people seem to
have to experience once in a while.
I think it is extremely difficult for us people to have patience and
see/feel/hear the process that is going on and taking place in the world.
Because there is growth, there is a change in attitude. Only it goes slowly and
it is a quiet process, while the downfall of society is much louder, therefor
not very visible/audible. We need patience and most of all we need to learn to
think, to listen to our own heart and express ourselves. Preferably without name
calling :)
In that way I can respect everybody who expresses his/her views here, only I am
also afraid that the old world order attitude of judging from somebody's
background instead of looking squarely at ideas presented, may influence some of
us still. To be able to find truth, we are requested to open our hearts and be
detached from everything, be it personal knowledge of the person, knowledge of
his or her titles, knowledge of his or her esteem or lack of esteem in society
or our Bahai community. Often the most useful insights come from unexpected
corners, which we may miss if we do not detach ourselves from standards which
are currently in use. Detached from either love or hate.
So, I started this out as a personal message,but halfway thought of also sharing
this with the rest of talisman.
Sorry to be so present today.... and that after expressing doubt about my
contributions! (grin).
Sinking back into silence again,
janine van rooij
amsterdam, holland
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 15:31:48 -0800
From: an assistant to the auxiliary board
To: "'David W. House'" ,
"'Juan R Cole '"
Subject: RE: reforms and solutions
Dear David and Juan,
I'm sending this to both of you because I want neither
of you to feel singled out. Beyond the two of you, this
message is private.
David, if justice lies in the purview of the institutions,
surely the question of Covenant breaking lies there
as well. We should do our best to educate both
ourselves and others about the Covenant and the
principles of Baha'i Administration. This, too, is a
part of the process of maturation. Let's embrace it.
Juan, while David's reaction had a knee-jerk element
to it, so did yours. The labels you invoked were just
as pejorative, and, I believe equally unwarranted. Did
you honestly think that your remarks would have any
effect but the escalation of hostilities?
Let's remember at all times Baha'u'llah's urgent
insistence that we should wish well those who would
do us harm. This, too, is the example set by
`Abdu'l-Baha Himself.
If you ask me, I think each of you owes the other,
and the subscribers to Talisman, an apology.
Warmest Regards,
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzThu Nov 2 00:19:45 1995
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 13:03:59 +1300 (NZDT)
From: Robert Johnston
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: buttermilk sweet house music
In the name of impartiality...
David House wrote:
>Beyond this, if such discourse, with such a tone and so wounding to the body
>of the Cause continues, I intend to recommend, as one member of the
>Community of the Most Great Name, that the National Spiritual Assembly
>consider closing down this forum.
What's the fuss with this statement? David is perfectly within his right
to make it. I am at a loss to know why this forum would wish to censor such
a statement. The standard of the Faith is not compromised by it. What
should Talismanians wish to avoid review by the parent institution of the
the US community? Who's hiding what here? Huh? (Who has got a stack of
"Playboys" undertheir bed!)
Indeed David's offer should be supported. What other path to legitimacy is
there other than through the goodpleasure of God?
Juan's response was deeply offensive primarily because of its ad homenem
nature, but also because it was labelistic and replete with un-called for
puffery. In the spirit of fairness I ask you to read again the following
(sample) -- of ye defenders of it. How can it be justified? I strongly
recommend that Juan's name be removed fromn this list ;-} At least a
SINCERE apology is in order.
>I find your invoking of the Covenant in order to silence me deplorable.
>(Have you, by the way, ever risked your life for the Covenant?)
>But it is good in a way for us all to be reminded of this ultra-Right
>political culture that has such sway in the American Baha'i community.
>What a wonderful New World Order, where we are all dictated to and if
>anyone raises a peep, she can be shouted down by the word "Covenant." I
>sigh, I weep. Please read Orwell and think again.
>
>As for the threat to "have Talisman closed down," this is also deplorable
>and unacceptable. I can understand and respect your saying "I want no
>part of this." But to take it upon yourself to decide what discourse the
>rest of us can engage in is arrogant and authoritarian. I am
>unimpressed, by the way. When I was pioneering in war-torn Beirut, I was
>working for a newspaper and had occasional problems with the Syrian
>censor. Now, the Syrian government slaughtered 10,000 of its own
>citizens in Hama just three years later. So I have been censored by the
>best. These stiff-necked American Baha'is cannot measure up to Hafez
>al-Asad, however fearsome they think they are.
Sweet as buttermilk,
Robert.
From Abbas.Hooshmand@caa.gov.auThu Nov 2 00:20:33 1995
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 1995 11:29:00 +1000
From: "Abbas Hooshmand (06) 268 4947"
To: Baha'i Announce
Subject: PRAYERS FOR PAKISTAN
Allah'u'abha
Speaking with the secretary of the National Spiritual Assembly of Pakistan
on the phone last night, I enquired about the way Pakistani resident Baha'is
of Karachi cope with the turmoil in Karachi.
I was given re-assurance that the Pakistani resident Baha'is were okay and
content with God's will, whatever it is. But he asked me to say prayers for
the 1200 Persian Baha'i refugees in Pakistan, many of them suffering dire
adversity. Having spoken with some refugee arrivals in Australia before, I
became aware that quite sadly a great proportion of the Baha'i refugees in
Pakistan are suffering from severe financial hardship since the U.N. is not
as receptive as it used to be in the past. Quite a large number of them are
refused U.N. assistance and God knows how they are coping with life and day
to day necessities. The situation is very depressing.
If we can't do anything for them at least we can pray.
God bless you all.
***********************************
abbas.hooshmand@caa.gov.au
Abbas Hooshmand
From margreet@margreet.seanet.comThu Nov 2 00:21:04 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 16:12:30 -0800
From: "Marguerite K. Gipson"
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: reforms and solutions
At 05:18 PM 11/1/95 -0500, Donald Zhang Osborn wrote:
>Allah'u'abha! I've two questions re: possible new structures to increase the
>possibility of more frequent turnover of membership in the NSA-US.
>
>1. Are there any statistics (in any country or worldwide) to indicate that
>during or immediately following periods of large expansion of a Baha'i
>community, there is more turnover of membership in National Spiritual
>Assembly? If so, then perhaps one of the key areas for reforms or solutions
>might be on the level of teaching--i.e., increasing & making it more effective.
>[BTW (and tangentially) why are some people "opposed" to mass teaching, in
>Houston or elsewhere? It's not my preferred approach to teaching, but I see
>an important place for it in the Baha'i community.]
What ever happened to good old fashion deepening the new believer after
their declaration? Now days, if someone signes the card, they are left to
their own.... and not nurtured into the community and DEEPENED.
>2. Is it possible that decentralization reforms already underway in the US
>(to create regional councils) might help create a larger pool of experienced &
>visible people with a real possibility of being elected to the NSA? What has
>been the effect in this regard of similar decentralization (whether involving
>regional committees or elected state/province level assemblies as in India)?
I am mad as a hornet regarding this statement, and the folks elected to the
NSA were elected by the folks you elect as your delegates at convention last
year. I have seen time and time again at convention a silent way of
operation where any new believer ask the question, "What did we just do, and
why are we here?" Us older Bahai's just do every thing by rote... Makes me
sick. We have to deepen ourselves in the Covenent and share what we know
with the new believers. Sure, every night I read some passages in the
Books, and I deepen my self. But I have been a Bahai for over 25 years, and
in my family for 4 generations. So I know better. I just read a
transcription of Peter Khan's talk... That needs to be discussed here on
Talisman. And taken to heart... and maybe a lesson or two may be learned.
>BTW, there are some interesting ideas being discussed on this thread - I don't
>mean to discount those by asking the above questions.
> Don Osborn osborndo@pilot.msu.edu
> Michigan State University
Margreet
From richs@microsoft.comThu Nov 2 00:21:29 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 14:21:46 -0800
From: Rick Schaut
To: "''"
Subject: Discussion of Reforms
Dearest Talizens,
Woah! Slow down, friends! Can we take this a little more slowly,
please?
I suggest that we follow the general guidelines laid down for
consultation:
1) Identify the problem fully and adequately;
2) Identify the principles involved;
3) Arrive at a solution by applying the principles identified in
2 to the problem identified in 1.
At this point, we are not all in agreement about the true nature
of the problems, and we've shown some disagreement in the past
regarding the principles involved.
I can't speak for other people, but I suspect that the ill feelings
which stem from the most recent discussion about reforms are
directly related to the fact that a number of folks have jumped the
consultative gun, as it were. If we can follow the guidelines
for consultation, the calls to shut down Talisman might very
well be quelled in an amicable fashion and without confrontation.
Warmest Regards,
Rick Schaut
From JWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduThu Nov 2 00:23:28 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 95 19:22:20 EWT
From: JWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: talisman@indiana.edu
CC:
Subj: Baha'i Encyclopedia
I posted this several months ago. I am posting it again, updated slightly,
for the benefit of new members. I am somewhat limited by an
obligation as a former encyclopedia board member to be discrete, but it also
seems to me that there are a lot of rumors going around about the
encyclopedia that need to be addressed. I have strong opinions on the
matter, having devoted eleven years to the project, four full time, but
the present statement is intended to be a dispassionate summary of the
current situation.
John Walbridge
******
In the interests of accuracy, I should say that the Baha'i Encyclopedia
is a project of the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States, which
has paid virtually all the costs connected with it. The Baha'i Publishing
Trust is the presumed lead publisher, although it is not their project
as such. It is run by an editorial board consisting of Betty Fisher,
the general editor of the American Publishing Trust; Larry Bucknell,
the former general manager of the BPT; Firuz Kazemzadeh, who
is an emeritus professor of history at Yale and the longest serving
member of the American NSA; and Will van den Hoonaard, Heshmat
Moayyad, Todd Lawson, and myself, who are all professional academics,
and Moojan Momen. I was the original general editor, until I left for
another job in 1991, after which Moojan Momen took over, until his
resignation this fall. Will van den Hoonaard was also for most
of the history of the project the editor for articles on the sociology
of the Baha'i community. The editorial board is responsible for
setting policy and for review, both editorial and Baha'i. When the
project was proposed, the prospectus was reviewed successively
by the Publishing Trust, the American NSA, and by the House of
Justice before the American NSA finally committed to the
project. The editorial board was set up so that review could
be done as the project proceeded, rather than by third parties
at the end, though articles of special concern to particular Baha'i
institutions were normally sent to them for comment--i.e., NSAs were
sent the articles on their own countries, and articles on various
aspects of the World Centre were sent there. The project has received
a great deal of cooperation from the World Centre over the years,
but it belongs to the American NSA.
We estimate that the encyclopedia would be two volumes of
about half a million words each--somewhere between 1500 and 2000
pages. Cost to date has been something in excess of $500,000 US
over a ten-year period. (Serious encyclopedias cost about $500 per page
to produce.)
The articles are generally directed at informed adult Baha'i readers,
although that varies somewhat depending on the content. The
average article is probably a little over a thousand words, although
they vary greatly, depending on content with the longest articles
over 10,000 words (about 10-12 double-column large pages).
Last year a committee at the World Centre formed to review the
article "Baha'i World Centre" raised a number of questions about
the tone and content of that article. Further correspondence made it
clear that the concerns of the House did not have to do with a single
article but touched on the most fundamental editorial aspects of the
project. Dr. Momen then resigned as general editor, leaving the project
without day-to-day staff, so most work ceased. On reviewing the current
draft of the first volume, the House of Justice stated that it was concerned
about the content of a number of other articles and about the tone and
fundamental methods of the work as a whole. The House also instructed
the Board not to procede further with the encyclopedia until these
editorial issues were resolved to the satisfaction of the House. There
has now been another letter from the House on the matter. As a result of
this last letter I have resigned from the Board on the grounds that (1) in
view of the House's attitude, it is not responsible to spend more money
and effort on the project and (2) the House of Justice believes the
members of the Board to have been intellectually dishonest in the
way that they proceeded in producing the encyclopedia.
The House's concerns dealt with the propriety of an official Baha'i
publication using the methods and tone of neutral scholarship about
fundamental Baha'i topics. They also had concerns about matters
of accuracy. I believe that these concerns were not well founded and
that they reflected a lack of understanding about the nature of
encyclopedias and of scholarship in general.
Given that there is now no editor and no
immediate prospect of solving the policy problems that have arisen,
I am convinced that the encyclopedia will not now appear.
John Walbridge
From JWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduThu Nov 2 00:23:52 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 95 19:23:19 EWT
From: JWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: List standards
1) I wish to remind the esteemed members that this list is run by me
in my capacity as a professor at Indiana University. I therefore cannot
--and do not wish to--enforce standards of religious orthodoxy.
Any serious threats to either the list or its members will be forwarded
to the university's lawyers.
2) I do, however, enforce standards of good manners. Members are
reminded that attacks on the good faith of other members are not
acceptable. I will expell members from the list who persistently violate this standard.
3) Members are free to discuss whatever topics they see fit, provided they
abide by the list rules.
John Walbridge
List Owner
From burlb@bmi.netThu Nov 2 00:26:11 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 95 16:30 PST
From: Burl Barer
To: Robert Johnston
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Stupid & Offensive, Ltd.
Robert Johnson, our beloved brother in New Zealand, thoughtfully posed the
following conundrum concerning his co-worker in the vineyards of the Lord,
Juan Ricardo Cole:
"why does the tenured doctor get all the support when he says things which
are downright stupid and offensive?
To which Burl, at the risk of sounding silly, replies:
Juan has the same right as you or I to be stupid and offensive. It is a
God given right, and as I support Juan's right to wax flaxen on occasion, I
also recognize your established ability to be every bit as offensive as he
when the opportunity presents itself. I am of the current opinion that
saying things which are stupid and/or offensive is an excellent technique
for getting to the heart of a topic. I have often said things that were
stupid, although that was not my intent at the time. I have often said or
done things that were offensive, and meant to do it most of the time. Were
it not for stupidity, how could wisdom be known? We need a touchstone of
stupidity from time to time as a solid reference point. If Juan says
something stupid, it only proves his versatility, his willingness to throw
his most ill-conceived concepts on the table for the world to see -- how
selfless! How noble! How daring yet self-efacing! What a living example! By
uttering the unuterable he frees me to say what I think, what I feel --
between you and Juan I have been liberated from a cage of inhibitions --
fretfully weighing each and every cell of zygotian ideas still-born from
lack of public airing.
But seriously....If you say "I think the UHJ's decision is silly" that is
*not* an attack on God's Covenant nor on the Divine Nature of the
Institution or does it deny that the decision is of God. It is another way
of confessing one's inability to comprehend the wisdom of a particular
decision. Perhaps the proper tone would be to say "Gee...I must be
silly...I don't understand the wisdom and an explanation is not forthcoming.
But, silly me will go along because that's my part of the deal" A "silly"
decision by God today proves to be of Infinite Wisdom later on. Lots of
Baha'is thought Abdul Baha was silly to ask us to build a House of Worship
in zip code 60091. They didn't fight against it, they went along with it,
they helped build it...but they thought it was silly. Later, they said
"hmmmmm.....nice House of Worship. Guess it wasn't so silly after all."
When Abdul Baha came to America and met the friends, (Baha'is, silly, not
Quakers) he did not look up the ones who petitioned him not to raise the
House of Worship and whack them over the head with his cream colored fez. I
think he hugged them, praised them, and all that other mushy stuff that
reeks of unconditional love, acceptance, and unity.
>Not that I am mad about it, mind you. I am a veteran of Cole conflict. I
>generally ignore what he writes. In my view, it is shameful crap mostly.
>
"shamefull" crap? As opposed to delightful, fulfilling crap? Creme de le
crap? If poor Juan is misguided, lovingly encourage and guide him aright --
the good shepard does not use his rod to beat the sheep. As for me, I
never ignore what either you or Juan writes -- I fear I might overlook a gem
of insight from an unsuspected source, an almond in the porridge, so to speak.
Besides, Robert, one really good reason to be sympathetic to Juan is that he
faces a problem that you will, God willing, never face: he is becoming
"known" and that puts him in danger of being elected forever to our NSA!
YIPES!
Your ever supportive co-worker,
Burl
PS: I don't have to agree with someone to support them. If you need proof,
simply note my 17 year old daughter :-)
PPSS: Just because Ringo is your "favorite Beattle" doesn't mean you don't
like John, Paul, and George.
*******************************************************
Order MAN OVERBOARD, the new book by Burl Barer today!
*******************************************************
From carl@skipper.grapevine-sys.comThu Nov 2 00:30:16 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 19:58:38 -0600 (CST)
From: Carl Hawse
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Houston's teaching project
Selected excerpts:
> ahang speaking again:
>
> all about. As SE/UHJ have said (only a few thousands times):
> expansion and consolidation must go hand in hand.
Without doubt!
>
> 2. It is a gross mistake to assume that all Baha'is are mass
> teaching oriented -- we learned that the hard way. A tremendous
> amount of disunity surrounded this effort from day 1 (really
> before!) since many of the friends were distrustful of any mass
> entry undertakings. I am glad to report that of these naysayers
> a large percentage (over half) were won over during the course of
> the project.
Perhaps it is not necessary to win over anyone. Could not the
"naysayers" provide the needed consolidation and deepening? What were
their concerns? Perhaps we can learn a bit about the psychology behind
different approaches to teaching the faith. Were all of their converns
met with love and understanding or with arguments instead?
>
> 3. Its a great mistake to involve NTC with such projects. Our
> perception is that when there was a great deal of enthusiasm and
> positive publicity, NTC was more than happy to get involved
> (really to hold up the banner and claim all the credits, as if
> they actually had anything to do with the project!), but at the
> first sight of troubled waters they begin to act like fine
> bureaucrats that they are and put as much mileage as they could
> between themselves and Houston.K
What are some ways that the NTC could have helped? How could you have
helped the NTC to understand? Are they aware of your concerns? Did you
ask about their concerns? (It sounds like this "Houston thing" can be
seen as a great chance to improve communications between all levels of
administration!)
> However, along the way he became so singularly focused on this
> project that he neglected his business and some other things
> which is best for me not to comment. At any rate, because of
Another lesson. In all things, moderation. Maybe even teaching.
>
> 6. One of things that we learned along the way was the
> importance of having our LSAs involved with the process. Even
> though from day 1, all of our 12 LSAs were involved and approved
> the process, but their actual day-to-day involvement varied some.
> After a couple of months into the process, though, all of our
> LSAs were discussing nothing by teaching work and entry by
> troops. I have never seen a group of Assemblies mature faster
> and assume their responsibilities towards teaching the cause more
> readily than what I observed during this period. Bravo!
Interdependence is what it's all about! Bravo, indeed!
I just pulled some key words from this next part:
pretexts
couldn't stand
they had failed
campaigns to discredit
trouble makers are found in all Baha'i communities.
inept Baha'i institutions (more national than local)
incompetent way that this situation was handled
poisoning the mind of friends against mass teaching efforts.
Sounds like you don't trust these people. I would like to hear how you
think it *should* have been handled. Even the stinkiest manure can be
food for flowers.
> course people were not going to discuss *real* problems in front
> of several hundred other Baha'is! I am sorry for saying this
> (and I hope someone will share a copy of this posting with
> responsible folks in national), but in the course of their
> comments, it became manifestly clear that Wilmette is thoroughly
> uninformed of the issues and the depth of problems caused by the
> campaign of disunity by these few individuals.
I'm sure they would love to hear from you, if nobody else is doing it!
They even have email addresses! Just call the National Center!
>
> area during this entire process. When finally ABM for protection
> came, poor person had no clue what was going on. And now the
The ABMs probably have email, too! Perhaps reports could be sent to them?
OR to the National Center? Or just to interested people? I'd love to
know more about what is going on around the country (ok, so I'm nosy...)
so why not share the news? It sounds like the Houston project has some
complex dynamics!
Is anybody keeping a logbook with problems, solutions, ideas, etc? No
teaching method is 100% perfect, but maybe a lot could be learned about
teaching in general, the psychology of declaration, inter-assembly
dynamics, etc! Disunity or not, the whole thing seems like a chance to
learn and grow. I'm miles away and not at all emotionally attached.
(intrigued, curious, excited by it all, yes, but not attached!) Maybe
you folks should arrange for a visit away from all the action--take a
little vacation from the stress of it all? I'm sure Sherman the Cat
would love visitors, right Derek?
>
> I just read over the post and realized how much remained unsaid,
> specially what we are doing now and where we stand. That must
> await later. Now, pillow case in hand, we go collect candies.
> Wish me well ;-}
Good luck! Sorry for the overly optimistic post--I'm not usually like
that... but I'd love to see how it's working out there. I was a
door-to-door canvasser for an environmental group and it was the worst
experience of my life (well it was miserable anyway...).
Warm and fuzzy regards,
-Carl Hawse (carl@grapevine-sys.com)
-cant remember if this email program has an auto-sig....
From a003@lehigh.eduThu Nov 2 00:31:03 1995
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 1995 20:05:50 EST
From: a003@lehigh.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Review
Dear beloved friends on Talisman:
Christopher Buck has asked about Review and whether or not we think it
could be eliminated after three "successes".
It has been said that Review is a form of censorship, that Review is a way
of protecting the Faith, that Review protects authors, etc.
It is also pretty clear that Review is a pain for just about everyone
involved.
I had to have my play *Kingfisher's Wing* reviewed before I
could perform it publicly, and it was a tough bit to keep in my mouth.
Several of the comments I got regarding the piece suggested mature depth
of understanding of the Faith and important principles in the Cause--i.e.
accuracy, the importance of dignity in treating certain figures--but I
didn't sense a strong appreciation for the requirements of dramatic style
or what it means to perform. Never the less, I was allowed to pass.
I wanted my work to go through the review process because I wanted my work
to be closer to the Covenant. Perhaps this is an aspect of review that
has not been fully explored.
It's hard to communicate this idea. I can make work in my garage all the
time. About Baha'u'llah, or about Racism, or about the color of leaves
and the music of clouds; but I want to make Baha'i Art. How does one do
that?
There is a power within this Cause--a mysterious power--far, far,
far away from the ken of men and angels; that invisible power is the
cause of all outward activities. It moves the hearts. It rends the
mountains. It administers the complicated affairs of the Cause.
As an artist, an actor, one who takes on the characters of others, one
must accustom oneself to "being in-spirited by" ... to open oneself to
the Spirit of the Faith. The Spirit of the Cause manifested in this
world is found in the body of the Writings and in the Institutions. What
is the Baha'i Faith? It is both an intangible unreachable Reality and how
that reality manifests itself in the believers. As a theatre artist, one
who works with a public art form, I recognize that my work must live now,
be a embodiment of the intangible unreachable Reality as the present
believers can now swallow it. Review is a sacrament. I would be very
careful not to throw away the spiritual value it imparts the individual
who endeavors to approach the sacred threshold.
I fear I have not made myself clear. We say there are no rituals in the
Baha'i Faith, but we must recognize that Review is one that all those who
wish to participate in publicly representing the Cause must undergo. I
say this so we might see it as not so much about censorship as it's
opposite, opening an even wider channel of this mysterious power behind
the Cause into our work.
Could this be true?
Sincerely,
Bill
From richs@microsoft.comThu Nov 2 00:31:52 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 16:15:13 -0800
From: Rick Schaut
To: "talisman@indiana.edu"
Subject: Rigor Mortis (was RE: Arguments)
Dear Talizens,
It seems as though multiple posts from one person are the
order of the day. My apologies. I'll endeavor to be brief.
First, thanks to David House for having posted some of the
guidance from the Writings. It's interesting to note that
there is a dual standard to endeavor never to give offense
and never take offense. I'm always fascinated by the way
Baha'u'llah manages to enunciate a standard of conduct
and tell us how to get there at the same time.
There's an objective way to encompass both of these and
still allow for frank and honest consultation to obtain. Ideas
are fair game. People are not. If we but keep this in mind
both when we write and when we read, I think our relations
would be far more amicable.
That said, there's a pallor which has begun to settle in
over Talisman. At it's very heart, I believe, lies a lack of
rigor in our arguments accompanied by opposingly rigid
modes of thinking. Loose arguments and rigid thinking
are precisely the opposite of the kind of scholarship
toward which we should be striving. Hence, the subject
line: rigor mortis.
Working for Microsoft, I have the bounty, from time to time,
of having some of the worlds great thinkers drop in for
a company or divisional meeting. At our recent company
meeting, James Burke spoke about mental boxes, and
the need to break out of them if we are to come up with
anything new. I wish I could bottle those remarks up and
deliver them to Talisman in some way.
But boxes seem to be much the problem. If we could
stop putting people, both ourselves and others, in boxes
(which is, really, a form of ad hominem argument) and
allowing those labels to color how we understand what
others say, I think we'd be moving much more rapidly to
a harmonious resolution of some of our gravest difficulties.
If we don't break out of this pattern, if we don't start
thinking much more freely and arguing with much more
rigor, I'm afraid Talisman will be dead whether any
institution decides to shut it down or not. It's life will
have withered away into the nothingness of vain
imaginings and selfish desires.
Perhaps we need to seek the Truth(TM) a little less and seek
understanding a little more?
Warmest Regards,
Rick Schaut
PS to those who have saved my postings for whatever
reason, I'd like to remind you that I am but a single
human being of limited understanding. So, if you quote
me, and it turns out that I'm wrong, I'll deny it emphatically!
From mfoster@tyrell.netThu Nov 2 00:32:10 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 19:06:17 -0600 (CST)
From: "Mark A. Foster"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: reforms and solution
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Saman Ahmadi wrote to talisman@indiana.edu:
S>Talisman happens to be the global one and there are numerous
S>and ever-growing regional Baha'i mailing lists.
Hi, Saman -
Just a brief note: Actually, most of the BCCA (Baha'i Computer and
Communications Association) lists are global; the Baha'i Women's list is
global; and the Baha'i Intuition list (operated by the Institute of
Noetic Sciences) is also global.
Sorry to "consume" band width with this posting. ;-)
Blessings,
Mark
From dhouse@cinsight.comThu Nov 2 00:33:29 1995
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 1995 17:10:46 -0800
From: "David W. House"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: DWHouses' comments
Linda,
>So, please refrain from making comments on something of which you know
nothing.
We certainly agree that I know nothing, which is in part what I said on the
subject. Your sacrifices should not be minimized, either, nor the work done
by the many fine people you listed: nor did I minimize any of these things.
What I thought, and it turned out to be a matter of fact, was that the
Universal House of Justice had made the decision.
The pain that results is no less real for that being the case, but as you
counseled me to take due care, that was indeed all I was saying as well.
Even given the pain and the sacrifice-- and clearly both were considerable--
are we justified in calling a decision of the Universal House of Justice
"silly"? Mind you, this is, to my mind, considerably different from writing
with a polite request to review the decision, asking for more specifics,
etc. etc.
The limits you describe are acceptable to me, and I can only apologize if
transgressed them. It may be, however, that in your pain you did not
carefully read what I said, for I tried very hard (though I apparently
failed) to discuss the issue with regard to the feelings of others, holding
to the standards about which I previously (fools rush in) posted. I will
review my posting again, and no doubt as time passes I will increasingly
find phrases for which I will repeatedly chastise myself. In the meantime,
all I can do is assure you that I did not wish to harm anyone, nor do now.
>You also made the serious mistake of insulting another
>dear friend of mine - Juan Cole.
About this we may still have some disagreement, for even in re-reading the
post, I cannot find the insult (or insults). It is clear to me that Juan is
an intellect of considerable stature, and his passion for the Cause is
likewise clear. Still, it does not seem to me that in discussing his post I
did anything differently than you have done in discussing my post, which is
to disagree with some of the points made.
>...[But] Don't declare him a Covenant breaker.
Again, I missed the declaration on my part. What I rather said was that we
need to have a due regard for our own limits, and that if we did not have
such regard, we were in danger. I believe you said much the same to me, and
I accept that we are both right about that.
Linda, I cannot claim to have gone through your pains. But pain in general
is familiar to me. My wife and I spent a year, mired in poverty, watching
our first daughter die. She was, to me, the most beautiful child I have ever
seen. I would note in passing that although we were active Baha'is, we got
no visits from the local friends, nor support from the LSA.
The choice I faced at the time, and I find I face it daily, although it is
not so sharp and cutting, generally, is whether to accept that God's wisdom
exists or to reject that. As I implied in a previous post, my personal
understanding is that I either feel the grief, or I must live forever with
the pain and anger. I chose the grief.
"Sorrow and joy have embraced." SE
d.
David William House (dhouse@cinsight.com)
Computer Insight
From PayamA@aol.comThu Nov 2 00:36:45 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 20:31:52 -0500
From: PayamA@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Voice of America
I heard that there was an interview with Ruhiyyih Khanum (in Persian) on
Voice of America. It was heard by the friends in Iran or they knew about it.
Not sure which.
Does anyone have any further information on this?
Payam
From PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.eduThu Nov 2 00:39:33 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 17:44:37 PST8PDT
From: "Eric D. Pierce"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: List standards (tid bit from the archives)
> Date sent: Wed, 1 Nov 95 19:23:19 EWT
> From: JWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
> Subject: List standards
> To: talisman@indiana.edu
> 1) I wish to remind the esteemed members that this list is run by me
> in my capacity as a professor at Indiana University. I therefore cannot
> --and do not wish to--enforce standards of religious orthodoxy.
> Any serious threats to either the list or its members will be forwarded
> to the university's lawyers.
>
...
----- forwarded from talisman archives (names deleted) -----
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 11:03:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To:
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Guilt by Association
1. xxx: And *I* am sensitive about lay Baha'is spying on and acting as
informants against their coreligionists. I have lived in police states
and this sort of behavior leaves a bad taste in my mouth. That it should
be proclaimed a norm and "appropriate" by Baha'i institutions is very
disturbing to me.
I am unable to perceive in what way a statement on Talisman could
possibly be construed as a "rebellion" against any institution.
As for John Walbridge's statement that Talisman is run as his research
project at a state university, and any interference with it would have to
be reported to the concerned university authorities and professional
organizations, this is not a "threat." It is simply ordinary academic
procedure. Researchers looking into the Church of Scientology have been
routinely harrassed, and they have reported this back to their research
sponsors as well as writing about it publicly. A researcher has a
responsibility to report the conditions of research, and it would be
irresponsible to paper over any official interference in such a project
by a religious organization. Talisman is being widely archived; messages
may well be reprinted in Baha'is scholarly journals; I have incorporated
some of my messages into my forthcoming book on Modernity and the Origins
of the Baha'i Faith, being considered by the University of California
Press; and the archived messages will prove an invaluable resource to
future researchers of the *mentalite-" of the Baha'i community. This is
therefore a bona fide academic project. Moreover, Indiana University, like
any state university, is bound by the separation of religion and state.
As you know, I think `Abdu'l-Baha would have approved.
2. xxxx: Obviously, any community limits freedom of speech in some
way. But I read `Abdu'l-Baha to desire the Baha'i religion to allow the
greatest possible freedom of opinion and expression consistent with the
integrity of the Faith. This is a very different presumption than that
in Roman Catholicism, whose leaders have a tradition of denouncing
liberal freedoms (we needn't bring up the Inquisition or Galileo; even
just the modern encyclicals are reactionary enough). The point is that I
did not, 23 years ago, agree to join Roman Catholicism or Shi`ite Islam
and be bound by its rules. I joined the Baha'i faith, which proclaims
the unity of science and religion and freedom of conscience and lots of
other principles that should make it different from past religions. What
I hear from a lot of Baha'is is that they want to clamp back down the
shackles of orthodoxy because they cannot deal with the uncertainties
produced by freed discourse. So it seems to me that the narrow-minded
are the ones who are betraying the promise of the Faith.
The U.S. Supreme Court in the early 20th century dealt with the
boundaries of free speech very effectively by adopting the *clear
and imminent danger* test. It is illegal to cry "Fire" in a crowded
theater when there is no fire, because it will start a stampede and people
will be crushed. But speech that poses no clear and imminent danger of
provoking damage to life or property is protected. The only other
contentious area left is pornography. I will admit that in a religious
organization there is a third test, which is that speech that aims at
creating schism is objectionable in the context of the particular religion.
Now, to my knowledge, no Talisman postings have been pornographic; in the
nature of the medium, e-mail is incapable of generating speech that poses
a clear and present danger to the public; and no Talisman postings by
Baha'is have in any way urged schism or questioned the legitimacy of
Baha'i institutions. They have occasionally questioned the decisions of
the latter and their epistemological grounding, but only a dictatorship
would deny adherents the right to question.
So I would urge that the general Baha'i public be re-trained away from
its current paranoid, authoritarian and anti-intellectual habits toward
an open-minded acceptance of diverse views. And I hope the army of
volunteer informants will be demobilized. Not only did I not intend to
join Roman Catholicism or Shi`ite Islam; I also had not intended to join
the Iraqi Baath or the Chinese Communist parties.
3. xxxxx: I always feel bad when a playful message of mine is received
as a flame. I was simply trying to point out that while on the surface
your message seemed to examine the ethical dilemmas at the edge of the
border between acceptable and unacceptable speech, in fact you had
stacked the deck by choosing examples where the behavior was considered
illegitimate by the institutions concerned to begin with. I don't think
Talisman is in any way an illegitimate activity from the point of view of
Baha'i texts. The beloved Guardian himself guaranteed us the right to
express our consciences and declare our views. So, sorry for any bad
feelings, but my point seems to me to stand. I'd be happy to change my
mind if you can show that my analysis is incorrect.
4. Thanks to Sholeh Quinn for a fine summary of the discussion of K1!
Sholeh is an expert on Shi`ite Iran and her readings of the Aqdas will
be an important part of the slow reading.
cheers Juan Cole, History, Univ. of Michigan
From rstockman@usbnc.orgThu Nov 2 00:47:25 1995
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 95 19:57:23
From: "Stockman, Robert"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re[2]: Is Science on a Par with Religion?
I think the best way to understand the statement "every fixed star has
its planets and every planet has its creatures" as a hyperbolic
statement; in other words, overstatement of a point in order to
emphasize it. I think this is a rhetorical device we can find in the
Writings (Frank Lewis and other literati, please comment). As Steve
has pointed out, the statement really cannot be literally correct,
unless "creature" is defined is some very strange way. I have a
degree in planetary science, so I have some ideas about this subject.
For example, let us take a massive star, a million times the mass of
the sun, which produced about a billion times the heat output of the
sun and blows itself up (as a supernova) in about a million years
after formation. (This is the way big stars are; they produce heat at
rates much higher than their mass relative to the sun, and thus burn
out very fast.) And let us say a planet made out of molten material
formed around such a star, which is conceivable. What would it mean
to say that such a molten planet, which must be less than a million
years old, has "creatures"? One can argue this might refer to
spiritual creatures in the next world, who are somehow associated with
it; but then the answer has moved beyond the realm of science.
-- Rob Stockman
From cfarhoum@osf1.gmu.eduThu Nov 2 00:48:23 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 23:15:45 -0500 (EST)
From: Cheshmak A Farhoumand
To: PayamA@aol.com
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Voice of America
On Wed, 1 Nov 1995 PayamA@aol.com wrote:
> I heard that there was an interview with Ruhiyyih Khanum (in Persian) on
> Voice of America. It was heard by the friends in Iran or they knew about it.
> Not sure which.
> Does anyone have any further information on this?
> Payam
>
Dear friends, i don't know about voice of america but Ruhiyyih Khanum
gave a beautiful interview on Payame Doost, a persian Baha'i program
which airs from i think Maryland every Sun. Morning at 9:30 - 10:30. If
you would like a copy of the tape or more info, you can call Payame Doost
at 703-538-5856.
Regards,
Cheshmak Farhoumand
From TLCULHANE@aol.comThu Nov 2 01:49:08 1995
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 01:34:49 -0500
From: TLCULHANE@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Reforms
Dear Friends , ( the Quaker ones too )
I have been pondering Ahang's thought that any changes ought to be
universal in nature . It seems that the House of Justice has developed a
pattern which allows different communities based on their varying needs to
develope forms accordingly e. g. de-centralization activities around the
world .
Given that precedent, I still believe the American community could
expand membership of the NSA to say 19 for the reasons already stated
without the necessity that this be adopted universally at this time .
I would see this development as the precursor to a longer term
movement to Secondary Houses of Hustice on the North American continent . I
suggested that these secondary Houses could follow the pattern of Tablets of
the Divine plan .
Related to this could be an electoral development mentioned by Steve
Scholl about electing members in two stages and Saman and Ahangs suggestion
that terms be for a 2-3 year time period . I would also suggest that the
"regionally " elected members not be based solely on population. Each region
of the Divine Plan could be guaranteed at least 1 or 2 members , the balance
elected based on the Bahai population of the region.
I think this is important because as it stands now a significant
plurality of NSA members hail from Southern California and its legal system
at that . In the past 25 years the majority of NSA members seem to have a
connection to So. Cal . and Amherst . This does not seem very representative
of the community as a whole . Todd Ewing is from South Carolina and served
two years . But if 20 percent of the believers are from Carolina and another
10 percent are of Persian background ( I suspect they represent a much larger
percentage of the *active * community) those voices need to be heard . It
does not seem as though the current process allows for that development . I
think it is a systemic isssue not a personality one .
I am concerned though that the efficacy and therefore in the
sociological sense the "legitimacy" of the administrative institutions is an
issue with regard to a number of believers . And I am not referring to people
on Talisman . the lack of legitimacy of the NSA , for example is more
widespread than David H. would perhaps like to believe . We can consider it a
deepening issue - which it is in part - but it is also , in my view, a
systemic issue that needs to be addresssed at that level .
Once one listens to the believers and stops for a while telling them what
they are supposed to think , feel and believe and actually listens to them
and their hopes and fears and concerns then learning, growth and deepening
and yes unity are possible. Simply telling people what they are supposed to
do may elicit outward compliance but it does not generate committment and it
is committment which percieves legitimacy and sets in motion the process of
transformation . That is perhaps the greatest problem with calls for limited
discourse or what can and cannot be said or discussed - it ends up defeating
and destroying the very thing it professes to love. People may be outwardly
quiet but that does not mean one has generated their respect , love or
committment. In the end developmemt is severely retarded .
That is why I would be in favor of some dramatic examples of reformist
development within the American Bahai community. And as everyone knows who
has been on Talisman for some time that means for me a significant effort of
resouces , financial and human , directed towards the development of the
Mashriqu l Adhkar in local communities . And that of course also means a
systemic support for daily prayer and worship .
It will not do to simply tell peole to be obediant or that it is none of
their business. If it is none of the business of the believers how they are
governed and in what manner they paricipate in that governing process it
becomes the worst kind of hypocrisy to then criticize them as well for their
lack of teaching - teach what one might ask - or their lack of
participation in community activities or contributions to the fund for that
matter . This is more than a deepening issue or the troops lacking the
famous firmness and so forth. It is a legitimacy issue and it will sooner
or later have to be addressed in the American Community . I would rather that
it be sooner then we can get on with the process of building a community that
finds room for all kinds of perspectives and thoughts and activities and is
able to weave everyone into the great patchwork quilt - the metaphor I like
for a Bahai community with all its implications for respect , cooperation and
genuine unity in diversity rather than a pre-conceived and enforced
uiniformity confused with unity .
warm regards ,
Terrry
From cbuck@ccs.carleton.caThu Nov 2 01:49:37 1995
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 95 1:37:57 EST
From: Christopher Buck
To: rstockman@usbnc.org
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Prayer for Abu'l-Fadl
Robert: 2 November 1995
I'm afraid I've lost my notes on this prayer, but I distinctly
recall seeing it published in *Star of the West*. The translation
matched the one I had been given by a Baha'i named Edward Ketcham in
Tacoma [= "Glaucoma"] Washington. Elsewhere, I found references to the
prayer having been revealed by Baha'u'llah for Mirza Abu'l-Fadl upon
the latter's release from prison and immediate banishment (I think
this reference was in Mary Hanford Ford's *The Oriental Rose*.)
I used to say this prayer, but it was too powerful. It seemed
to make things happen too suddenly and irreversibly for me to handle.
Sort of like when me and my old bosomless buddy Stephen Menard would
pray the Fire Tablet for some woman or other. Usually really bizarre
things would happen to them. But now I'm no longer spiritual now that
I'm pretending to be a scholar.
-- Christopher Buck
Stockman, Robert writes:
>
>
> O My God, I beg of Thee by the King of Names and the
> Maker of heaven and earth, by the rustling of the
> leaves of the tree of Life and by Thine utterance
> through which the reality of things are drawn nigh unto
> us, to grant ____(Insert wish or need. Follow by sup-
> lication with the invocation, "Ya Allah El Mustaghath"
> 95 times.
>
> I am under the impression that the above prayer is not authentic. We
> could check the World Centre if you want; and I will check at the
> National Centre next time I'm there (Monday, unfortunately).
>
> -- Rob Stockman
>
From jrcole@umich.eduThu Nov 2 01:53:40 1995
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 01:47:32 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: reforms and apologies
David House has been very big in his further comments, and it is only
right for me to say also that I probably over-reacted in my post to his.
E-mail is a very hot medium. It comes directly from the screen into the
subconscious (which is what explains the appeal of cyberpunk sf).
Writing for this medium is in many ways exactly the opposite of writing
fiction. In a novel, you have to *exaggerate* the distinctive traits and
behaviors of characters, or else they simply do not shine through. In
e-mail, you have to tone everything down or it shouts. Sorry, David, if
I shouted.
But aside from matters of tone and etiquette, it is not useful, it seems
to me, for us to paper over real differences. I have come to believe
that the Baha'i faith is in many ways very badly administered,
*especially* when it comes to matters of the intellect. Being an
intellectual, this annoys me. And I am afraid that the Baha'i
institutions have demystified themselves for me. I recognize that the
NSA and the Universal House of Justice are the ultimate authorities and
their rulings are the law. I just don't think much of some of their
rulings, and want to see them overturned by future, wiser successors.
And I don't think we will get real change by being silent. (We may not
get it by talking, either; but Baha'u'llah advises us that "utterance"
(bayan) has great power, and it is, in fact, the equivalent in the Baha'i
Faith to the Muslim and Babi swords). So I don't think utterance/bayan
is necessarily fruitless, either.
It is no secret that I and many other Baha'i intellectuals are furious
about the House's suppression of the Baha'i Encyclopaedia. And this
affair is one of the things driving my suggestions for reform.
I am a pluralist. I support the right of everyone to develop their own
discourse, assuming that discourse does not pose a real and present
danger to anyone (you can't yell "fire!" in a theater, you can't incite a
crowd to beat up a Jew or Muslim or Baha'i, etc.), and assuming the
discourse does not aim at gaining power so as to silence other discourses
(as with Fascist and Communist political movements). In fact, discourses
aimed at silencing people through power rather than through argument
rather anger me. So I don't care if Baha'is want to believe in ether and
dispute Darwinian biology and think the sneezes of people in Haifa are
infallible and fear the evaporation of US cities tomorrow and assert that
a Baha'i theocracy will find a way to treat religious minorities
equitably. I don't believe any of these things, and won't be made to. I
will argue against them if they are put to me. But it is fine with me if
these beliefs exist and are expressed for the subcultures that believe in
them.
But many Baha'is are not pluralists. Their understanding of the Covenant
is such that they will admit of only one discourse. They consider Baha'i
subcultures illegitimate. And so they attempt to ban the subcultural
discourse of Baha'i intellectuals. I have seen this happen over and over
again in my Baha'i life--the LA study class notes, some Kalimat projects,
including Salmani, *Dialogue* magazine, and now the Encyclopaedia. There
is a frankly totalitarian edge to all this banning and concern with what
discourse the Covenant allows, and it frightens me to death. Until the
Baha'is resolve this problem, they will never be more than an
insignificant, exotic outlier in US religion (and until they resolve it I
hope they never are more than that).
It should not be mysterious what the reasons are, for this conflict.
Those with more education, especially in the liberal arts, are less
likely to believe in miracles, Catastrophes, scriptural inerrancy, and so
forth. In US Protestantism, the denomination system allows educational
segregation among believers. The educationally backward South produces
Southern Baptists, while the affluent and educated Northeast produces
Unitarians and Episcopalians, etc. Of course, these things are
never neat, and cross-cutting cleavages exist. There are Engineering
Ph.D.s who never learned how to read a text contextually, and who are
therefore fundamentalists. There are anti-intellectual intellectuals,
etc. But by and large the correlation I have proposed between religious
"liberalism" and high levels of (liberal arts) education holds true.
Now, in the Baha'i faith we do not have the luxury of separating into
denominations. The highly educated equivalent of the Unitarians are in
the same congregations with the minimally educated equivalents of the
Southern Baptists. And what I see is that the equivalent of the Baha'i
Southern Baptists, instead of being tolerant toward the Baha'i
"Unitarians," have attempted to ban or control the latter's discourse.
THIS IS SIMPLY NOT FAIR. Although the national and international
Institutions have a fair number of highly educated persons on them, they
have adopted a policy of the lowest common denominator. Any discourse
that offends the lowest common denominator is banned; essentially,
scriptural literalists are given the veto over Baha'i intellectuals.
This policy was openly admitted to the LA Study Class in the early 1980s
by a member of the NSA.
Many on Talisman are intellectuals who have been suppressed over and over
again all their lives, and we're just not putting up with it any longer.
It is fine with me if someone wants to believe in the virgin birth of
Jesus of Nazareth. I'm sure that is a very meaningful belief to some
people. But I don't believe in it. It is scientifically as close to
impossible as any phenomenon I know of (women have two X chromosomes and
lack the "Y" for a boy; parthenogenesis could only produce a daughter).
And I think my lack of belief in it is plausibly grounded in the Baha'i
principle of the unity of science and religion. Shall this conclusion be
silenced by the scriptural inerrancy crowd? Or can't we learn to live
together in a pluralist Baha'i society, tolerating many discourses?
Tolerating even a Baha'i Encyclopaedia?
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 02:05:39 -0500
To: jrcole@umich.edu, Banani@humnet.ucla.edu, CYTD@musica.mcgill.ca
Subject: capitalization in SAQ
Dear fellow translators of SAQ,
I recently sent a message to Hooper Dunbar asking him about the question of
capitalization in the translation of the Baha'i writings. In response, he
wrote:
"The question of capitalization which you raised in relation to the section
of SAQ that you are revising is, it seems to me, really a question for your
whole group to discuss. There are as you point out a number of issues at
stake. In the Guardian's translations, of course, there is often an important
interpretive element in the casing. Perhaps you could raise the matter with
your colleagues and see if there is a consensus of views to formulate some
recommendations."
Since Hooper would like us to discuss the question, I will open the
discussion by stating my own opinion on the use of capitalization in Baha'i
translation.
In general, I feel that the earlier translations of Baha'i texts and also
current Baha'i communications tend to follow a style of capitalization that
is outdated and stilted in the impression it makes. The reason Baha'is use
this style is the precedent set by Shoghi Effendi in his, indeed, matchless
and eloquent translations, and his usage of capitalization may have been in
vogue at the time he was studying in Oxford (this would be a question to
ascertain). The problem is that this style is no longer in general favor and
is not used in most books read by both the general public or in academic
circles, where it would rightfully be considered a sign of subjectivity or
affectation. For example, when we capitalize any of the prounouns referring
to the Manifestations, we at once qualify them, whereas if we leave them
lowercased there is no qualification and no subjective judgment. The reader
is allowed to know for himself or herself that using "he" with reference to
God or the Manifestations is not a judgment on their station, but simply a
referent to the subject of the sentence without any qualification. This is
how we read the pronouns and indeed all adjectives and nouns in Arabic and
Persian, and it is how most of the English-speaking world reads them today.
The older style of excessive capitalization, on the other hand, is probably a
remnant of the notion that words are in themselves numinous, a notion I think
Baha'is should avoid.
As Baha'is, I suggest that we too should follow the style of capitalization
that is recommended by that respected standard of good style, The Chicago
Manual of Style, and which is followed by the book publishing industry. Under
the heading "Religious Names and Terms" they write: "In this field as in
others: capitalize what are clearly proper nouns and adjectives, and
lowercase all else except to avoid ambiguity" (13th ed., p. 208). A little
farther on they give some examples:
"7.77 Pronouns referring to the foregoing are today preferably not
capitalized:
God in his mercy
Jesus and his disciples
Nor are most derivatives, whether adjectives or nouns, capitalized."
By following the rules of the Chicago Manual we would also not capitalize
religious bodies unless they are unique: Hence, we would always capitalize
"the Universal House of Justice" and "the National Spiritual Assembly of the
Baha'is of the United States" because they are unique bodies, but we would
not capitalize "local spiritual assemblies" etc. because we are not talking
about unique bodies anymore.
I've said enough and would be grateful to hear back from the other members of
the translating group. Best regards,
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzThu Nov 2 11:19:03 1995
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 20:24:57 +1300 (NZDT)
From: Robert Johnston
To: Burl Barer , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Stupid & Offensive, Ltd.
Dear Burl,
Re:
As for me, I
>never ignore what either you or Juan writes -- I fear I might overlook a gem
>of insight from an unsuspected source, an almond in the porridge, so to speak.
In all honestly I must put the record straight and acknowledge that my
assessment of Juan's literary contribution was unduly harsh, and state that
I read quite a bit of it, if sometimes rather quickly. His
autobiographical material is always readable, and I have already praised an
encyclopaedia essay on the Book Of Wisdom that he recently posted. Of
course, I acknowledge his translating contributions also. It seems to me
though that it would be regrettable if his friends and associates did not
point out to him just how deeply offensive some his statements about the
institutions of the Faith are. For instance, one cannot expect to say that
a decision of the House is silly and not then be visited by the anguish of
a million innocent hearts. When I defended David House, I believe I also
defended Talisman. An unstemmed flow of letters such as Juan has recently
written would, I believe, kill Talisman dead in its tracks. The fruit of
these letters cannot but be estrangement. Souls with transparently simple
Faith would leave, and as Farzin recently suggested, it is most likely such
souls that enable the flow of God's mercy. Tough nuts like me might hang
around to witness the death, but that even I am gifted with sufficiently
thick-skinned perversity cannot be taken for granted. Basically, though, I
wish this test had not come upon us.
Anyhow Burl, I deeply appreciated this letter of yours. Indeed. May your
ways be always blessed.
To life, my friend,
Robert.
From TLCULHANE@aol.comThu Nov 2 11:26:01 1995
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 01:10:51 -0500
From: TLCULHANE@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: May 19 letter pt. 2
Dear Friends ,
Here is the second installment of the May 19 th letter . Based on todays
mail i was tempted to just skip over this and go right to the section
entitled "Proper Functioning of the NSA."
" Paradoxical as it may see, the prospects toward the breakthrough
you anticipate in the teaching field are conspicuous in the
current, distressing state of society. You must realize that the
worse conditions become, the more plentiful are the opportunities
to teach the Cause, the greater the degree of receptivity to the
Divine Message. Baha'u'llah certainly gave ample foreknowledge
about the radical, worldwide disturbance which His Revelation is
creating as a part of the transition toward the unity and peace
that are the ultimate goal of his Faith. Your awareness of this
inevitable transition should enable your members to detach
themselves from the debilitating emotions aroused by the turmoil
which characterizes this process and to equip your Assembly as the
highest governing body of the Baha'i community in the United States
to demonstrate to the friends a confident outlook, which the
persistence and vigor of their teaching activities will fully
justify.
Such detachment as exemplified by your Assembly and practiced by
the friends throughout the community will, moreover, signify a
spiritual achievement which was anticipated by Shoghi Effendi in
his warning to your community, when he said, "The glowing tributes,
so repeatedly and deservedly paid to the capacity, the spirit, the
conduct, and the high rank, of the american believers, both
individually and as an organic community, must, under no
circumstances, by confounded with the characteristics and nature of
the people from which God has raised them up." In other words, by
the attainment of a "sharp distinction between that community and
that people," you and the friends who rely upon your guidance will
recognize that American society cannot by exempted from the rigors
and consequences of the transition affecting all the world.
Painful as may be the decadent scene, deep as is your sympathy
for those who suffer from the terrible decline of society, you must
see the possibilities which are thus provided for augmenting the
healing forces of an emerging World Order. Shoghi Effendi advised
the North American community plainly in this regard. "The
opportunities which the turmoil of the present age presents, with
all the sorrows which it evokes, the fears which it excites, the
disillusionment which it produces, the perplexities which it
creates, the indignation which it arouses, the revolt which it
provokes, the grievances it engenders, the spirit of restless
search which it awakens, must," he asserted, " by exploited for the
purpose of spreading far and wide the knowledge of the redemptive
power of the Faith of Baha'u'llah, and for enlisting fresh recruits
in the ever-swelling army of His followers."
-- to be continued --
T. C. More of the same . Be confident and detached that you might set an
example for the friends . Presumably if the House had to remind them and us
there was some real room for improvement in this area , not just for the
individuals but primarliiy for the NSA as the governing body . The
administrative institutions need to be different in their functioning from
the larger society as well as the individual and take a lead role in
exploiting the decay of the larger society for teaching .
Again any thoughts
warm regards,
Terry
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 16:59:05 +0000
To: Juan R Cole
Subject: Re: Fundamentalism
Hello Juan,
Caught your post on Talisman and found it interesting. I've
recognised what you describe also in the UK and Australia. My
approach is to recognise it for what it is and keep an eye on it. I
might even go as far as to say that this 'fundamentalist/closed shop'
attitude is even the rule rather than the exception at the moment.
But ----- just as the rigid intractactible shell breaks and falls
away when the bird is born so will this attitude. It simply cannot
contain the Bahai world as it must, in the future, be.
Remember that a shell provides an essential part in the growth of the
organism - I remind myself of that as I continually crack my head
against it hoping it will break! All I have for my efforts at the
moment is a sore head.
I've only recently joined Talisman and have been standing in the
recesses watching. So far I'm quite impressed. The Bahai Faith needs
a forum for liberal discussion and difficult questions.
Warmest Regards,
>
> It has been proposed that the essence of fundamentalism is an
> unwillingness or failure to examine critically the bases of one's
> beliefs. Thus, it would follow that an unexamined belief in the value of
> the separation of powers in government, e.g., could be a form of
> fundamentalism.
> Having critically examined the underpinnings of my philosophy of right on
> a large number of occasions and over the course of 22 years, I have
> concluded that many aspects of current Baha'i administrative practice and
> belief are pernicious and desperately need to be reformed. Now what?
> Those who have had these experiences and yet still cling to a theory of
> Baha'i institutional inerrancy seem to me to be closer to courting the
> epithet "fundamentalist," though why don't we avoid labels altogether and
> give this word a rest?
>
>
>
> cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From dpeden@imul.comThu Nov 2 11:30:38 1995
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 95 12:29:08+030
From: Don Peden
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: criticism, covenant
The system being criticized was established through the workings
of the Covenant, and it is difficult to escape the conclusion that
the Covenant is therefore under attack, although my profound hope and
current assumption is that this is not the motive.
I for one feel drained, aghast, shaken, and stunned as if I had been
bitten by a snake. I am not being pejorative, truly; I am rather trying
to share something of my emotional state, and the response which my cells
provide to me, in order to offer some insight into any intemperance my words
might reveal.
Beyond this, if such discourse, with such a tone and so wounding to
the body of the Cause continues, I intend to recommend, as one member of the
Community of the Most Great Name, that the National Spiritual Assembly
consider closing down this forum.
_________________
Dear David:
Tahirah also criticized the system when she entered the presence of the men
unveiled...to the same sentiments as you are experiencing from those
present...except Baha'u'llah. He didn't even seem too perturbed about the
guy who slit his throat! He praised her challenge, affirmed her perception,
gave her her title, and encouraged her to continue. Do you think it might
have been timely, even if not welcome, for a change to happen? And what do
you suppose was the intent of Tahirih? Please don't assume that the intent
of those on Talisman is any less pure. There is obviously a need for
change...and talking about different forms that change might take is not
unhealthy. Vicious criticism is, as is rigidity. As I've said in another
Email, we have no idea what the administration of the Faith will look like,
but I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that it is far beyond our conceptual
powers at this time. Maybe "tearing off our veils" is a spiritual act, if
the intent is pure.
From friberg@will.brl.ntt.jpThu Nov 2 11:31:31 1995
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 95 19:10:42 JST
From: "Stephen R. Friberg"
To: Christopher Buck , friberg@will.brl.ntt.jp
Cc: Juan R Cole , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: election turnover
Dear Chris:
You say:
> For instance, I was politely reminded that a Science and Religion
> thread had been going on for a long time. So what was the good of
> starting it over? What more, if anything, could I contribute?
> Criticism accepted.
Let me remind you that you asked some marvelous questions, and several
of us replied. Before I reply again, I have been waiting for you to
say something, as you started the thread. Could you please take up
your part of the conversation? I would love to have a thread going
on Science and Religion as this is where my mind and heart meet, and
I would love to know your thinking on these subjects.
I know that Robert Johnston, when he is not throwing dirt clods at his
neighbors over the fence, has an interesting take on Science and
Religion from the postmodern perspective. The issue of drugs versus
moral treatment of mental health problems is an extremely timely
issue here on Talisman and should be discussed more thoroughly.
There are some extremely important issues involving objectivity,
perhaps the most important component of modern science, that need
to be discussed in the context of the often overwrought and highly
subjective debate being carried out now on Talisman. This is a
debate where the nature of the problem has not even been defined
or agreed upon. Before any problem-solving can take place, the
problem must be defined correctly. This has not been done.
Of course, the nature of objectivity itself is an interesting topic.
Modern scholarship, including the textual and biblical kind, is
by and large, for good and bad, based on scientific models of the
world. Let us better understand what those models say.
Mark Foster, whose postings I always read thoroughly, has a very
interesting take on science and religion. Even though I agree
with much of what he has to say, I don't think he captures what
scientists think science to be. I would love for further debate
on these topics.
My personal interest is the "appropriation" of science by the
intellectual community at large. When European religion lost
its hold on the "chattering" classes, thinkers like Voltaire
and Rousseau started to offer critiques of society that were
advertised as being scientific in nature. These seem to have
culminated in the grand movements of our day, which have "mythical"
underpinnings that are supposedly scientific in nature. Those
Unitarians among us who have not examined the premises on which
they base their thinking are most probably influenced by these
scientific "myths". The foundations of religion as laid out in
the Writings are much more clearly ascertainable, I believe.
We need to examine in much more detail the anti-intellectual
movement and its anti-scientific components. I'm highly embarrased
by how the topic is explored only so far as it can be used to smear
others for being "anti-intellectual" on Talisman. I'm afraid
sometimes of our intellectual arrogance. It really is only a
prejudice, and prejudices keep us from seeing things they way
they really are.
We should start to explore more what science has to say about many
of the issues of the day, and about topics found in the Baha'i
Writings.
And finally, we in the Faith should start to participate in the increasing
discussion by scientists about the nature of religion. Otherwise, we
will be left behind!
So Chris, help us along. Put some of your attention to this issue.
Let us know your thinking on the topic, please!
Yours sincerely,
Stephen R. Friberg
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 95 07:00:11
To: Juan R Cole
Subject: Re[2]: Christopher's article, and Baha'i encyclopedia
Dear Juan:
I am trying to find out what is going on. I spoke to
XXX about the encyclopedia today and he seemed
pessimistic that it could be saved also. This surprised me; he had
been optimistic before, and usually XXX is optimistic about
everything.
I am absolutely amazed how many people who usually have some idea of
the workings of things in Haifa are confused about this matter. It
seems to have no history, no prior context. If I can find out what
has already been said, maybe I can help. Or maybe not.
-----------------
>Subject: Re: Christopher's article, and Baha'i encyclopedia
>Author: Juan R Cole at INTERNET
>Date: 10/31/95 10:52 AM
>Thanks so much for your thoughtful reply. It may be as well to get your
>other delicate matter out of the way, and to let everyone cool off,
>before you dive in.
>I, despite my historian's nosiness, have also failed to gain access to
>the letter from the House, but it has been described to me as killing
>this project altogether. Apparently there are hints that another (more
>pious?) editorial board might be tried out, but presumably only if it
>promised to put the project on the right "philosophical underpinnings."
>In other words, an Evangelical Encyclopaedia is the only thing that will >do.
>cheers Juan
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 07:11:36 -0500
To: jrcole@umich.edu
Subject: Homosexuality
2 November 1995
Dear Juan:
Perhaps you have already got wind off the following statements of
the Universal House of Justice to the N.S.A. of the U.S. on homosexuality.
(11 September 1995). They contain a direct reference to homosexual chat
groups on cyber-space and other things.
>The House makes it clear that "the prohibition against Baha'is' engaging in
>homosexual behaviour is an explicit Teaching of the Cause. ... the House of
>Justice has no authority to change this clear teaching on homosexual
>practice."
>"You mention that concern has been expressed by some of the friends that
>the unique identity of homosexual Baha'is is not sufficiently appreciated
>by the Baha'i community." The House goes on to point out that the Baha'i
>teaching is that a person's true self is identified with his soul (and,
>presumably, not his sexuality).
>"The condition of being sexually attracted to some object other than a
>mature member of the opposite sex, a condition of which homosexuality is
>but one manifestation, is regarded by the Faith as a distortion of true
>human nature, as a problem to be overcome, no matter what specific physical
>or psychological condition may be the immediate cause. Any Baha'i who
>suffers from such a disability should be treated with understanding, and
>should be helped to control and overcome it. ...
>"To regard homosexuals with prejudice and disdain would be entirely against
>the spirit of Baha'i Teachings. The doors are open for all of humanity to
>enter the Cause of God, irrespective of their present circumstance; this
>invitation applies to homosexuals as well as to any others who are engaged
>in practices contrary to the Baha'i Teachings. Associated with this
>invitation is the expectation that all believers will make a sincere and
>persistent effort to eradicate those aspects of their conduct which are not
>in conformity with Divine Law. It is through such adherence to the Baha'i
>Teachings that a true and enduring unity of the diverse elements of the
>Baha'i community is achieved and safeguarded."
>The letter reminds Spiritual Assemblies of their responsibilities to assist
>the believers to correct their behaviour, without prying into their private
>lives, and then continues:
>"The Spiritual Assemblies should, to a certain extent, be forbearing in the
>matter of the people's moral conduct, such as homosexuality, in view of the
>terrible deterioration of society in general. The Assemblies must also bear
>in mind that while awareness of contemporary social and moral values may
>well enhance their understanding of the situation of the homosexual, the
>standard which they are called upon to uphold is the Baha'i standard. A
>flagrant violation of this standard disgraces the Baha'i community in its
>own eyes even if the surrounding society finds the transgression
>tolerable."
The next bit is interesting in light of the condoning by some Baha'is of
homosexual chat groups purporting to be consonant with the Baha'i
Faith, a very clear violation of both the spirit and the letter of Baha'i
teaching.
>"With regard to the organized network of homosexual Baha'is mentioned in
>your letter, the Universal House of Justice has instructed us to say that,
>while there is an appropriate role in the Baha'i community for groups of
>individuals to come together to help each other to understand and to deal
>with certain problem situations, according to the Baha'i Teachings there
>can be no place in our community for groups which actively promote a style
>of life that is contrary to the Teachings of the Cause. It should be
>understood that the homosexual tendencies of some individuals do not
>entitle them to an identity setting them apart from others. Such
>individuals share with every other Baha'i the responsibility to adhere to
>the laws and principles of the Faith as well as the freedom to exercise
>their administrative rights."
All the best,
--
x
From belove@sover.netThu Nov 2 11:39:07 1995
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 95 08:18:47 PST
From: belove@sover.net
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Science and Religion
Thanks to Mark for the posting on the varieties of ways to look at
the relationship between Science and Religion.
Thanks also to Gordon for his categorization, or nosology (I think
it's called) of the various ways to understand the infallibility of
Baha'u'llah's Writings. Is that authoritative?
I still think the discussion is muddled by an unclear boundary
between Revelation and the Realm of Science. (Thanks to Robert for
that phrase, "realm of Science." )
For me the whole discussion has to be organized around a clear
distinction between the Realm of Science and the Realm of .... what
would we call it... Revelation (?).
As I understand intellectual history, it was to clarify this very
muddle that the Scientific Method was invented.
But Gordon, when you propose to define science as "a kind of knowing"
and draw upon pre-enlightenment definitions, it seems to me that you
invite back in the very muddle we worked so hard to remove. By that
old definition, music is a science, theology is a science,
metaphysics is a science. By the new definition, those areas are arts
and philosophies, maybe even semiotics, but not sciences. The term
science becomes reserved for the so-called "hard" sciences --
chemistry, physics, because these are build most evidently on
scientific method. And the 'soft'sciences, psychology, sociology,
etc., are build on statistical methods that attempt to replicate the
'objectivity' of the hard sciences. So that is why, Gordon, I found
your definition more a part of the muddle.
Finally, I go back to Chris's question, "Is science on a par..."
etc., and wonder about the phrase, "on a par." Perhaps there is a
better way to set up the discussion.
I would suggest it starts with boundary marking. What is the
difference between Science and Religion?
then maybe we go to: What is the relationship between Science and
Religion such that a discussion like this would be so necessary?
Beloved in Brattleboro,
Philip
From ahmada@acsusun.acsu.unsw.edu.auThu Nov 2 11:40:31 1995
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 01:36:50 +1100
From: Ahmad Aniss
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Creation & Encyclopedia
Dear Linda,
Dear Talismanians,
You wrote:
>Then, suddenly, like a bolt, we are told that the tone of some of the articles
>is not exactly what is desirable. Which articles? the Board asks. Figure it
>out yourselves, the UHJ replies in so many words. I wish for the life of me
>that I were free to post the correspondence. Even this is going to get my
>husband mad at me. But, I don't really care. As far as I am concerned, no one
>has the right to assume that there is any justifiable reason for closing down
>the Encyclopedia Project. When I talk about the institutions "throwing good
>people away" this is one of the matters I am speaking about.
As I am not aware of all the facts I can barely comment on this. But usually
when the tone of correspondence is not on an obliging tone from the individual
to the institutions, then problems occur. Obviously, the problem seems
to be misrepresentation of dialogue between organisers of the encyclopedia
andour institutions. Nevertheless authors usually get so attached to their
work thatthey do not see suggestions and review of their work as a positive
thing. Perhaps the authors in this case think they have produced a masterpiece
and would like not to conform with changes that the institutions like to see.
Or the work was so taxing that a redrafting of the manuscript is considered
unbearable. What ever the case the only solution I see as an outsider is further
work on the manuscript, although that may be a painful exercise.
As an academician, I see the works of my co-workers and mine returned by
many editors and some manuscripts have been reviewed so many times that at
times one wonders if it is helpful at all. However, I have always said that the
outcome of my work after all that revision has been better than the original.
>No regard was taken for the personal sacrifice - years of it - that were made
>by individuals and their families. The closing of the project makes it look as
>thought there was some flaw in the people who worked on it. I know the
>people who worked on it. One of them has been my husband of many years
>and few people are as brilliant or saintly as he is.
Sacrifice is the name of the game and no obvious reward its fruit. One may get
sad about it, but one has to follow the moderation line and continue.
Nevertheless, one has to see where one wants his or her work end up. It is best
to see the work complete and acceptable to society than to think that the work
is complete and stick to the guns and seek for no change to be asked.
>You also made the serious mistake of insulting another dear friend of mine -
>Juan Cole. How Juan endures the abuse he takes on Talisman and from all sorts
>of directions, I don't know. But he keeps on plugging. I don't know whether
>to admire him for his tenacity or just declare him insane. If you don't like
>his ideas, then argue with him - just as Ahang did over the issue of elections.
>Don't declare him a Covenant breaker.
Perhaps David's tone of message was insulting, I won't judge that, but I definitely
do not agree with a lot of things that Juan Cole has stated on Talisman for the
past few months. Examples are topics such as Courts, reforms of our institutions,
how creation has occurred (see later). In my opinion he presents statements
that are wildly of mark regard to the principals that underline or constitute the
Faith. As an example, I posted a search that I made regarding the Baha'i courts
through the writings of The Guardian and The Master, to me they clearly show
the direction, which is that Institutions are above those courts and courts are an
arm of the institutions in future, but yet he still insist that independent court must
be instituted. On reforms like some other Talismanians suggest, ideas that I can
only say they are man made ideas and do not have resemblance to what institutions
must be like in our Faith. Reforms , YES, but change of structure that was set
in place by Master and then by The Guardian, NO.
On the topic of creation, In response to my post regarding the meaning of
the passage from the Tablet of Hikmat, he posted a section that came from
that encyclopedia. A number of people send messages of admiration but yet
failedto see that the content of the posting is an interpretation and not facts.
To me an encyclopedia must only present to the reader facts on the topic and
some explanation of the topic. However, those paragraphs to me were mixed
with interpretation. I have selected two section that I will go into in detail.
>But he says that the world is nevertheless originated by the creative power of
>God. That is, the world is created, but it has always been being created and so
>has never been non-existant. Creation is not a unique divine act that occurs
>once, at a particular point of time, establishing a historical dividing-line between
>nonbeing and being. It is rather a continuous divine activity.
In my opinion, Creation as we can perceive had a start. Abdu'l-Baha talks
about a definite pre-existence. He states that Creation was not in this form
it turn into this form as a result of Love of God. It may have existed as a
thought in the mind of God yet it did not had reality. Example of this can
be seen in human terms, we now can built an object in computer simulation,
then play with it in all forms of structural games, yet we know that that in
reality has no existence, and yet it has some kind of reality as we can perceive
it in the computer simulation. I think the Creation is metaphorically like a
tree, it started as a seed it is not in a form of a tree the Gardener (God) is
continuously protecting it and if needed cut its branches and unwanted parts,
that to me is continuity of creation that Baha'u'llah is talking about.
In addition, I think the use of a section of tablet of Hikmat in the form which
is used in the following paragraph and relating it to old metaphors is completely
wrong. We may have not solved the riddle yet, but I am absolutely sure that
the statement of Baha'u'llah has little relationship with what Juan relates it to.
One explanation of mine is that the active force and the recipient are both
spiritual concepts, their interaction produces ether, and as a consequence
Creation is formed in the form we know it. I attribute the active force to be
God Himself and the recipient the Holy Spirit, or the active force to be the
Word of God and the recipient the Love of God.
>This is the meaning of the phrase, "The world of existance came into being
>through the heat generated from the interaction between the active force and
>that which is its recipient" (Lawh-i-Hikmat, Eng., p. 140).
>In this way, from the combination of these attributes, the four elements
>of earth, air, fire and water came into being.
In conclusion, I would like to see that the authors of the encyclopedia would
reassess their aims and then see if they are correct or not. In my opinion an
encyclopedia is there to present to the reader just facts and not interpretation
of the author of the facts. I have not seen the complete encyclopedia, and can
not judge it, but yet I have seen one section that I do not agree with its contents
and its manner of presentation of facts to the reader.
With Baha'i Love and Fellowship,
Ahmad.
From Alethinos@aol.comThu Nov 2 11:41:10 1995
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 09:42:14 -0500
From: Alethinos@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: reforms and apologies
Dear Juan:
I have to wonder at this post. Can you point to anyone here, on this list,
who you are certain, beyond a reasonable doubt, that wishes to supress you? I
happen to agree with a good portion of the *reform* ideas you have - though I
disagree that they should be born out of such ill feelings as have been
expressed by a number of folks here. Instead of the term *reform* how about
*a significantly new level of maturity* which is what it would be - if done
in good spirit.
Nothing good will come from continually crying foul and charging all who
disagree with your *approach* to a problem as being anti-intellectual
hate-mongers. In doing this you yourself have participated in the *evil* you
claim to be a victim of - churning up the masses against those who simply
disagree with your approach. I personally know David House. Lord knows we
have our differences. But I know this: he would never assume he had the
authority nor the spiritual in-sight to simply call someone - esp. you, a
covenant-breaker. He has his short-comings, but arrogance of spirit is not
one of them.
Our goals are essentially the same - how do we move America forward, and
soon.
jim harrison
Alethinos@aol.com
From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comThu Nov 2 11:41:39 1995
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 95 08:41:01 -0500
From: Ahang Rabbani
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Baha'i election
[This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII]
Dear Don,
You wrote:
> Are there any statistics (in any country or worldwide) to
> indicate that during or immediately following periods of large
> expansion of a Baha'i community, there is more turnover of
> membership in National Spiritual Assembly?
I'll be interested in this statistics too. But meanwhile I can
think of a notable exception: India. This country, while for
the past 3 decades has been the most successful mass teaching
area, used to have very little turnover in its NSA membership.
In fact for a while, 7 members of the NSA came from the *same*
family and were practically re-elected year after year. There
are some that have hypothesized that one reason that the House of
Justice instituted "Baha'i State Councils" in India is to break
this pattern -- which it did with splendid success.
Again, in US, as our dear Terry has pointed out, in recent
decades the membership of NSA seems to have come mostly from
certain geographical areas and remain somewhat unaffected by the
mass teaching efforts in South.
So, based on this very limited data, one could draw the
conclusion that there is little correlation between mass teaching
and NSA membership, but possibly a stronger correlation between
decentralization and election turnover.
take care, ahang.
From cbuck@ccs.carleton.caThu Nov 2 11:49:42 1995
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 95 11:00:01 EST
From: Christopher Buck
To: "Stephen R. Friberg"
Cc: cbuck@ccs.carleton.ca, friberg@will.brl.ntt.jp, jrcole@umich.edu,
talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Science & Religion
Stephen Frieberg asked me for my contribution to the Science &
Religion thread.
I had resurrected this issue because my *editor* and colleague,
Dr. Peter Morgan (one of the founders and editorial board members of
the Association for Baha'i Studies/Journal of Baha'i Studies) is
writing a paper on the topic, possibly for the scholarly journal of
science and religion, *Zygon*, or for JBS.
Another paper on this topic is forthcoming in *Revisioning the
Sacred: New Perspectives on a Baha'i Theology*, in Studies in the Babi
and Baha'i Religions, vol. 9 [?] (Los Angeles: Kalimat Press, 1996 [?])
to wit: Anjam Khursheed, *The Spiritual Foundations of Science*
(Article #3).
Although I cannot now find the statement in the ABS Abstracts,
I am sure that recently I had encountered the expression of science as
*on a par with religion* written by a Baha'i of some prominence. Since
I cannot locate the text, consider it hearsay, or say you heard me say
it!
I do see the two (Science and religion) as occupying separate
but complementary realms. In this regard, I am like the English poet
William Blake, whose vision of future society was that it would be
comprised of two spheres: Science and Religion. Blake's name for
Science was *Allamanda*. Blake's name for Religion was *Bowlahoola*.
I think William Blake had a vaticinatory vision of
Baha'u'llah. No Blake specialist whom I've ever consulted has had the
foggiest idea as to how to gloss these two poetic clepes!
Now, I am interested in the issue of the ethical constraints
provided by Religion, and the intellectual constraints provided by
Science. In statements by the beloved Master which were previously
posted, it is fairly obvious to me that the faith has these
counterbalancing constraints in mind.
The difficulties I've been having with the discussions so far
is that this seems to be an all-or-nothing principle. I don't see it
that way. Everything a religion does or says ought to be constrained
by this Baha'i principle where relevant. But--here's the catch--only
if there is universal scientific consensus on any given fact with the
proviso that scientific knowledge has its epistemological limits.
Where we get into controversy is over the Baha'i Writings. I
have never seen a Baha'i take up this issue with respect to the Bible
of the Qur'an! So I can wholeheartedly agree with our esteemed
ex-astronomer Robert Stockman, who scandalously abandoned hard science
for soft science, in the way he glosses Baha'u'llah's statement: *Know
that every fixed star hath its own planets, and every planet its own
creatures, whose number no man can compute* (GWB 163).
Where the principle of the harmony of science and religion
seems to break down most in Baha'i discourse is when Baha'is start to
challenge the harmony of academic discourse (science) and religion.
Take, for instance, the objection to Juan's encyclopedia
article on the Tablet of Wisdom. Juan was criticized for injecting his
own interpretation into the article and not the *facts*. Juan is
vindicated, however, by Baha'u'llah in GWB, p. 162. *Hoc simplissimus est!*
-- Christopher Buck
From LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduThu Nov 2 11:50:44 1995
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 95 11:33:01 EWT
From: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: spreading marshmellows
Dear David, I think all of us need to calm down a bit - even me! Obviously,
you hit a button. I am very touchy about the Encyclopedia project and I think
I explained why. Thank you for not giving me some pious lecture. It was wise.
I am sorry if I was offensive. Life is full of traumas and tests and you have
endured one of the worst imaginable. It is true we need to remind ourselves of
that repeatedly to make sure that we are not adding additional burdens to
others.
It goes without saying, I suppose, that I agree with Juan's view that there has
to be room for true diversity of thought. As I have said before, religion
means different things to different people. Somehow we have to unify to the
extent of bringing peace to the world, without creating a bunch of deadeningly
dull robots all marching to the same beat in the process.
I thought it was interesting that Juan mentioned that he didn't care if there
were Baha'is who denounced Darwin and, right after, that some postings appeared,
including one from Stephen Friberg about the harmony of science and religion.
Stephen already knows that I am not as tolerant as Juan on the issue of
evolution. Just as we begin clearing one land mine, we end up facing another!
Stephen, I promise to be more chaste in my speech this time, if this touchy
matter comes up again.
Robert, I interpreted the words of Gibran, that Farzin so kindly posted,
completely differently than you did. Sigh! But things are quite lively
enough. We should wait for awhile before throwing pots and pans at each other
again, don't you think? Linda.
From TLCULHANE@aol.comThu Nov 2 13:03:44 1995
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 21:05:12 -0500
From: TLCULHANE@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: May 19 Letter pt.1
Dear Friends ,
Since we have been discussing Bahai Administration , reform and
elections and over several months made reference to the May 19 , 1994 letter
from the House of Justice I thought It may be useful to post it a couple of
paragraphs at a time for our consultation regarding these issues. This is
the letter Robert Henderson called the most significant communication from
Haifa to the Bahai 's of America since the Advent of Divine Justice .
To the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United
States
Dear Baha'i Friends,
We recall with much joy and deep gratitude to Baha'u'llah your
presence in the Holy Land only a short while ago during the month
of the Fast. Your urgent request to which we acceded by meeting
with all nine of your members in intensive consultations over a
period of three days - a new fact of history in itself-initiated
another phase in the evolution of your Assembly and reinforced the
bonds that bind the American Baha'i community to the World Center
of the Faith. Our hearts were touched by the candor, courage, and
sincerity with which you members presented you concerns, as well as
by the spirit of optimism you displayed despite the overwhelming
challenges and burdens which prompted your request for a meeting
with us.
Having considered the various points and queries you raised, we
are now able to respond to those which fall under the broad
categories of teaching, relations between your National Spiritual
Assembly and the Continental Counselors, and the functioning of
your Assembly.
*****
Regarding your "Vision in Action" initiative you reported
evidences of a tremendous response, some movement, and some
expansion; furthermore, the stimulus of the recent Atlanta
conference spearheaded by the Continental Counselors caused a
marked acceleration of activates. In sum, the friends have seldom
been more visibly active, but growth is slow; you feel the
community has for some time been on the threshold of a breakthrough
which remains elusive. The degeneration of society, as manifested
by the breakdown of moral standards and the alarming increase of
violence, you feel, is exerting a debilitating effect on the
individual believer. You yearn for a way to free the teaching
potential which to a large extent is locked up in the individual in
the face of these dreadful circumstances.
We feel that an over-anxiousness on your part about a
breakthrough and an undue worry over the state of society can be
counter-productive. While there are opportunities for greater
growth than is occurring, neither your Assembly not the friends
must burden themselves with feelings of failure at every
disappointment, for such feelings are self-fulfilling and can
easily cause stagnation in the expansion of the Cause. The tendency
toward frustration, sometimes induced by a desire for instant
gratification, must be resisted by an effort to gain deeper
appreciation of the divine process. In exhorting the individual
concerning the spiritual obligation resting upon him "to make of
the mandate of teaching, so vitally binding upon all, the all-
pervading concern of his life," Shoghi Effendi said that "every
believer of the Message of Baha'u'llah should consider it not only
an obligation but a privilege to scatter far and wide the seeds of
His Faith, and to rest content in the abiding knowledge that
whatever by the immediate response to that Message, and however
inadequate the vehicle that conveyed it, the power of its Author
will, as He sees fit, enable those seeds to germinate, and in
circumstances which no one can foresee enrich the harvest which the
labor of his followers will gather." You may rest assured that your
particularly blessed community will not be denied a triumphant
expansion if its members remain constant and confident in their
teaching activities.
_ to be continued _
T. C. --- I am struck by the the contrast in the first couple of
paragraphs with the reference to the " . . breakdown of moral standards .
exerting a debilitating effect on the individual believer .. " a concern
apparently expressed by the NSA and the response of the House that " . an
over anxiousness on your part . ." as counterproductive . I find in this a
lighten up message . You should be encouraging the friends not blaming them
for being no better than the world around them . I think this is echoed in
the remark about not burdening " .. them selves " nor the friends " with
feelings of failure . " This becomes a self -fullfilling prophecy and causes
the Cuase to stagnate . The House critiques immediate gratification and I
find in these paragraphs a call to a new kind of leadership . I would think
one which empowers and uplifts the believers. Asc i recall the "Vision of
Victory" meetings had a pretty good dose of the believers as the problem .
Any thoughts ?
Terry
From cbuck@ccs.carleton.caThu Nov 2 14:21:40 1995
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 95 12:29:57 EST
From: Christopher Buck
To: tarjuman-errors@umich.edu
Cc: Christopher Buck
Subject: Baha'u'llah's Sinaitic Topography
_________
QUESTION: Can a symbolic Sinaitic topography be drawn from Baha'i texts?
_________
Crimson Dome (qubbat al-hamra')
Crimson Light (al-nur al-hamra')
Crimson Hue (lawn al-hamra')
Crimson Hill (ard kathib al-hamra')
Divine Cloud (al-`ama')
Sinaitic Tree (shajarat al-tur)
Yellow Thread (al-khayt al-safra')
Secrets of the Fire (asrar-i nar)
= Tress of the Friend (zulf-i yar)
Vale of Divine Oneness (wadi al-ahadiyya)
Spot of Paradise (buq`at al-firdaws) [Right Side]
Ark of the Testimony (tabut al-shahada)
Land of Saffron (ard al-za`faran)
= Land of Realization (ard al-imda')
Plains of Flashing Light
Mount of Moses (tur-i Musa)
Divine Cupbearer (saqi)
Mount Qaf (Qaf)
Shore of Eternity (shati al-baqa')
Crimson Ark
Ocean of Grandeur (qulzum al-kubriya')
Midian of Origination (madyan al-insha')
Dome of Time (qubbat al-zaman)
Snow-White Spot (buq`at al-bayda)
Emerald Height of Fidelity
Crimson Spot (al-buqa' al-hamra') [`Akka]
I have endeavored to list these places in a hierarchy that
seems indicated in Baha'u'llah's Writings. Comments welcome!
-- Christopher Buck
From Member1700@aol.comThu Nov 2 14:23:06 1995
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 12:52:26 -0500
From: Member1700@aol.com
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Plural discourse
Well, Juan has certainly summarized my ideas concerning Baha'i discourse and
the need for pluralism much better than I could. But maybe I can add a brief
not based on my own experience.
No, I certainly DO NOT believe that God is going to establish justice on
earth by himself. Any justice which we find here will be created by human
agency.
No, I certainly do not believe in the Virgin Birth, and I am not going
to. That is, if you regard it (as the Catholics do) as the idea that Jesus
was conceived without human agency.
No, I do not believe that Baha'i institutions ever do anything
perfectly. Again, we are dealing with human agency--which is precisely why
continual consultation with and criticism from the (imperfect) Baha'i
community is vitally needed. Certainly the decisions of the House of Justice
are not perfect--who ever said that? Anyone who has worked for any time
with the House of Justice or its agencies knows that this simply is not true.
The fact that the House is infallible with regard to Baha'i legislation does
not mean that every letter sent out from Haifa is perfect.
Yes, some of them are "silly." Though I admit that this is probably a
poor choice of words. But, I can say (as most others who have regular
relations with Haifa can say) that I have received letters from the World
Center that were misinformed and contradictory on their face. Such matters
can usually be resolved amicably in a mutually respectful exchange of
correspondence.
The case of the encyclopedia is more troubling. I am also furious about
its being suppressed, not only because out NSA has spent some $750,000 on the
project so far, not only because good friends have been involved and have
sacrificed mightily to produce it, not only because I believe in it--but
because the message appears to be that academic discourse within the Baha'i
community will not be tolerated by the institutions of the Faith. This is
dire. It is a virtual rejection of recent Baha'i scholarship and certainly
an insult to the sincerity and integrity of Baha'i scholars. It has already
caused the resignation and disaffection of both Moojan Momen and John
Walbridge--who can hardly be accused of being wide-eyed radicals. What a
disaster!
So, the real question is: Believing these things as I do, do I have a
right to say them openly? Or is that right of expression to be suppressed?
Tony
From Member1700@aol.comThu Nov 2 14:24:43 1995
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 13:07:57 -0500
From: Member1700@aol.com
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Review
With regard to the call to end review--a call which has been made many times
here on Talisman, a call which I add my voice to, and a call which has been
made by the National Spiritual Assembly of the U.S. on at least two
occasions--it is odd to me that some Talismanians might find it unacceptable,
on the grounds that review was insitituted by the Guardian. Shoghi Effendi
specifically stated some seventy years ago that review was to be a temporary
requirement, a necessary evil as it were, which would be definitely
abolished. We are only discussing WHEN it should be abolished. And that
would seem to me to be perfectly legitimate.
Where does this idea come from that anything Shoghi Effendi established
as Baha'i administrative procedure cannot be changed? The beloved Guardian
repeatedly and emphatically stated the opposite. He indicated that all of
his statements concerning administrative matters--including election
procedures, among other things--were provisional, and would have to be taken
up anew by the House of Justice when it was to be elected, since the House
has the exclusive right of legislation.
There is virtually nothing about the Baha'i Administration that is fixed
is stone. Perhaps that Houses of Justice cannot have less than nine members
and that those members must be elected in some way. That's about all, folks.
Everything else is provisional.
This is not to say that there are not any number of Baha'i principles
that should be brought to bear on the functioning of Baha'i
Administration--like the principle of freedom of expression, for
instance--but these can be implemented and actualized in many different ways.
Tony
From dpeden@imul.comThu Nov 2 14:25:29 1995
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 95 21:16:23+030
From: Don Peden
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Reforms
So many suggestions. I thought that campaigning was not part of the Baha'i
elections?
At a community level, you know those in your community, and through prayer
and meditation, it is not too difficult to choose appropriate people to
SERVE on an elected institution.
If the community becomes too large for this to happen, the development of a
system of sub elections which allow the principles to be followed, rather
than trying to change the principles which have been laid out, is certainly
within the framework of possibility. There are no restrictions on terms of
office, or numbers serving on institutions, but the point which was made
about a global application and many assemblies not being in the same boat as
the American assembly is dead on. It all needs to converge at some point,
but we have a ways to go yet on that journey. The principles are there for
our guidance and safety, from the Manifestations, through their wills and
testaments, to their appointed spokesmen to the Divinely guided Universal
House of Justice. Question that, and you learn. Challenge that, and you
challenge the covenant. This is pretty clear. What is open to us is a
process of discovery of how to apply those principles in a creative,
positive manner, and the possibility of expanding our knowledge of "why"
over the upcoming centuries.
As a parent, when I hear my kids squabbling, I usually try to let them sort
out their own problems. If it is obviously going no where, then I step in
and help establish guidlines for consultation (ie., no kicking, biting or
scratching), help do some reflective listening to help sort out what the
real issues are, and then leave them to it again after they have sorted out
what the real issues are (two of them want to be king of the castle). It
sounds to me like the Universal House of Justice may be wanting to allow the
American Baha'i Community an opportunity to sort itself out...from all
sides. That sure looks like personal freedom to me. Although I have not
read the letters of correspondence between the Universal House of Justice
and the American Baha'i Community, and am certainly not party to the
correspondence between the institutions, I would hazard a guess based on
what experience I have had with the Universal House of Justice (small as it
is) that they have been doing some reflective listening of a much deeper
kind, and perhaps trying to establish principles for your use in finding
creative solutions. There is an ability on their part to look beyond the
words of individuals, and even institutions, and see into the intent; into
the very heart. And a huge capacity to allow for our mistakes, flailings
and gnashing of teeth in the process.
The ideal of the Baha'i Faith is not to fashion itself after the American
way of life, elections or even justice. It is to establish a totally new
set of principles to guide a global society, and the American way does not
do that any more than the Communist way did, or the Socialist, or any other
"ist" we can think of. This new system may have characteristics which look
familiar to us from whatever background we come from, and that is a happy
co-incidence. It allows us a familiar point of entry. It doesn't invite us
to recreate the faith in our own image. We need to travel past that
understanding.
The first condition for looking at this new system is to LET GO of all
acquired knowledge so that we can approach it with an open mind, and an open
heart. This includes what we have understood about the world we live in,
and it also includes any fixed ideas we might have about what the Faith is
or isn't. That doesn't mean we erase our memory, but it could suggest not
being so attached to our owndership of ideas. It is not always bad to
disassemble. It gives us free material and pieces to reconstruct a new
temple, a new idea or a new approach and way of seeing things. But you
don't break up the building blocks too small, or you are left with nothing
to build with. (The building blocks are the principles laid out for a world
order.) The pattern is loose enough for us to play with, and secure enough
to withstand any crazy arrangements we can throw at it. So, relax,
brainstorm, and keep the intent as pure as is possible for you.
From nima@unm.eduThu Nov 2 16:32:49 1995
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 13:24:23 -0700 (MST)
From: Sadra
To: Christopher Buck
Cc: tarjuman@umich.edu
Subject: Re: wAjid/misc.
Dear Chris--
> If so, and if the metaphysics are sufficiently resonant to
> warrant this claim, how would you characterize Baha'u'llah's
> development of Akbarian thought?
This is an interesting question that I hope one day to be able explore
in some depth, but let me say this: the Akbarian commentary tradition,
based on what I've been able to cull from a few of Chittick's remarks and
written statements, from Ibn `Arabi's chief disciple, Sadr ad-Din Qunawi,
to Jili, Kashani and the Shi'ite Akbarians - i.e. Haydar Amuli, Lahiji,
Ibn Abi Jumhur, etc. - moved progressively towards a more "philosophical"
kind of monism. I think it is this kind of interpretation that became,
and to some point wrongly too, representative of Ibn `Arabi and a bone of
contention with Sirhindi (who I think misrepresents Ibn `Arabi greatly),
Shaykh Ahmad Ahsai, the Bab and to some extent Baha'u'llah and
Abdu'l-Baha.
This is my position, and it could be open to serious criticism by those
already within Ibn `Arabi studies: Baha'u'llah, in a sense, restores the
theophanology of the Shaykh al-Akbar to its original intent. Let me leave
it at that for now. Let me suggest this, though. Read some of
the writings of the Shaykh and then go back and read `Abdu'l-Baha's
Tafsir Kuntu Kanzan Makhfiyyan, the last part of Baha'u'llah's
_Kitab-i Iqan_ where he's talking about the deification of man and the
hadith al-nawafil, and the Seventh Valley - speaking of which, someone
should seriously think about doing some kind of a study of Baha'u'llah's
notion of fana!
I have no idea if Ibn `Arabi would have recognized Baha'u'llah, nor do
I want to speculate. However, Ibn `Arabi's claim to the station of Khatm
al-Wilaya al-Muhammadiyya (The Seal of Muhammadan Sanctity) is obviously
problematic from a Baha'i point of view. On the other hand, has anybody
stopped to notice how the Bab's eschatological hierarchy, the Letters et
al, is exactly like the Sufi hierarchy of Saints as enumerated by
Tirmidhi, Niffari and Ibn `Arabi?
> Finally, do you think that Baha'u'llah's unity paradigm is
> simply the exteriorizing and universalization of Sufi/Illuminationist
> esoterism?
An unqualified, yes! However, as with all Prophet-mystic-visionary
figures, there's also a certain amount of modification involved too. The
only difference I see with the Babi-Baha'i paradigm is that there's a
claim to Prophetic Revelation and the institution of a new Dispensation
and Shariah, and that's pretty much the extent of it. Other than that, which
is a pretty big deal in itself, no doubt, the metaphysics and theophanology
remain the same. You got to understand, though, that where I'm coming
from is a Perennialist perspective and it does not matter to me that
Baha'u'llah is saying the same thing, albeit in different way sometimes,
as Ibn `Arabi, or Shankara, or Eckhart, or the Mahayanists, or the
Illuminationists, etc., are. The statement, "This is the Ancient
Faith of God, eternal in the past, eternal in the future," is, as far as
I'm concerned, Baha'u'llah's categorical testimony to the veracity of the
Religio Perennis, the quintessential religion of the heart, and the
universality of all religious forms - hence the overrriding relevance of
Ibn `Arabi to the Baha'i Faith.
Yours,
Nima
p.s. Chris, I'm really sorry it's taking me so long to critique your
*Sacralizing the Secular*. I've been really backlogged with other
committments such as work and the paper for Austin, preparing
applications for grad school, plus a paper I'm currently working on to
publish in the Journal of the Muhyiddin Ibn `Arabi Society on Divine
Transcendence in Ibn `Arabi. So, I'll try to do it by Austin, no later
than Xmas, if you can wait that long.
---
O God, cause us to see things as they really are - Hadith
From osborndo@pilot.msu.eduThu Nov 2 16:35:45 1995
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 16:18:17 -0500 (EST)
From: Donald Zhang Osborn
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Reforms, Elections, Discussion
Friends, Allah'u'abha!
This is to respond to three messages: Rick's message regarding
use of the consultative method for approaching the issues of election
reform etc., and Ahang and Marguerite's responses to my questions
about the possible effects of 1) community expansion and 2)
decentralization on membership of NSAs. I also pose a number of
additional questions.
First, Rick raises an interesting point about a consultative
approach to the thread on reforms:
>At this point, we are not all in agreement about the true nature
>of the problems, and we've shown some disagreement in the past
>regarding the principles involved.
>
>I can't speak for other people, but I suspect that the ill feelings
>which stem from the most recent discussion about reforms are
>directly related to the fact that a number of folks have jumped the
>consultative gun, as it were. ...
Is the list purpose is to consult on a particular problem(s) or
serve as a forum for dialogue? I believe a similar question came up
in another Baha'i list (I forget now which, but it may have been
Bahai-discuss) some time ago, and the conclusion was that a large list
could not realistically hope to serve the purpose of consultation in
its truest sense. I like to think that it is possible on a smaller
list (or among a limited number of people who mail to each other),*
but doubt that consultation can be accomplished on Talisman.
In any event, even if we are not actually "consulting," it seems
that the idea of "[identifying] a problem fully and adequately" before
proceeding to possible solutions is one common to both consultation
and other forms of dialogue. Indeed, in academic research the first
step is to clearly identify the problem (as my advisor keeps reminding
me).
It was in this vein, although without Rick's clearer vision of
process, that I posed my questions. Although as a part-time student
of organizations I found discussion of new structures quite
interesting, I also found myself asking "IF the relatively low rate of
change of membership in the NSA-US is a problem, shouldn't we first
answer questions about whether other processes (e.g., significant
increase in size of the community) or reforms already underway (e.g.,
decentralization) might resolve that problem before we go too far with
discussion of structural reforms?"
I am not sure I agree that longevity of service on the NSA is a
problem (after all, as Marguerite reminds us, they have been elected
indirectly by us).** My thought actually was that if community growth
and/or decentralization have been shown to lead to changes in
membership in NSAs, then we might obviate more possibly dispiriting
discussion as to whether the NSA-US's low member turnover is a problem
and achieve some unity around which ever one or both. Whether or not
this is a talismanially correct [emoticon here] motive, I think we
need more to seek broad common ground even as we pose questions and
express agreement or disagreement.
Ahang brings interesting information from the case of India to
consideration of both of questions I posed, and concludes:
>So, based on this very limited data, one could draw the
>conclusion that there is little correlation between mass teaching
>and NSA membership, but possibly a stronger correlation between
>decentralization and election turnover.
Does the experience of any other country tend to support this
conclusion (ideally, one would hope for some data on all)? Also,
might there be significant differences between types of
decentralization (elected Baha'i Councils and appointed Regional
Committees?).
Marguerite asks (presumably in response to my parenthetical question):
>>[BTW (and tangentially) why are some people "opposed" to mass
>>teaching, in Houston or elsewhere? It's not my preferred approach
>>to teaching, but I see an important place for it in the Baha'i
>>community.]
>
>What ever happened to good old fashion deepening the new believer
>after their declaration? Now days, if someone signs the card, they
>are left to their own.... and not nurtured into the community and
>DEEPENED.
Teaching and consolidation indeed go together. Perhaps we have
all seen instances where deepening of individual declarants has been
neglected (I have), so how can we expect to properly nurture & deepen
large numbers of new believers? Perhaps with systematized deepening
classes, "mentor"/"buddy" arrangements, or other approaches. In some
ways it's easier to deal with several new Baha'is than just one or two
- a large number demands attention, while the individual declarant
sometimes (sadly and inexcusably) is overlooked, and, interestingly,
sometimes a "cohort" of new believers develops bonds & ties (and a
support system) of their own to complement what the community is
giving them.
In response to my second question (reproduced below) Marguerite
responds:
>>2. Is it possible that decentralization reforms already underway in
>>the US (to create regional councils) might help create a larger pool
>>of experienced & visible people with a real possibility of being
>>elected to the NSA? What has been the effect in this regard of
>>similar decentralization (whether involving regional committees or
>>elected state/province level assemblies as in India)?
>
>I am mad as a hornet regarding this statement, and the folks elected
>to the NSA were elected by the folks you elect as your delegates at
>convention last year. .............................................
Thank you for your frank reaction. I'm not sure exactly which
part of the above you disagree with, but let me try to clarify my
intent, in case that did not come across clearly in my all to often
sloppy use of language. There has been some discussion on this list
as to the mathematical possibility of significant change in membership
on the NSA-US, and one point raised was that the delegates to the
National Convention do not all know a large number of Baha'is outside
of the current NSA membership, so that all of them will probably vote
for one or more of the current NSA members, and no one outside that
highly visible group is likely to receive many votes. Accepting this
argument as I understand it, for the sake of discussion, I conjectured
that regional bodies created in the current decentralization process
would help to 1) raise many capable Baha'is to more visibility in the
community (and hence among potential delegates), and 2) give more
people experience to bring to other administrative positions (such as
the NSA). By visible I mean more than just well-known - service on a
regional committee (or State Baha'i Council) presumably puts one in a
position where others (esp. delegates) can better evaluate one's
character and spiritual qualities.
>..................... I have seen time and time again at convention
>a silent way of operation where any new believer ask the question,
>"What did we just do, and why are we here?" Us older Bahai's just do
>every thing by rote...
Perhaps we also need ways of making district convention a more
welcoming process. Also, have any conventions ever split up into
smaller groups during part of the consultation process in order to
elicit more input from more people? And has anyone noticed a
difference in quality of district convention when there are a large
number of new believers present?
>...................................................... I just read a
>transcription of Peter Khan's talk... That needs to be discussed here
>on Talisman. And taken to heart... and maybe a lesson or two may be
>learned.
Good point. I conclude with a brief passage from Dr. Khan's talk
which deals with the 3rd of 3 mental tests which he sees facing the
Baha'i community - how we deal with prevailing attitudes of suspicion
and distrust towards authorities in the old world order:
"The great mental test we face as believers is the test that we may,
unconsciously and inadvertently, transfer those attitudes from the
larger society which is manifestly in decline into the Baha'i
administrative system."
As we consider the weighty questions of the functioning and
administration of the Baha'i community here on Talisman, we sometimes
tread perilously close to this territory (for instance, it does us no
good to publicly impugn the motives of individuals serving the
community in any capacity).
Hope these ideas & clarifications merit the space they have taken
up. My thanks to anyone who actually reads them. [emoticon here]
Don Osborn osborndo@pilot.msu.edu
* This was in part the original intent of the Interlang list -
consultation on several key aspects of the international auxiliary
language.
** In an earlier posting regarding Women on the Universal House of
Justice, I responded to David's remark on the NSA:
>>........................ Although it is a controversial body in some
>>respects, no one complains because two members are married to each
>>other, or because one member is married to another member's mother.
>
>Nor should they. ..............
My intent here was similar - since we elected them (albeit
indirectly), we should not complain. In light of recent discussion of
fundamentalism, etc., I thought I should also clarify that this was
not to mean that there should be no disagreement with an NSA (they
are, after all, not infallible).
From LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduThu Nov 2 23:31:19 1995
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 95 16:40:32 EWT
From: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Talismanian preachers
I am trying to refrain from making any truly hostile comments. I really am.
And after reading some of the messages this afternoon, believe me, it is a real
trial for me.
Just please, if you have a tendency to preach - just can't resist the
temptation - do me a favor. Don't direct it at me. I really don't take it
well. Perhaps all of you who are just so happy with the way things are and
have never had a complaint in your lives would like to ghere - far away fromfar
away from me. Thanks. Mf+ Linda ]
From mfoster@tyrell.netThu Nov 2 23:32:21 1995
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 15:48:15 -0600 (CST)
From: "Mark A. Foster"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Science and Religion
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Stephen R. Friberg wrote to talisman@indiana.edu:
F >Mark Foster, whose postings I always read thoroughly, has a very
F >interesting take on science and religion. Even though I agree
F >with much of what he has to say, I don't think he captures what
F >scientists think science to be. I would love for further debate
F >on these topics.
Hi, Steve -
Well, I agree with you. My view of science is certainly not one
which is particularly mainstream in my own field of sociology. Actually,
I cannot think of any contemporary philosophy of social science (other
than, perhaps, Pitirim Sorokin's integralism which has, regretably IMO,
always remained on the margins of the sociology of knowledge) which
resembles the philosophy of science I have been developing (based, to
some extent, on the work of the late Marian Lippitt).
However, that is precisely my point. The Baha'i teachings provide
us with an overall, God's-eye, viewpoint on science. They challenge us
to question our assumptions about reality and reframe for us the
meanings of so many terms (such as "new world order" - which is, these
days, often linked with the views of the Trilateral Commission or,
perhaps, the Club of Rome, the World Federalists, Planetary Citizens,
and the old Institute for World Order - now the World Policy Institute).
I have serious reservations about, for whatever good they may
contain, whether logical empiricism, pragmatism (evidenced in Chicago
sociologist George Herbert Mead's social behaviorism), dialectical
materialism, or the anti-metaphysical view of science which developed
during the Enlightenment (systematized by sociological founder Auguste
Comte as positivism) allow us to comprehend `Abdu'l-Baha's "divine
philosophy" of science. Rather, I think it is preferable that we take
the language used by the Central Figures of the Faith, the Guardian, and
the Universal House of Justice as a paradigm (in the sense of a set of
metatheoretical assumptions), or structure, for both divine and material
scientific investigation.
Finally, in response to Philip Belove's message: I would distinguish
between religion and divine Revelation. The religion of God, IMHO, is
one expression of progressive Revelation. The material sciences, the
arts, and philosophy are others.
With loving greetings,
Mark
From mfoster@tyrell.netThu Nov 2 23:33:33 1995
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 15:48:04 -0600 (CST)
From: "Mark A. Foster"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Creation & Encyclopedia
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Ahmad Aniss wrote to talisman@indiana.edu:
A>In my opinion, Creation as we can perceive had a start. Abdu'l-Baha
A>talks about a definite pre-existence.
Ahmad,
IMHO, pre-existence, in this context, primarily refers to a
pre-existence of cause and not of time. IOW, in each age, through the
power released by divine Revelation, all things are recreated. As I see
it, re-creation is identical with creation. It is a process - the
outward sign of which is sociocultural and biological evolution.
Blessings,
Mark
From think@ucla.eduThu Nov 2 23:33:56 1995
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 14:26:01 -0800 (PST)
From: SAFA SADEGHPOUR
To: "Mark A. Foster"
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Creation & Encyclopedia
On Thu, 2 Nov 1995, Mark A. Foster wrote:
> To: talisman@indiana.edu
>
> Ahmad Aniss wrote to talisman@indiana.edu:
>
> A>In my opinion, Creation as we can perceive had a start. Abdu'l-Baha
> A>talks about a definite pre-existence.
>
> Ahmad,
>
> IMHO, pre-existence, in this context, primarily refers to a
> pre-existence of cause and not of time. IOW, in each age, through the
> power released by divine Revelation, all things are recreated. As I see
> it, re-creation is identical with creation. It is a process - the
> outward sign of which is sociocultural and biological evolution.
Hmmm, how is it a biological evolution? Do you have evidence to support
this idea? I would really be interested.
Take care.
Safa
>
> Blessings,
>
> Mark
>
>
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzThu Nov 2 23:36:20 1995
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 11:39:04 +1300 (NZDT)
From: Robert Johnston
To: Juan R Cole , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: reforms and apologies
Quanta, our poetic commentatreux, our charming and exotic chantreuse [sp!],
wrote:
For, only a fraction of time,
and in limited locale,
we form our perceptions
of a being who is
vast as the Universe
of space and time.
Which reflects what I was thinking this morning, earlier. Vulgar that I
am, I was thinking of burps [or something even less refined] competing
against thunder, and meeting annihilation. I was thinking of how
relatively indifferent I am to the 'normal' range of human sentiments. [I
have seen too many people -- myself included -- becoming unbalanced by
unrealistic desires, including some kind of temporal immortality.] I was
thinking of Chronos [?] swallowing humanity... I was thinking of the
woman who wrote to me and indigantly said that I had offended Bud. [I
wrote back, telling her that it was OK by me if she looked after Bud, and
so on...]
I was thinking that I should tell you all that anyone who knows me will
tell you without hesitation that I am not a saint. [Not to put too fine a
point on it]. If I were in your community of one hundred Baha'is of good
standing I would be one of those who got no votes [out of 900] in any
election. [I would probably be a little indignant that a three-legged dog,
just visiting the room for the afternoon, got three votes, and a gentleman
who both left the Faith 10 years ago, and is dead anyway, got one. And I
would give my "friends" black looks. And so on.] I was thinking that,
despite my unsanctified and lowly station, however, I do have complete
belief that human security is absolutely tied to the Covenant of God, and
that anyone's security is essentially conditioned only by their relation to
the Covenant.
I was thinking too that Juan's positions, as expressed in his letters of
the past couple of days, have presented a challenge to the Covenant. [I
believe that this should be made quite clear.] Not that Juan should be
considered a Covenant breaker. Not at all. A Covenant breaker is named as
such by the House. And not, also, that all Juan's positions present a
challenge to the Covenant. And, further, not that I too do not challenge
the Covenant in my own ways. But, the importance of Juan's challenge is
tthat it is public, open, unequivocal. The problem is not -- I think -- the
holder of the position, but the position itself. The position I find
utterly distasteful. Which I have already stated. And I now see that this
same line of equivocation with the Covenant has continued today, though it
is toned down a little. For instance
And I am afraid that the Baha'i
>institutions have demystified themselves for me. I recognize that the
>NSA and the Universal House of Justice are the ultimate authorities and
>their rulings are the law. I just don't think much of some of their
>rulings, and want to see them overturned by future, wiser successors.
Juan has also written today about the role of intellectuals in the Baha'i
commmunity. I think the posture he adopts is one of unacceptable elitism.
His assumption that spiritual superiority is necessarily tied to scholarly
attainment, particularly in the liberal arts, is entirely fanciful and
without foundation in reality.
Again, he writes:
>Many on Talisman are intellectuals who have been suppressed over and over
>again all their lives, and we're just not putting up with it any longer.
Oh dear. So what is he and his friends going to do? [If Talisman is
really only a vehicle for subverting the authority of the institutions,
then I wouldn't be here. No I wouldn't. Not at all. Oh no.] Any good
parent will tell you Juan that words without actions are a waste of time.
So: here's my suggestion, expressed rather commonly: put up or shut up.
Also: Juan [and Tony] argues for plurality of discourse, but, as I see it,
Juan really only perceives two discourses -- his. and that of simpletons.
Reality check required here, Juan.
I wish to share a secret with Juan. It is a simpleton's secret, but at
least he won't be able to say he has not been told. [Saman: as you crossed
swords with me yesterday, I now co-opt you as a witness to this
event!] The secret is this: God compensates His servants many times over
for losses suffered in His path. If Juan and his friends have been wronged
[in whatever way: I presume nothing here, and am not at all suggesting
that the House has been mistaken in anything], then, then they should, I
believe, cling to this thought, instead of taking a torch to the
Institutions, and stirring up trouble... Only loss can accrue from from
engaging in such strife. Further, there are "proper" ways of consulting
about troubling issues.
I shall not comment on Tony's letter, as anything that I might say in
relation to it, has already been said here.
And to Linda:
Yes, I accept entirely the thought that in the Yugoslavia of our
relationship it would be great if the kitchenware were not converted into
missles... ;-} ... though I do see a very tempting cream cake on the bench
that is begging to be tossed, just for the slapstick of it all.
Robert.
From margreet@margreet.seanet.comThu Nov 2 23:38:20 1995
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 14:45:59 -0800
From: "Marguerite K. Gipson"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Various stuff...
Hello.. Ok It takes me a while to come up to speed, but I have just read I
do not care to count numerous messages, and I care not about who said what.
I am just going to comment about several...
One: If the Carolina project was someway stopped to prevent a changeover in
at the National level, would it not have already happened? They have 26
delegates to the National Convention. What really happened was that the
deepening and consolidation process was not in place fast enough and a
definate lack of personal to provide that necessary piece... think about
it. The end result was not thought out clear. Who would of thought that by
teaching, you could have MASS ENROLLMENTS? Now we now... and there are
Bahais still teaching and finding other Bahais who have been since day one
in the Carolinas, and still deeply in love with the Writings and Baha'u'llah.
Two. This was taken from Peter Khan's talk in Wilmette.....
Peter Khan stated in Wilmette:
"My concern and what I see to be a very dangerous and very pressing mental
test to the Baha'is in the western countries as well as other parts of the
world. It's that the believers in these countries live in a society which
has developed certain attitudes about social organizations and institutions.
These attitudes are firstly that people are suspicious and distrustful of
their government and its bureaucracy. They have found through bitter
experience that their governmental leaders have become corrupt, that the
bureaucracy of their social organization suffocates them, restricts their
freedom, and, in many ways, is a source of their suffering.
People today do not have a sense of community. They have learned, at bitter
cost, not to trust each other, not to trust those who appear honest and
upright and of good character because, so often, they have been found to be
opposite. They have, therefore, developed a sense of extreme individualism,
of worship of unfettered personal freedom. People in our society
increasingly feel a sense of powerlessness in relation to their authorities.
They find themselves insignificant, unable to change the system, doomed to
suffer its adverse and oppressive circumstances and consequences. Therefore,
they often resort to radical actions outside the system. They become
terrorists. They become anarchists. They seek the overthrow of the system.
They seek its destruction. They say, often with a certain justification,
anything is better than what we've got. These are increasingly the attitudes
of the society around us. They were foreshadowed by Baha'u'llah in His
Tablets to the kings and religious leaders. Shoghi Effendi described in
detail the evolution of society during, what he called, this "age of critical
transition." It is now upon us. People in our society have developed those
attitudes and, if we were to question those people, they would offer us ample
justification for the attitudes which they display.
The great mental test we face as believers is the test that we may,
unconsciously and inadvertently, transfer those attitudes from the larger
society which is manifestly in decline into the Baha'i administrative system.
That is our test. Because if we bring those attitudes in with us, without
even realizing it, we will disrupt and damage the administrative system
ordained by Baha'u'llah. Shoghi Effendi wrote on this theme some years ago.
He said, "our present generation, mainly due to the corruptions that have
been identified with organizations, seems to stand against any institution.
Religion as an institution is denounced. Government as an institution is
denounced. Even marriage as an institution is denounced. We Baha'is should
not be blinded by such prevalent notions. If such were the case, all the
Divine Manifestations would not of invariably appointed someone to succeed
Them. Undoubtedly, corruptions did enter those institutions but these
corruptions were not due to the nature of the institutions, but to the lack
of proper directions as to their powers and nature of their perpetuation.""
... and he continues......
We need to develop new attitudes. We need to develop a far deeper
understanding of the Covenants of Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha. It is not
enough to sign the card to say "I believe there is a Covenant. There are
these people around with a variety of titles. Whatever they are I accept
them. Fine, that's it." This is not enough friends. We will be swept away
because there are dangerous forces in our society. There are insidious
influences. We have to protect ourselves now and our protection is the
deepening in the Covenant. Let me read to you a very, very difficult and
very challenging paragraph from the Guardian. In this paragraph which I read
to you the Guardian makes statements which I would never dare to say. I read
them because it is the Guardian. I am safe. You can't attack me for reading
them. The Guardian is writing. I would never have the courage to stand
before and make the kind of statements I am going to read to you now. Shoghi
Effendi says: ". . . that the believers need to be deepened in their
knowledge and appreciation of the Covenants of both Baha'u'llah and
'Abdu'l-Baha. This is the stronghold of the Faith of every Baha'i, and that
which enables him to withstand every test and the attacks of the enemies
outside the Faith." So far it's not too bad. I would have said that. Now
comes the difficult part.
"This is the stronghold of the Faith of every Baha'i, and that which enables
him to withstand every test and the attacks of the enemies outside the Faith
and the far more dangerous, insidious, lukewarm people inside the Faith who
have no real attachment to the Covenant, and consequently uphold the
intellectual aspect of the teachings while at the same time undermining the
spiritual foundation upon which the whole Cause of God rests."
Now do you understand why I said I would not have had the courage to make
these remarks. It is simply the words of the Guardian telling us that only
through deepening in the Covenant will we withstand not only the attacks of
people outside the Faith but what he describes as the "far more dangerous"
attacks, the insidious attacks of those he describes as "lukewarm people
inside the Faith who have no real attachment" to the Cause, uphold the
intellectual aspect of the teachings while undermining its spiritual
foundation.
Friends, we do not have the right to judge. As individuals we cannot judge.
I cannot say this person is one of those lukewarm people who upholds the
intellectual, undermines the spiritual. I have no right to make such a
statement. You cannot make that statement about me or about anybody else in
this room or in this country. We are not here to categorize or to judge.
But Shoghi Effendi tells us that the Baha'i community includes those
elements. We are not here to engage in adversarial actions against those we
categorize in that way. We are here to make ourselves spiritually healthy
and strong so that whoever they are, wherever they are, we are not to judge,
we will be immune to their dangerous, insidious influence.
So our task is not to engage in witch hunts. Not to go searching and to put
labels to this one and that one, the other. Our task is to do exactly as
Shoghi Effendi said. To deepen ourselves in the Covenant so we will be
spiritually strong and healthy and withstand these adverse attitudes towards
the institutions of the Faith.
We need also in dealing with this test, the test of acquiring a new attitude
to our social organizations and institutions, we need to rethink what is
criticism. There is criticism and there is criticism. There are passages
in the Writings which refer to criticism as being an appropriate measure, an
appropriate element of Baha'i consultative and community practice and nobody
is disagreeing with that. But what we also have in our Writings are
references to the extremely dangerous character of what the Guardian refers
to as "vicious and negative" criticism. "Criticism and discussions of a
negative character, which may result in undermining the authority of the
Assembly as a body should be strictly avoided." And I think most people are
smart enough to know what is the difference. They are also smart enough to
find ways of worming around whatever rule you lay down. Because it is a
question of attitude rather than a question of mere words of speech. We look
towards a constructive developmental Baha'i community which doesn't pretend
it is immune from any means of further development and refinement of its
practices and conduct but which is free from what the Guardian refers to as
criticism of a negative nature which has the effect of undermining the
authority of the Assembly."" end of Peter Khan's section...
If we have the knowledge to greater develop our communities, shouldn't we be
doing that? If we have a greater knowledge of making our institutions work
the way they are suppose to work and more effectively, shouldn't we be
doing that? Consultation plays a big role in all this. From my
understanding, it is the community who runs the community, not the LSA who
decides what to do... The LSA guide and nurture what the community wants,
and helps foster the development of the community. When I was elected
Secretary to our LSA back a few years, my first thought was how can I fill
those shoes??? Our secretary of 10 years was leaving town... and she was
great at what she did.
She had 10 years to perfect the "secretary role". Here I was, a newbee to
the LSA, and just about to start the swim.... and I drown the first 2
months, but thru love and lots of understanding and classes by my LSA, I was
able to finish out the year, and then I moved, LOL LOL and feel good about
what was accomplished. I do not think for one minute that any of us all
say, Well you know, I would love to be on the LSA, cause I am good at that.
And thirdly, Why on earth would anyone in their right mind, or left mind
for that matter WANT to be on the National Spiritual Assembly. Talk about
an Excedrin Headache. Are you a glutton for punishment, and a spiritual
one at that??? If the chances are like 1 zillion to one, that you will be
elected here in the states, [Paradigm change] move to somewhere to lower
your chances to your benefit.... like to Martinique, or some small country....
Back in 1972, I had to meet with the NSA of Ecuador. Wow, I was shaking
too. I had no clue as to what to expect. I had love, respect and obedience
for the NSA of the US, and this was high stuff to meet with an NSA. Any
NSA. All that happened was that we discuss the teaching projects in one of
the Cities, and about the Radio Station locations, since it was not found yet.
When I was on Pilgrimmage back in 1969 and sleeping in the Pilgrim House...
on the right there from the front door, I ask Amos Gibson how he got elected
to the Universal House of Justice. All he said was, "It was God's Choice.
God chose me to serve." He did not feel like he had that ability. I patted
him on the back and told him he was doing a great job. ( What did a 14 year
old kid know anyway.) He had tears in his eyes. I will always remember.
Enuf from me:
Margreet
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzThu Nov 2 23:38:53 1995
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 12:29:21 +1300 (NZDT)
From: Robert Johnston
To: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: opera and angelrats
Dear Linda,
I am told that I am tone deaf, but maybe in the next world we
will both sing opera.
Re:
>Robert, I interpreted the words of Gibran, that Farzin so kindly posted,
>completely differently than you did.
I was thinking of the first letter that Farzin posted to Talisman on his
return. But it may not have been Farzin. The letter said that the
suffering of the innocent enabled the survival of humanity. I was
suggesting (yesterday) that the departure of innocent souls from Talisman
would prophesy the death of the list. Kinda like angelrats and sinking
cyberships, I suppose. Heard the swish of the scythe yesterday.
Have a pavarotti good evening,
Robert.
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzThu Nov 2 23:39:34 1995
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 13:16:09 +1300 (NZDT)
From: Robert Johnston
To: Member1700@aol.com, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: the sky is tangerine.
So:
I wonder what Tony hopes to gain by constantly returning to the subject of
the encyclopaedia. There are only so many times that Talismanians need to
be told that the sky is tangerine.
But I do have a thought. Tony wrote:
NSA has spent some $750,000 on the >project so far,
My thought is this. Boy, I wish I had been able to get some of that money
to research subjects dear to my heart. If I were a scholar worth my salt,
I wouldn't allow the fruits of my research to not be published in some
form, sooner or later.
Additionally, I'd like to say this. These people were employees, as I
understand it. Their time and effort was paid for. No one shanghied them.
They're still alive and well. No heads were cut off. No one was shot
dead. No one was whipped. No one was imprisoned. No one was exiled. No
one was poisoned. John seems happy doing what he's doing now. If their
employers could no longer keep them on, and could find no use for their
product, then, so long as the employer has met the terms and conditions of
contractual arrangements, I don't see that it as anything less than extreme
rudeness, ingratitude, disloyalty and churlish lack of style [to boot] to
engage in the loud and "old world" complaining that we have witnessed over
this whole matter. [And even if the terms of the contract weren't met,
then it is hardly a matter that should be discussed in a public forum].
Enough's enough Tony, dear fellow.
Try tai chi, ;-}
Robert.
From 72110.2126@compuserve.comThu Nov 2 23:46:53 1995
Date: 02 Nov 95 20:11:00 EST
From: David Langness <72110.2126@compuserve.com>
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Election Errata, Etc.
Dear Talismanians,
In response to marvelously accurate and observant messages from the many
fine minds here, I'll try to answer a few questions about the elections
data I recently posted and pose a few, as well.
Sheila: Yes, Peter Khan was most certainly re-elected in 1993, and two
XX's should be added in that column.
I can't remember who sent this one (probably one of those nefarious
David cabalists) but yes, it is by-election, not bi-election. Of course,
should the ruling about women serving on the Universal House of Justice
somehow change in the future, we might want to reserve a spelling change.
One wag suggested that both spellings were fine, as long as we never got
to the point where it was a buy-election.
Ahang: Your careful scholarship sets a wonderful, but difficult to
emulate example. Yes, the first US/Canada NSA was elected in 1925, as
far as my memory works, but perhaps we ought to check the first edition
of Baha'i World and make sure... And yes, Mag Carney was elected in 1983,
then posted to Haifa in May with the appointment of the Counselors letter
from the House. But no, I don't think we ought to take Allen Ward's name
off the list, because it is a list of those *elected* rather than a list
of those who *served.* Although the episode was confusing and painful for
many in the community at the time, it remains a part of American Baha'i
history.
Now, for some other notes -- first, on retirement age. Seventy works for
me, since, as Ahang has pointed out, it worked in the Aqdas. If you don't
have to fast, you shouldn't have to go to days-long NSA or UHJ meetings.
On the other hand, perhaps we ought to leave it to the institutions as to
whether or not 70 would be mandatory. I have served on Assemblies where
85-year olds who were sharp as tacks helped us enormously, and on one
where a man in his early seventies could not hear, stay awake or meaning-
fully contribute in any significant way.
Second, on regional distribution of voting patterns, and the question about
mass teaching or decentralization affecting same: No significant immediate
changes in national bodies have taken place, as far as I know, because of
large enrollments in a given area. But certainly there are now "reserved"
or at least protected seats on our US NSA for regions of the country where
most Baha'is reside. California, with 26 of 171 delegates, now holds
four "favorite son/daughter" seats, if you don't count Firuz, who just
moved to SoCal. (Welcome!) South Carolina, where both Mag and Alberta
Deas hail from, certainly holds at least one seat, if you don't count
Jack McCants, and who couldn't...
So certainly mass teaching alters voting patterns over the long term,
because of the population-based rating of delegate allocation system we
currently use. If we did go to a more decentralized, regional system
of sub-assemblies or tertiary electors like the esteemed Steve Scholl
suggests, we would undoubtedly change those patterns over time, as well.
Love,
David
From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comThu Nov 2 23:47:38 1995
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 95 18:42:01 -0500
From: Ahang Rabbani
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: "insidious, lukewarm people"
[This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII]
With great interest, I read Marguerite Gipson's post where she
quotes from a talk give by Peter Khan in Wilmette. In a portion
of this talk, Dr. Khan states:
> Shoghi Effendi says: ". . . that the believers need to be
> deepened in their knowledge and appreciation of the Covenants
> of both Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha. This is the stronghold
> of the Faith of every Baha'i, and that which enables him to
> withstand every test and the attacks of the enemies outside the
> Faith." ... "This is the stronghold of the Faith of every
> Baha'i, and that which enables him to withstand every test and
> the attacks of the enemies outside the Faith and the far more
> dangerous, insidious, lukewarm people inside the Faith who have
> no real attachment to the Covenant, and consequently uphold the
> intellectual aspect of the teachings while at the same time
> undermining the spiritual foundation upon which the whole Cause
> of God rests."
Extremely powerful statement. Does anyone know in what instance
this letter was written. As I recall, its not Shoghi Effendi
speaking but rather its a letter *on behalf* the Guardian. That
is, the words may well be those of a secretary or could have been
dictated by the beloved Guardian. I'm very interested to know
the circumstances which led to this response.
Also, I think Peter Khan left off the real purpose of this
letter. It goes one to urge this family (as I recall it was
addressed to a family) to help educate the friends in the Will
and Testament of `Abdu'l-Baha. I think this was the real point
of the letter. Could someone verify this?
Also, does anyone know of other letters of the Guardian where he
urges study of the Master's Will and Testament? I'll be grateful
for references.
Appreciatively, ahang.
From M.C.Day@massey.ac.nzThu Nov 2 23:47:55 1995
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 14:36:52 GMT=1200
From: Mary Day
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: mental illness
Dear Bud,
A couple of days ago I wrote a little something about being frightened
of mental illness and you haven't yet responded. Being afflicted with
an overdose of motherliness I am now worried about you. I hope you
are OK.
I have been thinking a lot about the points you have raised and my
response to them and realise that I haven't expressed my self well on
this question. For me, lLke a lot of things that happen within Bahai
communities it is not the illness or the person that is the problem it
is how we as a community handle it. I have often observed a fear in
the Bahai community of allowing the outside world to see the problems
we face, not just with mental illness but all sorts of things,
divorce, substance abuse, misbehaving children, you name it we have
got it, so we adopt a 'keep it in the family' attitude. When a stranger
approaches we try desperatley to keep our secrets and get pretty
annoyed with the individuals we believe to be responsible for the
problem. We should know enough by now about the dangerous situations
that develop in families and groups when this kind of secrecy
develops and is encouraged and know to avoid it.
What will non Bahais think when they see we are not that great? Well
I don't think this is what it is about at all. The problem is not
that we have problems. Of course we do, there is no way we could not
have them. The problem is how do we cope with them and support those
suffering and educate ourselves etc etc.
So when I talk about mental illness and people being frightened of
it and sometimes of the ill person, for me it is not the illness or
the sick person that is the problem. They are neither the cause nor
the solution. It is no solution to have the sick person tucked away
out of sight where nobody can see. Nor is it a solution to pretend
the person is not ill or that there is no difficulty in dealing with
them. It is how we struggle together to face up to the problems we have
and to find ways to cope and heal that is the central issue.
I hope this makes some sort of sense to you Bud.
Mary
From JWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduThu Nov 2 23:48:49 1995
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 95 20:52:06 EWT
From: JWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Observations
A historical note: I was in South Carolina at the beginning of 1971 at
the tail-end of the mass teaching campaign there, and then immediately
thereafter spent some time with Firuz Kazemzadeh, who even in those
distant days was on the American NSA. At the time he commented that
if anybody had a way to bring a million new people into the Faith, the
NSA would be very grateful if he would keep it to himself. The point
was that the National Center was collapsing under the weight of new
declarations and that there were no resources for deepening new
believers. He had a point.
Re the encyclopedia: Robert Johnston commented that
"These people were employees, as I
understand it. Their time and effort was paid for. No one shanghied them.
They're still alive and well. No heads were cut off. No one was shot
dead. No one was whipped. No one was imprisoned. No one was exiled. No
one was poisoned. John seems happy doing what he's doing now. If their
employers could no longer keep them on, and could find no use for their
product, then, so long as the employer has met the terms and conditions of
contractual arrangements, I don't see that it as anything less than extreme
rudeness, ingratitude, disloyalty and churlish lack of style [to boot] to
engage in the loud and "old world" complaining that we have witnessed over
this whole matter. [And even if the terms of the contract weren't met,
then it is hardly a matter that should be discussed in a public forum]."
I was actually paid, so perhaps I should not complain for myself. As an
employee I was always treated very fairly. But most of the people who
contributed time and articles were not paid.
Of the Board members, only the general editor was paid. The rest worked
on their own time and received only travel expenses for coming to
meetings. Authors were not paid.
Moreover, part of the implied contract was that the work would be
published. On this I will appeal to the artists on the list: Suppose the NSA
were to hire you to paint murals in a Baha'i building and then were to
paint them over as soon as they were published. Would you or would
you not have been fairly treated?
john walbridge
From TLCULHANE@aol.comThu Nov 2 23:56:19 1995
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 21:40:40 -0500
From: TLCULHANE@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: May19 letter pt. 3
-- continued --
" Commenting further on the global spectacle of upheavals,
cataclysms and tribulations which the worsening affairs of humanity
evoke at the impending approach of the Kingdom of God on earth,
shoghi Effendi addressed these words of insight and encouragement
to the North American friends: "Far from yielding in their resolve,
far from growing oblivious of their task, they should, at no time,
however much buffeted by circumstances, forget that the
synchronization of such world-shaking crises with the progressive
unfoldment and fruition of their divinely appointed task is itself
the work of Providence, the design of an inscrutable Wisdom, and
the purpose of an all-compelling Will, a Will that directs and
controls, in its own mysterious way, both the fortunes of the Faith
and the destinies of men. Such simultaneous processes of rise and
of fall, of integration and of disintegration, of order and chaos,
with their continuous and reciprocal reactions of each other, are
but aspects of a greater Plan, one and indivisible whose Source is
God, whose author is Baha'u'llah, the theatre of whose operations
is the entire planet, and whose ultimate objectives are the unity
of the human race and the peace of all mankind."
Moreover, the beloved Guardian felt that: "Reflections such as
these should steel the resolve of the entire Baha'i community,
should dissipate their forebodings, and arouse them to rededicate
themselves to every single provision of the Divine Charter whose
outline has been delineated for them by the pen of 'Abdu'l-Baha."
By being attuned to this divine perspective, your Assembly will be
able to assist the friends to see that they will not merely be able
to cope with the alarming incidents of social decline they are
daily witnessing, but even better than that, they will be inspired
to arise with renewed vision to recruit to Baha'i membership an
increasing number of men and women whose minds and hearts are ready
to respond to the Divine Message and who will join them in
dispelling the bewilderment and despair gripping their fellow
citizens and undermining the structure of their country.
It is also vital for your Assembly to keep in mind that the
mental anguish which the prevailing situation induces can and must
be overcome through prayer and a conscious attention to teaching
the Cause and living the Baha'i life with a world-embracing vision.
Certainly, the members of such a well established community as
yours, one enjoying the special favors providentially conferred
upon it by the _Tablets of the Divine Plan_, do realize the urgency
and seriousness of their task. Surely they see with what patient
endurance the dear friends in the Cradle of the Faith are meeting
their God-given challenges even to the extent of sacrificing their
life's blood so that the world may become a better place.
Undoubtedly, the highly esteemed American believers, who bear the
designation "spiritual descendants of the Dawn-breakers," know
quite well that they must now seize their chance at this critical
time to probe their own capacity to endure that living sacrifice
which, as Shoghi Effendi said, in contrast to dying, is required of
them in the scriptures of our Faith. May they be granted the
celestial strength to pass, over and over again, the mental tests
which 'Abdu'l-Baha promised He would send to them to purify them,
thus enabling them to achieve their divinely conferred potential as
a force for change in the world.
In the arena of teaching, your indispensable terms of reference
and the unerring resource to which you have ready access are the
Master's Tablets of the Divine Plan. They invest you community
with extraordinary powers shared by your sister community in
Canada. It is in reacquainting the American friends with the
special mission, both at home and abroad, assigned to them in these
seminal and timeless documents, and in relating their contents to
current conditions, that you will find the key to the
revitalization of the teaching work and the winning of outstanding
victories on the home front. In this effort you will be powerfully
aided by the explanations provided in the letters of our dear
Guardian, such as "The Advent of Divine Justice," "The Challenging
Requirements of the Present Hour," "American Baha'is in the Time of
World Peril." We have every confidence that, together with the
Continental Counselors and the Auxiliary Board members, you can
discover the way further to release the enormous energies of the
friends and to intensify the zeal which they have so splendidly
displayed in the teaching field on so many occasions in the past.
--- to be continued ---
T.C. : No particular comment beyond noting, honestly, that this portion
of the letter does not speak to me. Pray and "just do it " teach that is. I
am curious about what to teach however . There are a plurality of "versions"
of the Faith and what it all means . Maybe this is part of the "ambiguity "
of living in these times .
Since we are on reform , administration etc . I will skip over part 2 on
the Continental Counselors to part 3 of the letter on Proper Functioning of
the NSA which constitutes half or more of the letter . Then perhaps we can
engage systems , principles and processes as ourtlined by the House of
Justice. This will start part 4 later.
From ahmada@acsusun.acsu.unsw.edu.auThu Nov 2 23:56:49 1995
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 15:00:33 +1100 (EST)
From: Ahmad Aniss
To: JWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Observations
Dear John,
Dear Talismanians,
You wrote:
>
> Re the encyclopedia: Robert Johnston commented that
>
> "These people were employees, as I
> understand it. Their time and effort was paid for. No one shanghied them.
> They're still alive and well. No heads were cut off. No one was shot
> dead. No one was whipped. No one was imprisoned. No one was exiled. No
> one was poisoned. John seems happy doing what he's doing now. If their
> employers could no longer keep them on, and could find no use for their
> product, then, so long as the employer has met the terms and conditions of
> contractual arrangements, I don't see that it as anything less than extreme
> rudeness, ingratitude, disloyalty and churlish lack of style [to boot] to
> engage in the loud and "old world" complaining that we have witnessed over
> this whole matter. [And even if the terms of the contract weren't met,
> then it is hardly a matter that should be discussed in a public forum]."
>
> I was actually paid, so perhaps I should not complain for myself. As an
> employee I was always treated very fairly. But most of the people who
> contributed time and articles were not paid.
> Of the Board members, only the general editor was paid. The rest worked
> on their own time and received only travel expenses for coming to
> meetings. Authors were not paid.
>
> Moreover, part of the implied contract was that the work would be
> published. On this I will appeal to the artists on the list: Suppose the NSA
> were to hire you to paint murals in a Baha'i building and then were to
> paint them over as soon as they were published. Would you or would
> you not have been fairly treated?
>
> john walbridge
>
You posed a question here. As I see the situation based on your last
posting The UHJ has not banned the publication of encyclopeadia, but
only to modify the content so that it presents a Baha'i scholorly point
of view. I do not see a problem with that. Surely, addition of author's
interprtation of topics should not be allowed in such work.
You should not forget that behind the Mona Lisa painting there is another
painting. No one disputes the worth of Mona Lisa painting. But yet
it is over another one, that may be not worthy as much. So why not
take your work upto now as a draft and continue, work with the institution
and find common grounds, I assure you that the outcome will be a Mona Lisa
of the Faith. But as it is now it is good for Fire so to speak.
No offence was meant.
With Baha'i Love and Fellowship
Ahmad
From rlg0001@jove.acs.unt.eduThu Nov 2 23:57:08 1995
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 22:20:09 -0600 (CST)
From: Robert Lee Green
To: "talisman@indiana.edu"
Subject: tact
I once read a definition of tact which i thoroughly agreed with.
I will share it.
"Tact is the ability to tell a man to go to Hell and leave him happy to
be on his way." cant tell who wrote it.
but it seems to me that tact is what many talismanians are asking for,
rather than attempting to end certain threads or ideas. nor do i wish to
have anyone's opinion watered down; however, tact would make some of the
postings more accessible to me.
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzThu Nov 2 23:57:29 1995
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 17:39:47 +1300 (NZDT)
From: Robert Johnston
To: JWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: bizarre and monotonous: [was: Observations]
Dear John,
Re:
> Authors were not paid. [etc]
Thank you for factual clarification. Were they coerced?
Re:
Would you or would
>you not have been fairly treated? [etc]
Why make this flashy appeal to the gallery? I think we have all heard the
view expressed by some that they believe they and others were treated
unfairly. Nothing new under the sun. For those with a grizzle, I suggest
they take it up with their employers. Only damage can arise from continual
attacks upon the institutions here. Even viewed from the perspectives of
humanistic fairness and aesthetic proportion, I think the story has had
enough play, and is becoming both bizarre and monotonous. Why don't we
move on?
Robert.
From dpeden@imul.comThu Nov 2 23:58:03 1995
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 95 07:40:07+030
From: Don Peden
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: observations
Dear John:
I can't make a comparison between my artistic process and your intellectual
one. They are, in this manner of comparison, as different as apples and
oranges. My standards don't fit your situation. As an artist, I can only
share with you my feelings about my own work, and perhaps a historical
perspective.
The historical perspective that your question immediately brings to mind is
of Gustav Klimt. He also had paintings refused by the university he had
painted them for. Hurt, yes he was; angry, probably. But he did continue to
paint. (I know you will continue to write.) The grist mill of time and
history has made those refused paintings seen as some of the most beautiful
in the world.
For myself, I'm like a child with a messy room. I haven't gotten too
attached to what I produce. I'm always on to the next piece. If someone
likes a painting or a paper piece, great. If not, fine. If I am still
engaged in creating new pieces from that particular piece, I don't let it
go, but keep it for "inspiration" or a new starting point. If I am finished
with it, then I either sell it, or cut it up pulling out pieces I like for a
new piece. Occassionally, I come in with a broom (mental and physical) and
sweep all the discarded bits and pieces out the door so that I can start
making ideas take from in an uncluttered environment.
The fact that we usually move house (and countries) about every five years
(Uganda has been an overly long stay), contributes to my not getting too
attached to anything I produce. I've started a business and opened a
gallery this time, and it is harder to walk away...but I don't have a
choice. The nature of whatever I do is so transient, I am forced into these
choices whether I like it or not...so I don't spend too much time worrying
about it, and just get on with things.
My mother always was frustrated with me as a child, because I would do
drawings and give them away. I figured I had already had my enjoyment from
them, and was happy to see them find homes they were happy in. It isn't too
difficult for me to continue in this vein.
One friend of mine in Kabale, a lovely woman and a dear friend, was given a
painting by me for her house. She was thrilled, and I was pleased. The
next day she arrived with my painting cut up and reconstructed as a travel
bag. She was so pleased with the ways that the colours made it look nice,
and the canvas was sooo strong! At first I was shocked, and then I had to
see that she was right! It worked much better as a handbag than it did as a
painting, and was definitely more useful.
I guess when I create something and put it out there for the world, I accept
whatever happens to it. The idea has been given form, it floats around, it
can also be dismantled and the elements used in another form. I'm not sure
that I am the best one to ask about how I would feel if a piece I had
laboured hard on wasn't used or was painted over. I would probably be on to
something else. It may not be a fair analogy, or provide the support you
are looking for.
It seems to me that your situation is different in that you have laboured
hard and long on a piece, and it has been rejected. In normal academic
circles, you would be free to find a publisher any other place you can. But
in the Baha'i context, it sounds like you do not have that freedom. It must
be terribly frustrating and hurtful. My process doesn't have much comfort to
offer, and even less concrete ideas.
Love,
Bev.
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzThu Nov 2 23:58:20 1995
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 17:49:13 +1300 (NZDT)
From: Robert Johnston
To: Ahmad Aniss , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Sowwy [was re:Observations]
(1) My antipodean amigo Ahmad, soul of wit and insight, wrote:
>You should not forget that behind the Mona Lisa painting there is another
>painting. No one disputes the worth of Mona Lisa painting.
Yes, Ahmad.
(2) I sincerely apologise for all the space I have taken up this week.
[John: I am standing in the corridor, my eyes downcast: "Sowwy."] I am going now, because, being foremost in the world, we
get to see the weekend first...
Veya con Dios amigos,
Robert.
P.S. Eric: in answer to your question: the meaning is not polite and cannot
be disclosed. Reflect on earlier postings. Your house music was gracious.
From dhouse@cinsight.comFri Nov 3 01:08:13 1995
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 1995 14:40:27 -0800
From: "David W. House"
To: Juan R Cole
Subject: Re: reforms and apologies
Juan, friends,
>David House has been very big in his further comments, and it is only
>right for me to say also that I probably over-reacted in my post to his.
I have big hair too, but my wife promises a haircut posthaste...
>Sorry, David, if I shouted.
Well, you apparently heard me shouting, and wanted to be heard above the din
(O din, din, gunga din... you're a better man than I am gunga din.)
>It is fine with me if someone wants to believe in the virgin birth of
>Jesus of Nazareth...
Uh...
"First regarding the birth of Jesus Christ. In the light of what
Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha have stated concerning this subject it
is evident that Jesus came into this world through the direct
intervention of the Holy Spirit, and that consequently His birth was
quite miraculous. This is an established fact, and the friends need not
feel at all surprised, as the belief in the possibility of miracles has
never been rejected in the Teachings. Their importance, however, has been
minimized."
(From a letter dated December 31, 1937 written on behalf of the Guardian
to an individual believer) LofG #1637
Sorry! (e.g. sorry to appear to disagree, sorry to interrupt, etc. etc. etc.
Bowing, scraping, et al...)
I would also like to demonstrate my lack of wisdom by continuing the discussion:
It is incumbent upon them who are in authority to
exercise moderation in all things. Whatsoever passeth
beyond the limits of moderation will cease to exert a
beneficial influence. Consider for instance such things
as liberty, civilization and the like. However much
men of understanding may favorably regard them,
they will, if carried to excess, exercise a pernicious
influence upon men. Please God, the peoples of the
world may be led, as the result of the high endeavors
exerted by their rulers and the wise and learned
amongst men, to recognize their best interests.
Gleanings p 216
Liberty must, in the end, lead to sedition, whose
flames none can quench... That which beseemeth
man is submission unto such restraints as will
protect him from his own ignorance, and guard him
against the harm of the mischief-maker. Liberty
causeth man to overstep the bounds of propriety,
and to infringe on the dignity of his station.
Gleanings, p 336
Therefore, the question cannot be whether it is right to have discourse
restrained: it must either be done by us or for us. There is no third
alternative. The only question, in either eventuality, is what are the
limits? Where is it, in discourse, that liberty becomes sedition?
In fact, we have fairly specific guidance on the principles which must mold
our answers to this question:
152 At the same time, Shoghi Effendi's advice, as
conveyed by his secretary, goes on to stress the point
that "all criticisms and discussions of a negative
character which may result in undermining the
authority of the Assembly as a body should be strictly
avoided.
153 For otherwise the order of the Cause itself will be
endangered, and confusion and discord will reign in
the community."
154 Clearly, then, there is more to be considered
than the critic's right to self-expression; the unifying
spirit of the Cause of God must also be preserved, the
authority of its laws and ordinances safeguarded,
authority being an indispensable aspect of freedom.
155 Motive, manner, mode, become relevant; but there is
also the matter of love: love for one's fellows, love for
one's community, love for one's institutions.
156 The responsibility resting on the individual to
conduct himself in such away as to ensure the stability
of society takes on elemental importance in this
context.
157 For vital as it is to the progress of society, criticism is
a two-edged sword: it is all too often the harbinger of
conflict and contention.
158 The balanced processes of the Administrative Order
are meant to prevent this essential activity from
degenerating to any form of dissent that breeds
opposition and its dreadful schismatic consequences.
159 How incalculable have been the negative results of
ill-directed criticism: in the catastrophic divergences it
has created in religion, in the equally contentious
factions it has in political systems, which have dignified
conflict by institutionalizing such concepts as the "loyal
opposition" which attach to one or another of the
various categories of political opinion: conservative,
liberal, progressive, reactionary, and so forth.
160 If Baha'i individuals deliberately ignore the
principles imbedded in the Order which Baha'u'llah
Himself has established to remedy divisiveness in the
human family, the Cause for which so much has been
sacrificed will surely beset back in its mission to rescue
world society from complete disintegration.
161 May not the existence of the Covenant be invoked
again and again, so that such repetition may preserve
the needed perspective?
The Universal House of Justice, 12/29/88
Praise God! What could be more lucid?
d.
David William House (dhouse@cinsight.com)
Computer Insight
23022 Yeary Lane N.E.
Aurora, OR 97002-0167 USA
(503) 678-1085 voice
(503) 678-1030 fax
"Well is it with the doers of great deeds." Abdu'l-Baha
From carl@grapevine-sys.comFri Nov 3 01:11:15 1995
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 00:29:53 -0600
From: Carl Hawse
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Plural discourse [and visit ESSEWE!]
> So, the real question is: Believing these things as I do, do I have a
>right to say them openly? Or is that right of expression to be suppressed?
>
>Tony
>
>
YES, NO!
Clearly we all have a right to say things openly. Discourse is a great way
to get things resolved. But don't you think coordinating institutions
*should* suppress certain communications? Not in a McCarthy witch hunt kind
of way, but more like a teacher keeping order in an unruly classroom with a
diverse student body? In that case, there might be a need to suppress the
few for the needs of the many--such an act would be an appropriate decision
(1) Based on context, and (2) Based on the relationship between the parties
involved which was agreed upon beforehand. Supression would of course be
followed up by an kind and loving explanation to the "suppressees"!
If anyone is feeling suppressed and wants to be heard, I'll make a homepage
for you in the "Friends" section of my Ever So Slowly Expanding Web
Environment ("ESSEWE" is at http://www.grapevine-sys.com/~carl). (By the
way, the "Talisman Rules" are posted there now, too.) WARNING: you'll be
responsible for content and the results of what you post. I'll put up big
warning signs if anyone becomes a covenant-breaker, though!
8^> (that's a joke, son, ya get it?)
Hey, as an aspiring Internet Publishing Consultant (yeh, right) I need all
the practice formatting HTML documents I can get. But I will not suppress
anything. I don't like supression. And frankly, I doubt that it *truly*
exists in the Baha'i Community. Yeah, it's an exclusive club, with lots of
rules--quite a challenge (but that's the point!). And there may be
action-reaction events which need a second look. But I like to think that
it's a workable, self-correcting system, even if it is a chaotic one at
times. Suppression only fits in as a special case, emergency executive
order type thing to protect the innocent--one which can be avoided with a
little common sense. I do not see it as a basic principle of the Faith.
P.S. Thanks to the folks who had information on the Surah of Hud!
From jrcole@umich.eduFri Nov 3 10:05:22 1995
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 01:08:00 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: reforms, unapologetically
David: It is not your fault, but many of the points you make were made by
others a year ago, and we fought them out for months, and for the most
part I just do not have the energy to do it all over again. My archives
of Talisman are also on diskette by month and retrieving things is
laborious, so I can't just download the past discussions to you (though
for anything since May Eric Pierce can do so if you ask him). But it is
not fair to you, since you want a dialogue, not to respond at all. So I
will sacrifice working on my book to reply to you tonight.
David House quoted:
"First regarding the birth of Jesus Christ. In the light of what
Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha have stated concerning this subject it
is evident that Jesus came into this world through the direct
intervention of the Holy Spirit, and that consequently His birth was
quite miraculous. This is an established fact, and the friends need not
feel at all surprised, as the belief in the possibility of miracles has
never been rejected in the Teachings. Their importance, however, has been
minimized."
(From a letter dated December 31, 1937 written on behalf of the Guardian
to an individual believer) LofG #1637
JC: I agree that the Guardian's secretary wrote this passage. I also
know of a Persian Tablet by `Abdu'l-Baha that rather ridicules Western
scientists who do not accept Jesus's virgin birth.
But I just don't go to `Abdu'l-Baha or Shoghi Effendi for my science.
Very little was known yet about genetics when they were alive, and even
DNA's discovery is only from the 50's. Science can only reveal to us
probabilities, not absolute certainties, of course. But the probability
of a virgin birth is so low in my view that it can be safely dismissed as
historical fact. Since, in addition, both `Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi
Effendi thought miracles did not prove anything, I'm not sure why it
matters. In *Miracles and Metaphors* Mirza Abu'l-Fadl has an amusing
argument for the inconsequentiality of miracles as proof of anything.
The fact is that Jesus is given contradictory genealogies in the NT, and
probably the writers of them had no idea about his parentage; but one
line does imply descent through his father, Joseph.
In other words, my stance takes seriously the principle that when
religion contradicts science it is superstition. I would not be so harsh
to the virgin birth (or this one, since so many have been alleged of
god-men in history) as to call it superstition. But it is myth, in the
sense of a meaningful story, the meaning of which does not depend on its
historical facticity. As a late 20th-century thinker, I cannot find this
sort of myth meaningful in a primary way, though I can perhaps glimpse
what it must mean to believers in it, from a distance. I don't think I
am missing anything crucial.
David House continues:
>I would also like to demonstrate my lack of wisdom by continuing the
>discussion:
> It is incumbent upon them who are in authority to
> exercise moderation in all things. Whatsoever passeth
> beyond the limits of moderation will cease to exert a
> beneficial influence. Consider for instance such things
> as liberty, civilization and the like. However much
> men of understanding may favorably regard them,
> they will, if carried to excess, exercise a pernicious
> influence upon men. Please God, the peoples of the
> world may be led, as the result of the high endeavors
> exerted by their rulers and the wise and learned
> amongst men, to recognize their best interests.
Gleanings p 216
This and the others you post are very nice passages, favorites of mine,
but I suspect I do not think they mean what you think they mean. They
also have to be balanced by other passages:
First of all, when Baha'u'llah criticizes "liberty" he is using the word
hurriyyah. I have demonstrated that hurriyyah in the 19th century meant
both license (immorality, libertinism) and political liberty
(democracy). Baha'u'llah condemns libertinism and loose morals, of
course. But then he goes on to say that he approves of liberty in
certain regards; since he advocated British-style parliamentarism, it is
clear that he approved of liberty in the sense of democratic liberty.
I'll go on to quote from things that I've written that have apposite
citations from the Writings in them:
In his chronicle of the Babi and Baha'i movements, `Abdu'l-
Baha deplored the religious persecution practiced in nineteenth-
century Iran, writing, "[To ensure] freedom of conscience (azadigi-yi
vujdan) and tranquillity of heart and soul is one of the duties and
functions of government, and is in all ages the cause of progress in
development and ascendency over other lands."1 This passage
emphasizes that to ensure freedom of freedom of conscience is a duty of
the state.
1`Abdu'l-Baha, Maqalih-'i Shakhs-i Sayyah/Traveller's Narrative, 1:193;
2:158.
Already by 1875 `Abdu'l-Baha was arguing to Iranian conservatives
with regard to European conceptions that "This liberty (hurriyyat) in
the universal rights of individuals (huquq-i `umumiyyih-'i afrad) " is
not "contrary to prosperity and success." ( `Abdu'l-Baha, Risalih-'i
madaniyyih (Hofheim-Langenhain: Baha'i-
Verlag, 1984), p. 19; my translation, for technical purposes.)
Of the European Crusades and Wars of Religion `Abdu'l-Baha says in
Traveller's Narrative:
"The principles and essentials of the happiness of
the human race were in abeyance; the supports of
kingly authority were shaken; but the influence and
power of the *heads of religion and of the monks*
were in all parts complete.
But when they removed these differences,
persecutions, and bigotries out of their midst,
and proclaimed the equal rights of all subjects
and the liberty of men's consciences, the lights
of glory and power arose and shone from the
horizons of that kingdom in such wise that
those countries made progress in every
direction . . . These are effectual and sufficient
proofs that the conscience of man is sacred
and to be respected; and that liberty thereof
produces widening of ideas, amendment of
morals, improvement of conduct, disclosure of
the secrets of creation, and manifestation of
the hidden verities of the contingent world."
(`Abdu'l-Baha, Traveller's Narrative, Wilmette edn., p. 91).
[JC: The last phrase of the Master's pretty clearly refers to science
and the need for it to be unfettered from religious dogma in order to
thrive. I underline his disdain for a society controlled by the
ecclesiastical authorities.)
In later years `Abdu'l-Baha preached these ideals in the West. He
greatly appreciated the American constitution. At the Central
Congregational Church in Brooklyn on 16 June 1912, he said: "Just as
in the world of politics there is need for free thought, likewise in the
world of religion there should be the right of unrestricted individual
belief. Consider what a vast difference exists between modern
democracy and the old forms of despotism. Under an autocratic
government the opinions of men are not free, and development is
stifled, whereas in a democracy, because thought and speech are not
restricted, the greatest progress is witnessed. It is likewise true in the
world of religion. When freedom of conscience, liberty of thought and
right of speech prevail--that is to say, when every man according to his
own idealization may give expression to his beliefs--development and
growth are inevitable." (PUP 197).
At the Universalist Church Washington, D.C.
on 6 Nov. 1912, he said: "Praise be to God! The standard of liberty is
held aloft in this land. You enjoy political liberty; you enjoy liberty of
thought and speech, religious liberty, racial and personal liberty."
(PUP).
Some of this appreciation of American democracy was a reaction
against the royal absolutism of Qajar Iran. `Abdu'l-Baha had
complained in 1875 that in Iran, "Not a soul could speak out, because
the governor was in absolute control."(SDC 101).
Shoghi Effendi denounced
persecution of the Baha'i Faith in Iraq as contrary to the constitution
and organic laws of that country, which, he noted with approval,
"expressly provided for the unfettered freedom of conscience."(Baha'i
Admin., p. 176).
In another context, he expressed his pleasure that "almighty Providence"
had "conferred" on the U.S. Baha'is, with their first amendment rights,
"the inestimable benefits of religious toleration and freedom." (Baha'i
Administration, p. 134).
>David wrote:
>Therefore, the question cannot be whether it is right to have discourse
>restrained: it must either be done by us or for us. There is no third
>alternative. The only question, in either eventuality, is what are the
>limits? Where is it, in discourse, that liberty becomes sedition?
The above quotes demonstrate quite the opposite, that freedom of
conscience and freedom of expression are inalienable rights in the Baha'i
Faith. Your last question is a leading one. Liberty in the sense of
democratic liberties never becomes sedition in Baha'u'llah's thought; it
is only libertinism and immorality that do. This passage has nothing
whatsoever to do with freedom of speech, as a perusal of the original
makes clear.
Then you quote a long list of passages; I presume the page numbers are to
*Lights of Guidance.* I really wish we could ban this acontextual and
overly schematic book from our community discourse. I have not checked,
but I suspect it leaves out Secret of Divine Civilization, Traveller's
Narrative, and the more progressive passages in Promulgation of Universal
Peace altogether.
David, if you will simply stand back from quoting chapter and verse, and
engage with me intellectually, I will ask you a question. In the Baha'i
system, what happens when the elected institutions commit a grave
injustice? It has been proposed that we all just sit about like
fatalistic peasants, accepting that we have a hard row to hoe. That
simply will not fly with me, nor with anyone I know or care to know.
Others propose to me that one take it up with the Counsellors. But ever
since they were reduced to 5-year terms, the counsellors themselves
strike me as in a difficult position when they make waves. And, of
course, we are supposed to write letters to the House. But what if the
House is unresponsive (or, worse, the perpetrator of the injustice, as
with the censoring of Salmani)?
In essence, the current Baha'i system reduces all Baha'is to mere
individual voices, which the institutions can slap down one by one. All
Baha'is are reduced to humble petitioners dependent on the mercy of their
elected superiors. It is, in fine, a dictator's dream. It does not work.
Maybe it worked when we had small face-to-face communities. Maybe it
worked when we had a Guardian. But it does not work now. And my
criteria for it not working is that it does not produce the sort of open
society that `Abdu'l-Baha envisaged, and for which he risked his life and
sacrificed his years in exile.
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From barazanf@dg-rtp.dg.comFri Nov 3 10:06:47 1995
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 01:14:46 -0500 (EST)
From: Farzin Barazandeh
To: Talisman
Subject: lost vision on the Piscataqua
I was just looking at the "Green Arce on the piscataqua" book and
I gleaned the following:
- In June 1892 Sarah Farmer had a vision of Green Acre as a place
where various philosophies and religions could find expression...
- In 1894, under a tent banked by fragrant pines, Sarah dedicated
Green Acres to the ideals of peace and religious unity...
- Sarah invited speakers of various persuasions to Green Acre and
encouraged her guests to listen to all the lectures without bias.
- By the summer of 1897, Green Acre was known around the world. In
Japan a book has been written about it. The Green Acre Voice, a
small weekly newspaper, was published year round to announce news
of its programs and offer words of inspiration.
- The 1899 Green Acre program included a quotation from the writings of
Baha'u'llah.
- Mirza Abdul-Fadl and Ali-Kuli Khan were sent by Abdul-Baha to
teach at Green Acre; the site of their lectures became known
as "the Persian Pines."
- The Green Acre Fellowship was legally incorporated with 200 members
and five trustees ( I assume mostly non-Baha'is.)
- In 1912 Abdul-Baha made His historic visit to Green Acre.
- Statement by Abdul-Baha regarding Green Acre (underlines are mine):
"There is a place in America called Green Acre. It is customary
during the months of summer for people of different creeds and
religions to gather there and the leaders of various movements and
thoughts deliver lectures and addresses. Thus they have combined most
effectively education and recreation. The *significance* and usefulness
of this unique place lie in the fact that they offer a free and
*unrestricted* platform to the citizens of *every* nation and the
adherents of *every* religion. Thus every subject is discussed with
that full liberty of conscience which is enjoyed in the United States."
- Randall recalls,
"When I was in Haifa in 1919, Abdul-Baha talked to me about Green Acre
and requested that I do all I could to keep the foundation of Green Acre
a living issue because He told me that someday Green Acre would be the
Acca of America and would be the greatest spiritual center in America
for the gathering of *all people.*"
- In 1925 Guardian wrote,
" As to the suggestion of the Annual Convention being held next summer
at Green Acre, I believe it to be both wise and helpful, and trust
that it will forge another link between the Bahais as a body and its
founders and trustees, and will serve to draw them closer and closer
to the outward form as well as to the spirit of the activities of the
friends in America."
- In 1926, Green Acre came under direct NSA supervision.
- In 1929, NSA obtained legal title to Green Acre.
- In 1941, Green Acre was renamed "Green Acre Baha'i school."
- Green Acre regularly holds sessions primarily for Bahais with
occasional ceremonial meetings involving other groups such as
the one in 1989 for raising the peace flag.
I am captive of confusion. Has Green Acre been faithful to the
vision of Sara Farm which is, the Green Acre to be a home for
every religion? or has it only become home for us?
With our core work being "Unity", how did we manage to run out every
body else?
Is the assessment of Huston Smith in his famous book, "The world's
religions" true?
"...Baha'i, which originated in the hope of rallying the major
religions around the beliefs they held in common, has settled
into being another religion among many."
Farzin
From cbuck@ccs.carleton.caFri Nov 3 10:07:24 1995
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 95 1:19:58 EST
From: Christopher Buck
To: "Mark A. Foster"
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Prayer for Abu`l-Fadl
Mark--
Thanks for posting this reference. I'm impressed! Now, did any
explanation accompany the translation of this prayer?
Since memory served me well on the first count, perhaps Burl
can post what he finds in Mary Hanford Ford's *The Oriental Rose*
--provided my memory was accurate on that count as well.
I've just finished reading Chapter Eight of *Man Overboard* to
my wife. This is a real interesting book. Confusing--very involved
plot--a very twisted plot--but extremely well constructed!
*Man Overboard* is the most intellectually demanding and
well-crafted biography I've ever read. In fact, it should be made into
a movie--but only if producers think there is a market for a
non-fiction counterpart to *Slaughterhouse Five* (or was it *Catch
22*?).
The construction of *Man Overboard* reminds me of the
Einsteinian literary revolution effected by Lawrence Durrell. *Man
Overboard* reads somewhat like *The Alexandria Quartet*, of which I
can only recall one line verbatim, in Durrell's description of a seedy
character named *Pursewarden*:
*His narrow shoes gleam.*
-- Christopher Buck
From 73613.2712@compuserve.comFri Nov 3 10:08:24 1995
Date: 03 Nov 95 01:16:15 EST
From: Steven Scholl <73613.2712@compuserve.com>
To: Talisman
Subject: Common Era Hailed by Catholics as 95s Best
Common Era Hailed by Catholics as 95s Best
Praying, a magazine of the National Catholic Reporter Publishing Group, has
released its year end assessment of the best books of 1995. Common Era: Best New
Writings on Religion, edited by Steven Scholl and published by White Cloud Press
was the leadoff book in Praying's "The Best of 1995" reviews. Reviewer Rich
Heffern notes that:
"The level of these pieces pieces is high and heady, but the explorations and
ideas presented are thought-provoking. . . . Common Era is rich, deep, and
enlightening."
Common Era is available from White Cloud Press, $14.95 + shipping. Talismanians
receive a 15% discount on White Cloud Press orders.
From cbuck@ccs.carleton.caFri Nov 3 10:09:17 1995
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 95 1:57:59 EST
From: Christopher Buck
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Cc: Christopher Buck
Subject: A New Calamity Text?
A NEW CALAMITY TEXT? 3 November 1995
Below follows my translation of a Persian text by Baha'u'llah
on what appears to be a kind of *Calamity*. Comments or criticisms are
welcome--I'm only a neophyte when it comes to translation.
The transliteration scheme assigns capital letters to long
vowels (A, I, U) as well as emphatic consonants represented by sub-dot
accents (S = sad; D = dad; T = ta'; Z = za'; H = ha' [as distinct from
*round ha*]). Comments on this transliteration scheme for email
purposes are welcome.
A COMMENT BY BAHA'U'LLAH ON *THE CALAMITY*?
a provisional translation by Christopher Buck
_____________________________________________________________________
jazA-yi a`mAl-i ahl-i `Alam mutakavvin shud.
Retribution for the misdeeds of the people of the world has come into
being,
_____________________________________________________________________
va bi-SUrat-i `ulamA-yi jAhil-i munkir ZAhir [shud].
and has appeared in the form of ignorant, denying divines.
_____________________________________________________________________
IshAn-and qATi`An-i TarIq-i ilAhI va muDill-i `ibAd-i U.
These are the highwaymen of the Path and seducers of His servants.
_____________________________________________________________________
.. nAr-i In nufUs az nAr-i NamrUd mushta`al-tar mushAhidih mIshavad.
The fire of these men is visibly more fierce than the fire of Nimrod.
_____________________________________________________________________
Although I will be very embarassed by any mistakes I have made
in this inelegant translation, I have to start somewhere and I do value
the feedback.
The idea that retribution for the world's misdeeds has already
been visited upon humankind in the form of oppression by certain
religious leaders I think lends a fresh insight into Baha'u'llah's
views on the Calamity.
-- Christopher Buck
From cbuck@ccs.carleton.caFri Nov 3 10:10:26 1995
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 95 3:32:07 EST
From: Christopher Buck
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Cc: Christopher Buck
Subject: Baha'u'llah on Freedom?
It's very late. In partial corroboration of Juan's Baha'i
texts on freedom, I have found a text in which Baha'u'llah states that
*farAghat* (freedom from care, oppression) and *AzAdI* (liberty) are
among the greatest bounties of God!
So that I don't make a fool of myself, I'll withhold my
translation until I can get confirmation that these terms are relevant
to the discussion. The immediate passage speaks of the tyranny of self
and passion, but then goes on to speak of oppression by divines.
I was vicariously hurt by the pain in Linda's last post. I
especially valued her remarks on the Baha'i Encyclopedia Project.
There seems to be an unhealthy pattern of baiting and attacking of
Juan, John, Linda and others.
I'm frankly amazed that opportunities to learn on this forum
are compromised by unbridled personal attacks by individuals claiming
to be *defenders* of the Covenant. Why are the most *religious* posts
sometimes the most uncomprehending or downright nasty?
But without recourse, it seems, to prosecuting any reforms
whatsoever, I don't know what to do about the issues being raised
here. Even if there was consensus on my proposal about review (a
proposal that suffered death by silence), what would we do?
If there ever was consensus on Talisman about any reform, what
next, pray tell? Where is all this leading to? How can transformation
take place? Inevitably, I think it all boils down to contributing
something individually to the Faith, like Juan's forthcoming book.
-- Christopher Buck
From burlb@bmi.netFri Nov 3 10:12:52 1995
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 95 00:20 PST
From: Burl Barer
To: Farzin Barazandeh
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: lost vision on the Piscataqua
Concerning Smith's quote: I think he rightly observed the congregational
isolationist phase of the United States Baha'i Community.
I never felt comfortable being that comfortable. I don't want a nice little
Baha'i community off in the corner promulgating universal peace by being
quiet. A self-contained unit of self-congradulatory devotees is *not* the
destiny of our communities, nor is it the world embracing vision found in
the writings of Baha'u'llah.
Our Founder told those cloistered away to come forth and interact with the
generality of mankind, serve mankind, and proclaim the Greatest Name. How
strange that those who call themselves by that very Name would themselves
become cloistered away, insular, walled, and imprisoned in the Akka of their
own device. I tug at the Robe of my fellow Baha'is. C'mon. This way to the
Gate. Bahji is not that far from the Most Great Prison.
Burl
*******************************************************
Order MAN OVERBOARD, the new book by Burl Barer today!
*******************************************************
From chris@c-nelson.demon.co.ukFri Nov 3 10:15:40 1995
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 09:52:10 +0000
From: Chris Nelson
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Bio
Hello to all in Talisman,
I've been sitting in the background watching the comings and goings
on Talisman for the last few weeks and I thought it was about time I
introduced myself.
Briefly:-
Name: Chris Nelson.
Age: 26 (27 this month)
Current Residence: Salisbury, Wiltshire, Southern Central England
Proffession: Parading as a computer analyst/programmer but making
definite plans to change proffessions. I have previously worked as
a journalist in print and radio, radio announcer and producer,
alternative film publicist... etc, etc.
I am also single, have no children, and living almost as a lone Bahai in
the dangerous wilderness of Southern Central England. I
was born in Melbourne, Australia and have travelled extensively
throughout that continent. I'm continuing my travels on the other
side of the world and discovering the fascinating cultures of Europe.
I must say I am very impressed with Talisman. The open mindedness,
courtesy regarding others opinions and the keen minds make up a
wonderful micro-culture.
One thing I wonder at though is how all of you simply keep up with
the volume and length of the postings. Call me a slow reader but it
takes me hours to go through every thing on Talisman. I'm loath to
skip any in case I miss any of the gems which appear so regualrly.
Before I subscribed more than one person had said to me that the
forum was not very 'Bahai'. Had to check this out for myself. What
they actually meant by 'Bahai' I'm not sure but from what I have seen
this is exactly what the Faith needs. My experience of the community
so far, despite encounters with many wonderful individuals, is of a
reasonably conservative and perhaps inert population caught in some
sort of religious creed. In my mind this is a spill over of the 'old
world' and not 'Bahai'. It may also be a symptom of a lack of youth
particularly in England. In Ireland, where the Bahai population is
younger there is much more vivacity in the community. Please note
these are my own limited opinions and I hope to offend no one.
You may not hear too much from me as I struggle simply to read every
thing that comes my way, but be assured I will be looking on with
great interest.
Warmest Regards
Chris.
/One World
/One People
/One Family
Bahai
From belove@sover.netFri Nov 3 10:16:31 1995
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 95 13:24:17 PST
From: belove@sover.net
To: "David W. House" , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: RE: Subject to revision
David,
I've so enjoyed this exchange between you and Juan and just the fact
that it is happening pleases me.
I really appreciated your last posting, with the apologies, and also
the questions you raise at the end:
>what limits do we place on
>ourselves? What is "out of bounds" in terms of responsible
>discourse?
I think it's hard to tell. In intimate couples, this sort of thing
emerges as a norm and is constantly negotiated.
I think it's healthy to be able to say anything.
I think we each are responsible for tone and timing.
I think both parties in a couple share the load. Each extends
him/herself to be willing to hear anything said in any possible
manner. Each extends herself not be abuse the privelege or to be
unnecessarily burdensome. From time to time apologies are in order.
The most important thing is to keep the process going. What can't be
spoke out must then be acted out. Better to speak.
'nough said,
Philip
Things should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler -- A.
Einstein
From HICKC89@ollamh.ucd.ieFri Nov 3 10:19:20 1995
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 13:26:06 +0000 (GMT)
From: Vivien Hick
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Is Science on a Par with Religion?
Dear Friends(?),
I am afraid I was not aware of the custom of introducing oneself
on Talisman as a new member until recently, so I apologise for my
slight curtness previously.
So, I am male, a final year Physics student in Dublin, Ireland, have
a particular interest in history, and am growing to like Mr. Cole's
forthrightness very much. Such debate has never really existed
within the community here, and unless it does, there will be no way
to remedy fundamental problems within the Faith.
"The first question is one of diagnosis."
And so on to a minor question;
> I think the best way to understand the statement "every fixed star has
> its planets and every planet has its creatures" as a hyperbolic
> statement; in other words, overstatement of a point in order to
> emphasize it. I think this is a rhetorical device we can find in the
> Writings (Frank Lewis and other literati, please comment). As Steve
> has pointed out, the statement really cannot be literally correct,
> unless "creature" is defined is some very strange way. I have a
> degree in planetary science, so I have some ideas about this subject.
> For example, let us take a massive star, a million times the mass of
> the sun, which produced about a billion times the heat output of the
> sun and blows itself up (as a supernova) in about a million years
> after formation. (This is the way big stars are; they produce heat at
> rates much higher than their mass relative to the sun, and thus burn
> out very fast.) And let us say a planet made out of molten material
> formed around such a star, which is conceivable. What would it mean
> to say that such a molten planet, which must be less than a million
> years old, has "creatures"?
I agree that this is probably the case, but Mr. Stockman, the only
preventative to physical life is a high ENTROPY (a system in which
there is very little available energy, since almost all bodies have
the same energy, and there is no transfer of energy which is crucial for
life) situation, which a super-massive star is certainly not.
Merely because our own form of life requires a particular peculiar
energy level, does not automatically constrain other life forms to
the same energy requirements.
However I do very much agree with your hyperbolic interpretation,
and I do not think there is that much life in the universe, but it is
*conceptually* possible, so long as the situation is low entropy.
Thanks,
D.
Darach Watson,
Dept. of Exp. Physics,
UCD,
Ireland.
From rvh3@columbia.eduFri Nov 3 10:42:03 1995
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 09:41:21 -0500 (EST)
From: Richard Vernon Hollinger
To: Member1700@aol.com
Cc: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Plural discourse
On Thu, 2 Nov 1995 Member1700@aol.com wrote:
> The case of the encyclopedia is more troubling. I am also furious about
> its being suppressed, not only because out NSA has spent some $750,000 on the
> project so far, not only because good friends have been involved and have
> sacrificed mightily to produce it, not only because I believe in it--but
> because the message appears to be that academic discourse within the Baha'i
> community will not be tolerated by the institutions of the Faith.
I get a slightly different message from this: academic discourse will not
be subsidized by Baha'i funds. Maybe I am wrong and the message is
broader than that. But, Tony, why don't you offer to publish the
encyclopedia under the aegis of Kalimat Press and see what happens?
Richard
From friberg@will.brl.ntt.jpFri Nov 3 10:44:16 1995
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 95 0:18:19 JST
From: "Stephen R. Friberg"
To: talisman@indiana.edu, cbuck@ccs.carleton.ca
Subject: Science and Religion
Dear Chris:
I find your post on science and religion very clear, and the queries very
well stated. There are many things I would like to respond to, but with
a sleepy one year old in my arms, I have to pick and choose.
First, about Juan's encyclopedia article. It is extremely well written
and to the point. In fact, what it does is put the discussion in context
and allows the highly telegraphic statements of Baha'u'llah to be expanded
a bit. This, as you well know, is superb scholarship. However, it does
not explain the physical meaning or the spiritual meaning of the statements,
nor does it pretend to. If it tried, then it would have to expand to
nearly book size. If you are trying to read a scientific statement into
Baha'u'llah's cryptic remarks, I think it would be in vain.
Let me put this in the context of science as "myth". People use myth
as a kind of underlying global context for events in their world -- as
a kind of world view. People build these world-views, which easily
become superstitions, on all sorts of foundations. In the past, these
foundations were often religions. Now, people often use "science"
because of its superior prestige. Very often, once one has a world view,
one tries to read it into everything, including Baha'u'llah's statements.
Unfortunately, the "scientific" world view can be very narrow-minded and
materialistic. To the non-scientist, or to a scientist constrained by
the conventional, it seems to rule out a number of different ways of
seeing things. Now, I can say this and you may nod your head in
agreement, thinking that indeed you understand what I am saying. But,
this scientific "myth" that I am talking about means that you accept
as true and valid certain conventional ways of treating various issues,
and that these conventions severely constrain the discussion of
certain topics.
Creation and cosmology are one of these areas where the power of myth
works. The present scientific explanations seem so compelling, or
perhaps creationism seems so compelling that people simply forget
that it can be looked at in entirely different ways, and often in
ways that view the issue as being of little importance, essentially
irrelevant. For example, the teachings of the Buddha, Christ,
Mohammed and Baha'u'llah place little or no importance on the issues.
But if you demand a coherent world view consistent with science
(usually the science of the previous century), and you go about
creating it in the same way that people create myths, then you are
going to try to read into Baha'u'llah's words some endorsement of
this or that "scientific" point of view, even if it isn't there.
Juan, to his everlasting credit, avoids that in his Encyclopedia
article.
The second topic I want to treat, and you may have already anticipated
what I want to say, is the distinction between academic discourse and
science. In the mythology of science, science is a collection of
facts, things that are true, things that are not to be questioned.
If this set of facts sounds to you like it is actually a set of
prejudices, you are close to thinking like a scientist. Science
to a scientist is a method of exploring the nature of things, of
eliminating prejudices, of objectively evaluating circumstances,
not a set of facts. Science is a dynamic process. It is what
is done when a person is seeking the truth. If the academic
prejudices of the moment are presented as a body of facts,
incontrovertible and not to be questioned, then this is distinct
and different from science. The history of science is replete
with long spells of stagnation where this kind of academic
mind-set destroyed the production of new ideas. But, if academic
discourse is free from prejudice, open, not burdened by intellectual
arrogance and disdain, and concerned with discerning the truth,
then I would like to think of it as science.
So when Baha'i discourse on science and religion breaks down, it
is usually when someone is insisting that something is a fact,
either a scientific fact that can't be questioned, or a religious
truth that can't be questioned or viewed in a different light. But
clearly, if my discussion about science above is correct, then
such an insistence, if carried out in an intemperate and subjective
way (here is where tone enters) is a barrier to learning. It is
a prejudice. I'm not talking about things like the current price
of eggs or the wavelength of blue light or whether Baha'u'llah said
this or that. I'm talking about this mythical view of things: "Its
a fact because I believe it and you are an anti-intellectual
from the ultra right wing if you believe differently", this type
of thing.
But, I think you are asking a broader question. Academic discourse
is not really science in the "hard" or "soft" sense of the word. It
is a set of a large variety of disciplines all mixed and jangled
together, some much older than modern science, and some totally informed
by the scientific method.
One of the most fascinating things I ever read was about the origins
of modern language studies in Edward Said's masterful study
"Orientalism." Originally thinking that the Semitic
languages were the oldest, but inspired by Anglo-Franco studies of
Indian history conducted mainly to help maintain colonial mastery,
German scientists motivated in no small part by the newly emerging
theories of Germanic racial nationalism made seminal contributions
by realizing that the "Aryan" languages of Indian were older, and
by some sort of twisted logic, better. In other words, there were
and still are, a large number of different motives mixed up in those
academic studies, many of them distinctively unsavory. I dare say
that modern academic discourse has much the same mix. Science
is spared some, but of course not all, of this because it is more
likely to deal with inanimate objects (but ask Mary Day).
Hoping my attempted answers are entertaining.
Yours respectfully,
Stephen R. Friberg
>
>
From PayamA@aol.comFri Nov 3 12:01:45 1995
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 11:11:50 -0500
From: PayamA@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Cc: ahmada@acsusun.acsu.unsw.edu.au
Subject: Re: Creation & Encyclopedia
Dear Moojan or John
Could you tell us how many authors (approx) were involved in the creation of
the Encyclopedia?
Payam
From caryer@microsoft.comFri Nov 3 12:02:11 1995
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 08:03:02 -0800
From: "Cary E. Reinstein"
To: "talisman@indiana.edu"
Subject: Y'all be nice now, y'hear!
I've known David House personally since I moved to the Northwest umpteen years
ago. He's a good soul and deeply spiritual as well as a fine intellect. I
believe that Juan Cole, whom I know just through some warm and supportive
offline correspondence and his public posts, to be a like soul. I treasure and
respect them both dearly. I learn from both of them every time they write or
speak. They both love the Faith and serve it with all their hearts.
Please, all, be nice to my friends,
Thanks,
Cary :-)
=============================
"The function of the expert is not to be more right than other people, but to
be wrong for more sophisticated reasons." -- Dr. David Butler, British
psephologist (one who studies political elections)
From burlb@bmi.netFri Nov 3 12:02:55 1995
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 95 08:26 PST
From: Burl Barer
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Mirza Abul Fazl
>From page 111 of "The Oriental Rose" (or the Shining Pathway)
Mirza Abul Fazl is another unique and splendid personality who came into
personal contact with Baha Ullah....Baha Ullah spoke to him with great
tenderness of the trials that were before him, of the lonely years he should
spend in poverty and exile, where nevertheless he would still labor for the
cause of God. Then he concluded:
"I want you to remember that wherever you are, no matter how poor and lonely
you may appear to be, if you but think of me, I shall be with you instantly.
In reality, you will never be alone., you will never be helpless!"
Then he gave the traveler a little prayer which he had written for him, to
be repeated in the moment of danger or deep distress, when he must know that
God was near.
"And I never pronounced the lovely words without the sense of his presence,
and immediate relief from the pressure that bound me!" declared Mirza Abul Fazl.
------
it doesn not say what the little prayer was, but it looks like you got it.
Burl (still not awake, showered, shaved, or prayed) Barer
*******************************************************
Order MAN OVERBOARD, the new book by Burl Barer today!
*******************************************************
From LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduFri Nov 3 12:04:40 1995
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 95 11:45:14 EWT
From: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: preaching cont'd
I am simply awed by the indifference to one's fellow creatures shown by some
members of Talisman. And, oh, when one's own ox is not being gored, how pious
some can sound.
Bev came on Talisman full of a need for healing because of suffering she
personally experienced in the Baha'i community. But allow any of the rest of
us to share our grievances and, well, no, no, no... We must have faith and all
that other good stuff. Really, now.
Ahmad, when you have tasted a little of life's experiences, perhaps then you
would like to rethink your position on the Encyclopedia. Your postings assume
that you are living miles above the rest of us spiritually. If only we had
your perspective! This gets old real fast, Ahmad.
And, dear Robert, if you had geared your entire education - years and years of
undergraduate and graduate study - pioneered to God awful places, - made a
decision to spend your life serving the Faith and then were told, no thanks, we
don't want you, maybe I could put up with some of your tirades. You do not
have the bounty of knowing John, or Juan, or Moojan, or Todd Lawson, or Will
van den Hoonard, and a whole host of other dedicated souls. I'd wait until I
met them before I was so eager to trash them. You might be truly surprised at
what the insitutions are so blithely dumping.
Talisman has been a real lesson in a lot of ways for me. I guess I never quite
understood "groop mentality" before. I always thought that people who followed
leaders like Hitler and Stalin were really basically evil, as in nearly entire
nations of evil people. Now, I see it otherwise. These were just people who
just fixed their sights somewhere, closed their ears and eyes and noses and
followed wherever their "star" led.
For those who think that we ultimately can't make a mistake, I am reminded of
the question that I believe someone asked either Abdu'l Baha or Shoghi Effendi
when they were having to contend with someone who was competing for leadership
of the Faith. That person said, "Are you 'Ali?" In other words, we make a
decision to take responsibility for ourselves and what we believe in. "Have
Faith in God, but tie your camel."
If people feel that the institutions have
served them unfairly, they should have the right to a public forum and the
right to appeal decisions to a neutral body. By now, from what we have
learned of the history of the world, this should be obvious and not shocking.
I will refrain from posting for awhile. I think I should refrain from reading
Talisman for awhile. I am appalled by the callousness of some of the writers
here. Perhaps because I know so very well the people who have been hurt - and
so deeply hurt - by this Encyclopedia project - I cannot bear to read the
pompous comments that keep popping up on this screen.
Linda
From shastri@best.comFri Nov 3 12:05:05 1995
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 16:50:11 GMT
From: Shastri Purushotma
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Houston's teaching project
Ahang and all,
The description of Houston sounds very similar to
San Francisco area in 1993 -- there was a full time
teaching project, over 100 new friends joined community
of Greatest Name in a period of months .... then
disunifying elements contributed to pulling the wheels off
the cart that was moving and things have been stuck
in the ground ever since.... hopefully same thing
won't happen in Houston and momentum can be regained.....
Ruhiyyuh Khanum was in Wash. D.C recently and talked
very bluntly about what on earth is the U.S. Community doing??
There shouldn't be these dumb questions about "Mass Teaching --
right or wrong"??!!! ...
When you fish you throw out a net and all sorts and types
of fish come in .. so what??? ... Why this continual idiocy
about who is and who isn't worthy of being a Bahai???
Its about time the people with energy around the
country just make a big resolve and blast through
all the "naysayers" ...
haven't things been stagnant for long enough???
Getting youth,and in particular youth workshops, to
focus on mass teaching can hopefully provide enough
of this positive energy to change things once and
for all.... naysayers are just the wind resistance
as this Porche of Entry by Troops builds up speed!
Lv,
Shastri
From sdphelps@phoenix.Princeton.EDUFri Nov 3 15:16:44 1995
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 11:08:29 -0500 (EST)
From: "Steven D. Phelps"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Neutral scholarship
Regarding the Baha'i Encyclopedia, Dr. Walbridge wrote:
> The House's concerns dealt with the propriety of an official Baha'i
> publication using the methods and tone of neutral scholarship about
> fundamental Baha'i topics. They also had concerns about matters
> of accuracy. I believe that these concerns were not well founded and
> that they reflected a lack of understanding about the nature of
> encyclopedias and of scholarship in general.
Perhaps the House of Justice objects to the tone of what Dr. Walbridge
refers to as "neutral scholarship" because it considers the kind of
scholarship practiced by Western academicians to be in fact characterized
by a marked bias towards a certain materialistic mindset. Why should
Baha'i scholars write using a language of discourse which is based on
assumptions they know to be false?
What appears to me to be happening is that the House of Justice is trying
to push the editorial board to renounce the hidden assumptions of modern
scholarly discourse, and to forge, by the example of the Baha'i
Encyclopedia, a new definition of scholarship to present to the world.
This is by no means a trivial thing, as it involves a break with an old
paradigm and the creation of a new one.
In my opinion, a challenge has been offered to Baha'i scholars in general,
through the publication of the recent compilation on scholarship, to
define a uniquely "Baha'i" approach to scholarship which will combine
steadfast adherence to the scientific method with a profound faith that
"He doeth whatsoever He willeth", an attitude of humility and reverence,
and the acknowledgement of the limitations of human reason; in other
words, a unique blending of head and heart, reason and faith, such as the
world has never seen. Are we up for the challenge?
Steven Phelps
Graduate Student
Department of Physics
From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comFri Nov 3 15:17:41 1995
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 95 10:19:01 -0500
From: Ahang Rabbani
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Allan Ward
[This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII]
Beloved David,
Thanks very much for your well informed note of last night.
I don't mean to open old wounds or dig for dirt, and if this
question is inappropriate please ignore it and move on, but am
curious to know what happened with Allan Ward and his election.
Haven't heard about him in years!
I remember growing up as a teenager in Dallas in 70's, Dr. Ward
was a very popular Baha'i speaker who frequently visited the
area. His theses on Abdu'l-Baha's travels to North America is
one of my favirate theses and I've enjoyed his "239 Days" book
(based on the same research). When he was elected to NSA, I was
in Haifa and didn't hear any of the details except that the House
had overruled the election. But why? Any explanations from the
NSA?
Again, I'm just curious to know what happened. But by now am old
and wise enough to know some questions are best never asked and
if this is one of those, please pardon.
love, ahang.
From jrcole@umich.eduFri Nov 3 15:21:31 1995
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 12:00:40 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: a Baha'i bill of rights
Over the past year, a number of horror stories have been told by various
Talismanians about their experiences with the Baha'i administration.
These have included what is now very old news such as the Dialogue
affair, but other incidents much more recent. The nature of current Baha'i
discourse is such that I am reluctant to go into details. But suffice it
to say that it seems to me clear that injustices have been done; and that
appeal to the Universal House of Justice is increasingly unsatisfactory
as a mechanism of redress for 6 million persons, since so few appeals can
be dealt with. Finally, it seems clear also that many of the abuses
could be prevented through legal and institutional changes, which have
not come about. So let me get down to brass tacks.
I would like to propose for your consideration a draft of possible
amendments to the By-Laws of the National Spiritual Assemblies. As Ahang
notes, one should think of this in world terms. I am not a lawyer,
however, and drafting legal language is not easy. So all I can do is
present some ideas and maybe the lawyers can get the language right later.
The most recent Baha'i World volume I have at home is 1976-79, and it
gives a standard version of NSA By-Laws on pp. 340-345. The last article
to be included is this:
Article XII
These By-Laws may be amended by a majority vote of the National Spiritual
Assembly at any of its regular or special meetings, provided that at
least fourteen days prior to the date fixed for the said meeting a copy
of the proposed amendment or amendments is mailed to each member of the
Assembly by the Secretary.
[Note that this procedure strikes me as very dangerous. Article VI
defines a quorum as 5 members of the NSA, and says a majority of a quorum
can make decisions. This implies that 3 NSA members could conceivably
amend the By-Laws, which are the Constitution of the Baha'i community!]
In any case, given that the By-Laws are susceptible of amendment, I want
to propose amendments; for now, it is just a matter of talking points.
Article XIII
Each National Spiritual Assembly must establish a National Baha'i Court,
to consist of a panel of three justices. These justices shall be
appointed by the National Spiritual Assembly and shall serve until 70
years of age. Once appointed, a justice cannot be removed except for
the commission of civil or Baha'i crimes. Where a judge is accused of
such a crime, he or she shall be tried by the Universal House of Justice
and if found guilty may be removed from office by the Universal House of
Justice. The National Baha'i Court shall have jurisdiction over Baha'i
personal status law cases appealed from Local Spiritual Assembly
decisions. It shall also have jurisdiction over all charges against a
Baha'i of campaigning for Baha'i office or of negatively campaigning
against a sitting Local or National Spiritual Assembly. The decisions of
the court are final and may not be appealed.
Article XIV
Section 1. In the determination of their rights and obligations and of
any charge against them of having contravened Baha'i law, all
Baha'is are entitled in full equality to a fair hearing by an independent
and impartial tribunal. Should they so request in writing, such a hearing
must be held in public.
Section 2. No person charged with violating Baha'i law shall be
compelled to witness against himself or herself. No person may have his
or her administrative rights put in jeopardy twice for the same offense.
No person shall be deprived of his or her administrative rights without
due process of law. Nor shall any Baha'i's private property, including
intellectual property, be taken for the use of Baha'i institutions,
without just compensation.
Section 3. Baha'is prosecuted by a Baha'i institution for contravening
Baha'i law have the right to a speedy trial, and to a public one if they
so desire. They have the right to be confronted with the witnesses
against them. They have the right to have compulsory process for
obtaining witnesses in their favor. They have a right to see the
evidence presented against them. They have a right to the assistance of
Counsel if they so desire.
Section 4. Excessive fines and punishments shall not be imposed.
Section 5. National Spiritual Assemblies shall be considered impartial
tribunals except where they level a charge, of campaigning for office or
of negative campaigning, against an individual eligible to serve on them.
Such cases may not be tried by the National Spiritual Assembly, but must
instead be tried by the national Baha'i Court.
Section 6. Campaigning for Baha'i office and negative campaigning
against sitting members of Baha'i elected institutions shall be defined
as engaging in a concerted, coordinated and public campaign. Stray
remarks in private conversation shall not be considered evidence of
campaigning. Criticism of the policies of an elected institution, where
no vilification of individuals is involved, shall not be considered
negative campaigning.
Well, folks, this is a start. Such provisions would have prevented the
miscarriage of justice against the editors of Dialogue in the late 1980s,
and would address continuing problems.
Since the need for all this may be difficult to appreciate in a complete
abstract vacuum, let me just give an example. An NSA somewhere in the
world took away the administrative rights of a certain Baha'i for having
raised questions about that NSA's financial practices. The accused does
not appear to have made the charges publicly. The NSA called up the
accused's friends and interrogated them about his private conversations.
The accused was never allowed to confront his accusers; nor was he
allowed ever to see any of the putative evidence against him. He
repeatedly requested the evidence.
A letter from that NSA dated July 27, 1995 reads:
"Dear X:
In response to your letter of July 13, 1995, the National Spiritual
Assembly has instructed us to convey to you that your request for
additional information has been denied. The National Assembly feels that
it has explained to you the reasons for the removal of your
administrative rights and that you are already in possession of
sufficient information to enable you to prepare your appeal.
With loving Baha'i greetings . . ."
This individual had been told only the charges against him (which he
denied), not the shadowy corners from which they emanated.
I ask you all whether any of you really would like to be in this
situation; you could be; thousands of Baha'is have had their rights
removed, some in this arbitrary way. And remember, the NSA that tried
this individual was *not* an impartial tribunal in this instance, since
it felt maligned by the accused.
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From Member1700@aol.comFri Nov 3 15:21:41 1995
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 11:59:03 -0500
From: Member1700@aol.com
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Welcome!
Warmest welcome to Chris Nelson.
Thank you for assuring us that our "not very Baha'i" efforts are not in
vain.
Tony
From margreet@margreet.seanet.comFri Nov 3 15:28:22 1995
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 09:21:11 -0800
From: "Marguerite K. Gipson"
To: Juan R Cole , Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: reforms, unapologetically
Dear Juan... I have never met you prior to being on Talisman, I have never
read any of your works, whatever, other than on Talisman, and some of your
postings has raised the hair on the back of my neck several times, and I am
a 4th generation Bahai, my history goes back to 1903. I have read ton's
of the Bahai Writings. My VCR does not blink, it shows the time. I hope
during a lightning storm I am not standing next to you.... But,
JFYI, and a reminder, that not all of the whole Bahai community is at your
spiritual level, be it higher or lower than the rest of us... Dang! That
spiritual cup has no measure.
Then, Helen Hornby took 10 years out of her live to write *Lights of
Guidance* I was there in Ecuador with her for 6 months, and I helped her
with the research, but at the time I had no clue as to the outcome of that
process. She passed away shortly after the book was published, and I
honestly feel, that book kept her alive for that time. She was a healthy
woman, as I remember. Her lives work was to produce that book. Many
people have benefitted from it, and I will continue to use it. So, sir, if
you so distastefully dislike the book for its overly schematic texture,
write another one to your liking.
To make your computer run faster, and to add more memory, hit Control, Alt,
Delete.
Margreet
At 01:08 AM 11/3/95 -0500, Juan R Cole wrote:
>Then you quote a long list of passages; I presume the page numbers are to
>*Lights of Guidance.* I really wish we could ban this acontextual and
>overly schematic book from our community discourse. I have not checked,
>but I suspect it leaves out Secret of Divine Civilization, Traveller's
>Narrative, and the more progressive passages in Promulgation of Universal
>Peace altogether.
>cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
From Member1700@aol.comFri Nov 3 15:29:36 1995
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 12:28:32 -0500
From: Member1700@aol.com
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Censorship
No, Carl, I am afraid that I do not think that the institutions of the Faith
should be censoring or suppressing speech for any reason whatsoever. You
forget that I am a publisher. No only would that predispose me to hate
censorship, which I do. But, being a Baha'i publisher, I have seen the inner
workings of the Baha'i system of censorship over a period of some twenty
years now. And I don't like it any better.
This, after all, was a system instituted by Shoghi Effendi with the
explicit promise that it would eventually be abolished. The time has come,
and it is a bit overdue. I see nothing whatever to be gained by continuing
to suppress the true diversity of opinion within the Baha'i community, and
quite a bit to be lost.
The most important thing that is lost is that this one practice does
indeed keep the Baha'i community as "an exclusive club with a lot of rules."
I do not believe that is what the community is or should be. I do not think
that is what Baha'u'llah or 'Abdu'l-Baha intended it to be. This Faith
belongs to all of humanity: it is not an exclusive club. It should be broad
enough to embrace all human beings on earth--and transform them: this is A
LOT different than imposing a bunch of tricky rules on them.
I am convinced that as long as we maintain the present system of review,
and the mindset that it fosters, the Baha'i Faith in this country will never
be any more than it is right now. That is, a tiny, sectarian group with a
lot of big ideas and no way to carry them out. After a hundred years, that
no longer looks heroic but only quaint and charming, and rather pitiable.
(Many thanks to Burl for his magnificent post on Green Acre.)
Tony
From Member1700@aol.comFri Nov 3 15:30:11 1995
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 12:49:39 -0500
From: Member1700@aol.com
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Kalimat's encyclopedia?
Actually, Richard, while Moojan was still the editor and the encyclopedia was
having problems, I did offer to publish it through Kalimat. The offer
certainly still stands! I would be delighted. John, you can pass that on.
But, anyway, I think that the notion that the Baha'i institutions will not
pay for scholarship is quite bad enough. They are certainly willing to pay
millions of dollars for a "Center for the Study of the Holy Text." What are
they going to do in there? Pretend to do scholarship, but just produce the
same triumphalist scholasticism that we have had for the last hundred years?
For the amount of money that is being spent on that building, we could have
founded a small Baha'i college in the United States and started employing
Baha'i scholars. That would make a difference, buildings do not. (No, I do
not believe that the Arc is going to magically bring on the Lesser Peace,
either.)
Christian chuches support their scholars and theologians, Jewish groups
support their scholars and theologians, Muslims support their scholars and
theologians. Baha'is seem to just censor them and hold them in contempt.
Warmest,
Tony
From shastri@best.comFri Nov 3 15:32:10 1995
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 18:30:08 GMT
From: Shastri Purushotma
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: "insidious, lukewarm people"
Here is the text and reference of the complete letter:
15 April 19491
As he has cabled the N.S.A. a few days ago, he feels that the
difficulties which have arisen in Germany, and which called forth
the letter you rightly felt was likely to cause more harm than
good, are mainly due to the fact that the believers need to be
deepened in their knowledge and appreciation of the Covenants
of both Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha. This is the stronghold of
the Faith of every Baha'i, and that which enables him to withstand
every test and the attacks of the enemies outside the Faith,
and the far more dangerous, insidious, lukewarm people inside
the Faith who have no real attachment to the Covenant, and
consequently uphold the intellectual aspect of the teachings while
at the same time undermining the spiritual foundation upon
which the whole Cause of God rests.
He feels you and your dear family should do all you can to teach
the believers the Will and Testament to strengthen their
understanding of its important provisions; for all the authority of
the administrative bodies, as well as of the Guardian himself, is
mainly derived from this tremendous document.
(Light of Div. Guidance: Vol 2, page 84)
>[This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII]
>
>
>With great interest, I read Marguerite Gipson's post where she
>quotes from a talk give by Peter Khan in Wilmette. In a portion
>of this talk, Dr. Khan states:
>
>> Shoghi Effendi says: ". . . that the believers need to be
>> deepened in their knowledge and appreciation of the Covenants
>> of both Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha. This is the stronghold
>> of the Faith of every Baha'i, and that which enables him to
>> withstand every test and the attacks of the enemies outside the
>> Faith." ... "This is the stronghold of the Faith of every
>> Baha'i, and that which enables him to withstand every test and
>> the attacks of the enemies outside the Faith and the far more
>> dangerous, insidious, lukewarm people inside the Faith who have
>> no real attachment to the Covenant, and consequently uphold the
>> intellectual aspect of the teachings while at the same time
>> undermining the spiritual foundation upon which the whole Cause
>> of God rests."
>
>
>Extremely powerful statement. Does anyone know in what instance
>this letter was written. As I recall, its not Shoghi Effendi
>speaking but rather its a letter *on behalf* the Guardian. That
>is, the words may well be those of a secretary or could have been
>dictated by the beloved Guardian. I'm very interested to know
>the circumstances which led to this response.
>
>Also, I think Peter Khan left off the real purpose of this
>letter. It goes one to urge this family (as I recall it was
>addressed to a family) to help educate the friends in the Will
>and Testament of `Abdu'l-Baha. I think this was the real point
>of the letter. Could someone verify this?
>
>Also, does anyone know of other letters of the Guardian where he
>urges study of the Master's Will and Testament? I'll be grateful
>for references.
>
>Appreciatively, ahang.
>
>
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comFri Nov 3 15:32:30 1995
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 10:39:06 -0800
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Common Era at the Bosch Baha'i Bookshop.
Well done Steve on the great review of your publication . My dear
friend Richard Hollinger will be beside himself with joy that naturally
Bosch has Common Era in Stock and ready to ship . Buy from your
Cyber-Space neighbourhood Bookshop not the Fat Cat publishers
Priced at $14.95 and a bargain.
Kindest Regards
Derek Cockshut
From TLCULHANE@aol.comFri Nov 3 15:36:40 1995
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 14:05:55 -0500
From: TLCULHANE@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Reform ,Republics, Revelation
Dear Friends ,
There seems at times a desire to reinstate a Shiite theocracy in
Bahai garb as though this will somehow avoid all the problems associated with
theocracy in the world . My own view of this has been influenced by
American history . Why do I think American history is significant? Perhaps
because of the presence of this country in the world - wealth ,power and all
that . My primary reason is this . The United States was the first country to
find itself in the position of facing the consequences of the
disestablishment of religion .e. g. the seperation of church and state . This
process began in the revolutionary period1770-80's and was not complete until
the 1820's .
This disestablishment led to the re-directing of religious energies, from
shoring up the "church" and therefore imposing a sacred order on society, to
investing 'secular " actions with religious significance. This process
accelerates from the 1820's on with the momentum of the womens suffrage
movement , the abolition of slavery , temperence and by the late 19th early
20 th century the social gospel movement whih addressed injustices related to
the industrialization and urbanization of America. ( BTW for Horace Holley
fans his religion fro Mankind has some significant similarities to Walter
Raushenbusch's Christianizing the Social Order written in 1912. )
This is important to me because those religious groups which made an
ethical difference in the lives of living human beings engaged the world
around and found spiritual significance in social / secular life . Those
religious groups which focused on doctrinal purity , claimed to be "the true
faith " and defined the world in sectarian terms were eventually passed by
had no effect. i see in much Bahai discourse the latter quality and that
concerns me . Actually it creates in me a profound sense of pain and despair.
One of the principle passages which speaks to me of religion , liberty
and the sacred is from the Kitab'i 'Aqdas . This passage is , for me .
another of the "maiden " passages which I wont get into at the moment . This
same passage Shoghi Effendi has referred to as conferring something
unprecedented and unique .
Hearken ye , O Rulers of America , and the Presidents of the Republics
therein , unto that which the Dove is warbling on the Branch of eternity: "
There is none other God but Me , the Ever -Abiding, the Forgiving , The All -
Bountiful . " Adorn ye the temple of dominion with the ornament of justice
and of the fear of God, and its head with the crown of the remembrance of
your Lord, the Creator of the heavens . . . . . BInd ye the broken with the
hands of justice, and crush the oppressor who flourisheth with the rod of the
commandments of your Lord, the ordainer , the All Wise . "
What is so significant to me is this mandate addressed to a nation ., the
first to undergo disestablishment. I think this passage implies an acceptance
and approval of that reality . More importantly to me it indicates that the
rulers of the " temple of dominion " which I read as civil government are to
promote justice and to link the promotion of this justice with the fear of
God which i read as justice is the will of God . Further it says to me that
these same civil rulers are to promote the knowledge of God ( the Dhikr thing
) or "remembrance of your Lord ". This is to me especially significant
inlight of disestablishment. The civil government is to encourage , promote
the remembrance of God . I read this as civil government is to promote the
worship of God . Freedom of religion is not the same thing as freedom from
religion. I think this hearkens back to paragraph 1 and the inseperable
duties of recognition and observance. One would suspect in context that
justice is inseperable from the remembrance of God, that is from worship .
and that the remembrance of God is inseperable from the presence of justice,
otherwise why give both mandates. Since this is inseperably linked it means
to me , in an environment of disestablishment that justice requires this
seperation of church/ state. What the passage clearly says to me is that the
civil government of the Republics is to bind the "broken " that is develop
in Gilligans sense an ethic of care that is wrapped in justice and they are
to actively oppose opression , presumably both political oppression and
religious oppression (- the greatest of oppressions, see the Iqan ). Here is
a mandate to promote justice linked to remembrance of God > What it clesrly
does not call for is the establishment of a church state . It implies that
the civil authorities are to uphold the ordinances of God . Taken in light
of Baha u llahs command to consort with the followers of all religions it
seems to me an affirmation of political and religious liberty and that the
civil govermment is to crush those who would prevent this by excersising the
full power and authority of the state to promote justice and the knowledge of
God . That is create the conditions in which justice and worship can flourish
. The model for how this could look is present in the Mashriqu l Adhkar and
Admin . Order . The same principles it seems to me apply to the Bahai
internal order as it does to the civil order. Neither supplants the other .
This passage is for me both an affirmation and a critique . It affirms
the role of civil government in the unfolding of God's plan and at the same
time upholds a standard by which it can be critiqued ; is the civil
government doing it's job is the larger society expressive of the Will of
God .does it promote justice , eliminate oppression , and support the
remembrance of God . To the extant that a society and government do this it
will befulfilling its role in the Great Covenant of God , fulfilling the will
of God . presumably such a government and people will be blessed .
warm regards ,
Terry
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzFri Nov 3 23:11:14 1995
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 1995 10:52:00 +1200
From: Robert Johnston
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: and on and on it goes
ffolks,
Well amigos will it never end? Even after Ahang re-posted the letter about
"insidious, lukewarm people" Juan saw fit to say this:
> And, of
>course, we are supposed to write letters to the House. But what if the
>House is unresponsive (or, worse, the perpetrator of the injustice, as
>with the censoring of Salmani)?
>
>In essence, the current Baha'i system reduces all Baha'is to mere
>individual voices, which the institutions can slap down one by one. All
>Baha'is are reduced to humble petitioners dependent on the mercy of their
>elected superiors. It is, in fine, a dictator's dream. It does not work.
>Maybe it worked when we had small face-to-face communities. Maybe it
>worked when we had a Guardian. But it does not work now. And my
>criteria for it not working is that it does not produce the sort of open
>society that `Abdu'l-Baha envisaged, and for which he risked his life and
>sacrificed his years in exile.
I am afraid Juan is playing dice with the devil here.
Robert ("Almost about to leave Juan to himself") Johnston
Appendix:
Extract (from the Guardian, apparently) from Ahang's letter:
>> Shoghi Effendi says: ". . . that the believers need to be
>> deepened in their knowledge and appreciation of the Covenants
>> of both Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha. This is the stronghold
>> of the Faith of every Baha'i, and that which enables him to
>> withstand every test and the attacks of the enemies outside the
>> Faith." ... "This is the stronghold of the Faith of every
>> Baha'i, and that which enables him to withstand every test and
>> the attacks of the enemies outside the Faith and the far more
>> dangerous, insidious, lukewarm people inside the Faith who have
>> no real attachment to the Covenant, and consequently uphold the
>> intellectual aspect of the teachings while at the same time
>> undermining the spiritual foundation upon which the whole Cause
>> of God rests."
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzFri Nov 3 23:11:51 1995
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 1995 11:17:23 +1200
From: Robert Johnston
To: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: sock it to me... [Was: preaching cont'd]
Dear Linda,
Re:
>And, dear Robert, if you had geared your entire education - years and years of
>undergraduate and graduate study - pioneered to God awful places, - made a
>decision to spend your life serving the Faith and then were told, no thanks, we
>don't want you, maybe I could put up with some of your tirades. You do not
>have the bounty of knowing John, or Juan, or Moojan, or Todd Lawson, or Will
>van den Hoonard, and a whole host of other dedicated souls. I'd wait until I
>met them before I was so eager to trash them. You might be truly surprised at
>what the insitutions are so blithely dumping.
Services to the Faith are no measure of anyone's worth unless they are
compliant with the Covenant, particularly in relation to the House, as the
supreme body. [see David House's excellent letter of today] If you have a
quick run through of Star of the West volumes you will find plenty of
articles by Mason Remey, and his services to the Faith were countless. So
far as cleverness is concerned, Judas was the brightest of Jesus'
disciples. Of course, I am not meaning to imply that these instances
correlate strictly. They simply serve to illustrate my point.
In view of your extreme mildness, I am going to ignore the "tirade"
reference ;-}
Robert.
From TLCULHANE@aol.comFri Nov 3 23:13:13 1995
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 17:37:30 -0500
From: TLCULHANE@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: May 19 letter pt. 4
" We now wish to address the manner of your functioning as a National
Spiritual Assembly . Your analysis of the situation identified the issues of
immediate concern about the national administration of the Faith , such
issues as : over -centralization, particularly with regard to the
administration of the teaching work ; your fear that you may be excercising a
level of administrative control that may be stifling individual initiative
throughout the country; and the relation of your Assembly to, the community .
You live in a society caught in the tightening grip of moral decadence
on a vast scale . But this should come as no surprise to you . It is the
unaviodable consequence of a pervasive godlessness ; its symptoms and
repurcussions were described in painful detail by Shoghi effendi in several
of his letters to the Western friends . Inevitably, the American Bahai
communityis affected by this condition to some extent. The corrosive
influence of an overbearing and rampant secularization is infecting the style
of administration of the Faith in your commmunity and threatening to
undermine its efficacy .
The aggressiveness and competitiveness which animate a dominantly
capitalist culture ; the partisanship inherent in a fervidly democratic
system ; the suspicion of public - policy institutions and the skepticism
toward established authority ingrained in the political attitude of the
people and which trace their origins to the genesis of American society ;
the cynical disregard of the moderating principles and rules of civilized
human relationships rsulting from an excessive liberalism and its immoral
consequences - such unsavory characteristics inform entrenched habits of
American life , which imperceptibly at first but more obviously in the long
run have come to exert too great a sway over the management of the Bahai
community and over the behavior of portions of its rank and file in relation
to the Cause . This unwholesome influence must be arrested by immediate
deliberate effort - an effort which must surely begin with your Assembly
itself . Further accommodation of it will severely impede the progress of
your community , despite the abundant possibilities of a breakthrough . It
was due to this concern in particular that we anxiously welcomed your request
for a meeting with us . "
--- to be continued --
T.C. I assume that if the Supreme Body can be concerned about an "
overbearing and rampant secularization " in the administration of the Cause
that it is permissable for me to be so concerned . And that if the
overcoming of the negative attributes they cite must surely begin with the
NSA itself that the NSA must in some way have been infected with those
qualities . I would suggest that the example of Houston's teaching project is
an unfortunate continuation of this pattern . If as Ahang mentions , members
of the NSA met with a group of believers but came onto an area that is the
jurisdiction of LSA ;s that to not consult with the LSA ;s undermines the
"legitimacy of the LSA;s , the very bedrock of the Administrative Order. It
has the effecy of reducing all relationships within the Cause to that of
individuals and the NSA . I find in this an unfortuante example of over
bearing secularization as this is the manner in which most capitalist
economic organizations function ; without regard for local communities and
their governing structures .
In this I find the continuation of a pattern of action and an
interpretive framework which confuses the NSA with the Adminisrative Order in
paricular and the Bahai Commonwealth in general . But i am jumping ahead of
the House as they are going to address this in the next couple of
installments .
warm regards ,
Terry
From TLCULHANE@aol.comFri Nov 3 23:13:59 1995
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 17:37:07 -0500
From: TLCULHANE@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: re: insidious , lukewarm people
My thanks to Shastri for providing some context for the partial statement
peter Kahn qoutes in his talk . I wish the letter from the "family " on
which the secretary based a response was available . It appears to have
something to do with problems in Germany . I must be really dense again but I
thought the authority of the institutions rested first of all on the Kitab i
Aqdas and the Kitab i Ahd rather than the Will and Testament. My
understanding of the Will and Testament has been that it is a derivative
document "expounding" or expanding upon the two aforementioned texts . No
Aqdas and Ahd and the Will and Testament kind of hangs there is space with
no place to go .
Perhaps any study of the Will and correspondingly any reference to this
letter,by a secretary, needs to be grounded in the Aqdas and Ahd which were
not widely available or circulated at the time this letter was written.
On a somewhat related note the LSA in Omaha no longer uses "Lights of
Guidance " as a primary consultation tool . A litle over two years ago it
came to the unanimous conclusion that the passages cited frequently gave no
context as to the situation involved and therefore the LSA was in no position
to determine the applicability to current situations under consultation. The
LSA 's primary source document for beginning consultation is the Kitab i
Aqdas and Tablets of Baha ullah Revealed after the Kitab i Aqdas . It then
goes from there .
warm regards ,
Terry
From shastri@best.comFri Nov 3 23:27:46 1995
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 1995 00:33:18 GMT
From: Shastri Purushotma
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: re: insidious , lukewarm people
> I thought the authority of the institutions rested first of all on the Kitab i
> Aqdas and the Kitab i Ahd rather than the Will and Testament. My
>understanding of the Will and Testament has been that it is a derivative
>document "expounding" or expanding upon the two aforementioned texts .
Terry (& gang),
FYI:
Shoghi Effendi explains the relationship between all of the above documents
in God Passes By:
" The Covenant of Baha'u'llah had been instituted solely through the
direct operation of His Will and purpose. The Will and Testament of
Abdu'l-Baha, on the other hand, may be regarded as the offspring
resulting from that mystic intercourse between Him Who had generated
the forces of a God-given Faith and the One Who had been
made its sole Interpreter and was recognized as its perfect Exemplar.
The creative energies unleashed by the Originator of the Law of God
in this age gave birth, through their impact upon the mind of Him
Who had been chosen as its unerring Expounder, to that Instrument,
the vast implications of which the present generation, even after the
lapse of twenty-three years, is still incapable of fully apprehending.
This Instrument can, if we would correctly appraise it, no more be divorced
from the One Who provided the motivating impulse for its
creation than from Him Who directly conceived it. The purpose of
the Author of the Baha'i Revelation had, as already observed, been so
thoroughly infused into the mind of Abdu'l-Baha and His Spirit had
so profoundly impregnated His being, and their aims and motives been
so completely blended, that to dissociate the doctrine laid down by
the former from the supreme act associated with the mission of the
latter would be tantamount to a repudiation of one of the most fundamental
verities of the Faith".
(God Passes By, pages 325- 326)
> On a somewhat related note the LSA in Omaha no longer uses "Lights of
>Guidance " as a primary consultation tool .
Whatever the merit of Lights of Guidance ... (personally
find it an awesome reference source but anyway) ... the letter of
Shoghi Effendi in question is in "Lights of Divine Guidance" ..
a compilation of letters to Germany and Austria.
Warmest Regards and happy spiritual jigsaw puzzle fitting!
Lv
SP
From Member1700@aol.comFri Nov 3 23:28:45 1995
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 19:34:55 -0500
From: Member1700@aol.com
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Lights of Guidance
Well, I knew Helen Hornby too. I came to know here when I was in Panama for
three or four months in 1968, pioneering (as it were) on a youth project with
another Baha'i youth from the U.S. Helen was there, an Auxiliary Board
member at the time, I believe. And a more devoted maidservant of
Baha'u'llah was not to be found. I came to love her intensely. She visited
my mother and me in Los Angeles some time later, and we renewed our
friendship. I mourned when she passed away. So nothing that I say about her
book should be taken as a criticism of her outstanding service to the Cause,
which lies (by the way) primarily in the field of teaching and not in the
area of Baha'i law.
Anyway, the compilation LIGHTS OF GUIDANCE suffers from the weakness of
all compilations in that it presents texts (and especially letters from the
Guardian) in the contextless present. The book is yet another attempt to
codify Baha'i law prematurely--even though the Guardian repeatedly warned
that this was not to be done, but that each case before an Assembly would
have to be handled on an individual basis--with reference to Baha'i
principle, but not binding precident. Anyway, it is mostly because Baha'is
use it that way--but also because of its initial conception--that the book is
seen as a listing of rules and regulations that can be used to cover every
possible situation. It is not. And much damage can be done by looking at it
that way. At best, the various quotations can be used to illumine an
underlying principle. Then that principle can be applied to new cases. But,
I am afraid that takes more maturity than most institutions have. They would
rather just look up the answer in LIGHTS OF GUIDANCE and be done with it.
Warmest,
Tony
From Member1700@aol.comFri Nov 3 23:30:44 1995
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 19:46:18 -0500
From: Member1700@aol.com
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Agreeing with Linda
Actually, I agree with Linda. If the truth were known, we agree on most
things. Certainly we agree on matters of freedom of expression, and the need
to expand the vision of the Baha'i community. In fact, I agree with just
about everything she has to say about women, as well. And nothing that she
has to say about men. Too bad. We will keep talking.
Anyway, I think that the insensitivity of hardliners on Talisman to
people's feelings and sacrifices is really appalling. The whole mentality
of: "You don't count, only the Cause counts" is evil and insidious. It is a
mentality which uses people, and can really justify any abuse of the
individual.
I think that some of us should carefully think about the implications of
the kind of world we would have it individuals had no rights, institutions
could not be criticized, and there was no such thing as freedom of speech or
freedom of the press. Do you really think that is where the Baha'i Faith is
supposed to be taking us? Boy, is that every totalitarian ruler's dream, or
what?
Well, I am having none of it. I would not accept such standards from any
person or institution in the world--why should I accept them from the
Baha'is? And please do not drag out the tired excused that "God is on our
side, and so that makes it all OK." It does not make it OK when the Catholic
Church says that. It does not make it OK when the US government says that.
And it does not make it OK when we say that. That much, at least, should be
obvious.
Warmest,
Tony
From margreet@margreet.seanet.comFri Nov 3 23:32:24 1995
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 17:15:54 -0800
From: "Marguerite K. Gipson"
To: talisman
Subject: Re: Baha'i Encyclopedia Articles??
Hello... Am I allowed to speak??? LOL
Anyway, someone a while back gave us a description of what the Enclopedia
was, and who worked hard on this project... I want to say thank you for
that, whoever that was that posted it. Thank you, Thank you, Thank you,
Thank you I had no idea.
One question and comment... Sometimes our answer is NO! and our test is to
just get over it, even if our lives work is involved. Maybe the world is
not ready for this project, and there is wisdom from all this. I honestly
believe that. The world has wisdom.
Here is an example.....
My grandmother worked for 20 years of her elderly life with the "index"
committee made up of several Bahai's. In 1912 when Abdul'Baha was here in
the US, Chicago to be exact, he told "someone" what he wanted done
"something to do with indexing" with the Bahai Writings at that time, and
this woman passed it on to others and asked for assistance with this. All
I know is that these 3 X 5 index cards carefully typed out ended up in
someones basement, and now there is someone working with these cards
numbering in the thousands... Well, my grandmother on her last trip to the
mailbox to mail off the final set at the age of 89 said in her child-like
voice, her work on this earth was done, and she looked up to the sky, and
yelled... OK Baha'u'llah you can take me now! She had a stroke 9 days
later, and finally passed 2 years later.
I sat for hours listening to her tell me what she was doing, and I tried to
understand her typing out each word from the various books. I think they
processed about 10 or so books this way. Who knows what all these cards
will be used for in the future. I know our Mark is on this committee to
figure it all out.
When the world is ready for the Encyclopedia project, a printer will be
found, money will be available for its printing, and what ever else is
needed to make it happen will happen. As I read over the account of what
the project was, I could see stages of development it went through. I saw
steps... I also saw us not being ready to receive such a work.
I just hope I am working and can afford to purchase books by the time it
comes out...
Margreet.
From burlb@bmi.netFri Nov 3 23:36:14 1995
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 95 18:47 PST
From: Burl Barer
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Temptations of Religion
There is an excellent book by a Christian theologian entitled
The Temptations of Religion. It was written after the author heard a
fundmentalist preacher on the radio and was moved to respond. It is a thin
book but filled with marvelous insights which are relevent to many of our
recent discussions. I went to the library to check it out again and it was
no longer there! Do any of you have this book, or are you familiar with it,
the author etc.? I recall his summation fairly well -- Divine Institutions
exist to be replaced by subsequent revelations and/or fulfillment of initial
purpose.
I would like to get this book, which is probably out of print. Any help
will be appreciated.
Thanks
Burl
*******************************************************
Order MAN OVERBOARD, the new book by Burl Barer today!
*******************************************************
From PXQ00435@niftyserve.or.jpFri Nov 3 23:38:50 1995
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 1995 12:47:00 +0900
From: "K. BABB"
To: TALISMAN@indiana.edu
Subject: America---the Great!
When we first moved to Japan (17 yrs. ago), I got so tired of
the impression from the Japanese that their country was the
most superior one in the world, and that the Japanese people
were the purest race on the face of the planet. Well, I've
come to realize that the people that believe all that are
those who have never been outside Japan for any great length
of time.
I can't believe that I can hear the same sort of refrain
"America---the Greatest!" from people who are Baha'is and should
know better. (I guess many could benefit from a couple years of
overseas "service".) Don't get me wrong. There are many, many
redeeming qualities about the U.S. But likewise, its social,
legal, economic and political systems have just as many flaws.
Its people can be just as narrow-minded, racist, and arrogant,
as the next country. England used to be the same, if I recall
correctly, until it was humbled over the independence of India.
Please, friends---give me a break!
Kathleen
From dhouse@cinsight.comFri Nov 3 23:48:09 1995
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 1995 09:10:28 -0800
From: "David W. House"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: reforms and solutions
Juan, friends,
At 01:10 AM 11/1/95 -0500, you wrote:
>A. Problem 1: Lack of civil society; the lack print space for frank and
>open discourse; censorship practices.
>
>Solution 1: In my view, if Review is abolished, everything else can follow.
> ...
>[discussions take place,] But for it to flourish, the governing institutions
>must withdraw from censorship practices and agree to press freedom,
>uncensored stage plays, and so forth.
I'm not sure who would do this, given that such reviews were established at
the behest of the Guardian. If anyone is not aware of this, I will offer the
requisite quotes. In any case, evidence offered by this forum does not lead
me to believe that uncensored is better.
>B. Problem 2: Derailing of the Baha'i [Encyclopedia] for silly reasons...
Forgive me for being so ignorant of this issue, but I am not aware of the
history. From discussions which I have seen, however, I thought this was a
decision of the Universal House of Justice. If so, then following a logical
syllogism, it would seem that what is being said... well, I will not
specify. It should be clear.
>Solution 3: Why not just be open with the Baha'i community and
>publish the details of NSA salaries and perks?
If such information would inspire more such discussion, I would suggest that
we never be offered the opportunity. Far better for us to be sheep than
wolves, if that is our only choice. What is clear, at present, judging by
the level and nature of discourse on Talisman, is that we are not mature
enough to properly integrate this information. As Americans, we clearly
mistrust our institutions, and that mistrust has exacerbated the problems of
the Institutions of the Faith in this country immensely, profoundly, deeply.
Beyond this, many implications unfold from the reality that Baha'i
Institutions do not have a constituency. The fact of the matter is that the
NSA is not bound to provide this information, and while we might, with the
greatest deference and humility, request it (although I, for one, cannot
imagine that it is of any significance to us), the National Spiritual
Assembly of the United States may choose not to offer it. If we cannot
accept that, we have accused ourselves of immaturity, demonstrating the
initial point.
>Problem 4: Widespread disgruntlement with the NSA
>judging cases where it or its members are interested
>parties.
This is presumptive, in the sense that no evidence of this is provided. I
hesitate, however, to point this out, since it would seem to be a request
for such information, and I can assure you that I do not want it.
The generic point is that such issues are the exclusive perview of the
Institutions, and the only possible outcome of raising it publicly is to
diminish the general level of understanding that such is the case, and to
provide grist for the mill that would grind up the Faith, if it could. That
is, in response, as these words are in response, we begin to discuss the
pros and cons of this as if we had either some right to do so (and if we do,
it would have to be a *much* more civil and indeed more in the form of a
deepening, discussing the implications of various quotes), or more
pertinently, as if we had some power to choose or change, which we clearly
do not.
>E. Problem 5: Baha'i individuals who have their rights removed do
>not have the right to see the evidence against them; do not have the
>right to confront their accusers; and, indeed, have no rights at all
>except that of appeal (which the NSA insists be done through it!).
Sigh. See response above...
>Solution 5: A bill of rights for Baha'i individuals needs to be
>devised and appended to the NSA by-laws.
A th roughly American solution, no doubt. Have we forgotten that the by-laws
of the NSA were approved by the Guardian? If the thought is that these
by-laws have a fundamental flaw, then what is being said about the Guardian,
and indeed the Covenant? How often, in the past, have calls which appeal to
an incompletely realized understanding of the Covenant led to mischief and
suffering? A reading of the history of the Cause should cause us to fear for
the life of our very souls, should we determine to do battle with the
Institutions of the Faith.
>Problem 6: The Baha'i electoral system does not work very well
>and tends to produce a sort of elective dictatorship. All criticism of
>policy is cast as "negative campaigning," leading to a virtual ban on
>creative thinking.
It may also be that valid responses to such comments have not yet been
addressed. So far, I have not seen even a modest fiction of an analysis
which would demonstrate that there is an iota of truth in the assertions
being made. As I previously pointed out, statistical analyses of the past
are interesting, but not predictive, and thus cannot provide proof of the
assertion. Was any other evidence provided? If so, my apologies, for I
missed it. Apparently it bears repeating that when we say that we believe
errors which are glaring, fundamental, structural, and of long history exist
in the NSA and its workings, then we are necessarily saying that the
Universal House of Justice cannot or does not or will not address these errors.
The system being criticized was established through the workings of the
Covenant, and it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the Covenant is
therefore under attack, although my profound hope and current assumption is
that this is not the motive.
I for one feel drained, aghast, shaken, and stunned as if I had been bitten
by a snake. I am not being pejorative, truly; I am rather trying to share
something of my emotional state, and the response which my cells provide to
me, in order to offer some insight into any intemperance my words might reveal.
Beyond this, if such discourse, with such a tone and so wounding to the body
of the Cause continues, I intend to recommend, as one member of the
Community of the Most Great Name, that the National Spiritual Assembly
consider closing down this forum.
[I cannot as yet imagine the response that will get... Batten the hatches!
The smoking lamp is out! Dive, Dive! Ahhhooogahhh! Ahhhooogahhh! Torpedoes
incoming!]
I do not intend to offer this as a threat and I apologize if, in context, it
might seem as such. I very much enjoy discussion, and look forward to
reading the latest on Talisman. Indeed, since joining I have spent far too
much time reading and writing; and it has been, for the most part, a source
of considerable enjoyment to me. But friends, let's face it: if we continue
on this course, it will not matter if we request it ourselves, for it will
be done in any case.
Freedom of any sort implies commensurate responsibility. We cannot insist on
our rights without being passionate about our responsibilities, and I
believe we are too ready, in some instances, to do the former without
undertaking the latter. When the balance has been too greatly ignored, it is
no longer a personal issue: it becomes a community issue, and requires that
the community act to protect itself.
If I found the content merely offensive, I would simply quietly slip away.
But this, for me, is becoming a Covenant issue, and I feel about attacks on
the Covenant like I feel about attacks on my children. I must fight to
retain a sense of balance and to make appropriate responses. Absent the
Covenant, mankind will certainly plunge into irredeemable darkness, and my
children, and my children's children, will certainly suffer. If I must
choose between my suffering and theirs, I will choose mine.
As such, although it would clearly be unjust, and would cause difficulties
for some, if we cannot discover our proper boundaries then I cannot see that
such discourse serves the community, and some of us must suffer the
dissolution of this forum as the price of our inability to police ourselves.
I would also suggest that many of the painful decisions (painful for either
them or us) made by the Institutions have this sort of damned if you do and
damned if you don't quality. I think of Solomon offering to cut the child in
half for the two disputing women. In the end, however, that scene is
instructive, for the two women (the ruled), by their insistence on their own
position, provided Solomon (the ruler) with no better choice. Our own
misdeeds, ignorances, immaturities, and refusals to change our course when
offered gentler advice will also lead to similar consequences.
And if we blame the Institutions, we are far too cavalier regarding our own
part in the problems.
d.
David William House (dhouse@cinsight.com)
Computer Insight
23022 Yeary Lane N.E.
Aurora, OR 97002-0167 USA
(503) 678-1085 voice
(503) 678-1030 fax
"Well is it with the doers of great deeds." Abdu'l-Baha
From tan1@cornell.eduSat Nov 4 13:39:41 1995
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 1995 01:14:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Timothy A. Nolan"
To: talisman@indiana.edu, jrcole@umich.edu
Subject: Covenant
Juan, you have made some comments, in several posts, to which I
would like to respond. Since I am going to disagree strenuously
with you, I say for the record, I do NOT think Juan is
a covenant-breaker, and I do not believe his motives are
malicious. In fact I agree wholeheartedly with much of what
Juan says about human rights, and I sincerely appreciate
the scholarly insights he has provided about the context
of certain passages in the Writings. On certain points,
however, I disagree with Juan in the strongest terms.
Juan, in what I am about to say, it is truly not my intent
to be unkind. I only want to be direct and plain-spoken.
I do not know how to write effectively in a circuitous way.
jc> I recognize that the NSA and the Universal House of Justice
jc>are the ultimate authorities and their rulings are the law. I
jc>just don't think much of some of their rulings, and want to
jc>see them overturned by future, wiser successors.
With regard to the NSA, it is possible, of course, that some of
their rulings need improvement. But I think it is tactless and
ungracious to continually criticize that institution in public.
And, copyright law notwithstanding, Talisman *is* a public place.
As to the Universal House of Justice, their decisions are "the
truth and the purpose of God Himself". Their rulings are
"guarded from mistake". That body is under the unerring guidance
of both the Bab and Baha'u'llah. Regardless of who the members of
the Universal House of Justice are - whether they are nine Kenyan
mathematicians, or nine Inuit schoolteachers, or nine illiterate
Englishmen - no matter who they are, the real author of the
House's decisions is God, through the guidance of the Bab and of
Baha'u'llah. This is a fact that is obvious and undeniable
to anyone who reads and believes the Will and Testament of Abdu'l
Baha. Therefore, to talk of "wiser successors" reveals a lack
of understanding of what the Universal House of Justice is.
In a way, I sympathize with you, Juan. I am often mad at God
for the way the world is. There are lots of things that are not
the way I want them to be. Note that I don't bother getting mad
with the House of Justice, only with God; I believe in going
right to the top. 8^) 8^). But, even though I am sometimes
a malcontent, I am not foolish enough to believe I am actually
right and God is wrong. God, after all is the Source of
knowledge and wisdom.
jc>It is no secret that I and many other Baha'i intellectuals are
jc>furious about the House's suppression of the Baha'i
jc>Encyclopaedia. And this affair is one of the things driving
jc>my suggestions for reform.
I know very little about the Encyclopedia project, and aside from
a few posts to Talisman, I haven't read any of the articles.
However, after reading many posts from some of the major
contributors to the Encyclopedia, I say, candidly that I am
not surprised that the House of Justice has suppressed this work,
at least for the time being. One of the general editors of the
Encyclopedia expressed the view that Abdu'l Baha was
"confused"!!!. I still do not understand how an intelligent,
well-educated Baha'i could ever be capable of entertaining
such a thought. It is ludicrous.
And Juan, a significant scholar and author of at least one
Encyclopedia article has such a shallow understanding of the
Master's Will and Testament that he dares to call decisions
of the Universal House of Justice "silly" and "unjust" (see
below). Juan, as women sometimes say to men:
"You just don't get it, do you."
The Universal House of Justice is always right. Not sometimes,
always. Abdu'l Baha's Will makes this so clear that I am
amazed there is any disagreement on this point. The House
may not always be right in a literalistic, material sense,
but that is a trivial objection. In a spiritual sense, in a moral
sense, in every way that fundamentally counts, there is, in the
world today, no individual or body whose ideas are equal in
wisdom and truth to the decisions of the Universal House of
Justice. I can understand that sometimes the decisions of the
House of Justice may be difficult to understand or to like.
But wisdom and justice are not properly defined by human
likes and dislikes. None of us is guaranteed unfailing, unerring
guidance from the Manifestations of God. The Universal House of
Justice *is* guaranteed precisely this.
jc> And, of course, we are supposed to write letters to the
jc>House. But what if the House is unresponsive (or, worse, the
jc>perpetrator of the injustice, as with the censoring of
jc>Salmani)?
First, I admit total ignorance regarding the Salmani incident to
which you refer. Was it actually the Universal House of Justice
itself that decided to censor this work? Or was it a committee
or an individual. Committees and individuals are of course
capable of injustice...so what else is new? But it is unfair
to blame the Universal House of Justice for an error which is
in fact the responsibility of others.
If, on the other hand, it actually was the Universal House of
Justice itself that made this decision, then it is outrageous
and arrogant to refer to the divinely guided House of Justice
as the "perpetrator of injustice". That body is the "source
of all good and freed from all error." Their decisions are
the "truth and the purpose of God Himself." How can you
possibly believe that the Bab and Baha'u'llah, Who are
the Inspirers of the Universal House of Justice, could ever
be the perpetrators of injustice.?????
Juan, it is obvious from your posts that you do not believe
in the truth of Abdu'l Baha's Will; He said plainly that the
Universal House of Justice is always right, you deny this.
I uphold your right to believe what you think best, but I am
puzzled by something. You remark that you have risked your
life for this Cause. Why would you do that when you clearly
don't believe in this Cause? Why risk your life for a Cause
when you oppose some of the most bedrock principles of this
Cause? It's your business, not mine, but it's a mystery to
me why anyone would risk anything at all for a Cause whose
most basic tenets he denied.
I repeat, I do not associate Juan with covenant-breaking.
I do associate him with muddled thinking.
Tim Nolan
!
From dpeden@imul.comSat Nov 4 13:41:07 1995
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 95 09:58:24+030
From: Don Peden
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: science and myth
Dear Stephen:
Thank you for your contribution!
My husband is a scientist, and one who values and follows the scientific
method you have described. As an artist, I also appreciate the scientific
method. The ability to learn and explore, to me, was the very thing which
attracted me to the Faith. It is what the Faith has to offer, again, to the
world.
This is one of the most exciting things I have read on Talisman! Thank you
for saying it.
Love,
Bev
From dpeden@imul.comSat Nov 4 13:42:34 1995
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 95 09:58:34+030
From: Don Peden
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: preaching
Dear Linda:
Sorry if you thought I needed healing from Talisman. Much of the healing
had already been done, or I would not have been able to talk about it,
especially publicly in a forum like Talisman. (My issue was with the
feeling of betrayal concerning my children, and the rigidity which was being
taught to them in the name of the Baha'i Faith. This originated from
Baha'is themselves, not the institutions of the National Spiritual Assembly
or the Universal House of Justice, or even the community in which I reside!)
I have also stated that I do not appreciate old wounds being
re-opened...they are not festering at this moment, just leaving scars.
Scars are interesting. They can have such histories behind them! Truth is,
they are so well healed now, I guess they can't be re-opened easily. I do
thank Talisman for that.
I was and am at a point of getting past licking old wounds, able to see
things from viewpoints other than my own, and interested in expanding my own
vision of the world and the Faith when I came on Talisman. I did say I
needed to find new directions. I have also claimed my right to set personal
boundaries. If my desire to look at things from many points of view to
explore a topic, or if my experiences with the institutions has been
reasonably positive, I don't see why I should be accused of preaching for
saying so.
I haven't accused you of preaching for saying your experiences are not positive.
Being in possession of a book and knowing how to read it are two separate
things. What is the point of intellectualism, scholarly inquiries, or
heartfelt insights unless they serve that purpose...to understand what the
questions are? I have tried to use the covenant as a basis to work from...I
have not claimed to have an all encompassing understanding of it. I thought
that is what Talisman was meant to explore. Maybe that is my misperception.
If I have "preached", it is to keep saying this: keep open, keep looking at
the reversals, and keep checking your own intent. I don't know about you,
but that is where I always end up...looking at my own intent, and why I am
doing what I am doing, or feeling what I am feeling. I am not always honest
with myself, and it usually leads to pain when I am not. My goal is to be
as honest with myself as I want others to be with me. That way I can stay
honest with others.
Yeah, I've done the pioneer bit, know what it is like to stare down the
barrel of an AK47, been harrassed, badgered, and suffered indignities "for
the Faith" too. So what? Any suffering I've done hasn't been half of what
the people I have come to know and love suffer everyday...and they don't
have a passport out. And they still find things to be happy for! I've also
had a lot of joy, happiness and experiences I would have never dreamed
existed had I stayed in my little burg in Canada. I've learned far more
than I've taught. I've come to the conclusion that I was there because I
wanted to be, and I don't intend to blame God or the Faith for any suffering
I might have inflicted on myself. I also don't claim a martyr's role...I
chose to be where I am...I accept the consequences of my actions, and claim
my right to question what there is to gain from the consequences of my
actions. I also don't use it to claim special status within the Faith.
Pioneering is a state of being, not a place to be. Life is life, and it
teaches us all, where ever we are. Some people work for unity within
themselves and their families, others within governmental systems...where is
the difference? Who is more "important"? I loved the explanation of the
Cause of God being one of bringing Unity to Mankind...leaves such a wide
open door! If there is any question to my choice, it is that I have also
made that choice for my children. I can only pray that their
experiences...and pain...will help guide them in their lives. So far, it
seems someone upstairs, or lady luck, is definitely with them.
I have no more desire to see or be part of a stagnant, repressive community
than you do, or anyone else on Talisman does. (It is why I resigned...to
get some distance and perspective. I'm still trying to decide where I can
serve the Faith best...outside working for Unity, or inside hassling with
politics of administration.) This does not mean that we will all see
solutions in the same light, or that we will all fight the same battles or
even use the same tactics. The American National Spiritual Assembly is not
my battleground, nor do I have any desire to make it such. My experiences
with the Canadian National Spiritual Assembly and the Universal House of
Justice HAVE been positive. Why shouldn't I say so? Maybe there is
something in those experiences that can be useful. It is the intent with
which they were offered. I choose to look for positive moves forward in my
own understanding of what new arrangements can be tried. Is that preaching?
What would you like me to say? That I agree with you? That the whole thing
is terribly unfair? How can I say that when I have no knowledge or
experience with the topic, with the people, or with the correspondence which
has caused such pain for you and your family? How can I comment positive or
negative on the National Spiritual Assembly of the U.S.? I don't live
there...wasn't born there, and don't even place the U.S. in the same realm
of importance that some on talisman do. The U.S. is just another country,
another "system", and I guess I'm looking for something which offers
something more for humanity. Talk about human rights, I am interested.
Talk about the U.S. constitution, I'm not interested beyond the insight it
can offer to the future. If reforms are needed, it will be of great value
to see what creative forms of change can be implimented in your community.
They may or may not be relevant to other countries. You know as well as I
do that as a Talisman group, or any other group, you are free to make
suggestions for change to the Institutions at any time. Just check out your
intent before you do. It is the guiding principle of consultation within
the feast. Speaking eloquently is a goal, not a pre-requisite. If the
intent is pure, something will come of it...even if you have to shed a bit
(or a lot) of blood in the process. If having faith in this process is
preaching, so be it.
How can I presume to know what was in the Universal House of Justice's
thinking when they rejected your project in its present form? All I can
offer is empathy for what you are FEELING. I recognize anger, frustration
and hurt. What is needed to move past it? If you still care about the
project, what is needed to move the project forward? If you don't care,
then why is it an issue? Only you and the others involved can answer
specifics to that for yourselves, individually and collectively. All I can
offer is a response to what I know. The only saving grace to any situation
which causes pain, including my own, is to find within the experience those
elements which can be of value and move things forward, and let go of what
is of no value. Is this preaching?
If expressing a point of view or sharing an experience in a public forum is
preaching, then we are all guilty, even you.
Love,
Bev.
From dhouse@cinsight.comSat Nov 4 13:44:30 1995
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 1995 23:09:47 -0800
From: "David W. House"
To: Talisman
Subject: Enough
Juan, friends,
I once again admit your clear intellectual and scholarly advantages over me.
Indeed, now that your position is clear to me, I can see that I had no place
in speaking to you on these matters, and indeed, I am sorry I began. I feel
as if I thought I was playing soldier and now find out the bullets are real.
I am a fool, without question.
With reference to the Virgin Birth, I would urge a meditation on that
wonderful letter from the unerring pen of the Guardian, The Promised Day is
Come, page 109. The key phrase is "the reality of the mystery of the
Immaculacy of the Virgin Mary is confessed..."
The passages you did not recognize (it was likely late, and your post, so
filled with details, probably consumed much time) were from the letter of
the Universal House of Justice entitled "Individual Rights and Freedoms in
the World Order of Baha'u'llah", and sent to us, the American believers. I'm
not sure, but I don't think any passages from it appear in Lights of Guidance.
I find that each time I read it, new realities are unveiled to my eyes, and
I can only hope that welcome process continues. I am in awe of the beauty,
specific relevance, astonishing wisdom, and gentle method of discourse which
characterizes the letters and adorns the unchallengeable authority of our
Supreme Institution.
Be well,
d.
David William House (dhouse@cinsight.com)
Computer Insight
From seena@castle.ed.ac.ukSat Nov 4 13:49:59 1995
Date: 04 Nov 95 13:42:16 GMT
From: S B Fazel
To: ebsan@cc.joensuu.fi
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu, bahai-exchange-UK-request@bcca.org
Subject: ABS-ESE Conference Report
Report of the Association for Baha'i Studies (ABS-ESE) conference on
"The Role of Morality and Ethics in Society"
The ABS(ESE) held its Annual Conference this year on Saturday 14 October
1995 at the London School of Economics and Political Science on the theme
"The role of Morality and Ethics in Society". Around 45-50 prople from
seven different countries heard a number of diverse and thought-provoking
papers.
The day kicked off with an introduction and welcome to the Conference by
Seena Fazel, the Chairperson of the ABS (ESE) Executive Committee. Seena
gave a brief history of the work of the ABS and in so doing neatly placed
the theme of the Conference within the historical context of the work of the
ABS. The first speaker of the mark was Roger Prentice who gave his
presentation entitled "Dancing Mind: a Holistic Education Model for Moral
Education". Prentice, who is completing a doctorate in the field and is a
practising teacher,
combined education theory together with elements of psychology, philosophy,
as well as principles from Baha'i scripture to produce a model for future
education. Geeta Kingdon, a research fellow with the World Bank, gave the
next talk on the
topic "The Education of Females and Socio-Economic Development".
The beneficial effects of the Baha'i
principle of the priority of female education was demonstrated from research
in development economics, sociology, and human rights.
During lunchtime, a colourful book sale/display was presented by Steven
Vickers after which the Conference participants enjoyed the gastronomical
delights which the London School of Economics had to offer upstairs in the
School's cafetaria.
The first session after lunch was taken by Dorothy Marcic, a professor of
management in Prague. Marcic gave a crisp account of the role that ethics
plays in the activities of business
during her talk on "The Wisdom of Love - Creating Values in Organizations",
drawing on her vast expereince of consultancy work around the world.
The workshops included Dorothy Marcic presenting and leading a
discussion on "The Role of Ethics in Business"; John Danesh reading and
leading discussion on a paper by Udo Schaefer entitled "The New
Morality"; Roger Prentice on "Morals and Education". The participants then
reconvened for
the final plenary session. This last session of the day comprised a
presentation of the Annual Report of the ABS (ESE) (a new feature of the
Annual Conference) by Roger Kingdon, followed by a presentation on the
vision of the ABS (ESE) for the future, and general consultation of the work
of the ABS and the Annual Conference.
An abridged version of a report by Danesh Sarooshi
From HICKC89@ollamh.ucd.ieSat Nov 4 13:51:37 1995
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 1995 15:24:11 +0000 (GMT)
From: Vivien Hick
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Cc: rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.com
Subject: Re: a Baha'i bill of rights
Dear Ahang You wrote:
>
> > Article XII
> > These By-Laws may be amended by a majority vote of the National Spiritual
> > Assembly at any of its regular or special meetings, provided that at
> > least fourteen days prior to the date fixed for the said meeting a copy
> > of the proposed amendment or amendments is mailed to each member of the
> > Assembly by the Secretary.
>
> > [Note that this procedure strikes me as very dangerous. Article VI
> > defines a quorum as 5 members of the NSA, and says a majority of a quorum
> > can make decisions. This implies that 3 NSA members could conceivably
> > amend the By-Laws, which are the Constitution of the Baha'i community!]
>
>
> I think the wording of Article XII is sufficiently clear: "a majority
> vote of the *National Spiritual Assembly* ..." is called for -- that's
> a minimum of 5 votes. It doesn't say the majority votes of those
> present.
The wording is sufficiently clear as are the directives of the
Guardian in this case, that by a majority of a regular meeting of the
NSA is meant a majority of the present quorum, or as Juan points out,
a minimum of three.
Thanks, D.
Darach Watson,
Dept. of Exp. Physics,
UCD,
Ireland.
From dhouse@cinsight.comSat Nov 4 13:52:40 1995
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 1995 07:52:28 -0800
From: "David W. House"
To: Talisman
Subject: Virgin Birth, science and religion
Talisvolk,
I made the mistake, if such it be, of mentioning in passing that I believed
in the Virgin Birth, which apparently has been discussed before hereon
(sorry I missed it!), and that provoked some comment.
Of course, among Baha'is, with reference to the position itself, the
statement of the beloved Guardian in Promised Day is Come (p 109) settles
the matter conclusively.
In any case, there seemed to be some confusion regarding the postion of
science on this matter. Several things should be mentioned in this regard.
First the *opinions* of scientists often (not always) derive from the facts
of science, and often both differ from the truth. For example, many
scientists are of the opinion that God does not exist, and will invoke
science to demonstrate this. This is a fool's position, however, and the
discoveries of science offer no *scientific* proof-- or disproof-- of the
matter. In sum, the opinions of scientists are interesting, but so are the
opinions of butchers, bakers and candlestick makers, and none are guarenteed
intrinsic superiority. (As regards the facts of science sometimes differing
from the truth, this is most often the result of human error; this is why
repeatability is so important in science.)
Second, the relative nature of scientific discovery bears mention. Some
passing reference was made to the state of science 50 or 100 years ago, and
a contrast was drawn with current knowledge. Much more is known now,
obviously. Unfortunately, it is also true that much more will be known in
the future, and current knowledge-- in 50 or 100 years-- will be seen to be
hopelessly primitive. As such, current scientific information would seem to
provide at best a temporary basis for any given postion. Science provides
relative, not absolute truths, as important as they may be.
Third, the state of current science with regard to the subject of
parthenogenisis (roughly, fertilization without sperm) was briefly
summarized. I might amplify this summary by adding that parthenogenisis has
been observed primarily in reptiles. Certain populations which for various
reasons are 100% female are thus able to reproduce. Interestingly, in some
such species, the temperature of incubation of the eggs has an effect on the
sex of the animal, so that it is possible for purely female populations to
produce males.
Now, while interesting, this information simply amplifies the previous
point, which is that scientific information is relative, and rapidly changing.
In sum, I would not want anyone to go away with the fundamentally mistaken
impression that "science has proven" that the Virgin Birth is impossible. At
best-- and at most-- what we have is the opinions of scientists and others,
and some of these, on close examination, turn out to be based not on facts,
but sometimes on wild and unsupported extrapolations. This is blind faith,
given another name and made to seem respectable thereby. Is it not widely
accepted that one cannot prove the negative? Can any position which claims
to have done so truly be called scientific?
In sum, let's please not invoke science in this discussion as if that
settled the matter. It provides an interesting backdrop, but no proof.
d.
David William House (dhouse@cinsight.com)
Computer Insight
From DAWNLIQU@fllab.chass.ncsu.eduSat Nov 4 13:58:27 1995
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 1995 12:38:10 EST
From: QUANTA DAWNLIGHT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: To defenders (poem)
Self-proclaimed
or otherwise,
defenders of the Cause,
who are at times,
"flame of fire
unto [the] enemies.."
whom we perceive
with human thoughts.
I learned a meaning,
of the verse above,
during a gathering
from a friend of Ta,
while visiting Izmir
this past month.
It is our duty, he said,
to burn ignorance and hate
with the heat of love,
not a "smouldering tounge".
But to a friend's flaming,
"be a river of life"
with Divine Knowledge,
not as social allies,
how the battles are fought,
in divisions of thoughts,
here and down yonder.
I should remember
my wise friend, and
up the thermostat of heart,
"fetch a pail of water"
when and where needed.
If no success?
Well, drown or burn
if you wish,
in knowledge with love,
by God's blessings,
without any harm.
lovingly,
Quanta Dawn-Light...(*_*)
From burlb@bmi.netSat Nov 4 13:59:40 1995
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 95 10:10 PST
From: Burl Barer
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: NSA & Appeals
Please carefully read Directives from the Guardian (NSA Involvement -
Appeals Prohibited) #137 on page 50 of that book from october 1946 edition
of Baha'i News. It begins:
"Anything whatsoever affecting the interests of the Cause and in which the
National Assembly as a body is involved should, if regarded as
unsatisfactory by Local Assemblies and individual believers, be immediately
referred to the National Assembly itself."
The next paragraph ends with: "There are no exceptions whatever to this
rule, and the Guardian would deprecate any attempt to elaborate or dwell any
further upon this fundamental and clearly enunciated principle."
So....
?
Burl
*******************************************************
Order MAN OVERBOARD, the new book by Burl Barer today!
*******************************************************
From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comSat Nov 4 14:30:07 1995
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 95 12:39:01 -0500
From: Ahang Rabbani
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Covenant
[This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII]
Mr. Ian Semple once shared a story that during the first term of
the House, one day in Haifa pilgrim house he witnessed a member
of British Baha'i community was having a bit of heated discussion
with David Hofman. Some time earlier the House had ruled on a
matter and this man was obviously upset with the ruling and now
was debating it Mr. Hofman. Finding Hofman defending the
decision of the House, the man finally said: "Well, the next
House of Justice will be wiser and they will overturn." To which
Hofman replied: "The next House of Justice might be more
handsome, but won't be any wiser!"
I believe Mr. Hofman was right. We all can pray that the House
of Justice would grow more handsomely every term, but its wisdom
will always come from the same source and remains unchanged.
For the record I like to say that I think most members of the
House of Justice are very handsome.
lovingly, ahang.
From LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduSat Nov 4 14:30:57 1995
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 95 14:23:42 EWT
From: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: "confused?"
John did not describe Abdu'l Baha as being "confused." He said that he had a
couple of historical facts confused as he related a story. There is a big
difference! John would never refer to any of the central figures of the Faith
as being muddle headed. Lord! What a thought!
Tony, about men...where do we disagree on this issue? I forget.
Bev, to clarify what I meant - I thought you were sugar coating a situation
that has proven to be extremely difficult to a good many people. A "get on
with your life, honey," type of response is usually off putting to people who
are in the throes of an existential crisis. However, I will concede that I
probably read your message unfairly. Our styles are completely different.
You state that you have not had unpleasant experiences with certain
institutions, yet, you obviously had an abundance of other problems within the
Faith. You were burned so badly that you are now trying to decide whether to
be within or outside the Faith. You must concede that, with your own record of
trials, that perhaps others have had similar experiences but ones coming from
different directions. I certainly did not mean to imply that you were not to
express your opinions, but I felt that you were not connecting your own
experiences with those of others. I would have thought that, with your
background, you would have been one to easily empathize with the frustration
and sense of helplessness of others. By the way, Your frankness in discussing your own
travails has been refreshing and they have been ones that I can, as a mother,
easily relate to. I thank you for that. Linda
From jrcole@umich.eduSat Nov 4 14:33:40 1995
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 1995 14:28:55 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole
To: "Timothy A. Nolan"
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Covenant
Timothy:
I deeply appreciate the spirit and tone of your message, and agree with
much of what you say. As you can imagine, I think I can show that my
position is more spiritually and intellectually consistent than you
suggest; in particular, I think that in a post-Guardian situation
Baha'u'llah's Ishraq 8 is probably a better grounding for our view of the
international house of justice than `Abdu'l-Baha's Will and Testament,
which assumes the presence on the House of a living Guardian as
Interpreter and Chairman. In short, `Abdu'l-Baha was talking about a
different sort of institution than we now have, whereas Baha'u'llah
appears to have been talking about *precisely* the sort of institution we
now have. In short, I believe that without a living Guardian the
Universal House of Justice is still the ultimate authority in the Baha'i
faith, but I do not believe it is either "infallible" in the Roman
Catholic sense nor that its decisions are necessarily beyond reproach,
nor that it is impossible for believers to analyze and discuss these
decisions (which are after all reversible by the House itself and its
successors). In some ways, I think I have a *stronger* belief in the
Universal House of Justice than many Baha'is, insofar as I think it
should start independently legislating matters of Baha'i law that were
only dealt with in a hasty and informal way by the beloved Guardian (who
steadfastly denied his authority to legislate). The rules that worked
for 5,000 American Baha'is in 1944 do not necessarily work for 120,000 in
1995, nor for 2 million Indian Baha'is in 1995, either.
*But*, having said that, I really hope we can focus on my suggestions for
a constructive solution of some of the problems I see, especially my
proposed bill of rights, rather than going off on yet another long
discussion of infallibility & etc. This strikes me as like the medieval
scholastics talking about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
I only bring it up to give you some sense of how it is I can disagree
strongly, both with the statement on individual rights (which I think
runs contrary to explicit statements of `Abdu'l-Baha, and which is not
legislation and so not strictly the purview of the House, anyway), and
with the recent decision to suppress the Encyclopaedia.
I think the problem is really that intellectuals and nonconformists run
smack into the most repressive aspects of the current Baha'i
administration, but that most ordinary Baha'is can live an entire life
without be challenged to think about these issues, and without having
them affect them personally.
My problem is that I have seen over the past 15 years what I think of as
a large number of decisions taken to repress intellectuals and
intellectual projects which have been wrong-headed and unjust. Some of
these decisions were taken by the US NSA, and then backed by the
international house of justice, and in some instances it was the other
way around. In each of these instances, there has been no possibility of
redress; appeals have been harshly rebuffed; and no changes of any
structural sort have been forthcoming.
I can sympathize that many Baha'is, who have not suffered from these
problems themselves (except in the sense that they have few good books to
read and have a national newspaper full of pablum), and who have been
brought up in a Baha'i political culture that demands absolute, blind
obedience, and forbids the slightest dissent from decisions made on high--
I can sympathize that they must view my statements as highly distasteful.
But they are simply killing the messenger.
I recently had a letter from a very interesting old-time Baha'i, who had
been involved in working for human rights inside the US Baha'i community
and had suffered some ostracism for it, but who was ultimately backed by
the beloved Guardian.
In his letter, this Baha'i mentioned that he had not too long ago brought up
the issue of human rights with a prominent Baha'i staffer at an NSA
headquarters. The staffer replied, "Who cares about human rights? The
power of the Institutions is all that matters."
This staffer, incidentally, has since been fired and now
feels differently about human rights inside the Faith.
So, you can look at me as wrong-headed. Or you can look at me as a
miner's canary. And I'm telling you, I'm on the verge of fainting.
cheers Juan
From jrcole@umich.eduSat Nov 4 23:43:48 1995
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 1995 14:50:58 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole
To: Burl Barer
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: NSA & Appeals
Burl:
I am not sure we are talking about the same sort of situation. Let's
concretize things.
Let us say that Pete is a janitor in a city hall, and that Danforth
is the mayor. And let's say that Danforth does something affecting the
city that is incompetent and even to an outsider might look like
malfeasance. And let us say that Pete, the lowly janitor, drops a note
to Danforth the mayor, saying, "Gee, mayor, your activity affects me
negatively and somehow it does not look on the up and up." And let's say
Pete even made similar remarks at the canteen in private conversations
with the other janitors.
So Mayor Danforth, angry about these charges, abruptly orders Pete put in
jail. No trial, no impartial tribunal. The mayor's just mad about the
charges. The mayor muzzles the press, refusing to allow it to report
the case. Nobody knows Pete is in jail.
Now, Pete is jail. The mayor won't let him out. He is told he can appeal
to the governor. But he has to do it through Mayor Danforth, who can put
any spin he likes on the case as he passes it up. Pete has no right to
see the evidence against him, in preparing his appeal. And the
governor, an old friend of Mayor Danforth, does not have to take the
appeal; he can simply return it to the mayor.
If you would like to be Pete, raise your hand. If you would like to live
in a town where Mayor Danforth can behave this way, raise two hands.
Those of you who raise two hands are eligible for a raffle; the prize is
a free one-way ticket to Iraq.
cheers, Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From TLCULHANE@aol.comSat Nov 4 23:46:30 1995
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 1995 15:24:17 -0500
From: TLCULHANE@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Science Religion and Virgins
Dear friends ,
David H. wrote that science provides relative truths and presumably that
religion provides absolute truths. I understand that the Guardian said "
..religious truth is relative . .' Seems we are back to square one .
With that let me tell you how intellectually schizophrenic i am . First
i dont find it necessary to plat them off one another or create a dichotomy
between science and religion. I do not have an existential need to prove one
way or the other that the truths of science trump those of religion or that
those of religion trump those of science.
In brief I wrote my masters thesis on this 20 years ago so it is no
longer a compelling issue. Science - in practice - ia a social activity and
as such its *legitimacy* is inseperable from its application in the world of
human beings ; otherwise known as applied science or technology . It is a
community if inquiry that has an underlying *Faith * in *Order * . Both
eminently religious notions and without which science as we know it would be
impossible. At its best it conducts its inquiries on the basis of
consultation .
That means that I believe religion is also a social activity and its *
legitimacy *is inseperable from its application in the world; otherwise known
as spirituality and ethics . Religion is also a community of inquiry which
operates according to a specific set of epistemological principles and a *
Faith * in *Order* . At its best it conducts its activities on the basis of
consultation.
The efficacy of religion is in its ethical application and subsequent
transformation of the *world *. If it does not do this - bears no fruit - it
is little better than worthless.( Appropriate citations from Bahau llah
available ). The efficacy of science is in its application e.g. its
technological transformation of the *world * . If science had not so
transformed the material world we would not be having this discussion . It is
its manifest power in the world which results in our speaking of it . If it
were otherwise we would be little more than amused at the mental masturbation
of those whose efforts began in words and ended in words . It has two sides
symbolized by nuclear bombs and healing medicine . religion also has two
sides symbolized by "holy war" and "consorting with all people in
friendliness and fellowship. " Both elements in this debate are as
inseperable as recognition and observance.
With all that I think both science and religion are involved with
overlapping *domains* , they share some fundamental notions yet operate in
distinct domains . These " two are the same yet they are different." I
think the attempt to trump one another or more frequently the attempt to
discredit science as provisional - as though scientists are not aware of that
- is stuck in an ironic way by trying to use science to prove religion. That
leads to all kinds of problems then of evidence verification falsifiablility
and so forth . I do not know why people want to do this other than it is a
psychological recognition of the tremendous cultural * legitimacy * of
science and the desire to apprpriate it for religious ends . Be careful . I
prefer domains , I guess that makes me a pluralist .
All that said let me tell you what i believe . I have mystical reasons for
these beliefs not scientific ones nor do I need scientific ones . If they
are there wondeful if not that is fine. I do believe in the virgin birth ,
I believe that the station of manifestation is the Divine Feminine .
I believe that this is the Promised DAY and that Baha u llah is the
Messenger of that Day. I believe that parliamentary democracy is ordained
by God and sanctioned as an expression of the Will of God by Baha u llah .
This of course means I believe in God and a personal onne at that . I believe
there is such a thing as Divine revelation and that Ultimate reality makes
itself known via what we call Divine revelation. I believe that human beings
were always a seperate species that progressively evolved over millions of
years . I believe that the universe always existed . I believe that there
are inteligent life forms through out the universe . I believe in huri's
especially the BIG One . I believe that science is for exploring and
disclosing the secrets of the physical universe and improving the physical
life of human beings. I believe that religion exists to explore and the
disclose the secrets of the spiritual universe and improve the ethical life
of human beings . I believe there is One God and that all the religions
emanate from that same Source. I beleve that the physical universe is a
reflection of that emanation and is one unitary whole proceeding from that
same Source .
Some of my dearest friends on Talisman do not believe all of these same
things in the same way that i do . Let alone all the people on the planet.
I believe Baha u llah does not reqiure us to view it all the same . As he
says " All look upon Me through their own colors ." I believe they and I
can still remain in full communion with one another and worship the same God
and be committed to the same ethics e. g. the importance of justice and the
reality of love. Our different views on certain science /religion mattters do
not in the least distract from my respect or admiration for their knowledge
and perspective . I learn from them daily and do not in the least think I am
a superior being or possessed of some special insight into the nature of
Reality or God or ethics that they do not possess . I have no need to
invoke the Covenant, call anyone names, impugn their motives or assume they
are muddle headed . I believe it would be a betrayal of my Best Beloved's
Faith if I thought otherwise. I am much more conservative than my closest
friends on this net , (most of whom I have never met) and precisely because
of that i learn so much from them. I love them dearly and I believe that the
personal God in which I believe also loves them dearly .
warm regards,
Terry
From Member1700@aol.comSat Nov 4 23:47:48 1995
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 1995 17:13:21 -0500
From: Member1700@aol.com
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Virgin Mary
I am afraid that our good friend David (I will leave everyone to guess which
one) has confused two good solid doctrines of the Catholic Chuch--the
Immaculate Conception and the Virgin Birth. These are two entirely different
things, though even Catholics often confused them.
The Virgin Birth, of course, refers to the birth of Jesus and is the
doctrine that he had no human father, but was conceived miraculously of the
Holy Spirit in the body of Mary, who became the Mother of God. It has been
a Christian doctrine for centuries.
The Immaculate Conception has nothing to do with Jesus, but refers to the
conception of Mary in the womb of her mother. The doctrine was only adopted
by the Church in the 19th century, even though there had been speculation on
it by church theologians since medieval times. The doctrine states that even
though Mary was conceived by sexual intercourse in the usual way, she was
miraculously conceived without the stain of original sin that affects all
other human beings. This is regarded as a miracle. But, the point is that
Mary was born sinless--and of course remained sinless (and a virgin) her
entire life. Catholics worry about such things.
That does create a bit of a problem at the end of Mary's life, of course,
since death is the wages of sin. And if Mary were sinless, then she
shouldn't have died. And the Catholic Church claims that she didn't. The
other nineteenth century doctrine that was finally adopted after medieval
rumblings was the doctrine of the bodily ascension of the Virgin Mary into
heaven. That is, she too (like her son) ascended into heaven at some
unspecified point, rather than die a normal death. Really, the doctrine of
immaculacy forced this conclusion.
Anyway, my point is that I can heartily support the doctrine of the
Immaculate Conception of the Virgin, since I don't believe in original sin in
the first place, and have no problem affirming that Mary was born without it.
(Actually, an atheist can believe in the Immaculate Conception.) What I
don't believe in is the Virgin Birth--which is scientifically
impossible--especially in view of 'Abdu'l-Baha's repeated statements that
such an event would have been of no importance anyway.
Warmest,
Tony
From burlb@bmi.netSat Nov 4 23:48:20 1995
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 95 15:51 PST
From: Burl Barer
To: Member1700@aol.com
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Virgin Mary
In the book entitled something like "Millions of Catholics Can't be Wrong"
(not to be confused with "Billions and Billions Served") the Virgin Birth
means that Jesus did *not* emerge from the birth canal -- to do so
would,shall we say, violate the cordoned border -- and instead materialized
outside her body. Juan and I were discussing this about 2am, in the dark,
under the covers (seperate beds, thank you), and he said that according to
some folks, Jesus came out of Mary's ear. Divine in-ear-ancy?
More important question: the answer is probably in a book, but you may know
-- Shoghi Effendi was born in Akka. Was he, by virtue of being born to the
family of prisoners considered a prisoner also? Is being a prisoner of the
Turkish Government hereditary? Real question.
Burl
*******************************************************
Order MAN OVERBOARD, the new book by Burl Barer today!
*******************************************************
From think@ucla.eduSat Nov 4 23:51:17 1995
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 1995 17:29:20 -0800
From: Safa Sadeghpour
To: Vivien Hick , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Is Science on a Par with Religion?
At 01:26 PM 11/3/95 +0000, Vivien Hick wrote:
>Dear Friends(?),
> I am afraid I was not aware of the custom of introducing oneself
>on Talisman as a new member until recently, so I apologise for my
>slight curtness previously.
> So, I am male, a final year Physics student in Dublin, Ireland, have
>a particular interest in history, and am growing to like Mr. Cole's
>forthrightness very much. Such debate has never really existed
>within the community here, and unless it does, there will be no way
>to remedy fundamental problems within the Faith.
> "The first question is one of diagnosis."
>
>And so on to a minor question;
>
>> I think the best way to understand the statement "every fixed star has
>> its planets and every planet has its creatures" as a hyperbolic
>> statement; in other words, overstatement of a point in order to
>> emphasize it. I think this is a rhetorical device we can find in the
>> Writings (Frank Lewis and other literati, please comment). As Steve
>> has pointed out, the statement really cannot be literally correct,
>> unless "creature" is defined is some very strange way. I have a
>> degree in planetary science, so I have some ideas about this subject.
>> For example, let us take a massive star, a million times the mass of
>> the sun, which produced about a billion times the heat output of the
>> sun and blows itself up (as a supernova) in about a million years
>> after formation. (This is the way big stars are; they produce heat at
>> rates much higher than their mass relative to the sun, and thus burn
>> out very fast.) And let us say a planet made out of molten material
>> formed around such a star, which is conceivable. What would it mean
>> to say that such a molten planet, which must be less than a million
>> years old, has "creatures"?
>
>
>I agree that this is probably the case, but Mr. Stockman, the only
>preventative to physical life is a high ENTROPY (a system in which
Very true but we must first define what we mean by "life." If it is accepted
that live entities must be composed of mostly solids and liquids, and that
most probably they must be constituted of such highly-combinatorial
molecules such as C or Si with covalent bonds then the temperature limits
are much
narrower. Moreover, temperature might not be too low since most
organic solvents will solidify, and those that don't will cause reactions
too slow to account for any reasonable life time constants. Non-organic
solvents being too
inactive (He) or harsh (Cl) to permit any valuable interactions.
Thus, it would seem most appropriate to set the limits somewhere between
220K to 600K .
Also, if substances find themselves in high temperatures their absolute entropy
will tend to be extremely high, and this will rule out any type of complexity
that might give rise to life.
Although it might be logically possible for an live organism to exceed these
temperature limits it must be in gas phase, with extremely low levels of
complexity (high entropy),
made of ionic bonds, and must not require any reactions in the liquid phase.
But, then, we would probably not call it life since nothing close to this
has ever been encountered.
dearly,
Safa
>there is very little available energy, since almost all bodies have
>the same energy, and there is no transfer of energy which is crucial for
>life) situation, which a super-massive star is certainly not.
> Merely because our own form of life requires a particular peculiar
>energy level, does not automatically constrain other life forms to
>the same energy requirements.
> However I do very much agree with your hyperbolic interpretation,
>and I do not think there is that much life in the universe, but it is
>*conceptually* possible, so long as the situation is low entropy.
> Thanks,
> D.
>Darach Watson,
>Dept. of Exp. Physics,
>UCD,
>Ireland.
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"My goal is simple. It is complete understanding of the universe, why it as
it is and why it exists as all." - Stephen Hawking
"Truth decays into beauty, while beauty soon becomes merely charm. Charm
ends up as strangeness, and even that doesn't last, but up and down are
forever." - The Laws of Physics
"The shining spark of truth comes forth only from the clash of differing
opinions." Abdu'l-Baha
Safa Sadeghpour (think@ucla.edu)
http://www.smc.edu/homepage/maclab/maclab.web/web/safa.web/safa.htm
From Alethinos@aol.comSat Nov 4 23:54:36 1995
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 1995 21:56:43 -0500
From: Alethinos@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: The Near Future of the Cause of God
It is not about the NSA. It is not about the Universal House of Justice.
It isn't about Councilors or Aux. board members or lil' ol' LSA members. It
isn't about institutions.
It is about us.
We are the ones who hold the future of the Cause in our hands. The Lord
knows we here and many others have struggled against the narrowed vision of
various members of institutions. But you see they too suffer. We are all
suffering from the same thing.
AMERICAN BAHA'IS STAND AT CROSSROADS
The American Baha'i Community, the leaven destined to leaven
the whole, cannot hope, at this critical juncture in the fortunes of a
struggling, perilously situated, spiritually moribund nation, to either
escape the trials with which this nation is confronted, nor claim to be
wholly immune from the evils that stain its character.
(Citadel of Faith, page 127)
We are not immune. We never were. But we thought we were. Oh sure we would
give a nod to the fact that we all have our tests to struggle against, that
racism thing to get over, etc. And we went along our merry way.
And here we sit. A pathetic 100,000 - maybe. Absolutely no effect on the
consciousness of America. And we complain about no teaching going on. We
complain about the institutions. We even toss grumbling noises at Haifa. It
is all *their* fault.
No. It is our fault. We are in the quagmire the Guardian said we would be in.
The gross materialism that engulfs the entire nation at the Present
hour; the attachment to worldly things that enshrouds the souls of men;
the fears and anxieties that distract their minds; the pleasure and
dissipations that fill their time, the prejudices and animosities that
darken their outlook, the apathy and lethargy that paralyze their
spiritual faculties - these are among the formidable obstacles that stand
in the path of every would-be warrior in the service of Baha'u'llah,
obstacles which he must battle against and surmount in his crusade for
the redemption of his own countrymen.
To the degree that the home front crusader is himself cleansed of
these impurities, liberated from these petty preoccupations and gnawing
anxieties, delivered from these prejudices and antagonisms, emptied
of self, and filled by the healing and the sustaining power of
God, will he be able to combat the forces arrayed against him, magnetize
the souls of those whom he seeks to convert, and win their unreserved,
their enthusiastic and enduring allegiance to the Faith of
Baha'u'llah.
This is the test that we have _always_ faced. It is the one we still face.
And if we can ever stop this incessent bickering and whining and get on with
the task at hand we might actually see these problems resolved. There is no
doubt they exist - just read these two passage and give them due
consideration:
- these
are the weapons which the American believers can and
must wield in their double crusade, first to regenerate the
inward life of their own community, and next to assail the
long-standing evils that have entrenched themselves in the
life of their nation.
(Advent of Divine Justice, page 41)
The administrative strongholds of a Faith, bound to be subjected on
the one hand, to a severe spiritual challenge from within, through the
inevitable impact of these devastating influences on its infant strength,
and, on the other, to the onslaught of ecclesiastical leaders, the
traditional defenders of religious orthodoxy from without, must be
multiplied and reinforced for the purpose of warding off the inevitable
attacks of the assailants, of vindicating the ideals and principles which
animate their defenders, and of ensuring the ultimate victory and
ascendency of the Faith itself over the nefarious elements seeking to
undermine it from within, and its powerful detractors aiming at its
extinction from without.
(Citadel of Faith, page 154)
Got a really wonder what he meant by nefarious elements - I certainly have
some good ideas.
Isn't it interesting that in these passages the Guardian was certainly
anticipating a lot of what we are so obsessed with here? And is it not also
interesting that his answer to solving this problem was, for us here in
America couched in a revolutionary tone? He knew we'd have the problems, but
he also knew we could not solve them by either being the Barney Heads most of
the community has become over the past forty years - or following the
wonderful tradition of America Politics - gripe, moan, stamp your foot,
refuse to play along, snicker in the corner, uncover dirty laundry, *Cuz we
all know that Crap is King*.
Neither approach has worked or will work. Until we here - and elsewhere
combine our energies in storming the gates of America's Consciousness - in
fulfilling America's spiritual destiny, our bitterness and saddness will
continue to grow. Our institutions will continue to remain immature, our
communities non-existent. We will sit and write and wonder and complain -
when will things finally get better??
When we become a nation of warriors.
jim harrison
Alethinos@aol.com
From Alethinos@aol.comThu Nov 30 16:34:34 1995
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 15:51:20 -0500
From: Alethinos@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: if only I would be...
Linda:
Your kind offer to me to stay with ya'll is warmly appreciated. However .
. . I suffer from a rare disease . . . Allergia Flatlandus. Yes being from a
mountainous region I have no natural immunity to farm country. I get hives
when approaching a silo. And major hurlage if I see a Combine - yah all over
the car floor I am afraid (don't ask about the time - on a school field trip
- such an innocent term hmmmm - when I actually was made to sit in one - the
psychotic-delusions were actually used in a textbook study . . . of course
the teacher's aide, Ms. Knucklesfirst . . . she still hasn't regained the use
of three of her fingers . . .)
Anyway, I was also amazed by your post because i guess I didn't make this
clear. It is not _you_ Linda, that I am writing about. I have no bone to pick
with you. Nor Juan. Sure, you and he and a few others have been pushing these
issues but it isn't about you. It never was about you or Juan, or John etc. I
am sure you are wonderful people (so long as you don't drink decaf - that's .
. . well that is just beyond the pale - at least in this part of America by
God!)
I am addressing the assumptions, beliefs, ideologies, notions, wishes,
etc, etc, that have been voiced here. We are all talking (I would hope) about
trying to bring about a startling transformation in the American community,
are we not? Is this not our hope and dream? To see this Faith arise in this
country and fulfill our destiny?
If not then what _are_ we doing here? Is Talisman some Mutual Admiration
Society? I would hope not!
Your response ("It must be _me_ right?! It is _me_ you're talking about!?)
is so very typical of our Western civilization. I only use this to make a
point Londa, not to make light of you. Ask Burl about this - I am sure he has
found this too.
The moment a person starts talking about America's spiritual destiny -
about the mistakes that have obviously been made, analyzing where we are and
are not at this point in time, and what must be done, indivbidually and just
as importantly collectively at least 2/3 of the audiance puts their hands to
their chest or head and exclaim: "But I am not . . .??!!" or "Are you saying
I . . .?!!?" etc., etc., etc. Even when going to great lengths to qualify
that in _no way_ is any person being singled out in a room - that the
discussion is in general and that we need to examine this issue from a
standpoint of detachment - at best half the room manges to put that
qualification into practice. The other half are thunderstruck and begin the
immediate downward cycle of anger, disbelief, doubt, despair, frustration,
etc.
It matters not how well designed these issues are presented, how carefully
they are constructed to avoid giving anyone recourse to feeling that way.
Amazingly the Baha'is just begin to wilt.
We have been such creampuffs for so long in this country. You want to talk
about diservice done via *institutions* here it is. This community has been
so coddled, so spoonfed sugerfluff that they have no backbone. In an effort
to make sure that status quo was met any attempt to ever call this community
to its destiny has been immediately stomped on - all the way up the line to
coulnselors seeing their efforts frustrated. I know this personally.
And now we have this raging storm in a lil' teacup called Talisman. We
have people - well intentioned who are more concerned over setting new policy
over a near-dead community than in dealing with the reality that faces us.
This is so American. Look at the general American community. The country is
ripping itself apart along dozens of fracturelines and everyone is screaming,
"Well if everyone would just give me MY due things would be so much better!"
and "What about ME, US, I??!!!" It is an insane maze of everyone trying to
grab what they can for themselves. In the midst of all this you have people
trying to operate on a higher plateau - trying to do the right thing,
sticking up for human rights, helping the poor, etc. Great people. I've been
there. I've done it, for a long time. Doesn't work . . .
And Abdu'l-Baha knew it didn't work. He did it, every day. But that was not
the answer. When Juliet Thompson finally managed to drag her artist friend to
hear the Master speak - after He finished she turned to her friend, obviously
herself overwhelmed and asked, So, what did you think?!!" Her friend
responded, "He has a WONDERFUL profile, doesn't he!!?" Juliet was crushed.
Later she wept before the Master, asking what would become of her friend
in the next world. She told Him that she was a wonderful woman, very giving,
who had done many good deed. Abdul'-Baha answered, "she will live in the
heaven of her own good deed . . . but in comparison to you, she will be
dead."
Tough words. From a tough man. He knew exactly what was needed here. He
knew America had an extremely important role to play in not only exapnding
the Cause around the world, but in revolutionizing the spiritual atmosphere
of this planet - starting here in America. Hence the repeated warning from
the Guardian - esp. right there in the beginning of Advent of Divine Justice:
The glowing tributes,
so repeatedly and deservedly paid to the capacity, the
spirit, the conduct, and the high rank, of the American believers,
both individually and as an organic community,
must, under no circumstances, be confounded with the
characteristics and nature of the people from which God has
raised them up. A sharp distinction between that community
and that people must be made, and resolutely and fearlessly
upheld, if we wish to give due recognition to the
transmuting power of the Faith of Baha'u'llah, in its impact
on the lives and standards of those who have chosen to enlist
under His banner.
.{{{ Otherwise, the supreme and distinguishing
function of His Revelation, which is none other
than the calling into being of a new race of men, will remain
wholly unrecognized and completely obscured.}}}}
(Advent of Divine Justice, page 16)
And thus we remain. Obscured. Unrecongized. Unremarkable. How long do we
wait?
Jim Harrison
Alethinos@aol.com
From chris@c-nelson.demon.co.ukWed Nov 15 10:37:07 1995
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 10:47:33 +0000
From: Chris Nelson
To: Juan R Cole
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: History, Miracles, Planes of Knowing
Dear Juan,
I think I see what you are getting at here. Very interesting. If I
may paraphrase to make clear that I do understand what you are
saying: words used to describe the _strictly_ material world do not
relate and may not make sense when viewed from the perspective of the
spirit/symbolic world and vice-versa. Yes, you have put something I
have seen often enough, into a logical description. Thanks.
Something I do find though is that these worlds you mention are not
always stricly deliniated. The dream world sometimes spills over into
reality. This sort of thing is particularly apparent in places where
the population are still steeped in mystery and superstition such as
South East Asia and Aboriginal Australia. Magic, spirits, the
unconcious and reality all exist hand in hand.
Regards Chris
> Hahut - divine transcendence and unknowability
> Lahut divine manifestation (Logos)
> Jabarut the realm of the revealed God acting within creation
> Malakut the angelic realm of human moral perfections
> Nasut the physical world, which only indirectly reflects God's perfections
>
>
> Three points: 1) You cannot mix discourses deriving from different
> metaphysical realms (which is to say, different language-games), or they
> become nonsense. A proposition which is true in Jabarut may be nonsense
> in Nasut. 2) God created all these metaphysical realms and each is good
> in its own right. You can't say that because Jabarut exists, Nasut
> should not. 3) Within Nasut, the cosmos can be understood as
> self-consistent and governed by laws discoverable by reason, without any
> necessity of referring to outside, supernatural agency.
> Material/Cultural causation on the one hand, and divine Teleology on the
> other, are like two sides of a coin. You can only look at one side at a
> time, and while you are doing so you cannot see the other side.
/One World
/One People
/One Family
Bahai
From HGEYER@KENTVM.KENT.EDUFri Nov 17 10:56:24 1995
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 95 09:46:09 EST
From: theo
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Standpoint epistemology
Some of us think slower than others, thus allow my delay to be no
hinderance to this nascent discussion. Juan filled a gap in conceptual thought
which he termed "standpoint epistemology". I'll throw my agreement behind
Mark in finding this a "good descriptive term", and like i mentioned to Juan,
it is in line with other ideas he has had as he has prepared commentaries on
some Tablets of Baha'u'llah. NOw, lest Robert label me a flaming Juanist,
let me assert that i adamantly support Juan's ideas, even though i may not
agree with them all, and unequivocally do not agree with some of his stances
or attitudes or beliefs (although i must speculate about this last term, i can
imagine there is something going on besides simple belief, as his position in
academia and peer acceptance may have an impact here). Let me expound.....
In Juan's "Commentary on the Sura of the Sun", he mentions this:
"But the point i want to make here is that Baha'u'llah envisions these
various planes or stations of reality, whether they be metaphysical or
psychological, as sites of discourse."
These "sites of discourse" seem like a precursor to the notion of his
"standpoint epistemology", unless i am naive here. For the sake of discussion,
let us asume this to be so. "People have grown weary and impatient of rhet-
oric and discourse, of preaching and sermonizing." Keeping this in mind, let
me proceed:
In my studies since embracing the Baha'i Faith, and my historical read-
ings in early religious history, there seems to be one trend, an archetypal
pattern which reappears in every dispensation. My reading of this history
informs me that there is a definite perceived threat *within* religious systems
by intellectuals and/or mystics, especially by those *within* the administrat-
ive aspects of these beliefs. Now, as i assert this, some of you may request
proof, and i will offer this.....read it yourself to see if it exists or not.
I am no historian, but the tension stood out for me when i read it, and as a
Baha'i it seems very apparent. I will grant that this threat comes not so
much from intellectualism, per se, but from the approach of some intellectuals,
from the lack of understanding of some believers, and the emotional component
of "faith". Since i view things more psychologically than socio-historically,
i can see dynamics behind these stances and respect them for what they are.
When Juan asserts: "Within Nasut, the cosmos can be understood as
self-consistent and governed by laws discoverable by reason, without any
necessity of referring to outside, supernatural agency. Material/cultural
causation on the one hand, and Divine Teleology on the other, are like two
sides of a coin. You can onl look at a one side at a time, and while you are
doing so you cannot see the other side." This seems to me to be sound, but
within its sphere, from a "nasut" point of view, and even though i would not
label this as "materialistic", it seems Deistic. And yet, it does not seem
to me that Juan is asserting this to be anything other than a POV "within
nasut", and an attempt to offer Baha'is something to grasp with, to fill what
he sees as an intellectual gap, because he says: "Most Baha'is, for all their
liberal principles and the ocean of Revelation they have to draw on do not
actually seem to have any useful answers to the division in the modern world
between faith and reason." Reading this closely, it seems that he expreses it
cogently enough to thwart a materialistic reading, for the "ocean of Revelation"
would not fit if it were so. It also rings of Heisenbergs uncertainty prin-
ciple applied to theological hermenutics, framed by the heirarchical view of
the five metaphysical planes referred to in the Tablet of All Food. And i
wonder how much of this is influenced by Gregory Bateson's ideas.
If there is to be a continuation of the discussion of developing a
"Baha'i" scholarship, it seems that Juan's post adds much to it.
"It is clear to thine Eminence that all the variations
which the wayfarer in the stages of his
journey beholdeth in the realms of being, proceed
from his own vision." (The Seven Valleys, page 18)
Standpoint epistemology, like the term theo-semiotics, may serve us
well in this pursuit, if we keep in mind that, even though many "...scientists
...have waged a 200-year-long battle to carve out a space for the operation
of reason on empirical evidence", that,
"Effort must be made that slumbering
souls may be awakened, the heedless become vigilant, and
that the divine teachings, which constitute the spirit of this
age, may reach the ears of the people of the world, may be
propagated in the press and set forth with brilliance and
eloquence in the assemblages of men."
(`Abdu'l-Baha: Selections ... `Abdu'l-Baha, page 223)
"The people, therefore, must be set completely free from their old
patterns of thought, that all their attention may be focused
upon these new principles, for these are the light of this
time and the very spirit of this age."
(`Abdu'l-Baha: Selections ... `Abdu'l-Baha, page 253)
"Divine teachings constitute the spirit of this age, nay rather the sun of
this age."
(`Abdu'l-Baha: Selections ... `Abdu'l-Baha, page 310)
Standpoint epistemology would allow us to assert that this "spirit
of the age" is not one sided:
"The spirit of the age, taken on the whole, is irreligious. Man's outlook
on life is too crude and materialistic to enable him to elevate himself into
the higher realms of the spirit."
(Shoghi Effendi: Directives of the Guardian, page 86)
And, in thinking of this, let us ponder "in our hearts", the unfolding
of progressive revelation, the expansion and development of consciousness, the
interplay of the forces of light and dark, the phenomenological nature of
experience, the intensity of Divine Revelation, "the like of wich mortal
eyes have never witnessed". Development of any new position, like a "Baha'i
scholarship", needs to attain an equilibrium unlike that of our contemporaries.
"The world's equilibrium hath been upset through the vibrating
influence of this most great, this new World Order. Mankind's
ordered life hath been revolutionized through the agency of this
unique, this wondrous System - the like of which mortal eyes have
never witnessed." (Synopsis of the Kitab-i-Aqdas, page 27)
"We delude ourselves with the thought that we know much more about
matter than about "metaphysical" mind or spirit, and so we overestim-
ate material causation and believe that it alone affords us a true
explanation of life. But matter is just as inscrutable as mind. As
to the ultimate things we can know nothing, and only when we admit
this do we return to a state of equilibrium." (Jung, ibid. below)
"The spirit of the age cannot be fitted into categories of human reason. It
more a bias, an emotional tendency that works upon weaker minds, through the
unconscious, with an overwhelming force of suggestion that carries them along
with it. To think otherwise than our contemporaries think is somehow illegit-
imate and disturbing; it is even indecent, morbid or blasphemous, and there-
fore socially dangerous for the individual. ...Just as formerly the assumption
was unquestionable that everything that exists originates in the creative will
of a God who is a spirit, so the nineteenth century discovered the equally
unquestionable truth that everything arises from material causes. Today the
psyche does not build itself a body, but on the contrary matter, by chemical
action, produces the psyche. This reversal of outlook would be ludicrous if
it were not one of the unquestioned verities of the spirit of the age. It is
the popular way of thinking, and therefore is decent, reasonable, scientific,
and normal. Mind must be thought of as an epiphenomenon of matter. The same
conclusion is reached if we say not "mind" but "psyche", and instead of
"matter" speak of "brain", "hormones", "instincts", and "drives".To allow the
soul or psyche a substantiality of its own is repugnant to the spirit of the
age, for that would be heresy.
We have now discovered that it was an intellecutally unjustified presumption
on our forefathers' part to assume than man has a soul; that that soul has
substance, is of divine nature and therefore immortal; that there is a power
inherent within it which builds up the body, sustains its life, heals its ills
and enables the soul to live independently of the body; that there are incorp-
oreal spirits with which the soul associates; and that beyond our empirical
present there is a spiritual world from which the soul receives knowledge of
spiritual things whose origins cannot be discovered in this visible world.
But people who are not above the general level of consciousness have not yet
discovered that it is just as presumptuous and fantastic to assume that matter
produces mind, that apes give rise to human beings, that from the harmonious
interplay of the drives of hunger, love, and power Kant's *Critique of Pure
Reason* should have emerged, and that all this could not be possibly other
than it is.
.......As I have said, the irresistible tendency to explain everything on
physical grounds corresponds to the horizontal development of consciousness
in the last four centuries, and this horizontal perspective is a reaction
against the exclusively vertical perspective of the Gothic Age. It is an
**ethnopsychological phenomenon** and as such cannot be treated in terms of
individual consciousness......
If we were conscious of the spirit of the age, we should know why we are so
inclined to account for everything on physical grounds; we should know it is
because, **up to now,, too much was accounted for in terms of spirit.**"
(Jung, CW vol. 8, para. 653-657)
Our mission, should we accept it, is to foster the development of
a new methodoligical approach to scholarship which synthesizes and leads
beyond, which moves souls from the plane of "there is no God", to that of
"but God", as the Master stated.
just my ideas,
theo
P.S. Juan....what are the demarcation limits of scientific pursuit that you
adhere to? What is your S.E.?
----------------------------------------------------------------
Return to Talisman
Translation Page
Baha'i Studies Page
J. Cole Home Page
Last Updated 5-28-98
WebMaster: Juan R.I. Cole
jrcole@umich.edu