Logs of Talisman Discussions of Bahai Faith 11/95
From dpeden@imul.comSun Nov 5 13:14:40 1995
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 95 08:38:20+030
From: Don Peden
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Dear Linda:
Thank you for your response. Yes, you are right about my own confusion
regarding where I wanted to place myself in regards to the faith. Funnily
enough, I realized after my response to you exactly where I stood (and have
been probably standing all along, but just couldn't see where I was for all
the smoke from the musket fire) on this issue. The result was a request
sent to the National Spiritual Assembly of Canada to begin whatever steps
are needed to re-instate my enrollment. That Email went out with yours.
What this means, I am not sure. At this point, I think a committment firmly
planted on the ground on the Baha'i "side of the fence", and a committment
to prayer and more questioning/searching. Trying to remain separate from
the Cause of God is like trying to hold one's breath forever. But making
decisions about how I will involve myself in the implementation of the
cause, I will decide about after a looooonnnnng period of prayer. That one,
I will have to think about carefully.
Thanks for the push.
On the subject of sugar coating, well, I had never thought of myself as
sugar coating anything. And, "get on with your life, honey" was not quite
what I was trying to say. (I'm more of a "Piss or get off the pot" person,
and that is NOT what you are deserving to hear from me.) I am getting the
impression that all of this trauma is a few years old. How long do you
grieve? What is the needed mourning period? This is different from "get on
with it honey" because you can't get on with it until your healing is done.
This is what I am trying to say. But at some point healing has to start,
and you are in charge of that timetable. Maybe it already has. I can't say
"It's all right", it obviously isn't. Hurt and anger need transformation at
some point into wisdom and action, and only the individuals involved can
make a decision about what action, when to act, where to act, how to act,
and why is it necessary to act. You are the authors.
I would rather see my tone of being, "Right! What next?" All of the
players in this drama obviously have so many choices ahead to make, paths
to follow, and wonderful knowledge to offer. I rejoice that there are minds
and hearts like yours to serve the Cause. There has never been in my mind
any question of loyalty to the Cause of God, any questions of covenant
breaking, or any question of distancing myself from any of you lest I become
"tainted". (If I become "tainted" it would be a reflection of my own state
of being, wouldn't it?) I have seen no references made to setting up a
separate Baha'i Faith, and if my understanding is correct, that is what
covenant breaking is. And even if covenant breaker were an issue at all, it
is the sole responsibility of the Universal House to name it so...not any of
us. Questioning the parameters of the Administrative structure and looking
at POSSIBLE next steps (there has been no writing in blood coming through my
romper room mirror) in no way constitutes covenant breaking. We are seeing
ghosties in the hallway if we think it does, or perhaps commenting on our
own unspoken questions and fears. I call it the "I believe in fairies
syndrome".
One thing I have learned through my own experiences of recent, that I would
like to share. My faith became shaken because of the action of some
Baha'is. This has never bothered me before, so why now? I think the
answers lie in the fact that it involved TWO of my children and my mother
defense system was on full go. When a well meaning Auxillary Board member
tried to counsel us with the ususal "Be patient, things are in process,
etc.," I was quite rude to her, and told her to save her breath, because we
had heard the lines for twenty years and they were wearing a little thin.
Like the buzzards in the tree, I was through with patience and wanted to
kill something. The other thing is that it was being done in the name of the
National Spiritual Assembly which I could not accept...and the backlog and
burden of the National Spiritual Assembly was so great they were not able to
respond and put a bandage on my faith right away. They also needed time
to explore my concerns, along with similar concerns from others, consult and
make a decision. When they acted on the situation, they really acted, and
no half way about it. There was no attempt to make nice nice with the
folks. Very decisive action occured, lovingly, firmly, and in a manner
which moved the whole thing forward one giant step for eveyone concerned
then, now and in the future. My faith had always rested in the idea NOT
that our institutions were perfect, but that they would be given what they
need to progress when they needed it and that the new world which
Baha'u'llah promised would move forward. This includes tests like me to
allow us both to rub our edges off against each other in the great tumbler
of life. That was shaken at the thought that they would be involved in
promoting the kind of rigidity I was seeing. It challenged my faith in that
process of progress. It turned out that it was not the case, and my fears
have been allayed. But my "healing" couldn't begin until they were able to
respond. Which is why I ask, what do you NEED to have happen to allow you
to take whatever steps are next?
I look in my new "Romper room mirror" here, (now SHE was sugary, and I
always hated Romper room and refused to watch it; but I did like her window
on the world) and I see a lot of dedicated, loving, passionate souls whose
ardour allows them to feel INTENSE pain and anger. I see it as a measure of
your own qualities, and I don't believe for a minute that God is "throwing"
any of you away. If anything, he will push you to the limit because of your
capacity. Where there is one quality, there is also the opposite...it is
part of our human paradox. One of the spiritual goals laid out in the
prayers (excuse my paraphrasing) as I understand it is to take our qualities
and to transform them into attributes. Anger is a quality...it helps right
injustice. Pain is a quality...it helps us be compassionate...you know all
this. How we do this is dependant on us. Maybe part of that search is
being able to express your anger and outrage at the injustice you feel has
been carried out. Maybe part of that search is sifting through the ashes to
look for the phoenix.
By the way, my electronic dictionary came up with two very beautiful
meanings for phoenix:
1. A bird in Egyptian mythology who lived in the desert, consumed itself in
fire, and later rose from the ashes.
2. A thing of great beauty.
Kinda like making art!
When you look in your mirror in the morning, can you see the phoenix?
Love,
Bev.
From nima@unm.eduSun Nov 5 13:14:54 1995
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 1995 23:25:04 -0700 (MST)
From: Sadra
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Rabin shot dead at Tel Aviv peace rally
Dear Talizens--
If you haven't heard already, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was
assassinated a few hours ago after giving a speech at a peace rally in Tel
Aviv. Attempts at reviving him failed at a nearby hospital. An Israeli
law student belonging to an ultra-right wing militant Jewish group
opposed to the Mid East peace plan was responsible for the act. I'll try to
get a hold of the Reuter/AP press releases ASAP and forward them to
Talisman.
What does this mean for the peace process now?
Nima
---
O God, cause us to see things as they really are - Hadith
From friberg@will.brl.ntt.jpSun Nov 5 13:15:04 1995
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 95 21:50:28 JST
From: "Stephen R. Friberg"
To: TLCULHANE@aol.com
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Terry's Post on Science and Religion
Dear Terry:
A really wonderful posting on science and religion! Great stuff.
My only complaint (OK, its not a complaint) is that you didn't
put down Internet as being one of the positive fruits of science!
Your friend from the Japanese telephone company!
Stephen F.
From friberg@will.brl.ntt.jpSun Nov 5 13:15:47 1995
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 95 0:29:49 JST
From: "Stephen R. Friberg"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Context vs. the Writings
Dear Friends:
I would like to comment about using the Writings out of context. It has been
suggested that books like Helen Hornby's _Lights of Guidance_ do a disservice
by encouraging Baha'is to use it as a kind of book of laws. The argument is
that these quotations are taken out of context, and therefore can be
misleading.
Collections of quotations from the Writings need no defense. _Gleanings_,
translated by Shoghi Effendi is such a collection. It is perhaps the
preeminent among such collections. Surely, this is sufficient to establish
that collections of quotations are more than just acceptable.
As for the believers using the Writings out of context. It is hard to
believe that there should be some sort of authority who tells the believers
what is the right way or wrong way to use the Writings. Many of us have been
arguing on Talisman for the freedom of the believers to think as they wish,
and to be free from arbitrary coercive authority. Telling the believers how
to use the Writings is inconsistent with the belief that they should be free
to study and use the Writings as they see best.
In a similar vein, it would be difficult to reconcile the idea that the
believers should be free with the idea that somehow they must understand the
proper "context" for the Writings. Who is to provide the "proper" context?
Historical scholars? Should people be punished if they don't use the "proper"
context?
More bothersome is the implication that only those with the proper scholarly
qualifications can "correctly" interpret the Writings. Only such people, it
is implied, can correctly understand the "context" of the Writings. But, of
course, to claim that this is true would be tantamount to putting the
scholarly and learned in a position where they can exercise arbitrary power
and authority.
Much better is to let people by themselves wrestle with Holy Word, and by
their own efforts bring out the many meanings. Unlike our own discussions,
which rarely transcend context, the Words of Baha'u'llah, Ab'dul-Baha, and
even Shoghi Effendi have depth and brilliance beyond the particular
circumstances in which they were uttered.
So let the scholars study the contexts, and make them available to all. This
is certainly praiseworthy. But allow the believers to use these studies as
they best see fit. No coercion, please!
Yours respectfully,
Stephen R. Friberg
P.S. Note, not even the best of scholars can fully (or even approximately)
describe the particular circumstances under which the Words were revealed.
So it is indeed impossible to know exactly what the context was.
From LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduSun Nov 5 13:16:42 1995
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 95 11:44:05 EWT
From: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: virtue
Dear Jim, I think that most would agree with you that we in America and in the
West in general have a tremendous challenge. We are grossly materialistic. We
have let the basic virtues and foundations of our society die a painful death.
Sometimes the pain of the high school and college students I see daily is
beyond endurance. I detest the selfishness I see in this society. I am beyond
being dismayed by the indifference parents show their children. They become
detached from them. Sometimes they seem to fear them. Those of us who have
some grounding and a sense of life beyond the material do have the greatest
obligation to be of service and to nurture wherever we can. No one could
possibly question Shoghi Effendi's warnings to us.
Yet, that does not discount the complaints that have been expressed towards
institutions. My eye was drawn to the phrase "defenders of orthodoxy." That
is what some of us have been complaining about. We are not blaming the
insitutions for all the ills of society but instead feel that if the Faith is
going to be a meaningful refuge and guiding light in this society that all
arenas of intellectual and spiritual life should be able to flourish. It is,
of course, necessary that each of us be responsible for our own spiritual
development and commitment to serving humankind. But religion is communal. It
has to be an expression of the voices of the people who have alligned
themselves with it.
I needn't tell you that many were attracted to the Baha'i Faith because of the
sense of liberation from old ways and prejudices that we felt in the religions
of our childhoods. We didn't want to be shackled by powers from on high. We
felt that ours was a revolutionary religion that could change the world. Yet,
over the years we have been more and more restricted in our endeavors. MOre
and doors seem to be closed. This isn't just the complaint of the scholars and
intellectuals. I hear this from others who are creative and inventive sorts.
You might grow tired of the moaning and groaning. Others might feel that this
is the first step to bringing about sorely needed change. If voices could be
heard, if there were more avenues for expression, no doubt there would be less
complaining. Linda
From dhouse@cinsight.comSun Nov 5 13:33:24 1995
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 1995 09:51:44 -0800
From: "David W. House"
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Virgin Mary
Friends,
>[Someone incompletely specified] has confused two good solid doctrines of
the Catholic Chuch...
Well, actually, what [someone] said was:
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.
[Someone] offered no interpretation of the passage, but what it says is:
As to the position of Christianity, let it be stated without
any hesitation or equivocation that its divine origin is
unconditionally acknowledged, that the Sonship and Divinity of
Jesus Christ are fearlessly asserted, that the divine inspiration
of the Gospel is fully recognized, that the reality of the
mystery of the Immaculacy of the Virgin Mary is confessed, and
the primacy of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, is upheld and
defended....
PDC, p 109
>The Immaculate Conception has nothing to do with Jesus...
Whether or not this is what the single word "Immaculacy" in the quoted
passage refers to, this is not what [someone] said about this passage, but
rather a position offered in the post being quoted.
>...the Virgin Birth--which is scientifically impossible..
This *does* pertain to the post, in which I (yes, I confess) made the
assertion that science certainly has not, and indeed cannot demonstrate that
the Virgin Birth did not take place. (Please note the last ten words in the
previous sentence carefully; the word "impossible" does not appear.)
In other words, it is not a "scientific" statement to say the Virgin Birth
is impossible (except in the loosest colloquial sense). It is rather a
statement of opinion, based on extrapolation, which in turn is based on
current scientific information, which in turn is changing daily.
I have no dispute with those who have the referenced opinion, pro or con.
Its up to any of us to choose whatever position we want. My point, my only
point, and nothing but the point is found is an exact and literal reading of
the previous paragraph. I intend, in other words, no argument about
conclusions; rather I am trying to more accurately categorize the means by
which such conclusions are reached. If someone wants to have an opinion, no
problem, great, I support that, have at it.
d.
David William House (dhouse@cinsight.com)
From dhouse@cinsight.comSun Nov 5 13:33:34 1995
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 1995 09:51:46 -0800
From: "David W. House"
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Science Religion and Virgins
Terry,
>David H. wrote that science provides relative truths...
True.
>and presumably religion provides absolute truths.
Hmmm. Don't remember saying that. Interesting post, and I agree with many
things you say. But different subject than I raised...
d.
David William House (dhouse@cinsight.com)
From KOLINSSM@hcl.chass.ncsu.eduSun Nov 5 13:33:48 1995
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 1995 13:25:47 EST
From: Steven Kolins
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Response to pain (poem)
When someone is hurting,
after an incident,
regardless of context,
we respond with following:
Apathy: it's not my problem.
Blame: wonder what s/he did
to deserve it?
Empathy: Yes! I see, aha! Hmm?
Sympathy: Gosh! I feel your pain!
Compassion: I see, I feel, I want to help
Action: Would you please
let me do something?
*********
All are relevant
and valid
posing six questions
for evaluation;
who? what? when? where? how? why?
was the effects and affected,
can only be seen
with a view of bird's eye.
Don't you wish,
now you could fly?
Even then there is
no guarantee,
to know the truth,
until we see
the video of life
played before us,
after the last breath.
I hope and pray in His Mercy,
some portions of tape,
will be deleted.
Likewise for all
my foes and friends.
lovingly,
Quanta Dawn-Light...(*_*)
All I need is Freedom of spirit, Chastity of soul, and Purity of
heart. A pov is not even secondary.
From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comSun Nov 5 16:26:07 1995
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 95 11:13:01 -0500
From: Ahang Rabbani
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: an open letter to a friend
[This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII]
Dear Juan,
It pains me to write this note, but increasingly I am having more
and more problems with both the content and the tone of your
messages in relation to the Institutions of the Faith and your
charges against them. I do not mean this as a flame and I think
you know how deeply I love you and admire you -- and how I have
defended your right to speak. But now I'm having problem with
the actual speech and since I know you appreciate a straight
forward manner, then I like to say what's bothering me.
During the past 10 days on Talisman, several people (Rob, David
House, Tim, ...) have disagreed with you over your perceived
wrongs, or as you say injustices, perpetuated by the Institutions
of the Cause, including the House of Justice. Every single time
you responded, I am sorry to say this my friend, but you actually
have upped the ante. Yesterday, in a response to Tim, you
categorically denied the infallibility of the House of Justice,
dismissed Abdu'l-Baha's Will and Testament, implied He had a
false vision of how things would unfolded and throw out a large
body of the Guardian's letters by saying his pronouncements were
"hasty and informal"!
If this is where we are after a few days of this discussion, then
I must ask, at this rate, what are you going to say in a couple
of weeks time? Since in late 70's, in your World Order article,
you stripped Baha'u'llah of His infallibility, (an article while
was allowed by the House to be published, but certainly *not*
endorsed by the World Centre), I think, in all honestly all is
left to do is to deny the existence of God and be done with it!
(This is not intended as a sarcastic statement, but one is really
puzzled as to what a person believes in, after all these
statements!)
Like many others, I have repeatedly expressed my support for open
discourse allowing all the right to say what they want. But
there is a limit. I do not support inflammatory statements, and
will all due respect and love, am beginning to think certain
statements on yours fall in this category.
You must be aware of the influence of your words and how the rest
of us look up to you for your learned remarks. How we deeply
admire your tremendous scholarship and knowledge. And how so
many of us genuinely love and respect you. Further you've seen
how many Talismanians echo your words on other Internet Baha'i
discussion groups! Even a couple of days ago there was a
not-so-subtle hint by a fellow Talismanian of your possible
election to the NSA! All of these illustrates the influence of
your words and the prominence you've achieved. I know, I for
one, am elated by it and can't think of a better person to
receive this attention.
But along with influence and prominence comes responsibility.
One can't say things that will be disunifying in their effects or
worse, undermine the faith of others. Don't you think by so
casually dismissing a sacred document of our Faith as the Will
and Testament, "inseparable" from the Kitab-i Aqdas and "on par"
with It according to Shoghi Effendi, will have a tremendous
negative effect on the rest of us who look up to you because of
our love, admiration and your learning? Don't you think that now
some of us will think its OK to go back to our community, and
assured that someone as knowledgeable as Juan Cole has said so,
tell the friends that these statements of the Guardian are all
bunch of "hasty and informal" things! Do you really think this
is the best thing for the community, or are you assuming no
responsibility for your words?
Let's remember, what killed Prime Minister Robin a few hours ago
was not the assassins bullet, it was months of inflammatory
discourse that provided the means for some crazy man to act.
Negative discourse and criticism have very powerful effect.
I beg that as a standard-bearer of scholarship for you to observe
more moderation in your discourse.
But, I also beg of all the other scholars on Talisman, that while
you exercise your God-given right of free speech, please consider
their effect and Baha'u'llah's admonishment for moderation.
Again, my dear Juan, I profoundly apologize for saying any of
these, but felt as some one who you knew deeply loves you, I
could say this, and I hope you will find it in your heart to
forgive me and to allow our friendship to flourish.
With greatest admiration, ahang.
From LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduSun Nov 5 16:26:52 1995
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 95 15:00:06 EWT
From: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: emergency!!!
Quick, oh ye American T.V. audience. My husband - the great Listowner whom I
am always saying kind things about - blew it big time. He was recording the
BBC production of Edith Wharton's novel "The Buccaneers" which she never
finished. He somehow programmed the VCR to cut it off a half hour early!
Please, if there is anyone out there who watched the end of the Buccaneers,
please save this marriage by posting me a.s.a.p. to tell me in great detail
what happened. I was at the part where Guy was addressing Parliament.
And no wise cracks about me learning how to program the VCR. I do enough
around here. It is all John's fault. Desperately, Linda
P.A. And for the wise guys who are going to say that, since she didn't finish
the novel, there was no ending and that John is not to blame - pooh! She
outlined the ending and the producers filled in the blanks.
From DAWNLIQU@fllab.chass.ncsu.eduSun Nov 5 16:27:10 1995
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 1995 15:34:46 EST
From: QUANTA DAWNLIGHT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Covenant
Juan Cole wrote:
>...you can look at me as a
>miner's canary. And I'm telling you, I'm on the verge of fainting.
Be it known only
unto God!
Perhaps thou art,
a cardinal,
from Rachel Carson's
Silent Spring!
Please do not faint!!
Fly for awhile,
away from this field,
to get a fresh air,
then come back again!
lovingly,
Quanta Dawn-Light...(*_*)
From 73613.2712@compuserve.comSun Nov 5 16:27:39 1995
Date: 05 Nov 95 16:10:38 EST
From: Steven Scholl <73613.2712@compuserve.com>
To: Talisman
Subject: Re: White Cloud Catalog
Dear Friends,
Thanks to all who send nice words re: Common Era's success. Steve Friberg asked
if I would post our titles, naturally I am delighted to. Below is our latest
catalog which makes a wonderful Pagan Holiday gift guide to good literature. We
have been agonizing on the best way to market our books for the holiday season
and came up with such time honored phrases as "Seasons Readings" "Presents of
Mind" and the like. In the end, however, we decided to chose a a holiday slogan
that truly gets to the heart of the gift giving season, and one which I hope my
fellow Talismaniacs will take to heart and guide your actions in the days ahead.
So without further adieu, I give you the 1995 White Cloud Holiday Gift Guide
Slogan: "Friends Don't Give Friends Fruitcake"
Be good, buy books.
With love,
Steve
WHITE CLOUD PRESS TITLES
White Cloud Press publishes a unique selection of books on religion, mythology,
philosophy, poetry, memoirs, and travel. These books will be a welcome addition
to your personal library or as gifts to family and friends. And now White Cloud
offers more than just books. We are now distributing the new Song of Survival
compact disc recording of vocal orchestra music. This music was originally sung
by women prisoners during the Christmas season of 1943 while they were interned
in a death camp on the island of Sumatra. This music will stir your soul as will
the story of faith and courage as told in Helen Colijn's riveting memoir, Song
of Survival, Women Interned.
NOTE TO TALISMAN SUBSCRIBERS:
TALISMAN SUBSCRIBERS RECEIVE A 15% DISCOUNT ON ORDERS. TO ORDER BY E-MAIL, SEND
YOUR NAME, ADDRESS, CITY, STATE, ZIP PLUS VISA OR MASTERCARD NUMBER AND EXP.
DATE.
ORDERS BY MAIL SHOULD BE SENT TO:
PO BOX 3400
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PHONE/FAX 503-488-6415
COMMON ERA
Best New Writings on Religion
Edited by Steven Scholl
$14.95 / Paperback
Common Era brings together some of the most creative minds of our time: bill
moyers, allen ginsberg, vaclav havel, theodore roszak, rosemary radford ruether,
matthew fox, mitchell kapor, among others reflect on interfaith dialogue,
sexuality and sprituality, ecology and the soul, post-modernism and politics,
women's spirituality and mysticism.
"Happily, this annual anthology is fascinating not just for the quality and
depth of the pieces presented but also for its variety. . . Scholl . . . has . .
. taken on a remarkable task and done it well, the result being a volume of
excellent reading for anyone interested in taking the pulse of modern religious
thoughts and movements." Publishers Weekly
SAGA
Best New Writings on Mythology
Edited by Jonathan Young
Paperback
$14.95 / Available December 1995
The wisdom of ancient storytellers has been handed down to us by a long
succession of inspired men and women in the form of great mythic narratives full
of guidance and encouragement. Some of today's finest writers and scholars have
turned their attention to unraveling the secrets of these timeless tales to
explain their value in contemporary life.
SAGA is an annual volume collecting the most innovative articles
published each year in the area of myth and ritual studies by the most
outstanding thinkers in the field. Contributors to this first volume include
Thomas Moore, Ursula LeGuin, Clarissa Pinkola Estes, Toni Morrison, Robert Bly,
James Hillman, Rita Dove, Christine Dowining, David Miller, Jean Shinoda Bolen,
Marion Woodman, and Murray Stein among others.
NEW TRANSLATIONS OF THE ARABIC WRITINGS OF KAHLIL GIBRAN.
White Cloud Press is publishing the first academically sound translations of
Kahlil Gibran's Arabic writings. Earlier translations of Gibran are recognized
by scholars as being inelegant and inaccurate. Lovers of Gibran's wisdom can now
read anew the remarkable works of on of this century's most beloved authors in
faithful translations by noted scholars and Talismanians.
THE VISION: REFLECTIONS ON THE WAY OF THE SOUL
By Kahlil Gibran / Translated by Juan R. I. Cole
$17.00/cloth; original illustrations by Gibran;
ISBN 1-883991-02-1
In 25 meditations and essays on the Way of the Soul, Gibran illuminates such
themes as Beauty, Nature, Hidden Realities, The Nature of the Soul, Tragedy,
Death, and Immortality and the Next World.
SPIRIT BRIDES
By Kahlil Gibran / Translated by Juan R. I. Cole
Cover price $16.00 / Cloth; 9 original illustrations by Kahlil Gibran;
ISBN 1-883991-00-5.
SPIRIT BRIDES tells three stories set in northern Lebanon in the late nineteenth
century. In "The Ash of Centuries and the Immortal Flame," we hear of a love
that unites two souls beyond time and social conventions. In "Marta al-Baniyah"
and "Yuhanna the Madman," Gibran writes of two souls who are victims of
injustice and oppression at the hands of religious institutions and social
customs.
Juan Cole's stunning and lyric translation revives Gibran's passionate stories
of spiritual transcendence through love and suffering.
THE STORM
By Kahlil Gibran / Translated by John Walbridge
$18.00 / Cloth, 9 original illustrations by Gibran; ISBN 1-883991-01-3.
THE STORM brings together fourteen short stories and prose poems from Gibran's
Arabic writings that exhibit several characteristic Gibran themes: the injustice
perpetrated by society against the poor, the weak, and the sincere; nature and
its destruction by man; and the purity and innocence of young love and its
perversion and destruction by society.
John Walbridge's clear, sensitive, and fluent translation provides us with an
inspired and faithful approach to one of the twentieth century's most beloved
authors.
THE BELOVED: REFLECTIONS ON THE PATH OF LOVE
By Kahlil Gibran / Translated by John Walbridge
Available August 1994. $17.00 / Cloth, original illustrations by Kahlil Gibran;
ISBN 1-883991-05-6.
Gibran's writings on love and marriage are captured in exquisite prose and
poetry translations. The Beloved brings together essential writings on the ways
of the heart.
CREATION AND THE TIMELESS ORDER OF THINGS: ESSAYS ON ISLAMIC MYSTICAL PHILOSOPHY
by Toshihiko Izutsu
Available September 1994;
NOTE: SPECIAL 40% DISCOUNT ON SLIGHTLY DAMAGED COPIES ($9.60) Limited quantity
Otherwise
$16.00; paperback; ISBN 1-883991-04-8; 200pages.
Prof. Izutsu is the author of numerous books and essays in comparative
philosophy, Zen Buddhism and Islamic philosophy and mysticism. He has been a
regular lecturer at the renowned Eranos conference in Ascona, Switzerland, where
distinguished scholars such as C. G. Jung, Mircea Eliade, Henry Corbin, James
Hillman, and Joseph Campbell have explored the psychological, mythological and
religious dimensions of human experience. CREATION AND THE TIMELESS ORDER OF
THINGS brings together seven seminal studies by Izutsu, focusing on
Irano-Islamic metaphysics but with his characteristic comparative analyses
between Islamic and Asian systems of mystical philosophy.
SONG OF SURVIVAL: WOMEN INTERNED
By Helen Colijn
$22.95 / Hardcover
Helen Colijn's account of her wartime experiences is a window into a largely
overlooked dimension of World War II--the imprisonment of women and children in
Southeast Asia by the Japanese and how these prisoners of war responded to their
dire circumstances. The conditions were harsh, terrible. Food was scarce,
medicine unavailable. Held in captivity for three-and-a-half years, more than a
third of the women in Helen's camp died of disease or starvation. Yet their
courage, faith, resiliency, ingenuity, and camaraderie provide us with enduring
lessons on living. Though they had no musical instruments, the women had their
voices, and from memory scored classical works for symphony and piano. The music
that helped sustain them while in captivity is a lasting and precious gift of
these women to a world that has witnessed far too much war.
"A moving account. . ." San Jose Mercury News
"Her account grips the reader from the very first pages." Library Journal
SONG OF SURVIVAL
Compact Disc Recording
By Women's Choir of
Haarlem, Holland
$15.95
Song of Survival is a new recording of music originally performed in a Japanese
internment camp on the island of Sumatra. This hauntingly beautiful music is
performed by the Women's Choir of Haarlem, Holland. The CD contains selections
from the original camp concerts, including Chopin's "Funeral March,"
Tchaikovsky's "Andante Cantabile, String Quartet;" Dvorak's "Largo" from the New
World Symphony; Bach's "Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring;" plus a Christmas Medley
and the "Captives' Hymn," which was composed by Margaret Dryburgh, the
internment camp's choir director.
"Song of Survival is an intense, emotional experience. The music is rich,
expressive and exquisitely beautiful. . ." Joanne Fiedler, review in Jefferson
Monthly
For the golfers on your gift list . . .
STARTING TIME: A True Account of the Origins of Creation, Sex, Death, and Golf
By Gray Kochhar-Lindgren
$11.95 / Paperback
At last, the true nature of the universe has been revealed, and as many of us
have long suspected the mystery all began with a very special round of golf. In
Starting Time, Bobby and Mickey--that famous First Twosome--tee it off at the
original Big Bang and the universe unfolds as nine miraculous holes, each a
world unto itself. The match is on.
Bobby smacks a shot off a buffalo pie and from deep beneath a lake. Mickey
counters with a shot hit naked from the sea and scimitar-struck putts rattle
into the middle of the cup. Accompanied by their raucous zoological gallery,
these pre-eternal partners play through the birth of the nations, into the
opaque and unblinking eye of death, and towards a shimmer much like a promise.
The first round ends--if it does--on the Road Hole at a place that's almost the
St. Andrews we know and love.
Bobby and Mick, dressed and undressed, go at it hard as creators, playing
partners, and adversaries--gloriously battling the tribulations of golf as they
aim for that sweet spot that marks the smooth swing of ecstasy.
"a strange and wonderful book . . . that will find its place on that special
shelf dedicated to golf's most splendid visionary fiction." American Golf Pro
THE GREEN SEA OF HEAVEN
Fifty ghazals from the Diwan of Hafiz
By Shams al-Din Muhammad Hafiz-i Shirazi
Translated by Elizabeth T. Gray
Introductions by Elizaneth T. Gray and Daryush Shayegan
Original paperback
$14.95
"This is a groundbreaking work, one that places the ghazal of Hafiz into a
contemporary English poetic idiom. Ms. Gray captures the rhythms, the paradoxes,
the ironies, the sudden changes in tone and voice, the ambiguities, the spark
and the bite of the original. After too long a wait, we encounter Hafiz, come
alive in an English style that is at once natural and intricate. This is a
remarkable achievement." Michael Sells, professor of Islamic literature and
author of Mystical Languages of the Unsaying
". . . a translation with a rich flow that is surprising, with a vigilant
faithfulness to the original that is commendable, and with a tender and learned
poetic care that is both a scholarly and an artistic joy. Gray presents us with
a bouquet of Shirazi flowers, blazing in their colors and so fresh." The Harvard
Review
RESTLESS MIND, QUIET THOUGHTS
A Personal Journal
By Paul Eppinger, With Charles Eppinger, his father
Original paperback
$12.95
Restless Mind, Quiet Thoughts: A Personal Journal is the story of Paul
Eppinger's third decade. Paul was an extremely gifted and sensitive young man
whose life also contained a great deal of pain. The book concludes with Paul's
death by suicide. Restless Mind, Quiet Thoughts is beautifully written and
brutally honest. The book also lovingly portrays a unique father and son
relationship between Paul and Charles.
"The story of Paul's life and death by suicide absorbed me, involved me,
transfixed me, infuriated me, and genrally tore me apart with its lethal
honesty. A deep and profound book that keeps alive an abiding relationship
between a father and a son--a relationship more full of overt love and sharing
than most of us will ever know."
Kent Nerburn, author of Letters to My Son
From jrcole@umich.eduSun Nov 5 16:43:09 1995
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 1995 16:40:56 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: reply to open letter
Ahang is a very beloved friend and I value his counsel. If he wants
things toned down, by all means let's tone them down.
As I said, I want to do nothing to detract from the bill of rights idea,
which I hope we'll have more response to, and a revised form of which I
will post, taking into account Chris's and Ahang's comments. And the
reason the ante got raised is that some insisted that *no change is
possible* on ideological grounds. If we can agree that change is
possible, then it is not necessary to go off on other tangents, examining
the bases of that ideology.
Someday, however, we will have to have the postponed conversation.
I am distressed only by the suggestion now made for a third time of my
holding in the future some sort of Baha'i office. Since campaigning is a
crime in the Baha'i administrative structure, this is not funny, even as
a joke. And it is besides a silly idea. Don't you think by now I'd have
high negatives? And I have stressed that my personal life would not
permit me such a step. So, please, guys, cut it out.
There is an Arabic proverb, sharr al-`ulama' man zar al-umara', the worst
of the learned are those who visit the powerful. There is a place in the
faith for thinking persons who eschew personal power, after all.
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From briann@cruzio.comMon Nov 6 00:05:37 1995
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 95 13:52:27 PST
From: Brian and Ann Miller
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Rabin, Israel
Dear Friends,
I found the reference on Jewish fundamentalism I mentioned in my last
post. [By the way, did that post on Rabin's assassination reach you? I made
an error in the address, but I think I was able to correct it.]
The reference is FOR THE LAND AND THE LORD: Jewish Fundamentalism in
Israel by Ian S. Lustick, Council on foreigh Relations, New York, 1998.
Yes, its eight years old, but still valuable, I think.
Warm regards,
Brian [briann@cruzio.com]
.
--
From briann@cruzio.comMon Nov 6 00:06:11 1995
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 95 14:21:13 PST
From: Brian and Ann Miller
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Cc: nima@unm.edu
Subject: rabin the martyr
Dear Friends,
I just read the morning paper. I am stunned, grieved. The peace
process in the Middle East has gained another martyr. Perhaps Rabin's dream
will actually be advanced by this great tragedy. Peres is now in power. I
hope he waits until the regular, scheduled election in October 1996 to try to
form a new government. We can only hold our breath while Israel chooses its
course. The AP wire article in this morning's paper speculated that Israel
will try to purge the right-wing group(s?) responsible, which took credit for
this heinous act under the name "Ine."
I will attempt to restrain my fury at the fascist religious radicalism
represented by the Gush Emmunim and the tolerance for their outrageous
positions by government leaders such as Shamir, Sharon, and Netanyahou. There
is an excellent book, I hope I can remember the title, that might be very good
reading this week. I can't find it on my shelf. It was an excellent study of
the rise of Gush Emunim and the political and historical context that supports
their role in Israeli society. They are religious radicals similar in
approach and the structure of their belief system to the Wahhabis and the
Islamic revolutionaries in Iran. My hope is that such positions and such
groups will be thoroughly discredit and even banned in response to this crime
against humanity.
In short Nima, and friends, I am always an optimist andnow tentatively
hopesful that some good may come from this, because I do believe that Rabin is
a martyr, that he willingly gave his life for the cause of peace.
Friends, especially Nima, can you forward to Talisman Middle East wire
reports this week as events take shape during a most critical juncture in the
course of world shaping events.
Warm regards, and deepest sympathy to our Jewish and Israeli friends,
Brian [briann@cruzio.com]
--
From margreet@margreet.seanet.comMon Nov 6 00:07:18 1995
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 1995 14:31:19 -0800
From: "Marguerite K. Gipson"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Hold on...
Hello...
Wow, what a week. But I do not want to tangle with anyone...
Gees.. you are probably bigger than me anyway, but I have to put a stop or a
hold to some of the *questions/issues* being raised here.
I can see that if someone is not grounded in the Covenent of Baha'u'llah,
and steadfast in the Writings, some hair is standing on the back of my
neck... about what has been said. Peter Khan talks about a statement from
the Guardian and I quote it
"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."
ME again... you have some smart, intelligent people on Talis who have a
deeper understanding of the Bahai Writings, but I also sense a *danger* for
those not too well deepened and steadfast to understand. And someone is
bound to be hurt by it....
I have to again, just watch and listen, I don't understand why someone said
the things they do, I begin to wonder if it is the same Bahai Faith. But I
am steadfast enough to the Covenent Of Baha'u'llah to stand the test of
time. But you know, part of the maturity process in being Bahai, is
instant obediance to the institutions... Even if you feel they are
immature, and not functioning effectively.... they can be trained,
deepened, and nurtured.
Back in '86 I was out of work, so I went to the LSA... after some
discussion went by, without me being present, they made a suggestion...
When I read the letter, I thought how could they make such a decision. They
all had good jobs, and never were faced with this type of dilemma before.
It took a week for me to decide if I was going to obey them, or go do my own
thing... They wanted me to spend my money that I really did not have.
Charge it... I mean, how could they ask me to do that... Well, a week
later I did, and I found a job 4 days after I completed the task they asked.
So I feel, instantly obey, and see what happens.... you never know, and if
it is the wrong decision, the truth will become known....
One more question... How is your life going??? Are you being tested and
in a constant struggle??? What would happen if you had a change in
paradigm?? You can get more bees with Honey, than you can with vinegar....
(my housemate is a bee keeper)
Warmly,
Margreet....
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comMon Nov 6 00:13:35 1995
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 1995 14:44:02 -0800
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Reforms etc !
In the debate on Reforms and a Baha'i Bill of Human Rights it does seem new and old
ground is being covered . As Juan started the thread I will primarily directed my
attention to what he has put forward and work in other items . As I previously posted
I do believe a Baha'i Court is a needed part of the Community and is an aspect of the
Writings we do not have at present . I will deal with that point first .
I do not see the immediate urgency in the Western Baha'i World to form a National
Baha'i Court now , there are not hundreds of situations in which individuals and the
USA NSA are involved contrary to what some of the posts have implied . The USA
Baha'i community is the largest in the OECD countries and therefore is a good
yardstick to measure such needs by . You could make a case that the Baha'i
Community of India might benefit from such a Court . I am not sure how forming
such a Court would fit with the Indian Legal System , or any other countries legal
system or even if the Baha'is in India feel the need for such a body . One major
consideration that nobody has bothered to mention , a Baha'i Court would have no
secular legally enforceable powers at the present time . The Court no matter how or
where it is formed could only operate by the goodwill of those upon whom it passed
down decisions on. I do feel that first a Court should be developed at an international
level . The reason for that is quite simple if you set up a Court first in the USA the
method of operating would be framed in part by the methods used in this country .
The same would apply whichever country you set up the Court if it was a national one
. The danger would then be a possibility of a tainted development , by bringing in the
national cultural norms into the format of the Baha'i Court that have no place there ,
as the intent is to create a different standard and type of Justice . The real need for a
Court will come with the first Baha'i country or the first where the Faith becomes the
State Religion . I am not proposing we should not have a Court before then , only
that the application of Justice and the understanding of that process can not function
properly until such a Court is dealing with meaningful matters on a regular basis .
Which is why I believe having the Baha'i Court as an International Arm of the House
of the Justice is the right first step.There would be sufficient need to enable the Court
to evolve into a working Court of Justice not Law , Justice being the hallmark not the
law. Initially the Court could handle internal matters to gain experience . For example
such matters of appeals that currently go to the House of Justice could be forwarded to
such a Body.. < You could still appeal to the House of Justice if necessary afterwards
> As it would be appointed by the House of Justice it automatically would be an
independent forum from any perceived national pressures . I do see a small danger of
lack of impartiality if such bodies are appointed by NSAs in the beginning of such an
institution . Not so much from the NSAs but the individuals appointed believing they
must follow some ' correct' path of conformity rather than developing correct judicial
practices based on the Writings . An International Court could set standards of
procedure and conduct which then would become the future models for national courts
to organize themselves . The type of persons appointed we might reflect on the idea
that comes from Baha'u'llah the eyes of Humanity are the man of consummate
learning and the seer of divine insight . A balanced court of : learned in the Writings ,
learned in Law and wise in Life might be a good combination . At least three , but we
no doubt could have more on such a bench . A knowledge of Arabic would be of value
as would an understanding of the various legal systems that operate on our Planet . I
do not hold with the opinion that Baha'i courts must naturally be a developed
extension of Islamic Jurisprudence . The primary reason for the Madhhabs or Schools
of moral and legal interpretation was the fact the Religion of Islam did not accept <
Shi'is withstanding> the Interpretation of the Imams and therefore had to devise a
method of applying Quran and Hadiths to every day life , which developed into the
Shari'a we know today . The four remaining and dominant schools ; the Shafi'i , the
Maliki , the Hanafi , the Hanabli , all belong to Sunni Islam . Although a full study of Islam is a necessary
requirement to gain a proper understanding of the Revelation of Baha'u'llah , we
should not bound by the methodology of Islamic courts in the formation of Baha'i
ones . Indeed one might with some justification consider that is not the way to do it ,
bearing in mind the rationale behind their creation . In a similar vein I do not regard
the ecclesiastical courts of Christianity to have relevance except the historical
experience is good knowledge to have available .
It does seem more logical and correct that the Baha'i Court system could develop
either as a branch of the Institution of the Hands of the Cause or as entirely separate
entity but under the direction of the House of Justice. Whilst elections do not worry
me , I believe the criteria for service on such a body should be such , as to make an
electoral process a difficult route . Especially in view of the immaturity of the
Community in respect of the true purpose of Baha'i elections . I will deal with this
point later.
First and foremost there has to be a realization especially in the USA we are not going
to have what has been known here as a legal system in the Baha'i world . We do not
have the burden of a man-made Constitution to be bothered by. I love living in the
USA it is a great country in many respects .Yet the naive belief that the Constitution
and the Bill of Rights can ensure a happy content secular life is largely without merit .
For the time period
in which the document was created it is magnificent and helped create this society .
However the growth of Government and the state legal enmeshing of the individual
has taken away much of the original freedoms which were restricted to an elite band of
the society at first . In my considered opinion both the Constitution and the Bill of
rights are been denigrated downwards towrds paper rhetoric , as the reality of the
society stands in dark contrast to the stated aims . The inbred and cultivated racism ,
the sexism , the flagrant disregard for human personal rights and dignity being the
most obvious signs . Anyone who has had to deal even on the most fringe aspects with
law enforcement , tax collection , immigration and customs is made aware you have
no rights regardless of what is written . That it is a society without Justice , is very
clear at such moments . I do realize that the situation in a dictatorship of whatever
political persuasion can and should be worse , but they do not offer the dream of
freedom , one which the USA does and is progressively failing to deliver .In certain
respects I find some of my fellow believers in the USA have more faith in the
American system than the average American does . Frequently there are attempts to
collate the American way to the Baha'i way and not too infrequently the query is
posed but the Baha'i way must be flawed it does not match the American way or 'my'
version of the American way should be . Well the Baha'i system was never intend to
be American or Persian or African or Icelandic or Russian or Indian or Chinese or
Australian , not even English . The Baha'i method of
Court operation from my reading will not employ the present legal adversarial system
. The highest aim of such a Court will be based on the foundation that the person will
see with their own eyes Justice . Such an elevated aspiration is far removed from the
enactment of the Law today . It follows that the search in the resolving of any case
must be an unfettered pursuit of the truth . That requires a different approach to
resolve disputes and the like , certain aspects of ourselves need to be transformed. .
The first is Trust and the lack of it is very clear in the varied postings I have read .
This strange and continuing harping for a public trial or hearing of matters between an
individual and an NSA at the present time can only be based on total mistrust . Even
assuming there was a degree of validity that the Institutions are filled in whole or part
with human beings who are neither honorable or trustworthy . I fail to see why in
creating a new mode of behavior we have to presume that human beings are not going
to advance spiritually . It seems to be a contradiction to believe on the one hand that
Baha'u'llah has brought a whole Canon of Religious Truth that according to the stated
purpose is to nurture a new race of human beings which we are the ancestors of , yet
they will or can not behave better than we do or have done. That frankly is a
nonsensical position for a believer in the Blessed Beauty to take regardless of whatever
problems one may have at present . The crux of the problem appears to me to revolve
around the concept of submission to the Will of God . That is an alien idea to people
living and educated in North America and Europe . However without that submission
to the Will of God nothing lasting can be accomplished in the Faith . Baha'u'llah in
fact states informed submission to the Will of God , that requires a greater degree of
belief than blind faith .
I truly feel that courts conducted in private offer a greater chance for the development
of the new type of Justice based on the Writings. This would not preclude a person
having as required advisors or representatives but with privacy comes the preserving
of honor and dignity. I know there are possible pitfalls in holding hearings in private ,
but the opportunity for the truth to come out in private I believe is greater and with
truth will come Justice.
Nobody in the Baha'i Community can comprehend the manner in which Baha'i Society
will evolve into the World Order of Baha'u'llah . I think though it is a matter of
perception , when the discussion revolved around the non- membership of women on
the Universal House of Justice . The attempt was made very eloquently to show the
development of the thought of the Master towards a change in this regard . In other
words that the Word of God can be reshaped by differing circumstances . One of the
hypothesis being given sufficient time and exposure to Western thought that Abdu'l-
Baha would have changed His mind . The Word of God by Baha'i belief is uncreated
and capable of causing creative and positive change in individual and collective human
behavior , thus the society will be shaped by the Word of God . You need to allow It
to work and let the Spirit reshape individuals and society . That has never happened in
human history as far as we are aware , it is a challenge to let go . But the only way the
Faith is going to succeed is by all of us letting go and allowing the miracle of social
change based upon the Word of God to happen . It is in this manner we should look to
the development of a Bahai Court system and other Institutions in the Faith .
Reforms and a Baha'i Bill of Rights : I have look at the various items and the
following seems a clear question : What is the precise purpose of the Administrative
Order at the present time . It only has one true fundamental reason for its existence
and that is to be the channel to the Teach the Cause of God , and in so doing bring in
the World Order of Baha'u'llah . I would suggest the often quoted remark at a local
level " Well we are the real local authority if everybody only knew it " is disrespectful
to the future Local House of Justice . For National Spiritual Assemblies to imagine
they somehow compare to future Secondary Houses of Justice is again disrespectful .
What is more disrespectful to the process we are going through is to conclude that the
present stage is the limit of our social and spiritual development . That the only way
forward is to mimic proven flawed systems of whatever national or cultural
background . Frequently demand for change especially in the United States is couch in
terms that are confrontational , that is disrespectful whether it is from individual to
Institution or Institution to individual. Change done in haste gives the cosmetic
appearance of progress , we are good at that in the USA . If you change things often
enough then you never have to progress just keep changing everything and be regarded
as a leader and genius of your generation . True change requires tenacity of purpose
that means long term commitment , because the change we are about is going to be
slow by the human time scale of things . Simply because we have not respond quickly
enough or do not have enough faith or are not firm enough in the covenant , well in
part maybe but I have a sneaky feeling that God's time works on a different level to
ours .
To address specific points raised : An NSA member is not guaranteed by the
peculiarities of the electoral system life incumbency . A matured community in
its voting could ensure a normal and healthy turnover of membership the
question that is not considered is what is normal and healthy. However I have
never read any passage that requires as a prerequisite for a proper functioning
Institution that there must be a regular change in the membership of that
Institution by the voting procedure . Just as there is no passage that says you
must not have any change of membership by the voting procedure . It is a myth
that there has to be change and a very harmful one to constantly bring up as a
possible defect in the system because the change did not happen that you wanted.
I personally believe change can be beneficial in terms of bring on board new
ideas and perspectives but not just for changes sake . The Baha'i system of
voting is an exercise in a person's spiritual connection with God . Every time
you vote , you are supposed to prayerfully consider your options and vote in
harmony with your Lord. To doubt that commitment in those who gather to
bring into being a new Institution such as a NSA , I find difficult to justify . To
want a higher awareness of the way one should exercise the responsibility to vote
is another matter and that is where maturity comes in . the case of a National
convention it is still a relatively primitive institution in comparison to other
Baha'i bodies , I am not saying we have mature development on the other
Institutions but the nature of the convention means it will be slower in
maturation compared to others < I am not including the Universal House of
Justice in this comparison >. To place blame upon a person for being
continually elected , because a collection of duly charged individuals in a
prayerful atmosphere made personal choices to vote for that person is an act of
intolerance by the blamer .
Regarding the financial points that were made about NSA members :
Conferences are held sometimes at the request of the Community , on the
instruction of the House of Justice ,at the request of the Counselors and as part of
the NSA's plans for the community . If attendance of an NSA member is needed
at such a gathering , then the only NSA members who could attend would be the
most affluent if funds were not available for travel . NSA membership would
become restricted to the independently wealthy because service on that body
would require a major financial outlay in terms of discharging the requirements
of such an office in a country the size of the USA . At the national convention
this year all information relating to expenses was available to the delegates and
by Federal law the financial accounts of a registered non-profit have to be filed
in the State of Primary Operation . To imply that the NSA is avoiding such a
filing and thereby breaking the law is erroneous . Knowing Juan I am certain
there was no malice aforethought in his : there is no public accounting , assertion
relating to the NSA just lack of information . Any person employed by the NSA
after three years is eligible for the Pension fund the NSA operates for its
employees . If an NSA member is employed the same terms apply , you can
regard that as a retainer if you wish. I am not sure of what material incentives
there are for continuos NSA membership . Robert Henderson gave up a very
prestigious position in the Air Transportation Industry to become NSA Secretary
. Bill Davies had a top position in the California State Court System . Juana
Conrad was in the legal profession and Jim Nelson was a Municipal Court Judge
. I believe they had the material incentives not to be full-time NSA members.
The American Baha'i has never changed from the day of its conception it is the
official organ of the NSA of the Baha'is of the United States and is not a
University Debate forum . As far as there is no mathematical impossibility of the
delegates at a convention turning out 'sitting' members . I disagree , in the UK
,which is more conservative in respect of change than the USA , there has being
two new members voted on in the last three years replacing two of the eligible
members from the previous NSA . There is no reason why that could not happen
in the USA .
I found it amazing that we are finding fault with the make-up of the Universal
House of Justice . I hate to bring up a word like xenophobia and that is too
strong but national arrogance I have to say would not be. Baha'is belong to a
World Community , American Baha'is do not have a divine right to control the
Baha'i World or demand permanent membership of at least one native-born son
on the Universal House of Justice . The very idea with overtones of Spiritual
Colonialism and North American intellectual elitism is repugnant . I have spent
part of the last two summers in David Ruhe's company I suspect he will be
amused at being described as the 'last American Liberal ' to be on the House . I
do not know what regular scathing censuring of ' Liberals ' that is refereed too .
I know several members of the House of Justice like-minded is the last thing I
would have used . Anyway isn't Hopper Dunbar native-born American or does
he not qualify because he never graduated from an American University ?
The sole problem of teaching in the USA is with ourselves not with the system or
the Institutions just us you and I . We have to make the move there is no plan to
stop the individual from teaching , in fact the very reverse . The only flaw in the
system is that we have failed to a lesser or greater extent in terms of submitting
to the Will of God . Instead of creating Communities based upon the Writings we
have made and found excuses not to follow the directions given us. When I asked
on Talisman how many Communities had Dawn Prayers , I had exactly four
replies and not one was having them everyday . Yet that is a requirement in the
Kitab-i-Aqdas and the House of Justice instructed us to do that.Do not speak of
flaws when the very things that will cause you to develop the community that is
promised in the Writings have not been started .
I agree totally with Rob if we want the Faith to expand then just go and tell
people about Baha'u'llah and act normal . You will be amazed how you will be
sought out if you decided to teach . Teaching does not require master plans and
strategies it is opening up your heart to another and allowing the Spirit of God to
flow from your soul to theirs . The Faith of the Twin Blessed Ones belongs to
the people of the World it is their spiritual birthright we are just welcoming them
home. It time to get on with the task and roll out the welcome carpet .
We come to the situation regarding a Baha'i Bill of Rights the only way that
such a Bill can be formulated surely is from the Writings , playing around with
the NSA by-laws I fail to see as valid Baha'i Bill of rights. Bits of paper do not
mean anything , what counts is people , if a person is honorable and trustworthy
and you have nine elected who demonstrate those qualities in their lives . Then
you have an Institution which will be honorable and trustworthy , regardless of
bits of paper . The same applies in reverse if the people are not honorable and
trustworthy so will go the Institution .
I have already stated that an International Court would be preferable in my view
as a starting point , but if it is decided to start a national one first or a local one
that is fine by me. But service until they are seventy and they must commit some
crime before they are removed . No room to allow that the Faith has grown
beyond a person capacity to perform their original function and they need to be
moved into another role these seem disjointed ideas .
Freedom of speech and conscience : I would have thought the letter of the House
on that very subject Dec 29th 1988 made it very clear the Baha'i position .
Baha'u'llah warns in several places of the danger of speech and excess liberty
and that letter explains the situation perfectly. Just because the Master found the
USA in 1912 , better than Qajar Iran or the Ottoman Empire does not mean the
Future World has to put up with the type of free expression we have today in the
States .
On Censorship Tony mentioned that as a Publisher he was against any form of
censorship . I would point out that every publisher who is not publishing their
own work is a defacto censor . Kalimat ask a person to write a book on the
history of the Faith covering the time period 1840 to 1890 . The would-be
author two years later presents a manuscript . Tony reads it and discovers among
other things even though he had stated that the families of the Bab and
Baha'u'llah must be included , the author had omitted the facts relating to the
second wife of the Bab and the second and third wives of Baha'u'llah .Tony asks
the writer to include these salient details , the request is refused and Tony rejects
the work as being unacceptable . That is a form of review and censorship , the
work was unacceptable to Tony as a Publisher and he had every right to refuse
and he did .
By the way David House , who seemed to get flack from some quarters because
he did not agree with Juan , you all might like to know with his wife are the
backbone of the Woodburn Project in Oregon . He and his wife have served
thousands of meals to itinerant field workers in that area and are a living example
of putting the Words of the Blessed Beauty into action and being of service to
Humanity . There is much to learn from David and I hope he is asked to share
with us his insights.
On the matter of the Baha'i Encyclopaedia , I was very grateful for the posting
that John did . As the matter is still under review it is difficult to gain a grasp of
what will transpire in the end . As I have had a small connection with it , I do
have a personal interest . It could be the matter hinges around what is
Scholarship in a more profound way than we have all considored .For example if
the House of Justice wants this work to be the starting point of Baha'i
Scholarship and the work has been developed on the parameters of todays
Academic standards then a serious rethink will have to happen . Maybe
nobody
listened if they said the standard must be a Baha'i one . I am not
implying that
John or Moojan did not operate from the highest motives . It could be
we need
to resolve how do we start Baha'i Scholarship .
I do intend on posting in respect of the Covenant and how the Spirit
of the
Covenant through the Will and Testament of the Master should be the
transforming element in our lives.
Kindest Regards
Derek Cockshut
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzMon Nov 6 00:15:33 1995
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 12:14:58 +1300 (NZDT)
From: Robert Johnston
To: TLCULHANE@aol.com, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Science Religion and Virgins
Terry and ffolks,
I do not always follow my dear wish to write with precision, and so that I
am fairly easily understood, but I do try. I was a journalist for a time,
and that helped, I must say. Talisman is a discusive context. We write:
we read. We speak: we listen. We write/speak in the expectation that we
will be read/listened to. Otherwise, why bother?
Which brings me to Terry's letter, which I struggled with. I assume that
Terry is sincere, and in view of this assumption, I am now replying to him,
in this "open" context. I'd like to take his letter, piece by piece (but
not entirely), and make a few comments.
Terry:
> 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 . .'
Thinly veiled irony here Terry, it would seem. I suggest that it would be
intellectually more solid to explore the implications of relativity in
either case. As it is you take a rather too short route back to:
" Seems we are back to square one ."
I believe that science is for exploring and
>disclosing the secrets of the physical universe and improving the physical
>life of human beings.
'Abdu'l-Baha says that science is a perpetual bestowal,and makes it clear
that it may also be used to explore the non-physical universe.
I believe that religion exists to explore and the
>disclose the secrets of the spiritual universe and improve the ethical life
>of human beings .
Again, 'Abdu'l-Baha says that faith and knowledge are the two wings of one
bird. Religion without science is superstition.
> 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 ."
Not so: while the Faith espouses unity in diversity, fundamental
epistemological and ontological verities exist which do not permit a
variety "truth" statements, except as degrees of obvious error. These
verities are those established in the Writings. In "The Valley Of Unity"
Baha'u'llah clearly expresses the limitations of colourful seeing.
Unity in diversity may be compared to a family, comprised of uniquely
talented individuals, at one table, in perfect peace. Beyond this, there
are only degrees of war. The Covenant ensures perfect peace.
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 .
Here Terry you appear to assume [al la the positivist fallacy] that your
prejudices are not clearly visible. When will be all learn, once and for
all, that there is no such thing as value-free discourse?
Robert.
From StrayMutt@aol.comMon Nov 6 00:22:59 1995
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 1995 18:43:34 -0500
From: StrayMutt@aol.com
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Baha'i Courts
Hello, again...
First of all, my congratulations to Juan Cole who, despite suffering a
substantial ration of sniping, innuendo and back-biting about his sincerity
and loyalty as a Baha'i, has the courage and fortitude to persist and offer
clearheaded analysis and cogent, meaty suggestions that I notice seem wholly
absent from the e-mail postings of his detractors.
I have yet to see anything approaching the quality of Juan's work from those
who regularly vilify him, implying he is disloyal and verges dangerously
close to covenant-breaking. He is one of the few people on this service who
shows much talent for innovation or creative thinking.
The latest evidence comes in his posting on a Baha'i Bill of Rights, which I
should like to comment on. I have been off line for a few days, and so I
apologize if I what I say here duplicates something someone said sooner or
better than I.
I think I should begin by saying that I am not wholly comfortable with the
concept of a National Baha'i Court. Juan suggests in his draft Article XIV,
Sec. 2 that "No person shall be deprived of his or her administrative rights
without due process of law."
Well, that certainly makes sense. Except, as has been noted previously, no
such concept exists within the Baha'i Faith. Defendants have few rights and
can be summoned before Baha'i administrative bodies on the flimsiest of
evidence and punished without recourse to anything approaching a recognized
standard of judicial conduct.
While it is not prevalent, it is entirely possible for local assemblies to
act in a manner far more reminiscent of the secret Stalinist purge trials of
the 1930's or the notorious volksgericht criminal justice system of Hitler's
Nazi Germany. While Baha'i assemblies don't have the power to dispatch
defendants off to Siberian labor camps or execution in Gestapo prison cells,
they can pretty much ride roughshod over defendants, who have no recourse to
legal counsel and are at the mercy of a justice system that operates largely
at whim.
What I find missing from Juan's otherwise admirable first draft is a more
sweeping statement of individual rights. Specifically, I would like to see
the Baha'i Faith formally endorse the United Nations Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and agree to abide by its principles. As far as I am aware, the
International Baha'i Community has never done so, despite all our verbal
support for the concept of human rights.
I would feel a lot better about any judicial system that incorporated the
principles fundamental to the UN Human Rights Declaration within its
constitutional structure. That, to me, is more important and more
foundational than the workings of a judicial system. A Baha'i Court system
is judicial machinery and, as such, needs a set of guiding principles, or it
cannot function.
Having said that, let me jump ahead to touch on some points Juan made. I am
sorry if some of this stuff sounds dry and technical. But, after all, we are
talking about judicial mechanics here, so the discussion is inevitably a bit
bloodless.
I believe we need to separate our topics by amending article. For example,
to follow Juan's model, Article XIII might empower the creation of a Baha'i
court system by a national spiritual assembly, in consultation with and
following the approval of the Universal House of Justice. I would suggest
using such an article to spell out the purpose of such courts. Separate
articles should specify the duties of such courts and the qualification of
judges to sit as members of the panels.
I don't much like the idea of an age limitation. I presume Juan chose 70
because, in the Kitab-i-Aqdas, that is the upper age of exemption from
fasting. Well, that exemption strikes me as one that is well based in a
concern for the health of an elderly Baha'i. But, what we want in our
judges, it seems to me, is wisdom, tempered with mercy. I don't see where
the age of the judge is relevant to that issue.
I'm not so sure that judicial appointments should have lifetime tenure.
Everybody else in the faith has to be elected to office or appointed for a
limited term. Why should Baha'i judges be any different? What if a
particular judge turns out to be a dud? He or she may never break a Baha'i
law or do anything illegal or immoral that would disqualify him or her from
service on the court. But what if the person simply lacks what is commonly
called "judicial temperament"? We need to have a way of getting rid of
people who are not up to the job. A specific term of office can help in that
regard.
Likewise, I'm rather uncomfortable with the idea of including language such
as "charges of campaigning or negatively campaigning for office." There
seems to me to be no recognizable crime here. Yeah, I know that some NSA
members freaked out and invented that accusation (and damn well should have
known better, too) in response to the Dialogue Magazine fiasco that happened
several years ago.
[As it happens, I know about this particular incident, as I was an assistant
editor at the ill-fated Dialogue Magazine when this all went down, leaving a
bitter aftertaste in the mouths of many of us who suffered as a result of
this bizarre episode. What transpired was not a credit to the notion of
Baha'i jurisprudence.]
But, just because someone goes a bit paranoid and dreams up a nonsense
thought crime doesn't mean we should codify it. I think crimes have to be
recognizable offenses. (For example, is there really such a crime as
"blasphemy"? Who is its victim? What about "heresy"? Is that a crime?
Baha'is who are persecuted in Iran are, essentially, convicted of such
"crimes." It's nonsense.)
I've another concern here, and that has to do with the formation of the
judicial machiney of a Baha'i court system. If we have a panel of judges to
rule of the evidence of some Baha'i transgression, then who presents the
evidence? Does a local spiritual assembly hire or create what amounts to a
Baha'i prosecutor to plead its case? Does the assembly hire or create an
investigating arm to research and examine the evidence? Clearly, the judges
on the court cannot gather the evidence nor present the prosecution. That's
an obvious conflict of interest and no one would consider a court with such
powers to be a just tribunal.
In other words, do we have to create a Baha'i judicial system, complete with
courtrooms, attorneys, court reporters, evidentiary hearings, motions and all
the legal stuff that is the feature of virtually every court system on the
planet?
Then, there's this consideration. How much power would such courts have? Do
they have legal standing? (Outside the Baha'i community, the answer is
"no.") Can they impose fines, as Juan proposed in Art. XIV, Sec. 4? What's
an "excessive fine" anyhow?
Also, I'm confused by Sec. 5. Juan, are you saying that NSAs "shall be
considered impartial tribunals," along with Baha'i courts? If so, aren't you
setting up an inherent conflict of roles here? Where does the responsibility
of the NSA leave off and that of the Baha'i court begin?
It seems to me that if we are to advocate creation of Baha'i courts, then
such courts need to take over all judicial functions and both LSAs and the
NSA are out of that business, period. An NSA cannot say, "We'll handle this
one" and assume jurisdiction from the court, any more than a state governor
can tell an attorney general's office that is, not the A.G., is going to
prosecute the crime. Either the NSA is involved in the process (as it is
now) or it is out of the loop, as it must be for your proposal to work. We
cannot survive with potentially competing court systems. Chaos would result.
Finally, I don't like the idea that the "decisions of the court are final and
may not be appealed." Where does that leave the Universal House of Justice?
The name itself would imply a level of involvement. I think a ruling by a
National Baha'i Court would have to be appealable (is that a word?) to Haifa.
Okay, look, I've prattled on way too long, and I do apologize to anyone who
has read this far. And, Juan, as many misgivings as I have about your
proposal, I applaud its spirit. As I said before, I don't know of anyone
else who would have the guts or the intellectual wherewithal to offer this
up.
Like you, I think our justice system desperately needs reform. Local
assemblies are simply too often incapable of making the kinds of judgments
that are called for in such cases. And when those judgments involve
assembly members or the friends of assembly members, the potential for abuse,
for conflict of interest, for special pleadings is simply too much of a risk
to remain with the system we now have in place. People can talk all they
want about how, if an assembly is truly following the spirit of the Cause,
then we won't have any problems. But the reality, as both you and I know, is
quite different.
Bob Ballenger
From DAWNLIQU@fllab.chass.ncsu.eduMon Nov 6 00:24:36 1995
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 1995 19:16:14 EST
From: QUANTA DAWNLIGHT
To: Brian and Ann Miller , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: rabin the martyr
Dear Friend,
I am in agreement and sympathy of your grief over this event.
I do have a question regarding your heart-felt response where
you are mentioning names of groups and politicians.
Considering the transitory nature of individuals and groups,
is it adviseable for us to be involved in this way?
I remember according to some international relations perspective,
it was best for neutral entities to remain neutral in crisis such
as this. Does anyone have any idea about this, from a Baha'i
perspective? Is it sufficient to be using prayers for Kings and
Rulers from the Gleanings and other books, for God's assistance
and guidance in their service to the people?
lovingly,
Quanta Dawn-Light...(*_*)
========================================================
"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"
-Advent of Divine Justice, p.55 1988 pocket Ed.
===========================================================
From dpeden@imul.comMon Nov 6 00:33:28 1995
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 95 05:41:30+030
From: Don Peden
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: science and religion
Dear Robert:
"Not so: while the Faith espouses unity in diversity, fundamental
epistemological and ontological verities exist which do not permit a
variety "truth" statements, except as degrees of obvious error. These
verities are those established in the Writings. In "The Valley Of Unity"
Baha'u'llah clearly expresses the limitations of colourful seeing."
Thanks for your posting. Could you be more specific about this passage and
how you read it? I'm sure glad to have my electronic dictionary in my
CD-Rom. Thanks for the vocabulary lesson.
Love,
Bev.
From snoopy@skipper.physics.sunysb.eduMon Nov 6 00:34:22 1995
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 1995 22:15:14 -0500 (EST)
From: Stephen Johnson
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: KI pp. 7-9,comments
Dear Stephen and fellow Talizens,
I just checked the last Qur'anic reference, S29:2. check it out,
Baha'u'llah may be refering us to more than the quoted passage.
First, the notion of testing belief is critical, perhaps to us on
Talisman right now. We profess belief and then we are put to proof
through
tests which afford us the opportunity to link words to deeds, as well as
the
opportunity to grow. Ostensibly, the text of the Iqan suggests that the
greatest test is when we are called upon to recognize the Manifestation
for
this age. Now look at the succeeding verses of the Qur'an:
>> Do men think that They will be left alone on saying, "We
believe,"
and that they will not be tested?
>>We did test those before them, and God will certainly know
those who
are true from those who are false.
>>Do those who practise evil think that they will get the better
of
us? Evil is their judgement!
>>For those whose hopes are in the meeting with God, For the
Term(appointed) by God is surely coming: And He hears and knows.<<
This is the translation of Yusuf Ali. I deleted some of his insertions
because he inserts interpretations into the text of his translation.
This
passage seems to me to presage the coming of the Bab and Baha'u'llah and
the
severe test it will pose to the Muslims. What do you think?
I must confess, being able to read the Arabic text of the Qur'an is
helpful, as it allows us to clearly recognize the translator's
insertions and
biases. the Qur'an is very emphatic about the "Coming of the Lord" as I
read
the passage. _'ajala allah_ is here translated as the term (appointed
by) of
God. For a Christian, he would perhaps read it as the Day of the Lord.
In
checking Lane's lexicon of Arabic, _'ajal_ is correctly translated by
Y.A.,
but another translation may also be supported, "God has promised [I need
a
stronger verb here] that He is indeed coming and He is the All-Hearing,
the
All-Knowing...."
I don't have a persian copy of the Iqan, and my persian isn't as
good
as my Arabic, so I will for now rely on the Guardian's superlative
translation.
Warm regards,
Brian [briann@cruzio.com]
.
--
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzMon Nov 6 00:35:44 1995
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 17:19:19 +1300 (NZDT)
From: Robert Johnston
To: Don Peden , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: science and religion
[The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set]
[Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set]
[Some characters may be displayed incorrectly]
Bev Peden wrote:
Could you be more specific about this passage [from, Valley of Unity, Seven
Valleys] and
>how you read it?
Dear Bev,
Thank you for your response. In this letter, I try to comply with your
request, but fail. Instead, I write something else, but do not ignore your
query entirely!
So much has been made in recent Talismanic times of the need for plurality
of discourse. Some, myself included, have noted that the case for
plurality sometimes appears to be being made in Covenantally-contrary
directions, particularly in relation to the Institutions. Now, I am fully
aware that it seems to some that in wishing to introduce restraint into
discourse I (we) assume the role of censorious oppressor. Well, so be it.
I don't see it that way, but my relationship with the institutions is
pretty lightly carried anyway.
Oh, before I go any further, I should like to mention that I have been
enjoying your letters to Talisman. The one you wrote recently, in response
to a letter from John, about the uses of art works, I though a real gem.
I was reminded of Maslow's view that self actualised persons invariably
have what he terms "creativeness" , which is not Motzartian-type genius
creativity, but a certain uniquely creative approach to life. I thought
your approach to your work extremely sane, and a lesson to those afflicted
with perfectionism - a trait which strikes me as being rather too
masculine, if I think about it. I recall reading about an Australian
potter who went to a village in Papua New Guinea where the people
specialised in pot making. She was amazed to see women working together,
and at great speed, decorating pots, with an artistry which (I suppose) is
priceless.
And speaking of dark-skinned peoples, last night I saw a BBCTV documentary
on Rwanda. Oh the horror of it. Similar to the Nazi-Jew situation, yet --
really -- ignored by the world. It made our squabbles over encyclopaedias
and so on seem rather trivial, I must say. Also on radio and TV over the
weekend I heard and saw stuff about Jimi Hendrix. Wow! Wasn't he great.
I decided that the immediate future of the Western World is all stated in
his Woodstock version of "Star Spangled Banner." The black man said it
all. (Of course in "Citadel of Faith" the Guardian clearly indicates that
the conditions of blacks in the US is the surest indicator of the destiny
of that nation. If I lived there, this is the variable that would object
of my vigilant attention.)
But I had been stop procrastinating and get on with my "Seven Valleys"
analysis! So... Reading the Passages, I realise that I am powerless to do
more than provide extensive quotations, with very few comments... But, I
shall say something after the quotations...!
In the "Valley of Unity", the wayfarer
"pierceth the veils of plurality, fleeth from the worlds of the flesh, and
ascendeth into the heaven of singleness.....
".... 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. We shall give an example of this, that its
meaning may become fully clear: Consider the visible sun; although it
shineth with one radiance upon all things, and at the behest of the King of
Manifestation bestoweth light on all creation, yet in each place it
becometh manifest and sheddeth its bounty according to the potentialities
of that place. For instance, in a mirror it reflecteth its own disk and
shape, and this is due to the sensitivity of the mirror; in a crystal it
maketh fire to appear, and in other things it showeth only the effect of
its shining, but not its full disk. And yet, through that effect, by the
command of the Creator, it traineth each thing according to the quality of
that thing, as thou observest. In like manner, colors become visible in
every object according to the nature of that object. For instance, in a
yellow globe, the rays shine yellow; in a white the rays are white; and in
a red, the red rays are manifest. Then these variations are from the
object, not from the shining light. And if a place be shut away from the
light, as by walls or a roof, it will be entirely bereft of the splendor of
the light, nor will the sun shine thereon. "
So, Bev..this leads us to ...
"Thus it is that certain invalid souls have confined the lands of knowledge
within the wall of self and passion, and clouded them with ignorance and
blindness, and have been veiled from the light of the mystic sun and the
mysteries of the Eternal Beloved; they have strayed afar from the jewelled
wisdom of the lucid Faith of the Lord of Messengers, have been shut out of
the sanctuary of the All-Beauteous One, and banished from the Ka'bih[] of
splendor. Such is the worth of the people of this age! ...
"... Cleanse thou the rheum from out thine head And breathe the
breath of God instead.[] In sum, the differences in objects have now been
made plain. Thus when the wayfarer gazeth only upon the place of
appearance--that is, when he seeth only the many-colored globes --he
beholdeth yellow and red and white; hence it is that conflict hath
prevailed among the creatures, and a darksome dust from limited souls hath
hid the world. And some do gaze upon the effulgence of the light; and some
have drunk of the wine of oneness and these see nothing but the sun itself.
Thus, for that they move on these three differing planes, the
understanding and the words of the wayfarers have differed; and hence the
sign of conflict doth continually appear on earth. For some there are who
dwell upon the plane of oneness and speak of that world, and some inhabit
the realms of limitation, and some the grades of self, while others are
completely veiled. Thus do the ignorant people of the day, who have no
portion of the radiance of Divine Beauty, make certain claims, and in every
age and cycle inflict on the people of the sea of oneness what they
themselves deserve. "Should God punish men for their perverse doings, He
would not leave on earth a moving thing! But to an appointed term doth He
respite them...."[Qur'án 16:63.] O My Brother! A pure heart is as a
mirror; cleanse it with the burnish of love and severance from all save
God, that the true sun may shine within it and the eternal morning dawn. ""
My final point: I have found it helpful to see human beings as being
fundamentally similar, above all else. I like to say that people are more
similar than they are different. The advantage of this viewpoint is that
which is "other than similar", is the evidence of the uniqueness of the
bearer of that difference -- ie. that person her/himself, or whatever.
Their colour if you like.
Too long,
love,
Robert.
From snoopy@skipper.physics.sunysb.eduMon Nov 6 00:35:53 1995
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 1995 23:42:15 -0500 (EST)
From: Stephen Johnson
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Forward: Re: KI pp. 7-9,comments
a note:
Wanted everyone to notice that the last message's author (the one on our
slow-read) was:
> Brian [briann@cruzio.com]
not me...though I wish it was.
From Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nlMon Nov 6 10:15:20 1995
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 1995 11:16:30 +0100 (MET)
From: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Reforms
Steve Scholl's suggestions on 1 Nov. struck me as eminently
desirable and practicable. I'm disappointed to see little
discussion of these in the fuss over a couple of Talismanian's
very regrettable outbursts. To refresh your memories, Steve
suggested:
1- independent publications & the end of review (tho' these
two are not logically dependent: one could also have
independent publications under an independent review process,
which seems to be the intermediate stage which is
developing). I agree with the priority here: independent fora
and the end of review are the most important requirement for
revisioning the community, which is why I am much more
optimistic since the advent of Talisman.
2- two-stage process for electing NSA: this looks workable,
more so than returning to the requirement of absolute majority
voting, which has the same effect without giving the delegates
the time to reflect on the pool of 'electables' thrown up by the
first round. I'm wary of 'vision statements' from the electables,
which could easily degenerate into campaigning, not
particularly by the electables but by proponents of one or
other person in local communities: I would hate to see the
Feast dominated by discussions between the John X and Mary
Y camps. I would suggest that the time between rounds should
be as short as possible, and the electables be asked NOT to
make any public statements in the intervening period. I
suggest that both rounds of voting take place at the end of the
national convention, say on days 3 and 4. If the extra element
of a presentation of the views of electables is found desirable,
that could be added later in the form Steve suggested: I would
favour making changes step-by-step where possible, with time
to judge the effects.
3- reform of national convention. Yes: my experience is that
in larger communities the convention has to be heavily pre-
structured if the days are not to be lost in vapid self-
congratulation, and it is necessary that the delegates have
some mechanism for participating in this pre-structuring.
Thanks to Steve for a really constructive posting.
Juan: I naturally hope to see the pluralist vision win, too. One
quibble: there is certainly a correlation between education in
the liberal arts and scepticism concerning the more
superstitious and literalist aspects of religious culture, but
correlation is not causation. I suspect that there is a certain
pre-selection of (successful) liberal arts students, so that the
liberal education is not to be credited as the major cause of
the relative enlightenment of these graduates. This could be
tested by taking a sample of potential students who are not
contemplating such an education, and forcing it on them.
What difference would 4 years of Dante and Milton, History
and Philosophy make? An attractive research proposition,
since the subjects would to some extent benefit from it :-).
Ahang: I don't see that it is necessary for every NSA in the
world to have more than 9 members if the USA makes that
change. Luxembourg and Lichtenstein will probably never
need more than 9: the USA and India and eventually China
will obviously need more. No problem. The same goes for the
other reforms being suggested: where assembly size obviously
SHOULD vary from community to community, other changes
COULD be made selectively (as some countries have a
regional level of administration and others do not, at present).
Why should we look for a universally applicable formula???
I'll bite: what on earth does C.G.S.P mean, Derek??
Sen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sen McGlinn
From Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nlMon Nov 6 10:16:04 1995
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 1995 11:15:00 +0100 (MET)
From: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Encyclopaedia
Linda and John:
thanks for the insight into the Encyclopaedia saga. In this,
and in the Modest Proposal and Dialogue affairs, and my
own experience with thwarted publishing efforts, the House
and at least 2 NSAs have acted with a degree of disregard
for the persons involved which, in a non-Baha'i enterprise,
would be regarded as dysfunctional. I wonder whether there
might be some connection with the idea of making
decisions on the basis of 'principle' - or more precisely,
with a concept of principle which is synonymous with the
more or less narrowly conceived 'interests of the cause'
rather than as the ideals to which we should aspire in our
relationships with one another. In other words, to abstract,
rather than personal, modes. Cause before community.
Collectivity before individuality. I doubt that any reform of
national or international conventions and electoral methods
will even touch this: we need something like a programme
of 'Abdu'l-Bahaization (sorry) from the grass-roots, a
change in the conception of acceptable behaviour.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sen McGlinn
From Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nlMon Nov 6 10:18:02 1995
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 1995 12:40:22 +0100 (MET)
From: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: local HOW
I have been asked to write something for our national newsletter
to convey some of the ideas regarding the place of worship and
mysticism in Baha'i life. It has to be relatively simple, and
preferably fit on a single 2-column page. I would appreciate your
comments on this draft.
Sen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sen McGlinn
-------------------------------------------------------------
Draft version, 2 November 1995.
The Place of Worship
With the completion of the present building projects on the Arc,
the Baha'i community will enter into a new phase in its
development. It seems to me that the next phase will be
characterized, among other developments, by the maturation of
the principle of the House of Worship in Baha'i community life.
For the Baha'is in Europe this will not entail, in the first place,
large-scale building projects. It might well begin with an
exploration of the place of worship in our individual and
community lives, and how it relates to the principle and
institutions of consultation with which we are already familiar. I
will try to make some connections between the various levels at
which the principle of worship can affect our lives.
The place of worship in transforming our individual lives is
self-evident. There is a Hadith which Baha'u'llah mentions in the
Seven Valleys:
"A servant is drawn nigh unto me in prayer until I answer
him, and when I answer him, I become the ear wherewith
he heareth, the eye wherewith he seeth, the feet
wherewith he walketh..."
To support this transformation, there are a number of spiritual
exercises which are prescribed or offered in the Baha'i Writings:
meditation, daily reading of the writings, the obligatory prayers,
the 'dawn' (or morning) prayers, calling oneself to account each
day, giving thanks to God morning and evening (K33), giving to
the funds, the repetition of the Greatest Name and other forms of
'Remembrance' (dhikr) or repetitive chanting. Ideally these
spiritual exercises become a continual cycle of adoration which
permeates our daily life, so that God is always in our minds, and
we are always in God's thought. [fn: An extract by the Bab to
this effect, from the Arabic Bayan, is translated by Alessandro
Bausani in his Encyclopaedia of Islam article on The Bab.] There
is a wealth of mystic writing, prayers, poems and liturgies in the
Baha'i Writings, representing an aspect of the Baha'i life which is
largely unexplored.
This spiritual life is a journey we have to travel ourselves, but
it is not one which we have to travel alone. Many of the spiritual
exercises could be performed together with others, Baha'is or
non-Baha'is. Some are expressly meant to be performed in
groups, which might be our families, or the Baha'is in a small
suburb, or perhaps a mystics' association. In Memorials of the
Faithful (p. 38) `Abdu'l-Baha says that "Baha'u'llah set apart a
special night and He dedicated it to Darvish Sidq-'Ali. He wrote
that every year on that night the dervishes should bedeck a
meeting place, which should be in a flower garden, and gather
there to make mention of God." Perhaps Darvish Sidq-'Ali, an
early Baha'i mystic, provides an example of the full development
of one side of Baha'i life, just as Mirza Abu'l-Fadl is an example
for Baha'i scholarship.
Another example of the shared spiritual life is found in the
reference of the Universal House of Justice (or ITC?? get
source)... to 'spiritual meetings', which appear to be meetings for
a local Baha'i community devoted not to administration,
deepening, or child education etc., but simply to worship.
Western Baha'i communities which have tried this report that it
has surprising results, not only for the life of the community but
also for teaching. One community in America reported that their
firesides and public events attracted largely middle-class and
white visitors, while their Sunday morning open worship
attracted largely the poorer people from their neighbourhood, and
members of the ethnic minorities. Such spiritual meetings were
highly approved by `Abdu'l-Baha:
Thy proposal that the friends should assemble on Sundays
for the purpose of joining together in worship is most
commendable. As for the manner in which such a
devotional gathering should be conducted: first, the
Friends should read prayers and turn themselves to God,
invoking his aid and assistance; then, when all are
assembled, there should be a period of silent prayer;
lastly, prayers and readings should be recited aloud,
before the whole company of the Friends, in the sweetest
and most melodious of accents. [fn: Robert H. Stockman,
The Baha'i Faith in America, vol. 2 (Oxford: George
Ronald, 1995), p. 105.
]
Perhaps the most important element of the shared spiritual life is
the morning prayers in the Mashriqu'l-Adhkar, as stipulated in
the Kitab-i-Aqdas (K115). The House of Worship does not need
to be a special building, [fn: "The Mashriqu'l-Adhkar is each and
every building which hath been erected in cities and villages for
the celebration of My praise." (K115)] though that may be
preferable. `Abdu'l-Baha says: "In reality, the radiant, pure hearts
are the Mashrak-el-Azcar" [fn: Tablets of `Abdu'l-Baha, p 678.]
and praises a Baha'i who had prepared her home as a temporary
Mashriqu'l-Adhkar. [fn: ibid, p 149.] A Baha'i community, in a
suburb, an LSA area, or a wider region, might begin by using
some existing building. What is important is not the shape of the
building, but the fact that meetings of worship are held in it:
If the erection of the House of Worship in a public place
would arouse the hostility of evil-doers, then the meeting
must, in every locality, be held in some hidden place.
Even in every hamlet, a place must be set aside as the
Mashriqu'l-Adhkar, and even though it be underground.
[fn: Selections from the Writings of `Abdu'l-Baha, page
95.]
The visible embodiments of the House of Worship are the
existing Mashriq'ul-Adhkars in every continent, but the principle
of unity in worship which they represent should be part of our
daily lives and the "crowning institution in every Baha'i
community." [fn: Shoghi Effendi, in Baha'i Administration, page
108.] Because the LSA's were chosen by Shoghi Effendi as the
backbone of the developing community and a vehicle to scatter
'points of light' across the globe, we have developed a religious
community which centres on its administration, which in fact
almost consists of administration. But it is the House of Worship,
rather than the House of Justice, which should lie at the heart of
the Baha'i community:
The seat round which [the Administrative Order's]
spiritual, its humanitarian and administrative activities
will cluster are the Mashriqu'l-Adhkar and its
Dependencies. [fn: Shoghi Effendi, World Order of
Baha'u'llah, pages 156-157.]
Unity, in the Baha'i Faith, is organic rather than monolithic. It is
a unity of two or more distinct organs working together, rather
than the merging of separate things into one. Perhaps for this
reason, everything in the Baha'i Faith seems to come in pairs: the
Feast and the Assembly, the appointed arm and the elected, the
Guardian and the Universal House of Justice, Haifa and Bahji,
Baghdad and Shiraz, the national convention and the NSA, the
fund and the Huququllah, 'to know and to worship', and the
House of Justice and the House of Worship. It seems to me that
in our Baha'i community we have been concentrating on
developing the 'House of Justice', and have not properly
developed that side of Baha'i life which is represented by the
'House of Worship'. Perhaps now is the time.
Sen McGlinn
From HICKC89@ollamh.ucd.ieMon Nov 6 10:20:29 1995
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 14:23:13 +0000 (GMT)
From: Vivien Hick
To: Safa Sadeghpour
Cc: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Is Science on a Par with Religion?
> >> 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."
This is true, I don't really see any need to constrain life to a
certain short life-time. Hence long reaction times are irrelevant,
and large amorphous gaseous/plasma 'life'-forms are 'feasible.
> 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 .
>From above, temperatures above 600K are perfectly plausible, however
I do admit that in the presence of a super-massive star long
'life-times are not feasible, because of the very short stellar
life-time. Hence, point very well taken, with regard to life *near*
a super-massive star.
> 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
Thanks, D.
Darach Watson,
Dept. of Exp. Physics,
UCD,
Ireland.
From PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.eduMon Nov 6 10:52:54 1995
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 07:34:54 PST8PDT
From: "Eric D. Pierce"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: science (objective observation/facts as DEPENDENT concepts)
Hi,
Something from a non-subscribed friend who I have been forwarding
talisman messages about science to. Please "cc" replies to:
rsomerby@interserv.com
Thanks,
EP (PierceED@csus.edu)
------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
Date sent: Thu, 2 Nov 95 22:36:59 PST
From: rsomerby@interserv.com
To: Pierceed@csus.edu
Subject: Talisman
Wow!!! The dialogue between Talismen is rich, diverse, showing as much unity
as oil and water. I printed the messages until my printer's ribbon broke, will
pick up another ribbon tomorrow.
Certainly one of the espoused ideas that "facts" may objectively exist
independent of the observer is an arcane thought, a fundamentalist's dogma.
Most scholars I know march to the tune of a different drummer. For them
meaning comes from context and hidden assumptions. That is, they envision
"facts" as DEPENDENT concepts. Without their default assumptions they have no
meaning. The very words we use paint a worldview. But it is usually
acknowledged that our words do not correspond well with whatever this mystery
is called "Reality". Certainly, objectivity exists. But, FOR example,
non-locality can be as objective as locality, both telling you something
significant about a given phenomenon. On the onehand, the perspective as
locality allows you to measure the position of a form in a Euclidian field,
compared to other forms. On the otherhand, the form's nonlocality says
something about the unity of its field with respect to its energy, revealed in
time as a pattern; like: the form of the eliptic plane that the earth defines
as it revolves around the sun; or its nearly spherical solid pattern as global
earth; its slightly more extended yet distorted pattern inclusive of its
atmosphere; or the shape of the earth as including the effects of its magnetic
field on its associated 'dust' field. In this latter context, the earth has no
absolute 'boundary' as locality. However, the concept of nonlocality is
usually used in the context of the quantum scale of events. I am merely
suggesting that the property exists in some sense at the macroscopic scale, in
addition to its vanishingly small sense as the earth's wave function.
So much for such nonsense, Ron
From tan1@cornell.eduMon Nov 6 11:24:59 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 jrcole@umich.eduMon Nov 6 18:33:09 1995
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 11:44:00 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole
To: Stephen Johnson
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: KI pp. 7-9
Since this passage from the Iqan brings up Noah and mentions his nearly
millennium-long life, I thought it might be worthwhile to point to Mirza
Abu'l-Fadl Gulpaygani's *Miracles and Metaphors,* pp. 7-16, which treats
this issue.
Mirza Abu'l-Fadl was asked about the 950-years-long life of Noah by
Shaykh Nuru'd-Din, the second head of the Ahmadiyyah movement. He
replied that there were two views of such matters, the religious and the
scientific.
The religious, he says, hold that one must accept the validity of
whatever is in the Qur'an. In this view, reason cannot prove that Noah
did not live so long, and therefore we must accept the word of the Qur'an.
The scientific or rational view, he says, would focus on the original
sources of the statement. Such a person would point out that
Chinese/Buddhist, Hindu, Zoroastrian and Hebrew Biblical historical
traditions all exist about the ancient world, and that Noah is not
mentioned in the first three. All four traditions, moreover, are tinged
by myth and by stories of the ancients enjoying great longevity. The
source for the Muslim belief in Noah's long life is the Hebrew Bible,
which is uncorroborated by other ancient traditions.
Mirza Abu'l-Fadl clearly adheres to the second view. He then writes:
"The Prophet Muhammad said, `We, the concourse of Prophets, were sent to
address people according to the capacity of their minds.' And likewise,
`Speak to the people of that with which they are familiar; do you wish
God and His Messenger to be called liars?' Thus was it related by the
learned judge Averroes of Spain in his book *Exposition on Methods of
Evidence concerning the Doctrines of the Muslim Community,* citing
al-Bukhari. Therefore, given this situation, it is impermissible for the
scholarly investigator to depend on the verses of the Qur'an and the
traditions of the Prophet in historical questions.
It is clear that the prophets and Manifestations of the Cause of God
were sent to guide the nations, to improve their characters, and to bring
the people nearer to their Source and ultimate Goal. They were not sent
as historians, astronomers, philosophers, or natural scientists . . .
A rational human being will therefore have no doubt that those
things mentioned in the Holy Qur'an such as how the creation commenced,
the debate of the angels, the stories of Adam, of Satan, and of Noah and
the flood, are all realities. These speak of repeated promises to renew
the world and refer to the appointed times for the expiration . . . of
the terms allotted to the nations. But, from the point of view of
science, it is impermissible for the historian to depend on the literal
meaning of these verses."
Mirza Abu'l-Fadl is my hero (I hope this doesn't tarnish his reputation).
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzMon Nov 6 18:36:10 1995
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 07:59:39 +1200
From: Robert Johnston
To: "Eric D. Pierce" ,
talisman@indiana.edu
Cc: rsomerby@interserv.c
Subject: Re: science (objective observation/facts as DEPENDENT concepts)
I agreed when our friend (Ron) of a friend (Eric) wrote:
>Certainly one of the espoused ideas that "facts" may objectively exist
>independent of the observer is an arcane thought, a fundamentalist's dogma.
>Most scholars I know march to the tune of a different drummer. For them
>meaning comes from context and hidden assumptions. That is, they envision
>"facts" as DEPENDENT concepts. Without their default assumptions they have no
>meaning. The very words we use paint a worldview.
What had me puzzled though was his avoidance of reference an obvious
ethical- political-religious (that is, cultural value) dimension in his
instance. From where I am coming from, it is this dimension which is too
often unproblematised in science. Freud, for instance, failed to come to
grips with the cultural specifics of his locale in time, and assumed that
he was uncovering perpetual truths. This is apparent in his discussion of
sex roles, and in his assumption that there will always be wars.
Ron: thanks for your thoughtful contribution.
Robert.
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzMon Nov 6 18:36:44 1995
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 08:14:31 +1200
From: Robert Johnston
To: Juan R Cole , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: KI pp. 7-9
Dear Juan,
Re:
But, from the point of view of
>science, it is impermissible for the historian to depend on the literal
>meaning of these verses."
Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha clearly state that certain passages from the
Sacred Scriptures are symbolic. What possible advantage is there in
favouring Mirza Abu'l-Fadl's assertion of the same? Do we not all know
that Jesus did not physically ascend to heaven as stated in the Bible? If
you assert the intellectual independence of history from religion, even in
relation to what you call propositional facts, then we are bound to engage
in another (probably endless) round of disputation. Talismanians have not
been able to agree on this despite months of wrangling, and I am still
waiting for a reply from the House regarding Socrates and the Holy Land.
Personally, I feel rather unwilling to walk down this path with you again,
in the meantime. Of course, others may feel like taking the trip with you.
Robert.
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzMon Nov 6 18:38:00 1995
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 08:35:06 +1200
From: Robert Johnston
To: Christopher Buck , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: whistling in the dark
Dear Chris,
Re:
> 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?
Your partiality is showing my dear fellow! ;-} In fairness, please share
with Talismanians the letters in which there exists anything like the
things which you so rancorously assert have been stated.(Perhaps Bob
Ballinger will help you!) And I would ask you too look again at some of the
letters from those you are so passionately defending. Does not justice
enter your reckoning? At Ahang's request Juan has wisely agreed to tone
down some of his stuff. Had it continued, I fear Talisman would have
become a list whistling in the dark.
Robert.
>
> 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 72110.2126@compuserve.comMon Nov 6 18:38:56 1995
Date: 06 Nov 95 14:45:51 EST
From: David Langness <72110.2126@compuserve.com>
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Conditioning the Faith of Another
Dear Talismanians,
I take strong and heated exception to Tim Nolan's slanderous
characterization of Juan Cole's belief in Baha'u'llah and His teachings,
to whit: that he "clearly [doesn't] believe in it."
No man, in this Revelation, is allowed to condition or to judge the faith
of another. No person, in this forum, should be allowed to make such
nasty, degrading and presumptuous comments.
All of us who swear fealty to Baha'u'llah do so voluntarily. Only the
individual him or herself and God have any business in that matter.
I did not join Talisman to hear the kind of base, intolerant ugliness I
have heard in the past few weeks from a small minority of our members.
This forum exists to foster the spirit of scholarship, inquiry and
mutually respectful exchange that 'Abdu'l-Baha praised, not to foster a
descent into name-calling, judgemental labelling and degradation. If you
disagree with someone here on Talisman, you may certainly vent your spleen
toward their ideas, if that is your communication style. You may not,
however, vent your spleen toward their person, or, even worse, their
deepest spiritual and religious feelings and commitments.
Love, in spite of my anger,
David
From 72110.2126@compuserve.comMon Nov 6 18:40:03 1995
Date: 06 Nov 95 14:56:16 EST
From: David Langness <72110.2126@compuserve.com>
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Barred NSA Service
Dear Ahang and other Talismanians,
My first national convention as a delegate was 1983's, in which Allen
Ward was elected to the NSA. My own confusion over the events which
followed his election must have been greater than the veteran delegates,
but I could not imagine, at the time, why he was barred from taking office
after his election. Since then I have heard many Baha'is discuss this
incident, but have yet to see any official explanation.
Warning: the following is therefore hearsay. I claim no knowledge of
its veracity nor its accuracy.
It is my understanding that Allen Ward's election to the NSA was declared
null and void because of his presumed homosexuality. I also understand
that multiple appeals were directed to the Universal House of Justice
regarding the matter, citing the homosexuality of past NSA members and
the Guardian's refusal to bar them from or remove them from office, but
that the UHJ let the NSA decision stand.
If anyone else has information regarding this incident, it might help to
clear the cloud of supposition away.
Love,
David
From M.C.Day@massey.ac.nzMon Nov 6 18:42:14 1995
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 09:35:31 GMT=1200
From: Mary Day
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Rights and appeals
Dear Talismans,
I am very concerned about due process in the functioning of
assemblies both local and national and have been for some time. What
particularly concerns me is that individuals can make accusations
about another person [or body such as a committee or assembly] and
the accuse does not get to see the evidence nor know who has made the
accusation. Some suggestions have been made in relation to Bahai
courts and changes to by-lwas already but I have nothing to add to
that conversation as I don't have the necessary background knowledge.
It also seems like that sort of change would be a long way off
whereas there are possibilites for imddeiate improvements without
waiting that long.
What justification if any is there in the writings for anybody to be
able to make accusations and maintain their anonymity from the one
accused? Is there any support for this in the Writings? Or is this an
interpretation of the meaning of Assembly confidentiality? I would
like to know the same thing in regard to accusations made to
counsellors, Auxiliary board membersand assistants.
If anybody can help here I would be very grateful and will then
continue with my argument about immediate changes that could be made.
Thanks
Mary
From dpeden@imul.comMon Nov 6 18:42:54 1995
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 95 23:30:51+030
From: Don Peden
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Dear Sen:
I really liked your postings. Very clear and well thought out. Thanks for
getting things back on track.
The idea of the grassroots change in our manner towards each other, and the
development of the spiritual life as a centre of community interaction is
really at the core of all these tirades we have been discussing. It creates
the environment for the other issues to find their path. Thanks for
bringing us back to that point.
Your practical suggestions for reform make a lot of sense. I like the idea
that no two countries need follow the same pattern. It allows communities
to develop according to their needs, not trying to emulate other
communities, and, I think, would contribute to the preservation of their
distinct characters while at the same time facilitating their participation
in a global community...unity through diversity. Excellent!
Has any National Assembly asked to change the number of membership and been
refused by the House of Justice? If they have, does anyone know the
background of thinking of the House of Justice?
Step-by-step also makes good sense.
Your suggestions about a two step elections and convention reforms intrigue
me. Could you give a more specific description about what it might "look
like" to your mind? I don't think I am asking you to give great details,
but perhaps a suggested outline of what might be imagined as a reasonable
time table, voting pattern, and consultation stages in such reforms. It
sure would bring a new vitality and life to administration.
Your article reads very well. In your suggestion that each community needs
a place to gather and worship, are you suggesting an actual physical place,
or a "floating prayer meeting" or either/or depending on circumstances? Do
you see it as an important factor in the role of the House of Worship that
it is separate from any individual i.e., an individual's home? Do you think
it aids members of the community to engage in prayer if they are in a
"designated spot", which has no personality attached to it except the
purpose of prayer?
When I first became a Baha'i, I used to think it rather neat that we had no
money wasted on temples and such. In my older years, I can see wisdom in
the act of "entering" a quiet place, preparing myself mentally by focusing
on the interior of a House of Worship, or Holy Spot, removing my shoes at
the door (and leaving as many of my outer concerns there with my shoes) and
engaging in a focus of worship, meditation and prayer. If I am by myself, I
can close my eyes and be at Baji no matter where I am...but that doesn't
work on a community scale.
One thing which has stuck with me about my visit to Europe was the quietness
of the churches (at least those which did not have crowds of tourists in
them). But even those had traces of fragrance and beauty designed to
inspire an appreciation and awe in the visitor. Perhaps communal places of
prayer could be a key ingredient to the inspiration of the friends to pray,
to focus their daily thoughts and actions, and to develop a prayerful
attitude of service to those who are in their community whether their
community members know about Baha'u'llah or not. If this was happening, all
the other administrative concerns we worry about would be a by-product of
this process...teaching, fund, community consultation, and administration.
Am I understanding at least part of what you are putting forward in your
article?
From PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.eduMon Nov 6 18:43:57 1995
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 13:19:56 PST8PDT
From: "Eric D. Pierce"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: science (objective observation/facts as DEPENDENT
Howdy Robert and other participants of the Cyber-Soiree!
Thanks for the observations. Ron is a wonderful, gentle and bright
fellow, very "Zen like" (that is a complement isn't it?). I think
he is still feeling his way in the community a little bit, he has
been married to a Persian Baha'i for about 35 years, and didn't
become a Baha'i for maybe 25 years afterwards until he finally met
a few "unorthodox/non-conformist" Baha'is who provided the needed
resonance to his ideas about science and spirituality.
He is a biologist (agricultural pathologist with the State of
California) and his main interests (both as strict science and
in a Baha'i context) are in evolution and the creation of the
universe. He impresses me as having a pretty broad level of
formal technical expertise and knowledge (what do I know though?)
about general science, and is an advocate of open mindedness and
good manners.
The only references to cultural values that I can recall Ron making
are those that express his preference for what I guess I would have
to term the relativity of truth, the unity of opposites. I get the
impresion that he is more interested in how people think about what
they think than specifically what they say about the social/political
controversy of the day. His approach reminds me of the "crisis of
character" theme in some critical american socio/environmental
writing (Wendel Berry, etc.), where the fragmentation of the
individual and collective psyche underlies the unravelling of the
social fabric, but maybe I'm projecting the influences of my own
paltry reading (when I was younger, I practically had out of body
experiences when a new "Whole Earth Catalog" came out!).
Apparently the Baha'i published materials on the science topics
he is interested in are based on woefully out of date scientific
information (embarassing to the community), so he got involved in
the ABS Science/Technology section to try to make a contribution
to the raising of the level of understanding of Baha'i authors on
science topics. He keeps up on major contributions to the
Science/Religion debate from those of other religious traditions,
and has some interesting perceptions on the weaknesses of the
discipline of science when spirituality is absent.
Please encourage him to make more contributions, his take on
popular so-called scientific "proofs" of the existence of God
may rescue more than a few people from embarassment.
EP
ps, looks like you and Juan haven't had your fill of brinkmanship,
so maybe it is time to take it easy on him for a little while?
> Date sent: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 07:59:39 +1200
> To: "Eric D. Pierce" , talisman@indiana.edu
> From: robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nz (Robert Johnston)
> Subject: Re: science (objective observation/facts as DEPENDENT concepts)
> Copies to: rsomerby@interserv.c
> I agreed when our friend (Ron) of a friend (Eric) wrote:
...snip
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 12:58:27 -0800
From: an Assistant to the Auxiliary Board
To: Juan R Cole
Subject: RE: Re: NSA & Appeals
Dear Juan and Talizens,
I had, originally, thought to send this to Talisman as well, but
decided against that. This message is personal.
From: Juan R Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu]
>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."
First, Pete should have sent his note to the City Council, not the Mayor.
Despite the fact that the Mayor is a member of the City Council, this is
still the accepted procedure. This is, however, not a fatal error.
>And let's say
>Pete even made similar remarks at the canteen in private conversations
>with the other janitors.
But this... Irrespective of the validity Janitor Pete's allegations, this
action constitutes backbiting, and is an offense open to the highest
level of sanctions which can be applied by the City Council.
Juan, I'm beginning to see a pattern in all of your hypotheticals and
examples. They either involve cases where the individual has stepped
outside the bounds of acceptable behavior in raising an issue, or
they have involved cases where an institution, or its members, have
gotten their feathers ruffled but where there was no action taken
against the individual's administrative rights.
Because of this, none of the hypothetical cases and examples you
have raised are probative. Now, I don't know what information you
have available to you. However, I would, respectfully, ask that you
look through all of the situations about which you have personal
knowledge and see if you can find a case in which any individual
has had administrative rights revoked and who has not discussed
any of these matters outside the appropriate channels for raising
such issues (i.e. Assemblies and members of the institutions of
the learned).
If you cannot find any such examples, then the problem takes on
a very different character, and could very well be addressed in a
different way than those you have proposed.
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzMon Nov 6 18:49:59 1995
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 10:22:34 +1300 (NZDT)
From: Robert Johnston
To: David Langness <72110.2126@compuserve.com>, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Barbed wire [was:something, I suppose]
David Langness (rifle packed away for the winter) wishing to "foster the
spirit of scholarship, inquiry and mutually respectful exchange that
'Abdu'l-Baha praised" says that certain Talismanians have been slanderous,
nasty, degrading, presumptuous, basely and intolerantly ugly name-callers,
judgemental labellers, degraders and venters of spleen. Oh dear David, is
that so?
Continuing on his merry and scholarly way, he then provides us with yet
another piece of mischievous gossip to deal with.
Tried tai chi Davey?
Robert.
From margreet@margreet.seanet.comMon Nov 6 18:50:18 1995
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 14:09:19 -0800
From: "Marguerite K. Gipson"
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Barred NSA Service
Hello... Just what is the standard here???? You criticize us in one
post called Conditioning the Faith of Another and then you add this???
Who gives a rip as to why he was barred from taking office... it happened...
This is not on a "I need to know" system.
Let's not be backbiteing... You never know, your back could be next in line.
Margreet
At 02:56 PM 11/6/95 EST, David Langness wrote:
>Dear Ahang and other Talismanians,
>
>My first national convention as a delegate was 1983's, in which Allen
>Ward was elected to the NSA. My own confusion over the events which
>followed his election must have been greater than the veteran delegates,
>but I could not imagine, at the time, why he was barred from taking office
>after his election. Since then I have heard many Baha'is discuss this
>incident, but have yet to see any official explanation.
>
>Warning: the following is therefore hearsay. I claim no knowledge of
>its veracity nor its accuracy.
>
>It is my understanding that Allen Ward's election to the NSA was declared
>null and void because of his presumed homosexuality. I also understand
>that multiple appeals were directed to the Universal House of Justice
>regarding the matter, citing the homosexuality of past NSA members and
>the Guardian's refusal to bar them from or remove them from office, but
>that the UHJ let the NSA decision stand.
>
>If anyone else has information regarding this incident, it might help to
>clear the cloud of supposition away.
>
>Love,
>
>David
>
From jjensen@welchlink.welch.jhu.eduMon Nov 6 18:50:56 1995
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 17:39:58 -0500 (EST)
From: Joan Jensen
To: Mary Day
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Rights and appeals
On Tue, 7 Nov 1995, Mary Day wrote:
> What particularly concerns me is that individuals can make
> accusations about another person [or body such as a committee
> or assembly] and the accused does not get to see the evidence
> nor know who has made the accusation.
I have been following these threads very closely, and am also very
concerned about the existence or the potential for the existence of
abuses of this kind. I am extremely grateful for the examples and
suggestions that Steve and Juan have offered for our discussion, and am
excited about the possibility of implementation of further steps in the
evolution of our Institutions.
I have been using "Refer-Baha'u'llah" , "Refer-'Abdu'l-Baha"
and "Refer-COC" to refresh my recollection about what the Writings
have to say about these issues, following the suggestion of some of the
friends on this list. The key words I am searching on include:
- justice, judge
- truth
- proof, evidence, testimony
- produce (evidence)
- tribunal
- accusations, accuse, accusing, accused.
What are some other key words that I can use for this search?
We know from our history that Baha'u'llah and the Baha'is were
falsely accused, and the importance of Justice. There are many
references to these issues that I have found thus far. If someone
else has done this search and has the references, I will not bother
to duplicate their search. Otherwise, I will continue. I will not post
each of the quotations in full, but perhaps post a few and list the
references to others.
I do not have the beloved Guardian's writings in the Refer program, so
perhaps one of the other friends on talisman can use these same key words
to search his writings.
Joan
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joan Jensen
From MBOYER%UKANVM.BITNET@cmsa.Berkeley.EDUMon Nov 6 18:51:21 1995
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 95 16:33:24 CST
From: Milissa Boyer
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Barred NSA
Ok...before David's question about someone being barred from serving on the
NSA gets sidetracked....
I, for one, would like to know the facts about why anyone would be barred
from the NSA. I don't know anything about this incident...is it really
backbiting to ask?
I am not asking about anyone's sexual orientation, as that is their business,
but I would like to know about the larger issue.
Have there been people barred from serving on the NSA after being elected?
If so, why? Can they appeal the decision?
If the answer is yes, people can be barred from serving on an NSA after being
elected, if they have been found to have broken a Baha'i Law, then wouldn't
that disqualify all of us? Who has NEVER broken a Baha'i law? And which laws
could be broken and NOT disqualify someone? And is it the UHJ or the NSA which
would make that decision?
Thanks for your help.....
Milissa Boyer
mboyer@ukanvm.cc.ukans.edu
From rstockman@usbnc.orgMon Nov 6 18:52:36 1995
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 95 16:01:52
From: "Stockman, Robert"
To: Member1700@aol.com, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re[2]: Censorship
<
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re[2]: Kalimat's encyclopedia?
Dear All: I have a few comments about the following from Tony's
posting:
<
To: "Stockman, Robert"
Cc: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: US Baha'i Research Office
I just wanted to assure Rob Stockman that the Research Office and he as
director have been absolute blessings for all Baha'i scholars everywhere,
and that nothing said about the problems Baha'i intellectuals face in any
way reflects up him or his office. I, and many others, have found Rob
gracious, bright, energetic, efficient and perceptive. And I appreciate
that he is there doing what he is doing because the US NSA understood the
need for such an office. In some very large part Rob had solved the most
pressing problems facing Baha'i scholars attempting to work within the
administrative framework of the Faith. We have already heard Christopher
Buck's testimony that Rob helped see that his important book was published.
Things are much better now, with Rob around, than they were a decade and
more ago, here in the U.S. This proves that progress can be made, the
Instituions can adapt, and there is a place for committed intellectuals
like Rob.
However, I do think it took a crisis or two for the NSA to come to the
realization that this particular sort of Research Office was needed, and
I'm not sure its genesis was in the quietude of back-channel communications.
Unfortunately, not everywhere in the Baha'i world do we have a Rob
Stockman with his fairness and problem-solving abilities. If God favors
us, his tribe will multiply.
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From rstockman@usbnc.orgTue Nov 7 00:22:39 1995
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 95 16:14:56
From: "Stockman, Robert"
To: "Steven D. Phelps" ,
talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Neutral scholarship
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.
I suspect Steve is partly right. It sounds like a concern the House
would have. It is a concern "scholars" will not like, but it is a
legitimate one. I say "partly right" because none of us discussing
this matter have seen the letters from the House.
I am quite surprised, in all this discussion of the House of Justice
"suppressing" the encyclopedia (which it certainly has not, as no one
has shut the project down as of today), that no one has felt moved to
mention that the original letter of the House also expressed concern
for the quality of some of the articles. (So I understand; I haven't
seen it. I understand the letter praised the quality of other
articles.) And I dare say from my conversations with most of the
encyclopedia editors before the House letter was received, most of the
encyclopedia board members were concerned about weak articles too.
There are many good articles; I know, I have seen some of them. And I
have also seen some weak ones. It is simply not a matter of taking a
huge manuscript (10-15 3-inch D-ring binders, I believe!) and copy
editing it. A lot of articles have gaps in them. Back in 1991 the
Board sent me several articles and asked me to rewrite them because
their quality was poor. There's got to be a lot of that work left to
do. And as someone observed in 1985 or so, an encyclopedia is a
tertiary work for which we do not yet have an adequate pool of
secondary works. Encyclopedias are huge jobs, ideally drawing off of
millions of dollars and a pool of hundreds or thousands of
professional scholars. The encyclopedia, as good as it is, reflects
the community's scholarly weakness as well. This makes the task of
continuing it very complex. Why doesn't everyone give the board the
chance to discuss the matter further with the House of Justice? The
encyclopedia is hardly suppressed when no decisions have yet been made
about it.
-- Rob Stockman
From LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduTue Nov 7 00:23:25 1995
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 95 19:39:27 EWT
From: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: I agree with Milissa
I remember when Allen Ward was refused admission to the NSA. Our little
community and the surrounding area Baha'is were quite disturbed by the notice
in the American Baha'i with the curt announcement that he would not be serving:
that he had been rejected.
David is not telling most of us anything new here. Those of us around at the
time "knew" what the problem was. And we were very disheartened by it. People
that I knew who knew him thought highly of him. We were disturbed that he was
kept off and doubly disturbed by the titillating little news article on the
front page of the American Baha'i simply saying that he was not good enough to
be on the NSA.
This is one of those wounds that keeps opening up. Over the years Baha'is that
I have known will bring up this topic. It is obvious that it distressed many
of us. But it is another one of those things we usually only talk about in
whispers. Is this right? Is this the way it should be? Shouldn't he have
been able to publicly defend himself since he was so publicly humiliated?
This ties into Mary's question, which is an awfully good one.
Oh, yes, Sen! Almost forgot! I love the expression "Abdu'l Bahaization." Was
that it? I'm all for it even if I don't have the word quite right. Linda
From jjensen@welchlink.welch.jhu.eduTue Nov 7 00:23:59 1995
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 19:42:38 -0500 (EST)
From: Joan Jensen
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Barred NSA
On Mon, 6 Nov 1995, Milissa Boyer wrote:
> If the answer is yes, people can be barred from serving on an
> NSA after being elected, if they have been found to have broken
> a Baha'i Law, then wouldn't that disqualify all of us? Who has
> NEVER broken a Baha'i law? And which laws could be broken and
> NOT disqualify someone? And is it the UHJ or the NSA which
> would make that decision?
As I understand it these types of decisions are currently being made on a
case-by-case basis. But I echo Milissa's concerns, and would like to
hear some discussion to the questions she raises here.
A related concern, which may have no bearing on the question that started
this thread:
What if a person is actively breaking Baha'i law and there are
individuals or the institutions who know about it, but are overlooking
the violation and not bringing the person to account and applying
sanctions? And then what if that person is elected to serve on one
of the Institutions? How important is it at that point to begin to
enforce the law?
It seems to me that persons who are elected or appointed to serve the
Faith have an additional burden to show moral leadership, because they
are regarded by those outside the Faith as leaders and representatives
of the Faith, as embodying the principles of the Faith. However, this
selective enforcement of Baha'i law does not seem equitable. It could
be argued that not strictly enforcing the laws when someone is "quietly"
breaking Baha'i law is a sign of the mercy of the institutions, patience
and forebearance. But it is ironic if being elected to serve on a
Baha'i institution may in effect put one's administrative rights "more"
in jeopardy than if one stays quietly in the woodwork.
Thoughts?
Joan
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Joan Jensen
From rstockman@usbnc.orgTue Nov 7 00:24:19 1995
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 95 17:52:50
From: "Stockman, Robert"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Barred NSA
People are barred from service on an NSA only by the Universal House
of Justice, as far as I know. Appeal to the House of Justice
obviously is possible; one can always write the House and ask it to
reconsider something. It seems safe to assume the House of Justice
would not bar someone without a pretty good reason, which means if you
ask what the reason was you are probably asking for information about
that person's private life or character that should not be made
public. Not only for that person's sake, but the sake of his/her
family.
-- Rob Stockman
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Barred NSA
Author: Milissa Boyer at INTERNET
Date: 11/6/95 4:33 PM
Ok...before David's question about someone being barred from serving on the
NSA gets sidetracked....
I, for one, would like to know the facts about why anyone would be barred
from the NSA. I don't know anything about this incident...is it really
backbiting to ask?
I am not asking about anyone's sexual orientation, as that is their business,
but I would like to know about the larger issue.
Have there been people barred from serving on the NSA after being elected?
If so, why? Can they appeal the decision?
If the answer is yes, people can be barred from serving on an NSA after being
elected, if they have been found to have broken a Baha'i Law, then wouldn't
that disqualify all of us? Who has NEVER broken a Baha'i law? And which laws
could be broken and NOT disqualify someone? And is it the UHJ or the NSA which
would make that decision?
Thanks for your help.....
Milissa Boyer
mboyer@ukanvm.cc.ukans.edu
From 72110.2126@compuserve.comTue Nov 7 00:25:18 1995
Date: 06 Nov 95 18:42:15 EST
From: David Langness <72110.2126@compuserve.com>
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Divine Intervention/Justice
Dear Talismanians,
Greetings from Teresa Langness, who occasionally chimes in here
when her dear husband David brings a post home that I just can't
bear not responding to.
Regarding the debate over whether justice will ascend on the
world unbidden by the Baha'is and without their efforts:
Even if it could does not mean it should.
"The greatest sin is neutrality in a moral crisis." This quote,
one of my favorites and also the creed of Margaret Mead and many
others, seems especially appropriate in a religion that promotes
the union of social and spiritual causes.
If work is worship, that makes passivity the antithesis of
worship.
While the divine powers operate on a divine time frame, it seems
passive to underestimate their response to human input in the
process. The Universal House of Justice, in its 1989 Ridvan
message, remarked in regard to teaching that "the more important
consequences of your activities are the spirit that is diffused
into the life of the community, and the extent to which the
teachings we proclaim become part of the consciousness and belief
of the people that hear them."
That does not happen without effort. It takes many people
walking the walk, not just talking the talk. To me, it means
promoting justice inside and outside the boundaries of Baha'i
activities and circles.
Consorting with other religions and fostering racial harmony and
justice and bringing about equality and ending extreme poverty
and extreme nationalism are all causes that require people of
differing mental and spiritual landscapes to work together.
Those who know the joy of participating in these processes often
question the isolation, predictability and routine of their
community life now and then, and venture out into the world.
Our seemingly insignificant individual or community efforts call
forth "matching contributions" in divine assistance. Beyond
that, they define us as Baha'is. One of the most unique
properties of Baha'i community life lies in its call for social
action, not just passive worship.
The long obligatory prayer includes a passage, "Make my prayer a
fountain of living waters." The symbolism of the passage
suggests not a stagnant request, but a flow of communication that
punctuates the promptings of the heart with the actions of daily
life. It suggests extending the prayer of the heart by carrying
it out on the path of the feet.
The "saved by grace" theory, to me, seems no more logical for the
spiritual progress of the world than it does for that of the
individual who stagnates by forgetting that work in the world is
worship.
All my best,
Teresa Langness
From rstockman@usbnc.orgTue Nov 7 00:26:44 1995
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 95 18:34:40
From: "Stockman, Robert"
To: Juan R Cole
Cc: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Suspicion
"My tribe" can multiply if the folks on Talisman would just calm down
and say less extreme things to each other. I have been doing a lot of
thinking about the damage done by suspicion lately. When scholars are
suspicious of institutions, the members of those institutions
naturally react with some suspicion as well. A vicious circle of
suspicion can get started (and who knows where it started), and as
people say things they add fuel to the fire, and thus does gossiping
and backbiting (and even frontbiting) make it all worse. Couldn't we
just break this chain of suspicion? The people on the NSA in the
1980s when the troubles happened were not ogres. Those on the NSA
today are not either. The House of Justice is not made up of nine men
whose heads, like ostriches, are in the sand. When we say things that
imply that maybe they have questionable motives or questionable
abilities, we generate suspicion among the others who hear us or read
our postings. Misinformation--and yes, surprise surprise,
Talismanians are not fonts of infallible knowledge
either--misinformation can do tremendous harm to the attitudes others
hold toward institutions. Partial information, even if it is true,
also can do a lot of harm, for the other half of the story may be
equally or more true and compelling, and yet it may be confidential
and thus inaccessible to us. We have a tremendous responsibility to
hold our tongues a bit and make sure everything we say is truthful AND
appropriate (for as Baha'u'llah notes--unless a Talismanian has
discovered the tablet is inauthentic--"Not everything a man knows can
be disclosed").
I'm sorry for getting on a soap box. But I have been plowing through
300 e-mail messages that have come in since I left on a trip (the
hotel had no phone jacks in the rooms, so I had no access to e-mail).
I have been very upset by the angry tones of many, many postings. I
have been very disturbed by the disrespect we show to each other and
to Baha'i institutions. Yes, I know the institutions aren't perfect;
but even so, they deserve more respect than they've been shown lately.
I apologize if my postings, or this one, has added heat rather than
light. So let me close with an appeal: let's turn back to the light
instead.
-- Rob Stockman
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: US Baha'i Research Office
Author: Juan R Cole at INTERNET
Date: 11/6/95 6:17 PM
I just wanted to assure Rob Stockman that the Research Office and he as
director have been absolute blessings for all Baha'i scholars everywhere,
and that nothing said about the problems Baha'i intellectuals face in any
way reflects up him or his office. I, and many others, have found Rob
gracious, bright, energetic, efficient and perceptive. And I appreciate
that he is there doing what he is doing because the US NSA understood the
need for such an office. In some very large part Rob had solved the most
pressing problems facing Baha'i scholars attempting to work within the
administrative framework of the Faith. We have already heard Christopher
Buck's testimony that Rob helped see that his important book was published.
Things are much better now, with Rob around, than they were a decade and
more ago, here in the U.S. This proves that progress can be made, the
Instituions can adapt, and there is a place for committed intellectuals
like Rob.
However, I do think it took a crisis or two for the NSA to come to the
realization that this particular sort of Research Office was needed, and
I'm not sure its genesis was in the quietude of back-channel communications.
Unfortunately, not everywhere in the Baha'i world do we have a Rob
Stockman with his fairness and problem-solving abilities. If God favors
us, his tribe will multiply.
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From Alethinos@aol.comTue Nov 7 00:27:39 1995
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 15:56:34 -0500
From: Alethinos@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Gotta wonder
I have to wonder. Do any on this list see a resemblance of this list to t.v.
talk shows? This list has an amazing ability to go around in a wonderful
viscious circle. Blame, counter-blame, anger, righteous indignation,
finger-pointing then the apologies, facile quite often.
It is similar to to pscho-babble craze of the past decade - this list is
composed of so many *victims* it is amazing. Everyone has an axe to grind.
What is the goal of this list? Does it actually have one?
So many on this list point fingers at others. The NSA is the *problem*, etc.
Please, spare me the wafer-thin backpeddling of denial. Of course the NSA has
been a source of problems and setbacks. But then so has every damn one of us
on this list! It isn't the NSA it is the people serving it. It is all of us
who are American. The Faith is not in need of reform, we who by our very
self-referencing title *American-Baha'is* (as opposed to Baha'is who live in
America) are virtually indistinguishable from our next-door neighbor - we are
the ones in desperate need of reform.
The Faith is at a standstill because there is a strong core of people in this
Faith who want to make sure it goes no-where. Those that are quite
comfortable with their little race unity picnics and week-end Baha'i schools.
What is laughable is the rest of the *core* can only stand around and grip
and complain, whine and sneer because their agendas and not being met.
Neither group has any concern to see things really change.
Do we want reform - real reform? No I don't think we do. What would real
reform be? A faith more accomidating to our narrowed agenda? A Faith that
looks like some worked-over patched-together-in-haste political platform of
the democratic party? Some heated-up left-overs of a worn-out
liberal-democratic ideological hash?
Why has the Faith failed so miserably in this country? Is it because we are
essentially, the bulk of us, at any rate, cowards, afraid of _real_ change -
a kind of change that would be revolutionary, that would likeyl see us
branded as traitors, radicals, religious fantatics? The kind of _reform_ that
would see us losing our jobs, our homes, our very comfortable life-styles?
We sit here, whining and complaining and we have a country that is in
horrible spiritual pain and we _as a community_ do nothing? Why? Please,
don't anyone get on their high-horse and talk about all the great sacrafices
that _you_ have made. I am not talking to _you_ anyway - I am talking about
_US_. It is quite easy to serve at a homeless shelter, hand out food to the
homeless, go to anti-racism marches and _feel_ like we have _really_ done
something.
Those in power love that - because it keeps your attention diverted. This
attitude exists in America in general and the Faith as well. What do you
think the Guardian meant by this:
of vindicating the ideals and principles which animate their defenders, and
of ensuring the ultimate victory and ascendency of the Faith itself over the
NEFRARIOUS elements seeking to undermine it from WITHIN, and its powerful
detractors aiming at its
extinction from without.
(Citadel of Faith, page 154)
If we REALLY want to see change, why don't we stop this useless complaining,
put the past behind us, stop playing the roles of victim and come together
and create a unity of thought about what is needed to truly achieve the
Guardian's vision for America? Why don't we stop trying to change something
from within when odd as it may seem it can only be changed from without?
If we really want to see change why don't we become truly the descendents of
the dawnbreakers - real spiritual warriors who will take the radical message
of the Cause to the streets of America. Why don't we sweep aside all this
namby-pamby crap we see in our communities (if we dare to give them such a
dignified title) and get _real_.
This Faith is in need of becoming, in America what the Guardian called for,
nearly 70 years ago.
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)
IF you wonder why we are still invisible read the last sentence again.
jim harrison
Alethinos@aol.com
From M.C.Day@massey.ac.nzTue Nov 7 00:28:31 1995
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 14:21:35 GMT=1200
From: Mary Day
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Scholarship
Dear Talismans,
The view expressed in this segment quoted from another posting seems
to me to indicate one BIG problem with Baha'i scholarship as it seems
to be defined on scholarship on Talisman.
<>
There seems to be an underlying and unquestioned assumption that Bahai
scholarship is and only is the sort of scholarship that is practised in
the west and largely by Western educated scholars. I would even go
further to say that it is American scholarship. I think this kind of
scholarship is also very gendered but that argument is outside the
theme of this post. [Another day].
I don't live in America and hope never to have to because my heart
and history lie in the Pacific, in the midmost heart of the ocean, but
we peoples of the Pacific of all shades and hues also want to
participate in Baha'i scholarship and to this end we give to the
building of the arc. The Centre for Bahai studies belongs to us too. A
small college in the USA may very well give a few US Bahais a job but
it wouldn't do much for our scholarship. Would it ask the questions
that are important to us? Would it include the kind of work that is
important to atoll dwellers?
It hurt me to read this and to have to confront how American the
accepted view of acholarship is here.
Maybe the US Bahai community would get further if it thought more
about letting its vision be world embracing and not confined to its
own self.
I can appreciate the frustration of many participants here and the
pain they feel. My vision of Bahai scholarship is for much more
diverse forms than could ever possible be contained within a US
college.
Mary
From Member1700@aol.comTue Nov 7 00:29:25 1995
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 21:06:58 -0500
From: Member1700@aol.com
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Scholarship on Talisman
Well, I can readily agree with Rob that there has been little enough
scholarly inquiry on Talisman of late. But, I would attribute that to the
fact that one simply cannot conduct a scholarly discourse if there are going
to be screams of protest and accusations of Covenant-breaking every time
anyone tables a new idea.
As Rob knows very well, scholarship requires an atmosphere of open
inquiry and mutual respect among speakers. If my faith in Baha'u'llah is
going to be questioned every time I offer an new and unexpected perspective
on Baha'i teachings--well, then I am going to spend a lot of time defending
my faith in Baha'u'llah, and I do not intend to be very cool about it.
Likewise for discussing reforms in Baha'i Administration or disagreements
with current policies of the institutions of the Faith. The response has
repeatedly been: "You can't say that!" Or, "You shouldn't say that because
. . ." (you can fill in the blank as to the reason). To which the only
response can be, "O yes I can say that, and I will," in escalating decibles.
No, I don't enjoy that kind of discourse any more than anyone else does.
The point is that Talisman is not a mutual admiration society. It
exists precisely to try out new and unorthodox ideas in an atmosphere of
mutual respect and support. It exists discussed half-baked ideas, incomplete
theses, work-in-progress, and so forth. It exists to explore alternative
policies that the institutions of the Faith might pursue. If such things
cannot be discussed here--at least without multiple posts questioning the
speakers' faith--I do not see how we can have a scholarly discussion here at
all.
Tony
From tan1@cornell.eduTue Nov 7 00:30:00 1995
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 09:34:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Timothy A. Nolan"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: annulled NSA election
Recently there has been some discussion about the by-election to fill
a vacancy on the U.S. N.S.A.....a by-election in which Prof. Allan
Ward was elected, then this result was annulled by teh Houe of Justice
(I think it was the House). A few weeks ago, I brought up this very same
issue on Talisman; it may not have been noticed because I did not
explicitly name the individual involved. Another member of Talisman,
who knew or knows Dr. Ward personally, told me the reason why his
election to the N.S.A. was annulled. It had nothing to do with
homosexuality. I see no reason to say what the reason was, since
Dr. Ward has the right to privacy, but the reason given to me, by
someone who personally knew Allan Ward at the time,...the reason
had nothing to do with sex.
Tim Nolan
From rstockman@usbnc.orgTue Nov 7 00:30:30 1995
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 95 19:57:53
From: "Stockman, Robert"
To: talisman@indiana.edu, Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl
Subject: Re: Reforms
As someone observed, this is my day on Talisman. I may not be back
for a week, depending on workload.
I find Sen's list of reforms intriguing. Who knows, maybe someday a
House of Justice will feel the time is right to consider them. I have
a comment on number 2:
<
To: "Talisman "
Subject: Bio/Introduction
Dearest Talizens,
Being a fine, progressive, company eager to encourage
employees to come to work at all hours of the day or night,
Microsoft provides us with cardkeys which one passes through
a slot next to any door one wants to enter. From time to
time, the cards won't work the first you attempt to unlock a
door, and this failure always leads to an "ohnosecond"
(literally defined as the period of time between when you
realize you're about to lock your keys in the car and the
door closes) of "Do I still work here?"
Well, I got to work this morning, and my cardkey didn't work
as usual, and, following my ohnosecond, I realized that I
haven't really sent a bio to Talisman and thought I'd better
do so soon...just in case.
In the morning hours of November 11, 1960, my mother gave
birth to a healthy baby boy, in Bellin Memorial Hospital in
Green Bay, Wisconsin. The delivery cost thirty dollars. The
doctor was a friend of the family. My mother refers to it
as one of those knock-down, drag-out births complete with
salad spoons. I don't know. I don't remember it very well.
When I was four years old, my parents took me to a Catholic
wedding. The ceremony was in Latin. Not understanding
Latin, I thought it was cool, and said so, "Gee! This is
neat, mom. Why don't you and dad get married?" Shortly
thereafter, my mother became a Baha'i. I have no idea if
these two events are related.
I had a rather typical Baha'i childhood, complete with
Sunday classes where I had my share of rebellion, "But, I
don't wanna to be a brilliant star. I just wanna be a
football player." (This was, after all, Green Bay,
Wisconsin during the '60's. There was a dynasty in town,
and Vince Lombardi was reigning King of the World.) In many
ways, my sentiments haven't changed all that much. I still
don't want to be a brilliant star. Brilliant stars have too
much responsibility.
There was always one question. Every adult Baha'i asked it
of me, and I hated it every time. "When you turn fifteen,
are you going to become a Baha'i?"
"No!" I'd say. "I believe in Baha'u'llah now! When I turn
fifteen, I'll enroll."
I think I was about eight years old before it dawned on me
that not every kid's parents packed up the car and headed
off to all parts of the state giving LSA training modules or
attending DTC meetings every weekend. In fact, not every
Baha'i kid's parents did these things. I grew up in this
kind of milieu where you can embarrass your
mother by telling kid's jokes to Peter Khan.
When I was 10 years old, enrollment policies changed, and
children under the age of fifteen could sign their
declaration cards. The enrollment wouldn't be processed,
but you didn't have to wait to sign the card. So, after a
day's worth of street teaching, I signed my declaration
card. I still have the tattered and worn prayer book
commemorating the event. Mind you, the book is tattered
and worn more from showing it to all those adults who asked
me that stupid question than it was from actual use, but
tattered and worn it is.
My youth was filled with a number of performance activities
including being a member of the original Milwaukee Baha'i
Chorale. We took tunes from Broadway musicals and changed
the lyrics to things like:
Seventy-six new Baha'is in Connecticut
A hundred and ten in California
Followed by thirty-three in the state of Tennessee
All have joined the People of Baha
My favorite was "Get me to the Feast on Time," but I can
never remember all of the lyrics.
There are still some Baha'is who remember me as that kid who
did that not-so-bad impersonation of Peter Noone singing
about Mrs. Brown's lovely daughter, and those of you who
attended the Champaign-Urbana Youth Conference might
remember me as the skate-boarding Finster Oboe with the DA
hairdo.
I have no idea how I got through college, but I, eventually,
graduated in the upper quartile of my class with a Bachelor
of Arts in Economics. I chose Economics because Accounting
was boring and I was rather good at Math (I have the
distinction of being the only student at the University of
Wisconsin, Green Bay to have flunked the first exam in
Ordinary Differential Equations--Ordinarily Difficult
Equations--and still have finished the course with a B).
After a few years trying to find a job where I could
actually use the things I learned in college, I landed a job
selling personal computers for a dealer in Milwaukee. On
that job, I discovered, much to the dismay of my employer
and the detriment of my wallet, that I liked playing with
computers far more than I liked selling them. Through
mutual agreement, I and my employer parted company. Not
long after that, I was back in college studying Computer
Science, and my employer was out of business.
It was during this time that I met my present wife. That
story, like most of my life, isn't normal either, but this
is getting long enough, and I've got to cut things out
somewhere.
Beth and I married in February of 1987, I finished the
Computer Science coursework I needed for a job, and, in an
incredibly fortuitous stroke, Microsoft was interviewing on
campus when it was time for me to start looking for work.
We talked and hit it off immediately. I was flown out here
for technical interviews where, in one of the problems put
before me, I wrote a solution that no one else had seen
before. I started working at Microsoft just a few months
after that interview.
Two February's ago, our second child was born. The debate
in the family had always been one or two, and, being an only
child, I have always been on the "one" side of that debate.
Obviously, I lost the debate. But, as Beth is fond of
saying, unless we are called upon to radiantly acquiesce, we
are _not_ going to have any more.
My son's birth, unlike mine, was natural. Unfortunately, he
presented anterior instead of posterior, so the doctor had
to spend a significant time trying to turn him so he faced
down instead of up. This my wonderful wife endured without
the benefit of pain killers or anesthetics. And words
cannot convey how deeply I love her for having done that
birth the way she wanted to despite the difficulty.
After the birth, the nurses were praising Beth for her job
birthing my son. Beth said, "Let's face it. This body was
made for having children."
To which I, with that facetious and wicked sense of humor
which has always gotten me into trouble, said, "Gee, hon.
It seems a shame to waste it on just two."
If looks could castrate, I'd be a eunuch. Somewhere, there
are two nurses telling stories of an incredibly sick,
insensitive husband who just couldn't pass up the
opportunity to get in yet another jab about having more
children. And you know. I think there might even be
birthing mother or two receiving some comfort from these
stories and the knowledge that, no matter how bad, her
husband isn't _that_ crass!
Warmest Regards,
Rick Schaut
From rstockman@usbnc.orgTue Nov 7 00:35:31 1995
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 95 18:12:54
From: "Stockman, Robert"
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Conditioning the Faith of Another
<
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Seeker Spirit
To the true seekers of Talismania:
Once again, from Teresa:
All the discussion of the administrative snafus in the Faith
symbolizes, to me, a trend taking place not just on the
international plane, but in the jarred compasses of individual
hearts. It seems to model an apathy that leaves many Baha'is
feeling directionless these days.
People sitting on administrative bodies often find that the work
they do in the Faith feels like community-building, as one might
experience it on a secular level, but seems detached from their
spiritual lives. People who have long served on such bodies and
given countless firesides then let themselves drop back into the
shadows, wondering whether to blame their apathy on spiritual
immaturity or mortal mid-life crisis.
As I watch friends and seekers slip by the wayside, or even into
the backwaters, I can't help wondering what layer of meaning
evaporated from our work in the Faith.
I've been giving this a lot of thought lately. Perhaps some of
you have noticed, as I have, that in a professional environment,
"getting along" with people can be a perfunctory and not always
particulary emotional process. On the other hand, feeling the
exhilaration of a deep spiritual connection seems random, not
related to the amount of time spent with one person or another,
but rather spawned by some inexplicable, invisible linkage of
hearts.
That bond, I believe, emanates from the recognition of a
compatriot -- another seeking heart. When two seekers meet, they
energize one another with each interchange, or even with a
glance, whether they discuss their spiritual paths directly or
sense them indirectly.
If this distinction, so obvious in the secular community, does
not emanate from our association with Baha'is in administrative
work, could it be because we sometimes safeguard the letter more
than the spirit of Baha'i law? When we stop asking questions and
respecting the questions of others, when we stop looking for
light in other eyes, we have lost seekership within the Faith.
This contradicts the Baha'i modality of a changing, growing faith
full of changing, growing, seeking, bonding souls.
To my mind, one of the keys to protecting -- or retrieving -- our
sense of worship lies in protecting our identity as seekers on a
path together. When we divorce the functional processes of the
Faith from the melding of loving, curious hearts, what is left to
form the basis for divine worship as well as service to humanity?
Rhetorical questions, yes. Incriminating questions, no. Maybe
when a Faith in adolescence becomes populated primarily by tired,
busy people in mid-life, we naturally fall into a pattern of
reassessing our procedural flaws, in an effort to get back to the
essence of worship. I hope we can.
All my best,
Teresa Langness
From rstockman@usbnc.orgTue Nov 7 00:36:53 1995
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 95 17:11:19
From: "Stockman, Robert"
To: Talisman ,
Farzin Barazandeh
Subject: Re: lost vision on the Piscataqua
Dear Farzin: `Abdu'l-Baha did not favor the idea of Green Acre
remaining simply a school of comparative religion; He wanted it to be
a *Baha'i* school. This quote makes that clear:
"As for Green Acre, if this become a centre for the Baha'is--with
attendance granted to other groups--the divine call will reach all who
wish to hearken unto it. If on the other hand it become a focal
centre and rallying point for a host of empty-headed enthusiasts, each
purveying his own fantastic creed, they will take up everyone's time
to no purpose . . . certainly we shall not deny access to members of
other religions, but at the same time we have no wish that Green Acre
should become a breeding ground for superstitions. Indeed, our ardent
hope is that the cry of the Kingdom may be raised in that spot, and
that the Baha'i character of the school may become sufficiently
evident for it to attract the notice of other groups."
This is a new translation made by the World Centre and may be found in
chapter 16 of *Baha'i Faith in America, Volume Two.*
-- Rob Stockman
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: lost vision on the Piscataqua
Author: barazanf@dg-rtp.dg.com (Farzin Barazandeh) at INTERNET
Date: 11/3/95 9:41 AM
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 Alethinos@aol.comTue Nov 7 00:37:04 1995
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 22:37:47 -0500
From: Alethinos@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: annulled NSA election
I can second Tim's assertion that sexual preference was _not_ the reason - I
know first hand why he was allowed to sit on the NSA.
jim harrison
Alethinos@aol.com
From barazanf@dg-rtp.dg.comTue Nov 7 00:37:48 1995
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 00:20:57 -0500 (EST)
From: Farzin Barazandeh
To: Juan R Cole
Cc: Talisman
Subject: Re: a Baha'i bill of rights
Very Dear friend,
I find amending the NSA by-laws is somewhat premature, without any real
discussion on the "Individual Rights and Freedom" statement by the
Universal House of Justice. A discussion on that statement could lead
to a better comprehension of the House view on the issue of freedom/rights
and could also lead to an enhancement/amendment of it, which in my view
is more critical than the NSA by-laws.
Additionally, a good discussion on that statement would create a
framework and foundation to tackle other stuff such as the by-laws of NSA.
Farzin
From friberg@will.brl.ntt.jpTue Nov 7 01:40:27 1995
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 95 15:05:58 JST
From: "Stephen R. Friberg"
To: Member1700@aol.com
Cc: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Scholarship on Talisman
Dear Tony:
I know that you have always been firm in your stance about Covenant-
Breaking. In your last post you said:
> But, I would attribute that to the
> fact that one simply cannot conduct a scholarly discourse if there are going
> to be screams of protest and accusations of Covenant-breaking every time
> anyone tables a new idea.
It seems that your protests (and mine too) have often as not gone
unheeded. I think I know why, and I would like to suggest a new
idea. Of course, it might be half-baked, but I suggest that we
give it a try.
The reason why that they have gone unheeded is quite simple, I think.
Those towards whom the protests were directed have understood them as
being an attempt to suppress their freedom to speak, and they have
reacted strongly against such perceived threats to their freedom.
Clearly, the impression has been created that discussing the Covenant
is taboo: it can not be done on Talisman (I live in a country where
people are very sensitive to and aware of such oftentimes unspoken
group taboos). At the same time, there is an emphasis on freedom
of expression and people's rights to say anything they choose.
Clearly, if you tell people that they are totally free to talk about
anything they want to, and then you send strong messages that you
can't talk about the Covenant, people are going to be confused and
ultimately cynical and angry.
What I suggest is that we encourage people to talk about the Covenant.
After all, the major figures of our Faith strongly urged that
everyone become very deepened in the Covenant. A concern for
the Covenant is a very good thing. It is hard to imagine a full
discussion of the Faith without discussion of the Covenent.
When we suppress people's concerns, seeming to say: "NO, you
CAN'T discuss this", what happens is that in the thick of an
emotional argument, people rebel strongly against the taboo, and
say the "forbidden" things that they are thinking. The fact that
their freedom to talk about the Covenant (or whatever) has been
suppressed makes what they say often come out very, very strongly.
So please join me in encouraging everyone to freely discuss the
Covenant. Of course, we must continue to encourage people not
to attack other people individually.
Yours respectfully,
Stephen R. Friberg
From TLCULHANE@aol.comTue Nov 7 01:40:59 1995
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 01:14:44 -0500
From: TLCULHANE@aol.com
To: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: local HOW
Dear Sen ,
I am probably the wrong person to comment on this article as the subject
is so dear to my heart and I am not an editor . You managed to cover in a
shory piece all the argumants i would want to and have made over the years
about the role of the Mashriq . I especially appreciated your locating the
centrality of the Mashriqu l Adhkar viv a vis the Admin . Order . the only
suggestion I would make is consider using more of the quote from Abdul Baha
in TABA , the one that begins : " In reality the radiant pure hearts are the
Mashriq . .." The middle part which speaks of " . . when the hearts find
such an attainment, they will certainly exert the utmost endeavor and energy
in the building of the Mashriqu l Adhkar . " This portion of the passage
links the mystical vision with outward action . As such I think it is the
permission giving part of the passage . At least in Omaha that made a
difference .
We had a brief LSA meeting tonite putting the finishing touch on our
Birth of Baha u lah celebration - yep it is going ti include dhikr chanting
- you and Sonya are invited to attend .
The LSA asked me to convey to the NSA of the Netherlands- via you - its
love, support and encouragement for their support of this endeavor . God
Bless them .
warm regards ,
Terry
From forumbahai@es.co.nzTue Nov 7 01:44:56 1995
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 95 19:29 GMT+1300
From: Alison & Steve Marshall
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Baha'i courts / reforms / by-laws
Alison and I spent the evening with a new member of our community who has
been a Baha'i for three months, or maybe his whole life. We were impressed
with how spirit-filled, dynamic and open to change he is, and thought also
how much the discussions on Talisman have changed, clarified and challenged
what we believe as Baha'is. Baha'u'llah's revelation has only just happened,
so collectively we are only just starting to come to grips with it. I would
hate to see the revelation become crystallised too early.
We do have fierce arguments on Talisman but I'm sure that many of the things
people say are just part of a process of coming to grips with the Revelation.
---------------------------------------------
I used to believe that the appeal process through local spiritual assembly,
national spiritual assembly and finally the Universal House of Justice would
work in practice, but I have come to believe, through personal experience,
that conflict of interest and the pressure of work on assemblies sometimes
derails the process. I'll give a couple of examples:
a. I was part of a two person national committee that, each year, set up an
steering committee to run an annual 6-day Baha'i event. An individual, who
was not part of the planning or running of one such event, took control of
it and ran it his way. When I questioned what he was doing, he said he had
phoned the secretary of the national spiritual assembly and had been given
authority to run the event. After the event, the national spiritual assembly
was informed, but the issue was not, to my knowledge, resolved, even though
the other committee member and I, in our frustration, had an unseemly row
with the secretary at a national conference some months later.
b. I am a librarian by profession and served as a librarian for a local
spiritual assembly. I was asked by that assembly to tell it whether an
individual in the community had borrowed certain books from the Baha'i
library. I said that I couldn't do this because I was a member of a
professional association whose code of conduct states that such behaviour is
unethical. (Actually, in practice, anyone could have gone to the Baha'i
library and looked at the cards in the self-help issue system to find out
what the person had borrowed.) The local spiritual assembly took the issue
to the national spiritual assembly, which basically said that a local
spiritual assembly could require whatever it wished of its officers. The
national assembly did not ask for my views before reaching its decision,
but, given the nature of the reply, it may have been that the local assembly
presented the issue as a hypothetical one.
It took me a number of years to "move on" after experiencing situations such
as the two above, and I feel that there is a tremendous loss of human
resources as a result of injustices being swept under the carpet by the
individuals and institutions involved. I've tried to be noble about
perceived injustices and to grow from the experience -- and to a certain
extent that has happened. But I've also become more realistic about my own
boundaries and don't keep working with an institution on a project when
there are unresolved issues pertaining to that work.
I also used to blame the institutions and the individuals who made up those
institutions, but now, after hearing the discussion on Talisman about Baha'i
courts and by-laws, I can see that there are structural issues involved. As
a result, it's been easier to get beyond blaming people and institutions.
ka kite ano,
Steve
-----------------------------------
A few years ago a member of the Auckland Rugby Football Union took the New
Zealand Rugby Football Union to court because it had decided to send the All
Blacks to tour South Africa. He argued that the decision was against the
Union's by-laws, which required that it make decisions that were "in the
best interests of rugby". The court agreed and the tour was stopped.
Similarly, Assemblies have by-laws, so their decisions are arguably subject
to review by civil courts if they make decisions that are outside the powers
and purposes stated in the by-laws, or if their decisions are not fair.
Common examples of 'not fair' are playing judge and jury, not informing
someone of the charges against them, or not giving them the chance to answer
the charges. Perhaps if assemblies were made aware of the legal standards
required of them by the civil courts, this would wake their ideas up a bit.
After all, we are supposed to obey the law.
------------------------------------
A few years ago, an assembly made a decision to purchase a building worth
between one and two hundred thousand dollars. This decision was never
discussed with the community - it was simply announced at feast as a fait
accompli. Needless to say, it became an issue of obedience. If you openly
expressed reservations, you were being disobedient. In response, I slagged
the assembly privately to a recent-declarant and this got back to the
assembly. I was asked to consult with the assembly about the building,
turned up at the meeting and was accused of slagging the institution. If I
didn't repent, one member said (I've no idea whether this was
representative) the assembly would recommend the removal of my voting rights.
I had no idea the assembly was going to accuse me of anything at the
meeting; I felt tricked into meeting with it. I should have left the minute
I realised what was happening, but instead, I lost my cool and took the
opportunity to slag the assembly members to their faces. That was one of my
biggest crises of faith. I agree that these things do have major impacts on
believers. It made me realise how important due process is.
Alison
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alison and Steve Marshall
From jrcole@umich.eduTue Nov 7 10:44:09 1995
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 01:54:32 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: conversation with a House member, 1981
I was going through my papers the other day, and I found a little memoir
I had written, of a conversation I had when I was 28 with a member of the
Universal House of Justice. I thought it revealing of some of the issues
that lie behind the derailing (yes, it is a derailing) of the
Walbridge/Momen Baha'i Encyclopaedia, since it gives some insight into a
longstanding conviction in Haifa that Western academic scholarly style is
in essence incompatible with the Baha'i Faith (and yes, that is the
primary issue, not the "quality" of the articles). I stress that this
was a conversation with an individual, not with the House, and that it is
my recollection of it, written when I got home that night. I have
altered it only by disguising the names of the persons involved and
making very minor editorial changes.
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
March 18, 1981
Juan R. Cole
Los Angeles
Tonight I met with L. at the V's. Apparently Mr. L. had asked T. to
invite me over. He seemed very positive about my work. He said,
"This article that you wrote about the Tablet of Wisdom was very
deep" or words to that effect, and pointed out that my suggestions for
improvements in the translation were being incorporated into the
second edition of the book. I was embarrassed by this warmth, and
could only mumble thanks for his kind words.
He added, "You are very young."
I could only say, "What I am writing now is very elementary."
He replied . . . He was very kind. I am always at a loss for
words when presented with compliments . . . I could only say, "You
are being very generous."
. . . In regard to the Tablet of Wisdom issue, L. took the view
that when Baha'u'llah wrote, He was not writing history per se. He
gave the example of the Kitab-i-Iqan passage in which it is said that
Noah lived 950 years. He also cited the incident of the believer in
Yazd who said his own eyewitness account of events there
contradicted that of `Abdu'l-Baha. He noted that the Guardian said
that `Abdu'l-Baha's accounts were based on information reaching him
from the believers, and that this individual should forward his own
account to the World Centre. He finally noted that the Guardian had
indicated that new information would be unearthed in the future which
would require a revision of the accounts given in *God Passes By.*
I pointed out to him that some important Baha'is in North
America did not share such a view, and that they went around the
country telling the Baha'is that if anyone questions one word of *God
Passes By* he is denying the infallibility of the Guardian.
He replied that the infallibility of the Guardian was only an
interpretive one, that *God Passes By* is the *meaning* of history.
I said that when I voiced the very same view to such Baha'i
leaders here, they rejected it.
"Well," he said. "It seems you have had some [bad]
experiences." He said there is still a lot of intolerance in the Baha'i
community. But then, he said, there are intolerant people in any group
. . .
Later . . . when W. joined us, [L.] brought up Review,
pointing out that it is temporary and only necessary for us at the very
beginnings of the formative age. Since he brought it up, I felt justified
in pursuing the matter. I started out by saying that recently P. had
called me up to ask for titles of scholarly books which contained
accounts of the treatment of the Iranian Baha'i community in this
century. I continued that I was only able to name a few, and these
have very limited references in them. P. wanted these for a friend or
relative at the Baha'i International Community who was working on a
report to the U.N., and needed creditable scholarly references. I said I
thought it very important that an article detailing the treatment of the
Baha'is in Iran since the Revolution be submitted to an academic
journal like *Middle East Journal.* I added that such an article would
wield and influence and provide information for non-Baha'i scholars
writing about modern Iran, information they have no access to.
L. replied that there are many archival sources at the World
Centre for the writing of such pieces, including the notes of the
National Spiritual Assembly of Iran. He added that recently many
documents, including government orders that pensions be cut off and
fatwas against the Baha'is had been collected in Iran and sent to Haifa.
He said these were being used as the basis of a white paper being
prepared by the Baha'i International Community for submission to the
United Nations.
T. interjected here that it is important to realize that an article
or book published by an assistant professor at Yale would have more
impact among the academic community than a detailed white paper
issued from the highest administrative levels of the Baha'i Faith.
I affirmed this, pointing to the cult of credentials, and the
official-seeming aspect of a book published, by, say, Harvard
University Press, by a university professor. I emphasized that scholars
tend to write for other scholars, and to only put trust in footnoted
pieces by other academics.
W. noted that K. had recently told her that a poll conducted by
the PR firm hired by the NSA showed that of all the sectors of the
population, intellectuals were least likely to have heard of the Baha'i
Faith, or know anything accurate about it. She asked rhetorically why
this was.
I replied that it was because no academic work on the faith had
appeared since E.G. Browne and academics tend only to read other
academics. I emphasized that academics often [do] popularize, and
complained that no drugstore paperback on comparative religion,
which has a large potential audience, mentions the Faith, or if it does,
gets its facts straight. This, I said, is owing to the lack of academic
works. I said Review puts two obstacles in the way of such academic
work: One is that it slows down its appearance considerably, and the
other is that should the fact that the scholar's work was reviewed by
the NSA become generally known, it would ruin the credibility of the
work.
L. replied that it should be possible to waive any extended
reviewing process for an article such as the one I proposed, which
used materials provided by the World Centre, and was intended for
publication in a journal such as the *Middle East Journal.*
I insisted on the second point, about review becoming widely
known.
L. said that there was no reason that the work should betray
the fact that it had been reviewed or that the reviewing process should
become widely known.
I pointed out that there were former Baha'is who were scholars
and who might spill the beans.
He finally said that he did not know what we could do about
these problems. One could not sacrifice the interests of the generality
of the believers so a handful of Baha'i scholars could have complete
freedom.
I said that at the moment, my only concern was that review of
specialized academic articles on the Faith be conducted by academic
specialists.
He said that was very reasonable, and that the House itself
sometimes sent things to T. because they were technical.
I pointed out that . . . [an] edited book of scholarly articles was
sent by . . . [a] press to the NSA a year and a half ago; that a year
passed without their hearing anything; and that finally they got a phone
call from National saying that reviewers found the tone disrespectful. I
said there was no evidence that the volume had been submitted to
academic specialists.
He said he wasn't surprised to hear this, if true, and that there
were still many inefficiencies in review and in the Publishing Trust
itself. He said we shouldn't give up or be discouraged by these. He
insisted again that the advantages of review outweighed its
disadvantages. He said that if a recognized Baha'i scholar wrote a
wrong interpretation of the Faith, this could be cited by enemies like
Miller, and could give credibility to his attacks. He was concerned
about ordinary Baha'is or seekers who might encounter Miller's works.
I replied that Miller was a liar and had no respect in the
scholarly community. I said if a Baha'i scholar wrote something
wrong, other Baha'i scholars would write articles correcting it--that
scholarship is a self-correcting process.
He was unconvinced. He also complained that the style of
Western scholarship is unsuited to discussing the verities of the Faith
and is indeed disrespectful. He said he could not imagine Persian
Baha'i scholars writing about the Faith in the same tone as Muhit-i
Tabataba'i [a popular historian who had attacked the Baha'i Faith in
print].
I said the proper analogy would be to Zarrinkoob, not to
Tabataba'i, and I saw nothing wrong with writing about the Faith the
way Zarrinkoob might [Zarrinkoob is an eminent historian of Sufism in
Iran who is also a bona fide academic].
He said we should not compromise--`Abdu'l-Baha went to the
synagogues and defended Jesus and Muhammad.
I replied that Baha'u'llah wrote to the Zoroastrians in pure
Persian, avoiding Arabic words, in order to reach His audience.
He said this was a matter of form, not substance.
I said the issue in . . . [the book that had been delayed by
Review], for the NSA, seemed to be one of form, not substance.
At this point Dr. J. began telling jokes and anecdotes, and the
discussion moved to other subjects. I thanked L. for sharing his views
with me, and tried to make clear to him that I was not *objecting* so
much as sounding him out.
He said he didn't mind even if I objected.
I assured him that was not my intent.
(He had stressed several times that the scholar's attitude was
the important thing. He had also quite openly admitted that there was
much intolerance among the Baha'i community at this stage.)
I was extremely impressed with him, and could communicate
with him on a level I found impossible with Amoz Gibson, e.g. But his
attitude seemed to be that scholars will just have to fight for their right
to publish, and that the House couldn't do much to help.
From dan_orey@qmbridge.ccs.csus.eduTue Nov 7 10:45:11 1995
Date: 6 Nov 95 23:06:08 U
From: Dan Orey
To: jrcole@umich.edu, mloring@nmsu.edu, 72110.2126@compuserve.com,
Member1700@aol.com, slynch@interserv.com,
PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.edu
Subject: News from the Front
Subject: Time: 10:54 PM
OFFICE MEMO News from the Front Date: 11/6/95
Juan, David, Steve, Sam, Tony,
Thanx to all of you for your thoughts, and encouragement. Just got off the
phone with S. Birkland. I am encouraged that we have his backing for a green
light for another large community meeting (like we had in Denver last year) re:
g&L issues sometime in the near future in San Francisco. My job now is to
contact the LSA of SF and begin consultations. Again, I dearly appreciate all
the encouragement, kind words, and mentoring given to me thru the last few
weeks - Daniel (taking off his rose-colored glasses as he steps up to bat) Orey
From snoopy@skipper.physics.sunysb.eduTue Nov 7 10:49:35 1995
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 04:34:23 -0500 (EST)
From: Stephen Johnson
To: TLCULHANE@aol.com
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: re: conversations with . . .
Dearest Terry,
Because you said:
> I dont ask this in a rhetorical way . I am trying to understand what is
> so inimical about western style scholarship . I mean some of it is pedantic
> and boring stuff to read but that is not the same thing as being inimical .
I will reply to your question:
> I ask this about Chittick because he has via Islam helped me a great deal
> to appreciate the richness of the writing of Baha u llah . I always thought
> of him as an academic. Is that a reasonable asumption ? Assuming he is such
> I find he has enriched my sense of devotion .
I have personally taken courses from Professor Chittick on Sufism and
general Islam. I find that he is an exceptional academic. As you stated
in your letter, I couldn't tell that he wasn't Muslim when he lectured on
Islam...it has become an intrinsic part of him. I believe that this is
an important part of being an academic who isn't dry ... to experience
your subject, something which Professor Chittick does exceptionally.
I believe that Dr. Chittick, among many others, is helping to redefine
the sense of western scholarship such that it stops being something which
is simply recorded for posterity and regurgitated later to a collection
of immature adults psychologically forced to sit in a classroom.
Scholarship is organic--constantly changing yet always interactive.
Although we are not quite sure where academia is leading at this highly
fluctuating point in history, we can be sure that it is being redefined
before our eyes, as is the definition of 'scholar'--not an anti-social
book-worm spending a life enraptured with a collection of materials
largely irrelevant to the general populace -- instead ... ???
Any ideas?
stephen johnson
SUNY Stony Brook
From Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nlTue Nov 7 10:52:08 1995
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 1995 15:42:34 +0100 (MET)
From: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Science
I must protest mightily against Philip's attempt to reserve
the title of 'science' for the hard sciences. Of course
theology is a science! Barth devoted much of the first book
of his Systematics to discussing just what that meant
(against the background of a tradition that theology is the
queen of sciences - mathematicians will blanch). Science is
in the first place ordered knowledge, as religion is ordered
worship. And good science, according to Karl Barth, is
science which is ordered according to the object of the
knowledge - ie, not ordered by an a priori scheme, but
where the ordering itself is responsive to new and changing
knowledge about the object. The object in the case of
theology is Godself.
In Dutch and German (Barth's background, incidentally),
'wetenschappen' is literally 'shaped knowledge'. I am open
to evidence that Baha'u'llah or 'Abdu'l-Baha used 'science'
in a more restrictive sense - but I doubt it very much.
Sen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sen McGlinn
From Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nlTue Nov 7 10:52:39 1995
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 1995 15:43:14 +0100 (MET)
From: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: where to & what for?
Chris Buck asks where to next -
My guess is that Talisman cannot serve as an action forum, only
as an aid to community and individual maturity. The point is not
that we achieve concensus here, but that we sharpen our sloppy
concepts, extend our knowledge, test our ideas - and then go an
put them into practice in local and national communities. At the
same time, one small part of the Baha'i community is learning
how to live with freedom of expression and a diversity of ideas.
The outrage that some have expressed here will likely be
repeated on a much larger scale when review is finally ended,
and it may be just as well to get a little practice in weathering it.
Looking forward to that translation Chris,
Sen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sen McGlinn
From LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduTue Nov 7 10:54:58 1995
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 95 10:36:27 EWT
From: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: SFisoSM
Yes, guys, you read that currently. However, I am not the SF. I did not leave
John in spite of the fiasco with the Buccaneers. I am actually more patient
than I seem on e-mail
However, "Linda's Mating Service" has a lovely female client for a fine Baha'i
man of excellent character. She is the woman (mid 30s) from Ishqabad to whom I
have referred. She is well educated, multi-lingual, very lovely, very
interesting, and an independent minded sort.
If interested, please send information about yourself directly to me.
Everything is, of course, confidential.
P.S. The Listowner said that, since others were advertizing books on Talisman,
I could advertize this.
To Terry: Chittick and Walbridge are both highly respected academics and, no
you won't find John's book on a drugstore shelf. My own book, which is coming
out next year, is an anthropological study of a Shi'i Lebanese community in the
U.S. While I know all of this community's foibles, I have tried to write both
with objectivity and with affection. I truly believe that one should not be
writing scholarly works to denigrate a people and their culture and ideas and I
find more and more academics agreeing with this. Many Shi'a - including
clerics - know that I have written this book. Yet, they seem to trust me to be
fair. They are still talking to me and answering my annoying questions. If
they trust me, why can't the Baha'i scholars be trusted to write about matters
regarding their own religion?
To Theresa Langness - where have you been? Please continue to post on
Talisman. Linda
From TLCULHANE@aol.comTue Nov 7 11:28:55 1995
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 03:27:46 -0500
From: TLCULHANE@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: re: conversations with . . .
Dear Juan :
I have a couple of technical questions related to the form of Western
scholarship being antithetical to discussing the verities of the Faith.
Perhaps somethings have changed in the world of scholarship in the
intervening 14 years . I have read your Millenialism article in I J M E S,
as you know ; the one where a reviewer called it a sophisticated defense of
Bahaism . It is brilliant ! If a reviewer called it such presumably in a
demeaning way but it was still published would this not indicate an openness
to Western style scholarship and the Faith ? I assume that this article is
similar in theme and tone to your forthcoming book on Baha ullah and
modernity ?
( BTW any one who has not read this article by Juan really ought to . It is a
marvelous piece which makes Bah u llah come alive as an historical figure,
and therefore His importance in human history, in a way I had never seen
before . If you read this article there is no question about whether Juan
Cole "believes" in the verities of the Faith. For all of us who ever
wondered will the real Juan Cole please stand up, we will find that person
in this article . Please read it . It is a gem ! It will deepen anyones sense
of the incredible nature and life of the founder of our Faith .)
The work of William Chittick on Sufism and Islam in general seems to me
written in a style compatible with Western scholarship and yet respectful of
the subject . Is his work considered acceptable in the academic community ?
I ask this about Chittick because he has via Islam helped me a great deal
to appreciate the richness of the writing of Baha u llah . I always thought
of him as an academic. Is that a reasonable asumption ? Assuming he is such
I find he has enriched my sense of devotion .
The book by John Walbridge _ The Science of Mystic Lights _ is this
considered acceptable in the academic community ? I found that it made great
sense of Suhawardi who always mystified me until I had read John's book. As
a result I am able to again appreciate some of the "light " references of
Baha u llah . Again the net affect has been to enrich my sense of mystical
devotion throught he writings of Baha u llah . Is this an unwarranted
asumption ? Is John's book "real " western scholarship ? or is it a step
up from drugstore stuff . I hope not because it challenged me considerably
and that would not say much for my inteligence .
I dont ask this in a rhetorical way . I am trying to understand what is
so inimical about western style scholarship . I mean some of it is pedantic
and boring stuff to read but that is not the same thing as being inimical .
A couple more examples . I personally loved John Dominic Crossans _ The
Historical Jesus_ ( the footnotes drove me crazy :) ) . I have given copies
of his more popularized version _Jesus : A Revolutionary Biography to a
number of friends in the community and without . We had a mini deepening on
it as an approach to religion last spring in our community. We are all in
love with Jesus now too . It changes how we teach a al my approach to
evangelicals mentioned a few weeks ago . Is Crossan considered a
respectable academic ? Perhaps Rob Stockman could respond to this as well as
he knows Crossan . His work truly revolutionized my understanding of Jesus .
I should say his work put me in awe of Jesus as Prophet and by extension all
the Manifestations a la the principle of oneness in the Iqan . Is this
because it is not *true * scholarship ? Maybe I am ignorant of what that
really is ?
Lastly an historian . I wish Bijan was still here because he may know him
. Robert Abzug an historian at Univ. Texas has written some things on
American religious history, most recently , _Cosmos Collapsing_ , that bring
it alive and seem to me a very sympathetic treatment of religious figures or
what he calls "religious virtuoso's " . It seems to me his work argues for
the indispensability if religion in understanding history and argues that
these people need to be understood on their own terms . Is this not
considered good scholarship to do this kind of thing . ? Is Abzug considered
a respectable scholar . ?
( He sure has a lot of footnotes :) )
I am trying to get a handle on this being inimical thing . I dont
understand the issue; maybe I am missing the point. There are a number of
other examples but these suffice to raise my question and this is long
enough already.
warm regards ,
Terry
From jrcole@umich.eduTue Nov 7 19:20:44 1995
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 11:28:42 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole
To: TLCULHANE@aol.com
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: re: conversations with . . .
Terry:
I can only speculate about the reasons for which some powerful Baha'is
believe that the style and approach of Western scholarship are
incompatible with the Baha'i Faith.
I would say first of all that this perception of incompatibility pains
me. I have said before that I am a pluralist. All sorts of discourse
exist in the Baha'i Faith. Baha'is of Hindu background call Baha'u'llah
"Bhagawan Baha" (Lord Baha') and imagine him as a sort of cosmic god,
the tenth Avatar of Vishnu. Baha'is of Iranian background are diverse in
their approaches to the Faith, as anthropologist Michael Fischer has
demonstrated. Fischer also sees many American Baha'is as essentially a
form of conservative Protestantism. I think such polyvocality
(multiplicity of voices and discourses) is inevitable in a world
religion, and, indeed, to be welcomed. Although I have been quite
unjustly accused here on Talisman of promoting a hegemonic, domineering
form of Western male discourse, what I have said time and again is that I
am engaged in a particular language game, a game that I believe has
advantages for humanity, but which I recognize is not and should not be
the only game in town. Let a hundred flowers bloom.
So why should Western Baha'i intellectuals be second-class
citizens on the Crimson Ark, their discourse presumed to be a
priori illegitimate, everything they write monitored, and why
should they be prepped to be the first to be thrown overboard when the
ballast needs lightening?
I think one clue is in the approval with which the form and tone
(not the conclusions) of my article on the Tablet of Wisdom was met.
That article was written as academic theology. I had done a religion
degree as an undergraduate at Northwestern, and had read a great deal of
Tillich, Jaspers, Kung, Niebuhr, etc., all *theologians*. I was trying
my wings, attempting to find a modern academic theological discourse
compatible with the Faith. Academic theology, which is full of
belief-affirmations, appears to be all right.
At the same time, Denis MacEoin at Cambridge was writing Babi
*history* and had put forward Peter Berger's (a conservative Lutheran)
idea of value-free discourse being necessary to scientific and academic
researches. A sociologist studying early Christianity could not come to
any solid conclusions if he or she began by assuming all the miracle
stories of the early saints and martyrs were true, since sociology aimed
at deriving middle-level or large-scale generalizations and so had to
assume that the world was consistent. The academic discourse rooted in
the Enlightenment was suspicious of breathless triumphalism, of open
statements of the author's beliefs, and, quite frankly, of the whole idea
of Revelation. The great Scottish Islamicist, W. Montgomery Watt, noted
that Muslims say "God said" when quoting the Qur'an, while Western
scholars say "Muhammad said." He proposed a compromise, using "the
Qur'an said" and leaving the Authorship of the Qur'an open as a
question. I read MacEoin as having started insisting on the Baha'i
equivalent, "Baha'u'llah said," and of being unwilling to find Watt-type
compromises.
Since disavowing one's faith is such a big crime in the Baha'i
Faith, it seems to me that the threat that Baha'i academics might write
about the Faith in such a way that one could not tell that they were
believing Baha'is alarmed some Baha'is, including the person to whom I spoke.
This is a very complex issue. It is true that one cannot write
academic history in the same style that one writes academic theology. On
the other hand, the Berger/MacEoin argument for "value-free" "scientific"
discourse, while still powerful in sociology and political science, would
not be taken at all seriously by anthropologists or most historians any
longer. Postmodernism has radically interrogated Enlightenment
assumptions of neutrality and universal validity. Feminist anthropology
has opened spaces for the expression of the author's personal views and
feelings.
I don't think any of my colleagues have any doubt whatsoever what
my beliefs are when they read something like my 1992 Centenary (:-) )
article in the International Journal of Middle East Studies. The referee
who complained that the article was "a sophisticated defense of the
Baha'i Faith" was the *journal's* referee, by the way, not a Baha'i one.
The editor published it anyway. But I have no doubt that this article
would be seen as insufficiently cheerleading in tone by many Baha'is. To
make it more cheerleading would have been to make it unpublishable or to
lose my academic audience, which seems undesirable.
Of course, there are many academics who write in a sympathetic
manner about religion. But sympathy seems not to be enough for some
Baha'is. They want triumphalist affirmation. If you want my opinion,
were John Dominic Crossan to learn Arabic and Persian and to write a
biography of Baha'u'llah using the same assumptions and methodologies as
he did in his biography of Jesus, the result would a) never be allowed to
be published or b) if it were published, would result in his being
lynched by the Baha'is.
I fear that I think the wholesale declaration of the illegitimacy
of Western academic scholarship as a way for Baha'is to approach their
own religion is a form of intolerance.
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From Member1700@aol.comTue Nov 7 19:22:19 1995
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 11:52:29 -0500
From: Member1700@aol.com
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Discussing the Covenant
Well, I couldn't agree more with Stephen Friberg's observation that we should
be free to discuss the Covenant--its meaning and its implications--on
Talisman. I was not aware that anyone had suggested that we couldn't. I
have not seen such a suggestion here.
What I have objected to is the attempt to intimidate Talismanians into
silence by suggesting that such silence is demanded by the provisions of the
Covenant. That is hardly the same thing as discussing the Covenant. I have
also suggested to accusations of Covenant-breaking (or near
Covenant-breaking), ad hominem arguments of other kinds, calls to close down
Talisman, and the like, all supported by vague references to the Covenant. I
do not find any of these very helpful to scholarship or to anything else.
It is my view that an understanding of the Covenant would preclude all
such unpleasantness. Since one of the central provisions of the Covenant is
that no one individual has the right to speak with authority or impose his
understanding of the teachings on anyone else, that should (theoretically)
free the discourse to having anything and everything said. There would be no
problem with even the most shocking ideas, because everyone would recognize
implicitly that they were only the individual understanding of the speaker
and have no other authority. No need for cries of outrage, no need to defend
the Faith, no need to protect the Covenant. Just an opinion.
It seems to me that some of my fellow Talismanians hold the opposite
opinion. That is, that the provisions of the Covenant preclude the
expression of individual opinion. Especially if it is conflict with current
Baha'i policy. Everyone, it seems, is just supposed to repeat the party
line--on review, the Arc, the encyclopedia, Baha'i elections . . .
whatever. Anyone who dissents is under suspicion. I find that a grotesque
misuse (maybe I should say, misunderstanding) of the concept of the Covenant,
which is intended to provide a framework for unity in diversity--not impose a
dull uniformity on all people.
Tony
From margreet@margreet.seanet.comTue Nov 7 19:23:49 1995
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 09:06:45 -0800
From: "Marguerite K. Gipson"
To: Alethinos@aol.com, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Gotta Wonder
At 11:52 PM 11/6/95 -0500, Alethinos@aol.com wrote:
>
>I have to wonder. Do any on this list see a resemblance of this list to t.v.
>talk shows? This list has an amazing ability to go around in a wonderful
>viscious circle. Blame, counter-blame, anger, righteous indignation,
>finger-pointing then the apologies, facile quite often.
>
>It is similar to to pscho-babble craze of the past decade - this list is
>composed of so many *victims* it is amazing. Everyone has an axe to grind.
>What is the goal of this list? Does it actually have one?
>
>So many on this list point fingers at others. The NSA is the *problem*, etc.
>Please, spare me the wafer-thin backpeddling of denial. Of course the NSA has
>been a source of problems and setbacks. But then so has every damn one of us
>on this list! It isn't the NSA it is the people serving it. It is all of us
>who are American. The Faith is not in need of reform, we who by our very
>self-referencing title *American-Baha'is* (as opposed to Baha'is who live in
>America) are virtually indistinguishable from our next-door neighbor - we are
>the ones in desperate need of reform.
Ok... no the real problem is not the PEOPLE on the NSA.... you elected
delegates to the National Convention last year to elect for you people to be
elected on the NSA.... What the real problem here is a there is no staff to
support what needs to be done... Only 3 people are the staff at National
Center Office. Do you realise it takes money to run effectively. If
America can give up her attachment to the material we could have a full,
fledge efficient running *business* to proper handle all that is
necessary... But we don't.... I have gone from rags to riches and back to
rags again.... and I can see how the Bahai's waste their money, and not
even come close to a sacriface for the Faith.
That is the test we are having. The folks on the National level are doing
their best under the circumstances, and then if that is not good enough
then, send in more money to help... or join the Morman Church.
>The Faith is at a standstill because there is a strong core of people in this
>Faith who want to make sure it goes no-where. Those that are quite
>comfortable with their little race unity picnics and week-end Baha'i schools.
>What is laughable is the rest of the *core* can only stand around and grip
>and complain, whine and sneer because their agendas and not being met.
>Neither group has any concern to see things really change.
Gee, which community are you from? I do not see that at all.
What would happen if National Budget was met every year??? What would happen
if they had *all the money they needed to get the work done* to hire more
staff* ??? There are over 100,000 Bahai's here in the US... only about 10%
give to the fund? opps, Did I say a nasty word??? We do not train our new
Believers about the fund, and Think about that the next time you waste
money. Most of us live *way* beyond our means... and we live too good...
I know I am the first to admit that I am guilty of that, and I have learned
my lesson for what I am encountering now. I just hope I have the
opportunity soon to start fresh, and rethink my financial *arena*.
>Do we want reform - real reform? No I don't think we do. What would real
>reform be? A faith more accomidating to our narrowed agenda? A Faith that
>looks like some worked-over patched-together-in-haste political platform of
>the democratic party? Some heated-up left-overs of a worn-out
>liberal-democratic ideological hash?
If you want to see real reform... Paradigm Shift.... Think about what
would happen if you sent in more funds???? IF we had 100,000 of the friends
send in just one measly dollar every Bahai month???? Wow.. only 19 measly
bucks a year per Bahai
I bet National would be real happy.
>Why has the Faith failed so miserably in this country? Is it because we are
>essentially, the bulk of us, at any rate, cowards, afraid of _real_ change -
>a kind of change that would be revolutionary, that would likely see us
>branded as traitors, radicals, religious fantatics? The kind of _reform_ that
>would see us losing our jobs, our homes, our very comfortable life-styles?
Done that, been there---still here! I have shelter, food, internet.. Hey
this is America Right! No matter what, Baha'u'llah will provide for your
needs. Trust me... I know.
Not your wants. Just your needs.
>We sit here, whining and complaining and we have a country that is in
>horrible spiritual pain and we _as a community_ do nothing? Why? Please,
>don't anyone get on their high-horse and talk about all the great sacrafices
>that _you_ have made. I am not talking to _you_ anyway - I am talking about
>_US_. It is quite easy to serve at a homeless shelter, hand out food to the
>homeless, go to anti-racism marches and _feel_ like we have _really_ done
>something.
The Faith has failed in this country because we have not sacrificed enough
of our money.
When the National Budget has been met.... and we start to sacrifice where we
can, and folks we can do lots more of it, we really will feel like we have
done something....
>Those in power love that - because it keeps your attention diverted. This
>attitude exists in America in general and the Faith as well. What do you
>think the Guardian meant by this:
>
>of vindicating the ideals and principles which animate their defenders, and
>of ensuring the ultimate victory and ascendency of the Faith itself over the
>NEFRARIOUS elements seeking to undermine it from WITHIN, and its powerful
>detractors aiming at its
>extinction from without.
>(Citadel of Faith, page 154)
>
>If we REALLY want to see change, why don't we stop this useless complaining,
>put the past behind us, stop playing the roles of victim and come together
>and create a unity of thought about what is needed to truly achieve the
>Guardian's vision for America? Why don't we stop trying to change something
>from within when odd as it may seem it can only be changed from without?
>
>If we really want to see change why don't we become truly the descendents of
>the dawnbreakers - real spiritual warriors who will take the radical message
>of the Cause to the streets of America. Why don't we sweep aside all this
>namby-pamby crap we see in our communities (if we dare to give them such a
>dignified title) and get _real_.
YAH!
>This Faith is in need of becoming, in America what the Guardian called for,
>nearly 70 years ago.
>
>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)
>
>IF you wonder why we are still invisible read the last sentence again.
I do not think Baha'u'llah is going to allow us to remain unrecognized and
completely obscured...
>jim harrison
>
>Alethinos@aol.com
Warm still,
Margreet
From PayamA@aol.comTue Nov 7 19:25:33 1995
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 12:45:20 -0500
From: PayamA@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Cc: margreet@margreet.seanet.com
Subject: Re: Gotta Wonder
To: Talisman
Subject: Re: Two-Step Elections
Dear Sen and Friends,
First, Sen, thanks for your kind words and keen comments regarding the idea of a
two-step balloting process for NSAs. I understand your concerns about vision
statements, and your idea of taking incremental steps and judging the effects
before going further sounds good to me. I think the suggestion of vision
statements and bios being published only makes sense with the development of a
free press within the Baha'i community. That is the *direction* I would like to
see things move but realize that we cannot snap our fingers and make it so, or
as the mystics say, "Say, Be! and it shall be." In the meantime I think your
plan of having the delegates do the two-step vote nearer the end of convention
is a good place to start. Rob's quoting of the Guardian's preference for voting
in the middle of convention should be studied carefully to see if there is any
compelling reason based on his writings against moving the election to a later
part of the convention. Naturally I see the two-step election as part of a
series of overhauls of national convention that would call for other substantial
changes in the way things are run. I see such changes as part of the organic
evolution of the administration and do not see SHoghi Effendi's comments on
things like election timing as being eternal verities of the system. If a
two-step election is eventually seen to have merit and is adopted, it seems that
Shoghi Effendi's scheduling preferences become difficult to maintain.I have
always like the wording in the Preface of PRINCIPLES OF BAHA'I ADMNISTRATION
which reads: "The attempt has been made to keep the compilation as free as
possible from restrictive and perhaps temporary regulations because in an
evolving organism like the present Baha'i community, the processes of its
procedure must also be kept fluid. The contents of the bok are therefore of an
impermanent nature and will require to be superseded at some future date by its
successor designed to meet more closely the needs of a greatly expanded
community."
I am going to offer the two-step voting scheme to my national convention
delegate and would encourage other Talismanians around the world to do likewise.
Maybe this idea has some merit. It is at least worthy enough to run up the
consultative process within our communties and with our delegates and NSAs.
Steve Scholl
From osborndo@pilot.msu.eduTue Nov 7 19:27:31 1995
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 13:29:21 -0500 (EST)
From: Donald Zhang Osborn
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: "Words as mild as milk"
"... an enlightened man of wisdom should primarily speak with words as
mild as milk, ..." Lawh-i-Maqsud (Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 173)
In the same tablet in which Baha'u'llah proclaims that "Man is the
supreme Talisman" (Lawh-i-Maqsud), He also gives a number of counsels on
the potency of words and the appropriate use of language. The tone of
many of the recent exchanges in the Talisman list (as well as my own
realization that my own hasty use of words often creates a different
effect than I intended) has led me to reread and reflect upon the
contents of this tablet. Of all that I have gotten from participation
in the Talisman list (and I've learned a lot from it), this is by far
the most important.
Certainly not every message posted on this list exceeds the bounds
of moderation, and there have been some very encouraging exchanges.
Also it is clear that a few messages reflect obvious pain, and that in
some instances hard questions must be asked. Yet a list of Baha'i
scholars would ideally aspire to the highest standards of utterance as
set forth in the Baha'i teachings. Otherwise, what are we doing this
for?
Don Osborn osborndo@pilot.msu.edu
Dept. of Resource Development (Ph.D. student)
Michigan State University
From dann.may@s-box.misc.uoknor.eduTue Nov 7 19:28:05 1995
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 95 10:28:58 -0600 (CST)
From: dann.may@s-box.misc.uoknor.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: KI PP. 7-9
Regarding the age of Noah:
Some time ago I wrote the following in the margin of my Iqan:
The Guardian advises, that the period of 950 years referred to in the Iqan,
as the time Noah exhorted the people -- refers to the period of His
Ministry. The term year does not refer to a period of time such as our year
-- it was entirely different; and thus does not extend over any such period
as our present term year would imply. (from a letter on behalf of the
Guardian to an individual, dated 3/3/57) I have a note after this, written
in pencil, which simply reads "Faizi." Not having a copy of the Gloria
Faizi book, I was unable to verify if this was quoted there.
But in _Lights of Guidance_ we read:
"The years of Noah are not years as we count them, and as our
teachings do not state that this reference to year means His
dispensation we cannot interpret it this way." "We have no way
substantiating the stories of the Old Testament other than
references to them in our teachings, so we cannot say exactly what
happened at the battle of Jericho." (From a letter written on
behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer, November 25,
1950, in LOG #1659)
Anyone care to comment? I am sorry that I do not have the full reference to
the first quotation.
Biblical parallels for quranic quotations, KIQ 7-9
A. Page 8, footnote 1:
Lord! Leave not upon the land a single dweller from among the unbelievers.
Quran 71:26
So the LORD said, "I will blot out from the earth the human beings I have
created--people together with animals and creeping things and birds of the
air, for I am sorry that I have made them. (Genesis 6:7, RSV)
B. Page 9, footnote 2:
And their unbelief shall only increase for the unbelievers their own
perdition. (Quran 35:39)
...for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks
to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds
were darkened.... And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God
gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done. (St.
Paul, Romans, 1:21, 28, RSV)
Warmest greetings, Dann May, Philosophy, OK City Univ.
---
* WR 1.32 # 669 * Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end. Spock
From straz@itsa.ucsf.EDUTue Nov 7 19:30:09 1995
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 10:56:08 -0800 (PST)
From: John or Katherine Straznickas
To: Talisman
Subject: Group Process
Dear Talisfolk:
As a group psychotherapist, I have several ideas about what the
process of Talisman has been reflecting over the past few weeks. My
assessment is that the dynamics of this forum is not all that different
from that of almost every organization. Perhaps the intellectual and
spiritual stakes are higher here, and perhaps they are not.
One or two of you may have been part of my workshop at the recent
ABS conference outside of San Francisco. I will be repeating myself
here. I will also be repeating much of what other psychologists have
learned; these ideas are not original to me. (I would be delighted to
post references).
Essentially, four types of leaders emerge in virtually every type
of group situation. These are the Task Leader, the Emotional Leader, the
Divergent or Scapegoat Leader, and the Avoidant Leader. There is no
inherent value of one type over another. Every type is required, and
each brings an important set of skills to the collective.
To be very brief, the task leader keeps the agentic focus. This
person reminds folks of what they are there to do, what the goals are,
what is coming up on the agenda next.
The emotional leader maintains a focus on how people feel. This
person reaches out to smooth things over, to remind folks what they have
in common, to replace rage with social joy.
The divergent or scapegoat leader speaks the unspoken. This
person drags the dark fact out into the light, and it is often a smelly
ugly fact that most folks would rather ignore. This person is full of
creative ideas and sparks. Fires get set, but sometimes that fire makes
pogress is possible.
The avoidant leader has a quiet presence. This person makes only
the rare contribution, and values independence from the group while
maintaining membership in it. This is the person who models autonomy
within the context of connection.
I hope that as you read this you will consider which type of
leader you are and when. A person may be a task leader at work, an
emotional leader at home, and an avoidant leader in the Baha'i
community. I imagine that as you read this, certain Talisfolk have leapt
to your mind for each type.
As with any simple model, the risk and beauty is its simplicity.
I do not propose to think of any of you as only one type of leader or
another. However, I believe that some of the conflict that has fueled
recent postings can be understood as resulting from these competing
styles.
I trust that Talisman will sort itself out. The task will
continue to be clarified, emotions will be ruffled and smoothed,
divergent opinions will be discussed and argued at length, and those of
us that tend to be silent (a leadership type very new to me, I might
add), will once and a while get around to adding something to the stew.
With great affection,
Katherine
From 100725.315@compuserve.comTue Nov 7 19:30:51 1995
Date: 07 Nov 95 14:13:34 EST
From: Janine van Rooij <100725.315@compuserve.com>
To: talisman
Subject: the purpose of life (and email lists?)
I cannot say I followed the discussion of late closely, but close enough to feel
that I am able to say something of it. Probably this is redundant, yet I feel
very tempted to let my voice be heard as well, and I cannot resist to give in to
this temptation :-)
I have a tendency to feel that the internet and its facilities are here to test
humanity, and hence to let it grow. What do we see here, especially on Talisman?
A diversity of views. Sometimes wise things are said, sometimes we (or one of us
rather) is saying or doing something totally stupid. Sometimes people clash.
Sometimes people hug.
It becomes apparent (in fact I stumble over it everywhere I look!) that none of
us has THE truth. And what a shock that can be! And how terrible it is to see
that people who have signed a declaration card and profess their belief in
Baha'u'llah still can differ totally in their view from us! How tempting it is
then to call names, stick labels. ("conservative, liberal, materialistic,
mystical, intellectual, unrealistic, sticking our necks in the sand and hoping
for a miracle", etc.).
We are discovering, the whole of humanity, and Bahais as well, that we all
differ in views and attitudes. And that there is no such thing as THE truth.
Please people, lighten up. No email list is here to make decisions, to reach a
consensus. This list is to give views, based on non-abusive arguments. Everybody
gives his opinion here, based on research, thinking, deducting and the knowledge
of the world as we have aquired it.
This list is also proof of how emotional people get when matters of faith and
principles are discussed. That is the same reason why people get so emotional
when politics are discussed or sports. I think one of the things we as humanity
have to learn is that we all see aspects of this big and multifaceted diamond:
truth. And that none of us can claim to have the whole truth. And that therefore
we have to bear in mind that things can be totally different than how we see it.
We have to learn to become more detached from our views and ideas. They are just
that: ideas, views.
We are still too literalistic, too much inclined to judge each other. Too much
inclined to think in black or white. We do not need to judge. We can say: this
is not my opinion, or, I would not do this because of this or this reason. We
need not to condemn each other or the institutions. There is a middle way
between being obedient and uncritical We can be obedient, we can forgive what
we percieve as a wrong done to us, without saying: okay, they were right and I
was wrong. The institutions are ALWAYS right. There are nuances.
We can even forget the pain done to us by institutions and other people. We can
do that if we remember strongly that the main purpose of life is growth, and
that everything and everybody is interconnected. If I acquire more spiritual
insight, my whole environment will become more spiritual. I will associate with
different people. We all have an impact on each other, we all are part also of
the process of each other. Sometimes you function as a means by which the other
party (person or institution) can find out that what they have done is wrong.
Sometimes you are the cause of tests to another person. Sometimes you are a
source of enlightenment to others. None of us is more important than another, a
fact we all tend to forget, when we ask: why me? I do not deserve this! Things
happen in this world. Growth must occur and sometimes life will put you, yes,
you personally, in a position in which you will suffer injustice. Because
injustice is part of this life, I feel. Sometimes life will be just to you as
well.
If nobody would die in a war, we would not realize how bad war is.
Yet as nothing is totally good or bad in this world, even when you are right and
have been wronged, the situation will profit you in your growth, however, only
if ou choose so. It can also work against you, if you choose so.
Sometimes I wonder why Bahais are so severely tested. Most of the Bahais I meet
are having much more problems than the non-Bahais I meet. I think that it has
partly to do with their personal character make up, but that is not the only
reason. The main purpose of this life is to grow and acquire virtues. God test
the ones he loves most. I think that is the reason why.
This is not to be proud of, because why should you? I think, by becoming Bahai
you have sent out a message to the universe saying: I want to learn. I want to
grow. I want to contribute to the spiritualisation of humanity. And then tests
will come, from inside and outside. Cause and effect. We are given the choice.
When we choose for growth, the universe will answer.
At the same time you will test others, be victim and cause at the same time.
Building a new society based on spiritual insight is a terrible task in this
terribly materialistic society. It is a task which requires all of us. And very
often we have to dig deep to find the resources.
Email enables us to get into touch, to share ideas, to be corrected, attacked,
loved, encouraged. All these things bring us back to ourselves and our views. If
I say something and everybody or the mass is against it, am I right in adhering
to this view? Am I overlooking something? Why do I say this? Why do I even write
on this list? Is it truly to serve or is something else involved? What then?
Ego? Wish for love and support? Are they right in accusing me? Am I right in
thinking that they are unrealistic and expecting miracles too much? Am I right
in labelling this person as boring, intellectual, materialistic, mystical,
humoristic, saintly, conservative, devoid of insight and true understanding?
Look at what he wrote yesterday. I see another aspect of himself there! .
Like it or not, the world is heading for a time where we have to live together
and interact on a scale never experienced before. We are heading for a full
expression of every individual in such a manner that society will not fall into
chaos. We are heading for a time in which the diverse attitudes and philosophies
will be united. We are heading for a time in which unity in diversity will be
the norm. We are heading for a time in which the uniqueness of everybody will
become apparent. The sooner we learn that things are not one-faceted, but
multi-faceted, that we are not here to judge each other or hit each other over
the head in order to slam the truth into somebody, but that we are only
responsible for our own actions and ourselves, the more harmonious this process
will go. None of us does fully realize what maturity for a human being means. We
even do not know ourselves, our true station!!! No wonder we still make
mistakes, judge each other, become heated, post foolish things like hearsay,
heated up emotions, letting ourselves carried away by emotions.
Dear people, all we are dealing with here are ideas. Life is first and foremost
a process and so is the development of the Bahai world order. This list,
internet in general, helps greatly in this process.
Thanks Sen, for your words on where to and what for with regard to talisman.
Yes, let us express, learn, ponder, and get inspired, and go back to our
communities and personal lives to implement what we have learned from this list
and others.
We are all only people.... let's have some consideration and love for each
other!
We are all doing our bests, yes, even those on the institutions (wink).
loving greetings,
From barazanf@dg-rtp.dg.comTue Nov 7 19:31:10 1995
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 14:16:19 -0500 (EST)
From: Farzin Barazandeh
To: Talisman
Subject: ecology of talisman
Rob Stockman wrote:
> What is the point of saying this? First of all, you have no idea what the
> Centre for the Study of the Sacred Texts is going to do. It hasn't been
> established yet. So why are you assuming it will do lousy work? Has the
> Universal House of Justice (responsible for setting up the Centre) no taste
> or intelligence? This seems implied. What's the point of such an insulting
> comment?
God has created the wildlife and its tigers and lions. And also the domestic
life with its sheep and cows. Thanks God, there are many sheep and cows around.
I hope we do not deprive ourselves of very little wildlife we have around,
please do not domesticate our lions and tigers. In the ecology of life they are
badly needed and beside they are just beautiful and very alive. And if we just
listen deep enough and not freak out, we might even hear the praise of lord
in their loud rumble and roar.
Farzin
From cfarhoum@osf1.gmu.eduTue Nov 7 19:32:26 1995
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 14:35:28 -0500 (EST)
From: Cheshmak A Farhoumand
To: ICAR@gmu.edu
Cc: Bahai-Discuss@bcca.org, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Middle East Peace Process
Dear Friends, Greetings, there has been a lot of talk the past few days on
talisman/discuss about the assassination of PM Rabin and i have wanted to
reply but did not have time, so here it is.
i too was very shocked and saddened by the untimely and tragic death of
PM Rabin. Many people, especially those of us studying international
relations or conflict resolution have been echoing what the media has
been asking these past days about the future of the mid east peace
process.
This is how i feel about it. Every cause worth fighting for, every
attempt to change the way things are, every paradigm shift is met with
both support and opposition. Moreover, there is always great division and
disunity among people both supporting and opposing as to how things
should be. In the case of the mid east peace talks, this was clear in
the great range of views among both Arab and Israeli. Extremism existed
on both sides, but i think many wanted to pretend that the Jewish
extremism did not exist or at least was not dangerous. Israelis among
themselves were very divided. To share this land with the 'enemy other',
what are the implications of this. What will it all mean? Will we be
secure? How can we trust them?
Remember that there is a long history there. The Israelis remember
taking over the land and literally kicking Arab out of their homes and
into refugee camps so that they could live in the 'promised land'.
Perhaps they even feel this was wrong but that was the will of God. THey
fear the response of Palestinians given power and autonomy. Legitimate
concerns which need to be dealt with if the process is to be lasting and
lead to positive peace.
Anyway, so there was this denial of Jewish fundamentalism and its
dangers, and there was this division among the Jews themselves over the
peace process. Every cause seems to take a different direction, to bring
people together and propel them to cooperation when the cause has a
martyr. A person who is in a position of leadership and authority who
believes in a cause and pushes it forward. Look at the civil rights
movement and Martin Luther King. No matter what colour you were or where
you stood politically and in relation to race relations, the death of this
great leader moved you to sympathy and compassion, and maybe even a
change of heart. Same thing with Gandhi. In fact, it even seems that
support in Quebec for separation increased after Mr. Bouchard nearly died
and lost a leg to the flesh eating disease.
Mr. Rabin was a man of war, let us not forget that as he said in his last
speech, for 27 years he fought a war against the enemy who has now become
a friend, a partner in peace. THis is the kind of transformation that
leads to peace. THe transformation of the individual will inevitably
lead to the transformation of the confict.
I think when people heard about the assasination, every one's first
reaction was that this was Arab doing in retaliation for the death of the
leader of the Islamic Brotherhood the previous week. Sad to say but i
think everyone breathed a sigh of relief when it turned out to be a
Jewish assassin. If it had been an Arab, i think there would have been
real cause for concern for the Mid east peace process, but the dynamics
changed as soon as it was evident that it was not the 'enemy other' but
the 'enemy within' who had undertaken this horrible act.
Mr. Rabin was a martyr, and i do not think he died in vain. His death
has made him a hero of the peace process. Israelis can no longer ignore
the fact that there are extremists among them. THey now see the dangers
of extremism, and no matter where they stood on the political sphere i
think they are both shocked and horrified that someone among them and not
the 'enemy other' did this. I think with this horrible death, the eyes
of all people in the mid east opened up to the fact that peace MUST be
created. THere are no other options, and i think this death will create
in all parties a deeper commitment to work together to bring about a
lasting peace.
For the first time, people in the mid east have been brought together in
sharing a common feeling. GRIEF. THis will be a point of commonality
that will help them to work together so that noone else will have to die
for the cause of peace in the mid east. Arafat, King Hussein, Peres,
Assad, Mubarak etc. no matter what the past was are united with their
people in feeling the loss of a great person who was willing to overcome
the past and move forward to the future.
Yes, there are factions of people who are unfortunately celebrating the
death of Rabin. But unlike what would have been the case 10 years ago,
they are the exception and not the rule. i truly hope that the people in
the mid east use this opportunity to mourn together for the loss of a
great person, and do not allow him to have died in vain, but rather take
his vision and make it a reality.
Regards,
Cheshmak Farhoumand
Masters Student
Conflict Analysis and Resolution
George Mason University
"It is incumbent upon every person of insight and understanding to strive
to translate that which hath been written into reality and action"
Gleanings cxviii
From 73074.1221@compuserve.comTue Nov 7 19:35:10 1995
Date: 07 Nov 95 15:13:35 EST
From: "Mary K. Radpour" <73074.1221@compuserve.com>
To: "INTERNET:LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu"
Cc: Talisman
Subject: on creativity vs. predictability
Dear Talismanians,
First Tony wrote:
Tone in language is important because it is what we pick up first, but it
shouldn't be used as an excuse to avoid any particular issue.Tone in language is
a thing of culture and if we only listen for tone, then we'll only listen to the
tones that homogenize with our own or own our ideals.
and then Linda wrote:
I don't think that Tony is advocating vituperative speech. He made a good
point. We all have different styles of
speaking and writing. Most Middle Easterners would think that the American
letter-writing style is a abrupt and ill-mannered. We don't start off with
sentence after sentence of polite formalities, for example. Most Americans
would see M.E. letter-writing style as appearing unctuous. Within cultures
there is tremendous variation (as we can see on Talisman). This obsession with
"tone" can really be a problem in allowing for expression of ideas. Linda
As a person more fascinated with process than with content, I would like
to question the original premise, that there is no way to converse without
having our tone or style challenged. I am in the business of trying to get
people to communicate effectively, and when I am working with couples, for
instance, who are highly reactive to one another's speech, the first order of
business is to get them to agree to a set of common principles with regard to
speech. What one couple decides is remarkable in its uniqueness, for for some
people a high degree of controversy feels quite comfortable. (As Joan points
out, the mail-bonding thing on Talisman seems to require a lot of what to most
women would be seen as chest-beating.) Is there a reason why this constant back
and forth on Talisman regarding challenges about tone could not be replaced with
a more constructive discussion of what cooperative speech might be in this
forum? I would be glad to go back to my own files to select out some examples
of provocative and thoughtful considerations, some couched with stately
scholarship and some with a sly wit, which in my mind certainly strike a
standard to achieve. In fact, if I have enough postings, I could probably find
some examples from every Talisman contributor on his/her best days....
Is unity the primary purpose of the Revelation of Baha'u'llah? If so, it
would suggest that there are some standards of speech which lead to unity and
some which do not, with polarization of positions a reflection of the latter.
Would it be heretical to suggest here that there are some ways of conversing
which are functional as regards this purpose and some which are dysfunctional?
In lurking in this forum for several months, I have watched some fairly
effective limit-setting going on..... accusations of disloyalty seem to approach
the limits too closely, as do remarks about the Supreme Institutions being
"silly." Likewise, intent seems to have been scrutinized fairly closely.... It
is fairly obvious that when one has been personally injured, a fair degree of
reactivity is understandable with regard to sensitive issues. If I have been
understanding the dialogue here, there seems to be some agreement here that one
has a right to feel reactive, if one has been hurt, but not to deceive oneself
and others that one's own reactive comments are in fact reasoned, measured, and
unbiased. An acknowledgement of one's own reactivity seems to be the first
consideration in trying to entering into any search after truth.....Or, as
Baha'u'llah seems to indicate, the power and influence of utterance is dependent
upon moderation, purity of intent, and reliance upon the Divine Word. I find
myself particularly intrigued by purity of intent, which seems to me often
obstructed by a painful emotional history and an experience of either oppression
or justice unmeliorated by empathy.
About a month ago, I submitted a piece to Talisman with regard to systems
theory which seemed to me to have some relevance to the conversations here, but
apparently not to anyone else, as it was received with deafening silence. If I
were sufficiently humble, I would probably take that as a sign to hush up, but I
fail in that department. So, I would ask a couple of questions inspired by
systems thinking. If Juan and David and Tony and Linda and others were to
reverse their tendencies and to begin to argue here for value of unity of
thought among Baha'is and a greater loyalty to the institutions, while Robert
and David and Derek were to begin to push for a freer exchange of ideas, the
rejection of the thought-control mindset of the community, and the value of the
spark of truth, what would happen to Talisman? Would it become so boring that
no one would wish to participate? so balanced that it was an affront to those
who like a little confrontation in their day? Or would it become instead an
exciting thoroughfare for the exploration of the Baha'i writings and their
application to our strange and convoluted world? If the answer is the former
dreadfully dull conclusion, then it is clear that there is little motivation
here for resolution of polarities.....
As someone who has participated in dialogues among the Board members who
put forth fierce differences of opinions which are exciting, creative,
life-transforming, profoundly meaningful and positively unpredictable in their
outcome, I stand bewildered by the repetitive predictability of discussions here
by bright minds and sincere inquirers.
just musing, Mary K
From 100735.2257@compuserve.comTue Nov 7 19:35:54 1995
Date: 07 Nov 95 15:40:11 EST
From: "H-C. deFlerier deCourcel" <100735.2257@compuserve.com>
To: "INTERNET:JWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu"
,
Talisman
Subject: Observations
Cher Monsieur Walbridge,
Thank you very much for sharing your views on the matter.
> 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.
I am among of the unfortunate ones that have not see the
contract. However, I am feel relieved to learn that you received a fair
treatment. Meanwhile, please do tell us: Were the principals
contractually bound to pay the other contributors you state above as not
having been remunerated? Or were they mere enthusiastic volunteers?
> 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.
So... there WAS a an infringement of the conctractual rights of
some, if not all, authors?
> Moreover, part of the implied contract was that the work would
> be published. On this I will appeal to the artists on the list:
I make my living from activities other than being an artist. But
deep inside, I AM an artist. A suppressed one. However.....
> 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?
My answer to this depends upon the stipulations laid down in the
contract. If the contract makes it binding on the principals to publish
your works, you did not receive fair treatment. However, if no such
conditions were agreed to, the principals (in your case, the Baha'i
Institutions) are not obliged to publish your works.
Then would you please clarify as to who owns the copyrights
according to the contractual agreement. In the netaphor of "the artists
and the murals," which your above most eloquent statement, if the artist
is the owner of the copy rights, with the rights of reproduction, the
NSA would be in grave transgression of the laws in defacing or
destroying the rightful property of the artist. But in the case that you
present, the matter that does not seem to be the question.
If I have understood well, the works are preserved intact
somewhere and it is upto the copyright owners as to its future fate.
Annecy (France) Avec beacoup d'amite,
701-Nov-95 Henri-Charles de Flerier
From JWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduTue Nov 7 19:37:15 1995
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 95 15:47:09 EWT
From: JWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: "New scholarly paradigms"
The trouble I have with "a new Baha'i scholarly paradigm" is that I
don't know what it would be. I don't think it ought to be (i) the Persian
Baha'i scholarly tradition, which is basically Shiite scholarship dealing
with the Baha'i Faith and which is obviously improved by contact with
Western academic methods. Consider the difference between Balyuzi's
and Taherzadeh's books, the first having some Western academic influence
and the second none. The other active alternatives are (ii) sophisticated
versions of Rob's "fireside culture" (Hatcher and Martin, say) and
(iii) European Protestant theology style (Schaefer). (ii) works all right
for what Rob has referred to as "applied Bahaism"--i.e., attempts to
produce Baha'i agriculture group, development theory, family counseling
and the like--but it runs into problems with
literalist and non-contextual interpretations of Baha'i texts, the kinds
of things we frequently argue about on Talisman. (iii) is philosophically
very sophisticated, but to me it seems to draw its premises and methods
from a context alien to the origins of Baha'i thought. Moreover,
neither (ii) nor (iii) seem to me to be suitable for investigating issues
of history and intellectual history. And I do not see any more promising
methodologies, especially for investigating historical questions, on the
Baha'i scene.
The basic point of the Western academic method is that it tries to make
its arguments in ways that are accessible and potentially equally
convincing to all interested readers. If I write about Islamic philosophy,
ideally your answer to the issue of whether my interpretation is right or
wrong should not depend on your religious views. Obviously, such a
method is not suitable for all purposes: Baha'i teaching literature, for
example. On the other hand, it seems to me to have a lot of merit for
most scholarly purposes. First, it is accessible to non-believers, which is,
I think, important for academic works. Second, it brings fairly few
presuppositions to the argument and can be made to examine these.
I have not been impressed by the quality of the Baha'i (or Christian or
Muslim) historical scholarship that uses theological presuppositions.
Amanat's book on the Bab is far more interesting to me than William Sears'
biogrpahy because it is open to more kinds of information and evidence.
john walbridge
From M.C.Day@massey.ac.nzTue Nov 7 19:37:26 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 09:53:57 GMT=1200
From: Mary Day
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: (Fwd) on creativity vs. predictability
Dear Mary,
I am very interested in what you have to say about process and
cooperative discourse on Talisman. I would like you to post the
things you suggested. I was also very interested in what
you wrote about systems theory. I thought it was a particularly clear
and lucid explanation and found it helpful in thinking about many
different forms of relationships I have. I cannot make any guarantees
about when and how I can respond, I am sorry, because time is a
big problem for me in responding to things on Talisman.
Please go ahead and begin the discussion.
love
Mary
From JWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduTue Nov 7 19:38:53 1995
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 95 17:44:16 EWT
From: JWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: tone
My concern with tone is the following: I honestly believe that I see a
trend in Baha'i institutions, most alarmingly the House of Justice, of
criticizing the tone of interlocutors at the expense of responding to issues.
When I came in on the Faith, Baha'i institutions, particularly the House
of Justice, could be counted on to respond lovingly to any sort of
comment or criticism. I have in the last few years seen a number of
cases where someone has offered criticism or comment in good faith, and
has had his or her good faith attacked by the institution in reply.
I find this deeply troubling because it seems to me such behavior
undermines the legitimacy of the institutions and the loyalty of those
at the receiving end of such letters.
john walbridge
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzTue Nov 7 19:39:49 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 12:13:31 +1300 (NZDT)
From: Robert Johnston
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Farzin/Tony/Mary K./Katherine/de Flerier/Alison
Ffolks, and especially Farzin, Tony, Mary K., Katherine, de Flerier, Alison...
Uncharacteristically, I have responded to SEVERAL letters below.
(1) Farzin, the gent of gentle and penetrating wit, wrote, "if we just
listen deep enough and not freak out, we might even hear the praise of lord
in their loud rumble and roar." No comment needed.
I support Farzin's view that "amending the NSA by-laws is somewhat
premature, without any real discussion on the "Individual Rights and
Freedom" statement by the Universal House of Justice. " It would seem both
wise and commonsensical to refer first of all to the relevant document[s]
produced by the Supreme Body.
(2) I can't help but think that Tony has somehow got it quite wrong when
he states that there have been "attempt[s] to intimidate Talismanians into
silence by suggesting that such silence is demanded by the provisions of
the Covenant." In a Baha'i discursive context it is simply not polite to
question the wisdom and sanity of the Universal House. It is bound to
invoke the same kind of outrage that he too would express if someone went
into his living room and started spray painting graffiti on the walls. But
more than that, loyalty to the House is a central Covenant matter. Baha'is
are encouraged to be aware of attempts (conscious or otherwise, I suppose)
to weaken allegiance to the Covenant.
Beyond this, there is a major paradox in Tony's position. He argues for no
restrictions on discourse and yet expresses outrage at having his
assumptions challenged. I think this conflictual paradox inevitably exists
in an "anything goes" situation.
(3) Mary Radpour shared her wisdom, reminding us that "Baha'u'llah seems
to indicate, the power and influence of utterance is dependent upon
moderation, purity of intent, and reliance upon the Divine Word." From my
perspective the recent even of major conflict arose when correspondents
questioned the wisdom of the House (etc). I think this event was a
catalyst for growth, but it seems to me that we have not come very far if
we exhaust ourselves on such elementary matters. I have a fantasy wish
there were a list for Baha'i scholars where making such statements were not
permitted. I feel certain that we have very much to learn about
leadership. Abdication of rule always leads to conflict. Even scholars
require genuine leadership. Perhaps Katherine could tell us more about
leadership.
(Like Mary Day, I too would be interested to read more of Mary K's systems
theory material.)
(4) My friend de Flerier has returned with some penetrating questions for
John. (I can almost hear John thinking that strict legalism is
inappropriate in a Baha'i context...!)
(5) Alison wrote of her experiences with an assembly. I was a part of
that experience also and howled like a wolf, roared like a lion, shrieked
like a hawk, grimaced like a gorilla.
But that was then...
It was a lesson in not turning my eyes for too long towards that which
offends me...
Robert.
From PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.eduTue Nov 7 19:40:05 1995
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 15:20:17 PST8PDT
From: Not A Burl Joke
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Resend: Bio/Introduction (DOG FOOD - HUMOR?)
> From: Rick Schaut
> To: "Talisman "
> Subject: Resend: Bio/Introduction
> Date sent: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 14:08:50 -0800
...snip
> (which is presently in Beta). I'm beginning to hate
> the taste of dog food.
>
> Rick
Hi,
Just wanted to point out that "Beta" is also the name of a
brand of carrot flavored dog food, and it is pretty darn
clever of the marketing folks up there to package software
prizes like that! Kind of like cracker-jacks.
During part of my wayward youth (as opposed to my current
wayward near-middle age) I sold ag supplies and feed part
time down on the coast when I first started back to school.
There were lots of funny things that used to happen around
that store, like the lady that came in for advice on what
to do about the fact that her canary's beak had broken off,
or the dope grower that was really upset that he had arrived
after closing after driving his truck for 4 hours from a
distant area to elude police surveilance while he was buying
a load of mineral fertilizers!
Anyway, we used to have so many people that would come in
and look at all 27-1/2 varieties of commercial and organic
dog food and ask "how are they?", that every once in a while
I'd open the corner of the bag, grab a kibble or two, pop it
in my mouth, munch for a few moments and ask them if *they*
wanted to try it and see! Milkbones aren't all that bad,
especially when you don't have time for lunch and just finished
loading 5 tons of fresh alfalfa hay on a flatbed by hand.
Now a days, I eat at university food service and feel nostalgic
at times (not necessarily in that order).
EP
ps, there are no mystical allusions or metaphors in this message,
so everybody put your decoder rings away (unless you are using
GroupWise for Windows email).
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzTue Nov 7 19:41:51 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 12:55:10 +1300 (NZDT)
From: Robert Johnston
To: JWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: almost/probable-failure-unto-death-of-the-list
Ah so!
It seems one can write till one is as blue in the face as I was when I
almost died as a child having gotten a piece of spanner stuck in my throat
and yet not have any major influence on discourse. John's letter, in my
view, belongs with a bunch of other letters which reflect a painfully
skewed relationship with the House, and reflect also -- I a believe -- an
almost/probable-failure-unto-death-of-the-list to address this relationship
appropriately. It is not as though John can be unaware of the offence that
is caused by such statements, so I am left wondering... Read the letter
for yourself. (It is reprinted below).
Maybe Juan is right. Maybe Talisman IS a subculture. Maybe -- as he told
me right at the beginning -- it is not for me.
I don't understand the phenomenon I am witnessing. I just don't.
Robert.
>My concern with tone is the following: I honestly believe that I see a
>trend in Baha'i institutions, most alarmingly the House of Justice, of
>criticizing the tone of interlocutors at the expense of responding to issues.
>When I came in on the Faith, Baha'i institutions, particularly the House
>of Justice, could be counted on to respond lovingly to any sort of
>comment or criticism. I have in the last few years seen a number of
>cases where someone has offered criticism or comment in good faith, and
>has had his or her good faith attacked by the institution in reply.
>
>I find this deeply troubling because it seems to me such behavior
>undermines the legitimacy of the institutions and the loyalty of those
>at the receiving end of such letters.
>
>john walbridge
From Member1700@aol.comWed Nov 8 00:43:05 1995
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 20:02:45 -0500
From: Member1700@aol.com
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Covenant
Brent, what an excellent insight into the nature of the institution of the
House of Justice as 'Abdu'l-Baha envisioned it! I had never put things
together quite that way, but your argument was very convincing. I can't wait
to see the whole article that you are contributing to DEEPEN. Do you suppose
that you can post the whole thing on Talisman?
Thanks.
Tony
From friberg@will.brl.ntt.jpWed Nov 8 00:44:24 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 95 10:18:05 JST
From: "Stephen R. Friberg"
To: Member1700@aol.com
Cc: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Discussing the Covenant
Dear Tony:
I think that you make some extremely important points:
> . . . one of the central provisions of the Covenant is that no one
> individual has the right to speak with authority or impose his
> understanding of the teachings on anyone else . . .
and
> . . . some of my fellow Talismanians hold the opposite
> opinion. That is, that the provisions of the Covenant preclude the
> expression of individual opinion.
and
> . . . the Covenant . . . is intended to provide a framework for
> unity in diversity -- not impose a dull uniformity on all people.
I think that these aspects of the Covenant need to be fleshed out
and explored more carefully. Lets do it!
However, I also think that we should be free to explore some of
the other aspects of the Covenent as well, some of which are very
challenging to educated Westerners.
Where I am not in full agreement is the following:
> that should (theoretically) free the discourse to having anything
> and everything said. There would be no problem with even the most
> shocking ideas, because everyone would recognize implicitly that
> they were only the individual understanding of the speaker and
> have no other authority. No need for cries of outrage, no need to
> defend the Faith, no need to protect the Covenant.
>From a logical standpoint (I will not at all be unhappy if you
criticize me for this), this paragraph is self-contradictory.
Clearly, cries of outrage, defenses of the Faith, and attempts
to criticize on the basis of the Covenant are among those items
that should be allowed free expression if you say, as you do, that
"anything and everything can be said".
I believe that you do indeed want to limit discourse, and for very
practical and sound reasons. We should not allow, you say,
"accusations of Covenant-breaking," "ad hominem arguments,
"calls to close down Talisman," etc. I agree with you. The reason
for not having these things is very evident: they block and interrupt
the healthy expression and exchange of ideas. They enrage people and
cause them to counterattack. They hurt people.
But isn't it abundantly evident that when some of us in an immoderate
tone, without due sensitivity to the beliefs and feelings of many of
the participants on Talisman, present their ideas in a way that shock
and horrify, that they do the same thing. When "half-baked" and
"shocking" ideas are presented in a way that seems calculated to
provoke, stir up outrage, and generate distrust, doesn't this do
exactly the same as the claims of Covenant breaking: they block and
interrupt the healthy expression and exchange of ideas. They enrage
people and cause them to counterattack. They hurt people.
What I am trying to point out is that, considered objectively, the
attempts to limit discourse by appeal to the Covenant is, if you take
a scientific attitude and ignore the content of the appeal,
qualitatively the same as what we are doing when we try to eliminate
ad hominen attacks and backbiting. We are trying to limit discourse
to make Talisman more productive. Others to are trying to do the
same, but from their perspective. (Of course, they lack our
eloquence and unperturbed calm!{G})
So, while I support our efforts, I also encourage a more loving and
understanding attitude towards those whose intent is much the same as
ours, but whose perspective is different.
Yours respectfully,
Stephen R. Friberg
From shastri@best.comWed Nov 8 00:44:39 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 01:24:40 GMT
From: Shastri Purushotma
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: tone
Dear John,
I know you are a very intelligent person so there must be
some logic and merit to everything you post. Can you please
let us know your logic as to why you posted the message on "tone" ...
unfortunately it seems to have gone over my head
as to what you are really accomplishing,
and it would help us all if we could understand
what benefit we get from reading what you posted.
Please excuse my ignorance or lack of ability to
understand things.
Sincerely,
Shastri
>
>>My concern with tone is the following: I honestly believe that I see a
>>trend in Baha'i institutions, most alarmingly the House of Justice, of
>>criticizing the tone of interlocutors at the expense of responding to issues.
>>When I came in on the Faith, Baha'i institutions, particularly the House
>>of Justice, could be counted on to respond lovingly to any sort of
>>comment or criticism. I have in the last few years seen a number of
>>cases where someone has offered criticism or comment in good faith, and
>>has had his or her good faith attacked by the institution in reply.
>>
>>I find this deeply troubling because it seems to me such behavior
>>undermines the legitimacy of the institutions and the loyalty of those
>>at the receiving end of such letters.
>>
>>john walbridge
>
>
>
From rstockman@usbnc.orgWed Nov 8 00:46:40 1995
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 95 20:26:19
From: "Stockman, Robert"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: John Dominic Crossan
John Dominic Crossan is considered one of the best scholars on Jesus
and the New Testament in the world. He is an influential member of
the Jesus Seminar, which is attempting to determine which words
attributed to Jesus in the New Testament are *really* by Him (probably
an impossible task, but their techniques are new and better than those
of previous scholars, and thus their attempt should be better). His
books on Jesus, I would guess make him one of the top three or four
experts world wide on Jesus, from the point of view of critical New
Testament scholarship. He is, by the way, an absolutely fascinating
man. He speaks with an Irish brogue, has strong opinions, is very
concerned about his students, and is a very clear communicator.
Generally, his books are some of the most carefully written and
insightful I've read. He has just retired from teaching at DePaul
University (where I teach) so I don't see him much. But the office I
occupy at school this year is his old office, and my voice mail is
constantly jammed with voice mail messages for him. He is a very
popular speaker.
-- Rob Stockman
From rstockman@usbnc.orgWed Nov 8 00:48:08 1995
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 95 21:14:16
From: "Stockman, Robert"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: "New scholarly paradigms"
I think the idea of a new scholarly paradign is intriguing. Perhaps paradigm is
a bit misleading; I would refer to a new scholarly style or approach. But
certainly none of us know what that style is. Perhaps there are some principles
of it that can be outlined, but I have no idea how it would balance independent
investigation of truth and the need to protect the unity of the community.
Neither is sufficient itself, but combining the two is very difficult. I
suppose "Baha'i" scholarship (in the sense of distinctively Baha'i) will emerge
gradually. I think the western approach has a lot of strengths that must be
drawn on. The trick is recognizing its weakness and avoiding them without
falling into other weaknesses instead.
-- Rob Stockman
From JWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduWed Nov 8 00:53:03 1995
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 95 22:57:09 EWT
From: JWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: "New scholarly paradigms"
"I take this to mean that true Baha'i scholarship must
produce signs, and that these signs would be virtuous words and deeds."
David House
I don't entirely disagree with this, since I think that good scholarship
does tend to be tied up closely with a number of virtues, including in
one way or another all four of the classical cardinal virtues of
wisdom, courage, temperance, and justice. The *purpose*, however, is
finding truth and leading others to find more truth, so the problem is
if we think of scholarship as being *for* something else. I think that
temperance, for example, usually is a useful quality in scholarship, but
I don't think that scholarship is done in order to become temperate or
is necessarily made impossible by a lack of temperance.
It is tempting to think that scholarship ought to serve some other
purpose than simple search for truth. Sometimes it is certainly true,
which is why there are codes of ethics for academic professions. It is
clearly wrong to publish a book that endangers an individual. The problem
is that I don't think you can take this very much farther.
My impression is that when people talk about notions like "distinctive
Baha'i scholarship" and the like (and these notions are practically never
defined well enough to evaluate and criticize), what they mean is that
scholarship is a tool that ought to serve the short-term interests of
the Faith. It ought to encourage the friends, take the message of the
Faith to elite classes, protect the Faith from accusations, etc. Now
I must make some distinctions:
1) It is certainly proper for Baha'i institutions to support scholarship
for such reasons. Such, for example, were the stated reasons for the
US NSA to support the Baha'i encyclopedia.
2) It is proper, but a little dangerous, for an individual scholar to
pursue his projects for such short-term reasons (as opposed to longer
term goals such as simply explicating the Faith) since he will be serving
two masters: truth and the progress of the Faith. These may very well be
the same, but he may be led to think otherwise. If I am a historian of
the Faith in the US and I discover that certain significant events
reflected racial tensions in the community at that time, I may be
tempted to downplay these in a way I would not do if I was pursuing the
subject simply out of curiostiy.
3) It is simply wrong, I think, for others, including Baha'i institutions
to insist that an individual scholar's research further short-term
interests of the Faith because, I think, it compromises the pursuit of
truth.
Anyway, it seems to me that the history of this debate is that a particular
kind of scholarship--modern critical historical study of the Faith--has
been attacked because it does not conform to Baha'i standards (the House
has called it "methodological agnosticism" and linked it to secular
humanism). Fair enough; scholarly methodologies are always fair game
for criticism. My question is: what method ought to be used in place of
it? What I need is something clearly enough defined so that
a) I can understand what it is;
b) I can know how to apply it.
Ideally, I would like an example of a study in which the method is successfully
used.
c) I would like some idea of how I should apply it to a specific
problem with which I am familiar. I offer two choices:
i) the history of the battle of Zanjan
ii) the problem of the contradiction between `Abdu'l-Baha's account
of Greek philosophy and the history of Greek philosophy as known from
primary sources.
Can anybody tell me what this "Baha'i method" is?
john walbridge
From rstockman@usbnc.org Wed Nov 8 00:53:22 1995
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 95 21:45:09
From: "Stockman, Robert"
To: TLCULHANE@aol.com, Juan R Cole
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re[2]: conversations with . . .
(I fear that I think the wholesale declaration of the illegitimacy
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: scholarship
Dear John:
I appreciated your posting very much. Before I stick my both feet too far
down my throat, let me assure you I speak from a strong platform of academic
ignorance.
But (the famous "But", a common bird seen often on Talisman), I do have a
few thoughts, naive as they are.
In a "new scholarship", does not Baha'u'llah point in a direction for us to
travel himself?
In the Tablet of Wisdom, he refers considerably to the classic thinkers and
philosophers.
In The Seven Valleys he refers to a journey of the heart, where veils of
ration and reason are burned away.
In Letters to the Kings and Queens, he deals with justice.
The list goes on, and it might be fun to research just how many "voices" He
speaks with.
The upshot of this is the thought that there is no "one" correct approach.
Where would the intellectual writings of Hatcher be without the vision of
William Sears tying his sister to a stake, or swinging his lightbulb at
Goliath? Where would the anecdotal passages of William Sears be without the
depth of William Hatcher? How would either of them talk together with love
and respect without the Writings of Baha'u'llah to unite them?
I don't see a synthesis in future scholarship in a sense of each group
bringing a portion to be incorporated to a new whole. Nor do I see clinging
to a familiar approach because it is familiar for any of us. It also
foolish to throw away carte blanche what we know and go looking for
something new from no base knowledge. I do see using the Writings as a base
on which to "test" our portion of knowledge and realign our thinking with
the Writings. No mean task has been set for us, it is an inquiry of great
depth for all of us, no matter what portion of divine insight or academic
prowness we think we hold.
Rather, I see a weaving of diverse approaches which, together in their
wholeness, create a new, beautiful and strong fabric to be used by the
Divine Tailor in whatever fashion the Tailor desires.
From dpeden@imul.comWed Nov 8 00:55:37 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 95 14:28:59+100
From: Don Peden
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: postings from Mary
"(As Joan points
out, the mail-bonding thing on Talisman seems to require a lot of what to most
women would be seen as chest-beating.) Is there a reason why this constant back
and forth on Talisman regarding challenges about tone could not be replaced with
a more constructive discussion of what cooperative speech might be in this
forum? I would be glad to go back to my own files to select out some examples
of provocative and thoughtful considerations, some couched with stately
scholarship and some with a sly wit, which in my mind certainly strike a
standard to achieve."
Dear Mary:
Great idea! Please follow through with it.
Love,
Bev.
From barazanf@dg-rtp.dg.comWed Nov 8 00:55:54 1995
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 23:31:58 -0500 (EST)
From: Farzin Barazandeh
To: Talisman
Subject: Re: "New scholarly paradigms"
Rob Stockman wrote:
> ..., but I have no idea how it would balance independent
> investigation of truth and the need to protect the unity of the community.
> Neither is sufficient itself, but combining the two is very difficult.
>
It appears to me that as spiritual descendant of Dawn-Breakers, we must
dedicate ourselves to investigation of truth and not try to balance too much
other things with it.
I do not think we would have anybody at the Fort Tabarsi or Badasht if they
were trying to do too much balancing.
Maybe investigation of truth is the underlying force behind any
true unity and perhaps disunity is as a result of laxity in loyalty to
fearsome truth. And again maybe, this balancing act is the source of our
down fall.
Farzin
From shastri@best.comWed Nov 8 01:00:18 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 05:54:40 GMT
From: Shastri Purushotma
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Powerful Forces!!!!
Dear All,
I am not saying this does or doesn't
have anything to do with anything
on Talisman (who knows these things??),
just struck me as to how important it
is to focus on the constructive forces in life, and
not to unnecessarily flirt with destructive spiritual forces.
(as if there aren't enough d.s.f's in the world today
already).
Just came across some amazing statements that many of you may
have already seen, but wanted to share for those who may not have
read them yet .... I think when we re-read these statements,
as well as the Will and Testament of Abdul Baha,
every single person on Talisman
(and throughout the Bahai World)
would agree that not being a dumb dumb with our personal
relationship to the Center of the Covenant (and unnecessarily
messing with powerful spiritual forces) far, far outweighs any
weird and wonderful intellectual pursuits we may be on,
important though they be..
Check this out and lets all enjoy the firm and
beneficial-to-the-world scholarship that everyone
on Talisman is has so much capacity to contribute!
Lv
SP
***********************************************************
(From Hands of the Cause in the Holy Land,
Letter dated 15 October 1960 to all National Assemblies
regarding Mason Remey .. last paragraphs):
"...The glorious Bab forbade association with Covenant Breakers,
Baha'u'llah strictly forbade association with the Covenant Breakers,
and even warned the friends against entering if possible a city
where Covenant Breakers resided as their poison polluted the
entire area. Abdul Baha's teaching with regard to shunning and
having no contact whatever with the Covenant Breakers is contained
in hundreds of Tablets. The beloved Guardian forbade all association
with Covenant Breakers and warned that their poison was so deadly,
that it was not permissable to have even their literature in
one's possession.
The Chief Stewards of the Faith, mindful of their paramount
responsibility to protect the believers, have taken the action
to expel from the Faith Mason Remey and his supporters because
of the Covenant-breaking activities and to forbid all association
with them.
The Beloved Master, in His Will and Testament, issued this clear
warning to all the friends:
" Beware, beware, lest the days after the ascension (of Baha'u'llah)
be repeated, when the Centre of Sedition waxed haughty and rebellious
and with Divine Unity for his excuse deprived himself and perturbed
and poisoned others ... O God, my God! I call Thee, Thy Prophets
and Thy Messangers, Thy Saints and Thy Holy Ones, to witness that I
have declared conclusively Thy Proofs unto Thy loved ones and
set forth clearly all things unto them, that they may watch over
Thy Faith, guard Thy Straight Path and protect Thy Resplendent Law.
Thou art, verily, the All-Knowing, the All-Wise!" "
With Warm Bahai Love
In the service of the beloved Guardian
HANDS OF THE CAUSE IN THE HOLY LAND"
From gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduWed Nov 8 01:10:17 1995
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 16:36:58 -0700 (MST)
From: "[G. Brent Poirier]"
To: Juan R Cole
Cc: "Timothy A. Nolan" , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Covenant
On Sat, 4 Nov 1995, Juan R Cole wrote:
> 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...
Well, that's a significant part of the paper I just wrote for Deepen
magazine. Having just returned to the US from a 12-hour saga at the US
Consulate in Juarez, I'm not in my best intellectual form. But..
The Master states in the first part of His Will that "a few months ago"
the Committee of Investigation had been in Akka. The two committees came
to the Holy Land in 1904 and 1907. In God Passes By Shoghi Effendi
confirms that the Master wrote His Will at that time. I don't think
there is serious doubt of this. So Shoghi Effendi was appointed Guardian
when he was between 7 and 10 years of age, give or take a few months.
The Second part of the Master's Will makes no reference to Shoghi
Effendi, nor to the institution of Guardianship. The Master states early
in the second part that his motive is to protect the Faith, because "not
an hour's life is left to me." My impression is that this was at the time
of the second Committee of Investigation. There is a Tablet to the Bab's
cousin written at that very time, in which the Master tells him to
organize the election of the Universal House of Justice, if He is martyred.
The Second Part of the Master's Will then provides that the NSA's are to
elect the House, and that those elected members are to "gather" and to
"deliberate," and that their decisions are promised infallible guidance.
Again, there is no reference to the Guardianship. My impression is that
the Master was making provision for the Universal House of Justice to
lead the Faith with only its elected membership, until Shoghi Effendi was
mature enough to assume the reins of his office. So it appears to me
that while the first part of the Master's will clearly provides for the
Guardian to chair that body, the second part anticipates the House
functioning without him; and there is no hint that its scope would be
limited. That would be before a single word of interpretation by Shoghi
Effendi, before a single word from him defining the sphere of
legislation; yet the Master's promise of divine guidance is most emphatic.
As far as the institution being a different one than that envisioned, I
suppose one could also say that Shoghi Effendi was never envisioned as
functioning alone. Reading his very earliest letters, within a few weeks
after the passing of 'Abdu'l-Baha, such as one he wrote to the
authorities in Jerusalem which is quoted in Khanum's book, he saw himself
as the head of the House of Justice. Then he met the most prominent
believers in the world, and he had the opportunity to assess the strength
of the institutions of the Faith (NSA's and LSA's) and decided to
postpone the election. Khanum says that repeatedly he tried to arrange
for its election, but events prevented it. So, while the Master's will
clearly envisioned the Guardian functioning together with the House, and
I do not know of any provisions other than the "endowments dedicated to
charity" paragraph of the Aqdas envisioning the Guardian functioning
prior to the election of the House, he had the inherent power to do what
he did. The emphatic language of the Master's will clothed him with that
authority. I think the same holds true for the House today. I just
don't think that we can take a passage and impose our understanding on
how life is going to unfold, and if it doesn't conform to our
understanding, say that to any degree the promised infallible divine
guidance isn't there.
One more point. It was pointed out that such "sentiments" are very nice,
and represent a fair exposition of the ultraconservative view of the
sacred institutions Baha'u'llah brought; but that those among us who have
actually *dealt* with the House, are entitled, based on their personal
experience, to claim a more sophisticated view of the infallibility of
the House. I've thought about this, and I have decided to defer to those
with such experience. I quite agree that my experience is very limited,
and I have not had the benefit of letters back-and-forth, of perhaps
seeing something that the House might not be aware of and sharing with
the House and impacting on its decisions. So, I guess I must defer.
The corollary, is that y'all must defer to those with more experience
than you have. So, my candidate for the most experienced people, and
therefore those with the most sophisticated view of the infallibility of
the House, are the members of the International Teaching Centre.
Love,
Brent
From jrcole@umich.eduWed Nov 8 01:55:09 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 01:10:02 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole
To: "[G. Brent Poirier]"
Cc: "Timothy A. Nolan" , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Covenant (short)
Just to express my profoundest gratitude to Brent Poirier for his
well-reasoned and cogent posting, and for the evident restraint it
demonstrated. Even after only cursorily studying it, I am willing to
admit that it is a very serious challenge to the view I earlier suggested.
Brent, as we all know, has very great devotion and very strong feelings
on these issues, which I admire. If he can nevertheless express himself
with this moderation on them, then surely everyone can. And this way
something can get accomplished.
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From friberg@will.brl.ntt.jpWed Nov 8 01:56:18 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 95 15:24:09 JST
From: "Stephen R. Friberg"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Theology and Science
Dear Friends:
Mark and Sen have put forth the interesting propositions that religion
properly considered is science (Mark) and that theology is science (Sen).
The distinction between science and religion (or science and theology)
that is made by most Western scientists, and even some scholars, is
that science deals with issues and problems that are susceptible
to proofs, whereas religion and theology do not. [It might be noted
that scientists have fought against religious orthodoxy for centuries
on this point.] The scientific method formulates its models and
explanations as conjectures that must be tested with empirical
evidence before they are considered to have any "truth" content.
In religion and in theology, this is not the case. Proofs of the
existence of God have been literary or philosophical or logical, but
not empirical (to Baha'is, for obvious reasons). So religion and
theology are, in the most part, not judged to be at all scientific
in character by scientists.
(This is starting to change, however. Sociologists and others are
starting to explore how a person's belief structure affects their
actions and the society around them. If you can examine the "fruits"
of religious belief in isolation from other cultural and social
factors, then you can carry out "empirical" studies where the
effects of things like the belief in God can be tested. Sandy Fotos
has been starting out in directions like this, and Linda is likewise.
I wish that they would share some of their thoughts on this with
us.)
Because historical-critical analysis is based on a scientific model, it
downplays the importance of ideological content, and often dismisses
it as being of no importance. Many believe the consequences of such
an analysis is like taking a scalpel to someone's head to figure out
how they think. Not surprisingly, many vociferously reject historical
criticism, and hold it responsible for the decline of religion and
society, in that order. Any scholar unaware of the touchy nature of
historical-critical analysis, or who is unsympathetic to the reasons
why it is criticized, is handicapped in reaching out to a modern
audience.
John has said, in effect, "Explain to me what it is that is to replace
historical-critical analysic. Tell me how to use the new discipline."
I note the tone of exasperation in his posting and sympathize with it.
In my discipline (physics) we tend to face a newly posed problem with
howls of joyful delight, viewing it as a Godsend. "What? This hasn't
been done before? Nobody has looked at it? What I will be doing will
be fresh to my eyes, and first seen by me alone! Let me at it! Stand
out of the way." Possibilities of eternal fame and Nobel prizes blur
into to sleepless nights for years on end in the quest for the
answers.
Now, admittedly, it is the young, brilliant, self-assured, capable
thinkers that can do the new thinking, not the old (past 35) thinkers
encrusted with the heavy responsibility of working through the
ideological programme that they learned from their teachers as
a youth. However, if the older, wiser teachers fail to appreciate
the importance of the problem and steer the capable youngster
toward its solution, then, in physics at least, we think of them
as mediocre, time-servers.
So, historical-critical analysis, which has been around for umpteen
years, is not the only possible game in town. Probably, it is even
getting a bit frayed around the seams. Why can't we try to move
towards a new paradigm. Mark and Sen are telling us that just
because the old guys (scientists and historical-critical
analyticians of the past) adhere to certain methodologies,
that it "ain't necessarily so" that it is the only way to
go. Maybe we ought to ask them to elaborate a bit more!
Yours respectfully,
Stephen R. Friberg
From Geocitizen@aol.comWed Nov 8 15:21:07 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 03:41:08 -0500
From: Geocitizen@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: past and future dark and bright
Although I will strive to be brief here, I will begin with a seeming
diversion, and so must ask the reader to be patient and trust that I have a
point worth making. :)
Among the greatest tests of faith I have encountered occurred while I was
serving at the Baha'i World Centre in Haifa. Having arrived with naively
idealistic expectations, I was shocked to discover imperfections in the
working relationships between the volunteer staff. For a Faith striving to
unify the world, we seemed ironically mired in disunity and conflict, even at
the very center of our administrative order.
Only after leaving and becoming re-immersed in the vastly greater disunity
and conflict of workplaces not connected with the Baha'i Administration did I
realize what a paradise of unity and concord I had been priviliged to witness
in the Holy Land. Only that stark contrast could have made so clear the
difference between the minor imperfections in the Baha'i community at the
World Centre and the crippling disunity with which most of the rest of the
world is afflicted.
To a lesser extent, the same thing is true here on Talisman. We regularly
shock each other with our imperfections, yet what we have created here is a
living, growing system with much unrealized potential for contributing to the
well-being of the worldwide community in which we all live.
This is by no means an argument for complacency about the current state of
affairs on Talisman, for I am convinced that we have a responsibility to do
much more than we have yet done, and I certainly fall into the category of
those who have not done enough, and ought to do more. This *is* most
emphatically an argument for overcoming, as much as possible, our collective
shortcomings, and moving "with all deliberate speed" to fulfill our
as-yet-unrealized potential to be of service to our community.
As Sen and others have mentioned, Talisman is not a deliberative body charged
with making decisions and carrying out courses of action. Still, I do think
it can be much more than a sophisticated parlor discussion in which various
random ideas do battle with each other and then go back out in a strengthened
form to our small local communities and our research projects; though that is
certainly one potential use of this resource.
I think a greater potential service we on Talisman can perform was recently
touched upon by Jim Harrison, when he mentioned building a unity of thought
on what is needed to fulfill the core of the Guardian's vision for the future
development of the Baha'i community in America -- and, through America's
spiritual destiny, the future of the worldwide Baha'i community.
It has been surprising, and yet in some ways not surprising, to see how few
have been the responses to Jim's challenging restatement of the Guardian's
warnings to us. In particular, I still do not understand the tendency some
have to marginalize and dismiss such concepts as "triumphalism" -- a label
which I think conveys a profound misunderstanding of the Guardian's intent,
but that's another thread altogether...
Still, it should hardly be a surprise that voices which point the finger of
blame at various outside agencies are more seductively attractive that those
which frankly place the responsibility where it belongs: back on our own
shoulders. Even though we may not be consciously aware of it, we all have a
strong tendency to shut out the voice telling us unpleasant truths about
ourselves, where we have been, and where we need to go.
Out of respect for those truths, unpleasant or not, I now have a suggestion
for Jim and anyone else who will join in. Let us begin to ignore the
elements of Talisman that are still tainted with the mentality of the "T.V.
talk show." When complainers have legitimate complaints, let us address them
as such and move forward, even if their observations are marred by some
degree self-centeredness. Let us assume that a number of Talismanians do
recognize the need to build a unity of thought on the future course of the
Baha'i community, and that most have simply not gotten around to posting
their agreement with this project. :)
In other words, let's move forward. What are the first concrete steps we
need to take, here on Talisman, that will contribute to building that unity
of thought? I ask this with all seriousness, knowing that it is not a simple
question, but one which can probably only be answered by asking more
questions. But at least it might begin the process.
Sincere regards,
Kevin Haines
From SFotos@eworld.comWed Nov 8 15:22:23 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 02:02:13 -0800
From: SFotos@eworld.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: noticing the deeds of others; bio
To: Esteemed members of Talisman
>From Sandy Fotos
Tokyo, Japan
Greetings, dear friends.
I have been a silent member of this list since my return from the ABS
conference in San Francisco, and, although grindingly busy like everyone in
this giant city, I look forward to the end of the day when I can sit down and
read the Talisman postings. They lie among the business email like treasures,
and I have come to recognize the familiar addresses who are always such a
good read. Kathleen Babbs and Stephen Friberg have mentioned the dynamic
exchanges on this list, and they surely were not exaggerating.
Stephen has suggest that Linda and I share information on our investigations.
So here goes.
I am an applied linguist, very interested in the process of second/foreign
language acquisition in adult learners. Several years ago I worked with a
cognitive model of how formal knowledge about something is transformed into
procedural knowledge of how to do something. Two and three weeks after
lessons on particular grammar points, Japanese students of English were
exposed to reading and dictation activities which contained the instructed
points. 50% of the students noticed the embedded structures, compared with 0%
of a control group who had received no instruction. Furthermore, high levels
of noticing were correlated with proficiency gains. This result enabled me to
partially confirm theoretical speculation in my field regarding the possible
role of noticing and awareness as one interface between formal instruction
(knowledge about language) and communicative ability (unconscious ability to
use language).
Since Abdu'l-Baha stressed that cognition is our greatest gift ("God's
greatest gift to man is the intellect." Reality of Man, p. 60), it seemed
reasonable to suspect a similar role for noticing ("focused awareness" in the
psychological literature on attention) in the spiritualization process.
Believing that, for most of us, spiritualization occurs as a language-based
cognitive process, I invited a colleague, Professor of Linguistics Lynne
Hansen-Strain of Brigham Young University, Hawaii, to conduct a collaborative
investigation of whether Mormons and Baha'is tended to notice in others the
virtues which they wanted to acquire in themselves. We found that about 50%
of our subjects did, in fact, notice desirable virtues in the behavior of
others and these results were reported at the recent ABS conference. We are
continuing to generate and develop our data, and I am working on a
literature review linking cognitive and neurolinguistic research findings
to the Writings. Another area of interest is whether learning strategies
useful for language learning also facilitate spiritualization.
In the Kitab-I-Iqan, it is written that ," Knowledge is twenty and seven
letters. All that the Prophets have revealed are two letters thereof...But
when the Qa'im shall arise, He will cause the remaining twenty five letters
to be made manifest."
Considering what a short time has passed since the manifesting of those 25
letters, clearly, our human knowledge systems can't help but be very
embryonic at this point, yet we must make a start.
Loving greetings,
Sandy
From LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduWed Nov 8 15:24:22 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 95 11:16:02 EWT
From: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: the vocally impaired
I notice that Juan was on the list with those of us who are not using the
correct tone - being confrontational and all that.
I'd like to share a story. A couple of years ago while I was at the M.E.
Institute at Columbia, the former Ambassador to the Iranian Mission came to me
to ask me if I would help organize a major conference on the issue of Islam and
Democracy. (This, of course, meant - would I do the entire thing!) He told me
that, if I agreed, he would come up with the funding. Just where this money
was to come from, he did not specify. But I have never been one to put caution
about all else, so I agreed. The project really became mine and Prof. Richard
Bulliet's. However, he went off to Central Asia leaving me holding the bag.
In consultation with others, I drew up a list of illustrious speakers to
invite. The list had to be presented to the anonymous "doners." Juan Cole's
name was on the list. Word got back to me - not in the most direct manner -
that Juan was not acceptable. Not only is a Baha'i, but he is one who does not
hold his tongue in defense of the Faith. He has a reputation for speaking out
on sensitive topics - such as persecution of the Baha'is in Iran.
I lost a lot of sleep over this one. I made it very clear that I did not want
people dropped from the list because they were Baha'is or Jews, or whatever.
But by the time this issue came up, the conference plans were well under way
and other forces entered the scene to override my complaints. (However, I have
been able to "cash in" on this one. But that is another story.)
So, my dear friends, those of you who don't like lions, and tigers, and bears,
but prefer pussy cats, might want to reconsider your positions. Perhaps those
of us who growl and snarl have some place in this religion after all. Linda
From jrcole@umich.eduWed Nov 8 18:40:07 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 rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comWed Nov 8 18:42:46 1995
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 95 15:15:01 -0500
From: Ahang Rabbani
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: a Baha'i bill of rights
[This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII]
Dear Juan,
Since you asked for comments, here are a few small ones to keep
the conversation going.
1. 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.
2. Under the proposed Article XIII, I have problem with life
appointment (even with a retirement age defined). No other office in
the Faith, with the exception of the Custodianship of the House of the
Bab in Shiraz and burial place of the martyrs in Abadih is life
appointment -- and these two are because Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha
said so respectively. I suggest 5 yrs terms to make it consistent
with other similar senior responsibilities.
3. Also under proposed Article XIII, have problems with lack of
appeal procedure. Why not? Certainly Shoghi Effendi envisioned a
Baha'i International Court. Wouldn't that be the right body for cases
to be appealed to, or in absence of it, the Universal House of Justice
as the last arbitrator?
4. I would also add a sentence to Art. 13, stating "If a justice is
elected to a Baha'i office, must choose service between the two." Or
words to this effect.
5. I am sorry for saying this, but I just don't like the proposed Art
14, as currently drafted. I think (a) its too colored by a few
person's experience, (b) is too much modeled after the current US law
system, (c) excessively focused on campaigning issues. Section 4 of
this Art. seems like a tautology.
I think what would help me to better understand the proposed Article
14 is for you to educate us on underlying principles from the Writings
on each one of these rights. After all, elements of a *Baha'i* bill
of rights must have their roots firmly planted in the Scripture of the
Cause. Yes?
In other words, it seems that we are jumping to a bill of rights, when
the governing principles are not fully explored yet. Obviously you've
spent a lot of time thinking and researching this topic. I think it
would be essential if you can share Scripture where key principles are
discussed and then I think the elements of a *Baha'i* bill of rights
would simply become obvious.
I apologize if my comments are not better informed, but as you say, we
all stand at the starting point on this topic.
best regards, ahang.
From cbuck@ccs.carleton.caWed Nov 8 18:44:45 1995
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 95 23:43:14 EST
From: Christopher Buck
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Cc: Christopher Buck
Subject: Re: A Baha'i Bill of Rights
Juan proposes:
_____________
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.
_____________
RESPONSE: While I am in favor of this entitlement, for the time
being I think that such proceedings should take place in private. If a
Baha'i state were to come into existence, with civil law administered
by local Houses of Justice, then I would support public proceedings.
But not now.
Juan proposes:
______________
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.
_______________
RESPONSE: *...a speedy trial, and to a public one...*: *public*
is redundant (vide Section 1 supra). Also, I would not support
*confronted with the witnesses against them* but rather: *They have
the right to full transcripts of depositions of witnesses against
them, including disclosure of the identity of said witnesses.* The
right to Counsel I would think is premature, until Baha'i institutions
administer civil law.
_______________
ADDITIONAL PROPOSAL
I propose a Preamble to a Baha'i Bill of Rights, in which the
substance of the Baha'i International Community's policy statements on
human rights submitted to the United Nations is acknowledged and given
a pledge of compliance. There is no reason why, administratively,
Baha'is cannot have the same human rights that our Baha'i NGO
advocates before the international community.
What Juan proposed was substantive and practical. How would
such a proposal be tabled (Canadian euphemism for *submitted*)?
Christopher Buck
Return to Talisman
Translation Page
Baha'i Studies Page
J. Cole Home Page
Last Updated 1-30-98
WebMaster: Juan R.I. Cole
jrcole@umich.edu