Discussion:
My Response to Moojan Momen's Slanderous Vilification
(too old to reply)
Baha'i Censorship - See Website
2007-12-21 12:39:05 UTC
Permalink
My Response to Moojan Momen's Slanderous Vilification:
"Marginality and apostasy in the Baha'i community." Religion. Volume 37, Issue 3, September 2007, Pages 187-209.

Moojan Momen's attempt to label people as "apostates" entirely misses what is truly the issue: The corruption and decline of the
Baha'i Faith under an oppressive administration founded upon the spurious, fraudulent will and testament of Abdu'l-Baha. A religion
based upon an act of forgery cannot but produce the many evils that have manifested themselves increasingly over the last decade in
the Baha'i Faith. The much flaunted "administrative order" constitutes the real cadre of apostates, not the fictitious "group" he's
concocted.

Momen and the so-called administrative order, while publicly hiding behind a facade of liberalism, are essentially practicing
Islamic "takfir," in the words of Bernard Lewis, "recognizing and denouncing apostasy," labeling people "kafir" or infidels, and
issuing "fatwas" or decrees, denying the very existence of other Bahais and denominations, all indicative of the worst in the
Islamic heritage of the Bahai Faith-practices Baha'u'llah specifically rejected, teaching tolerance of different religious views,
largely congruent with modern Western custom and practice. Nothing could be more diametrically opposed to the modern democracy of
the Western civic and legal order than the jihad Momen and the ao are conducting....


My full and detailed response to Moojan Momen's Slanderous Vilification is on my censorship website at
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/apostates.htm


www.fglaysher.com
Viv
2007-12-21 13:19:47 UTC
Permalink
Oooooh touchy.

Whatever became of "Why I don't respond....etc"?

Consistency seems to have been overcome by self-recognition.
AHWA
2007-12-21 13:38:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Viv
Oooooh touchy.
Whatever became of "Why I don't respond....etc"?
Consistency seems to have been overcome by self-recognition.
Drop dead already, bloody moron!

W
All Bad
2007-12-21 21:37:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Viv
Oooooh touchy.
Whatever became of "Why I don't respond....etc"?
All he wants is a chance to express his love, kindliness, humility, and
gentleness and you won't let him!

- All Bad
Post by Viv
Consistency seems to have been overcome by self-recognition.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
H***@aol.com
2007-12-22 09:42:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by All Bad
All he wants is a chance to express his love, kindliness, humility, and
gentleness and you won't let him!
Even those who take strong exception to Moojan's arguments seem to
think it applies very aptly to Freddie and Nima.

warmest, Susan
AHWA
2007-12-22 10:02:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by H***@aol.com
Post by All Bad
All he wants is a chance to express his love, kindliness, humility, and
gentleness and you won't let him!
Even those who take strong exception to Moojan's arguments seem to
think it applies very aptly to Freddie and Nima.
Your typecasting of people in print will assuredly come and bite you
demons in your ass as the Taheri letters did throughout Iran and into
the UN earlier this year. For the record, I have no problem with
publicly acknowledging my utter contempt and hatred for you demons and
everything you are and represent. Where you satanists are concerned,
hatred is a supreme virtue as is the wala' in Shi'ism (hatred of the
enemies of the Imams)!

W
All Bad
2007-12-25 21:00:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by H***@aol.com
Post by All Bad
All he wants is a chance to express his love, kindliness, humility, and
gentleness and you won't let him!
Even those who take strong exception to Moojan's arguments seem to
think it applies very aptly to Freddie and Nima.
What did Moojan say? I see more commentary on the commentary than I get to
see of Moojan's original commentary.

- All Bad
Baha'i Censorship - See Website
2007-12-24 17:10:14 UTC
Permalink
Compare to "The Bahai Technique":
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/technique.htm

Shunning & Slander > Menu
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Shunning.htm
Post by Baha'i Censorship - See Website
"Marginality and apostasy in the Baha'i community." Religion. Volume 37, Issue 3, September 2007, Pages 187-209.
Moojan Momen's attempt to label people as "apostates" entirely misses what is truly the issue: The corruption and decline of the
Baha'i Faith under an oppressive administration founded upon the spurious, fraudulent will and testament of Abdu'l-Baha. A
religion based upon an act of forgery cannot but produce the many evils that have manifested themselves increasingly over the last
decade in the Baha'i Faith. The much flaunted "administrative order" constitutes the real cadre of apostates, not the fictitious
"group" he's concocted.
Momen and the so-called administrative order, while publicly hiding behind a facade of liberalism, are essentially practicing
Islamic "takfir," in the words of Bernard Lewis, "recognizing and denouncing apostasy," labeling people "kafir" or infidels, and
issuing "fatwas" or decrees, denying the very existence of other Bahais and denominations, all indicative of the worst in the
Islamic heritage of the Bahai Faith-practices Baha'u'llah specifically rejected, teaching tolerance of different religious views,
largely congruent with modern Western custom and practice. Nothing could be more diametrically opposed to the modern democracy of
the Western civic and legal order than the jihad Momen and the ao are conducting....
My full and detailed response to Moojan Momen's Slanderous Vilification is on my censorship website at
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/apostates.htm
www.fglaysher.com
Baha'i Censorship - See Website
2007-12-24 17:13:28 UTC
Permalink
It should also be noted what kind of "scholarship" Momen and the fanatical uhj
conceive of for the future Baha'i "commonwealth." Nothing could be further
from the Teachings of Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha:


Compare to "The Bahai Technique":
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/technique.htm

Shunning & Slander > Menu
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Shunning.htm
Post by Baha'i Censorship - See Website
"Marginality and apostasy in the Baha'i community." Religion. Volume 37, Issue 3, September 2007, Pages 187-209.
Moojan Momen's attempt to label people as "apostates" entirely misses what is truly the issue: The corruption and decline of the
Baha'i Faith under an oppressive administration founded upon the spurious, fraudulent will and testament of Abdu'l-Baha. A
religion based upon an act of forgery cannot but produce the many evils that have manifested themselves increasingly over the last
decade in the Baha'i Faith. The much flaunted "administrative order" constitutes the real cadre of apostates, not the fictitious
"group" he's concocted.
Momen and the so-called administrative order, while publicly hiding behind a facade of liberalism, are essentially practicing
Islamic "takfir," in the words of Bernard Lewis, "recognizing and denouncing apostasy," labeling people "kafir" or infidels, and
issuing "fatwas" or decrees, denying the very existence of other Bahais and denominations, all indicative of the worst in the
Islamic heritage of the Bahai Faith-practices Baha'u'llah specifically rejected, teaching tolerance of different religious views,
largely congruent with modern Western custom and practice. Nothing could be more diametrically opposed to the modern democracy of
the Western civic and legal order than the jihad Momen and the ao are conducting....
My full and detailed response to Moojan Momen's Slanderous Vilification is on my censorship website at
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/apostates.htm
www.fglaysher.com
Jeffrey
2007-12-24 19:30:05 UTC
Permalink
On Dec 24, 10:13 am, "Baha'i Censorship - See Website"
Post by Baha'i Censorship - See Website
It should also be noted what kind of "scholarship" Momen and the fanatical uhj
conceive of for the future Baha'i "commonwealth." Nothing could be further
Compare to "The Bahai Technique":http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/technique.htm
Shunning & Slander > Menuhttp://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Shunning.htm
Post by Baha'i Censorship - See Website
"Marginality and apostasy in the Baha'i community." Religion. Volume 37, Issue 3, September 2007, Pages 187-209.
Moojan Momen's attempt to label people as "apostates" entirely misses what is truly the issue: The corruption and decline of the
Baha'i Faith under an oppressive administration founded upon the spurious, fraudulent will and testament of Abdu'l-Baha. A
religion based upon an act of forgery cannot but produce the many evils that have manifested themselves increasingly over the last
decade in the Baha'i Faith. The much flaunted "administrative order" constitutes the real cadre of apostates, not the fictitious
"group" he's concocted.
Momen and the so-called administrative order, while publicly hiding behind a facade of liberalism, are essentially practicing
Islamic "takfir," in the words of Bernard Lewis, "recognizing and denouncing apostasy," labeling people "kafir" or infidels, and
issuing "fatwas" or decrees, denying the very existence of other Bahais and denominations, all indicative of the worst in the
Islamic heritage of the Bahai Faith-practices Baha'u'llah specifically rejected, teaching tolerance of different religious views,
largely congruent with modern Western custom and practice. Nothing could be more diametrically opposed to the modern democracy of
the Western civic and legal order than the jihad Momen and the ao are conducting....
My full and detailed response to Moojan Momen's Slanderous Vilification is on my censorship website at
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/apostates.htm
www.fglaysher.com
Frederick,

I believe in religious freedom so it is OK with me if they want to
label everyone infidels. Let them go on with their paranoid and
oppressive form of Bahai. As long as we have the religious freedom to
denounce them and to warn anyone who will listen about what they are
really doing and the kind of fanaticism they represent.

The problem I have is when they use the Courts or other system of
coercion to try to silence its critics and preclude the "infidels"
from publicly criticizing them. Their attempts to take away our
religious freedom are simply unacceptable.

Jeffrey
AHWA
2007-12-25 02:50:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey
The problem I have is when they use the Courts or other system of
coercion to try to silence its critics and preclude the "infidels"
from publicly criticizing them.
They have precedents in Scientology and the OTO doing the same sort of
thing. This method does have its slippery, however.

W
Seon Ferguson
2007-12-26 06:06:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey
On Dec 24, 10:13 am, "Baha'i Censorship - See Website"
Post by Baha'i Censorship - See Website
It should also be noted what kind of "scholarship" Momen and the fanatical uhj
conceive of for the future Baha'i "commonwealth." Nothing could be further
Compare to "The Bahai
Technique":http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/technique.htm
Shunning & Slander >
Menuhttp://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Shunning.htm
Post by Baha'i Censorship - See Website
"Marginality and apostasy in the Baha'i community." Religion. Volume
37, Issue 3, September 2007, Pages 187-209.
Moojan Momen's attempt to label people as "apostates" entirely misses
what is truly the issue: The corruption and decline of the
Baha'i Faith under an oppressive administration founded upon the
spurious, fraudulent will and testament of Abdu'l-Baha. A
religion based upon an act of forgery cannot but produce the many evils
that have manifested themselves increasingly over the last
decade in the Baha'i Faith. The much flaunted "administrative order"
constitutes the real cadre of apostates, not the fictitious
"group" he's concocted.
Momen and the so-called administrative order, while publicly hiding
behind a facade of liberalism, are essentially practicing
Islamic "takfir," in the words of Bernard Lewis, "recognizing and
denouncing apostasy," labeling people "kafir" or infidels, and
issuing "fatwas" or decrees, denying the very existence of other Bahais
and denominations, all indicative of the worst in the
Islamic heritage of the Bahai Faith-practices Baha'u'llah specifically
rejected, teaching tolerance of different religious views,
largely congruent with modern Western custom and practice. Nothing
could be more diametrically opposed to the modern democracy of
the Western civic and legal order than the jihad Momen and the ao are conducting....
My full and detailed response to Moojan Momen's Slanderous Vilification
is on my censorship website at
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/apostates.htm
www.fglaysher.com
Frederick,
I believe in religious freedom so it is OK with me if they want to
label everyone infidels. Let them go on with their paranoid and
oppressive form of Bahai. As long as we have the religious freedom to
denounce them and to warn anyone who will listen about what they are
really doing and the kind of fanaticism they represent.
The problem I have is when they use the Courts or other system of
coercion to try to silence its critics and preclude the "infidels"
from publicly criticizing them. Their attempts to take away our
religious freedom are simply unacceptable.
Thank God none of the Bahai's I know call people infidels. But I guess they
are extremists in every Religion.
Also as AHWA pointed out Scentology sues and censors anyone who calls it a
cult. I still think what the Bahai's in America are doing to the Othordoc
bahai's is wrong though.
H***@aol.com
2007-12-29 05:25:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seon Ferguson
Thank God none of the Bahai's I know call people infidels.
I've never heard anyone but ex-Baha'is use the term 'infidel.'
Moojan's article discusses apostacy, and if you read the article
carefully you will see he is using the term in the academic sense to
refer not simply to people who leave the Faith but those who reject it
yet can't leave it, in the sense that they become obsessed with taking
revenge on the Baha'i community. We see this with Nima who will make
up anything and everything to attack the Faith with. Likewise Fred
makes up bogus websites claiming to represent various non-existent
Baha'i groups.

As for the current lawsuit, it has nothing to do with trying to
silence criticism, it has to do with upholding an existing court
decision that came as result of Mason Remey suing the NSA. It does not
seek to ban criticism, only to preserve Baha'i trademarks as their
own.
Seon Ferguson
2008-01-05 09:17:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by H***@aol.com
Post by Seon Ferguson
Thank God none of the Bahai's I know call people infidels.
I've never heard anyone but ex-Baha'is use the term 'infidel.'
Moojan's article discusses apostacy, and if you read the article
carefully you will see he is using the term in the academic sense to
refer not simply to people who leave the Faith but those who reject it
yet can't leave it, in the sense that they become obsessed with taking
revenge on the Baha'i community. We see this with Nima who will make
up anything and everything to attack the Faith with. Likewise Fred
makes up bogus websites claiming to represent various non-existent
Baha'i groups.
Oh no wonder I never heard the term infadel used by my Bahai friends.
Post by H***@aol.com
As for the current lawsuit, it has nothing to do with trying to
silence criticism, it has to do with upholding an existing court
decision that came as result of Mason Remey suing the NSA. It does not
seek to ban criticism, only to preserve Baha'i trademarks as their
own.
So do you think the Catholic Church should have sued Martin Luther when he
created his own form of Christianity. Should Christians sue the Mormon
church or Jehovah's Witnesses or the many other sects of Christianity that
arose after Martin Luther? That's pretty much what this amounts to.
383
2008-01-05 10:11:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seon Ferguson
So do you think the Catholic Church should have sued Martin Luther when he
created his own form of Christianity. Should Christians sue the Mormon
church or Jehovah's Witnesses or the many other sects of Christianity that
arose after Martin Luther? That's pretty much what this amounts to.
Bingo!
Seon Ferguson
2008-01-06 03:15:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by 383
Post by Seon Ferguson
So do you think the Catholic Church should have sued Martin Luther when he
created his own form of Christianity. Should Christians sue the Mormon
church or Jehovah's Witnesses or the many other sects of Christianity that
arose after Martin Luther? That's pretty much what this amounts to.
Bingo!
Yep hell even Christianity wouldn't have been allowed if the Jews sued the
Jewish sect that broke of from Judaism and became what Christianity is known
as today.
PaulHammond
2008-01-05 20:44:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seon Ferguson
Post by H***@aol.com
Post by Seon Ferguson
Thank God none of the Bahai's I know call people infidels.
I've never heard anyone but ex-Baha'is use the term 'infidel.'
Moojan's article discusses apostacy, and if you read the article
carefully you will see he is using the term in the academic sense to
refer not simply to people who leave the Faith but those who reject it
yet can't leave it, in the sense that they become obsessed with taking
revenge on the Baha'i community. We see this with Nima who will make
up anything and everything to attack the Faith with. Likewise Fred
makes up bogus websites claiming to represent various non-existent
Baha'i groups.
Oh no wonder I never heard the term infadel used by my Bahai friends.
Post by H***@aol.com
As for the current lawsuit, it has nothing to do with trying to
silence criticism, it has to do with upholding an existing court
decision that came as result of Mason Remey suing the NSA. It does not
seek to ban criticism, only to preserve Baha'i trademarks as their
own.
So do you think the Catholic Church should have sued Martin Luther when he
created his own form of Christianity. Should Christians sue the Mormon
church or Jehovah's Witnesses or the many other sects of Christianity that
arose after Martin Luther? That's pretty much what this amounts to.
Catholic church didn't believe in sueing people. They burned heretics
instead.

We have advanced somewhat since then, thank goodness!
Seon Ferguson
2008-01-05 22:39:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by PaulHammond
Post by Seon Ferguson
Post by H***@aol.com
Post by Seon Ferguson
Thank God none of the Bahai's I know call people infidels.
I've never heard anyone but ex-Baha'is use the term 'infidel.'
Moojan's article discusses apostacy, and if you read the article
carefully you will see he is using the term in the academic sense to
refer not simply to people who leave the Faith but those who reject it
yet can't leave it, in the sense that they become obsessed with taking
revenge on the Baha'i community. We see this with Nima who will make
up anything and everything to attack the Faith with. Likewise Fred
makes up bogus websites claiming to represent various non-existent
Baha'i groups.
Oh no wonder I never heard the term infadel used by my Bahai friends.
Post by H***@aol.com
As for the current lawsuit, it has nothing to do with trying to
silence criticism, it has to do with upholding an existing court
decision that came as result of Mason Remey suing the NSA. It does not
seek to ban criticism, only to preserve Baha'i trademarks as their
own.
So do you think the Catholic Church should have sued Martin Luther when he
created his own form of Christianity. Should Christians sue the Mormon
church or Jehovah's Witnesses or the many other sects of Christianity that
arose after Martin Luther? That's pretty much what this amounts to.
Catholic church didn't believe in sueing people. They burned heretics
instead.
We have advanced somewhat since then, thank goodness!
Yeah key word somewhat.
383
2008-01-06 05:10:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seon Ferguson
Yeah key word somewhat.
These bahaim think that just because they are unable to literally burn
heretics and apostates at the stake - as I am sure Moojan Momen and
his mut handlers fantasize privately - this somehow excuses their own
fanatical cultism. Contextualized for the times, what Ibn al-Himar
(son of the donkey) Mollah Momen is doing is no different than what
the Catholic Church did in its own context and time.

Your reminding this lying bahaim agent of the key word "somewhat" is
spot-on!

W
Seon Ferguson
2008-01-06 08:49:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by 383
Post by Seon Ferguson
Yeah key word somewhat.
These bahaim think that just because they are unable to literally burn
heretics and apostates at the stake - as I am sure Moojan Momen and
his mut handlers fantasize privately - this somehow excuses their own
fanatical cultism. Contextualized for the times, what Ibn al-Himar
(son of the donkey) Mollah Momen is doing is no different than what
the Catholic Church did in its own context and time.
Your reminding this lying bahaim agent of the key word "somewhat" is
spot-on!
Yeah they are still people out there who want to control Religion and the
way its interperted from the Vadican to the nsa and JW etc and now that they
cant burn people at the stake they resort the the next most evil thing:
Lawyers. Kind of like what scientology does hmmm
383
2008-01-06 09:08:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seon Ferguson
Yeah they are still people out there who want to control Religion and the
way its interperted from the Vadican to the nsa and JW etc and now that they
Lawyers. Kind of like what scientology does hmmm
Scientology, the Eckists, Jehovahs Witnesses, Mormons, Bahaim,
Catholics, etc. etc. etc.
Seon Ferguson
2008-01-07 10:03:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by 383
Post by Seon Ferguson
Yeah they are still people out there who want to control Religion and the
way its interperted from the Vadican to the nsa and JW etc and now that they
Lawyers. Kind of like what scientology does hmmm
Scientology, the Eckists, Jehovahs Witnesses, Mormons, Bahaim,
Catholics, etc. etc. etc.
I wonder if we can just kill all the laywers.
383
2008-01-07 11:34:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seon Ferguson
Post by 383
Post by Seon Ferguson
Yeah they are still people out there who want to control Religion and the
way its interperted from the Vadican to the nsa and JW etc and now that they
Lawyers. Kind of like what scientology does hmmm
Scientology, the Eckists, Jehovahs Witnesses, Mormons, Bahaim,
Catholics, etc. etc. etc.
I wonder if we can just kill all the laywers.
As long as they are special interest lobbyist lawyers, waste the
fuckers - one and all!

W
Seon Ferguson
2008-01-08 00:34:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by 383
Post by Seon Ferguson
Post by 383
Post by Seon Ferguson
Yeah they are still people out there who want to control Religion and the
way its interperted from the Vadican to the nsa and JW etc and now
that
they
Lawyers. Kind of like what scientology does hmmm
Scientology, the Eckists, Jehovahs Witnesses, Mormons, Bahaim,
Catholics, etc. etc. etc.
I wonder if we can just kill all the laywers.
As long as they are special interest lobbyist lawyers, waste the
fuckers - one and all!
Yeah its the lobbyists and neocons that are causing most of the problems in
the world so I have no symopthy for them whatsoever.
H***@aol.com
2008-01-06 07:32:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seon Ferguson
So do you think the Catholic Church should have sued Martin Luther when he
created his own form of Christianity. Should Christians sue the Mormon
church or Jehovah's Witnesses or the many other sects of Christianity that
arose after Martin Luther? That's pretty much what this amounts to.
What you don't seem to get is that the Remeyites sued *us*. They lost
the case, and the judgement against them stated they can't use our
name. What is happening now is simply an attempt to enforce a
judgement which has already been made. When Luther started his own
church he did not call it Roman Catholic. And the Mormons *have* sued
other groups for attempting for attempting to expropriate the name of
their organization.
Seon Ferguson
2008-01-06 08:51:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by H***@aol.com
Post by Seon Ferguson
So do you think the Catholic Church should have sued Martin Luther when he
created his own form of Christianity. Should Christians sue the Mormon
church or Jehovah's Witnesses or the many other sects of Christianity that
arose after Martin Luther? That's pretty much what this amounts to.
What you don't seem to get is that the Remeyites sued *us*. They lost
the case, and the judgement against them stated they can't use our
name. What is happening now is simply an attempt to enforce a
judgement which has already been made. When Luther started his own
church he did not call it Roman Catholic. And the Mormons *have* sued
other groups for attempting for attempting to expropriate the name of
their organization.
Then the Mormons are just as bad. Hmm I wasnt aware that it was the
Otherdorx Bahai's that started the lawsuit in the first place. Did they give
a reason? is there a unbias site where I can get both the facts.
383
2008-01-06 09:41:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by H***@aol.com
their organization.
Then the Mormons are just as bad. Hmm I wasnt aware that it was the
Otherdorx Bahai's that started the lawsuit in the first place. Did they give
a reason?
They didn't. Mason Remey sued the nsa of the US in the late 1960s and
lost. Case shut. Because of the reckless manner he initiated the
lawsuit, the court made a challengeable ruling that made the name
'Bahai' as-is the US nsa's copyright. The ruling - as with the 1920s
patent - could however be challenged, as it should.

That aside, the US nsa - the Haifan cult body in the USA - sued the
Orthodox Bahais of Joel Marangella and the Jensenite BUPC
organizations last year for infringement of a ruling in the 1960s (the
Remey one) which neither of them are legally party to. They are
arguing that the Marangellist group is the same organization at law as
the organization the judgement was handed down against in the 60s.
They are not. And neither of these organizations have initiated a
lawsuit against any of the other Bahai organizations. The Haifan US
nsa has. They are wankers here.

W
Seon Ferguson
2008-01-07 04:40:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by 383
Post by H***@aol.com
their organization.
Then the Mormons are just as bad. Hmm I wasnt aware that it was the
Otherdorx Bahai's that started the lawsuit in the first place. Did they give
a reason?
They didn't. Mason Remey sued the nsa of the US in the late 1960s and
lost. Case shut. Because of the reckless manner he initiated the
lawsuit, the court made a challengeable ruling that made the name
'Bahai' as-is the US nsa's copyright. The ruling - as with the 1920s
patent - could however be challenged, as it should.
That aside, the US nsa - the Haifan cult body in the USA - sued the
Orthodox Bahais of Joel Marangella and the Jensenite BUPC
organizations last year for infringement of a ruling in the 1960s (the
Remey one) which neither of them are legally party to. They are
arguing that the Marangellist group is the same organization at law as
the organization the judgement was handed down against in the 60s.
They are not. And neither of these organizations have initiated a
lawsuit against any of the other Bahai organizations. The Haifan US
nsa has. They are wankers here.
I used to think it was a case of the Haifan bahai's trying to censor anyone
else who disagreed with them. So if the Othordox Bahai's are responsible for
the nsa being copyrighted how is it evil and demonic for the court to make
sure the copyright to be infringed? Or am I way of base again?
Post by 383
W
383
2008-01-07 06:15:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seon Ferguson
I used to think it was a case of the Haifan bahai's trying to censor anyone
else who disagreed with them. So if the Othordox Bahai's are responsible for
the nsa being copyrighted how is it evil and demonic for the court to make
sure the copyright to be infringed? Or am I way of base again?
Wayyyyy, wayyyy off base. W
Seon Ferguson
2008-01-07 08:34:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by 383
Post by Seon Ferguson
I used to think it was a case of the Haifan bahai's trying to censor anyone
else who disagreed with them. So if the Othordox Bahai's are responsible for
the nsa being copyrighted how is it evil and demonic for the court to make
sure the copyright to be infringed? Or am I way of base again?
Wayyyyy, wayyyy off base. W
Yeah I read another post you made where it was a different group who
originally sued the NSA, not the Orthodox Bahai's we know today.
Viv
2008-01-07 10:32:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seon Ferguson
Yeah I read another post you made where it was a different group who
originally sued the NSA, not the Orthodox Bahai's we know today.
But they regard themselves as the same - the Marangellites say they
are the "true" Orthodox Baha'is, with Joel Marangella as the validly
appinted successor to Mason Remey. Their whole existence depends on
that. Nima is trying to talk up a difference that doesn't exist.

As an example of how he will say anything to stir things up, Nima is
also on record as claiming that Joel Marangella is actually in the pay
of the UHJ in Haifa and that his "Orthodox Baha'is" are a Haifa "black
op" to sow confusion.

Viv.
383
2008-01-07 11:29:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Viv
Post by Seon Ferguson
Yeah I read another post you made where it was a different group who
originally sued the NSA, not the Orthodox Bahai's we know today.
But they regard themselves as the same - the Marangellites say they
are the "true" Orthodox Baha'is, with Joel Marangella as the validly
appinted successor to Mason Remey.
And you cultist fuckwits say you are the the "true" whatever. What's
the difference?
Post by Viv
Their whole existence depends on
that. Nima is trying to talk up a difference that doesn't exist.
Really? No differences, eh?? So there are no differences between, say,
the Marangellists and the Soghomonians, or the Shoghomonians and the
Jensenites, or between the Haifans and all the rest of these groups?
If there are no differences, pray tell, why are you Fascist Demons
sueng then?
Post by Viv
As an example of how he will say anything to stir things up, Nima is
also on record as claiming that Joel Marangella is actually in the pay
of the UHJ in Haifa and that his "Orthodox Baha'is" are a Haifa "black
op" to sow confusion.
Viv.
The whole Bahaim outfit is on the take and a gigantic black op, racket
and international money laundering operation. From first to last. The
issue is this, though: amongst groups on the take in the world of
black op-hood, you demons are the worst amongst the worst so you must
go down first - and by any means necessary! And if courts fail to
oblige on issues of blatant justice and fairness, as in this case, as
I have said in the past, violence is a definitely an option on the
table against your organization, specifically against high ranking
members in the ao-hole machinery.

W
Viv
2008-01-07 13:04:58 UTC
Permalink
No answer to the basic points, note, Seon - (a) that the Maergellites
claim to be the Remeyites and (b) Nima has previously stated the
Marangellite setup is all a big con anyway - remember that when he
pretends to be concerned about them.

Viv.
383
2008-01-08 04:06:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Viv
No answer to the basic points, note, Seon - (a) that the Maergellites
claim to be the Remeyites and (b) Nima has previously stated the
Marangellite setup is all a big con anyway - remember that when he
pretends to be concerned about them.
Viv.
You fuckers are all on the take, and the whole of Bahaism is a con
game. It's just choosing the lessor of evils here, and the Orthodox
Marangellist Bahais are the lessor of your much greater evil.

And, absolutely, that Marangella appointed an Iranian rather than have
another white anglo "pretender" guardian face makes all the difference
in the world to me. All of this - whether in its Babi or bahaim
trajectory - belongs to us Iranians. Whitey Anglo-Honkey should leave
it all alone, pack up and go back to his sanitized Christian Churches
where he belongs.

W
H***@aol.com
2008-01-07 20:00:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Viv
As an example of how he will say anything to stir things up, Nima is
also on record as claiming that Joel Marangella is actually in the pay
of the UHJ in Haifa and that his "Orthodox Baha'is" are a Haifa "black
op" to sow confusion.
That was before Joel appointed an Iranian as his successor. Then they
became the good guys.
Seon Ferguson
2008-01-08 00:37:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Viv
Post by Seon Ferguson
Yeah I read another post you made where it was a different group who
originally sued the NSA, not the Orthodox Bahai's we know today.
But they regard themselves as the same - the Marangellites say they
are the "true" Orthodox Baha'is, with Joel Marangella as the validly
appinted successor to Mason Remey. Their whole existence depends on
that. Nima is trying to talk up a difference that doesn't exist.
As an example of how he will say anything to stir things up, Nima is
also on record as claiming that Joel Marangella is actually in the pay
of the UHJ in Haifa and that his "Orthodox Baha'is" are a Haifa "black
op" to sow confusion.
But the Orthodox we know today don't feel that way. Its like Mormonism
saying they are Christians. The traditional Christian Church which believes
Jesus was God and said anyone that comes after him is a false prophet will
say Mormonism has nothing to do with Christianity. So does that mean
Mormonism is a Christian sect?
All Bad
2008-01-27 01:41:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Viv
Post by Seon Ferguson
Yeah I read another post you made where it was a different group who
originally sued the NSA, not the Orthodox Bahai's we know today.
But they regard themselves as the same - the Marangellites say they
are the "true" Orthodox Baha'is, with Joel Marangella as the validly
appinted successor to Mason Remey. Their whole existence depends on
that. Nima is trying to talk up a difference that doesn't exist.
As an example of how he will say anything to stir things up, Nima is
also on record as claiming that Joel Marangella is actually in the pay
of the UHJ in Haifa and that his "Orthodox Baha'is" are a Haifa "black
op" to sow confusion.
I suppose it takes a "Black Op" to know a "Black Op", but even then, "W", as
a "Black Op" could lie about others being "Black Ops" when they are not.

- All Bad
H***@aol.com
2008-01-07 19:58:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seon Ferguson
I used to think it was a case of the Haifan bahai's trying to censor anyone
else who disagreed with them. So if the Othordox Bahai's are responsible for
the nsa being copyrighted how is it evil and demonic for the court to make
sure the copyright to be infringed?
Just one modification here. The NSA owned the Baha'i trademarks in
question previous to this, but they were not able to protect those
rights in their case against Ahmad Sohrab, so possessing those
trademarks essentially did them no good. What Mason Remey tried to do
was lay exclusive claim to the rights over both the Baha'i properties
and Baha'i trademarks. In losing that case, the Remeyites lost the
right to use these trademarks as well.

In short, the Remeyites are not responible for these trademarks being
copyrighted, but it was their action in trying to seize complete
control of those trademarks that resulted in the court's ruling that
they wouldn't be able to use them.
Seon Ferguson
2008-01-08 09:33:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by H***@aol.com
Post by Seon Ferguson
I used to think it was a case of the Haifan bahai's trying to censor anyone
else who disagreed with them. So if the Othordox Bahai's are responsible for
the nsa being copyrighted how is it evil and demonic for the court to make
sure the copyright to be infringed?
Just one modification here. The NSA owned the Baha'i trademarks in
question previous to this, but they were not able to protect those
rights in their case against Ahmad Sohrab, so possessing those
trademarks essentially did them no good. What Mason Remey tried to do
was lay exclusive claim to the rights over both the Baha'i properties
and Baha'i trademarks. In losing that case, the Remeyites lost the
right to use these trademarks as well.
In short, the Remeyites are not responible for these trademarks being
copyrighted, but it was their action in trying to seize complete
control of those trademarks that resulted in the court's ruling that
they wouldn't be able to use them.
That I didn't know. I don't think anyone should be able to trademark a
Religion. If Christianity got trademarked there would be none of these
Christian sects around today. Or maybe they would be called something else.
H***@aol.com
2008-01-08 22:48:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seon Ferguson
That I didn't know. I don't think anyone should be able to trademark a
Religion.
It is not the religion which has trademarks, it is the religious
organization. You were right in the first place when you said they
could have picked other names. For instance, they could have
conceivably gone back to using the old "Bahaism" designation which is
a pretty fair translation of Bahaiyyat anyhow.

If Christianity got trademarked there would be none of these
Post by Seon Ferguson
Christian sects around today.
Hmmm. Maybe trademarking isn't such a bad idea. ;-}

Seriously, though it is the Covenant not any trademarks which protect
us from any permanent breech.
All Bad
2008-01-27 01:40:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by 383
Post by H***@aol.com
their organization.
Then the Mormons are just as bad. Hmm I wasnt aware that it was the
Otherdorx Bahai's that started the lawsuit in the first place. Did they give
a reason?
They didn't. Mason Remey sued the nsa of the US in the late 1960s and
lost. Case shut. Because of the reckless manner he initiated the
lawsuit, the court made a challengeable ruling that made the name
'Bahai' as-is the US nsa's copyright. The ruling - as with the 1920s
patent - could however be challenged, as it should.
That aside, the US nsa - the Haifan cult body in the USA - sued the
Orthodox Bahais of Joel Marangella and the Jensenite BUPC
organizations last year for infringement of a ruling in the 1960s (the
Remey one) which neither of them are legally party to. They are
arguing that the Marangellist group is the same organization at law as
the organization the judgement was handed down against in the 60s.
They are not. And neither of these organizations have initiated a
Do __they__ know that they are not the Orthodox Baha'i Faith of Mason
Remey?????

Its all well and good for you to come to that conclusion, but if they don't
share that conclusion, then for our purposes, that conclusion is simply the
opinion of a bystander.

- All Bad
Post by 383
lawsuit against any of the other Bahai organizations. The Haifan US
nsa has. They are wankers here.
W
H***@aol.com
2008-01-27 07:32:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by All Bad
Do __they__ know that they are not the Orthodox Baha'i Faith of Mason
Remey?????
Its all well and good for you to come to that conclusion, but if they don't
share that conclusion, then for our purposes, that conclusion is simply the
opinion of a bystander.
For the purposes of this lawsuit they are arguing that they are not.
The problem is that the current leaders of the OBF we all parties to
the original lawsuit. Furthermore when they switched their allegiance
over to Joel M. they maintained control of all the property the
organization had under Mason Remey's leadership. That makes them
continuous with the previous organization.

Maybe the BUPC will have better luck. After all, they didn't keep the
mimeograph machine. But then there is still that little problem of
Neal Chase claiming to be Mason Remey's successor. Or is it Pepe
Remey? He shouldn't have gone to pick up that magic pendant after all.
All Bad
2008-01-27 14:08:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by H***@aol.com
Post by All Bad
Do __they__ know that they are not the Orthodox Baha'i Faith of Mason
Remey?????
Its all well and good for you to come to that conclusion, but if they don't
share that conclusion, then for our purposes, that conclusion is simply the
opinion of a bystander.
For the purposes of this lawsuit they are arguing that they are not.
The problem is that the current leaders of the OBF we all parties to
the original lawsuit. Furthermore when they switched their allegiance
over to Joel M. they maintained control of all the property the
organization had under Mason Remey's leadership. That makes them
continuous with the previous organization.
Maybe the BUPC will have better luck. After all, they didn't keep the
mimeograph machine. But then there is still that little problem of
Neal Chase claiming to be Mason Remey's successor. Or is it Pepe
Remey? He shouldn't have gone to pick up that magic pendant after all.
I'd thought that Pepe was out of it, and Jacques Shogomanian was in, but too
reasonable to sue.

- All Bad
s***@gmail.com
2008-01-27 18:06:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by All Bad
I'd thought that Pepe was out of it,
Not for the BUPC. They insist that Pepe was the second Guardian
whether he accepted the nomination or not. Neal Chase's own claims to
be Guardian seem to rest upon his supposedly obtaining some certai
relics some Pepe's estate, among them a pendant Mason Remey supposedly
wore as a mark of his office and lock of Baha'u'llah's hair which
Remey had received from Shoghi Effendi.

and Jacques Shogomanian was in, but too
Post by All Bad
reasonable to sue.
Sogomanian does not have an organization so there is really no one to
sue. And his website is housed in Australia, beyond the jurisprudence
of the US courts.
H***@aol.com
2008-01-06 14:06:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seon Ferguson
Hmm I wasnt aware that it was the
Otherdorx Bahai's that started the lawsuit in the first place. Did they give
a reason? is there a unbias site where I can get both the facts.
The original lawsuit was filed in 1964 on behalf of Mason Remey who
claimed to be the rightful owner of Baha'i Temple in Wilmette and the
only authorized voice of the Bahai Faith in the United States. It was
at that point the NSA filed a counter-claim against the Remeyites for
trademark infringement. In all likelihood had the Remeyites not filed
this lawsuit first the NSA would have likely allowed the early
decision made in Ahmad Sohrab's case to stand. But since at the time
the Remeyites themselves were claiming sole proprietorship over these
trademarks they could not make the same argument that Ahmad Sohrab
did, namely that you can't copyright a religion. Accordingly when the
Remeyites lost their case, the NSA was able to secure an injunction
prohibiting them from the use of established Baha'i terminology or
otherwise infringing the National Assembly's rights under civil law.

The argument they are currently trying to make is more along the lines
of Ahmad Sohrab's original court case, but in direct contradiction to
Remey and Frank Schlatter earlier assertions that there could be only
one Baha'i Faith. However, since the current court case seeks only to
enforce the original decision which was never appealed, I don't think
the court will allow them to make this argument in prevent enforcement
of an existing court order. They would have to appeal the original
case on this grounds which would directly contradict the claims they
made in the original lawsuit. The Remeyites argument is that they were
not party to the original lawsuit since they fragmented into various
groups, but if you look at the names of those involved in the original
court case you will see it is the same people. I might add that
although the NSA won this case, they never sought to enforce the court
order until one of the Remeyite groups started using the name
Universal House of Justice on the internet to refer to its governing
body. If Lutherans started to use the word "Vatican" to refer to
their governing body, you can bet that the Roman Catholics would file
suit!

As for an unbiased site describing the details of this case, who but
an interested party would care one whit about it? However, as near as
I can tell all the documentation of the original lawsuit is included
on Jeffrey's website containing the court documents of the current
case. Those documents make it quite clear that the NSA is merely
seeking to enforce an existing court injunction, one which resulted
from the Remeyites themselves filing suit against the NSA in an
attempt to gain sole ownership of both our Temple property and our
trademarks.
Seon Ferguson
2008-01-07 04:43:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by H***@aol.com
Post by Seon Ferguson
Hmm I wasnt aware that it was the
Otherdorx Bahai's that started the lawsuit in the first place. Did they give
a reason? is there a unbias site where I can get both the facts.
The original lawsuit was filed in 1964 on behalf of Mason Remey who
claimed to be the rightful owner of Baha'i Temple in Wilmette and the
only authorized voice of the Bahai Faith in the United States. It was
at that point the NSA filed a counter-claim against the Remeyites for
trademark infringement. In all likelihood had the Remeyites not filed
this lawsuit first the NSA would have likely allowed the early
decision made in Ahmad Sohrab's case to stand. But since at the time
the Remeyites themselves were claiming sole proprietorship over these
trademarks they could not make the same argument that Ahmad Sohrab
did, namely that you can't copyright a religion. Accordingly when the
Remeyites lost their case, the NSA was able to secure an injunction
prohibiting them from the use of established Baha'i terminology or
otherwise infringing the National Assembly's rights under civil law.
The argument they are currently trying to make is more along the lines
of Ahmad Sohrab's original court case, but in direct contradiction to
Remey and Frank Schlatter earlier assertions that there could be only
one Baha'i Faith. However, since the current court case seeks only to
enforce the original decision which was never appealed, I don't think
the court will allow them to make this argument in prevent enforcement
of an existing court order. They would have to appeal the original
case on this grounds which would directly contradict the claims they
made in the original lawsuit. The Remeyites argument is that they were
not party to the original lawsuit since they fragmented into various
groups, but if you look at the names of those involved in the original
court case you will see it is the same people. I might add that
although the NSA won this case, they never sought to enforce the court
order until one of the Remeyite groups started using the name
Universal House of Justice on the internet to refer to its governing
body. If Lutherans started to use the word "Vatican" to refer to
their governing body, you can bet that the Roman Catholics would file
suit!
As for an unbiased site describing the details of this case, who but
an interested party would care one whit about it? However, as near as
I can tell all the documentation of the original lawsuit is included
on Jeffrey's website containing the court documents of the current
case. Those documents make it quite clear that the NSA is merely
seeking to enforce an existing court injunction, one which resulted
from the Remeyites themselves filing suit against the NSA in an
attempt to gain sole ownership of both our Temple property and our
trademarks.
I don't see why the Bahia otherodox's cant just make up another name for
their governing body. As I said to W I used to think it was a case of the
nsa going around trying to stop anyone from disagreeing with them but now
I'm not so sure. Thats what happens when I try to look at both sides of the
issue.
383
2008-01-06 09:29:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by H***@aol.com
Post by Seon Ferguson
So do you think the Catholic Church should have sued Martin Luther when he
created his own form of Christianity. Should Christians sue the Mormon
church or Jehovah's Witnesses or the many other sects of Christianity that
arose after Martin Luther? That's pretty much what this amounts to.
What you don't seem to get is that the Remeyites sued *us*.
Remeys original group sued you, not the present Marangellist group or
the Jensenite group. These are different entities altogether, which
the court in Illinois (provided it isn't a Kangaroo court in your
organization's pocket) is about to find.
Post by H***@aol.com
They lost
the case, and the judgement against them stated they can't use our
name.
The part of the judgement that said only your organization can use the
name "Bahai" could've been challenged, and still can, on the 1st
Amendment, but because Remey did not have the money (unlike you
demons), he did not appeal the matter - as he could have.
Post by H***@aol.com
What is happening now is simply an attempt to enforce a
judgement which has already been made.
The judgement - flawed - was made against an organization that no
longer exists, not the Marangellist Orthodox Bahais.
Post by H***@aol.com
When Luther started his own
church he did not call it Roman Catholic. And the Mormons *have* sued
other groups for attempting for attempting to expropriate the name of
their organization.
So you are comparing yourselves to a cult like the LDM, now? Good
admission...

W
Seon Ferguson
2008-01-07 04:44:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by 383
Post by H***@aol.com
What is happening now is simply an attempt to enforce a
judgement which has already been made.
The judgement - flawed - was made against an organization that no
longer exists, not the Marangellist Orthodox Bahais.
Actually thats a good point the judgement did say that only the Margngellist
Orthodox Bahai's ciykdnt use the name Bahai anymore nothing about other
groups.
Post by 383
Post by H***@aol.com
When Luther started his own
church he did not call it Roman Catholic. And the Mormons *have* sued
other groups for attempting for attempting to expropriate the name of
their organization.
So you are comparing yourselves to a cult like the LDM, now? Good
admission...
W
H***@aol.com
2008-01-07 19:42:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seon Ferguson
Actually thats a good point the judgement did say that only the Margngellist
Orthodox Bahai's ciykdnt use the name Bahai anymore nothing about other
groups.
Not precisely correct. Joel had not yet attempted to usurp Mason
Remey's position at the time. They were still united behind Mason
Remey himself. And Joel M. and Frank S. both played major roles in the
orignal law suit. One cannot avoid a judgement simply by forming a new
corporate body to do the very thing you were doing in the first place.
So the only real legal question to be decided at this point is whether
the various Remeyite factions are bound by a judgement that was made
when they were united.
Seon Ferguson
2008-01-08 00:39:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by H***@aol.com
Post by Seon Ferguson
Actually thats a good point the judgement did say that only the Margngellist
Orthodox Bahai's ciykdnt use the name Bahai anymore nothing about other
groups.
Not precisely correct. Joel had not yet attempted to usurp Mason
Remey's position at the time. They were still united behind Mason
Remey himself. And Joel M. and Frank S. both played major roles in the
orignal law suit. One cannot avoid a judgement simply by forming a new
corporate body to do the very thing you were doing in the first place.
So the only real legal question to be decided at this point is whether
the various Remeyite factions are bound by a judgement that was made
when they were united.
If I had it my way I would say no since as I said before the Orthodox bahais
don't think that group is part of them. But judges have used previous cases
as a reason to rule a particular way for something that is different so who
knows how it will turn out. I just know it will be a major blow if the
Hafian fail.
H***@aol.com
2008-01-08 03:06:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seon Ferguson
If I had it my way I would say no since as I said before the Orthodox bahais
don't think that group is part of them.
Then they should not have taken over all the property of the previous
group in the United States. They considered themselves the legitimate
successor that group until this lawsuite made it inconvenient for them
to say so.

As I mentioned earlier, these are the very *same* inidividuals who
were involved in the original law suit.
383
2008-01-08 04:07:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by H***@aol.com
Post by Seon Ferguson
If I had it my way I would say no since as I said before the Orthodox bahais
don't think that group is part of them.
Then they should not have taken over all the property of the previous
group in the United States. They considered themselves the legitimate
successor that group until this lawsuite made it inconvenient for them
to say so.
As I mentioned earlier, these are the very *same* inidividuals who
were involved in the original law suit.
Bullshit. They are not the same individuals. Nor is it, the same
organization.

W
Shahriar
2008-01-08 06:39:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by 383
Post by H***@aol.com
Post by Seon Ferguson
If I had it my way I would say no since as I said before the Orthodox bahais
don't think that group is part of them.
Then they should not have taken over all the property of the previous
group in the United States. They considered themselves the legitimate
successor that group until this lawsuite made it inconvenient for them
to say so.
As I mentioned earlier, these are the very *same* inidividuals who
were involved in the original law suit.
Bullshit. They are not the same individuals. Nor is it, the same
organization.
W
Nima, do you believe that Bahaullah is guiding and protecting them?
383
2008-01-08 07:36:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shahriar
Post by 383
Post by H***@aol.com
Post by Seon Ferguson
If I had it my way I would say no since as I said before the Orthodox bahais
don't think that group is part of them.
Then they should not have taken over all the property of the previous
group in the United States. They considered themselves the legitimate
successor that group until this lawsuite made it inconvenient for them
to say so.
As I mentioned earlier, these are the very *same* inidividuals who
were involved in the original law suit.
Bullshit. They are not the same individuals. Nor is it, the same
organization.
W
Nima, do you believe that Bahaullah is guiding and protecting them?
I Am indeed guiding and protecting them, yes. ;-)

W
Shahriar
2008-01-08 22:55:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by 383
Post by Shahriar
Post by 383
Post by H***@aol.com
Post by Seon Ferguson
If I had it my way I would say no since as I said before the
Orthodox
bahais
don't think that group is part of them.
Then they should not have taken over all the property of the previous
group in the United States. They considered themselves the legitimate
successor that group until this lawsuite made it inconvenient for them
to say so.
As I mentioned earlier, these are the very *same* inidividuals who
were involved in the original law suit.
Bullshit. They are not the same individuals. Nor is it, the same
organization.
W
Nima, do you believe that Bahaullah is guiding and protecting them?
I Am indeed guiding and protecting them, yes. ;-)
W
I am sure they know that, yet keep talking about why Remey signed what he
did not want to sign. Do you believe that confession under torture to be
permissible to court as evidence of weakness, or wickedness? They say he was
under pressure by the hands to sign. I say he signed for both weakness and
wickedness. Of course, your opinion, like always, is of considerable cause
to our laughter.
Seon Ferguson
2008-01-08 09:31:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by H***@aol.com
Post by Seon Ferguson
If I had it my way I would say no since as I said before the Orthodox bahais
don't think that group is part of them.
Then they should not have taken over all the property of the previous
group in the United States. They considered themselves the legitimate
successor that group until this lawsuite made it inconvenient for them
to say so.
As I mentioned earlier, these are the very *same* inidividuals who
were involved in the original law suit.
That kind of thing doesnt happen when sects from other Religions break of.
Why should the Bahai's be the same?
H***@aol.com
2008-01-08 22:42:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seon Ferguson
Post by H***@aol.com
As I mentioned earlier, these are the very *same* inidividuals who
were involved in the original law suit.
That kind of thing doesnt happen when sects from other Religions break of.
Why should the Bahai's be the same?
What kind of thing doesn't happen?
Seon Ferguson
2008-01-08 23:34:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by H***@aol.com
Post by Seon Ferguson
Post by H***@aol.com
As I mentioned earlier, these are the very *same* inidividuals who
were involved in the original law suit.
That kind of thing doesnt happen when sects from other Religions break of.
Why should the Bahai's be the same?
What kind of thing doesn't happen?
Then they should not have taken over all the property of the previous
group in the United States. They considered themselves the legitimate
successor that group until this lawsuite made it inconvenient for them
to say so.
Baha'i Censorship - See Website
2007-12-26 13:22:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey
On Dec 24, 10:13 am, "Baha'i Censorship - See Website"
Post by Baha'i Censorship - See Website
It should also be noted what kind of "scholarship" Momen and the fanatical uhj
conceive of for the future Baha'i "commonwealth." Nothing could be further
Compare to "The Bahai Technique":http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/technique.htm
Shunning & Slander > Menuhttp://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Shunning.htm
Post by Baha'i Censorship - See Website
"Marginality and apostasy in the Baha'i community." Religion. Volume 37, Issue 3, September 2007, Pages 187-209.
Moojan Momen's attempt to label people as "apostates" entirely misses what is truly the issue: The corruption and decline of
the
Baha'i Faith under an oppressive administration founded upon the spurious, fraudulent will and testament of Abdu'l-Baha. A
religion based upon an act of forgery cannot but produce the many evils that have manifested themselves increasingly over the
last
decade in the Baha'i Faith. The much flaunted "administrative order" constitutes the real cadre of apostates, not the
fictitious
"group" he's concocted.
Momen and the so-called administrative order, while publicly hiding behind a facade of liberalism, are essentially practicing
Islamic "takfir," in the words of Bernard Lewis, "recognizing and denouncing apostasy," labeling people "kafir" or infidels,
and
issuing "fatwas" or decrees, denying the very existence of other Bahais and denominations, all indicative of the worst in the
Islamic heritage of the Bahai Faith-practices Baha'u'llah specifically rejected, teaching tolerance of different religious
views,
largely congruent with modern Western custom and practice. Nothing could be more diametrically opposed to the modern democracy
of
the Western civic and legal order than the jihad Momen and the ao are conducting....
My full and detailed response to Moojan Momen's Slanderous Vilification is on my censorship website at
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/apostates.htm
www.fglaysher.com
Frederick,
I believe in religious freedom so it is OK with me if they want to
label everyone infidels. Let them go on with their paranoid and
oppressive form of Bahai. As long as we have the religious freedom to
denounce them and to warn anyone who will listen about what they are
really doing and the kind of fanaticism they represent.
The problem I have is when they use the Courts or other system of
coercion to try to silence its critics and preclude the "infidels"
from publicly criticizing them. Their attempts to take away our
religious freedom are simply unacceptable.
Jeffrey
----------

Jeffrey,

You're quite right. It's the deceitful use of the US Courts to further
their fanatical interpretation that is most reprehensible. In my view,
it's essential to understand that Baha'u'lah "effaced from the Book"
the doctrines in Islam that the uhj's supposed administration has
put back in: takfir, kufr (accusing people of ingratitude as infidels),
denouncing them as such (kafir). Most of the West evolved beyond
such ignorant fanaticism during the 1600s. Baha'u'llah understood
the evils such self-righteous fundamentalism would lead to.

US Courts of law, in order to understand what is really taking place
within their jurisdiction regarding Haifan Baha'is must essentially
realize how they've departed from Baha'u'llah's own Teachings
and are now analogous to the worst elements of extremist Islam:

"The deniers and contradictors hold to four words:
First: Destroying men's lives.
Second: Burning the books.
Third : Shunning other nations.
Fourth: Exterminating other nations.
Now, by the Grace and Authority of the Word of God, these four great barriers have been demolished. These four manifest decrees have
been effaced from the Book, and God hath changed brutal manners into spiritual qualities."

( Excerpt from The Universal Principles of the Reform Bahai Faith. Reform Bahai Press, 2008. 148 pages.
Available worldwide: http://www.reformbahai.org/reform%20bahai%20press.htm )

Attempting to use trademarks, copyrights, and corporate law
to conceal these despicable doctrines won't ultimately deceive
intelligent judges and lawyers capable of perceiving the crucial
importance of the issues to a free and civlized country, civilized
unlike such countries as Iran where these repulsive doctrines
ruin the lives of millions of people. You're fighting for a noble
cause. It can't be allowed to happen here. Be confident.
Baha'u'llah's own Words confirm you're on the right side.

Best Bahai regards,
--
The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/
H***@aol.com
2007-12-29 05:27:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baha'i Censorship - See Website
You're quite right. It's the deceitful use of the US Courts to further
their fanatical interpretation that is most reprehensible.
What about your deceitful fabrication of websites claiming to
represent non-existent Baha'i groups, Freddie?

You've yet to address this issue.
H***@aol.com
2008-01-16 00:18:49 UTC
Permalink
Presumably this isn't Seon's either.
it, agitates a whole country, princes, armies, the entire
world.
Cleopatra's nose: had it been shorter, the whole aspect of the world would
have been altered.
163. Vanity.--The cause and the effects of love: Cleopatra.
164. He who does not see the vanity of the world is himself very vain.
Indeed who do not see it but youths who are absorbed in fame, diversion, and
the thought of the future? But take away diversion, and you will see them
dried up with weariness. They feel then their nothingness without knowing
it; for it is indeed to be unhappy to be in insufferable sadness as soon as
we are reduced to thinking of self and have no diversion.
165. Thoughts.--In omnibus requiem quaesivi.21 If our condition were truly
happy, we not need diversion from thinking of it in order to make ourselves
happy.
166. Diversion.--Death is easier to bear without thinking of it than is the
thought of death without peril.
167. The miseries of human life has established all this: as men have seen
this, they have taken up diversion.
168. Diversion.--As men are not able to fight against death, misery,
ignorance, they have taken it into their heads, in order to be happy, not to
think of them at all.
169. Despite these miseries, man wishes to be happy, and only wishes to be
happy, and cannot wish not to
H***@aol.com
2008-01-16 00:19:20 UTC
Permalink
Hmm. They even stole Nima's.
well said! Ah! How
well done! How well-behaved he is! etc.
The children of Port-Royal, who do not receive this stimulus of envy and
glory, fall into carelessness.
152. Pride.--Curiosity is only vanity. Most frequently we wish to know but
to talk. Otherwise we would not take a sea voyage in order never to talk of
it, and for the sole pleasure of seeing without hope of ever communicating
it.
153. Of the desire of being esteemed by those with whom we are.--Pride takes
such natural possession of us in the midst of our woes, errors, etc. We even
lose our life with joy, provided people talk of it.
Vanity: play, hunting, visiting, false shame, a lasting name.
154. I have no friends to your advantage.
155. A true friend is so great an advantage, even for the greatest lords, in
order that he may speak well of them and back them in their absence, that
they should do all to have one. But they should choose well; for, if they
spend all their efforts in the interests of fools, it will be of no use,
however well these may speak of them; and these will not even speak well of
them if they find themselves on the
383
2008-01-16 02:24:15 UTC
Permalink
Not my posting. Nor do I live in Hungary. This has bahaim Internet
Committee written all over it. W

213.178.124.238 HU HUNGARY BUDAPEST BUDAPEST INTERWARE INC

Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!news1.google.com!
border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
nntp.giganews.com!out02a.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!
in04.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!news.interware.hu!
postnews.google.com!21g2000hsj.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: 383 <***@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.email,alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.bahai
Subject: Re: My Response to Moojan Momen's Slanderous Vilification
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 22:45:08 GMT
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <fa271877%74c4-6078_1e0a
$***@21g2000hsj.googlegroups.com>
References: <***@comcast.com>
<***@comcast.com>
<f98c67d0-7f9d-4a26-994a-***@f3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pool-6126.adsl.interware.hu
X-Trace: proxy.interware.hu 1200442285 8915 213.178.124.238 (16 Jan
2008 00:11:25 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ***@interware.hu
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 00:11:25 +0000 (UTC)
X-Original-Bytes: 2246
well said! Ah! How
well done! How well-behaved he is! etc.
The children of Port-Royal, who do not receive this stimulus of envy and
glory, fall into carelessness.
152. Pride.--Curiosity is only vanity. Most frequently we wish to know but
to talk. Otherwise we would not take a sea voyage in order never to talk of
it, and for the sole pleasure of seeing without hope of ever communicating
it.
153. Of the desire of being esteemed by those with whom we are.--Pride takes
such natural possession of us in the midst of our woes, errors, etc. We even
lose our life with joy, provided people talk of it.
Vanity: play, hunting, visiting, false shame, a lasting name.
154. I have no friends to your advantage.
155. A true friend is so great an advantage, even for the greatest lords, in
order that he may speak well of them and back them in their absence, that
they should do all to have one. But they should choose well; for, if they
spend all their efforts in the interests of fools, it will be of no use,
however well these may speak of them; and these will not even speak well of
them if they find themselves on the
H***@aol.com
2008-01-16 00:18:16 UTC
Permalink
Again, this is not my posting.
splendour. When austerity or stern choice has not arrived at the
true good and must needs return to follow nature, it becomes proud by reason
of this return.
408. Evil is easy, and has infinite forms; good is almost unique. But a
certain kind of evil is as difficult to find as what we call good; and often
on this account such particular evil gets passed off as good. An
extraordinary greatness of soul is needed in order to attain to it as well
as to good.
409. The greatness of man.--The greatness of man is so evident that it is
even proved by his wretchedness. For what in animals is nature, we call in
man wretchedness, by which we recognise that, his nature being now like that
of animals, he has fallen from a better nature which once was his.
For who is unhappy at not being a king, except a deposed king? Was Paulus
Aemilius unhappy at being no longer consul? On the contrary, everybody
thought him happy in having been consul, because the office could only be
held for a time. But men thought Perseus so unhappy in being no longer king,
because the condition of kingship implied his being always king, that they
thought it strange that he endured life. Who is unhappy at only having one
mouth
MrDonut
2008-01-16 00:40:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by H***@aol.com
Again, this is not my posting.
Does Missy (1/13) have any suggestions?
H***@aol.com
2007-12-29 05:38:25 UTC
Permalink
My full and detailed response to Moojan Momen's Slanderous Vilification is on my censorship website athttp://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/apostates.htm
Hmmm. There seems to be some distortions here. For instance you
write:

"Momen is essentially deriding me on the fact that community colleges
command less respect than universities. I'm not at all ashamed that I
taught at three community colleges for four years."

There is certainly nothing wrong with teaching at a community college.
In fact, when you failed to finish your dissertation that was pretty
much your only option. But didn't you leave that community college in
Arizona because you failed to obtain tenure?

You write:

"He conveniently leaves out that I also taught for several years at
Gunma University (Japan), Illinois State University, and Oakland
University (1992-1994, Michigan), until I decided that as a writer I
was better off outside the confines of academia and resigned my
university position."

As I recall you were adjunctiing at Oakland University when you
resigned amid charges of racism and harrassment. Wasn't that right? I
remember your mentioning this in one of your Amazon book reviews.
j***@gmail.com
2008-01-24 00:39:29 UTC
Permalink
Merriam-Webster OnLine:

apostacy

1 : renunciation of a religious faith
2 : abandonment of a previous loyalty : defection

----

It looks to me like both definitions apply to some of the people on
Momen's list, and the second one might apply to all of you. Some have
openly renounced the faith in Baha'u'llah they once professed, and all
of you have campaigned against the House of Justice on Mount Carmel,
possibly after a period of professing allegiance to it.

What I object to is not so much the labels applied to our castaways,
but the way you've been depreciated and abused.

Whenever I talk to people about you, Fred, I talk about your poetry,
and about your promotion of the UN in radio interviews. Sometimes I
talk about your devoted efforts to preserve accounts of abuse in the
Baha'i community, and about your Letters from the American Desert.

Jim

On Dec 21 2007, 7:39 am, "Baha'i Censorship - See Website"
Post by Baha'i Censorship - See Website
Moojan Momen's attempt to label people as "apostates" entirely misses what is truly the issue: The corruption and decline of the
Baha'i Faith under an oppressive administration founded upon the spurious, fraudulent will and testament of Abdu'l-Baha. A religion
based upon an act of forgery cannot but produce the many evils that have manifested themselves increasingly over the last decade in
the Baha'i Faith. The much flaunted "administrative order" constitutes the real cadre of apostates, not the fictitious "group" he's
concocted.
Momen and the so-called administrative order, while publicly hiding behind a facade of liberalism, are essentially practicing
Islamic "takfir," in the words of Bernard Lewis, "recognizing and denouncing apostasy," labeling people "kafir" or infidels, and
issuing "fatwas" or decrees, denying the very existence of other Bahais and denominations, all indicative of the worst in the
Islamic heritage of the Bahai Faith-practices Baha'u'llah specifically rejected, teaching tolerance of different religious views,
largely congruent with modern Western custom and practice. Nothing could be more diametrically opposed to the modern democracy of
the Western civic and legal order than the jihad Momen and the ao are conducting....
My full and detailed response to Moojan Momen's Slanderous Vilification is on my censorship website athttp://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/apostates.htm
www.fglaysher.com
H***@aol.com
2008-01-24 06:22:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Whenever I talk to people about you, Fred, I talk about your poetry,
and about your promotion of the UN in radio interviews. Sometimes I
talk about your devoted efforts to preserve accounts of abuse in the
Baha'i community, and about your Letters from the American Desert.
And you don't talk about him accusing the NSA of murdering Dan Jordan
or Baha'is of killing David Kelly or any of the other slanders he has
committed?
H***@aol.com
2008-01-24 06:24:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Whenever I talk to people about you, Fred, I talk about your poetry,
and about your promotion of the UN in radio interviews. Sometimes I
talk about your devoted efforts to preserve accounts of abuse in the
Baha'i community, and about your Letters from the American Desert.
Oh, and do you talk about the fraudlent websites he set up purporting
to represent Baha'i factions like the followers of Muhammad Ali which
in fact don't exist?
383
2008-01-24 06:53:11 UTC
Permalink
Here go the bad-cop and the good-cop on their annual little play on
TRB again.

W
r***@yahoo.co.in
2008-01-24 20:30:49 UTC
Permalink
David Kelly was murdered just as the AngloSaxon war in the middle east
was starting.
Post by H***@aol.com
Post by j***@gmail.com
Whenever I talk to people about you, Fred, I talk about your poetry,
and about your promotion of the UN in radio interviews. Sometimes I
talk about your devoted efforts to preserve accounts of abuse in the
Baha'i community, and about your Letters from the American Desert.
And you don't talk about him accusing the NSA of murdering Dan Jordan
or Baha'is of killing David Kelly or any of the other slanders he has
committed?
j***@gmail.com
2008-01-25 04:43:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by H***@aol.com
Post by j***@gmail.com
Whenever I talk to people about you, Fred, I talk about your poetry,
and about your promotion of the UN in radio interviews. Sometimes I
talk about your devoted efforts to preserve accounts of abuse in the
Baha'i community, and about your Letters from the American Desert.
And you don't talk about him accusing the NSA of murdering Dan Jordan
or Baha'is of killing David Kelly or any of the other slanders he has
committed?
and
Post by H***@aol.com
Oh, and do you talk about the fraudlent websites he set up purporting
to represent Baha'i factions like the followers of Muhammad Ali which
in fact don't exist?
No, I don't. Do you? If so, why?

Jim
H***@aol.com
2008-01-25 17:32:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by H***@aol.com
Oh, and do you talk about the fraudlent websites he set up purporting
to represent Baha'i factions like the followers of Muhammad Ali which
in fact don't exist?
No, I don't. Do you? If so, why?
Because it speaks to the integrity of someone who will stop at nothing
to attack the Faith.
j***@gmail.com
2008-01-25 19:10:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by H***@aol.com
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by H***@aol.com
Oh, and do you talk about the fraudlent websites he set up purporting
to represent Baha'i factions like the followers of Muhammad Ali which
in fact don't exist?
No, I don't. Do you? If so, why?
Because it speaks to the integrity of someone who will stop at nothing
to attack the Faith.
That looks to me like reflecting on the character of others. Would you
agree?

According to the House of Justice, reflecting on the integrity of
others crosses the line that separates legitimate defense of the Faith
from contention. Do you disagree with that?

Apart from that, what purpose can it serve?
H***@aol.com
2008-01-26 05:17:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by j***@gmail.com
According to the House of Justice, reflecting on the integrity of
others crosses the line that separates legitimate defense of the Faith
from contention. Do you disagree with that?
Where does the Universal House of Justice say that? It has not
hesitated to do so itself when appropriate. So did Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-
Baha and Shoghi Effendi. This is what Baha'u'llah has to say:



Warn, O Salman, the beloved of the one true God, not to view with too
critical an eye the sayings and writings of men. Let them rather
approach such sayings and writings in a spirit of open-mindedness and
loving sympathy. Those men, however, who, in this Day, have been led
to assail, in their inflammatory writings, the tenets of the Cause of
God, are to be treated differently. It is incumbent upon all men, each
according to his ability, to refute the arguments of those that have
attacked the Faith of God.

(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 329)
j***@gmail.com
2008-01-26 15:56:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by H***@aol.com
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by j***@gmail.com
According to the House of Justice, reflecting on the integrity of
others crosses the line that separates legitimate defense of the Faith
from contention. Do you disagree with that?
Where does the Universal House of Justice say that?
I'm sorry. It says that reflecting on the *character* of others
crosses the line that separates legitimate defense of the Faith from
contention.

"In correcting misrepresentations of the Faith made by those who are
hostile to it, our obligation is to set forth Bahá'u'lláh's teachings
cogently and courteously, but firmly, supporting them with rational
proofs. Once this has been done, the challenge rests with our hearers,
whatever their interests or motivations, to consider our responses in
this same spirit of courtesy and objectivity. For Bahá'ís to go
further than this, by engaging in acrimonious debate, much less by
reflecting on the character of others, would be to cross the line that
separates legitimate defence of the Faith from contention."

(The Universal House of Justice, 1999 Nov 22, "Defending the Cause
against its Opponents")

Do you disagree with that?
Post by H***@aol.com
It has not
hesitated to do so itself when appropriate. So did Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-
Baha and Shoghi Effendi.
I agree. I'm saying that in Internet discussions, not only is it
inappropriate, it is strictly prohibited.
Post by H***@aol.com
Warn, O Salman, the beloved of the one true God, not to view with too
critical an eye the sayings and writings of men. Let them rather
approach such sayings and writings in a spirit of open-mindedness and
loving sympathy. Those men, however, who, in this Day, have been led
to assail, in their inflammatory writings, the tenets of the Cause of
God, are to be treated differently. It is incumbent upon all men, each
according to his ability, to refute the arguments of those that have
attacked the Faith of God.
(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 329)
The House of Justice quotes that very passage in its message about
defending the Cause against its opponents. It also quotes this passage
from Shoghi Effendi:

"No opportunity, in view of the necessity of ensuring the harmonious
development of the Faith, should be ignored, which its potential
enemies, whether ecclesiastical or otherwise, may offer, to set forth,
in a restrained and unprovocative language, its aims and tenets, to
defend its interests, to proclaim its universality, to assert the
supernatural, the supranational and non-political character of its
institutions...."

I can see that we are called to refute the arguments of those that
have attacked the Faith, and to use opportunities offered by potential
enemies to set forth the aims and tenets of the faith, defend its
interests, proclaim its universality, and assert the distinctive
character of its institutions. The question is how. I'm saying that in
responding to attacks on the Faith in Internet discussions, not only
is it not appropriate to reflect on the character of others, it is
strictly prohibited.

1. Reflecting on the character of others crosses the line into
contention.
"For Bahá'ís to go further than this, by engaging in acrimonious
debate, much less by reflecting on the character of others, would be
to cross the line that separates legitimate defence of the Faith from
contention."
(The Universal House of Justice, 1999 Nov 22, "Defending the Cause
against its Opponents")

2. Contention is strictly prohibited.
- forbidden (Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 72)
- categorically forbidden (Kitab-i-Ahd)
- absolutely forbidden. (Tablets of the Divine Plan)
- no wise permitted (The Will and Testament of Abdu'l-Baha)

According to Baha'u'llah, contention is one of the primary factors
which provoke the appearance of the satanic spirit. (Tablets of
Baha'u'llah, p. 176)

Jim
H***@aol.com
2008-01-26 16:41:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
I'm sorry. It says that reflecting on the *character* of others
crosses the line that separates legitimate defense of the Faith from
contention.
That's a very different thing, Jim. I'm talking about what Fred has
*done* in setting up these bogus websites and committing slander with
his ludicrous lies about the NSA murdering Dan Jordan. People can
figure out the character of the person behind such deeds for
themselves. But when such deliberate distortions are a part of the
attack itself, they have to be exposed.
j***@gmail.com
2008-01-26 00:38:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by H***@aol.com
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by H***@aol.com
Oh, and do you talk about the fraudlent websites he set up purporting
to represent Baha'i factions like the followers of Muhammad Ali which
in fact don't exist?
No, I don't. Do you? If so, why?
Because it speaks to the integrity of someone who will stop at nothing
to attack the Faith.
Sometimes I'm tempted to try to expose someone's dishonesty, hypocrisy
or insincerity, and I don't always resist the temptation, but I don't
see any good in it. I see a lot of harm in it, and I see it condemned
and strictly prohibited in the writings.

What good do you see in it? Do you not see any harm in it? Do you not
see it condemned and strictly prohibited in the writings?

I used to do it more often, but I trained myself not to by grounding
myself for three days whenever I said or insinuated anything
uncomplimentary about anyone. Paul, do you remember?

Jim
H***@aol.com
2008-01-26 05:30:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Sometimes I'm tempted to try to expose someone's dishonesty, hypocrisy
or insincerity, and I don't always resist the temptation, but I don't
see any good in it. I see a lot of harm in it, and I see it condemned
and strictly prohibited in the writings.
You mean here?

"The more kindness you show to a liar the more he is apt to lie, for
he thinks that you know not, while you do know, but extreme kindness
keeps you from revealing your knowledge."

(Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 412)
Post by j***@gmail.com
What good do you see in it?
See above. If a liar thinks you don't see his lies he will only lie
more.
j***@gmail.com
2008-01-26 20:54:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by H***@aol.com
Post by j***@gmail.com
I'm sorry. It says that reflecting on the *character* of others
crosses the line that separates legitimate defense of the Faith from
contention.
That's a very different thing, Jim. I'm talking about what Fred has
*done* in setting up these bogus websites and committing slander with
his ludicrous lies about the NSA murdering Dan Jordan. People can
figure out the character of the person behind such deeds for
themselves. But when such deliberate distortions are a part of the
attack itself, they have to be exposed.
I see two lines of discussion that we might pursue.

1. What I say to people about Fred.

I said that I talk about his poetry, his promotion of the UN in radio
interviews, his efforts to preserve accounts of abuse in the Baha'i
community, and his Letters from the American Desert. You asked me if I
also talk about his allegations of murder and what you call his
fraudulent Web sites.

2. What you say about Fred in Internet discussions.

In my response to your question, I asked you if you talk about those
things, and why. Then I asked you what good you see in doing that. As
I understand it, it has to do with responding to attacks on the Faith
in Internet discussions.

----

1. What I say about Fred.
That has to do with my conversations off line and in private
correspondence. When I talk about Fred, it isn't part of my response
to his campaigns against the Baha'i Community. I don't see that it
would serve any of my purposes in those conversations to talk about
his allegations and his Web sites purporting to represent Baha'i
factions. If you'd like to pursue that any further I would need to
tell you more about my purposes.

2. What you say about Fred.
"But when such deliberate distortions are a part of the attack itself,
they have to be exposed."

Why "have to"? Do you see anything in the writings, or any other
grounds for saying they *have to* be exposed?

I can understand the temptation to try to expose them, but that's all
it is to me, a temptation to be resisted. I don't see any good in it.
I see a lot of harm in it, and I see Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha, Shoghi
Effendi and the House of Justice advising us against it. Certainly
nothing that says we *have to* do it.

Apart from that, I don't see how trying to expose someone's slander
and fraud serves any of Baha'llah's purposes, or the interests of the
House of Justice, in relation to attacks on the Faith in Internet
discussions. Here are some of those purposes and interests as I see
them:
1. Avoid contention.
2. Refute the arguments of those that have attacked the Faith of God.
3. Set forth, in a restrained and unprovocative language, its aims and
tenets.
4. Defend its interests.
5. Proclaim its universality.
6. Assert the supernatural, the supranational and non-political
character of its institutions.
7. Set forth Bahá'u'lláh's teachings cogently and courteously, but
firmly, supporting them with rational proofs.
8. Promote a a wider and deeper recognition by believers and
unbelievers alike of the distinguishing features of the Faith
proclaimed by Bahá'u'lláh."
9. Respond to our detractors with the utmost love and kindness;
consider their oppression and persecution as the caprice of children;
and not give any importance to whatever they do.
10. Resist any temptation to respond inappropriately.
11. Abstain from acrimonious debate and reflecting on the character of
others.
12. Bear always in mind the reaction that the discussion of
controversial issues tends to arouse in casual readers and listeners.
13. Avoid the spirit of argumentation.
14. Welcome assaults, both from within and without, and view them as a
blessing in disguise.

How do you see it serving those purposes to try to expose someone's
slander and fraud? Do you see it serving any other purposes or
interests of Baha'u'llah and the House of Justice, besides the ones
I've listed?

Jim
H***@aol.com
2008-01-27 07:09:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by j***@gmail.com
"But when such deliberate distortions are a part of the attack itself,
they have to be exposed."
Why "have to"? Do you see anything in the writings, or any other
grounds for saying they *have to* be exposed?
Because you can't refute them otherwise. And you yourself had this as
Post by j***@gmail.com
2. Refute the arguments of those that have attacked the Faith of God.
Now how in the world can anyone refute the argument that the NSA
murdered Dan Jordan without showing this allegation to be a baseless
lie?
j***@gmail.com
2008-01-27 13:11:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by H***@aol.com
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by j***@gmail.com
"But when such deliberate distortions are a part of the attack itself,
they have to be exposed."
Why "have to"? Do you see anything in the writings, or any other
grounds for saying they *have to* be exposed?
Because you can't refute them otherwise. And you yourself had this as
Post by j***@gmail.com
2. Refute the arguments of those that have attacked the Faith of God.
Now how in the world can anyone refute the argument that the NSA
murdered Dan Jordan without showing this allegation to be a baseless
lie?
I'll be considering that. Meanwhile, do you see any other interests of
Baha'u'llah and the House of Justice, or any other good purpose, that
might be served by trying to expose someone's slander and fraud?

Jim
All Bad
2008-01-27 14:22:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by H***@aol.com
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by j***@gmail.com
"But when such deliberate distortions are a part of the attack itself,
they have to be exposed."
Why "have to"? Do you see anything in the writings, or any other
grounds for saying they *have to* be exposed?
Because you can't refute them otherwise. And you yourself had this as
Post by j***@gmail.com
2. Refute the arguments of those that have attacked the Faith of God.
Now how in the world can anyone refute the argument that the NSA
murdered Dan Jordan without showing this allegation to be a baseless
lie?
I'll be considering that. Meanwhile, do you see any other interests of
Baha'u'llah and the House of Justice, or any other good purpose, that
might be served by trying to expose someone's slander and fraud?
It might be a kindness to the liar to point out the facts, and discourage
further lying.
"The more kindness you show to a liar the more he is apt to lie, for he
thinks that you know not, while you do know, but extreme kindness keeps you
from revealing your knowledge."
Abdu'l-Bahá, Bahá'í World Faith - Abdu'l-Bahá Section, p. 412
http://bahai-library.com/books/law/bahai_law2.htm

- All Bad
All Bad
2008-01-27 14:23:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by H***@aol.com
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by j***@gmail.com
"But when such deliberate distortions are a part of the attack itself,
they have to be exposed."
Why "have to"? Do you see anything in the writings, or any other
grounds for saying they *have to* be exposed?
Because you can't refute them otherwise. And you yourself had this as
Post by j***@gmail.com
2. Refute the arguments of those that have attacked the Faith of God.
Now how in the world can anyone refute the argument that the NSA
murdered Dan Jordan without showing this allegation to be a baseless
lie?
I'll be considering that. Meanwhile, do you see any other interests of
Baha'u'llah and the House of Justice, or any other good purpose, that
might be served by trying to expose someone's slander and fraud?
It might be a kindness to the liar to point out the facts, and discourage
further lying.
"The more kindness you show to a liar the more he is apt to lie, for he
thinks that you know not, while you do know, but extreme kindness keeps you
from revealing your knowledge."
Abdu'l-Bahá, Bahá'í World Faith - Abdu'l-Bahá Section, p. 412
http://bahai-library.com/books/law/bahai_law2.htm

- All Bad
j***@gmail.com
2008-01-27 15:10:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by All Bad
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by H***@aol.com
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by j***@gmail.com
"But when such deliberate distortions are a part of the attack itself,
they have to be exposed."
Why "have to"? Do you see anything in the writings, or any other
grounds for saying they *have to* be exposed?
Because you can't refute them otherwise. And you yourself had this as
Post by j***@gmail.com
2. Refute the arguments of those that have attacked the Faith of God.
Now how in the world can anyone refute the argument that the NSA
murdered Dan Jordan without showing this allegation to be a baseless
lie?
I'll be considering that. Meanwhile, do you see any other interests of
Baha'u'llah and the House of Justice, or any other good purpose, that
might be served by trying to expose someone's slander and fraud?
It might be a kindness to the liar to point out the facts, and discourage
further lying.
"The more kindness you show to a liar the more he is apt to lie, for he
thinks that you know not, while you do know, but extreme kindness keeps you
from revealing your knowledge."
Abdu'l-Bahá, Bahá'í World Faith - Abdu'l-Bahá Section, p. 412http://bahai-library.com/books/law/bahai_law2.htm
- All Bad
Thank you. I'll be considering that, too. Meanwhile, if you have any
more ideas about it, please post them.

Jim
j***@gmail.com
2008-01-27 23:40:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by All Bad
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by H***@aol.com
Now how in the world can anyone refute the argument that the NSA
murdered Dan Jordan without showing this allegation to be a baseless
lie?
I'll be considering that. Meanwhile, do you see any other interests of
Baha'u'llah and the House of Justice, or any other good purpose, that
might be served by trying to expose someone's slander and fraud?
It might be a kindness to the liar to point out the facts, and discourage
further lying.
"The more kindness you show to a liar the more he is apt to lie, for he
thinks that you know not, while you do know, but extreme kindness keeps you
from revealing your knowledge."
Abdu'l-Bahá, Bahá'í World Faith - Abdu'l-Bahá Section, p. 412http://bahai-library.com/books/law/bahai_law2.htm
- All Bad
I want to consider that in its immediate context, and in the context
of other writings.

----

1. The immediate context.

"The foundation of the Kingdom of God is laid upon justice, fairness,
mercy, sympathy and kindness to every soul. Then strive ye with heart
and soul to practice love and kindness to the world of humanity at
large, except to those souls who are selfish and insincere. It is not
advisable to show kindness to a person who is a tyrant, a traitor or a
thief because kindness encourages him to become worse and does not
awaken him. The more kindness you show to a liar the more he is apt to
lie, for he thinks that you know not, while you do know, but extreme
kindness keeps you from revealing your knowledge."
(Baha'i World Faith, p. 412)

2. Other writings about kindness:

"O ye beloved of the Lord! In this sacred Dispensation, conflict and
contention are in no wise permitted. Every aggressor deprives himself
of God's grace. It is incumbent upon everyone to show the utmost love,
rectitude of conduct, straightforwardness and sincere kindliness unto
all the peoples and kindreds of the world, be they friends or
strangers. So intense must be the spirit of love and loving kindness,
that the stranger may find himself a friend, the enemy a true brother,
no difference whatsoever existing between them. For universality is of
God and all limitations earthly. Thus man must strive that his reality
may manifest virtues and perfections, the light whereof may shine upon
everyone. The light of the sun shineth upon all the world and the
merciful showers of Divine Providence fall upon all peoples. The
vivifying breeze reviveth every living creature and all beings endued
with life obtain their share and portion at His heavenly board. In
like manner, the affections and loving kindness of the servants of the
One True God must be bountifully and universally extended to all
mankind. Regarding this, restrictions and limitations are in no wise
permitted.

"Wherefore, O my loving friends! Consort with all the peoples,
kindreds and religions of the world with the utmost truthfulness,
uprightness, faithfulness, kindliness, good-will and friendliness,
that all the world of being may be filled with the holy ecstasy of the
grace of Baha, that ignorance, enmity, hate and rancor may vanish from
the world and the darkness of estrangement amidst the peoples and
kindreds of the world may give way to the Light of Unity. Should other
peoples and nations be unfaithful to you show your fidelity unto them,
should they be unjust toward you show justice towards them, should
they keep aloof from you attract them to yourselves, should they show
their enmity be friendly towards them, should they poison your lives,
sweeten their souls, should they inflict a wound upon you, be a salve
to their sores. Such are the attributes of the sincere! Such are the
attributes of the truthful."

(The Will and Testament, p. 13)

"Enkindle with all your might in every meeting the light of the love
of God, gladden and cheer every heart with the utmost loving-kindness,
show forth your love to the strangers just as you show forth to your
relations."

(Baha'i World Faith, p. 353)

"In every dispensation, there hath been the commandment of fellowship
and love, but it was a commandment limited to the community of those
in mutual agreement, not to the dissident foe. In this wondrous age,
however, praised be God, the commandments of God are not delimited,
not restricted to any one group of people, rather have all the friends
been commanded to show forth fellowship and love, consideration and
generosity and loving-kindness to every community on earth. Now must
the lovers of God arise to carry out these instructions of His: let
them be kindly fathers to the children of the human race, and
compassionate brothers to the youth, and self-denying offspring to
those bent with years. The meaning of this is that ye must show forth
tenderness and love to every human being, even to your enemies, and
welcome them all with unalloyed friendship, good cheer, and loving-
kindness. When ye meet with cruelty and persecution at another's
hands, keep faith with him; when malevolence is directed your way,
respond with a friendly heart. To the spears and arrows rained upon
you, expose your breasts for a target mirror-bright; and in return for
curses, taunts and wounding words, show forth abounding love. Thus
will all peoples witness the power of the Most Great Name, and every
nation acknowledge the might of the Ancient Beauty, and see how He
hath toppled down the walls of discord, and how surely He hath guided
all the peoples of the earth to oneness; how He hath lit man's world,
and made this earth of dust to send forth streams of light."

(Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha, p. 20)

"O army of God! Beware lest ye harm any soul, or make any heart to
sorrow; lest ye wound any man with your words, be he known to you or a
stranger, be he friend or foe. Pray ye for all; ask ye that all be
blessed, all be forgiven. Beware, beware, lest any of you seek
vengeance, even against one who is thirsting for your blood. Beware,
beware, lest ye offend the feelings of another, even though he be an
evil-doer, and he wish you ill. Look ye not upon the creatures, turn
ye to their Creator. See ye not the never-yielding people, see but the
Lord of Hosts. Gaze ye not down upon the dust, gaze upward at the
shining sun, which hath caused every patch of darksome earth to glow
with light."

(Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha, p. 73)

"One of the teachings is that love and faithfulness must so prevail in
the hearts that men may see the stranger as a friend, the sinner as an
intimate fellow, may count enemies as allies, regard foes as loving
comrades, call their executioner the giver of life, consider the
denier as a believer and the unbeliever as a faithful one -- that is,
men must behave in such a manner as may befit the believers, the
faithful, the friend and the confidant. If this lamp may shine in a
befitting manner in the assemblage of the world you will find that the
regions will become fragrant and the world become a delectable
paradise, the surface of the earth will become an excellent garden,
the world will become as one home, the different nations will become
as one kind, and the peoples and nationalities of the East and West
will become as one household. I hope such a day may come and such
lights may dawn and such a Countenance may appear in the utmost
beauty."

(Baha'i World Faith, p. 413)

----

I haven't found a way to practice both of those at the same time.

!

That just gave me an idea. When I don't see how to practice two things
at the same time, I practice them separately. I'll work on that.

----

According to Abdu'l- Baha, our affections and loving kindness must be
bountifully and universally extended to all mankind. Regarding this,
restrictions and limitations are in no wise permitted. In every
meeting, gladden and cheer every heart with the utmost loving-
kindness. Beware, beware, lest we offend the feelings of another,
even though he be an evil-doer.

Those are the attributes of the sincere and the truthful. That's how
the regions will become fragrant and the world become a delectable
paradise, the surface of the earth will become an excellent garden,
the world will become as one home, the different nations will become
as one kind, and the peoples and nationalities of the East and West
will become as one household.

Now, in the face of that, permeating the writings, I see one passage
that says not to show kindness to people who are selfish and
insincere, to tyrants, traitors, thieves or liars. I don't know anyone
who is not selfish and insincere sometimes, with some people. I don't
imagine there's anyone who is selfish and insincere all the time, or
with every person. I don't see any way to put that passage into
practice without completely nullifying some of the most fundamental
and indispensable principles of the Faith.

When I see a contradiction like that in the writings, it reminds me
that my understanding of everything in the writings is imperfect, and
always will be. I search for a better understanding. Meanwhile, since
I don't see how to do both at the same time, I choose one or the
other. As I see it, the balance of the writings is overwhelmingly in
favor of kindness.

As I said, I'll start looking for ways to practice the passage about
not being kind to people who look selfish and insincere to me.

Jim
j***@gmail.com
2008-01-28 15:59:32 UTC
Permalink
Pat, maybe you can help me with this. I'll tell you what I've been
thinking and doing, and see if you have any ideas.

I don't see how we can each withhold kindness from people we see as
selfish and insincere, tyrants, traitors, thieves or liars, without
completely nullifying the prescriptions about fellowship, kindness,
friendliness and charity that permeate the writings.

----

One way I see out of the dilemma is to look at that passage as a
warning not to practice the kind of kindness that rewards selfishness,
insincerity, tyranny, treachery, theft, or lying, or maybe any other
kind of wrongdoing. I could really get my teeth into that. That's
exactly what's needed in dealing with family violence and abuse,
including the abuse that goes on in the Baha'i family. Considered that
way, that passage could be Rod's theme song.

It reminds me of what Abdu'l-Baha says about wisdom in teaching:

"Even so, this activity should be tempered with wisdom -- not that
wisdom which requireth one to be silent and forgetful of such an
obligation, but rather that which requireth one to display divine
tolerance, love, kindness, patience, a goodly character, and holy
deeds."
(Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha, p. 268)

In the passage about kindness he could be saying: Practice kindness,
but not that kindness that rewards wrongdoing.

----

Another way I see out of the dilemma is to consider the warning as
addressed to the community, and not to individuals. It's unthinkable
to me that He's granting us a license individually to label each other
selfish and insincere, tyrants, traitors, thieves or liars, and use
that as a reason to withhold kindness from each other. If you really
believe that, then do you approve of the way Fred and Wahid treat
people they consider selfish and insincere, tyrants, traitors, thieves
and liars?

However, if it's addressed to the community, it meshes very well with
some other writings.

"There is a tendency to mix up the functions of the Administration and
try to apply it in individual relationships, which is abortive,
because the Assembly is a nascent House of Justice and is supposed to
administer, according to the Teachings, the affairs of the community.
But individuals toward each other are governed by love, unity,
forgiveness and a sin-covering eye. Once the friends grasp this they
will get along much better, but they keep playing Spiritual Assembly
to each other and expect the Assembly to behave like an
individual...."
(Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual
believer, dated October 5, 1950)

"Man has not the right to take vengeance, but the community has the
right to punish the criminal; and this punishment is intended to warn
and to prevent so that no other person will dare to commit a like
crime . . . if criminals were entirely forgiven, the order of the
world would be upset. So punishment is one of the essential
necessities for the safety of communities . . ."

"The communities must punish the oppressor, the murderer, the
malefactor, so as to warn and restrain others from committing like
crimes."

". . . the community has the right of defense and of self-
protection . . . . If the community and the inheritors of the murdered
one were to forgive and return good for evil, the cruel would be
continually ill-treating others, and assassinations would continually
occur. Vicious people, like wolves, would destroy the sheep of God."

"Thus when Christ said: 'Whosoever shall smite thee on the right
cheek, turn to him the left one also,' it was for the purpose of
teaching men not to take personal revenge. He did not mean that, if a
wolf should fall upon a flock of sheep and wish to destroy it, the
wolf should be encouraged to do so. No, if Christ had known that a
wolf had entered the fold and was about to destroy the sheep, most
certainly He would have prevented it."

"As forgiveness is one of the attributes of the Merciful One, so also
justice is one of the attributes of the Lord. The tent of existence is
upheld upon the pillar of justice and not upon forgiveness. The
continuance of mankind depends upon justice and not upon forgiveness.
So if, at present, the law of pardon were practiced in all countries,
in a short time the world would be disordered, and the foundations of
human life would crumble."

"Some people are like bloodthirsty wolves: if they see no punishment
forthcoming, they will kill men merely for pleasure and diversion."

"To recapitulate: the constitution of the communities depends upon
justice, not upon forgiveness. Then what Christ meant by forgiveness
and pardon is not that, when nations attack you, burn your homes,
plunder your goods, assault your wives, children and relatives, and
violate your honor, you should be submissive in the presence of these
tyrannical foes and allow them to perform all their cruelties and
oppressions. No, the words of Christ refer to the conduct of two
individuals toward each other: if one person assaults another, the
injured one should forgive him. But the communities must protect the
rights of man. So if someone assaults, injures, oppresses and wounds
me, I will offer no resistance, and I will forgive him. But if a
person wishes to assault Siyyid Manshadi, I certainly I will prevent
him. Although for the malefactor noninterference is apparently a
kindness, it would be an oppression to Manshadi. If at this moment a
wild Arab were to enter this place with a drawn sword, wishing to
assault, wound and kill you, most assuredly I would prevent him. If I
abandoned you to the Arab, that would not be justice but injustice.
But if he injure me personally, I would forgive him."
(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 267)

----

Those are two ways I see out of my dilemma.

Do you understand my dilemma? If so, do you see any other ways out of
it?

Jim
j***@gmail.com
2008-01-27 20:51:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by H***@aol.com
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by j***@gmail.com
"But when such deliberate distortions are a part of the attack itself,
they have to be exposed."
Why "have to"? Do you see anything in the writings, or any other
grounds for saying they *have to* be exposed?
Because you can't refute them otherwise. And you yourself had this as
Post by j***@gmail.com
2. Refute the arguments of those that have attacked the Faith of God.
As I see it, in this case refuting the arguments would mean proving
that:
- The NSA did not murder Dan Jordan.
- The Baha'is did not kill David Kelly.
- The factions which Fred's Web site purport to represent do not
exist.

I don't see any prohibition against doing that, but I don't see any
good in trying to prove that the NSA did not murder Dan Jordan and
that the Baha'is did not kill David Kelly. I do see some of harm in
it. I do see Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi and the House of
Justice advising us against it. In any case I don't see any need to
say anything at all about Fred, to do any of those things. In fact it
seems to me that talking about Fred only distracts from the issues.

Apart from that, I still don't see Baha'u'llah calling us to respond
to those allegations and representations. "Refute the arguments" comes
from this:

"Those men, however, who, in this Day, have been led to assail, in
their inflammatory writings, the tenets of the Cause of God, are to be
treated differently. It is incumbent upon all men, each according to
his ability, to refute the arguments of those that have attacked the
Faith of God."
(Gleanings, p. 329)

I see Him saying to try to refute the arguments of people who assail
the *tenets* of the Cause of God. I don't see Him saying to respond to
allegations against individual Baha'is and Baha'i institutions, or
representations of nonexistent factions. Do you see allegations of
murder as arguments against the tenets of the Faith? If so, which
ones? Do you see representations of nonexistent factions as arguments
against the tenets of the Faith? If so, which ones?

Representations of nonexistent factions might be used as arguments
against the impossibility of schism. In that case I still would not
see the value in trying to prove they don't exist. What good would
that do? The BUPC or any other Remey group, alone, would serve just as
well as any fictitious faction, as an argument against the
impossibility of schism. What we need to do is try to understand and
explain how such groups can exist without invalidating what Abdu'l-
Baha and Shoghi Effendi said about the impossibility of schism.

Even if there is value in trying to prove those factions don't exist,
I don't see how it helps to talk about Fred. As I said, it seems to me
that talking about Fred would only distract from the issue. For
example, you say that there is no such faction as the followers of
Muhammad Ali. How does accusing Fred of slander, fraud and lying help
prove that there is no such faction? It seems to me that to any fair-
minded observer that would be a useless distraction, and maybe even a
sign that there really is no proof .
Post by H***@aol.com
Now how in the world can anyone refute the argument that the NSA
murdered Dan Jordan without showing this allegation to be a baseless
lie?
One way of course, would be to find out who really did it. Otherwise I
would examine the arguments and the evidence and try to demonstrate
that they are false or don't really lead to that conclusion. Again, I
don't see how it helps to accuse Fred of slander, fraud, and lying.
Again, it seems to me that to any fair-minded observer that would be a
useless distraction, and maybe even a sign that there really is no
proof .

----

Going back to your argument that slander, fraud, and lies *have to* be
exposed . . .

I haven't done the investigation I would need to do to agree or
disagree with you about what Fred has done, so I'll treat it as a
hypothetical case, for purposes of discussion. I'll imagine a person
who has falsely accused the NSA of murdering Dan Jordan and Baha'is of
killing David Kelly, and has set up fraudulent Web sites purporting to
represent Baha'i factions which in fact don't exist? You can call him
Fred if you want to, but I'll call him Jim.

As I understand it, you're saying that we have a responsibility to
respond to Jim's posts in Internet discussions with posts of our own,
accusing him of slander and fraud and lying. Is that what you're
saying?

Jim
diamondsouled
2008-01-27 22:27:44 UTC
Permalink
Howdy all,

I don't see Fred's site as an effort to attack the Baha'i faith but
as an effort to bring to light the many instances of abuse of
authority that have gone on and continue to go on in the Baha'i
Administrative Order centric faith.

Fred doesn't have to make things up all he has to do is do a little
research to come across the many personal stories of the many
individuals that have been victims of the abuse of authority of the
leaders of religion in the Baha'i faith.

The fact that Baha'is refuse to see their own leaders of their
religion as the pseudo clergy that they are is not Fred's fault.

To my mind Fred's site is a genuine effort to lift the pall of
ignorance that has fallen over the Baha'i faith as a religion.

If Baha'is refuse to become informed as to the facts behind the many
abuses of authority that have occurred and are occurring in their
religion this is certainly not Fred's fault.

When you have leaders of the Baha'i religion publicly stating such
things as this is it any wonder that willful ignorance is the order of
the day in the Baha'i religion?:

"We don't want to be those people who want to see God with their
own eyes, or hear His melody with their own ears, because we
have been given the gift of being able to see through the eyes of
the House of Justice and listen through the ears of the House of
Justice."

Continental Councellor Rebequa Murphy

Yours

Larry Rowe
j***@gmail.com
2008-01-27 23:37:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by diamondsouled
Howdy all,
I don't see Fred's site as an effort to attack the Baha'i faith but
as an effort to bring to light the many instances of abuse of
authority that have gone on and continue to go on in the Baha'i
Administrative Order centric faith.
Fred doesn't have to make things up all he has to do is do a little
research to come across the many personal stories of the many
individuals that have been victims of the abuse of authority of the
leaders of religion in the Baha'i faith.
The fact that Baha'is refuse to see their own leaders of their
religion as the pseudo clergy that they are is not Fred's fault.
To my mind Fred's site is a genuine effort to lift the pall of
ignorance that has fallen over the Baha'i faith as a religion.
If Baha'is refuse to become informed as to the facts behind the many
abuses of authority that have occurred and are occurring in their
religion this is certainly not Fred's fault.
When you have leaders of the Baha'i religion publicly stating such
things as this is it any wonder that willful ignorance is the order of
"We don't want to be those people who want to see God with their
own eyes, or hear His melody with their own ears, because we
have been given the gift of being able to see through the eyes of
the House of Justice and listen through the ears of the House of
Justice."
Continental Councellor Rebequa Murphy
Yours
Larry Rowe
Hi Larry! Good to see you!

I didn't think we were talking about the The Baha'i Faith & Religious
Freedom of Conscience site. Susan was saying that Fred has set up Web
site purporting to represent factions which, in fact, do not exist.

Jim
diamondsouled
2008-01-28 22:55:21 UTC
Permalink
Hi Jim,

Good to see you as well.

I posted a clarification of what I believe Fred's site is about.

I agree that it is not a site supporting factions but is a site
supporting reformation of Baha'i. There is a different.

Of course if you are of the belief that Baha'i as a religion is in no
need of reformation it is easy to begin to paint those who see a need
for reformation as a faction when in fact they may not even represent
themselves as such.

This brings to my mind the whole issue of Moojan Momen's paper from
Religion journal and his marginalization of those he stereotyped as
being Baha'i apostates; there is the ever present danger that such
dehumanization of those who religious interpretations are diverse from
individuals such as Moojan will at some point in time become victims
of abuse of human rights as outlined by Dr. Philip Zimbardo:

The recipe for behavior change isn't complicated. "All evil begins
with a big lie," says Zimbardo, whether it's a claim to be following
the word of God, or the need to stamp out political opposition. A
seemingly insignificant step follows, with successive small actions,
presented as essential by an apparently just authority figure. The
situation presents others complying with the same rules, perhaps
protesting, but following along all the same. If the victims are
anonymous or dehumanized somehow, all the better. And exiting the
situation is extremely difficult.

Abu Ghraib fit this type of situation to a T, says Zimbardo. The
guards, never trained for their work helping military interrogators,
worked 12-hour shifts, 40 days without a break, in chaotic, filthy
conditions, facing 1,000 foreign prisoners, and hostile fire from the
neighborhood. They operated in extreme stress, under orders to impose
fear on their prisoners. Zimbardo believes the outcome was perfectly
predictable, and while never absolving these soldiers of personal
responsibility, believes justice won't be done until "the people who
created the situation go on trial as well: George Tenet, Donald
Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and George Bush."

http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/459/

Yours

Larry Rowe
H***@aol.com
2008-01-28 07:02:55 UTC
Permalink
 I don't see Fred's site as an effort to attack the Baha'i faith
Given the fact you attack the Faith on a regular basis yourself, you
are hardly in a position to judge that.

but
as an effort to bring to light the many instances of abuse of
authority that have gone on and continue to go on in the Baha'i
Administrative Order centric faith.
So you think accusing the NSA of murdering Dan Jordan furthers that
end?
 Fred doesn't have to make things up
So why does he?
The fact that Baha'is refuse to see their own leaders of their
religion as the pseudo clergy that they are is not Fred's fault.
We are talking about false murder accusations here.
Post by diamondsouled
When you have leaders of the Baha'i religion publicly stating such
things as this is it any wonder that willful ignorance is the order of
"We don't want to be those people who want to see God with their
own eyes, or hear His melody with their own ears, because we
have been given the gift of being able to see through the eyes of
the House of Justice and listen through the ears of the House of
Justice."
Continental Councellor Rebequa Murphy
And this somehow justifies false murder accusations?
H***@aol.com
2008-01-28 06:59:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
I don't see any prohibition against doing that, but I don't see any
good in trying to prove that the NSA did not murder Dan Jordan and
that the Baha'is did not kill David Kelly. I do see some of harm in
it. I do see Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi and the House of
Justice advising us against it.
Where?

In any case I don't see any need to
Post by j***@gmail.com
say anything at all about Fred, to do any of those things. In fact it
seems to me that talking about Fred only distracts from the issues.
But you do talk about Fred. You insist on praising him all the time
which only lends credibility to his slander.
Post by j***@gmail.com
"Those men, however, who, in this Day, have been led to assail, in
their inflammatory writings, the tenets of the Cause of God, are to be
treated differently. It is incumbent upon all men, each according to
his ability, to refute the arguments of those that have attacked the
Faith of God."
        (Gleanings, p. 329)
I see Him saying to try to refute the arguments of people who assail
the *tenets* of the Cause of God. I don't see Him saying to respond to
allegations against individual Baha'is and Baha'i institutions, or
representations of nonexistent factions.
Does that mean you are going to say something about his rejection of
the authenticity of the Will and Testament? Because that is certainly
an assault on the 'tenets of the Cause of God."

Do you see allegations of
Post by j***@gmail.com
murder as arguments against the tenets of the Faith? If so, which
ones? Do you see representations of nonexistent factions as arguments
against the tenets of the Faith? If so, which ones?
Yes. Fred is using all these things to attack the Covenant which is
the most vital tenet of the Cause of God.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Representations of nonexistent factions might be used as arguments
against the impossibility of schism.
In that case I still would not
Post by j***@gmail.com
see the value in trying to prove they don't exist.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that these bogus websites were used
as evidence by Covenant breakers in an ongoing legal case.

What good would
Post by j***@gmail.com
that do? The BUPC or any other Remey group, alone, would serve just as
well as any fictitious faction, as an argument against the
impossibility of schism.
Not for the purposes of the court case in question. There is no
question that there are Remeyites. The question is can Remeyites use
our name? The court had already said 'no' to this decades ago. Fred
provided them with these bogus websites so they could argue there were
plenty of other Baha'i sects that were not Remeyites.
Post by j***@gmail.com
I don't see how it helps to talk about Fred.
Then stop praising him, Jim.

Again, I
Post by j***@gmail.com
don't see how it helps to accuse Fred of slander, fraud, and lying.
Again, it seems to me that to any fair-minded observer that would be a
useless distraction, and maybe even a sign that there really is no
proof .
Jim, something is slander when the person making the statement can't
prove it. If Fred accuses the NSA of murdering Dan Jordan and fails to
present the proof, it *is* slander. (Or rather libel, to keep Pat
happy.) You should be demaning evidence for such allegations. Instead
you praise his poetry. That's like praising a serial killer for being
good with a knife.
Post by j***@gmail.com
As I understand it, you're saying that we have a responsibility to
respond to Jim's posts in Internet discussions with posts of our own,
accusing him of slander and fraud and lying. Is that what you're
saying?
I'm saying that when you witness someone accusing a divine institution
of murder you have a responsibility to demand proof and in the absence
of this call him on it, instead of praising his poetry.
383
2008-01-28 07:19:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by H***@aol.com
That's like praising a serial killer for being
good with a knife.
As long as that serial killer has his knife specifically on your
demonic necks, and particularly upon your Pig-Queenness, more power to
him! That isn't a serial killer. That is a Divine Archangel.

The Unitarian Bahai website has been around for several years. Fred
did not make it up.

W
j***@gmail.com
2008-01-28 09:44:44 UTC
Permalink
Susan, before we continue I want to try to clarify something.

As I said, I see two lines of discussion here that need to be
distinguished: (1) What I'm doing, and (2) what you're doing. I'm
responding to your questions about what I'm doing, but I'm also asking
questions about what you're doing.

1. What I'm doing.
I said that when I talk to people about Fred, I talk about his poetry,
his promotion of the UN in radio interviews, his efforts to preserve
accounts of abuse in the Baha'i community, and his Letters from the
American Desert. You asked me if I also talk about his allegations of
murder and what you call his fraudulent Web sites. That has to do with
my conversations off line and in private correspondence. When I talk
about Fred, it isn't part of my response to his campaigns against the
Baha'i Community. I don't see that it would serve any of my purposes
in those conversations to talk about his allegations and about his Web
sites purporting to represent Baha'i factions. In fact I think it
would be contrary to Baha'u'llah's purposes and prescriptions to do
so. If you'd like to pursue that any further I will begin by to
telling you more about my purposes.

2. What you're doing.
In my response to your question, I asked you if you talk about Fred's
allegations of murder and what you call his fraudulent Web sites, and
why. Then I asked you what good you see in doing that. As I understand
it, you see it as part of responding to attacks against the Faith.
Have I understood that right? Do you see any other good purposes being
served by discussing Fred's allegations and Web sites? After some
discussion, that still looks wrong to me, and contrary to
Baha'u'llah's purposes and prescriptions. I still don't see how it
serves the purposes you say it does. In fact, it seems to me that it
interferes with them.

If we continue both lines of discussion, then to help avoid confusion
from here on I'll respond to them in separate posts.

Jim
H***@aol.com
2008-01-28 21:03:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
I said that when I talk to people about Fred, I talk about his poetry,
his promotion of the UN in radio interviews, his efforts to preserve
accounts of abuse in the Baha'i community, and his Letters from the
American Desert. You asked me if I also talk about his allegations of
murder and what you call his fraudulent Web sites. That has to do with
my conversations off line and in private correspondence. When I talk
about Fred, it isn't part of my response to his campaigns against the
Baha'i Community. I don't see that it would serve any of my purposes
in those conversations to talk about his allegations and about his Web
sites purporting to represent Baha'i factions.
And you can't see that by focusing on his poetry etc. what you are
doing is lending credibility to the things Fred says? You say you talk
about his attempt to "preserve accounts of abuse in the Baha'i
community' yet you seem to have no regard for whether those accounts
are true or false. What purpose does it serve to praise Fred for these
things?

Do you see any other good purposes being
Post by j***@gmail.com
served by discussing Fred's allegations and Web sites?
Yes, by demonstrating Fred's lack of credibility people realize they
have no reason to believe anything else he says on the website.
j***@gmail.com
2008-01-28 23:02:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by H***@aol.com
And you can't see that by focusing on his poetry etc. what you are
doing is lending credibility to the things Fred says? You say you talk
about his attempt to "preserve accounts of abuse in the Baha'i
community' yet you seem to have no regard for whether those accounts
are true or false.
I don't imagine that everything in them is true. I leave it to each
person to judge their value for herself. For me, the value of those
testimonies does not lie in their accuracy. I value those testimonies,
and I value Fred's efforts to preserve them.
Post by H***@aol.com
What purpose does it serve to praise Fred for these
things?
It serves all of the purposes I listed in a previous post:

1. My work with abused and marginalized people.
2. Social justice.
3. What Shoghi Effendi calls "preeminent and vital" "spiritual
prerequisites of success, which constitute the bedrock on which the
security of all teaching plans, Temple projects, and financial
schemes, must ultimately rest."
4. What Abdu'l-Baha calls "the attributes of the sincere" and "the
attributes of the truthful," in His Will and Testament.
5. What Baha'u'llah calls "the monarch of all aspirations," the goal
that excels every other goal, and the only thing that can satisfy Him.
6. What the House of Justice calls a desperate need, in the response
of Baha'is to the current world crisis, to help avert what it calls
"harrowing," "unthinkable" consequences if the "disease of sectarian
hatreds" is not "decisively checked."
Post by H***@aol.com
Post by j***@gmail.com
Do you see any other good purposes being
served by discussing Fred's allegations and Web sites?
Yes, by demonstrating Fred's lack of credibility people realize they
have no reason to believe anything else he says on the website.
Let me see if I understand you correctly.

You see someone's allegations of murder by Baha'is and Baha'i
institutions, and fraudulent representations of Baha'i factions, as
arguments against some tenets of the Faith. You are trying to refute
those arguments by demonstrating his lack of credibility. You see my
recognition of his merits as interfering with that.

Have I understood you correctly?

I still don't see how those allegations and representations could be
used to argue against the tenets of the Faith. Can you give me an
example?

I don't see how to respond to your objections about what I'm doing,
without seeing the arguments that you say you're trying to refute. It
might help me if you fill in the blanks below:

- Premises: If the NSA murdered Dan Jordan, the Baha'is killed David
Kelly, and there were ________ factions opposed to the House of
Justice who call themselves Baha'is,

- It would follow that _____________________________________________,

- and _____________________________________________,

. . .

4. Conclusion: That would prove that the following tenets of the Faith
are not true:
________________________________________________________________.

Jim

H***@aol.com
2008-01-28 21:06:03 UTC
Permalink
For some reason Jim you seem to identify yourself with abusers and
imagine them to be the abused.
j***@gmail.com
2008-01-28 10:31:39 UTC
Permalink
Susan, as I said, from here on I'll respond to our two lines of
discussion in separate posts. This post is about what I'm doing. I'll
begin by telling you more about my purposes.

When I talk to people about Fred, it's in my conversations with people
off line and in private correspondence, and it has nothing to do with
responding to his attacks against the Faith. It has more to do with
responding to attacks against the Faith from you and others who
continually malign and scold our detractors, in the name of the Faith.

"My imprisonment doeth Me no harm, neither the tribulations I suffer,
nor the things that have befallen Me at the hands of My oppressors.
That which harmeth Me is the conduct of those who, though they bear My
name, yet commit that which maketh My heart and My pen to lament."
(Baha'u'llah, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, p. 23)

If you want to, we can have a third line of discussion, about my
response to attacks against the Faith, including his and yours.

This post is about my purposes in offline conversations and private
correspondence, when I talk about Fred and other scorned lovers.

One of my purposes when I talk about Fred, and other scorned lovers,
is responding to attacks on the Faith from people who continually
malign and scold them in the name of the Faith, but that is not my
primary purpose. When I talk to people about our scorned lovers, it's
mostly related to the following purposes:

1. My work with abused and marginalized people.
2. Social justice.
3. What Shoghi Effendi calls "preeminent and vital" "spiritual
prerequisites of success, which constitute the bedrock on which the
security of all teaching plans, Temple projects, and financial
schemes, must ultimately rest."
4. What Abdu'l-Baha calls "the attributes of the sincere" and "the
attributes of the truthful," in His Will and Testament.
5. What Baha'u'llah calls "the monarch of all aspirations," the goal
that excels every other goal, and the only thing that can satisfy Him.
6. What the House of Justice calls a desperate need, in the response
of Baha'is to the current world crisis, to help avert what it calls
"harrowing," "unthinkable" consequences if the "disease of sectarian
hatreds" is not "decisively checked,"
j***@gmail.com
2008-01-28 12:31:35 UTC
Permalink
I'm responding to our different lines of discussion in separate posts.

Possible lines of discussion:
1. What I'm doing when I talk about Fred and other scorned lovers.
I'll respond some more to that after I see your response to my
previous post, about my purposes.
2. What I'm doing about attacks on the Faith in Internet discussions.
I'll wait to see if you want to pursue that discussion.
3. What you're doing when you talk about Fred.

This post is about topic 3, what you're doing when you talk about
Fred.

My understanding so far is that you see that as part of defending the
Faith against attacks.
Post by H***@aol.com
Post by j***@gmail.com
I don't see any
good in trying to prove that the NSA did not murder Dan Jordan and
that the Baha'is did not kill David Kelly. I do see some of harm in
it. I do see Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi and the House of
Justice advising us against it.
Where?
"Therefore, I say unto you, spread the Divine Truth with all your
might that men's intelligence may become enlightened; this is the best
answer to those who slander. I do not wish to speak of those people
nor to say anything ill of them -- only to tell you that slander is of
no importance!"
(Paris Talks, p. 104)

"As to thine action against the journal which hath libeled thee: It is
not at all best to bring action against them, because there is no
profit in doing that; nay, it will lead to more sayings of a similar
nature. Under these circumstances silence is best."
(Tablets of Abdu'l-Baha v1, p. 158)

"Under most circumstances, it would seem worse than futile for a
Bahá'í to attempt to defend the institutions or members of the Faith
from the kind of reckless slander that has become an all too common
feature of the moral deterioration of contemporary society, and that
tends to characterize much of the language of the Faith's current
critics."
(The Universal House of Justice, 1999 Nov 22, Attacks on the Faith in
Internet Discussions, p. 2)
Post by H***@aol.com
Post by j***@gmail.com
Do you see allegations of
murder as arguments against the tenets of the Faith? If so, which
ones? Do you see representations of nonexistent factions as arguments
against the tenets of the Faith? If so, which ones?
Yes. Fred is using all these things to attack the Covenant which is
the most vital tenet of the Cause of God.
I don't understand that. How can allegations of murder, and
representations of nonexistent factions, be arguments against the
Covenant?

Is this the tenet you have in mind?

"As to the most great characteristic of the revelation of Bahá'u'lláh
-- a specific teaching not given by any of the Prophets of the past --
it is the ordination and appointment of the Center of the Covenant. By
this appointment and provision He has safeguarded and protected the
religion of God against differences and schisms, making it impossible
for any one to create a new sect or faction of belief. To insure unity
and agreement He has entered into a Covenant with all the people of
the world including the Interpreter and Explainer of His teachings so
that no one may interpret or explain the religion of God according to
his own view or opinion and thus create a sect founded upon his
individual understanding of the divine words. The Book of the Covenant
or Testament of Bahá'u'lláh is the means of preventing such a
possibility, for whosoever shall speak from the authority of himself
alone shall be degraded."
(Baha'i World Faith, p. 248)

If so, what argument do you see in allegations of murder, and
fictitious factions, that needs to be refuted?

Premises: The NSA murdered Dan Jordan, the Baha'is killed David Kelly,
and there are x factions opposed to the House of Justice who call
themselves Baha'is.

Conclusion: Baha'u'llah has *not* entered into a Covenant with all the
people of the world including the Interpreter and Expounder of His
teachings so that no one may interpret or explain the religion of God
according to his own view or opinion and thus create a sect founded
upon his individual understanding of the divine words.

How do you see anyone going from those premises to that conclusion?
Post by H***@aol.com
Post by j***@gmail.com
Representations of nonexistent factions might be used as arguments
against the impossibility of schism.
In that case I still would not
Post by j***@gmail.com
see the value in trying to prove they don't exist.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that these bogus websites were used
as evidence by Covenant breakers in an ongoing legal case.
How can that legal case be an argument against the tenets of the
Faith? Which tenets? Show me the premises, the conclusion, and the
argument leading from the premise to the conclusion.
Post by H***@aol.com
Post by j***@gmail.com
What good would
that do? The BUPC or any other Remey group, alone, would serve just as
well as any fictitious faction, as an argument against the
impossibility of schism.
Not for the purposes of the court case in question. There is no
question that there are Remeyites. The question is can Remeyites use
our name? The court had already said 'no' to this decades ago. Fred
provided them with these bogus websites so they could argue there were
plenty of other Baha'i sects that were not Remeyites.
Same question. How is that an argument against the tenets of the
Faith?

Premise: Remeyites can call themselves Baha'is

Conclusion: Baha'u'llah has *not* entered into a Covenant with all the
people of the world including the Interpreter and Expounder of His
teachings so that no one may interpret or explain the religion of God
according to his own view or opinion and thus create a sect founded
upon his individual understanding of the divine words.

Is that the argument you're trying to refute? If so, how does it help
to accuse someone of slander, fraud, and lying? I see two ways to
refute that argument: (1) Prove that Remeyites can not call themselves
Baha'is or (2) Explain how there can be groups opposed to the House of
Justice who call themselves Baha'is, without invalidating what Abdu'l-
Baha says about the Covenant. Either way, I don't see how it helps to
accuse someone of slander, fraud, and lying.

I have another question about your defense of the Faith in Internet
discussions.

"Indeed, where discussions of this kind have a direct and immediate
impact on the perception of the Faith among the non-Bahá'í public, the
Guardian has emphasized the importance of the friends' seeking 'the
guidance and approval of the National Spiritual Assembly' in all
attempts to counter open attacks on the Cause...."
(The Universal House of Justice, 1999 Nov 22, Attacks on the Faith in
Internet Discussions, p. 1)

Do you imagine that the discussions here can have a direct and
immediate impact on the perception of the Faith among the non-Bahá'í
public? If so, have you sought the guidance and approval of the
National Spiritual Assembly about your responses to the attacks?

Jim
Loading...