NUR
2009-11-09 04:49:59 UTC
Re: [unitarian-bahai] The Susan Maneck Issue Is Closed
Mon Nov 9, 2009 6:45 am
Hi Eric,
I have been debating whether or not to respond to your post or just
ignore it. However, since you have decided to misrepresent the
position of those who disagree with your new position, I felt the need
to set the record straight. See my comments below.
In a message dated 11/3/2009 10:08:40 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
***@... writes:
Dear Unitarian Bahai Group,
As group owner, I have prayerfully considered the issue of Susan
Maneck's presence in this group and its implications. Previously I
had voted to remove her from the group in our poll.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ernesto: Yes, you had previously voted to remove her from the
group, though you had originally voted in the undecided category and
changed that upon receiving my response to your private e-mail to me
requesting my personal take/experience with Ms. Maneck. You have in
fact voted all three positions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I was surprised that the majority of people who voted wished to
allow her to stay, but I respect the wishes of this democratic
community.
As of a few minutes ago, I have changed my vote to the position of
allowing her to stay. The poll closes at a count of 6 votes in favor
of letting Susan stay, 3 votes against, and 2 undecided.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ernesto: So it is done.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This issue is closed. Unless Susan Maneck actually does something
to cause offense to the members of this group in the future, from now
on further discussion of her presence here is prohibited.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ernesto: Really? Whatever happened to the principle that no person,
group of persons or organization does not have the right to "command"
obedience from the people? This is probably the most important
organizational distinctive of the UBF. This group should think twice
before tossing it overboard.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The other moderators and I will only approve her posts if she is
polite and respectful of the members here, and will refuse to approve
any attempted posts by her that are offensive, disrespectful, or
combative.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ernesto: But isn't that censorship? Isn't that one of the issues
that we criticize the Haifans for? Isn't this Glaysher's mistake; the
one that made his group a one man show? Is this group sure that it
really wants to go this route? I understand the need for limits,
however, I thing that the group, as a group, needs to really think
this through and decide as a body what those limits should be. Because
posts that present a view that is not liked by the censors can easily
be interpreted as being "offensive, disrespectful, or combative."
Please, think about this carefully.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now I will explain why I personally changed my vote to the position of
allowing Susan to stay, joining the majority of voters in this
position.
One of the things I believe in is the principle of "associating with
the followers of all religions in a spirit of friendliness and
fellowship." That's a quote from Bahaullah, a person we in this group
recognize as a prophetic voice.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ernesto: I totally agree. Though I must point out that using
Baha'u'llah to justify any position can be two edged sword. Your above
mentioned quote being a good case in point. Yes, Baha'u'llah did, in
fact, teach the above principle, however, what he taught on the
subject was far more nuanced and not nearly as simple or simplistic as
you are presenting. If you are going to invoke Baha'u'llah as the
final authority for the UBFs faith and praxis, then you will need to
take all of his teachings on the subject into consideration, and not
just take the bits you like out of their historical and literary
context. As I said before, while Baha'u'llah did teach the above, he
also warned his followers to refrain from associating with people who
are out to cause them spiritual harm(Abdu'lBaha did not invent
shunning out of whole cloth!). He took the trouble to point out
exactly who they were and even went as far as to indulge in name
calling. None of this, BTW, is in any way different from the actions
and teachings of his prophetic predecessors, such as Muhammad, Paul
and especially Jesus. Just because the Haifans have gone too far in
one direction is no reason for us to go too far in the other. There
needs to be some balance brought to this issue.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Susan Maneck is a human being, and a follower of a different
denomination of the Bahai faith. As supporters of Bahaullah's
message, we have an obligation to uphold the principle of interfaith
and ecumenical/interdenominational fellowship and friendliness, rather
than practice shunning or dehumanizing of any person.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ernesto: But what you are really saying here is that we should
adhere to the Baha'i principles that you like and ignore the Bahai
principles that you don't like. I think that on subjects like this,
where Baha'u'llah is all over the map in both word and deed, the UBF
needs to avoid claiming that its particular take on the subject is
"Bahaulla's message." Better, I think, and certainly more honest,
would be a statement that you are intentionally choosing the more
teachings of Baha'u'llah that you feel are more enlightened in lieu of
others that you consider less enlightened. After all, this is a
hallmark of the unitarian movement within Christianity and I would
assume that it would be the hallmark of the UBF as well. Especially in
light of the fact that the UBF rejects any concept of infallibility.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I refuse to allow the Unitarian Bahai movement to start out by setting
a precedent of refusing to engage in dialogue with Bahais from other
denominations.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ernesto: But that's the point in contention here, isn't it? Whether
or not Ms. Maneck is here "to engage in dialogue?" Did she not, in
fact, state in her very first post that she wasn't? Did she not, in
fact, state that her intention was to lurk? Did she not, in fact,
state that she was here out of mere curiosity? This argument or your's
simply does not apply to this particular case.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If such a precedent were to have been set, it would have had to be
done by me unilaterally, in violation of the democratic vote of this
community. Therefore, not only would I have been setting a precedent
of anti-ecumenism, but also a precedent of anti-democratic
authoritarianism.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ernesto: As opposed to what? Democratic authoritarianism?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Both of these are features of the Haifan Baha'i Faith that we don't
like! We should not import such disturbing attitudes and practices
into our own new movement, which is seeking to practice Bahaism in a
liberal, inclusive, and truly democratic spirit.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ernesto: And lets not forget that even a democratically made
decision is only supposed to be advisory and is not supposed to be
binding on all. Unless, I misunderstood.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I respect that this community has revealed its wisdom in voting to
allow Susan Maneck to stay here among us,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ernesto: Hmmm. If those who agree with your position are revealing
their wisdom; what does that say about those who take a different
position? I personally find the above statement insulting and
offensive. A back handed put down of those who do not agree with the
group mind.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
because in doing so, we are demonstrating that we are willing and able
to actually *practice* what we preach -- to have a friendly attitude
and attempt to fellowship even with people from a different religious
denomination or tradition, who disagree with some of our beliefs and
may say so vocally.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ernesto: Of course, no one is against that. As a matter of fact,
not one person who expressed a negative reaction to Ms. Maneck's
presence here said that it was because she might "disagree with some
of our beliefs and may say so vocally." This is nothing but a straw
man argument on your part. Not only did no one actually give what you
said as a reason for their opposition, I for one, made clear that my
reasons were quite different (in this group and when I responded to
your private e-mail about Ms. Maneck), and I even went out of my way
to state that I have no problem with people who believe differently
than me, or people who defend their positions, even vigorously. So
please, do not misrepresent the position of those with whom you have
come to disagree.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I reiterate that any attempts by Susan Maneck -- or anyone else for
that matter -- to post disrespectful, offensive, or combative messages
to this forum will be blocked by the moderators.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ernesto: Got it. Already commented.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes, Haifan Bahais will be here -- probably not many of them, but
maybe a few on occasion. Are we afraid of ecumenical dialogue? I'm
not. I have no problem with it at all. And the moderators will
ensure that if Haifans want to dialogue with us, they can do so, as
long as they do it respectfully.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ernesto: I'm cool with that. However, "respectfully" is in the eye
of the beholder. And being human, it can easily become an excuse to
censor unpopular views.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes, Haifan Bahais will be spying on us. They would do so regardless
of whether they use their real names or pseudonyms. We can't stop it,
because the only way to stop it would be to personally interview
everyone who wishes to join this group and somehow check to make sure
they are not a member of the Haifan denomination (which is not
actually possible to do).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ernesto: I agree. This is not an issue for me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Therefore, my suggestion is that any group member who is concerned
about being spied on by Haifan Baha'i officials should use a pseudonym
on this forum.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ernesto: As is done by some in other heterodox Bahai forums. Its
sad, but a necessity for dissenters who wish to remain in good
standing with the Haifan's or the Orthodox.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As for me, and I suspect also for many of us here, we aren't worried
about people from a different religious denomination knowing what we
believe, what we're doing, and who we are. Be bold! Have courage!
Stand up for what you believe! Who cares if somebody is spying on you
from some pathetic religious organization that keeps files on everyone
they don't like. Let them do their ridiculous thing, and we will do
our thing. It's not as though they're going to find you and murder
you because you're a Unitarian Bahai.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ernesto: Agreed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So there it is. If anyone wishes to practice total shunning of Susan
Maneck -- not only refusing to dialogue with her, but even refusing to
enter a common online space in which she is present and mostly silent
-- you may choose to leave this group if you wish. Our community has
spoken, and the majority decided that Susan can be here, at least for
now.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ernesto: I will stay with the group. However, I will be silent and
inactive. The issues I brought up above, regarding censorship,
"command," the not-so-subtle insults by the group owner/moderator, and
the misrepresentation of unpopular views, have caused me to take a
step back from what, I must confess, was a too hasty commitment. I can
no longer, in good conscience, consider myself a member of the
Unitarian Bahai Faith. I have already taken down the UBV blog and will
soon disable this e-mail address. Like I said, I will remain a lurker
in the group (maintaining my Yahoo! account and membership here), but
like Ms. Maneck, mostly out of "curiosity," to see what, if anything,
comes of it. This will likely be my last post to the group. Any
responses to this post will go unanswered by me since I no longer feel
vested in the development of the UBF. I do, however, wish you well and
success in your stated goals and endeavors.
In Light & Life,
Ernesto Borges Torres
Mon Nov 9, 2009 6:45 am
Hi Eric,
I have been debating whether or not to respond to your post or just
ignore it. However, since you have decided to misrepresent the
position of those who disagree with your new position, I felt the need
to set the record straight. See my comments below.
In a message dated 11/3/2009 10:08:40 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
***@... writes:
Dear Unitarian Bahai Group,
As group owner, I have prayerfully considered the issue of Susan
Maneck's presence in this group and its implications. Previously I
had voted to remove her from the group in our poll.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ernesto: Yes, you had previously voted to remove her from the
group, though you had originally voted in the undecided category and
changed that upon receiving my response to your private e-mail to me
requesting my personal take/experience with Ms. Maneck. You have in
fact voted all three positions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I was surprised that the majority of people who voted wished to
allow her to stay, but I respect the wishes of this democratic
community.
As of a few minutes ago, I have changed my vote to the position of
allowing her to stay. The poll closes at a count of 6 votes in favor
of letting Susan stay, 3 votes against, and 2 undecided.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ernesto: So it is done.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This issue is closed. Unless Susan Maneck actually does something
to cause offense to the members of this group in the future, from now
on further discussion of her presence here is prohibited.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ernesto: Really? Whatever happened to the principle that no person,
group of persons or organization does not have the right to "command"
obedience from the people? This is probably the most important
organizational distinctive of the UBF. This group should think twice
before tossing it overboard.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The other moderators and I will only approve her posts if she is
polite and respectful of the members here, and will refuse to approve
any attempted posts by her that are offensive, disrespectful, or
combative.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ernesto: But isn't that censorship? Isn't that one of the issues
that we criticize the Haifans for? Isn't this Glaysher's mistake; the
one that made his group a one man show? Is this group sure that it
really wants to go this route? I understand the need for limits,
however, I thing that the group, as a group, needs to really think
this through and decide as a body what those limits should be. Because
posts that present a view that is not liked by the censors can easily
be interpreted as being "offensive, disrespectful, or combative."
Please, think about this carefully.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now I will explain why I personally changed my vote to the position of
allowing Susan to stay, joining the majority of voters in this
position.
One of the things I believe in is the principle of "associating with
the followers of all religions in a spirit of friendliness and
fellowship." That's a quote from Bahaullah, a person we in this group
recognize as a prophetic voice.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ernesto: I totally agree. Though I must point out that using
Baha'u'llah to justify any position can be two edged sword. Your above
mentioned quote being a good case in point. Yes, Baha'u'llah did, in
fact, teach the above principle, however, what he taught on the
subject was far more nuanced and not nearly as simple or simplistic as
you are presenting. If you are going to invoke Baha'u'llah as the
final authority for the UBFs faith and praxis, then you will need to
take all of his teachings on the subject into consideration, and not
just take the bits you like out of their historical and literary
context. As I said before, while Baha'u'llah did teach the above, he
also warned his followers to refrain from associating with people who
are out to cause them spiritual harm(Abdu'lBaha did not invent
shunning out of whole cloth!). He took the trouble to point out
exactly who they were and even went as far as to indulge in name
calling. None of this, BTW, is in any way different from the actions
and teachings of his prophetic predecessors, such as Muhammad, Paul
and especially Jesus. Just because the Haifans have gone too far in
one direction is no reason for us to go too far in the other. There
needs to be some balance brought to this issue.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Susan Maneck is a human being, and a follower of a different
denomination of the Bahai faith. As supporters of Bahaullah's
message, we have an obligation to uphold the principle of interfaith
and ecumenical/interdenominational fellowship and friendliness, rather
than practice shunning or dehumanizing of any person.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ernesto: But what you are really saying here is that we should
adhere to the Baha'i principles that you like and ignore the Bahai
principles that you don't like. I think that on subjects like this,
where Baha'u'llah is all over the map in both word and deed, the UBF
needs to avoid claiming that its particular take on the subject is
"Bahaulla's message." Better, I think, and certainly more honest,
would be a statement that you are intentionally choosing the more
teachings of Baha'u'llah that you feel are more enlightened in lieu of
others that you consider less enlightened. After all, this is a
hallmark of the unitarian movement within Christianity and I would
assume that it would be the hallmark of the UBF as well. Especially in
light of the fact that the UBF rejects any concept of infallibility.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I refuse to allow the Unitarian Bahai movement to start out by setting
a precedent of refusing to engage in dialogue with Bahais from other
denominations.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ernesto: But that's the point in contention here, isn't it? Whether
or not Ms. Maneck is here "to engage in dialogue?" Did she not, in
fact, state in her very first post that she wasn't? Did she not, in
fact, state that her intention was to lurk? Did she not, in fact,
state that she was here out of mere curiosity? This argument or your's
simply does not apply to this particular case.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If such a precedent were to have been set, it would have had to be
done by me unilaterally, in violation of the democratic vote of this
community. Therefore, not only would I have been setting a precedent
of anti-ecumenism, but also a precedent of anti-democratic
authoritarianism.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ernesto: As opposed to what? Democratic authoritarianism?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Both of these are features of the Haifan Baha'i Faith that we don't
like! We should not import such disturbing attitudes and practices
into our own new movement, which is seeking to practice Bahaism in a
liberal, inclusive, and truly democratic spirit.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ernesto: And lets not forget that even a democratically made
decision is only supposed to be advisory and is not supposed to be
binding on all. Unless, I misunderstood.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I respect that this community has revealed its wisdom in voting to
allow Susan Maneck to stay here among us,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ernesto: Hmmm. If those who agree with your position are revealing
their wisdom; what does that say about those who take a different
position? I personally find the above statement insulting and
offensive. A back handed put down of those who do not agree with the
group mind.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
because in doing so, we are demonstrating that we are willing and able
to actually *practice* what we preach -- to have a friendly attitude
and attempt to fellowship even with people from a different religious
denomination or tradition, who disagree with some of our beliefs and
may say so vocally.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ernesto: Of course, no one is against that. As a matter of fact,
not one person who expressed a negative reaction to Ms. Maneck's
presence here said that it was because she might "disagree with some
of our beliefs and may say so vocally." This is nothing but a straw
man argument on your part. Not only did no one actually give what you
said as a reason for their opposition, I for one, made clear that my
reasons were quite different (in this group and when I responded to
your private e-mail about Ms. Maneck), and I even went out of my way
to state that I have no problem with people who believe differently
than me, or people who defend their positions, even vigorously. So
please, do not misrepresent the position of those with whom you have
come to disagree.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I reiterate that any attempts by Susan Maneck -- or anyone else for
that matter -- to post disrespectful, offensive, or combative messages
to this forum will be blocked by the moderators.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ernesto: Got it. Already commented.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes, Haifan Bahais will be here -- probably not many of them, but
maybe a few on occasion. Are we afraid of ecumenical dialogue? I'm
not. I have no problem with it at all. And the moderators will
ensure that if Haifans want to dialogue with us, they can do so, as
long as they do it respectfully.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ernesto: I'm cool with that. However, "respectfully" is in the eye
of the beholder. And being human, it can easily become an excuse to
censor unpopular views.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes, Haifan Bahais will be spying on us. They would do so regardless
of whether they use their real names or pseudonyms. We can't stop it,
because the only way to stop it would be to personally interview
everyone who wishes to join this group and somehow check to make sure
they are not a member of the Haifan denomination (which is not
actually possible to do).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ernesto: I agree. This is not an issue for me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Therefore, my suggestion is that any group member who is concerned
about being spied on by Haifan Baha'i officials should use a pseudonym
on this forum.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ernesto: As is done by some in other heterodox Bahai forums. Its
sad, but a necessity for dissenters who wish to remain in good
standing with the Haifan's or the Orthodox.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As for me, and I suspect also for many of us here, we aren't worried
about people from a different religious denomination knowing what we
believe, what we're doing, and who we are. Be bold! Have courage!
Stand up for what you believe! Who cares if somebody is spying on you
from some pathetic religious organization that keeps files on everyone
they don't like. Let them do their ridiculous thing, and we will do
our thing. It's not as though they're going to find you and murder
you because you're a Unitarian Bahai.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ernesto: Agreed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So there it is. If anyone wishes to practice total shunning of Susan
Maneck -- not only refusing to dialogue with her, but even refusing to
enter a common online space in which she is present and mostly silent
-- you may choose to leave this group if you wish. Our community has
spoken, and the majority decided that Susan can be here, at least for
now.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ernesto: I will stay with the group. However, I will be silent and
inactive. The issues I brought up above, regarding censorship,
"command," the not-so-subtle insults by the group owner/moderator, and
the misrepresentation of unpopular views, have caused me to take a
step back from what, I must confess, was a too hasty commitment. I can
no longer, in good conscience, consider myself a member of the
Unitarian Bahai Faith. I have already taken down the UBV blog and will
soon disable this e-mail address. Like I said, I will remain a lurker
in the group (maintaining my Yahoo! account and membership here), but
like Ms. Maneck, mostly out of "curiosity," to see what, if anything,
comes of it. This will likely be my last post to the group. Any
responses to this post will go unanswered by me since I no longer feel
vested in the development of the UBF. I do, however, wish you well and
success in your stated goals and endeavors.
In Light & Life,
Ernesto Borges Torres