...I do not care whether Baha'ullah "counts" as a "prophet" because that doesn't mean anything to me, nor do I care whether your group or the group in Haifa has a better interpretation of his words).
All I did was say "except for the imprisonment-and-execution..." which I meant in the sense of the old joke....
On the "trademark" issue I think your side is definitely in the wrong. If you don't like the Haifa organization, then don't imitate their identity....
All that the court ruling you cite is saying, is that the issue of which names and symbols you shouldn't be using needs to be litigated from scratch...
I would hardly call the fraudulence of that will a "fact": all I see from your side is that it was one person's opinion-- .... Now again, I am an outsider to this fight, and have no stake in whether the will was genuine or not, but I do not find the evidence here very compelling.
The only "slander" you seem to be complaining about is that they call you "apostate" and so on. Well, you ARE a breakaway group.... Well, as a non-Christian I do not presume to decide whether Luther or the Vatican had a better interpretation of the original meaning of Paul's epistles or whatever; each side has their reasons for saying what they do.
And I don't understand your complaint about "shunning" at all. If you hate them so much (the vitriol does seem to be much more from your side than the other way around, from what I've seen), then why do you WANT them to associate with you? Are you claiming that they have some DUTY to associate with you, whether they want anything to do with you or not? Especially when you've made it clear you don't want anything to do with them, either?
"I do not care..." I respect your conscience. I do care.
"Old joke." It's not a joke. The one you cite seems callous and insensitive of Mrs. Lincoln's pain and suffering and that her husband was murdered.
The Interpretation of Abdul-Baha defines Baha'u'llah's Teachings for the modern world, not the fraudulent will and testament of the corrupt uhj, elected in a non-democratic system, unlike what was proscribed by Abdul-Baha. We're not imitating them; they're imitating, while perverting and destroying, the historical form demonstrated in word and deed by Abdul-Baha. Their "identity" is not the Bahai Faith, which existed in the West for over two decades before Shoghi Effendi and his family took it over.
"All that the court ruling you cite is saying..." False. The US Federal Courts repeatedly affirmed the right of other Bahai denominations to exist:
Judge Diane S. Sykes: "Clearly raises some constitutional concerns."
Judge William J. Bauer: "How about Reform Bahai?"
From Judge Sykes' Opinion:
p 7: False finding of "fact" by Judge Austin in 1966
p 13: "...civil authorities may not make judgments about religious controversies when deciding church property disputes. Kedroff, 344 U.S. at 116. (The church-autonomy principle recognized in Watson “must now be said to have federal constitutional protection as a part of the free exercise of religion against state interference.”)."
"Building on Kedroff, the Supreme Court held in Presbyterian Church that “the First Amendment severely circumscribes the role that civil courts may play in resolving church property disputes.”
p 14-15: "Considered in light of these First Amendment limitations on the court’s authority, certain aspects of the 1966 injunction are troubling. The decree declares that “there is only one Baha’i Faith,” that Shoghi Effendi was its last Guardian and none has come since, and the National Spiritual Assembly was its representative and “highest authority” in the United States and was “entitled to exclusive use of the marks and symbols of the Faith,” including the exclusive use of the word “Bahá’í.” Declarations of this sort push the boundaries of the court’s authority under Kedroff and Presbyterian Church. In church property disputes (trademark suits obviously qualify), the First Amendment limits the sphere in which civil courts may operate. When a district judge takes sides in a religious schism, purports to decide matters of spiritual succession, and excludes dissenters from using the name, symbols, and marks of the faith (as distinct from the name and marks of a church) [boldface added], the First Amendment line appears to have been crossed."
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
Public Access to Oral Argument recordings,Opinions
08-2306 : Nat'l Spiritual v. Nat'l Spiritual
2 02/20/2009 02/20/2009 Oral Argument
3 11/23/2010 11/23/2010 Opinion (SYKES)
List of Documents in case
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/do...yr=08&num=2306
"One person's opinion..." False. The historical record shows that many left the Bahai Movement because of the fraudulent will and testament, given the fact that it changed the entire nature of Abdul-Baha's Interpretation for the modern world:
"The reader may ascertain for himself ... in THE WORLD ALMANAC for 1931 on page 391. There he will find that in 1916 the number of Bahais in the United States and Canada was listed as 2,884. But since this group became papists under Shoghi Effendi their numbes have diminished to 1,247 under his "Guardianship" [1,637 left]."
" I am an outsider..." I don't know that for a fact; nor have the time nor inclination to investigate whether that's true. In Haifan Baha'i cyberspace, such claims have often proven false upon scrutiny. See Good Cop/Bad Cop,
CAUTION *** Psychological War Zone *** Newcomers __
CAUTION *** Psychological War Zone *** Newcomers
You have not investigated the evidence beyond a cursory level, apparently since you "don't care."
"You ARE a breakaway group..." False. They are the group that broke away from Abdul-Baha's open, liberal, universal, progressive Interpretation, which emphasized true religion "cannot be organized." They wanted to organize it for power, money, and control. That's what the Haifans are all about. Your relativism, not caring about the truth of the matter, is negatively influencing your perception, in my view, with all respect.
"Vitriol..." You clearly don't know much about the Haifans, or you've been duped by them, or one of them using a false identity. For the tip of the iceberg, see the following, then click to the homepage for more:
"The Bahai Technique":
The Baha'i Technique - Slander & Shunning - Coercive Methods used in the Baha'i Faith - "According to the direct and sacred command of God we are forbidden to utter slander." --Abdu'l-Baha
Shunning & Slander > Menu
Baha'i Shunning > Menu - Slander & Shunning - Coercive Methods used in the Baha'i Faith
"...why do you WANT them to associate with you?" We don't. Bahais of all other denominations merely want their Constitutional right of Religious Freedom... which is exactly what Haifans have tried to deprive other Bahais of since 1921, following their Papist, Shiite distortion of Baha'u'llah's Teachings.
Hope this helps...
