something a friend said....

Status
Not open for further replies.
Howdy Art,

The following relates closely to the topic of triumphalism in that it is one of its major symptoms: the inflation of Baha'i membership claims from an actual 1.5 to 2 million, to a number exceeding 6 million.

Even though I am no longer a Baha'i on paper that is irrelevant seeing that the Administrative Order has rendered such membership meaningless.

The Baha'i Administrative Order's claim that there are some 3 million Baha'is in India is bogus. The true number of Baha'is if membership requirements were the same in India as they are in North America would be far less perhaps in the 100,000 to 200,000 range. Why? Because in India a person is not required to quit their former religious affiliation to become a Baha'i but only to recognise Baha'u'llah as one of many Avatars. A thumb print is all it takes and then bingo you're on the rolls. Doesn't matter if you still consider youself to be a Hindu, doesn't matter if you're a believer in Ganesh, Shiva or Krishna and have a shrine to them in your home. All it takes is the magic thumb print and agreeing that Baha'u'llah was one of many avatars.

A paper on the subject by William Garlington, a scholar on the Baha'i Faith, is available at : http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/bhpapers/india1.htm

I suggest that anyone wanting to know the truth about the actual number of Baha'is in the world read this informative and enlightening paper.

The truth is that I'm more of a Baha'i than the majority of those that the Administrative Order counts as Baha'is in India even though my name is no longer on their list. Why? Because my mother became a Baha'i in 1960 when I was seven years of age and through her introducting me to Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha' I fell in love, and still am. Why? Because I was raised as a Baha'i child and youth and took a full two years of thought to decide to sign my name. No thumb print on a card which only acknowledges that Baha'u'llah was one of many Avatars. Two years of contemplation on what the resoncibilties were of being a Baha'i before I put my name on that card. I knew very well I was a person of Baha' before I signed that card and still I took two years to decide to sign. Why? Because the responcibility of being Baha'i to me was of such great importance; it is for this same reason that I recently resigned from a Baha'i Faith that no longer reflects the spirit and meaning of Baha'u'llah's revealed utterances.

Being Baha'i is more than putting a thumb print on a piece of paper, more than putting your signature on a card, it is being true to Baha'u'llah's revealed utterances even if that involves withdrawal from the community which bears His name.

The dictates of triumphalism have become more of a motivator for the Baha'i Administrative Order and specifically The Universal House of Justice than Baha'u'llah's revealed utterances. Wordly prestiege and highly inflated membership claims have become more important to them than the accomodation of their own coreligionists.

There is only us, we are them, 'as one soul'.

Yours Larry
 
smkolins said:
As you are fond of noting that other notes, the Baha'i Faith is a growing religion. Clearly some must feel impressed, and willing to be changed by it, accepting the truth they find, and find truths they didn't expect.
Click to expand...

this is true, smkolins. i did not say the Baha'i faith was in any way becoming "less popular". quite the contrary, as far as anyone can tell. if at the end of the day one's religious beliefs bring them peace within themselves and with others, that is a good thing.

i was merely explaining my own warriness of Baha'i doctrine and some irregularities i've noticed between "outward" and "inward" presentation of doctrinal points, things which have lead me away from the Baha'i Faith as a whole. i am concerened that these irregularities, not being well defined publically, are a form of deception on the part of the Baha'i Faith in their relations and self-presentation to outsiders.
 
Sorry, Larry, but that's mere hot air.

Not only do you expose yourself and your biased attitudes by the fact that you can't be bothered to refer to Shoghi Effeidi in a courteous, non-juvenile manner, but you totally IGNORE the fact that the House of Justice was established in the Baha'i scriptures, and that the Baha'i Covenant is quite specific and explicit. Our scriptures assign the House of Justice specific duties and roles, and it does its best to fulfill these!

And it's grossly misleading to refer to the invididuals you mentioned as "co-religionists": the fact that they are specifically and intentionally violating the Baha'i Covenant makes clear that they are NOT "co-religionists" of Baha'is, but in fact opponents of the Baha'i Faith!

The Baha'i Faith does indeed promote free exercise of conscience, little as you like to admit this. Pointing out a tiny group trying to destroy the Baha'i Covenant hardly qualifies as any legitimate sort of "exception" to this.

Just the facts.

I'm tempted to repeat the famous quote, "If you can't say something constructive, then say nothing!"

Bruce
 
Dear Bruce,

We are encouraged in the Writings to use those Writings to confirm and verify what we are stating, this I do. We are encouraged to use politeness and eloquence to express ourselves, I do this to the best of my ability.

I always attempt to remain polite in how I express myself; as well I do not resort to adhominum, does that make me juvenile?

Sometimes in order to be constructive, myths have to be deconstructed.

Your suggestion that the individuals that I have referred to as coreiligionists are violators of the Covenant, is not only a slur it is misinformed.

Neither Juan Cole, Alison Marshall nor Michael McKenny have ever been accused by any Baha'i institution of violating the Covenant.

Juan Cole resigned from the Faith after he became aware of private comments Douglas Martin had made to another Baha'i which referred to him as a Covenant Breaker. His heart was broken to think that a fellow coreligionist would back bite him in this vilest of manners.

Alison Marshall was excommunicated from the Baha'i Faith because the Universal House of Justice had passed judgement on her Baha'i beliefs. With no authority to do so the Universal House of Justice set up It's Own interpretational standard for qualification for Baha'i membership based on the personal interpretations of individual members of the Universal House of Justice. Neither the Universal House of Justice nor the New Zealand N.S.A. has ever specified just exactly which beliefs of Alison's have disqualified her from Baha'i membership.

Michael McKenny was excommunicated from the Baha'i Faith for believing that Baha'u'llah's and Abdu'l-Baha's Teachings of the two winged aspect of humanity are true. He was excommunicated for publicly expressing his personal interpretation that when Baha'u'llah referred to the members of the House of Justice as 'rihal' it referred to women as well as to men. He was excommunicated for publicly and conscientiously expressing his belief, based on his personal interpretations, that women will make the Universal House of Justice two winged at some point in the future.

Your quickness to condemn fellow coreligionists who you have never met and know little of is cultish to the nth degree. I suggest, that you do as Abdu'l-Baha' suggested and "draw no lines"; I suggest that you see no one as an enemy but all humanity as friends. Perhaps this would heal you of such cultish words and behavior. Perhaps if the Universal House of Justice applied Abdu'l-Baha's Teachings and drew no lines and saw no one as their enemy they would be worthy of Their name.

"Let them see no one as their enemy, or as wishing them ill, but think of all humankind as their friends; regarding the alien as an intimate, the stranger as a companion, staying free of prejudice, drawing no lines."

(Abdu'l-Baha, Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha, p. 1)

There is only us, we are them, 'as one soul'.

Yours Larry
 
ISFP said:
i am concerened that these irregularities, not being well defined publically, are a form of deception on the part of the Baha'i Faith in their relations and self-presentation to outsiders.
Click to expand...

I encourage you to share your thoughts frankly and clearly, with respect, to those whom you are in the company of. I would be curious as to the progress of the issues as you see them.
 
Larry

I'll respond to you but I still feel a lot of this material is off topic from the original post.

The article by William Garlington is at best his estimate of the situation and he like any scholar states his case. I think it's a very good article really but it doesn't really blow any "holes" in my own views of Baha'is in India.

One can argue numbers but in themselves I don't think they are that significant as only the Baha'is in India know who they are...

Even with two million Baha'is in India that's still a drop in the bucket a mere .17% of the total population of India.

Source:

http://www.adherents.com/Na/Na_56.html


Further Garlington is aware of the Baha'i approach to the new believers in his identifying a more liberal definition of conversion:

"Now if a symbolic rejection of one's previous religious affiliation
is a requirement for conversion, then I think it could be argued within
this comparative context that the Baha'i declarants were not converts while
the Mahars were. On the other hand, if a more liberal definition of
conversion is allowed for, one which does not demand such official
rejection, and provides for a compartmentalized approach to change that
gradually introduces new theological and behavioral norms over an extended
period of time (perhaps generations) then both groups were converts."

Source : http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/bhpapers/india1.htm

This appraoch is based in part in my opinion on the Baha'i view that Krishna was a Manifestation of God and therefore that it is not necessary for Baha'i teachers to ask new believers to renounce Bhagavan Shri Krishna and it also is characteristic of Baha'i teachers to have a more quadualist approach to conversion in expecting new behavioral norms.

Baha'is don't for instance demand that new believers of the first generation who are polygamous renounce their wives.

How do can we measure the growth of the Baha'i community in India? One way was identified by Garlington as follows:

"The results of the mass teaching campaign in India during its first
decade of implementation can be seen in the enormous increase of both
numbers of declared believers and local spiritual assemblies. Whereas in
1961 there were a total of 78 local spiritual assemblies and less than
1,000 believers, by 1970 these figures had risen to 3,350 assemblies and
312,602 believers."

He is identifying the expansion of the administrative order in India which you seem to be arguing against.

Larry wrote earlier:

"The truth is that I'm more of a Baha'i than the majority of those that the Administrative Order counts as Baha'is in India even though my name is no longer on their list."

On the one hand Larry you seem to ask for acceptance as a self-styled "Baha'i sans administration" and on the other you seem to reject accepting the new Baha'is in India who have not renounced all their religious practices...

I think the tone you take about the Universal House of Justice which is elected every five years by representatives from the National Spiritual Assemblies around the globe is decidedly arrogant and maybe consistent again with your anti-administrative bias but by itself accomplishes very little.

You can cite some of these situations where various people were disaffected and withdrew their membership in the Faith but they are also free to reapply to the restore their membership. Again I don't think your citations by themselves say very much. Each case has it's own circumstances and we can only surmise what some of these were.

- Art
 
Howdy ISFP,

Although any sort of duplicity or dissimulation by Baha'is is not in harmony with Baha'u'llah's and Abdu'l-Baha's Teaching, individual Baha'is and in some cases Baha'i institutions, because of over zealousness, can push the envelope of Baha'i Teachings which clearly prohibit such behavior.

I can think of one personal experience for example.

Durling the mid 1980's I was living in Burnaby B.C., Canada. I was invited to a Baha'i meeting which had been sponcered by the regional teaching committee. During the meeting we were encouraged to befriend people of Chinese ancestry as they were our 'target' group. We were counselled to be careful at first to not tell our potential converts that Baha'u'llah was a Manifestation of God. We were counselled as well to tell them that He was simply a social reformer. I immediately developed a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach and left the meeting without saying goodbye. I almost felt as though I'd walked into some sort of cult meeting by accident.

The great irony is that ten years later the Universal House of Justice in It's infamous " internal opposition " letter leveled an accusation against liberal Baha'i scholars that they were attempting to portray Baha'u'llah as a social reformer. Go figure, lol.

Yours Larry
 
When faced with seemingly problematic behavior you can either talk about it to other people or you can talk with the people with whom you have a problem.

Which is the right thing to do? Why?
 
Dear Art,

My spiritual identity is between myself and God Art. As Abdu'l-Baha' reminded us: "Convictions and ideas are within the scope of the comprehension of the King of kings, not of kings; and soul and conscience are between the fingers of control of the Lord of hearts, not of [His] servants."

(Abdu'l-Baha, A Traveller's Narrative, p. 91)

As to the topic of the symptoms of triumphalism- that I point out the fact that the greater majority of those who are claimed by the Administrative Order as Baha'is in India are in fact Hindu's who have accepted Baha'u'llah as an Avatar is not to demean those individuals at all but simply to point out one of reasons why the Administrative Order and specifically the Universal House of Justice has rendered membership in the organization which they are head of meaningless.

I believe, as Abdu'l-Baha' believed, that this movement transcends organization:

"This movement eludes organization -- it is the realization of a new spirit. The foundation of that spirit is the love of God; and its method, the love and service of mankind. Many who have never heard of this revelation teach its laws and spiritual truths. These people are performing what BAHA'O'LLAH hath commanded though they never heard of him. The power of BAHA'O'LLAH'S words is compelling -- therefore, you must know and love them. For instance, in the spring season trees burst forth into verdure, though they are not conscious of the sunshine, of the falling rain or the gentle breeze -- nevertheless, the power of nature urges them on to yield forth their fruits."
(Abdu'l-Baha, Divine Philosophy, p. 15)

I believe as Abdu'l-Baha' believed that the foundation of the spirit of the movement He refers to is love.

It is for this reason that I felt I had no choice but to offer my conditional withdrawal from the Baha'i Faith.

Not only were Alison Marshall and Michael McKenny not treated in a loving manner, they were treated in an arrogant and cold manner and here I am only speaking of the manner in which they were treated not including the unjust meddling of the Universal House of Justice with their spiritual identites, a thing they had no authority whatsoever to do.

In one of it's letter the New Zealand National Spiritual Assembly refers to the "shock value" of one their letters to Alison. Such unBaha'i like thinking and behavior is deplorable all on it own. The claim made by her N.S.A. that she had been counselled being totally bogus speaks not of love but of cold heartedness, mean spiritedness, as well as deviousness.

Both the Universal House of Justice as well as the New Zealand N.S.A. showed a total disregard for the keynote of the Cause of God:

"Let us also bear in mind that the keynote of the Cause of God is not dictatorial authority but humble fellowship, not arbitrary power, but the spirit of frank and loving consultation. Nothing short of the spirit of a true Bahá'í can hope to reconcile the principles of mercy and justice, of freedom and submission, of the sanctity of the right of the individual and of self-surrender, of vigilance, discretion and prudence on the one hand, and fellowship, candor, and courage on the other.

(Shoghi Effendi, Baha'i Administration, p. 63)

To have the Universal House of Justice behave in such a disrespectful and un-Baha'i like manner forced me to re-examine what my Baha'i identity was.

I came to the conclusion that to remain a Baha'i under their leadership and to have them commit such unspiritual acts on my behalf as a Baha'i left me no choice but to withdraw from the Faith. As Abdu'l-Baha' stated:

"If religion becomes a cause of dislike, hatred and division, it were better to be without it, and to withdraw from such a religion would be a truly religious act. For it is clear that the purpose of a remedy is to cure; but if the remedy should only aggravate the complaint it had better be left alone. Any religion which is not a cause of love and unity is no religion."

(Abdu'l-Baha, Paris Talks, p. 130)

There is only us, we are them, 'as one soul'.

Yours

Larry Rowe
 
Larry,

I appreciated your sharing how as a Baha'i child you received from your dear mother the precious Faith a heritage and heirloom passed down to you that should be I think accepted with humility and grace... but it seems to me you may be too ready to cast this heirloom aside but that is something only between you and God.

I will respond though to your points:

Larry wrote:

My spiritual identity is between myself and God Art. As Abdu'l-Baha' reminded us: "Convictions and ideas are within the scope of the comprehension of the King of kings, not of kings; and soul and conscience are between the fingers of control of the Lord of hearts, not of [His] servants."

(Abdu'l-Baha, A Traveller's Narrative, p. 91)

As to the topic of the symptoms of triumphalism- that I point out the fact that the greater majority of those who are claimed by the Administrative Order as Baha'is in India are in fact Hindu's who have accepted Baha'u'llah as an Avatar is not to demean those individuals at all but simply to point out one of reasons why the Administrative Order and specifically the Universal House of Justice has rendered membership in the organization which they are head of meaningless.

My reply:

But I think you are demeaning them Larry and setting what you think should be the standards of teaching the Faith in India. So what gives you the right to critique the National Teachig Committee of India and it's duly constituted National Spiritual Assembly?

Larry wrote:

I believe, as Abdu'l-Baha' believed, that this movement transcends organization:

"This movement eludes organization -- it is the realization of a new spirit. The foundation of that spirit is the love of God; and its method, the love and service of mankind. Many who have never heard of this revelation teach its laws and spiritual truths. These people are performing what BAHA'O'LLAH hath commanded though they never heard of him. The power of BAHA'O'LLAH'S words is compelling -- therefore, you must know and love them. For instance, in the spring season trees burst forth into verdure, though they are not conscious of the sunshine, of the falling rain or the gentle breeze -- nevertheless, the power of nature urges them on to yield forth their fruits."

(Abdu'l-Baha, Divine Philosophy, p. 15)

My reply:

Well and good we can all acknowledge that the Spirit of this age is moving through the veins and hearts of it's people even without them being aware of it, but this by itself should not be seen as a replacement for Baha'i Institutions that have been elected in a state of prayer and who seek to carry out their duties and obligations. A divinely ordained organization of and by itself enables more people to hear about Baha'u'llah and His teachings. Who will publish and guard the sacred texts if not some form of organization?

Larry wrote:

I believe as Abdu'l-Baha' believed that the foundation of the spirit of the movement He refers to is love.

It is for this reason that I felt I had no choice but to offer my conditional withdrawal from the Baha'i Faith.

Not only were Alison Marshall and Michael McKenny not treated in a loving manner, they were treated in an arrogant and cold manner and here I am only speaking of the manner in which they were treated not including the unjust meddling of the Universal House of Justice with their spiritual identites, a thing they had no authority whatsoever to do.

In one of it's letter the New Zealand National Spiritual Assembly refers to the "shock value" of one their letters to Alison. Such unBaha'i like thinking and behavior is deplorable all on it own. The claim made by her N.S.A. that she had been counselled being totally bogus speaks not of love but of cold heartedness, mean spiritedness, as well as deviousness.

Both the Universal House of Justice as well as the New Zealand N.S.A. showed a total disregard for the keynote of the Cause of God:

"Let us also bear in mind that the keynote of the Cause of God is not dictatorial authority but humble fellowship, not arbitrary power, but the spirit of frank and loving consultation. Nothing short of the spirit of a true Bahá'í can hope to reconcile the principles of mercy and justice, of freedom and submission, of the sanctity of the right of the individual and of self-surrender, of vigilance, discretion and prudence on the one hand, and fellowship, candor, and courage on the other.

(Shoghi Effendi, Baha'i Administration, p. 63)

To have the Universal House of Justice behave in such a disrespectful and un-Baha'i like manner forced me to re-examine what my Baha'i identity was.

My reply:

Larry I think you may have heard one side of the issues these individuals represented and ignored the other side. The spirit of consultation calls for selfless presentation of an individuals ideas and opinions before other Baha'is and the Institutions that we elect. Are you very sure that you can judge yourself the merits of these cases by yourself alone?

How many people and I mean here the Baha'is that were also around these people you mention also were involved in loving consultation with them and attempted to assist them and were sensitive to their spiritual condition were ignored by them or their advice cast aside?

Larry wrote:

I came to the conclusion that to remain a Baha'i under their leadership and to have them commit such unspiritual acts on my behalf as a Baha'i left me no choice but to withdraw from the Faith. As Abdu'l-Baha' stated:

"If religion becomes a cause of dislike, hatred and division, it were better to be without it, and to withdraw from such a religion would be a truly religious act. For it is clear that the purpose of a remedy is to cure; but if the remedy should only aggravate the complaint it had better be left alone. Any religion which is not a cause of love and unity is no religion."

(Abdu'l-Baha, Paris Talks, p. 130)

There is only us, we are them, 'as one soul'.

My comment:

It seems to me Larry that you set yourself up as the final arbiter in these cases and decided they are unscriptural based on your own interpretation:

"I came to the conclusion that to remain a Baha'i under their leadership and to have them commit such unspiritual acts on my behalf as a Baha'i left me no choice but to withdraw from the Faith."

Is this not a kind of "triumphalism" of a sort?

And the last time I checked the right of interpreting the Writings of the Baha'i Faith is more along the following lines:

"The hereditary authority which the Guardian of the Administrative Order is called upon to exercise, and the right of the interpretation of the Holy Writ solely conferred upon him; the powers and prerogatives of the Universal House of Justice, possessing the exclusive right to legislate on matters not explicitly revealed in the Most Holy Book..."

- "God Passes By" p. 326

Are you sure in your speed to condemn the actions of the Universal House of Justice that you are not assuming a kind of "Guardianship" to yourself?

- Art
 
Hi Larry, as per my earlier comments and the PM, please quote your sources when you are referring to events relating to the actions of member sof the Universal House of Justice.

This is a polite final reminder.
 
Greetings.

L>I always attempt to remain polite in how I express myself; as well I do not resort to adhominum, does that make me juvenile?

Intentional use of just "Shoghi" as address by someone supposedly a Baha'i is, I suggest, evidence of clear intent to issue an arguably juvenile put-down. Q.E.D. (Not to mention that this can also be taken as ad hominem.)

Nor am I the least impressed by repeated efforts to defend and justify individuals who are either enemies of the Faith (by their own admission and/or actions) or who have been expelled for insisting on their personal opinions over and above established Baha'i teachings and laws.

So you will forgive me, I trust, if I am underwhelmed by your argument.

I'm all for dialogue, but put-downs and defense of anti-Baha'i activities leave me cold.

Peace,

Bruce
 
Hello Brian,

I must have missed the comments of yours which refered to quoting sources. Perhaps it would be wise to apply this to everyone here so that when a Baha'i maligns one of their fellow corelgionist as a violator of the Covenant they are required to quote their sources as well.

This is a site dedicated to comparative religion and not to the promotion of any particular religion or religious interpretation, is it not?

I have remained polite and tried to keep to the topics of the threads where possible.

I have not resorted to adhominum to make a point, as some other posters here seem to be disposed.

Each and every action of the Universal House of Justice or its individual members I have referred to are a matter of the public record. If you or any other poster would like for me to do a google and quote the source I would be more than glad to comply.

Yours

Larry
 
Dear Bruce,

Perhaps if you would refer to the Writings to help make your points, as well as proof read your posts to make sure that they are understandable misunderstandings could be prevented.

As to referring to Shoghi Effendi as Shoghi, he refered to himself in this manner as Your Brother Shoghi. If I refer to him simply as Shoghi or as Brother Shoghi, as one of the Friends. It is not in disrespect but in admiration of his personal self effacement and humility.

Your words speak for themselves Bruce as do mine.

Yours

Larry
 
Dear Art,

Me thinks you've missed my point.

The topic is triumphalism. My point is that exageration of the numbers of Baha'is in the world by Baha'i Institutions is symptomatic of the aliment of triumphalism. The numbers of Baha'i adherents in the world claimed by the Baha'i Administrative Order is held out as a proof of the success and appeal of the Baha'i Faith, it is used as a teaching tool. Because those numbers are not born out if looked at impartially, or if actual census' are used to come with more accurate figures, it shows that the Baha'i Administrative Order's emphasis of these figures as a proof of Baha'i appeal are motivated not through a desire to give an accurate picture of the Baha'i Faith in the world but a false picture which can be used as a tool to use for convertion. Thus the use of these inflated membership numbers relates to triumphalism and the perceived need to use other questionable means to teach the Baha'i Faith: such as a regional teaching committes counselling Baha'is to use dissimulation when speaking of Baha'u'llah with potential Chinese converts.

As to whether or not Hindus who believe in Baha'u'llah simply as one of many Avatars are in fact Baha'is, I refer you to the Writings to clarify that point.

"the Spirit of this age is moving through the veins and hearts of it's people even without them being aware of it, but this by itself should not be seen as a replacement for Baha'i Institutions"

Neither should the Baha'i administration become a substitute for the Spirit of this Age. This is made clear by Brother Shoghi in the quotes of his which I have shared.

The doors in this Day have been flung open by God Himself! It is no man's role to become a self appointed keeper of those doors or God forbid to believe they have the power to close those doors and be keepers of imaginary keys, overseers of an imaginary interpretational standard of the right to enter those doors which God Himself has flung open!

Dear Art I truly believe that we are all 'as one soul', I believe as well that we all need to behave in a manner that is befitting of this truth. That I expect the institutions which purport to represent the Baha'i Faith to live up to this high standard is not triumphalism but realism. if Baha'i institutions fail to live up to this high standard even as concerns their own coreligionists, they become more of an impediment to the realization of the goal of that standard than a facillitator.

My message to Baha'i institutions is to stand out of the way of those doors which God Himself has flung open. So long as they stand in the way will the fortunes of the Baha'i Faith render It indistinguisable from many other systems of belief which have arisen since It's beginings, which were in place at that time.

As Brother Shoghi stated:

For those whose priceless privilege is to guard over, administer the affairs, and advance the interests of these Bahá'í institutions will have, sooner or later, to face this searching question: "Where and how does this Order established by Bahá'u'lláh, which to outward seeming is but a replica of the institutions established in Christianity and Islam, differ from them?

(Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha'u'llah, p. 18)

If Baha'i institutions fall into the same patterns that all previous religions have fallen into the Baha'i Faith will be reduced to being " but a replica " of those previous religions.

Baha'is and their institutions have to make a choice, so far the choices made by those institutions are steering the Faith ever closer to indistinguishability.

There is only us, we are them, 'as one soul'.

Yours

Larry
 
diamondsouled said:
I must have missed the comments of yours which refered to quoting sources.
Click to expand...

There's an earlier comment in this thread to you, and a private message, too - my concern is that you have been raising accusations at named members of the Universal House of Justice, which may or may not be construed as potential libel unless you can cite public record supporting such comments.

Perhaps it would be wise to apply this to everyone here so that when a Baha'i maligns one of their fellow corelgionist as a violator of the Covenant they are required to quote their sources as well.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the advice, but I don't take kindly to your disrespective attitude. You are a guest here and I expect you to show a little respect for your surroundings. So far, you seem to be using CR as nothing more than your personal soapbox, which is not CR's role.

I therefore suggest you set up your own website/blog/forum whatever, and then lay your accusations out for all to see, and converse with you about those issues according to your own responsibilities.

For the time being, I'm restricting your ability to post so that moderators must now approve your comments, to ensure that:

1. You attribute proper sources to criticisms of named third-parties;
2. You post in a manner relating to CR's role as a facilitator of dialogue, rather than simply using it as a place to aggressively shunt your views against a specific faith.

Anything outside of that remit will not be published to the site.

You may also find this link helpful: Code of Conduct
 
Dear Brian,

Dialogue is a two way process Brian. As for disrespect, I respect those who are deserving of it, not indiscriminantly. If I have mentioned actual actions and behaviors in order to make points on a thread, say on the topic of triumphalism, it is not to be disrespectful but simply to inform and to facilliate dialogue.

True and open dialogue is not always an easy process. If the freedom to express one's self in a conscientious, honest and polite manner as I have done is offensive to you then this is not a place for dialogue but simply for back patting.

Yours Larry
 
diamondsouled said:
As for disrespect, I respect those who are deserving of it, not indiscriminantly. If I have mentioned actual actions and behaviors in order to make points on a thread, say on the topic of triumphalism, it is not to be disrespectful but simply to inform and to facilliate dialogue.

True and open dialogue is not always an easy process. If the freedom to express one's self in a conscientious, honest and polite manner as I have done is offensive to you then this is not a place for dialogue but simply for back patting.

Yours Larry
Click to expand...

The problem is, you want a soapbox to deliver your sermons against the Baha'i movement. While there *may* have been some validity in some of the points raised, the bottom line is that your attitude and inability to accept basic ground rules means you are not able to take constructive part in CR. CR is *not* to be used as a soapbox by individuals for or against any specific faith, and as raised, especially not where there may be potential libel issues.

The fact that you cannot even grasp those very fundamentals, but instead instead of your right to continue as before, means that this conversation is finished.

After posting this message this thread will be closed and no further correspondence entered into.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top