Board re-structuring

[smkolins]

Re: Roles can conflict...

Arthra and smkolins, if you feel unpopular, it is not due to any board policy towards Baha'i – and the sort of self-martyring attitude you refer to is frankly petulant and I have no interest in nourishing it from any quarter.

I urge you to consider the situation from a non-personal point of view. If we claim we are misunderstood, perhaps we are. I have no problem supposing that the purpose of the restructuring has nothing to do with the Baha'i Faith perse. But clearly it's affect on Hare Krishna and others is tiny, if nothing else because their presense was tiny to begin with. However, beyond the mechanical effect, the Baha'i Faith cannot concieve of itself without reference intimitately to other religions - it is in our scripture. To you it may make sense that we are significantly a modern religion. To us that is incidental - to us we are just the latest in a continuous process in the large picture. As we have a strong relationship to various Faiths we are now very excluded from speaking among those various Faiths from a perspective of our scripture. And that contribution is not just another way of being devisive. We have repeatedly offered references which attempt to bridge apparently irreconsilable positions.

The position is even more difficult - the Baha'i Faith is related to Hinduism and Buddhism as well. Including them in a single discussion scheme would be even further from what is in practice.

However to a practical extent, we are in the west, and western religions dominate, so relationships with the Baha'i Faith and these religions also has a strong influence in the background and sphere of familiarity among Baha'is. Should this discussion area be host in the middle or far east a similar dynamic would result as those Baha'is are largely familiar with the relationships among those issues. But then participation might well not be dominated by english despite the limitations of the web. Additionally, for whatever reason, of the references to other religions in the Baha'i Scriptures, the dominant proportion I've seen are to the Abrahamic Faiths, followed by Zoroastrian, which I might content is also Abrahamic, and then Hindu and Buddhist....

 

[smkolins]

Re: Roles can conflict...

If you have any real complaints then please raise them, but so far all I’m hearing is that a couple of members have a very high opinion of their own Faith yet appear to demand special treatment of it above all the myriad of other faiths represented on CR – and that is obviously not what CR is here to do for anybody.

I am not aware of how the restructuring has affected the other religions (save I think I was the first to note that the other religions in the monotheist area would object to being refered to by largely a Moslem term.) It seems to me that at least generally there was little practical change and no theological issues aggravated that weren't already present if felt already. I would hardly expect members of other faiths to know why or why not what happened to the Baha'i Faith in the structure of things seems fair or not.

 

[iBrian]

Re: Roles can conflict...

I have myself, and witnessed many others, defending Christianity to Moslems, among other combinations, and the reverses as well.

Indeed, but generally Faith boards are treated as a "safe" place to discuss a particular faith, so pro-Islamic threads on the Christian board should only last until a moderator is aware of the thread and either moves or removes it.

The most outrageous behavior I recall was of someone avowadly by the end of the threads not a Baha'i any longer.

I assure you, there is far more disruption at CR! We are a magnet for New Age Prophets, Christian Evangalisers, and Muslims looking to aggressively promote their religion. And a variety of other stuff besides. Most of which is hopefully well removed before most members see it, though sometimes, unfortunately, we are not so quick to recognise a problem until concerned members finally start PM'ing me about specific threads.

However, with respect to my own participation, the decision of restructing the board continues to present a divisive influence - it mechancally and legalistically prevents me from participating on a major forum.

Not at all - CR is a forum for individual members to discuss their individual beliefs - you are free to discuss issues in any board. Sometimes members will not wish to, but in my opinion this is simply missing out on the wider riches of CR.

Hope that helps.

 

[Popeyesays]

Re: Roles can conflict...

Not at all - CR is a forum for individual members to discuss their individual beliefs - you are free to discuss issues in any board. Sometimes members will not wish to, but in my opinion this is simply missing out on the wider riches of CR.

Hope that helps.

I don't know how that can be done if messages are pulled willy-nilly on the premise that someone MIGHT be offended.
"The shining spark of truth cometh forth only after the clash of differing opinions."
(Abdu'l-Baha, Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha, p. 87)

 

[iBrian]

Re: Roles can conflict...

I don't know how that can be done if messages are pulled willy-nilly on the premise that someone MIGHT be offended.
"The shining spark of truth cometh forth only after the clash of differing opinions."
(Abdu'l-Baha, Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha, p. 87)

Messages are not pulled willy-nilly from the board - but posting multiple threads attacking another religion to promote your own is not acceptable by *anyone* at CR - and precisely why your two threads were removed, as you are well aware of and why I refered you to the Code of Conduct.

If that is a problem for anyone to deal with then they really shouldn't be posting at CR - CR is not a soapbox for individuals to promote their personal perception of faith, but instead a platform for interfaith dialogue that has to be kept on an even level for *everybody*.

 

[Popeyesays]

Re: Roles can conflict...

Messages are not pulled willy-nilly from the board - but posting multiple threads attacking another religion to promote your own is not acceptable by *anyone* at CR - and precisely why your two threads were removed, as you are well aware of and why I refered you to the Code of Conduct.

If that is a problem for anyone to deal with then they really shouldn't be posting at CR - CR is not a soapbox for individuals to promote their personal perception of faith, but instead a platform for interfaith dialogue that has to be kept on an even level for *everybody*.

Dear Brian,
I posted a thread on the Baha`i board which was a provisional translation of our sacred text of an otherwise untranslated tablet. You pulled it because you imagined it to be an "attack" on Islam. It was not.

I posted another provisional translation that has nothing to do with the concept of further Divine Teaching after Muhammed. I hope you won't pull it again because you think I am making some kind of attack on Islam. I am not.

You still have the thread on the Christianity board concerning the muslim view of the Trinity, was that not, in the same estimate of the post I made an attack on Christianity?

Frankly, you moderate, you choose. I agree. It is a real challenge to deal even-handedly with posts, I know. I moderate discussions on the normative history of the Holocaust and the arguments made against it by those who would deny it ever happened. It is a real challenge to stay even-handed - especially when you have your own oar in the water. I do not allow ethnic or other name-calling. I do not allow individuals to try to make the debate personal, but other than that I don't try to throttle the discussion.

By the standards of the board I should not have made my post on the Islam board perhaps - attack was not implied or expressed, I just wanted a discussion - impersonal and scholarly of the argument.

To be a scholar of religion one must occasionally retract one's ego from the discussion - some times I do this well, other times I do not.

However, to have a Baha`i board, or a Christian board, or an Islamic board and disallow people from posting from the sacred text of those religions is a bit strange.

Regards,
Scott

 

[iBrian]

Re: Roles can conflict...

You had posted an attack on Islam's view of prophethood on the Islam board, using Baha'i scholars as sources to prove your point - you then posted a text on the Baha'i board providing justification for this attack by providing a Baha'i perspective on the Islam view of prophethood...

I appreciate that the Baha'i members would love other people to know more about their faith, but it needs underlining that CR is an interfaith forum - it is for people to discuss their faith, not to promote it.

 

[smkolins]

Re: Roles can conflict...

Indeed, but generally Faith boards are treated as a "safe" place to discuss a particular faith, so pro-Islamic threads on the Christian board should only last until a moderator is aware of the thread and either moves or removes it....

Not at all - CR is a forum for individual members to discuss their individual beliefs - you are free to discuss issues in any board. Sometimes members will not wish to, but in my opinion this is simply missing out on the wider riches of CR.

Hope that helps.

Without reference to intermediary posts about things of which I know not I suggest these two states - on the one hand respecting priority in some places and on the other respecting equality in other places - can have an inadvertent tension if they cross. The Monotheist section seems to me exactly that place. It is, if you will, a super-faith where priority is given to Judiac, Christian, and Moslem views and therefore as I understand it (and please correct me if I err) Baha'i references would be inappropriate, (equally Buddhist references, and so on,) even though the comments would be totally centered on Judaic, Christian and or Moslem issues of Scripture and teachings as is possible, even exactly so, in Baha'i Scripture.

For example, Monotheist considerations of Armageddon - certainly appropriate topically in the Monotheist area - about which Baha'i scriptures do speak, without inherent reference to other issues about which there may not be explicit reference among the Monotheist religions (such as the stature of the Guardian,) would never the less remain inappropriate, however much I might find my contribution, informed by my Faith, an honest authentic contribution that I might like to particpate with, freely and equally.

I note, for comparison, that a Buddhist can and does comment freely, equally, even condemning Baha'i views of Buddha or Baha'i views in general, in the Baha'i board because, of course, the Buddha is an absolutely cental aspect of the Faith of Buddhism. He stands safe and secure exactly on his understanding of Buddhist scripture and teachings, (aside from Baha'i standards of hospitality and discussion,) which, if I might speak for him, he views as completely at variance with, even to lacking crebitability of, Baha'i scripture and teachings, even if Hindus likewise have their own views of the Buddha, again stated freely and equally in this same Baha'i board, and again at variance with Buddhist teachings as he understands them.

Please be clear - I am *not* saying these participants in the Baha'i board have erred. I don't think they have.

 

[iBrian]

Re: Roles can conflict...

There is certainly always going to be some tensions where topics cross over between faiths - the Buddhism topic is a good example: on the one hand, the Buddhists may complain that another faith is disrespecting their own belief system, and I do think they have a valid cause for concern - however, on the other hand, the Baha'i view of Buddhism is an integral part of Baha'i belief, and therefore I think Baha'i members have a valid cause for concern to discuss the topic within a Baha'i frame of reference.

Instances have to be adjudicated on an individual basis - in this instance, I adjudicated that because the discussion was on the Baha'i board then the Baha'i concern should take precedence - if, however, the discussion were on the Buddhism board, the Buddhist concern should take precedence.

Hopefully, there is a balance of sorts in allowing the Buddhists to raise their concerns on that thread, but still allowing the Baha'i concern to have the last word.

As for the Monotheism board - indeed, the name needs addressing - it is *not* a board for simply discussing issues of monotheism - instead, the *intention* is to provide a general neutral ground to discuss integral issues which cross-over those faiths.

I appreciate that the current naming may not make this clear - I'll try to correct that in the description once I've posted this message.

Hope that helps.

 

[Popeyesays]

Re: Roles can conflict...

Without reference to intermediary posts about things of which I know not I suggest these two states - on the one hand respecting priority in some places and on the other respecting equality in other places - can have an inadvertent tension if they cross. The Monotheist section seems to me exactly that place. It is, if you will, a super-faith where priority is given to Judiac, Christian, and Moslem views and therefore as I understand it (and please correct me if I err) Baha'i references would be inappropriate, (equally Buddhist references, and so on,) even though the comments would be totally centered on Judaic, Christian and or Moslem issues of Scripture and teachings as is possible, even exactly so, in Baha'i Scripture. .

I would agree, but point out that the Baha`i Faith tracks ALL the religious founders THROUGH Abraham, means that Baha`i's are going to self-identify as followers of an Abrahamic religion, so excluding them from discussion there seems arbitrary.

[/QUOTE]For example, Monotheist considerations of Armageddon - certainly appropriate topically in the Monotheist area - about which Baha'i scriptures do speak, without inherent reference to other issues about which there may not be explicit reference among the Monotheist religions (such as the stature of the Guardian,) would never the less remain inappropriate, however much I might find my contribution, informed by my Faith, an honest authentic contribution that I might like to particpate with, freely and equally. .[/QUOTE]

Absolutely, and I think such questions are more appropriate to the Baha`i board where Baha`i's can discuss them with other believers. I would note that believers in other religions are welcome to ask honestly just about anything if it is in the interest of dialogue rather than polemic.

[/QUOTE]I note, for comparison, that a Buddhist can and does comment freely, equally, even condemning Baha'i views of Buddha or Baha'i views in general, in the Baha'i board because, of course, the Buddha is an absolutely cental aspect of the Faith of Buddhism. He stands safe and secure exactly on his understanding of Buddhist scripture and teachings, (aside from Baha'i standards of hospitality and discussion,) which, if I might speak for him, he views as completely at variance with, even to lacking crebitability of, Baha'i scripture and teachings, even if Hindus likewise have their own views of the Buddha, again stated freely and equally in this same Baha'i board, and again at variance with Buddhist teachings as he understands them.

Please be clear - I am *not* saying these participants in the Baha'i board have erred. I don't think they have.[/QUOTE]


Thanks. And I like the new arrangement much.

Regards, Scott

 

[smkolins]

Re: Roles can conflict...

There is certainly always going to be some tensions where topics cross over between faiths - the Buddhism topic is a good example: on the one hand, the Buddhists may complain that another faith is disrespecting their own belief system, and I do think they have a valid cause for concern - however, on the other hand, the Baha'i view of Buddhism is an integral part of Baha'i belief, and therefore I think Baha'i members have a valid cause for concern to discuss the topic within a Baha'i frame of reference.

Instances have to be adjudicated on an individual basis - in this instance, I adjudicated that because the discussion was on the Baha'i board then the Baha'i concern should take precedence - if, however, the discussion were on the Buddhism board, the Buddhist concern should take precedence.

Hopefully, there is a balance of sorts in allowing the Buddhists to raise their concerns on that thread, but still allowing the Baha'i concern to have the last word.

As for the Monotheism board - indeed, the name needs addressing - it is *not* a board for simply discussing issues of monotheism - instead, the *intention* is to provide a general neutral ground to discuss integral issues which cross-over those faiths.

I appreciate that the current naming may not make this clear - I'll try to correct that in the description once I've posted this message.

Hope that helps.

I appreciate that change though I'm not clear it resolves the problems - Baha'is maintain a strong recognition of Abraham and uniquely claim a heritage from them all. Nor did I bring up the Buddhist presence in the Baha'i Faith board as a problem that needed adjudicating. But I am comparing a Buddhist posting about things common between Buddhism and the Baha'i Faith in the Baha'i area and another area where Baha'is have scriptural reference and whether Baha'is can and should post from that perspective. It seemed to me that restructuring the board and specifically moving the Baha'i Faith area away from that area now called Abrahamic Faiths was implying Baha'i scriptural references weren't welcomed and would be judged inappropriate.

Perhaps I misundertand??

 

[iBrian]

Re: Roles can conflict...

I think it is simply misunderstanding - I've tried to explain my reasoning before, so I can only recommend you re-read the earlier responses on this thread, and hope they make a little more sense now.

 

[IMSassafras]

To Everyone:

When I joined this Board back in November 2003, I inquired about the presents of a Baha'i Board and to my dismay I, Brian informed me "there [were] only 2 Ba'hai members who are even nominally present (and less than 5 posts between them)." Well, I hussled over to a few Baha'i sites and posted inventations to this exciting and new inter-faith board with the hope of Baha'is and non-Baha'is coming here to do their own investigation. And it worked! More and more conversations rose about the Baha'i Faith. More people became knowledgeable of this "new", "modern", "neo" religion... even I, Brian. e.g. He spells Baha'i correctly now.

Things do not happen for the best over night. In two years time, this Board has developed into an impressive inter-faith board. Thanks to all the hard work from I, Brian, the Moderators and CR staff this Board is still going strong. Everyone of us have made this board an exciting and a safe place to discuss, consult, and gather information about religion.

The discourses about the recent re-constrution of the Board have brought up some very good points from different angles. I, personally, have mixed feelings. I am not a heavy poster, but I do like reading and evaluating certain topics.

It is through the Writtings of Baha'u'llah that I know, if a person is searching for the Truth of God, they will find it. Truth is knowable only through the self-investigational skills given to us by God - logic and reasoning. If we do not search for truth, it will not be ours to discard or keep. I believe the people that come to this Board, if they are looking for the Truth of God, they will discover it. If they read, post, argue, discuss, consult, discard, or except any part of the Baha'i Faith, that is up to them. Overall, it doesn't matter where the Baha'i Faith Board is listed or what category it is under, the Baha'i Faith is still part of this Inter-Faith Board. It seems I, Brian has classifed the Baha'i Faith under what he feels would work for the general layout of his Board. It does NOT, however, reflect the importance of the Baha'i Faith for the current times: And that was, I am sure, the point that some Baha'is here were trying to say. This point, I think, was lost during these discourses.

People generally relate importance as which is on top and which is on the bottom. If you put the religions in chronological order, then Baha'i would on the bottom. If you put them in alphabetical order, then Baha'i would be on the top. If you put them in an order defined by the number posts, then Baha'i is closer to bottom than the top... this is the format, seemingly, I, Brian chose. Is it wrong? No. Is it disappointing? Yes. Is there a solution? Yes. And time will clarify what that is.

Unity and Diversity
Sassafras

 

[smkolins]

It seems I, Brian has classifed the Baha'i Faith under what he feels would work for the general layout of his Board. It does NOT, however, reflect the importance of the Baha'i Faith for the current times: And that was, I am sure, the point that some Baha'is here were trying to say. This point, I think, was lost during these discourses.

For me one of the hard parts was that for several iterations, the logical structure established was patently illogical which offered opportunities of suspicion of other motivations. It wouldn't be the first time someone has massively restructured a system almost specifically to shut down Baha'i participation. I am intrigued that the current structure is essentially the one I kept saying Brian was truely after and couldn't quite seem to just say - a discussion area primarily about Islam, Christianity and/or Judaism.

Where my understanding has evolved is that the choices made I thought were biased and unfair were instead based on neutral principles while having un-neutral effects. I spent some time checking a good number of other interfaith websites to review the structures they used. Most were alphabetical. A few tried one or another theme to group religions. One or two (it's been more than a few weeks since I did this) followed the same structure arrived at here. I have noticed a few managed to have Baha'i areas without Baha'is specifically present - a sign of emergence from obscurity (I even offered a few passing corrections to some websites which have since accepted my comments and said they would fold them in the next revision with apologies for the mistakes.)

Back to the topic at hand - it seems that while "that area" is "about" Moslem, Christian and Judaic topics, it doesn't have to be from any of their points of view, or be based on their scriptures. From my own pov as a Baha'i this puts us where we are almost everywhere - on the periphery, stating our case within someone else's norms. Another step in the emergence from obscurity, which I agree with your comment, represents the main result so far here.