Sunday, October 4, 2009
MAIN HOUSE OF TARBIYAT COMMUNITY
This is called the "main house" which is close to the National Center. It is presently being rented to a group of outdoorsmen
INSIDE OF CENTER
The inside of the National Center is sometimes used for concerts and meetings. This particular event was a piano concert presented by Linda King and a talented friend of hers. Gene and Linda King live here on the National Center property.
OUR BAHAI FRIENDS
These are some of the Baha'is and friends who attended one of our annual conventions. I'll just give the first names of these fine people. Beginning in the back, left to right: Larry (me), Jim, Tom, and Gene. The middle row: Patricia, An, Ted, Ralph, Cathy. Front row: Linda, Jess, Myrtle, and Marny.
CENTER OF TARBIYAT BAHAI COMMUNITY
This is the National Center for the Tarbiyat Baha'i Community just north of Las Vegas, New Mexico. Annual Conventions and other Baha'i activities are held here.
Monday, August 24, 2009
BEAUTIFUL SAYINGS
“Justice and equity are twin Guardians that watch over men.”
(Bahá’u’lláh: Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, page 12)
“The purpose of justice is the appearance of unity among men.”
(Bahá’u’lláh: Tablets of Bahá’u’lláh, page 67)
(Bahá’u’lláh: Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, page 12)
“The purpose of justice is the appearance of unity among men.”
(Bahá’u’lláh: Tablets of Bahá’u’lláh, page 67)
DISPUTES IN HETERODOX BAHAI FAITH
Besides leadership disputes, there have been a number of episodes of opposition to the Bahá'í administration. In Germany, Hermann Zimmer resurrected the claims of Ruth White in a small book published in 1971 (English translation in 1973), A Fraudulent Testament devalues the Bahá'í Religion into Political Shogism. Zimmer had been planning to form an Association of Free Bahá'ís (or the World Union of Universal Religion and Universal Peace), but this apparently never come into being. Charles Seeburger set up a similar group in Philadelphia in about 1967, but this is apparently defunct. In Switzerland, Francesco Ficicchia wrote a comprehensive pseudo-academic attack, Der Baha'ismus – Weltreligion der Zunkunft? (Evangelische Zentralstelle für Weltanschauungsfragen, Quell Verlag, Stuttgart, 1981). His work was financed and distributed by the Protestant Church in Germany. A book by Bahá'í scholar Udo Schaefer, et. al., originally titled Desinformation als Methode (English title: Making the Crooked Straight (2000)), was written to answer Ficicchia's accusations.Bahá'í Studies Review, Volume 8, (1998) [12] Since the publication of Schaefer's refutation, the German Protestant Church has repudiated both Ficicchia and its own earlier anti-Bahá'í attacks, and indeed has held cordial meetings with Schaefer and other Bahá'ís
UNIVERSAL HOUSE OF INJUSTICE
Expulsions
Several individuals have resigned or removed themselves from the rolls as a result of these conflicts, while others were removed by Bahá'í institutions. However, some have retained their Bahá'í identity as "unenrolled Bahá'ís", outside of formal membership. The Universal House of Justice does not recognize them as being either Bahá'ís or covenant-breakers, regarding them simply as non-Bahá'ís. As such they are not subject to shunning.
As one example, in 2000 Alison Marshall was expelled from the New Zealand Bahá'í community. She wrote about the situation relating to her expulsion on her webpage.
Several individuals have resigned or removed themselves from the rolls as a result of these conflicts, while others were removed by Bahá'í institutions. However, some have retained their Bahá'í identity as "unenrolled Bahá'ís", outside of formal membership. The Universal House of Justice does not recognize them as being either Bahá'ís or covenant-breakers, regarding them simply as non-Bahá'ís. As such they are not subject to shunning.
As one example, in 2000 Alison Marshall was expelled from the New Zealand Bahá'í community. She wrote about the situation relating to her expulsion on her webpage.
EXPULSION FROM BAHAI FAITH-A REPORT
On 29 March 2000, Alison received the following notification from the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of New Zealand. The letter informed her that the assembly had been instructed by the Universal House of Justice to remove her name from the membership rolls of the New Zealand Baha'i community.
Dear Mrs Marshall,
The Universal House of Justice has advised us of its conclusion that, on the basis of an established pattern of statements by you and behaviour and attitude on your part over the past two or three years, you cannot properly be considered as meeting the requirements of membership in the Baha'i community. Accordingly, we have removed your name from our membership rolls and have informed the Baha'i institutions concerned.
Sincerely
NATIONAL SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLYOF THE BAHA'IS OF NEW ZEALAND
Alison had no idea this was coming. She had never been contacted by a Baha'i institution about concerns over her statements, attitude or behaviour.
She therefore wrote to the National Spiritual Assemby and asked it to explain why this decision was made. She also asked it to supply her with all the personal information it held on her. Under New Zealand's Privacy Act 1993, an individual is entitled to ask any body that holds personal information on that individual to supply copies of it and to ask that body to correct information that is incorrect or misleading.
In response, the National Spiritual Assembly provided several documents, dating back to 1998, which indicated that the assembly's interest in her went back several years.
The National Spiritual Assembly's letter did not contain an explanation for the disenrollment. Rather, it said that the decision was taken by the Universal House of Justice, and she was referred there for an explanation.
The House of Justice later sent an e-mail dated 19 April 2000 to the National Spiritual Assembly giving its reasons for the disenrollment. Alison discovered the existence of this letter when believers on the Internet wrote to the House of Justice about her case. They were given copies of the letter. However, the letter was never sent to Alison by any Baha'i authority.
The documents supplied by the National Spiritual Assembly included one dated 28 March 2000, in which the assembly wrote to six local spiritual assemblies informing them of the disenrollment. The letter contained the following statement: "Efforts have been made to clear up her misunderstandings, but these have been unsuccessful, hence the Supreme Body's decision." Alison wrote to the assembly and, exercising her rights under the Privacy Act 1993, asked them to correct it and inform the six local spiritual assemblies concerned. The National Spiritual Assembly refused to correct the statement. Alison pointed out that the minutes of the National Spiritual Assembly meeting, held to decide how Alison would be informed of her disenrollment, record an apparent acknowledgement that Alison had not been counselled: "A question was raised about the fact that the National Spiritual Assembly had not yet implemented the instruction of the House of Justice to visit the Marshalls, and that the House of Justice must have received information from other sources." The National Spiritual Assembly argued that the word "efforts", "does not indicate that all such efforts necessarily involved direct approaches to you by representatives of the institutions on the specific matters in question." The assembly offered to distribute a statement by Alison to the local assemblies, as it was required to do by law.
Alison made an official complaint, dated 4 October 2000, to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. The Privacy Commissioner is empowered under the Act to investigate complaints and is charged with trying to settle them through negotiation. The Office decided to investigate the matter in April 2002. In early April of that year, the Commissioner sent his conclusions that, in a situation where the agency is unwilling to change the disputed information, the law allows for the individual to attach a statement to all the copies of the information. The purpose of this is to allow the view of both parties to be held on the record. Given that the National Assembly was willing to attach a statement provided by Alison, it was therefore not in breach of the privacy law. He also argued that the issue of whether or not Alison was counselled was a subjective one and difficult for him to analyse. He therefore did not see it as part of his role to look into the matter.
Alison therefore sent a statement to the National Spiritual Assembly to distribute to the six local assemblies for their files.
Alison initiated proceedings in the New Zealand High Court for judicial review of the decision to disenrol her. On 10 March 2002, the National Spiritual Assembly was successful in having the case struck out. In essence, Alison was trying to get the court to "review" the decision of the National Spiritual Assembly, to determine whether it was legal under New Zealand law. Before a court can do that, it has to determine whether the decision is one the court can review. The court decided that it could not review the decision because it was made by the Universal House of Justice not the National Spiritual Assembly - and, of course, the House of Justice isn't a party to the case because it is in Israel. The judge's interpretation of the constitutions was that the National Spiritual Assembly must do as it's told by the House of Justice.
The consequence of this is that if a decision is made by the National Spiritual Assembly, it would be reviewable by the court. The assembly tried to argue that all its decisions are spiritual in nature and therefore not reviewable. The judge did not accept this. He held that if an assembly decision affects a person's rights - for example, relating to money, property or voting (such as in this case) - then the decision is reviewable. But he did accept that decisions about purely ecclesiastical matters would not be reviewable. The judge also rejected the National Spiritual Assembly's argument that, because membership in the community is voluntary, assembly decisions would not be reviewable. In other words, although Baha'i community membership is voluntary, the National Spiritual Assembly still has a recognised legal duty to act in accordance with members' rights.
The judge also rejected Alison's request to have the decision reviewed because he thought Alison should have asked the National Spiritual Assembly or House of Justice to reconsider the decision first, before bringing the matter before the court. The judge argued that the constitution gave her the right to have the decision reviewed/appealed. Alison argued that the constitution only envisages the review/appeal of decisions of the National Spiritual Assembly, and such reconsiderations are made by the House of Justice. There is no stated remedy if the House of Justice itself makes the original decision.
The judge noted that he gave Alison the opportunity to have the National Spiritual Assembly/House of Justice reconsider the decision. However, she did not take him up on that because she was not seeking reinstatement. She wanted to prove that she was never counselled and that the National Spiritual Assembly had grossly misled the New Zealand Baha'i community in asserting that she had.
A chronology of events outlines in detail the events that led to Alison's expulsion from the New Zealand Baha'i community. It is 20 pages long and includes documentary evidence of what happened. Most of the evidence comes from personal correspondence between Alison, or her husband Steve Marshall, on the one hand, and various administrative bodies on the other. Evidence also comes from National Spiritual Assembly minutes and National Spiritual Assembly correspondence with the House of Justice. At relevant points, the chronology indicates where the National Spiritual Assembly relies on an event as constituting part of Alison's 'counselling'. Some of these events took place years before Alison's membership status was ever an issue.
The chronology reveals that the National Spiritual Assembly minutes began including 'Alison and Steve reports' as far back as December 1998. Alison and Steve never knew that the assembly was keeping an eye on them and recording their activities. In September 1999, the National Spiritual Assembly became very concerned after a local community meeting where some local Baha'is expressed concern about a House of Justice letter, dated April 7 1999. After this, the National Spiritual Assembly met to discuss the 'Alison and Steve problem' and sent a report to the House of Justice about them. This included four pages detailing things they'd done since 1996. The National Spiritual Assembly was particularly concerned about Steve, who was much more outspoken locally than Alison was. The minutes give an indication of how the National Spiritual Assembly viewed them and their activities. The House of Justice responded by asking the National Spiritual Assembly to do two things: hold another community meeting, and have a National Spiritual Assembly member meet with the Marshalls. The community meeting was held, but the National Spiritual Assembly had not arranged to meet with the Marshalls before the House of Justice instructed the National Spiritual Assembly to disenrol Alison.
In its submission to the court, the National Spiritual Assembly outlined what it argues is acceptable procedure when disenrolling a member:
9.3 In terms of decision-making required when Baha'i membership is at issue or when infringements of Baha'i law are of concern to the institutions, decisions are made based on Baha'i principles. The Baha'i administration is non-adversarial in nature and works in subtle ways. There can be no comparison with the terminology used in legal proceedings in the community at large. For example, Baha'i institutions do not lay any 'charge' against an individual believer, and there is no necessity for giving 'direct notice' to the individual. Similarly, the concept of a 'case to be heard' is foreign to the Baha'i administration. It is at the discretion of the Baha'i administrative body to act as it sees fit in full accordance with the Baha'i principles. ... 9.4 Attempts by a National Spiritual Assembly to correct misunderstandings about the Faith by individual believers can be achieved in a variety of ways. The NSA does not employ the practice of formally approaching an individual before making a decision in every instance. There are many occasions when the deficiencies in understanding of individuals are addressed in a general, all-embracing way with the whole community (for instance, the presentation of community classes dealing with particular issues) rather than singling out individuals for specific attention.
This makes it clear that the Baha'i administration reserves the right to treat people exactly as it pleases and refuses to allow any checks on its powers.
In 2004, Alison wrote to the National Spiritual Assembly suggesting that she and the assembly agree to disagree and make peace. She also wrote to the House of Justice explaining that she is a Baha'i and suggesting it consider reviewing the decision to disenrol her. The National Spiritual Assembly responded that it "noted your comments". The House of Justice asked the National Spiritual Assembly to convey to Alison its receipt of her letter.
All documents relating to Alison's expulsion, privacy complaint and court action are available for loan from the Hocken Library.
From: Juan Cole To: TalismanDate: Mon Apr 15, 2002 5:09 am Subject: Re: [talisman9] court case announcement
I doubt any of us really understands the full horror of Alison's situation and the enormous courage and dedication it takes for her to address it in this way. It is a 21st century Kafka novel unfolding before our eyes. Imagine giving selflessly to the Faith you love for a quarter of a century--sacrificing, making your friends mainly in its shadow, having it be part of your marriage, founding a magazine to help it.
And then email comes along, and the mere expression of your opinion in public becomes suddenly punishable. Shall we all cower in our homes with our modems disconnected, lest the High Dragon Peter Khan take offense to some opinion we voice in email discussions with our *friends*?
And then imagine waking up one day to find that your leaders have summarily declared you not a member of your own religion! Imagine that they never contacted you, never gave you any indication that they were going to do this to you. Imagine that you then requested and received your NSA's deliberations about you and discovered that they had been investigating you for some time, considered you a heretic, and that people you thought of as your friends had backbitten you and jumped to conclusions about you. And this had been going on for a couple of years while they were nice to your face and smiled at you and said, Allah'u'Abha.
Then imagine that they sent out a letter to all the members of your national community announcing that you were no longer a Baha'i (because they didn't like your email traffic) and bald-facedly lying that you had been "extensively" "counseled" before this decision had been taken!!
Of course, the majority your "friends" in the community now peel away, leaving you isolated. Few believe your protestations that you are, too, a Baha'i, or that you never so much as had a telephone call from any Baha'i official about their "concerns." A member of the Universal House of Justice comes to your country and condemns it for having produced a problem like you, whom he equates with the Calamity the fundamentalist Baha'is had been expecting by 2000, which otherwise never came.
In this situation to seek legal redress takes enormous fortitude. I was put through something similar, and I can tell you that after something like that, what you most want is to be left alone. After I was threatened by the authorities in 1996 and went through hell on realizing my religion was being run by cultists, I told one cyberfriend "If I never hear the word "Baha'i" again, it will be too soon." It makes your soul raw, and you just want to melt away. (This is what most people mauled by the Baha'i fundamentalists do, which is why the situation never gets any better.)
But Alison worked her way through the wounds and the rawness and the hurt, sustained by her shining faith in Baha'u'llah, her divine beloved, and managed to launch two important legal challenges to the arbitrary and tyrannical actions of tin-pot despots who masquerade as trustees of Baha'u'llah.
Bless her. Whether the legal challenges succeed or not, they are path-breaking. Their very existence shows all those who are harmed by the hardliners who have perverted our tolerant and pure faith that there is recourse. There are things you can do. The very launching of the challenges demonstrates that Alison is free in her pure faith, unconstrained any longer by the silly Mickey Mouse rules that the patriarchs have devised to extend their power unlawfully and against all scripture.
Yaaay, Alison!
cheers Juan
Dear Mrs Marshall,
The Universal House of Justice has advised us of its conclusion that, on the basis of an established pattern of statements by you and behaviour and attitude on your part over the past two or three years, you cannot properly be considered as meeting the requirements of membership in the Baha'i community. Accordingly, we have removed your name from our membership rolls and have informed the Baha'i institutions concerned.
Sincerely
NATIONAL SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLYOF THE BAHA'IS OF NEW ZEALAND
Alison had no idea this was coming. She had never been contacted by a Baha'i institution about concerns over her statements, attitude or behaviour.
She therefore wrote to the National Spiritual Assemby and asked it to explain why this decision was made. She also asked it to supply her with all the personal information it held on her. Under New Zealand's Privacy Act 1993, an individual is entitled to ask any body that holds personal information on that individual to supply copies of it and to ask that body to correct information that is incorrect or misleading.
In response, the National Spiritual Assembly provided several documents, dating back to 1998, which indicated that the assembly's interest in her went back several years.
The National Spiritual Assembly's letter did not contain an explanation for the disenrollment. Rather, it said that the decision was taken by the Universal House of Justice, and she was referred there for an explanation.
The House of Justice later sent an e-mail dated 19 April 2000 to the National Spiritual Assembly giving its reasons for the disenrollment. Alison discovered the existence of this letter when believers on the Internet wrote to the House of Justice about her case. They were given copies of the letter. However, the letter was never sent to Alison by any Baha'i authority.
The documents supplied by the National Spiritual Assembly included one dated 28 March 2000, in which the assembly wrote to six local spiritual assemblies informing them of the disenrollment. The letter contained the following statement: "Efforts have been made to clear up her misunderstandings, but these have been unsuccessful, hence the Supreme Body's decision." Alison wrote to the assembly and, exercising her rights under the Privacy Act 1993, asked them to correct it and inform the six local spiritual assemblies concerned. The National Spiritual Assembly refused to correct the statement. Alison pointed out that the minutes of the National Spiritual Assembly meeting, held to decide how Alison would be informed of her disenrollment, record an apparent acknowledgement that Alison had not been counselled: "A question was raised about the fact that the National Spiritual Assembly had not yet implemented the instruction of the House of Justice to visit the Marshalls, and that the House of Justice must have received information from other sources." The National Spiritual Assembly argued that the word "efforts", "does not indicate that all such efforts necessarily involved direct approaches to you by representatives of the institutions on the specific matters in question." The assembly offered to distribute a statement by Alison to the local assemblies, as it was required to do by law.
Alison made an official complaint, dated 4 October 2000, to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. The Privacy Commissioner is empowered under the Act to investigate complaints and is charged with trying to settle them through negotiation. The Office decided to investigate the matter in April 2002. In early April of that year, the Commissioner sent his conclusions that, in a situation where the agency is unwilling to change the disputed information, the law allows for the individual to attach a statement to all the copies of the information. The purpose of this is to allow the view of both parties to be held on the record. Given that the National Assembly was willing to attach a statement provided by Alison, it was therefore not in breach of the privacy law. He also argued that the issue of whether or not Alison was counselled was a subjective one and difficult for him to analyse. He therefore did not see it as part of his role to look into the matter.
Alison therefore sent a statement to the National Spiritual Assembly to distribute to the six local assemblies for their files.
Alison initiated proceedings in the New Zealand High Court for judicial review of the decision to disenrol her. On 10 March 2002, the National Spiritual Assembly was successful in having the case struck out. In essence, Alison was trying to get the court to "review" the decision of the National Spiritual Assembly, to determine whether it was legal under New Zealand law. Before a court can do that, it has to determine whether the decision is one the court can review. The court decided that it could not review the decision because it was made by the Universal House of Justice not the National Spiritual Assembly - and, of course, the House of Justice isn't a party to the case because it is in Israel. The judge's interpretation of the constitutions was that the National Spiritual Assembly must do as it's told by the House of Justice.
The consequence of this is that if a decision is made by the National Spiritual Assembly, it would be reviewable by the court. The assembly tried to argue that all its decisions are spiritual in nature and therefore not reviewable. The judge did not accept this. He held that if an assembly decision affects a person's rights - for example, relating to money, property or voting (such as in this case) - then the decision is reviewable. But he did accept that decisions about purely ecclesiastical matters would not be reviewable. The judge also rejected the National Spiritual Assembly's argument that, because membership in the community is voluntary, assembly decisions would not be reviewable. In other words, although Baha'i community membership is voluntary, the National Spiritual Assembly still has a recognised legal duty to act in accordance with members' rights.
The judge also rejected Alison's request to have the decision reviewed because he thought Alison should have asked the National Spiritual Assembly or House of Justice to reconsider the decision first, before bringing the matter before the court. The judge argued that the constitution gave her the right to have the decision reviewed/appealed. Alison argued that the constitution only envisages the review/appeal of decisions of the National Spiritual Assembly, and such reconsiderations are made by the House of Justice. There is no stated remedy if the House of Justice itself makes the original decision.
The judge noted that he gave Alison the opportunity to have the National Spiritual Assembly/House of Justice reconsider the decision. However, she did not take him up on that because she was not seeking reinstatement. She wanted to prove that she was never counselled and that the National Spiritual Assembly had grossly misled the New Zealand Baha'i community in asserting that she had.
A chronology of events outlines in detail the events that led to Alison's expulsion from the New Zealand Baha'i community. It is 20 pages long and includes documentary evidence of what happened. Most of the evidence comes from personal correspondence between Alison, or her husband Steve Marshall, on the one hand, and various administrative bodies on the other. Evidence also comes from National Spiritual Assembly minutes and National Spiritual Assembly correspondence with the House of Justice. At relevant points, the chronology indicates where the National Spiritual Assembly relies on an event as constituting part of Alison's 'counselling'. Some of these events took place years before Alison's membership status was ever an issue.
The chronology reveals that the National Spiritual Assembly minutes began including 'Alison and Steve reports' as far back as December 1998. Alison and Steve never knew that the assembly was keeping an eye on them and recording their activities. In September 1999, the National Spiritual Assembly became very concerned after a local community meeting where some local Baha'is expressed concern about a House of Justice letter, dated April 7 1999. After this, the National Spiritual Assembly met to discuss the 'Alison and Steve problem' and sent a report to the House of Justice about them. This included four pages detailing things they'd done since 1996. The National Spiritual Assembly was particularly concerned about Steve, who was much more outspoken locally than Alison was. The minutes give an indication of how the National Spiritual Assembly viewed them and their activities. The House of Justice responded by asking the National Spiritual Assembly to do two things: hold another community meeting, and have a National Spiritual Assembly member meet with the Marshalls. The community meeting was held, but the National Spiritual Assembly had not arranged to meet with the Marshalls before the House of Justice instructed the National Spiritual Assembly to disenrol Alison.
In its submission to the court, the National Spiritual Assembly outlined what it argues is acceptable procedure when disenrolling a member:
9.3 In terms of decision-making required when Baha'i membership is at issue or when infringements of Baha'i law are of concern to the institutions, decisions are made based on Baha'i principles. The Baha'i administration is non-adversarial in nature and works in subtle ways. There can be no comparison with the terminology used in legal proceedings in the community at large. For example, Baha'i institutions do not lay any 'charge' against an individual believer, and there is no necessity for giving 'direct notice' to the individual. Similarly, the concept of a 'case to be heard' is foreign to the Baha'i administration. It is at the discretion of the Baha'i administrative body to act as it sees fit in full accordance with the Baha'i principles. ... 9.4 Attempts by a National Spiritual Assembly to correct misunderstandings about the Faith by individual believers can be achieved in a variety of ways. The NSA does not employ the practice of formally approaching an individual before making a decision in every instance. There are many occasions when the deficiencies in understanding of individuals are addressed in a general, all-embracing way with the whole community (for instance, the presentation of community classes dealing with particular issues) rather than singling out individuals for specific attention.
This makes it clear that the Baha'i administration reserves the right to treat people exactly as it pleases and refuses to allow any checks on its powers.
In 2004, Alison wrote to the National Spiritual Assembly suggesting that she and the assembly agree to disagree and make peace. She also wrote to the House of Justice explaining that she is a Baha'i and suggesting it consider reviewing the decision to disenrol her. The National Spiritual Assembly responded that it "noted your comments". The House of Justice asked the National Spiritual Assembly to convey to Alison its receipt of her letter.
All documents relating to Alison's expulsion, privacy complaint and court action are available for loan from the Hocken Library.
From: Juan Cole To: TalismanDate: Mon Apr 15, 2002 5:09 am Subject: Re: [talisman9] court case announcement
I doubt any of us really understands the full horror of Alison's situation and the enormous courage and dedication it takes for her to address it in this way. It is a 21st century Kafka novel unfolding before our eyes. Imagine giving selflessly to the Faith you love for a quarter of a century--sacrificing, making your friends mainly in its shadow, having it be part of your marriage, founding a magazine to help it.
And then email comes along, and the mere expression of your opinion in public becomes suddenly punishable. Shall we all cower in our homes with our modems disconnected, lest the High Dragon Peter Khan take offense to some opinion we voice in email discussions with our *friends*?
And then imagine waking up one day to find that your leaders have summarily declared you not a member of your own religion! Imagine that they never contacted you, never gave you any indication that they were going to do this to you. Imagine that you then requested and received your NSA's deliberations about you and discovered that they had been investigating you for some time, considered you a heretic, and that people you thought of as your friends had backbitten you and jumped to conclusions about you. And this had been going on for a couple of years while they were nice to your face and smiled at you and said, Allah'u'Abha.
Then imagine that they sent out a letter to all the members of your national community announcing that you were no longer a Baha'i (because they didn't like your email traffic) and bald-facedly lying that you had been "extensively" "counseled" before this decision had been taken!!
Of course, the majority your "friends" in the community now peel away, leaving you isolated. Few believe your protestations that you are, too, a Baha'i, or that you never so much as had a telephone call from any Baha'i official about their "concerns." A member of the Universal House of Justice comes to your country and condemns it for having produced a problem like you, whom he equates with the Calamity the fundamentalist Baha'is had been expecting by 2000, which otherwise never came.
In this situation to seek legal redress takes enormous fortitude. I was put through something similar, and I can tell you that after something like that, what you most want is to be left alone. After I was threatened by the authorities in 1996 and went through hell on realizing my religion was being run by cultists, I told one cyberfriend "If I never hear the word "Baha'i" again, it will be too soon." It makes your soul raw, and you just want to melt away. (This is what most people mauled by the Baha'i fundamentalists do, which is why the situation never gets any better.)
But Alison worked her way through the wounds and the rawness and the hurt, sustained by her shining faith in Baha'u'llah, her divine beloved, and managed to launch two important legal challenges to the arbitrary and tyrannical actions of tin-pot despots who masquerade as trustees of Baha'u'llah.
Bless her. Whether the legal challenges succeed or not, they are path-breaking. Their very existence shows all those who are harmed by the hardliners who have perverted our tolerant and pure faith that there is recourse. There are things you can do. The very launching of the challenges demonstrates that Alison is free in her pure faith, unconstrained any longer by the silly Mickey Mouse rules that the patriarchs have devised to extend their power unlawfully and against all scripture.
Yaaay, Alison!
cheers Juan
Tarbiyat Bahá'í Community
The Orthodox Bahá'í Faith Under the Regency was founded by Reginald King, who was a very successful Bahá'í teacher who had converted hundreds to the Faith. When Remey declared himself the Second Guardian in 1960, King accepted him, and was elected to become the first Secretary of the National Assembly set up by Remey in 1963.
After conflicts with several of Remey's followers, including Marangella, King decided that "neither Mason Remey nor Joel Marangella had in truth ever been guardians... because of the lack of lineal descendancy". What Remey had actually been, King said, was "a regent", and King came to the realization that he himself "was in actuality the Second Regent...." King's argument was that Remey was senile in old age and didn't know what he was doing. Following his death in 1977, King left leadership of the community to a Council of Regents, who reorganized as the Tarbiyat Bahá'í Community.
The Council of Regents, which consists of King's family, tries to "maintain the integrity of the Cause of Bahá'u'lláh until such time as the Second Guardian makes himself known and claims his rightful office."Position Paper of the Tarbiyat Bahá'í Community They also still maintain that "the Faith will never be permanently split into factions or denominations as has happened in all previous religions", with an emphasis on permanently.
After conflicts with several of Remey's followers, including Marangella, King decided that "neither Mason Remey nor Joel Marangella had in truth ever been guardians... because of the lack of lineal descendancy". What Remey had actually been, King said, was "a regent", and King came to the realization that he himself "was in actuality the Second Regent...." King's argument was that Remey was senile in old age and didn't know what he was doing. Following his death in 1977, King left leadership of the community to a Council of Regents, who reorganized as the Tarbiyat Bahá'í Community.
The Council of Regents, which consists of King's family, tries to "maintain the integrity of the Cause of Bahá'u'lláh until such time as the Second Guardian makes himself known and claims his rightful office."Position Paper of the Tarbiyat Bahá'í Community They also still maintain that "the Faith will never be permanently split into factions or denominations as has happened in all previous religions", with an emphasis on permanently.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
TARBIYAT BAHAIS - AN INTRODUCTION
Name
Tarbiyat Baha'i Community
Belief
National House of Justice of the Orthodox Baha'is of the United States and Canada. Includes a position paper aimed at "Sans Guardian Baha'is", which explains the origins of the organisation and events associated with their current isolation from the Universal House of Justice.
Rex King then formed his own group called "Baha'i: Orthodox Community"in Las Vegas, New Mexico. They said that Remey was not "Guardian" but rather merely a "Regent", and that the IBC was a "Council of Regents"to rule the Faith until a true descendant of Baha'u'llah would comeforward and become Guardian (the Regents would declare him such). King appointed himself the next Regent, and his own family members fellow"Regents". This group later named themselves "Baha'i: Tarbiyat Community".
We are an organized community of Baha'is who accept the Teachings of Baha'u'llah, Founder of the Baha'i Faith, and uphold the validity of the continuing Guardianship of the Cause of God. The institution of the Guardianship was established to provide spiritual guidance to the Baha'i World. The Faith has been without that necessary leadership since the death of the first Guardian, Shoghi Effendi, in 1957. they believe a lineal descendant of Baha'u'llah will arise to take up the mantle of the Guardianship in the future. In the meantime, this community of believers is led by a Council of "Regents" who serve no other purpose than to unite Baha'is in anticipation of that day when the second Guardian arises to restore spiritual guidance to the Faith and reunify the Baha'i World. To learn more about our specific community, please take a look at our Position Paper.
Websites:
http://www.obcnhj.org/redirect.html
http://www.tarbiyatcenter.org/index.html
http://tarbiyatbahai.blogspot.com/
Tarbiyat Baha'i Community
Belief
National House of Justice of the Orthodox Baha'is of the United States and Canada. Includes a position paper aimed at "Sans Guardian Baha'is", which explains the origins of the organisation and events associated with their current isolation from the Universal House of Justice.
Rex King then formed his own group called "Baha'i: Orthodox Community"in Las Vegas, New Mexico. They said that Remey was not "Guardian" but rather merely a "Regent", and that the IBC was a "Council of Regents"to rule the Faith until a true descendant of Baha'u'llah would comeforward and become Guardian (the Regents would declare him such). King appointed himself the next Regent, and his own family members fellow"Regents". This group later named themselves "Baha'i: Tarbiyat Community".
We are an organized community of Baha'is who accept the Teachings of Baha'u'llah, Founder of the Baha'i Faith, and uphold the validity of the continuing Guardianship of the Cause of God. The institution of the Guardianship was established to provide spiritual guidance to the Baha'i World. The Faith has been without that necessary leadership since the death of the first Guardian, Shoghi Effendi, in 1957. they believe a lineal descendant of Baha'u'llah will arise to take up the mantle of the Guardianship in the future. In the meantime, this community of believers is led by a Council of "Regents" who serve no other purpose than to unite Baha'is in anticipation of that day when the second Guardian arises to restore spiritual guidance to the Faith and reunify the Baha'i World. To learn more about our specific community, please take a look at our Position Paper.
Websites:
http://www.obcnhj.org/redirect.html
http://www.tarbiyatcenter.org/index.html
http://tarbiyatbahai.blogspot.com/
WELCOME TO OUR NEW MEMBER
Welcome to our newest believer
Samuel Joseph Honner is the newest member of our
community, residing in Australia. Below is an excerpt
from his declaration letter:
Hi again, Jess!
I’ve thought long and hard about becoming a
Tarbiyat Baha’i. I feel it truly does encapsulate the
faith Baha’u’llah taught, which is one of tolerance,
intelligence, and a non-fundamentalism (sanity). I must
say, especially during the last two weeks of study in the
Tarbiyat Baha’i Community (and the Baha’i writings, etc.)
I’ve found a great excitement (at lack of a better word)
towards God and the Baha’i religion. Coming from the
Heterodox Baha’i Faith, the Tarbiyat Baha’i Community is
truly refreshing!
Samuel Joseph Honner
65 Gladstone Street,
Bellambi, NSW 2518
Australia
dont.be.afraid@hotmail.com
Welcome Samuel!
Samuel Joseph Honner is the newest member of our
community, residing in Australia. Below is an excerpt
from his declaration letter:
Hi again, Jess!
I’ve thought long and hard about becoming a
Tarbiyat Baha’i. I feel it truly does encapsulate the
faith Baha’u’llah taught, which is one of tolerance,
intelligence, and a non-fundamentalism (sanity). I must
say, especially during the last two weeks of study in the
Tarbiyat Baha’i Community (and the Baha’i writings, etc.)
I’ve found a great excitement (at lack of a better word)
towards God and the Baha’i religion. Coming from the
Heterodox Baha’i Faith, the Tarbiyat Baha’i Community is
truly refreshing!
Samuel Joseph Honner
65 Gladstone Street,
Bellambi, NSW 2518
Australia
dont.be.afraid@hotmail.com
Welcome Samuel!
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
BREAK THE CHAIN
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I need not expound on the many benefits to be derived from the use of the Internet. It has enabled us to explore our world like never before. One of the biggest uses for the Internet is the sending and receiving of email. Ordinarily, I dont mind email forwarded to me from friends since I, too, have been "guilty" of forwarding email to friends that I think will find the subject matter interesting. However, I do have concerns about chain letters forwarded to me. Wikipedia defines a chain letter as ". . . a message that attempts to induce the recipient to make a number of copies of the letter and then pass them on to as many recipients as possible." Some of these chain letters describe: easy ways to make a quick buck, how to help find a missing child, how to claim an unclaimed inheritance, the need for charitable donations, and so forth. Youve seen them all. A little research will reveal many of these as hoaxes. We can delete these . . . no harm done. However, there are some chain letters that just cannot be ignored, especially those that attempt to belittle and smear.A chain letter, forwarded to me by a friend, included a document written by a prison minister (I won't provide a name at this time). According to this minister, the event described took place in May of 2003. It is likely that this chain letter has been sent throughout the United States and, very possibly, throughout the world. The following document was written by this minister:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _Last month I attended my annual training session that's required for maintaining my state prison security clearance. During the training session there was a presentation by three speakers representing the Roman Catholic, Protestant and Muslim faiths who explained their belief systems. I was particularly interested in what the Islamic Imam had to say. The Imam gave a great presentation of the basics of Islam, complete with a video. After the presentations, time was provided for questions and answers. When it was my turn, I directed my question to the Imam and asked, "Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that most Imams and clerics of Islam have declared a holy jihad [Holy war] against the infidels of the world and, that by killing an infidel, which is a command to all Muslims, they are assured of a place in heaven. If that's the case, can you give me the definition of an infidel?"There was no disagreement with my statements and without hesitation he replied, "Non-believers!" I responded, "So, let me make sure I have this straight. All followers of Allah have been commanded to kill everyone who is not of your faith so they can go to Heaven. Is that correct?" The ex-pression on his face changed from one of authority and command to that of a little boy who had just gotten caught with his hand in the cookie jar. He sheepishly replied, "Yes." I then stated, "Well, sir, I have a real problem trying to imagine Pope John Paul commanding all Catholics to kill those of your faith or Pat Robertson or Dr. Stanley ordering Protestants to do the same in order to go to Heaven!" The Imam was speechless.I continued, "I also have a problem with being your friend when you and your brother clerics are telling your followers to kill me. Let me ask you a question! ...would you rather have your Allah who tells you to kill me in order to go to Heaven or my Jesus who tells me to love you because I am going to Heaven and wants you to be with me?" You could have heard a pin drop as the Imam hung his head in shame. Chuck Colson once told me something that has sustained me these 20 years of prison ministry. He said to me, "Rick, remember that the truth will prevail." And it will!_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _Unfortunately, many who received this slanderous email, probably accepted it's message as fact (probably because they wanted to). And, as with most chain letters, this sender encouraged the recipients to forward it to all of their contacts.Fortunately, there are responsible people out whose business it is to refute falsehoods and other untruths. BreakTheChain.org is once such organization. Their response to the minister's document follows: The veracity of the claims made in it, however, is the author's to prove. Unfortunately, the minister told BreakTheChain.org that he will not provide further details because, in his words, "I fear retribution - I have a 20 year prison ministry to protect."Third-party accounts of the events in question paint a significantly different picture than the one offered by the minister. Tim Kniest, spokesman for the Missouri Department of Corrections, told the Lee news service that the training session in question was for prison volunteers and took place in a corrections facility in Fulton, MO. However, according to Kniest, prison officials' recollection of events that day differ from the minister's in several aspects:
Religious leaders representing faiths followed by current inmates were invited to present. The presenter on Islam was not an Imam, but rather a Muslim inmate who was pressed into presenting after no Imam could be arranged. Prison officials confirm that the Muslim inmate was asked a few questions that he was unable to answer, but none along the lines of those suggested by the minister. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _So, as a person of faith, should I have replied to my friend? Yes, I think so. Therefore, I did respond to my friend's email, encouraging her to research this particular issue on her own. I suggested checking out the BreakTheChain.org web page. To avoid embarrassment to her, I did not copy the others that had received the same "chain letter." Happily, I did hear back and, fortunately, in a positive manner. She thanked me for providing a different side to the story. I feel that we all have the responsibility for questioning inflammatory email (and for that matter, any other falsehoods), researching the issue, and responding with the truth as revealed through our research. Research Links: http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/rickmathes.htmlhttp://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/allah.asp
--Written By Larry
Religious leaders representing faiths followed by current inmates were invited to present. The presenter on Islam was not an Imam, but rather a Muslim inmate who was pressed into presenting after no Imam could be arranged. Prison officials confirm that the Muslim inmate was asked a few questions that he was unable to answer, but none along the lines of those suggested by the minister. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _So, as a person of faith, should I have replied to my friend? Yes, I think so. Therefore, I did respond to my friend's email, encouraging her to research this particular issue on her own. I suggested checking out the BreakTheChain.org web page. To avoid embarrassment to her, I did not copy the others that had received the same "chain letter." Happily, I did hear back and, fortunately, in a positive manner. She thanked me for providing a different side to the story. I feel that we all have the responsibility for questioning inflammatory email (and for that matter, any other falsehoods), researching the issue, and responding with the truth as revealed through our research. Research Links: http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/rickmathes.htmlhttp://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/allah.asp
--Written By Larry
Thursday, January 29, 2009
The Baha'i Administrative Order
Working in groups effectively requires some kind of organization.
Therefore, Baha'u'llah provided for an administrative order at the local, national and international levels to guide the Baha'i World after His passing.
Houses of Justice
The Baha'i Administrative Order is organized into Houses of Justice of nine members each.
The Local House of Justice is elected by the believers in the local community.
The National House of Justice is elected by delegates at a national convention.
The Universal House of Justice, the supreme international body in the administrative order, is elected by the National Houses at a world convention.
The Universal House of Justice is authorized to rule on any aspect of the Faith not expressly revealed in Baha'i scriptures. This hierarchy of elected representative bodies constitutes the administrative wing of the Baha'i Order.
Therefore, Baha'u'llah provided for an administrative order at the local, national and international levels to guide the Baha'i World after His passing.
Houses of Justice
The Baha'i Administrative Order is organized into Houses of Justice of nine members each.
The Local House of Justice is elected by the believers in the local community.
The National House of Justice is elected by delegates at a national convention.
The Universal House of Justice, the supreme international body in the administrative order, is elected by the National Houses at a world convention.
The Universal House of Justice is authorized to rule on any aspect of the Faith not expressly revealed in Baha'i scriptures. This hierarchy of elected representative bodies constitutes the administrative wing of the Baha'i Order.
Friday, January 23, 2009
OPEN INVITATION
Dear Bahai Friends
This is an open invitation to all bahais of the world to post your comments and thoughts about tarbiyat bahai faith on this blog.
We can have fruitful discussion to know the real message ofBahaullah.
This is an open invitation to all bahais of the world to post your comments and thoughts about tarbiyat bahai faith on this blog.
We can have fruitful discussion to know the real message ofBahaullah.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Q: What is the difference between the Tarbiyat Baha'i Community and other Baha'i groups?
A: The only difference between the Tarbiyat Baha'i Community and the rest of the Baha'i world relates to the spiritual leadership of the Faith. The Tarbiyat Baha'i Community believes that the institution of the hereditary Guardianship, delineated by Abdu'l-Baha in his Last Will and Testament, is necessary to preserve the long-term integrity of the Faith. The Tarbiyat Baha'i Community believes that the Guardian must come from the bloodline of Baha'u'llah, and that a Guardian from the Holy Family will arise in due time. The largest Baha'i group, with American headquarters in Wilmette and international headquarters in Haifa, Israel, believes that the institution of the Guardianship terminated when the Faith's first Guardian, Shoghi Effendi, died without children and, apparently, without appointing a successor Guardian.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
WHAT IS UHJ?
Q.What is the reason then why the present group of Baha’is under the leadership of the Haifa organization do not recognize the continuance of the Guardianship?Ans.Upon the passing of Shoghi Effendi in November 1957, a majority of the Baha’is were tragically led astray from their former faithful adherence to the provisions of the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Baha by the highly revered Hands of the Cause (distinguished and highly esteemed assistants appointed by the Guardian who serve under his direction) who, upon the passing of Shoghi Effendi, failed to recognize the import and significance of Shoghi Effendi’s appointment of Mason Remey as President of the first International Baha’i Council (the embryonic Universal House of Justice) over which according to the provisions of the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Baha only the Guardian of the Faith presides as its “sacred head” and for this reason had been carefully retained by Shoghi Effendi as an inactive body, pending his passing. These Hands, losing sight of the fact that the Guardian must appoint his successor “in his own life-time” and therefore not by a conventional will and testament, upon not finding such a will, erroneously concluded that the Guardianship had come to a premature end. They then appointed a body of nine Hands from their own number, a body outside the provisions of the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Baha, which assumed the role and functions of the Guardianship and took control of the world administrative seat of the Faith in Haifa. Some six years later, in 1963,this body transferred the authority and functions it had illegitimately assumed to the UHJ in Haifa, a now headless and incomplete body in the absence of a presiding Guardian, whose successor elected bodies have been similarly named Universal Houses of Justice.
SHOGHI EFFENDI
Baha’i Faith would be imperiled without the Guardian.Shoghi Effendi warned to the Baha’is in his Spiritual Testament “The Administrative Order of The Dispensation of Baha’u’llah” that the Faith would be imperiled, and the stability of entire fabric would be gravely endangered without the guardian. Therefore Baha’is should obey his commandments and search the Living Guardian of Baha’i Faith.
BAHAI GATHERING
Nineteen days Feasts(NDF)
The only regular Baha'i activity which might be considered a religious service is the Feast. The Feast, which is held once every nineteen days, consists of three portions. The spiritual portion involves the reading of prayers. The administrative portion is a discussion of community business, and the material portion is the sharing of refreshments and fellowship.Baha'u'llah established a new calendar with nineteen months of nineteen days each and four "intercalary" days to adjust to the solar year. Therefore, the Baha'i community's monthly gatherings are known as the Nineteen Day Feast.
The only regular Baha'i activity which might be considered a religious service is the Feast. The Feast, which is held once every nineteen days, consists of three portions. The spiritual portion involves the reading of prayers. The administrative portion is a discussion of community business, and the material portion is the sharing of refreshments and fellowship.Baha'u'llah established a new calendar with nineteen months of nineteen days each and four "intercalary" days to adjust to the solar year. Therefore, the Baha'i community's monthly gatherings are known as the Nineteen Day Feast.
OUR BELIEFS
We are an organized community of Baha'is who accept the Teachings of Baha'u'llah, Founder of the Baha'i Faith, and uphold the validity of the continuing Guardianship of the Cause of God. The institution of the Guardianship was established to provide spiritual guidance to the Baha'i World. The Faith has been without that necessary leadership since the death of the first Guardian, Shoghi Effendi, in 1957. We believe a lineal descendant of Baha'u'llah will arise to take up the mantle of the Guardianship in the future. In the meantime, this community of believers is led by a Council of "Regents" who serve no other purpose than to unite Baha'is in anticipation of that day when the second Guardian arises to restore spiritual guidance to the Faith and reunify the Baha'i World.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)