 |
|
Author: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca
(McKenny Michael)
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997
08:51:29 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: H-NET
List for Bahai Studies <H-BAHAI@H-NET.MSU.EDU>
Sender: H-NET
List for Bahai Studies <H-BAHAI@H-NET.MSU.EDU>
From: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca
(McKenny Michael)
Greetings, Juan.
Many thanks for
your message requesting a brief bio. It's
possible the following
bio posted to a list or two to introduce
me is of most interest
here. It was also sent along with a few
other posts to Auxiliary
Board Member Susie Tamas just prior to
our meeting in January,
and I feel played a role in confirming
her view that I was
as she knew not an enemy of the Faith.
I read over last
night the letter from the Universal House
of Justice to me dated
April 8th. One remarkable thing in it
which I had forgotten
is the quote near the end which says a
person's faith may
be conditioned by no one else . . .
May this find you
very well, and may that long be so.
Peace,
Michael
Greetings from Ottawa.
Here's a glimpse
of this list member. It may help explain why
narrowness is most
apt to draw a reply from me.
My father's people
were Irish Catholics. My great grandfather,
Patrick McKenny, was
born in this Valley in 1830. It's said he,
the oldest son, did
not inherit the family farm as he got along
too well with the Protestants.
He moved some distance into the
bush to cut down trees
for a new farm. There the Catholic church
was built on McKenny
land given to the priest, and when
Protestants travelled
some thirty miles across Catholic territory
to visit each other
before there were cars, they would break their
journey at the McKenny
farm. Protestants went into the Catholic
church, not a common
event in those days, for the funeral of my
great grandfather.
My father's mother's
people fled the Great Hunger. It is worth
noting that 150 years
later the population of Ireland is not yet
back to what it was
before the Famine and the resulting diaspora.
Jane O'Gorman only
went to grade five, all they had in her country
school, but she completed
those five grades fast enough that she
was able to assist
the teacher with the younger children before
leaving the school
to work full time on the farm. Forty years
later on the death
of my Grandfather McKenny she walked out onto
the veranda of the
McKenny farmhouse and called by name my father
and two of his brothers.
And three thousand miles away, from
different parts of
an army base in England, the three of them
came together and looked
at each other realizing their father had
died.
My mother's people
were French and English Protestants. My
Grandmother Lavergne
died of childbirth in her 20s when my mother
was born. When my mother
was a little girl she asked her relatives
"Who is that pretty
lady standing on the stairs?" and since they
could not see anyone
there they believed this was her mother
watching over her.
My mother did not complete grade 8 and went to
work in a factory when
she was 15 years old. My father completed
the 6 grades in the
village school. Both of them encouraged me to
study and to work in
the summer to pay for university. I spent my
summers from May 1st
to early September cutting grass at a local
cemetery 40 hours a
week at minimum wage.
I have always been
attracted by trees. When I was 12 I spent
three days alone in
the woods.
When I was 18 I
joined the World Federalists and worked very
hard for this movement.
I was acting president of the Canadian
branch of World Federalist
Youth a few years later.
When I was 19 I
encountered the Buddha and am grateful to this
day for His gift of
the Eightfold Path.
When I was 21 I
read the Qur'an and accepted Muhammad as
another Enlightened
One like Buddha.
Immediately, I was
introduced to the Baha'i Faith and accepted
it within a couple
of weeks. That was 25 years ago. I spent most
of those years in small
communities. I spent all of them
convinced of the unity
of the human species. I have met and
corresponded with people
from all over the world. I have been to
India and the former
Soviet Union. I have only had this awareness
of our common humanity
confirmed . . .
fare very Well,
Michael
ADMINISTRATION ETC
Author: McKenny Michael
<bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Date: 1996/08/01
Forum: soc.religion.bahai
Greetings, from Ottawa.
I'd like to mention
to Sohayl and any like him that I respect
his views about the
administration and his right to express
them. My understanding
is that freedom of thought is a very
important thing in the
Baha'i Faith.
Also, I think we
are very fortunate these days for the
Universal House of Justice
possibly ten or more years ago drew
our attention to the
fact that specialization was possible and
possibly even necessary
in our activity within the Baha'i
community. In the past
when we were so few and the greatest
need was to raise up
as many Spiritual Assemblies as possible
many Baha'i communities
barely consisted of anything except
nine people serving
on the Spiritual Assembly.
Now, there are more
communities with significant numbers of
people who are free
to spend their time focusing of a wide
variety of other things.
Only a few months age I became aware of
the increased attention
being given to devotional gatherings.
This is only one example
of many, so that wherever our interest
and talants lie, we
may increasingly be able to feel welcome here.
May this find you
very well and may that long be so.
Very Best Wishes,
Michael
INTELLECTUALS AND MENTAL
TESTS
Author: McKenny Michael
<bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Date: 1996/09/16
Forum: soc.religion.bahai
Greetings, from Ottawa.
I am very sorry that
so many other things keep me from a
careful reading of so
fascinating a newsgroup. My most recent
glimpse revealed words
which encouraged me to post in a
unifying spirit the
comments below. Praise be to God, that in
this day the watchword
is unity in diversity. Since God has
created us all in such
wondrous variety, uniformity is not
a Baha'i concept.
One of the vast areas
opened up for consideration is this
question of the mental
tests that the Master is said to be
sending the American
believers.
I am aware that one
possible interpretation of mental tests is
the information, even
the attitude of academics. Inasmuch as this
Faith so strongly supports
(I was taught that this was the first
Baha'i principle, upon
which all spiritual progress depended) an
unfettered investigation
of truth, and true scientific and
scholarly pursuit of
reality takes this as its highest ideal, the
agreement of religion
and science, of faith and reason so
strongly upheld in our
Sacred Texts is not endangered by the
method of academics.
Modern scientists
and scholars, of whatever field, in total
agreement with the Blessed
Beauty regard human understanding of
the creation as incomplete,
subject to ever deepening perception.
There can, thus, be
no real threat to our Faith or mental
well-being, especially
through any particular discovery or concept
by Baha'i academics,
who themselves are doubly inclined to
understand that their
ideas are finite.
Those less favoured
with a lengthy university or other
institutional exposure
to the secular expectation that one will
professionally follow
this fundamental teaching of Baha'u'llah
still have sufficient
inspiration in the Word of God for this age.
One interpretation
of this reference to mental tests which may
not have occurred to
a number of believers is that some wonderful
souls who have, in response
to the encouragement to be found in
the Writings and the
advice from the World Centre, dedicated
their working lives
to the investigation of subjects of direct
relevance to the Cause
in this day, may find their researches,
their thoughts, their
mode of thinking, their very motives
misunderstood and suspected
by fellow lovers of the Blessed
Beauty.
There may be greater
mental tests. However, surely near the
top of the list is this
realization that by following a Baha'i
way one has received
the mistrust of Baha'is.
My only intent here
is to convey a glimpse of the mental
tests which may, unawares
to many Baha'is, be tormenting some
wonderful believers.
I hope that this may help encourage that
understanding and true
Baha'i spirit which will do most to help
us pass beyond the surely
limited historical period when we
Baha'is will be such
great tests to each other.
May this find you
very well, and may that long be so.
Very Best Wishes,
Michael
From bn872@freenet.carleton.ca
Tue Jan 7 12:32:31 1997
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996
17:58:35 GMT
From: McKenny Michael
<bn872@freenet.carleton.ca>
To: talisman@umich.edu
Cc: burlb@bmi.net, nineteen@onramp.net
Subject: EXEMPTED FROM
ENTRY BY TROOPS
Greetings from Ottawa.
I believe the following
adequately responds to Burl's
request that I back
up my assertion that people are being kept
out of the Faith in
troops, as well as Richard's remark about
there being more important
things than the issue of gender
equality and the Universal
House of Justice. What follows is
too incredible to be
invented. I lived it.
Around 1990 my wife
and I were invited to a "fireside". I
was amazed to discover
that there was a whole circle of people
holding these "firesides",
pot luck suppers blended with
stimulating conversation.
There were a couple of dozen, I think,
at the first one I attended,
none of whom were aware that the
term "fireside" had
a Baha'i significance. None had been around
when these firesides
had started up years earlier, and no one
could tell me their
origin.
While historical
verification is not at present available, it
is possible these firesides
were linked to those of the same
nature held in the same
area by an active Baha'i who had moved a
decade or so earlier.
Some time later
Ottawa Baha'is had a magnificent celebration
of the birth of Baha'ullah,
and believers were encouraged to
present official invitations
to prominent people they knew. My
wife's old school friend,
the same person who had introduced me to
these firesides, received
one of these invitations from each of the
two Baha'is who had
her as boss. She gave one to my wife and they
went together. Actually,
she was quite surprised to learn that
my wife was not a Baha'i,
as she had attended our Baha'i wedding
and she was reading
about the Faith, which seemed very attractive.
I recall that she
said to my wife, "Well, tell me something
bad about the Baha'i
Faith."
My wife answered,
"Women are not allowed on the Universal
House of Justice."
How was my wife
able to say that? Well, in the late 80s the
Universal House of Justice
had called for the use of the Peace
Message in leading to
entry by troops. Not only had I presented a
copy to pretty well
everyone I knew, but I began to hold "Peace
Talks" to which scores
of friends and acquaintences were regularly
invited, although generally
only half a dozen or so would show up,
seldom any other Baha'i.
The people attracted to these "Peace
Talks" over the years
were people of capacity and included some
pretty keen local activists,
individuals who belonged to many
groups and circles likely
sympathetic to the social teachings of
this Faith. And, I think
it was at one of these "Peace Talks"
that a non-Baha'i friend,
said, "But women are not allowed to be
on the Universal House
of Justice." So, this information, which I
had not seen fit to
share even with my wife, was out in the open.
How was my non-Baha'i
friend able to say that? She and I
were founding members
of a writers' circle formed here in January
of 1980. After years
of patient attention, I succeeded in having
her come to a fireside
at the Ottawa Baha'i Centre. I was the
speaker and the topic
was "Humour in the Baha'i Faith". After I
finished my talk and
informal discussion had begun, one of the
Baha'i men present said,
"And do you want to know something else
that's funny? Women
aren't allowed on the Universal House of
Justice. Ha, ha."
Burl, the truth
is that I do not know the total number of
different organizations
and circles exempted, as related above,
from the opportunity
of experiencing members, who are people of
capacity, becoming enthusiastic
new Baha'is. This is the story
of one Baha'i in one
city.
Peace,
Michael.
From bn872@freenet.carleton.ca
Tue Jan 7 12:32:32 1997
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996
10:41:48 -0500 (EST)
From: McKenny Michael
<bn872@freenet.carleton.ca>
To: talisman@umich.edu
Subject: Response To
UHJ letter
Thanks, Robert.
Here's my response,
paragraph by paragraph, to that portion of
the UHJ letter you posted.
It is important to stress that
responding to this letter,
as I have done, indicates an interest,
and a positive one at
that, in the Faith and its institutions.
>>>>
At the very core of
the aims of the Faith are the establishment of
justice and unity in
the world, the removal of prejudice and enmity
from among all people,
the awakening of compassion and
understanding in the
hearts of all men and women, and the raising
of all souls to a new
level of spirituality and behavior through
the vitalizing influence
of divine Revelation. The course set forth
by Baha'u'llah for the
attainment of these aims is the double task
of simultaneously building
an ideal sociaety and perfecting the
behavior of individuals.
>>>>
Agreed
>>>>
For this dual and reciprocal
transformation He has
not only revealed laws, principles and
truths attuned to the
needs of this age, but has established the
very nucleus and pattern
of those institutions which are to evolve
into the structure of
the divinely puposed world society.
>>>>>>
This is clearly undesirable
if the intent is to impose a single
viewpoint on humanity,
and suppress human rights.
>>>>>>>
Central to your perception
of the statements made by the believers
about whom you are concerned
are their assertions that they are
entirely obedient to
the spirit of the Covenant and the institutions
of the Faith; that they
are merely voicing their disagreement with
certain decisions and
policies made by these institutions; are
protesting against what
they perceive to be unjust or improper
actions by some people
who occupy prominent administrative positions;
and are suggesting modifications
to Baha'i procedures to prevent such
abuses of authority.
>>>>>>>>
Modern Western democracies
at least have removed some abuses because
there are whistle blowers,
because there is freedom of the press
and because public opinion
forces action to be taken. None of this
activity has been due
to opposition to the US Constitution or to
the institutions it
ordains, or the Constitution and the institutions
ordained elsewhere.
It is a desire to see the system uncorrupted. It
is identical here, with
regard to the intent of those seeking to see
the system uncorrupted.
The difference lies in the attitude that the
methods which work in
the secular world may not be employed in the
Faith.
>>>>>
These assertions,
however, overlook certain
important Baha'i principles which
provide the methods
and channels for the voicing of such grievances
or disagreements, and
which are designed to lead to resolution of
problems while preserving
the unity of the community.
>>>>>>>>>>
The experience of Soviet
history etc. proves that it is possible
to pretend to unity
under a single imposed ideology etc only
through the suppression
of contrary opinions. The Baha'i Faith
has the remarkably effective
tool of allowing for all sorts of
unauthoritative understandings
of the Writings etc, unity in
diversity, the only
possible solution to the actual diversity of
human thought.
There is complete
difference between criticism intended to
preserve the integrity
of the system and opposition to the
system.
Nevertheless, the
UHJ is correct that the use of positive
language and focus is
usually better and more productive than
strident negativity.
The implication
that comments mentioning imperfection in the
actual functioning of
the system and suggesting it get back on
track, even if positively
expressed, may not be made publically
is in complete accord
with totalitarian rulership, and
incompatible with the
best interests of this species. Fortunately,
in BAHA'I CANADA there
is a statement about making positive
comments in public (for
example, at the Feast).
>>>>>
Over many years, a few
believers in the United States, instead of
confining their protests
against what they saw as abuses of
authority by Baha'i
bodies to the channels and agencies which are
plentifully provided
for such a purpose, have been publicly and
privily assailing the
institutions of the Cause and generalizing
specific accusation
of injustice to such an extent as to accuse the
entire system of corruption,
not only in practice but also in form
and theory.
>>>>>>>>>>>.
See above. Also, the
most positive response even to inappropriate
criticism is to put
into place, if such does not already exist,
measures which make
it very difficult for any corruption to
exist. At the very least,
the secular rules concerning conflict
of interest and transparency
ought to be in place, and referred
to in the responses
to any aspersions against the Faith by any
opposed to the Faith,
or, as here, any wishing it well.
>>>>>>>>
One outcome of this
continuing stream of
negative criticism has been the gradual
conversion of unverified
accusations into accepted "facts" in
the minds of some of
the hearers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
See above. Optics and
transparency. An attempt to pretend all is
well or that allegations
are wrong simply because the claim is
made that all is well
is as fallacious as an allegation anything
is wrong. Operating
procedures are needed which are openly in
accord with Baha'i principle.
For example, one
allegation made is that in the US the Faith
is excessively run by
individual action rather than by the joint
administration of the
National Spiritual Assembly. It ought to be
very easy to make public
the decisions of the National Spiritual
Assembly, so these may
be compared with how the Faith is being
run at the National
level. In addition, it would be a good idea
to have all nine members
of the National Spiritual Assembly on
hand full time at the
National Centre, being remunerated in accord
with the spiritual nature
of the job rather than with corporate
America's concept of
executive financial worth. Thus, the Faith
may be seen to be operating
in accord with principle, despite
any contrary words from
any source, hostile, or, as in this case,
friendly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
Through such activities,
and the mutual support that they give to one
another, these friends
have increasingly assumed the appearance of a
dissadent group of Baha'is
who are attempting to arouse widespread
disaffection in the
community and thereby bring about changes in the
structure and principles
of Baha'i administration, making it accord nore
closely with their personal
notions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
Bluntly, what is happening
here is that a dominant conservative
faction is attempting
to suppress the expression of liberal
ideas, to characterise
the informal and free association of
like-minded individuals,
who are not in agreement with the
narrowness and exclusivity
of conservative thought, as members
of a faction, and to
say factions are contrary to the Baha'i
system.
This is a partisan
political attempt to discredit ideas at
variance to conservative
ideology. Further, it is an attempt to
whip up opposition to
individuals associated with these ideas,
in complete contradistinction
to normal patterns of Baha'i
procedure.
This does not negate
the fact that at present the Baha'i
system seems to have
it right in trying to run itself without
formal parties and candidates.
I would also like to repeat my
statements made in the
past that nothing I've posted is meant
to do anything other
than present to existing leaders vision
enabling them to act
in accord with the best interests of the
Faith. I, and, as far
as I can tell, all of the professors,
writers etc. being portrayed
as an opposition party, are not
interested in running
for office. We are not an organized
political party. We
are individuals who, on many issues, are
more open-minded and
accepting than the viewpoint apparently
seeking to establish
itself as the sole Baha'i doctrine.
>>>>>>>>>>>.
Such an activity is
closely analogous
to the pursuit of a
partisan political program, an activity
which is accepted and
even admired in most societies, but is
entirely antithetical
to the spirit of the Baha'i Faith. It
promotes an atmosphere
of contention, and Baha'u'llah has
expressly stated: "Conflict
and contention are categorically
forbidden in His Book."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The partisan political
act of portraying those holding views
which differ from the
conservative viewpoint as a dissident
faction is itself an
act of "conflict and contention". It is not
possible to force us
all to agree with any doctrine. The
interpretation of unity
to mean uniformity prevents Baha'u'llah,
the World Unifier, from
achieving His purpose.
It is not possible
to enforce narrowly dictated orthodox thought
on a species and maintain
its harmonious and positive unity, which
is why Shoghi Effendi
stated this lies beyond the jurisdiction of
the Universal House
of Justice.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..
The laws, commandments,
injunctions and exhortations we have agreed
to obey and follow as
Baha'is include a clearly defined approach to
decision-making and
to the implementation of decisions. You are,
undoubtably well familair
with the various aspects of this approach,
which is built on the
conviction that the path of unity is the only
path that can lead to
the civilization envisioned by Baha'u'llah.
So strong is the emphasis
on unity that, for example, once a
decision is made by
an Assembly, everyone is expected to support
that decision wholeheartedly,
relying confidently on 'Abdu'l-Baha's
assurance that, even
if the decision is wrong, "as it is in unity
the truth will be revealed
and the wrong made right."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This pre-supposes the
decision makers are truly interested in
things going properly,
that by the carrying out of the wrong
decision and its failure,
the administrators will then change
the erroneous decision.
The conservative
understanding of the infallibility of the
decisions of the Universal
House of Justice, and the failure of
imagination by those
holding such ideological myths as that the
people of the West are
unspiritual means that the wise idea of
allowing administrators
the possibility to fix their mistakes as
soon as possible may
be frustrated.
If the mistakes
are not fixed, then there's no reason for
those who know they
are mistakes to provide this submissive
opportunity for them
to be fixed.
It cannot be over
emphasised that all the Baha'i quotes
about unity and the
authority of institutions cannot justify
any action whatsoever
by the institutions and the supposition
this species can, in
any honourable way, be expected to obey.
Those in authority can
win respect and whole-hearted support
from those they guide
through their wise, unifying and
principled decisions.
An attempt to impose anything at all by
appealing to the authority
of the institution and the need for
unity has and will be
no more successful than an attempt to do
so within a Marxist
or Papal framework, or any other.
The clearest example
is the knowledge since at least 1988
that women may serve
on the Universal House of Justice. At the
latest, compelling evidence
has been made public in 1996 that the
refusal to accept Baha'i
principle here (the censoring of the
Service of Women paper
and the persistence in excluding women from
the Supreme body) has
had serious negative consequences for the
Faith. So, how long
are humans expected to wait for the situation
to be rectified?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
This principle of unity
is supplemented by other,
related guidelines covering
such issues as how criticism can be
expressed, how the wrongdoing
of members of the community is to be
corrected, how the principle
of justice is to be applied and appeals
admitted, and how the
integrity of the individuals, the institutions
and the Cause is upheld.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
See above. Possibly
further quotes from this letter will receive
further comments from
me. If the frank and relatively positive
nature of this response
seems like the words of an ill-wisher,
there's a problem and
it's not this writer's.
Peace,
Michael
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997
11:35:51 -0500 (EST) From: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca
(McKenny Michael) To: jrcole@umich.edu
Subject: SECRET
Reply-To: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca
Greetings, Juan, from
Ottawa
I thought you'd
be interested in hearing the local Auxiliary Board
Member phoned Sunday night, spoke in a very friendly
manner stating that she was responding to the e-mail
message I sent to Counsellor Birkland, and suggested,
if I wish, we get together for coffee. She firmed up
a time (Saturday morning) in a call last night.
As she said she
has one sample post of mine sent by Counsellor Birkland,
I sent her three this morning, and a brief accont of
my arrival in Baha'i cyberspace. These underline open-mindedness.
The tone was very
positive, and she is one I know from the past (several
years ago she lived in Ottawa) to be open-minded and
to give off positive vibes. I'll let you know how this
turns out.
May this find you
very well, and may that long continue.
Peace,
Michael.
re Good Standing
Author: McKenny Michael <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Date: 1997/01/07
Forum: soc.religion.bahai
Greetings, Paul, from Ottawa.
Many thanks for your valuable post. I'm sorry I
haven't
really been following this thread, so I can't comment
on what
others may have said.
Your vital contribution is to draw to our attention
this
situation which appears to be incompatible with the
mood of
throwing the doors of the Faith wide open, and inviting
troops
to stream in.
You see, historically, a few score years ago and
more the
concern was to create a kind of US Marine Corps of the
spirit,
an elite spiritual force to go out and blaze with the
light of
Baha'u'llah all around the globe. There were so few
Baha'is
that the beloved Guardian wanted to ensure that everyone
could
glimpse the glory of the Faith, as much as possible,
from
looking at any believer.
Just US citizenship, or eligibility to participate
in US
elections is not restricted to Marines, so our Faith
does not
really expect to disenfanchise those who make minor
infractions
of Baha'i law for the next 850 years. In civil society
one's
rights are restricted to the extent you suggest due
to penal
confinement. Baha'u'llah has specified the fines for
some of the
infractions you mention, so it is reasonable to expect
the
Universal House of Justice to instruct the National
and Local
Spiritual Assemblies to allow for greater participation
in
Baha'i community life by those who would not be imprisoned
in
a Baha'i society.
Far more important, the whole Baha'i approach is
one of
education rather than excessive concern with punishment.
Yes, of
course, there is punishment, but as the Master said
edification
of souls is the focus, in contradistinction to a prevailing
view
in the general society of his time.
I, for one, am extremely grateful for your bringing
to our
attention the fact that we've got some ways to go to
attain his
balanced viewpoint, and I look forward to the Universal
House of
Justice taking remedial action to ensure this aspect
of opening
the doors of the Faith is speedily taken.
Fare very
Well,
Michael
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997
08:15:40 -0500 (EST) From: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca
(McKenny Michael) To: jrcole@umich.edu
Subject: Private
Reply-To: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca
Greetings, Juan, from
Ottawa.
I met with the local
Auxiliary Board Member.
My perception is
that this meeting went very well. The tone was very
positive from both sides. I did say that I believed
the Universal House of Justice was not infallible (as
evidenced by the historical event of hesitating to
implement Baha'i principle when the Service of Women
Paper was presented and not permitting the paper to
be published), but since I added that I accepted such
concepts as trying to obey them even when they are
wrong, just as we do with the Spiritual Assemblies,
and not insisting on one's views, she seemed to accept
that. I also said for me the fallibility of the Universal
House of Justice was not an issue of faith, that God
still existed whether or not they got it wrong once
in a while.
She herself read
quotes about variety of understandings, so on that
issue there appeared to be quick agreement.
We had a fairly
lengthy discussion, and I was open about what I thought,
trying hard, though, to keep a relatively light and
even humorous tone and to use neutral language most
of the time. The word "fundamentalist" slipped out
several times, and made her cringe, but I'd quickly
add something like "Uhm, those people who tend to understand
everything literally." I showed her two quotes from
that talk by 'Abdu'l-Baha so timely posted by Eric
where the Master praises liberalism.
When I said or implied
I'd take the findings of science over the literal text,
she read a quote suggesting something like science
was to be understood in the light of Revelation, and
seemed to have no problem when this led me to observe
that Revelation includes the comment that religion
without science is superstition.
She suggested that
I write to the Universal House of Justice about this
issue of women on the House and the Service of Women
Paper, and she gave me a copy of the Rights and Freedoms
letter to re-read and I can get back to her with any
comments.
In short, as she
is fairly open herself, the discussion was what one
would expect from two reasonable people, even where
they didn't completely agree.
May this find you
very well, and may that long be so.
All the Best,
Michael
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997
07:02:41 -0500 (EST) From: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca
(McKenny Michael) To: jrcole@umich.edu
Subject: Letter to UHJ
Reply-To: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca
Greetings from Ottawa.
I am writing following
a meeting with Auxiliary Board Member, Sue Tamas, in
which there was some discussion about present opportunities
for achieving greater open-mindedness and unity within
the Cause of the Prince of Peace, the World Unifier.
As I understand
it, Baha'u'llah presented to all of humanity the means
of unifying the species. He did not come for one land,
or one people, or one class, or one philosophical mindset.
This Faith, I believe, is not reserved for those of
either the left or the right. It was not intended to
be the exclusive domain of either the literalist or
those who sail the seas of metaphor.
Yet, my perception
is that there is currently a strong sentiment that
only the literalist, only those comfortable with the
political views of the right, are true believers. Seekers
holding other than conservative views are confronted
by serious obstacles obscuring the universality of
this latest Revelation.
Believers who do not
abide on the right are not always made to feel welcome.
There are a number
of specific attitudes and practices that may be cited
as symptoms of a general condition less than inclusive,
of perceiving the world-embracing vision of the Universal
Manifestation of God as something contained within
the theories and deeds of one of the political wings
of human experience. Is it not perhaps somewhat chilling
to encounter the concept that solely the ways of the
right are kosher, in a Baha'i sense, to see the questioning
of such terms as human rights, liberalism and liberty
in a document that quotes about the significance of
specific words in attracting or repelling people?
Segments of this species,
perhaps not unjustifiably, are very attracted by these
terms and likely to doubt tbe beneficent capacity of
any group using such terms in a negative manner.
More important,
in my view, than the use of particular words are the
deeds performed by Baha'is and their Institutions.
Are we not told that it is by our deeds that we are
to distinguish ourselves as the embryonic example of
a mature and ethical divinely inspired civilization?
Thus, I find it disquieting that the presentation of
the Service of Women Paper resulted in what may be
perceived as a hesitation by the Baha'i Faith to implement
one of its fundamental principles, that the believers
were not provided the opportunity to read this paper,
and that, while my words describing these actions may
be loftier than those usually employed in current accounts
of the practices of administrations not very concerned
with fundamental principle and basic human rights,
the deeds themselves are difficult to distinguish from
those of such administrations.
My perception of
the present focus from the World Centre is one largely
directed at highlighting the authority of the Baha'i
Institutions, especially the infallible Universal House
of Justice.
In my view, this repeats
the focus of many of the least attractive regimes,
religious and political, whose deeds demonstrate we
are coming from the childhood of the species.
I wonder whether
an authority focusing on the need for the obedience
of the individual most appropriately reflects the sign
humans are becoming mature? Are the adult members of
a family most appropriately treated by their parents
through a focus on the need to obey? Is there perhaps
not a loftier method of promoting the experience and
wisdom of the parents? Is it not possible that adults
perceiving principled vision may be more counted on
to render an enthusiastic acceptance of parental guidance
than those presented with an insistence that anything
at all must be obeyed because of its source, a theory
which would appear of greatest utility to bring into
existence deeds perhaps a bit short of the ordinary
standards of decency and conscience?
Connected to this
is the traditional worldview of us and them, a way
of seeing reality above which I believe this Revelation
seeks to elevate this species. Has not the Master said
that we are to be kind to all and see all as well-wishers,
since to view some people as enemies and treat them
kindly is hypocrisy?
Yet, have I not encountered
believers so convinced that only one who is a literalist,
one who is at home in the political philosophy of the
right, may be a true believer, that they have treated
others as if they were enemies? Beyond the frequent
response of reality to human perception (perhaps, at
least in part the Master's purpose here) is the very
reason for the Manifestation of God to humanity in
this time. How may the unity of this species be demonstrated
through the portrayal of those who feel and think in
a manner proving unity in diversity as people other
than loyal friends?
May not such a
unifying vision best protect this species even from
misguided assertions and ambitions that caused the
Centre of Guidance to feel called upon to enact extra-ordinary
measures in the infancy of this Dispensation? While
in the days a handful of Baha'is, remote from the Cradle
of the Faith and the World Centre, dwelt in this vast
dominion, safeguarding them from misinformation and
ego necessitated the identification of a few people
as beyond the pale, have not conditions changed? Were
a person today to advance the claim, although unelected,
to be prime minister, or president, or king of this
country, what respect and honour would the legitimate
authorities attain by responding as if they considered
such a claim a threat? Are we to assume that the divinely
propelled Faith of God which has diffused the fragrances
of the Glory of God to the far-flung corners of this
dominion, of the entire planet, can be any more threatened
by any unauthorised pronouncements? Have we not that
Source of all good, undeniably established in accordance
with the Covenant and unquestionably re-elected every
five years? What honour and respect may result through
reacting as if the Faith God has firmly established
is more fragile than the legitimate administration
of this secular state?
Has not history
taught us that the real danger to the souls of individuals
and to the harmonious flourishing of human society
lies more often in the assumption by those in positions
of responsibility that their viewpoint, their personal
well-being, their ability personally to continue to
direct the course of action, is to be equated exclusively
with the light, and that whatever the Creator may have
provided which is inconvenient for them does not deserve
continued existence? Is perhaps this Faith not more
at risk of repeating such history than it is of anyone
usurping that clearly transmitted authority now exercised
by the Universal House of Justice? how much less of
a threat is any even intemperate criticism from those
largely influenced by modern practices which relect
another wing of human political experience?
In my view, there
may also be a confusion of attitude as to how to resolve
apparant contradictions amongst principles and concepts
revealed for this Age. Thus, when we encounter a seeming
discrepency between, on the one hand, such fundamental
Baha'i principles as independent investigation of truth,
the harmony of science and religion, freedom from prejudice,
and equality of gender, and, on the other, the concepts
of a literal reading of the Sacred Text and the words
of the Authorised Interpreters and the infallibility
of the Universal House of Justice, it appears there
has been temptation to resolve this by setting aside
fundamental principle.
Thus, I have encountered
the view that it is un-Baha'i to follow what initiates
a seeker's discovery of the Faith, that open-minded
dispassionate search for truth, the foundation at once
of science and religion. I have met the conviction
that there ought to be no interpretation of science
and history at variance with the literal words of the
Sacred Text, whatever may be the documents or discoveries
elsewhere. I have run into the attitude that those
attracted by the light of other Manifestations are
dwelling in the darkness of error. I have seen it stated
that, regardless of the findings of historians and
fundamental principle, the direction at the global
level of this example and harbinger of mature human
civilization is to be reserved for those who are of
that gender which historically has played the leading
role in the exercise of power.
All of the above
views reflect pre-dominant thought from the childhood
of the species. It is neither disloyalty, nor a lack
of mature spirituality which has rendered significant
segments of current populations responsive to fundamental
Baha'i principle, and unattracted by such lofty expressions
as the term "exempted" for what does not completely
co-incide with principle.
The history of recent
generations may help explain why many people find such
euphemistic speech no substitute for principle in action.
In my view, the
Revelation of the One Who came to unify humanity has
been provided with a remarkable means to safeguard
the species from dissention and disunion. While attention
has been focused largely on the transmission of authority,
and the preservation of a World Centre towards which
all may turn, yet, is not also of very great importance
in assuring the harmony of humanity that sagacious
permission to each member of a mature species to ponder
and share personal understanding gained by faith and
reason, fully informed that such perception, by the
very nature of contingent existence, must be seen as
imperfect, unauthoritative and likely subject to modification
with the passage of time? Does not this glorious illumination
of the principle of unity in diversity secure the garden
of this single species from the heresies, the sectarianism,
the discord and the darkness which occupy so prominent
a part of the records of previous religious cycles
and past secular movements?
Thus, is it not
somewhat alarming to meet an apparant attempt to advocate
a set Baha'i canon, to question the legitimacy of the
term relative, to present as orthodox understanding
only the viewpoint of a portion of the world community,
to suggest there may be heretical views, to advance
suspicion against those whose inclination is scientific,
metaphorical, mystical, to place in opposition what
may be viewed as two great pillars of the divinely
purposed unification of this species in wondrous diversity,
of the Covenant, in effect?
I feel one specific
point needs to be made, for I have heard that the very
existence of mystics has been of concern to some, who
fear such individuals, who have existed throughout
history, may claim some kind of authority. However,
since the Faith has the protection against authoritative
assertions of individual understandings mentioned above,
by what means is this overlooked simply because the
perception involved derives largely from one, rather
than the other, side of the brain, the intuitive, rather
than rational?
While it is thrilling
to encounter such unifying concepts as focusing on
the positive and avoiding the partisan political activity
of modern nations, would the Baha'i Faith by an adoption
of such practices as doctrinally directed academic
enquiry, focusing the jurisdiction of the press to
the publication of material passing theological scrutiny,
encouraging anyone wishing to comment on official behavior
to directed comments in polite tones solely to the
appropriate administrators, exemption of individuals
in positions of responsibility from conflict of interest
guidelines and public accountability, etc., actually
achieve that elevated distinction envisaged by its
Founder? Are not such practices, which some may extrapolate
as being advocated by the letter on rights and freedoms,
among historical patterns of behavior considered among
the least ethical? Is it not these patterns of behavior
which engender the least trust of authority?
May it not be that love,
honour and respect for the divinely established Institutions
will more greatly flow from those procedures modern
states have implemented to deal with unethical practices
than modes of administration which remind humanity
of previous examples of the distance from principle
this species dwelt?
Indeed, was
it not such unresponsive remoteness from principle
which gave birth to frustration, dissention, conflict,
even revolutionary upheaval, the consequences of which
often have included something greatly at variance with
unity?
In conclusion
may it not be suggested that the well-being of the
Cause of God and the unity of humanity would greatly
benefit from a wider awareness that each personal understanding,
including the scientific, the metaphorical and the
mystic validates the principle of unity in diversity,
that there is room in the world community of the Universal
Manifestation of God for those influenced by other
than the right wing of human political experience,
that many modern practices, including freedom to seek
scientific and historical truth, freedom of the press,
standards of conflict of interest, public disclosure
and public scrutiny of individuals in positions of
public trust, are, actually to be preferred to what
preceeded them, that full compliance with the principle
of equality of gender is not prohibited by an understanding
of the evolving circumstances of Baha'i history, and,
even were there to appear a contradiction between the
perception of the infallibility of the Guardian and
such a fundamental Baha'i principle, ethical compliance
with the Will of God lies not in setting aside fundamental
principle.
May this find
you very well, and may that long be so.
All the Best,
Michael
Re: Freedom of thought in the Baha'i religion
Author: McKenny Michael <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Date: 1997/02/21
Forum: soc.religion.bahai
Greetings, Chris and Steve, from Ottawa.
Many thanks for your comments about excessive freedom
in
the Western World.
One point which I feel needs to be made is that
this Faith
is for every people and nation. I have been to India
and the
former Soviet Union. The people I met there only confirmed
my
awareness that Baha'u'llah was correct in calling for
us to
recognize the oneness of humanity.
I believe He was also correct in calling upon the
rulers
of the American continent to promote freedom and human
rights.
Western Baha'is have been cautioned to take care
about the
influence we may feel from the distance our countries
remain from
spirituality, selflessness, unity in diversity, etc.
With so many
of us converts, there is a natural temptation to imagine
that
everything about the old is wrong. Yet, Baha'u'llah
said that in
this day if a jewel is buried in a mountain it will
be revealed.
I feel that perhaps the greatest jewel of Western
Civilization
going back over more than two thousand years is the
deep awareness
of the value of the individual, a value I find confirmed
in the
Writings of the One Who came to guide us into the Age
of the
maturity of our species. I feel that there is a middle
path, a
golden mean, between anarchy and totalitarianism. I
have been
quite emotionally stirred in the presence of those who
come from
lands other than this 15 percent you mention. There
is enormous
worth outside the West and shining souls. And this need
not lead
us into prejudice against the peoples of the West, nor
against the
precious harvest they have produced for all humanity.
I may praise the wondrous souls of the 85 per cent
and delight
in all that is good in the variegated cultures in all
those lands,
and offer thanksgiving to God for the radiant strand
of respect
for freedom of thought and conscience that runs through
the
heritage of the West.
May this find you very well, and may that long be
so.
Peace,
Michael
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997
20:18:07 -0500 (EST) From: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca
(McKenny Michael) To: jrcole@umich.edu
Subject: Letter to UHJ
Reply-To: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca
Greetings, Juan.
Here's the letter
for you to archive and do what you wish with after
the reply from the UHJ:
Thanks for taking
it.
Fare very Well
Michael To the Universal House
of Justice
Greetings from Ottawa.
In January when
Auxiliary Board Member Susie Tamas met with me she
warmly encouraged me to present my concerns about the
Universal House of Justice to you. Throughout February
she very attentively considered the preliminary drafts
of the letter I began to compose in response. On reflection,
moved by the spirit of this special period of the Fast,
I came to perceive from her considered comments that
I was trying to write to you from the head and that
this was not enough.
Aware of my imperfections,
here I try also to open to you my heart.
In the darkest hour
before the dawn, when war seemed inevitable and the
prime minister of this country travelled to the capitals
of the nuclear powers to plead for peace, I prayed
to the beloved Guardian:
"Dearest Shoghi
Effendi, my understanding is that you have said quite
clearly this cataclysm will come. Your words depict
the falling of fearsome weapons of destruction upon
our cities and the deaths of two thirds of the people
of the world. Please, I beg you, would it not be better
for us to be spared this devastation, for us to find
a symbolic explanation of such frightful words than
for you to be confirmed as completely and literally
correct by means of the murder of these billions of
people?"
My ardent prayer,
often repeated at that time, was that God demonstrate
His all-compelling authority and might by inspiring
us peacefully to transform this planet into that reflection
of heaven foretold in Sacred Scripture. I asked Him:
"Is it not a greater sign of divine power and love
to grant human leaders the imagination and will to
move ever more peacefully towards world peace than
through inaction to provide the opportunity for the
indescribable agonies of such a holocaust? Is it not
more befitting the Almighty, the Most Munificent Creator
of the Worlds to lead us to transform with our own
hands physically and spiritually the dark landscapes
around our bodies and our souls into the perfumed gardens
visualized in the Writings than to watch the burning
craters appear, radiation ride the winds and the minority
of survivors driven rather than guided into the Cause
of God?"
I was not alone.
In every Terran language, from every land on Earth
the pleas for peace were raised to Heaven.
And the Prime Mover,
to the astonishment of the nations of the world, answered.
That mortal man portrayed by Cold War rhetoric as the
Evil Emperor was inspired to lead the way in the move
to peace, even at the cost of his position and his
Empire itself, an event perhaps without parallel in
the annals of this world. And the very precious soul
we call the Priceless Pearl did not insist on inflicting
humanity with the literal fulfillment of his authoritative
statements about weapons and death.
Auxiliary Board
Member Susie Tamas in response to concerns I raised
at what I considered a dangerously divisive impression
that the definition of a true and loyal believer consisted
in one's literal interpretation of the Word of God
shared with me this passage which you wrote on March
6, 1982:
"In considering
the whole field of divinely conferred infallibility
one must be careful to avoid the literal understanding
and petty mindedness that has so often characterized
discussions of this matter in the Christian world.
The Manifestation of God (and to a lesser degree, Abdu'l-Baha
and Shoghi Effendi) has to convey tremendous concepts
covering the whole field of human life and activity
to people whose present knowledge and degree of understanding
are far below His. He must use the limited medium of
human language against the limited and often erroneous
background of His audience's traditional knowledge
and current understanding to raise them to a wholly
new level of awareness and behaviour. It is a human
tendency against which the Manifestation warns us,
to measure His statements against the inaccurate standard
of the acquired knowledge of mankind. We tend to take
them and place them within one or the other of the
existing categories of human philosophy or science
while, in reality, they transcend these and will, if
properly understood, open new and vast horizons to
our understanding.
"Some sayings of
the Manifestation are clear and obvious.
Among these are laws
of behaviour. Others are elucidations which lead men
from their present level of understanding to a new
one.
Others are pregnant
allusions, the significance of which only becomes apparent
as the knowledge and understanding of the reader grow.
And all are integral parts of one great Revelation
intended to raise mankind to a new level of its evolution."
This uplifting of
humanity is a process which seems to be continuing
outside the Faith.
The beloved Guardian
says, "It should also be borne in mind that the machinery
of the Cause has been so fashioned, that whatever is
deemed necessary to incorporate into it in order to
keep it in the forefront of all progressive movements,
can, according to the provisions made by Baha'u'llah,
be safely embodied therein."
(WOB 22-23)
In 1988 in response
to your call to summon the troops into the Cause of
God by sharing with them the Peace Message, I presented
a copy of this document to almost everyone I knew.
I invited many of them to regular followup "Peace Talks"
at my place. This resulted in some keen consideration
of this Faith by people of capacity, members of many
circles and organizations. Whatever the probability,
it was not impossible that some of these very active
and capable individuals could have ignited the fire
of the love of the Glory of God within troops of souls.
When a non-Baha'i exposed that this Faith does not
practise the full equality of the sexes, none of these
people could accept that the Will of God for this Age
could be so far from the forefront of all progressive
movements as to perpetuate the concept and the practice
of women being excluded from highest office.
The spirit of this
very communication, "The Promise of World Peace", moved
the leaders of the Cold War beyond mistrust and the
paralysis of will which had so divided and threatened
humankind for decades. It would appear that the Cause
of God today needs to be uplifted above such mistrust
and paralysis of will.
You called for:
the submergence of theological differences, identification
of and guidance by principle, the sweeping away of
assumptions and formulae ceasing to promote the welfare
of a continually evolving humanity, women to be welcomed
into full partnership.
Indeed, you advised
the rulers and peoples of this world: "The emancipation
of women, the achievement of full equality between
the sexes, is one of the most important, though less
acknowledged prerequisites of peace." I am delighted
to be able to tell you that almost everyone I know
seems to agree with you on this point. The openness
of my heart compels me to add that apparently no non-Baha'i
I know accepts that the Baha'i Faith may claim to practise
what it is preaching until women may serve on the Universal
House of Justice. An assertion that somehow there may
be equality of men and women with the highest positions
reserved for men, draws forth scorn and demonstrates
that this is a false religion ("By their fruits shall
ye know them") of people "whose words exceed their
deeds", a people given to Orwellian Newspeak, doubletalk
and euphemism.
Last year I learned
of some of the energizing discoveries made which facilitate
our demonstration of the clearly expressed principle
of the equality of men and women that we may surpass
that petty minded preference of an interpretation which
not only tasks reasonable thought when read in full,
but tests souls beyond their capacity, something God
has urged us not to do. If there is to be a choice
between a literal application of the concept of infallibility
and the implementation of such a basic principle as
the equality of men and women, bearing in mind your
own words concerning literalism and infallibility quoted
above and the quote that "It is incumbent upon them
who are in authority to exercise moderation in all
things" (THE PROCLAMATION OF BAHA'U'LLAH p. 113) are
we truly powerless to be people whose principled deeds
clearly match our words? There is also the warning:
"In all matters moderation is desirable. If a thing
is carried to excess, it will prove a source of evil."
(Quoted in BAHA'U'LLAH p. 46.) The chief tidings in
my prayer to you is that, in the estimation of troops,
for us to refuse to moderate our attachment to literal
infallibility even when this leads us to subservience
to previous levels of understanding at variance with
Baha'u'llah's fundamental principle exposes the unworthiness,
the hypocrisy, the falsity of this Faith.
Many and varied
are the words possible and my heart is overwhelmed.
How may I proceed when these eyes dim with tears?
Still, how may I not
continue to pray as I prayed for the protection of
this world and its peoples from impending devastation?
You yourselves
have drawn the connection between the full equality
of the sexes and peace, and presented the choice as
to "Whether peace is to be reached only after unimaginable
horrors precipitated by humanity's stubborn clinging
to old patterns of behaviour, or is to be embraced
now by an act of consultative will."
The connection
of these two points, the necessity of this species
to will to arise above old patterns of behaviour in
order to avoid unimaginable horrors and the necessity
to move beyond the period of the restriction of women
in order for there to be peace convulses my soul, because
it is evident to non-Baha'i observers that the community
to which you directed the scrutiny of the nations is
still bogged down in that anachronistic pattern of
behaviour which has supreme authority in the grasp
of men alone.
My heart is very
perturbed both because I fear this has to a significant
extent delayed the creative and positive forces from
taking full advantage of the unexpected opportunity
provided by the courage and vision of the Soviet leadership
and because I am aware of what seems a very unhealthy
anticipation within the Faith for the chastisement
of the peoples of the world who largely have ignored
this latest Revelation.
The anguished questions
that follow may seem truly amazing.
However, I would not
be opening fully to you my heart were I to leave them
unspoken. Is it really so unspiritual, is it worth
the death penalty for individuals and the burning of
cities that the literal words of the fundamental principle
of the equality of the two sexes be seen as taking
precedence over a narrowly literal perception of the
Guardian's interpretation of those words of the Master
which appear to refer to the House of Justice in Chicago?
Is humanity to experience
that catastrophe that the so-called Evil Emperor delayed,
if he did not overcome it, or some other one, to cleanse
the world of those so influenced by the Prince of Peace
that they expect Baha'is to comply fully with His fundamental
principle, although the world in the lifetime of the
Blessed Beauty did not follow this principle, one reason,
perhaps, for its gradual implementation? How may the
troops pour in through the open gates of this Faith,
while this drawbridge remains raised in their faces?
At this point I
feel I must mention my father. You know I did receive
some advice that it was not a good idea to write to
you, and that if I did I ought to say what you'd find
pleasing, as you may otherwise respond in the manner
of historical Terran monarchs and view one daring to
impart information you may not like to hear as quite
a presumptuous fellow. Yet, how would I contribute
to the proof we are leaving behind anachronistic habits
if I remained silent or, according to past patterns
of behaviour, concealed from the Source of All Good
the real news of how this Faith is now becoming perceived
by ordinary people?
Although I lived
in the same house as my father until I was twenty-three
years old, I heard him say almost nothing about how
he spent his early 20s. This was a time of such intense
experience for him that he still does not speak of
it, not even after the passage of fifty years. He,
as so very many people at that time, had his life greatly
impacted by events in the world at large. He left the
family farm to participate in the defence of the Free
World from one of this Century's most notorious examples
of totalitarianism.
The relevance of
this is that this country, so extolled in the Tablets
of the Divine Plan for, among other things, its freedom,
others in the Free World and those lands which experienced
totalitarian regimes contain a lot of people who are
quite unsympathetic to certain characteristics of those
unpleasant administrations inflicting such anguish
upon boh their citizens and foreigners.
Among these features
is that old pattern of behaviour which involves the
control of information. My weeping heart leads me to
tell you very bluntly that my perception of people
here is that no alleged details unflattering to this
Faith can exceed in negative impact the fact that there
is control of information within the Baha'i Faith.
Forbidding the use of the word "censorship" and insisting
upon the term "review" only seems to underline the
very distasteful impression this gives of our Faith.
It is the same with the term "exemption" being insisted
on as a substitute for "excluded" in reference to women
hitherto being prevented from serving on the Universal
House of Justice.
Very frankly, it
is very difficult to see the distinction between such
Baha'i practices and those directed by Goebbels which
at length required the intervention of my father and
many millions like him. I can not describe for you
the extent of the impact it had on me when I learned
that your initial response to the reception of the
information that the Writings contain passages in which
women are referred to as "men/rulers" and that it is
quite likely that Abdu'l-Baha was speaking about the
House of Justice in Chicago and not the Universal House
of Justice at all was to prohibit the publication of
this data. It may suffice for you to know that this
was the principle reason I told Auxiliary Board Member
Susie Tamas that a literal understanding of the infallibility
of the Universal House of Justice would be contrary
to the evidence of my senses.
Further, while
the Constitution of the Universal House of Justice
contains as one of your powers and duties, "To safeguard
the personal rights, freedom and initiative of individuals,"
a responsibility resonating strongly with peoples in
this Century which has endured such onerous oppression,
you have made recent comments that may be perceived
as a denunciation of "liberty", "liberalism" and "freedom".
I can imagine no
more effective means to inflict harm upon this Faith
than for someone to call a news conference and simply
read quotes hostile to liberalism and liberty. Would
you not be understood as demonstrating this reponsibility
to protect personal rights was falling victim to euphemism
and cause alarm that were God to permit you to direct
the course of human affairs this would inflict upon
the peoples of this planet a global oppression, compared
to which the regionalized and relatively low tech regimes
of the recent past would pale?
May I not pray
that you in future remove such an opportunity from
anyone wishing harm upon this Cause, that however you
raise our understanding of the value of co-operation
and harmony, you keep before our eyes this shining
jewel of individual rights and freedoms for which my
father endured so much and many others died?
Will you join me in
praying that the Blessed Beauty ever inspire you to
guide humanity through insightful and imaginative vision,
embracing fundamental principle and winning by this
means the admiration and wholehearted support of those
comprising a maturing species, as remote as possible
from the totalitarian tendency to focus on literal
details defining legitimate authority and the insistence
upon the obedience of anything at all? So very many
people yearn to witness the evidences of the influence
of the Higher Worlds that they may exert all their
energies backing something so constructive and positively
creative. Very few of these can see in the tedious
reiteration of an insistence that there is yet another
Centre which must be obeyed whatever it may command
anything more than the basis for the commission of
immoral and unethical deeds. The fact that women have
been prohibited from service on the Universal House
of Justice and that Scriptural grounds to lift this
prohibition hitherto have been concealed from the generality
of the believers does nothing to allay what ought to
be quite incredible apprehensions about our similarity
to other totalitarian systems uttering such assertions
and staining the annals of history with unprincipled
behaviour.
One of the most
illuminating events in the more than fifteen decades
of the history of the New Era was that glorious spiritual
act by the Hands of the Cause of God on the occasion
of the election of the Universal House of Justice.
In a deed elevated above traditional human temptation
to seek to retain control of authority, these laudable
souls not only permitted the Supreme Body to replace
them in directing the affairs of the Cause of God,
but went so far as to ask not to be elected to the
Universal House of Justice. This happening has a profound
influence on the soul of any seeker of truth receiving
word of it. How likewise must be the impact of each
example of the ability of the Prince of Peace to elevate
His declared followers, and, especially, those wielding
authority within His Faith, above the normal manner
of human behaviour. May we not expect the peoples of
the world to respond very positively to every proof
that this is indeed a New World Order?
In conclusion,
here is the gist of my ardent prayers for the progress
of the Cause of God and the protection of the peoples
of this planet from cataclysm, death and destruction:
May we please receive
the communication that from now on women may also be
considered eligible for membership on the Universal
House of Justice?
May we please be
notified of the suspension of the temporary policy
of review?
May we please be
guided to an understanding of co-operation and harmony
consistent with "the personal rights, freedom and initiative
of individuals", and sensitive to the significance
in the Free World of the terms and concepts "freedom",
"liberty" and "liberalism"?
May we please delight
in the vision of human harmony radiating from the World
Centre, embracing in a wondrously rich garden the great
variety of human thought bestowed upon this species
by an Ever-Loving, Most Bounteous, All-Powerful Creator?
May the Most Merciful
Lord allow the intent of this message to transcend
all the barriers to effective communication and permit
you to see what is in my heart that you may know for
certain that the above was written only with the purpose
of supporting you in guiding humanity towards what
is truly worthy of being described as an ever-advancing
civilization and a Golden Age.
"I beseach Thee,
O my God, by that Letter which, as soon as it proceeded
out of the mouth of Thy will, hath caused the oceans
to surge, and the winds to blow, and the fruits to
be revealed, and the trees to spring forth, and all
past traces to vanish, and all veils to be rent asunder,
and them who are devoted to Thee to hasten unto the
light of the countenance of their Lord, the Unconstrained,
to make known unto me what lay hid in the treasuries
of Thy knowledge and concealed within the repositories
of Thy wisdom. Thou seest me, O my God, holding to
Thy Name, the Most Holy, the Most Luminous, the Most
Mighty, the Most Great, the Most Exalted, the Most
Glorious, and clinging to the hem of the robe to which
have clung all in this world and in the world to come."
Peace,
Michael.
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997
09:54:05 -0400 (EDT) From: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca
(McKenny Michael) To: jrcole@umich.edu
Subject: Personal Expulsion
Reply-To: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca
Greetings, from Ottawa.
I thought the following
which arrived in the morning mail would be of interest.
I'm also posting
it to several Baha'i lists.
fare very Well,
Michael
25 July 1997
Mr Michael McKenny
424 Cambridge Street
South
Ottawa, Ontario K1S
4H5
Dear Mr. McKenny,
The Universal House
of Justice has advised us of its conclusion that, on
the basis of the correspondence it has had with you
and the established pattern of behaviour you have demonstrated
over the past several months, you cannot properly be
considered a member of the Baha'i community. Accordingly
we have removed your name from our membership rolls
and have informed the Baha'i institutions concerned.
Sincerely,
Michael
National Spiritual
Assembly of the
Baha'is of Canada
Judy L. Filson
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997
20:52:26 -0400 (EDT) From: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca
(McKenny Michael) To: jrcole@umich.edu
Subject: Personal Thanks
etc
Reply-To: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca
Greetings, Juan, from
Ottawa
Many thanks for
your kind comments concerning my expulsion.
Please forgive the
haste of this reply.
Actually, I'd like
to try a more Zen like response than approaching the
media and exposing injustice etc. My impression is
that this would only confirm the fundamentalists in
their illusion that they are dealing with an enemy.
If at all possible I'd like to respond as I imagine
Abdu'l Baha would respond to such a situation.
I would like to
apologize that all that was going on in July . . . not only kept me from replying
to the UHJ, but also kept me from finishing more sections
of Tumansky. I know how very eagerly you are awaiting
this. God willing, August will be a better month.
Thanks again for
your thoughtful concern. I don't intend to drift away.
I think I'll post to Talisman and Irfan the remarks
I made just yesterday on the ad hominems thread on
bahai-st. These seem quite applicable as a response
to the main practical objective of booting me out of
the Faith, the removal of personal legitimacy.
I'll send you a copy,
too.
So, I look forward
to trying to follow the lead of the Perfect Exemplar.
God willing, the consequences will be positive and
beneficial.
May this find you
very well, and may things ever get better.
Peace,
Michael
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997
02:09:41 -0400 (EDT) From: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca
(McKenny Michael) To: jrcole@umich.edu
Subject: To the Universal
House of Justice Reply-To: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca
Dear National Spiritual
Assembly of the Baha'is of Canada,
Greetings.
Many thanks for
your letter of July 25th. The reply below has just
been sent to the Universal House of Justice.
I am also enclosing
copies to e-mail lists with whom I shared your letter.
I notice that in my haste in typing the letter you
sent me I left out the position of the assistant secretary
who signed it. This was done in error and is not an
indication of any lack of respect.
May this find you
very well, and may that long be so.
Peace,
Michael
To The Universal House
of Justice
Greetings from Ottawa.
I am responding
to the letter I received this morning from the National
Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of Canada stating
that you have advised them that I may not appropriately
be considered a Baha'i.
I found this a rather
unexpected message, as it was not preceeded by any
communication from any Baha'i authority subsequent
to the letter you sent me in April with its three enclosures.
I had declared a
personal goal of responding to at least one of that
letter's three enclosures by the 21st of July, though
I stated that I may not be able to do so. Since I received
from the National Spiritual Assembly no reason for
your announcement, I guess that the timing indicates
that you may have expected this reply by that date.
I am able to inform
you that I was unaware that you wished me to answer
you by that date, indeed, I was unsure as to whether
you would appreciate a reply at all. I stated that
I would not further address you on these issues, after
that response, unless you invited me to do so, as in
my mind while one response to the enclosures I received
from you was legitimate, to go beyond that was contrary
to the spirit of the Faith. With this attitude I assumed
that no special notification was necessary that I had
failed to meet my personal goal and that you would
not mind were my intended response indefinitely postponed.
I am able to testify
that my wife, my brother and other members of my family
can confirm that I was fairly pre-occupied throughout
the month of July. My inability to send you a reply
is quite understandable, and my failure to advise you
of this was based on my impression, as stated above,
that this was not necessary.
The heart of the
issue is that no lack of respect was meant towards
you by my failure to meet a personal goal. More germane
is the wider issue that in all my consultations with
Auxiliary Board Member Mrs. Suzanne Tamas, in the carefully
composed letter I sent to you on March 23rd, in my
hope to reply once to your response, my only aim was
to advance the Cause of God, to increase the influence
of its institutions and to promote the harmony of the
human species.
When I was 21 and
exerting enormous energies as a student leader of the
World Federalists, convinced that nothing could be
done to avoid nuclear catastrophe, but determined to
die trying, I was blessed by the Prince of Peace with
the awareness that God was determined to manifest the
harmony of the human species. This has not changed.
I believe that this
communication concerning my belief in the Blessed Beauty
originated in misunderstanding as to the reasons for
my not notifying you that I was missing a personal
goal. I have nothing else to go on. And I am willing
to receive any clarification you can provide, and on
my part to offer you assurance of my belief in God
and the harmonizing role of His most recent Manifestation
of God. I have already strongly urged believers by
phone and by e-mail to refrain from any response to
this announcement which would create disharmony.
I do consider the
Baha'i Faith endowed by the Blessed Beauty with the
capacity to infuse humanity with harmony, and I feel
we may do so by responding as the Master would wish,
by perceiving others as friends and well-wishers, by
transforming anachronistic inclinations, suspicions,
insecurities, factionalism into the expansive, inclusive
over-arching acceptance of the harmony of humankind.
May this find you
very well, and may that long be so.
Peace,
Michael
My first letter
Author: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca (McKenny
Michael)
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 13:58:01 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: h-bahai@h-net.msu.edu
Sender: H-NET List for Bahai Studies
<H-BAHAI@H-NET.MSU.EDU>
Dear Friends,
For the information of list members we
have been posting documents
regarding the recent expulsion of Michael
Mckenny from the Baha'i
community, with this individuals approval.
Our rationale for doing so
is that we regard this event of historic
importance because to our
knowledge, no one has ever been expelled
in this manner
previously without any further administrative
sanctions. You may
recall that Mr. Mckenny wrote the House
of Justice asking for
clarification of his expulsion. For your
information I am reposting
that original letter as well a response
he received from the Canadian
NSA. I include also Mr. Mckenny's own
response.
I would like to remind the list members
that the expression
of opinions regarding the appropriateness
of the action taken against
Mr. Mckenny would likely veer us far from
the list purpose, and
therefore will not be entertained by the
moderators. Persons wishing
to discuss these documents on that level
are welcome to subscribe to
Talisman for this purpose. Posts discussing
the possible
historic ramifications of this action
will be accepted on this list
providing they are expressed within the
bounds of academic discourse.
Our primary goal in posting this exchange
of correspondence is for
their significance as primary source documentation.
We ask the list
members to exercise all due restraint
in discussing this matter.
Susan Maneck
Co-moderator H-Bahai
To the Universal House of Justice
Greetings from Ottawa.
Although on the day I received from
the National Spiritual
Assembly of the Baha'is of Canada a notice
that on your assessment I
was no longer a member of the Baha'i community
I addressed to you a
message seeking to respond on the basis
of my instant deductions as to
what may have prompted such a decision,
and although since that time I
have continued to speculate as to what
could have been the reasons for
this it seems more constructive that I
place the following question
before you that I may affirm your assessment,
attempt to clarify any
misunderstanding which may exist, or consider
any other steps which
you may draw to my attention:
"What were the specific reasons for
your assessment that I am not
a member of the Baha'i community, and
what is required for this to
change?"
I would be grateful if your reply
could confirm or deny your
desire to receive from me the response
to your communication to me
dated April 8, 1997 which I had stated
I would try to send by July
20th.
I look forward to hearing from you.
May this find you very well, and may
that long be so.
Peace,
Michael
13 August
1997/ 13 Perfection 154
Mr. Michael McKenny
424 Cambridge Street South
Ottawa, ON
K1S 4H5
Dear Mr. McKenny,
We have your e-mail message of
31 July 1997, transmitting a
copy
of a letter which you have addressed
to the Universal House of
Justice. You mention that you have
published copies of both to
various internet lists. This being
the case, you should note that
the House of Justice does not respond
to communications handled in
this manner.
You should note, too, that the
conclusion reached by the House
of
Justice that you cannot properly be
considered a member of the
Baha'i community was in no way related
to any failure on your part
to write the additional letter you
described. As we stated in our
own letter to you, this decision was
based entirely on your
pattern of behaviour and attitude,
as reflected in your
correspondence.
Sincerely,
National
Spiritual
Assembly of the
Baha'is of Canada
Reginald Newkirk,
Secretary
Greetings from Ottawa.
Many thanks for the letter which you
so kindly sent me in reply to
my query as to the specific reasons for
the decision that I could no
longer be considered properly a member
of the Baha'i community. It was
great that you answered with the clear
information that the letter I
was unable to send to the Universal House
of Justice by the 20th or
21st of July was not a factor, and that
the complete cause of this
decision may be determined from my correspondence.
I note that the second part of my
question concerning what would
be required for this conclusion to change
has not been answered. This
strengthens the impression that actually
it is the exercise of freedom
of thought and conscience, i.e. heresy,
which is the issue.
I'm sorry that this matter likely
requires you to redeem your note
GL 89, of which I am the holder. My inclination
would be to wait until
I was next in Toronto to exchange this
note for a cheque made out to
me for three thousand dollars, it being
an interest free loan.
However, this may not be for several months,
and you may prefer some
alternative, for example, providing the
occasion for me to make this
exchange with the treasurer of the Spiritual
Assembly of the Baha'is
of Ottawa.
I am enclosing at the bottom of this
thank you note analysis of
this situation posted recently to a couple
of e-mail lists, and I draw
your attention specifically to the second
last paragraph. There I make
the point that one interpretation of what
has happened is that a novel
status of Baha'i heretic has been created,
something completely
opposed to the Master's brilliant means
of guaranteeing the unity of
the human species through the granting
of freedom of thought,
conscience and expression. My response
to what I consider quite an
alarming innovation has been formally
to register as a member of the
neo-pagan community, thus quickly remedying
the anomaly of an existing
Baha'i heretic. As I'm making clear, also,
to a national pagan leader
who has been following this situation
with considerable interest, this
is not merely a matter of convenience.
Since the 80s I have been
telling pagans that were it not that i
was Baha'i I would most likely
be pagan. It has to do with the recognition
of the essential unity in
diversity so vital, at least in theory,
in each. One way of perceiving
reality is that spirituality, as an ocean,
covers the world, and
mortals scoop up some of this water in
various shaped containers: a
cup, a glass, a bowl, etc., though really
the water is what counts.
Again, many thanks for replying and
clarifying the reasons which
led to this decision. Although we may
have wide divergence in views on
such issues as the incapacity (in my opinion,
praise be to God, or the
gods) of humanity to accept thoughtless
obedience to any order soever
flowing from authority in disregard to
fundamental principle and basic
decency, yet, our hopes for the well-being
of humanity surely are
alike.
May this find you very well, and may
that long be so.
Peace,
Michael
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997
15:59:10 -0400 (EDT) From: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca
(McKenny Michael) To: jrcole@umich.edu
Subject: Re Condolences
Reply-To: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca
Greetings, Juan, from
Ottawa.
Many thanks for
your kind words.
I am glad that this
new technology enabled me to meet you, to gain a clearer
idea of the evolving (de-volving) situation within
the Faith, and to exert my efforts to promote a more
universal viewpoint.
Actually, one thing
which strikes me is that it may be fortuitous in the
long run that despite quite an Irish temper I was able
to draw on Baha'i and Buddhist roots to respond to
this situation.
As I understand
it, the literalist world view expects and is prepared
for opposition, both internal and external. This may
well colour the perception of members of the Universal
House of Justice and others, so that they really see
a pattern of hostility in what is transpiring around
them.
In my view, such
a perception is anachronistic.
Anyway, in purely
practical terms, since opposition conforms to their
concept of reality, normal confrontational reactions
would only seem to confirm the validity of past perceptions
and policies.
By responding in a sort
of Zen manner, in what I consider a Baha'i manner,
then it becomes, I believe, much clearer to at least
some people within the hierarchy that the definition
of the problem isn't as simple as would most accommodate
the literalist world view. I hope this will help mitigate
the drift from universalism, and speed up the return
of the Faith from exclusivist fundamentalism.
The future is very
uncertain, and I hope I've helped reduce the odds for
some of the nastier possibilities.
I am still subscribed
to all these Baha'i lists, and even if a whole host
of obligations begin catching up with me (I'm a month
behind where I was last year in my work on BARDIC RUNES)
I hope to remain active in Baha'i cyberspace.
Again, many thanks
for your kind words. And if I may switch to the vernacular,
"It's been a blast, and it aint over yet."
May this find you
very well, and may that long be so.
Peace,
Michael
Date: Sun Sep 7 08:56:01
1997
From: (Catherine Woodgold)
Subject: Natural Justice
To: secretariat@bwc.org
Cc: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca,
To the Universal House of Justice:
I want you to know that my respect for you has diminished significantly because of the manner in which you expelled Michael McKenny from the Baha'i community.
Religion usually has fundamental importance in a person's psychological, emotional and social life, and expelling a person from their religion is a very serious matter. If it is to be done at all, certain principles of natural justice should be followed -- especially if the institution initiating the expulsion boldly carries the word "Justice" in its name!
A person who is expelled should be informed of the reason for the expulsion. Michael was not so informed. He was given extremely vague statements about "behaviour" and "attitude" -- but since everyone exhibits some form of behaviour and attitude, these statements did nothing to explain the expulsion. He was provided with a small amount of information: that it had something to do with his correspondence. This is not sufficient to satisfy the principle of natural justice that he should be informed of the reason.
You should have a finite list of written rules that Baha'is are expected to follow, and you should tell Michael which rule or rules he failed to follow which led to his expulsion, as well as which specific acts of his were considered by you to be violations of those rules.
You should have warned Michael in writing that he might be expelled and told him what rules he was breaking and what he would have to do to avoid being expelled. Although Susan Tamas talked to Michael, as far as I know she didn't warn him that he might be expelled, or state rules he should begin to follow, or provide rules in writing.
Since Michael has been expelled without explanation and without warning, I believe that many other Baha'is must now be afraid that they themselves might be expelled at any moment; and they have no way of knowing what they might be able to do to prevent such expulsion from happening.
You should have told
Michael whether his expulsion is to be in effect lifelong
and if not, what he would have to do to regain his
status as a member of the Baha'i community.
You should also have
provided more clarification about what his status is
now. Can he be a Baha'i without being a member of
the Baha'i community? How does his status differ from
that of a Baha'i whose administrative rights have been
removed?
It's my understanding that the founders of the Baha'i faith did not bestow upon the Universal House of Justice the authority to expell people from the Baha'i community, and that they did not plan that anyone be expelled except for Covenant-breakers, which apparently you are not accusing Michael of being, nor has he behaved as such. It would be interesting to see if you can provide quotes from the Baha'i Writings to justify your authority to take such action.
In summary: Even if,
in spite of the name of your institution, you have
not set up a system of "due process", there are still
principles of natural justice which you should follow.
You should have warned
Michael, you should have explained why, you should
have clarified his current and future status, and maybe
you shouldn't have expelled him in the first place.
(Some of these deficiencies can be corrected by providing
more information to him now.) Those are the reasons
why I have less respect for the Universal House of
Justice than I once did.
By the way, I am writing this on my own initiative; Michael made no suggestion to me to do so.
Catherine Woodgold
Date: Mon, 29
Sep 1997 18:27:30 EST Reply-To: h-bahai@h-net.msu.edu
Sender: H-NET List for
Bahai Studies <H-BAHAI@h-net.msu.edu> From: Susan Maneck
<smaneck@BERRY.EDU>
Organization: Berry
College
Subject: Re Catherine
Woodgold
To: Multiple recipients
of list H-BAHAI <H-BAHAI@h-net.msu.edu>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 11:49:04 -0400 (EDT) From: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca (McKenny Michael) Subject: Re Catherine Woodgold
Greetings from Ottawa.
If you are well,
it is well.
I think it may be
worth noting, as was mentioned recently on some other
lists that Catherine Woodgold, the author of the appeal
to the Universal House of Justice on the issue of the
assessment by the Universal House of Justice that Michael
McKenny could not properly be considered a member of
the Baha'i community, has other characteristics besides
being Michael McKenny's wife.
Catherine Woodgold
is a social and political activist, who has worked
in previous elections for Canada's New Democratic Party,
and now is a member of this country's Green Party.
She has written frequently to governments and political
figures urging progressive action. She is a member
of numerous activist organizations.
Her letter to the
Universal House of Justice is possibly a rare example
of one this Institution has received from an active
Social Democrat on the topic of justice.
May this find you
very well, and may that long be so.
Peace,
Michael
From: secretariat@bwc.org
("Baha'i World Centre")
Date: Thu, 25 Sep
97 17:15:22 IST
24 September 1997
Ms. Catherine Woodgold
Canada
Dear Ms. Woodgold,
We have been asked to respond to your email letter of 7 September 1997 to the Universal House of Justice, regarding its conclusion that your husband, Mr. Michael McKenny, cannot properly be regarded as a member of the Baha'i community. The House of Justice hopes that the following comments will be of assistance to you in understanding the step that was taken in Michael's case.
The Baha'i Faith, as the name implies, is a religion, not a political movement. Its foundation, Baha'is believe, is the revelation of God for our day and its focal teaching is the oneness of humankind. The mission that has been laid by Baha'u'llah on those who recognize and would follow Him is the promotion of the unification of the earth's peoples in one global society guided by Divine principle. In order for the Baha'i community to discharge this responsibility, it must itself remain united. It must demonstrate to a skeptical age that human beings, in all their diversity, can learn to live and work as a single people in one global homeland.
The means by which Baha'u'llah has chosen to preserve the unity of Baha'i society is the institutions established in the Covenant which He made with those who accept Him. His Writings make it indisputably clear that the spiritual and social teachings thus set forth cannot be separated from the institutional means their Author has provided for their promotion. Particularly is this true of the interpretive functions with which the Guardianship has been endowed and the ultimate decision-making power invested in the Universal House of Justice, both of which are assured of unfailing Divine guidance.
One is entirely free to accept or reject the system of belief Baha'u'llah teaches. The Baha'i Faith is a religion which believes ardently in freedom of spiritual choice. No one is -- or can ever be -- compelled to be a Baha'i, nor does any discredit attach to one who, having decided, for whatever reason, that he or she cannot continue to accept the Teachings, may decide to renounce them. What one cannot properly do is to behave in a way that undermines the unity of the Baha'i community, by challenging the institutional authority that is an integral part of the Faith one professes to have accepted.
This is precisely what Michael has persisted in doing. He has made it unmistakably clear that he does not accept the nature of the authority conferred in Baha'u'llah's Covenant on either the Guardianship or the Universal House of Justice, in important areas of belief. Indeed, some of his statements give the impression that he does not accept Baha'u'llah's many statements about the nature of the authority of a Manifestation of God.
Ms. Catherine Woodgold
24 September 1997
Page 2
Efforts to help Michael in overcoming his misunderstanding of these Baha'i teachings were entirely without avail. The Universal House of Justice provided him with guidance from the Writings which should have corrected a number of his misconceptions, including for this purpose a memorandum specially prepared by the Baha'i World Centre's Research Department on an issue central to his expressed concerns. A knowledgeable believer selected for the purpose did her best to assist him, through hours of discussion and a patient exchange of correspondence on these and other issues. Michael's subsequent statements made it clear that his views remained entirely unaffected by these efforts.
Had the situation continued at this level, Michael's confusion would have remained his personal spiritual problem. That it did not remain at this level was the result solely of his deliberate decision to continue a series of open Internet postings in which he challenged the authority of Baha'i institutions in language alternating between conventional professions of respect and contemptuous reflections on the integrity and actions of those institutions. As had been made clear during review with him by the advisor mentioned above, of the relevant passages from the Will and Testament of `Abdu'l-Baha, such deliberate contention is entirely unacceptable in one who claims to believe in Baha'u'llah. Indeed, as a general rule, it would raise a question about the loyalty to the Covenant of an individual behaving in this fashion. In Michael's case, the Universal House of Justice reached the conclusion that he neither understands the basic implications of Baha'i membership nor has any real desire to do so. His subsequent behaviour will doubtless be read by most dispassionate observers as confirming the accuracy of this assessment.
Your concern for
your husband's well-being is understandable and does
you much credit. Michael is not a victim of persecution.
Whatever notoriety may
have become associated with his situation is, like
the withdrawal of his membership, entirely the result
of his own actions. The House of Justice feels that
you can best assist him by encouraging him to set aside
the question of his former involvement in the Baha'i
community and devote his energies to the other religious
and humanitarian interests which engage his attention.
Faithfully,
Department of the Secretariat
Analysis of UHJ's response
Author: (Catherine woodgold)
Date: Mon Sep 29 18:39:03 1997
Reply-To: h-bahai@h-net.msu.edu
Sender: H-NET List for Bahai Studies
<H-BAHAI@H-NET.MSU.EDU>
From: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca
(McKenny Michael)
Greetings from Ottawa.
If you are well, it is well.
This evening I found in my e-mail
box the following analysis by
Catherine Woodgold, my wife, the person
to whom the letter of the
Universal House of Justice was addressed.
She told me that it was
written for the Baha'i lists. It is entirely
her own thing.
I would like to say that there are
different views of reality,
and it would really be great if we could
all get along, accepting
our varied perceptions.
Peace,
Michael
From: (Catherine woodgold)
To: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca
>... The House of Justice hopes that the
following comments will be
>of assistance to you in understanding
the step that was taken in
>Michael's case.
I didn't ask them to explain it to me
nor to help me understand it.
I told them they ought to have provided
an explanation to Michael.
It is a matter of correct protocol and
formality to address an
explanation to Michael directly. Whether
I understand what happened
is of little importance; it didn't happen
to me.
>... Its foundation, Baha'is believe,
is the revelation of God for
>our day and its focal teaching is the
oneness of humankind. ...
That's what Michael kept saying.
>The mission that has
>been laid by Baha'u'llah on those who
recognize and would follow
>Him is the promotion of the unification
of the earth's peoples in
>one global society guided by Divine principle.
In order for the
>Baha'i community to discharge this responsibility,
it must itself
>remain united. It must demonstrate to
a skeptical age that human
>beings, in all their Diversity, can learn
to live and work as a
>single people in one global homeland.
Having a united community which was created
by allowing only
those who agree with each other to be
members has been done
many times already. What would be new
would be to have a
united community which includes all types
of people: exactly
the opposite of what they're doing by
expelling Michael.
> The means by which Baha'u'llah has
chosen to preserve the
>unity of Baha'i society is the institutions
established in the
>Covenant which He made with those who
accept Him. His Writings
>make it indisputably clear that the spiritual
and social teachings
>thus set forth cannot be separated from
the institutional means
>their Author has provided for their promotion.
Particularly is
>this true of the interpretive functions
with which the Guardianship
>has been endowed and the ultimate decision-making
power invested in
>the Universal House of Justice, both
of which are assured of
>unfailing Divine guidance.
I wonder why they mention the Guardianship
here. Are they trying
to imply that the UHJ carries on the Guardianship
function?
I can't see any other reason for mentioning
it here; perhaps
I'm missing something. My understanding
is that there is no
person or institution currently carrying
on the Guardianship,
along with the authority to interpret
the Writings, since the
passage of Shoghi Effendi.
They say that the decision-making power
of the UHJ has Divine
guidance. Is that what they really mean;
or do they also
mean that the letter-writing, explaining,
understanding and
interpreting carried on by the UHJ also
has unfailing Divine
guidance? In other words, are they only
claiming Divine guidance
for their decision to expell Michael,
or are they also
claiming unfailing Divine guidance for
their understanding
of the Writings and their attempt to impose
their own
understanding of them on Michael?
Furthermore, will they admit the possibility
that
any Divine guidance they may receive to
guide their
decisions may sometimes come in the form
of unsolicited
letters of advice from Baha'i's, such
as the letter
from Michael?
> One is entirely free to accept or
reject the system of
>belief Baha'u'llah teaches. The Baha'i
Faith is a religion
>which believes ardently in freedom of
spiritual choice. No one
>is -- or can ever be -- compelled to
be a Baha'i, nor does any
>discredit attach to one who, having decided,
for whatever reason,
>that he or she cannot continue to accept
the Teachings, may decide
>to renounce them.
Michael did not renounce the Teachings.
>What one cannot properly do is to behave
in a way that undermines
>the unity of the Baha'i community, by
challenging the institutional
>authority that is an integral part of
the Faith one professes to
>have accepted.
Michael did not challenge the institutional
authority. He always
acknowledged that the UHJ had sole authority
to make the major
decisions of the Baha'i community.
> This is precisely what Michael has
persisted in doing.
He has not.
>He has made
>it unmistakably clear that he does not
accept the nature of the
>authority conferred in Baha'u'llah's
Covenant on either the
>Guardianship or the Universal House of
Justice, in important
>areas of belief.
What authority in areas of belief was
conferred on the Universal
House of Justice? I thought they were
supposed to legislate, not
dictate the beliefs of individuals. Was
I wrong?
>Indeed, some of his statements
>give the impression that he does not
accept Baha'u'llah's many
>statements about the nature of the authority
of a Manifestation
>of God.
Why didn't they ask him whether he accepted
these statements?
> Efforts to help Michael in overcoming
his misunderstanding of
>these Baha'i teachings were entirely
without avail.
Note the word "misunderstanding". Clearly
Michael read the same
words and understood them differently.
In the absence of a
Guardian, who is to say who is right?
Who has the authority to
impose a specific understanding of the
Teachings upon an individual?
>The Universal House of Justice provided
>him with guidance from the Writings which
should have corrected a
>number of his misconceptions, including
for this purpose a
>memorandum specially prepared by the
Baha'i World Centre's
>Research Department on an issue central
to his expressed concerns.
>A knowledgeable believer selected for
the purpose did her best to
>assist him, through hours of discussion
and a patient exchange of
>correspondence on these and other issues.
Michael's subsequent
>statements made it clear that his views
remained entirely
>unaffected by these efforts.
Apparently the members of the UHJ didn't
change their views, either.
This looks like a great opportunity to
apply some principles of
Baha'i consultation, if not academic discourse.
> Had the situation continued at this
level, Michael's
>confusion would have remained his personal
spiritual problem.
That is insulting, even worse than the
word "misconception" above.
Michael was not confused. He had beliefs
which differed from those
of the members of the UHJ. Furthermore,
the problem he was
experiencing involved the well-being of
a community, and World
Peace; it was not a mere personal problem
of one individual.
>That it did not remain at this level
>was the result solely of his deliberate
decision to continue a
>series of open Internet postings in which
he challenged the
>authority of Baha'i institutions in language
alternating between
>conventional professions of respect and
contemptuous reflections
>on the integrity and actions of those
institutions.
Michael did not challenge the authority
of Baha'i institutions, as
far as I know.
He drew analogies between possible future
paths of action of
Baha'i institutions, and fascist governments.
I'm afraid that
these were read by many people in an emotional,
rather than a
rational, frame of mind. For many people,
particularly perhaps
those in Israel, feelings about fascist
governments are so strong
that the mere mention of such a government,
in any way remotely
connected with one side or another of
an argument, immediately wins
the argument, with no further discussion
allowed. If, however,
these were read in the spirit in which
they were intended, as
warnings that certain paths of action
would lead to eventual
disaster, is there anything in the Baha'i
Writings that forbids the
provision of such advice by Baha'i's to
the UHJ? Or is there
anything in the Writings that forbids
the discussion among ordinary
Baha'i's of possible future actions of
the UHJ? How is the UHJ
supposed to be guided in its actions without
such discussion?
(OK, OK, Divinely.)
>As had been made clear during review
with him by the advisor
>mentioned above, of the relevant passages
from the Will and
>Testament of `Abdu'l-Baha, such deliberate
contention is entirely
>unacceptable in one who claims to believe
in Baha'u'llah.
Made clear to whom? How do they know
what was made clear to
Michael? Since there are differences in
understanding of many
things, it is quite likely that there
was a difference here too.
The warning should have been provided
in writing.
>Indeed, as a general rule, it would raise
a question about
>the loyalty to the Covenant of an individual
behaving in this
>fashion. In Michael's case, the Universal
House of Justice
>reached the conclusion that he neither
understands the basic
>implications of Baha'i membership nor
has any real desire to do
>so.
I don't understand them either. Are they
written down anywhere?
(Other than in the hundreds of books of
the Writings, most of
which most Baha'i's have not read all
of?)
This seems to be an allusion to Covenant-Breakers
and to be
some sort of veiled threat, though whether
against Michael
or against others I'm not sure.
>His subsequent behaviour will doubtless
be read
>by most dispassionate observers as confirming
the accuracy of this
>assessment.
I suppose they mean that because he became
a Pagan, he must not have
been serious about being a Baha'i in the
first place. This is untrue
and unfounded. Michael speaks for himself.
He became a Pagan because it seemed better
than being
a Baha'i heretic, something which is not
supposed to exist at all
and the existence of which is an embarassment
to the Baha'i faith.
Perhaps it is those who created the position
of Baha'i heretic
who don't understand the basic implications
of Baha'i membership.
> Your concern for your husband's
well-being is understandable
>and does you much credit.
That would be a very nice thing to say
... if it were said by
anyone else! But here it is being said
by the very people who are
persecuting him.
>Michael is not a victim of persecution.
You said it! This sounds like one of
those statements that just
by the fact that it needs to be said,
suggests that it's probably
false. Like "This is not pyramid sales"
or "Doing this doesn't
break any of our campaign promises." I
didn't say anything about
persecution. I pointed out injustice.
>Whatever notoriety
>may have become associated with his situation
is, like the
>withdrawal of his membership, entirely
the result of his own
>actions.
It is also entirely the result of the
actions of the UHJ.
>The House of Justice feels
>that you can best assist him by encouraging
him to set aside the
>question of his former involvement in
the Baha'i community and
>devote his energies to the other religious
and humanitarian
>interests which engage his attention.
I don't want any advice from them about
how to assist Michael. Would
they want advice from me about how to
run the Baha'i religion? I
think what they really mean is that what
they suggest is the best
way to assist the UHJ, not to assist Michael.
This is somewhat
insulting, actually: like "just forget
about us hurting you".
They didn't address the injustices I mentioned
in my letter.
They did provide a little more information
about why Michael was
expelled; but they provided it in a letter
to me, not to him
directly as would have been proper. The
information is still
rather vague. Are Baha'i's to feel now
that they must understand
all the Writings in the same way the UHJ
understands them, or be
expelled? I don't think the basic requirements
of Baha'i membership
are listed anywhere.
Perhaps they feel that the discussions
they mention, in which they believe certain
things were made clear,
(though they admit failing to make other
things clear) constituted
the warning I said they should have provided.
They haven't addressed at all the question
of whether the
expulsion is temporary or permanent.
END
To:
<nurel-l@ucalgary.ca>
From: Isaac Bonewits
<ibonewits@qed.net> Subject: Re: email expulsion &
religious censorship Cc: jrcole@UMICH.EDU
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997
01:14:03 -0400
Any human institution, even (or perhaps especially) religious ones, claiming to own The Absolute Truth about anything, will seek to silence dissenting voices. Absolutes remain absolutes only in the absence of criticism and questioning; that from knowledgeable insiders is always harder to defeat than the words of outsiders, and therefore more dangerous to the Powers That Be. When the institutions concerned have political, economic or military interests to protect, the suppression of dissent will be both quick and harsh. Hence the West's bloody history of crusades/jihads, inquisitions, witch hunts (both literal and metaphorical), etc.
Juan Cole's query about whether anyone previously has been excommunicated for *email publication* of religious dissent seems oddly naive. I don't know about Michael Quinn, but Matthew Fox wasn't "prominent" in the Roman Catholic Church until *after* his (I will cheerfully concede) heretical opinions began to reach the general public via books, magazine articles and interviews, radio and television shows, etc. It was the Vatican's own efforts to suppress his voice that made it so much louder.
For Internet-related examples, consider these: The Church of Scientology has spent a great deal of time, energy and money, attempting to silence criticism of its doctrines and practices (real and alleged) in all the media, especially including the Internet. While I don't read the Jewish, Christian, or Islamic Fundamentalist newsgroups and emailing lists, I would not be surprised to learn that someone had been kicked out of some denomination or another for heretical statements online. I know that many Islamic nations have been frantic to prevent their citizens from having access to the Internet, precisely because they might be exposed to dissenting opinions about Islamic doctrines, customs, and laws.
The point here is that Michael McKenny's expulsion from the Bahai institution he previously belonged to may or may not be the first such excommunication to be based on emailed opinions, but it certainly won't be the last, and is, in any event, merely a technological updating of classic totalitarian reaction to criticism. He should count his blessings that losing his membership card is probably going to be his only punishment for free thinking, rather than the torture and murder suffered by so many other dissenters.
Modern communications technology, especially the Internet and whatever will evolve from it in the future, is a terrible threat to all tyrannies, whether religious or secular. The current explosion of new religious movements in our time is directly traceable to the loss of political, economic and military power previously held by conservative monotheistic institutions in those places where NRMs are thriving. (I won't claim that more NRMs are being started currently, just that a smaller percentage of them are being throttled in their cradles.)
The post referring to cloistered religious communities controlling access to the outside world via any technology is irrelevant to the larger issue of attempts to suppress religious dissent by ordinary members of particular denominations. Members of ashrams, monasteries, etc., presumably know the degree of cloistering they are agreeing to when they join those communities.
In terms of the never-ending debates about defining "cults," BTW, the control of members' access to outside opinions as well as the degree of tolerence for dissent, are two of the categories listed in my "Cult Danger Evaluation Frame," which can be viewed at <http://www.qed.net/bonewits/ABCDEF.HTML>.
Isaac Bonewits
Date: Thu, 2
Oct 1997 10:52:01 EST Reply-To: h-bahai@h-net.msu.edu
Sender: H-NET List for
Bahai Studies <H-BAHAI@h-net.msu.edu> From: Susan Maneck
<smaneck@BERRY.EDU>
Organization: Berry
College
Subject: On Various
Points
To: Multiple recipients
of list H-BAHAI <H-BAHAI@h-net.msu.edu> X-Status:
Dear Colleagues,
While the following is not, strictly speaking, an academic post, I am placing it here as an important "source" document of recent events.
Susan Maneck
Berry College
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 10:37:31 -0400 (EDT) From: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca (McKenny Michael) Subject: On Various Points
Greetings from Ottawa.
If you are well,
it is well.
I am going to try
to respond to some comments and questions that have
appeared on these lists or been sent to me privately.
I ask your forgiveness for being unable to take the
time to reply in greater detail now to all of the fascinating
points which have appeared in my mailbox lately. If
you feel what you read below is not a response (whether
or not you agree with it) to something you've sent
me, you may kindly repost privately or to any list
what you'd like my reaction to.
Firstly, on this
issue of declaration cards, the Canadian declaration
card, the most recent version I can recall, does not
contain any statement of Baha'i belief. The declarant
signs a statement similar, if not identical to, "I
apply to be enrolled in the Baha'i Faith." I cannot
recall whether it was different in 1971.
However, and moving
on also to the comment that all I have to do is sign
the first verse of the Kitab-i-Aqdas and send that
to the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of
Canada, even if what I signed in 1971 were to have
been identical to the card in use in the US of A, this
does not resolve the issue, in my view. Auxiliary Board
Member Mrs. Suzanne Tamas provided me with some quotes
making it clear that literalism is not demanded of
Baha'is. Yet, my perception of the existing situation
is that my affixing my signature to either the American
declaration card or the first verse of the Aqdas which
would have been quite possible had I only now encountered
this religion and understood the words, "within reason,"
to be clearly contained, though unwritten, as part
of the statement of belief, would not be deemed acceptable,
unless I was asserting complete literalist perception
and agreement with those words.
This, in my view,
is part of the larger picture. As I view it, my spiritual
path since I gave up my fling with Canadian nationalism
when I was in high school, has been directed at how
I may best aid humanity to attain to global peace and
understanding. This has not altered in all the years
and through the quite numerous and various conditions
and periods of my life. While I perceive a current
very crucial issue (how reasonably to accommodate both
the authority bestowed upon the Universal House of
Justice and the principles of the Baha'i Faith so that
humanity and not a fundamentalist fraction of it may
abide within a Faith whose raison d'etre is human harmony)
for the Baha'is to resolve, the Universal House of
Justice has provided me with the opportunity to explore
options to the Baha'i path, seriously to assess the
viability of alternatives in the event present trends
continue and the Baha'i Faith fails in its purpose.
I would like to
express an other view to the one stating the Baha'i
Faith and its Administrative Order would be irreparably
flawed, or however Shoghi Effendi stated it precisely,
in the absence of a Guardian. In my view, the absence
of any institution able to dictate understanding authoritatively
fosters human harmony by permitting the holding and
the expression of various unauthoritative opinions.
Actually, my understanding is that nothing else can
work, and without allowing each individual freedom
to think and express personal and unimposed perception
unity (in diversity) of the human species is unattainable.
As to the question
of only the Guardian being capable of long range thinking,
I believe this is not exactly a representation of reality.
The distinction is that only he is perceived by literalists
to have the authority adequately to impress his long
range analysis upon the Universal House of Justice
so that this is taken seriously and not as an interference
in the issue of the authority of the Universal House
of Justice.
I have stated repeatedly
when I was a Baha'i that I do not assert any Baha'i
authority, and I certainly don't claim any now.
This does not impede
my ability to think in the long term. I reject any
suggestion that I am unique in this regard. The Universal
House of Justice ideally will be made up of individuals
able spiritually to transcend the normal political
temptation to focus so very much on a term by term
basis, and this due to character, rather than a system
which, as employed, has rendered membership on the
UHJ a tenured position.
Indeed, it is my
long term analysis that while one possibility is that
the Baha'i Faith will not succeeed unless it overcomes
the attitude of literalist exclusivity currently in
vogue at the highest levels, the domination in the
past of large areas of the globe by imperialistic monotheistic
systems equally exclusive and literalist renders it
impossible for me to discount a similar triumph for
the fundamentalist version of the Baha'i Faith.
It is this analysis
which lies behind my failed attempt to communicate
effectively with the Universal House of Justice, my
very strong encouragement for all those with less extreme
views to resist temptations to resign from the Baha'i
Faith, and my quite sincere exploration of the vast
and varied world of neo-paganism.
Whatever the future
may bring, personally my path remains one focused on
contributing, as best I may, to the achievement of
the harmony of humanity. This, to answer the question
how can I allow Haifa to define my religion, does not
seem to me compatible with pretending to be a Baha'i
in opposition to the assessment by the Universal House
of Justice that I am not one. I cannot conceive how
I could demonstrate the harmony of humanity by claiming
to be a Baha'i heretic, when my understanding is that
the Founders of the Baha'i Faith intended that heresy
not exist.
This does not mean
that my past did not occur, nor that I need cast aspersions
upon the Baha'i Faith. There is spirituality in the
Baha'i Faith and enormous energy, even if some people
claim not to have encountered this, and instead to
have seen the opposite. Such spirituality is not restricted
to the Baha'i Faith. It is a normal trait within humanity.
And it is not excluded from the Baha'i Faith, even
though at times and in places this may appear to be
the case.
So, just as the
Baha'is taught me that I was not rejecting my religious
roots, that I was not denying the Ten Commandments,
the Sermon on the Mount or the Eightfold Path of Buddha
when I became a Baha'i, similarily I accept the value
of where I have been as my path now moves on from the
Baha'i Faith.
I am, indeed, pagan,
and enjoying the thrill of flexing my paganism openly.
I took a break in the writing of this to go out at
dawn to stand inside a tree-ring, (5 great trees, though
as a few split three feet or so from the ground, it
can feel like 8, whose trunks touch at the bottom,
with openings and space for someone to enter and stand
inside) communing with the spirits of that place. I
am steeped in the study of dreams and tarot and qabalah.
These aspects of my life clearly are very much in keeping
with paganism.
I hope this is
adequate for now. So many of your posts remain unread.
Other points may be addressed later. For now, I wish
you well. May the future exceed our highest hopes.
Blessed Be,
Michael