Right now all there is is strict uniformity. Did you read the link to Karen's essay? In it she explains what many of us feel- fear. Fear of opening our mouths and saying anything for being labeled CB's, getting a scolding from an LSA, and basically be shunned. I know I never felt comfortable brining up 95% of the topics discussed on rants. That is why it is so refreshing to finally see it somewhere- and from a fellow Bahai. But a Bahai, who also has to be anonymous in order to have this site. Pretty sad, don't you think? So my solution is stop creating that unhealthy environment that auto-censors people. Dont' worry until you actually see someone setting up a seperate LSA and telling people to join his version of the Bahai Faith. Then you need to worry and yes kick that person out. I totally agree in that regard. Same as the Catholic church. The vatican almost never steps in unless a renegade priest is bascially setting up his own church. Otherwise, there is a WIDE variety of worship at the grass roots level among Catholics. And in many of their congregations they are able to freely express their views way more than in any Bahai consultation that I have seen.

Pey wrote : So my solution is stop creating that unhealthy environment that auto-censors people. Dont' worry until you actually see someone setting up a seperate LSA and telling people to join his version of the Bahai Faith.

Pey, I must admit that I have occasionally seen people behaving as you describe, but never institutions functioning that way and in any case, I have always felt that the Faith was supporting me, and not in need of my guidance and support, humanity needing God’s help, and not God in need of humanity’s help. Reading you, I feel as though you are carrying the responsibility of the Faith on your shoulders, and not as if you considered the Faith as supporting you.

First define "the Faith". If by faith you mean the words of Bahaullah- then it supports all of us, or else we wouldn't be here. If you mean the Bahai community and it's institutions, obviously it is not supporting all of us. It supports those who keep the party line. But maybe I will experiment one day farhan. If I get the opportunity to go to a Bahai function anytime soon, maybe I'll just bring up all the uncomfortable topics and lets see what happens. Who knows? Maybe the majority in the community will go "yeah you know women should be on the UHJ, why aren't we letting gay couples in?, I'd like to see more open discussion about the trure history of the Faith, and why don't we start deepening on some of those yet offcially translated texts that have already been translated…" maybe it would actually be a cool community to be a part of. But more than likely I'll get a call by the local LSA….

Pey wrote: Maybe the majority in the community will go "yeah you know women should be on the UHJ, why aren't we letting gay couples in?

Pey it is interesting to see how our vision of the Faith differs: in my understanding, God’s message has been put into action through the central figures of the faith and now through the UHJ under God’s protection. This is a belief shared by Baha’is like myself. Reading you, I feel as if you are suggesting things have gone wrong with God’s plan and that a majority of Baha’is are prevented from expressing their views, and that you are eager to salvage God’s plan. I feel in need of God’s help, you seem to believe that God needs the help of those who are unable to have their view accepted.

Yeah it is interesting that your vision means the Bahai community is supposed to be a place of strict adherence to dogma vs. open discussion and more emphasis and that thing called consultation. But somehow consultation now means group thought. So yes, our visions differs a lot, .

Pey wrote: your vision means the Bahai community is supposed to be a place of strict adherence to dogma vs. open discussion and more emphasis and that thing called consultation

Not really, Pey; this is belief and not strict adherence to a dogma. The letters of the living believed in the Bab, they did not force themselves into a blind dogma vs open discussion. When you love someone, you do not force yourself, and you don’t need to consult: it just overcomes you and you experience it. Consultation and comprehension are the next step when you wish to put that love into action. You know the person, you love the person, and then you meditate and consult on how to best serve him. Once I have recognised the station of the UHJ as the supreme arbitrator, I try to see how I can best serve, and I do not need to consult to see if they are right or wrong, unless I feel myself in a position to guide the arbitrator.

Hi Pey,

you wrote:
If you mean the Bahai community and it's institutions, obviously it is not supporting all of us. It supports those who keep the party line.

Great point. Check out Mona Shomali's painting Fear of Choice and the article about her at Payvand.

I get the feeling she's saying:

"Freedom is not freedom if only those that agree with those in power are free"

I wonder what life experiences Mona drew on to make "Fear of Choice".

A small, but telling anecdote from someone that was in the the LA Study Class circle:

……

But first, some background.

Back in the late 70s in california, there was a clash between the new, counterculture/ progressive/academic/liberal bahais and some "conservative" elements in the community and administration. In southern california – Los Angeles (LA) people descended from "important" bahais, such as HoCs, etc., made a point of attacking nonconformists and making them into scapegoats.

In the San Francisco area – northern california, no major development of a dynamic bahai culture ever really happened, which is very odd given the long history of multiculturalism, east-west influences in art and intellectual life, vibrant social justice causes that have wide support in the overall population, and so forth.

It almost seems like some kind of plan was acted out to keep such dynamic influences out of the bahai community in order to MAINTAIN PURITY. (Craig can probably address this "purity" archetype, otherwise I will later upon request.)

Odd stories about "uppity" people being hounded out of the community when they contradicted some ego-inflated "big wig" and refused to back down, leaked out for many years. In some cases, the people whose lives were wrecked themselves later rose to power again, and trashed other people in the same way they had been trashed decads before. This bespeaks an ingrained pattern of dysfunctionality wiithin the organizational culture that became "normative".

One bahai professor of sociology once told me, when discussing this dysfunctional pattern, that “a good sociologist could see what is wrong with bahais within 15 minutes of going to a typical bahai meeting anywhere”.

And of course anyone that was around for 20 or 30 years, who asked “difficult questions” about “what really goes on in the community”, eventually started finding out about the INGRAINED PATTERN of conformism and the related PATTERN OF ADMINISTRATIVE ABUSES that took place over decades in order to MAINTAIN PURITY.

Make no mistake, when “conformist” bahais such as farhan/masud spout flowery language about “unity”, what they “really” mean is PURITY.

And as any brief examination of human history shows, purity cults always turn FASCIST:

Tribal “group think” takes root, thought policing develops, a normative form of organization culture becomes privileged, nonconformists become increasingly subject to pressure to stop “thinking differently”, and so forth.
The vast majority of people I’ve known in bahai for 30+ years that can still think objectively have almost universally gone through at least one major “crisis” about the flimsy, dysfunctional nature of bahai culture. Most of the “complaint” is about how after years of overlooking “problems” because of “unity” or the hope that some “social change” agenda would produce enough good to somehow outweigh the bad stuff, people realize that things not only very rarely actually result in any “real” social change as a result of bahai “activity”, the “problems” have gotten worse, and the “unity” is really “false unity”.

One independent (non-party-line) bahai scholar (from an “important” old bahai family) stated on the talisman/irfan email list back in the 90s that the Iranian NSA’s attacks, permitted by SE, on Mazandarani’s historical work, “was the beginning of bahai fundamentalism”.

So much for the theory of “checks and balances” if a Guardian was still alive.

(History has disregarded the idea that some kind of royalty will exert a beneficial influence on democratic governance.)
Please note that the Mazabdarani incident closely, if not precisely, correlates with specific historical circumstances that propelled islamic (middle eastern) culture in general in a “fundamentalist” direction: the adoption of “western” technocratic paradigms by people in islamic culture. Christian westerners had the same phenomena: religious people who became scientists/engineers “invented” christian fundamentalism.

Weird?

Perhaps as some theologians have stated, the tendency toward “literal inerrancy” and other related patterns within fundamentalism are simply the result of people that like the “simple beauty of reading instruction manuals” (engineers), who were resistant to “classic liberal education”, and failed to understand the nature of metaphor in human consciousness.

Anways, back to the anecdote from a LA Study Class participant:

Some of the “conservative” bahais, who were elevated in power and/or prestige, made a point of accusing people (hippy/counterculture types) that were taking YOGA classes, of “indulging in dangerous occult mysticism”.

Yes, the “leaders” thought YOGA was “OCCULT”. Yoga was full of potentially evil ideas.

This kind of complete absurdity was VERY COMMON. It established a DISUNIFYING pattern of “in group / out group” thinking. It was INTOLERANT. It was dismissive of any meaningful sense of “diversity”.

The people that indulged in such sillyness were simply protecting their little perches in the inherited bahai hierarchy, which in their PARADIGM-REGRESSIVE mindset was some kind of medieval camelot replete with (self-appointed, rump) bahai royalty.

“Big fish, small pond” stuff at its worst.

Example: the high-society feminists that “took over” the Chicago Temple group and marginalized working-class male leaders on the way to forming the early NSA and moving the house of worship away from work class neighborhoods were appallingly ELITIST in their agenda. This, and other similar incidents, set a pattern in which working class issues and social/racial justice issues were marginalized by the (self-appointed) “bahai royalty” who created the AO in the USA!

IT REALLY IS THAT SIMPLE SOMETIMES FOLKS.

The attacks that various people in the “bahai royalty” made on the leaders of the “Race Amity” movement in the bahai community are well known. HoC Louis Gregory, praise be upon his luminous, blessed soul, was the most egregious example of how accomplished black bahais were punished for not conforming closely enough to the “white power elites” that came to run the USA bahai community.

bahai has been rotten for a long time, and there is no evidence that it will change at a fundamental, structural level.

On the contrary, major parts of bahai metaphysics and bahai theory, unless discarded by the majority, will ensure that bahai is incapable of self-healing and moving on to “something better”.

One of the most important hunks of “junk” that needs to be tossed is the myth of “unity”.

The problem of course is that once the “unity” myth, and the “progressive revelation” myth and other similar JUNK is thrown out, what is actually left of the bahai religion?

In my opinion: not much except a weird, usually incoherent, mixture of remnants of a persian 18th century sufi accomodation of western imperialism and western utopian/transcendentalism.

farhan/masud’s etherialism and “detachment” are simply more examples of the dehumanizing tendency in bahai cluture. THE BIG DISCONNECT FROM REALITY.

(sorry!)

The aptly-named Fubar writes:

One independent (non-party-line) bahai scholar (from an "important" old bahai family) stated on the talisman/irfan email list back in the 90s that the Iranian NSA's attacks, permitted by SE, on Mazandarani's historical work, "was the beginning of bahai fundamentalism".

You're mistaken. Juan blamed Furutan for what happened to Mazandarani, and Ahang Rabbani had only good things to say about Mazandarani. There was no mention of Shoghi Effendi permitting anything and no use of the phrase "was the beginning of bahai fundamentalism".

Have the decency to provide a source for your assertions.

(Baquia: fwiw~ I initially found this topic to be extremely funny. Keep up the good work. Your blog is truly one of the wonders of cyberspace.)

Yo! Steve,

Hope you and Allison and your family and friends in the blessed country of NZ have been well.

btw, did you check out http://www.VastSky.org ?

I will repeat my previous sentiment:

which is that I greatly appreciate your strict attention to principle, and your struggle to not accept the "spiritual" disconnections and dehumanization that passes as "normal" all too frequently in the world and bahai culture.

What I always saw as being the great, valid, thing about the spirit of talisman, and the various entities and activities that preceeded it in LA and SF in the 70s/80s, was the protest of how a religion that promised "spiritual transformation and healing" had "lost its way", and so frequently "failed to deliver".

(The PC/Left junk that came long for the ride was, more or less, "for the birds".)

Anyways, sorry for any confusion:

Mazandarani should clearly be a hero to anyone that appreciates truth and integrity, especially in the face of authoritarian abuses, thought policing, etc., by bahai institutions.

I was using the Mazandarani case to illustrate one of the most egregious, documented, examples of the AO attacking a person of great character and intellect IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO. And to maintain various historical myths. Nasty stuff. Unspoken. Mostly. But speaks volumes.

To be clear: Mazandarani was a heroic "seeker of truth", and he was attacked by the AO for it.

This simply illustrates that islamic culture, including bahai, ultimately seeks to turn the masses of people into "slaves of god":

Farhan/Masud and other "middleman scammers" simply express outrage that the "stupid westerners" don't "get it".

(cont.)

(cont. from previous)

re: decency

Actually, the gentleman (A.R.) requested, due to the delicacy of his family/position.etc./whatever, that his comments, some of which may have been in private email, NOT BE PUBLICLY ASSOCIATED with his name in the future, such as on a web blog. oops.

So, your definition is "decency" is both overblown and somewhat poorly aimed.

In any case, I have a clear recollection that the idea that the Mazandarani case represented the "beginning of bahai fundamentalism" was stated in that discussion. As I said, there may have been private email.

Perhaps A.R. simply demurred to a Cole opinion. I honestly can't vouch for the exact details, and frankly don't care since I'm interested in the bigger issue.

So, for purposes of current discussion, I was paraphrasing (whatever talisman archives I might have are on a REALLY old hard drive in a dusty corner of my garage).

"Iranian NSA" = "bahai power elites" /Furutan, who cares? SE clearly did nothing to stop the "DECISION MAKERS" (bullies?) at the top of the Iranian AO from p-i-s-s-i-n-g on Mazandarani's "scientific history" project, and profoundly "disrespecting" one of the greatest bahai scholars of the time.

(Note: the BWC only restored Mazandarani's reputation a few years ago! After great protest. Doesn't that tell you anything?!?)

The reasons for all that are most likely those discussed years ago: THE NEED FOR EVERYONE, INCLUDING S.E., TO MAIN THE PURITY MYTHS AND OTHER FANTASIES ENSHRINED IN THE "OFFICIAL" BAHAI HISTORIES.

"Harmony of science and religion", my a-s-s.

Please note that because of the talisman/irfan discussion about the Mazandarani case, I was subsequently much more careful in seeking out and reading "sociological" explanations of the widespread rise of middle eastern fundamentalism in the 1920s/1930s.

Basically, fundamentalism had its "birth" at the EXACT moment that the old sufi orders were displaced by technocrats wearing bowler hats and other similar western attire as signs of a "new order": capitalism, industry, parliamentary and constitutional reforms, etc.

Unfortunately it all went bad, fast. Corruption and paradigm regression usually result when certain sociological prerequisites for "healthy" forms of democratic politics are absent. The lack of a "middle class" industrial base being the main element. When a "middle class" base is absent, the modes of the old corrupt elites simply morph into new "outer" expressions.

This happened in bahai, and islam and in christianity (in the USA).

Unfortunately, bahai and islamic fundamentalism are not constrained by either progressive/liberal culture, or by secular civil rights "law".

Christian fundamentalism (Bush) just came close to reversing 50+ years of social progress in the USA, but american culture pulled back from the brink of the abyss at the last minute.

This is all why bahai mystics are screwed. They will probably not be able to "turn the clock back" and reverse the deeply ingrained tendency toward social engineering and bureaucratic reinvention which is the (fundamentalist) "system" that has "colonized" bahai "lifeworld". (Habermas)

The only answer to the problem (that I'm aware of) is Integral Thought.

Hilariously, UHJ advised bahai scholars to "contribute" to integrative paradigms instead of engaging in "culture wars" several years ago, but apparently didn't understand what it was itself saying, or forgot! LOL! The irony is incredibly delicious:

"Infallible", ….. my a-s-s.

Thanks for the feedback.

It is always great hearing from you, and learning from your tireless and inspiring commitment to social justice.

Fubar wrote: Farhan/Masud and other "middleman scammers" simply express outrage that the "stupid westerners" don't "get it".

Fubar, perhaps you might like to explain why you consider Masud and myself as "middleman scammers" and where you have seen either of us expressing "outrage at westerner"s" or calling them "stupid".

Yes, Fubar, and by that same token, would you mind explaining your selective moral outrage? When referring to the American NSA you used the term "white power elites", which almost equates to calling the Faith a racist organization.

Someone in this forum called some communities "Taliban-like", thereby comparing many Baha'is to gangsters and murderers. Many other offensive phrases have been used against the AO as well. Where was your outrage?

This forum is slanted against the current Baha'i Administration; that's obvious, and that's fine, but you should at least be conscious of that and try not to let it blind you from some level of objectivity, which, I hope, is a goal we share.

Fubar wrote: farhan/masud's etherialism and "detachment" are simply more examples of the dehumanizing tendency in bahai cluture. THE BIG DISCONNECT FROM REALITY.

Fubar, to be perfectly Cartesian, reality has two parts: objective AND subjective; we need a balance between these two. There is nothing "dehumanizing" about ALSO considering the invisible, non-rational, emotional part of reality more specially organized in our right hemisphere.

In fact, someone who neglects half of his mental capacities and rejects his emotional or spiritual life would be neglecting his higher human subjective capacities and merely attached to his rational faculties, and hence would be dehumanized or a half-witted individual.

"We have no direct say in that election"

pey, that's probably one of the silliest comments I've seen in this forum (and that is saying a lot) Your "say" is your vote. That everybody else in the community doesn't vote for the same people you do is hardly an issue attributable to the Baha'i AO, just as the Jean Marie Le Pen's Front National voters in France can't blame their lack of representation on the French electoral system.

Put bluntly, pey, elections have consequences; I'm sorry that saddens you

I disagree Masud, while Pey's comment may sound silly because of the nature of Baha'i elections, or any kind of election, its a feeling a lot of people share, including myself. Basically your vote is one amongst 40 to 500 people depending on the size of the community so you can vote in the way you feel, but in the end, it makes bugger all difference to the outcome, particularly if you're one of those people on the fringes (i.e. independent thinking, slightly controversial, or see a need for change). That why I don't vote anymore. What was the point? Even if I wanted to, I couldn't change anything. Basically you end up being disenfranchised. Ironic really, voting is a spiritual obligation but pointless activity.

That is one of the many problems with the Baha'i Faith, it doesn't cater for a wide variety of views and perspectives, and if your view differs from the majority then you no longer feel as though you're represented, and you have no where to go. This has happened when indigenous tribes join the Faith and represent a small fraction of the majority. Christianity on the other hand, you can shop around for a denomination that suits you and best represents your views and beliefs.

In the future, if the Baha'i Faith grows substantially, that may change, because then you're more likely to find people in your community sympathetic to your view. Then you have more chance of making an impact and you feel like you're part of something and contributing in a meaningful way.

Grover wrote: Even if I wanted to, I couldn't change anything.

Grover, the point is not changing the identity of those who are entrusted with this charge, but making those entrusted with this charge feel that it is not they who asking to access a privileged position, but that the majority of the members of that community is praying them to assume this heavy and time consuming sacred responsibility.

All this is totally different from what happens in the political system around us and we must not forget the spiritual dimension of this responsibility.

You've missed the point, Farhan. I was talking about feeling empowered and feeling as though your contribution is worthwhile, which is what most people want.

Basically, people have no voice in the Baha'i community unless they support the popular view, in which case they've become sheep. Baha'i elections are a case in point, because there is no campaigning, no advertising of policies and no debate. In normal elections you can join a cause and while in the long run it may not alter which parties get in, at least you've got your view out in the open.

In the Baha'i community, incumbency has ruined any chance of there ever being any change in policy or direction, it will always be conservative and fundamentalist because there will never be a change in the people in power unless they retire. Likewise on the LSAs and NSAs, you have to try real hard not to be reelected. Any opposition is quashed by whoever is in charge by invoking the covenant, obedience to institutions, etc. Normal channels such as feast and recommendations to the LSA do not work because of how badly people in the community respond to any kind of challenge to the status quo.

Basically, the Baha'i Faith has removed any kind of voice or free will from its people.

I believe the Bible has talked about this: beware the ravening wolf dressed up in the guise of a lamb. While I'm not Christian, it is certainly interesting that on the outside the Baha'i Faith is all sweetness and light, but when you look deeper, the implications for humanity in terms of free will, independence of thought, and basic human rights, are extremely bad.

Is the Baha'i Faith the big bad Satan?

Grover, I do get your point; the point I am making is that in our societies we feel we need to change our governance so as to change our societies, whereas in the Baha'i Faith empowerment is complete at grass roots.

The AO is not a power system, but a mere harmonizing / synchronizing institution that marks the limits and sets the general goals in tune with the revealed word.

Some want to do door knocking, others don't; the institutions provide the limits within which such personal projects are allowable. Read the compilation by the UHJ "Unlocking the power of Action" you will find on this blog or by google.

The fact that people are elected, makes them feel that they are not self appointed through ego and ambition to dominate, but have legitimacy for arbitration, invited for this function at grass roots.

"we feel we need to change our governance so as to change our societies, whereas in the Baha'i Faith empowerment is complete at grass roots"

I disagree. Your version of "empowerment" = enslavement and indoctrination by Ruhi, strict obedience to the institutions, no matter how stupid they are, and following the imaginary will of an imaginary God that is dictated by whoever is on the UHJ.

"The AO is not a power system, but a mere harmonizing / synchronizing institution that marks the limits and sets the general goals in tune with the revealed word."

That is the biggest load of crap I've ever heard. If it was a mere harmonizing institution they would be more concerned about the views and feelings in the general Baha'i populace than about enforcing their own "infallibility" by way of sacking Baha'is who don't go along the party line.

"Read the compilation by the UHJ "Unlocking the power of Action" you will find on this blog or by google."

That document is the biggest load of bollocks, replete with buzzwords, jargon and hype, in the history of mankind. The second biggest load of bollocks is "Century of Light".

"The fact that people are elected, makes them feel that they are not self appointed through ego and ambition to dominate, but have legitimacy for arbitration, invited for this function at grass roots."

Oh so you are concerned for the feelings of the little egomaniacs that get voted to power?

re: Something "fake" has grown in the dysfunctional dark corners of fear and fundamentalism that have taken over much of bahai culture.

Masud, sorry for any confusion. For decades, the US NSA was clearly racist and elitist. Despite the flowery and hollow lip service paid to "unity through diversity" and other similar blather uttered by dupes and polemicists.

The bahai elites engaged in retaliation against working class activism and race unity activism within the bahai community (this is documented, but some bahai historians are afraid of making the information available, presumably due to an aversion to controversy, or retaliation, censorship, etc.). The "excuse" was that such activism was "too political", or distracted from the forms of "social change" programs that the ruling bahai elites felt comfortable discussing with their upper class friends/family, business associates, political allies, and so forth.

Please note the glaring HYPOCRISY: the NSA Secretary also had a "parallel" life running a very large upper-class CHURCH in NEW YORK for DECADES, in complete disregard of the guidance of the Guardian!

HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY EXPLAIN SUCH AN APPALLING FACT ?!?!

HOW CAN YOU ATTEMPT TO CALL FOR "OBJECTIVITY" WHEN THE NSA SPENT DECADES BREAKING THE VERY RULES IT MADE OTHERS FOLLOW ?!?!?!?!

THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A RELIGION PROMOTES STUPID IDEAS SUCH AS THAT MODERN PEOPLE SHOULD BE "SLAVES OF GOD".

A little known fact is that Jewish activists with "social justice" backgrounds did much of the boring, tedious work behind the scenes in the bahai community for decades, and the elistist/facist snobs "WASP" bahai leadership took credit for the work of the Jewish bahais. the same thing happened to many of the deeply comitted counterculture/60s bahais: they were forced into conformism and service to fake leaders with absurd promises of "spiritual rewards".

This is what the "middle man scam" is about in religions that are premised on an image of humanity as "slaves of god".

The idea that humanity should be "slaves of god" to an outmoded form of diety worship that is full of bad metaphysics is an appalling dysfunctional example of "cultural impedence mismatch" in contrast to modernist/postmodern and integral culture.

in short: bahai is completely out of step with the evolution and advance of human culture. it no longer has a viable model of spiritual enlightenment that can withstand the critical scrutiny of the most advanced thought produced by the human race.

Even up into the 1990s, when I personally knew people appointed to the national race committee (can't remember what it was called), it was obvious that the NSA did not want to "really open up" the topic. I heard 2nd/3rd generation Iranian bahai youth openly yelling at their parents/grandparents about being racists in a room with 600 people in it at a conference in San Diego about 10 years ago.

I'm not a big fan of political correctness, but the real evidence of a deeply ingrained pattern of institutionalized racism in the USA bahai community is obvious to anyone that was involved in race unity activism from the 70s to 90s, or anyone that has access to the "real history" of the AO in the USA.

I missed, or ignored, the Taliban comment. Please accept my deepest regret.

Considering that such a comment probably had an obvious subtext that was "just slightly" hyperbolic, I would not have considered it to be a "serious" comparison, rather one made for purposes of exaggeration. The fact is that the conformists/authoritarians/fundamentalists in the bahai AO do have some superficial similarities to Taliban types, and the shared middle eastern tendency toward "cultural imperialism" presumably has common roots.

You certainly would have a good point about "objectivity" or "fair and balanced" IF:

You yourself went on EVERY "Pro-AO" blog on the WWW, and held the vast multitude of mindless pro-AO conformists on those blogs to such a standard of "objectivity".

Which of course, you probably don't. (???)

BTW, most of the "Pro-AO" bahai blogs have thought police and censors, many of them quite nasty and dysfunctional types. Ironically, that is a perfect example of how conformist/facist bahai culture really is when pressed about its comittment to principles.

(Ironically, even some of the ex-bahai groups haven't broken free of the tendency toward conformism and thought policing, but that is to be expected given their PC/Left mindset. )
(cont.)

farhan, you are up to your old tricks: NIT PICKING, and denigrating nonconformists/critics/dissidents by implying that they are "spiritually unworthy".

thanks (again) for showing that bahai apologists are no different from any other cultural imperialists in the history of religion.

re: "middle man scammers" – Done. See my reply to Masud elsewhere in this thread.

You are in a state of constant outrage. You arrogantly pontificate, presuming that anyone that disagrees with you that is a critic, nonconformist, or dissident needs to be treated in as child-like a manner as possible.

(cont. from previous)

Baquia's blog is a stunning example of how transparency, freedom and "healthy", ubstructured peer review can "work" to produce very high quality material and commentary.

Baquia's comitment to principle and integrity is an excellent example of how things go well when done right, and when outstanding leadership is in place.

*** NO AO IS NEEDED. OR WANTED. ***

In contrast, most of what goes on in the AO is the opposite of such healthy leadership. It is allergic to honest self-examination.

This is the "real stuff" that faith is about: faith in the never ending human yearning for meaning, truth, honesty, freedom, beauty, justice and compassion.

A Faith that errors and lies will be shown for what they really are, in the light of day.

Those are values that bahais once stood for, but rarely do anymore (except at a superficial level). Something "fake" has grown in the dysfunctional dark corners of fear and fundamentalism that have taken over much of bahai culture.

When I first met “LA Study Class” people in the late 70s, they were incredibly free of self-censorship. (The deep rot of the PC/Left hadn’t become deeply ingrained in academic/intellectual circles.) It is true that they were somewhat paranoid about being “investigated” by the AO, and thus, tended to be somewhat secretive until they knew that someone wasn’t going to “rat them out”.

Unfortunately, that kind of free discussion, or “liberated mindset”, usually gets misappropriated, or failing that, crushed, in the bahai community. There is a severe discomfort about any dissent, nonconformism, criticism or questioning of the “status quo”, and plenty of thought police or fascists pop out of the woodwork to squash such nonconformism whenever it openly presents alternatives to mainstream bahai thought.

e.g., a middle-level, but rising, member of a bahai scholarship organization, after hours of exasperated/futile attempts to convince a bunch of nonconformists that the AO is a good thing, finally blurted out a personal horror story about how the members of a sponsoring NSA were ‘idiots” and were incapable of understanding what scholarship (or science) actually is, but bahai scholars had to tolerate such morons running things because “chaging things from the inside” was the only available strategy that would not risk alienating the (mostly anti-intellectual) masses.

Pathetic stuff.

The reality is that if one is involved long enough, the pattern of rot within bahai culture, and the AO, becomes readily evident.

The purity/unity myth and the status quo myth have doomed bahai to failure.

The very things that could rescue bahai from its current fate, such as profound self-examination and atonement for past errors/sins (such as institutionalized racism) have been defined as “evil” within the sick version of bahai culture.

!HTH!