Explanations I've considered:
- My personal friendships with some targets of campaigns excused as defense of the Faith
- Higher expectations from non-protesting members
- More experience with campaigns against the House of Justice
- No systematic effort until now to feel closer to people who excuse their campaigns as defense of the Faith
- Imagining that people who excuse their campaigns as defense of the Faith might have more credibility with more members.
I thought it might help to consider what I keep wanting to do in response to campaigns excused as defense of the Faith. I keep wanting to try to counteract their effects, and to report them to Baha'i institutions. I posted a response to the "apostate" posts in "Baha'i Views" everywhere I could that might come up in searches for "Baha'i apostates." I saw that "Baha'i Views" was featured in the American Baha'i and by the U.S. Baha'i News Service, so I wrote to them about the "apostate" posts, and I asked my local Spiritual Assembly to write to our National Spiritual Assembly.
After years of hesitation, I finally wrote to the Universal House of Justice about campaigns of defamation masquerading as defense of the Faith. Not in those words. Like this:
Dear friends,
In a letter to an individual dated 20 July 1997, the House of Justice wrote:
"You should be confident that the House of Justice will not permit a climate of intolerance to prosper in the Baha'i community, no matter from what cause it arises."
I'm writing to call your attention to what looks to me like a climate of intolerance beginning to prosper among Baha'is on the Internet.
I've been concerned for years about discussions in Baha'i forums being poisoned by a few people who continually malign and scold anyone they suspect of being associated with campaigns of members and former members against the House of Justice. I've thought of writing to you about that many times, and every time I've decided against it because of doubts about the seriousness and scope of its effects. I'm also conscious of the possibility of responses to me from the Baha'i World Center being added to the repertoire of feuding Baha'is. Susan Maneck and others are still using the response to my question about Karen Bacquet, Fred Glaysher, Nima Hazini and Dermod Ryder, in their campaigns. For that reason I want you to know that there is no need, for my purposes, for a written response to this letter. Of course any response you feel is needed will be welcome.
Now I see that the "Baha'i Views" blog, which continually and insistently disparages and maligns people it associates with what it calls "The Internet Anti-Baha'i Society," has been featured in the March/April issue of "The American Baha'i," and on the Official Web Site of the Baha'is of the United States. It seems to me that the promotion by a National Spiritual Assembly of a blog displaying such behavior could lead to a proliferation of that behavior in other Baha'i blogs and Web pages.
See below for a list of titles and links to the defamatory posts.
Sincerely,
Jim Habegger
Another idea is to put myself in the line of fire. What can I do for my name to become associated more often in people's minds with unenrolled Baha'is and with people who have grievances against the Baha'i community and its institutions? Maybe post friendly comments in their blogs?
What would I want to happen? Maybe:
- Moral and spiritual training
- More devotion to the interests of the House of Justice
- More fellowship between people who are devoted to the interests of the House of Justice and people who have grievances against the Baha'i community and its institutions
That brings me back to deepening my relationships with people around me, so we can learn more from each other, and encourage and support each other better.
I'm on a break now from Internet discussions for a few months. Maybe after that I will spend some time on the Talisman9 list practicing fellowship with unenrolled Baha'is and people who have grievances against the Baha'i community and its institutions.
3 comments:
Jim wondered:
> why I'm so much more alarmed by defamation campaigns excused as
> defense of the Faith, than I am by campaigns against the House of Justice
I feel the same way, and it is in the first place because the defamation and misrepresentation
of ‘enemies’ or ‘opposition’ , in a misguided defence of the Faith, is far more damaging than
the attacks on the Faith or its institutions by real enemies. By indulging in this behaviour we
develop a community of discourse which accepts a certain degree of slander - directed against
specific targets - as if it were a kind of piety. Thoughtless rather than malicious, it has become
a habitual behaviour influencing even the gentlest souls. I write from the bitterness of
experience, having thoughtlessly fallen short myself. I was once obliged to write to Juan
Cole, repeating what I had written thoughtlessly about him, and apologising for it. That was
chastening, and no doubt good for the soul: it would be better if we could all abandon such
behaviour. It falls so far short of the standard to be expected of Bahais.
Apart from being degrading to ourselves, this behaviour makes us appear to the world as an
introverted and unhealthy group that marks its identity and boundary by the vilification of the
'other'. In Shi’ism the ritual cursing of the Caliphs was for a long time a part of Shiah piety:
you can imagine how Sunnis were repulsed by it. In the Bahai case it tends to be rather the
repetition of silly things attributed to certain “outed” authors, such as the story that Cole claims Baha’u’llah was just a social reformer. These stories become a sort of urban myth,
they can be countered simply by asking the offender to quote the source and page number
they are referring to. In other words, not by defending the supposed ‘opponent’ but by
focussing on the credibility of the allegation.
Sen
Another comment in my blog! What a nice surprise! Thank you, Sen!
Rather than responding to comments with more comments, I'm planning to respond to them in later posts.
"By indulging in this behaviour we develop a community of discourse which accepts a certain degree of slander - directed against specific targets - as if it were a kind of piety."
Exactly what I was thinking.
I wrote "Rather than responding to comments with more comments, I'm planning to respond to them in later posts."
I changed my mind. I may respond here, or in my posts, or both.
Post a Comment