Re: Afghan Supreme Court rules Bahai Apostates
"Ruth White, you obviously believe very passionately about your position, and that is to be respected.
However, please note this is an interfaith forum - we're here to gain inputs from people of all different faiths. This is not about making judgements about specific faiths, trying to extoll one over another, and especially not about trying to diminish any specific faith here.
This, however, seems to be your remit.
In which case, I can only politely inform you that this thread will need to be closed and that I don't expect any more threads or posts which seek only to undermine another faith, not matter how sincere your arguments are intended.
If you wish to take the position of "Reform Baha'i" and provide your own personal insight in general discussion topics based on this, then that will be all well and good.
However, as to your comments on Shogi Effendi and the "Haifan Baha'is" - you've made that point clear, we've heard, but we're moving on now. It's entirely your decision as to whether you wish to validate your position by remaining with us in the manner of interfaith dialogue as stated."
Dear I, Brian,
I'm surprised to return from a little holiday to discover your post. Sorry if you've taken offense!
I'm responding here in this thread because I'm able to, since the one you addressed me in seems to be "closed."
I'm glad you respect passion, but I prefer reason, logic, and evidence, which is why I have been very careful to *document* my arguments and thoughts. To reduce my posts to "passion" doesn't seem quite fair to me, if you don't mind my saying so. I invite you to read the suppressed history of the Bahai Movement and the relevant documents, if you haven't.
I believe it's also fair to point out that the apparent members of the Haifan Baha'i denomination here have not provided much, if any, evidence that they've seriously read and considered the sources I've cited, such as Abdul-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant, published repeatedly in the Star of the West, the only Bahai magazine of the time, from 1910 to 1921, and central to the unfolding of the Bahai Cause in the West.
I do apologize if you feel I've been too vigorous in expressing my opinions. Alas, we human beings do believe things, and inevitably others think otherwise. I have tried to be broad and open minded, as in my discussion with Radarmark, mentioning Fritjof Schuon, Fox, the Quakers, and other Perennialists. http://www.interfaith.org/forum/250452-post30.html
I assure you that my posts do not "seek only to undermine another faith." Quite the contrary. As with Christianity, Islam, what have you, knowing the *actual* history is essential, and where there is significant divergence on what that history was, in any faith, I would think thoughtful minds would want to know it so that they might weigh the matter for themselves, not merely accepting the duplicities of the Vatican or the local imam.
I don't claim to have the exclusive truth about the Bahai teachings, but I know the version most people accept as representative of it is not based on Abdul-Baha's actual interpretation of Baha'u'llah for the modern world. That may not matter to you, but it does matter. As a sincere believe of any faith, or most, I believe I have a duty to not hide the Light under a basket. I'm not afraid to hear the opinions of other Bahais or of non-Bahais hearing the criticism Haifans have of the Reform Bahai Faith. I ask only for what John Milton aptly put into words, "Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties." I recall the Roman Forum was open to different opinions.
Nevertheless, I'll try harder not to hurt the feelings of others, while inviting others to make an effort too.