Post Reply
Page 1 of 3  •  1 2 3 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Baha'i Theocratic Ideology
3 years ago  ::  Jan 18, 2011 - 7:40AM #1
MrBear
Posts: 426

Fundamentalism in the Contemporary U.S. Baha'i Community*


Juan R. I. Cole


University of Michigan


 


Extract-
"The theocratic ideology developed by Western Baha’is appears to be rooted in early twentieth century premillennialist motifs among converts from Christianity and secondarily in oral traditions attributed to Shoghi Effendi (cf. Robarts 1993) and letters written on his behalf by secretaries. Shoghi Effendi does speak of a future Baha'i commonwealth in his published works, but its character remains vague and it does not seem identical to the civil world government he also envisions. Some Baha’is believed that he held that a melding of religion and state would not occur during the thousand-year dispensation of Baha’u’llah himself, but at some later time during the Baha'i “cycle,” of some 500,000 years (Hofman 1953). Others reported him as thinking it more imminent. There are two problems for Baha'i fundamentalists. The first, already noted, is that Baha’u’llah’s own writings, and those of `Abdu’l-Baha are frankly anti-theocratic. The second is that in Baha'i law, oral traditions are supposed to be discounted in favor of written texts. Fundamentalists thus tend to retreat into generalities when explaining their belief, since they lack scriptural support. The status of this belief in local communities in the West has been unsettled. One old-time Baha'i from the western part of the country writes, As I recall, growing up [in the 1950s and 1960s], the idea that Local Spiritual Assemblies would be the governments of the future was always in the air. But it was always being debated. Frankly, Shoghi Effendi's statements about this issue are contradictory and confusing, and I remember as a teenager first having doubts about the matter precisely for that reason. I remember [one person] going around in the 1980s insisting that the Baha'i institutions would take over the world by the end of the century. And I remember thinking that [this was irrational] . . . Anyway, my memory is that this matter of just what role the Baha'i institutions would play in a future world was always rather fluid . . . and that there was a range of opinion on the subject. (Pers. Comm. 22 May 2000). Another liberal Baha’i, this one from the Midwest, recalled, in the Faith in the 70's and 80's there was not much discussion about a theocracy, there was talk of the Baha'i Commonwealth and a world superstate . . . but not that the Baha'is would be in charge of the government. In fact it was quoted to me by older Baha'is that if the government was offered to the Baha'is we were to refuse to accept it--a quote from Abdu'l Baha . . . I had left the Faith for three years in the '90's and came back in around '96 . . .only recently, within the past eighteen months has there been a discussion about the Baha'i Theocratic State, apparently a current member of the UHJ and the US NSA are proffering this to the rank and file . . .(Pers. Comm., 23 May 2000). This belief was variously formulated, was highlighted in certain communities but not in others, and went in and out of popularity over time. In the 1970s, moderate Baha’is who acknowledged that Baha'i institutions might play an important role in future governance often expressed the conviction that non-Baha’is would be enfranchised, whereas fundamentalist Baha’is felt they would be left without the vote but would be “very well taken care of” by the Baha'i majority. A strong belief in future theocracy is especially associated in the second half of the twentieth century in the West with David Hofman, a British publisher and U.K. Baha'i official who was elected in 1963 to the Universal House of Justice. His thoughts on the subject are not distributed in the official form of a book, but informally as audiotapes (Hofman, n.d.). His election to the House of Justice gave him a powerful platform to promulgate the belief. By the 1970s at least, Hofman’s British colleague on the Universal House of Justice, former actor Ian Semple, was also strongly advocating the doctrine. A Baha'i religious publisher reported, “I recall being in Haifa in the '70s ('72 and '78) and hearing long talks about this from Ian Semple, on how the world was destined to be ruled by houses of justice and there will eventually be no distinction between church and state” (Pers. Comm, 29 Feb. 2000). How many members of the Universal House of Justice have held the strong form of this thesis is unclear (Hofman is retired, but Semple is still on that body in 2001). The belief also occurred among rank and file Iranian Baha’is of the Pahlevi era. An Iranian-American Auxiliary Board Member told the author in 1973 that Baha’is believed that their religious institutions would one day rule the world, but “we do not speak of it to outsiders.” Some Baha'i officials, including members of the Continental Boards of Counselors, publicly advocated future governance by Baha'i religious institutions, often to the dismay of other, moderate or liberal U.S. Baha’is. A former office assistant to Counselor Florence Mayberry, wrote, I became a Baha'i in 1949 and remained one through most of the 70's. When I resigned, no one asked why! . . yet I had been active, known by "major figures" in Wilmette and in Haifa . . . I felt we were developing a theocracy; then someone gave a speech at a national convention and plainly said that was our goal. There was not one outcry, not one smidgen of discussion about that as far as I knew. I loved Baha'is; I loved the universal qualities of the faith, but I, in no way, wanted to help build a theocracy (Pers. Comm., 21 February 1999). She added concerning the identity of that speaker in the late 1970s, “I don't remember the year, but it was [Counselor] Sarah Pereira” (Pers. Comm., 23 Feb. 1999). This person, an adherent for nearly thirty years, was shocked by the open endorsement of a theocratic ideal at National Convention."


iranscope.ghandchi.com/Anthology/Bahai/f...


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jan 18, 2011 - 2:39PM #2
world citizen
Posts: 5,213

First, my understanding is that individuals on the Universal House of Justice are given no special standing outside of its actions as a nine-member unified body.  For this reason, anything said by one or two individuals on any subject is their personal opinion only.  The body of Baha'is give no special credence to personal opinions.  Even were some in the Faith to take those same opinions under advisement, certain theories (which it boils down to) remain unconfirmed by the Universal House of Justice and, therefore, invalid in circumspect.


Second, it's also my understanding that most of the world's theists, irrespective of the religion followed, await a Day when God's Kingdom on earth will become realized.  Whether it be a few centuries or a few thousand years from now that it were to become a reality, what exactly would that be called - how would that be described - if not a theocracy of some sort?  I'd imagine that the reality of such a Day would see all of humanity living under the same Laws of God, designed solely to promote the promised peace on earth.

Blessed is he who mingleth with all men in a spirit of utmost kindliness and love. ~Baha'u'llah
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jan 18, 2011 - 9:21PM #3
MrBear
Posts: 426

Jan 18, 2011 -- 2:39PM, world citizen wrote:


First, my understanding is that individuals on the Universal House of Justice are given no special standing outside of its actions as a nine-member unified body.  For this reason, anything said by one or two individuals on any subject is their personal opinion only.




Ah Huh....And the screamingly obvious fact that >as members< of the UHJ they have a huge degree of influence and sway just doesn’t come into it...does it World? It’s >just< “their personal opinion only” as a member of the UHJ and any Baha’i has the right and opportunity to stand up and express a >contrary opinion< don’t they?


 


What a joke.....What a sad sick joke...>AS IF< anyone, any Baha’i, >even< a Delegate at Convention, is going to get to stand up and contradict a member of the UHJ!  Hell, I’ve been to Convention and seen discussion shut down over lesser issues than that....and shut down by a Continental Counsellor- A GUEST of the Convention. No power or authority to even >PARTICIPATE< in the consultation and he cut it off and shut it down.


 


Don’t try to tell me/us that “individuals on the Universal House of Justice are given no special standing”...they hold immense sway in writing the script and plotting the direction.




"Even were some in the Faith to take those same opinions under advisement, certain theories (which it boils down to) remain unconfirmed by the Universal House of Justice and, therefore, invalid in circumspect."


 


Ah huh....And >this< is reflected in the degree to which Baha’is (online and in community) may conduct and MAY BE SEEN TO BE CONDUCTING free, open, unfettered discussion on a Baha’i Theocracy------ZERO EVIDENCE THEREOF!


Heads down, bums up, mouths shut and toeing the Party Line without comment or question.


 "Second, it's also my understanding that most of the world's theists, irrespective of the religion followed, await a Day when God's Kingdom on earth will become realized." 




 SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


 >WHAT< does the expectations of “most of the world's theists” re “a Day when God's Kingdom on earth will become realized” POSSIBLY HAVE TO DO WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A GLOBAL BAHA’I THEOCRACY?!?!


 Other than to suggest and declare- “We’re it! We’re authorized under Divine Mandate to be your Global Baha’i Theocracy....So just sit back and relax....especially you Gays, Covenant Breakers, Non Baha’is and Ex Baha’is...We have your “minority interests” at hand and heart”.....


 HELL NO!


 I have been in the Baha’i community for thirty years...I have >SEEN/EXPERIENCED< how they treat people and


I have >SEEN/EXPERIENCED< how they allow people to be treated. And it aint even >nice< let alone ‘spiritual’.


 "Whether it be a few centuries or a few thousand years from now that it were to become a reality, what exactly would that be called - how would that be described - if not a theocracy of some sort? "


 >WHATsomething< that you cannot even define or describe? A “theocracy of some sort”? A >maybe< Baha’is are supposed to be running/Governing the world...let’s work towards that end, without any discussion scriptural/logical, and find out how it pans out in the future!?!?


 HELL NO!


Mad/bad fundamentalist lunacy.


 "I'd imagine that the reality of such a Day would see all of humanity living under the same Laws of God, designed solely to promote the promised peace on earth."


 Oh would you so “imagine”? ON WHAT BAHA’I SCRIPTURAL BASIS? IN ACCORD WITH WHAT STATEMENTS FROM BAHA’U’LLAH/ABDUL BAHA? IN ACCORD WITH WHAT LOSS OF DEMOCRATIC AND CONSTITUTIONAL SEPERATION OF RELIGION AND GOVERNMENT GARUANTEES?


 You >TALK< about >non involvement in politics< then in the next breath talk about the end of SECULAR DEMOCRACY and “all of humanity living under the same Laws of God”!


 HELL NO!


 Mad/bad fundamentalist lunacy.


This Global Baha'i Theocracy was not even on the Baha'i agenda when I Declared...now there is a creeping and creepy fundamentalist pretense that this is what was always intended!


And >I'm< supposed to be the one "attacking Baha'u'llah" by suplying "amunition" for Christian fundamentalists who are on the lookout for the Antichrists 'One World Government'!?!?


You guys make layercakes of fundamentalist madness! 


 "I became a Baha'i in 1949 and remained one through most of the 70's.  When I resigned, no one asked why! . . yet I had been active, known by "major figures" in Wilmette and in Haifa . . .  I felt we were developing a theocracy; then someone gave a speech at a national convention and plainly said that was our goal.  There was not one outcry, not one smidgen of discussion about that as far as I knew. I loved Baha'is; I loved the universal qualities of the faith, but I, in no way, wanted to help build a theocracy (Pers. Comm., 21 February 1999). 


And what sane person would want "to help build a theocracy"...we don't have >any< example of one that is any way 'just'.....or even just works.


 


Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jan 19, 2011 - 1:01AM #4
in_my_opinion
Posts: 2,273

What a bunch of nonsense garnered from the uninformed baseless suppositions of unsuspecting souls.


 


Here's a contrasting item personally eyewitnessed. Here is the testimony for what you may think it worth.


The scene is the Bahá'í House of Worship, in Illinois, USA. In the long broad corridor leading to the foundation hall where there is a meeting. At a table stands a youth, he is maybe what, 17 years old? Like another person nearby he has been told not to allow anyone in without their Bahá'í identification card or two witnesses to vouch that the person is a Bahá'í in good standing.


In comes the Universal House of Justice member who obviously doesn't have one.


Guess what? It's a good thing an American National Spiritual Assembly member and a staff member, both known to the youth, hurried up behind him to vouch for him because the young man was politely refusing him admission. So much for influence.


Even the Universal House of Justice itself in the full plenitude of its authority can only legislate what is not in the Writings or the Guardian's interpretations.


If, anyone has a single authoritative quotation; then, let him quote it.


No takers, huh?


Otherwise it is all unsupportable. Any garden variety Tom, Dick or Harry can say whatever he wants, but short of being one of the three Central Figures, the Guardian or the Universal House of Justice itself; it makes not one whit of difference to the Faith and represents only that person's personal speculations and perhaps delusions.


"To none is given the right to put forth his own opinion or express his particular conviction. All must seek guidance and turn unto the Center of the Cause and the House of Justice. And he that turneth unto whatsoever else is indeed in grievous error."


 (Abdu'l-Baha, The Will and Testament, p. 25)


 


Shame on any who try to scare people by pushing xenophobic nonsense. What next? More creative conjecture?


It is really weird to hear self-identifying "liberal", ex-members, using fear tactics to promote their agenda. Had always thought it was the other side of the political spectrum that was accused of doing that by them.         

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jan 19, 2011 - 1:31AM #5
in_my_opinion
Posts: 2,273

Yes, this particular nothing and nobody, actually corrected an assertion by a retired member of the Universal House of Justice and quoted the Ancient Beauty. No big deal at all, no one is perfect just because of an election.


It was in a talk given by him and he acknowledged and accepted that he had not considered the quotation in that light. Nobody present thought it was particularly noteworthy. We were all just Believers and anyone else could have spoken up, too.


Proposing such mystiques is a serious mistake and bespeaks unfamiliarity with the Faith.


Even the Beloved Guardian signed his letters as "Your true brother, Shoghi" repeatedly. Am aware of at least two dozen cases in which he did so, compiled in the book "Japan Will Turn Ablaze" alone. He often greeted with "My dear sister, "My dear co-worker", etc. And, he had a high spiritual station, unlike any administrative office, individual membership in the Universal House of Justice included.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jan 19, 2011 - 2:13AM #6
MrBear
Posts: 426

Jan 19, 2011 -- 1:01AM, in_my_opinion wrote:


Here's a contrasting item personally eyewitnessed. Here is the testimony for what you may think it worth.


The scene is the Bahá'í House of Worship, in Illinois, USA. In the long broad corridor leading to the foundation hall where there is a meeting. At a table stands a youth, he is maybe what, 17 years old? Like another person nearby he has been told not to allow anyone in without their Bahá'í identification card or two witnesses to vouch that the person is a Bahá'í in good standing. In comes the Universal House of Justice member who obviously doesn't have one.Guess what? It's a good thing an American National Spiritual Assembly member and a staff member, both known to the youth, hurried up behind him to vouch for him because the young man was politely refusing him admission. So much for influence.



OH FOR THE LUVA GOD!


THAT'S A >>>SECURITY<<< AND >>>IDENTIFICATION<<< ISSUE AND EXAMPLE!!!!!!!!!!


IT SAYS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>NOTHING<<<<<<<<< TO the " influence" and sway the UHJ member has when he is in meetings and/or on the phone and/or drafting missives.


"Here is the testimony for what you may think it worth."???????????


IT'S NOT >WORTH< ANYTHING....IT SAYS NOTHING TO THE ISSUE!


A seventeen year old didn't recognize a UHJ member!....SO FREAKING WHAT!?


"What a bunch of nonsense..." INDEED!


Even the Universal House of Justice itself in the full plenitude of its authority can only legislate what is not in the Writings or the Guardian's interpretations.


If, anyone has a single authoritative quotation; then, let him quote it.


No takers, huh?


 Your pathetic assumed prophetic powers fail you yet again-


THE UNIVERSAL HOUSE OF JUSTICE




BAHA'I WORLD CENTRE


Department of the Secretariat 27 April 1995




Dear Baha'i Friend,




Your email of 19 February 1995 addressed to the Research Department was referred to the Universal House of Justice. In it you quote two phrases which appear in a book you have recently read, and which seem from the context to be citations from Shoghi Effendi. These phrases are "Baha'i theocracy" and "humanity will emerge from the immature civilization in which church and state are separate". You ask whether these references can be authenticated and dated. We have been instructed to send you the following reply.


A reference to "Baha'i theocracy" is to be found in a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual Baha'i on 30 September 1949. This reads as follows:















He thinks your question is well put: what the Guardian was referring to was the theocratic systems, such as the Catholic Church and the Caliphate, which are not divinely given as systems, but man-made, and yet, being partly derived from the teachings of Christ and Muhammad are in a sense theocracies. The Baha'i theocracy, on the contrary, is both divinely ordained as a system and, of course, based on the teachings of the Prophet Himself.


The other passage does not comprise words of Shoghi Effendi, although its purport was approved by him. As you yourself have since discovered, it can be found in The Baha'i World, volume VI, on page 199, in a statement entitled "concerning Membership in Non-Baha'i Religious Organizations", about which the Guardian's secretary had written on his behalf on 11 December 1935: "The Guardian has carefully read the copy of the statement you had recently prepared concerning non-membership in non-Baha'i religious organizations, and is pleased to realize that your comments and explanations are in full conformity with his views on the subject."


The complete paragraph in which the words appear is as follows:


In the light of these words, it seems fully evident that the way to approach this instruction is in realizing the Faith of Baha'u'llah as an every-growing organism destined to become something new and greater than any of the revealed religions of the past. Whereas former Faiths inspired hearts and illumined souls, they eventuated in formal religions with an ecclesiastical organization, creeds, rituals and churches, while the Faith of Baha'u'llah, likewise renewing man's spiritual life, will gradually produce the institutions of an ordered society, fulfilling not merely the function of the churches of the past but also the function of the civil state. By this manifestation of the Divine Will in a higher degree than in former ages, humanity will emerge from that immature civilization in which church and state are separate and competitive institutions, and partake of a true civilization in which spiritual and social principles are at last reconciled as two aspects of one and the same Truth.

You also ask how these statements could be reconciled with Shoghi Effendi's comment on page 149 of Baha'i Administration, which appears to anticipate "a future that is sure to witness the formal and complete separation of Church and State", and with the following words in his letter of 21 March 1932 addressed to the Baha'is of the United States and Canada:



Theirs is not the purpose, while endeavoring to conduct and perfect the administrative affairs of their Faith, to violate, under any circumstances, the provisions of their country's constitution, much less to allow the machinery of their administration to supersede the government of their respective countries.


A careful reading of the letter dated 6 December 1928 in which the Guardian's comment about the separation of Church and State occurs would suggest that, rather than enunciating a general principle, Shoghi Effendi is simply reviewing "the quickening forces of internal reform" that had "recently transpired throughout the Near and Middle East", and enumerating a number of factors that impinge on the development of the Faith in those parts of the world.


As for the statement made by Shoghi Effendi in his letter of 21 March 1932, the well-established principles of the Faith concerning the relationship of the Baha'i institutions to those of the country in which the Baha'is reside make it unthinkable that they would ever purpose to violate a country's constitution or so to meddle in its political machinery as to attempt to take over the powers of government. This is an integral element of the Baha'i principle of abstention from involvement in politics. However, this does not by any means imply that the country itself may not, by constitutional means, decide to adopt Baha'i laws and practices and modify its constitution or method of government accordingly. The relationship between the principle of abstention from involvement in politics and the emergence of the Baha'i State is commented on later in this letter. In the meantime we can quote the following extracts from letters written on behalf of the Guardian in response to queries from individual believers, which indicate that the relationship is an evolving one:


End Quote








bahai-library.com/uhj/theocracy.html


 


"will gradually produce the institutions of an ordered society, fulfilling not merely the function of the churches of the past but also the function of the civil state."


>That< is a description of a Theocracy.


"make it unthinkable that they would ever purpose to violate a country's constitution or so to meddle in its political machinery as to attempt to take over the powers of government. This is an integral element of the Baha'i principle of abstention from involvement in politics. However, this does not by any means imply that the country itself may not, by constitutional means, decide to adopt Baha'i laws and practices and modify its constitution or method of government accordingly.


>That< is a description of a country CHANGING ITS CONSTITUTION to hand over "the function of the civil state".


>That< is a description of the transition from SECULAR CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY TO BAHA'I THEOCRACY.


"Shame on any who try to scare people by pushing xenophobic nonsense. What next? More creative conjecture?"


Scare mongering conjecture? Go right ahead...tell us the "authoritative quotation" you predicted would not be provided does not say what it clearly says.


It is really weird to hear self-identifying "liberal", ex-members, using fear tactics to promote their agenda. Had always thought it was the other side of the political spectrum that was accused of doing that by them.         



Yea...Who in their right mind would be "fearfull" of a Religious Theocracy with such blatant prejudice towards minority groups? One that  summarily diss-enroles Mystics, Theologians and Academics (without >any< hearing) and SHUNS Gays, other Baha’i denominations, Ex Baha’is and Unenrolled Baha’is as “Spiritual Poison”.


Why would anyone be concerned about such fundamentalists running a country or the world?


In The World Order of Baha’u'llah itself, page 66, Shoghi Effendi had said:



"Theirs is not the purpose, while endeavoring to conduct and perfect the administrative affairs of their Faith, to violate, under any circumstances, the provisions of their country’s constitution, much less to allow the machinery of their administration to supersede the government of their respective countries."


Any intelligent independent truth seekers will read on and research for themselves-


How theocracy happened


senmcglinn.wordpress.com/2008/12/02/how-...


Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jan 19, 2011 - 2:55AM #7
MrBear
Posts: 426

Jan 19, 2011 -- 1:31AM, in_my_opinion wrote:

Yes, this particular nothing and nobody, actually corrected an assertion by a retired member of the Universal House of Justice ...."





Well that’s a bit sad.


To “correct” an “assertion” made by a member of the Universal House of Justice (now retired) is to criticise such member.


According to your own Ladder Theory Theology extrapolation this criticism now travels upline to be a criticism/correction of the faith itself.


“Any tag that contains the word Baha'i necessarily means that members of the Faith, its institutions etc. are victim to it.
Thus "online Baha'is" as a class within the Faith are subjected and by extension so is the Faith” imo.


Thus you have expressed “Unconstrained rage at the UHJ”.


My correction/criticism of “online Baha’is” was deemed to be so.


Why not your correction/criticism of a member of the UHJ?


It all happens, accortding to you "by extension"....are others the only ones to whoom such absurdity is "extended"?


Good for Goose but not for Gander?


Some Baha’is are “more equal than others”?


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jan 19, 2011 - 3:28AM #8
in_my_opinion
Posts: 2,273

Bahá'ís can be themselves. No amount of categorization and pigeonholing applies to them. Is there a wide range of opinion? Certainly, but it doesn't affect our unity; it enriches it, through its very diversity. Unity in diversity is one of our beliefs. We don't take up sides; we vote our consciences.


Most Bahá'ís sacrificed previously held ideas upon becoming Believers and continue to grow in their understanding and faith. They were strong-minded and serious when they joined and adversity tests them to greater strength.


Freed of necessity to toe a party line because we don't have partisan politics internally and are forbidden by the Text to be involved with them externally or internally; we can theorize and hypothesize, so long as we don't say that it is a teaching of the Bahá'í Faith itself.


For that everyone has to go to, and uphold, the Writings. "Point out the quotation" is the byword. No quotation means no leg to stand on, and good luck persuading that way.


No problem ever divides us. Questions are food for a type of discussion we call Bahá'í Consultation, a process we can engage in at any time and are encouraged to do so with nearly everyone.


From time to time someone with preconceived notions they dragged into the Faith as their baggage, gets miffed and leaves because no one will buy what they're selling. That's fine, too. Adults have rights. They can leave if they feel justified in doing so; its no crime. Other adults have rights, too; we don't have to buy that baggage. That's no crime, either.


Of course it might be bad form to stand outside and hawk your wares at the door, tossing trash at us inside; but we are a tolerant lot, and will clean it up patiently.


It's not like we're sitting in a dreadful Iranian prison for doing charity or being refused our rights as Egyptian citizens for our honesty and humble faithfulness. We should thank you for the chance of the meagre, we hesitate to even call it sacrifice, you provide so generously.


Personally wish to sympathize with any pain you have felt or are feeling. May you be happy.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jan 19, 2011 - 4:10AM #9
MrBear
Posts: 426

Wow! It’s just like being back in the Baha’i community...373 words in reply and NONE OF THEM ACKNOWLEDGE OR TOUCH UPON OR RESPOND TO WHAT WAS SAID IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, MANNER OR FORM.


Are you familiar with the expression-“One might as well be talking to a brick wall”?


The Baha'i Technique.


(Compiled over a decade ago to identify the tactics employed by Baha’is online and off.)


  1. 1.      As far as possible they hold back from responding


 


Jan 19, 2011 -- 3:28AM, in_my_opinion wrote:


Bahá'ís can be themselves. No amount of categorization and pigeonholing applies to them.



Yes it does....clearly and without a doubt on the basis of overwhelming evidence obtained by repeated experiment-


Put the issue before them and they will ignore, obfuscate, filibuster, ramble, accuse, slander, withhold, refuse to answer pertinent questions, evade, obscure and extrapolate to absurdity.


But >NEVER< display the intellectual and ethical integrity to address the issue and points raised.


You have just >proven< the point.... yet again.


Many thanks.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jan 19, 2011 - 5:21AM #10
in_my_opinion
Posts: 2,273

You're welcome, Rodney dear.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 3  •  1 2 3 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook