pey,

"elitist self-righteousness"

Typical ad hominem...I've come to expect this from you now.

"The individuals that vote on my behalf are already entrenched in the system that perpetuates incumbants"

Oh come on; you'd be complaining no matter what; if the voting were direct, you'd criticize the elected officials (um...wait...well actually you do that anyways). Additionally, if it were the other way around and the constantly reelected incumbents agreed with you, you'd be defending them. So this whole thing about the "system that perpetuates incumbents" is a canard created to hide the fact that you just disagree with their views but want to make it look like the whole system is flawed.

I don't have a black/white view of the world, and no sentient human being would construe my sentiment as expressed through my posts as such.

By the way, children don't have a black/white view of the world; that's a myth, mostly propagated by "good vs. evil" video games, television, etc...

There have been some interesting points raised in this discussion; but I think they're basically irrelevant. In my opinion, either there's fraud in order to perpetuate incumbency, in which case serious action can and should be taken, or there's constant incumbency without fraud, which means that, although one might disagree with the opinions held by the elected leaders, the people have spoken. To try to find a middle ground between these two possibilities (as is evidenced by the undertones in this page suggesting Baha'i indoctrination) is to stoop down to the level of 9/11 truthers and other reactionary conspiracy theorists.

There comes a point (and I think it's been reached now) where one can see that these arguments are self-discrediting; they require no further comment from me.

"le'ts see if Masud pops out of the woodwork{...}"

Bingo!!! I am indeed popping out, but not out of the woodwork, rather out of the intellectual clutter that has clouded this discussion.

" I NEVER felt like my vote made any difference"

Voter disenchantment is the preferred excuse (amongst the intellectually lazy) for inaction, "ressentiment" and attacking the "establishment". These are, however, quite clearly nothing more than pouts from a three-year-old after he is denied candy. Said child is then taught that he can't always get what he wants. As this child grows up, he realizes that in order to get what he wants, he has to work with other people, who won't always agree with him. So when decisions are made by a majority of individuals (as in a democratic election), he learns not to blame the system, but to hold the electorate responsible for its decisions.

Your problem, pey, seems to be with Baha'i voters, essentially because they disagree with you. So instead of attacking the Baha'i structure/framework/system/meme or whatever you want to call it, why don't you go after the voters, who commit the awful crimes of voting for incumbents over and over again?

Elections have consequences, pey; with all due respect, deal with it.

"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

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.

I would call that person someone who is genuinely concerned that the "controversial" thoughts might be acted upon, and if those actions could foreseeably cause significant disunity within the community or worse, flagrantly and openly dismiss the institutions (I’m not talking about independent investigation of truth; I’m talking about flat-out undermining the authority of the institutions) then actions can be taken, IN ACCORDANCE with the law. Having said that, I wouldn’t encourage that kind of behavior.

What you call “control using fear”, I call the rule of law. And there is nothing wrong with the fear of breaking a law; it’s called Conditioning (i.e. reward and punishment) Of course, we should follow Baha’u’llah’s Commandments for love of His Beauty, but that does not equate to anarchy.

Well, I would certainly welcome you, Bacquia, Steve, and other self-declared “free-thinkers” to open your mouth as often as you wish in my community, as long as the discussions are held in an atmosphere of mutual respect. I’m a proponent of free-speech, and even when it comes to hate speech, I tend to base my conclusions on the old adage “Sunlight is the best disinfectant”.

There are certainly some taboos that deserve more discussion within many Baha’i communities, (e.g. Homosexuality) but that is something that I think will be addressed progressively. It cannot be addressed overnight and CERTAINLY can’t be imposed.

However, we must be constantly reminded of this passage in one of Baha’u’llah’s Tablets:

“Not everything that a man knoweth can be disclosed, nor can everything that he can disclose be regarded as timely, nor can every timely utterance be considered as suited to the capacity of those who hear it.”

pey,

Do you honestly expect to be taken seriously when you use adjectives such as "Taliban-like" to describe your co-religionists who disagree with your viewpoint? It's almost as if that argument is self-discrediting.

Thank you for your kind words Craig,

I disagree with your position, but I respect it; I will look into that book; I had heard of Rushkoff as some kind of a cyberspace expert or something like that. It is unfair to say "The Baha'i organization over all this time did absolutely nothing for them. They will die in poverty."

I know of those communities; during my time in Ecuador, I knew many people serving the Faith in Central America, and I don't think it's fair to downplay their efforts. Additionally, you speak of the Baha'i community as if we're "Habitat for Humanity". We're not.

HI Steve,

Farhan basically answered for me, but yes, there are many examples in Western Europe with high retention rates: Paris, London, Basel, et al. One just has to look for them, Steve, and not view every event through the prism of cynicism and skepticism.

I've had issues with Ruhi in the past, but I'm realizing that it's a response to the diversity in the world; deepenings, for example, are not for everyone, though they're probably one of the most interesting gatherings in my opinion (second only to one-on-one discussions about the Faith with my friends)

If Ruhi is not for you, fine, but that doesn't mean that it's a symptom of "dysfunctionality" or anything of the sort.

Craig,

That is only your opinion; success stories around the world are proof of the fact that Ruhi has been working. But of course there will always be naysayers out there. That doesn't mean they should be taken seriously though.