Sen_McGlinn
19p6 comments posted · 0 followers · following 0
17 years ago @ Baha’i Rants - New Pressures Brought ... · 0 replies · +1 points
precisely. You have not only decided that you know the "real story" - : disenrollement is a sanction for behaviour -- you have decided that that behaviour is judging and attributing faults to others - which you have just done. I am one of those you are attributing this fault to - but where's your evidence. I've written and published a lot, can you find one example of attributing faults that approaches your own blatant example? Do you expect to be expelled now? no? then perhaps there is something wrong with your reasoning. Run some diagnostics, see if the problem might be with the unfounded premise that started it
17 years ago @ Baha’i Rants - New Pressures Brought ... · 3 replies · +1 points
If you are clear that you are not asking what individuals are thought to have done, but just how to interpret the new phenomenon of expulsions, you may get a straight answer.
_Sen McGlinn
17 years ago @ Baha’i Rants - LA Class Newsletter [#35] · 1 reply · +1 points
should be "yes"
17 years ago @ Baha’i Rants - New Pressures Brought ... · 0 replies · +2 points
There are at least 3 possibilities. disenrollment is:
1) a punishment for some act unknown that the UHJ thinks the person has done
2) a decision that a person is by nature not suitable for community membership
3) a sanction for unorthodox ideas the persion has, or people say they have
Speculation is free -- but neither the disenrolled people or anyone else know anything, because the UHJ is not telling
This is quite different to the closs of voting rights,
17 years ago @ Baha’i Rants - New Pressures Brought ... · 2 replies · +2 points
17 years ago @ Baha’i Rants - New Pressures Brought ... · 2 replies · +2 points
Or a possibility of a possibility, since no-one has been told they may never return. But I've re-applied twice and been turned down, and so far as I know, no-one who has been disenrolled has ever been accepted back.
In my case at least, I've no indication that the NSA or Counsellors had anything to do with the decision, or any idea that it was coming. Such decisions are the prerogative of the UHJ alone, according to its constitution.