Baha'i Totalitarian Oligarchy?

[TransmutingSoul]

If you actually knew that I "misunderstood what was offered, plain and simple," you would already know what I was commenting upon. Thanks for the kneejerk denial, but no thanks,

Then your whole post is your ideas of inaccurate 2nd hand information.

It will attract those that thrive off this type of hype.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Yep. He did. Direct quote.

It was not in relation to the posted link.

Regards Tony

 

[ppp]

The writings of our Faith make it clear that under a Bahá’í system the rights of minorities must always be respected and upheld.

What are those rights? Trailblazer just mentioned that a gay couple may be stripped of the right to represent themselves within your religion's democratic practices. Broad general language is good for rallying the crowds, but it is the real world implementation of the principles that tell the true tale.

 

[ppp]

It was not in relation to the posted link.

Regards Tony

I didn't think it was. I took it as a response to the post to which it was directly replying. If trailblazer was confused, go correct her.

 

[ppp]

Then your whole post is your ideas of inaccurate 2nd hand information.

Are you just going to keep with the hollow kvetching? I'm not going to do your work for you, Tony, no matter how much you whinge about it. Explain what you think I misunderstood, and what was really meant, or learn to cope.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Are you just going to keep with the hollow kvetching? I'm not going to do your work for you, Tony, no matter how much you whinge about it. Explain what you think I misunderstood, and what was really meant, or learn to cope.

Please carry on as you wish to.

Regards Tony

 

[Dawnofhope]

Not really. The only reason I noted the article was because it tied into something another Baha'i poster spoke of the other day. Once with regards to governments looking to some sort of Baha'i council as advisory boards. And another post regarding slavery getting a bad rap. Both of his posts carried warning flags for totalitarian mindsets.

There is a great deal of misinformation on the internet. The source you quoted is clearly biased. What is it you are wanting to discuss?

The Vatican has said much the same over the centuries. Heh. The Vatican has of course varied from pulling strings subtly to fielding armies to enforce its will. This is not to say that Baha'i would do the same, but it's not a vague statement. Almost politic.

Its a long bow to draw comparing the Vatican with the Baha’i Faith.

Would the majority of the populace being Baha'i justify religious imposition on non-Baha'i?

No

 

[Trailblazer]

Yep. He did. Direct quote.

Trailblazer said: Tony did not say that you "misunderstood what was offered, plain and simple."

Joe W said: Yep. He did. Direct quote.

Tony did say You misunderstood what was offered, plain and simple in the following post:

Joe W said: Once with regards to governments looking to some sort of Baha'i council as advisory boards. And another post regarding slavery getting a bad rap. Both of his posts carried warning flags for totalitarian mindsets.

Tony said: You misunderstood what was offered, plain and simple.

You took what was said in your mindset.

Regards Tony

#26 Tony Bristow-Stagg, Today at 3:50 PM

But that was not the post I was responding to. This is the post I was responding to.

Joe W said: If you actually knew that I "misunderstood what was offered, plain and simple," you would already know what I was commenting upon. Thanks for the kneejerk denial, but no thanks,

Trailblazer said: Tony did not say that you "misunderstood what was offered, plain and simple."
I think you understood what the article said and that is what you were commenting upon.
Whether the article accurately represented the Baha'i Faith is another matter altogether.

#33 Trailblazer, Today at 4:17 PM

In the previous post:

Tony Bristow-Stagg said: You can, if you wish, trace your the comments you made in this OP back to the sources. Quote them and a reply can be given.

Joe W said: If you actually knew that I "misunderstood what was offered, plain and simple," you would already know what I was commenting upon. Thanks for the kneejerk denial, but no thanks,

#31 Joe W, Today at 4:08 PM

Do you think that in the same why you think that Tony did not say the words he said. You did not even bother to look at either Tony's words or the article before floating your opinion.

Do you even bother to look at the specific post I was referring to before floating your opinion?
It is all posted above. See if you can figure out what actually happened and why I responded as I did.

 

[Trailblazer]

No. The conclusion of the articles sums up a different top.

What would that be?

 

[Trailblazer]

It was not in relation to the posted link.

Glad you caught that Tony. I just went to a lot of work to point that out to Joe W.

I come from a long line of attorneys so I can become obsessed about evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

I took it as a response to the post to which it was directly replying. If trailblazer was confused, go correct her.

It was a response to the the post to which it was directly applying.
You are the one who is confused, as I pointed out in my long post to you.

It is always someone else who is wrong, isn't it? But this time you are wrong, dead on center.

 

[ppp]

What would that be?

I am sure that you can compare the text in the OP to the text of your conclusion and see the difference in the nouns and verbs. Or pretend otherwise

 

[Trailblazer]

Are you just going to keep with the hollow kvetching? I'm not going to do your work for you, Tony, no matter how much you whinge about it. Explain what you think I misunderstood, and what was really meant, or learn to cope.

Tony Bristow-Stagg said: Then your whole post is your ideas of inaccurate 2nd hand information.

Where did Tony say anything about what you misunderstood? He said no such thing.

 

[Trailblazer]

I am sure that you can compare the text in the OP to the text of your conclusion and see the difference in the nouns and verbs. Or pretend otherwise

I see that you still cannot give me a straight answer.

It was not MY conclusion. It was the conclusion from the article.

 

[ppp]

It was not MY conclusion. It was the conclusion from the article.

(shrug) Either way, it wasn't the topic of the OP.

 

[ppp]

It was a response to the the post to which it was directly applying.

It was a response to the text Tony specifically excepted from my post. Text which did not refer to the OP, but specifically and explicitly referenced entries of another Baha'i poster here.

My post:

The only reason I noted the article was because it tied into something another Baha'i poster spoke of the other day. Once with regards to governments looking to some sort of Baha'i council as advisory boards. And another post regarding slavery getting a bad rap. Both of his posts carried warning flags for totalitarian mindsets.

Tony's post:

This is where you get all querulous (again) and blame me for your mistakes.

 

[Left Coast]

The statements in the source are unfounded. What’s required are references to the Baha’i writings themselves.

Baha’is are asked to be obedient to government and to avoid getting involved in politics.

Can I ask what "not getting involved in politics" means? Are you not permitted to vote? Not permitted to be part of a political party? Not permitted to run for office or be part of a political campaign?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

(shrug) Either way, it wasn't the topic of the OP.

The topic of the OP is that Bahai is or will be a Totalitarian Oligarchy.

A basic perusal of the Baha'i Writings show that the title of the OP is not applicable.

The internal Baha'i electrol process is unique and includes the participation of every Baha'i. It is also organic, the system we have today will not be the same in the future.

The writings tell us that the government's of the world will establish the boundaries of Nations and set the Laws and regulations they will abide by.

You are free to quote Baha'i Writings in context that support your accusation. In turn we will offer our thoughts.

Regards Tony

 

[Dawnofhope]

Can I ask what "not getting involved in politics" means? Are you not permitted to vote? Not permitted to be part of a political party? Not permitted to run for office or be part of a political campaign?

Baha’is are not permitted to be a member of a political party or to run for office in National elections. We do vote.

 

[Left Coast]

Baha’is are not permitted to be a member of a political party or to run for office in National elections. We do vote.

Can you run for office in state/local elections?