Reform Bahai Faith Forum

NEW > the Reform Bahai Faith Forum!

Reform Bahai Faith Forum
http://reformbahai.org/forum/


"To be a Bahai simply means to love all the world; to love humanity and try to serve it; to work for universal peace and universal brotherhood." -- Abdu'l-Baha

The Reform Bahai Faith affirms the universal spiritual and moral principles taught in all of the great religious traditions. Similar to Mahayana Buddhism and the Buddha's Example of compassion, Reform Bahais believe the Example set by Abdul-Baha during his travels to Europe and the United States in the early 20th century, an Example of universal love and brotherhood, was perhaps his greatest Teaching. As Abdul-Baha often suggested, far from having the exclusive truth and the fanaticism to which that notion has so often led, Reform Bahais look to what is universal in the world's religious experience, and include prayers and meditations from other religions in their private and community worship, listen to and learn from God's other religions.

The Reform Bahai Faith, known during Abdul-Baha's time as the Bahai Movement or Cause, is not an organization, but a way of life.

The Reform Bahai Faith is an independent denomination that reforms Baha'u'llah's Dispensation and offers humanity His Teachings in the universal Interpretation of Abdul-Baha. Reform Bahais follow Abdul-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant: http://www.reformbahai.org/Covenant.html

See the Reform Bahai Faith website for further details: http://www.reformbahai.org

NECESSARY POLICY:

This Bahai discussion forum is for members of the Reform Bahai Faith and people of *goodwill* interested in exploring Reform Bahai or just curious. The Reform Bahai Faith Forum is closed to members of the Wilmette-Haifan Baha'i Faith. Members of other Baha'i denominations are welcome. Acceptance of this Registration Agreement constitutes that you are not a member of the Baha'i denomination located in Haifa, Israel.

Disrespecting and denouncing other Bahais as "covenant breakers," essentially the Shiite practice of "takfir," violates the civil rights of the individual as well as the teachings of Baha'u'llah and Abdul-Baha. It will not be allowed or tolerated in this Forum. For details see the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruling against the Baha'is of Wilmette, Illinois, November 23, 2010: http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?caseno=08-2306&submit=showdkt&yr=08&num=2306

Personal Reflections on the Baha'i lawsuits

The lawyer that represented the Orthodox Baha'i Faith before Judge St. Eve has just posted an insightful reflection on the implications of the US Federal Courts ruling. I share it here for those who might find it interesting and informative about how the Wilmette-Haifan Baha'i Faith actually behaves behind the backs of its largely innocent and gullible followers, deceived and brainwashed into despising and violating the principles of the US Constitution:

"The Wilmette NSA remains a threat to the First Amendment unless it gives up its mania for squelching the religious freedoms of those who disagree with it. It is my hope and wish that the Wilmette NSA will finally realize that you cannot enforce unity with a court order. The NSA simply must tolerate the existence of other groups of Bahá'í at least in the United States or it runs the risk of forever ruining the name of the Faith making synonymous the word "Bahá'í" and "enemy of freedom of speech and religion."

Jeffery Goldberg, Personal Reflections on the Baha'i lawsuits in US Federal Courts from 2006 to 2011. April 29, 2011
http://www.truebahai.com/2011/04/personal-reflections.html

Universal Principles of the Reform Bahai Faith

The Universal Principles of the Reform Bahai Faith. Baha'u'llah & Abdul-Baha. 
148 pages. $2.99 With a new Introduction and the original 1912 Foreword. Reform Bahai Press, 2008. 148 pages. Hardcover: 
ISBN-13: 9780967042138 - ISBN-10:0967042135. $19.99. Paperback: ISBN-13: 9780967042107 ISBN-10: 0967042100. $11.99. 


Ebook Edition 2010 9780982677803. 
Kindle or ePub format 
http://books.fglaysher.com/Universal-Principles-of-the-Reform-Bahai-Faith-9780982677803.htm


The Universal Principles of the Reform Bahai Faith collects many of the early writings of Baha'u'llah and Abdul-Baha, published in the West, seeking to restore and preserve their vision of the oneness of God, humanity, and all religions. In addition to all of the 1912 Universal Principles of the Bahai Movement, the book includes Baha'u'llah's Arabic Hidden Words, selections known as the Spiritof the  Age, an address by Abdul-Baha at the Friends' Meeting House in London in 1913, and many Bahai prayers for community and individual worship and meditation. 


Though beginning in 2004, the Reform Bahai Faith traces its origin to the early Bahais Ruth White, Mirza Ahmad Sohrab, and Julie Chanler, who sought to preserve the Teachings of Abdul-Baha after his passing in 1921. They and other early American Bahais understood the Bahai Faith was being turned into an oppressive organization, under what the British Museum document expert Dr. C. Ainsworth Mitchell judged to be a fraudulent will and testament. Baha'u'llah, the Founder of the Bahai Faith, believed in and taught a moderate, universal religion, grounded in a separation of church and state, not a theocracy, and members of the Reform Bahai Faith seek to recover and renew that universal, pluralistic vision for all humanity. 


-- 
Reform Bahai Faith 
Rochester, Michigan USA 
http://www.ReformBahai.org 


About the Reform Bahai Faith 
http://www.reformbahai.org/about.html 


Abdu'l-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant 
http://www.reformbahai.org/Covenant.html 


An Analysis of Abdul-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant 
http://www.reformbahai.org/Covenant_comments.html 

Opinion of US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals

7th Cir: Public online 08-2306 case documents as PDF and oral argument MP3
Opinion in case# 08-2306, Judge Sykes:

"When a district judge takes  sides in a religious schism, purports to decide matters of spiritual succession, and excludes dissenters from using the  name, symbols, and marks of the faith (as distinct from the name and marks of a church) [boldface added], the First Amendment line  appears to have been crossed."  
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?caseno=08-2306&submit=showdkt&yr=08&n\ um=2306 

Or download Opinion as PDF in one click


p 7: False finding of "fact" by Judge Austin in 1966

p 13: "...civil authorities may not make judgments about religious controversies when deciding church property disputes.  Kedroff, 344 U.S. at 116. (The church-autonomy principle recognized in Watson “must now be said to have federal  constitutional protection as a part of the free exercise of religion against state interference.”)."
  "Building on Kedroff, the Supreme Court held in Presbyterian Church that “the First Amendment severely circumscribes  the role that civil courts may play in resolving church property disputes.”

p 14-15: "Considered in light of these First Amendment limitations on the court’s authority, certain aspects of the 1966  injunction are troubling. The decree declares that “there is only one Baha’i Faith,” that Shoghi Effendi was its last Guardian and none has come since, and the National Spiritual  Assembly was its representative and “highest authority” in the United States and was “entitled to exclusive use of the  marks  and symbols of the Faith,” including the exclusive use of the word “Bahá’í.” Declarations of this sort push the  boundaries of the court’s authority under Kedroff and Presbyterian Church. In church property disputes (trademark suits  obviously qualify), the First Amendment limits the sphere in which civil courts may operate. When a district judge takes  sides in a religious schism, purports to decide matters of spiritual succession, and excludes dissenters from using the  name, symbols, and marks of the faith (as distinct from the name and marks of a church) [boldface added], the First Amendment line  appears to have been crossed."

p 17: "’It is a principle of general application in Anglo-American jurisprudence that one is not
bound by a judgment in personam in a litigation in which he is not designated as a party or to which he has not been  made a party by service of process.’ ”"

p 20: The court expands on and concludes that the parties were simply not in privity with the 1966 flawed decision by  Judge Austin.


NOTE WELL: "a church," i.e., the Court clearly states, as a matter of incontestable historical fact, that the Wilmette nsa merely constitutes one of many interpretations of the Baha'i Faith.

Judge Sykes' Opinion - Wilmette, Haifan Baha'i

Again, Judge Sykes' Opinion did not sidestep "questions about whether a religious organization can trademark its name or icons." In fact, it directly answers the question:

p 14-15: "Considered in light of these First Amendment limitations on the court’s authority, certain aspects of the 1966 injunction are troubling. The decree declares that “there is only one Baha’i Faith,” that Shoghi Effendi was its last Guardian and none has come since, and the National Spiritual Assembly was its representative and “highest authority” in the United States and was “entitled to exclusive use of the marks and symbols of the Faith,” including the exclusive use of the word “Bahá’í.” Declarations of this sort push the boundaries of the court’s authority under Kedroff and Presbyterian Church. In church property disputes (trademark suits obviously qualify), the First Amendment limits the sphere in which civil courts may operate. When a district judge takes sides in a religious schism, purports to decide matters of spiritual succession, and excludes dissenters from using the name, symbols, and marks of the faith (as distinct from the name and marks of a church), the First Amendment line appears to have been crossed."
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?caseno=08-2306&submit=showdkt&yr=08&num=2306

The Court clearly states, as a matter of incontestable historical fact, that the Wilmette nsa merely constitutes one of many interpretations of the Baha'i Faith.

Excerpts 35-40 - Opinion of US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 08-2306

November 23, 2010 - 7th Circuit Court of Appeals rules against Haifan Baha'is of Wilmette, Illinois 
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Opinion, Judge Sykes. 
Excerpts - Opinion of US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 08-2306 
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/US_7th_Circuit_Court_of_Appe... 

36
No. 08-2306
E. Second International Council and Bahá’í Publishers
The National Spiritual Assembly also challenges the
district court’s decision that the Second International
Council and Bahá’í Publishers are not bound by the
injunction. It offers two reasons for binding these
nonparties: First, they were created by Jensen, who (the
argument goes) was personally bound by the injunction;
and second, they are successors in interest to Remey, who
also was personally bound by the injunction.
1. The Jensen Connection
The district court rejected the contention that the Second
International Council and Bahá’í Publishers were in privity
with the Hereditary Guardianship through Jensen. After
declining to apply Merriam, the judge explicitly entered an
alternative holding that Jensen was not legally identified
with the Hereditary Guardianship even if Merriam applied.
The judge acknowledged that Jensen was an incorporator
of the Hereditary Guardianship, that he served as one of its
first board members, and that contemporaneous evidence
suggested that Jensen remained a follower of the Heredi-
tary Guardianship during the underlying litigation.
Nevertheless, the court found that Jensen disassociated
himself from any governing role in the organization shortly
after serving his one-year term on the board. This was well
before the underlying injunction was issued.
The National Spiritual Assembly disputes these findings.
It argues that Jensen’s extensive involvement with the
Hereditary Guardianship prior to the underlying litigation
No. 08-2306
37
establishes legal identity. We see no clear error in the
district court’s findings, which were amply supported by
the record. Jensen’s term on the Hereditary Guardianship
board ended in the middle of 1964; he was not reelected as
a board member. After he lost reelection, he did not serve
in a governance, advisory, or any other controlling position
in the Hereditary Guardianship, and he had no involve-
ment in the underlying litigation. As such, Jensen did not
occupy the sort of “key” role in the Hereditary Guardian-
ship—either generally or with respect to injunction litiga-
tion—that could form the basis of a “legal identity” finding
under Merriam.
The National Spiritual Assembly argues in the alternative
that Jensen (and by extension, the Second International
Council and the Bahá’í Publishers) should be bound by the
injunction because Jensen remained an adherent and the
Hereditary Guardianship adequately represented its
believers’ interests in the underlying suit against the
National Spiritual Assembly. The Supreme Court in Taylor
and our own recent decision in Tice recognize that the
concept of privity in preclusion doctrine includes a very
limited adequate-representation category. See Taylor, 553
U.S. at 894 (observing that “adequate representation” by
“someone with the same interests who [wa]s a party” to
the earlier suit sufficed for privity purposes “in certain
limited circumstances,” including “properly conducted
class actions” and “suits brought by trustees, guardians,
and other fiduciaries”); Tice, 162 F.3d at 973 (“[U]nless a
formal kind of successor interest is involved . . . , there
should be some indication . . . that the second party either
had participated or had a legal duty to participate.”); see
38
No. 08-2306
also R ESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF JUDGMENTS § 41 (similarly
limiting adequate-representation theory of privity). The
trademark litigation 44 years ago does not fit into this
limited category.
A finding of privity based on “adequate representation”
in the circumstances of this case would be entirely unwar-
ranted. The Hereditary Guardianship did not conduct the
underlying litigation as anything like a fiduciary for its
members, and there is no evidence to suggest it was acting
in a representative capacity for its followers personally. To
find privity based on “adequate representation” here
would treat every suit by an organization as having res
judicata and contempt implications for the organization’s
members individually. This is contrary to the Supreme
Court’s language in Taylor carefully limiting the scope of
the adequate-representation category of privity.
At bottom, this argument is an appeal to the theory of
“virtual representation,” which the Supreme Court has
firmly rejected in the field of claim preclusion. Taylor, 553
U.S. at 904. Having rejected virtual-representation theory
in its traditional res judicata setting, we see no reason why
the Supreme Court would view it more favorably in the
context of injunctions. The district court properly rejected
the attempt to bind the Second International Council and
Bahá’í Publishers through Jensen.
2. The Remey Connection
The National Spiritual Assembly also argues that the
Second International Council and Bahá’í Publishers are
No. 08-2306
39
bound by the injunction through privity with Remey. This
argument is based on trademark-registration filings with
the United States Patent and Trademark Office in which
Neal Chase, the current president of the Second Interna-
tional Council and Bahá’í Publishers, explained that the
throne to the “Davidic kingdom” passed by succession
from Bahá’u’lláh to Abdu’l-Bahá, to Charles Mason Remey,
to Pepe Remey (Remey’s adopted son), and now to him.
The National Spiritual Assembly treats these filings as an
admission of legal successorship to Remey, who in turn
was legally identified with the Hereditary Guardianship.
The district court treated the trademark-registration
filings as nonbinding evidentiary admissions rather than
binding judicial admissions. See Help at Home, Inc. v. Med.
Capital, L.L.C., 260 F.3d 748, 753 & n.2 (7th Cir. 2001);
Higgins v. Mississippi, 217 F.3d 951, 954 (7th Cir. 2000);
Murrey v. United States, 73 F.3d 1448, 1455 (7th Cir. 1996);
Keller v. United States, 58 F.3d 1194, 1198 n.8 (7th Cir. 1995).
The National Spiritual Assembly apparently agrees with
this characterization, but argues that the court gave them
insufficient weight. We find no fault with the district
court’s treatment of this factual matter. Other than the
version of spiritual-leadership succession described in
trademark filings, the National Spiritual Assembly offered
no evidence of a link between Remey and the Second
International Council or Bahá’í Publishers. Indeed, Remey
had no involvement in either organization and died more
than 25 years before the Second International Council was
established. Neither the Second International Council nor
Bahá’í Publishers received any money, property, or other
assets from Remey or the Hereditary Guardianship. On
40
No. 08-2306
these facts the district court properly concluded that the
Second International Council and Bahá’í Publishers are not
successors to Remey. See Walling, 321 U.S. at 674 (succes-
sors are “those to whom the business may have been
transferred”); Flowdata, 154 F.3d at 1355 (nonparty succes-
sorship liability under injunction requires a “substantial
continuity of identity”); cf. Golden State Bottling Co., 414
U.S. at 179 (finding bona fide purchaser of a business
enterprise was the legal successor to the enterprise and
thus subject to enterprise’s liability); Reich, 50 F.3d at 417 (a
company that “acquired the business subject to this court’s
order” was legal successor and bound by the order). 

AFFIRMED. 

The Root of the Problem with the Wilmette, Haifan Baha'is

The root of the problem with the Wilmette, Haifan interpretation of the Baha'u'llah's Teachings is that it leaves out Abdul-Baha's actual 1912 Authentic Covenant, substituting the spurious will and testament forged by Shoghi Effendi's family in 1921.

The Bahai Faith can be Reformed but only by returning to the Interpretation clearly outlined by Abdul-Baha in Europe and America prior to his death. The evidence and record of his Interpretation has been preserved in the Star of the West for anyone willing to read with an independent mind, free of the decades of deception and brainwashing into blind belief administered by the Haifans.