Greetings;

According to my understanding of the Baha'i form of governance, small
groups of Baha'is form a body which votes for a small group of
representatives (called an LSA, or the officials of an LSA). The
officials of the LSAs then congregate to vote for a national body
(NSA), and these in turn elect a world governing body, the UHJ.

To the extent that this might be a model for a worldwide government,
my only objection would be if the UHJ improperly intruded into the
legitimate autonomy of nations, which is a real concern. (Current UN
proposals would allow dictatorial nations, which do not even grant
human rights to their own citizens, to have a say in the human rights
issues of the USA!)

But even at the local and national levels, there is a fatal flaw in
the Baha'i model of governance, and that is the unaccountability of
elected officials.

I understand the importance of the secret ballot for the individual
voter.

But when an elected representative can vote on important matters, as
the agent of his constituency--- his LSA, for example--- without that
constituency being able to ask him how he voted and why--- then you
have the foundation of tyranny.

The Baha'i reasons for doing this are inadequate. They say that they
wish to avoid dissension and politicking. Well and fine, let's find
ways to avoid the negative impacts of dissension and politicking. But
those ways will not be accomplished by secrecy and unaccountable
officials. They will only be found by addressing the spiritual
defects within humans that lead to those traits. Secrecy in
governance will not make matters better, but in fact make them
worse--- not only worse, but irremediably worse. For, when the
government need not answer to its voters, there is no remedy for its
defects except--- as provided for--- to remove the entire elected
body, throwing out the good with the bad, but not addressing the
original underlying problem---- because the new government will STILL
not be accountable.

Recent news that I've heard (including on this message board) does not
provide encouragement that, in practice, the Baha'i values will prove
better than they sound. Quite the opposite, the stories of
dictatorial practices among Baha'is abound. Were it not for the
protections of the US Constitution, the abuses among Baha'i governing
bodies would assuredly be even worse.

But since Baha'is are "locked into" their own political philosophy,
there is no possibility of them throwing out the defects and replacing
them with better (and in particular, American) values.

God bless us all!

American values? A democracy with an armed citizenry and militia whose
purpose is to maintain firearms for use against Government if its actions
are deemed to be contrary to the "rights" of the armed citizenry.

Now that's what I call "accountability" and American values - those gawdamn
SOBs in government don't just get voted out of government if they don't act
right - they face armed insurrection.

American values - the richest nation in the world that gives aid to the
poorest nations in the world yet declines to do anything to combat poverty
in its own land.

American values - the richest nation in the world where the sickest people
can't get medical treatment because they can't afford it and the insurance
companies won't insure them because there's no profit in it.

American values - the greatest governmental system in the world that
tolerates the death penalty and plays roulette with those on death row

American values - the richest nation in the world that would develop Iraqi
oil for the benefit of the Iraqi people but does nothing for its own except
give tax cuts to the rich.

American values - land of the free, home to freedom of speech unless you're
a socialist, an advocate of healthcare, social welfare or any other
un-American activity in which case you'll get your face kicked in.

We've heard all about your American values - you can shove them wherever you
please, wherever they fit but, please, not in my face or my country. Our
doctors still make house calls.

My understanding is that the offical position of the Baha'i Faith is
that their future goal is a global Baha'i theocracy, with all nations
coming under the rule of Baha'i law and the ultimate authority of the
UHJ. This issue has been discussed extensively in another thread,
called "Review of Sen's article on theocracy" if I remember correctly.


Yes, any time the form of government makes elected officials only
accountable to God instead of accountable to the people, there's bound to be trouble.

In theory, Baha'i officials don't disclose their votes on an
institution because it's supposed to protect the voter from undue
influences from people outside the institution. In practice, if
Baha'is were ever to run the government this would actually result in
more corruption, not less, because there would be no transparency for
how decisions are made and therefore it would be easier for corrupting
influences to operate completely under the table and under the radar.

I think the real problem is that the Baha'is advocate replacing the US
Constitution with Baha'i religious governance enforced upon Baha'is
and non-Baha'is alike. Let there be no doubt about it, one-world
theocracy is the officially endorsed ultimate goal of the Baha'i Faith
-- a world in which dissenters would assuredly be discriminated
against, and the so-called "Covenant-breakers" would be the equivalent
of the Untouchable Caste in Hinduism.


Some Baha'is are trying to get rid of all the theocracy stuff, but I
don't think it will ever work, because one-world order and Baha'i
theocracy were forcefully advocated by Shoghi Effendi, and the Baha'i
institutions will always pay more attention to what he said than what
some liberal Baha'i thinkers say -- and for good reason, as he was the
appointed leader after Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha, given the
authority to officially interpret their teachings and intentions for
the religion. So, that's why, in my opinion, the whole religion of
Baha'ism must be rejected, because its main purpose will always be the
establishment of a religious one-world order. And that is a
prescription not for the "Most Great Peace" but for hell on earth.

Best,
Eric

Eric Stetson
Ex-Baha'i Christian Testimony
http://www.bahai-faith.com

I doubt if that would ever really happen. Besides, President G.W.
Bush is now trying to reorganize the National Guard (state militias)
to be under the direct command of the new federal Department of
Homeland Security. I don't agree with that plan, but it is probably
going to be done, so your argument is likely to become moot.


Not true. In America we do have lots of social welfare programs, for
old people, for unemployed people, for Native American tribes, etc.


I agree with you there.

The death penalty is rarely used in America. Mostly, it's only used
for the most heinous murderers. I admit there are abuses, though, but
every country in the world has its own particular problems with the
legal and penal system.


Even with Bush's recent tax cut, the rich still pay a much higher
percentage of their income in taxes than the poor. The poorest people
in America don't even pay any income tax.


Not true. We have our far left liberals who are completely free to
speak their views. Look at Ralph Nader who ran for president on the
Green Party ticket and got 3% of the vote in 2000. Howard Dean,
governor of Vermont, is now the front-running candidate for the
Democractic Party presidential nomination in 2004, and he is one of
the most liberal candidates. Bernard Sanders, a congressman from
Vermont, is actually a member of the Socialist Party USA.

Best,
Eric

Quite impressive! To elaborate, the LSA is elected when a community has
more than nine adult Baha'is. Often the community is geographically sized
around existing rural or municipal boundaries, such as the county, parish,
or township, likewise the village, town or city. There are no nominations
nor is any campaigning allowed.


The adults in an electoral unit (normally dozens of communities) gather to
elect a delegate to the national convention. Again, no nominations and no
campaigning. The national convention elects the NSA.

Correct. Again, no nominations and no campaigning.

Assuming this model, and assuming it is secular, the intrusion of the
global authority into national autonomy, would, of course, need to be proper.


Very said. Wouldn't it be better if the global body were simply comprised
of individuals who were elected by a global convention, rather than
individuals who were selected largely by their national governments, for
service on the global body?


Sure! If I bribed five guys on the council to approve my zoning request
to put a gravel pit next door to your home, and then, my petition were
turned down 4 to 5, by a secret vote, I'd never know who cheated me. I'm
glad you could see this problem.


Well, actually, it is that 'accountability' to one's national constituency
which causes some issues at the UN; UN ambassadors are given directions by
their national governments, and their national governments might not be
fully advised of the bodies consultations when these directions are
developed. A better system might allow the members to vote, or act, in
the best interests of the global body, rather than pork-barrelling for
their home district, as our congress does.

Suppose the Navy were alternative 'home-ported' - to put many small Navy
bases into many congressional districts, and then there was realignment,
with congressional efforts to pool things into a few key districts? It is
pork-barrel politics, and it has been a distraction for the Navy for the
past 20 years. It could _not_ happen without 'accountability'. Let the
elected representatives work for the greater community, rather than their home constituencies!

There is a time and place for dissenion. Dissension ought to be brought
to those who can make a decision, and when the decision is made, all
should either try to implement it, or get out of the way of those who will.


Okay, we'll call them _spiritual_ assemblies.


Secrecy is a relative thing. I don't know what energy interests Dick
Cheney met with when the administration was forming its energy policy, yet
those interests know exactly who they are. I don't know how many highly
placed members of this adminstration are, or have been, agents of foreign
governments, governments who have, in the past 50 years attacked the US
military, spied on our defense capability, and influenced our government
to their advantage; I don't know, but they do.

Our government _does_ not answer to the voters, nor will it! Our
government answers to big political donors, special interests, not voters!

I don't think accountability is something we will ever get from the
national government of a medium to large nation. It is something we might
get from a homeowner's association. At the national level, accountability
is limited, and it is associated with the abuse of government by the
agents which our national government is accountable to, the special
interests, not the voters.

This group is not intended to be a place for the practicing of Baha'i
values. It is a forum for discussion.

Of course these stories abound. That is what the board is here for. One
of the stories I had someone tell me recently was how George Fleming had
his rights trampled upon by his NSA. The reality unfolded right here last
year. The spammer tried to clog this newsgroup with hundreds of repeat
messages. He even clogged my internet connection with repeat emails. He
spammed the US NSA with hundreds of repeat emails. One would think, that
George's activities were interfering with the rights of plenty of other
people. When the UK NSA told him to quit it, he cried his rights were
violated! Nah, the stories of dictatorial practices are gross
exaggerations, made by those who would dictate to others, and had not
succeeded in dictating to the Baha'is.

Well, let's see. The US Constitution gives people in the US freedom of
religion. You are free to be a Free Baptist, and I am free to be a
Baha'i. If the Baha'i faith ordered me off of the internet, the US
Constitution would have little to nothing to say on the matter, because I
am free to quit the Baha'i Faith at any time, my association is voluntary,
of my own choosing. Were I to sue the BF, for example, I wanted to marry
my wife's dog, and I wanted the marriage to be a Baha'i one, and my LSA
declined to approve it, I could not compel the BF to approve my marriage,
because it is a voluntary association: neither I nor the state can compel
volunteers, unless _they_ are doing something illegal.

Robert! We are now suffering under a court appointed president. Now is
_not_ the time to lecture about the virtues of the American system of
government. These are our darkest days since the War of Northern
Agression.

Best wishes!
- Pat
kohli at ameritel.net

Yeah, just look at him. The very fact that you can cite
Nader and think *he* is an example of a "far-left liberal"
is proving Dermod's case nicely!

How right-wing does the centre of your politics need to
be for you to be able to say that with a straight face? Howard Dean,


Oh, so they do have socialism in just *one* of the 50 states
then? What about in the other 98% of the states?

Paul

Dermod's point remains all the more eloquently, though. Though we will give aid to poor people, our most successful
programs on poverty have been those in which the state promises to give no more aid to sturdy beggars. They
scramble over the povertly line, into low skilled working class - only impoverished the few weeks each year when
they are between jobs.

?? Some are more heinous than others? Does "heinous" mean that one could not affor Johnny Cochrane, and/or F. Lee Bailey?

Dermod was talking about American people in general. For the generality of the American population, the recent tax
cuts simply mean that in the near future we will have Reagonesque budget deficits, and that will bloat the national debt.

That one socialist can be elected to Congress does not make our society a picture of political tolerance.
Generally, I would not consider the governor of a state to be an extreme leftist. Have you met any Marxists or
Trotskyites? In popular discourse, "Liberal" has become synonymous with "blasphemous hater of all things American",
or something like that. Watch Robert, you'll see.


Best wishes!
- Pat

Dear Eric,

It is used more in the US than any other developed nation on the face of the
earth. A larger proportion of our population is in prison as well.


Not so. The wealthy are able to find tax shelters not available to the poor.The
poor are especially hit with local and state taxes. Let me give you some
statistics for Kansas as an example:

The state and local tax rate on the best off one percent of Kansas families
with average incomes of $781,000 is 8.0% before accounting for the tax savings
from federal itemized deductions. After the federal offset, the effective tax
rate is only 5.7%.
But the tax rate on the poorest Kansas familiesthose earning less than $14,000
is the highest of all. At 11.5% it is more than double the effective rate on
the very wealthy

The same thing is true in Oregon:

The state and local tax rate on the best off one percent of Oregon
families-with averageincomes of $672,000-is 8.9% before accounting for the tax
savings from federalitemized deductions. After the federal offset, the
effective tax rate is a 6.1%.But the tax rate on the poorest Oregon
families-those earning less than $16,000-is thehighest of all. At 9.4% it is
one and a half times the effective rate on the wealthiestOregon taxpayers."

Similiar statistics can be found for most states.


Income tax is only one form of taxation. All poor people pay exise and sales
tax, in fact they pay a much higher portion of their income on that than do the
wealthy who do not need to spend all the earn.

http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st

Dear Eric,

I checked on some more statistics. Even in Federal Taxes if we include SSI and
Medicare taxes the poor pay substantially more of their income in taxes than do
the wealthy. The proportion of income paid in these taxes combined by
wealthiest 1 percent is about 18.6 percent. That is considerably less than
gets taken out of my paycheck each moth! The reason for the discrepancy is that
the wealthy only have to pay SSI and Medicare taxes on the first 85,000 they
make which brings their total taxes down to a much lower percentage than what
the average middle class American pays.

warmest, Susan


http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st

Actually, I would worry about the NSA's doing this. Baha'i
administration is specifically taught to avoid excessive centralization.


Except that they are re-elected every year. The point is that they
are elected on the basis of their personal qualities, not their
'positions', so to speak. So the only real danger is that someone
might be so good at imposture and false piety that he would be able to
deceive a community that has frequent personal interaction with him.

To be honest, I can't make heads or tails of these allegations. But
there appear to be quite a number of administration experts out there
who might be able to resolve this issue. All I know is that my own
experiences with the adminsitration have been almost uniformly positive.

The big problem with American democracy is that a lot of people just
plain don't vote. So the elections get dominated by extremists at
both sides of political spectrum (conservative/fundamentalist and
liberal). This problem seems to be growing worse and worse as time
goes on.

Best Regards,

Matt