<b>Note from moderator:</b> the following discussion was split off from the post http://bahai-library.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?t=854 . Please see my first post at that link for my guidelines on what's acceptable content here. Thanks, -Jonah
<hr>
Jonah said:
"I don't want this forum to be a platform for anyone, Baha'i or not, to offer what could be seen as criticisms of the AO. It makes my life easier, and keeps this forum from becoming a possible battleground. And there are other places online where people can have this discussion, though most (probably all) of them are run by those actively opposed to the Faith. "
- - -
I find the above comment quite fascinating given the very loud and numerous web sites, blogs, email lists, etc., that are dedicated to the proliferation of various critiques of, and polemics about, "problems" within Baha'i culture and administration.
(Are all of those sources of criticism about problems in the Baha'i mainstream really "opposed to the Faith"? Wow!)
Specifically, most of the critical "anti-AO" polemics contain liberal/left bias in their criticisms about "censorship" by Baha'i institutions (not to mention other controversial topics).
Sarcasm:
Yet, somehow Jonah has managed to escape the evil right wing Baha'i censorship machine!
(Sarcasm off: other than the obvious, that he exercises some minimal self-censorship in order to avoid controversies that would derail the larger purposes of the bahai-library.org project.)
Sarcasm back on:
What could this possibly all mean?
Sarcasm off:
My proposal is as follows:
The Baha'i left's dysfunctional "dissident" wing always contained a subtext within its "protests" of censorship, women's rights, etc.
The subtext was that within academia/education, mass media and civil service (government/politics), the left had made major inroads and indeed had some to power in various ways. The Baha'i left assumed that it should have experienced a similar rise within the corresponding organs inside the Baha'i establishment.
However, when the Baha'i left's ambitions were thwarted by traditionalists who saw (probably correctly) the rise of the Baha'i left as inherently containing a tendency toward "godlessness", the Baha'i left became enraged by the blockage and then in revenge, imported the "culture wars" from academia and started an attack on mainstream Baha'i culture that goes on to this day.
In my opinion the real problem with the Baha'i left, at least the loud "dissident/protest" element, wasn't so much an unwillingness to acknowledge the divinely-inspired nature of Baha'i scripture, it was that those elements of the Baha'i left contain all of the other usual dysfunctionalities of the propressive/leftist ideologies that inspired them to go on the war path with the AO in the first place.
Just one example of the problem suffices: the very people that complained most loudly about censorship and "exclusivism" when challenged tended to run off and form (semi-)secret groups in which extremist protest language and demonization of "conservatives" was common. Any critic of the dysfunctional aspects of the Baha'i left was told to CONFORM to the leftist's ideology or GET OUT.
In other words, the Baha'i left became exactly what it claimed it was fighting against as groups of people on the Baha'i left engaged in exclusivist tendencies, censorship, attacks on critics, and shunning.
Jonah's case appears to support the idea that the Baha'i establishment will indeed tolerate an open flow of information (including "controversial" information) from "alternative" sources as long as no "hidden agenda" is place that supports/demands "attacks" on the AO.
Regards,
Eric
(unconfirmed ex-Baha'i)
Sacramento
Eric and Steve's discussion of "corruption" issues
-
kristen wilson
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 6:42 am
In every age...
Jonah wrote:Having said that, I'll happily allow discussion of what the <i>Writings do say</i> about the possible corruption or lack thereof of the current or future UHJ or AO. It's not an easy black-and-white answer, because there are statements from the Writings which could be interpreted as saying that the Baha'i AO could eventually become corrupt, and there are statements which seem to say that it never could.
I'm interested in sketching out some of the writings that bear on the possible corruption of the House or AO. Here are some starting points that spring to mind:
<ul>
<li>"Leaders of religion, in every age, have hindered their people from attaining the shores of eternal salvation, inasmuch as they held the reins of authority in their mighty grasp."
(Baha'u'llah: The Kitab-i-Iqan, Page: 15)
<li>There's use of of the word "masum" to describe the Universal House of Justice. I understand the word to have a meaning closer to "free of corruption" than to "infallible".
<li>The prohibitions against "shirk", or "joining partners with God", which in my mind precludes relying wholly on anything but God. Alison Marshall's essay, <a HREF="http://www.whoisbahaullah.com/Alison/unity.html">Commentary on the divine unity</A> provides a range of quotes that bear on this issue.
</ul>
ka kite
Steve
Statement of bias: I'm a vocal critic of the many dysfunctional tendencies of the Baha'i left. As a voluntary ex-Baha'i, I have no opinion on the validity of the central theological issues of infallability, but to be frank, I'm pretty skeptical about such notions.
- - -
On the the main point:
My understanding is that, on a practical level, the whole point of the "infallibility doctrine (by centralizing final authority in one body) is that it prevents crazy people from trying to establish themselves as authoritative sources of theological interpretation in order to create some kind of protest movement (or alternative "school of interpretation") within the Baha'i community.
In other words, the doctine was intended to prevent ideologically motivated attacks on Baha'i institutions from being portrayed as being "legitimate" (because they came from a "theological expert", or "mystic"), especially if such "alternate" theologies would result in schism.
A historical point that many post-modern "mystical" critics of Baha'i culture (from secular societies) apparently fail to appreciate is that mysticism in the muslim world was widely corrupted by superstition. Dervishes (usually unkept w/ long hair, which probably exlpains the prohibition on hair length) held huge sway over the poor/rural people (peasants/slaves) in various areas by demonstrations of "supernatural power" such as walking on beds of hot coals, and anyone (including landowners and other wealthy people, civil servants, etc.) not conforming to the (theological and political) dictates of such corrupt mystics was in serious trouble.
Clearly Baha'u'llah intended to reform mysticism by making it mainstream and cleaning it up by removing its tendencies toward superstition and political corruption.
To reiterate:
BAHA'U'LLAH WAS REFORMING CORRUPT MYSTICISM.
BAHA'U'LLAH WAS REFORMING CORRUPT MYSTICISM.
BAHA'U'LLAH WAS REFORMING CORRUPT MYSTICISM.
When you see "religious leaders" being accused of corruption in the Bahai writings, IT INCLUDES MYSTICS and IT INCLUDES "THEOLOGICAL EXPERTS".
Now, one has to ask why is it that this basic point of history is *ignored* so pervasively by critics on the Baha'i left?
Unfortunately what some post-modern/"progressive" "mystic theologians and "scriptural experts"would like to do is to weaken the authority of the House of Justice and move it aside so that they can more openly promote their (frequently arrogant) ambitions to promote their ideological agenda and seek support for it in the community.
In other words, on the road to the "progressive reforms" they so dearly want (removing literature review, women on the House, acceptance of gays, approval for membership in progressive activist politics, etc.) cause the very schisms and divisions that the "infallibility" doctine was supposed to prevent in the first place.
Regards,
Eric
(unconfirmed/voluntary ex-Baha'i)
Sacramento
http://www.formlessmountain.com/audio1/audio.html
- - -
On the the main point:
My understanding is that, on a practical level, the whole point of the "infallibility doctrine (by centralizing final authority in one body) is that it prevents crazy people from trying to establish themselves as authoritative sources of theological interpretation in order to create some kind of protest movement (or alternative "school of interpretation") within the Baha'i community.
In other words, the doctine was intended to prevent ideologically motivated attacks on Baha'i institutions from being portrayed as being "legitimate" (because they came from a "theological expert", or "mystic"), especially if such "alternate" theologies would result in schism.
A historical point that many post-modern "mystical" critics of Baha'i culture (from secular societies) apparently fail to appreciate is that mysticism in the muslim world was widely corrupted by superstition. Dervishes (usually unkept w/ long hair, which probably exlpains the prohibition on hair length) held huge sway over the poor/rural people (peasants/slaves) in various areas by demonstrations of "supernatural power" such as walking on beds of hot coals, and anyone (including landowners and other wealthy people, civil servants, etc.) not conforming to the (theological and political) dictates of such corrupt mystics was in serious trouble.
Clearly Baha'u'llah intended to reform mysticism by making it mainstream and cleaning it up by removing its tendencies toward superstition and political corruption.
To reiterate:
BAHA'U'LLAH WAS REFORMING CORRUPT MYSTICISM.
BAHA'U'LLAH WAS REFORMING CORRUPT MYSTICISM.
BAHA'U'LLAH WAS REFORMING CORRUPT MYSTICISM.
When you see "religious leaders" being accused of corruption in the Bahai writings, IT INCLUDES MYSTICS and IT INCLUDES "THEOLOGICAL EXPERTS".
Now, one has to ask why is it that this basic point of history is *ignored* so pervasively by critics on the Baha'i left?
Unfortunately what some post-modern/"progressive" "mystic theologians and "scriptural experts"would like to do is to weaken the authority of the House of Justice and move it aside so that they can more openly promote their (frequently arrogant) ambitions to promote their ideological agenda and seek support for it in the community.
In other words, on the road to the "progressive reforms" they so dearly want (removing literature review, women on the House, acceptance of gays, approval for membership in progressive activist politics, etc.) cause the very schisms and divisions that the "infallibility" doctine was supposed to prevent in the first place.
Regards,
Eric
(unconfirmed/voluntary ex-Baha'i)
Sacramento
http://www.formlessmountain.com/audio1/audio.html
-
JusticeForAll
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 9:16 am
Intrested in Bacoming a Baha'i
It seems we deviate.
1) The Faith is growing, growth does not occur equally in humans, or thier need to grasp beliefs.
2) Pray
3) See #2
4) Yes there can be issues people have, some can see corruption where not exists and some purity where corruption exists. Concerning your desire to fill that spiritual hole, with a possible full introduction into the Faith ... find a Baha'i Assembly, tell them what you have told us, sit back and list for yourself ... internet opinions are easy ... reality is harsh. Seek and ye shall find either in the Baha'i Faith or in the Faith your heart chooses from God's Bounty.
[Side unconfirmed ex-Baha'i, I would love to have a further discussion with you concerning some of the issues you made have/be having ... either as a Baha'i or not you seem to need some healing.]
1) The Faith is growing, growth does not occur equally in humans, or thier need to grasp beliefs.
2) Pray
3) See #2
4) Yes there can be issues people have, some can see corruption where not exists and some purity where corruption exists. Concerning your desire to fill that spiritual hole, with a possible full introduction into the Faith ... find a Baha'i Assembly, tell them what you have told us, sit back and list for yourself ... internet opinions are easy ... reality is harsh. Seek and ye shall find either in the Baha'i Faith or in the Faith your heart chooses from God's Bounty.
[Side unconfirmed ex-Baha'i, I would love to have a further discussion with you concerning some of the issues you made have/be having ... either as a Baha'i or not you seem to need some healing.]
-
kristen wilson
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 6:42 am
Pierced off
Hi Eric,
I understood the listowner (Jonah) to say that the topic of possible corruption within the House or AO was prohibited unless we confined ourselves to what the Baha'i writings say about it. I don't believe you've put forward anything from the writings. Your post seems to be either off-topic or an ad hominem -- or both.
ka kite
Steve
I understood the listowner (Jonah) to say that the topic of possible corruption within the House or AO was prohibited unless we confined ourselves to what the Baha'i writings say about it. I don't believe you've put forward anything from the writings. Your post seems to be either off-topic or an ad hominem -- or both.
ka kite
Steve
"infallability" designed to prevent schism, or not
Steve,
You are the one that posted an ad hominem and is bullying. The "subject line" you inserted is completely inappropriate. It always amazes me that the people on the Bahai left that complain about free speech and not being allowed full access to criticize Baha'i institutions are so easy to attack any critic of the Baha'i left itself. The contradiction is extremely revealing, and should give considerable pause to anyone that reads the kind of material that the Baha'i left has put up on the internet.
Anyways, the fact is that the URL you posted points to an article that has an immense flaw in - it in that it excludes a basic principle, related to the "infallability" doctrine, that is clearly established in the Baha'i writings: prevention of schisms/factions.
In other words, the article "decontextualizes" things in a significant way, again a bizarre situation considering that the Baha'i left always complains about mainstream Baha'is doing exactly the same thing ("decontextualizing") in order to use the writings to prove some previously arrived at conclusion (AKA "quote wars").
If you were purely interested in posting things from Baha'i scripture you would have just cut/pasted them instead of posting the URL that points to an article that is, at least according to the Universal House of Justice, an attack on Baha'i institutions so severe that it resulted in the author having her membership in the Baha'i community removed.
In any case, I'm sure that it would be extremely easy to find the quotes that support the idea that the "infallibility" doctrine was, on a practical level, designed to prevent schism, factionalizing and internal corruption.
If you would confine yourself to discussion that subject, I'm sure that Jonah's requirements would be more than satisfied.
Regards,
Eric
You are the one that posted an ad hominem and is bullying. The "subject line" you inserted is completely inappropriate. It always amazes me that the people on the Bahai left that complain about free speech and not being allowed full access to criticize Baha'i institutions are so easy to attack any critic of the Baha'i left itself. The contradiction is extremely revealing, and should give considerable pause to anyone that reads the kind of material that the Baha'i left has put up on the internet.
Anyways, the fact is that the URL you posted points to an article that has an immense flaw in - it in that it excludes a basic principle, related to the "infallability" doctrine, that is clearly established in the Baha'i writings: prevention of schisms/factions.
In other words, the article "decontextualizes" things in a significant way, again a bizarre situation considering that the Baha'i left always complains about mainstream Baha'is doing exactly the same thing ("decontextualizing") in order to use the writings to prove some previously arrived at conclusion (AKA "quote wars").
If you were purely interested in posting things from Baha'i scripture you would have just cut/pasted them instead of posting the URL that points to an article that is, at least according to the Universal House of Justice, an attack on Baha'i institutions so severe that it resulted in the author having her membership in the Baha'i community removed.
In any case, I'm sure that it would be extremely easy to find the quotes that support the idea that the "infallibility" doctrine was, on a practical level, designed to prevent schism, factionalizing and internal corruption.
If you would confine yourself to discussion that subject, I'm sure that Jonah's requirements would be more than satisfied.
Regards,
Eric
Re: Intrested in Bacoming a Baha'i
talmont,
It wasn't clear what you were saying (about LSAs???) up to the following:
"[Side unconfirmed ex-Baha'i, I would love to have a further discussion with you concerning some of the issues you made have/be having ... either as a Baha'i or not you seem to need some healing.]"
Why would you love to have that discussion? I have a very short fuse for sanctimonious posturing.
Here is the short version:
I was coerced into signing a declaration card during the time of the mass teaching projects in S. Carolina (early 1970s). I wasn't in S. Carolina, but many of the Baha'i youth "teachers" back then in the area I did declare in had been in S. Carolina recently, and there was an atmosphere of ~soooo~ much "excitement" that it became easy to manipulate people in order to meet declaration "quotas" (which were a *really* big deal back then, to the point of being a bizarro obsession, IMO).
Of course after I declared, no one cared about me, I was expected to just troop off to boring firesides, deepenings, feasts, etc., along with the large number of other new (mostly youth) declarants. As someone that was raised as a "social activist", I was shocked to find out that Baha'is had absolutely no interest in activism.
Anyways, due to a long accumulation of experiences with highly dysfunctional Baha'is and massive bureaucratic incompetence (abuse of authority) and seeing the Baha'i left fail to effect any siginificant reforms, I resigned in protest of a particularly idiotic instance of political correctness and thought policing.
HTH!!!
:):)
Regards,
Eric
It wasn't clear what you were saying (about LSAs???) up to the following:
"[Side unconfirmed ex-Baha'i, I would love to have a further discussion with you concerning some of the issues you made have/be having ... either as a Baha'i or not you seem to need some healing.]"
Why would you love to have that discussion? I have a very short fuse for sanctimonious posturing.
Here is the short version:
I was coerced into signing a declaration card during the time of the mass teaching projects in S. Carolina (early 1970s). I wasn't in S. Carolina, but many of the Baha'i youth "teachers" back then in the area I did declare in had been in S. Carolina recently, and there was an atmosphere of ~soooo~ much "excitement" that it became easy to manipulate people in order to meet declaration "quotas" (which were a *really* big deal back then, to the point of being a bizarro obsession, IMO).
Of course after I declared, no one cared about me, I was expected to just troop off to boring firesides, deepenings, feasts, etc., along with the large number of other new (mostly youth) declarants. As someone that was raised as a "social activist", I was shocked to find out that Baha'is had absolutely no interest in activism.
Anyways, due to a long accumulation of experiences with highly dysfunctional Baha'is and massive bureaucratic incompetence (abuse of authority) and seeing the Baha'i left fail to effect any siginificant reforms, I resigned in protest of a particularly idiotic instance of political correctness and thought policing.
HTH!!!
:):)
Regards,
Eric
-
kristen wilson
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 6:42 am
Re: "infallability" designed to prevent schism, or
epierce wrote:...an article that is, at least according to the Universal House of Justice, an attack on Baha'i institutions so severe that it resulted in the author having her membership in the Baha'i community removed.
Hi Eric,
Nonsense. The article was written years after the author had her membership removed.
You are absolutely right about the subject line, and of course I apologise for that.
Meanwhile, it would be nice to get back on-topic on this thread. Perhaps you could start a new thread on the evils of the Baha'i Left.
cheers
Steve
?designed to prevent schism, factionalizing?
Like I said before:
In any case, I'm sure that it would be extremely easy to find the quotes that support the idea that the "infallibility" doctrine was, on a practical level, designed to prevent schism, factionalizing and internal corruption.
Regards,
Eric
In any case, I'm sure that it would be extremely easy to find the quotes that support the idea that the "infallibility" doctrine was, on a practical level, designed to prevent schism, factionalizing and internal corruption.
Regards,
Eric
specific cases
Hasan wrote:I don't think it is a good idea to talk about specific cases in this forum, it is useless, we will not arrive anywhere.
- - -
The fact is that the URL to the article was posted.
Not excerpts from the writings, or analysis/commentary about the writings, but a convoluted article (full of ideological bias and distortions) that contains one of the most notorious attacks on the House in recent history by using the pretext of analysing the issue of "infallability".
The fact is that the author was kicked out of the Faith for this kind of stuff.
Another fact is that the article, quite cleverly, uses the analysis of the *very doctrine designed to prevent schism* as the basis for attacking the authority of the Universal House of Justice (thereby creating a very real possibility of encouraging a schism between "progressive" dissidents and "traditionalists" in the mainstream, and so forth).
Ironically, at the end of the article the author committs exactly the "sin" that the article accuses the House of ("shirk").
Appalling.
Re: "infallability" designed to prevent schism, or
epierce wrote:...an article that is, at least according to the Universal House of Justice, an attack on Baha'i institutions so severe that it resulted in the author having her membership in the Baha'i community removed.
Steve wrote:
Nonsense. The article was written years after the author had her membership removed.
You are absolutely right about the subject line, and of course I apologise for that.
Sorry, The author has written so many attacks on Baha'i institutions that I can't keep the chronology straight!
If you don't mind me asking, which attack article was it that actually got the author kicked out?
I only mentioned your subject line because you cited the rules of this forum (and I was referencing "consistency of argument"), not because I have any problem getting into fights with extremists on the Baha'i left.
Given Jonah's previous statement about not wanting this forum to turn into a "battleground" over possible "corruption of the AO", I doubt that he would be pleased about a whole thread about the massive failures and dysfunctional tendencies of the Baha'i left.
???
Hasan and those of similar perspective:
My main point is this: for anyone that does have a legitimate concern about problems in Baha'i culture, problems with Baha'i institutions, etc., don't just automatically *and uncritically* accept the sanitized (ideologically biased) versions of recent historical events that are presented in the revisionist polemics that the "dissident element" of Baha'i left is spreading all over the internet.
The dissident Baha'i left is increasingly attempting to portray itself as a "saintly victim" because there are so few "other" people around from the early days of the phenomena that actually saw everything that happened (unless you are from LA, or where on "talisman1", etc.), and can provide counterweight.
Regards,
Eric
-
JusticeForAll
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 9:16 am
Eric My reponse.
My subject changed do to the postigs of it falling into a different topic altogether :).
Eric,
I ststaed I would love to discuss this further because that is the type of person I am:
1) Face a challenge
2) Debate to a resolution
3) Gain Knowledge
4) Help people
(No particular order but I numbered them due to having HTML disabled)
I am sorry to read about how you were brought into the Faith. I do not find the issue of being 'forgotten' an unfimilar issues unfortunatly. My understanding about the American Baha'i Faith (no no not a sect just a locality marker) is that we are FAR different from any other nation who has the Faith.
American home of the hot headed, quick to join, [sheep mentality at times], out of our selves, think we are all that for being a whole 200 + years old.... no I am not suprised.
I am saddened. I can not say that I haven't been forgotten, or my family or children. But then I had the fortune to be intreasted in finding a Faith not a movement.
But my intreast in your statments are to assist you in the anger and betral issues I read arising in your life centering around mis-guided and ill thought actions on the part of others. My Faith or not, I would like to assist you in getting past this issue and allowing you to focus energy on other aspects of your life.
~talmont
uninstreasting@aol.com
Eric,
I ststaed I would love to discuss this further because that is the type of person I am:
1) Face a challenge
2) Debate to a resolution
3) Gain Knowledge
4) Help people
(No particular order but I numbered them due to having HTML disabled)
I am sorry to read about how you were brought into the Faith. I do not find the issue of being 'forgotten' an unfimilar issues unfortunatly. My understanding about the American Baha'i Faith (no no not a sect just a locality marker) is that we are FAR different from any other nation who has the Faith.
American home of the hot headed, quick to join, [sheep mentality at times], out of our selves, think we are all that for being a whole 200 + years old.... no I am not suprised.
I am saddened. I can not say that I haven't been forgotten, or my family or children. But then I had the fortune to be intreasted in finding a Faith not a movement.
But my intreast in your statments are to assist you in the anger and betral issues I read arising in your life centering around mis-guided and ill thought actions on the part of others. My Faith or not, I would like to assist you in getting past this issue and allowing you to focus energy on other aspects of your life.
~talmont
uninstreasting@aol.com
Thanks Jonah!
Jonah,
Thanks for clarifying the rules.
I'm replying to ~talmont's email seperately.
Regards,
Eric
Thanks for clarifying the rules.
I'm replying to ~talmont's email seperately.
Regards,
Eric
-
kristen wilson
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 6:42 am
Re: "infallability" designed to prevent schism, or
epierce wrote:If you don't mind me asking, which attack article was it that actually got the author kicked out?
That's a loaded question, so there's no point in dignifying it with an answer.
<a href="http://www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html">Logical fallacy - loaded question</a>
a matter of perspective?
Well, the reality is that the Universal House of Justice was established (in Baha'i scripture) to prevent schism, so they are the only "official" source of information on what is an "attack on the Faith", and what isn't.
The Universal House of Justice has clearly identified the author as being someone that has "attacked" Baha'i institutions, and is part of a group of "so called dissidents" that have been trying to impose a leftist/feminist/etc. ("partisan") version of Bahai thought on the community by setting themselves up as a source of "independent intellectual/theological authority"
Obviously the author and her supporters do not agree with the Universal House of Justice, so one has to look at the question from an "outside" perspective to really understand what is going on.
In my opinion, the underlying reason that the author and her supporters are attempting to undermine the "infallability" doctrine is not to arrive at some more "pure" mystical understanding of Baha'i scripture (as they claim), rather, it is to weaken the House so as to give "space" to people that want to turn the Baha'i community into a leftist/post-modernist political and cultural movement, and bring along all the dysfunctional stuff from those movements into the Baha'i community.
That kind of potential schism and corruption of Baha'i culture is clearly not acceptable or consistent with the basic principles of the Baha'i Faith.
In other words, the "cure" to the problems in the Baha'i community as given by the Baha'i left (weaken the House's authority) is far worse than the "disease" (which is pretty bad also in my opinion: too much fundamentalism and dysfunctional bureaucracy).
I would personally think that a "third way" solution is a much better "cure" than the one proposed by the "so called dissidents" on the Baha'i left.
Regards,
Eric
The Universal House of Justice has clearly identified the author as being someone that has "attacked" Baha'i institutions, and is part of a group of "so called dissidents" that have been trying to impose a leftist/feminist/etc. ("partisan") version of Bahai thought on the community by setting themselves up as a source of "independent intellectual/theological authority"
Obviously the author and her supporters do not agree with the Universal House of Justice, so one has to look at the question from an "outside" perspective to really understand what is going on.
In my opinion, the underlying reason that the author and her supporters are attempting to undermine the "infallability" doctrine is not to arrive at some more "pure" mystical understanding of Baha'i scripture (as they claim), rather, it is to weaken the House so as to give "space" to people that want to turn the Baha'i community into a leftist/post-modernist political and cultural movement, and bring along all the dysfunctional stuff from those movements into the Baha'i community.
That kind of potential schism and corruption of Baha'i culture is clearly not acceptable or consistent with the basic principles of the Baha'i Faith.
In other words, the "cure" to the problems in the Baha'i community as given by the Baha'i left (weaken the House's authority) is far worse than the "disease" (which is pretty bad also in my opinion: too much fundamentalism and dysfunctional bureaucracy).
I would personally think that a "third way" solution is a much better "cure" than the one proposed by the "so called dissidents" on the Baha'i left.
Regards,
Eric