News

A Najafi, actually it makes

A Najafi, actually it makes a lot of sense. Protestant, Catholics, Unitarians, etc. all use the name Christian and all use the symbol of the cross.

I'm shocked that the Bahais would stoop so low as to sue for something so stupid. Time to revise my image of them.

Ross

Actually Ross that is where u are wrong. To be a Bahai means not only following the teachings and principles, but also means following the laws of the faith. By making that break with the explicit laws regarding the successionism of the faith, they are failing in that duty and hence can't be considered a Baha'i. Just as an engineer can't be considered an engineer unless they are accredited, inticating that they are to follow all the rules and regulations that come with their profession. And this is not a case of different interpretations as these laws are written clearly, for those that wish to have a look. That might explain why the Bahai faith grew by 4million people n the remeynities actually dropped in number to maybe 30? In the last 50 odd yrs.

what gives?

Come on Faryar, "self seeking individuals and self-proclaimed reactionary groups"?! Far out, listen to what you're saying! And by the way, this news item was put up by NUR as a blog on the 20th of May, immediately taken down and their account blocked. Now JJ, you're putting it up and recommending it? What gives?

To Faryar

Faryar said:

"No matter how you see it, Bahais have the right to protect their name from self seeking individuals and self proclaimed reactionary groups."

Change the names and circumstances around and this is the IRI's precise, word for word argument against Bahaism.

First Court Order

Orthodox Baha'is and the BUPC were found to be separate entities from the Remeyites. So, they are not bound by the order. I think the first court case in 1964 was about the ownership of the property and for some odd reason the case was heard without the Remeyites being present or represented and therefore the UHJ Baha'is won by default. (Who knows if something sneaky took place back then to hold the session without notifying the Remeyites?) At any rate, by today's standards a religion can not trademark a name like "Baha'i". Baha'i is simply a follower of Baha'u'llah.

Orthodox Baha'is are not atheists or unbelievers

A Najafi wrote:

"If people want to break-off and create their own set of beliefs that is fine but they need to be honest and create a new identity for the belief set. It would be like an atheist calling their philosophical group Christians and using the cross as a symbol. It just doesn't make sense."

Your comparison is dishonest. You know very well that Orthodox Baha'is are not unbelievers or atheists. Orthodox Baha'is are followers of the Founders of the Baha'i Faith and teach Their Message, exactly as they wrote it, including "every clause of `Abdu'l-Bahá's sacred Will", many of which clauses of His sacred Will members of the large body of Bahai's do not teach. It is the members of the sans-Guardian organizations of Baha'is who are unbelievers in "every clause" of His sacred Will, not Orthodox Baha'is. Orthodox Baha'is are believers.

Ross

problems among

Bahai's too have a generous amount of problems and disagreements among themselves.... there is no need to hide this fact.

Dear Ostad.

Simply put;

This case started as a response to a suit brought in the 1950s, in order to preserve the name and  the unity of the Bahai Faith and to help avoid confusion, created by the ego driven ambitious individuals whose agenda is to create schism and divison in the Bahai Faith.

As Susan commented:

"According to the court documents themselves there are only about thirty followers of the so-called Orthodox Baha'i Faith (or Remeyites, as I prefer to call them.) But the real problem with this article is that it distorts what this court case is really all about. The National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United States is merely attempting to enforce an *existing* court order which came as a result of a lawsuit the Remeyites had themselves filed in 1964 where, under Mason Remey's direction, they themselves attempted to claim a monopoly, not only over the term "Baha'i" but to claim all Baha'i properties as well. Had Mason Remey

believed this was something that should be decided in hearts and
minds, and not in the courts, this court order would never have been

issued in the first place. Remey, by the way, accepted that court order and ordered his organization to disband and stop using the term "Baha'i." That is when Joel Marangella broke with Mason Remey and claimed the Guardianship for himself, forming the "Orthodox Baha'i Faith." Their argument has been that since they are a separate organization they are not bound by the court order issued against Mason Remey's organization. The National Spiritual Assembly holds that this new organization was but a subterfuge around the court's original decision. This is what is being argued before the Court of Appeals. It is an issue of who owns the Baha'i trademarks, not which faction is really 'orthodox.' The National Spiritual Assembly is not trying to infringe on anyone's religious liberty, merely to safeguard the names and symbols of their own organization."

 No matter how you see it, Bahais have the right to protect their name from self seeking individuals and self proclaimed reactionary groups.

faryarm 

ostaad chill

The term Bahai represents a set of values and beliefs and commitments, just like the term moslem does. If you dont agree with those you should not use the terms to describe yourself. You know better than that.

You dont see Sonnis calling themselves Shia but revere Ommar, do you!
What is wrong with making it simple and less confusing.
In the old times there was no way to settled these matters now there is.

"Bahai" is a trade mark, just like cheetos?!!!

Silly me I have always thought "Bahai" was some sort of relgious
belief. Never occured to me it was a trade or sort of an Industry! Does
this mean every "Bahai" has a Trademark sign tatooed on his/her
buttocks to ensure no one is faking the names and symbols of their
"organization"?

So much for the "universal" humanity, love and all that bull soup. 

However

According to the court documents themselves there are only about forty followers of the so-called Orthodox Baha'i Faith (or Remeyites, as I prefer to call them.) But the real problem with this article is that it distorts what this court case is really all about. The National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United States is merely attempting to enforce an *existing* court order which came as a result of a lawsuit the Remeyites had themselves filed in 1964 where, under Mason Remey's direction, they themselves attempted to claim a monopoly, not only over the term "Baha'i" but to claim all Baha'i properties as well. Had Mason Remey
believed this was something that should be decided in hearts and
minds, and not in the courts, this court order would never have been
issued in the first place. Remey, by the way, accepted that court order and ordered his organization to disband and stop using the term "Baha'i." That is when Joel Marangella broke with Mason Remey and claimed the Guardianship for himself, forming the "Orthodox Baha'i Faith." Their argument has been that since they are a separate organization they are not bound by the court order issued against Mason Remey's organization. The National Spiritual Assembly holds that this new organization was but a subterfuge around the court's original decision. This is what is being argued before the Court of Appeals. It is an issue of who owns the Baha'i trademarks, not which faction is really 'orthodox.' The National Spiritual Assembly is not trying to infringe on anyone's religious liberty, merely to safeguard the names and symbols of their own organization.

Sounds reasonable

In the Baha'i writings and the fact that Shoghi Effendi did not appoint a successor (which needed to be authenticated by a pre-identified group of learned Baha'is), it is very clear that the Universal House of Justice would have sole responsibility for the leadership of the Baha'i world community. This is envisioned in Baha'u'llah's writings.

Every religion has some people that want to break-off and create their own splinter groups. Given the clear direction on successorship in the Baha'i writings, the Baha'is are very protective of something they view as a safeguard to the integrity and dignity of their religion. I think that their desire to want to safeguard this is very reasonable.

If people want to break-off and create their own set of beliefs that is fine but they need to be honest and create a new identity for the belief set. It would be like an atheist calling their philosophical group Christians and using the cross as a symbol. It just doesn't make sense.