Question

[David Friedman]

I was looking at the archives recently, and read about how Allan Ward was 
elected to the National Assembly of America some time back, but was removed 
from the NSA by the Universal House of Justice as soon as they found out 
about his election.  While I have no interest in finding out the reason, I 
find the action curious, for the reason that the House removed him from the 
NSA but did not deprive him of his voting rights.  I would have thought that 
if a person were removed from an NSA deprivation of voting rights would go 
along with it.  So I am interested in the general policy of the House.  What 
are some things one could do that might make the House remove one from an 
NSA, but have no interest in removing one of voting rights, thus remaining a 
Baha'i in good standing?  This makes me think back to a letter somewhere in 
LOG which says that administrative sanctions can be quite specific, and one 
was that a believer could be disallowed to serve on an Assembly.  I think 
that was related solely to local Assemblies, but I guess the House can 
decide to apply that at the national level if they want.  But I never heard 
any sanction mentioned.  Perhaps the issue of multiple warnings prior to the 
removal of voting rights had bearing in the situation.  Maybe there was some 
warning, but not many warnings, and thus the House might not have felt it 
could remove voting rights.  Maybe they like to leave such things to 
National Assemblies.  I would have thought that such an action by the House 
would override lack of warnings by whichever body in America, however.  I 
brought up the action of the House to another believer, who gave the 
following comments:

"I have no idea what the House of Justice's policies about this matter are.
My impression is that there are situations where the House of Justice will
regard someone as unfit or disqualified to serve, even though they are a
believer in good standing, perhaps because they know something the voters do
not know. This might have nothing to do with a behavior that requires
warnings; or sometimes it might. I don't know."
Perhaps it is correct that the action might have had nothing to do with a 
behaviour that requires warnings.  I wouldn't know.  But what followed the 
action makes me wonder.

In a discussion some time back one of the participants said they didn't know 
if Allan Ward is still a Baha'i.  I tried to find out from someone working 
at the National Office in Wilmette, but they weren't able to disclose 
membership information.  However, the person I wrote to saw and spoke to 
Allan Ward at the Parliament of the World's Religions in Chicago in 1994, 
and gathered he was a Unitarian at the time.  Allan Ward gave a talk at the 
Parliament that wasn't related to the Faith at all.  I'm guessing he's not a 
Baha'i anymore, not in belief anyway.

Regards,
David
_________________________________________________________________
Find your perfect match @  http://personals.xtramsn.co.nz   with XtraMSN 
Personals!

----------
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st
news://list.jccc.net/bahai-st
http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public)
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public)