Susan and all, I'm still confused as to why the discrimination regarding the membership of the Universal House of Justice is perceived as a problem. So I'm not quite sure what the discussion is all about. In the analysis of any problem there are always those who are want to say, 'well it's obvious", when it is not obvious at all but rather presumptions made by the plaintive and not always clearly enunciated in their own mind. Is there a proposition at the heart of all this? Owen
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Susan Maneck Sent: Tuesday, 5 August 2003 10:55 PM To: Baha'i Studies Subject: Re: Anything new on the House and women question? If you can get a hold of JA and PJ Khan's > Advancement of Women: A Baha'i Perspective, pp.122-134 is the longest > "official" discussion yet published. Dear Steve, I don't think we should regard something written by an individual member of the House has 'official.' When he writes a book of this sort his opinion is no different than anyone elses. > However they are in a position to "deliberate upon all problems which > have caused difference" (Will and Testament) and it may be that that > given sufficient unrest then another judicial principle (oneness or > unity) becomes > a more privileged judicial principle then something being embedded in > the Text. Were that the case then those who have been creating the most disunity over this issue might feel they were on the right track! But I think deliberating on problems that cause differences refers to their ability to elucidate the Baha'i Writings on matters of practice so there will *be* an authoritative decisions ending further disputes, not that they can change a Baha'i law because it is causing too much disunity. That would only be an encouragement to agitation. The only circumsances where I could imagine the House changing its ruling on this matter would be one of the following: 1) They were to find information regarding letters written on behalf of the Guardian on this matter which would allow them to set them aside, for instance if they found what a secretary had sent was markedly different from written instructions they were given. Not a likely scenario, I would think. 2. When the Supreme Tribunal merges with the House of Justice a decision would have to be reached as to which of the Guardian's guidance to follow, the one which allows women to sit on the Supreme Tribunal or the one that excludes them from the House. warmest, Susan ---------- 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) ---------- 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)
