Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 18, 2001, Page 107
group which is willing to act this way and be so cruel is beyond me. That is
why I voluntarily left the religion. Not in order to escape punishment but
because the Baha‘i community had become such an unhealthy place
spiritually. I was terribly saddened that my spiritual home of 25 years had
turned into a prison and nightmare.60
David Langness also expressed concerns about the potential effect on his family and
reported being more afraid of the prospect of being named a covenant-breaker than he had
ever been during his experience as a medic in Vietnam.61
If the intent of the Baha‘i institutions was to silence dissent, the effort backfired. One of
those investigated, Professor Juan Cole of the University of Michigan, became far more vocal
and critical after his resignation than he had been before. Freed from the restraints imposed
by Baha‘i membership, he not only went public with the story of how he had been coerced
into renouncing his religion, but also put previously-suppressed documents, such as A
Modest Proposal, on the web and wrote articles about the administration‘s internal control
mechanisms.62 It is fair to say that, while conservative Baha‘is continue to defend the
administration‘s actions, the crackdown created more online critics than it silenced.
In a letter dated April 7, 1999, the Universal House of Justice describes this as ―a campaign
of internal opposition to the Teachings.‖ Specifically, it accuses those involved of trying to
impose a political ideology on Baha‘i teaching and condemns the ―materialistic‖ scholarship
on which this ―scheme‖ rests. The letter dismisses any complaints concerning human rights
violations, since Baha‘i membership is voluntary.63
Since the Talisman investigation, there have been no further threats to name online
dissidents as covenant-breakers. Instead, three such critics have been summarily dropped
from the membership rolls, with the explanation that their ―behavior and attitude‖
disqualifies them. The UHJ has further explained to inquirers about these cases that had
these people not been expressing their views publicly, their ―misconceptions‖ would have
remained their ―personal spiritual problem,‖ but since they decided to disseminate them on
the Internet they had to be removed from the rolls for the sake of the Faith‘s unity.64
According to the accounts of those expelled from the Faith this way, the announcements
have come without prior warning that their membership status was in jeopardy.65 The UHJ,
however, has claimed that such actions have only been taken after extensive counseling.66
In the case of Alison Marshall of New Zealand members of her national community wrote
letters of protest, provoking this scolding response from House member Peter Khan:
But the point is that here it is an indication that something is fundamentally
wrong with the Baha‘i community in this country in terms of its depth of
understanding of the covenant and the authority of the institutions of the
Faith. What you take as normal is not normal, but abnormal. What is normal
is to have in a Baha‘i community a number of Baha‘is who are very
knowledgable about the covenant who can share their insights with others so
that the entire community has a good knowledge of the covenant and follows
it. And if that is not done, then what I foresee in the future in New Zealand is
more of the same --more vitriol, more foulness, more people rebelling
against that crowd of kill-joys in Haifa who call themselves the Universal
House of Justice and what do they know and this kind of stuff. That is what I
see in the future in this country unless there is sharp, urgent and prolonged
attention to a far greater deepening and understanding of the covenant.67
That is, the New Zealanders‘ sense of injustice at their countrywoman‘s sudden expulsion is
seen as wrong and abnormal, and that loyalty to the supreme governing body entails seeing
all of its decisions as right and just. Unlike those excommunicated as covenant-breakers,
group which is willing to act this way and be so cruel is beyond me. That is
why I voluntarily left the religion. Not in order to escape punishment but
because the Baha‘i community had become such an unhealthy place
spiritually. I was terribly saddened that my spiritual home of 25 years had
turned into a prison and nightmare.60
David Langness also expressed concerns about the potential effect on his family and
reported being more afraid of the prospect of being named a covenant-breaker than he had
ever been during his experience as a medic in Vietnam.61
If the intent of the Baha‘i institutions was to silence dissent, the effort backfired. One of
those investigated, Professor Juan Cole of the University of Michigan, became far more vocal
and critical after his resignation than he had been before. Freed from the restraints imposed
by Baha‘i membership, he not only went public with the story of how he had been coerced
into renouncing his religion, but also put previously-suppressed documents, such as A
Modest Proposal, on the web and wrote articles about the administration‘s internal control
mechanisms.62 It is fair to say that, while conservative Baha‘is continue to defend the
administration‘s actions, the crackdown created more online critics than it silenced.
In a letter dated April 7, 1999, the Universal House of Justice describes this as ―a campaign
of internal opposition to the Teachings.‖ Specifically, it accuses those involved of trying to
impose a political ideology on Baha‘i teaching and condemns the ―materialistic‖ scholarship
on which this ―scheme‖ rests. The letter dismisses any complaints concerning human rights
violations, since Baha‘i membership is voluntary.63
Since the Talisman investigation, there have been no further threats to name online
dissidents as covenant-breakers. Instead, three such critics have been summarily dropped
from the membership rolls, with the explanation that their ―behavior and attitude‖
disqualifies them. The UHJ has further explained to inquirers about these cases that had
these people not been expressing their views publicly, their ―misconceptions‖ would have
remained their ―personal spiritual problem,‖ but since they decided to disseminate them on
the Internet they had to be removed from the rolls for the sake of the Faith‘s unity.64
According to the accounts of those expelled from the Faith this way, the announcements
have come without prior warning that their membership status was in jeopardy.65 The UHJ,
however, has claimed that such actions have only been taken after extensive counseling.66
In the case of Alison Marshall of New Zealand members of her national community wrote
letters of protest, provoking this scolding response from House member Peter Khan:
But the point is that here it is an indication that something is fundamentally
wrong with the Baha‘i community in this country in terms of its depth of
understanding of the covenant and the authority of the institutions of the
Faith. What you take as normal is not normal, but abnormal. What is normal
is to have in a Baha‘i community a number of Baha‘is who are very
knowledgable about the covenant who can share their insights with others so
that the entire community has a good knowledge of the covenant and follows
it. And if that is not done, then what I foresee in the future in New Zealand is
more of the same --more vitriol, more foulness, more people rebelling
against that crowd of kill-joys in Haifa who call themselves the Universal
House of Justice and what do they know and this kind of stuff. That is what I
see in the future in this country unless there is sharp, urgent and prolonged
attention to a far greater deepening and understanding of the covenant.67
That is, the New Zealanders‘ sense of injustice at their countrywoman‘s sudden expulsion is
seen as wrong and abnormal, and that loyalty to the supreme governing body entails seeing
all of its decisions as right and just. Unlike those excommunicated as covenant-breakers,
