The US District Court in Chicago held an evidentiary hearing on January 7, 2008, on the question of whether the OBF was in privity with Mason Remey's organization (the NSA of Bahais under the Hereditary Guardianship) and therefore bound by the 1966 Judgment entered against the Remey group. The hearing was held in order for the Court to decide material issues of fact in dispute in connection with the sans-Guardian Wilmette NSA's motion for contempt against the Orthodox Baha'is (and also the Neal Chase organization.
One of the Wilmette NSA's witnesses was NSA member and former Secretary Dr Robert Henderson, who testified about the reasons for bringing the motion. What is startling about this testimony, as against the OBF, is that the NSA's motion has offered up the pretense that the OBF's use of its trademarks (that is, the word "Baha'i") is causing reputational harm to the NSA.
In this testimony, Dr. Henderson admits that the only thing objectionable about the OBF web sites is the "thematic misrepresentation" that there is or could be more than one Baha'i faith (or one other than the sans-Guardian one). In other words, it is the very existence of the OBF that bothers the NSA, and its motion seeks to silence the OBF:
MR. JEFFERY A. HANDELMAN, Attorney for NSA (Direct Examination):
Dr. Henderson, what caused the NSA to file the current contempt motion
that is now pending before the Court?
DR. ROBERT HENDERSON: The National Spiritual Assembly became aware, as
a result of reports, that there were Web sites that were
misrepresenting Baha'i belief and claiming to be official institutions
of the Baha'i faith. We hadn't seen them, but we began to get reports.
And upon investigation, we were alarmed to find that there were Web
sites claiming to be the official institutions of the Baha'i faith and
-- and -- presenting beliefs which were in direct conflict to Baha'i
teachings and Baha'i principles and at broad variance.
We had significant concerns about this. First, we were concerned about
Baha'i refugees who were forced to flee their homes and their home
countries because of their belief in the Baha'i faith, and who, in
some cases, had corresponded with the wrong institutions, thinking
that they were corresponding with the international
governing body of the Baha'i faith and, in fact, they were sending
their correspondence to some other institution.
Secondly, we were concerned about the public because one of our major
strategies is to advise the public of the teachings and the fact and
general aim of the Baha'i faith through the Internet. In fact, our Web
site has won several awards for excellence from the National Religious
Communication -- Communicators -- Council, which is an organization
that looks at religious publications and Web sites and videos, and so
forth.
And we won the gold medal, in fact, as having the best Web site of the
faith communities in the United States.
And, so, this is a primary means by which we communicate Baha'i
belief, and who are the Baha'is, and what do we believe, and what do
we do, and where can you find Baha'is close to you.
Suddenly, we began to receive some alarming reports from people who
were not Baha'is, but who were investigating the Baha'i faith through
the Internet, concerned about what they were reading on Web sites
claiming to be official Baha'i Web sites. And their concern was
stimulated by the fact that the content on these Web sites was in
direct conflict with their understanding of Baha'i belief; and, in
fact, it was in direct conflict.
And, then, lastly, there were -- or penultimately, we were concerned
about the Baha'is themselves who might be misled and find themselves
involved in discussions -- in fact, this did occur; find themselves
involved in Internet forums and the like and corresponding -- with
organizations that were not part of the National Spiritual Assembly.
And last, we were concerned with reputational harm. As I mentioned, we
have extensive and longstanding relations with the United Nations,
with the White House, with the -- with both Houses of Congress, with
the human rights community. And these are based on principles of peace
and cooperation, of universal fellowship, of race unity, of the
equality of women and men, and so forth. All of the Baha'i principles
centered around facilitating unity and cooperation and universal well-
being and social progress.
These Web sites have alarming content that were in direct conflict
with Baha'i teachings and, in some cases, even suggested that harm
would come to institutions that we have long supported.
For example, in one case -- as I mentioned, we have had a non-
governmental organization in the United Nations since its formation in
1948 and have consultative status with ECOSOC, and so on and so forth.
One of the Web sites we read said that the United Nations would be
nuked.
Well, there's no such Baha'i teaching suggesting that. It is
completely antithetical to the teachings of our faith and very
damaging to a member of the United Nations that might read that and be
confused and think that Baha'is believe that destruction would come to
an organization that we have been so vigorously supportive of and so
deeply involved in.
===================================================
Later:
MR. JEFFREY A. GOLDBERG, Attorney for the OBF (Cross Examination): You
said in your testimony that you found these Web sites that were
mimicking the official institutions of the faith. Can you tell me
which ones they were? Were those Orthodox Baha'i Faith Web sites?
DR. ROBERT HENDERSON: There were several of them. The one that comes
readily to mind is Baha'is Under the Provision of the Covenant. And,
then, there were Web sites claiming to be the official Universal House
of Justice. And --
(Brief pause.)
BY THE WITNESS:
A. Those are the ones that come readily to mind.
BY MR. GOLDBERG:
Q. So, the Orthodox Baha'i Faith Web site -- for example, Joel
Marangella's Web site where he claims to be the Guardian of the Baha'i
faith -- was that -- do you consider that an official institution of
the faith?
A. No. The official institutions of the Baha'i faith are the ones that
I mentioned: The Universal House of Justice in Haifa, Israel; the 183
National Spiritual Assemblies in countries around the world; and, the
26,000 or so recognized local spiritual
assemblies.
Q. So, has the Orthodox Baha'i Faith ever represented that it was the
Universal House of Justice --
A. I don't know.
Q. -- or the National Spiritual Assembly?
A. I don't know.
Q. And you also mentioned that there were beliefs in conflict on the
Web site of the Baha'i teaching. And with the exception of the
Orthodox Baha'i Faith's teachings about that they believe that Joel
Marangella's the Guardian, can you identify any beliefs that are set
forth in our -- in the Orthodox Baha'i Faith -- Web sites that has
anything that is in conflict with Baha'i teachings as you know --
understand them?
A. There were -- in the range of Web site material that I've read,
there were -- several thematic misrepresentations and factual
representations.
The first was that there is an alternate Baha'i faith. There is not.
This notion that we are orthodox or true, that we are official, stands
in direct conflict to the fundamental principle of the Baha'i faith;
which is, the unity of faith.
Anyone is free to believe what they wish. Privately they can enjoy
freedom of belief, and they can think of themselves as whatever brings
meaning and spiritual cohesion to their lives. But when you begin to
present yourself and to present counterclaims as being official or
orthodox or more true to an established entity, the Baha'i faith is --
has teachings and laws and principles and structure that make up the
faith itself. That provides its cohesion and its integrity.
The -- these Web sites claim to be the orthodox manifestation of that
or the official counterpart to that. It's a fundamental conflict in
Baha'i belief. It simply does not parse in Baha'i teachings or
principles.
Comments