Re: Assemblies sworn to secrecy?

"Pete Jorgensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Some say that the agreement is needed to protect the faith from
> lawsuits.  Has anyone ever heard of a Bahai' Institution losing a
> lawsuit because of the lack of this agreement?   I haven't, although I
> have noticed individuals restricting and channeling the flow of
> information to maintain and enhance their personal administrative
> power.
>
> The wording of the agreement is interesting:
>
> "The National Spiritual Assembly asks"
>
> --this is a request, not a requirement, and as presented it may be
> declined without controversy.

If the purpose of the agreement is to inform Assembly members that they are
obliged to keep confidential matters private then they could easily devise a
way of doing that without this agreement.  The purpose seems to be to
squelch the flow of information within the Baha'i community.  My fear is
that there might be some personal liability for individuals who sign the
agreement and then face a lawsuit within the community over the privacy
issue (i.e. someone's personal problems were leaked and the individual
suffered as a result).

I can't really tell you what the purpose behind the agreement is, has anyone
seen an official explanation?  BTW I spent some time in Costa Rica, have you
ever visited that country?

Cheers, Randy



>
> "letter to a National"
>
> --the excerpt from the House is incomplete, but it apparently can be
> applied at the discretion of the individual National Assembly.  I have
> not seen it in Panama yet, (although we didn't even have a cluster
> here until last month).
>
> "not to be divulged to any unauthorized person"
>
> -- Since the wording is not 'to anyone not named by the Assembly' the
> agreement evidently leaves determining who is 'authorized' up to the
> individual's conscience.
>
> The agreement is vague, probably not by design but by habit.
> Enforcement will depend on administrative consensus, not on agreement
> wording.   What the agreement will do however is allow those in power
> to cite yet one more 'offense' by the accused.