Theos-Talk Archives (July 2008 Message tt00103)

As already I have discussed in earlier messages, I feel the more critical
and fundamental problem is transparency at all levels.

For a democratic institution to function efficiently, transparency is a
must. It makes the members actively and intelligently participate in the
mission of the organization. In today's world, most intelligent and
independent thinking men and women would not blindly follow anyone whether
for rewards now or in the heaven or future world. Once leaders are elected
(at any level), they assume that they know what is best for the members and
do not take multi-directional interaction seriously and lack of transparency
leaves one to assume or listen to rumors or info on grapevine.

As pointed out in the 1900 letter from Master KH, unnecessary secrecy has
killed many organizations. I hope, TS also does not fall victim to it.

mkr


On 7/11/08, kpauljohnson <kpauljohnson@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>   Hey,
>
> One passage in Betty's article really strikes me as worth discussing
> here. "Other longtime friends and supporters of Radha urged her to
> step down, but she expressed her wish to stay in office for life.
> Although lifetime service in the office of president has been in our
> history, it is not necessarily a healthy practice, as it allows the
> possibility of an autocratic leadership instead of a transparent
> democracy."
>
> The only edit I'd suggest is to replace "allows the possibility"
> to "ensures the inevitability"-- but then I can trash the entire
> leadership history of the TS with no qualms, whereas in Betty's
> position I can see a need for a certain evasiveness :) But at least
> she gestures in the general direction of the elephant in the room.
>
> I started the primary season without any strong feelings for/against
> any of the Democratic candidates, but almost daily had reason to move
> towards an "anyone but Clinton" position. Why? Mainly because Bill
> Clinton constantly made it evident that he saw a Hillary nomination
> as a restoration of a dynasty-- while also giving people reason to
> dread such a development. Needless to add, hope I never live to see
> another Bush darken the doorway of the White House and the history of
> the world. An idiot like Dubya would never have had a chance if his
> last name had been Smith. But India has had the same problem, an
> ostensible democracy where people repeatedly installed the
> Nehru/Gandhi dynasty because the popular imagination was still stuck
> in the era of the maharajas. And the TS dynastic corruption of
> democracy is arguably worse than either of the above examples, as for
> 50 the last 57 years the presidency is in hands of a father and
> daughter. I'd like to think the overwhelming Indian vote for Radha
> was about rejecting Algeo, but surely it is all about blindly
> supporting dynasty.
>
> So now we know that Radha basically feels entitled by TS history to a
> lifetime tenure regardless of her health or the effect on the
> Society. (Assuming the Betty is correct, and she said something
> along these lines the only time we had a personal conversation, in
> Maryland in 1999.) But what evidence is there that John Algeo is any
> less arrogant or entitled-feeling, or wouldn't hang on to the age of
> 110 if given the chance? None AFAIK.
>
> BTW, the ARE finally moved away from dynasty, after leadership
> passing from Edgar to Hugh Lynn to Charles Thomas over a 70 year
> span. There is finally a non-Cayce in charge, and no Cayce heir
> apparent in sight looking for a restoration. Are there any young
> Shastrys or Algeos waiting in the wings to run the TS throughout this
> century? I gather not, so perhaps the curse of dynastic corruption
> of [ALLEGED] TS democracy will be lifted within our lifetimes.
>
> PJ
>
> 
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]