Cowardice of the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States
Juan Cole
Since you have been out here backbiting me and using foul language and
treating me to a little auto-da-fe of your own in typical
Inquisitorial fundamentalist-Baha'i Style, let me just take a moment
out of my busy life to respond to you, whoever you are.
First of all, you have pretended to hurt that I suggested that the US
NSA was cowardly in its response to the horrible attack on the United
State of September 11. But it is cowardly. In the NSA letter
appended to the message of a private individual below, the NSA urges
that Baha'is in the wake of September 11 avoid criticizing the Taliban
Government of Afghanistan. We were not even supposed to "assign
blame" to Osama Bin Ladin or al-Qaida!
"above any mention whatsoever of government actions,
assignment of blame . . ."
Moreover, no Baha'i writing in as an individual to a newspaper was
allowed to say, "I am a Baha'i, and I condemn this evil attack on the
United States by virtue of my Baha'i values, of tolerance and respect
for human life." Bob Henderson had the gall to tell us that we could
not say this.
What in the world does the Baha'i faith stand for if it doesn't even
publicly stand against terrorism? If adherents cannot publicly
associate themselves both with a condemnation of mass murder and with
the Baha'i principles??
As for this minor issue of whether the NSA had planned to ban the
saying of the Prayer for America, it remains murky. Not only I but
the poster below, posting in the same period, had heard that it might.
I heard the same things, and was not unusual in giving them credence.
I am glad to publicly acknowledge that the NSA does not appear, at
least openly, to have banned the saying of the prayer. What
instructions it has given its legion of Secret Police (Assistants &
ABMs) behind the scenes we do not know. A lot goes on in the inner
core of the Baha'i faith that is hidden from outsiders, even from the
rank and file Baha'is.
So, Pat, you wanted to hear me say I got that detail wrong in the heat
of the moment, and here it is. I got it wrong. Unlike some people, I
don't claim infallibility. I correct my errors. Doug Martin and
Farzam Arbab don't have to ever say they are sorry, because they are
tinpot dictators.
But I did not get the tenor of the NSA response wrong. It is
cowardly. It is running for the hills.
And I mind it. Because when the Iranian Baha'is needed the support of
my government, the United States stuck its neck out for them. The US
Congress passed resolutions, condemning the Iranian government for its
persecution of the Baha'is. Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Clinton all
condemned Iran on this issue. Don't you think that maybe American
citizens could have been hurt by the Khomeinists in response? They
did so at the explicit urging of the National Spiritual Assembly of
the Baha'is of the United States, which maintained a $500,000 a year
lobbyist for the explicit purpose of lobbying Washington on this
matter. Firuz Kazemzadeh button-holed U.S. officials endlessly over
this in public, while privately heaping scorn on the U.S. Congress.
Now, when my country needs the support of everyone it can get, the
National Spiritual Assembly announces that, well, no, it can't come
out and condemn the Taliban government of Afghanistan. Sorry, USA.
You did it for us but we're selfish cowardly s.o.b.s and we ain't
doing it for you.
So, Pat, say the Prayer for America all you like. But for the love of
God also stand up and say that *the Baha'i Faith* condemns al-Qaida,
the Taliban, and mass murder. Stand up to the pusillanimous
Hendersons of the world.
And just in case you don't get it, my advice to you is to get off my
case. I didn't come out on TRB with that message to which you
objected and I've got other things to do with my time these days that
debate and condemn minor cultists. But if you keep bringing me up I
will be coming after the cultists who have infiltrated and mutilated
the Baha'i administration vocally, with good evidence, every day. I
have file cabinets full of juicy stuff. I'd prefer to spend my time
another way. But if you really want to have me spend it this way,
just keep up your vacuous drumbeat.
cheers Juan
--------------------------------------------------
· From:
· Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 04:35:52
National letter of Caution
Dear all'
It seems many (especially US Bahai's) are still in the dark about the
National letter of Caution.
Although no prayers have been actually spelt out (word for word) in
the
letter from the NSA, any Bahai with a little bit of brain-matter up
top who
knows The words in "Prayers for America" (below), is it not obvious,<
B>
Because of the politically sensitive nature of these recent tragic
events
, these prayers contain language that could seem threatening to
non-Bahá'ís.
namely, many Muslims, which in turn could bring retaliation to Baha'is
living in both the US and Middle Eastern Countries. One now begins to
understand the wisdom of the NSA's letter. (below)
In other words, until this crisis is over, you don't go around waving
a red
flag at a bull. Once the crisis is over apocalyptic references from t
he Bahá'í writings and other prayers can be used once again
(Publically that
is) By those Baha'is who wish to use them. . .
_____________________
National letter of Caution
Posted on NSA site 14/9/01
"To Public Information Representatives, Local Spiritual Assemblies, an
d Individual Bahá'ís:
All of us have been deeply affected by the tragic events in Washington
DC,
Pennsylvania, and New York. Without question, many Bahá'ís will yearn
to
make some response to demonstrate their wish that Bahá'u'lláh's
healing
message might reach every corner of this nation. In the words of the
National Spiritual Assembly in its message to the American Bahá'í
community, "The Bahá'í spirit of universal love and assistance are
more
urgently needed now than ever before." What is needed now is for us to
act
as true Bahá'ís, as
true servants to humankind.
The Office of External Affairs has received requests for guidance on
such
matters as whether it is appropriate to submit prayers to their local
newspap
ers, the appropriateness of writing letters to the editor in response
to
these tragic events and other similar inquiries.
We take this opportunity to remind the friends of the policy of the
National Spiritual Assembly on writing articles to local newspapers:
* Individual Bahá'ís must first seek the approval of the local
Spiritual
Assembly before submission to the newspaper if the person is writing
as a
Bahá'í.
* Bahá'ís are free to write letters to the editors of publications to
express their personal views if they do not identify themselves as
Bahá'ís,
imply that they represent the Faith or a Bahá'í community, or discuss
the
Bahá'í Faith.
* Individuals or local Spiritual Assemblies wishing to submit articles
to
national publications must first seek the approval of the Office of
External
Affairs.
* If individuals are uncertain about the relationship of their letters
to
the interest of the Faith, they should consult with their local
Spiritual
Assembly.
* Any local Spiritual Assembly that wishes to contact local government
officials including for the purpose of presenting Bahá'í materials
should
first consult with the Office of External Affairs.
Because of the politically sensitive nature of these recent tragic
events,
we ask that local Spiritual Assemblies consult with the Office of
External
Affairs before submitting anything to a local newspaper. The Office of
External Affairs can be reached by phone at (202) 833-8990 or e-mail
at
usnsa-oea@
usbnc.org. Please note that the Office of Public Information in New
York
City is currently experiencing difficulty in receiving telephone and
e-mail
communications.
General guidelines for appropriate tone of communications to the
media:
Any Bahá'í-connected message to the public should try to elevate the
response to the attacks to a higher, more spiritual level that is
above
hatred and recrimination, above any mention whatsoever of government
actions,
assignment of blame, and above the attempt to use this tragedy as an
opportunity to advance our own interests. It would also not be
appropriate to cite apocalyptic references from the Bahá'í writings
or to submit prayers which contain language that could seem
threatening to non-Bahá'ís.
We welcome you to contact the Office of External Affairs anytime with
your
questions.
Loving Bahá'í greetings,
Office of External Affairs
OFFICE OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
1320 19th Street NW, Suite 701
Washington, DC 20036-1610
Phone: 202-833-8990
Fax: 202-833-8988
__________________
"Prayers for America"
"This [Cleveland, Ohio] is a beautiful city; the climate is
pleasant; the views are charming. All the cities of America seem to b
e
large and beautiful, and the people appear prosperous. The American
continent gives signs and evidences of very great advancement; its
future
is even more promising, for its influence and illumination are
far-reaching, and it will lead all nations spiritually. The flag o
f
freedom and banner of liberty have been unfurled here, but the
prosperi
ty
and advancement of a city, the happiness and greatness of a country
depend upon its hearing and obeying the call of God. The light of
reality must shine therein and divine civilization be founded; then
the
radiance of the Kingdom will be diffused and heavenly influences
surround." (`Abdu'l-Baha: Promulgation of Universal Peace, Page:
104)
"Ya-Baha'u'l-Abha! Abdu'l-Baha did not rest a moment until He had
raised Thy Cause and the Standard of the Kingdom of Abha waved over
the
world. Now some people have arisen with intrigues and evil
aspirations< BR>
to trample this flag in America, but My hope is in Thy confirmations.
Leave Me not single, alone and oppressed! As Thou didst promise,
verbally and in writing, that Thou wouldst protect this deer of the
pasture of Thy love from the attacks of the hounds of hatred and
animosity, and that Thou wouldst safeguard this persecuted sheep from
the
claws and teeth of the ferocious wolves, - now do I await the
appearance
of Thy bounties and the realization of Thy definite promise. Thou art
the true Protector, and Thou art the Lord of the Covenant! Therefore,
protect this Lamp which Thou hast lighted, from the severe winds."
(`Abdu'l-Baha: Baha'i World Faith, Page: 433)
Mark Elderkin
"So, Pat, you wanted to hear me say I got that detail wrong in the heat
of the moment, and here it is. I got it wrong. Unlike some people, I
don't claim infallibility. I correct my errors. Doug Martin and
Farzam Arbab don't have to ever say they are sorry, because they are
tinpot dictators."
I'm wrong........I'm wrong............it's just not my fault. They made me
be wrong. But before I admit anything let me just say ...they have the
problems not me........... I'll correct my problems....... but let me just
say this............ they were more wronger than me so my wrong just don't
count.
Thanks Juan for being so big to take out time from your busy life to visit
and clear all this up. I know I feel a lot better. Back to the
caves............
Michael McKenny
I will try to comment later this morning to the covering comments.
For now, I address solely the quoted letter. It's early in the morning,
so I may have missed something, but I did read it three times. My view
expressed recently is not affected by seeing the actual words of the
proposed letter. In my opinion, this appears to be a valid Baha'i act.
There are other valid Baha'i acts possible, but they do not render this
one invalid.
To be clear, on a great many issues, a Baha'i or a group
(administrative or otherwise) face decisions and respond in a specific
manner, when a rainbow of opinions, decisions and actions are valid in
a Baha'i context. This, in my view, is the situation in the case of my
understanding of the wording of this letter. A number of alternative
decisions would be valid, and the wording of the letter is also valid.
I will address the covering comments later.
Thrice Three Blessings, Michael.
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
Milissa
Thanks for posting this, as it saves me the effort of asking. All I
can say is damn. Regardless of the Prayer for America issue, this
document is embarrassing. It just screams CONTROL CONTROL CONTROL
CONTROL
I do appreciate their concern for sensitivity, but one part really
puzzles me:
> * Bahá'ís are free to write letters to the editors of publications to
> express their personal views if they do not identify themselves as
> Bahá'ís,
> imply that they represent the Faith or a Bahá'í community, or discuss
> the
> Bahá'í Faith.
Why should Baha'is have to stay in the closet? This is really
weird....we have an opinion on what is probably the most significant
event in recent American history and we can't share *spontaneous*
expressions of religious sentiment without getting it preapproved? To
me this is the issue and not whether a particular prayer was banned.
damn review is embarrassing.
Peace,
Milissa
Michael McKenny
Greetings, Juan.
Many thanks for your comments.
My understanding of Baha'i is that Baha'is officially are not supposed
to assign blame to governments. It is a valid thought that this policy is
wrong, and that this is a specific glaring instance where Baha'is ought to
be condemning a government. And, the letter as quoted urging Baha'is not
to condemn is also a valid thought.
Personally, I feel that there is a lot to be said for the approach of
speaking positively and avoiding condemnation. I am also very much aware
that if we enter into the condemnation game there is enough available to
permit some to be received by the government of the United States, both
for following a biased foreign policy in support of an extreme regime in
Israel and for its failure to protect American citizens from the logical
consequences of such bias.
I am not here entering into the valid, whether correct or incorrect,
human opinions that for reasons of increasing support for Israel or for
the unelected president of the USA these attacks were deliberately
allowed to proceed, if not carried out, by those acting on behalf of the
parties concerned.
The point, as I see it, is that unilateral imperialistic actions are
highly problematic, and drumming up support for militaristic ventures by
using words of highly emotive charge such as coward, however successful,
are invalid in logic and according to the principles of Baha'i
consultation.
If one wishes to speak of courage, one of the central virtues of my
spiritual tradition, one may very well ask how many people have joined me
in speaking out both against terrorism (by the IRA, Palestinians and
others) and also against injustice to such as the Palestinians? If the US
NSA condemned the then government of Afghanistan, but refused to speak in
support of Palestinian self-determination, to say nothing of criticizing
Sharon's extremist policies, would it then be immune to charges of
political partisanship?
Thanks again for your views. And, I believe the Internet is of great
value not only because it allows Baha'is to receive censored information
and views, but also because it helps redress the vast imbalance Americans
face in their normal news media. Issues tend to be highly complex and
simplistic assertions of cowardice may win emotional points domestically,
while making the pursuit of humane, ethical and universally beneficial
foreign policy much less easy.
To Tolerance and Understanding, Michael.
Juan wrote
>...
cheers Juan
Dave Fiorito
> Since you have been out here backbiting me and using foul language and
> treating me to a little auto-da-fe of your own in typical
> Inquisitorial fundamentalist-Baha'i Style, let me just take a moment
> out of my busy life to respond to you, whoever you are.
Pat was not backbiting anyone. He adddressed his posts to you. He
was not hiding his communication.
> First of all, you have pretended to hurt that I suggested that the US
> NSA was cowardly in its response to the horrible attack on the United
> State of September 11. But it is cowardly. In the NSA letter
> appended to the message of a private individual below, the NSA urges
> that Baha'is in the wake of September 11 avoid criticizing the Taliban
> Government of Afghanistan. We were not even supposed to "assign
> blame" to Osama Bin Ladin or al-Qaida!
>
> "above any mention whatsoever of government actions,
> assignment of blame . . ."
Yes, they are saying that we should not get into the blame game. They
are saying that it is more important to serve and to comfort than it
is to bicker.
> Moreover, no Baha'i writing in as an individual to a newspaper was
> allowed to say, "I am a Baha'i, and I condemn this evil attack on the
> United States by virtue of my Baha'i values, of tolerance and respect
> for human life." Bob Henderson had the gall to tell us that we could
> not say this.
There has always been great care taken to advise individuals not to
make comments that would be mistaken as official positions. That is a
very sensible thing to do.
> What in the world does the Baha'i faith stand for if it doesn't even
> publicly stand against terrorism? If adherents cannot publicly
> associate themselves both with a condemnation of mass murder and with
> the Baha'i principles??
The point of this guidance is to let any condemnation come from the
institutions. This is about our role as Baha'is. Are we supposed to
be the chastisers or the helpers. Surely if we were to get into the
blame game then we would have to blame not only the terrorists but
also the western governments that help to create the climate of hatred
as well. The whole thing would become a divisive downward spiral into
conflict, contention and disunity. That is something to be avoided.
> As for this minor issue of whether the NSA had planned to ban the
> saying of the Prayer for America, it remains murky. Not only I but
> the poster below, posting in the same period, had heard that it might.
So you freaked out over a rumor?
> I heard the same things, and was not unusual in giving them credence.
> I am glad to publicly acknowledge that the NSA does not appear, at
> least openly, to have banned the saying of the prayer. What
> instructions it has given its legion of Secret Police (Assistants &
> ABMs) behind the scenes we do not know. A lot goes on in the inner
> core of the Baha'i faith that is hidden from outsiders, even from the
> rank and file Baha'is.
... and the UN has a fleet of black helicopters that patrol our skies
on whisper stealth mode as their crew steal our fundamental freedoms.
NOT!
> So, Pat, you wanted to hear me say I got that detail wrong in the heat
> of the moment, and here it is. I got it wrong. Unlike some people, I
> don't claim infallibility. I correct my errors. Doug Martin and
> Farzam Arbab don't have to ever say they are sorry, because they are
> tinpot dictators.
Please Juan, this is a playground comeback.
> But I did not get the tenor of the NSA response wrong. It is
> cowardly. It is running for the hills.
Bull, the call is not to run but to engage on a constructive level.
> And I mind it. Because when the Iranian Baha'is needed the support of
> my government, the United States stuck its neck out for them. The US
> Congress passed resolutions, condemning the Iranian government for its
> persecution of the Baha'is. Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Clinton all
> condemned Iran on this issue. Don't you think that maybe American
> citizens could have been hurt by the Khomeinists in response? They
> did so at the explicit urging of the National Spiritual Assembly of
> the Baha'is of the United States, which maintained a $500,000 a year
> lobbyist for the explicit purpose of lobbying Washington on this
> matter. Firuz Kazemzadeh button-holed U.S. officials endlessly over
> this in public, while privately heaping scorn on the U.S. Congress.
>
> Now, when my country needs the support of everyone it can get, the
> National Spiritual Assembly announces that, well, no, it can't come
> out and condemn the Taliban government of Afghanistan. Sorry, USA.
> You did it for us but we're selfish cowardly s.o.b.s and we ain't
> doing it for you.
So is the Baha'i Faith supposed to sell out to a government that
offers its support? How wrong would that be. As for support -
Baha'is gave plenty. Baha'is dug in like the rest of the nation and
volunteered time, money, blood, sweat and tears. Just because the
support did not take the form that you would like you tear off on a
pisser like this one.
> So, Pat, say the Prayer for America all you like. But for the love of
> God also stand up and say that *the Baha'i Faith* condemns al-Qaida,
> the Taliban, and mass murder. Stand up to the pusillanimous
> Hendersons of the world.
Juan, you miss the point - we are advised not to make statements of
condemnation that are (or can be confused for) public statements.
There was plenty of condemnation expressed by Baha'is after Sept.11th.
Not sure how you missed it.
> And just in case you don't get it, my advice to you is to get off my
> case. I didn't come out on TRB with that message to which you
> objected and I've got other things to do with my time these days that
> debate and condemn minor cultists. But if you keep bringing me up I
> will be coming after the cultists who have infiltrated and mutilated
> the Baha'i administration vocally, with good evidence, every day. I
> have file cabinets full of juicy stuff. I'd prefer to spend my time
> another way. But if you really want to have me spend it this way,
> just keep up your vacuous drumbeat.
Then I suggest you tell Fred to stop bringing you here. He drags out
quotes from you to use as weapons. If you do not wan't folks to
comment on your ideas then tell your proxy to knock it off.
Cheers,
Dave
Paul Hammond
Milissa <mili...@altavista.com> wrote in message
news:df0d6959.02020...@posting.google.com...
Having said this, Milissa, I think it is perfectly reasonable that Baha'is
be asked not to imply that they represent a community or the
whole faith - but then, this is a reasonable request at all times, and
seems to be second nature anyway to most of the Baha'is
I've met - some of them have such a disclaimer automatically
in the sig file.
The unreasonable thing is the advice that in expressing one's
personal views, one shouldn't identify that one is a Baha'i,
or that your views might be rooted in your faith. *That*
stinks.
Paul
Rick Schaut
consider it anything but a dance designed to hide Dr. Cole's quite abhorrent
behavior. Hence, the change in subject.
Given the pure verbosity of Dr. Cole's post, I'll refrain from pointing out
every error. The major ones should suffice.
"Juan Cole" <jri...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:619f1452.02020...@posting.google.com...
> As for this minor issue of whether the NSA had planned to ban the
> saying of the Prayer for America, it remains murky.
A "minor" issue!? Gads, man, it was the very substance of the complaint
From the original post (message ID: <9qt2to$1uh$1...@gnamma.connect.com.au>):
"I have seen a directive from the US NSA instructing Baha'is not to say the
"prayer for America" publicly in response to the horrid assault on our
country of September 11."
That's the first sentece of the first paragraph. The existence of such a
"plan" is no minor issue. It's the entire basis for the rant that followed.
> So, Pat, you wanted to hear me say I got that detail wrong in the heat
> of the moment, and here it is. I got it wrong.
You didn't just get it wrong, Cole. You outright lied. There never was any
such directive, so you cannot possibly claim to have actually seen the
thing.
> But I did not get the tenor of the NSA response wrong. It is
> cowardly. It is running for the hills.
It does no small amount of damage to the original intent of the directive to
claim that a message that starts out by saying "What is needed now is for us
to act as true Bahá'ís, as true servants to humankind," is "cowardly" in any
way form or shape.
> Stand up to the pusillanimous Hendersons of the world.
Actually, I prefer to stand up to the self-important bastards who would
accuse people of pusillanimity in the basis of manufactured evidence.
> We welcome you to contact the Office of External Affairs anytime with
> your questions.
> Loving Bahá'í greetings,
> Office of External Affairs
> OFFICE OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
> 1320 19th Street NW, Suite 701
> Washington, DC 20036-1610
> Phone: 202-833-8990
> Fax: 202-833-8988
> __________________
> "Prayers for America"
Note the absence of any comment from Dr. Cole explaining that the text that
started with "Prayers for America" was in no way connected with the text
that ended the message from the Office of External Affairs. It wasn't
attached to any letter sent out containing the directive from the Office of
External Affairs, nor was there any connection made on that web site. The
connection, if any, exists solely in the minds of a handful of individuals
seeking to find some way, any way, to denigrate the National Spiritual
Assembly of the Baha'is of the United States.
--
Regards,
Rick Schaut
The "Reply-To" line has a bogus e-mail account for SPAM blocking purposes.
If you wish to reply by e-mail, send to rsschaut at attbi dot com.
Rick Schaut
have outright lied or have had such a disregard for the truth as to make his
statement virtually a lie. I guess such behavior doesn't merrit comment
when one can find some niggling way to knock the US National Spiritual
Assembly. And people suggest that _I_ don't do anything but pick nits!
"Paul Hammond" <paha...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:3c63...@212.67.96.135...
>
> Milissa <mili...@altavista.com> wrote in message
> news:df0d6959.02020...@posting.google.com...
[Snip.]
Juan Cole
As always, your views are judicious and balanced and I am grateful for
your comment. It is most unfortunate that the so-called 'universal'
'house of justice' (which is none of those three things at the moment)
was unable to recognize your sincerity and tossed you out of your
Faith summarily.
However, I would like to insist that the Baha'i administration has
spent millions of lobbying dollars to attempt to induce the US and
European governments to condemn the government of Iran. They have
also openly criticized Iran for its treatment of the Baha'is.
It therefore cannot be concluded that they object to governments being
condemned in principle.
So when they ask us Baha'is to avoid condemning the Taliban government
of Afghanistan for having harbored the terrorists that killed 3000
innocent Americans, what they are really doing is engaging in
hypocrisy. Bob Henderson thinks it is fine to condemn Iran and
engineer condemnations of Iran for mistreating Iranian Baha'is.
But he forbids American Baha'is from condemning Taliban Afghanistan
for its role in getting 3000 Americans killed.
This is just selfishness. The fundamentalist Baha'is are always
running around complaining about being persecuted. But they never
condemn the persecution of anyone else. They even forbid Baha'is to
belong to Amnesty International!
Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha, by the way, both condemned the tyranny
of despotic rulers in their own day. Here is what Baha'u'llah said
about the duly constituted, recognized government of Sultan Abdulaziz
of the Ottoman Empire:
"O people of Constantinople! Lo, from your midst We hear the baleful
hooting of the owl. Hath the drunkenness of passion laid hold upon
you, or is it that ye are sunk in heedlessness? O Spot that art
situate on the shores of the two seas! The throne of tyranny hath,
verily, been established upon thee, and the flame of hatred hath been
kindled within thy bosom, in such wise that the Concourse on high and
they who circle around the Exalted Throne have wailed and lamented. We
behold in thee the foolish ruling over the wise, and darkness vaunting
itself against the light. Thou art indeed filled with manifest pride.
Hath thine outward splendour made thee vainglorious? By Him Who is the
Lord of mankind! It shall soon perish, and thy daughters and thy
widows and all the kindreds that dwell within thee shall lament. Thus
informeth thee the All-Knowing, the All-Wise."
this is from a little book called "Kitab-i Aqdas."
Just substitute "O people of Qandahar" and read it thinking about
Mulla Omar, and you'll grasp what Baha'u'llah was trying to say.
I wish Henderson actually knew anything about what Baha'u'llah said.
cheers Juan
Milissa
I am still not entirely convinced that Juan has this wrong. Looking
at the NSA's directive "it would not be appropriate...to submit
prayers which contain language that could seem threatening to
non-Baha'is." Now let's be honest, the Prayer for America says we
will lead others spiritually which could be interpreted as
threatening, especially in circumstances where our President is trying
hard not to cast the war on terrorism in Islam vs. the West terms. I
don't think Juan is saying that we should be not be guarded when we
represent ourselves as Baha'is.
But the issue is whether or not Juan lied or was mistaken about a
particular prayer being banned. It seems to me that the letter of
caution, where the NSA basically just reiterates what is already
current policy, is not where the truth can be found. It seems to me
that we have to look at the review process to find out if a particular
prayer was banned.
We can find this out by asking the question: did anyone, individual,
LSA or others write an article for their local newspaper which
included the prayer for America and submit it for review? If they
did, did it pass review or not? If it could be shown that an article
did not pass review because it contain this prayer, then Juan's
accusation is correct. If it can't pass review, its the same thing as
banning it! Alternatively, if you or anyone else can show me that the
prayer was indeed published somewhere after passing review, then that
would be solid evidence that it wasn't banned.
At any rate, I don't think its fair to accuse Juan of lying. At the
most, one could accuse him of misinterpreting their intent, but given
what they wrote and what the prayer for America says, it is a
misinterpretation a reasonable person could easily make.
I really would be interested to know if anyone got the prayer of
America to pass review. It would help settle the issue one way or the
other. Needless to say, the prayer has given me a lot of comfort since
September.
Peace,
Milissa
"Mark Elderkin" <el...@intercoast.com.au> wrote in message news:<3c63...@news.rivernet.com.au>...
Dermod Ryder
"Rick Schaut" <rssc...@email.msn.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:3c641dac$1...@news.microsoft.com...
> This is truely amazing. Not one mention of the fact that Cole
either had to
> have outright lied or have had such a disregard for the truth as to
make his
> statement virtually a lie. I guess such behavior doesn't merrit
comment
> when one can find some niggling way to knock the US National
Spiritual
> Assembly. And people suggest that _I_ don't do anything but pick
nits!
One word - "Bollocks!"
Milissa
> This is truely amazing. Not one mention of the fact that Cole either had to
> have outright lied or have had such a disregard for the truth as to make his
> statement virtually a lie. I guess such behavior doesn't merrit comment
> when one can find some niggling way to knock the US National Spiritual
> Assembly. And people suggest that _I_ don't do anything but pick nits!
Hold on a sec. I've been reading the NSA's directive and noticed
this:
>""It would also not be
> appropriate to cite apocalyptic references from the Bahá'í writings
> or to submit prayers which contain language that could seem
> threatening to non-Bahá'ís."
I take this to mean that certain prayers, if contained in an article
submitted for review, would be considered inappropriate and thus cause
the article to not pass review. If a prayer cannot pass review, it is
the same thing as banning it, isn't it? Really Rick, this isn't
something that Juan just pulled out of thin air.
So, I would ask you the same thing as Mark. Juan and others took the
references in the letter of caution about prayers to refer to the
prayer for america. If this is not the case, which prayers were the
NSA referring to?
Thanks
Peace,
Milissa
Michael McKenny
Many thanks for your comments. Personally, I wonder at the wisdom
of having the Great Satan condemning Iran on behalf of the Baha'is, but
perhaps it did some good. Your point is valid, that if condemnation is
allowed in the case of Iran, then it ought to be allowed in the case of
Afghanistan. I prefer a more constructive approach (one can read in the
archives of soc.culture.pakistan my recommendations to the Taliban
following the condemnation and demands by the US president). And, I am
very much opposed to any first strike on Iraq, though I also already
posted my opinion that Iraq should quickly move and demonstrate to UN
inspectors it does not have weapons of mass destruction.
I recognize the validity of the view that if Baha'is condemn Iran, then
they ought to be free to condemn the attack against America. I feel other
views are valid as well.
One very significant issue in my opinion is that Baha'is ought to be
able to express personal opinions concerning the actions of their
administrative bodies, just as Americans and other democrcies permit the
expression of opinions concerning the actions of their governments. The
hasty and vehement denials by Rick (even informing us of his one correct
way of reading Baha'i texts!) merely validate the existence of intolerant
fundamentalism and of opposition to freedom of thought and expression.
To a Better Future, Michael.
Dear Michael:
cheers Juan
Paul Hammond
to
> have outright lied or have had such a disregard for the truth as to make
his
> statement virtually a lie. I guess such behavior doesn't merrit comment
> when one can find some niggling way to knock the US National Spiritual
> Assembly. And people suggest that _I_ don't do anything but pick nits!
>
Sorry, I don't wish to enter this fight by making comments pro or
con about Juan.
Milissa chose to make a comment on the text of the letter that
was *actually* sent out - I made a comment on that comment,
actually saying that much of the point that Milissa objected
to made a lot of sense.
I'm not going to call Juan a liar - I personally don't believe he is.
So, why have you posted this Rick - *you* have made no comment
on my post, or Milissa's. Were you just steamed that I call
you a nit-picker, and you wanted to name-call in return? Was
that it? Or did you have something you wanted to say about
Milissa?
Go for you life - I can take it.
Jay Paine
>A "minor" issue!? Gads, man, it was the very substance of the complaint
>From the original post (message ID: <9qt2to$1uh$1...@gnamma.connect.com.au>):
>
>"I have seen a directive from the US NSA instructing Baha'is not to say the
>"prayer for America" publicly in response to the horrid assault on our
>country of September 11."
>
>That's the first sentece of the first paragraph. The existence of such a
>"plan" is no minor issue. It's the entire basis for the rant that
followed.
Hi Rick.
Yes that is the basis, and the statement that he has *seen* the directive.
I'm assuming it's the same one as appeared on the US Baha'i Website. Many
people have also *seen* this directive.
The only other possibility is that there is an *additional* directive
banning the prayer for America, which has been *seen* by Dr. Cole. If this
is the case, then others might want to *see* it as well.
But recently, the narrative seems to have mutated from having *seen* the
directive banning the prayer, to having *heard* about a directive banning
the prayer.
Jay
Rick Schaut
> this:
> >""It would also not be
> > appropriate to cite apocalyptic references from the Bahá'í writings
> > or to submit prayers which contain language that could seem
> > threatening to non-Bahá'ís."
Read it too. As a matter of fact, I've read the whole thing. Several
times. I still can't come away with anything remotely meaning what Juan
attributed it to mean. Neither did Pat, for that matter.
> I take this to mean that certain prayers, if contained in an article
> submitted for review, would be considered inappropriate and thus cause
> the article to not pass review.
Where does it say that? The entire message is about letters to the editor
for a local newspaper. What "articles" are you talking about?
> Really Rick, this isn't
> something that Juan just pulled out of thin air.
Well, Milissa, it sure as hell looks like something Juan pulled out of thin
air.
> So, I would ask you the same thing as Mark. Juan and others took the
> references in the letter of caution about prayers to refer to the
> prayer for america. If this is not the case, which prayers were the
> NSA referring to?
Um. No. Please show, before hand, that the intent of that passage is to
ban any prayer in any sense whatsoever. To "take" that paragraph to refer
to the Prayer for America, or even any particular prayer, is to impose a
meaning on the entire document that doesn't exist anywhere in the text
itself. That's the point, Milissa. It's a distortion of the truth, and a
blatantly obvious distortion of the truth.
The entire tone and purport of the document is to a) reiterate the general,
and already existing, policies regarding letters to the editor; and b)
provide some guidelines for individuals and local Spiritual Assemblies to
exercise some wisdom under the circumstances.
The key paragraph is:
"The Office of External Affairs has received requests for guidance on such
matters as whether it is appropriate to submit prayers to their local
newspapers, the appropriateness of writing letters to the editor in response
to these tragic events and other similar inquiries."
In other words, the Office of External Affairs was offering _guidance_, and
was doing so in response to requests from members of the community. To
somehow turn this thing into some kind of directive such that any Baha'i who
doesn't attempt to follow every provision to the letter will be subject to
some kind of sanction (which is inherent in any notion of a "ban") is to so
distort the import and meaning of that message as to constitute an outright
lie. There's no way around this, Milissa.
Paul Hammond
> LSA or others write an article for their local newspaper which
> included the prayer for America and submit it for review? If they
> did, did it pass review or not? If it could be shown that an article
> did not pass review because it contain this prayer, then Juan's
> accusation is correct. If it can't pass review, its the same thing as
> banning it! Alternatively, if you or anyone else can show me that the
> prayer was indeed published somewhere after passing review, then that
> would be solid evidence that it wasn't banned.
>
> At any rate, I don't think its fair to accuse Juan of lying. At the
> most, one could accuse him of misinterpreting their intent, but given
> what they wrote and what the prayer for America says, it is a
> misinterpretation a reasonable person could easily make.
>
Nah - the issue *is* that Juan thought that the text of the advisory
letter from the US NSA to the Baha'is of America said something
different from the one that was *actually* sent out. He did get
it wrong, and has said so. We can criticise the content
of the actual letter if we like, but it is a fact that Juan got
angry on the basis of incorrect information about the contents
of that letter. So much is clearly established.
Paul
Rick Schaut
> Rick Schaut <rssc...@email.msn.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
> news:3c641dac$1...@news.microsoft.com...
> > This is truely amazing. Not one mention of the fact that Cole either
had
> to
> > have outright lied or have had such a disregard for the truth as to make
> his
> > statement virtually a lie.
> Sorry, I don't wish to enter this fight by making comments pro or
> con about Juan.
Obviously. Such reprehensible behavior doesn't merrit comment on your part,
but talking about the meaning of a decontextualized part of the text that
was sent out does merit comment. That's the whole point, Paul.
> I'm not going to call Juan a liar - I personally don't believe he is.
Why on earth not? Because he's your friend?
> So, why have you posted this Rick
I'm expressing my amazement at the behavior of people who purport to have
some kind of sense of justice. You talk about it a lot, Paul, but when it
comes to actually standing up for it, your actions are deemed to be
seriously wanting.
Rick Schaut
"Jay Paine" <jayp...@lyndalls.globalnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:u68o2qg...@corp.supernews.com...
> Rick Schaut wrote in message <3c641943$1...@news.microsoft.com>...
> >A "minor" issue!? Gads, man, it was the very substance of the complaint
> >From the original post (message ID:
<9qt2to$1uh$1...@gnamma.connect.com.au>):
> >
> >"I have seen a directive from the US NSA instructing Baha'is not to say
the
> >"prayer for America" publicly in response to the horrid assault on our
> >country of September 11."
> >
> >That's the first sentece of the first paragraph. The existence of such a
> >"plan" is no minor issue. It's the entire basis for the rant that
> followed.
> Yes that is the basis, and the statement that he has *seen* the directive.
> I'm assuming it's the same one as appeared on the US Baha'i Website. Many
> people have also *seen* this directive.
And, yet, a vast majority of the people who have seen the letter from the
Office of External Affairs seem to have a great deal of difficulty finding
any sort of ban whatsoever in that letter. The handful of exceptions seem
to be people who have a track record of being vocal critics of the
Administrative Order.
> But recently, the narrative seems to have mutated from having *seen* the
> directive banning the prayer, to having *heard* about a directive banning
> the prayer.
Likely because the original statement can't be justified on any ground
whatsoever. Of course, while all of this talk is going on, the fact that
Juan did severe damage to the entire meaning of that letter, which he now
cites as the original source to which he was referring, seems to get lost in
the shuffle. And, the two-step continues...
ROBERT ARVAY
here, perplexed at the lack of Baha'i opposition to the slaughter of
innocent babies in their mothers' wombs. All the Baha'i responses I
read were weak rationalizations. I was left with the impression that
the general Baha'i sentiment was that, "Well, I guess we're opposed to
babies having their brains sucked out while in the process of being
born. I guess we have to be opposed, because it unfortunately got
written down somewhere. Too bad. But, you see, we can't SAY we're
opposed to it, at least not too loudly, because, my oh my, what would
our non-Baha'i fellow travelers think? And it would be political---
yeah, that's it! We aren't allowed to be political. Whew! Good
excuse. So--- we'll just stand by and let them die. After all, it's a
woman's right and all." At the time, I didn't write in such fashion,
preferring to give the benefit of the doubt. Now, in light of this, the
NSA response to an atrocity of unambiguous magnitude (those poor,
misunderstood freedom fighters!), I find my doubts sadly dispelled.
May God have mercy on us all!
kamran
Are you the same Mr. Cole.
Are you the Mr. Cole the "scholar"?
The Mr. Cole I knew of, knew many of the writings.
The Mr. Cole I knew of Believed in Baha'ulla'h.
The Mr. Cole I knew of believed in Abdul Baha''.
Mr. Cole Assuming you are correct in your assumptions,
do you think Abdul Baha'' would write what you have written
of a National Assembly.
The language you use is beneath the dignity of a scholar
such as your own past self.
With all due respect
Kamran
Paul Hammond
>
> "Paul Hammond" <paha...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
> news:3c64...@212.67.96.135...
> > Rick Schaut <rssc...@email.msn.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
> > news:3c641dac$1...@news.microsoft.com...
> > > This is truely amazing. Not one mention of the fact that Cole either
> had
> > to
> > > have outright lied or have had such a disregard for the truth as to
make
> > his
> > > statement virtually a lie.
>
> > Sorry, I don't wish to enter this fight by making comments pro or
> > con about Juan.
>
> Obviously. Such reprehensible behavior doesn't merrit comment on your
part,
> but talking about the meaning of a decontextualized part of the text that
> was sent out does merit comment. That's the whole point, Paul.
>
> > I'm not going to call Juan a liar - I personally don't believe he is.
>
> Why on earth not? Because he's your friend?
>
> > So, why have you posted this Rick
>
> I'm expressing my amazement at the behavior of people who purport to have
> some kind of sense of justice. You talk about it a lot, Paul, but when it
> comes to actually standing up for it, your actions are deemed to be
> seriously wanting.
>
Rick - Milissa commented on one extract from the letter. I commented
on her comment.
Seriously, I don't see why you are getting your knickers in a bunch
over this, except for the fact that you don't like me personally.
Why is this ranting over my hypocrisy in upholding justice necessary?
Like I say, I won't comment on the "was Juan lying question" except
to say that I think he wasn't - and, yes, I do trust what *he*
says about his post more than what you say because I actually
like him, and I don't like you.
Why are you directing all this anger at me? If you *want* to make
an issue of it, why not rant at Milissa - *she* was the one who
originally wanted to comment on one small part of the post, and
I don't see anything wrong with that - but for some reason you
have used this exchange between me and Milissa here as an
excuse to have a go at me.
All this highfalutin "your actions are deemed to be seriously
wanting" translates into you just don't like me much - and I'm
not going to lose any sleep over that.
Paul
Dermod Ryder
"Rick Schaut" <rssc...@email.msn.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:3c641dac$1...@news.microsoft.com...
Well if you have them, pick them - it's a lot more socially acceptable
than picking your nose - and you might not have to smear that lotion
all over you!
Michael McKenny
Have you read what Baha'u'llah wrote to the Kings? I shudder to
think what Baha'u'llah would write to the UHJ were he here to do so?
Authority is invalid in logic. It aint right because of who says it, but
because of what it is, and, Kamran, if one aint allowed to disagree with
President Bush or the US NSA and say so, then one aint living in a place
worth living in.
Thrice Three Blessings, Michael.
kamran (kam...@attbi.NOSPAM.com) writes:
> Mr. Cole,
>
> Are you the same Mr. Cole.
>
> Are you the Mr. Cole the "scholar"?
>
> The Mr. Cole I knew of, knew many of the writings.
> The Mr. Cole I knew of Believed in Baha'ulla'h.
> The Mr. Cole I knew of believed in Abdul Baha''.
>
> Mr. Cole Assuming you are correct in your assumptions,
> do you think Abdul Baha'' would write what you have written
> of a National Assembly.
>
> The language you use is beneath the dignity of a scholar
> such as your own past self.
>
> With all due respect
--
Milissa
(snippage)
>
> > I take this to mean that certain prayers, if contained in an article
> > submitted for review, would be considered inappropriate and thus cause
> > the article to not pass review.
>
> Where does it say that? The entire message is about letters to the editor
> for a local newspaper. What "articles" are you talking about?
I was using "article" to mean any written piece, which would include
letters to the editor. I didn't mean articles in the sense of writing
a full length piece for a journal.
The whole context of the comments in the directive are that of review.
If the NSA says that certain passages/prayers would be inappropriate,
and they are saying this in the context of what Baha'is should and
should not write, I would interpret this as a diretive not to write
those certain passages/prayers. That's all. I don't have any
sinister motives for interpreting it this way, its just the way I read
it.
> > Really Rick, this isn't
> > something that Juan just pulled out of thin air.
>
> Well, Milissa, it sure as hell looks like something Juan pulled out of thin
> air.
Well, like I told Karen in another context, perceptions are a bitch.
> > So, I would ask you the same thing as Mark. Juan and others took the
> > references in the letter of caution about prayers to refer to the
> > prayer for america. If this is not the case, which prayers were the
> > NSA referring to?
>
> Um. No. Please show, before hand, that the intent of that passage is to
> ban any prayer in any sense whatsoever.
It is clear the NSA did not want certain passages being touted too
publicly by Baha'is and the NSA specifically mentions prayers, not me.
My question would be about which passages the NSA would consider
inappropriate and which they wouldn't. I'm not insinuating anything
negative, I am genuinely curious!
To "take" that paragraph to refer
> to the Prayer for America, or even any particular prayer, is to impose a
> meaning on the entire document that doesn't exist anywhere in the text
> itself. That's the point, Milissa. It's a distortion of the truth, and a
> blatantly obvious distortion of the truth.
Rick, the NSA specifically mentions prayers in the directive/letter of
caution.
> The entire tone and purport of the document is to a) reiterate the general,
> and already existing, policies regarding letters to the editor; and b)
> provide some guidelines for individuals and local Spiritual Assemblies to
> exercise some wisdom under the circumstances.
Yes I know that this was current policy and not applied to just this
event.
> The key paragraph is:
>
> "The Office of External Affairs has received requests for guidance on such
> matters as whether it is appropriate to submit prayers to their local
> newspapers, the appropriateness of writing letters to the editor in response
> to these tragic events and other similar inquiries."
>
> In other words, the Office of External Affairs was offering _guidance_, and
> was doing so in response to requests from members of the community.
Yes, but review still follows the guidance. Its the review process and
not really the document I am focusing on, since, as you point out, it
only reiterates current policy.
To
> somehow turn this thing into some kind of directive such that any Baha'i who
> doesn't attempt to follow every provision to the letter will be subject to
> some kind of sanction (which is inherent in any notion of a "ban") is to so
> distort the import and meaning of that message as to constitute an outright
> lie. There's no way around this, Milissa.
Rick, that is not what I said. My take on this whole affair is more
moderate than I probably come across as. I'm still learning how to
accurately express myself. But I honestly think it is hardly a
distortion to think that the NSA would not allow a written piece to
pass review that contained a passage it felt inappropriate. Also, you
are putting more into the word ban than I intended. How about I say a
"temporary restraining order" instead. In short, my concerns are
related to the perennial issue of review and this document is only a
problem for me insofar as it reflects the problems I already have with
review. I'm hardly arguing that the directive was a signal to start
cracking down on Baha'is who write letters to the editor. I'm trying
hard NOT to get that negative. A lot of former Baha'is are very angry
at the AO.....most of the time I am more baffled by their actions than
anything. This is one of those times.
At any rate, what I really want to know is what passages would give
the NSA concern and which wouldn't. It would be very interesting in
the least. That is why I am hoping someone on the list might have a
review experience to share that would help us better see what worried
the NSA. Otherwise, I'll have to write yet another letter.....
Peace,
Milissa
Doctor Electron
(Juan Cole) transmitted:
>Dear Pat Kohli:
<etc, snip>
Sir, it this a trial run of a defense in any reputable forum at the U
of M or elsewhere, forget it. Doesn't look like you have a chance.
globalservices1_at_yahoo.com using @ instead of _at_.
===PEP [Pretty Excellent Privacy] encrypted message===
The bytes above contain both the key and the message.
Doctor Electron
<rssc...@email.msn.NOSPAM.com> transmitted:
>> I'm not going to call Juan a liar - I personally don't believe he is.
>
>Why on earth not? Because he's your friend?
Rick, given the self-destruction of Dr. Juan Cole's image, due
incredibly to his own posts, I think many people may be ...well, in a
state of shock. Maybe they need a little time to sort things out. It
can't be pleasant to see, and perhaps without warning, a sort of
Wizard of Oz step out from behind all the pomposity to reveal ....
*absolutely nothing* relevant to his faith hate "treason" letter
except a confession of impropriety embedded in more faith hate
insults, apparently from his famous highly touted "files."
This is truly a low and horrific moment in talk.religon.bahai, and
surely, in the lives who may have tried in good faith to see what good
Dr. Cole has accomplished in his time.
>I'm expressing my amazement at the behavior of people who purport to have
>some kind of sense of justice.
Given the self-induced vaporization by Dr. Cole we have seen today, I
think many lovers of Baha'u'llah will be reevaluating many things
tonight. Remember that some apparently thought Dr. Cole actually had
arguments that would be of interest to reputable authorities or
perhaps the general public. Every person on main street knows what
religious hate crime is. Essentially nobody outside Baha'i circles
cares about any of the points Dr. Cole has offered today. It is
people outside Baha'i circles who would be the ones to act on this
matter. And Dr. Cole appears with absolutely nothing that those
persons could comprehend, *and* plenty more of what they do understand
and deplore: religious hate, nasty name calling, lack of scholarship
and on and on and on. It's over. Dr. Cole has seen to that. This is
obvious.
Not only does Dr. Cole appear, after some anticipation, but he appears
with nothing. Aren't you a little surprised Dr. Cole appears and
self-destructs almost all by himself? I am. I thought he might show
up with something, you know. Well, then, imagine the consternation
among his fans to see this. In another thread, one guy was apparently
so rattled, as Dr. Cole also seemed to be, that he flip-flopped right
before my eyes, calling me the "liberal POV."
I suspect that many members of the Baha'i Faith were ready and had
done their homework in anticipation of just what we saw today. But I
don't think many expected that *none* of that homework would be
necessary, as the poor man would just appear and "take himself down."
Yes, it's hard to see any reason to be happy tonight, regardless of
your point of view.
Doctor Electron
<kam...@attbi.NOSPAM.com> transmitted:
>Mr. Cole.....
>The language you use is beneath the dignity of a scholar
>such as your own past self.
Another point that the non-Baha'i authorities who should act on the
Juan Cole case, in the interest of justice, would readily comprehend.
Dr. Cole shows up in with not even one such point in his favor. It's
just stunning! And apparently, without consulting a lawyer, who might
well have advised him to just keep quiet for a time.
It's almost like this was some sort of deliberate act of martyrdom for
some (unknown) principle.
Brian Walker
Pat has been absent from this forum for a while, so I should perhaps chip
in my opinion too.
Firstly I should state that it is entirely possible, Juan, that you thought
pure and virtuous thoughts in making the claim that the NSA had handled
things in a treasonous manner. I am glad to see that you seem to be stepping
back from that claim, and allowing for certain misinterpretation of facts.
Now then, to your post. You, as an academic, will not mind this lesser mind
examining your words in some detail.
Juan Cole <jri...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:619f1452.02020...@posting.google.com...
> Dear Pat Kohli:
Please do not forget the others. We were incensed, and we deserve to be
addressed too.
> Since you have been out here backbiting me
This is an open forum, you have been here, your posts have been sent here
with your knowledge, and you allow Fred to quote you extensively here.
Whatever you may claim, Pat was not backbiting you. You must know that, and
therefore I accuse you of using an expression in a knowingly false way. Is
this typical for you? Or do you simply condemn such things in others and
reserve that right to yourself?
> and using foul language
examples? the only foul language I saw was the style you used in making a
false claim.
>and
> treating me to a little auto-da-fe of your own in typical
> Inquisitorial fundamentalist-Baha'i Style,
Asking a question repeatedly, whiuch you had refused to dignify with an
answer, becomes an Inquisitorial Style? Moreover, you ascribe this to
fundamentalism? Why do you have a problem with the fact that you had run
away from an answer for so long, and that questions had to be asked loudly
for you to get your act together and respond? And why do you attack the
questioner as a prelude to the answer? Is this a good example of free
speech - bash the questioner?? What would you do if you had authority in any
Faith? Would you have spoken thus to .... say Michael McKenny .... who had
asked similar tough questions? Sauce for goose and gander Juan.
>let me just take a moment
> out of my busy life to respond to you, whoever you are.
He is Pat Kohli. His name was evident. I am Brian Walker. My name is
evident. You are Juan Cole. Stop playing such games.
> First of all, you have pretended to hurt that I suggested that the US
> NSA was cowardly in its response to the horrible attack on the United
> State of September 11.
On what basis do you suggest Pat did not feel hurt? On the one hand, you
gave a credible account, and we find out that yuour account was wrong. The
emotions felt - FUD in technical terms - were valid. You suggest Pat lied in
his emotions. Why do you claim such a thing *in the absence of any
information as to the truth?* Is this a pattern you display??
> But it is cowardly.
In your opinion, and I am sure you hold that genuine feeling. Others will
disagree, and have disagreed.
> In the NSA letter
> appended to the message of a private individual below, the NSA urges
> that Baha'is in the wake of September 11 avoid criticizing the Taliban
> Government of Afghanistan. We were not even supposed to "assign
> blame" to Osama Bin Ladin or al-Qaida!
The Taliban should be criticised for .... what, Juan? Did they attack
America? No.
Are they "bad people" for doing what they genuinely feel is a "good thing"?
Cutting off hands for example? So the Saudis are also bad. Do you want the
NSA of the US to criticize the Saudis too? Executing adulterers? We might
ask the NSA of the US to criticize Bush for executing minors and
psychiatrically ill people, people with a mental age of 7 and such like.
Baha'is should not criticize government. The example of the Baha'is in
Germany at the time of Hitler is known to you I am sure. The example of the
NSA of Iran is also known to you.
Al-Qaida and Osama bin-Laden. We can criticize and condemn the terrorists.
But can we assign blame? From your USA perspective, you may feel it OK to
continue the assault on Palestinians. You will know, however, that the
complex mix does not allow us to place blame. All are taking part in some
way to continuing repression and injustice. You feel that this is wrong? You
base this on your experience as a Professor of history?? I think not. I
think you have allowed your professional expertise to be coloured by your
own passions. You are, after all, an American.
> "above any mention whatsoever of government actions,
> assignment of blame . . ."
>
> Moreover, no Baha'i writing in as an individual to a newspaper was
> allowed to say, "I am a Baha'i, and I condemn this evil attack on the
> United States by virtue of my Baha'i values, of tolerance and respect
> for human life." Bob Henderson had the gall to tell us that we could
> not say this.
No Baha'i in any capacitry can write to a any paper as an individual, and
claim to speak on behalf of "the Baha'is"
> What in the world does the Baha'i faith stand for if it doesn't even
> publicly stand against terrorism? If adherents cannot publicly
> associate themselves both with a condemnation of mass murder and with
> the Baha'i principles??
The Baha'i faith stands for all that is decent. What we do not stand for is
partisan politics, and to be honest with you, the USA has an understanding
of world politics that is alien to most of the world. To ask the "Baha'i
Faith" to take a US-centred line expresses merely an american arrogance
which would beggar belief if the rest of us had not come to expect this of
you.
> As for this minor issue of whether the NSA had planned to ban the
> saying of the Prayer for America, it remains murky.
In clear text, the central theme of your attack was based on a false
premise.
> Not only I but
> the poster below, posting in the same period, had heard that it might.
And you base your public statements on unfounded opinion?
> I heard the same things, and was not unusual in giving them credence.
In clear text, you allowed yourself to be misled, you did not check the
source, nor establish the veracity of the claim. I trust you did better when
researching your many articles. Of course you did! So why behave in such an
unprofessional way, and then try to fudge the response? Murky - pah!
> I am glad to publicly acknowledge that the NSA does not appear, at
> least openly, to have banned the saying of the prayer.
Thank you. Now, would you mind explaining how the NSA of the US could
privately ban the saying of the prayer? Because this is what you seem to be
implying has happened. Smear? Surely not, Juan!
> What
> instructions it has given its legion of Secret Police (Assistants &
> ABMs) behind the scenes we do not know. A lot goes on in the inner
> core of the Baha'i faith that is hidden from outsiders, even from the
> rank and file Baha'is.
The real substance - not the letter, but another attempt to smear the AO.
OK, Juan, it is your valid opinion. We can agree to disagree on that, and
see what history tells us.
> So, Pat, you wanted to hear me say I got that detail wrong in the heat
> of the moment, and here it is. I got it wrong. Unlike some people, I
> don't claim infallibility. I correct my errors. Doug Martin and
> Farzam Arbab don't have to ever say they are sorry, because they are
> tinpot dictators.
I trnaslate this to mean "everybody" not just Pat.
By your assault on the integrity of the members of the UHJ you place
yourself clearly. You are better than they are - this is what you have said.
You correct mistakes and they do not. You do have evidence for this?
I do not think any of the members of the UHJ would ever correct themselves
in the malicious and squirming way you have demonstrated. I say this as a
man who at one time respected you as a man of integrity. I feel you can tell
a man by the way he makes amends.
> But I did not get the tenor of the NSA response wrong. It is
> cowardly. It is running for the hills.
It is not running for the hills. You are approaching the table of humble pie
in an ungracious manner.
> And I mind it. Because when the Iranian Baha'is needed the support of
> my government, the United States stuck its neck out for them. The US
> Congress passed resolutions, condemning the Iranian government for its
> persecution of the Baha'is. Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Clinton all
> condemned Iran on this issue. Don't you think that maybe American
> citizens could have been hurt by the Khomeinists in response? They
> did so at the explicit urging of the National Spiritual Assembly of
> the Baha'is of the United States, which maintained a $500,000 a year
> lobbyist for the explicit purpose of lobbying Washington on this
> matter. Firuz Kazemzadeh button-holed U.S. officials endlessly over
> this in public, while privately heaping scorn on the U.S. Congress.
When I lobbied for the safety of the Baha'is of Iran back in 1979, we were
given explicit instructions on the need to praise, not blame, explain the
nature of Baha'i and request fairness. We were not allowed to criticize. It
is perhaps the case that Americans may have got it wrong then, and the NSA
did criticize, but I have no knowledge of that.
The fact that your government is now lobbying for further military action
against Iran, Iraq and N. Korea, while unilateraly abrogating international
treaties and continuing to pollute our air with impunity is of more concern
to me than the pacifist nature of the NSA of the US. You seem to wish to
create enemies, not foment peace.
> Now, when my country needs the support of everyone it can get, the
> National Spiritual Assembly announces that, well, no, it can't come
> out and condemn the Taliban government of Afghanistan. Sorry, USA.
> You did it for us but we're selfish cowardly s.o.b.s and we ain't
> doing it for you.
Your country needs to get itself out of a patriotic wash of immense
stupidity and realize that the world is in travail, and that concerted
efforts are needed to undo the damage of a century of ignoring Baha'u'llah.
We do not share your need to wage war on your enemies - and I remind you of
US self interest in promoting death and destruction throughout S. America
while trumpeting claptrap about democracy and free speech for all. It is
time you realized (generic you, not Juan you - as a professor of history you
will be aware of such things) I remind you of the courageous US stance in
not supporting the UK and France in Suez, the impartial nature of the US
prior to 1941, and the sudden need to help allies when you were yourselves
attacked. Oil in Iraq seemed to have some bearing on your defence of
Kuwait, and we allies are not particularly pleased to have to mop up in
Afghanistan after your troops have left, exposing them to a sight more
danger than your "friendly-fire" special ops people.
> So, Pat, say the Prayer for America all you like. But for the love of
> God also stand up and say that *the Baha'i Faith* condemns al-Qaida,
> the Taliban, and mass murder. Stand up to the pusillanimous
> Hendersons of the world.
All Baha'is denounce all aggression, terrorism and murder. It is a part of
our faith. You know that.
> And just in case you don't get it, my advice to you is to get off my
> case.
Oh yeah, big boy? As long as you treat truth with contempt, twist words and
toy with emotions, you will have someone on your case. It may be Pat, it may
be me, it may even be someone who matters. You will not be given a free ride
to lie, prevaricate and hedge.
> I didn't come out on TRB with that message to which you
> objected and I've got other things to do with my time these days that
> debate and condemn minor cultists.
Talisman9 is much more comfortable for you, I am sure.
> But if you keep bringing me up I
> will be coming after the cultists who have infiltrated and mutilated
> the Baha'i administration vocally, with good evidence, every day. I
> have file cabinets full of juicy stuff. I'd prefer to spend my time
> another way. But if you really want to have me spend it this way,
> just keep up your vacuous drumbeat.
You will expect, I am sure, that your words will be weighed. Bring on your
best stuff, and let the world really see what there is to see. Truth will
out, and no-one should be afraid of the truth.
> cheers Juan
Indeed Juan, cheers. Here is to truth, openness and love.
All the best,
Brian
Juan Cole
We haven't met, and I have no idea who you are or where you live. If
you live in a democratic country, then you are being protected there
from persecution at the hands of Khomeinist theocrats. The hizbullah
thugs who would like to beat you up because you are a Baha'i do so
because they think they have to obey tyrants like Khamenei without
question and cannot criticize him. They also believe in religious
institutions taking over and running the civil government.
So if you cannot criticize our NSA when it acts like a coward, and if
you want to abolish the U.S. Bill of Rights and our Constitution, how
are you better than the Khomeinists you have fled?
And if it is all right for us to pay $500,000 a year for a public
relations firm to encourage Congress to condemn Iran for killing 200
Baha'is, why can't we *as Baha'is* condemn al-Qaida and the Taliban
for killing 3000 innocent Americans?
As for `Abdu'l-Baha, he was known to give some sharp slaps to
miscreants time to time. Since you bring him up, I think I know
exactly what he would do to some of the scoundrels on our NSA.
And, by the way, up until 1996 I was minding my own business doing
scholarship when your idiot Kazemzadehs and Hendersons and Arbabs and
Martins had me threatened behind the scenes by some thug named
Birkland. I am tired of having my community run like a fucking Mafia
and I'm mad as hell and I am not taking it any more.
cheers Juan
kamran <kam...@attbi.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message news:<3C647303...@attbi.NOSPAM.com>...
Mark Elderkin
scholarship when your idiot Kazemzadehs and Hendersons and Arbabs and
Martins had me threatened behind the scenes by some thug named
Birkland. I am tired of having my community run like a fucking Mafia
and I'm mad as hell and I am not taking it any more."
cheers Juan
It's evident here that Juan is miffed about being found out. Now what was
that Doctorate Juan makes claim too?? How about you get your head out of
your but for awhile and come back to reality. Juan it does seem you have
been watching to much violent TV lately............. Perhaps a quick visit
back to Mr Rodgers would be good..
(Chorus........... 'in the neighborhood, would you be my neighbor?')
John R MacLeod
up and I think it the one that starts thus: "O Thou kind Lord! This
gathering is turning to Thee. These hearts are radiant with Thy love. These
minds and spirits are exhilarated by the message of Thy glad-tidings. O God!
(Compilations, Baha'i Prayers, p. 24)"
If so, bearing in mind what comes after in the prayer, I think it would
certainly be included in the American NSA guidance
"It would also not be appropriate to cite apocalyptic references from the
Bahá'í writings or to submit prayers which contain language that could seem
threatening to non-Bahá'ís."
Frankly, as a non-American I'd be very happy if this prayer was never said.
So I think there was some substance behind Juan's remarks. However both in
the original posting and today's stuff about Peter Khan I think he seems
dreadfully stressed and it is showing.
Robert Little
incredible letter of October, in which you accuse Baha'is of "cowardice".
Finally, today you give us a retraction which you immediately retract. In
math, that would be a double negative. Unlike math, life does not equate a
double negative with a positive.
Today, in another thread, you condemn us for engaging in politics, and now
here in this thread you are accusing us of not engaging in politics.
According to your posts, we are secretly plotting the overthrow of popularly
elected governments, actions that both you and Baha'u'llah say are
reprehensible. Now, we hear that our actions in not engaging in politics
over the very same matter are reprehensible.
The easily verifiable facts are that your October letter was horrendously
wrong, so wrong that it was felt by some here that you yourself must have
been duped, just as you duped us. Your months long silence deepened the
mystery.
We may never know the facts behind your letter, for you have not divulged
anything substantive. However, your words today reflect the same attitudes
and beliefs, and repeat the same awful accusations as that October letter,
so I am forced to conclude that that letter was not an aberration of conduct
for which you now feel regret.
'Abdu'l-Baha'i is quoted (Stars of the West, Vol. VI, No. 6, page 45) as
saying:
"Blessed are they who are the means of making unity among the friends, and
pity on those who in the right or wrong are the cause of discord. For
instance: When one is in the right in a case or dispute, and his minority
prevents him from establishing this rightful matter, instead of agitating
the subject, if he will humbly submit to sacrifice his position for the sake
of unity and peace, God will accept that sacrifice and ere long the rightful
matter will be established without any further dispute, by the Divine
assistance; whereas without such sacrifice and submissiveness gret harm
might ensue.
The friends must be prepared to efface themselves at all times. Seeking the
approval of men is many times the cause of imperiling the approval of God."
After reading this, I wondered, who you are seeking approval from?
Robert A. Little
"Juan Cole" <jri...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:619f1452.02020...@posting.google.com...
> Dear Pat Kohli:
>
> Since you have been out here backbiting me and using foul language and
> treating me to a little auto-da-fe of your own in typical
> Inquisitorial fundamentalist-Baha'i Style, let me just take a moment
> out of my busy life to respond to you, whoever you are.
>
> First of all, you have pretended to hurt that I suggested that the US
> NSA was cowardly in its response to the horrible attack on the United
> State of September 11. But it is cowardly. In the NSA letter
> appended to the message of a private individual below, the NSA urges
> that Baha'is in the wake of September 11 avoid criticizing the Taliban
> Government of Afghanistan. We were not even supposed to "assign
> blame" to Osama Bin Ladin or al-Qaida!
>
> "above any mention whatsoever of government actions,
> assignment of blame . . ."
>
> Moreover, no Baha'i writing in as an individual to a newspaper was
> allowed to say, "I am a Baha'i, and I condemn this evil attack on the
> United States by virtue of my Baha'i values, of tolerance and respect
> for human life." Bob Henderson had the gall to tell us that we could
> not say this.
>
> What in the world does the Baha'i faith stand for if it doesn't even
> publicly stand against terrorism? If adherents cannot publicly
> associate themselves both with a condemnation of mass murder and with
> the Baha'i principles??
>
> As for this minor issue of whether the NSA had planned to ban the
> saying of the Prayer for America, it remains murky. Not only I but
> the poster below, posting in the same period, had heard that it might.
> I heard the same things, and was not unusual in giving them credence.
> I am glad to publicly acknowledge that the NSA does not appear, at
> least openly, to have banned the saying of the prayer. What
> instructions it has given its legion of Secret Police (Assistants &
> ABMs) behind the scenes we do not know. A lot goes on in the inner
> core of the Baha'i faith that is hidden from outsiders, even from the
> rank and file Baha'is.
>
> So, Pat, you wanted to hear me say I got that detail wrong in the heat
> of the moment, and here it is. I got it wrong. Unlike some people, I
> don't claim infallibility. I correct my errors. Doug Martin and
> Farzam Arbab don't have to ever say they are sorry, because they are
> tinpot dictators.
>
> But I did not get the tenor of the NSA response wrong. It is
> cowardly. It is running for the hills.
>
> And I mind it. Because when the Iranian Baha'is needed the support of
> my government, the United States stuck its neck out for them. The US
> Congress passed resolutions, condemning the Iranian government for its
> persecution of the Baha'is. Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Clinton all
> condemned Iran on this issue. Don't you think that maybe American
> citizens could have been hurt by the Khomeinists in response? They
> did so at the explicit urging of the National Spiritual Assembly of
> the Baha'is of the United States, which maintained a $500,000 a year
> lobbyist for the explicit purpose of lobbying Washington on this
> matter. Firuz Kazemzadeh button-holed U.S. officials endlessly over
> this in public, while privately heaping scorn on the U.S. Congress.
>
> Now, when my country needs the support of everyone it can get, the
> National Spiritual Assembly announces that, well, no, it can't come
> out and condemn the Taliban government of Afghanistan. Sorry, USA.
> You did it for us but we're selfish cowardly s.o.b.s and we ain't
> doing it for you.
>
> So, Pat, say the Prayer for America all you like. But for the love of
> God also stand up and say that *the Baha'i Faith* condemns al-Qaida,
> the Taliban, and mass murder. Stand up to the pusillanimous
> Hendersons of the world.
>
> And just in case you don't get it, my advice to you is to get off my
> case. I didn't come out on TRB with that message to which you
> objected and I've got other things to do with my time these days that
> debate and condemn minor cultists. But if you keep bringing me up I
> will be coming after the cultists who have infiltrated and mutilated
> the Baha'i administration vocally, with good evidence, every day. I
> have file cabinets full of juicy stuff. I'd prefer to spend my time
> another way. But if you really want to have me spend it this way,
> just keep up your vacuous drumbeat.
>
> cheers Juan
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> · From:
> · Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 04:35:52
>
>
> National letter of Caution
>
>
> Dear all'
>
>
>
> It seems many (especially US Bahai's) are still in the dark about the
> National letter of Caution.
>
> Although no prayers have been actually spelt out (word for word) in
> the
> letter from the NSA, any Bahai with a little bit of brain-matter up
> top who
> knows The words in "Prayers for America" (below), is it not obvious,<
> B>
> Because of the politically sensitive nature of these recent tragic
> events
> , these prayers contain language that could seem threatening to
> non-Bahá'ís.
> The Office of External Affairs has received requests for guidance on
> such
> matters as whether it is appropriate to submit prayers to their local
> newspap
> ers, the appropriateness of writing letters to the editor in response
> to
> these tragic events and other similar inquiries.
>
> we ask that local Spiritual Assemblies consult with the Office of
> External
> Affairs before submitting anything to a local newspaper. The Office of
> External Affairs can be reached by phone at (202) 833-8990 or e-mail
> at
> usnsa-oea@
> usbnc.org. Please note that the Office of Public Information in New
> York
> City is currently experiencing difficulty in receiving telephone and
> e-mail
> communications.
>
> General guidelines for appropriate tone of communications to the
> media:
>
>
>
> Any Bahá'í-connected message to the public should try to elevate the
> response to the attacks to a higher, more spiritual level that is
> above
> hatred and recrimination, above any mention whatsoever of government
> actions,
> assignment of blame, and above the attempt to use this tragedy as an
> opportunity to advance our own interests. It would also not be
> appropriate to cite apocalyptic references from the Bahá'í writings
> or to submit prayers which contain language that could seem
> threatening to non-Bahá'ís.
>
Robert Little
We were asked Not To Represent Our Personal Opinion As Being The Official
Baha'i Response to a political and enormously violent attack. We were
encouraged to respond, but as individuals, not as the Baha'i Faith, or as
emissaries of the Baha'i Faith.
There are ample examples of Baha'is doing just that, individuals speaking as
if they had authority to speak for us all, and causing misunderstanding at
best, confusion, doubt, misgivings and negative attitudes more likely, pain,
suffering and death at worst. September was not the time for Baha'is to
engage in politics. February isn't such a good time, either.
Robert A. Little
"Milissa" <mili...@altavista.com> wrote in message
news:df0d6959.02020...@posting.google.com...
> Hi Juan--
>
> Thanks for posting this, as it saves me the effort of asking. All I
> can say is damn. Regardless of the Prayer for America issue, this
> document is embarrassing. It just screams CONTROL CONTROL CONTROL
> CONTROL
>
> I do appreciate their concern for sensitivity, but one part really
> puzzles me:
>
> > * Bahá'ís are free to write letters to the editors of publications to
> > express their personal views if they do not identify themselves as
> > Bahá'ís,
> > imply that they represent the Faith or a Bahá'í community, or discuss
> > the
> > Bahá'í Faith.
>
> Why should Baha'is have to stay in the closet? This is really
> weird....we have an opinion on what is probably the most significant
> event in recent American history and we can't share *spontaneous*
> expressions of religious sentiment without getting it preapproved? To
> me this is the issue and not whether a particular prayer was banned.
>
> damn review is embarrassing.
>
> Peace,
> Milissa
Robert Little
In the aftermath of September 11, virtually anything said was going to be
interpreted in a highly charged political manner. Therefore, Baha'is, who
are exhorted Not to engage in partisan politics or to engage in any activity
that leads to disunity, were properly asked by their National Spiritual
Assemblies to be extremely vigilant as regards anything they wrote or said
to the media. Most Baha'i communities of any size have assigned one or more
individuals the task of contacting the media, but most Baha'i communities
are not "of any size", so, the request for great care and sensitivity.
That need continues, especially in light of this second attack upon the name
and integrity of Baha'is and their elected institutions.
Robert A. Little
"Milissa" <mili...@altavista.com> wrote in message
news:df0d6959.02020...@posting.google.com...
Robert Little
Here's a few quotes:
9. The Baha'i standard is very high, more particularly when compared
with the thoroughly rotten morals of the present world. But this standard of
ours will produce healthier, happier, nobler people, and induce stabler
marriages.... (From a letter dated 19 October 1947 written on behalf of
Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer)
[Bahá'í Library CD-ROM: Compilations: Chastity, Page: 8]
The champion builders of Baha'u'llah's rising World Order must scale
nobler heights of heroism as humanity plunges into greater depths of
despair, degradation, dissension and distress. Let them forge ahead into
the future serenely confident that the hour of their mightiest exertions and
the supreme opportunity for their greatest exploits must coincide with the
apocalyptic upheaval marking the lowest ebb in mankind's fast-declining
fortunes.
[Bahá'í Library CD-ROM: Shoghi Effendi: Citadel of Faith, Page: 58]
This is the cycle of maturity and re-formation in religion as well.
Dogmatic imitations of ancestral beliefs are passing. They have been the
axis around which religion revolved but now are no longer fruitful; on the
contrary, in this day they have become the cause of human degradation and
hindrance. Bigotry and dogmatic adherence to ancient beliefs have become
the central and fundamental source of animosity among men, the obstacle to
human progress, the cause of warfare and strife, the destroyer of peace,
composure and welfare in the world. Consider conditions in the Balkans
today (F. 1); fathers, mothers, children in grief and lamentation, the
foundations of life overturned, cities laid waste and fertile lands made
desolate by the ravages of war. These conditions are the outcome of
hostility and hatred between nations and peoples of religion who imitate and
adhere to the forms and violate the spirit and reality of the divine
teachings.
[Bahá'í Library CD-ROM: Abdu'l-Baha: Foundations of World Unity, Page: 10]
I think that quotes such as these, in the immediate aftermath of September
11, might well have proven to be quite controversial.
Robert A. Little
"Milissa" <mili...@altavista.com> wrote in message
news:df0d6959.02020...@posting.google.com...
Robert Little
Individual Baha'is have not (as in: not now, not last year, not ever) been
invited to attack the government of Iran, nor any government anywhere. The
appeals for a lessening of the injustices perpetrated upon the Baha'is in
Iran (and elsewhere) have been done by and through the elected
representatives of the Baha'is at the international level, and even then,
the appeals were made to governments and their representatives, not the
public.
Robert A. Little
"Juan Cole" <jri...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:619f1452.02020...@posting.google.com...
Milissa
Thanks for the quotes. I am sure there are lots more, too. Anyway,
just a short note.
(snippage)
> I think that quotes such as these, in the immediate aftermath of September
> 11, might well have proven to be quite controversial.
Yes, but the problem is that review, in this instance, wouldn't help
Baha'is avoid controversy. Sure, don't quote the passages from
something that sounds pro-American to avoid offending non-Americans.
There isn't anything wrong with that! The problem then, however, is
that you take the high risk of offending Americans. I mean, I was
worried because everyone was so hyper-patriotic and the last thing
Baha'is needed, belonging to a religion that originated in the Middle
East, was to come across as anything less than 100 percent patriotic.
I honestly saw this as a real potential problem.
Now I am not trying to beat up the NSA on this, I am just using this
recent event as an example of why review doesn't work. Practically, it
can't really protect you. The other sad thing is that, by trying so
hard to avoid contention or misunderstandings, one runs the danger of
making yourself so neutral as to make yourself irrelevant to the
discussion. I also think review gives the public the false impression
that Baha'is have a consensus of opinion on things when we don't!
But I understand this is one of the situations where the NSA is damned
if it does, and damned if it doesn't. But I put the blame for that on
review as this is what forces the NSA to get involved in the first
place.
Peace,
Milissa
Juan Cole
lessening the persecution of Americans to the government of
Afghanistan? Did our External Affairs office lobby any legislatures
anywhere to get them to condemn the Taliban, just as they lobbied to
get the Iranian government condemned for its human rights violations?
How about the Christians of the Sudan? Have our Institutions done
anything for them?
In other words, does our community really give a shit about anybody
but ourselves? Couldn't tell it by the NSA directive, which was
cult-like in its attempt to control behavior and which basically said
that the official Baha'i faith is neutral in the conflict between
al-Qaida and the United States.
Which side are you rooting for?
And, while we're at it, Ostrich Robert, why don't we hear from you
about whether you think that Baha'i Insitutions will take over from
the U.S. government in the future. Yes or no? All you've done so
far is issue vague denials.
cheers Juan
"Robert Little" <rlit...@socal.rr.com> wrote in message news:<pk798.10160$dx6.1...@twister.socal.rr.com>...
Karen Bacquet
>
> Then I suggest you tell Fred to stop bringing you here. He drags out
> quotes from you to use as weapons. If you do not wan't folks to
> comment on your ideas then tell your proxy to knock it off.<<
For some reason this word "proxy" is popping up all of a sudden all over
trb. I expect this kind of thing from Schaut, and the cartoon character Dr.
Electron, but not from you, Dave. If Juan has a proxy anywhere, I've never
met one. I've never known Juan to tell anyone what to do or not do -- it is
fairly rare for him even to give advice, at least from what I've seen. This
picture that AO-defenders like to give of Juan as some kind of grand
puppetmaster directing the activities of Baha'i dissidents on the Internet
is just nutso conspiracy stuff. It is especially ridiculous to see people
like Fred and Dermod characterized as "proxies" here -- those two definitely
do whatever the heck they want!
Paul Hammond
Mark Elderkin <el...@intercoast.com.au> wrote in message
news:3c64e41a$1...@news.rivernet.com.au...
Mark,
If you are telling Juan off for foul language, I don't think you have
a great deal of room to talk.
Juan Cole
government, this shining democracy that has created the society with
the most liberty and human rights of any in history--do you think we
are "rotten"?
When Mussolini took Rome and abolished parliament, he got messages of
congratulations from fascist intellectuals.
Would you like to see the U.S. Congress abolished and replaced by a
religious theocracy? Even in the long run?
What is it about these Middle Eastern cults (and I mean the Baha'i
fundamentalists, not the real Baha'i Faith) that can take our American
young people and turn them against their own country?
Jihad Johnny Walker wrote his mom that she should leave the U.S.
"What has the U.S. ever done for anyone?" he asked.
Isn't that also what the Baha'i fundamentalists say? That the U.S.
system is rotten, a debauched Old World Order that needs to be torn
down and replaced (by them, preferably)?
No wonder they weren't vocal in denouncing the al-Qaida! They have
the same ultimate ideals!
cheers Juan
Michael McKenny
I tried your web page below, and accessed a statement that the page is
under construction and nothing else. What did this technopeasant do wrong?
I'm assuming that there's more to your site than that? I am aware that I'm
already a week late in meeting my latest deadline to provide links to some
interesting Baha'i sites from my solarguard one. Gods willing, that will
get done within the next few days, but I'd like to know I'm actually
connecting to something when I do that. Was it just a bad moment in the
cyber ether or did I miss something obvious? I look forward to your reply.
Thrice Three Blessings, Michael.
"Karen Bacquet" (karenb...@hotmail.com) writes:
>
> Karen
> http://www.bacquet.tk
Karen Bacquet
The problem could be with the new URL -- I've got shorter domain names from
Tokelau, and they were doing an update for a while, so maybe that's the
problem. Try http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/bigquestions/Bacquet.html In
theory, both of these URLs should still be working.
Love, Karen
--
www.bahai-faith.tk or
http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/bigquestions/bahailinks.html
Michael McKenny <bn...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:a43uj3$np8$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
Paul Hammond
You haven't mentioned the word "attack" in your entire diatribe
below.
I'm confused - does that fact mean that this is *not*, in fact,
an attack?
You couldn't, actually, *be* Peter Khan could you?
I note that you characterise Dr Cole as someone whom you
had been preparing to "take down". Does this mean you see
him as some kind of "opponent", perhaps?
Have you learned what a duck sounds like yet? Oh, and your
substantiation of your repeated cries of "faith hate crime"
please?
Paul
Doctor Electron <globals...@remove.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:t0996u493ktc1msai...@4ax.com...
Paul Hammond
Karen Bacquet <karenb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u6an8pb...@corp.supernews.com...
>
It is especially ridiculous to see people
> like Fred and Dermod characterized as "proxies" here -- those two
definitely
> do whatever the heck they want!
It would be fair to say, though, that it is Fred's constant reposting
of things that Juan said some while ago that has caused him to
become an issue around here.
Paul
Dermod Ryder
"Doctor Electron" <globals...@remove.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:t0996u493ktc1msai...@4ax.com...
Well Doc, such a fantastic post from you merits recognition!
Bahai Angst, if you're out there, good buddy - I think the old Doc
merits nomination for Bahai Dork of the Month - next time you update
the site. This guy, although he bears traces of the DST, has far
excelled her for dorkness.
Karen Bacquet
>
> It would be fair to say, though, that it is Fred's constant reposting
> of things that Juan said some while ago that has caused him to
> become an issue around here.<<
Oh, I think Juan would be an issue, even without Fred.:-) But what Dave
said was "If you do not want folks to
comment on your ideas then tell your proxy to knock it off." as if Juan were
in control of what Fred posts on the Internet.
Besides, it wasn't Fred's repost of Juan's words that has kicked up the dust
recently; it was Pat's, and then the arrival of Comic Book Guy who is
pretending like its a real big story. I have really mixed feelings about it
all: I hated to see Juan have to mess with this tempest in a teapot,
especially since by doing so he's giving these people what they want. On the
other hand, what happened has been clarified for me and no one gives Juan a
better defense than he does himself. He rarely jumps into the fray on open
forums, but when he does, it's poetry in motion.
And Paul -- you're not doing so badly yourself.:-)
Love, Karen
http://www.bacquet.tk
>
> Paul
>
>
Doctor Electron
<paha...@onetel.net.uk> transmitted:
>"Doc" <snigger>
>
>You haven't mentioned the word "attack" in your entire diatribe
Sorry, Paul, no offense, but you have to go out and did up the answers
to your own questions. Deliver content and you may get more turns
than others in the game.
Doctor Electron
<Grim_Re...@btinternet.com> transmitted:
>Well Doc, such a fantastic post from you merits recognition!
Thanks, Dermod. BTW, after Friday's (unexpected?) deflation by
self-puncture of the Dr. Juan Cole myth, I want to remind everyone
that he deserves to be treated with respect and consideration and love
and those close to him may sort of look where they might lend a
helping hand. The thing was so dramatic, I was almost in tears, and
I've never met the man! Imagine the feelings his friends must have
had to cope with! Before sleeping, I hoped that Dr. Cole was not all
alone that night, that someone--a friend, a loved-one--was with him.
Maybe he had hoped that everything would suddenly go away or whatever.
But I fear that justice will not.
Later on, I would be interested in some in-depth interviews to learn
more about the dynamics of what is happening.
What about:
A has grievances in Baha'i Community ---> A has bitterness --> A
develops scorn and aggressivity ---> ????
In short, how does a person like Juan wind up apparently throwing
everything away in the service of some inner motive, which the layman
might label "hatred?"
Randy Burns
he can't be Fozzie Bear, can he?
Randy
--
Paul Hammond <paha...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:3c65...@212.67.96.135...
Pat Kohli
> Dear Pat Kohli:
>
> Since you have been out here backbiting me ...
Did I or did I not send BCC you in this post last year?
http://groups.google.com/groups?start=225&hl=en&group=talk.religion.bahai&selm=3C06FD62.192F390%40ameritel.net
Please substantiate your allegation that I am in some way backbiting you.
Thanks for showing up, though.
> and using foul language and
Please substantiate your allegation. Was I describing you as "height of
yellow-bellied cowardice", "rank
ingratitude", and "unpatriotic near-treason"?
>
> treating me to a little auto-da-fe of your own in typical
> Inquisitorial fundamentalist-Baha'i Style,
Don't blame me for what you've done.
> let me just take a moment
> out of my busy life to respond to you,
Please proceed.
> whoever you are.
I am Pat Kohli. If you want to pose like I am _nobobdy_ for being
_stew_pid_ enough to take your "pusallanimity" message seriously, fine
... maybe everyone else will clue in that it is all fiction - only a
nobody would believe it.
>
>
> First of all, you have pretended to hurt that
PRETENDED?!?!? I see ... allege that I am foul mouthed and goad me into
proving your allegation. No thanks!
> I suggested that the US NSA was cowardly in its response to the horrible
> attack on the United
> State of September 11.
SUGGESTED!~??!?!?! No no no. You did not _suggest_ any such thing. You
wrote that you were trying to restrain yourself. Then you wrote "this
message is the height of yellow-bellied cowardice, rank ingratitude, and
unpatriotic near-treason." It was not at all a suggestion on your part.
The Fat Boy that was dropped on Japan on the close of WWII was not a
_suggestion_ of a bomb.
>
> But it is cowardly.
Example?
> In the NSA letter
I would have thought that you could tell the difference between the NSA
and the Office of External Affairs. Apparently, either you can't tell
them apart, or in the heat of the spin, you choose to confuse them.
Back in October, you claimed that you had "seen a directive from the US
NSA instructing Baha'is not to say the
"prayer for America" publicly in response to the horrid assault". Now you
drag out the suggestions from external Affaris in lieu of a directive from
the NSA. Are you serious, or just trying to insult my intelligence.
>
> appended to the message of a private individual below, the NSA urges
Not the NSA, but External Affairs. Do you confuse UM's Public Information
Office, with the University President? Do you expect me, the slack-jwed
maroon who believed you to confuse this things????
>
> that Baha'is in the wake of September 11 avoid criticizing the Taliban
> Government of Afghanistan.
Well, this might be a good inference from the general guidance to provide
an eleveated response, and avoid using the attack to advance our own
interests.
> We were not even supposed to "assign
> blame" to Osama Bin Ladin or al-Qaida!
>
Why should I assign blame to Bin Ladin? It was clear to me, from his
tape, that he wants me to think that Allah has willed him to do this thing
- he wants to take credit for it. This is a different thing from proof
that he did it. Is there anything gained in me personally blaming him?
>
> "above any mention whatsoever of government actions,
> assignment of blame . . ."
>
Right! Thousands of people were killed. That was the big deal of the
day, far more so than who killed them.
>
> Moreover, no Baha'i writing in as an individual to a newspaper was
> allowed to say, "I am a Baha'i, and I condemn this evil attack on the
> United States by virtue of my Baha'i values, of tolerance and respect
> for human life."
The letter from _External Affairs advised Baha'is to staff such letters
through their LSAs. The letter from _External_Affairs_ certainly does
_not_ forbid Baha'is from writing such statements to the their local
newspapers. I am puzzled that you make such allegations citing evidence
which clearly is _not_ what you claim it to be!
> Bob Henderson had the gall to tell us that we could
> not say this.
>
Wrongo. For the umpeenth time, this was from External Affairs. It
doesn't even say what you say it says!
>
> What in the world does the Baha'i faith stand for if it doesn't even
> publicly stand against terrorism?
On the day of the attack, the US NSA issued a letter condemning it. I'm
not sure if you are simply unaware of the real letter from 11 September,
or if there is some other intepretation that you hold.
"Our hearts are shocked and grief-stricken by the shameless acts of
terrorist
violence against innocent victims in New York, Pennsylvania, and
Washington."
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=9nuqh1%24r5c%241%40gnamma.connect.com.au
This is from the latter letter and I assume that you find this inadequate
as well.
"More than a hundred years ago, Baha'u'llah
the founder of the Baha'i Faith, addressing
heads of state, proclaimed that the age of
maturity for the entire human race had come.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=41ad5aff.0112291709.259116c2%40posting.google.com
> If adherents cannot publicly
> associate themselves both with a condemnation of mass murder and with
> the Baha'i principles??
>
We stand for Justice and Peace. Is Justice advanced in blaming the
Taliban for the attack? If so, mustn't we blame ourselves for the Taliban
at the same time? We set them up there and walked away when the Soviets
pulled out, leaving the Afghans to suffer under these fanatics - for
years.
>
> As for this minor issue of whether the NSA had planned to ban the
> saying of the Prayer for America, it remains murky.
Ahh, I see. I am glad that you now see it as "minor", rather than the
depths of their depraved, yellow-bellied, treasonous cowardice.
> Not only I but
> the poster below, posting in the same period, had heard that it might.
So, you deny seing a directive from the US NSA? If so, please state so
plainly.
>
> I heard the same things, and was not unusual in giving them credence.
If you want to deny seing a directive from the US NSA, please state so,
plainly.
>
> I am glad to publicly acknowledge that the NSA does not appear, at
> least openly, to have banned the saying of the prayer.
I think we've figured that out by now. Glad to see you onboard, too.
> What
> instructions it has given its legion of Secret Police (Assistants &
> ABMs) behind the scenes we do not know.
Ahhhhh Ewwwwww Ahhhhhhh Ewwwww.
"Yesterday I saw a man who was not there. He was not there again today.
I wish that man would go away." It looks like fear mongering to me. Did
you tell your little brother there was invisible monsters in the closet,
or under the bed? Do you really expect to rile up fear over _secret_
instructions, here on an open forum? Ewww Ahhh!
> A lot goes on in the inner
> core of the Baha'i faith that is hidden from outsiders, even from the
> rank and file Baha'is.
>
A lot goes on in some circles that is smoke mirrors, hand waves, and more
smoke mirrors and naked emporers.
>
> So, Pat, you wanted to hear me say I got that detail wrong in the heat
> of the moment, and here it is. I got it wrong.
Just what did you get wrong, Juan? Elsewhere in this message, you seem to
be saying that the letter from External Affairs which simply repeats
policy, is in fact, a letter from the US NSA and, says whatever you'd like
it to say. So, please be specific on what minor detail you may have erred
in.
> Unlike some people, I
> don't claim infallibility. I correct my errors.
Please do correct. It has only been a few months since I read this thing
from you and _ass_u_me_d_ I would be seeing a directive from the NSA,
banning public rectitations of the Prayer for America, in the feast
letter.
> Doug Martin and
> Farzam Arbab don't have to ever say they are sorry, because they are
> tinpot dictators.
>
What have they got to do with this? Did they tell you that they had seen
the directive from the US NSA, such that you thought that you saw what
never was? Please, tell me how they have something to do with this!
>
> But I did not get the tenor of the NSA response wrong. It is
> cowardly. It is running for the hills.
>
Thanks for showing up to renew your allegations. Please provide some
substantiation -why do you see the NSA as cowardly? Did you think the
letter to the papers was inappropriate - maybe they should have sent me
over their to light a daisy cutter in Osama's saddle, in their name?
Would you deem that the minimum acceptable response? What has your
response been? Send out a low accusation based on rumor, or bullshit, lay
low for a few months while Nima takes the heat, tell your 'close' fans
'what _really_ happened' [that through your swift action the NSA was
forced into action? - I played that one out here first BTW], then show up
here, claim to aplogize for some unspecificed mistake, repeat your
allegations against the NSA - using that same old External Affairs letter
that Nima tried (briefly, half-heartedly and unsuccessfully) to pass off
as *evidence* and toss in Farzam and Doug as red herring de jour - to
distract from the fact that you a) don't seem to have acknowledged any
specific mistakes - simply professed that you do fix your mistakes and b)
presented the wrong evidence to substantiate your flawed allegations?
>
> And I mind it.
.....
> Because when the Iranian Baha'is needed the support of
> my government, the United States stuck its neck out for them. The US
> Congress passed resolutions, condemning the Iranian government for its
> persecution of the Baha'is. Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Clinton all
> condemned Iran on this issue.
Okay.
> Don't you think that maybe American
> citizens could have been hurt by the Khomeinists in response?
Sure. The US government has had a thing about the Islamic Republic of Iran
for 20 some years. Things did not go sour over the treatment of the
Baha'is and the US response. The US points out the abuse of the Baha'is
as a way of tweaking the nose of a government that is out of fashion with
the US electorate.
> They
> did so at the explicit urging of the National Spiritual Assembly of
> the Baha'is of the United States, which maintained a $500,000 a year
> lobbyist for the explicit purpose of lobbying Washington on this
> matter.
What does this have to do with trying to publically blame the Taliban for
the WTC/Pentagon/Airline attacks?
> Firuz Kazemzadeh button-holed U.S. officials endlessly over
> this in public, while privately heaping scorn on the U.S. Congress.
>
You sem to be saying that 1) Firuz Kazemzadeh speaks largely ill of the US
congress and does this privately such that you need not corroborate this
allegation and 2) because Firuz does something which you will not be
bothered to try to substantiate, I should see him as a hypocrite for
lobbying the US government on the treatment of Baha'is in Iran. Did I get
that right? Don't you also have a stance on the treatment of Baha'is in
Iran?
>
> Now, when my country needs the support of everyone it can get, the
> National Spiritual Assembly announces that, well, no, it can't come
> out and condemn the Taliban government of Afghanistan.
Would something have been gained by condemning the Taliban in regards to
the Sept. 11 attack? Is this what you ares saying?????? Weren't they
already condemened by all civilized minds for their destruction of the
statues of the Buddha, their treatment of women, etc? Did that do
anything positive? The Taliban were bombed into extinction - bombs, Juan,
bombs! Do you want the NSA involved in bombings?
> Sorry, USA.
> You did it for us but we're selfish cowardly s.o.b.s and we ain't
> doing it for you.
>
> So, Pat, say the Prayer for America all you like. But for the love of
> God also stand up and say that *the Baha'i Faith* condemns al-Qaida,
> the Taliban, and mass murder. Stand up to the pusillanimous
> Hendersons of the world.
>
The BF is for justice. People in a just society can live in unity, with
peace, etc.
>
> And just in case you don't get it, my advice to you is to get off my
> case.
Or what ... will you repeat the same baseless stuff and grab some old
policy regurgitation from Exernal Affairs and wave it about as the "murky"
directive from the US NSA that you "heard" about rather than saw
directly? Will you insult me as a gullible stooge who _believed_ you?
Will you warn folks about more invisible directives that you saw? Ewwww
Ahhhhh Ewwww Ahhhhh.
Don't try to bully me on TRB.
> I didn't come out on TRB with that message to which you
> objected and
You had an explanation. You were told there was an open issue here, and
you could care less about passing the gouge from on high to here.
> I've got other things to do with my time these days that
> debate and condemn minor cultists.
Sure, you can send your own minor cultists around to do your bidding. May
I suggest, if you are going to turn them loose to do your bidding, give
them the stuff they need to make their err _your_ case?
> But if you keep bringing me up I
> will be coming after the cultists who have infiltrated and mutilated
> the Baha'i administration vocally, with good evidence, every day.
Oh my! News flash ... Fred posts old quotes of you on the AO ... every
day, so, go ahead ... I feel lucky, real lucky.
> I
> have file cabinets full of juicy stuff.
Yes! Read me those NSA directives that are simply policy regurgitations
from External Affairs. Bring the puss out to the light of day. It has
been festering _somewhere_ far too long.
> I'd prefer to spend my time
> another way. But if you really want to have me spend it this way,
> just keep up your vacuous drumbeat.
>
I've been chumming err drumming for over three months. Please do stick
around and play my older brother when he was eight and tell me about the
invisible monstahs under the bed who will eat me toes if I get out before
sunup. Tell me that I can know that those monstahs under the bed are
invisible monsters precisely because I can not see them. Scare me,
please. Insult my intelligence, too; you do it so much better than
MrMahdi, or Darrick.
>
> cheers Juan
>
We are going to have loads of fun!
(anonymous letter snipped)
>
>
> National letter of Caution
>
> Posted on NSA site 14/9/01
>
> "To Public Information Representatives, Local Spiritual Assemblies, an
> d Individual Bahá'ís:
>
> All of us have been deeply affected by the tragic events in Washington
> DC,
> Pennsylvania, and New York. Without question, many Bahá'ís will yearn
> to
> make some response to demonstrate their wish that Bahá'u'lláh's
> healing
> message might reach every corner of this nation. In the words of the
> National Spiritual Assembly in its message to the American Bahá'í
> community, "The Bahá'í spirit of universal love and assistance are
> more
> urgently needed now than ever before." What is needed now is for us to
> act
> as true Bahá'ís, as
> true servants to humankind.
>
> The Office of External Affairs has received requests for guidance on
> such
> matters as whether it is appropriate to submit prayers to their local
> newspap
> ers, the appropriateness of writing letters to the editor in response
> to
> these tragic events and other similar inquiries.
>
> We take this opportunity to remind the friends of the policy of the
> National Spiritual Assembly on writing articles to local newspapers:
>
> * Individual Bahá'ís must first seek the approval of the local
> Spiritual
> Assembly before submission to the newspaper if the person is writing
> as a
> Bahá'í.
>
> * Bahá'ís are free to write letters to the editors of publications to
> express their personal views if they do not identify themselves as
> Bahá'ís,
> imply that they represent the Faith or a Bahá'í community, or discuss
> the
> Bahá'í Faith.
>
> * Individuals or local Spiritual Assemblies wishing to submit articles
> to
> national publications must first seek the approval of the Office of
> External
> Affairs.
>
> * If individuals are uncertain about the relationship of their letters
> to
> the interest of the Faith, they should consult with their local
> Spiritual
> Assembly.
>
> * Any local Spiritual Assembly that wishes to contact local government
> officials including for the purpose of presenting Bahá'í materials
> should
> first consult with the Office of External Affairs.
>
> Because of the politically sensitive nature of these recent tragic
> events,
> we ask that local Spiritual Assemblies consult with the Office of
> External
> Affairs before submitting anything to a local newspaper. The Office of
> External Affairs can be reached by phone at (202) 833-8990 or e-mail
> at
> usnsa-oea@
> usbnc.org. Please note that the Office of Public Information in New
> York
> City is currently experiencing difficulty in receiving telephone and
> e-mail
> communications.
>
> General guidelines for appropriate tone of communications to the
> media:
>
> Any Bahá'í-connected message to the public should try to elevate the
> response to the attacks to a higher, more spiritual level that is
> above
> hatred and recrimination, above any mention whatsoever of government
> actions,
> assignment of blame, and above the attempt to use this tragedy as an
> opportunity to advance our own interests. It would also not be
> appropriate to cite apocalyptic references from the Bahá'í writings
> or to submit prayers which contain language that could seem
> threatening to non-Bahá'ís.
>
The National Spiritual Assembly
of the Bahá'ís of the United States
September 11, 2001
To the American Bahá'í Community
Dear Bahá'í Friends,
Our hearts are shocked and grief-stricken by the shameless acts of
terrorist
violence against innocent victims in New York, Pennsylvania, and
Washington.
Fervently, we are praying for those who died and beseeching God to comfort
the hearts of those who have lost loved ones, and to strengthen our nation
and its people to meet this challenge with faith, courage, and unity.
As you know, the Bahá'í Scriptures proclaim that God has given the United
States a spiritual mission to help reshape the world. The Bahá'í Writings
state that America will evolve, through purifying tests and trials to
become
a land of spiritual distinction and leadership, a champion of justice and
unity among all peoples and nations, and powerful servant of the Cause of
everlasting peace. The Bahá'í Writings promise that this "signally blest"
nation will never be defeated and will triumphantly fulfill its
God-ordained
mission.
The Baha'i Faith has known crisis since its inception and many Baha'is,
especially in the cradle of the Faith, have faced brutal attacks with
faithfulness and noble resolve. Their model must be our standard. At this
moment of unprecedented disaster, we call on all of the followers of
Bahá'u'lláh in the United States to come to the aid of your nation in the
name of your Faith. The vision of Bahá'u'lláh's Healing Message and the
Bahá
'í spirit of universal love and assistance are more urgently needed now
than
ever before. As you proceed to serve and assist your neighbors and
communities, we ask you to bear in mind these words of assurance and
guidance from the Bahá'í Writings. "Let each one of God's loved ones
center
his attention on this, to be the Lord's mercy to man; to be the Lord's
grace. Let him do some good to every person whose path he crosseth, and be
of some benefit to him. Let him improve the character of each and all, and
reorient the minds of men. In this way, the light of divine guidance will
shine forth, and the blessings of God will cradle all mankind: for love is
light no matter in what abode it dwelleth; and hate is darkness, no matter
where it may make its nest. O friends of God! That the hidden Mystery may
stand revealed, and the secret essence of all things may be disclosed,
strive ye to banish that darkness for ever and ever."
Our prayers and love are with you always,
NATIONAL SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLY OF
THE BAHÁ'ÍS OF THE UNITED STATES
Robert C. Henderson, Secretary-General
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=9nuqh1%24r5c%241%40gnamma.connect.com.au
> The Destiny of America and
> The Promise of World Peace
>
> At this time of world turmoil, the United States
> Baha'i community offers a perspective on the
> destiny of America as the promoter of world
> peace.
>
> More than a hundred years ago, Baha'u'llah
> the founder of the Baha'i Faith, addressing
> heads of state, proclaimed that the age of
> maturity for the entire human race had come.
> The unity of humankind was now to be
> established as the foundation of the great
> peace that would mark the highest stage in
> humanity's spiritual and social evolution.
> Revolutionary and world-shaking changes were
> therefore inevitable.
>
> The Baha'i writings state:
> The world is moving on. Its events are
> unfolding ominously and with bewildering
> rapidity. The whirlwind of its passions is swift
> and alarmingly violent. The New World is
> insensibly drawn into its vortex. . . . Dangers,
> undreamt of and unpredictable, threaten it both
> from within and from without. Its governments
> and peoples are being gradually enmeshed in
> the coils of the world's recurrent crises and
> fierce controversies. . . . The world is
> contracting into a neighborhood. America,
> willingly or unwillingly, must face and grapple
> with this new situation. For purposes of national
> security, let alone any humanitarian motive, she
> must assume the obligations imposed by this
> newly created neighborhood. Paradoxical as it
> may seem, her only hope of extricating herself
> from the perils gathering around her is to
> become entangled in that very web of
> international association which the Hand of an
> inscrutable Providence is weaving.
>
> The American nation, Baha'is believe, will
> evolve, through tests and trials to become a
> land of spiritual distinction and leadership, a
> champion of justice and unity among all
> peoples and nations, and a powerful servant of
> the cause of everlasting peace. This is the
> peace promised by God in the sacred texts of
> the world's religions.
>
> Establishing peace is not simply a matter of
> signing treaties and protocols; it is a complex
> task requiring a new level of commitment to
> resolving issues not customarily associated
> with the pursuit of peace.
>
> Universal acceptance of the spiritual principle
> of the oneness of humankind is essential to any
> successful attempt to establish world peace.
> Racism, one of the most baneful and persistent
> evils, is a major barrier to peace.
> The emancipation of women, the achievement
> of full equality of the sexes, is one of the most
> important, though less acknowledged,
> prerequisites of peace.
>
> The inordinate disparity between rich and poor
> keeps the world in a state of instability,
> preventing the achievement of peace.
> Unbridled nationalism, as distinguished from a
> sane and legitimate patriotism, must give way
> to a wider loyalty, to the love of humanity as a
> whole.
>
> Religious strife, the cause of innumerable wars
> and conflicts throughout history, is a major
> obstacle to progress. The challenge facing the
> world's religious leaders is to contemplate, with
> hearts filled with compassion and the desire for
> truth, the plight of humanity, and to ask
> themselves whether they cannot, in humility
> before their God, submerge their theological
> differences in a great spirit of mutual
> forbearance that will enable them to work
> together for the advancement of human
> understanding and peace.
>
> Baha'is pray, "May this American Democracy
> be the first nation to establish the foundation of
> international agreement. May it be the first
> nation to proclaim the unity of mankind. May it
> be the first to unfurl the standard of the Most
> Great Peace."
>
> During this hour of crisis, we affirm our abiding
> faith in the destiny of America. We know that
> the road to its destiny is long, thorny and
> tortuous, but we are confident that America will
> emerge from her trials undivided and
> undefeatable.
>
> -National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the
> United States
>
> The National Spiritual Assembly's Statement "The Destiny of
> America and the Promise of World Peace" to appear in the New
> York Times, Sunday, December 23, 2001.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=41ad5aff.0112291709.259116c2%40posting.google.com
Pat Kohli
Paul Hammond wrote:
> Milissa <mili...@altavista.com> wrote in message
> news:df0d6959.02020...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > We can find this out by asking the question: did anyone, individual,
> > LSA or others write an article for their local newspaper which
> > included the prayer for America and submit it for review? If they
> > did, did it pass review or not? If it could be shown that an article
> > did not pass review because it contain this prayer, then Juan's
> > accusation is correct. If it can't pass review, its the same thing as
> > banning it! Alternatively, if you or anyone else can show me that the
> > prayer was indeed published somewhere after passing review, then that
> > would be solid evidence that it wasn't banned.
> >
> > At any rate, I don't think its fair to accuse Juan of lying. At the
> > most, one could accuse him of misinterpreting their intent, but given
> > what they wrote and what the prayer for America says, it is a
> > misinterpretation a reasonable person could easily make.
> >
>
> Nah - the issue *is* that Juan thought that the text of the advisory
> letter from the US NSA to the Baha'is of America said something
Unnnn, the letter he is now waving about is the same one that Nima waived
about when he reposted Juan's letter here in October. It is _not_ the
NSA's letter. It is essentially a repeat of policy at a time when Baha'is
were likely tempted to act impulsively. In a nutshell, if I want to write
a letter to the editor of my newspaper that Osama Bin Laden has camel
grapes from brains, AND that I am a Baha'i, I should staff the letter
through my Local Spiritual Assembly.
The letter that Juan is waving is from External Affairs. The NSA letters
are pasted below.
>
> different from the one that was *actually* sent out. He did get
> it wrong, and has said so.
He still says the US NSA is cowardly, at least that is my impression, and
he seems to be saying this despite the weakness of the External Affairs
letter and despite the fact that it is not an NSA letter.
> We can criticise the content
> of the actual letter if we like, but it is a fact that Juan got
> angry on the basis of incorrect information about the contents
> of that letter. So much is clearly established.
This is _not_ established. The letter that Juan would try to confuse with
an NSA letter is from External Affairs. This is like confusing the Crown's
publicist with the Queen. Maybe Juan did confuse them, maybe he did not.
I'll let him say what mistakes he may have made.
September 11, 2001
Dear Bahá'í Friends,
> The Destiny of America and
Pat Kohli
Dave Fiorito wrote:
> (pretty much what I thought)
I thought I should look in after a week. Things look like they were in
great hands. Thanks!
I wish I read your reply first.
Blessings!
- Pat
ko...@ameritel.net
Pat Kohli
Doctor Electron wrote:
>
> It's almost like this was some sort of deliberate act of martyrdom for
> some (unknown) principle.
I have been asking him to come by and explain the matter. I am unhappy
with his explanation, but my inistence on an explanation arose from my
discovery of contradictions. Though I suspect Juan may be unable to
provide an explanation to my satisfaction, I would like to favorably
acknowledge the fact that he has appeared, even after these several
months. It is better, in my eyes, than never appearing.
Though I am angered by what he did, his presence here for a few days may
aid me in accepting his behavior in October, and helping me to restore my
sense of balance. So, even though you may be disturbed by his appearance,
I see it as a positive sign.
Blessings!
- Pat
ko...@ameritel.net
Michael McKenny
Methinks the question is on the wrong foot, or you're wearing your
gloves on your feet or something.
How do you toss out everything: independent investigation of truth,
beholding with your own eyes and not the eyes of others, best beloved
justice, harmony of faith and reason, equality of women and men, and
especially, Doc, harmony of humanity? Riddle me this, Doc, how do you
heave all that into the trashbin and pull out from that container the
opposite of Baha'u'llah's principled ideals for the New Day?
It wasn't Juan who trashed Baha'u'llah and went picking through the
wasted remains of past and harmfully divisive fundamentalism. So, tell me,
Doc, why d'ya do it?
To a Better Future, Michael.
Doctor Electron (globals...@remove.yahoo.com) writes:
> ...
> In short, how does a person like Juan wind up apparently throwing
> everything away in the service of some inner motive, which the layman
> might label "hatred?"
>
> globalservices1_at_yahoo.com using @ instead of _at_.
>
> ===PEP [Pretty Excellent Privacy] encrypted message===
> The bytes above contain both the key and the message.
Michael McKenny
I'll try to have the link in by the end of the day.
Any and everyone else here with a web page can tell me what it is
(excellent opportunity for plug), but no promises at all are made, except
that I'll try to read it soon and, if I feel like it, will add a link in
the near future, gods willing.
Michael McKenny
Wow! I just connected to the longer lettered site (still get only
the one statement for the short one). Obviously haven't had time to read
it all or follow all the links. However, on first scan it seems well done
indeed. Hat's off to you for a job well done.
Thrive, Michael.
Michael McKenny
There. At long last. The links in. I just tested it.
Thrice Three Blessings, Michael.
"Karen Bacquet" (karenb...@hotmail.com) writes:
> Dear Michael,
>
> The problem could be with the new URL -- I've got shorter domain names from
> Tokelau, and they were doing an update for a while, so maybe that's the
> problem. Try http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/bigquestions/Bacquet.html In
> theory, both of these URLs should still be working.
>
> Love, Karen
>
--
Michael McKenny
What about the buck stopping, man? We don't accept it from our
politicos when they say, "Wasn't me; my underling did it." Responsibility,
man.
But what I still can't figure out (read my response to Juan) is why
you all get your knickers in a knot about valid Baha'i action. as I said,
even if the assertion is true (regardless of the moles fed poisoned info)
asking Baha'is not to say the Prayer for America in public is a valid
Baha'i act. you don't have to agree with it, but it's not like leading
a jihad or whatever you all seem to be equating it with.
Pat, I've no idea why you are so emotional about this. To the extent
that Juan or anyone else uses ad hominem language, to that extent he or
anyone is invalid. Strictly on the issue, going right to the heart of
the matter, there's nothing wrong with asking American Baha'is not to
say the Prayer for America in public. I've discussed the issue per se
earlier. Gotta run now, but if you can't find my remarks up river on the
newsgroup hollar for me to repeat in detail why there's a distinction
between leading a jihad or whatever, well, even, you know, discriminating
against women (why aren't you howling like an enraged beserker about that)
and advising people not to perform acts that could be perceived as biased,
provocative and inciting violence.
To Tolerance and Understanding, Michael.
Pat Kohli (kohliCUT...@ameritel.net) writes:
>
> I would have thought that you could tell the difference between the NSA
> and the Office of External Affairs. Apparently, either you can't tell
> them apart, or in the heat of the spin, you choose to confuse them.
--
Dermod Ryder
Hi Karen,
> It is especially ridiculous to see people
> like Fred and Dermod characterized as "proxies" here -- those two
definitely
> do whatever the heck they want!
Can't speak for Fred but in my case - too rucking fight, sister, too
rucking fight!
As ever,
Dermod.
>
> Karen
> http://www.bacquet.tk
>
>
>
Dermod Ryder
Hi Karen,
> And Paul -- you're not doing so badly yourself.:-)
Geez, I just love the way you understate everything! The man's a
genius - he has pinned Doc Hasbeen to the ropes more times than Bob
has sent out begging letters with the American Bahai!
As ever,
Dermod.
Paul Hammond
Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message
news:3C663156...@ameritel.net...
Ah - I admit I was confused thinking that what Juan had posted
here was the text of the actual US NSA letter regarding
September 11. Thanks for clearing that up.
Nice to see you here, Pat - your "proxy", Dr Electron seems to have
been adding to the confusion and obfuscation around here in
your absence.
Paul
Paul Hammond
Randy Burns <randy....@gte.net> wrote in message
news:PEm98.3295$qI1.7...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net...
> And I thought he was Hooper Dunbar! Silly me. But if he's Peter Khan
then
> he can't be Fozzie Bear, can he?
>
Nah - Fozzie Bear actually knew one or two bad jokes, while our Doc
*is* one - there's a difference you know!
Paul
Milissa
I understand why we shouldn't represent ourselves as an *official*
Baha'i response. What I don't understand is why one couldn't
represent themselves even as an *individual* Baha'i. For example, when
Jerry Falwell said what he did, no one really believed he represented
all Christianity.
On the one hand, I understand it. On the other, its too bad Baha'is
had to neutralize themselves so much.
Peace,
Milissa
"Robert Little" <rlit...@socal.rr.com> wrote in message news:<SV698.10157$dx6.1...@twister.socal.rr.com>...
> Oh, Milissa
>
> We were asked Not To Represent Our Personal Opinion As Being The Official
> Baha'i Response to a political and enormously violent attack. We were
> encouraged to respond, but as individuals, not as the Baha'i Faith, or as
> emissaries of the Baha'i Faith.
>
> There are ample examples of Baha'is doing just that, individuals speaking as
> if they had authority to speak for us all, and causing misunderstanding at
> best, confusion, doubt, misgivings and negative attitudes more likely, pain,
> suffering and death at worst. September was not the time for Baha'is to
> engage in politics. February isn't such a good time, either.
>
> Robert A. Little
>
> "Milissa" <mili...@altavista.com> wrote in message
> news:df0d6959.02020...@posting.google.com...
> > Hi Juan--
> >
> > Thanks for posting this, as it saves me the effort of asking. All I
> > can say is damn. Regardless of the Prayer for America issue, this
> > document is embarrassing. It just screams CONTROL CONTROL CONTROL
> > CONTROL
> >
> > I do appreciate their concern for sensitivity, but one part really
> > puzzles me:
> >
> > > * Bahá'ís are free to write letters to the editors of publications to
> > > express their personal views if they do not identify themselves as
> > > Bahá'ís,
> > > imply that they represent the Faith or a Bahá'í community, or discuss
> > > the
> > > Bahá'í Faith.
> >
> > Why should Baha'is have to stay in the closet? This is really
> > weird....we have an opinion on what is probably the most significant
> > event in recent American history and we can't share *spontaneous*
> > expressions of religious sentiment without getting it preapproved? To
> > me this is the issue and not whether a particular prayer was banned.
> >
> > damn review is embarrassing.
> >
> > Peace,
> > Milissa
Karen Bacquet
> Greetings, Karen.
> Wow! I just connected to the longer lettered site (still get only
> the one statement for the short one). Obviously haven't had time to read
> it all or follow all the links. However, on first scan it seems well done
> indeed. Hat's off to you for a job well done.
> Thrive, Michael.
Dear Michael,
Thank you. Believe it or not, that website began as a computer literacy
class project -- the "index" page is one with the "Big Questions" essays on
it -- hence the name of the site in the long URL. I figured that since I
was required to make a webpage for the class, I might as well *say*
something on it while I was at it. The site's growth reflects my own growth
out here in cyberspace. It's like you said that the evolution of your
thinking could be traced through your old Talisman posts -- something
similar could be could be done on my website. I'm also gradually getting
some of my posts on my site as well.
There are times I wish I knew more HTML and how to jazz it up a little bit,
because it's just created from Angelfire's web shell and is pretty
bare-bones basic, but if the point is to put my ideas out there, it achieves
that just as well without doing anything fancy.
Oh, and thanks for drawing my attention to the problem with the "tk" URL.
It still works on my browser, though.
Love, Karen
Sekhmet
>And, by the way, up until 1996 I was minding my own business doing
>scholarship when your idiot Kazemzadehs and Hendersons and Arbabs and
>Martins had me threatened behind the scenes by some thug named
>Birkland. I am tired of having my community run like a fucking Mafia
>and I'm mad as hell and I am not taking it any more.
Anybody who was on Talisman in 1995 and early 1996 would have had to be blind
not to have noticed that some statements made there by you and certain others
were straying close to (and sometimes beyond) the boundaries of the Covenant.
It was Steve Birkland's JOB to point that out...
--Sekhmet
Doctor Electron
<kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> transmitted:
Glad to hear it. And I see from posts by many -- Robert, Brian, Rick,
Dave, yourself -- that you have already begun to analyze and respond
to the content of Dr. Cole's missives and that many are more able than
myself to do so, with the pertinent information at hand and with
highly relevant angles or perspectives on this story.
Michael McKenny
I just tried it again, and this time it worked. Got no idea what's
different. About evolution and all, gosh, if I'd grown up with the web,
then all the stages would be there from the beginning, growing like a tree,
or more likely like liana around trees in the jungle. Well, we can't do
much about what has happened, but I look forward to trying to put a few
things on my page to show where my mental and spiritual feet are taking
me. Thanks for such a splendid example of what can be done.
Thrice Three Blessings, Michael.
"Karen Bacquet" (karenb...@hotmail.com) writes:
>
> Dear Michael,
>
> Thank you. Believe it or not, that website began as a computer literacy
> class project -- the "index" page is one with the "Big Questions" essays on
> it -- hence the name of the site in the long URL. I figured that since I
> was required to make a webpage for the class, I might as well *say*
> something on it while I was at it. The site's growth reflects my own growth
> out here in cyberspace. It's like you said that the evolution of your
> thinking could be traced through your old Talisman posts -- something
> similar could be could be done on my website. I'm also gradually getting
> some of my posts on my site as well.
> There are times I wish I knew more HTML and how to jazz it up a little bit,
> because it's just created from Angelfire's web shell and is pretty
> bare-bones basic, but if the point is to put my ideas out there, it achieves
> that just as well without doing anything fancy.
>
> Oh, and thanks for drawing my attention to the problem with the "tk" URL.
> It still works on my browser, though.
>
> Love, Karen
>
--
Michael McKenny
Clue us in, mate. What did Juan et al. say that was toeing the
line? I understood your prophet said that if you all acknowledged the
vast variety of opinions humans think up, don't insist on your own view
and don't claim you're the shadow on earth of the divine you're doing
your bit for human harmony.
Now, mate, let's see the evidence, even thy possibly frail memory.
Couldst thou kindly share with us just where Juan et al. were failing to
acknowledge the vast variety of views, demanding anyone else had to
subscribed to their particular understanding or speaking as the shadow
of God.
Methinks, mate, there were folks sort of doing that there, but Juan
and the others Birkland opposed were not among them. From the sounds of
it, thee thyself may have been among the number, but in Treebeard's
words, "Let's not be hasty." We'll give thee a chance to speak for yourself
and confirm just who it was who was wandering on the other side of
compliance with Baha'u'llah's advice on how to maintain human harmony.
Thy move, mate.
To Tolerance and Understanding, Michael.
Alma Engels
Cole than any praise I could give. They are so far out that anyone reading
this will realize how false they are.
Alma -- real name. Only cowards or those with a dark secret need an alias.
Are you btw one of those protected by the FBI who have needed and been given
a different identity because they now rat on their former criminal friends
and fear for their lives? Have no fear here. Not even the most
fundamentalist of the fundamentalist Baha'is here are a threat to your
person or that of others. They use words -- as do the liberals -- and words
only hurt you if you let them.
Doctor Electron <globals...@remove.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:q8vb6u8mu01ddruae...@4ax.com...
Alma Engels
you in accepting what happened last year. But I am curious-- how important
do you think it is if you (or I or anyone else for that matter) accept such
things or reject them. Does it move any hearts, make for better Baha'is,
etc.?
In peace,
Alma who does not hide behind a cowardly alias.
Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message
news:3C663444...@ameritel.net...
Alma Engels
posting here for a long time and have a conservative, fundamentalist
understanding of the Faith -- which is ok. Those you don't mention on the
other hand are the more liberal Baha'is and assorted friends. Wouldn't it
be hunky dory if all could get along together -- unity in diversity, you
know. But rather I think it represents the biblical Tower of Babal for the
very words have different meanings, depending on who is speaking.
In peace,
Alma who does not hide behind an alias though her account is named Aelyria
or Thirinel depending how she is replying. Those names go back a dozen
years to my online role-playing days.
Doctor Electron <globals...@remove.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:gbmd6ugff8f2giecp...@4ax.com...
Alma Engels
come stapled shut through the middle of the page with an envelope to be
filled with a contribution to National. Never mind that donations were
supposed to be voluntary, etc. For several years, I just peeked at what I
could without removing the offending staple. Now I do take it off and read
a bit. Seems as the pleas for money are as productive as the urging to
bring in the troops. New declarations decline and the NSA is at the point
of being (officially at least for who knows how much they really get and
spend) in the red.
In peace,
Alma who is not afraid of the bogey man and uses her real name.
Dermod Ryder <Grim_Re...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:a462at$1clrjm$1...@ID-84503.news.dfncis.de...
Paul Atreides
jeopardizing it here. I would be sorry to see one of the rare sane
voices on t-r-b go down the tube and selfdestruct.
As John said, Mr. Cole does not follow t-r-b and it is unreasonable of
you to compel him to do so. You've grasped on to a message he appears
to have sent to a few friends or something, and have kept re-posting
it here--for 17,000 viewers--without his permission, and demanding to
hear from him. That isn't a fair way to behave. I know trb is a zoo,
but you were never one of the animals before. I am sorry to see it.
The External Affairs letter that he posted does prevent Baha'is from
sharing some prayers with the public, and I guess even other Baha'is
than him thought the Prayer for America was among them. And, the
letter isn't a shining moment of bravery for whomever authorized it.
Mr. Cole sometimes engages in a fair degree of rhetoric or hyperbole,
and I don't believe he realizes how much it might hurt his case. But
now you are going to even greater extremes. Your notion that the
External Affairs letter can be considered not to come from the n-s-a
is pretty weak, old boy. Bahaidom is nothing if not tightly centrally
controlled, and External Affairs is sort of like the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs. You couldn't easily argue that the Blair
administration aren't responsible for what Jack Straw puts out.
Thus, your whole case against Mr. Cole has collapsed. He is
plentifully vindicated, and has provided us the letter. You have been
down his throat for saying things that are altogether reasonable, and
which he did not say on this forum anyway, so that it was none of your
business.
Your response is definitely disappointing, old man. Bad show. You
don't have that graciousness you used to in the old days.
I think there is a Hidden Word about bringing yourself to account each
day. I know I do (and there is plenty of reason to, believe me). I
commend it to you.
eternally - Paul
Pat Kohli
Michael McKenny wrote:
> Greetings, Pat.
> What about the buck stopping, man? We don't accept it from our
> politicos when they say, "Wasn't me; my underling did it." Responsibility,
> man.
Right!
>
> But what I still can't figure out (read my response to Juan) is why
> you all get your knickers in a knot about valid Baha'i action.
I'm not sure what you are referring to, I'll try to read all your responses to
Juan.
> as I said,
> even if the assertion is true (regardless of the moles fed poisoned info)
> asking Baha'is not to say the Prayer for America in public is a valid
> Baha'i act.
If Juan just didn't want Baha'is to recite the prayer for America, he should
have asked that directly instead of saying that it should be said and saying
that the NSA directed that it not be said. So, I think I disagree, lying
about having seen a directive, just to deter Baha'is from saying the prayer,
does _not_ look to me to be any sort of valid - Baha'i or otherwise.
> you don't have to agree with it, but it's not like leading
> a jihad or whatever you all seem to be equating it with.
Right, I disagree, strenuously.
>
> Pat, I've no idea why you are so emotional about this.
Maybe it is some emotional illness about me - I misplaced my trust and I feel
violated and I express my disappointment. Healthier folks, maybe they get
lied to by folks they thought were trustworthy and it does not bother them at
all. You can thank the gods you are so well adjusted.
> To the extent
> that Juan or anyone else uses ad hominem language, to that extent he or
> anyone is invalid.
Sure.
> Strictly on the issue, going right to the heart of
> the matter, there's nothing wrong with asking American Baha'is not to
> say the Prayer for America in public.
Okay. I think the objection I might have is _how_ it is done. If someone
wants to tell me not to say the Prayer for America by claiming to have seen an
invisible directive from the US NSA, and denounced the US NSA as a bunch of
cowardly traitors, for directing the Baha'is to _not_ say the prayer for
America, all the while saying that the prayer for America should be said, than
I object. It is gross hypocrisy to manipulate folks that way.
> I've discussed the issue per se
> earlier. Gotta run now, but if you can't find my remarks up river on the
> newsgroup hollar for me to repeat in detail why there's a distinction
> between leading a jihad or whatever, well, even, you know, discriminating
> against women (why aren't you howling like an enraged beserker about that)
> and advising people not to perform acts that could be perceived as biased,
> provocative and inciting violence.
I'll look.
Slan!
- Pat
ko...@ameritel.net
Pat Kohli
Alma Engels wrote:
> Glad you see Juan's appearance here as a good sign. And hope it does help
> you in accepting what happened last year. But I am curious-- how important
> do you think it is if you (or I or anyone else for that matter) accept such
> things or reject them. Does it move any hearts, make for better Baha'is,
> etc.?
I have to live with myself. I felt violated. I, like many others, felt I was
lied to and left to suffer through it myself, alone.
The thing is, as Juan jumps up and down, that Baha'is should condemn Osama bin
Ladin, or Taliban, or al Qaieda, it really reminds me of why I should never have
judged him, as I believe I did in anger, when I realized I'd been duped. I
tried to avoid judging him, I tried to summon up some tact, like in this message
that I BCCed him:
< Juan,
<
< I am posting this to usenet as well as BCCing you. Hopefully the BCC
< will evade the email address harvesters of usenet.
<
< I have seen a newsgroup message, purportedly authored by you, and posted
< by Nima Hazini, in which you claim to have seen a drective from the US
< NSA instructing Baha'is not to say the "prayer for America" publicly in
< response to the horrid assault on our country of September 11. When the
< message was posted there were several requests for corroboration. Nima
< provided various responses, but did not post the directive from the NSA
< instructing Baha'is not to say the "prayer for America".
<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=NSA+directive+seen&hl=en&rnum=8&selm=9qt2to%241uh%241%40gnamma.connect.com.au
<
< At the time that this message was posted my mail had been delayed and I
< had not seen the latest feast letter. I gave you the benefit of the
< doubt.
< http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=3BD35AC1.1861638F%40ameritel.net
<
< As time went on, and such a directive did not appear in my mailbox, I
< became suspicious that there was a mistake. I checked the usbnc web
< site and found no such letter; on the contrary, I found an entirely
< different letter from the US NSA, regarding the attacks of September 11.
<
< After a month, I came to strongly doubt that you saw what you claimed -
< a directive from the US NSA instructing Baha'is not to say the "prayer
< for America". I do not know if you saw some staffer's draft hysterical
< overreaction, and mistook that for an NSA directive, or if you saw
< nothing even that might resemble an NSA directive. It is clear to me
< that you do not have academic objectivity when it comes to Baha'i
< adminstration. Your credibility, in criticizing the AO, has evaporated.
<
< Over the past five or six weeks I had assumed that Nima was passing
< along questions and concerns regarding your message to you. Recently
< Nima unsubscribed from TRB and will not be available to act as your
< proxy. Therefore I think it is appropriate to contact you directly.
<
< If there is some explanation for how this happened, why anyone should
< trust you when you complain about the AO, I am all ears. Otherwise,
< when someone quotes you, as an expert, criticizing the AO, I will point
< out why I see you as having no academic objectivity when it comes to the
< AO, and the US Baha'i community.
http://groups.google.com/groups?start=225&hl=en&group=talk.religion.bahai&selm=3C06FD62.192F390%40ameritel.net
I was not sugary, but I tried to stick to the facts, and my anticiapted course
of action. I avoided the judgemental opinions which went beyond my anticipated
course of action - I did not call him a low opportunistic contemptible lying
traitor. I may have harbored such judgemental feelings at the time, but I
generally tried to hide it. Yet it was there all the time - my condemnation,
lurking and feeding the anger I felt. With the sustained anger, I had
adrenaline, and energy - it was a drug, like speed, or coke.
By suggesting of me, as an individual Baha'i, to make judgemental condemnations
of others, Juan has helped me get over a lot of my anger, and judgement toward
him. No good will come of my anger, so, I must turn over my judgement of Juan
to Juan's Judge.
Still, I am interested in an explanation, but it must be an interest rooted in
curiousity, rather than judgement to feed anger.
Blessings!
- Pat
ko...@ameritel.net
Pat Kohli
Paul Atreides wrote:
> Pat, you have a reputation for being fair, but you are indeed
> jeopardizing it here.
Thank you. I had no idea I enjoyed such fame, all the way to British
Arrakis. Thank you.
> I would be sorry to see one of the rare sane
> voices on t-r-b go down the tube and selfdestruct.
>
> As John said, Mr. Cole does not follow t-r-b and it is unreasonable of
> you to compel him to do so.
Okay - which John? I thought it would be nice if Juan could surprise me
and regain his credibility. I should not insist that he return to TRB. I
think I only sent him one email inviting him to return and discuss the
matter. I don't think he should feel compelled to TRB. Rather, I stated
my intentions - to point out that he lacked credibility. He has been
getting quoted repeatedly as an expert, due to his academic position.
Given his outstanding issues with factuality in recent matters, it seemed
that I should remind the readers that despite Juan's academic
achievements, his criticisms of the AO may be based on misunderstandings
and bias, rather than facts.
> You've grasped on to a message he appears
> to have sent to a few friends or something, and have kept re-posting
> it here--for 17,000 viewers--without his permission, and demanding to
> hear from him.
Do you have a question how his letter came to be posted on TRB? I did not
post it here, on ARB, soc.culture.usa, and alt.politics.usa, though I have
reposted it on the *RB groups.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=9qt2to%241uh%241%40gnamma.connect.com.au
That I lack his permission, seems to me to be irrelevant. If the message
was posted to the public newsgroups without his permission, that would be
an issue for you to take up with Nima who posted it here. If it was
posted here without his permission, that should be said, as it would clear
up my misunderstanding that I was lied to to deter me from reciting a
prayer for America in public.
> That isn't a fair way to behave. I know trb is a zoo,
> but you were never one of the animals before. I am sorry to see it.
>
I still don't see myself as an animal. True, I can play firm, as I do
with Darrick, or MrMahdi. If I let someone lie to me and thousands of
other newsgroup readers, just like Darrick or MrMahdi might do, how do I
justify my treatment of them when I do nothing when others do it? Shiva's
wife plays no favorites - all are equally handsome around her belt.
>
> The External Affairs letter that he posted does prevent Baha'is from
> sharing some prayers with the public,
No, not at all. I find the assertion troubling. Please quote from the
External Affars letter where it says Baha'is should not recite a Prayer
for America in public. Rather, the letter says, "It would also not be
appropriate to cite apocalyptic references from the Bahá'í writings or to
submit prayers which contain language that could seem threatening to
non-Bahá'ís." This is not the case with the prayers for America which are
provided in the link below with the letter.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=9r2hm0%24isv%241%40gnamma.connect.com.au
Please, take the time to read the letters, all of them, the letters that
are really from the US NSA and the one from External Affairs. Compare
these letters with what is said of them. They don't prevent Baha'is from
reciting prayers as was claimed. The false claim has deterred the Baha'is
from reciting the prayers, and, as such, the false claim merits all the
denunciation that it contained - for discouraging Baha'is from reciting
these prayers.
> and I guess even other Baha'is
> than him thought the Prayer for America was among them.
Wrong. If you think that one of those prayers was threatening to the
general public, I think there is a thinking problem somewhere.
> And, the
> letter isn't a shining moment of bravery for whomever authorized it.
>
Juan's? As I suggested, read the letters for yourself.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=41ad5aff.0112291709.259116c2%40posting.google.com
>
> Mr. Cole sometimes engages in a fair degree of rhetoric or hyperbole,
> and I don't believe he realizes how much it might hurt his case. But
> now you are going to even greater extremes.
How so?
> Your notion that the
> External Affairs letter can be considered not to come from the n-s-a
> is pretty weak, old boy.
Prima Facie, your dukeness.
> Bahaidom is nothing if not tightly centrally
> controlled, and External Affairs is sort of like the Ministry of
> Foreign Affairs.
Sure, it is like Foreign Affairs. It is _not_ Her Royal Highness.
Foreign Affairs has limited ability to direct the vast bulk of Her
Majesty's subjects; maybe it give some policy ond procedure on passports,
but it can't ban smoking in pubs. Though a Royal Edict might not stop
smoking in pubs, it would be more legal than a notice from the foreign
ministry. That is the useful distinction between the head of state and
the staff office - one directs and the other does not.
> You couldn't easily argue that the Blair
> administration aren't responsible for what Jack Straw puts out.
>
Hmmmm. This is not a reference to the Governor of Maryland after Marvin
Mandel went to jail?
>
> Thus, your whole case against Mr. Cole has collapsed.
He denounced the US NSA as traitorous cowards after he saw a directive
from the US NSA forbiding Baha'i from reciting the prayer for America in
public. I told him that when I saw him being used as an "expert" on
Baha'idom I would bring up the baseless claim as evidence that he was not
an objective expert. Months later he waves a letter from External Affairs
which reads that when Baha'is send letters to local papers identifying
themselves as Baha'is, their letters ought to be routed through their
local assemblies - a reminder of the review policy. The letter was a1)
not from the NSA and thus, a2) not a directive, b) it says _nothing_ about
public recitations of the prayer for America, and C) Juan sticks to his
fulminations about the US NSA being cowardly - even asks "What in the
world does the Baha'i faith stand for if it doesn't even publicly stand
against terrorism?". D) Juan ignores a real letter from the US NSA on the
day of the attacks which calls the attacks shameless acts of terrorism.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=9nuqh1%24r5c%241%40gnamma.connect.com.au
> He is
> plentifully vindicated, and has provided us the letter.
The letter which is not from the NSA and does not direct is _not_ about
reciting prayers in public. It is in lieu of what he claimed, and a
completely inadequate substitution.
> You have been
> down his throat for saying things that are altogether reasonable,
He said that the prayer for America should be recited after the attacks.
At the same time he said that the US NSA was directing the Baha'is of the
US not to publicly recite the prayers for America. At the same time, my
mail was hosed up due to other terrorist activities. I did not get my
feast letter from my NSA. I believed Juan. If "down his throat" means
expressive about my disappointment, you are right. If you think that his
statements deterring American Baha'is from saying the prayers for America
in public are altogether reasonable, I disagree; I think they went at
cross-angles. He, rather than the US NSA, deterred Baha'is from reciting
the prayers in public, yet he claims that they are to be recited at just
such moments.
> and
> which he did not say on this forum anyway, so that it was none of your
> business.
>
If he would have liked to retract his statements regarding the US NSA,
that could have been acceptable to me. Hoever, he repeats his
condemnation of them here, directly.
>
> Your response is definitely disappointing, old man. Bad show. You
> don't have that graciousness you used to in the old days.
>
It's the growing teeth, they leave me drooling and the spit works into the
keyboard, setting me into a bad mood about something that I just can't
remember. At least I have my, my, hmmm. I can't remember if my sight was
good, or my looks.
>
> I think there is a Hidden Word about bringing yourself to account each
> day. I know I do (and there is plenty of reason to, believe me). I
> commend it to you.
>
> eternally - Paul
Thanks. I'm trying and this exercise is helping.
There is also one about seing through your own eyes and not the eyes of
your neighbor - Adel, Usul.
Blessings!
- Pat
ko...@ameritel.net
Pat Kohli
Paul Hammond wrote:
>
> Nice to see you here, Pat - your "proxy", Dr Electron seems to have
> been adding to the confusion and obfuscation around here in
> your absence.
That Doc is a live one. I suspect that he's the one who really prompted Juan to
slum on down here. If there is anything that you'd recommend for me to do,
please drop me a line. I don't promise to do anything, but I will give an ear
and think it through.
Blessings!
- Pat
ko...@ameritel.net
Pat Kohli
Michael McKenny wrote:
> Greetings, Juan.
> Many thanks for your comments.
> My understanding of Baha'i is that Baha'is officially are not supposed
> to assign blame to governments. It is a valid thought that this policy is
> wrong, and that this is a specific glaring instance where Baha'is ought to
> be condemning a government. And, the letter as quoted urging Baha'is not
> to condemn is also a valid thought.
> Personally, I feel that there is a lot to be said for the approach of
> speaking positively and avoiding condemnation. I am also very much aware
> that if we enter into the condemnation game there is enough available to
> permit some to be received by the government of the United States, both
> for following a biased foreign policy in support of an extreme regime in
> Israel and for its failure to protect American citizens from the logical
> consequences of such bias.
(a lot of valid stuff snipped)
This looks good to me. I hope this is what you referred to, Michael, for me
to read.
Blessings!
- Pat
ko...@ameritel.net
John R MacLeod
><snip>>
This is not the case with the prayers for America which are
> provided in the link below with the letter.
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=9r2hm0%24isv%241%40gnamma.connect
.com.au
>
Can Pat or anyone clarify this for me? What I find listed as "Prayer for
America" in both Ocean and Immerse is different from what Pat is giving
here.
Susan Maneck
>at the NSA's directive "it would not be appropriate...to submit
>prayers which contain language that could seem threatening to
Dear Milissa,
Those aren't the words of the NSA, it is those of some individual which Juan
has posted. Apparently when Juan wrote he had *seen* a directive from the NSA
what he really saw was someone garbled commentary of that letter. At least that
is the most charitable interpretation I can give to what Juan did, given the
fact that this private individuals diction bears no resemblance whatsoever to
the way the NSA would write.
warmest,
Susan Maneck
Associate Professor of History
Jackson State University
"And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time
left to start again . . "
Don McLean's American Pie
http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
Susan Maneck
>I take this to mean that certain prayers, if contained in an article
>submitted for review, would be considered inappropriate and thus cause
>the article to not pass review.
Dear Milissa,
I think the clarification of this can be found in the later memo which I have
posted earlier to this effect:
""While it is appropriate to submit a Bahá'í prayer to the newspaper, to
attribute it to the Bahá'í sacred writings, and to sign it from your
localSpiritual Assembly, attaching any additional message such as the
1-800-22-UNITEnumber may not be appropriate and could create the impression
that Bahá'íswere exploiting this terrible tragedy as an opportunity to
promote our owninterests or to proselytize. Our genuine expressions, in word
and deed,
ofshared grief, sympathy, and prayers for healing, unity, and love are
perhaps the best that we or anyone else can offer at this time."
Do you see here what the NSA was trying to avoid?
Susan Maneck
>Oh, I think Juan would be an issue, even without Fred.:-)
Not nearly so much, Karen. No one really goes out of their way to talk about
him.
Susan Maneck
>come stapled shut through the middle of the page with an envelope to be
>filled with a contribution to National. Never mind that donations were
>supposed to be voluntary, etc.
Dear Alma,
Putting contribution envelopes inside the American Baha'i somehow makes them
less voluntary? I thought it was one of the more sensible things the NSA did,
and quite convenient as well.
warmest,
Susan Maneck
>But recently, the narrative seems to have mutated from having *seen* the
>directive banning the prayer, to having *heard* about a directive banning
>the prayer.
Dear Jay,
It got mutated further than that. Juan's latest assertion was that he had heard
they *might* ban it and perhaps our secret agent ABMs and assistants were going
around and telling us privately not to say it.
And the Baha'is in our community are under the impression that they are
supposed to be saying it every day!
Susan Maneck
>Like I say, I won't comment on the "was Juan lying question" except
>to say that I think he wasn't - and, yes, I do trust what *he*
>says about his post more than what you say because I actually
>like him, and I don't like you
And the fact that all the evidence indicates the contrary makes no difference?
So much for being detached from love or hatred in our search for truth!
Susan Maneck
>So when they ask us Baha'is to avoid condemning the Taliban government
>of Afghanistan
Funny, I didn't read anything about the Taliban government of Afghanistan at
all. But there was a Baha'i on my Baha'i Studies list who was upset because he
thought we weren't being allowed to criticize US policy in the Middle East.
>
>I wish Henderson actually knew anything about what Baha'u'llah said.
Juan should talk. He can't even read memos from the External Affairs Committee.
Alma Engels
directly affected you. In a way I sorta understand for I felt personally
violated when someone falsely accused me of being infirm in the Covenant.
I was cleared but the process showed me that I had no rights. Not even the
right to know my accuser (I figured it out.). And in all probability the
accusor wasn't even reprimanded. I do hope that you can put this behind
you. Right or wrong, some things we can't change.
In peace,
Alma
Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message
news:3C67406A...@ameritel.net...
Alma Engels
envelopes. Perhaps I am more sensitive to this than you are. And I hope I
remain that way.
In peace,
Alma
(this line may be rented by anyone wanting to advertise.
Susan Maneck <sma...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020211013216...@mb-mj.aol.com...
Sekhmet
>Howdy, Sekhmet.
> Clue us in, mate. What did Juan et al. say that was toeing the
>line? I understood your prophet said that if you all acknowledged the
>vast variety of opinions humans think up, don't insist on your own view
>and don't claim you're the shadow on earth of the divine you're doing
>your bit for human harmony.
A member of the Baha'i Faith is also not supposed to diss the institution that
Baha'u'llah promised us would be "protected from error".
You, of course, can diss it all you like....
> Now, mate, let's see the evidence, even thy possibly frail memory.
>Couldst thou kindly share with us just where Juan et al. were failing to
>acknowledge the vast variety of views, demanding anyone else had to
>subscribed to their particular understanding or speaking as the shadow
>of God.
Not what I was arguing; see above. Although treating with contempt those who
disagree with one's particular understanding could be construed as a failure to
acknowledge others' various views, I guess. Had I known that was where you were
heading I would've dug up some of the "liberals vs. fundamentalists" stuff
(although there were excesses on both sides of that divide!).
> Methinks, mate, there were folks sort of doing that there, but Juan
>and the others Birkland opposed were not among them. From the sounds of
>it, thee thyself may have been among the number, but in Treebeard's
>words, "Let's not be hasty." We'll give thee a chance to speak for yourself
>and confirm just who it was who was wandering on the other side of
>compliance with Baha'u'llah's advice on how to maintain human harmony.
> Thy move, mate.
> To Tolerance and Understanding, Michael.
Michael, Michael, Michael! ::sigh::
Surely you don't think one such as I would make the assertion I made without
possessing at least a small shred of possibly questionable evidence to back it
up? Why, that would be unheard of in this forum! ::snort::
And 'twould be hasty indeed-- moreso than Quickbeam and possibly approaching
that of the wee hairfooted ones. ;-)
Nay, here be a sample of comments from the latter half of December 1995.
They're out of context to be sure (for the saving of bandwidth), but mayhap the
full archives shall become available online one day, so that all may judge for
themselves what was and was not said. All of the following are from actual
members of the Baha'i Faith at that time, although I've removed their names to
protect the "guilty".
"I think it is truly amazing the way we lionize our administrators, our
counsellors, auxiliary board members, etc.... The truth of the matter is that
people without great learning have laid claims to the power of knowledge. They
have usurped the right to interpret and tell others what to believe... We
don't need a clergy, guys. We have costumes, they do the job just fine -
perpetuating ignorance."
"In many ways, this system has many of the same flaws as did the Communist
bureaucracies in Eastern Europe, and, of course, they collapsed under their own
weight.... The current Baha'i system is in its centralized decision-making,
rigidity and unresponsiveness far more like East Germany than like a the sort
of parliamentary system Baha'u'llah admired.... Finally, the system described
is highly undemocratic and could easily deteriorate into a form of fascism.
Outside observers such as the Berlin municipal authorities are coming to this
conclusion, as well, and the image of the Faith will be increasingly hurt to
the degree that we cling to these practices of the 1930s.... The Baha'i system,
envisaged originally as the religious equivalent of parliamentary democracy, is
in danger of being frozen into the mold of a kind of Leninism, where the
elected institutions are the delegated
vanguard of a dictatorship. Democratic centralism has failed miserably in the
twentieth century, and it is not a model we Baha'is should emulate."
"I think that xxxx has summarized the problems with a closed and secret system
of Baha'i government quite brilliantly and succinctly. However, if I can add
for the umpteenth time (and to the utter boredom of older Talismanians) that
the conception of Baha'i administration which allows the individual to only
speak privately and secretly to the institutions makes the development of civil
discourse and civil society impossible. It not only makes fascism a
possibility, it makes it the only possibility. There can, in such a system, be
no such thing as public opinion. No such thing as a free press. No such thing
as open consultation or tentative discussion of policy, outside of the
institutional elites. There can be no such thing as Talisman, since if anyone
has anything to say, he should just send it to a letter to the House of Justice
and then be silent ever after. Clearly, we are at a point in the development of
the Baha'i community when such a system can no longer work."
"It is not the case that individual ego is the only problem. There can be such
a thing as corporate ego. There can be an assemblage of nine individuals who
together have a perceived interest that causes them to act in a dictatorial
way."
And so on (but I got tired of looking stuff up and decided not to tackle
January).
BTW, most of my archives from March '96 and beyond are on a hard drive
partition which is presently unreadable and possibly unrecoverable, so although
I was on both Talisman and Talisman2, it's highly unlikely that I'll be able to
find those poems you were looking for. Hopefully somebody else will be able to
scrape them up from somewhere...
--Sekhmet
Michael McKenny
Yes, this looks like it. Forgetting about irrelevant personalities and
going to the heart of the matter.
Thrice Three Blessings, Michael.
Michael McKenny
I posted years ago that nothing anyone says on e-mail lists makes
any difference as to the esteem and respect of the UHJ, but the deeds of
those currently warming seats on it are another matter. The words signed
"The Universal House of justice" do more to diss that institution than
anything anyone else can write.
To Women on the Universal House of Justice, michael.
Sekhmet (sekhm...@aol.com.nz) writes:
>
> A member of the Baha'i Faith is also not supposed to diss the institution that
> Baha'u'llah promised us would be "protected from error".
>
--
Michael McKenny
You didn't tell us your maiden name was Ivanova. But, I thought she
(you?) could only detect the presence of other telepaths in her mind, and
maybe do a bit of blocking. Here you are asserting capacity superior to
Bester's. You don't need line of sight? The Earth curves between you and
Michigan, right. No line of sight there.
Accusations of lying, besides being assertions of telepathic skill
(isn't there something in the Baha'i writings about claiming psychic
abilities?) are irrelevant ad hominems. Stick to the issue and you're
doing as well as can be expected. Make claims to telepathic powers and
you're under performing.
To Women on the Universal House of Justice, Michael.
Susan Maneck (sma...@aol.com) writes:
>>
>>Like I say, I won't comment on the "was Juan lying question" except
>>to say that I think he wasn't - and, yes, I do trust what *he*
>>says about his post more than what you say because I actually
>>like him, and I don't like you
>
> And the fact that all the evidence indicates the contrary makes no difference?
> So much for being detached from love or hatred in our search for truth!
> Susan Maneck
> Associate Professor of History
> Jackson State University
>
>
Michael McKenny
Greetings, Susan.
My reading of the text here is that Alma's suggesting that if you get
a separate begging letter in the mail, you can toss it in the recycling
container (garbage can, if your not into recycling) with all the other
junk mail, but if it comes with American Baha'i it's more intrusive. The
good news here, as I understand it, from the USA National's viewpoint, is
that she seems to be indicating she reads and doesn't just recycle or
trash the American Baha'i unread.
To Women on the Universal House of Justice, Michael.
>peaking of begging letters with the American Baha'i. For some years it has
>come stapled shut through the middle of the page with an envelope to be
>filled with a contribution to National. Never mind that donations were
>supposed to be voluntary, etc.
Dear Alma,
Putting contribution envelopes inside the American Baha'i somehow makes them
less voluntary? I thought it was one of the more sensible things the NSA did,
and quite convenient as well.
warmest,
Susan Maneck
Associate Professor of History
Jackson State University
Dermod Ryder
> >
> >Like I say, I won't comment on the "was Juan lying question" except
> >to say that I think he wasn't - and, yes, I do trust what *he*
> >says about his post more than what you say because I actually
> >like him, and I don't like you
>
> And the fact that all the evidence indicates the contrary makes no
difference?
> So much for being detached from love or hatred in our search for
truth!
No evidence has been adduced to prove that he was lying - what has
been said suggests more that he was mistaken. There is a substantial
gap between these two positions which, seemingly, you cannot see.
That's hardly surprising - there's a lot of precedent to suggest this
is a recurrent symptom of your intellectually challenged position.
--
Dermod Ryder
Deputy Assistant Grand Master,
The Honourable August, Ancient and Noble Craft Lodge of Diabologics
"Mony a one for him makes mane,
But nane sall ken where he is gane;
O'er his white banes, when they are bare,
The wind shall blaw for evermair"
(Trad, - cited in F. J. Child - "The English and Scottish Popular
Ballads"
Michael McKenny
Greetings, Sekhmet.
Silly me. I read the text carefully trying to spot my own words so
I could acknowledge them, and then notice that these are from 1995, and
I didn't sign on until February 1996.
The point is, Sekhmet, as I said at the time, no, later, but not much
later, twelve months or less, here any talk show host who wishes can call
our Prime Minister any name like those below and have a jolly fun time in
public, on the radio, and, there's no problem unless the PM confirms the
allegations by behaving as indeed behaved the seat warmers of the Baha'i
institutions. Read my letter to the UHJ. I wrote in black and write and
you can see it there, that I was advised it was a bad idea to write to
them, people told me it wasn't a wise thing to do. But, they had to
confirm, validate and verify the accusations; it was their acting in the
manner of such despicable regimes, not anyone's posts to e-mail lists that
proved the problem.
If people post opinions to e-mail lists that can be seen for what it
is, personal opinion, likely quite fallible and imperfect. But, if you
respond by sending around Counsellors and Auxiliary Board Members to
control what's being said, to command a single understanding is permitted,
to encourage Baha'is to resign from the Faith, to threaten people who have
not advanced a claim to Baha'i Popehood that they can be branded shunnable
CBs, well, as I said, no one can diss like the men warming the seats
themselves.
To Women on the Universal House of Justice, Michael.
Michael McKenny
Greetings, Sekhmet.
Yes, you were, mate. You talk about having a garden, and you talk
about water as well as warm temperatures. You leave out the water and
simply raise the thermometre as high as it will go, then you have a desert
instead of a garden. Mate, you need the principles, especially these so
vital ones as independent investigation of truth, the freedom of thought
and expression and the validity of a vast variety of viewpoints, or else
all your insistence on absolute obedience of the powers that be is just
another desert of oppression like those Baha'u'llah came to transform
into a garden. The Covenant does not mean create a clone of fundamentalist
Islam and give it Baha'u'llah's name. You need the water of Baha'u'llah's
essential principles, as well, and this is exactly on topic.
To Women on the Universal House of Justice, Michael.
>Not what I was arguing; see above.
--
Michael McKenny
Greetings, Sekhmet.
Let me make it clear again, that it's not the expression of a
literalist understanding of scripture automatically that makes one a
fundamentalist and turns one into a clone of the fanatics that give other
religions such a bad name; it is the demand that nothing else except this
single literalist understanding is tolerable. It is the opposition to the
vast variety of other opinions that is contrary to Baha'i and is worthy
of the contempt Baha'u'llah gave it.
To Women on the Universal House of Justice, Michael.
>Not what I was arguing; see above. Although treating with contempt those who
>disagree with one's particular understanding could be construed as a
>failure to acknowledge others' various views, I guess.
--