The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience

From: <>
Subject: Re: Letter of resignation
Date: Monday, July 26, 1999 9:44 AM
In response to my comment:
> >This is akin to the moving of a Catholic
> >priest who abuses children to another parish instead of kicking his
> >butt out and turning him over to the authorities!
Susan wrote:
> No, it is not. The ABM in question believed  he was doing what he was
> to be doing, however misguided his understanding was. Now we can be
> and kick such people out, but what will we achieve? We will get some
> overly-zealous Baha'i in who will make the same mistakes because he
> learned the lessons which the previous one has.
Susan. Please. This isn't the first time this guy has done this and I
doubt it will be the last. How many more "misguided" mistakes at other
peoples expense will the AO allow? And don't you think that even the
*idea*of such "investigations" is wrong? You, who have even had your
own loyalty questioned, I think, would be absolutely outraged by such
> >You asked
> >me to write a letter in support of Terry.
> Indeed, I did. And you know full well all the efforts I went through
to put a
> stop to this. And as you know, by working with the Institutions
(instead of
> making and expose) we did put a stop to it and Terry received an
apology from
> the Counselor and from the Universal House of Justice. Note that
Terry is not
> only still within the Baha'i community today but is filled with more
> and faith than I have ever seen him. That wasn't easy, because at
first Terry
> was reluctant to accept even an apology from the House. It took
literally hours
> of effort on the part of two Counselors to bring healing into that
> But the point is that both the Counselors and the Hosue took that
effort to do
> that.For the resources that were expended in this effort it began to
look like
> a project of "Saving Private Ryan."
> >As I recall, I first
> >heard about this crisis between academics and the AO at the Irfan
> >Colloqium in Wilmette a couple of years ago. At that time, you were
> >irate at the treatment Juan and others were receiving. That anger
> >continued and was *very* evident in Teaneck at the meeting I helped
> >arrange between Counselor Abdu'l-Missagh Ghadirian and ABM Gene
> By the time the Teaneck meeting rolled around I understood what the
> with Juan & Co. was and why the Institutions had taken the stand they
did. I
> was still concerned about the level of scholar-baiting in the
community and
> still felt that this played a role in creating people like Juan. I
> believe that is true and I continue to work with the Institutions to
> that climate.
Suan. I have said repeatedly that I disagree with Juan on many issues.
In Teaneck that was made clear by me. And likewise by you. BUT the
point is that you were as angry about the actions of those involved,
including Birkland as I and some others were.
I won't go on to respond to the rest of your post because my point is
simply this: If indeed you have now had a reconciliation of sorts with
the Institutions, that's great. I do not begrudge you, nor anyone else,
the right to remain within the community, to work with it, and to
support it. I will defend your right to do so. But at least be honest
when responding to my letter if you absolutely feel you must,
especially here where I see your posts are rather recent, and openly
admit that in the recent past you have not been the staunch defender of
the AO's policies that you are now. It will at least make plain that
even *you* Susan, have had the same complaints and issues.
Sent via
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.