The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience

From: <>
Subject: Re: Letter of resignation
Date: Wednesday, August 04, 1999 9:22 PM

Ok. This killfile seems to have only worked for one person. Once again
we see Maneck at it with her smeer and slander campaign: (Smaneck) wrote:
>I think we can see that by the fact that Berekiah, who participated on
the Majnun list, stongly and vocally supports him against the Guardian.<
This is sheer poppy-cock.
Yes, I strongly and vocally support the right of any individual to their
intellectual and religious liberties. Be they the joe down the street,
Margaret Thatcher, Saddam Hossein, Ayatollah Khomeini, Vaclav Havel, Pol
Pot, Andrei Sakharov or Ahmad Sohrab. As also would Baha'u'llah and
`Abdul-Baha imo. But this does not mean I find everything Sohrab or
Thatcher say agreeable, either. If Maneck had cared to pay attention to
what I said instead reading things into what I said, she would know that
I claimed that Remey and Holley had consistently lied to SE on many
occasions in the past, and that I believed the Sohrab case to be another
occasion when this happened. I also said that just as Galilleo and
Copernicus had been condemned by the Roman Catholic Church, so would
Baha'i intellectual dissidents in the future find similar exoneration.
But given that Sohrab is such a taboo subject amongst the fundamentalist
guardianolaters within the BF, just as the Mojahedin is with the
Khomeinists, all flags go up when one even mentions him.
   Now Maneck reads what I say and turns me into a Sohrabian. One should
go to Princeton University and kick the Dean of the University as well
as the History Department's Chair in the behind for awarding doctorates
to people who don't even understand basic subtleties. Since in fact I
don't believe Maneck is as dense as she would have us believe, I think
she is being completely disengenuous (what else is new?).
   Maneck was not on Majnun (and neither were the other reactionaries
who have jumped down our throats for the past three years) and was in no
way party to the conversations or vetting that was going on amongst some
of us. The issue of Sohrab came up because someone had privately written
Juan from the UK and warned him that the administration was about to
move against him, strangle Talisman and throw him (i.e. Juan) out, and
given this eventuality he should go quietly and not make noise as Sohrab
did. FYI this was back in December of 95. And as I understand it was
precisely Juan's correspondent who first raised the issue of Sohrab.
Juan, please feel free to correct me if am I wrong here? David Langness
was already being threatened by Wilmette and we all believed at the time
that the fundamentalists were going to use David as a convienient
pretext to move against Talisman and all the liberals - the
proverbial Reichstag fire, if you will. So as soon as Stephen Birkland
started posting about how CBs were on Talisman, etc., being vague
in how he put it, Majnun was created in order that we could strategise
and find a way to stop what was about to take place.
   I felt that we should take the dialogue out into the open - even if
it was bound to get unsweet -, accusations by one person of illegal
activities commited by a member of the NSA were submitted, and I said we
should go the proper legal authorities. Walbridge took what I said in
the wrong way and said I was making manifestos. Then he posted his
accidental response, and rest is history and has remained a matter of
paranoid conjecture ever since.
    This is the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God.
Sent via
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.