From: Michael McKenny <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: Wisdom of Reviewing Before Publication
Date: Monday, July 26, 1999 11:41 AM
Greetings, Hooper.
Yum. I continue to believe that nothing can so effectively convince
people of the nature and extent of the problem within the Baha'i community
as the writings of the Universal house of Justice. Whatever anyone else
says either in defence or in outrage can be considered to be straying from
balanced objectivity. However, the perfectly infallible words themselves
make it quite clear what's really going on.
Oh, had I but the time to provide the level of analysis this calls out
for. However, here's a start.
The Universal House of Justice states that there is censorship in the
Baha'i Faith, and they have no intent of ceasing that any time soon. It
ought to be noted that this newsgroup is an exception. I feel the negative
publicity of having a massive NO vote on the first of three rounds on news.
groups may have contributed to that change of policy. I feel that publicity
is very good, and that open scrutiny of what's going on in Baha'i can do no
harm at all when it comes to reining in the excesses of people such as the
members of the UHJ who have acted as if they could demand everyone do what
ever in the world the UHJ said, regardless of ethics, morality and principle.
I will quote parts of these infallible words and respond to them below.
> M E M O R A N D U M
>
> Date: 8 September 1991
> From: The Department of the Secretariat
> ...
> The Universal House of Justice has asked that we reply to
> your memorandum as follows.
> ....
> Concerning the second question from Dr. .... which
> relates to literature review, specifically whether the
> Universal House of Justice might be considering changes in
> policy in relation to the review process, kindly convey to
> him that no change is being considered at the present time.
>
We will continue censorship. More below.
>
> At this early stage in the development of the Baha'i
> Faith, which is striving against great odds to establish
> itself in a world that is highly critical, often
> antagonistic towards new ideas,
Uhm, what new ideas is the world highly critical of? Do you mean
the great principles of an unfettered search for truth, open-mindedness,
human harmony, the agreement of true science and true spirituality, the
equality of women and men, universal education, the economic well-being of
all the citizens of the planet, the abolition of prejudices? Do you really
think you have to have a monopoly on what is printed about the Baha'i
religion because of great popular antagonism to such "new" ideas?
Or, maybe you mean that it's the censorship in the Baha'i Faith,
the meetings of Counsellors with liberal arts university professors to
determine the theological purity of the opinions of such professors, the
rendering of threats of silence or being proclaimed a heretic to be shunned
as a spiritual leper, maybe this is what you'd like to ensure is not brought
out in the open, along with, of course, the fact that only men can get to
the top in the Baha'i Faith.
But, gosh, what, then, is new here? This is pretty stale stuff.
It's been the staple meal of quite a few totalitarian systems down the ages,
many a cult, alas, many periods in religious history, and, uhm, you know,
the prophet of the Baha'i Faith came to do away with this anachronistic way
of patriarchal imposition of acceptable views. Or, is his intent something
you'd like to censor, too?
So, no, openness is not likely to find the kind of great criticism
of the new ideas of Baha'i, though, as any old boys club, you may find that
you've less license to have things your own way. More below.
> and whose communications
> media tend to emphasize negative information,
Well, then, why don't you de-empasize the negative, stop the meetings
between your Counsellors, etc. and professors, etc. concerning the
expression of and the orthodoxy of opinions, stop the exclusive preserve of
your seats for males and focus on putting into practise, instead of
excommunicating those who utter them, the essential Baha'i principles,
which are, or, at least were a century ago, the "new" ideas, and, far from
being highly criticized by those other than yourself, are now considered the
sign of a decent society? More below.
> it is
> important that Baha'i authors, scriptwriters and filmmakers
> endeavour to present the Faith with accuracy and dignity.
I am sure this statement is not unfamiliar to those reading in such places
as the X-USSR. More below.
> It
> is one thing for a non-Baha'is to make erroneous statements
> about the Faith; this can be excused on the basis of
> ignorance. But for a Baha'i to make such errors is quite a
> different thing, because he is considered to be
> knowledgeable about that which he espouses.
And, kindly illuminate the errors herein: The Baha'i Faith was intended
to provide the harmony of the human species, by means of the recognition of
an over-arching harmony of the prophetic missions of the past and of the
religions they generated, of the acceptance of the divinely created
diversity of human beings and the validity of the imperfect understandings
of the varied individuals of the species, of the acknowledgement of the
importance of unfettered and independent investigation of truth and of
other fundamental principles, including the elimination of all forms of
prejudice, including past practises of male supremecy. Why, pray tell, are
you hounding people for the posting of such to cyberspace? More below.
>
> Therefore, a Baha'i author is expected to ensure to
> the extent possible a correct representation of the Faith in
> his work; as an aid he draws upon the reviewing facilities
> provided by Baha'i institutions. A great many authors
> spontaneously and informally submit their manuscripts to a
> type of review, although they would not necessarily call it
> that, when they request the comments and criticisms of
> persons whose expertise and judgement they respect.
Though, in literary works, the opinions of my fellow writers may or
may not influence the final product. In censorship, the "reviewer" may
insist on what is in or out of a final product. The Baha'i system is
censorship. More below.
> Submission to Baha'i review is no greater a requirement, and
> may well be less demanding in most cases, than the rigorous
> review of scientific papers before their publication.
Hogwash. The Service of Women paper was not denied publication because
of any deficiency in historical, scholarly or academic standards, but only
because it exposed the true facts of a great violation of Baha'i principle
by the Universal House of Justice, which continues to discriminate against
women. You did not wish to ensure that academic standards are met. You
wished to ensure they continue not to be met. More below.
....
>
> The Baha'i Faith makes very serious claims and has a
> rich and complex history, but it is as yet a young religion
> whose precepts are not widely understood.
Again, the essential Baha'i principles are widely understood, and
considered the essence of civilized society as we head into the 21st
Century. Also, quite well understood are such practises as patriarchal
rule, totalitarianism and the insistence by religious elites that the
masses render them unthinking obedience. It is not the uttering of the
essential Baha'i principles by Juan Cole, Michael McKenny or anyone else
that is getting you any bad publicity. It is the extent to which by your
actions you prove you have little to do with what Michael McKenny (after
all, you yourself disassociated yourself from him) says and a lot to do with
patriarchal rule, totalitarianism and the insistence by religious elites
that the masses render them unthinking obedience.
This already took too much time. Maybe more later, but you guys would
be better off, were you really concerned with getting good press, with
letting Juan, Michael et al. describe what is the Baha'i Faith, and do
and say nothing yourselves, well, at least until you're ready to say and do
what matches what is now considered the civilized way of getting along,
rather than what is taught in history classes about the oppressive way people
lived in the Middle Ages.
May today treat humanity very well, may tomorrow be even kinder to the
human species, and may each day after that be better than the one it
succeeds.
All the Best,
Michael
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
Homepage
|