Have you seen this? Kalimat Press petition

All research or scholarship questions
Guest

Have you seen this? Kalimat Press petition

Postby Guest » Sat Mar 11, 2006 3:09 pm

A friend fwd'ed this to me. I was wondering if this has been talked about here (couldn't find any threads):

http://www.petitiononline.com/kalimat/petition.html

Jonah
Site Admin
Posts: 412
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 1:25 pm
Location: St Catharines, Ontario (near Niagara Falls)
Contact:

Postby Jonah » Sat Mar 11, 2006 3:31 pm

No, it hasn't been mentioned here yet. It's my understanding that, given the Covenant and its chain of authority, Baha'is do not petition the Institutions but rather simply accept any pronouncements made by the Institutions.

-Jonah

Hasan
Posts: 194
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 10:03 am
Location: Lima - Perú
Contact:

Postby Hasan » Sun Mar 12, 2006 9:29 am

I think Kalimat and Lee did wrong to skip reviews. Other issue is that each bahá'í have the right to appeal a decision. This is from the Constitution of the House:

VIII. APPEALS

The right of appeal exists in the circumstances, and shall be exercised according to the procedures, outlined below:

I. (a) Any member of a local Baha'i community may appeal from a decision of his Local Spiritual Assembly to the National Spiritual Assembly which shall determine whether it shall take jurisdiction of the matter or refer it back to the Local Spiritual Assembly for reconsideration. If such an appeal concerns the <p15> membership of a person in the Baha'i community, the National Spiritual Assembly is obliged to take jurisdiction of and decide the case.

(b) Any Baha'i may appeal from a decision of his National Spiritual Assembly to the Universal House of Justice which shall determine whether it shall take jurisdiction of the matter or leave it within the final jurisdiction of the National Spiritual Assembly.

(c) If any differences arise between two or more Local Spiritual Assemblies and if these Assemblies are unable to resolve them, any one such Assembly may bring the matter to the National Spiritual Assembly which shall thereupon take jurisdiction of the case. If the decision of the National Spiritual Assembly thereon is unsatisfactory to any of the Assemblies concerned, or if a Local Spiritual Assembly at any time has reason to believe that actions of its National Spiritual Assembly are affecting adversely the welfare and unity of that Local Assembly's community, it shall, in either case, after seeking to compose its difference of opinion with the National Spiritual Assembly, have the right to appeal to the Universal House of Justice, which shall determine whether it shall take jurisdiction of the matter or leave it within the final jurisdiction of the National

Spiritual Assembly.

2. An appellant, whether institution or individual, shall in the first instance make appeal to the Assembly whose decision is questioned, either for reconsideration of the case by that Assembly or for submission to a higher body. In the latter case the Assembly is in duty bound to submit the appeal together with full particulars of the matter. If an Assembly refuses to submit the appeal, or fails to do so within a reasonable time, the appellant may take the case directly to the higher authority.

Guest

Postby Guest » Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:36 am

Jonah, wasn't this "no backtalk" concept of the covenant that you describe, formulated by the very institutions which benefit from it?

On the Talisman9 site, someone pointed out that Baha'is have at various points "petitioned" various worthies on various matters (though in a positive way). For instance, apparently the Kitab-i-Aqdas was published in response to such "petitioning". Granting that the usage of the word is subtly different...

Speaking of which, in Judaism the "covenant" between God and the Jewish people (at Sinai) is conceived as a bilateral agreement, and not as a bare set of commandments. Various theological flourishes were entered into (reincarnation?) in order to explain how an agreement made by others could be binding on people today. It seems that the Baha'i usage has dispensed with this consensual aspect, in favor of a more coercive understanding of divine authority.

Guest

Postby Guest » Wed Apr 05, 2006 6:10 am

Hasan wrote:I think Kalimat and Lee did wrong to skip reviews.


Hasan, I assume you mean the Baha'i review process... where did Kalimat skip review? This is a serious allegation. One must be careful to not sling mud at an organization, person or entity. As Baha'is we are called to a higher standard, are we not?

As far as I know, ALL books published by Kalimat have passed Baha'i review. If you know this to be not the case, then please provide proof. Or absent that, please retract you allegation and apologize to Kalimat for sullying their good name.

Jonah
Site Admin
Posts: 412
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 1:25 pm
Location: St Catharines, Ontario (near Niagara Falls)
Contact:

Postby Jonah » Wed Apr 05, 2006 6:23 am

ALL books published by Kalimat have passed Baha'i review

That's correct. I'm in possession of a letter by the publisher to the NSA in response to this ruling. I'm afraid I'm not at liberty to share it, but I can confirm that the publisher does state that, yes, everything Kalimat published passed Review. Indeed, had they not done so, the staff would have faced possible loss of administrative rights long ago.

-Jonah

artperson

What is real freedom anyway?

Postby artperson » Wed Apr 26, 2006 10:00 pm

Jonah wrote:No, it hasn't been mentioned here yet. It's my understanding that, given the Covenant and its chain of authority, Baha'is do not petition the Institutions but rather simply accept any pronouncements made by the Institutions.

-Jonah


The first Institution of the Bahá'í Faith was the 19 Day Feast, a critically important gathering established by the precurser, the Báb, where Bahá'ís at grass roots levels raise issues equally, whether positive or negative, and consult about them. The conclusions of these meetings are of primary consideration to the Spiritual Assemblies. Any Bahá'í may address an Institution with critical remarks, hopefully constructive. I went through several diverse movements before finding the Bahá'í Faith, and the freedom of expression within this Faith has no comparison. When individuals criticize any Institution or other individuals vociferously you get a divisive climate of negativity as found in Old World politics. That's not freedom. One Muslim Scholar said that in the West you can curse God from the roof tops and no one will take notice. But do so to an individual and you get sued! I, myself, have launched strong appeals to all levels of Bahá'í Institutions on issues I believed were vital. And there have been results in doing so. They listened, whether on the local, national of international level. But there is a difference between dealing with an issue or condition and attacking a body, itself. If anyone contends that free speech is denied Bahá'ís - as some are stating - such is total nonsense. Otherwise I would really be in trouble! And the Institutions bend over backwards, it seems, to accommodate a huge diversity of people and opinions. I do not mean to imply anything about the above contributor. But I take this opportunity in general to say that this, indeed, is a Faith and not an intellectual playground. There are dignified channels to address issues. One cannot avoid committing slander, such as viewed on various sites, when accusing another of the same publicly. Nor can one believe in justice by acting unjustly. This is not a "Bahá'í statement", but an individual's reflection, one who does have some experience and who is not a member of a Bahá'í Institution. I repeat, these comments are for a general readership.

onepence
Posts: 473
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 2:44 pm
Location: Longwood, FL, USA

Re: What is real freedom anyway?

Postby onepence » Fri Apr 28, 2006 2:03 am

artperson wrote:
Jonah wrote:No, it hasn't been mentioned here yet. It's my understanding that, given the Covenant and its chain of authority, Baha'is do not petition the Institutions but rather simply accept any pronouncements made by the Institutions.

-Jonah


The first Institution of the Bahá'í Faith was the 19 Day Feast, a critically important gathering ...


Dear Friend,

wonderful indeed it is
that we are one
and yet can be seperated

critical though i may be
critically important I am not

smile
God loves you

such a broad statement as
"The first Institution of the Bahá'í Faith was the 19 Day Feast"
i feel must be challenged
where is your proof of such a statement?

if one really must make a big show
over first or last
or any type of hiearchy of any type of class
one should build up a case of rational facts

speaking of which
please do not imply
what was important for the Bab
was important for Baha

now if ye must really know
what was first
in this grand scheme
of this mighty universe

I would be tempted to reply
why marraige of course you silly goose
Have ye not heard of the sea of chal
and the fair maid of heaven descending upon
His being

iam
thefirstapostledean

Guest

Postby Guest » Thu May 11, 2006 11:34 pm

Jonah wrote:No, it hasn't been mentioned here yet. It's my understanding that, given the Covenant and its chain of authority, Baha'is do not petition the Institutions but rather simply accept any pronouncements made by the Institutions.

-Jonah


Jonah, respectfully, this is factually incorrect.

Many petitions have been used in the Baha'i Faith. They were and are an accepted method. To give you an example, the Wilmette temple was built because the US Baha'is petitioned the Master for permission. Another example, probably the most famous example of a petition is the Aqdas. Baha'u'llah revealed it after being repeatedly petitioned to reveal a book of laws.

What you mention though is unfortunately believed by many Bahais. Yet it is a myth. Hopefully, by turning to our history and to facts we can set things straight.

childintime
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 8:01 pm
Location: Canada

Postby childintime » Fri May 12, 2006 2:07 am

Petitioning Baha'u'llah for laws or the Master for a House of Worship has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with petitioning an Institution to reconsider a decision. If one or more Baha'is believes a decision of an Institution to be wrong (according to the Writings, or a constitution, or the like, and not popular opinion), they have two choices. The first is instant, exact, and complete obedience. The second is to appeal to a higher Institution. If the decision is from the Universal House of Justice, THERE IS NO FURTHER APPEAL. Their judgment is infallible, and there is naught beyond the truth but error.
I refer you all to STAR OF THE WEST, Vol. VI, No. 6, (Rahmat 1, 71 / June 24, 1915):
"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 in 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 great harm might ensue." (emphasis added)
Why is this concept so difficult for people to grasp? Westerners have worshipped the idol of freedom so much that they have lost sight of the purpose of freedom. Why do we have free will in this world? So that we can surrender it to God as a gift of our love for Him. But no, not us with our liberal educations and Hollywood-induced notions of self-importance. Until God can prove that He is as wise as us by agreeing with us, there is no way that I'm going to trust Him, His Messengers, or His Divine System.

Guest

Postby Guest » Sat May 13, 2006 12:34 am

What you may have missed is that the petition for building the temple was the method that the Baha'is of US and Canada chose to appeal Abdu'l-Baha's decision that it wasn't time yet to build a temple.

In a similar way, you also miss the point that the Baha'is petitioned Baha'u'llah even though He had made it clear that He did not want to reveal a book of laws.

Guest

Postby Guest » Sat May 13, 2006 12:40 am

Oh and there is another example:

The UHJ had decided since its founding that the law of Huquq didn't apply to all believers (it does now but this is recent - stay with me). In the US convention, a while back (when the Huquq still applied to Iranian believers) there was a petition raised by the delegates and sent to the House, appealing this and asking them to apply the Huquq to all Baha'is (westerners). The House graciously received the petition - just like all petitions before had been received. There was no great hubub about this being somehow 'against' anything.

Again, these things are quite clear for those that take a moment to familiarize themselves with a little bit of Baha'i history and consider facts - instead of automatically responding with quoteitis and emotional outbursts.

In any case, the above are just a few examples. I'm sure there are more but the point has been made, remade and it stands quite firm.

cheers

childintime
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 8:01 pm
Location: Canada

Postby childintime » Sat May 13, 2006 1:45 am

My point was that it is not who is petitioned, but what is petitioned and why it is petitioned. Study Adib Taherzadeh's books regarding the Right of God. Baha'u'llah did not feel that the time was right to reveal laws. He did not reveal this in a tablet, He simply demonstrated it by not doing it. Why would He announce what He had not and was not going to do?

Why did He feel the believers were not ready for laws? Because no one had as yet asked Him for laws. As time went on the believers began to ask Him for laws. Eventually He saw this as a sign of maturity showing clearly that the believers were now ready to receive the laws. Still He held back on releasing the Kitab-i-Aqdas after it was written because He was concerned about how the believers would regard the law of the Right of God. In time He saw that they were ready for this law, and the book was disseminated among the friends. In other words, this is the manner in which the Manifestation encourages the followers to grow into maturity, not unlike a parent who stands a couple of feet from a baby with arms extended, to encourage the child to take its first steps. 'Abdu'l-Baha employed the same technique, as did the Guardian, as does the Universal House of Justice (yes, I am familiar with the manner in which the Right of God was applied).

In none of these cases did the Centre of the Cause declare that the action was NOT to be done, they simply had not done it. To clarify for you with an example: the House did not state that the Right of God would not be applied, It simply had not applied it. The law was there, but was not enforced. If someone had asked, It might have replied that It did not feel that the application was timely. However, the very fact of asking shows the first signs of maturity. If another asked, and another, it would not be long before the Baha'i community demonstrated that it had now become ready. The same was true for the other instances.

There is a fundamental difference between a petition and a protest. When a matter is brought before an institution, for example a petition or a dispute, the institution responds one way or another. If the answer is negative, a MATURE (and this time the capitals do mean I am shouting) response would be instant, exact, and complete obedience. The reason is because the institution has decided that it is not the right thing to do, whether at the time or ever. A further MATURE response is to get on with what needs to be done and leave the matter in God's hands. If it was wrong, He will right it (did you read the quotes, or just scoff at my use of them?). With the decisions of the House, as there is no appeal, to ask them to reconsider is (choose as many as are appropriate): disrespectful, petulant, immature, disobedient, selfish, ignorant, arrogant, reactionary, rebellious, etc., etc., etc. Please tell me, just what do you think is meant by INFALLIBLE (this time I'm yelling so loud you eyes should be ringing)?!?

On another point, I also remember that the House advised the Baha'is of the West to refer to it as the Right of God, and to avoid using the Arabic terms. Did you get that message? Did you petition It to change It's mind on this one too?

Guest

Postby Guest » Sat May 13, 2006 12:01 pm

childintime wrote:Please tell me, just what do you think is meant by INFALLIBLE?!?


Your question is quite complex and it would be the height of naivete to attempt to understand it by simply taking the English definition of word, without any regard to the original Arabic word (maasum) and similar context. Answering your question therefore is beyond a messageboard reply such as this - however, as luck would have it, others with much more eloquence and intelligence than your humble servant have made attempts to expound upon this weighty subject. I would humbly refer you to them:

http://bahai-library.org/articles/schae ... ility.html
and
http://www.whoisbahaullah.com/Alison/unity.html

childintime wrote:On another point, I also remember that the House advised the Baha'is of the West to refer to it as the Right of God, and to avoid using the Arabic terms. Did you get that message? Did you petition It to change It's mind on this one too?


I wasn't even aware of this - do you have the letter handy or is this Kitab-i-Hearsay? For now, I'll take it for granted and answer your question: no, I haven't petitioned the House on that, but why would I? as far as I know, it is not a Baha'i law but rather, advice or guidance. I am grateful for it and recognize it as such.

Keyvan
Posts: 245
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 2:58 am
Location: Los Angeles

Postby Keyvan » Wed May 17, 2006 4:06 am

Anonymous wrote:Oh and there is another example:

The UHJ had decided since its founding that the law of Huquq didn't apply to all believers (it does now but this is recent - stay with me). In the US convention, a while back (when the Huquq still applied to Iranian believers) there was a petition raised by the delegates and sent to the House, appealing this and asking them to apply the Huquq to all Baha'is (westerners). The House graciously received the petition - just like all petitions before had been received. There was no great hubub about this being somehow 'against' anything.

Again, these things are quite clear for those that take a moment to familiarize themselves with a little bit of Baha'i history and consider facts - instead of automatically responding with quoteitis and emotional outbursts.

In any case, the above are just a few examples. I'm sure there are more but the point has been made, remade and it stands quite firm.

cheers




The Universal House of Justice is driven by DIVINE GUIDENCE. by 1992, the last virgin territories were reached, and the Law of Huquq was consequently made universal

Keyvan
Posts: 245
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 2:58 am
Location: Los Angeles

Postby Keyvan » Wed May 17, 2006 4:07 am

Anonymous wrote:What you may have missed is that the petition for building the temple was the method that the Baha'is of US and Canada chose to appeal Abdu'l-Baha's decision that it wasn't time yet to build a temple.

In a similar way, you also miss the point that the Baha'is petitioned Baha'u'llah even though He had made it clear that He did not want to reveal a book of laws.



where are you getting this "info?"

is this evanson?

medan1915
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:16 am

Postby medan1915 » Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:33 am

Jonah wrote:
ALL books published by Kalimat have passed Baha'i review

That's correct. I'm in possession of a letter by the publisher to the NSA in response to this ruling. I'm afraid I'm not at liberty to share it, but I can confirm that the publisher does state that, yes, everything Kalimat published passed Review. Indeed, had they not done so, the staff would have faced possible loss of administrative rights long ago.

-Jonah


Does that include the CHURCH AND STATE: A Postmodern Political Theology
by Sen McGlinn? :?

medan1915
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:16 am

Postby medan1915 » Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:50 am

Jonah wrote:No, it hasn't been mentioned here yet. It's my understanding that, given the Covenant and its chain of authority, Baha'is do not petition the Institutions but rather simply accept any pronouncements made by the Institutions.

-Jonah


Decisions such as the one made by the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha’is of the United States are review by the Universal House of Justice, prior to publication. Anyone who has read what the Universal House of Justice has already published should know that this very likely will not be overturned, IMHO.

I also find it interesting that the list of petitioners include many of the Administrative Orders greatest critics and disenrolled Baha'is and even a few who still claim to be Baha'is.

kristen wilson
Posts: 0
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 6:42 am

Postby kristen wilson » Wed Jun 28, 2006 12:19 am

Jonah wrote: I can confirm that the publisher does state that, yes, everything Kalimat published passed Review.

medan1915 wrote:Does that include the CHURCH AND STATE: A Postmodern Political Theology
by Sen McGlinn? :?


Kalimat Press didn't publish "Church and State". It was published by the author. Kalimat Press sells or distributes many books that it doesn't publish.

Kalimat Press plays by the rules. Unfortunately, the US NSA and a few other NSAs don't. They acted arbitrarily to boycott Kalimat Press.

Moreover, the NSA responsible for review of the "Church and State" informed the author that it was exempt from review. Twice.

ka kite
Steve

onepence
Posts: 473
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 2:44 pm
Location: Longwood, FL, USA

Postby onepence » Wed Jun 28, 2006 11:49 pm

Steve,

it is not as simple as all that.

one should not sell or distribute false information for that is fraud and fraud is punishable by Law.

in fact you steve are commiting a fraud here on this forum when you state "Kalimat Press plays by the rules. Unfortunately, the US NSA and a few other NSAs don't. "

for that statement is a bold face lie.
ask me to prove it and I will.

Please do not ever come to this site again unless you first apologize to us for your criminal attempts at slandering the good name of the the US NSA and a few other NSAs.

By all means you have a right to support Kalimat Press or whatever cause your selfish heart desires, however you do not have the right in any public forum to state or imply that any NSA doesn't play by the rules. In case you are unaware the proper forum for that type of discussion is The Universal House of Justice.

I pray that God will have mercy upon your soul.

a person of oneness,
Dean Hedges

kristen wilson
Posts: 0
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 6:42 am

Postby kristen wilson » Thu Jun 29, 2006 7:22 am

Hi Dean,

Please do provide evidence for your assertions that I am a fraud and a liar; otherwise, your statements are nothing more than ad hominem.

You will find that Kalimat Press has consistently acted in obedience to its national spiritual assembly and, in the face of the arbitrary action taken against it, has responded by offering to do whatever the national spiritual assembly requires. This offer has, effectively, been ignored.

I'm sorry this news is unpalatable to you, but there's no need to attack the messenger. As a person of oneness, surely you can see that attacking a fellow Baha'i is not a good look?

ka kite
Steve

onepence
Posts: 473
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 2:44 pm
Location: Longwood, FL, USA

Postby onepence » Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:13 am

Dear Steve,

This will be my final message addressed specifically to you until such time as you are able to apologize to this board for implying that the US NSA and a few other NSAs don't play by the rules.

let me repeat and be perfectly clear ... from here on out I will not answer any statement you make, no matter what you say or what you do, for i know what is in my best interest, which is clearly not to have any relationship with you or the likes of you, until such time as you are able to acknowledge that i was deeply offended by your post and not only seek but demand an apology from you for your attempt to discredit the the US NSA.

like i say ... respond however you wanna respond ... say fifty hail mary's, do twenty five jumping jacks, run a marathon, ... respond howver you wanna respond to this note ... it won't matter to me ... i will not respond back until i deem a response from you is worthy of a response from me ... and you know what the conditions of worthiness for me are ...

as to the proof that you are a bold face liar
it is a rather simple proof which is as follows
look to your own heart
and see for yourself
your own lies
as it relates to His Covenant.

Good Day and God Bless

a person of oneness
the apostle dean

kristen wilson
Posts: 0
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 6:42 am

Postby kristen wilson » Thu Jun 29, 2006 5:14 pm

Hi Dean,

I accept your conditions. It suits me just fine to have your responses cease.

However, I think I should acknowledge how you are feeling. I acknowledge that you were deeply offended by my post and that you not only seek but demand an apology from me for my alleged attempt to discredit the the US NSA.

as to the proof that you are a bold face liar
it is a rather simple proof which is as follows
look to your own heart
and see for yourself
your own lies
as it relates to His Covenant.


That proof may satisfy you, and you may indeed have a window into other peoples hearts—but I doubt it. What you describe is someone who is deluded, and needs to look inside himself to find the truth; not a "bold face liar". Also, if I'm a repeat liar in Bahau'llah's covenant, how come I'm still a Baha'i in good standing? Don't worry, I'm not expecting an answer; it's just a rhetorical question for the readers.

a person of oneness


When you're ready to talk again, I'd like to know what your vision of oneness is.

ka kite
Steve

Tahirih99
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 12:05 am
Location: Sydney Australia
Contact:

God will right the wrong in the end

Postby Tahirih99 » Thu Jun 29, 2006 10:49 pm

These Spiritual Assemblies are aided by the Spirit of God. Their defender is 'Abdu'l-Bahá. Over them He spreadeth His Wings. What bounty is there greater than this? These Spiritual Assemblies are shining lamps and heavenly gardens, from which the fragrances of holiness are diffused over all regions, and the lights of knowledge are shed abroad over all created things. From them the spirit of life streameth in every direction. They, indeed, are the potent sources of the progress of man, at all times and under all conditions.

('Abdu'l-Bahá, cited in Shoghi Effendi, "God Passes By"; rev. ed. (Wilmette: Bahá'í Publishing Trust, 1987), p. 332)


...It is incumbent upon everyone not to take any step without consulting the Spiritual Assembly, and they must assuredly obey with heart and soul its bidding and be submissive unto it, that things may be properly ordered and well arranged. Otherwise every person will act independently and after his own judgement, will follow his own desire, and do harm to the Cause.

('Abdu'l-Bahá, quoted in a letter dated 5 March 1922 written by Shoghi Effendi to the Bahá'ís of the United States and Canada, published in "Bahá'í Administration: Selected Messages 1922-1932"p. 21)


The Assembly may make a mistake, but, as the Master pointed out, if the Community does not abide by its decisions, or the individual Bahá'í, the result is worse, as it undermines the very institution which must be strengthened in order to uphold the principles and laws of the Faith. He tells us God will right the wrongs done. We must have confidence in this and obey our Assemblies. He therefore strongly urges you to work directly under your Bahá'í Assembly, to accept your responsibilities as a voting member, and do your utmost to create harmony within the community.

(From letter dated 1949 written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer)


What the Master desired to protect the friends against was continual bickering and opinionatedness. A believer can ask the Assembly why they made a certain decision and politely request them to reconsider. But then he must leave it at that, and not go on disrupting local affairs through insisting on his own views. This applies to an Assembly member as well. We all have a right to our opinions, we are bound to think differently; but a Bahá'í must accept the majority decision of his Assembly, realizing that acceptance and harmony--even if a mistake has been made--are the really important things, and when we serve the Cause properly, in the Bahá'í way, God will right any wrongs done in the end.

(From a letter dated 19 October 1947 written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer)


Subdue to God's will. Obey the institutions. God will right any wrongs done in the end.

God blesses us all.
Tahirih99

Jonah
Site Admin
Posts: 412
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 1:25 pm
Location: St Catharines, Ontario (near Niagara Falls)
Contact:

Postby Jonah » Fri Jun 30, 2006 12:21 am

<b>Note from moderator:</b> I am aware of the recent tone of this discussion, and I have been in contact with all parties privately. I felt that Dean and Steve are each entitled to express their feelings, and I'll leave their postings up. Now that they each have, I request that any further discussion -- if any -- be restricted to the topic at hand, and I may edit or delete posts that stray afield. :?

Thanks, all.

And now a bit of clarification. I asked Kalimat what the status of Sen's <i>Church and State</i> is. Their reply: "Sen's book was not reviewed in the Netherlands, since it was a Master's thesis that did not need to be reviewed. He did offer to have the NSA review it, but they declined. He kept the NSA informed of his plans to publish."


Return to “Discussion”