BBC 'Learning the Lessons of the Kelly Affair

BBC 'Learning the Lessons of the Kelly Affair

in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Paul
Hammond at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 30/11/03 4:16 am:

> There simply is no "repudiating" or "scapegoating" going on
> here whatsoever.
> 
> Do you actually understand these words you bandy about so
> freely, Error?

They are not my words they were Fredrick Glaysher's words, and I
support them 100%   http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Kelly100502.htm
The tradition of Bahaism have a tendency to view western politics
through their own writings and moral spectacles. To have a top
Microbiologist like Dr Kelly involved in high goverment imbrace the
Faith was a great catch for the Bahai faith.  But only when his name
and vocation were known to a few high up in the AO. Once his name
became world media news because of his suicide over the controversial
argument between the BBC and the British Government and finally the
Hutton inquiry, the Bahai AO will distance itself like they did with
the murder of Dan Jordan. The evidence given by Barney Leith at the
Hutton Inquiry was 100% behind protecting the good name of the Bahai
Faith, not protecting the good name of Dr Kelly. This is why Barney
contradicted Geeta and Roger Kingdon story they told the media about
the talk Dr Kelly give to 30 Bahais in October 2002.  Geeta and Roger
Kingdon were honest Bahais who had nothing to hide, when interviewed
by the media, but Barney leith had to change the story to protect the
UK NSA and the UHJ.

Below is a more truthful Bahai admittance with regards the actions of
Dr Kelly, which were a contradiction of the bahai
teachings...........Errol
 
"A glance around the Bosch Baha'i School's bookshop reveals some
possible sources of tension for Dr Kelly. Several tomes focus on the
divine importance of the UN, which was eventually ignored by the
United States and Britain after it refused to support a military
campaign to remove the Iraqi regime.

With that in mind, it is hard to see how Dr Kelly could ever have
supported an Iraq war without UN approval.

"Even more ominous, however, is a tract entitled Political
Non-Involvement and Obedience to Government, compiled by Peter J.
Khan. The book spells out the Baha'is' belief that they should not
become involved in any form of politics, because politics can create
divisions that could destroy the Baha'i community.

As part of this argument, Baha'is believe that they should support
their government, whether just or unjust (there are, however,
exceptions). On page 28, Khan poses a question that Dr Kelly himself
could have asked: What should we do when controversies arise as a
result of government policies?

The answer, provided by the Guardian of the Baha'i faith, the late
Shoghi Effendi Rabbani, is this: "In such controversies they should
assign no blame, take no side, further no design, and identify
themselves with no system prejudicial to the best interests of that
worldwide fellowship which it is their aim to guard and foster."

Khan's book makes it clear that any Baha'i who does not follow this
advice is ultimately weakening the Baha'i religion. Given this
official position from the Guardian, it is not hard to imagine Dr
Kelly's horror when he was named as the alleged source of a story
blaming Britain's decision to go to war on a press secretary who
"sexed up" intelligence reports.

But would the Guardian have condoned suicide? "Let's just say," says
Mrs VonBerg, "that it would not follow the teachings of the Baha'i
faith."

http://www.uga.edu/bahai/2003/030903-9.html