Ashley ([info]melodicharmony) wrote,
@ 2007-09-24 22:28:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Ahmadinejad
OK, I've been MIA because of my sister's wedding, midterms, and Ahmadinejad's visit to Columbia.

He's the President of Iran, where Baha'i denial of education continues as a subtle persecution that is going unnoticed - compared to the martyrdoms of the 80's - but is in its own way just as deadly. So I got to just embed this clip of the President of my University, Bollinger, who I watched live today. Listen if you want, but he's very cruel, perhaps too cruel and not acknowledging the deep insulting nature of his remarks in comparison to Iranian cultural customs of respect, but regardless, Bollinger mentions the Baha'i Faith, probably in a lot of ways because of the Baha'i Club's communication with him over the past few days.

Listen away or skip to 5 minutes into it to hear the quick but eloquent mention of Baha'i mistreatment.
It's been an interesting day. I'll try to be more... expressive... another day. I have studying to do, after all. I haven't been denied education in this neck of the woods.



Here is the rest of the remarks and Ahmadinejad's appropriate retort.

(Post a new comment)


[info]celtalitha
2007-09-25 02:56 am UTC (link)
How is he cruel? I don't have speakers on the school computer I use, so I can't hear the video.

Sina saw some of Ahmadinejad's thing on TV last night when he was at the gym, and saw the rest of it broadcast today. I haven't seen it yet, but even my mom watched it and told me "tell Sina sorry, he must be having a bad day..." and she's right; it put him in a terribly angry and depressed mood. He and his family went through HELL dealing with those people. Denial of education may be the big thing right now, but according to Sina at least, Ahmadinejad was the forerunning proponent of a proposal to have ALL Baha'is executed, back in those 80s you mention. I don't trust at all that he would stop at education, except with the world watching him so closely right now.

And Sina's going back there for a visit in November... :(

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]celtalitha
2007-09-25 02:58 am UTC (link)
P.S. I mean, if he's being cruel (i.e. extremely blunt?) to Ahmadinejad, well, he better. Sorry. My opinion.
But if he's being cruel to someone else, well, never mind.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]melodicharmony
2007-09-25 03:19 am UTC (link)
This just happened this afternoon, so Sina must have heard a different talk. I saw it live just around 1:30PM. I speak objectively because I try not to take sides or become to politically involved, and I agreed with all of Bollinger's points, but quite simply, to invite a President, regardless of how tyrannical he may be, and then introduce him with insults did not work in Pres. Bollinger's favor, because Ahmadinejad turned around and noted that in his country, if you invite someone you will treat them with respect and give them a chance to speak before insulting them rather than prior. And I agree with him there. Check out the audio when you can. Yeah, Bollinger is an eloquent and intelligent professor/President and kicked Ahmadinejad's feet out from under him, but it is very radical, and not very respectful, and everyone deserves to be treated with respect. Even, as Bollinger deems him, "a source of evil" like Ahmadinejad. I loved the challenging questions in the student question and answer forum after posed to Ahmadinejad - they were more objective and just as revealing to the evils of his regime, without being biased or overly insulting.

That's just my take, I guess.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]celtalitha
2007-09-25 03:42 am UTC (link)
I think last night's broadcast was of a different interview. Probably they were showing it in anticipation for today's speech.

I suppose I disagree that everyone should be treated with *the same* respect. I think everyone should be respected as a human, with certain rights and honor that is attached to that; but I don't necessarily think that respect as a human means always being nice or polite. And certainly not in the case of mass murderers, presidential though they may now be.

And about Ahmadinejad's comment, here's the difference: in his country, sure; he'll give you a chance to speak -- and then if he doesn't like what you said, he'll kill you.

Here, we may be rude to you in the beginning, but as far as I know, he's still going back to Iran to continue his life.

And while I'm sure he wouldn't put that on international television, I think this is far more telling of who is the more "respectful" person here.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]celtalitha
2007-09-25 04:46 am UTC (link)
Last night's interview was on '60 Minutes.' http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/09/60minutes/main1879867.shtml

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Part 1
(Anonymous)
2007-09-28 05:32 am UTC (link)
I was checking out the Baha'i Views Blog, and reading about the "Controversy at Columbia"

http://bahaiviews.blogspot.com/

and that's where I saw that you and others, had something to say about Ahmadinejad engagement at Columbia.

I have the following to offer:

First, thank you for posting your views on this subject!

"Bollinger, ... he's very cruel, perhaps too cruel"

Was he really cruel though? When he invited Ahmadinejad, he was very up front with him that he wouldn't just be a guest, but that he would have to face some very difficult questions and criticism from students and staff. Ahmadinejad accepted those terms and was fully aware that that he wasn't going to be a a guest at a tea party. I would say that Bollinger wasn't so much cruel, but passionate.

"...everyone deserves to be treated with respect...."

Everyone? Abdu'l-Baha said the following about how people are to be treated when they lie to us:

"The foundation of the Kingdom of God is laid upon justice, fairness, mercy, sympathy and kindness to every soul. Then strive ye with heart and soul to practice love and kindness to the world of humanity at large, except to those souls who are selfish and insincere. It is not advisable to show kindness to a person who is a tyrant, a traitor or a thief because kindness encourages him to become worse and does not awaken him. The more kindness you show to a liar the more he is apt to lie, for he thinks that you know not, while you do know, but extreme kindness keeps you from revealing your knowledge."

(Abdu'l-Bahá, Bahá'í World Faith - Abdu'l-Bahá Section, p. 412)

"O ye beloved of the Lord! The Kingdom of God is founded upon equity and justice, and also upon mercy, compassion, and kindness to every living soul. Strive ye then with all your heart to treat compassionately all humankind—except for those who have some selfish, private motive, or some disease of the soul. Kindness cannot be shown the tyrant, the deceiver, or the thief, because, far from awakening them to the error of their ways, it maketh them to continue in their perversity as before. No matter how much kindliness ye may expend upon the liar, he will but lie the more, for he believeth you to be deceived, while ye understand him but too well, and only remain silent out of your extreme compassion."

(Abdu'l-Bahá, Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Bahá, p. 158)

In other words, if someone is lying to us, we are supposed to call them on it. Bollinger let Ahmadinejad know that Columbia University wanted sincere dialogue and honest consultation, and that they are smart enough to see right through his mularkey.

"... and not acknowledging the deep insulting nature of his remarks in comparison to Iranian cultural customs of respect,"

Would an example of Iranian cultural customs of respect, include namecalling and labelling the USA as "The Great Satan" and Israel as the "Bearer of the Satan" and saying that Oliver Stone is "part of the Great Satan"? All of which Ahmadinejad had done.

Here's an interesting twist about being rude to people who invite others to events. This July of 2007, the film director Oliver Stone invited Ahmadinejad to be in a film documentary. Ahmadinejad replied to Stone that he not only refused to be interviewed, but he then went off on a rhetorical tirade (much as Bollinger did). His hypocrisy is clear. His attempt to take the moral high ground with Bollinger, based upon "Iranian customs of respect" is the sheer charade of a phony. Here's an excerpt of his tirade to Stone:

"While it is true that Oliver Stone is considered to be among the opposition in the US, the opposition is still part of the Great Satan," the president's media adviser, Mahdi Kalhor, told the semi-official Fars news agency.

"We believe that the American cinema system is devoid of all culture and art and is only used as a device. In the last two years, the global arrogance [Iranian shorthand for the US and Britain] has made a lot of effort to portray their own image of Ahmadinejad, not the one which exists in reality. Hollywood and other Zionist media react to phenomena they don't like through different processes."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2116117,00.html

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: Part 2
(Anonymous)
2007-09-28 05:33 am UTC (link)
I find it strange that he would label the American cinema system as devoid of culture and art; because I work in the film industry and I've worked with several renowned Iranian filmmakers (not Baha'is, but Muslims, Zoroastrians and Atheists) who left Iran to come to Europe and America, because in their words "Because of the oppression and fanatacism, we do not have the freedom to make the kinds of films that we want to in Iran. But in Europe and America, we have artistic freedom."

I could talk about how artistic freedom gives people the right to make a lot of ka-ka. But it also gives people the freedom to point our minds and hearts in a lot of other creative directions, if they so choose. We can talk about that a lot more, but for now it would be a digression.

I know that you didn't say that Ahmadinejad had a right to speak, because “from the clash of opinions comes the spark of truth,”, but I"ll comment on it here anyway. To that, I would say that in my opinion, the quote about the "spark of truth" was taken way out of context. When Abdu'l-Baha made that statement, He was talking about consultation. During consultation, people arrive at decisions by coming to the table together, with an earnest desire to route out the truth. By doing so, they come to the table together, and they willingly drop all of their own personal agendas. When people don't drop agendas, we have factions, schisms, cronyism, personal favorites and even warring sides.

Abdu'l-Baha said this regarding consultation:

"The prime requisites for them that take counsel together are purity of motive, radiance of spirit, detachment from all else save God, attraction to His Divine Fragrances, humility and lowliness amongst His loved ones, patience and long-suffering in difficulties and servitude to His exalted Threshold. Should they be graciously aided to acquire these attributes, victory from the unseen Kingdom of Bahá shall be vouchsafed to them.... The members thereof must take counsel together in such wise that no occasion for ill-feeling or discord may arise. This can be attained when every member expresseth with absolute freedom his own opinion and setteth forth his argument. Should any one oppose, he must on no account feel hurt for not until matters are fully discussed can the right way be revealed. The shining spark of truth cometh forth only after the clash of differing opinions. If after discussion, a decision be carried unanimously, well and good; but if the Lord forbid, differences of opinion should arise, a majority of voices must prevail."

and this:

"A spark is produced when flint and steel come together. Man should weigh his opinions with the utmost serenity, calmness and composure. Before expressing his own views he should carefully consider the views already advanced by others. If he finds that a previously expressed opinion is more true and worthy, he should accept it immediately and not willfully hold to an opinion of his own. By this excellent method he endeavors to arrive at unity and truth. Opposition and division are deplorable. It is better then to have the opinion of a wise, sagacious man; otherwise, contradiction and altercation, in which varied and divergent views are presented, will make it necessary for a judicial body to render decision upon the question. Even a majority opinion or consensus may be incorrect. A thousand people may hold to one view and be mistaken, whereas one sagacious person may be right. Therefore, true consultation is spiritual conference in the attitude and atmosphere of love. Members must love each other in the spirit of fellowship in order that good results may be forthcoming. Love and fellowship are the foundation."

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Part 3
(Anonymous)
2007-09-28 05:34 am UTC (link)
Did Ahmadinejad come to the discussion willing to " ... carefully consider the views already advanced by others."? I doubt it. The man can not even be honest about the treatment of women, homosexuals and non-Muslims, in his own country; let alone have a rational discussion about the Holocaust.

For that matter, did Bollinger set the tone for " The first condition is absolute love and harmony amongst the members of the assembly."? Probably not. Did he crack under the frustration of knowing that his "guest" was not going to be honest, but instead just robotically plow ahead with his plan to try to BS everyone? Maybe. And for that, I had sympathy for him. But I also know that the whole event was not Baha'i consultation, nor an earnest search for the truth. But a charade, sprinkled with some optimist-naiveté. We can sprinkle whatever magic idealist-dust we have, on top of the world's negatives. But we're also warned not to waste our time casting pearls in front of swine.

I dunno. I could be wrong here, but one thing that I like to remember when I am involved in my LSA's consultations, is that in order for people to have a true consultation, they all have to be people who have sworn allegiance to certain moral and spiritual principles in the first place; such as abiding to uphold the Covenant and obey the decisions of the Administrative Order. I think that is important to remember when we are witnessing political events, because the decision making methods of the Administrative Order, are given to us by God and based upon Divine Love; while the methods of decision making in the secular world are (at least at this point in time) based on mounting a campaign and tearing down one's enemy.

I would invite you to read a letter from the Universal House of Justice on your own, and make your own decision about who has the right to free speech, and how free speech fits in with the principles of the Baha'i Faith:

http://bahai-library.com/index.php5?file=uhj_individual_rights_freedoms

Hope to see you and the gang sometime soon :)

Much Love and Kindness,
Charlie Kirby
www.charliekirby.com

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Part 3
[info]melodicharmony
2007-09-29 03:00 pm UTC (link)
Wow, that was a lot! I haven't been able to read this all in depth yet, but I need to clarify what I'm saying. The point OBVIOUSLY isn't that I don't think Ahmadinejad deserves to be treated with bundles of lovingkindness in the sense that he shouldn't be challenged. He should be challenged. Yet the POINT is that he was invited as a speaker and on a *few* occasions Bollinger offered his own opinion too liberally, rather than STATING THE FACTS. A debate is NOT a place for bias, especially in introductory remarks. Virtually every Columbia Student I've spoken to agrees that he crossed the line because he, by being so upfront as to be borderline rude, gave Ahmadinejad the upper hand, and made him look all high and noble. In fact, it worked so well in Ahmadinejad's favor, Columbia students were APPLAUDING him, siding with him much of the time throughout his speech.

So, the big point here is:

1) Bollingers introductory remarks led students to side with Ahmadinejad on many issues.
2) Bollinger openly invited him as a speaker and let bias corrupt a healthy debate.
3) Bollinger fled from the most compelling evidence, the facts, and went into insulting remarks about petty dictatorship, the face of evil, and so forth, that quite honestly weakened his argument.

I am not saying he should have been kind, or not brought up all the facts so that Ahmadinejad's lies would not be forewarned about. I'm not saying he should have given any praise to him, and I am saying he should have challenged him. But his manner of challenging him worked against him, and in addition, he took up some of Ahmadinejad's speaking time, making Ahmadinejad look like the sad puppy with the tail between his legs that everyone pitied and in turn listened to what he had to say, applauded with him, agreed with him when he was objective and did not attack anyone at all. It just did not work in anyones favor.

Biggest point: I'm a Baha'i. I'm not a fan of Ahmadinejad. I believe he lies, I believe he would like to exterminate the friends in Iran if he wasn't under such close watch, I believe his nation is corrupt. But I'm an objective person, and try never to let my own bias persuade me. Thus my opinion is what it is. I believe in respect as a force. I believe in respect as the best weapon. That's why it's the virtue I work on every day. I look for it in everyone. That's all.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Part 3
(Anonymous)
2007-09-29 03:26 pm UTC (link)
melodicharmony,
i agree with you completely. people here keep thinking you are defending ahmadinejad and not reading what you are saying.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Re: Part 3
(Anonymous)
2007-09-29 06:35 pm UTC (link)
Ashley,

Sorry about the long and rambling post! I hope you don't think I'm mad at you or anything like arguing w/ you. I just wanted to post another POV and put things in proper context of the Writings. It's hard to read a person's tone in an email. My tone felt friendly when I was writing. Life is too short to let politics get in the way of friendships.

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<i [...] ahmadinejad's>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

Ashley,

Sorry about the long and rambling post! I hope you don't think I'm mad at you or anything like arguing w/ you. I just wanted to post another POV and put things in proper context of the Writings. It's hard to read a person's tone in an email. My tone felt friendly when I was writing. Life is too short to let politics get in the way of friendships.

<I am not saying he should have been kind, or not brought up all the facts so that Ahmadinejad's lies would not be forewarned about.>

I totally did not think you thought that either! : )

<But his manner of challenging him worked against him>

I would agree with that.

<everyone pitied and in turn listened to what he had to say, applauded with him>

You are correct. The man is a master of manipulation. And sad to say, but a lot of people are suckers for crocodile tears. But then again, people did jeer him on a few of his comments. And after reading letters in other college newspapers from more conservative parts of the USA, students in other colleges, and political pundits on television are 1. Saying that Columbia University has lost some credibility. 2. They are using Bollingers speech as another example to build their case for an US military strike against Iran. So people will spin the results of this event anyway they want to.

<I'm not a fan of Ahmadinejad. I believe he lies>

I totally got that point from the first post in this thread! I just don't think that Bollinger was required to play nice. But ya know what though? I think the whole event sounded like a waste of precious resources. Inviting Ahmadinejad was not like inviting Hitler (as a lot of people have said). Ahmadinejad is a puppet. He doesn't give direct orders. He GETS direct orders from the Supreme Leader. Hitler gave direct orders. Hitler was the supreme leader.

Inviting Ahmad... was more like inviting Charles Manson. Manson never killed anyone. But he was a charismatic face man for a dangerous cult. He spoke a lot of metaphysical hokus pokus, he is a master manipulator, and he got people to commit some gruesome acts for him (like ripping out fetuses from a pregnant woman). And yet, everytime Manson is given a podium on television, people feel sorry for him and he's become a pop culture icon.

Bollinger could have invited any number of leaders who were in town to speak at the UN General Assembly. In 20/20 hindsight, maybe he should have invited some Burmese monks, or some Iraqi citizens. Heck, I'd have liked to have seen Lech Walesa get some NYC spotlight and hear a talk on the Global Forum on New Democracies and how movements like that are turning around a lot of impoverished nations.

But then I'm reminded by Baha'u'llah and The Guardian's warnings to us that the "prevailing Order appeareth to be lamentably defective". Not just part of it, but ALL of it. And that human beings will never create a system on their own, that will heal all ills of the world. In that regard, I wonder: Does it really matter who was invited to speak? David Duke, reps from the KKK, Exiled members of the Khmer Rouge, Nelson Mandella, Barak Obama, Martin Luther King Jr's family, Shirin Ebadi? I don't know!

"No machinery falling short of the standard inculcated by the Bahá'í Revelation, and at variance with the sublime pattern ordained in His teachings, which the collective efforts of mankind may yet devise can ever hope to achieve anything above or beyond that "Lesser Peace" to which the Author of our Faith has Himself alluded in His writings."

http://www.bahai-library.com/writings/shoghieffendi/wob/41.html


Much Peace,
Charlie Kirby
http://www.charliekirby.com

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Re: Part 3
[info]celtalitha
2007-09-29 07:20 pm UTC (link)
Ashley,
I'm sorry if my attitude came off badly in the earlier posts; I didn't mean to attack what you said at all. I know you don't support Ahmadinejad or think he he should be treated nicely. I just didn't think "cruel" was a term I could conscientiously apply to someone's verbal overreaching, when the person they're insulting is the staunch supportor of literal killing and torturing. Not the best strategy for debate? Sure. Ineffective? Obviously so. Bad for public relations? Absolutely...

But cruel... I just couldn't say that. I hope that makes sense, and you don't think I was assuming that you weren't aware of how horrible Ahmadinejad is or anything like that.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…