Baha'is and politics

[lunamoth]

Hi Rick, Yes there are writings to balance out those which I quoted. To me the entire BAO comes down to having trust in the UHJ. But I feel that the UHJ, the BAO, breaches that trust and puts legalities above love and compassion. Perhaps this is not the way the faith used to be, perhaps it is not the way it will be in the future, but bottom line, what will happen to a homosexual Baha'i who obtains a civil union with her partner? How do you explain what happened to Alsion Marshall? These are breaches of that trust.

Yes, there are avenues to voice concerns, but these avenues are designed to isolate the believer who questions. Face a nine-member assembly, alone. Write a letter to the UHJ. Do not talk about it with your friends. Do not make your concerns public in any way.

Did not SMKolins in this very forum describe how he would not want every administrave meeting taken up with people going on about "the basics" as he called them, rather than getting on with the important business at hand (promoting the Baha'i Faith).

Baha'is are told that they can't be members of certain organizations such as Amnesty International.

Baha'is can't publish anything about the Baha'i Faith, even scholarly works, without pre-publication review by Baha'i Authorities.

WHY?

What is it that detests the sunlight?

And perhaps it is not the prevailing attitude, but how many times have I read comments by Baha'is online about how well, they'd like to overlook a fellow Baha'i's homosexual relationship, but they might be compelled to alert the Local Spiritual Assembly to be obedient.

How could I ever encourage my gay friends to love a religion that would open them up to that kind of treatment?

Too much emphasis on our pitiful attempts at human "justice," keeping our fellow believers in line, rather than on compassion and love.

lunamoth

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

SO. Time will tell what will happen.

Allah'u'Abha Scott,

Yes, time will tell. But I only have this one lifetime to make my choices and play my role in God's plan, to decide to the best of my knowledge, to the depths of my heart, how I can best serve and help this world, rather than add to the pain.

To be a Baha'i at this time means to assent to the belief that all homosexuals are somehow sicker, more afflicted than I am, and at the same time deny them full participation in the Baha'i Faith if they are in a homosexual relationship, even if it is monogamous, even if it is a civil union.

How is that compassionate? How does that reflect the harmony of science and religion? If there is any question about the basis of homosexuality, why would the Baha'i Faith do anything but err on the side of love and compassion? Would it be acceptable to remove voting rights from sufferers of obesity unless they were able to lose a couple hundred pounds?

I am not trying to bash the Baha'i Faith, but these are real issues of justice and compassion that are glossed over. Baha'u'llah decreed that it was lawful to have two wives, Abdu'l Baha' "clarified" this to mean that he really meant only one wife because its impossible to meet the criteria of just treatment of two wives. There are many instances of lots and lots of words to explain away various difficult laws and conflicts, yet when it comes to homosexuality and women serving on the UHJ..

"About this, there can be no debate."

lunamoth

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Hi Rick, Yes there are writings to balance out those which I quoted. To me the entire BAO comes down to having trust in the UHJ. But I feel that the UHJ, the BAO, breaches that trust and puts legalities above love and compassion. Perhaps this is not the way the faith used to be, perhaps it is not the way it will be in the future, but bottom line, what will happen to a homosexual Baha'i who obtains a civil union with her partner? How do you explain what happened to Alsion Marshall? These are breaches of that trust.

Hi, Luna;

Yes. You are absolutely right, it is a matter of trust. And one cannot put trust in what one cannot trust. You should not do so. It is ultimately your decision. And its ultimately mine.

What happens to someone who enters into a homosexual partnership who is also a Baha`i. They don't get "churched". They are not expelled. But their right to attend feast is curtailed (though they can attend Holy Days, firesides, commemorations, study circles, children's classes, etc). They are also not allowed to hold Baha`i elected office or vote in Baha`i elections. And finally they are not allowed to give to the Baha`i Funds. Their administrative rights are revoked but not their identity as Baha`i's. If, in the future they can rebuild their life in such a way that the violation of Baha`i law is resolved, they can be re=instated. Its not a permanent shunning. in fact it is not a shunning at all. In the last five years on a Local Assembly on which I served we twice had to recommend a loss of administrative and twice worked with individuals to have those rights re-instated. In all four instances it was violation of Baha`i marriage laws that precipitated the loss of administrative rights. None of those occasions had anything to do with homosexuality. In fact, I have never lived in a community in my thirty + years where such an event occured. By my own experience this is nothing common.

In my own experience I have known of three instances where a Baha`i in good standing was homosexual, but managed to live in accordance with Baha`i law.

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Yes, there are avenues to voice concerns, but these avenues are designed to isolate the believer who questions. Face a nine-member assembly, alone. Write a letter to the UHJ. Do not talk about it with your friends. Do not make your concerns public in any way..

I could put you in touch with a Baha`i professor who has taken several issues of academic freedom to the Universal House of Justice and had replies which clarify the issues to her satisfaction.

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Did not SMKolins in this very forum describe how he would not want every administrave meeting taken up with people going on about "the basics" as he called them, rather than getting on with the important business at hand (promoting the Baha'i Faith).

The responsibilites of a Local Assembly occasionally touch on pastoral matters, we don't have clergy to tend to that kind of thing. There are mecahnics for dealing with personal issues that observe the rights and feelings of those involved. An assembly tends to deal with such things not as routine, but as occasions when love and guidance has to be lavished on individuals. But . . . the purpose of a local assembly is to teach the Cause, everything else is secondary; however part of that is making the Baha`i Community a good model of how society ought to work. So teaching and pastoral matters are one and the same.

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Baha'is are told that they can't be members of certain organizations such as Amnesty International.

Baha'is can't publish anything about the Baha'i Faith, even scholarly works, without pre-publication review by Baha'i Authorities.

WHY?

What is it that detests the sunlight?

As to Amnesty International, this is from the House's guidance on the issue to an individual believer:
"Even though it is not appropriate for Bahá'ís to become members of Amnesty International, its humanitarian aspects make it possible for Bahá'ís to have friendly relationships with the organization. Thus, Bahá'ís are encouraged to feel free to collaborate as individuals in certain Amnesty International's projects, while retaining the right to abstain from participation in actions which could conflict with Bahá'í principles.


"Regarding the enquiry in the penultimate paragraph of your letter, the Universal House of Justice had not established a list of different organizations that the Bahá'í Faith should not support. An important distinction, however is drawn between association with other movements and actual membership. In general Bahá'ís are encouraged to collaborate with all others who are working towards the same goals as the Faith. Bahá'ís are not permitted, however, to be members of certain secret societies, of the religious organizations of other Faiths, of political organizations or, of course, of organizations whose goals are in conflict with the Bahá'í principles. For example, Bahá'ís would gladly work together with Christians in humanitarian activities, but a Bahá'í, believing in Bahá'u'lláh, cannot be a member of a Christian church which believes that Christ has not yet returned."

http://bahai-library.com/?file=uhj_a..._international for the entire document.

The review process changes all the time, Luna. For the past five years there has been no review process whatsoever concerning electronically published material. I helped my daughter go through the process for publishing a children's book. It made it through without much delay, though we have not found a publisher as yet.

Originally Posted by lunamoth

And perhaps it is not the prevailing attitude, but how many times have I read comments by Baha'is online about how well, they'd like to overlook a fellow Baha'i's homosexual relationship, but they might be compelled to alert the Local Spiritual Assembly to be obedient.

How could I ever encourage my gay friends to love a religion that would open them up to that kind of treatment?

Too much emphasis on our pitiful attempts at human "justice," keeping our fellow believers in line, rather than on compassion and love.

lunamoth

Its not a matter of "obedience". Ratting out is ratting out, and one should consider it carefully. Does the way that an individual Baha`i is living cast a bad light on the faith?

I think those who are committed to being "Gay" are not going to be committed to accepting a faith that says they should not live such a lifestyle. I think an individual teaching the faith should be up-front about it. Once upon a time a certain celebrity wished to become Baha`i, but in consultation with those who taught she was convinced to withdraw her declaration because her personal life at the time would have conflicted with her being a declared Baha`i. Those who loved her and taught her the faith helped her make a decision.

Being Baha`i is voluntary, and one should know what is expected of those who declare up front and right away.

As to to the human sense of "justice" being too weak, well Baha`u'llah makes a clear demand of believers:

"O SON OF SPIRIT!
The best beloved of all things in My sight is Justice; turn not away therefrom if thou desirest Me, and neglect it not that I may confide in thee. By its aid thou shalt see with thine own eyes and not through the eyes of others, and shalt know of thine own knowledge and not through the knowledge of thy neighbor. Ponder this in thy heart; how it behooveth thee to be. Verily justice is My gift to thee and the sign of My loving-kindness. Set it then before thine eyes."
(Baha'u'llah, The Arabic Hidden Words)

Regards,
Scott

[PrimaVera]

Luna,

I understand that you don't mean to bash the Baha'i Faith, and, yes, these are important issues. I should point out that Baha'is are building the system. It hasn't been built yet. Since this is a system that humanity has never seen before, we all, both individuals and members of the various institutions, are struggling to understand what it all means. We all bring certain values to the table. Many of those values were conditioned by the culture and society that reared us. As much as we might question the institutions, a failure to question our own assumptions, a failure to ascertain whether our culturally ingrained values are actually grounded in Baha'u'llah's teachings, impeads progress.

The interactions are complex, and a full discussion of the implications just isn't possible in an online forum. Bahiyyih Nakhjavani discusses many of these issues at length in her book, Asking Questions: A Challenge to Fundamentalism. For example, I don't know all the details in the case with Alison Marshall (I don't believe that anyone whose sole source for information has been various online forums knows all the details), but I strongly suspect that core issue may well have involved misunderstandings at several levels.

Regarding compassion, this, too, is a complex issue. And, it's not limited to homosexuality. As `Abdu'l-Baha says in several places, we are all endowed with a spiritual nature we are asked to nurture and develop as well as an imperfect physical nature. That our physical nature is imperfect is "by design" as folks in the software industry say. We each have aspects of our physical nature that must be overcome in order to grow and develop spiritually.

If I might, you do, however, leave a couple of misconceptions. The notion that Baha'is can only discuss their problems with the institutions has no basis in the Baha'i Writings. We must take care not to undermine the authority of the institutions, and contention and conflict are certainly not allowed. Neither, however, of these standards of conduct requires us to remain silent or face a spiritual assembly alone. Have you read the exchange of letters that Dr. Maneck had with the Universal House of Justice? That kind of candor, and that kind of dialogue, comes very close to the ideal.

You suggest that Baha'is are, in some way, required to "out" any homosexual members of the Faith--that we are obligated to report someone we know to be maintaining a homosexual relationship. I know of no such obligation in the Writings. Indeed, Shoghi Effendi's statement that individuals should look upon one another with "love, unity, forgiveness and a sin-covering eye" would imply that we are supposed to overlook the faults of others.

Regarding membership on politically active organizations such as Amnesty International, the issue is rather clear. Many such organizations advocate such things as civil disobedience, and use means that are anathema to Bah'i principle. To fully align ourselves with an organization like Amnesty International would turn us into hypocrites. That doesn't mean we can't work with Amnesty International to further those aims that we hold in common.

Lastly, with regards to pre-publication review, I don't believe the purpose has anything to do with obscuring light. It's purpose is no different than the practice of pre-publication review practiced by a majority of academic journals. In a religion where Baha'is are obligated to refrain from asserting that their own, personal views represent official Baha'i teaching, I'm at a loss to know how that standard might be upheld without pre-publication review. Do you think it would be better to simply allow someone to publish something that does pass off a personal view as being an official Baha'i teaching, and respond to the issue after the fact? No, rather than obscuring the light, the purpose of review is to keep the clouds off the horizon.

I'll close by echoing Scott's remarks. We all have to make our choices. You are certainly free to make whatever choices you wish to make, as is everyone else who comes into contact with the Baha'i Faith. All I ask is that we base our choices on the truth, and not on half truths or outright lies.

I have part of the quote about justice in my signature. I value it, I believe, as much as anyone else. Scott posted the rest of it, and the part of the quote that I feel is most important is where Baha'u'llah says, "Ponder this in thy heart how it behoveth thee to be." Justice is not achieved in this world when we spend a lot of time worrying about whether or not other people are being just. Justice is achieved in this world when we spend most of our time worring about whether or not we, ourselves, are being just.

[Popeyesays]

Rick,

Its a deep pleasure to make your acquaintance. Have we met on other lists?

And, yeah, it was Susan Maneck's letters I was referring to as well.

Regards,
Scott

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by BruceDLimber

I put it to you that this only signifies an unfamliarity with both the Baha'i Faith and its teachings.

I agree.

I'm not trying to tell Baha'is how the Baha'i faith runs - I'm trying to raise discussion issues based on how it looks from the outside.

My comments may look clumsy in places, but they are based on honest enquiry.

Originally Posted by BruceDLimber

For example, we have well over a thousand socioeconomic development projects around the world which have been caaomplishing many wonderful things without even asking for anything in return.

I don't deny that the Baha'i faith is involved with a lot of good work, and there is actually a lot of common theological ground between myself and the Baha'i faith.

I don't deny your sincerity and honesty, either, Bruce, so my apologies if it reads like I'm questioning your personal motivations - I'm simply trying to raise an interesting subject on the political issues relating to the Baha'i faith, and see where it leads.

Originally Posted by BruceDLimber

(And as you may not already be aware, Baha'is won't even accept--let alone solicit!--contributions to Baha'i Funds from non-members!)

The upside of this is that it keeps the cause pure from outside interference. However, isn't there a downside in terms of outside accountability? Also, wouldn't this policy of exclusivism mean that Baha'i projects may not work in direct partnership with non-Baha'i funded projects?

Originally Posted by BruceDLimber

On the contrary, Baha'is question stuff all the time! And even our scriptures advocate contrary oipinions and discussion thereof as the means of clarifying what the truth is.

Indeed, that's quite a volume of writing to work with.

My point in that regard was that the Baha'i faith comes across as an authoritan organisation not too dissimilar to the Jehovah's Witnesses - there is a core authority who determine what the correct interpretations of scripture are, and these must be adhered to. In which case, you can search the volumes of wrting for meanings, but those meanings are not allowed to contradict what has already been indoctrinated to the faith.

Originally Posted by BruceDLimber

Further, in claiming this would be so "brilliant" a system for oppression, you obviously ignore the bottom-up nature of Baha'i administration, in which each level is based on the will of those beneath it.

I'm not saying that UK democracy is an ideal - simply that my impression given of the Baha'i organisation is that there is a diminishing accountability for the higher levels to the lowest levels. And in such a political structure, political abuse will eventually become an inevitability.

I'm not talking about the Baha'i faith now, as much as postulating a future scenario - imagine that the UK were under Baha'i control - what influence can the individual member have on the overall structure of government? It's this sort of political question I'm at least in part trying to ask as an exploration of the subject.

If you have any specific links to help educate me against any misconceptions then you're more than welcome to post them - I'm only communicating my impression so far, and it could easily be a misperception.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by arthra

Well I think I'm done with this thread...I feel like I'm being pushed around a bit...

- Art

Sorry for that Art - I could have posted this in the Politics and Society thread, but I figured that I could get useful Baha'i input on the Baha'i board instead.

It's not meant to be pushing people - it's intended as a genuine enquiry into the political approachess of the Baha'i faith.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by PrimaVera

First of all, in breaking this post out into its own thread, you've given it a rather misleading title. The issue, as Baha'is are concerned, is about partisan politics, not politics per-se.

It's a thread about Baha'is and politics - in such a regard, the title seemed apt.

Originally Posted by PrimaVera

I have no idea what you're talking about. The prohibition on participating in partisan politics stems from the principle of the oneness of humanity.

As above, there can be an ugly partisan side of politics - and a lot of ugliness associated with politics in general. However, the point about democracy is political accountability to the people.

My impression is that Baha'is are discouraged from participating in political elections, and that is where my comments come from with regards to loyalty to faith first - however, is this a misperperception? If so my apologies, but it's great that a thread like this can obviously address such misperceptions.

Originally Posted by PrimaVera

What I find odd is the assertion that I've given myself up to any authority without questioning, and that, having merely been told that something is good, I have to shut my brain off. I find no justification for that assertion in any Baha'i literature or in every-day Baha'i practice.

I'm under the impression that if the Universal House of Justice decrees a point, that you may not have a differing opinion on that point without effectively ostracising yourself from the Baha'i faith.

Originally Posted by PrimaVera

Wherever did you get these ideas about the Baha'i Faith, Brian?

Well, from what the Baha'i members have posted around the forums these past couple of years.

But as before, I may have easily misunderstood some of the points raised. Hence it seemed fair enough to raise a particul;arly topic for discussion to correct my misunderstandings.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

Brian I appreciate your attempts to keep disharmony out of the boards. Why do you keep telling Baha`i's what they believe or do not believe without having any basis in fact? You do not allow anyone else to do this about any other religion, yet you actually do it yourself in regards to this particular religion.

As a discussion forum, there needs to be a starting point, so I'm not actually trying to tell Baha'is what they believe - I'm simply stating my perceptions and hoping to develop a discussion around the topics raised.

My apologies if I've sounded aggressive or overtly critical, but I am simply trying to open up a potentially interesting area for discussion, and I do this across the boards on this site.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by PrimaVera

Brian, rather inaccurately and with no small sense of disdain, suggested that Baha'is are not allowed to voice disagreement with our institutions and/or their policies.

It's simply the situatiuon as I've been led to understand it.

For example, as in your quote:

each person has complete freedom to withdraw from the Faith if he decides that he no longer believes in its Founder or accepts His Teachings.

Does that mean that someone can remain accepted as a Baha'i without their recognising the authority of the UHJ?

Or must the the authority of the institution must be accepted as a pre-condition for belief in the theology?

Simply questions.

[PrimaVera]

Scott,

Allah'u'Abha, and I am pleased to make your acquaintance. It's entirely possible that we've met on other forums, but I don't recall specifically.

[BruceDLimber]

Luna, I just hope all the participants here are careful enough to read the ENTIRE text of the quotes you posted becuase reading only the parts you highlighted in red gives a VERY distorted picture of the Baha'i Faith and its administration!

Bruce

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings!

Points taken, Brian; thank you.

Originally Posted by I, Bruce

(And as you may not already be aware, Baha'is won't even accept--let alone solicit!--contributions to Baha'i Funds from non-members!).

Originally Posted by I, Brian

The upside of this is that it keeps the cause pure from outside interference. However, isn't there a downside in terms of outside accountability? Also, wouldn't this policy of exclusivism mean that Baha'i projects may not work in direct partnership with non-Baha'i funded projects?.

There's no more problem with "accountability" than there is with any other religious organization, NONE of which (to my knowledge) open their books to non-members! And please note that our accounts are indeed audited annually.

As to cooperative ventures, I've never heard of any problem with working together with other organizations.

Originally Posted by I, Brian

My point in that regard was that the Baha'i faith comes across as an authoritan organisation not too dissimilar to the Jehovah's Witnesses - there is a core authority who determine what the correct interpretations of scripture are, and these must be adhered to.

At the very least, your picture is considerably out of date!

Authorized interpretation of the Baha'i teachings ended with Shoghi Effendi's death in 1957. And my other point about it holds: EACH of us is fully welcome to his or her understanding of things; all that's not permitted is publishing it as "the truth" and expecting others to obey it.

Yes, the interpretations of 'Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi are both fixed and--according to authoritative Baha'i figures, totally reliable. So they are indeed a given, and we see no problem whatever with this. Divine Revelation is Divine Revelation.

Nor is this a matter of "Indoctrination": as I said, everyone is free to an individual opinion, and anyone who completely rejects the Baha'i Faith is fully free to leave, no questions asked and no condemnation applied.

Originally Posted by I, Brian

And in such a political structure, political abuse will eventually become an inevitability.

You are mistaken in that Baha'i administration is in no way "political"; rather, it is to be unific.

Originally Posted by I, Brian

I'm not talking about the Baha'i faith now, as much as postulating a future scenario - imagine that the UK were under Baha'i control - what influence can the individual member have on the overall structure of government?

First off, if this were the case, it would already mean that most of not all the populace would already be Baha'i. And as I trust you now understand, the "structure" of Baha'i administration is defined and fixed by our scriptures, which every Baha'i accepts as Divine Revelation. But that said, you have the same rights and prerogatives--including voting for those holding administrative positions--as any other Baha'i!

For these administrative bodies are indeed democratically-created.

A few resources you might find helpful are:

- www.bahai.org

- www.reference.bahai.org

- http://bci.org/prophecy-fulfilled

- www.bahaistudy.org

Finally, please remember further questions are always most welcome!

Peace, :-)

Bruce

[BruceDLimber]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

My impression is that Baha'is are discouraged from participating in political elections....

Clearly mistaken: Baha'is are fully free to vote in elections! (I do so myself.) :-)

Originally Posted by I, Brian

I'm under the impression that if the Universal House of Justice decrees a point, that you may not have a differing opinion on that point without effectively ostracising yourself from the Baha'i faith.

I suppose you can describe it like that, but in fact the House generally avoids "decreeing" anything not actually needed, and while I'm just one person, I've never heard of its announcing anything that was found controversial or objectionable by anybody.... Indeed, it tends to avoid doing more than is absolutely necessary.

Regards,

Bruce

[I, Brian]

No problem, Bruce, and thanks for the info.

I appreciate that my comments were not necessarily taken in the best light by all who read them - but I assure you there's no attempt to specifically attack the Baha'i faith - simply make an observation and explore it as a discussion topic.

I've already found certain elements to be very constructive in trying to understand the Baha'i faith better, and I thank you for that.