Baha'is and politics - Page 3

PrimaVera · 11-06-2005, 04:34 PM

Brian,

You raise many points in many posts. It's difficult to quote them all, so, if there's a point I've missed, please raise it again.

Before I discuss some of the broader issues you raise, I should first point out that, in general, Baha'is are allowed to participate in civil elections. The issue is partisanship. For example, in many states in the US, before one can vote in a primary election, one must declare a party affiliation. The State of Washington is one of these states, and I don't vote in primary elections. It is, however, the issue of partisanship that precludes my participation, not the electoral process per se.

I want to provide some context for the issues you raise by looking at the early history of the Baha'i Faith in America. The Baha'i Faith was first taught here in the early part of the 20th century by a gentleman named Ibrahim Khayrullah. His understanding of the basic teachings of the Baha'i Faith was rather limited. As a result, what he taught was an admixture of what Baha'u'llah actually taught and Khayrullah's own, personal ideas that really had no basis in Baha'u'llah's Writings.

in 1934, Shoghi Effendi, `Abdu'l-Baha's eldest grandson whom `Abdu'l-Baha had appointed as Guardian of the Baha'i Faith, wrote a letter to the Baha'is of the west. This letter is know by the title The Dispensation of Baha'u'llah, and the primary purpose of that letter was to correct a number of these misconceptions first introduced by Khayrullah.

The letter has four sections. The first three expound on the stations and claims of Baha'u'llah, the Bab and `Abdu'l-Baha. The fourth section outlines the salient features of the Administrative Order. In that section, Shoghi Effendi clarifies the legislative function of the Universal House of Justice as contrasted with the interpretive function of the Guardianship:

Quote:

From these statements it is made indubitably clear and evident that the Guardian of the Faith has been made the Interpreter of the Word and that the Universal House of Justice has been invested with the function of legislating on matters not expressly revealed in the teachings. The interpretation of the Guardian, functioning within his own sphere, is as authoritative and binding as the enactments of the International House of Justice, whose exclusive right and prerogative is to pronounce upon and deliver the final judgment on such laws and ordinances as Bahá'u'lláh has not expressly revealed. Neither can, nor will ever, infringe upon the sacred and prescribed domain of the other. Neither will seek to curtail the specific and undoubted authority with which both have been divinely invested.

This, then, provides a context for answering some of your questions, and there are a couple of features to this context. The first is this notion that the Baha'i Faith introduces a new form of exegesis not found anywhere else: authoritative interpretations of the Writings. Baha'u'llah explicitly granted exclusive authority to interpret His Writings to `Abdu'l-Baha. `Abdu'l-Baha, in exercise of that authority, both established the institution of the Guardianship and delineated several features of Baha'i Administration.

The second feature of this context is the limitations on the authority of the Universal House of Justice, in particular the fact that the Universal House of Justice has no authority to establish Baha'i doctrine. The Universal House of Justice legislates, has the authority to resolve matters that have caused differences within the community and administers the affairs of the Faith.

What, then, are the limitations, if any, on the exercise of individual conscience (which, I believe, gets to the heart of your questions)? In the absence of an interpretation by `Abdu'l-Baha or Shoghi Effendi, Baha'is a free to believe whatever we wish, just so long as we are clear that our statements of belief are personal and not necessarily universal to all Baha'is.

But, what if I disagree with one of the interpretations of `Abdu'l-Baha or Shoghi Effendi? After all, with all the baggage we each bring to a new faith, there are bound to be some of these interpretations that will be difficult to accept. When we encounter these differences, we must make a choice. Do I hold on to my personal ideas, or do I accept those interpretations that Baha'u'llah has said I must accept?

While I am struggling with such a question, I am free to remain affiliated with the Baha'i Faith. Indeed, so long as I don't attempt to influence the beliefs of other Baha'is, I'm even free to discuss the nature of my struggle with other Baha'is. The point where I start getting into trouble is when I start insisting that my personal ideas, or even ideas for which we might find a consensus within the Baha'i community, ought to be accepted in deference to any given authoritative interpretation. To insist that the Universal House of Justice promulgate an interpretation of the Writings that is contrary to one of `Abdu'l-Baha's or Shoghi Effendi's interpretations is to insist that the Universal House of Justice "infringe upon the sacred and proscribed domain" of the Guardianship.

The other broad category of questions you raise involves the extent to which Baha'i institutions are answerable to their constituencies. As you rightly point out, this is a feature of democracy. It is, however, also a feature that, as Shoghi Effendi notes, is specifically excluded from Baha'i practice. From that same letter I quoted above:

Quote:

This new-born Administrative Order incorporates within its structure certain elements which are to be found in each of the three recognized forms of secular government, without being in any sense a mere replica of any one of them, and without introducing within its machinery any of the objectionable features which they inherently possess. It blends and harmonizes, as no government fashioned by mortal hands has as yet accomplished, the salutary truths which each of these systems undoubtedly contains without vitiating the integrity of those God-given verities on which it is ultimately founded.

The Administrative Order of the Faith of Bahá'u'lláh must in no wise be regarded as purely democratic in character inasmuch as the basic assumption which requires all democracies to depend fundamentally upon getting their mandate from the people is altogether lacking in this Dispensation. In the conduct of the administrative affairs of the Faith, in the enactment of the legislation necessary to supplement the laws of the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, the members of the Universal House of Justice, it should be borne in mind, are not, as Bahá'u'lláh's utterances clearly imply, responsible to those whom they represent, nor are they allowed to be governed by the feelings, the general opinion, and even the convictions of the mass of the faithful, or of those who directly elect them. They are to follow, in a prayerful attitude, the dictates and promptings of their conscience. They may, indeed they must, acquaint themselves with the conditions prevailing among the community, must weigh dispassionately in their minds the merits of any case presented for their consideration, but must reserve for themselves the right of an unfettered decision. "God will verily inspire them with whatsoever He willeth," is Bahá'u'lláh's incontrovertible assurance. They, and not the body of those who either directly or indirectly elect them, have thus been made the recipients of the divine guidance which is at once the life-blood and ultimate safeguard of this Revelation.

Those of us who have grown up within, and have been taught the values of, western democracy might think this a rather strange collection of affairs. How do we have institutions whose membership is elected, yet whose members do not answer to those who elect them? It would seem that the one is part-and-parcel of the other.

I think the answer to that question involves separating democratic theory from democratic practice. According to democratic theory, the views of the people have equal currency regardless of their actual constituency. In democratic practice, however, the weight that is given to the views of any particular constituency is directly proportional to the extent to which that constituency can ensure that anyone can get elected to office. In practice, democracy often devolves into a free-for-all competition between special interests.

Whether or not this free-for-all competition between special interests is a necessary evil to be accepted in an attempt to avoid the exercise of dictatorial authority is a question that's likely open to debate. The terms of that debate, however, hinge on whether or not the mere fact that officials are elected to positions of authority is sufficient to avoid the exercise of dictatorial authority. For Political Science buffs, I would suggest that this is a rather interesting question, but it's probably not a question we should be debating in this forum.

This does, however, delineate the relationship between individuals and institutions within the Baha'i Faith. The freedom of individuals to express their opinions is upheld, but individuals, in the expression of their views, must remain mindful of the fact that members of elected institutions are obligated, by the authoritative texts of our faith, to act according to the dictates of their conscience. The spark of truth comes from the clash of ideas, not the clash of competing interests.

It is in this context, i.e. the context of Baha'i consultation, that Baha'is are called upon to exercise what might be characterised as a "refined" form of conduct in the relationship between individuals and our institutions. This might, or might not, constitute a "better" form of relationship between an individual and the institutions of governance. It is, however, the the relationship Baha'is are striving to achieve. An oft-quoted statement of Shoghi Effendi's is:

Quote:

Nothing short of the spirit of a true Baha'i can hope to reconcile the principles of mercy and justice, of freedom and submission, of the sanctity of the right of the individual and of self-surrender, of vigilance, discretion and prudence on the one hand, and fellowship, candour, and courage on the other.

Lastly, since I've pointed to the distiction between theory and practice in democracy, it's entirely legitimate to ask whether or not there is a similar difference between the theory and practice of Baha'i Administration. This one is difficult to answer, because there are certainly times when we've fallen short of the ideal expressed above.

When comparing the practice of Baha'i Administration with the practice of most western democracies, the reasons for any difference between theory and practice are not the same. In Baha'i Administration, the reason for the difference between theory and practice arises, because we Baha'is, as imperfect human beings, fail to live up to a difficult standard (or, at least, a standard that's difficult to achieve given assumptions prevalent in the society around us). In western democracies, the difference between theory and practice is ingrained in the design of the system. There is no real standard of conduct, outside of prohibitions on such things as fraud and bribery, that individuals must exercise in relation to the institutions of governance. And, arguably, the whole process of campaigning and electioneering might well be seen as nothing more than a legitimized form of bribery through campaign contributions.

In Baha'i Administration, we humans, with all our frailties and present-day immaturity, are the flaw. In western democracy, the system itself is flawed. This, at least, is my view, though I will readily admit that other views are as valid as mine. Political Science, while it can shed some light on these issues, has yet to advance to the point where it can provide definitive answers regarding some of the more subtle distinctions between Baha'i Administration and western democracy.

I think I'll stop now. My apologies for having been so verbose, but, faced with a choice between being succinct and being thorough, I felt it better to strive for the latter. Again, if there is an issue I've failed to address, please reiterate the question.

BruceDLimber · 11-06-2005, 04:34 PM

Greetings again! :-)

Quote:

Originally Posted by I, Brian

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

In fact, the way we express it is that the basic criterion is whether one accepts that Baha'u'llah is Who He says He is, i.e., the Messenger of God for this day.

If one accepts this (the sine qua non if you like), everything else then follows automatically.

(BTW, you might want to contact the Baha'is in your area and attend a fireside <informal informational meeting> or two: these might do wonders at clearing up a bunch of your impressions! I'm sure they'd also be happy to provide you with the "Baha'is" magazine, which is an excellent illustrated overview of the Faith. <I can't tell you how otherwise to get it there, but in the US it's available by phoning 800-22-UNITE, clearly not an option for you.>)

Best,

Bruce

I, Brian · 11-06-2005, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PrimaVera

The second feature of this context is the limitations on the authority of the Universal House of Justice, in particular the fact that the Universal House of Justice has no authority to establish Baha'i doctrine. The Universal House of Justice legislates, has the authority to resolve matters that have caused differences within the community and administers the affairs of the Faith.

What, then, are the limitations, if any, on the exercise of individual conscience (which, I believe, gets to the heart of your questions)? In the absence of an interpretation by `Abdu'l-Baha or Shoghi Effendi, Baha'is a free to believe whatever we wish, just so long as we are clear that our statements of belief are personal and not necessarily universal to all Baha'is.

Thank you for your detailed reply, PrimaVera - much appreciated.

It looks like I've certainly misunderstood something of the role of the UHJ - so it's more a case of it existing in guardianship to preserve the existing interpretations??

As for the political/social structure - I have to say, I still find this an issue of concern, because of the lack of general accountability. I don't deny that Baha'is come across as sincere in their faith, but you only have to look to the mediaeval Papacy to see how significant political control attracts a Machiavellian character.

In which case, if we were to presume that the Baha'i faith grows larger and more influential, are there any practical safeguards in place to ensure that outwardly-devout but selfishly motivated individuals cannot take the reigns of the Baha'i movement and exploit it for themselves?

I believe the issue was raised a long time ago and some measure of barriers were in place so that such a measure of corruption would have to be more communal than individual - but as a general point of discussion, how would Baha'is here see their faith as standing against the same political corruption that seems to infect any powerful social group? Or is it more a case of having the best structures you believe you can use, and simply letting the momentum of faith and expansion test them?

Popeyesays · 11-06-2005, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Perhaps a quick outline of how the elections in the faith work might help.

Every year on the First Day of Ridvan communities meet together to hold elections for a Local Spiritual Assembly. There must be at least nine Baha`i's in the community in good standing, of 21 years of age or older to form an assembly. Where there are exactly nine adults, they form by joint resolution - an election isn't necessary.

Nineteen days before the election a call for the election must be delivered by hand or mail to every adult in the community. It announces the time and place for the election, and gives a list of all adults known to be in the community. envelopes to provide mail in secret ballots are provided

At the election members note if anyone is to be added or deleted from the list (due to moving in or out of the community).

Then with absolutely no nomination or discussion of individuals each member votes for the nine individuals he prayerfully decides best fulfill the requirements for service on the assembly and writes those names on the ballot.

All ballots are gathered, the mail-in ballots are taken out of their mailing envelopes and the envelopes without marking are included in the ballots from those present and at least two tellers count the votes for each individual.
Those nine with the most votes are elected to serve. It may be necessary to hold a tie=breaker to fill the ninth seat.

If a woman is tied with a man, the woman is seated without a tie-breaker. If an ethnic minority within the community is tied, the ethnic minority member is elected without run-off.

On the Day of the Covenant each year in the U.S. every Local Spiritual Assembly in the states within one of the regions defined by Abdu'l Baha meet to elect a Regional Council. No nominations, no disccussion.

On the first Sunday of October, Baha`i's in electoral units meet to elect a delegate to the national convention (177 delegates are elected from around the U.S.) and they elect in the same way a National Spiritual Assembly.

Every fifth Ridvan, the National Spiritual Assemblies from around the world meet at the World Center and elect the Universal House of Justice in the same manner.

So it is not "democracy" in the common sense of the word. Neither is the government of the U.S. or the U.K.. It is representative democracy, or a "republic" in a sense.

There are no factions allowed, because anyone "campaigning" will be stopped from doing so, and no nominations means that everyone is alone with their own conscience and reason when they vote, and there are no single names on a ballot.

If the electorate is displeased with someone's performance, it is unlikely they will be voted back into office the next time.

Service on Baha`i institutions is a lot of work. No member of an assembly or the House has the slightest bit of authority while that body is not in session, in fact only the body has any authority.

Any member of the faith can at anytime appeal a decision up the chain, or ask any of the bodies in the chain to re-consider a decision. The body has no authority to interpret the writings. The House has the authority to legislate when a matter is NOT included in the writings and the House may over-rule itself at a later time.

Local, regional and national assemblies are not infallible. If they act in unanymity, they are promised that their decisions will cause no lasting harm.
The House is considered infallible in their legislative decisions )noting that they can still change their minds in the future) and guided in their decisions concerning individuals and Baha`i communities.

If one takes a matter up the chain he should resolve that whatever the decision might be, that individual will accept it and preserve the unity of the faith.

""There is no objection in principle to an Assembly being re-elected whether in toto or in part, provided the members are considered to be well qualified for that post. It is individual merit that counts. Novelty, or the mere act of renewal of elections, are purely secondary considerations. Changes in Assembly membership would be welcome so far as they do not prejudice the quality of such membership. Once Assembly elections are over, the results should be conscientiously and unquestionably accepted by the entire body of the believers, not necessarily because they represent the Voice of Truth, or the Will of Bahá'u'lláh, but for the supreme purpose of maintaining unity and harmony in the community."
(Shoghi Effendi, Directives from the Guardian, p. 23)

As to political elections:
"37 CIVIL ELECTIONS (Voting in)
"...No Bahá'í vote for an officer, no Bahá'í participation in the affairs of the Republic, shall involve acceptance of a program or policy that contravenes any vital principle, spiritual or social, of the Faith.
"...No vote cast, or office undertaken, by a Bahá'í should necessarily constitute acceptance, by the voter or office holder, of the entire program of any political party. No Bahá'í can be regarded as either a Republican or Democrat, as such. He is above all else, the supporter of the principles enunciated by Bahá'u'lláh, with which, I am firmly convinced, the program of no political party is completely harmonious."
(Shoghi Effendi, Directives from the Guardian, p. 13)

This final thought:
"Let us recall His explicit and often-repeated assurance that every Assembly elected in that rarified atmosphere of selflessness and detachment is in truth, appointed of God, that its verdict is truly inspired, that one and all should submit to its decision unreservedly and with cheerfulness ... the elector ... is called upon to vote for none but those whom prayer and reflection have inspired him to uphold... Hence it is incumbent upon the chosen delegates to consider without the least trace of passion and prejudice, and irrespective of any material consideration, the names of only those who can best combine the necessary qualities of unquestioned loyalty, of selfless devotion, of a well-trained mind, of recognized ability and mature experience... Nothing short of the all-encompassing, all-pervading power of His Guidance and Love can enable this newly enfolded order to gather strength and flourish amid the storm and stress of a turbulent age, and in the fullness of time vindicate its high claim to be universally recognized as the one Haven of abiding felicity and peace."
(Shoghi Effendi, Directives from the Guardian, p. 24)

PrimaVera · 11-06-2005, 06:32 PM

Brian,

Quote:

Originally Posted by I, Brian

It looks like I've certainly misunderstood something of the role of the UHJ - so it's more a case of it existing in guardianship to preserve the existing interpretations??

First, I wouldn't use the word "guardianship" in describing the role of the Universal House of Justice, because the Baha'i Faith has an institution of the Guardianship that is distinct from the Universal House of Justice. Second, the Universal House of Justice's role is more accurately described as preserving the unity of the Faith and integrity of the teachings.

Think about your favorite piece of music. There is a diversity of instrumental "voices", and each contributes to the overall harmony and beauty of the music. However, that harmony and beauty is destroyed when any of those voices strays outside the framework of the piece of music. This is as true in improvisational jazz, where musical freedom of expression reaches its maximum, as it is in, say, classical music where every instrument is significantly constrained by the notes on the page.

The role of the Universal House of Justice is best thought of as being analogous to that of a conductor or band leader.

Quote:

In which case, if we were to presume that the Baha'i faith grows larger and more influential, are there any practical safeguards in place to ensure that outwardly-devout but selfishly motivated individuals cannot take the reigns of the Baha'i movement and exploit it for themselves?

Scott has already posted a description of the electoral process. In particular the absence of any electioneering or nominations in the process and the strict prohibition of any collusion on the part of electors make it exceedingly difficult for anyone who aspires to hold office out of selfish motivation to ever get elected in the first place. So long as electors fulfill their responsibility to become fully acquainted with the character of those we elect, this acts as a rather powerful safeguard.

Is it still possible for certain individuals to obscure their selfish aims? Absolutely. Then again, as nine individuals are elected to an institution, the real issue is whether or not a majority of those nine can adequately conceal their selfish motives and combine their efforts to form a cabal within a spiritual assembly.

At present, this sort of thing has far greater potential to happen at the local level than at other levels, but that's primarily due to the size of local communities. Very few have more than 15 or 20 adult Baha'is, so the opportunity to oust such a cabal at the next election can be rather limited. So, there is a certain extent to which we need to grow into this system.

Lastly, there are some detractors who have asserted that there are practices within the Baha'i community that serve as a form of nominational process. For example, elected institutions often appoint various committees to assist in the work, and these appointments, as the claim goes, serve to "nominate" the appointees in upcoming elections. I would assert, however, that service on a committee offers a way for individuals in the community to become acquainted with the character of those who are appointed to committees, and has as much potential to show someone's disqualifications for elected office as it has to show someone's qualifications. I do know that, within the community, appointment to any committee has never been viewed as a "nomination" per se.

Popeyesays · 11-06-2005, 07:00 PM

I'd like to repost one thing from the Shoghi Effendi quote and elaborate on it just a bit:

"Nothing short of the all-encompassing, all-pervading power of His Guidance and Love can enable this newly enfolded order to gather strength and flourish amid the storm and stress of a turbulent age, and in the fullness of time vindicate its high claim to be universally recognized as the one Haven of abiding felicity and peace."
(Shoghi Effendi, Directives from the Guardian, p. 24)

Again, clearly, time is the issue - the fullness of time to be exact. None of the claims of the Baha`i Faith about the administrative order's role in the advancement of civilization is proven as yet, by time. I doubt it will be proven in the next 100 years fully, but I do believe it will slowly unfold and in the future each stage of its unfoldment will be obvious to the eye. Why worry about it? For those who are uncomfortable with the faith today, they can accept that time will tell and prove it false.

If its not false, then nothing anyone can do will impede it. Such is the will of God that it cannot be forestalled, prevented, thwarted or ignored.

We believe that this is a "new order" for civilization. We believe that the old order is failing before our eyes, and also believe that the new order is being built at the same time. When the dust settles, and the panic fades mankind will find it revealed before their eyes as proof that Jesus' words were true: "I will not leave you alone."

Regards,
Scott

BruceDLimber · 11-06-2005, 09:31 PM

Hi!

One addendum to all the info Scott posted for you:

Please note that election of the new National Spiritual Assembly is NOT limited to only those serving as delegates (IOW, any adult Baha'i in the country can be elected)! The same is true of Regional Councils and the House: none of these are limited only to those voting.

Regards, :-)

Bruce

lunamoth · 11-06-2005, 09:53 PM

Hi All, It seems that a lot of water has passed under the bridge since I last visited this thread (not that long ago!). First thank you to all who provided detailed replies to my concerns. There are a couple of points I would like to comment on, but I certainly do not have the desire (or stamina) to continue much longer in this vein. I'm hoping to achieve clarity on these issues, even if not agreement, and I think I have made progress in this endeavor.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

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.

And there is the rub. I can't think of anyone as being committed to being gay any more than I can think of myself as being committed to being female and heterosexual. It only becomes an issue when others make it so. I know a vast number of people disagree with me, maybe the vast majority, but I don't think it is a choice. I don't see homosexuality as a threat to society, especially not when it is expressed in a manner as chaste as any married heterosexual couple.

Quote:

I think an individual teaching the faith should be up-front about it.

I totally agree. I think what irritates me the most is when Baha'is downplay these issues, acting as if they are not important.

Quote:

"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)

I love this quote, as I love many of the words of Baha'u'llah. I think this is a justice issue.

peace to you,
lunamoth

lunamoth · 11-06-2005, 10:22 PM

Hi PrimaVera (from the Santana song, right?), thank you for your replies. I guess I am handicapped here by being something of a concrete thinker. But, I appreciate the effort you have made to clarify things for me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PrimaVera

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.

I was not saying a Baha'i can not discuss things outside of the institutions, but referring to my understanding that a Baha'i who questions the actions of the Assemblies or UHJ can only then go to those same authorities to voice their concerns. And they are essentially alone in that process. But, I have not read Susan Manecks letters.

Quote:

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.

I did not say anyone was required to out homosexuals, and I know that there is no basis for this in the writings of Baha'u'llah. It's not that it is so much a requirement, but there must be a bit of fuzziness about the issue in the minds of the general memebership, or at least this is the impression I was left with from the discussions I read over at Planet Baha'i.

Quote:

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.

I do understand this point, I did not misrepresent it, I disagree that non-violent civil disobedience is prohibited from God's people, I think non-violent civil disobedience has been one of the major tools of positive reform in many of the areas Baha'is, like Christians, advocate. I think it is admirable but ironic that Baha'is hold in such high esteem heros such as Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks, and Sojourner Truth. I beleive that Baha'is claim Tolstoy was an admirer of the Baha'i Faith of his day, yet he was the father of non-violent civil disobedience (after Christ, that is).

Quote:

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 also accepted those reasons for prepublication review, in light of the off-the-wall stuff I've read online by alternative Baha'i Sects, I can see why the Baha'i Faith would not want to be associated with some of those ideas. But, freedom of expression is also an important part transparency and accountablity. I think within its own domain it is reasonable to ensure that what is said actually represents what the Faith stands for, but I'm not so sure that scholarly works by Baha'is should fall into this catagory. On this forum I think the COC is great to ensure respectful dialogue, things published in the name of the Baha'i Faith should certainly reflect what the Faith really is as you see it, but to require review of scholarly work submitted to secular publications, that goes past the point, in my opinion. I also think it undermines the credibility of the Faith, but again that is just my opinion.

Quote:

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.

Hey, I agree with you here. I also am speaking about justice.

peace,
lunamoth

lunamoth · 11-06-2005, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

Hi Bruce, I appreciate your enthusiasm but I have to say that I posted those excerpts from the writings specifically because you keep saying that the Baha'i Administrative Order is democratic and accountable to those who elect it, but it is not.

peace,
lunamoth

smkolins · 11-07-2005, 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lunamoth

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

This is an error. There can be no substantiation of this point of view. Homosexuality is not automatically a reason for anything. Being a formenter of discord is.

smkolins · 11-07-2005, 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PrimaVera

Bahiyyih Nakhjavani discusses many of these issues at length in her book, Asking Questions: A Challenge to Fundamentalism.

"This is a personal exploration of Baha'í history in essay form. Questions about scholarship, priest craft, fear, freedom, women, law and the nature of fundamentalism are explored. This is undoubtedly a valuable tool for all who are concerned with the impact of fundamentalist thought."

I also like _Consultation_ by John Kolstoe.

"This book is about the Baha'i method of decision-making -- consultation. With the support of quotations from the Baha'i Sacred Writings, the author examines questions such as
* what consultation is
* how to consult
* why people see things differently, and how consultation can turn these differences into strengths
* how to cope with difficulties in consultation
* the role of consultation in the development of the Baha'i community and the emergence of the World Order of Baha'u'llah
* how consultation can be used . . .
. . . by Spiritual Assemblies
. . . in families
. . . in Nineteen Day Feasts
. . . in Summer Schools and Conventions
. . . in social life
. . . in business and professional affairs
. . . between individuals
. . . and to solve personal problems"

The democratic qualities of voting and discussion are among the first many people have had throughout the world when they become Baha'is, and participate in Baha'i institutions.

smkolins · 11-07-2005, 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Hi Bruce, I appreciate your enthusiasm but I have to say that I posted those excerpts from the writings specifically because you keep saying that the Baha'i Administrative Order is democratic and accountable to those who elect it, but it is not.

peace,
lunamoth

It is accountable in the sense that members of elected, and relected, and don't have to keep office for any reason. But decisions made by institutions are not dependent on crowd dynamics or individuals who beleive they know better. If a decision is made in error and attacked you cannot destinguish easily between that error and the disruption of undercutting the process of making decisions.

Popeyesays · 11-07-2005, 12:35 AM

Susan Maneck's letters and much of her academic work can be found at her website: http://www.bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/

smkolins · 11-07-2005, 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I, Brian

In which case, if we were to presume that the Baha'i faith grows larger and more influential, are there any practical safeguards in place to ensure that outwardly-devout but selfishly motivated individuals cannot take the reigns of the Baha'i movement and exploit it for themselves?

I believe the issue was raised a long time ago and some measure of barriers were in place so that such a measure of corruption would have to be more communal than individual - but as a general point of discussion, how would Baha'is here see their faith as standing against the same political corruption that seems to infect any powerful social group? Or is it more a case of having the best structures you believe you can use, and simply letting the momentum of faith and expansion test them?

Safeguards...

First, the system was designed by the Founder. If the Founder was good enough to outline the moral imperitives and model of life and chose to establish the outline and details of the administrative structures Baha'is have then that is the basis of the matter. Additionally, having our scripture pass the highest standards of accuracy will preserve them from biased translations.

In terms of issues that apply to "communal corruption" - one is the difference between cultural norms and spiritual values. Having substantial populations of Baha'is in literally thousands of cultures, and invested in authentic development of those cultures rather than in paving them over with norms from another culture, sure counts as a big issue?

Being nonpartison is in fact crucial to that very process of cultural development - it causes Baha'is to weigh the issues themselves, and participate authentically, rather than move with the crowd one way or the other. Baha'is lived in apartheid South Africa - obeying the law, and yet compromising the spiritual bankruptsy of the standards. Baha'is lived in apartied America and at the very first State dinner hosted for Baha'is, the example was set by putting an African American not only into the party but at the head table on the right hand of the guest of honor and was elaborated by a process of Race Amity conferences in the 20's to 50's when the Baha'i population accounted perhaps only a few thousand.

Challenging Baha'is of dominant or obscure cultures is part-and-parcel of being a Baha'i. We have something called the "Double Crucade". Speaking to the American community Shoghi Effendi said:

"Great as is my love and admiration for you, convinced as I am of the paramount share which you can, and will, undoubtedly have in both the continental and international spheres of future Bahá'í activity and service, I feel it nevertheless incumbent upon me to utter, at this juncture, a word of warning....

How often have the Prophets of God, not excepting Bahá'u'lláh Himself, chosen to appear, and deliver their Message in countries and amidst peoples and races, at a time when they were either fast declining, or had already touched the lowest depths of moral and spiritual degradation....

To contend that the innate worthiness, the high moral standard, the political aptitude, and social attainments of any race or nation is the reason for the appearance in its midst of any of these Divine Luminaries would be an absolute perversion of historical facts, and would amount to a complete repudiation of the undoubted interpretation placed upon them, so clearly and emphatically, by both Bahá'u'lláh and `Abdu'l-Bahá....

In the light of this fundamental principle it should always be borne in mind, nor can it be sufficiently emphasized, that the primary reason why the Báb and Bahá'u'lláh chose to appear in Persia, and to make it the first repository of their Revelation, was because, of all the peoples and nations of the civilized world, that race and nation had, as so often depicted by `Abdu'l-Bahá, sunk to such ignominious depths, and manifested so great a perversity, as to find no parallel among its contemporaries....

To a lesser degree this principle must of necessity apply to the country which has vindicated its right to be regarded as the cradle of the World Order of Bahá'u'lláh(America, see below). So great a function, so noble a role, can be regarded as no less inferior to the part played by those immortal souls who, through their sublime renunciation and unparalleled deeds, have been responsible for the birth of the Faith itself. Let not, therefore, those who are to participate so predominantly in the birth of that world civilization, which is the direct offspring of their Faith, imagine for a moment that for some mysterious purpose or by any reason of inherent excellence or special merit Bahá'u'lláh has chosen to confer upon their country and people so great and lasting a distinction. It is precisely by reason of the patent evils which, notwithstanding its other admittedly great characteristics and achievements, an excessive and binding materialism has unfortunately engendered within it that the Author of their Faith and the Center of His Covenant have singled it out to become the standard-bearer of the New World Order envisaged in their writings....

Dearly beloved friends! A rectitude of conduct which, in all its manifestations, offers a striking contrast to the deceitfulness and corruption that characterize the political life of the nation and of the parties and factions that compose it; a holiness and chastity that are diametrically opposed to the moral laxity and licentiousness which defile the character of a not inconsiderable proportion of its citizens; an interracial fellowship completely purged from the curse of racial prejudice which stigmatizes the vast majority of its people--these are the weapons which the American believers can and must wield in their double crusade, first to regenerate the inward life of their own community, and next to assail the long-standing evils that have entrenched themselves in the life of their nation...."

Of course the whole quote, indeed the whole of the Guardian's guidance, is far more sweeping and detailed than this summary.