Baha'is and politics

[PrimaVera]

Luna,

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Hi PrimaVera (from the Santana song, right?)

That's correct. The song was written by K. C. Porter, who is a Baha'i. It's my favorite song on the album, and that's not because a Baha'i wrote it.

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.

I think the line is actually not quite that stark. As I'd said, it is no mere platitude that one of the months of the Badi calendar is named "Questions." It's entirely possible for the wisdom of a decision of any institution to elude me, and I'm also completely free to say that the wisdom of a decision eludes me. What we wish to avoid is the almost vulgar denunciations that permeate political discourse in the United States--the kind of thing you hear on AM talk radio from either side of the political fence.

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.

To be perfectly honest, I have no idea what the thoughts are among the general membership. I'm sure we all have anecdotal evidence, but anecdotal evidence never makes for good social science.

I disagree that non-violent civil disobedience is prohibited from God's people

The Baha'i writings, however, are quite clear. There is little room for disagreement as to what the Baha'i Faith teaches, even if one doesn't agree with the teaching itself.

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.

Is it possible to admire someone even if you don't agree entirely with the methods they chose?

I also accepted those reasons for prepublication review... but I'm not so sure that scholarly works by Baha'is should fall into this catagory.

If you wish to say that the wisdom of applying pre-publication review to scholarly works eludes you, then I think I can say we are in agreement. It eludes me as well. I will not, however, agitate for change, as I believe such behavior to be contrary to Baha'u'llah's Will. Conflict and contention, in and of themselves, cause more harm than the issues about which we often contend with each other.

There are bound to be issues regarding the administration of community affairs where reasonable people might well disagree. I think this is one of them. At some point, however, we have to respect the decisions of those vested with the authority to make such decisions. I suspect, though I can't say for certain, that the agitation of some scholars (not all I should point out) aimed at changing this policy has only served to prolong the period during which it will be in force.

[lunamoth]

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

Apparently I have misunderstood or mis-remembered Steven's point in my statement here, for which I sincerely apologize.

Yours,
lunamoth

[PrimaVera]

Dear Steven,

Originally Posted by smkolins

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.

As much as I'd hate to disagree with one of my colleagues, and a fellow Mac user to boot, I think this is a distinctly uncompelling line of reasoning to a non-Baha'i. A part of the issue is what happens to religious minorities within a society whose governance is patterned after Baha'i Administration.

Having said that, the particular selection you quoted from The Advent of Divine Justice is a powerful discource. I'm reminded of Shoghi Effendi's statement, in one of the letters published in Baha'i Administration, regerding "the extent to which our own inner life and private character mirror forth in their manifold aspects the splendor of those eternal principles proclaimed by Bahá'u'lláh."

Justice is about doing the right thing even when nobody's looking.

[smkolins]

Originally Posted by PrimaVera

If you wish to say that the wisdom of applying pre-publication review to scholarly works eludes you, then I think I can say we are in agreement. It eludes me as well. I will not, however, agitate for change, as I believe such behavior to be contrary to Baha'u'llah's Will. Conflict and contention, in and of themselves, cause more harm than the issues about which we often contend with each other.

There are bound to be issues regarding the administration of community affairs where reasonable people might well disagree. I think this is one of them. At some point, however, we have to respect the decisions of those vested with the authority to make such decisions. I suspect, though I can't say for certain, that the agitation of some scholars (not all I should point out) aimed at changing this policy has only served to prolong the period during which it will be in force.

I also see some support for the question - but I also see significant arguments against un-reviewed publishing. Quotes have a way of wandering. No one is likely to cross reference and quote most posts in places like this. But the more "published" the situation the more review it should have. A curious case, for those interested, is the Wikipedia article on the Baha'i Faith. It cannot be reviewed but is highly quoted. In months passed this forum has born witness to argumentation over obscure references based on questionable sources. "Questionable" means able to be questioned, while the circumstances precluded the expertise, time, and civility, to review the questionable sources, which were instead being bandied about. Delving into such details simply throws more dust in the air. I was researching an obscure quote not too long ago and tripped across an unbeleivable citation by a speech analysis of Khomeini.

It is a sad thing, I'm sure, when actual quotes from divine scripture are used to justify humanities lowest moments. Somehow God feels it the right thing to do never the less. There is no alterntative source afterall when it comes down right to it. But for papers and such, there can always be another time, place, and circumstance, for saying something.

"Not everything that a man knoweth can be disclosed, nor can everything that he can disclose be regarded as timely, nor can every timely utterance be considered as suited to the capacity of those who hear it."

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by smkolins

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.

Homosexuality is regarded in the Baha'i writings as an affliction. Continuence in a homosexual relationship can elicit sanctions. The writings supporting this impression have already been posted in this forum.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by PrimaVera

Justice is about doing the right thing even when nobody's looking.

I'd say that that is integrity. Justice is doing the right thing even when everybody is looking, and disagrees.

my 2 c,
lunamoth

[PrimaVera]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

I'd say that that is integrity. Justice is doing the right thing even when everybody is looking, and disagrees.

Interesting. I'm inclined to think exactly the opposite.

I don't know that it really matters, though. I doubt that it's possible to have justice without integrity or to have integrity without justice.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by PrimaVera

Interesting. I'm inclined to think exactly the opposite.

I don't know that it really matters, though. I doubt that it's possible to have justice without integrity or to have integrity without justice.

Hmmm, yes. Seems that justice can be difficult to pin down, perhaps would change depending upon who is being the judge. Mercy and compassion are much safer bets, spiritually.

yours,
luna

[BruceDLimber]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

PrimaVera (from the Santana song, right

Indeed!

As a matter of fact, on this summer's Voices of Baha choir tour across the Caribbean, we performed "PrimaVera" (in Spanish) with its Baha'i composer, K. C. Porter, who's the one who sang it on Santana's Supernatural album! :-) :-)

Best,

Bruce

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings!

Originally Posted by lunamoth

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.

It is democratically elected, which is how I generally describe it.

And I'm well aware that it is NOT accountable to its electors and therefore never say this! So wherever you noticed that, it wasn't from me.

Peace,

Bruce

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings yet again! :-)

Originally Posted by lunamoth

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.

In fact, this isn't the case.

While it is recommended that a Baha'i with such a concern consult with the Assembly in question, this is not mandatory. A Baha'i is perfectly free, if she so chooses, to go to another assembly, or even to the next higher level instead!

Originally Posted by lunamoth

... to require review of scholarly work submitted to secular publications, that goes past the point, in my opinion.

This is a non-issue: purely academic works are not ordinarily subject to review (such as if you write a paper on the French Revolution or on DNA reproduction>.

It's only when a publication deals with the Baha'i Faith itself that it's reviewed....

Regards,

Bruce

[BruceDLimber]

Originally Posted by PrimaVera

A part of the issue is what happens to religious minorities within a society whose governance is patterned after Baha'i Administration.

Justice is about doing the right thing even when nobody's looking.

So?

To my knowledge this has not been a problem, and indeed, IME minorities are both cherished and protected by Baha'i communities.

If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd be most interested to see it!

Otherwise, I put it to you that this is a mere hypothetical.

And as a wise person once said, "Given a choice between a real evil and a hypothetical one, always choose the hypothetical one!"

Peace,

Bruce

[arthra]

I'm going to break my self imposed silence here to share a few points....

The original topic of this thread was the Baha'i principle of non-partisanship, not issues of homosexuality or the Baha'i administrative order...or prepublication review. Each of which should really be discussed I think in their proper spheres.

So I think the topic has largely been ignored..

The Baha'i principle of non-partisanship:

But I do feel that what is important to remember about Baha'is is the premium we place on unity...and this is the reason we are non-partisan.

Years ago I was a Baha'i during the Vietnam War, a war which bitterly divided the people of the United States. Baha'is remained united however for the most part I think for two reasons... We were non-partisan and as to particpation in the war we were non-combatants , which is another Baha'i principle. But in my community I probably would never have worked with a fellow Baha'i who was probably my opposite in political leanings and culture...but it worked! We sublimated our differences acknowledging that the unity of the Faith was more important.

So Baha'is are non-partisan and do not encourage partisanship or campaigning.

____________________________

Regarding Baha'i administration:

Lunamoth shared a very valuable quote from the writings of the Guardian of the Baha'i Faith earlier which I also think is important to remember about Baha'i Administration:

"Neither in theory nor in practice can the Administrative Order of the Faith of Bahá'u'lláh be said to conform to any type of democratic government, to any system of autocracy, to any purely aristocratic order, or to any of the various theocracies, whether Jewish, Christian or Islamic which mankind has witnessed in the past. It incorporates within its structure certain elements which are to be found in each of the three recognized forms of secular government, is devoid of the defects which each of them inherently possesses, and blends the salutary truths which each undoubtedly contains without vitiating in any way the integrity of the Divine verities on which it is essentially founded."

It's important to understand that Baha'is are in the process of building this Order and that the model for it does "not conform" to previous institutions but incorporates elements from democracy so it is not what some believe it should be to them especially looking at it from the outside.

Shoghi Effendi with Horace Holley and others reared this administrative order so these writings are comparable to democrats who refer and defer to Thomas Jefferson or Locke.

___________________________

Dis-integration of modern society:

I think for some who view our Faith from the outside they have already decided to separate the sphere of religion from other areas of life...like politics or science or daily life..but Baha'is are uniting these areas so for us religion is not apart really and fundamentally from politics or daily life. The deeper issue is I think that for many in modern society there has been a divorce or fragmentation between these spheres (politics, religion, science and issues of daily living) and this I think is a symptom of the lack of integration and unity of modern life and probably why people generally feel helpless and fragmented themselves. Emile Durkheim the well-known French sociologist called this condition of modern life "anomie" or a vacuum or absence of values that he studied in urban society.

- Art

[Popeyesays]

There is some interesting reading to be found in statements by the Baha`i Faith presented to the UN, the WOrld Peace Summit, etc.
World Peace statement: http://info.bahai.org/article-1-1-2-2.html
The statement to the first meeting of the UN (at the time of the Nuremburg Tribunals) which largely forms the UN statement on human rights: http://statements.bahai.org/47-0200.htm
Document tothe World Conference on Prejudice and racism, an offical UN document:
http://statements.bahai.org/01-0831.htm

Regards,
Scott

[smkolins]

Originally Posted by PrimaVera

Dear Steven,



As much as I'd hate to disagree with one of my colleagues, and a fellow Mac user to boot, I think this is a distinctly uncompelling line of reasoning to a non-Baha'i. A part of the issue is what happens to religious minorities within a society whose governance is patterned after Baha'i Administration.

Which I got to in another section.

Well I don't disagree that others might not find these details especially moving - but to me this speaks elementally to the problem - others have lost faith in their own systems, and in fair measure some of the weaknesses of those systems as that they were specifically not designed by the Founder's of the Faiths.