Baha'is and politics

[smkolins]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

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.

Having an inclination is miles different from acting on it: the sin and the sinner.

But even the sin is in a scale of sins. Murder and backbiting are presented as far far more serious afflictions. Drug addiction, smoking and drinking are also afflictions. A person can have far more serious spiritual concerns than homosexuality, even within the context of the Baha'i Teachings.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by smkolins

Having an inclination is miles different from acting on it: the sin and the sinner.

But even the sin is in a scale of sins. Murder and backbiting are presented as far far more serious afflictions. Drug addiction, smoking and drinking are also afflictions. A person can have far more serious spiritual concerns than homosexuality, even within the context of the Baha'i Teachings.

And here is where the conversation would turn toward legalism vs. love and the harmony of science and religion and we could go off into all that (to Art's chagrin). I agree we are all afflicted, but my question is, how does one justify putting obstacles between the afflicted and the Divine Healer?

contrast:
But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, "This man welcomes sinners and eats with them." (Luke 15)

peace,
lunamoth

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

I agree we are all afflicted, but my question is, how does one justify putting obstacles between the afflicted and the Divine Healer?

contrast:
But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, "This man welcomes sinners and eats with them." (Luke 15)

peace,
lunamoth

I think it would be good to hear exactly what obstacle is being emplaced? How is that obstacle put in place?

I'm not asking to be argumentative, but I do need some clarification to take a shot at answering.

Regards,
Scott

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

I think it would be good to hear exactly what obstacle is being emplaced? How is that obstacle put in place?

I'm not asking to be argumentative, but I do need some clarification to take a shot at answering.

Regards,
Scott

Hi Scott,

I don't think you are being argumentative, and I hope you do not feel that I am being so. I would say that telling someone that they can no longer attend Feast, can no longer vote, can no longer give to the funds (a spiritual obligation), no longer attend the conventions, and are no longer "a Baha'i in good standing" would be a barrier between the person and Baha'u'llah, if He is considered the Divine Healer.

While no one can put anything between a person and God but that person themself, for many of us, Christians and Baha'is and many other members of organized, communal religions, being cut out from the community is quite devastating and is going to make it harder to stick with that religion and grow in faith. I have the utmost respect for Baha'is who choose and are able to abide by the Baha'i chastity laws and I do not wish to minimize their sacrifice or testimony. But I have a feeling that we just don't hear very much from those Baha'is who end up drifting away from the Faith, and possibly from faith altogether.

What is gained by imposing these sanctions?

peace,
lunamoth

[lunamoth]

Hi Scott,

Here's a personal story, not about homosexuality, not even about the Baha'i Faith, but one that I still think is relavent (not sure about my spelling, I've already packed my dictionary).

Kids are, as you know, each unique little individuals. But you can kind of make some broad generalizations, such as the observation that some kids are compliant, some are shall we say, high-spirited. I've been blessed with the high-spirited variety while I, myself am probably well within the compliant class. What you might call old-fashioned parenting styles, follow the rules or be punished, gets the job done for most kids and they will survive and grow up to be productive members of society. But the strong disciplinarian approach does not work so well with other kids, especially those challenging, high-spirited types. OK, I will get to the point here.

When my daughter chooses to disregard the rules of our house, I could punish her until the cows come home and all it would do is serve to drive her away, make her mad, make her confused, maybe even dislike herself. And I did that for a while. What she really needs when she misbehaves is a hug, a reassurance that she is loved. And a chance to make amends when she is ready. If I put her in time out she is going to tune out. I put her in time in, love her, she comes around in a much more satisfying, healthy way.

I know there are a lot of parents out there who would say What! Reward them with hugs for misbehaving! I was one of those parents myself, and still am when I'm tired and stressed. But I have found, experientially, that loving the stuffing out of them, rather that putting the fear of God into them, is the key for learning, healing and growth. Consequences of poor choices come on their own.

And, maybe by this method, or by any method, there is going to be some rule that she can never obey. But that does not mean she is not good enough, not worthy of my full love and being part of our family.

I don't know--do you see how I think this relates?

lunamoth

[lunamoth]

Art is quite right that this thread has drifted from the topic of partisan politics and the Baha'i Faith. Perhaps one of the moderators could split the posts off to start the topic of Homosexuality and the Baha'i Faith.

lunamoth

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Hi Scott,

I don't think you are being argumentative, and I hope you do not feel that I am being so. I would say that telling someone that they can no longer attend Feast, can no longer vote, can no longer give to the funds (a spiritual obligation), no longer attend the conventions, and are no longer "a Baha'i in good standing" would be a barrier between the person and Baha'u'llah, if He is considered the Divine Healer.

While no one can put anything between a person and God but that person themself, for many of us, Christians and Baha'is and many other members of organized, communal religions, being cut out from the community is quite devastating and is going to make it harder to stick with that religion and grow in faith. I have the utmost respect for Baha'is who choose and are able to abide by the Baha'i chastity laws and I do not wish to minimize their sacrifice or testimony. But I have a feeling that we just don't hear very much from those Baha'is who end up drifting away from the Faith, and possibly from faith altogether.

What is gained by imposing these sanctions?

peace,
lunamoth

Dear Luna,

Because it IS a grave step removing administrative rights is only appropriate after every other possible step has been taken.
"As he already told you in a previous communication he feels that your Assembly should not deprive people of their voting rights unless the matter is really very grave; this is a very heavy sanction, and can embitter the heart if lightly imposed, and also make people thing we unduly resort to pressure of a strong nature. The friends must be nursed and assisted, for they are still most immature spiritually, and their 'sins' are those of immaturity! Their hearts are loyal to the Cause, and this is the most important thing."
(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to the National Spiritual Assembly of India and Burma, August 2, 1946)
(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 51)

Local Assemblies cannot remove administrative rights at all. And when an assembly confers with the National Assembly the NSA is very careful to make sure that all other steps have been tanken.
"The general basis for the deprivation of voting rights is of course gross immorality and open opposition to the administrative functions of the Faith, and disregard for the laws of personal status; and even then it is the duty of the National Assembly, before exercising this sanction, to confer with the individuals involved in a loving manner to help them overcome the problems; second, to warn them that they must desist; three, to issue further warning of the original warnings are not followed; and finally, if there seems no other way to handle the matter, then a person may be deprived of voting rights.
"The Guardian however, wishes the National Assemblies to be very cautious in using this sanction, because it might be abused, and then lose its efficacy. It should be used only when there seems no other way to solve the problem."
(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 51)

I think I have said before that the removal of administrative rights is not ex-communication. "The suspension of voting and other administrative rights of an individual believer, always conditional and therefore temporary, can never have such far-reaching implications, since it constitutes merely an administrative sanction; whereas his expulsion or ex- communication from the Faith, which can be effected by the Guardian[1] alone in his capacity as the supreme spiritual head of the Community, has far-reaching spiritual implications affecting the very soul of that believer.
[1 The function of expulsion or ex-communication from the Faith is now effected by the Universal House of Justice supreme "as spiritual head of the community."]
(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 56)

No one has ever been removed from the faith because of an issue of "morality", the only thing that causes such an extreme action is when one elevates personal interpretation to be binding upon the faith as a whole - the elevation of ego above the good of the faith in general.


""While the Assembly should always be concerned about matters which might affect the good name of the Faith, it should be remembered that a believer involved in such matters is entitled to be understanding of the Assembly and may need its guidance and assistance both before and after any decision regarding sanction is made."
(From a letter of the Universal of Justice to the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States, July 16, 1969)"
(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 57)

Administrative rights do not define a person as Baha`i.
"Shoghi Effendi, in Principles of Bahá'í Administration, p. 88
A person whose administrative rights of membership in the Bahá'í community have been removed is a Bahá'í at heart if he still recognizes
Bahá'u'lláh and believes in His Revelation. Since his spiritual commitment is not in question, his continuing Bahá'í life can include worship of God through the prayers of the Báb, Bahá'u'lláh and 'Abdu'l-Bahá, and observance of the Fast, of the Bahá'í Holy Days, and of all the personal and family occasions of the Faith. He has access to the literature of the Faith and, unless specified otherwise by the National Spiritual Assembly, may attend proclamation meetings and Bahá'í school sessions that are open to the public. He may subscribe to Brilliant Star and World Order Magazine and other general publications, but he cannot receive The American Bahá'í. He cannot have a Bahá'í marriage or go on pilgrimage."

No assembly goes looking for things to discipline, that's a violation of the purpose of the administrative order.

"To regard homosexuals with prejudice and disdain would be entirely against the spirit of Bahá'í Teachings. The doors are open for all of humanity to enter the Cause of God, irrespective of their present circumstance; this invitation applies to homosexuals as well as to any others who are engaged in practices contrary to the Bahá'í Teachings. Associated with this invitation is the expectation that all believers will make a sincere and persistent effort to eradicate those aspects of their conduct which are not in conformity with Divine Law. It is through such adherence to the Bahá'í Teachings that a true and enduring unity of the diverse elements of the Bahá'í community is achieved and safeguarded.
When a person wishes to Join the Faith and it is generally known that he or she has a problem such as drinking, homosexuality, taking drugs, adultery, etc., the individual should be told in a patient and loving way of the Bahá'í Teachings on theses matters. If it is later discovered that a believer is violating Bahá'í standards, it is the duty of the Spiritual Assembly to determine whether the immoral conduct is flagrant and can bring the name of the Faith into disrepute, in which case the Assembly must take action to counsel the believer and require him or her to make every effort to mend his ways. If the individual fails to rectify his conduct in spite of repeated warnings, sanctions should be imposed. Assemblies, of course, must exercise care not to pry into the private lives of the believers to ensure that they era behaving properly, but should not hesitate to take action in cases of blatant misbehaviour.
The Spiritual Assemblies should, to a certain extent, be forbearing in the matter of people's moral conduct, such as homosexuality, in view of the terrible deterioration of society in general. The Assemblies must also bear in mind that while awareness of contemporary social and moral values may well enhance their understanding of the situation of the homosexual, the standard which they are called upon to uphold is the Bahá'í standard. A flagrant violation of this standard disgraces the Bahá'í community in its own eyes even if the surrounding society finds the transgression tolerable.
With regard to the organized network of homosexual Bahá'ís mentioned in your letter, the Universal House of Justice has instructed us to say that, while there is an appropriate role in the Bahá'í community for groups of individuals to come together to help each other to understand and to deal with certain problem situations, according to the Bahá'í Teachings there can be no place in our community for groups which actively promote a style of life that is contrary to the Teachings of the Cause. It should be understood that the homosexual tendencies of some individuals do not entitle them to an identity setting them apart from others. Such individuals share with every other Bahá'í the responsibility to adhere to the laws and principles of the Faith as well as the freedom to exercise their administrative rights.
(The Universal House of Justice, 1995 Sept 11, Homosexuality)

O apologize for the length of the quotes, but I think it is really important to go with what is expressed authoritatively when discussing HOW that authority may be proper or improper.

I understand that you came to your decision regarding the faith through a personally painful process, and I am glad that you have found a home better suited to your comfort. These decisions are always made the hard way. I believe your motivations are pure, and even though self-severed from the organized Baha`i Faith the teachings of Baha`u'llah are "written on your heart". I would happily embrace you as a sister in faith, were I ever given the actual opportunity to do so.

Regards,
Scott

[PrimaVera]

Luna,

First, yes, this has strayed off topic, but I don't think it's simply about homosexuality. It's about any law observance of which we find difficult, and I think all of us find at least one of these laws difficult to uphold.

No small consideration ought to be given to Baha'u'llah's own Words about these laws:

They whom God hath endued with insight will readily recognise that the precepts laid down by God constitute the highest means for the maintenance of order in the world and the security of its peoples. He that turneth away from them is accounted amoung the abject and the foolish. We, verily, have commanded you to refuse the dictates of your evil passions and corrupt desires, and not to transgress the bounds which the Pen of the Most High hath fixed, for these are the breath of life unto all created things. The seas of Divine wisdom and Divine utterance have risen under the breath of the breeze of the All-Merciful. Hasten to drink your fill, O men of understanding! They that have violated the Covenant of God by breaking His commandments, and have turned back on their heels, these have erred grieviously in the sight of God, the All-Possessing, the Most High.

O ye peoples of the world! Know assuredly that My commandments are the lamps of My loving providence among my servants, and the keys of My Mercy for My creatures. Thus hath it been sent down from the heaven of the Will of your Lord, the Lord of Revelation. Were any man to taste the sweetness of the words which the lips of the All-Merciful have willed to utter, he would, though the treasures of the earth be in his possession, renounce them one and all, that he might vindicate the truth of even one of His commandments, shining above the Dayspring of His bountiful care and loving-kindness.

Say: From My laws the sweet-smelling savor of My garment can be smelled, and by their aid the standards of Victory will be planted upon the highest peaks. The Tongue of My power hath, from the heaven of My omnipotent glory, addressed to My creation these words: "Observe My commandments, for the love of My beauty." Happy is the lover that hath inhaled the divine fragrance of his Best-Beloved from these words, laden with the perfume of a grace which no tongue can describe. By My life! He who hath drunk the choice wine of fairness from the hands of My bountiful favour will circle around My commandments that shine above the Dayspring of My creation.

Think not that We have revealed unto you a mere code of laws. Nay, rather, we have unsealed the choice Wine with the fingers of might and power. To this beareth witness that which the Pen of Revelation hath revealed. Meditate upon this, O men of insight.

No one complains about the law regarding parental consent before marriage, but why should continuing to maintain a homosexual relationship be treated any differently? Arguably, far more people have had painful encounters with the law regarding parental consent than have had painful encounters with any other law in the Kitab-i-Aqdas.

And, if these laws represent a "choice wine," if these laws are the "lamps of My loving providence, if they are the "keys of My Mercy for My creatures," which is the greater disservice? That people who violate those precepts should face no consequences, or that they face consequences? Do we even know what would be the consequences if administrative sanctions weren't applied?

I understand the point of your parenting story. My mother describes the balance we seek to strike as being that of a loving brick wall--that behaviors have consequences, but the existence of those consequences does not mean that we cannot lovingly guide our children through those consequences. My son knows that if he breaks one of the rules of the house, he loses time on the computer, yet, oftentimes, he and I end up reading books together in the den. He knows both that I love him, and that he will not break house rules with impunity.

The best-beloved of all things in God's sight is justice, yet one of God's attributes is the All-Merciful. Perhaps the real error is to see a contradiction between these two attributes--that it's possible to be both?

[BruceDLimber]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

I would say that telling someone that they can no longer attend Feast, can no longer vote, can no longer give to the funds (a spiritual obligation), no longer attend the conventions, and are no longer "a Baha'i in good standing" would be a barrier between the person and Baha'u'llah, if He is considered the Divine Healer.

While no one can put anything between a person and God but that person themself [sic] ...

THANK YOU for stating this!

This is PRECISELY our point!!

Please note that this CANNOT come about merely because someone is homosexual: that situation in no way removes one from the Baha'i community.

What you describe is someone WILFULLY IGNORING the Baha'i law of chastity. This is indeed not only a purely personal choice, but one equally applicable to EVERYONE, homosexual or not!

So I put it to you that you have just refuted yourself and proven our point.

Thank you for clarifying this!

As to "what is gained" by enforcing this, it's called the protection of the Faith.

Peace,

Bruce

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by BruceDLimber

THANK YOU for stating this!

This is PRECISELY our point!!

Please note that this CANNOT come about merely because someone is homosexual: that situation in no way removes one from the Baha'i community.

What you describe is someone WILFULLY IGNORING the Baha'i law of chastity. This is indeed not only a purely personal choice, but one equally applicable to EVERYONE, homosexual or not!

So I put it to you that you have just refuted yourself and proven our point.

Thank you for clarifying this!

As to "what is gained" by enforcing this, it's called the protection of the Faith.

Peace,

Bruce

Let me beat Luna to the point.

The faith does not allow homosexual marriage, so there is the appearance of inequity. A heterosexual couple, with consent, can marry when they please a homosexual couple cannot. This creates an inequity.

The faith has the right to judge cases of violation of chastity as it sees it.
Outsiders have the right to see this as an inequity.
If it acts as a blockage to an individual accepting the faith that is equivalent to any blockage at all.

The fact remains that the laws of the faith are the laws of the faith, and once accepted an individual cannot seek to change those laws for his own "special case". An individual chooses to comply, whatever the law may be, and the objective of the institutions of the faith is to ease the transition as much as it can, but only up to the limits of what is possible.

A person who chooses to declare and is living in a relationship counter to the laws of the faith (whether it be without marriage, or homosexual - or even a realtionship with alcohol, drugs, racial prejudice - whatever - should know up front. If he does not, then he should be counseled on the subject and his declaration withheld until he comes to term with the situation.

If he has trouble living up tothat contract, he needs to be lovingly counseled, warned, warned again and only when there is no other possibility should his administrative rights be withheld. This is in itself a final straw, if he can't rectify the situation his declaration should never really have been accepted, but there is no alternative.

Regards,
Scott

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by BruceDLimber

THANK YOU for stating this!

This is PRECISELY our point!!

Please note that this CANNOT come about merely because someone is homosexual: that situation in no way removes one from the Baha'i community.

What you describe is someone WILFULLY IGNORING the Baha'i law of chastity. This is indeed not only a purely personal choice, but one equally applicable to EVERYONE, homosexual or not!

So I put it to you that you have just refuted yourself and proven our point.

Thank you for clarifying this!

As to "what is gained" by enforcing this, it's called the protection of the Faith.

Peace,

Bruce

Dear Bruce, it is going to take me a while to compose myself sufficiently to answer your post in a polite and respectful manner.

But, you have also proved my point: the only justification for imposing these sanctions is to protect the good name of the Baha'i Faith. Never mind those gay Baha'is born into the Faith who will ultimately have to choose between their faith in Baha'u'llah or accepting their sexuality, a part of human life most of us take for granted.

peace,
lunamoth

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Dear Bruce, it is going to take me a while to compose myself sufficiently to answer your post in a polite and respectful manner.

But, you have also proved my point: the only justification for imposing these sanctions is to protect the good name of the Baha'i Faith. Never mind those gay Baha'is born into the Faith who will ultimately have to choose between their faith in Baha'u'llah or accepting their sexuality, a part of human life most of us take for granted.

peace,
lunamoth

Luna,
Not exactly. The Aqdas does make homosexuality unacceptable. 80-90% of the human race has no problem with accepting their sexuality within the Baha`i Faith. For much of human history homosexuality has NOT been taken for granted, that is why it has always been surreptitious and concealed.

Why did Baha`u'llah make it against spiritual law? Well, first off, because He was so instructed by God ("I reveal nothing by my own will, but by God, the Almighty"). For those uninclined to accept that line of reasoning, what is the historical context of the prohibition?

That has to be considered.

Regards,
Scott

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

Luna,
Not exactly. The Aqdas does make homosexuality unacceptable. 80-90% of the human race has no problem with accepting their sexuality within the Baha`i Faith. For much of human history homosexuality has NOT been taken for granted, that is why it has always been surreptitious and concealed.

Why did Baha`u'llah make it against spiritual law? Well, first off, because He was so instructed by God ("I reveal nothing by my own will, but by God, the Almighty"). For those uninclined to accept that line of reasoning, what is the historical context of the prohibition?

That has to be considered.

Regards,
Scott

My understanding is that acceptance or intolerance of homosexuality has ebbed and flowed mostly based upon different cultures, although it probably has been treated either as a special condition or a condemned practice throughout much of history. However, it has not been uniformly condemned thoughout history, or perhaps I am misremembering what I learned about ancient Greece.

But, actually, this is not an argument I wish to make. My views on homosexuality are not likely to win me friends either with conservatives or my gay friends. My own assessment is that homosexuality is a condition much more like obesity than an affliction like drug abuse. Gluttony is a sin too, or has that been abrogated? Yet don't we have compassion on people who have eating disorders? We wouldn't deny them communion or impose sanctions on them because they have a condition, perhaps caused by genetics, perhaps caused by environmental factors outside their control, or even due to psycholopgy. So, I could understand the word from God telling us that homosexuality is not what we are meant for, that it is a dis-order, it is not a condition that will ease our pain or bring us greater joy in life, it perhaps makes one more subject to possessiveness and abuses. I'm not even going to get into debating things like normal or natural--what is normal or natural?!

I am making a case that the Baha'i guidance of imposing sanctions is not just, it is not compassionate, it is not rational.

I disagree completely with imposing sanctions on anyone. Yes, I also take issue with sanctioning people who get married without parental consent. It was only brought to my attention after I left the Faith that my adoptive daughters would likely have to at least attempt to get permission from their birth parents before marriage whereas permission from me would only be an optional politeness. And still, obtaining parental consent is not something you start dreading at puberty.

It is fine to have a club and impose any rules you want on your membership. It is acceptable to enforce certain morals to protect the image of the Baha'i Faith. It is of no consequence if you wish to establish an elite and exclusive membership when in or out is free and optional. You have every right to protect your corporation from those who think differently than you do, who disagree with the bylaws or would cause turmoil within the ranks. It is even OK to do all of this saying that your goal is of global benefit, to build a new world order, even though the outside world may disagree.

But, to the best of my discernment with the gifts God has given me, you can't do all that and call it the Kingdom of God.

Sorry for the bluntness.

lunamoth

[lunamoth]

Seems I've failed at remaining respectful and polite. My sincerest apologies, and I'm outta here.

peace,
lunamoth

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Seems I've failed at remaining respectful and polite. My sincerest apologies, and I'm outta here.

peace,
lunamoth

Luna,

You have not said a word disrespectful or impolite. No apologies are necessary at all, and please come back.

Regards,
Scott