Baha'is and politics

[smkolins]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

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

Can imposing sanctions ever be just, compassionate and rational?

How do you decide?

[BruceDLimber]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

I disagree completely with imposing sanctions on anyone.

"Anyone?!"

So IOW burglars, rapists, and other criminals should run free.

Fine. Then you've made it clear you're an anarchist.

And like it or not, as I understand it the Baha'i view is that there's only one thing worse than a bad system, and that's no system at all!

Just the facts.

Bruce.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by BruceDLimber

"Anyone?!"

So IOW burglars, rapists, and other criminals should run free.

Fine. Then you've made it clear you're an anarchist.

And like it or not, as I understand it the Baha'i view is that there's only one thing worse than a bad system, and that's no system at all!

Just the facts.

Bruce.

Religious sanctions are different from civil laws.

BTW, you might want to consider whether your teaching approach attracts hearts.

peace,
lunamoth

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Hi Scott,

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

Dear Luna,

Absolutely I see how that relates. But in my opinion that is just what the assemblies are called upon to do when an issue of "breaking the rules" threatens to damage the family.

"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 if 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)

You can consider the whole counseling process - even to the extent of removal of administrative rights to be just what you propose = a series of hugs, an imposed time out, and an opportunity to make restitution when the individual is ready.

I submit that no behavior cannot be rectified, if one desires to do so - including sexual inclination. One may not be ab le to "become" heterosexual upon need, but one can exercise chastity, to live above reproach.
No believer peeks in another believer's window, that would be in violation of the provision that one must have a "sin-covering eye".

It is only when the behavior is public and undeniable, and brings reproach upon the community that an administrative body can be involved. An institution is not required to have a sin-covering eye.

"Love" in terms of spiritual command, has very little to do with the concept of romantic love. Unfortunately the west looks at romantic love "romantically", in that "love cannot be denied", "the hidden love which cannot be expressed", "I live for love", etc., etc., ad infinitum.
Christian text is highly uncomfortable discussing romantic love, it is almost wholly consumed with agape, not eros.

Paul deals with the subject most uncomfortably. His outcry that it is "better to marry than to burn" is most imprecise. Is it better to marry than to burn in lust for the flesh? Is it better to marry than burn in hellfire for the crime of lust? What does he mean exactly? We'll never know because we cannot ask.

In Baha`i law chastity is demanded. The only acceptable expression of physical love is within marriage, making such relations "chaste". Companionate marriage is not allowed. Same-sex marriage is not allowed. But, still chastity is required.

Baha`i's are asked not to engage in living habits that might seem to be reproachable. "Co-habitation" can appear to be reproachable. Its that simple.
And it is that complex.

One cannot spend many nights in a bar talking about the faith and drinking and thereby hold himself above the law. Its public, and everyone knows, and "justice" is what Baha`i's are supposed to be about according to the second verse of the Arabic Hidden Words. One cannot do illegal drugs or abuse prescription drugs while holding himself above the Baha`i law. Those who might be curious about the faith will see this as hypocritical. One cannot routinely break the law of the land, while proclaiming himself above that law and Baha`i law. Those convicted and imprisoned have their administrative rights revoked until they have served their time or been paroled.

Baha`i's even believe that a murderer who has met justice (imprisonment or execution) on earth, has fulfilled his penance to God as well.

That in itself is a major difference between the Baha`i Faith and Christianity. Justice is God's, but in this faith mankind has been called upon to judge wisely and administer justice himself. Its a heavy responsibility, but check out my signature line.

Regards,
Scott

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by BruceDLimber

"Anyone?!"

So IOW burglars, rapists, and other criminals should run free.

Fine. Then you've made it clear you're an anarchist.

And like it or not, as I understand it the Baha'i view is that there's only one thing worse than a bad system, and that's no system at all!

Just the facts.

Bruce.

Dear Bruce,

You are getting a little shrill, in my opinion.

Regards,
Scott

[BruceDLimber]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Religious sanctions are different from civil laws.

You made no such distinction in your statement to which I was replying, did you?

In case you're interested, the logical fallacy is known as "shifting ground."

Originally Posted by lunamoth

BTW, you might want to consider whether your teaching approach attracts hearts.

I'm confident it does so at least as much as yours does.

Pots and kettles redux?

Bruce

[BruceDLimber]

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

Baha`i's even believe that a murderer who has met justice (imprisonment or execution) on earth, has fulfilled his penance to God as well.

Scott, hi!

I'm well aware of this in re execution, but if you know of a simliar passage that states this about imprisonment, I'd be most grateful if you'd provide a citation.

For which, my hearty thanks in advance! :-)

Bruce

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by BruceDLimber

Scott, hi!

I'm well aware of this in re execution, but if you know of a simliar passage that states this about imprisonment, I'd be most grateful if you'd provide a citation.

For which, my hearty thanks in advance! :-)

Bruce

Not so specifically, but try these:
"For just as the effects and the fruitage of the uterine life are not to be found in that dark and narrow place, and only when the child is transferred to this wide earth do the benefits and uses of growth and development in that previous world become revealed -- so likewise reward and punishment, heaven and hell, requital and retribution for actions done in this present life, will stand revealed in that other world beyond. And just as, if human life in the womb were limited to that uterine world, existence there would be nonsensical, irrelevant -- so too if the life of this world, the deeds here done and their fruitage, did not come forth in the world beyond, the whole process would be irrational and foolish."
(Abdu'l-Baha, Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha, p. 185)

"From a careful study of the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh one may reach the surprising conclusion that just punishments in general, and those ordained in the Kitáb-i-Aqdas in particular, are a mercy of God to man, and a token of His loving-kindness to him. Bahá'u'lláh in one of His Tablets(20) reveals some of the mysteries of this life and the next, describes how everything in this mortal world has counterparts in the spiritual worlds, and explains that the individual's deeds in this life will affect his 297 existence in the next. To illustrate the benefits which will accrue to the soul, if he is punished in this world for his misdeeds, He uses the example of a man who steals a seed of a tree from someone in the spring season. If he returns it to its owner in that same season, he has cleared his debt and does not owe him anything else. But if he fails to give it back in the spring, what does he owe him in the summer? He owes him a tree and its fruits, because to give back the seed in the summer is useless. This analogy explains that if the individual pays for his misdeeds in this life by receiving the punishment which is ordained in the Holy Writings, his burden of sin will be far lighter in the next life. Otherwise, who knows how heavily his soul will have to pay if he somehow avoids punishment in this world."
(Adib Taherzadeh, The Revelation of Baha'u'llah v 3, p. 296)

Regards,
Scott

[BruceDLimber]

Sorry, Scott, but those quotes don't advance it any farther.

So the impression I got from 'Abdu'l-Baha apparently remains:

As he said in one of his tablets, execution "wipes the slate clean" such that the criminal is no longer answerable for his crime in the Next Life (if he were, in effect it would be double jeopardy).

In contrast (this implicit from his statement that I just paraphrased) if the criminal is imprisoned instead, he will remain fully liable and answerable for his crime in the Next Life.

So in this respect, imprisonment seems not to be the end of the story. (Interestingly--and most non-intuitively (!)--, execution might in fact be in the criminal's own self-interest in some cases because as the Baha'i scriptures put it, "terrible indeed is God in punishing!")

Regards,

Bruce

[smkolins]

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

(Adib Taherzadeh, The Revelation of Baha'u'llah v 3, p. 296)

I wasn't aware this had been released in computer file form - where is it?

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by smkolins

I wasn't aware this had been released in computer file form - where is it?

Update your Ocean program http://www.bahai-education.org/ocean/ If you do not have a high-speed connection you can e-mail Ocean for a CD copy for cost of mailing and the disk.

Regards,
Scott

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by BruceDLimber

Sorry, Scott, but those quotes don't advance it any farther.

So the impression I got from 'Abdu'l-Baha apparently remains:

As he said in one of his tablets, execution "wipes the slate clean" such that the criminal is no longer answerable for his crime in the Next Life (if he were, in effect it would be double jeopardy).

In contrast (this implicit from his statement that I just paraphrased) if the criminal is imprisoned instead, he will remain fully liable and answerable for his crime in the Next Life.

So in this respect, imprisonment seems not to be the end of the story. (Interestingly--and most non-intuitively (!)--, execution might in fact be in the criminal's own self-interest in some cases because as the Baha'i scriptures put it, "terrible indeed is God in punishing!")

Regards,

Bruce

"To illustrate the benefits which will accrue to the soul, if he is punished in this world for his misdeeds, He uses the example of a man who steals a seed of a tree from someone in the spring season. If he returns it to its owner in that same season, he has cleared his debt and does not owe him anything else. But if he fails to give it back in the spring, what does he owe him in the summer? He owes him a tree and its fruits, because to give back the seed in the summer is useless. This analogy explains that if the individual pays for his misdeeds in this life by receiving the punishment which is ordained in the Holy Writings, his burden of sin will be far lighter in the next life."

THis is one of those times when two Baha`i's interpret differently, I guess. THough I would point out that the punishment in the writings includes imprisonment.

Regards,
Scott

[arthra]

Speaking of punishment in this world I wonder how you fellows respond to the issue that things like imprisonment and executions are currently at least in my country (the USA) unfairly meted out on the basis of race and class and that we would envision a system that would at least be more equitable than the current one...

Also I was at a Parolee Re-entry conference this morning where the problem is described that there are now plenty of prisons... and more inmates than ever. That society is less forgiving toward parolees so they are more often recidivist and return for various violatons ergo swelling the already full prisons, the building of these new prisons in turn absorbs more and more resources meaning there are fewer resources for rehabilitation. So the system feeds into itself...

More and more there appears to be a need for society to cooperate in seeing that the emphasis should be on rehabilitation and preventive community services.

Allah'u'Abha!

- Art

[smkolins]

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

Update your Ocean program http://www.bahai-education.org/ocean/ If you do not have a high-speed connection you can e-mail Ocean for a CD copy for cost of mailing and the disk.

Regards,
Scott

Plenty of high speed - no windows though....

[smkolins]

Originally Posted by arthra

Speaking of punishment in this world I wonder how you fellows respond to the issue that things like imprisonment and executions are currently at least in my country (the USA) unfairly meted out on the basis of race and class and that we would envision a system that would at least be more equitable than the current one...

That and whole arena of prison systems has pretty much gotten lost in the social development. I recall vaguely about paying the price to society and the like - seems the system is just about seperating evil-doers and make them suffer, and twist the whole thing in the wind of who-ever gets caught.

I noticed race-riots hit France and they think racism doesn't exist in France.

My own pov is that racism has gotten far, but has alittle ways to go. Perhaps in another decade.... Among the youngest generation things are very progressive and is reaching new levels of understanding. At least I think so. I recall the first post I ever made to a computer forum was about racism not being ingrained but taught. That seems to be a wider understanding these days.