Baha'is and politics - Page 7

I, Brian · 11-13-2005, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BruceDLimber

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.

Wow - that's a pretty incredible set of statements: the Baha'i movement supports the execution of criminals because it cleanses their souls??

This coupled with an administrative system that prevents the leaders of the Baha'i movement being directly answerable to "the people" makes for a most extraordinary dictorial system aching to be abused.

I believe it was mentioned before that Baha'is simply have to have faith that their system will deliver the peace the movements claims it will bring - but I can't help seeing a close analogy to early Christians, where they may have believed that an organised church could only bring about similar humanitarian changes. After all, how could any organised Christian body do anything that isn't Christian?

I find it odd that Baha'is don't see any apparent danger in such concepts - but I guess it's simply a case you have to accept this as a matter of faith?

arthra · 11-13-2005, 05:15 PM

I, Brian

Wow - that's a pretty incredible set of statements: the Baha'i movement supports the execution of criminals because it cleanses their souls??

My comment: That's a way over simplified version.

Brian:

This coupled with an administrative system that prevents the leaders of the Baha'i movement being directly answerable to "the people" makes for a most extraordinary dictorial system aching to be abused.

Comment:

Every election Baha'is vote on their leadership in an atmosphere of consultation and prayer.

Brian:

I believe it was mentioned before that Baha'is simply have to have faith that their system will deliver the peace the movements claims it will bring - but I can't help seeing a close analogy to early Christians, where they may have believed that an organised church could only bring about similar humanitarian changes. After all, how could any organised Christian body do anything that isn't Christian?

Comment:

I don't think that's a fair summary... Baha'is know that there Administration and future society is in process, growing and that we each have responsibilities toward it.

Brian:

I find it odd that Baha'is don't see any apparent danger in such concepts - but I guess it's simply a case you have to accept this as a matter of faith?

Comment:

Maybe you're approaching this more from your understanding of Christianity and it's history, rather than seeing Baha'i as an independent process. The definition of "Faith" :

Faith is "Conscious knowledge plus action."

Sorry to have to say this without offending you Brian but I think your notes above are part an issue that I'd ask you to consider... I think you have some conflicting roles here...

- Art

Popeyesays · 11-13-2005, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Wow - that's a pretty incredible set of statements: the Baha'i movement supports the execution of criminals because it cleanses their souls??

Dear Brian,

Quite bluntly, that is not what he said at all.

It is part of our belief that "justice" includes punishment for things done in this life.

In Christianity, for instance, a man executed for a brutal murder STILL has to face the justice of God for that sin.If he is not repentant before his death he stands condemned for the crime a second time before God.

In the Baha`i order if a man commits such a crime and is punished for it on earth, he has faced justice and God will judge him on other things rather than that.

Bruce does not think this applies to the lesser sentence of im[prisonment. I do. I provided the quotes to support that and in my opinion, I carried my point. But - the crux of the matter comes when someone passes away and comes to justice before God - am I right or is Bruce? We'll come to know in due time - not that I plan to commit any murders in the future, and I have not done so, so far.

In this dispensation God has clearly delegated His authority to judge to mankind, and charged Him with dire responsibility in that act. He promises that if we do that correctly, our judgement stands for His in this particular case.

So, is man's justice gentler than God's? Suppose as horrible a murderer as Hitler or Stalin. had stood in the docks of justice and been sentenced to hang like so many other political and war criminals? Under Baha`i Law He would have stood before God delivered from judgement for the murders he committed. Of course, he would still face justice for so many things that underlay those murders - racial prejudice, brutality (other than murder), etc., etc. In Baha`i estimation Pol Pot who was punished for similar crimes before a trial would stand in better stead before God's judgement than the likes of Hitler and Stalin.

I do not understand your outrage, you obviously have not followed the discussion that well.

Regards,
Scott

I, Brian · 11-13-2005, 10:11 PM

At the end of the day, different religions have different ideas on how a faith-based society would be run - all of which would no doubt arose protestions from one or more different interpretations on what should and should not constitute "good" society.

My point isn't to serve in judgement of any particular faith - what I'm more interested in is raising discussion points on the issues raised.

For example, with the Baha'i movement, in the event of the Baha'i faith assuming responsibilities of state governance, would it therefore be absolutely inconceivable that capital punishment *could* be interpreted as a clear responsibility for the state to perform under Baha'i dictates?

If the overwhelming response would be that that would be in conflict with Baha'i ideology, then if the UHJ were to implement such an approach as a method of state, would it simply be the case that such judegement would have to be adhered to, without question?

Something I'm trying to explore in that vein of thinking is the comparison with early Christianity - the issue of ideology vs practical state considerations, and their potential for conflict.

I, Brian · 11-13-2005, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arthra

Sorry to have to say this without offending you Brian but I think your notes above are part an issue that I'd ask you to consider... I think you have some conflicting roles here...

No offence taken, Art - the Baha'i members here have made the faith very high profile on CR - it's only natural that questions will be raised on issues of faith in such instances.

If you ever read other faith boards, you'll find that I'm not shy of trying to raise difficult issues with other faiths - my role is not one of judgement, merely balance.

arthra · 11-13-2005, 11:35 PM

Brian:

For example, with the Baha'i movement, in the event of the Baha'i faith assuming responsibilities of state governance, would it therefore be absolutely inconceivable that capital punishment *could* be interpreted as a clear responsibility for the state to perform under Baha'i dictates?

If the overwhelming response would be that that would be in conflict with Baha'i ideology, then if the UHJ were to implement such an approach as a method of state, would it simply be the case that such judegement would have to be adhered to, without question?

Comment:

This is a hypothetical discussion.

I think in the future whenever there is a Baha'i state it would have to be also a Baha'i culture that largely supports it.

Whether capital punishment would be involved I cannot say for sure because the issue would have to be interpreted to be implemented.. It may be long term imprisonment could be applied... or if rehabilitation and therapy could be effective. Responsibility for social order includes I think some form of force/suasion... whether moral or institutional.

So this would be difficult to predict and draw any definite conclusions as yet.

Another sphere that I think should be noted is that rather than adversarial forms of court where certain areas of evidence are left out... this may be different in a Baha'i court process as we would stress a wider field of evidence and search for truth...maybe more like a grand jury process.

- Art

Popeyesays · 11-13-2005, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I, Brian

At the end of the day, different religions have different ideas on how a faith-based society would be run - all of which would no doubt arose protestions from one or more different interpretations on what should and should not constitute "good" society.

My point isn't to serve in judgement of any particular faith - what I'm more interested in is raising discussion points on the issues raised.

For example, with the Baha'i movement, in the event of the Baha'i faith assuming responsibilities of state governance, would it therefore be absolutely inconceivable that capital punishment *could* be interpreted as a clear responsibility for the state to perform under Baha'i dictates?

If the overwhelming response would be that that would be in conflict with Baha'i ideology, then if the UHJ were to implement such an approach as a method of state, would it simply be the case that such judegement would have to be adhered to, without question?

Something I'm trying to explore in that vein of thinking is the comparison with early Christianity - the issue of ideology vs practical state considerations, and their potential for conflict.

Capital Punishment is allowed udner Baha`i Law as expressed by Baha`u'llah in the Aqdas, but in each instance imprisonment is also an option.

It seems to me that many do not understand that "Baha`i Law" is only outlined in the Aqdas. How it would be put into the form of actual statute is not something any Baha`i today can predict accurately.
"His Holiness Moses lived in the wilderness of Sinai where crime necessitated direct punishment. There were no penitentiaries or penalties of imprisonment. Therefore according to the exigency of the time and place it was a law of God that an eye should be given for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. It would not be practicable to enforce this law at the present time; for instance to blind a man who accidentally blinded you. in the Torah there are many commands concerning the punishment of a murderer. It would not be allowable or possible to carry out these ordinances today. Human conditions and exigencies are such that even the question of capital punishment, -- the one penalty which most nations have continued to enforce for murder, -- is now under discussion by wise men who are debating its advisability. In fact, laws for the ordinary conditions of life are only valid temporarily. The exigencies of the time of Moses justified cutting off a man's hand for theft but such a penalty is not allowable now. Time changes conditions, and laws change to suit conditions. We must remember that these changing laws are not the essentials; they are the accidentals of religion. The essential ordinances established by a Manifestation of God are spiritual; they concern moralities, the ethical development of man and faith in God. They are ideal and necessarily permanent; expressions of the one foundation and not amenable to change or transformation."
(Compilations, Baha'i World Faith, p. 275)

I beloieve someone has already pointed out that Baha`i law will not be made the law of the land until such time as we actually have a Baha`i culture. When that occurs things will be radically different in many ways than things are today. I think that's a given, but to try to anticipate what those "things" might be which differ is largely wasted effort.

After all, after centuries of discussion by theologians we are no closer to knowing how many angels dance on the head of a pin, and what profit would there be in knowing?

Regards,
Scott

smkolins · 11-14-2005, 04:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I, Brian

For example, with the Baha'i movement, in the event of the Baha'i faith assuming responsibilities of state governance, would it therefore be absolutely inconceivable that capital punishment *could* be interpreted as a clear responsibility for the state to perform under Baha'i dictates?

If the overwhelming response would be that that would be in conflict with Baha'i ideology, then if the UHJ were to implement such an approach as a method of state, would it simply be the case that such judegement would have to be adhered to, without question?

Something I'm trying to explore in that vein of thinking is the comparison with early Christianity - the issue of ideology vs practical state considerations, and their potential for conflict.

And certainly such tensions will exist as they have in the past. Drawing the lines of how things turn out is not within our hands or destinies unless the pillars of the world be radically and summarily changed, in which case discussion such as this wont be even informative. But in case I am wrong, I would suggest that the House has upheld the role of unity, with care for roles and rights of individuals, communities, and institutions, very highly, and that the House has authority over matters of Faith, and on questions that are not explicit in the text has often left individuals and others to their own opinions until such time as the House legislated one way or the other.

In detail, as the difficulty you propose exists with the explicit text - that a punishment allows for death in some circumstances - the conflict may not even arise.

But to pursue the matter in whatever other subject, the authority of the House is not infinite. As a matter of practical effect it is certain I suppose that some decision or other will eventually directly counterdict a statement of the House. I would hazard that Iran has made some decisions that have cost lives of Baha'is over the advise of the Central Figures and the House - and in general the universal principal applied has been obedience to government is primary and upheld at great cost. But such obedience need not limit the response of Baha'is in other places - where the Iranian Baha'is have been obedient to various laws of Iran, American Baha'is and other countries have applied the plight of Iranian Baha'is to their respective countries resulting in various resolutions being passed and affirmed and conditions of the oppression of Baha'is documented in UN investigations. But for all these efforts Baha'is have not been vitriolic in response to Iranian decisions, but simply in matters of propriety, equally applicable to any and every group.

As for parallels with early Christian history I would note that some of the processes at the Council of Nicea would be unnecessary as the scholastic evidence for the Scriptures of the Faith are well in hand, and a certain argument on the nature of Christ have already been well defined.

BruceDLimber · 11-14-2005, 04:41 PM

Scott, I'm well aware that imprisonment is always available as one of the options.

Regards,

Bruce

BruceDLimber · 11-14-2005, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smkolins

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

Steven, remember that you can always use:

http://www.ibiblio.org/Bahai/TrueSeeker

for online access!

(It may well not have Taherzadeh, though.)

Bruce

Popeyesays · 11-14-2005, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BruceDLimber

Scott, I'm well aware that imprisonment is always available as one of the options.

Regards,

Bruce

I know that Bruce, but we were discussing whether or not imprisonment could equal atonement as execution appears to do.

Regards.
Scott

Popeyesays · 11-14-2005, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BruceDLimber

Steven, remember that you can always use:

http://www.ibiblio.org/Bahai/TrueSeeker

for online access!

(It may well not have Taherzadeh, though.)

Bruce

Unfortunately, it does not have Taherzadeh, nor much else that is available on Ocean.

Steven, if you have a Linux operating system, it might run. SOme OS's can emulate windows sufficiently to run Ocean, I'm sure - it might be alittle glitchy, though.

Ocean is so comprehensive it might even be worth buying an older Pentium III to have it available, such computers are relatively cheap these days.

Regards,
Scott

BruceDLimber · 11-14-2005, 08:46 PM

Greetings, Scott and Brian!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

I know that Bruce, but we were discussing whether or not imprisonment could equal atonement as execution appears to do.

I'm not in a position to say definitely one way or the other whether it would or not, but my point is that 'Abdu'l-Baha specifically said that the death penalty does provide full payment. (This, to me, implicitly indicates that it is different in this respect from imprisonment, at least in degree if not in kind. To my knowledge he made no equivalent statement about imprisonment; if you know of one, please post it.)

This is the direct quote of the passage in question:

#152
"As to the question regarding the soul of a murderer, and what his punishment would be. The answer given was that the murderer must expiate his crime: that is, if they put the murderer to death, his death is his atonement for his crime; and following the death, God in His justice will impose no second penalty upon him, for divine justice would not allow this."

Selections from the Writings of `Abdu'l-Bahá, page 179

Peace,

Bruce

Popeyesays · 11-14-2005, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BruceDLimber

Greetings, Scott and Brian!

I'm not in a position to say definitely one way or the other whether it would or not, but my point is that 'Abdu'l-Baha specifically said that the death penalty does provide full payment. (This, to me, implicitly indicates that it is different in this respect from imprisonment, at least in degree if not in kind. To my knowledge he made no equivalent statement about imprisonment; if you know of one, please post it.)

This is the direct quote of the passage in question:

#152
"As to the question regarding the soul of a murderer, and what his punishment would be. The answer given was that the murderer must expiate his crime: that is, if they put the murderer to death, his death is his atonement for his crime; and following the death, God in His justice will impose no second penalty upon him, for divine justice would not allow this."

Selections from the Writings of `Abdu'l-Bahá, page 179

Peace,

Bruce

okay, I'll post it again, pat particular attention to the Taherzadeh quote which quotes an otherwise untranslated tablet.

"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)"

This is how we got Steven asking for where I found Taherzadeh in electronic format.

Now, this requires personal interpretation, and you are free to disagree with me as much as you like.

Regards,
Scott

BruceDLimber · 11-14-2005, 10:01 PM

Hi.

Very simply, I see no contradiction between the two. And while I fully agree that our actions here determine our status then, there is still little direct cause-and-effect other than the passage I quoted. So as far as I can tell this simply isn't something we can determine fully here and now.

Nor do I think there is necessarily any "disagreement" needing reconciliation. I'm perfectly happy to live with the remaining ambiguities for the nonce....

Regards,

Bruce