Law and Sanctions

[lunamoth]

How have my posts been hostile today? Is questioning considered hostile? I feel I have been polite, or at least neutral today.

I am not intentionally misrepresenting anything. If you feel I misrepresent things, then this has given you an opportunity to clarify them.

Scott, I still see one line of authority that has no accountability outside itself and no way for the system to be challenged or changed if injustice is perceived. It doesn't make sense to me that you say it is apart from our civil law yet then appeal to that authority to support the rulings of the Faith. But I am getting quite tired (physically, mentally and spiritually) from all this, so there may just be something I don't see.

peace,
lunamoth

[PrimaVera]

Dear Laurie,

Originally Posted by lunamoth

I'm not asking if they answer to you--do they answer for you, or do you abdicate responsibility for their decisions?

I'm afraid I don't understand the question. What responsibility do I have for the decisions of the Universla House of Justice that you think I might be abdicating? Are you interpreting my adherence to the clear denunciations, in the Baha'i Writings, against conflict and contention as abdicating responsibilty for something? You've lost me entirely.

I'm not talking about sex--I'm talking about intimacy and a shared life experience that heterosexual couples take for granted.

I don't see how we can't be talking about sexual intercourse. There is nothing in Baha'i law that discourages people of the same sex from having a deeply loving, nurturing relationship. Indeed, every level of intimacy is entirely allowed except sexual intercourse.

How would you feel about it if to the best determination of science this were proven the case?

Likely no different than I feel now: given that we are spiritual beings, the notion that sexual intercourse needs to be an inherent part of "intimacy" strikes me as woefully materialistic, and that chastity, in whatever flavor that operates, must be the standard we strive to achieve, not just for our individual spiritual well-being but for the well-being of society as well.

All that is fine, but I'm judging by what I can see now. Perhaps if things were not kept so secret I'd be able to come to better conclusions about what is going on.

And, if Baha'i institutions didn't maintain confidentiality, those people whose conduct falls horribly short of Baha'i ideals would be subject to much shame in the community. As I pointed out, openness is a dual-edged sword. Why should an individual's right to confidentiality be subjugated to our curiosity?

And as for justice being complex, I agree. That is why I think it is better to err on the side of forgiveness at the end of the day.

I'm not sure I understand this. As an individual, I'm specifically encouraged by the Baha'i writings to act in a way that embodies "love, unity, forgiveness and a sin-covering eye".

Not easy at all. You think you know it. I don't. I'm just doing the best I can with what I've been given.

When did I say I think I know what God's Will is? In fact, I just said in the message you quoted that I'm often lead to say "I don't know."

We're all simply doing the best we can with what we've been given. I don't know why we should be surprised to find that doing the best we can with what we've been given often leads us to different places.

[BruceDLimber]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

I still see one line of authority that has no accountability outside itself....

While you didn't address this to me, is there not always accountability to God?

Peace,

Bruce

[PrimaVera]

Dear Laurie,

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Where, precisely, are those checks and balances?

I think we've already outlined them. Excerpts from the Individual Rights and Freedoms letter, the Constitution of the Universal House of Justice and discussions of the process by which Baha'i Law is applied and the details of the Baha'i electoral process are rife with descriptions of these checks and balances. Is there much benefit to rehashing them?

I think the issue is that you're looking for specific checks and balances that don't exist, but that does give rise to the question of whether or not those specific checks and balances ought to exist under a theory of justice that's congruent with Baha'i principles.

If we don't look at this issue from the standpoint of finding a theory of justice that's congruent with Baha'i principles, then your objection to any lack of a particular check and/or balance is no different than objecting to the concepts of spherical geometry on the basis that those concepts contradict the same ideas as expressed within the framework of plane geometry.

[BruceDLimber]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

[To a third party:] It doesn't make sense to me that you say it is apart from our civil law yet then appeal to that authority to support the rulings of the Faith.

(I'm taking the "you' here to mean "you Baha'is.")

I may not be construing this correctly, but this appears to be referring to one (or more) recent court cases.

Were these not in fact situations where the Baha'is had been sued by someone else and were responding in court to the charges being laid?

Peace,

Bruce

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

I think this is a core issue with many faiths - not least of the Letter of the Law vs the Spirit of the Law, which seems to be a key focus of this thread.

Ultimately, where it is for men to rule on the what God wants, there will be others to call on the fallibility of such men to make such judgements. It remains a matter of faith as to which is sided with.

There have been some very interesting points of faith raised in this dicussion so far - I sincerely hope to see it continue, but perhaps with a little tempering of certain passions.

Amen.

scott

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

How have my posts been hostile today? Is questioning considered hostile? I feel I have been polite, or at least neutral today.

I am not intentionally misrepresenting anything. If you feel I misrepresent things, then this has given you an opportunity to clarify them.

Scott, I still see one line of authority that has no accountability outside itself and no way for the system to be challenged or changed if injustice is perceived. It doesn't make sense to me that you say it is apart from our civil law yet then appeal to that authority to support the rulings of the Faith. But I am getting quite tired (physically, mentally and spiritually) from all this, so there may just be something I don't see.

peace,
lunamoth

I don't think you have been hostile, but when acrimony develops, both sides must just give it up. Each side is only responsible for themselves, and you've done admirably as best I can tell.

Passions can involve themselves in discussion without leading to acrimony, and acrimony like marriage requires two participants. I consider you to have laid down your arms (so to speak) today quite well.

Regards,
Scott

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

I've said this already. I think it is similar to the condition of obesity and bottom line in some cases, no, there is no choice. Some have the fortitude to remain celibate, some obese people have the willpower or medical intervention to help them lose weight, but for some the best option is to accept that part of themself and love themself the way they are.

I'm not talking about sex--I'm talking about intimacy and a shared life experience that heterosexual couples take for granted.

And, I might be wrong that it is disorder. It might very well be exactly like skin color or gender. How would you feel about it if to the best determination of science this were proven the case? There was lots of Biblical justification for keeping slavery and women as property.
<SNIP for focus>
All that is fine, but I'm judging by what I can see now. Perhaps if things were not kept so secret I'd be able to come to better conclusions about what is going on.

And as for justice being complex, I agree. That is why I think it is better to err on the side of forgiveness at the end of the day.

Here's the nutshell from Shoghi Effendi:
"(From a letter of the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer, January 12, 1973; cited in Messages from The Universal House of Justice, 1968-1973, pp. 110-111)
1223. Through Advice, Help of Doctors, and Prayer, Can Overcome This Handicap
"No matter how devoted and fine the love may be between people of the same sex to let it find expression in sexual acts is wrong. To say that it is ideal is no excuse. Immorality of every sort is really forbidden by Bahá'u'lláh, and homosexual relationships he looks upon as such, besides being against nature.
"To be afflicted this way is a great burden to an conscientious soul. But through the advice and help of doctors, through a strong and determined effort, and through prayer, a soul can overcome this handicap.
"God judges each soul on its own merits. The Guardian cannot tell you what the attitude of God would be towards a person who lives a good life in most ways, but not in this way. All he can tell you is that it is forbidden by Bahá'u'lláh, and that one so afflicted should struggle and struggle again to overcome it. We must be hopeful of God's Mercy but not impose upon it."
(From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer, March 26, 1950)"
(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 365)

If the relationship is not sexual in nature, it isn't homosexuality under Baha`i Law.

Transexuality is not homosexuality under Baha`i Law, there are medical recourses for the individual. I know of one case personally of ambiguous gender at birth, and the Universal House of Justice was consulted when medical assistance was sought.

To sum it up "intimacy" and "comfort" can come from a member of the same sex or different sex without a sexual act. In this society, the norm is not to see the difference. That is not a GOOD norm. I would submit it needs changing. We see the sexual act in all its diversity as the proper result of giving comfort and intimacy to another human being, and the two have nothing to do with one another. A spiritual act does not require a physical act to transmit it.

Regards,
Scott

[lunamoth]

Hi All,

First I thank you for the patience you've shown toward me and my questions. I think I am getting the end of anything productive that I have to say.

Originally Posted by PrimaVera

I'm afraid I don't understand the question. What responsibility do I have for the decisions of the Universla House of Justice that you think I might be abdicating? Are you interpreting my adherence to the clear denunciations, in the Baha'i Writings, against conflict and contention as abdicating responsibilty for something? You've lost me entirely.

Hi Rick, Let me take this off you and put it upon myself. As a Baha'i, which I chose to be freely, in which there is no clergy, in which the only authority rests in the Institutions made up from the Body of Baha'is, and which I agree are accountable to God if no one else, I believed that I accepted personal responsibility for any actions made by the Admin Order, all the way up to the UHJ. If I am freely part of a system, and I agree to never voice my objections against the decisions of that system, then I am personally responsible. Even in Nazi Germany, many times people did things but they were not freely choosing to be part of that system, not that I feel it should pardon any atrocities. "I was just following orders" kind of thing.

So, I am going to answer to God directly for the decisions made by those institutions. If they cause pain, I am part of that pain. I take that responsibility.

I see you feel differently. Fair enough.

I don't see how we can't be talking about sexual intercourse. There is nothing in Baha'i law that discourages people of the same sex from having a deeply loving, nurturing relationship. Indeed, every level of intimacy is entirely allowed except sexual intercourse.

The only way I know how to approach this now is to be specific. So I'll try.

A Lesbian Baha'i. Lives alone for many years, has never discussed her sexual orientation to anyone. One day she moves in with a woman friend, who is also a Baha'i. They are not publically affectionate, at least no more so than other good friends, but they are together at Baha'i functions and everything else as much as any married heterosexaul couple. The LSA knows about the living arrangements.

Now, at this point that couple may go on with never a hassle. Or, they may have to talk to the LSA, at which point they disclose when asked that they love each other, are "intimate," are a lesbian couple but are not asked and do not tell what that intimacy means to them. The LSA may recommend couseling or they may just drop it. But, after all is said and done, the couple remains living together. No one has ever discussed what goes on or doesn't in private.

What will happen to that couple?

Likely no different than I feel now: given that we are spiritual beings, the notion that sexual intercourse needs to be an inherent part of "intimacy" strikes me as woefully materialistic, and that chastity, in whatever flavor that operates, must be the standard we strive to achieve, not just for our individual spiritual well-being but for the well-being of society as well.

I'm with you on this.

What is achieved by imposing sanctions on the couple above?

And, if Baha'i institutions didn't maintain confidentiality, those people whose conduct falls horribly short of Baha'i ideals would be subject to much shame in the community. As I pointed out, openness is a dual-edged sword. Why should an individual's right to confidentiality be subjugated to our curiosity?

A good reason not to be worrying about personal chastity matters that affect no one else to begin with. And if there is any form of abuse going on anywhere, then disclosure is the beginning of the healing. Hiding things does not help. It has not helped the Catholic Church and it has not helped the Baha'i Faith. If one is getting help with a personal problem of course confidentiality matters. Is one is being judged and sanctioned over a social law then the problem becomes public domain. I don't blame anyone for not wanting to make these matters public. They should remain personal and private, and not judged by others. Unless there is reason to suspect harm and abuse.

We're all simply doing the best we can with what we've been given. I don't know why we should be surprised to find that doing the best we can with what we've been given often leads us to different places.

You are right.

peace,
lunamoth

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Hi All,
<SNIP for focus>



The only way I know how to approach this now is to be specific. So I'll try.

A Lesbian Baha'i. Lives alone for many years, has never discussed her sexual orientation to anyone. One day she moves in with a woman friend, who is also a Baha'i. They are not publically affectionate, at least no more so than other good friends, but they are together at Baha'i functions and everything else as much as any married heterosexaul couple. The LSA knows about the living arrangements.

Now, at this point that couple may go on with never a hassle. Or, they may have to talk to the LSA, at which point they disclose when asked that they love each other, are "intimate," are a lesbian couple but are not asked and do not tell what that intimacy means to them. The LSA may recommend couseling or they may just drop it. But, after all is said and done, the couple remains living together. No one has ever discussed what goes on or doesn't in private.

What will happen to that couple?

Actually, I do not find this specific enough. Are they engaged in sexual acts as part of their intimate friendship? If so, it may never be an issue in the community at all. "Living arrangements" is a euphemism?

If they ARE sexually involved this is between them and God, isn't it? Whatever the presence or absence of sanctions might be. If they are not its still between them and God. No one is going to peek in their windows.

If they are and publicly acknowledge it, THEN the community in general and the administrative order might become involved. The Baha`i administrative order will accept the word of the individuals in denial or acknowledgement.

If the two are known to be gay and they live together, then there is at least an appearance of "wrong", and it might result in their being counseled to seek separate living arrangements to avoid the appearance of indiscretion. This would apply to a heterosexual couple sharing lodgings - there is the appearance of indiscretion even if it is not so, and it should be avoided - for the good of the faith.

Originally Posted by lunamoth

I'm with you on this.

What is achieved by imposing sanctions on the couple above?

A good reason not to be worrying about personal chastity matters that affect no one else to begin with. And if there is any form of abuse going on anywhere, then disclosure is the beginning of the healing. Hiding things does not help. It has not helped the Catholic Church and it has not helped the Baha'i Faith. If one is getting help with a personal problem of course confidentiality matters. Is one is being judged and sanctioned over a social law then the problem becomes public domain. I don't blame anyone for not wanting to make these matters public. They should remain personal and private, and not judged by others. Unless there is reason to suspect harm and abuse.

Actually, if someone's rights are revoked the community is often not informed as to the reason. Why? Because the reason is privileged information. If the community makes assumptions then those are assumptions. Usually it is public enough that everyone is already aware, even if that is the case, the assembly will not make public the reason - again it is privileged information.

Regards,
Scott

[sara[h]ng]

I would like to verify something,

I am under the impression that in the Baha'i faith, intercourse is never appropriate unless used for conception. But I have some vague memory of a quote that says, 'intercourse is appropriate when between a man and his wife.' Meaning that it doesn't have to be for conception, so long as they are married? Which, if either, is the Baha'i view?

- Sarah

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by sara[h]ng

I would like to verify something,

I am under the impression that in the Baha'i faith, intercourse is never appropriate unless used for conception. But I have some vague memory of a quote that says, 'intercourse is appropriate when between a man and his wife.' Meaning that it doesn't have to be for conception, so long as they are married? Which, if either, is the Baha'i view?

- Sarah

Sex acts within marriage are not enumerated or qualified, or even prohibited.
Birth control is available but one should consider that most IUD's work by preventing implantation of the embryo, in effect creating an abortion, but one is not prohibited from using IUD's - its a matter of conscience.

"1156. Faith Recognizes Sex Impulse but Condemns Its Illegitimate Expression
"The Bahá'í Faith recognizes the value of the sex impulse, but condemns its illegitimate and improper expressions such as free love, companionate marriage and others, all of which it considers positively harmful to man and to the society in which he lives. The proper use of the sex instinct is the natural right of every individual, and it is precisely for this purpose that the institution of marriage has been established. The Bahá'ís do not believe in the suppression of the sex impulse but in its regulation and control."
(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 344)

""The Bahá'í Teachings on this matter, which is of such vital concern and about which there is a wide divergency of views, are very clear and emphatic. Briefly stated the Bahá'í conception of sex is based on the belief that chastity should be strictly practised by both sexes, not only because it is in itself highly 345 commendable ethically, but also due to its being the only way to a happy and successful marital life. Sex relationships of any form, outside marriage, are not permissible therefor, and whoso violates this rule will not only be responsible to God, but will incur the necessary punishment from society."
(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 344)

"In as far as possible the believers should try to realize this and rise above the level of their fellow-men who are, typical of all decadent periods in history, placing so much over-emphasis on the purely physical side of mating. Outside of their normal, legitimate married life they should seek to establish bonds of comradeship and love which are eternal and founded on the spiritual life of man, not on his physical life. This is one of the many fields in which it is incumbent on the Bahá'ís to set the example and lead the way to a true human standard of life, when the soul of man is exalted and his body but the tool for his enlightened spirit. Needless to say this does not preclude the living of a perfectly normal sex life in its legitimate channel of marriage."
(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 360)

This is but one of the many trials and temptations to which human beings are subject in this life. For Bahá'ís, it cannot alter the basic concept taught by Bahá'u'lláh, that the kind of sexuality purposed by God is the love between a man and a women, and that its primary (but not its only) purpose is the bringing of children into this world and providing them with a loving and protective environment in which they can be reared to know and love God.
(The Universal House of Justice, 1995 Sept 11)

Regards,
Scott

[sara[h]ng]

My reason for asking, is that I always rationalized prohibition of homosexual sex with the thought that sex of any sort -aside from that used for conception- makes it harder to lead a spiritual life instead of a sensual, physical one, and so all real seekers of God should avoid it. Along with that, since no homosexual sex can result in conception, it can never be acceptable.

Now that I see that I was incorrect in my reasoning, I'm not sure that I can agree with that rule. Now, it seems like any other religious dogma where the reason to follow it is, 'Well, because he told us to.' By no means do I intend to be inflammatory. Is there something that I'm missing?

- Sarah

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by sara[h]ng

My reason for asking, is that I always rationalized prohibition of homosexual sex with the thought that sex of any sort -aside from that used for conception- makes it harder to lead a spiritual life instead of a sensual, physical one, and so all real seekers of God should avoid it. Along with that, since no homosexual sex can result in conception, it can never be acceptable.

Now that I see that I was incorrect in my reasoning, I'm not sure that I can agree with that rule. Now, it seems like any other religious dogma where the reason to follow it is, 'Well, because he told us to.' By no means do I intend to be inflammatory. Is there something that I'm missing?

- Sarah

Dear Sarah,

In my own opinion, of course, it seems any sex act outside of marriage is immoral. No particular sex act within marriage is itemized as immoral. One cannot abuse one's spouse. "Abuse" in this instance is not specified as to a particular act, but, in my opinion, seems to be defined by perception of the particular spouse.

The particular homosexual act of sex is not enumerated or described in the writings, it is solely defined by the fact that the two participants are of the same gender. Marriage between members of the same sex is not permitted, so homosexual couples cannot make their act chaste within Baha`i Law by marriage.

The ultimate purpose of marriage is not to make sex acceptable, the purpose of marriage is not to procreate. The PURPOSE of marriage is to create a "fortress of well being" for the partners in the marriage. This is a spiritual state, and a spiritual purpose.
"THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE
And when He desired to manifest grace and beneficence to men, and to set the world in order, He revealed observances and created laws; among them He established the law of marriage, made it as a fortress for well-being and salvation, and enjoined it upon us in that which was sent down out of the heaven of sanctity in His Most Holy Book. He saith, great is His glory: "Marry, O people, that from you may appear he who will remember Me amongst My servants; this is one of My commandments unto you; obey it as an assistance to yourselves."

The true marriage of Bahá'ís is this, that husband and wife should be united both physically and spiritually, that they may ever improve the spiritual life of each other, and may enjoy everlasting unity throughout all the worlds of God. This is Bahá'í marriage."

Many would read the sentence in red to mean bringing forth children in the marriage who are Baha`i within the Baha`i community, but this - in my opinion - avoids other meanings. Chief among those other meanings is that the spouses - nurtured within the fortress for well-being - are also the persons "who appear" to remember God among the servants of God.

As to the injunction against homosexuality and marriage between members of the same gender - well, how much easier would it be if that could be explained away, moderated, over-looked? The faith would be more "politically correct" today, for sure. It would be immensely easier. How much easier would it be in the "politically correct" world, if women could be elected to the Universal House of Justice. However, it is not meant to always be easy. The difficulty to be surmounted is, in my opinion, one of the spiritual tests we are all given - those inside the faith as they try to bring to agreement their personal opinion and the faith - or for those outside the faith to be more deeply attracted.

However, that is not the nature of spiritual tests. They are not supposed to be easy. They are supposed to TEST us to the degree we are capable of bearing so that in passing the test we emerge more spiritually advanced to be better servants to God and to each other.

Regards,
Scott

[sara[h]ng]

First off, thank you for being patient with me in such a controversial topic and please forgive my continued questioning, I'm trying to get a good grasp of this.

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

The ultimate purpose of marriage is not to make sex acceptable, the purpose of marriage is not to procreate. The PURPOSE of marriage is to create a "fortress of well being" for the partners in the marriage. This is a spiritual state, and a spiritual purpose ...

... The true marriage of Bahá'ís is this, that husband and wife should be united both physically and spiritually, that they may ever improve the spiritual life of each other, and may enjoy everlasting unity throughout all the worlds of God. This is Bahá'í marriage."...

... well, how much easier would it be if that could be explained away, moderated, over-looked? The faith would be more "politically correct" today, for sure. It would be immensely easier. How much easier would it be in the "politically correct" world, if women could be elected to the Universal House of Justice. However, it is not meant to always be easy. The difficulty to be surmounted is, in my opinion, one of the spiritual tests we are all given - those inside the faith as they try to bring to agreement their personal opinion and the faith - or for those outside the faith to be more deeply attracted.

However, that is not the nature of spiritual tests. They are not supposed to be easy. They are supposed to TEST us to the degree we are capable of bearing so that in passing the test we emerge more spiritually advanced to be better servants to God and to each other.

So both of these are just tests? I can't imagine that the two things I'm about to say are correct, but I'm having a hard time seeing it another way. So, it is the goal of test of the UHJ/women issue that women and sympathizers learn to accept some degree of inequality? And it is the goal of the homosexual test to suppress sexual urges though others in the community with very similar urges do not also have to suppress them? It seems a bit oppressive and arbitrary to me.

One can say, 'Well, it's God's will, accept it or don't.' But, I would imagine that if I were a homosexual Baha'i, that response would not be good enough for me. I might be very frustrated that I could not both have feelings towards the person I love, feelings equal to those of a heterosexual couple, and be a good Baha'i at the same time. Why is the homosexual not permitted to 'be united both physically and spiritually' with the person of their choice? What am I not seeing?

- Sarah