Fundamentalism song

iBrian

Peace, Love and Unity
Veteran Member
Messages
6,542
Reaction score
30
Points
48
Location
Scotland
Rabbit's song from "Winnie the Pooh's Grand Adventure":


Never trust your ears, your nose, your eyes
Putting faith in them is most unwise
Here's a phrase you must all memorize
"In the printed word is where truth lies"

Never trust your tummies, tails, or toes
You can't learn a thing from any of those
Here's another fact I must disclose
From the mighty pen true wisdom flows

If it says so
Then it is so
If it is so
So it is
A thought's not fit to think
Till it's printed in ink
Then it says so
So it is

Never trust that thing between your ears
Brains will get you nowhere fast, my dears
Haven't had a need for mine in years
On the page is where the truth appears

If it says so
Then it is so
If it is so
So it is
A thought's not fit to think
Till it's printed in ink
Never differ from or doubt it
Or go anywhere without it
Thank goodness we've got this...
So we don't need to fret about it
If it says so
So it is!
 
I said:
Rabbit's song from "Winnie the Pooh's Grand Adventure":


Never trust your ears, your nose, your eyes
Putting faith in them is most unwise
Here's a phrase you must all memorize
"In the printed word is where truth lies"

Never trust your tummies, tails, or toes
You can't learn a thing from any of those
Here's another fact I must disclose
From the mighty pen true wisdom flows

If it says so
Then it is so
If it is so
So it is
A thought's not fit to think
Till it's printed in ink
Then it says so
So it is

Never trust that thing between your ears
Brains will get you nowhere fast, my dears
Haven't had a need for mine in years
On the page is where the truth appears

If it says so
Then it is so
If it is so
So it is
A thought's not fit to think
Till it's printed in ink
Never differ from or doubt it
Or go anywhere without it
Thank goodness we've got this...
So we don't need to fret about it
If it says so
So it is!
---------------------

Thank you for this wonderful bit of near Carrolian perfection. You might find this essay of interest as a more seriously expressed concern of similar nature in Baha`i perspective.

I'll quote the first paragraph and give you the link:

Published in the Bahá'í Studies Review, vol. 5.1 (1995)

"My aim here is to deal with one faulty way of justifying a normative Bahá'í position, not because it carries any serious philosophical weight, but because of its apparent popularity amongst those who wish to eliminate, right at the outset, any need for further moral reflection and consultation. This is the "because-Bahá'u'lláh-said-so" school of thought. Such-and-such is wrong, it is asserted tout court, because Bahá'u'lláh said it is wrong, and no other reason need be provided. This "answer", though philosophically bankrupt, is rhetorically powerful, because its proponents can immediately end any dissent by making agreement with them seem like a matter of faithfulness to the Covenant.(1) Because the rhetorical power of pulling the "Covenant card" here heralds an end to the independent investigation of truth and consultation, it is a particularly insidious non-answer that we would do well to consider carefully. . . . ." remainder at:
http://bahai-library.com/?file=abizadeh_moral_reasoning

Regards,
Scott
 
Hmmm ... consider the following excerpt from The Kalama Sutta:
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]THE LORD BUDDHA HAS SAID[/font]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]that we must not believe in a thing said merely because it is said; nor traditions because they have been handed down from antiquity; nor rumors, as such; nor writings by sages, because sages wrote them; nor fancies that we may suspect to have been inspired in us by a Deva (that is, in presumed spiritual inspiration); nor from inferences drawn from some haphazard assumption we may have made; nor because of what seems an analogical necessity; nor on the mere authority of our teachers or masters. But we are to believe when the writing, doctrine, or saying is corroborated by our own reason and consciousness. "For this," says he in concluding, "I taught you not to believe merely because you have heard, but when you believed of your consciousness, then to act accordingly and abundantly."[/font] [font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][emphasis added]
[/font]​
And then, as the Latin saying goes ...
Acta Virum Probant ("Actions prove the man.")
~Andrew
 
I said:
Rabbit's song from "Winnie the Pooh's Grand Adventure":


Never trust your ears, your nose, your eyes
Putting faith in them is most unwise
Here's a phrase you must all memorize
"In the printed word is where truth lies"

Never trust your tummies, tails, or toes
You can't learn a thing from any of those
Here's another fact I must disclose
From the mighty pen true wisdom flows

If it says so
Then it is so
If it is so
So it is
A thought's not fit to think
Till it's printed in ink
Then it says so
So it is

Never trust that thing between your ears
Brains will get you nowhere fast, my dears
Haven't had a need for mine in years
On the page is where the truth appears

If it says so
Then it is so
If it is so
So it is
A thought's not fit to think
Till it's printed in ink
Never differ from or doubt it
Or go anywhere without it
Thank goodness we've got this...
So we don't need to fret about it
If it says so
So it is!

I remember that song.
Seeing that song is a bit endearing, because I grew up with Pooh and his friends, but reading it like that, I didn't agree. The words make me feel somewhat uneasy.
 
Popeyesays said:
You might find this essay of interest as a more seriously expressed concern of similar nature in Baha`i perspective.

I have to admit I find such a position a little ironic - it's already been stated that the words of Baha'u'llah and Shoghi Effendi are the irrefutable "Word of God" and must be adhered to. Therefore, how does the Baha'i movement escape being applied to Rabbit's song?
 
here is another fundy song for discussion from Kermit that i kind of see the same way as the Pooh & Rabbit song.


Why are there so many songs about rainbows
and what's on the other side?
Rainbows are visions, but only illusions,
and rainbows have nothing to hide.
So we've been told and some choose to believe it.
I know they're wrong, wait and see.
Someday we'll find it, the rainbow connection.
The lovers, the dreamers and me.

Who said that every wish would be heard
and answered when wished on the morning star?
Somebody thought of that and someone believed it.
Look what it's done so far.
What's so amazing that keeps us star gazing
and what do we think we might see?
Someday we'll find it, the rainbow connection.
The lovers, the dreamers and me.

All of us under its spell. We know that it's probably magic.

Have you been half asleep and have you heard voices?
I've heard them calling my name.
Is this the sweet sound that called the young sailors.
The voice might be one and the same.
I've heard it too many times to ignore it.
It's something that I'm supposed to be.
Someday we'll find it, the rainbow connection.
The lovers, the dreamers and me.
 
Popeyesays said:
You might find this essay of interest as a more seriously expressed concern of similar nature in Baha`i perspective.

I said:
I have to admit I find such a position a little ironic - it's already been stated that the words of Baha'u'llah and Shoghi Effendi are the irrefutable "Word of God" and must be adhered to. Therefore, how does the Baha'i movement escape being applied to Rabbit's song?

I find my own irony alarms ringing here as well.

During discussions on the "Buddhism and the Baha'i faith" thread, the words of Shoghi Effendi and Abdul Baha have been given as evidence of the invalidity of practically all buddhist scripture and belief.

Also, posts by Baha'i members often consist almost entirely of quotes with little or no personal narrative.

And consider the finality of the edicts of the Universal House of Justice.

Now we are told that "Baha'u'llah said so" is not good enough?

Either position is understandable, but they are somewhat mutually exclusive, which is it to be?
 
I said:
I have to admit I find such a position a little ironic - it's already been stated that the words of Baha'u'llah and Shoghi Effendi are the irrefutable "Word of God" and must be adhered to. Therefore, how does the Baha'i movement escape being applied to Rabbit's song?

Dear Brian,

The concept of "Because Baha`u'llah said so . . . . " or "Because Muhammed said so . . ." is philosophically bankrupt when used to cow opponents of one's opinion or stall dialogue.

Further in the article, in the last paragraph, the author says, the last paragraph:"So to determine the basis for the Bahá'í position on some question in ethics, one must consider Bahá'í ethical theory as a whole, and justify the position in those terms, and not in terms of the divine say-so."

Rationality is paramount in the Baha`i Faith. Baha`u'llah explains it thusly:
"Consider the rational faculty with which God hath endowed the essence of man. Examine thine own self, and behold how thy motion and stillness, thy will and purpose, thy sight and hearing, thy sense of smell and power of speech, and whatever else is related to, or transcendeth, thy physical senses or spiritual perceptions, all proceed from, and owe their existence to, this same faculty. So closely are they related unto it, that if in less than the twinkling of an eye its relationship to the human body be severed, each and every one of these senses will cease immediately to exercise its function, and will be deprived of the power to manifest the evidences of its activity. It is indubitably clear and evident that each of these afore-mentioned instruments has depended, and will ever continue to depend, for its proper functioning on this rational faculty, which should be regarded as a sign of the revelation of Him Who is the sovereign Lord of all. Through its manifestation all these names and attributes have been revealed, and by the suspension of its action they are all destroyed and perish."
(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 164)

Baha`u'llah may "say so", but I must try to understand why. I may not succeed in understanding, but my effort to do so is required.
For example:
Baha`u'llah originally said a man might have two wives IF he could treat both wives with absolutely equal justice. Abd'ul Baha says this is not possible for mankind, so ONE spouse is all that is allowed.

I can understand how Abd'ul Baha arrives at that interpretation, and that interpretation binds me.

Even if I could not understand, it is an interpretation that is binding upon me for my spiritual good. If I do not follow it, my spiritual development will suffer in the long run. BUt obedience preserves me even if I do not understand.

In arguing or discussing the injunction with someone who does not accept it or the source of the injunction it will do me no good whatsoever to say; "Because Baha`u'llah said so." The argument is philosophically bankrupt, and I would do better to argue in a different way from the start.

Regards,
Scott

by the way, Shoghi Effendi is authoritative only in translation and interpretation of Baha`u'llah and the Bab and Abd'ul Baha. He is not authoritative in questions of history, sociology, science, etc. The Guardianship gave him only authority in that particular matter. There are indeed the occasional historical error in God Passes By. This has no substantive effect on his authority on matters of interpretation of Baha`i text.

Regards,
Scott
 
Nor can we blatantly accept that Jesus, Moses, Krishna, or the bible says so therefor....

I personally like the statement attributed to Buddha along the lines of ... If you can not respect another's faith as honorable, you cannot be a Buddhist.

Exploration is the key to innerspace, now if we could only get the budget of NASA....

thank God, Praise Allah for cartoons and satire!

namaste,
 
Awaiting_the_fifth said:
I find my own irony alarms ringing here as well.
And consider the finality of the edicts of the Universal House of Justice.

No decision of the House is "final". The House has the ability to over-rule itself at anytime. Indeed it has the authority to decide when a law of the Aqdas becomes binding on the community, or to wait until the time is right for it.

For example the Huquq'u'llah did not become binding on western believers until 1992. Even though it is binding, actually computing and paying the Right of God is entirely voluntary. If I choose to do it or not do it, it is between me and God, not me and the administrative order.

Regards,
Scott

P.S.

Perhaps one should note that I have quoted nothing in this narrative.
 
Popeyesays said:
Dear Brian,

The concept of "Because Baha`u'llah said so . . . . " or "Because Muhammed said so . . ." is philosophically bankrupt when used to cow opponents of one's opinion or stall dialogue.

Further in the article, in the last paragraph, the author says, the last paragraph:"So to determine the basis for the Bahá'í position on some question in ethics, one must consider Bahá'í ethical theory as a whole, and justify the position in those terms, and not in terms of the divine say-so."

Rationality is paramount in the Baha`i Faith. Baha`u'llah explains it thusly:
"Consider the rational faculty with which God hath endowed the essence of man. Examine thine own self, and behold how thy motion and stillness, thy will and purpose, thy sight and hearing, thy sense of smell and power of speech, and whatever else is related to, or transcendeth, thy physical senses or spiritual perceptions, all proceed from, and owe their existence to, this same faculty. So closely are they related unto it, that if in less than the twinkling of an eye its relationship to the human body be severed, each and every one of these senses will cease immediately to exercise its function, and will be deprived of the power to manifest the evidences of its activity. It is indubitably clear and evident that each of these afore-mentioned instruments has depended, and will ever continue to depend, for its proper functioning on this rational faculty, which should be regarded as a sign of the revelation of Him Who is the sovereign Lord of all. Through its manifestation all these names and attributes have been revealed, and by the suspension of its action they are all destroyed and perish."
(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 164)

Baha`u'llah may "say so", but I must try to understand why. I may not succeed in understanding, but my effort to do so is required.
For example:
Baha`u'llah originally said a man might have two wives IF he could treat both wives with absolutely equal justice. Abd'ul Baha says this is not possible for mankind, so ONE spouse is all that is allowed.

I can understand how Abd'ul Baha arrives at that interpretation, and that interpretation binds me.

Even if I could not understand, it is an interpretation that is binding upon me for my spiritual good. If I do not follow it, my spiritual development will suffer in the long run. BUt obedience preserves me even if I do not understand.

In arguing or discussing the injunction with someone who does not accept it or the source of the injunction it will do me no good whatsoever to say; "Because Baha`u'llah said so." The argument is philosophically bankrupt, and I would do better to argue in a different way from the start.

Regards,
Scott

by the way, Shoghi Effendi is authoritative only in translation and interpretation of Baha`u'llah and the Bab and Abd'ul Baha. He is not authoritative in questions of history, sociology, science, etc. The Guardianship gave him only authority in that particular matter. There are indeed the occasional historical error in God Passes By. This has no substantive effect on his authority on matters of interpretation of Baha`i text.

Regards,
Scott

Hello,

But Scott, and I am sorry for sounding like a broken record here, how does the exclusion of women from the Universal House of Justice fit into this outlook on things? Frankly I find it inconsistent with the principle of equality of the genders, yet there is no other answer except Baha'u'llah said so and "it will become clear as the noon day sun" at some undefined point in the future. It is not rational.

The Baha'i Faith also has certain things that are accepted solely on faith, and this is OK IMV as it is a characteristic of all religions. Not everything in them is rational and it seems misleading to say that the Baha'i Faith is completely logical and free of dogma. When it comes to controlling the public behavior of its adherants, the Baha'i Faith does have some of the elements of fundamentalism as it is popularly understood.

lunamoth
 
Popeyesays said:
No decision of the House is "final". The House has the ability to over-rule itself at anytime. Indeed it has the authority to decide when a law of the Aqdas becomes binding on the community, or to wait until the time is right for it.

For example the Huquq'u'llah did not become binding on western believers until 1992. Even though it is binding, actually computing and paying the Right of God is entirely voluntary. If I choose to do it or not do it, it is between me and God, not me and the administrative order.

Regards,
Scott

P.S.

Perhaps one should note that I have quoted nothing in this narrative.

Hi ATF, and also Scott,

But to clarify, the Universal House of Justice can not change anything already ruled upon by Abdul Baha or Shoghi Effendi. It can only change things it implements itself.

peace,
lunamoth
 
lunamoth said:
Hello,

But Scott, and I am sorry for sounding like a broken record here, how does the exclusion of women from the Universal House of Justice fit into this outlook on things? Frankly I find it inconsistent with the principle of equality of the genders, yet there is no other answer except Baha'u'llah said so and "it will become clear as the noon day sun" at some undefined point in the future. It is not rational.

The Baha'i Faith also has certain things that are accepted solely on faith, and this is OK IMV as it is a characteristic of all religions. Not everything in them is rational and it seems misleading to say that the Baha'i Faith is completely logical and free of dogma. When it comes to controlling the public behavior of its adherants, the Baha'i Faith does have some of the elements of fundamentalism as it is populary viewed.

lunamoth

Dear Luna,

Actually I said that there were two kinds of dogma. The Baha`i faith is free, so far, of one kind.

I cannot rationally discuss why women are precluded from the Universal House of Justice, because I do not know - and conjecture just isn't good enough.

I know the assembled Hands of the Cause found the injunction to be present unanimously, though nearly half their number were women. I do know that the Custodians (the assembled Hands of the Cause) asked the House of Justice to determine the issue if it could be determined from the Writings. The House in convocation ruled that the writings deemed that women could not serve on the House, and since it was in the Writings the House could not legislate on the matter.

I accept it. I choose to be obedient. My wife accepted it, though she has her issues with it. We chose obedience in spite of not understanding, BUT that is not a sufficient reason for you or anyone else not a Baha`i to accept it.

I have no rational argument for why you SHOULD accept it, so I won't really try.

Women have served or do serve as Hands of the Cause, Counselors, AUxilliary Board Members, members of Local Spiritual Assemblies, Regional Councils and National Spiritual Assemblies (which directly elect the members of the Universal House of Justice).

If I wish to be obedient in the matter, I must wait for that moment of clarity that Abd'ul Baha describes. It is not worth it to me to dissasociate myself from membership, or to be disobedient in a way that would fracture my association with membership in the faith. That decision is good enough for me, I don't ask that it be good enough for someone else.

Regards,

Scott
 
lunamoth said:
Hi ATF, and also Scott,

But to clarify, the Universal House of Justice can not change anything already ruled upon by Abdul Baha or Shoghi Effendi. It can only change things it implements itself.

peace,
lunamoth

As I said, "The House has the ability to over-rule itself at anytime."

Regards,
Scott
 
Popeyesays said:
Dear Luna,

Actually I said that there were two kinds of dogma. The Baha`i faith is free, so far, of one kind.

I cannot rationally discuss why women are precluded from the Universal House of Justice, because I do not know - and conjecture just isn't good enough.

I know the assembled Hands of the Cause found the injunction to be present unanimously, though nearly half their number were women. I do know that the Custodians (the assembled Hands of the Cause) asked the House of Justice to determine the issue if it could be determined from the Writings. The House in convocation ruled that the writings deemed that women could not serve on the House, and since it was in the Writings the House could not legislate on the matter.

I accept it. I choose to be obedient. My wife accepted it, though she has her issues with it. We chose obedience in spite of not understanding, BUT that is not a sufficient reason for you or anyone else not a Baha`i to accept it.

I have no rational argument for why you SHOULD accept it, so I won't really try.

Women have served or do serve as Hands of the Cause, Counselors, AUxilliary Board Members, members of Local Spiritual Assemblies, Regional Councils and National Spiritual Assemblies (which directly elect the members of the Universal House of Justice).

If I wish to be obedient in the matter, I must wait for that moment of clarity that Abd'ul Baha describes. It is not worth it to me to dissasociate myself from membership, or to be disobedient in a way that would fracture my association with membership in the faith. That decision is good enough for me, I don't ask that it be good enough for someone else.

Regards,

Scott

Hi Scott, I sincerely respect your beliefs about this, as well as your obedience and faith. I hear that you are not asking anyone else to believe the same as you. I was questioning the evidence about the statement that rationality is paramount in the Baha'i Faith. And I was also saying it's OK to accept things just on faith.

peace,
lunamoth
 
lunamoth said:
Hi Scott, I sincerely respect your beliefs about this, as well as your obedience and faith. I hear that you are not asking anyone else to believe the same as you. I was questioning the evidence about the statement that rationality is paramount in the Baha'i Faith. And I was also saying it's OK to accept things just on faith.

peace,
lunamoth

I know you do respect my right in the matter, dear Luna. It is okay to accept things just on faith, indeed the basic decision to follow or not can be based on nothing but faith.

I try to be as rational as I can be. In essence I think I must do that as a matter of faith as well. In the end one must believe by choice, and if one comes NOT to believe it is also by choice. God not only respects that act of choice, it is why He created us in the first place. An "Angel" has no choice, but we do.

Regards,

Scott
 
I found this quote really interesting:

Even if I could not understand, it is an interpretation that is binding upon me for my spiritual good. If I do not follow it, my spiritual development will suffer in the long run. BUt obedience preserves me even if I do not understand.


Obviously, this thread isn't intended to be an analysis of the Baha'i faith - "fundamentalism" in the popular use the term can apply to any faith and even secular philosophies.

However, the quote above, taken out of context to be considered as a general statement in isolation (ie, not intended as a commentary on Popeyesays or any member here) can be applied to most any religious system.

If this was used in any way to define either religious belief or even fundamentalism - then how far would such a statement seem to be dependent upon:

1. humility
2. fear

In remembering Rabbit's Song in the original post, does fundamentalism allow for an abrogation of responsibility? Is this because it is safer, or because it is easier for such decisions to be already made?

General discussion pointers. :)




 
I said:
I found this quote really interesting:



Obviously, this thread isn't intended to be an analysis of the Baha'i faith - "fundamentalism" in the popular use the term can apply to any faith and even secular philosophies.

However, the quote above, taken out of context to be considered as a general statement in isolation (ie, not intended as a commentary on Popeyesays or any member here) can be applied to most any religious system.

If this was used in any way to define either religious belief or even fundamentalism - then how far would such a statement seem to be dependent upon:

1. humility
2. fear

In remembering Rabbit's Song in the original post, does fundamentalism allow for an abrogation of responsibility? Is this because it is safer, or because it is easier for such decisions to be already made?

General discussion pointers. :)




[/size]

Question nicely raised!

I think I make the point from humility. I do not fear God (other than in a sense of "awe"). Worshipping God out of fear of punishment is not, in my estimate, proper motivation. Neither is worshipping God from hope of reward.

I think fundamentalism does have a sense of security and "not my place to quibble" safety. But I think it is an illusion of safety.

I do not have the right to give up my responsibility to choose to anyone. Neither does anyone have the right to assume it for me.

Anyway, that's my take on it.

Regards,
Scott
 
I think this thread began with a "song" and is becoming another area of dispute about Baha'i Faith... Somehow this seems awry to me and just a repeat of some past discussions. Been there ...done that.

The term "fundamentalism" gets bandied about and is usually today viewed by many with extreme negativity. It's even associated I think sometimes with terrorism which I don't think is necessarily justified.

In an earlier generation terrorism was also associated with Nihilism. So the danger I think is perhaps using too wide a brush in characterizing these things.

Fundamentalism can be discussed I think and should be better understood. To me the issue of fundamentalism in the world is essentially that it occurs where many are feeling a lack of direction and so more or less for security reasons they seek some fundamental truths.

They see the moral and ethical standards around them slipping and are trying to hold on to some core values of life. I think that could be a reason de entre for fundamenatlism.

What goes along with fundamentalism is a turning to certain institutional groups that are present in religion for authoritative confirmation.

All human groups have authoritative figures and I would suggest laws and institutions are all based on this... We also have checks and balances when considering these things.

There is the polarity of fundamentalism/conservatism or liberalism and most of us find ourselves somewhere in between. I can be a conservative when it comes to some issues and in other respects be more liberal...so I think we can mischaracterise ourselves and others by too liberal a use of these terms like fundamenatlist and that's my "song".

- Art
 
Back
Top