I read a little bit about Mark Tobey's life here: http://www.gaybahai.net/notable-individuals/ It used to anger me to read about these closeted gay men that served and praised the Bahai community. But now I realize that they were just a product of their times. What other choice did they have? The Bahai Faith was convenient. As was becoming a priest in the Catholic church. A religion of Don't ask don't tell was better than a religion of "we'll hunt you down and kick you out". But times have changed and the current "mark Tobey's" inside of the Bahai community have to make a choice. Continue your hypocrisy or stand up on the side of justice. God is watching.
dco
· 1 week ago
Or they just leave... and join a community of honest, good, decent, creative and talented people who contribute to the world around them.
"I increasingly see organized religion as actually my enemy. They treat me as their enemy. Not all Christians, of course. Not all Jews, not all Muslims. But the leaders. . . . Why should I take the judgment of a declared celibate about my sexual needs? He's basing his judgment on laws that would fit life in the Bronze Age. So if I'm lost to God, organized religion is to blame."
- Sir Ian McKellen, speaking to the Los Angeles Times.
peyamb
· 2 months ago
Next time you go by that red tin can and the ringing bell, think twice about throwing some change in there: http://www.zimbio.com/Gay+and+lesbian+rights/ar... Just as thinking twice about giving to the Bahai Fund. Better yet, do as Abdul-Baha did, and just give some money direct to a deserving soul.
Alison Hart
· 4 months ago
"These are not the methods of people actually concerned with justice. This is a circus side show, not a way to arrange human affairs (including our most intimate relationships)."
Mavaddat: you have perfectly identified the source of the problem.
The inherent weakness of the Baha’i Faith is authoritarianism rather than fundamentalism. The Faith has inherited a literalism of scriptural words similar to the Islamic tradition. The appeal to authoritarianism betrays an obsession with ideological purity and legalistic piety. In the context of late modern or post-modern social and scientific realities, this approach is psychologically abusive and socially toxic.
As Bob Altemeyer notes about authoritarian followers:
“They are highly submissive to established authority, aggressive in the name of that authority, and conventional to the point of insisting everyone should behave as their authorities decide. They are fearful and self-righteous and have a lot of hostility in them that they readily direct toward various out-groups. They are easily incited, easily led, rather un-inclined to think for themselves, largely impervious to facts and reason, and rely instead on social support to maintain their beliefs. They bring strong loyalty to their in-groups, have thick-walled, highly compartmentalized minds, use a lot of double standards in their judgments, are surprisingly unprincipled at times, and are often hypocrites.”
Someone wrote:
"In the same way that I obey the laws of the land in which I am a citizen of, I as a Baha'i, have no qualms in obeying the House when they set down a law. That is their role and my role as a member of the community is to abide."
And that is precisely the problem.
Is it ever right to violate a law of the land? Some people contend that an individual ought to break a human law, provided that it is contrary to divine law. What is divine law? Who decides? Shall the individual decide, or is that the duty of the community? Or of the clergy? Was it right for the Abolitionists to violate the provisions of the fugitive slave law? Were this handful of men, able and conscientious as they were, as likely to be right regarding the welfare of society as the large majority of citizens whose representatives had enacted the fugitive slave law?
Under what circumstances, if any, is it one's duty to disobey a law of the state? Would the fact that an individual believed it his duty to violate the law justify a judge in declining to punish him? Thoreau declined to pay a tax that he believed unjust and accepted his punishment, declaring that if he paid the penalty he might thus arouse public sentiment and secure the repeal of the law. Was John Brown justified in attempting illegally to free slaves by force of arms?
Critical thought and reflective analysis are not a part of submissive obedience. I refer you to this link to further look at this problem:
Thank you Allsion this is excellent, but I beg to differ slightly, I will come to the defense of Sonja here.
Sonja has had the guts to come out as a straight woman in the defense of glbt Baha'is. Few if any straight people have gone this far. As well, it is my experience that the vast majority of glbt folks stand by or hide and have allowed other glbt's to be martyred.
Those of us with activist colleagues in more progressive religious groups, see believers who are united, open, and fearless... where are you people? Lets spend less time, picking on the messenger, and talking about solutions.
We should all be horrified that a religion that aspires to be progressive and modern, is behaving alike the dishonet, lying, lunatic, evangelical fringe... and persecutes its minority membership so. This is not who we are! People, there are good , decent people being thrown out for no reason other than institutionalized homophobia, or because they do not have connections or a name, there are youth committing suicide, and there is ignorance being perpetrated as divinely ordained law... yet no one feels free or safe to discuss it, or stand up for those who have been wronged!
Damn right I am angry!
Alison Hart
· 4 months ago
Sorry this was not meant to attack Sonja. Yes she is a wonderful example and we should wish more Baha'is were like her!
dco
· 4 months ago
Thanks Ms A
We need a whole herd of Alisons and Sonjas right now!
These were very well written and offer some really good counsel.
Craig Parke
· 4 months ago
Alison,
Thank you for your terrific post!
These two below quotes are why I got off the Baha'i train 6 years ago after 32 years of completely dedicated service in the Faith. Have you ever seen these quotes?
"We have inherited a dangerous delusion from Christianity that our individual conscience is supreme. This is not a Baha'i belief. In the end, in the context of both our role in the community and our role in the greater world, we must be prepared to sacrifice our personal convictions or opinions. The belief that individual conscience is supreme is equivalent to 'taking partners with God' which is abhorrent to the Teachings of the Faith." - Douglas Martin Former Member of the Universal House of Justice Baha'i Faith
"The experience of the Ruhi Institute has shown that we do not suppress the imagination or the personality of the participants when we refrain from posing questions such as, 'What does this mean to you?'; on the contrary, we are helping to nurture the development of communities which look first to the Writings as the principal basis of consultation whenever they are faced with a question.
We believe that the habit of thinking about the implications of the Writings with the minimum of personal interpretation would eliminate a great share of the disagreements which afflict consultation in many communities, and would make the activities of our communities more effective."
"TO THE COLLABORATORS" - Ruhi Book One
I will not sit in the same room with the incredibly weak and cowardly people who now call themselves "Baha'is" who betrayed their own religion and allowed this to be done to it by organizational sociopaths at the top with deranged and deluded brain chemistry. It is absolutely shameful.
No critical thought is allowed or permitted in the Baha'i Faith anymore. Period. It is terribly tragic and it is absolutely frightening for the future of the human race if the Baha'is with the current mindset - or ANY unchallenged groupthink organized religion for that matter - ever attain any real power in the world. The system is now so abusive and predatory that I now very deeply regret all the decades I whole heartedly supported it thinking it could do good in the world.
The final biochemical state of any groupthink organized religion is a very dangerous brain chemistry. that is all that is involved here. A very simple analysis of brain chemistry. The human race must understand this dangerous mechanism in any organization before we can progress to the next step of social evolution. This is why the many voices on the Internet is so very important now.
Again, thank you for your excellent post!
ramfar
· 4 months ago
Well said. Total and utter GroupThink. It would be terrifying if they ever actually got anywhere...
peyamb
· 2 months ago
Hey UHJ. Hey National Spiritual Assemblies. Hey all you people who use tradition and old age, or your homophobic culture to justify discriminiation against LGBT people, while pretending you are not being prejudiced - please listen to this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrEbJBFWIPk&feat...
Barb Ruth-Wright
· 2 months ago
Thank you, Peyamb - this is wonderful. Every single Baha'i should listen to this, in particular the nine men on the hill.
And consider this - if a lie repeated often enough comes to be revered as truth, how much more powerful is the truth repeated again, and again, and again - we must keep repeating it until people get it - they will, eventually.
Barb
sonjavank
· 2 months ago
Yes friends and family need to stop treating their gay members as anything less than equal. P, in response to your previous comments, you and any other gay are more than just 'friends' - you are part of my community of spirit.
More Bahais need to be out about treating gays as equals! This man in the youtube film is wonderful. Dare I say it, so Abdul-Baha like.
LBCesu
· 2 months ago
I think the problems people of the Baha'i faith are going through with accepting homosexuals is the same as any Christianity faith. I enjoy many ideals of Baha'i, being a Christian man with an open mind I can relate. Many religions are not accepting of homosexuality, why do you think that is??
Barb Ruth-Wright
· 2 months ago
I'm about to leave on another trip, and I don't have time to form an extensive answer to this, but I think the reason has to do with an underlying fear of the potential power of women and of the feminine. Consider the attitudes that fundamentalist, patriarchal religions have in common in regard to women in authority, gays, abortion, birth control and women's sexual behavior, independent thinking, and a tendency toward wanting religion to have the power of the civil state. Even Baha'is, who boast of equality of women and men, do not give women the power of making policy - only of carrying out the policies determined by men (the Universal House of Justice and the Central Figures). Lesbians represent women who tend to be independent of men in their thinking and behavior, and can form a powerful unit when they are connected and united, while still enjoying the friendship of men. Gay men do not need to control and dominate women in the way that many straight men do - and men taking what is considered a feminine role in lovemaking are very threatening to many straight men. The ultimate insult for a boy is to be considered "girlie." Men do not know if children are their own, if they cannot in some way control women sexually - thus the prohibitions regarding sexual behavior. Women have the power to bring forth life; that's not nothing. Some men have Venus envy, you could say. And a woman kept very busy having lots of children and tending to "woman stuff" like taking care of men and children often don't have time and energy left over to be messing about in a troublesome way in politics and government and law-making. Fortunately, this is changing rapidly, in some countries more than others.
This is a very superficial answer - I am aware of that. Nevertheless, I think that patriarchal religion, of whatever sort, expresses an underlying fear of the potential power of women. I'm not saying that is all there is to religion - not at all. I am talking about the way that religion has been used by men in power to keep women "in their place." This has nothing whatever to do with the goal of the Prophets in regard to the spiritual behavior of all humans - it is an appropriation of legitimate spiritual teaching in order to carry out a patriarchal goal.
As I said - very superficial answer, and one not well thought out at this point - but I am convinced that this is at least part of the answer, and I would be interested to know what others think.
Barb
peyamb
· 2 months ago
>>"In all the Divine Dispensations," >>He states, in a Tablet addressed to >>a follower of the Faith in Persia, >>"the eldest son hath been given >>extraordinary distinctions. Even the >>station of prophethood hath been his >>birthright." If I had live in His time, I would have asked Abdul-Baha "So what? So what if partriarchial people from the past made the first born male and males in general such distinction? Isn't this supposed to be a new age where women and men are equal?" And guess what? I bet Abdul-Baha would have been loving, understanding and maybe even have changed His mind. Who knows? I seriously doubt he would have taken the fundamentalist, closed, "my way or the highway" approach of the present Bahai administration and it's mindless followers. No Barb, you are not being superficial- you are hitting it right on the mark. When fundamentalist divorce these people (including Bahaullah) from their human side- the side that actually lived in a historical period with it's biases and traditions, then you end up with a religion that continues being out of touch. A religion that will stay stagnant as the world progresses.
dco
· 2 months ago
thanks Barb
peyamb
· 2 months ago
I would disagree that many religions are not accepting, but rather many conservative/traditionalists in those religions are not accepting. There is a difference between Jesus and the Pope. Jesus loved and accepted all. He said nothing about a man having to only be with a woman in marriage. Human beings made up all the discriminatory agenda against gays later on.
dco
· 2 months ago
what a sweet, dear man... thank you for posting this
peyamb
· 2 months ago
http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2009/10/president-o... wow, REAL leadership. Now I just wish the 9 men on the hill would do something similar for LGBT people in the Faith. More than just the facade of saying to the Bahai community "don't be prejudice towards gays in your midst" and at the same time telling parents that they should get help to change their kids orientation and saying it's ok to kick good people out of the Faith for being in a loving committed relationship.
dco
· 2 months ago
M & I watched this together, it was so moving, it brought us both to tears. I am so proud of this president. I noticed, that once again, the religious leaders at the march, were missing a Baha'i on the platform... may God forgive their homophobia, I can't.
Daniel Orey
Amanda
· 2 months ago
For anyone looking to put their money where their mouth is and support the human rights of ALL Iranians in need- the Iranian Queer Railroad is a non-profit organization that helps LGBTQI Iranians gain asylum and/or avoid deportation back to Iran... and they need your financial support:
It is beautifully made ... but you mis-attribute quotations. Shoghi Effendi never wrote any of those things.
I realise many Bahais do like-wise but I prefer to stick what is actually in the Bahai Writings. I kinda wish you'd remake the movie with these things corrected because the point is fantastic. Making poeple aware and trying to get Bahais to stand up for equality and human rights.
very thoughtful. thanks for posting. this is such a hot topic......
peyamb
· 3 months ago
I just saw this exchange on the youtube clip regarding the Bahai Faith and homosexuality. It really is the mainstream Bahais (like the one offering his/her analysis on homosexuality below) and the AO that are bringing shame to the Faith because of their rigid and insulting stance regardning LGBT people: A Bahai says: "What you are putting forth here is really a surface analysis. What is homosexuality? Is it an inherent identity (for that matter, is heterosexuality an identity?). Since our physical bodies do not continue with us after death, defining oneself in this way seems distinctly non-spiritual. People who, voluntarily and through independent investigation, have decided that Bahá'u'lláh's words are true, try to follow his teachings, with help from communities and institutions; that's not prejudice. "
A disgusted seeker resonds: "Uh, yes, a person's sexual orientation is largely an inherent identity as, while we are in the body, sex, love, romance, and relationships are at the core of our being. Moreover, it is innate and not changeable, according to science, which is supposed to be accepted by the Baha'i. If the Baha'i Faith excludes gays and lesbians, then they have denied the unity of humanity and are utter hypocrites, and that sort of behavior is precisely what turns people away from religions in the first place."
Barb Ruth-Wright
· 3 months ago
Thanks so much for sharing this, Peyamb. It's an uphill struggle, I would say, with the Baha'i community, but I feel strongly that it is a struggle worth pursuing, to educate Baha'is. There are some who will be open-minded and receptive, and it's worth it even if only one person begins to recognize and lessen their own prejudice - and most certainly more than one will.
The Baha'is need to learn something of gay history, and that folks in history they may have admired, were gays, and they never knew before that they were. They need to learn that some of our most intelligent and creative and gifted human beings have been gay - and that this is true of Baha'i history as well.
Silence betrays us all. People are free to come to their own conclusions, but let's give them some facts on which to base their conclusions. Space for such information is expected to be added to the GLBSP website, I hope soon. That is the plan. And who knows, maybe even some of our stories will be about people in history some of us never suspected were gay.
Barb
peyamb
· 3 months ago
You are doing a great job Barb. When I have more time (hopefully in Oct), I will check out your site and add something. I am sometimes amazed at some of the rigid Bahais on here and on youtube who so innocently insult gays and lesbians. I wonder if they really are that ignorant as to what they are doing. They celebrate straight unions in holy matrimony making a big deal about the "spiritual" union and how the two individuals will be connected forever, blah blah blah. But when it comes to gay individuals, suddenly it is just merely about sex, our love is not spiritual, etc. That's why I don't think they are being ignorant. I think these fundamentalist Bahais, just like in all other religions, know exactly what they are doing. Demonize LGBT people ever so slightly by focusing on sex/physical stuff, ignoring that love and spirit is actually involved in gay relationships.
Barb Ruth-Wright
· 3 months ago
Yes, you have a point, Peyamb - it's always hard to know the heart of another person, but certainly it seems that for those of limited vision, gay relationships are often seen as sex, sex, sex - it's like an obsession on the part of those who cannot see a loving, spiritual relationship when it's right in front of them. And a few people are malicious, knowing exactly what they are doing. I think we must be hopeful, though, and try to give people the benefit of the doubt in terms of our believing in their ability to overcome prejudice - hard to do, but essential if we're ever going to get anywhere. We have to expect the best of people, and hope for it, at the same time that we're doing the difficult work of rooting out prejudice, and often making people very uncomfortable, and perhaps angry, as they begin to recognize the ugliness of their "spiritual" behavior and attitudes. It's not work for the timid of heart. But we have to do it - we have to believe deeply in the possibility of grace to change a human heart. Because some of them will change - not all or even most, by any means, but some, and every one that changes, that begins to change, is like shining a light into the darkness. And slowly other folks begin to recognize the light.
Thank you for the compliment - I consider it high praise, coming from you. I look forward to, and appreciate, any contribution you can make to the website.
Barb
Baquia
· 3 months ago
Barb, let me know if you need any help with this project (in terms of setting up a site, etc.). You can contact me using the contact form on this blog (look at the top menu).
I look forward to featuring it here to give it more exposure, as I'm sure are other Baha'i bloggers like Steve over at BahaisOnline.
Barb Ruth-Wright
· 3 months ago
Thanks, Baquia. I tried to reply via the box at the top of this blog, but it wouldn't work for me. I must have done something wrong?
Anyway, all I wanted to say was thanks, and that I am fortunate to have a computer whiz as an assistant, but I happily add you to our list of people we can consult if we run into a snag or have question. And any help you can offer in passing the word about the website is most appreciated!
Thanks - Barb
dco
· 3 months ago
I just ordered this book, it looks interesting, and might be of interest to folks here
Crisis: 40 Stories Revealing the Personal, Social, and Religious Pain and Trauma of Growing Up Gay in America
Product Description (from Amazon):
A mental health crisis faces American teens right now--and it is one we can solve. Hundreds of thousands of gay teens face traumatic depression, fear, rejection, persecution, and isolation--usually alone. Studies show they are 190 percent more likely to used drugs or alcohol and four times more likely to attempt suicide. Homophobia and discrimination are at the heart of their pain. Love, support, and acceptance--all within our power to give--can save them.
This book is for: clergy, parents, educators, and politicians who cause harm with their words and actions; parents of gay teens; teens navigating this difficult time; and fair-minded people who want to help end the harm. Here are revealing stories by forty diverse Americans, some well known and some not, plus insights from straight clergy and parents explaining their support of gay people as whole human beings guaranteed equal rights by our Constitution.
Daniel Orey
peyamb
· 3 months ago
It is a great book. It was a gift to everyone attending our HRC dinner this year. Mitchell was there signing them. He is a good guy. The most amazing stories in there were of the fundamentalist minded parents who changed their hearts. Unfortunately it took a child committing suicide before this happened. That's why I think Barb's online book is going to be very important. I hope we can find the stories of those gay Bahai teens that did hurt themselves and are not now with us to tell their stories. Maybe their parents/friends will speak for them. We have to shake the Bahais out of their comfort zone... no more worrying about wether to have pretzels or chips at Feast; there are more important things in your community!
fubar
· 3 months ago
Badhras,
Any group - but especially reformers, dissidents, critics and nonconformists - should always welcome alternative perpsectives, engage in profound self-examination and questions its assumptions (and tendencies toward "group think"), no matter how difficult or painful that may be.
(but please respond with something other than more trite drivel.)
re: [you said] | Farhan ... Please give some thought as to whether your efforts here are | fruitful. You are clearly a Baha'i of reasonable intelligence and capability. | I can't help but wonder if your talents would be better spent trying to | reach out to different people.
Why? conformist bahais already agree with Farhan (which is to say, they accept bahai administration's hideous, backward, dehumanizing approach to the issue). Very few other people in the world care about the convoluted official bahai position on homosexuality.
The bahai purity/perfection myth is what drives most attitudes, not real, personal experience with the issue.
The reality is that anyone that stands up in most bahai communities and speaks out against homophobia, especially as it relates to bahai rules/roles/policies (medieval) will be marginalized, and if they persist against the stupid advice of people like Farhan in the bahai ruling elites, they will eventually be attacked by the bahai thought police (BTP). If they fight the BTPs, they will be more viciously attacked. I've seen it over and over for 30 years.
you said: | Dear Everybody Else: | Carry on, I suppose.
Arrogant and condescending. boring.
| It's clear that you enjoy this way too much, and whose to say you're not | doing the Lord's work. As the writings go... "all are His servants and all | abide by his bidding." People have postulated that the world is a stage, | and what if God is a director and his casting sheet required all kinds of | villains and heroes and anti-heroes... and honestly, who really knows | which role you've signed up for. I sure as heck don't, but I'm sure God | does.
ok, so you insult nonconformists, critics, dissidents, victims of bahai bureaucracy, then admit that you don't even know who is right or wrong.
"Have you no human decency?" (to quote the judge in "Bonfire of the Vanities")
| On a serious note though, ever consider that the people that need to hear | your interpretations of justice and compassion aren't here?
How do you know who is here, and why?
The people in bahai administration/aristocracy are, as you seem to imply, probably not generally paying attention, but there are presumably some AO thought police monitoring everything.
| Either you're here to vent and complain or you're here to effect change. I | can see this forum being useful for the former. I'm not sure how it | enables the latter.
Correct. You may not know it, but people seek consolation, and sense of belonging, compassion from others, and so forth, outside of the narrow context of bahai bureaucracy.
And, you attitude is a good example of how (according to bahai conformists) everything in life has to be bent to the purposes of the great project of clutural imperialism that is bahai culture.
In that "system" of thinking, nothing has intrinsic, human worth, unless it is on a image of "submission" to the imperial myth/ethos.
(Bahai followers are expected to be intellectual and spiritual "slaves".)
| I suppose you're sharing ideas, but it strikes me as effective as an | institutionalized debating society with no real power. But hey, quite the | intellectual and spiritual exercise, right? Believe me, I know that forums | like this are fun.
Ok, now that you have puffed yourself up by putting people down, we now have another example, of the thousands of mindless, shallow, dehumanizing, conformist statements encountered in bahai community.
| But seriously... if you don't like the Baha'i Faith... then fine. Point taken. | You win. 9 male homophobes live under the delusion that they rule the | world. The rest of us are weak and dumb and are complacently propping | up the other 9. End of discussion. You win!!!
Shallow. This is typical of why bahai culture lacks meaning. How old are you? Where do you live? How much money do you, or your parents, have?
| With that established, now what? Does anything else you have to say | really matter? Seriously. Does it? Does your identity need acceptance | from other "mainstream" Baha'is? And seriously, why would you want the | acceptance of such shallow rank-and-file?
Matter to who? It doesn't seem that it mattters to you. Have you ever known homosexual bahais that have had their lives wrecked by the homophobia that is widespread in the bahai community?
Sonja's theory of bahai change is fascinating, she worked hard, and thought about it for a long time. Many of the people that disagree with her, on both sides, have also thought about the issue for a long time.
You however, seem to have arrived with a shallow viewpoint, and are just being disrespectful. A punk.
| Or are you just pissed off that the awesome club that you belong to has | changed or perhaps you've changed in ways and you find that it no longer | suits you. Are you too weak to just say, "I relinquish my membership in | The Baha'i Faith. I simply do not have the passion to believe what I am | expected to believe."
I'm an ex-bahai, so that does not apply to me. My personal opinion, which you seem to illustrate, is that bahai belief is what is weak. Conforming to stupid rules that are theologically inconsistent (at best), and refusing to protest the social injustice involved, is what is "weak". Being afraid of the bahai thought police is what is weak. Not caring enough about real human beings to protest a stupid religious system is what is weak. Not fighting against the conformism of the "bahai comfort zone" is what is weak.
| Hell... you can even dump the AO and the Baha'i Faith.
Done.
| Most of us have had to use these words for a different scenario, but it'd | probably work for this scenario, too: "I just don't feel that spark, | anymore. I'm just not in love with you. Sorry. I'm sure we can be friends | though. I'm sure we'll run into each other at some social gatherings."
Some people get bored with the meaninless features of bahai "community".
Some people are more deeply troubled by the deeply ingrained patterns of dysfunctionality in bahai culture, and its resistance to improvement.
What you have done is to reduce meaning, not add to it. You also fail to demonstrate ANY of the good things about bahai belief. You lack compassion, empathy, and a sense of the depth of life. You are a typical uncaring person who pays superficial lip service to human values, while investing little or nothing in understanding, or living, what those values actually are.
What you are doing is called psychological "projection/transference" - you are attributing (via reversal) the things that are wrong with bahai to the very people that have dared to speak the truth about those wrongs.
This is an old, tired, rhetorical tactic of people that are weak, and lack passion for the truth. Is is the beginning of scapegoating, which is a disgusting and pernicious form of intellectual and spiritual laziness.
Unlike most of bahai culture, this blog is UNCENSORED. You could, if you cared about anything real, actually learn something about what that means instead of just engaging in the usual cultural imperialism, being hurtful, lacking any sense of appreciation for the eternal, transcendent aspects of life.
| Oh... and if it's that hard because your closest family and friends are in | the Baha'i Faith and they don't believe like you, then they obviously need | the in-depth discussions with you.
Can you please explain on what basis you have any right to glibly demean the experiences of gay bahais that have been trashed by their homophobic families, friends, bahai community?
| The ones that love you the most are | obligated to give you that time, for your benefit as well as theirs.
Are you a social worker, or therapist? If not, you might want to be VERY CAREFUL giving advice about a incredibly sensitive topic to a group of people that might turn out to be STUPID and WRONG for some of those people.
|You | carry a fire to which their faith ought to be tested... and who knows, | maybe with enough exposure, they might realize they're the crazy ones.
The only people that haen't already realized that conforming to stupid bahai rules are mostly authoritarians/fundamentalists. This is deeply entrenched, dysfunctional pattern amongst bahai leadership elites.
| And if you and your family and friends are getting forced out... sheesh. | IT'S AN UNHEALTHY RELATIONSHIP. Thank God for the opportunity to be | forced out. Staying would imply that the comfort of familiar abuse is | better than a chance to have a happy life elsewhere.
I personally think bahai is unhealthy for almost everyone. Being forced out is not a great opportunity for most people, it is a dehumanizing experience that leave deep scars. You inability to see that is, unfortunately, typical of the ignorant attitudes in the mainstream of bahai culture.
The utopian rhetoric of most bahais is clearly vacuous. It is a highly dysfunctional religion that hurts far more people than it helps.
Thanks for making that "reality" even more clear than it already was.
Thanks for presenting the opportunity to vent.
Have a NICE DAY.
Badhras
· 3 months ago
Fubar:
Your post is humorous, as you attack me rather viciously. I suppose my tone invited it, but I think you missed my intent. Still, I'm very serious about the idea that "all are His servants"... including you, and I don't mean that in the trite, "God sent you to be evil so that the rest could be tested" kind of way. I mean that in the way that you are reflection or a side-effect of what the the Baha'i Faith has produced.
I also find it funny that you've linked me with Baha'i aristocracy.. wow, if only. How about "missed the last 5 or 6 Feasts, married to a closet atheist, Catholic parents, other Christian denomination in-laws, 1 facebook friend that is Baha'i, 4 Baha'i email addresses in my address book, left the community for almost a decade" kind of Baha'i? Yeah, I'm quite the well-connected, self-appointed Baha'i thought-police kind of guy, aren't I? I'm not sure why it matters how much money I make, but I don't have the luxury to sit around and police people for the AO, if that's what you're suggesting.
My goal is more to diffuse the rancor over mainstream Baha'i beliefs that aren't going to change anytime soon. There exists a momentum with regards to mainstream Baha'i culture/doctrine, and it ought to be factored to effect change. It's a tactical point, and I apologize for not making it clear. I waded through so much debate/arguments/apologies and by the time I posted my statement, I felt like I had read many variations on a theme, which is why I took a reductionist approach in my original message. The disputes back and forth over doctrinal stuff just started to annoy me...
Change takes time... and if acceptance of LGBT in the Baha'i Faith is going to change, I wager it changes because the scientific and the reliable sociological data continues to grow and new converts will bring that perspective into play. Right now, there are enough people outside of the Baha'i community that support the status quo employed by Baha'is. I'm not suggesting it is fair; it's simply my observation.
That said, I'm not God... so I don't even know if acceptance of LGBT is really part of the plan? What if it really is a genetic thing and gene therapy can "cure the gay"? (pardon the phrase) Perhaps this unpleasantness and societal discord is moreso for us to understand the urgency of finding such a cure. (gawd, i already hear the flamethrowers getting ready...) And who knows, maybe we go there and conclude "bad idea, too many side effects and the creation of psychotic heterosexuals just isn't worth it. let's just settle with just being nice to gay people"...
...And whose to say it's a completely genetic thing? This tendency to reduce behavior to binary outcomes based on genetics is irritating. Many of the lesbians I've met have huge trust issues with men, thanks to abuse... but there's no way I would suggest all are like that.
...and yes, I know you want to end-game it at: let's just be inclusive with gay people. I understand why that option makes sense. I understand why it's just. I understand all of the good things... I just don't think it can take hold given the current context of the Baha'i Faith and the world it is in.
And as for Farhan, it's not my goal to reduce him to an idiot or a thoughtless uncaring a-hole. I think he's rather articulate and I commend him for trying to reach out and explain his viewpoints, but honestly... I just see a lot of people beating up the doctrinal thinking. I've lurked around a variety of places... I just don't see it leading anywhere, and I don't at all sense that serves the interests of the Baha'i Faith. But hey, if Farhan wants to stick around... that's his call! It's quite possible that he's seeing something I'm not.
I find your transference accusation, humorous, too. I make no apologies for the Baha'i Faith, of which I've had little to do in its making or current state, nor do I suggest that it's current form is ideal. At most I would wager that it might be ideal only in that God permits it to be in its current form that we might learn from it. Still, for me to say that it is a religion full of crap and evil seems wrong to me.
In some ways, I've had the inverse experience of you... I had every reason to not be a Baha'i, but the Writings and my conscience called. Not my wife, not my friends, not my neighbors, not my ex-GF from over a decade ago with whom I'd had little contact, not my child... NOBODY close to me facilitated the decision to reinstate myself a member of the Baha'i community. The process was hardly fun and it was emotionally painful because it really just between me and God. My only explanation is that God just wanted it that way, maybe for the benefit of my kids, or somebody else... or even me. I don't know. I certainly didn't ask for the call, but who the hell am I to argue.
And please, don't reduce me to some trite addict who found God because he destroyed his life in some terrible vice. I was husband to my wife long before, was father for over a year, was employed longer than married, financially stable, no arrest record, functional member of society, etc. etc.... oh yeah, I have some moving violations on my driving record, and I got a parking ticket recently for using multiple spaces. That said, my mostly functional existence continues today, after I chose to rejoin the Baha'i Faith.
That said, I apply this concept of "the call" to others... who the hell am I to judge if they don't get the call?
Still, I maintain that the ones closest to you are the ones who owe you their time. Whether they act properly or with compassion is another thing, but the Writings speak of patience and kindness, right? There is little achieved in parents trashing their kid who has a hard enough time coming out... and maybe that's just because if one of my kids came out to me a decade from now, I would give them my time and my thoughts because I'm obliged to do so... but also because I want to do so. That's my job, and it's a job that I love. As to what they should do, that's up to them. Why? For me to decide anything, is really to impose my ambition. I can only give them my sense of things, and it might not jive with what they want to hear, but they can always rely on the knowledge that I love them. That said, I'd probably be a bit sad if one of my kids was gay, much in the same way I'd probably be sad if they had down syndrome. There's no reason to not love your child in either scenario, but there are definitely some disadvantages to both. (and please, i'm not even suggesting either conditions are equivalent in terms of difficulty or severity or even from a perspective of genetic certainty... it's very imperfect comparison)
If the Baha'i Faith presents itself, as you see it through the people around you, as a bunch of a-holes, then leave. It seems better to leave on your terms than to be told to leave, but that's just my take. Still, why would you want to surround yourself with that? If your family turned out to be a-holes... major suckage, but that doesn't change the fact that leaving was the right thing to do. I know it's painful, and it's not my intent to ignore that. But in the end, leaving is sometimes the healthy thing, right? Like you did, right? Do you regret your decision? I reduced the discussion to such fundamental terms because that's where things usually end up.
And let's just suppose my kid grew up in that "institutionalized" Baha'i stuff and was active in the faith... and then one day declared LGBT, and I did what I claimed I would do. If the rest of the community saw the loss of a valuable member, then great. Let them feel that pain, and let them feel that conflict. If my kid turned out to be more rebellious and never quite fit in the community, and then eventually said "this Baha'i thing is crap," I wouldn't begrudge the community if they said "good riddance". Where I would take offense if my kid decided to leave and they replied with "good riddance" rather than a more polite, "we're sorry to see you go."
... and if my kid was LGBT and wanted to be a defiant dissident in the community, then I'd warn them of the possible repercussions and I would stay out of their way. It's really not my ambition to fight on either side of the LGBT question because I see validity on both sides, and I make no claim to have the certitude for either viewpoint. For me, I sense there's something balance, in-between, something different... but I haven't figured it out yet.
I've got no problem with change in the Baha'i Faith; I invite it. I'm not sure others are ready, but hey... change is the law of nature, right?
And as for change, there's something to be said about knowing when and where you can effect it. Sometimes fighting gravity is just dumb and suicidal... but sometimes you can use gravity in your favor.
fubar
· 3 months ago
Badhras,
You do not seem to be a "good listener". Or you are confused. In either case, thanks for the details, and I hope you find whatever "answers" it is you are seeking.
I've repeatedly said I'm an ex-bahai. The typical concept of "god" has much validity for me (I tend toward buddhism), but I repect other people's faith as long as it isn't the cause of injustice/etc.
I personally think bahai is too backward to change in a significant way in the near future. I do however continue to support reformers, and hope that in whatever small way, their faith in the good side of human nature, and in basic human decency, will have an effect on the world far greater in proportion to superficial appearances.
From Rabbi Michael Lerner's web site:
Our Jewish Renewal synagogue is a place where each of us is encouraged to explore the spiritual realm, and to work out our own understanding and our own relationship with God. In the final analysis, one might decide that the very word “God” (an English, not a Hebrew concept) is too loaded and misses the complexity of spiritual life. Rabbi Lerner urges us to not waste our time trying to convince ourselves to believe in authoritarian or patriarchal concepts of God that we’ve never been able to accept.
As he puts it: The God you don’t believe in doesn’t exist
so please don’t spend your time fighting against the God that you don’t believe in, but instead use your time with us to connect to whatever spiritual reality in the universe you can access.
Rabbi Lerner’s teacher, Abraham Joshua Heschel, used to talk about God as “ineffable” precisely to capture this reality:
Let us stop fighting against the God that we don’t believe in. We stipulate that the God you don’t believe in doesn’t exist in order to make room for you to encounter the God or spiritual reality of the universe that you might believe in.
that our language is deeply limited and almost every attempt to speak about spiritual reality can become a caricature, turning what is a living reality into a lifeless and distorted idolatry. ...
---end quote---
There are many other religious communities that offer "something better" than the narrow/rigid version of bahai that I've seen in numerous cities, states and countries for 30+ years.
Most bahais tolerate lies/deception. That is a sure sign of dysfunctional organizational culture. The world is poorer because of lies and injustice.
The larger "missionary scheme" of bahai is at a dead end, but the leadership is keeping the "slave mentality" going amongst the followers, and oppressing demands for freedom/democracy with predictable/absurd/reactionary arguments.
The postmodern version of bahai culture is still largely an unknown, but this blog is probably a good place to see the "good" version of the future of bahai. if the sheeple wake up.
fubar
· 3 months ago
correction, I meant to say:
"The typical concept of 'god' DOESN'T HAVE much validity for me"
eeeks.
Barb Ruth-Wright
· 3 months ago
sheeple? Oh, I do love that....
Alison
· 3 months ago
"Should they attempt to conceal His light on the continent, He will assuredly rear His head in the midmost heart of the ocean and, raising His voice, proclaim: "I am the lifegiver of the world!'"
Definitely Bermuda!
a critic
· 4 months ago
All religions are inherently divisive. Baha'i's confidently speak about their progressiveness, but it is a sales ploy. Much of the Baha'i faith that is rooted in obsolete ideas, and I Baha'i's are not allowed to question the tenets of the ethos (I've seen Baha'i's question the writings in a group of people, and the response is one of immense surprise and negativity).
Baha'i's really think they will have a world religion, even though all other religions have failed to do this except by force, and even then, competing religions are practiced in secret. Your machine will never force itself on all people. To think universal government and eternal peace are attainable is to ignore that we are humans. People are selfish by their very nature, and this will inevitably lead to war. To say "homosexuality is not acceptable" suggests there will be those outside of your perfect religion, as there have always been homosexuals and there always will be, unless you exterminate them as they pop out, I suppose ("Arbeit macht frei!"). I can see some Persian Baha'i, like a Grand Wizard of the KKK, "Don't want 'em. Doesn't mean we don't like them, just means we don't want'em. We can round them up, send them all to Brazil and build a fence around it. It's a beautiful place, they LOVE it there."
Along with women, alcohol, and whatever else, your savior has decided that homosexuality is evil. Your PR geniuses love to say that homosexuality is a "distortion of spirit" or "a condition to which a person should not be reconciled," but you are as dogmatic as any other religions.
There are other, more fulfilling ways to accept life than finding some obscure religion and saying, "Oh, this one is right." I know it is hip and cool to be a Baha'i since so many Baha'i's are extremely wealthy and educated, but the question of the ages is how these people become (or remain) Baha'i's (or any other religion). You guys are SO GOOD at twisting and redefining word at will to combat any criticism, and I am sure you will have a very kind, modest, rational response to mine. My experience with Baha'i's is that they are convinced of their greatness and superiority - I have not sensed this level of self-righteousness except perhaps in evangelical southern baptist churches. I think what Baha'i's fail to realize is that they are PROTECTED BY THEIR OBSCURITY. If people actually knew half of what you believed, sure, many would say "Ah, they are harmless," but others would think, "Oh wow, this is the same old crap repackaged - why do we need ANOTHER one of these?"
Religion indefinitely creates war, and to suggest otherwise is delusional. Since Baha'i's have so many other religions to conquer, maybe you can put homosexuals at the front lines to form a great army to destroy the religions of the world. They won't get to heaven, but at least they will have done something valuable.
I have seen how you love bomb people and sucker them into fireside chats or devotions only to pressure them into becoming Baha'i's like you are running an Amway convention. Sure, it is all "Oh use independent investigation" until you get into the religion and become overloaded with dogma. I married a Baha'i, so I see all of this constantly. You prey on weak people to expand your empire of boring self-righteous Persians, pseudo-intellectuals, and hippies. I can't stand listening to you all talk about how stupid Christians are, how they are just "devolved" or "confused" or, oh God the worst of all, "They are Baha'i at heart." Ugh, barf me out. You people gossip more than any others, violating your basic beliefs. You also gamble and drink, yet say you don't in public. I don't know how you can take yourself seriously considering your religion has an ID CARD. I am sure there will be Baha'i splinter groups one day that do not follow the Universal House of Justice and don't think you need so much bureaucracy to be religious. And maybe those people will say, "Man, maybe gay people are just GAY, and not mutants, or misguided... we will allow them to be Baha'i's. Then your obsolete religion may actually be progressive. But seriously, I just can't imagine you people haven't grown up that you have to write these enormous posts trying to reconcile something that is OBVIOUSLY DEPLORABLE (preaching equality while denying homosexuals the same rights) with your religion, when by your very nature you know being a homosexual is just... well, being a homosexual. There is nothing right or wrong with it, it just is. If you think homosexuals choose to be gay, then I think you need to meet some, or some post-op homosexuals. Your savior uses an age old and bizarrely narrow version of humanity, that there are straight men and women and that is it. I have known feminine straight men, butch straight women, and men that look and act like women and prefer other men, and vice versa. I have met men that are bisexual and otherwise completely "normal." Your conception of gender is so UNprogressive. I don't know how you live with yourselves.
fubar
· 4 months ago
as an ex-bahai (resigned in protest of the kind of stuff you mention which I've seen in several cities/states/countries, over 30 years), I can't find much to disagree with in what you say. I would add that racism and class elitism were common in the USA bahai community from the beginning and for many decades, and the legacy of the unresolved injustices created during that time still haunt bahai culture. A sort of bahai aristocracy has developed of people from "old" (usually "pioneer") families that expect, and frequently get, preferential status and privileges/information.
re: "Much of the Baha'i faith that is rooted in obsolete ideas, and I Baha'i's are not allowed to question the tenets of the ethos (I've seen Baha'i's question the writings in a group of people, and the response is one of immense surprise and negativity)."
Generally correct. It has gotten worse. In the 1960s/70s a lot of "open minded" people became bahais, but by the 1980s, their attempts at finding a real place within bahai were increasingly subject to conformist pressures, if not direct, sometimes, vicious attacks. e.g., a friend of mine with a PhD in anthropology was told by "important" (fundamentalist-idiot) bahais that doing yoga was "spiritually dangerous" (evil) because it was "occult".
As you may know, there were a number of attempts by non-conformists, scholars, critics and dissidents to fight the prevailing attitude of bahai narrow-mindedness.
Some of the more well-known ones (USA) are/were Kalimat Press, Dialogue Magazine (http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/docs/vol2/dialog.htm), and the "talisman" email list, and subsequent web sites/blogs, such as this one.
Also various mild, internal reform initiatives have taken place, such as MDS/ABS, where bahai international development, or aid workers, or bahai scholars, tried to "push the boundaries". Generally speaking, those that propose ideas in such venues that could potentially lead to deep questions about the validity of basic bahai theology/ideology are studiously ignored (http://bahai-library.com/conferences/common.thr...), marginalized, or attacked.
There are of course many good people in the bahai community. some doing great things for other people in their communities, or the world. However, unless they "submit/obey" to the prevailing bureaucratic/fundamentalist/authoritarian mindset (and agree to be exploited by bogus "leaders"), they are not "truly accepted" by the mainstream. Some people are willing to give up their brain, but most see no reason to, and start to drift away when they see that nothing much can usually be done to reverse the dysfunctional tendencies that prevail.
Some of the most innovative bahais I knew started adopting "integral thinking" 10 years ago, and that appears to be the "better thing" to bahai.
... Put simply, a theory is a map of a territory, while a paradigm is a practice that brings forth a territory in the first place. The paradigm or social practice itself is called an "exemplar" or "injunction," and the theory is called, well, the theory. The point is that knowledge revolutions are generally combinations of new paradigm-practices that bring forth a new phenomenological territory plus new theories and maps that attempt to offer some sort of abstract or contoured guidance to the new territories thus disclosed and brought forth. But a new theory without a new practice is simply a new map with no real territory, or what is generally called "ideology."
A scientific revolution is the result of new paradigms and new theories coming into accord with each other, both of which are anchored, not in abstractions but in social practices. These revolutions are embraced, at the start, by a handful of individuals at the leading edge, but, if validated, these new exemplar-worldviews (paradigms-and-theories) are accepted by the larger culture or knowledge community, becoming a new "normal" or "legitimated" science, which stabilizes and carries forward until the next set of pesky data arises that refuses to be humbled in the existing scheme of things, and new and heretofore undisclosed territories start to shimmer on the horizon of the possible.
A similar process is now at play, I believe, in the nascent integral salons spontaneously forming around the world. Before we discuss that possibility in more detail, here is another example of a knowledge revolution, this time in politics.
The rise of the modern, liberal, representative democracies in the West involved, among innumerable other things, a significant shift in values from traditional to modern, which particularly began in Europe around 1600 and accelerated to something of a crisis pitch by the mid-1770s. Traditional values (e.g., blue, mythic-membership, conventional) tended to be conformist, ethnocentric, hierarchical, mythic-religious, and based on individuals conforming strongly to the present order. Modern values, on the other hand, tend to be egalitarian (not hierarchical), individualistic (not conformist), scientific (not mythic-fundamentalist), and place a premium on equality (not slavery).
This shift from blue to orange, or from traditional values to modern values, was presaged in the salons or "small gatherings of moderns" (the word salon is French, but these gatherings were also occurring in England, Scotland, and Germany, among others), where the social practice of dialoging according to orange values was carefully exercised. That is, the practice of dialogue geared toward mutual understanding, reciprocal exchange, postconventional equality and freedom was practiced by small groups of leading-edge elites. This was a collective, communal, intersubjective, dialogical discourse at the orange wave of consciousness--a social practice, paradigm, or injunction of dialogical discourse within an elite subculture whose center of gravity was orange or higher.
This new exemplar or social practice gave rise to a set of novel experiences, insights, data, illuminations, and interpersonal understandings, which new political theories then sought to capture. Most of these new theories of liberal democracy shared the idea that the only way to integrate individual and social is to have the individual feel that he or she is participating in the laws that govern his or her behavior. In the States this was popularly summarized by the phrase, "No taxation without representation," and it essentially meant that a people have the right to be self-governing. This new practice of dialogical discourse and self-governance (generally called a "social contract") was conceptualized in different ways by leading-edge individuals ranging from John Locke to Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Paine to Thomas Jefferson, Immanuel Kant to James Madison.
This self-governance is not a felt requirement of blue (which will follow the law if it is part of tradition), and it is not felt requirement of red (which will follow the law if it issues from the power leader). Only at orange does interiority start to demand a hand in the laws that regulate its own behavior.
(Of course, there were several other social injunctions that were part of the orange tetra-worldspace, including an industrial base that was one of single largest factors in reducing the need for slavery, and which lessened the demand for physical strength in order to succeed in the public sphere, thus paving the way for, and actually allowing, the various liberation movements, including feminism and abolition. But we are here focusing on the subset of social practices or paradigms within the rising cultural elite that was forging a new and revolutionary form of governance that would tetra-mesh with new techno-economic base.) . . .
---end---
Clearly bahai contains many backward elements. Some critics have stated that bahai is "being pulled back down into the cultural gravity well of shiism". (paradigm regression)
Good luck.
amishindian
· 4 months ago
To see a Universal House of Justice, unchained from the test of Guardianship, soaring with the full breadth and vision of humanity, male and female, straight and gay.
fubar
· 3 months ago
re: real bahai reform - the "miracle of rising from the dead"?
Thanks for the interesting feedback.
I'm not sure how you would see an "unchained" uhj developing from the current, paradigm regressive, dysfunctional bahai "system"/culture.
There would have to be something like the "truth and reconciliation" process (used in S. Africa and elsewhere) where the people that run/support the current exploitative system admit their errors, commit to a process of deep improvement, leave "bad" ideas and behavior behind, embrace radical accountability/transparency, and so forth.
Then, you would see the "miracle of rising from the dead".
Here is an example that probably is very close to what most "open-minded/progressive/western bahais" outside the "leadership aristocracy" would enthusiastically embrace:
(apologies in advance for the length of the material.)
imagine replacing "Jewish" with "Baha'i" in the following excerpts:
BEYT TIKKUN
The House of Love and Healing A Jewish Renewal Synagogue
“Join us as we seek to connect to the ultimate spiritual reality of the universe with joy, awe, wonder and radical amazement.”
A Jewish Renewal and Politics of Meaning Oriented Synagogue for the San Francisco Bay Area Under the leadership of Rabbi Michael Lerner
Jewish Spirituality and the Joyous Commitment To Heal and Transform the World
Many Jews have felt distanced from Judaism because their experience growing up in the Jewish world was alienating. Instead of encountering a vibrant spirituality, they encountered a community that felt spiritually lifeless. Very few people today recall moments in their childhood when their parents seemed to be excited about going to synagogue because they were about to have a spiritual experience that would broaden their understanding or deepen their connection to God.
All too often young people found a Jewish community that reflected the materialism and selfishness of the larger American society. Instead of Judaism being a spiritual and political alternative to the ethos of “me-firstism” and “looking out for no. 1,” it seemed to be a communal manifestation of market-driven values. Despite Judaism’s powerful injunctions concerning “tikkun olam” (the Jewish obligation to be involved in healing and transforming the world), it often seemed as if Jews were only concerned about their own survival. While no one can blame Jews for worrying about survival after the experience of two thousand years of oppression culminating in the Holocaust, the community that emerged from this trauma often seemed so bent out of shape, so paranoid about those who raised questions or doubts, so intolerant of those who challenged Israeli policies, and so joyless, that they were unable to open to themselves or their children the riches of the Jewish heritage and thus were unable to hold the loyalty of many of their young people.
Welcome to Beyt Tikkun!
~1~
No wonder, then, that many younger Jews have sought spiritual nourishment in various Eastern or New Age philosophies, or have sought an ethical community through their involvement in purely secular political movements. Others have given up on community altogether and sought solace in the development of an inner life or psychological wholeness. From these experiences, many Jews have learned valuable lessons that can enrich the Jewish community and deepen Jewish spirituality.
We at Beyt Tikkun are part of a global effort to create a Jewish Renewal movement that reclaims Judaism from conformism, materialism and spiritual deadness. Among its central injunctions are:
Be Real. We are building a Jewish life in which people can be involved in a real way that feels right to them, not just to please parents or relatives. We do not believe that one should participate in rituals and prayers that feel meaningless or oppressive.
Don’t split spirituality from social change. A central message of our Torah is that the God of creation is the God of liberation: there should be no separation between our spiritual life and our ethical life. No matter how deep our inner experience, we are not living a “spiritually realized life” when we ignore the pain and suffering of others. Our Torah and our Prophets insisted that spiritual life could not be separated from political struggle to heal and transform the world. So Jewish spiritual life must also explicitly address how we as individuals and as a community can participate most effectively in the struggles for social justice, peace, ecological sanity and a world based on love and openheartedness.
But I’m Not Sure I Can Believe in God
As children, many of us learned conceptions of God that are unacceptable to us as adults. We heard of a patriarchal and authoritarian God who sat up in heaven and inter-
~2~
vened in human affairs at will, sometimes responding to our prayers if we were good or said them right, sometimes ignoring us when we needed Him. This God was most mysteriously absent during the Holocaust.
You may have to let go of this picture of God in order to actually encounter the God of the universe. We are more inclined to another conception—God as the Power of healing and transformation, the Force in the universe that makes it possible to break the repetition compulsion to pass on to the next generation the pain that was done to us. In Rabbi Michael Lerner’s book, Jewish Renewal, you will find a way of thinking about God that does not require you to abandon your intellect or subordinate yourself to an arbitrary and vengeful father figure.
Our Jewish Renewal synagogue is a place where each of us is encouraged to explore the spiritual realm, and to work out our own understanding and our own relationship with God. In the final analysis, one might decide that the very word “God” (an English, not a Hebrew concept) is too loaded and misses the complexity of spiritual life. Rabbi Lerner urges us to not waste our time trying to convince ourselves to believe in authoritarian or patriarchal concepts of God that we’ve never been able to accept.
As he puts it: The God you don’t believe in doesn’t exist
so please don’t spend your time fighting against the God that you don’t believe in, but instead use your time with us to connect to whatever spiritual reality in the universe you can access.
Rabbi Lerner’s teacher, Abraham Joshua Heschel, used to talk about God as “ineffable” precisely to capture this reality:
Let us stop fighting against the God that we don’t believe in. We stipulate that the God you don’t believe in doesn’t exist in order to make room for you to encounter the God or spiritual reality of the universe that you might believe in.
~3~ that our language is deeply limited and almost every attempt to speak about spiritual reality can become a caricature, turning what is a living reality into a lifeless and distorted idolatry.
We welcome you to develop your own spiritual life in the context of BEYT TIKKUN. Prayer services combine spiritual reflection, meditation, singing and study. You need not do what everyone else is doing. Use the time and space to deepen your own relationship with the ineffable—and then, as it feels comfortable, join us as we seek to connect to the ultimate spiritual reality of the universe with joy, music, awe, wonder and radical amazement.
Is This Authentic Judaism?
This question was first raised against the rabbis who wrote the Talmud. They were challenged by those who wanted to stick to a more literalistic interpretation of Torah.
The truth is that Judaism has gone through powerful transformations throughout history and it is precisely those transformations that have enabled it to survive. Renewing Judaism is an authentic process precisely because it refuses to allow each generation to lose touch with God’s healing and transformation energies. Jewish Renewal is a process by which we reconnect to God by transforming rituals and practices that lack meaning and depth in a post-modern context.
Our Jewish Renewal synagogue is also deeply committed to preserving tradition. Our first instinct is to reclaim, not discard. There is a great spiritual, ethical, philosophical, psychological and political wisdom build into our Jewish tradition. As a community, BEYT TIKKUN is committed to studying this tradition and exploring its insights.
Our first instinct is to reclaim, not discard. There is great spiritual, ethical, philosophical, psychological and political wisdom built into Jewish tradition. ~4~
Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan, the founder of the Jewish Reconstructionist Movement, used to say our tradition has a vote but not a veto. A hundred generations have gone before us, each making its contribution to tradition. Under the guise of interpretation, each changed the Torah it received. We will continue this tradition, combining reverence and study with our commitment to authenticity and spiritual aliveness.
Open and Welcoming to All
BEYT TIKKUN welcomes you. Our aim is to build a community of people who are forging an authentic Jewish Renewal life. You are welcome to join us at whatever level of commitment or interest you have. It’s fine to put “one toe in” and gradually find a level of involvement that feels right to you.
Don’t be embarrassed if you don’t know the prayers or melodies when you first become involved with us. Many congregants gradually learned them, and you will gradually learn them as well. Don’t be embarrassed if you don’t know Hebrew. We encourage you to ask about words or terms that you don’t understand. If you don’t know much about Judaism, it’s most likely not your fault, but the responsibility of the Jewish community which was unable to turn you on as a child and create in you the desire to learn it. Or, maybe your parents were not Jewish or had distanced themselves from Judaism and never exposed you to the best of it. We welcome and honor gays and lesbians into our community. We are committed to fighting against homophobia in the Jewish community and in American life. We welcome and honor single parent families and seek to provide them with support. And, we also welcome and honor heterosexual couples and traditional style families. Because most American Jews derive from European/ Ashkenazic backgrounds, other Jews have sometimes felt excluded from traditional Jewish communities. We welcome ~5~
Sephardic Jews into our community, knowing that we have much to learn from them. We hope they will feel honored in our synagogue.
We also welcome Black Jews (who have often been ignored in Jewish life) and Jews from South and Central America, and hope that they will bring their rich cultural traditions into the life of our synagogue. Recent immigrants from Russia and Eastern Europe, and Israelis are also invited to participate in our synagogue.
We welcome Jews from all class backgrounds. Jewish life is often dominated by those with money, while others have been made to feel marginalized. We cannot avoid the reality that our community needs money to pay for staff, facilities, publicity, etc. While we certainly want to honor people who generously donate their money to help sustain the community, we will not give unequal attention to gifts of money over gifts of time and energy.
We welcome converts and take an active role in encouraging conversion to Judaism. Conversion was discouraged in the Jewish world only after Christian societies made it a capital crime for Jews to convert Christians to Judaism. In many countries of Europe, the entire Jewish population could be expelled from a city if even one Christian was converted to Judaism. No wonder Jews became deeply resistant to conversion. From our standpoint, converts play a central role in bringing new energy and new wisdom into Jewish life. We encourage non- Jews to learn about Judaism so that they may consider conversion. We also welcome interfaith couples. We believe that every step taken to affirm Judaism is positive and should be supported. ~6~
Singles
Our congregation welcomes singles and believes that our members have a special obligation to take care of them. Too many people believe in American society’s ideal of meritocracy which presumes that “you can make it if you really try” and the corollary that “if things aren’t working out, you have nobody to blame but yourself”. In the economic sphere, this way of thinking leads some people to feel perfectly justified in taking advantage of the poor and leads some to blame themselves for not being more successful. Inevitably, this way of thinking seeps into our personal lives so that many people come to believe that if they are single and don’t want to be, it must be some personal failing on their part. Because this self-blame is so widespread, others feel that they might embarrass a single person if they were to arrange an introduction to someone who may be appropriate.
Throughout Jewish history, the community took primary responsibility for making shidduchim (connecting people to each other). It is only in a market society where each person is forced to fend for her or himself that this practice disappears. While we do not want to return to the days when arranged marriages coerced people into relationships that were stultifying (particularly to women), we do want to create a community in which “making matches” is encouraged. For this reason, at each of our events we dedicate some time to introducing people to each other and we encourage each member of our community to take responsibility to help singles who are interested to meet one another. ~7~
Couples often find it easier to socialize with other couples, but we encourage couples to invite singles to their homes for Shabbat and holiday meals.
Some people are single because they want to be and we respect this option as well. We are creating a community in which singles feel safe and supported so that they do not feel pressured to be in relationships that may not be right for them. At the same time, as a community we support longterm loving relationships. We do not accept the model, rampant in American society, that sees the autonomous individual capable of standing alone, as the fundamental building block for a healthy world. Rather, we believe the healthy individual is one who can acknowledge the human need we have for loving relationships, and can allow herself or himself to experience the vulnerability that a loving commitment to another entails.
BEYT TIKKUN is a Hallachic Community . . .
~8~
The Politics of Meaning . . .
We are building a community of people who challenge the ethos of selfishness and materialism in American society. We work to maximize love and caring, as well as ethical, spiritual, and ecological sensitivity. ~9~
We reject the notion that the only “real oppression” is economic oppression. In this society most people suffer from a spiritual deprivation of meaning enforced by a competitive marketplace which rewards selfishness and materialism and encourages a deep and widespread cynicism. The deprivation of meaning is just as real as the deprivation of economic or political rights—and the resulting oppression of middle-income people is central to our concerns. In our community, we reject the “comparative victimology” which insists that one group is “more oppressed” than another and focus instead on our common humanity and on healing our common and socially-rooted pain.
There is a coercive “political correctness” that is popular in the Bay Area and that leads people to feel that their political work must be involved in the championing of “the most oppressed.” Our view is that it is equally important to develop a deeper understanding of the ways in which our own lives have been mis-shaped and undermined by the dominant ethos of selfishness and materialism and by the systematic denial of our spiritual needs. When people fully understand this, they will understand why they personally need to live in a society that treats every human being as created in the image of God. That understanding leads us to a deeper commitment to the healing of our planet and to challenging the globalization of selfishness that manifests in unfair global economic arrangements, destruction of our environment and an unwillingness to share what we have with others. . . .
Israel . . . ~10~
Yet, we believe both as a matter of ethics and a matter of rational self-interest and survival that Jewish national sovereignty cannot be secure if it is won at another people’s expense. So, we support the creation of a demilitarized Palestinian state. As a community, we are engaged in public actions to support the forces of peace in Israel.
It is our obligation as Jews to speak out against Israeli policies that violate our best understanding of Judaism’s commitment to seeing every human being as created in the image of God and as equally valuable and deserving of respect. Jewish pain and Jewish suffering is no warrant for the oppression of others.
We are outraged at acts of terrorism against Israelis and we condemn all such acts. Whenever an Israeli is hurt by acts of violence, our community feels pain. We also feel pain at the daily humiliations and denial of freedom imposed on the Palestinian people. We are outraged at the killing and maiming of Palestinians, whether by the Israeli military forces occupying the West Bank or by Jewish settlers who are unwilling to grant to Palestinians the same rights to national self-determination that we Jews rightfully claim for ourselves. We are critical of the widespread violation of human rights that has accompanied the occupation and supportive of Israelis who refuse to participate in those activities. We believe it is the responsibility of American Jews to speak out on these issues with the same vigor that we spoke out against violations of human rights in the countries where we do not live (e.g., Tibet, Chechnya, China, Colombia, Bosnia, Rwanda, Iran, Iraq, Syria, etc.).
We steadfastly oppose the use of state power to coerce religious behavior or to privilege orthodox variants of Juda- ~11~
ism over other kinds of Jewish life. We are critical of governmental moves that restrict the rights of Reform, Conservative, Renewal, or Reconstructionist Judaism within Israel or that invalidate the legitimacy of conversions performed by rabbis from these strands of Judaism.
We hope to build people-to-people ties with many Israelis, to encourage our own members to learn Hebrew and to visit Israel frequently, and to encourage Israelis to visit us.
The Spiritual Practice of This Community
Our goal is to have every member of the BEYT TIKKUN community involved in some arena of personal and communal spiritual practice. Here is what we have in mind:
Shabbat (the Sabbath) is not simply about going to synagogue. It is a 25-hour spiritual, meditative, psychological and intellectual process which involves a withdrawal from the normal consciousness of domination and control over time and space.
On Shabbat we enter into a consciousness that is focused on awe, wonder, amazement, celebration, pleasure (through food, sex and intellectual exchange), aloneness and community. We are building a community of Bay Area people who support each other in experiencing Shabbat.
The Personal Practice of Our Community
We foster as many spontaneous acts of love and caring as possible—coupled with a compassion for each of us and a recognition that most of us will fail to fully embody this ideal most of the time. ~12~
We believe that the world cannot be healed solely through individual healing. Social transformation is essential.
Nevertheless, we want to foster a community in which we each do what we can to embody our highest ideals.
Here are some things which we seek to develop in ourselves:
GMILUT CHESED—acts of lovingkindness.
TZEDAKAH—a life of selfless giving, letting go of attachment to possessions and power, and giving not for the sake of recognition but because “giving to give, not to get” is the best way to live.
KINDNESS TO ANIMALS—one of the reasons our community has chosen to have only vegetarian events.
CARE OF PEOPLE IN NEED—not just Jews, but everyone.
SHALOM BAYIT—to make peace in our relationships and in the world.
INTERNAL AWARENESS—of one’s own processes, of others’ needs, and of one’s own place in the universe, developed through meditation and self-reflection. ~13~
RECOGNIZING GOD IN EVERY HUMAN BEING—and acting on that knowledge.
JOYFULNESS—a life in which we can playfully and happily affirm ourselves, each other, and the universe.
OPENNESS TO PLEASURE—allowing ourselves to experience the joy of physical, spiritual, ethical and intellectual pleasure.
Daily Spiritual Work
We hope our members will take some time each day to center themselves and check in with the universe, with God, with their own deepest selves, and with the Jewish tradition. At some future point we may have a daily prayer service. In the meantime, we hope our members will shape a time each day in which they can reconnect.
Fighting Lashon Ha’Ra—Hurtful Speech about Others
One of the most destructive features of contemporary life is the way people put each other down. The old ditty “words can never hurt me” was decisively rejected by our rabbis, who thousands of years ago forbade Jews to engage in hurtful speech towards others. Even true statements can be needlessly hurtful. Jewish religious law not only forbids us from participating in such speech, but from listening to it. Indeed, listening to such speech can be just as destructive to our souls as actually initiating it. One of the goals of BEYT TIKKUN is to build mutual support for each other, and to resist the tendency of people to spread negative thoughts or feelings about others or about themselves.
Of course, lashon ha’ra does not preclude us from engaging in constructive criticism. This is best done face-to- ~14~
face with the person we are critiquing, and in circumstances in which the person has been asked if s/he feels safe and ready to hear critical feedback.
The prohibition against lashon ha’ra does not prohibit us from critiquing public officials or leaders of political movements for mistakes in their political activity. It does, however, suggest that even for these public officials our primary focus should not be on the details of their personal lives, but only on their political actions.
If we can create a community which struggles against lashon ha’ra, we will be making a real and very concrete contribution to the healing of our planet.
Making our Spiritual Practice Real
In the first year of BEYT TIKKUN, our central focus was on the creation of a regular Shabbat service. Now, the goal is to deepen our Shabbat observance and encourage each individual to engage in personal spiritual practice. We encourage each member to be engaged in these practices:
Prayer and Meditation
Our goal is to help our members integrate some form of prayer or meditation into their daily lives. We provide instruction and resources so members can learn more about Jewish prayer, meditation and Shabbat observance. Here are some options:
Pray or meditate for 15 minutes every day. It’s a perfect way to begin the day that can give a renewed sense of purpose and mission to life. . . . ~15~
Community Participation . . . Education . . . ~16~
Children’s School . . .
Our main goal is to teach the following values:
Awe and wonder at the grandeur of creation Gratitude Generosity and Hopefulness Love and Caring Commitment to the Jewish people and to Humanity . . . Developing an Inner Spiritual Life . . . Learning the prayers, rituals, and mitzvot of Jewish life Learning Torah and the Torah traditions
There are several approaches to building a synagogue. In many traditional synagogues the central building block is a board composed of wealthy people who hire a rabbi and cantor and raise money for the venture. Unfortunately, many times this ends up giving excessive power to the wealthy and the message gets communicated that what really counts is having money. In opposition to this, some Jewish Renewal communities have formed around an antileadership or ultra-democratic culture that insists on equal power for each person in the group in shaping the community.
Some of these ventures have been wonderful successes. But a problem sometimes emerges: people who have little knowledge, spiritual experience, or psychological sophistication sometimes use the democratic process to work out unresolved personal issues. Or, they displace quite legitimate anger at the wealthy and powerful elites in the larger society, onto people in their own groups with marginally more power than themselves. In these contexts, talented leaders find themselves the targets of unwarranted suspicion and hostility and often withdraw from the community. . . . ~20~
We are not creating a community of equals with regard to religious matters. We each enter our community at different levels of knowledge, psychological awareness, and religious education. We are not all equally prepared to participate in shaping the community’s spiritual life. Living in a progressive culture that privileges democratic forms, many people have the expectation that they should get a chance to vote on everything and feel resentful or coerced when they are not included in decision-making. For this reason, we want to make clear that this is not the practice or expectation of this community. ~21~
Is It Contradictory to Have to Pay for This Kind of Spiritual Life? Shouldn’t It Be Free? . . .
Barb Ruth-Wright
· 3 months ago
Thank you, Fubar, for posting this - it is quite beautiful, and thought-provoking. I hope folks will not be put off by its length, and will take time to read the whole thing. Food for thought for Baha'is, as many of the features of this movement are already a part of Baha'i life...this is the true spirit of Baha'i, I believe. The part about Lashon Ha'Ra is a particularly good reminder for Baha'is.
Barb
Barb Ruth-Wright
· 3 months ago
Hmmmmm........a Baha'i Renewal Feast? Open to all? Radical idea.
Barb
dco
· 3 months ago
this is good, on my website I have collected a couple of dozen sites liek this that demonstrate open, welcoming and loving congregations of all sorts...
re: if God=the Void, then God is neither gay or straight?
Barb & DCO,
Glad you liked it.
On a related theme, raised elsewhere in this thread (?), in the following article, a Christian-Buddhist dialogue, there is a discussion of the connection between the original word root for "obey" ("to listen deeply"), and the practice of becoming liberated from ego.
The article doesn't make it explicit, but I think what both the Christian mystic and Buddhist are saying is that the experience of egolessness in both traditions is basically the same thing. Thus, the "radical" aspect of this is that in Buddhism there does not have to be a "manifestation", or "prophet" that intermediates between "man" and "God" - the Buddhist meditator can potentially reach the same level of egolessness as Christ did.
In any case, while reading the article, what I thought about was the Beatles song "Let it Be":
How could anyone's sexual preferences/orientation have anything to do with attaining awareness of formlessness (the highest goal of "spiritual" people)?
How could anyone's sexual preferences/orientation have anything to do with being in a state of "egolessness" and awareness of ultimate "emptiness"?
Any Baha'i meditator can immerse themself in the devotional atmosphere, and practice of detachment, that leads to such "formlessness".
iirc, Dr. Juan Cole wrote an article about one of bahaullah's (officially untranslated) "mystical" tablets that has themes that are parallel with buddhist/yogic ideas about the topic of "the ultimate = the void".
Apparently the greatest devotional act is NOT devotion to the image of a prophet, or rules, or bureaucracy, or scripture, but devotion to nothingness/formlessness/egolessness.
Every human being can be liberated into nothingness by giving up ego.
"Let it be".
Devoutly love emptiness. Because it liberates.
And "let people be". Don't force them into false constructs or categories such as "good people = straight", and "bad people = gay".
Emptiness is neither gay or straight, and neither is "God".
---
"There is, monks, an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned. If, monks, there were no unborn… no escape would be discerned from what is born, become, made, conditioned. But because there is an unborn..., therefore an escape is discerned from what is born, become, made, conditioned.” ~ The Buddha Ud 8:3
Translator: Bhikkhu Bodhi Udana 8:3 In the Buddha’s Words, Bhikkhu Bodhi (ed), Wisdom 2005, p. 366.
Craig Parke
· 3 months ago
Fubar,
Thank you for this very timely post for me today. I really needed to bring this to mind due to a recent death. Do not morn those who have returned to the formless because they have been liberated back to the unborn, unbecome, unmade, and unconditioned. In the formless is reunion with the All. This is the true spirituality. The true mindful remembrance. Because we forget this we suffer in life. At any moment we dwell in the formless. Our form here is only temporary. We are as vast as the limitless uncreated in the Universe. This is my grief in the Baha'i Faith that these men made it so small. Something that could have embraced all became nothing more than the black in the eye of a dead ant so without Spirit. What these men did is truly one of the great tragedies of world history and will bring the rebuke of severe Divine Judgment upon their heads because undiminished Spirit is what all are seeking now across the world. They put a roadblock in the path of individual reunion with the formless. Atman is Brahman. When I remember that there is no sorrow. there is no loss. There is only liberation from all false constructs and the delusions of men and their systems of false consciousness. The drum of individual spirit needs to beat of it's own. It cannot be managed or controlled by others and never should be. Individual spirit is sacred to each human soul. Reunion with the formless is what all form seeks and will receive in the end. We must dwell in it now in our individual liberation.
Thank you for reminding me of that sacred state. My religion has no name once again after decades in the Baha'i Faith. My religion has no name. In that the form can become the formless and the Universe is again vast and limitless.
fubar
· 3 months ago
You are welcome. Sorry to hear that you lost someone close to you. May their spirit dwell in the warm and safe embrace of light and be at one with the good, the true, and the beautiful.
sonjavank
· 4 months ago
Barb: I lke "The Lesbian | Gay Baha'i Story Project" as a title and suggest that you make it as a blog. I can help with the practicalities of this if you need it. Certainly with design (one of my jobs).
I'd suggest you make it a blog with comments turns off, so it functions like a website, but one you can keep adding new stores to - and can keep refining it. I suggest you turn comments off, so that the focus remains on the stories and keep the whole atmosphere as one of celebration (outing). By celebration, I don't mean that sad stories are ignored, of course not, but I what I suggest is that it is a place for gay presence in the Bahai community (and that's a celebration :))
Perhaps refer people to on Bahairants to a blog made at the time of the first story, that announces and relates specifically to this topic. I'm happy to write such a blog if B doesn't beat me to it. That way the discussion can still go on, and you don't get flooded in comments which might be hard to keep up with - when it is finding and presenting the stories that is important. I can suggest some individuals with stories. You need to give me your email address (mine is on my design page).
It depends on your resourses and goals as to whether you would make it a website, and / or if you use something like wordpress or blogspot. Personally I use a website on my own space for anything I consider important because I have full control over this, however using something like wordpress is much cheaper and most likely easier when it comes to management of the location. You can also have full control such as B would have, where s/he uses a wordpress template but hosts it on her/his own space.
lovely initiative, go for it!
Barb Ruth-Wright
· 4 months ago
Thank you, Sonja - wonderful suggestions, wonderful! You will hear from me shortly.
Barb
amishindian
· 4 months ago
I can't imagine a Bahai Faith without Bahaullah and AbdulBaha or a world without gay folks. But I can imagine a Bahai Faith where the Guardianship is quietly, respectfully retired, where we can enjoy the gardens and buildings and thank him for that and never once thinking of excommunication. Real Bahais would never do that, even to a Guardian.
Barb Ruth-Wright
· 4 months ago
Well said.
dco
· 3 months ago
this is very sweet, thanks
Eric Sartori
· 4 months ago
I think the quote below says enough for me. Since I've been getting to know some gay and lesbian individuals, one thing has become abundantly clear to me: These people are amazing, wonderful and beautiful people. Many of them are people I want my daughter to know as a roll model as she grows up. If I hadn't made an intentional effort, I wouldn't know this for myself and I'd probably still be in a state of questioning how I feel about the subject. I think the next generation will make great strides in clearing the way for true equality and equal rights in our world. I grew up in a world where "Homo" and "Fag" were derogatory words used to belittle someone in the worst way possible. My fathers generation didn't think about it much, because it wasn't so common for people to be open, but the next generation is seeing things in a very different light. Why? I think they are seeing with their own eyes, and not with the eyes of someone else who's told them that homosexuality is wrong or evil.
O SON OF SPIRIT! The best beloved of all things in My sight is Justice; turn not away therefrom if thou desirest Me, and neglect it not that I may confide in thee. By its aid thou shalt see with thine own eyes and not through the eyes of others, and shalt know of thine own knowledge and not through the knowledge of thy neighbor. Ponder this in thy heart; how it behooveth thee to be. Verily justice is My gift to thee and the sign of My loving-kindness. Set it then before thine eyes.
peyamb
· 4 months ago
AMEN BROTHER! THAT is my favorite quote from Baha'u'llah. It sums up to me everyting that He that His religion is about- JUSTICE! Not the nitpicky letters written on behalf of someone or some institution to some individual believer by some secretary. When the Bahai community turns its back on justice, then it is no different from the myriad little cults and religious groups out there making absolutely no positive difference in the world.
Craig Parke
· 4 months ago
Indeed. Very fine post. It is all about Cosmic Divine Justice in all things now. And one aspect of Cosmic Divine Justice is a Cosmic Courtesy Flush on lifetime incumbents in ANY organization on Earth now whether it be religious, political, or economic where people are never held personally accountable for anything. All Groupthink is now off. The Fierce Cosmic Wrath of Divine Justice has come. It is not going to be pretty and the leadership of both Wall street and the Baha'i Faith had better start paying attention. There are many similarities. Entrenched arrogance will not wear well in the days that are coming.
dco
· 4 months ago
Thanks Eric...
dco
· 4 months ago
This reminds me of the quotes that we used at our wedding, since I am from California and M is from Brasil, it seemed right:
4. O FILHO DA JUSTIÇA Para onde pode ir o apaixonado senão à terra de seu bem-amado? E qual apaixonado poderá ficar tranqüilo longe do desejo de seu coração? Para quem ama verdadeiramente, a união é a vida e a separação é a morte. O seu peito está vazio de paciência e o seu coração está privado de paz. Incontáveis vidas ele renunciará a fim de se apressar para onde se encontra o seu bem-amado.
4. O SON OF JUSTICE! Whither can a lover go but to the land of his beloved? And what seeker findeth rest away from his heart's desire? To the true lover reunion is life, and separation is death. His breast is void of patience and his heart hath no peace. A myriad lives he would forsake to hasten to the abode of his beloved.
Daniel Orey
Barb Ruth-Wright
· 4 months ago
Thank you, Eric, for a heartwarming and insightful comment. How wonderful that you made that intentional effort - I hope others will be inspired to do the same.
Barb
Barb Ruth-Wright
· 4 months ago
Thanks, Amanda, for your encouraging remarks. My greatest handicap is a lack of technology expertise - I definitely would need help, were I to take on such a task. Certainly I am capable to learn and would be willing to take the time to learn necessary skills. Projects like this usually come out best if there is a network of support, I think. Diversity is a great tool, a necessary one.
So, I wait to see what response there is - are people willing to tell their stories (of course anonymity is possible, always)? Is anyone else willing to spearhead such a project? Or to commit to contributing skills and assistance or advice in some other way? Reading and assessment (huge task) and copy-editing and verification of details and story - I see only the very tip of the iceberg of such a project. But I am willing to begin - in fact I would relish it. And if someone else is willing to take on such a task, I relish helping as much as possible with it. I am retired, I have resources (limited), I have time, I have enthusiasm, and as I said, a modicum of experience with manuscript assessment and preparation. I am certain there must be other people better qualified than I am, however - let's hear from them.
I have signed your petition, by the way, and was so amazed and gratified to run across it.
I just found this on JMG: It is an interview of Friendly Voices - Linda Ronstadt
"I had moved back to Tucson with my kids because I just thought it was quieter, and my family was there. But Tucson has turned out to be a very conservative place, and I didn’t want my kids coming home from school saying things like ‘That’s so gay.’ So we moved back to San Francisco, and I sent my kids to a school that actively taught that homophobic remarks are just… not OK, and my kids’ attitudes have changed as a result of it.
"Look, my kids are going to be able to form their own ideas, but at least I wanted them to be able to question things. My son is super pro-gay rights, and even though he has a girlfriend, I wanted him to know that as he emerged sexually, he’d be able to do whatever he wanted to do. You know, that it’s not something you have a choice over." - Pop and country music legend Linda Ronstadt, talking to Planet Out. It's a great interview.
In my enthusiasm, I made a mistake - Calyx is a Journal of Art and Literature by Women...
Barb Ruth-Wright
· 4 months ago
As to the meaning of "abnormal" - it is, I believe, a reference to the deviation from a "norm." Left-handedness is a deviation from the norm. Genius is a deviation from the norm. And so on, and so forth. In other words, there is no innate connotation of right or wrong in the proper use of this term - there is the "norm," which constitutes the usual, the common, and there is the "abnorm" which is a deviation from the usual, and is the uncommon. If the "abnormal", for example left-handed people, were to become more numerous in society than the "normal" (in this case, right-handed people), the "abnormal" would become the new "normal."
This is my understanding.
ramfar
· 4 months ago
This is an open-shut case. The Baha'i Faith, in its current interpretation, is deeply homophobic, just like every other conservative religious group.
Barb Ruth-Wright
· 4 months ago
It is indeed my experience that Baha'is, many of them, are deeply homophobic, and the current interpretation encourages this. This is, however, open to change and improvement, as is any prejudice. This will require sustained, serious effort on the part of those who care to help the Baha'i Faith achieve its greatest potential. There is not much point, IMO, in just complaining about it. We must work, wherever and however we can, to eradicate this particular prejudice. A sense of humor, of course, is always helpful in nudging the human race along the path of spiritual growth.
peyamb
· 4 months ago
Actually there is great point complaining about it when the Bahais who are homophobic happen to also be the 9 men leading this religion. They can't have their cake and eat it too as Farhan wants. If you are going to be a progressive community open to all of humanity, then you must allow some wiggle room- even if you don't fully support something. I'm not holding my breath that the UHJ will one day allow gay couples to say "we will all verily abide by the will of God". That aint gonna happen. BUT, what I do hope is that they won't allow NSA's to do their witchhunt of getting rid of openly gay Bahais. I hope they turn the other way when more progressive LSA's allow gay couples to enter thier fold with their kids and maybe even let them have a commitment ceremony with the blessings of the local LSA members. Liberal Catholic congregations are doing this, so why not the Bahais? Oh I know why, because the authoritarian group-think mentality of the Adminstratie Order would never allow it! Maybe that's complaining on my part, but hey the world needs to know the truth of what it is like inside the Bahai community and administration.
farhan
· 4 months ago
Peyamb wrote: Liberal Catholic congregations are doing this, so why not the Bahais?
Peyamb, from what we learn from Sonja, there is a move towards this in some communities. The LSA has much to say in such matters and can decide which activities are open to non enrolled people who have never been considered as second zone citizens, except perhaps by some bigots, but as the "community of interest".
peyamb
· 4 months ago
Considering me an outsider, a person in the "community of interest" is being discriminatory. I am Bahai with equal standing to YOU. Anything less is immoral and wrong and NOT the Bahai Faith. IT is obvious to all who have any sense of justice. No amount of spin can make it look better. If your LSA welcomes openly gay people who are committed to each other, then you are on the side of justice. If you set them aside into the "other" group, then you are discriminating against them. Period! Don't waste your time spinning with me. Maybe you'll fool some others here, but not me.
farhan
· 4 months ago
Peyamb wrote: Considering me an outsider, a person in the "community of interest" is being discriminatory
Farhan: back to my PhD analogy, if someone finds it difficult to follow a PhD course because the requirements are inadapted to his choices, why not try something else? You ask a community to change it’s rules to suit you, when other communities offer precisely the rules you are requesting. Some 6 M people elect delegates who elect NSA members who elect 9 members so as to arbitrate on such matters. We cannot stigmatize such a community for its views and values as I see done here.
If I were not a Baha’i, as a doctor to a Baha’i patient, as any doctor unaware of the Baha’i Faith would do, I would say if this community does not suit you, find one that does and be happy. I would be scientifically interested to see the outcome of these social experiments.
As a Baha’i I am saying we need to improve our attitude towards gay people, but I believe that that the family structure prescribed by Baha’u’llah is in the best interests of humanity. I cannot, either as a Baha’i, or as a doctor, attempt to oblige a community to change it’s regulations on family structure to suit a minority.
This is my understanding today; it would evolve: no spin, no obfuscation, no lies.
fubar
· 4 months ago
Farhan,
Again, your views are absolutist. They lead to corruption, ignorance and backwardness. They only appeal to those that are at a low level of development, and thus need the "comfort" of narrow-minded absolutist values.
You logic is twisted, and is unsatisfactory to people that want real solutions to social justice problems.
The bahai election system, as has been explained in detail on this blog previously, is manipulated by the bahai leadership elites to maintain the status quo, and structurally flawed.
The real problem of the world is that postmodern culture has "deconstructed" societies, and people are sitting in a pile of (memetic) rubble trying to figure out what it all means.
Backward religions like bahai were incapable of resisting being deconstructed, and thus, have no basis for authenticity - from the perspective of those that are trying to find "answers" to the existential problems of postmodern culture.
bahai = cultural imperialism.
bahai = absolutism.
Until bahai theologians discover a basis for the existential problems faced by human beings at the leading edge of cultural evolution, and have it accepted by the leadership elites, bahai will remain a tradition-bound, oppressive project.
In the last 25 years, the theological innovators in the bahai community have been viciously attacked and marginalized.
your pathetic utopian apologetics, which ignore people's real problems, are inadequate.
dco
· 4 months ago
But who is to protect the individual who will be reported by anonymous sources, and is unable to defend themselves?
Barb Ruth-Wright
· 4 months ago
Please note that I said "just" complaining about it - I did not say one should not complain, only that such complaint should be accompanied by some effort in changing the prejudice, such as speaking one's mind on this issue, which you do very well, may I say.
I would revise my statement to say that "some" Baha'is are deeply homophobic - my experience is not broad enough to say accurately that "many" Baha'is are deeply - and note I say deeply - homophobic. As for the nine men on the hill, I have no way of knowing what their deepest feelings are - I believe that they are supporting, as a body, what they feel it is their duty to support - beyond that I cannot say.
As for what is possible to achieve and what is not, I believe it is always good practice for our vision to exceed our reach - this is how we move forward. If you're going to reach, reach for the stars.
ramfar
· 4 months ago
I think you were right the first time. The entire Baha'i culture is homophobic. What's more, this is not at all specific to the Baha'is. The same is true of ANY conservative religious group. They are all generally homophobic and misogynistic. These are essential elements of religious conservatism, irrespective of which creed or "messenger" is followed.
dco
· 4 months ago
Barb
My experience has been the most Baha'is are homophobic, and most of them being the smiling quiet and unable or unwilling to speak out type. As in, "are you married?
"yes, I am, he is math teacher like myself"
"Really? Oh how nice!"
then next thing I know... wham...
Barb Ruth-Wright
· 4 months ago
dco -
I see that my reply to you did not post here - I guess because I replied from my e-mail - I wasn't thinking.
My reply was meant to post for all to see, so feel free to share it if you like. I am minimally adept with technology - I sort of struggle along and do the best I can.
Barb
sonjavank
· 4 months ago
Various posters have made varying claims about the Bahai Writings from saying that homosexuality is forbidden to that homosexuals cannot have partnerships.
So what is really in the Bahai Writings? And if not, where do these homophobic ideas come from? And is it possible for the Bahai community to ever treat individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation, with equality?
So to the Bahai Writings as much as I know relying on English translations only here. I'm focussing on the Bahai writings because to start with this is what the Bahai Faith is based on and secondly these writings are not subject to change. So anything authentic (meaning tablets or writings with a signature or seal on the original or written by a known copyist of Baha'u'llah or 'Abdul-Baha. And this is a complicated issue because in some cases there are several copies of some tablets that are considered authentic Bahai scripture.
And then add to this that what we have in English are translations and translations can never be exact for all cases of writing.
Bahais accept the Bahai Writings as being only that authored by The Bab, Baha'u'llah and 'Adbul-Baha. And Shoghi Effendi's own writing only defines the Bahai teachings where it interpretes the Bahai Scriptures. Shoghi Effendi had excellent English so we can look at his own texts ourselves.
So let's start with the Kitab-i-Aqdas as we have it in English because it is the only place in a text of Bahai Scripture where there is something concerning homosexuality mentioned.
In the preface to this book it is written by the Universal House of Justice or the Research department (no author is given in the 1992 edition for the preface) that:
In 1953 Shoghi Effendi, the Guardian of the Bahá'í Faith, included as one of the goals of his Ten Year Plan the preparation of a Synopsis and Codification of the Laws and Ordinances of the Kitáb-i-Aqdas as an essential prelude to its translation. He himself worked on the codification, but had not finished it when he died in 1957. The task was continued on the basis of his work, and the resulting volume was released in 1973. That publication included, in addition to the Synopsis and Codification itself and explanatory notes, a compilation of the passages from the Kitáb-i-Aqdas which had already been translated by Shoghi Effendi and published in various books.
The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. vii
Nothing indicates which parts where penned by Shoghi Effendi in his role as interpretator of the Baha'u'llah's Writings and what was not written by him, so we have to take all text apart from what is in the Aqdas as either something the UHJ is interpreting, which we know they cannot do or as commentary open for debate, even should the UHJ then decide that some point in the commentary is now to be law they have legistrated on.
I make this point, because even should the UHJ make a law to legistrate that, for example, same sex marriage is forbidden by Bahais, we as Bahais would still be free to discuss and debate this. The laws that the UHJ makes one year, it can also change next year. Obedience to laws doesn't mean silence. And of course, if Bahais may not discuss or debate laws the UHJ have made, well, that leaves very little wriggle room for the Bahai principle of independent investigation, let alone the possibility for Bahai communities to address or relate or to understand these laws.
So now to the text of the Aqdas as it is in the 1992 edition in English:
We shrink, for very shame, from treating of the subject of boys.
Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 58
And now to what is now in the notes to the Aqdas. The Research department or the UHJ have written in the notes section:
134. the subject of boys # 107
The word translated here as "boys" has, in this context, in the Arabic original, the implication of paederasty. Shoghi Effendi has interpreted this reference as a prohibition on all homosexual relations. The Bahá'í teachings on sexual morality centre on marriage and the family as the bedrock of the whole structure of human society and are designed to protect and strengthen that divine institution. Bahá'í law thus restricts permissible sexual intercourse to that between a man and the woman to whom he is married. In a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi it is stated: 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 a 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. Bahá'u'lláh makes provision for the Universal House of Justice to determine, according to the degree of the offence, penalties for adultery and sodomy (Q and A 49).
ibid, p. 223
So let's assume this is the voice of the UHJ of the early 1990s because this publication is considered an official document by the Bahai Administration. That the UHJ state "Shoghi Effendi has interpreted" and then refer a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, indicates that they are treating letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi as if Shoghi Effendi himself wrote them. The letter they quote above does not have a reference to anything in Bahai Scripture and the letter does not state that it is an interpretation. This is very important if we are serious about what really is part of unchangeable Bahai Scripture and what isn't.
Unfortunately Shoghi Effendi never penned anything himself in regards to the status of these letters written on his behalf, except I assume, when he must have been annoyed enough to ask a secretary to write the following:
I wish to call your attention to certain things in "Principles of Bahá'í Administration" which has just reached the Guardian; although the material is good, he feels that the complete lack of quotation marks is very misleading. His own words, the words of his various secretaries, even the Words of Bahá'u'lláh Himself, are all lumped together as one text. This is not only not reverent in the case of Bahá'u'lláh's Words, but misleading. Although the secretaries of the Guardian convey his thoughts and instructions and these messages are authoritative, their words are in no sense the same as his, their style certainly not the same, and their authority less, for they use their own terms and not his exact words in conveying his messages. He feels that in any future edition this fault should be remedied, any quotations from Bahá'u'lláh or the Master plainly attributed to them, and the words of the Guardian clearly differentiated from those of his secretaries.
Shoghi Effendi, The Unfolding Destiny of the British Baha'i Community, p. 260
What this doesn't tell us, is whether the 'authority' of the letters by secretaries is an extension of the Guardian's executive authority as head of the Faith -- meaning, "it must be obeyed by the addresse" or of the Guardian's authority as authorised interpreter of the writings, meaning "they become part of the sacred text." What we can say is there is nothing explicit to indicate that a letter by a secretary can share in the Guardian's unique role as authorised interpreter. There is also nothing explicit to say that the Guardian's secretaries do **not** share the authority of interpretation. However the phrase "their authority less" seems to suggest this, because an exective authority can be greater or less, direct or indirect, can apply to a local or individual situation or to all Bahai communities, but when the Guardian interprets scripture that interpretation becomes part of the scripture concerned.
Sen has an essay on this on his blog. Scroll down the list to "COMMENTARY on Seena Fazel and Khazeh Fananapazir´s "Some interpretive principles in the Bahá´í Writings."
If something is considered part of the Bahai Writings, it cannot be changed. That is, sex with children can never be OK in Bahai law, because this is part of what Baha'u'llah's text in the Aqdas. All the texts in the notes have been penned by others and unless the texts in the notes refer to quotations from the Bahai Scripture themselves, they are all open to change by the UHJ. I would also imagine that if the UHJ were to make a law, that it would clearly state that it was making a law. So in my view, it is unclear to me what the actual status is of the texts in the notes section. I make this point because in 1992 when the Aqdas was first printed in English a list of corrections was distributed about 6 months later. In regards to the Aqdas, the corrections were minor things like typos, but in the notes, sometimes a whole paragraph was deleted, such as in note 108. I can only assume that this paragraph no longer reflects the position or thinking of the UHJ whereas at an earlier time it did.
The UHJ is free to change the texts of the notes as it wishes. Perhaps this could be seen as them making laws? I don't know. Rather than debating whether or not the UHJ make law when they make statements in official Bahai documents, I prefer to focus on the principle of Bahai Law as I understand it, in general behind this. That is, anything UHJ decides or states is subject to change by a later UHJ.
If any statement on the wrongs of homosexuality is by UHJ, then it is subject to change.
farhan
· 4 months ago
Sonjavank, I see you have access to Baha’i writings and other comments about homosexuality which are abundant in Internet
There is a point I see often overlooked in comments. Beyond the personal and spiritual aspects of Baha’i teachings, there is also an implication regarding community life to which they are of course linked. For example, Baha’u’llah condemns very strongly back-biting and also states that he who uses opium or follows his mundane desires is not of Him, even though he bears His name. These comments refer a spiritual condemnation and consequences of such acts. They do not mean that someone who back bites or an opium user are automatically disenroled from the community, unless the behaviour is a threat to community cohesion.
Furthermore, an action might also have consequences in respect to the criminal laws of a country where we live. A child molester might argue that his orientation and hence his behaviour were naturally acquired at birth, but beyond the spiritual consequences in the hands of God, he will be facing community and also criminal charges.
Baquia
· 4 months ago
Farhan, each of the vices that you list (back-biting, opium, child molestation) are self-evident as having a detrimental effect on a community. By lumping them in a discussion re homosexuality, are you implying that homosexuality is also detrimental to a community? If so, can you please provide some evidence? If not, why are you putting them in the same category?
farhan
· 4 months ago
Baquia, we are discussing Baha'i teachings concerning homosexuality. I am explaining how I differentiate between a spiritual condemnation, a community condemnation and a criminal condemnation.
I am not lumping homosexuality with any of these, but explaining that some writings refer to the spiritual requirements, which to me are essential, and others to the community requirements which interact with the first.
IMO, as a doctor and and individual, I would wish the least possible tension, and the more people have fun, the better.
As a citizen I would say that the crux of the matter for all religions has been to canalise the sexual drive into marriage; as no provisions have been made for gay marriages, and procreation and upbringing of off springs have been an essential (although non exclusive) aim, gay relations on exactly the same basis as adultery are detrimental to the social structure.
As a doctor i would say that gays being part of a minority group, they deserve some kind of a protection, just as left-handed people.
As an individual i would say park your car wherever you want but don't get caught. if I were a mayor, i would say for safety reasons and the common good, parking has to be restricted and offenders sanctioned.
timwatts
· 4 months ago
If left handedness were discriminated against in the same way would this appeal to visitors to firesides.....?it's interesting that you should compare gays to left handed people....i also know that in Iran bizarrely left handed people are forced on occasions to write with their right hands casuing stutters in later life...maybe this too is a spirital abhorrence?
farhan
· 4 months ago
Timwatts wrote: left handed people are forced on occasions to write with their right hands casuing stutters in later life
Farhan: not so sure; it can alos make people much more handy by being ambidextrous. Also, if you have an accident and are obliged to use the other hand, after a while it is difficult to switch back to the original, so lefthandedness can be acquired. Try googling lefthandedness: some stricking similarity with homosexuality; for ex:
I am guessing that you bring up lefthandedness because I've done this in the past. Your suggestion that the oppression and suffering I had as a child who was forced to write with her right-hand is somehow 'justified' is as offensive to me as are the comparisions you have made of homosexuality with illness.
Obviously you do not have a clue. Yes, I am furious! How dare you assume that it is OK to beat a 5 year old because she is born left-handed. Shame on you. And if you didn't realise that kids were beaten for writing with their left-hand, now you know. Even as an adult I still have visions of the strap or the ruler that used to come slamming down onto my left-hand. That as a 5 year old, I had to pretend I was using my right-hand while it covered over my left hand doing the writing, when the teacher was on the other side of the room.
Just think, a 5 year old learning to write has to watch out for the punishment - either of using her lefthand or because she couldn't make her right hand co-ordinate like the other kids in the room. - imagine it. A kid having to learn to be subversive - while other kids could just learn to write.
That I was the only kid in the class at 8 years of age who couldn't write, when the nuns decided that it was better to have a kid who wrote with her left-hand after all than one who couldn't write at all. Funnily enough they let me draw with my left-hand and perhaps that's why I draw much better than I write :)
The idea that an adult uses their other hand for a while is quite a different issue. The disorders come from oppression, supression, the belief that you are wrong (as a young child or as an adult) and the treatment of others (being beaten up by the other kids because of my oddness is no joke).
-If- you are suggesting in your comparision with lefthandedness and homosexuality that there's no reason in the world why people born with diversity should be discriminated against, ok, yes. Please stop making comparisions of homosexuality with illness in that case. Think about it, being lefthanded is not an illness anymore than homosexuality is. It is not any more 'deviant' than racial diversity.
farhan
· 4 months ago
Sonjavank, your guess is wrong; I am not aware of any injustice from which you might have suffered, nor do not remember a post on this subject on which I think I commented here in February.
I am suggesting, in reply to Timwatts, that there is an interesting debate on about relations between homosexuality and left handedness you can read on Internet; you can try the address I gave or : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-handedness
I am not suggesting children should be forced or beaten, but that ambidextrous people do not necessarily become sick people and in fact are often smarter than others. I have never suggested that homosexuality was an illness; otherwise I would not have introduced the subject of similarity with left-handedness.
pey
· 4 months ago
You don't need to suggest it Farhan. your fundamentalist adherence to the 9 men on the hill suggest it for you. From the UHJ: "A number of sexual problems, such as homosexuality and transsexuality can well have medical aspects, and in such cases recourse should certainly be had to the best medical assistance."
pey
· 4 months ago
And as they replied to my letter when I wrote to them, they will not allow the best medical assistance if that assistance means that a gay person is told to accept himself, love himself and find someone to love in a healthy relationship. So much for harmony between science and religion. The 9 men will allow Bahais to drink alcohol if it prescribed as medicine, but not allow someone to love in a relationship. Hypocrisy! (oh wait Farhan doesn't know what that word means)
Grover
· 4 months ago
You're not alone. My brother had the same problem at primary school - he started writing with his left hand and got punished with the ruler.
timwatts
· 4 months ago
What are you NOT SO SURE about, My brothere in law was forced to change his writing hand and he then went on the develop a stutter...he went to a speach therapist who told him that it was becasue he was forced to change hands....what are you not sure of???? Please do tell.....
Ambidextrous people are born that way Farhan they are not forced.......
farhan
· 4 months ago
Timwatts wrote: what are you not sure of???? Please do tell.....
Tim, it is not because this does happens in some cases that it ALWAYS happens that way. We can break a leg doing ski, but not all those doing ski break a leg and you can break a leg elsewhere than doing ski. Left handedness can in some cases be acquired and not always inborn. Left handed people who practice, can become ambidextrous. A right handed person can learn to become ambidextrous in some situations. I am right handed but do my knots with the left hand, and this helps me operate faster. Beyond what we believe, we need statistical evidence before we can be sure of something and you can find some information on the sites I suggested.
timwatts
· 4 months ago
<<<Tim, it is not because this does happens in some cases that it ALWAYS happens that way. We can break a leg doing ski, but not all those doing ski break a leg and you can break a leg elsewhere than doing ski>>>>
I did not say it always happens....what is the point of this ski analogy
you first suggested somthing i did not say then find examples disproving it....
this is typical politician tactics in a debate.
where did i say that forcing left handed people to write with their right hand ALWAYS causuing them to stutter?>
where ? where? where
The rest of your post is very odd.
Listen I suppose with a lot of promting and effort i could train myself to sleep (have sex) with women....this does not make me straight does it.... Does training yourslef to tie knots with the other hand mean you are ambidextrous....or does it mean that whatever handedness you were born with you manged with practice and no doubt lots of prayers managed to use the other hand? this is not what handedness means to me....
timwatts
· 4 months ago
Well Farhan I read the article and can find no similarity between being left handed and gayness.
In ye olden days left handed people were considered agents of satan and bad luck...try googling that?....is this the similarity you are looking for?
There is a similarity concerning stigma and prejudice. There is a similarity about the different causes, and more if you study the subject.
timwatts
· 4 months ago
<<<<There is a similarity about the different causes, and more if you study the subject.>>>>
You mean the different causes of homosexuality are similar to the different causes for left handedness...?
no I am not sure what you mean...
timwatts
· 4 months ago
If left handedness were discriminated against in the same way would this appeal to visitors to firesides.....?it's interesting that you should compare gays to left handed people....i also know that in Iran bizarrely left handed people are forced on occasions to write with their right hands casuing stutters in later life...maybe this too is a spirital abhorrence?
timwatts
· 4 months ago
<<<<<<As a doctor i would say that gays being part of a minority group, they deserve some kind of a protection, just as left-handed people.>>>>
What does being a doctor have to do with such an assertion...
farhan
· 4 months ago
A doctor is supposed to be non judgemental, impartial and neutral in his relations with is patients. As an LSA member, as a mayor, we have a responsibility towards the community and society. We have to act in each function as that function requires.
timwatts
· 4 months ago
Is your role as an LSA member, mayor enhanced by being judgemental, partial and what ever the opposite of neutral is? Don't you think this dualism night lead to double standards .....
Baquia
· 4 months ago
"As a citizen I would say that the crux of the matter for all religions has been to canalise the sexual drive into marriage; as no provisions have been made for gay marriages, and procreation and upbringing of off springs have been an essential (although non exclusive) aim, gay relations on exactly the same basis as adultery are detrimental to the social structure."
So if a heterosexual couple can not conceive a child, are they also 'detrimental to the social structure'? If not, why not?
farhan
· 4 months ago
Baquia, when societies have a collective goal, they seek to advance it.
This does not mean that if there are other natural hindrances towards a general goal like family making that a society will abandon measures that are applicable. It is not because a percentage of individuals are unable to participate in a collective enterprise that the enterprise has to be abandoned, not does it mean that it has to be imposed on all.
I feel that an important point is to consider individual "pro-choice" arguments on one hand and the social "pro-life" on the other. A just society would be an equilibrium between individual choices and collective choices. When a person is in a position of responsibility towards a society, he has to take both into consideration.
timwatts
· 4 months ago
No one has advocated giving up marriage......you are excluding people from it by denying them equal rights.... you do this because you really do think that homosexualty is abnormal, perverse, not the way things should be...etc.... Letting gays marry would not harm society at all.... i notice you didnt answer my question previously....do you think that if society allowed gay marriages this would open the flood gates and straights will suddenly decide to abandon marriage?....i wish you would stick to one opinion rather that putting different hats on... tell us what you really think as you the person....
pey
· 4 months ago
He can't tell you what he thinks because independent investigation of truth has ended in his mind once he accepts the "rules" of the community. It reminds me of a Jehova Witness meeting I attended as a Bahai youth once (tryin to learn about other religions and such). In the meeting I was awestruck at how even little kids could answer the elder's questions. Well guess what? The answer was in the back of their little magazine and the parents where whispering it in the kid's ear! That's basically what we have with Farhan- his mind as already been made up for him. It doesn't matter how many gay Bahais get disenfranchised in the community, it doesn't matter if a gay youth tries to kill herself inside the Bahai community... Farhan will continue believing and espousing the party line. BUT, he is just one type of Bahai, fortunately their are others out there that don't agree with his fundamentalist mentality.
dco
· 4 months ago
Pey can you contact me when you can? I have question and I lost your email.
Daniel Orey
farhan
· 4 months ago
Timwatts wrote: do you think that if society allowed gay marriages this would open the flood gates and straights will suddenly decide to abandon marriage?
Farhan: Of course not. Nothing like that has happened in places where gay marriages took place. If I imagine that no writings concerning homosexuality existed at all, I doubt if in the present world situation, a member of a Baha’i assembly (of which I am not) or of the UHJ could defend gay marriages that would be against the laws of most countries. Nor could I see how they could liberalise gay relations and yet prohibit non-gay relations outside marriage. This could lead to an irresponsible attitude towards marriage. I am sorry you feel confused by different hats. When I work as a physician, I have to observe neutrality and secularity, and to defend the patient’s rights over state laws, for example by protecting confidentiality against state action. When I work as an expert designated by a court, I am serving the state and I have to inform the patient of my mission and not take sides for or against the parties involved, for example the insurance on one side and the patient on the other. If I am an LSA member, I have been elected to protect that community and I have to represent the position of that community, in view of the Baha’i teachings. I cannot say that being a doctor I am neutral.
We all give our opinions, but social structures that are "regulators" of the social body also have opinions.
timwatts
· 4 months ago
Wearing different hats does not confuse me at all.... what does is your abilty to have several different opnions at the same time....
compensation for gays===doctor hat destroyer of society = baha'i hat change our natures like you can change which hand you wirte with = doctor hat nothing wrong with being gay= ? hat
what do you beleive about gay people ##
<<<<If I imagine that no writings concerning homosexuality existed at all, I doubt if in the present world situation, a member of a Baha’i assembly (of which I am not) or of the UHJ could defend gay marriages that would be against the laws of most countries. Nor could I see how they could liberalise gay relations and yet prohibit non-gay relations outside marriage. This could lead to an irresponsible attitude towards marriage.>>>>
I can't unpick what the sense here is... I don't want to make you public enemy no. 1 but i do think you ought to have just 1 opinion...
farhan
· 4 months ago
Timwatts wrote: I did not say it always happens.... what is the point of this ski analogy
Farhan: I said I was not sure about the correlation between stuttering and having opposed left-handedness being scientifically established. Some scientists agree, others don’t. Statistics don’t seem to be conclusive. You gave the example of your brother and I argued that we need statistics on a larger scale than one case. You went on to say that ambidextrous people were born that way, again a subject of controversy. It has been alleged that there is a prevalence of left-handedness amongst lesbians; again a subject not completely established. In the link I provided, some seem to believe it, others seem to have proved it contrary; it is a subject of controversy.
Timwatts: You mean the different causes of homosexuality are similar to the different causes for left handedness...?
Farhan: Many human conditions are not clearly cut: all genetic, OR entirely acquired. They can be partly this AND that; to me this is also true of mathematics, poetry, music, diabetes, homosexuality and left-handedness. In addition, the stigma and prejudice linked with the two are similar.
Timwatts: what do you beleive about gay people
Farhan: I believe our understanding improves with the years, it is a condition met in some 5 to 10% of populations, partly innate and partly acquired, sometimes an exclusive preference, sometimes an occasional one, sometimes enacted and sometimes repressed, a minority that deserves protection, which is unable to live it out in marriage in the present world conditions, which societies are not prepared to liberalise. As a doctor defending my patient I wish it were more easy for them, and would say that it is probable that exceptional talents and gifts are also linked with these conditions. If I were responsible for society, as a mayor, I would say I understand societies which liberalise and those that do not liberalise gay marriages, and this will allow us to compare in later years. I agree to allow those who choose to be Lutherans and those who choose to be Baha’is to experiment different community rules. I disagree to see Lutherans or Baha’is insulted for their choice. As a Baha’i on an LSA I would say that those who choose to be Baha’is choose to comply by community rules, as I strive to do as a Baha’i. TAFN; good night!
timwatts
· 4 months ago
well i can put you in touch with the speech therapist used to see a lot of stammers and stutters in people who have been coherced into changing their natural handedness......
remember our duty to consult competent medical advice.... by the way she wasn't able to cure my gayness although she was only a speech therapist....##
<<Farhan: Many human conditions are not clearly cut: all genetic, OR entirely acquired. They can be partly this AND that; to me this is also true of mathematics, poetry, music, diabetes, homosexuality and left-handedness. In addition, the stigma and prejudice linked with the two are similar>>>
You mean the causes of many human conditions are not clear cut?.... and... what's your point here?
<<<to me this is also true of mathematics, poetry, music, diabetes, homosexuality and left-handedness. In addition, the stigma and prejudice linked with the two are similar. >>>
I'm not sure again what you mean....the stigma and prejudice are similar? you mean left handedness and being gay??? tthis is not true at all... no one is refused a hotel bed room becasue they are left handed what are you saying?
And yet again you make your long list of afflcitions and include diabetes in the same list as being gay again given more fuel to the notion that you beleive it to be an illness.....
Your doctor hat says no... othrwise you'd be sacked as a doctor for holding these views
but your baha'i hat says it is an illness.... both cannot be right they are mutually exclusive...
farhan
· 4 months ago
Timwatts wrote: but your baha'i hat says it is an illness....
Farhan: it doesn’t; it says everything is not all black or all white. The quotes say that homosexuality and transexuality might have medical implications. There is nothing about being a disease, spiritual or otherwise.
I dug this out for your speech therapist: an interesting study cited in Time nearly 70 years ago:
The gist: far from causing stuttering, forcing children to switch from left-handedness to right-handedness was associated with less stuttering. Left-handers and ambidextrous students both had more than twice the stuttering rate of right handers and switchers. Of course, those able to successfully switch may have had more developed left brains in the first place (that old problem of correlation vs causation).
<<<<Farhan: it doesn’t; it says everything is not all black or all white. The quotes say that homosexuality and transexuality might have medical implications. >>>>
To say that transexuality might have medical implications is simply a ridiculous statement...do you mean that a transexual might want to undergo gender reassignement surgery?...well i never you don't say... OR are you saying that the cause of transexauality has a "medical" origin...whatever that means.....
How is this connected with homosexuality...
SO to recap Baha'is don't beleive that being gay has a medical origin and they don't advise gay people to seek medical attention......
As to your reseach re stuttering I will admit that the forcing of children to change hands is largely discredited as an explanation for stuttering nowadays..
the original point was that it was wring to force change on left handers....because it causes harm (the process) and also it was impossible to change people's sexuality and no lessons could be drawn from the success or otherwise of chnaging handedness
farhan
· 4 months ago
Timwatts wrote: To say that transexuality might have medical implications is simply a ridiculous statement
Farhan: a transsexual is someone who feels that he or she has been assigned by nature with the wrong body and needs gender reassignment, including surgery. Before states accept this, they need the opinion of medical experts. Baha’is submit to medical opinion.
Timwatts: OR are you saying that the cause of transexuality has a "medical" origin Farhan: we don’t really know yet. Some scientists argue that the presence of hormones in used water persist in nature could modify our fertility, orientation and sense of gender. You can find controversial papers on all this through Google. If you provide me with an E Mail address I can send you articles.
Tiwatts: SO to recap Baha'is don't beleive that being gay has a medical origin and they don't advise gay people to seek medical attention
Farhan: Baha’is say that science is in it’s infancy. I have seen nothing in the writings saying homosexuality is a disease and in fact even for doctors the definition and implications of a disease are not always easy. Being in a minority situation, whatever the reason, can entail medical and psychological problems that can be assisted by spiritual and medical help.
timwatts
· 4 months ago
What do you beleive
do you beleive that homosexuality is ABNORMAL?
farhan
· 4 months ago
Timwatts wrote: What do you beleive do you beleive that homosexuality is ABNORMAL?
Farhan: The question as I see it is not what is normal or abnormal. The question is what can I do which will be in the best interests of humanity, as an individual, and as a member of society. Christ’s life was not “normal”; it was by far in the best interests of humanity.
Baquia
· 4 months ago
How do you manage to use so many words to say so little?
Badhras
· 3 months ago
Dear Farhan:
You try so hard. You really do. I don't know whether to applaud your efforts or to have pity or to simply offer some prayers.
Please give some thought as to whether your efforts here are fruitful. You are clearly a Baha'i of reasonable intelligence and capability. I can't help but wonder if your talents would be better spent trying to reach out to different people.
Dear Everybody Else: Carry on, I suppose. It's clear that you enjoy this way too much, and whose to say you're not doing the Lord's work. As the writings go... "all are His servants and all abide by his bidding." People have postulated that the world is a stage, and what if God is a director and his casting sheet required all kinds of villains and heroes and anti-heroes... and honestly, who really knows which role you've signed up for. I sure as heck don't, but I'm sure God does.
On a serious note though, ever consider that the people that need to hear your interpretations of justice and compassion aren't here?
Either you're here to vent and complain or you're here to effect change. I can see this forum being useful for the former. I'm not sure how it enables the latter. I suppose you're sharing ideas, but it strikes me as effective as an institutionalized debating society with no real power. But hey, quite the intellectual and spiritual exercise, right? Believe me, I know that forums like this are fun.
But seriously... if you don't like the Baha'i Faith... then fine. Point taken. You win. 9 male homophobes live under the delusion that they rule the world. The rest of us are weak and dumb and are complacently propping up the other 9. End of discussion. You win!!!
With that established, now what? Does anything else you have to say really matter? Seriously. Does it? Does your identity need acceptance from other "mainstream" Baha'is? And seriously, why would you want the acceptance of such shallow rank-and-file?
Or are you just pissed off that the awesome club that you belong to has changed or perhaps you've changed in ways and you find that it no longer suits you. Are you too weak to just say, "I relinquish my membership in The Baha'i Faith. I simply do not have the passion to believe what I am expected to believe."
Hell... you can even dump the AO and the Baha'i Faith. Most of us have had to use these words for a different scenario, but it'd probably work for this scenario, too: "I just don't feel that spark, anymore. I'm just not in love with you. Sorry. I'm sure we can be friends though. I'm sure we'll run into each other at some social gatherings."
Oh... and if it's that hard because your closest family and friends are in the Baha'i Faith and they don't believe like you, then they obviously need the in-depth discussions with you. The ones that love you the most are obligated to give you that time, for your benefit as well as theirs. You carry a fire to which their faith ought to be tested... and who knows, maybe with enough exposure, they might realize they're the crazy ones.
And if you and your family and friends are getting forced out... sheesh. IT'S AN UNHEALTHY RELATIONSHIP. Thank God for the opportunity to be forced out. Staying would imply that the comfort of familiar abuse is better than a chance to have a happy life elsewhere.
peyamb
· 3 months ago
With that established, now what? Does anything else you have to say really matter? Seriously. Does it? ------------- Yes it does Badrhas. It matters because that scared 14 year old Bahai kid who's growing up believing that he is diseased, that the God speaking through those 9 men is telling him that he needs to overcome his sexuality in order to please not only his family, but Almighty God as well... that kid Badhras may actually be reading this blog. He obviously won't be able to turn to his family or his Bahai community, but maybe he can see online that there are Bahais who understand, who have been there. From another venue (youtube) I met countless people who thought that they were alone inside the Bahai community, who felt trapped. When they read our words, they broke down in tears, knowing that they were not alone all those years. Maybe in your eyes you see nothing but useless banter and feel sorry for Farhan trying to tell us how all is rosy in the Bahai community for everyone. It isn't. And we are here to share the truth with the world- good and bad. Because if the world turns to the Bahai community, all they will get is the sanitized good in order to swell the ranks.
Badhras
· 3 months ago
Sorry for the late reply. I missed the email notification.
My point is this. You've already made your point. The banter has been made and its purpose can be realized. I'll concede that you can make more points for the purpose of elucidation and clarification, but really... end game. You win, right?
If there's a new discussion post, perhaps a new debate could start... but again, the cycle would probably repeat, right? You win.
Farhan could continue debating, but to what end? I suppose he could inject his thoughts on a new discussion topic, continue to apologize or reach out or whatever... continue to confirm that those who subject themselves to the interpretation of the 9 are fundamentally rank-and-file drones, despite their intelligence and stated intents of compassion.
And if Farhan and others like him stopped coming here, you'd still be here to make your points. I don't begrudge you making those points. I apologize if my post came across as STFU message.
I'll concede that forums that welcome complaints are a wonderful place for those who feel disenfranchised to find some solace from loneliness. Still, I would encourage something more actionable. Advice on how to leave the Faith while maintaining some civility with family might be a start... or how to find happiness as a self-hating closeted individual... or even something more along the lines of how to organize and file a formal complaint at a national or international level such that people might notice. Heck, why not organize to have some new studies done that show gay people who try to "pray away the gay" are usually apt to commit suicide and suffer other mental issues. Whatever it is... shoot for something actionable.
I have no interest in "swelling the ranks" for the sake of others. From my vantage point, either the Baha'i Faith calls to you or it doesn't. The conflict (or the sucky part) is when one finds themselves conflicted in that decision. I'm in no position to judge whether joining or leaving the Baha'i Faith is good for an individual. Each of us has a rational soul to figure that out.
These types of decisions are the hardest that we face, but honestly, the decision is fundamentally an issue between that person and God, right? The rest, relationship to self, relationship to family, relationship to Baha'i community, relationship to world at large, is a matter of how the individual frames their understanding of the first. Sometimes, these other relationships mean more than our relationship to God, but sometimes we go there and gain a better understanding of the supremacy of the former.
My sense is that we're all on our way to God. Some of us have a more scenic route through "hell", but we'll find ourselves in His presence eventually... and who's to say they know anybody's judgment at their time of death.
peyamb
· 3 months ago
Still, I would encourage something more actionable. Advice on how to leave the Faith while maintaining some civility with family might be a start... -------------- Hmmm, or better yet, creating Bahai communities where the individual doesn't feel their only option is to "politely" leave the community. How about unity in diversity for a change?
sonjavank
· 3 months ago
And what about the straight Bahais who want our gay Bahai input into making our communities more colourful?
I don't think Baha'u'llah was referring to only some types of flowers or to just the straight leaves on the tree of humanity.
In fact, I'd argue that any Bahai who thinks that gays need to 'leave' are going against Baha'u'llah's teachings of equality and diversity. The unity is already there as we come from the same tree, right?
Badhras
· 3 months ago
I've never been a fan of rainbows... and pink? Pink is so gay. (haha, wah wah. snark snark. it's a joke.)
Seriously, I'd never tell anybody to leave, but I suspect there are others who embrace that ambition.
That said, I'm not yet convinced that condoning homosexual marriage/activity is really part of the "bigger plan". There may be something to be said about tolerating it right now given circumstances, but I don't know.
peyamb
· 3 months ago
Sorry then what did you mean by: "Still, I would encourage something more actionable. Advice on how to leave the Faith while maintaining some civility with family might be a start... " Instead of advise on how the family could accept their gay son as a fully funtioning part of the Bahai community. We are not the ones with the problem. The fundamentalist, rigid Bahais are the ones that need to change. Please help that happen in the Bahai community. In the end it is between you and God if you decide to make a difference. Peace!
Badhras
· 3 months ago
My suggestion is more in the context of the person wanting to leave but not knowing how.
Long-lived, cultural prejudices die hard.
With regards to homophobic parents, sometimes it's a matter of starting smaller. How about just accepting your gay son. Forget Baha'i for a moment. Problem exists in gay and even agnostic or atheist families.
Once they get that concept, they become better advocates for the concept of inclusion to the community.
For what it's worth, if I encounter a gay kid in the community, I promise to be nice... life affirming...
I can't change the fundamentalists because they don't see you as a casualty of the Faith. It's my belief that some changes occur because the assaults on one's conscience are too much to bear.
If you look at the way things have changed since the beginning of this Dispensation, some of the most meaningful changes come from people tasting the bitterness of their own hate and less from the sweetness of compassion from others.
I am sorry that you have had to endure what you've endured, but that is chance and circumstance and status quo that is beyond my control.
peyamb
· 3 months ago
Thanks Badhras. Don't worry about me. I turned out fine, regardless of the fundies in the Bahai community. Just do what you can do to make your community more open/understanding and accepting. It doesn't mean you have to advocate gay marriage among the Bahais. But it does mean what you promised " tobe life affirming". I hope that includes when the gay kid grows up and brings his partner to feast. You will continue to make sure that he has home in your community and not allow him to be expelled by the ignorant ones in your community. cheers!
Badhras
· 3 months ago
Diversity to what extent?
The Baha'i Faith has a long history with Covenant Breakers. Those closest to the top have sometimes found themselves on the "breaking side".
I really sense there's something much bigger here... something longer than my lifetime. This won't get resolved anytime soon, but I sense it will get resolved because of the momentum around being fair with gays... not to mention the growing body of scientific and sociological data.
peyamb
· 3 months ago
Type your reply...
pey
· 4 months ago
I love it. Farhan continues to insult and turns around and says he's just discussing ideas and not insulting people. Farhan, get a clue. YOU have just insulted a married gay couple raising wonderful children by telling them that God's Messenger for this day and age has lumped them together with back-biters, child molestors and opium users. Thanks a lot for "teaching" the Faith! Oh and btw, you are correct, back-biters are allowed to remain in the community (I know of a number of good Persian woman who open up their purses for Bahaullah and continue to back bit in the community; of course the AO would never think of kicking them out or their dollars). Of course on the otherhand, a gay couple with kids would automatically be told they are not welcome unless they divorce and as the blessed 9 men on the hill said "overcome their wayward tendencies"- you know the tendency to love someone and build a family with that person.
timwatts
· 4 months ago
A child molester might argue that he is only doing what comes natural to him/her...the point is that sex must be between constenting adults and childrfen cannot give meaningful consent...
i see you are lumping gays together with child abusers like all iranians i have met due to the words "bache baz" meaning gay....
even child molesters realise that they are harming others....and want to stop for the most part....
timwatts
· 4 months ago
child molster is not a sexual orientation by the way
dco
· 4 months ago
It is indeed offensive, if not old school. that sexual orientation and pedophilia are constantly linked...
farhan
· 4 months ago
dco wrote: It is indeed offensive, if not old school. that sexual orientation and pedophilia are constantly linked...
No one said they were constantly linked and my response to Timwatts apparently did not appear. I hope you do consider paedophilia as pathological. It can be an occasional or a permanent preference, homo or heterosexual, enacted or only a fantasy; in many cases the abusers have been abused themselves as a child, suggesting that it can be acquired and not necessarily innate.
What I did say, in distinguishing our spiritual, community and legal responsibilities that they could also be subject to legal action.
timwatts
· 4 months ago
any behaviour can be acquired Farhan....behaviour is a choice......people without pathology can choose.....if people choose behaviours which harm others then this is to be sactioned......
you must redefine what sex is.....any definition cannot include elements of non-consent....
My iranian friend told me once that it was common in his village for the men to gratify themselves with "melons" or "chickens".....is this sex?
farhan
· 4 months ago
Timwatts: if people choose behaviours which harm others then this is to be sactioned.
Farhan: I agree
Timwatts: you must redefine what sex is.....any definition cannot include elements of non-consent....
Farhan: biologically, sex is a great machine for producing diversity through procreation, as opposed to non sexual reproduction that produces a genetically identical individual. Sociologically, sex is also a great machine to get very different individuals from Mars and Venus who would otherwise have a hard time getting along, to make a family together, and mix their genetic and cultural heritage and produce biological and cultural diversity. To compensate such meritorious efforts towards evolution, nature also provides us with gratification. Now as usual, we get smart guys wanting to get all the gratification without making those meritorious efforts and taking all the responsibility, and this somehow defeats the purpose of nature. So religions come and say it’s not natural and clamp down on these poor people and try to bring them back to the path of wisdom.
To some extent, but only to SOME extent, our bodies do not ONLY belong to us; society invests in us from child hood and can expect to get something back. We are not free to do everything we wish, even if there is consent on both sides.
Timwatts: My iranian friend told me once that it was common in his village for the men to gratify themselves with "melons" or "chickens".....is this sex?
Farhan: It’s bestiality for animals and in some legislation it is considered it as a criminal offence. For vegetables I am not sure.
timwatts
· 4 months ago
Is it sex though...?
fubar
· 4 months ago
robots?
mavaddat
· 4 months ago
Is this what justice is supposed to hinge on? Are we really supposed to delay granting people such a fundamental right as choosing with whom they spend the rest of their lives without fear of alienation until such exegetical gymnastics are performed and interpretative minutiae are brought to light as will persuade those committed to unthinking dogmatism? Really? Is this the best we can do? To fixate on the various meanings of "authoritative," to engage in correspondence calculus for deciding what letters to whom meant what for the community at large? Are we supposed to take this seriously? These are not the methods of people actually concerned with justice. This is a circus side show, not a way to arrange human affairs (including our most intimate relationships). How can we be expected to take the Bahá'í writings seriously when it doesn't take itself seriously? Therefore, I hope to commend Hume's instruction to us all for deciding how to regard the Bahá'í writings:
Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.
fubar
· 4 months ago
while I agree with you and Hume, *IF* the bahai faith ever changes this specific policy, it will probably be because of the gyrations that reformers like sonja develop.
or, maybe one morning the baboons on the dump in haifa will all get sick and die, and whoever replaces them will simply decide to exhibit some basic human decency and get rid of all the dunce theology in bahai scripture by declaring it unscientific and thus null/void.
dco
· 4 months ago
Sonja -
This is really wonderful, and will take me some time to digest.
In the name of the many silent and fearful GLBT's who read this list, thank you so very much! It obviously took a long time and a great deal of thought!
You are very dear, not to mention brave. You stand as a great light to many of us who have been thrown out, have left, or stand quietly by in fear.
Hugs!
Daniel
christiansiegmund
· 4 months ago
Dear Sonja,
thank you for your article. Despite the fact that I know not much about the Bahá'í faith and hence cannot constructively contribute to the discussion, it still concerns me to see how troublesome a gay marriage appears to the NSA. Instead of, let's say, loving support, the institution even goes as far as to deprive the "trespasser" of his Bahá'í membership rights? Well, I have been happily married to my husband for 4 years now and I couldn't help but think of the following quotation by Rudolf Steiner...
"Leben in der Liebe zum Handeln und Lebenlassen im Verständnisse des fremden Wollens ist die Grundmaxime der freien Menschen."
("To live in love towards our actions, and to let live in the understanding of the other person's will, is the fundamental maxim of free men and women.") (Philosoph of Freedom, Chapter 9)
Here's to that.
Big hug from Berlin,
Christian Siegmund (né Schmidt)
Baquia
· 4 months ago
Thank you Sonja for this thoughtful contribution. A bit of synchronicity as a campaign is afoot to get the English government to apologize for the way that it treated one of the greatest minds of our modern era: Turing.
guest of today
· 4 months ago
According to Abdulbaha, Muhammad the Rasoul of Allah in his 72 raids agains innocent people was defending himself
How scientific is the writing and thoughts of Abdulbaha Abbas the Son of the Glory of Allah?
farhan
· 4 months ago
Guest, I am not competent in the history of Islam, but what I can say for sure is that at this time in the history of our planet, whatever can help us towards love and reconciliation is more precious than considerations that will fan the flames of discord between, one sixth of humanity with the other five sixths.
farhan
· 4 months ago
Thanks for these quotes. In underligning the role of the UHj for the process of adaptation, Shoghi Effendi makes this statement (WOB p 14):
"Such is the immutability of His revealed Word. Such is the elasticity which characterizes the functions of His appointed ministers. The first preserves the identity of His Faith, and guards the integrity of His law. The second enables it, even as a living organism, to expand and adapt itself to the needs and requirements of an ever-changing society."
timwatts
· 4 months ago
To discriminate against me for my sexual preference, something that is outside of my control similar to that of my eye colour seems to me to be an outrage. And not only gay people are going to find it so but all the kinds of people that the Baha’i Faith should be reaching out to. The debate (or absence of one) in the faith is mirrored in the majority of Christian churches specifically the Anglican Church. Search the bible from cover to cover and reference to homosexuality as we understand it today is just not there. How could it be? It did not exist as it does today. What did exist was an exploitative relationship where sex was used in a power struggle and not as a manifestation of mutual love and affection. Gay Baha’is don’t want to engage in random sexual pleasure and gratification in the absence of a loving relationship what they want and deserve is to be treated the same as heterosexual Baha’is. While we were young I witnessed the straight normal Baha’i friends fornicate and drink and do drugs with impunity and when mention was made of “gays” it quickly turned to revulsion and the quoting of hidden Persian or Arabic texts to which I had no access which purported to forbid gay relationships. I know one should not be put off by the behaviour of the believers but when one is faced with prejudice and hatred by your co-religionists it is unbearable. Reason is highly prized in the faith. Men (and women) of intellect have been openly targeted in the past through direct teaching. The faith is fundamentally flawed in that the believers and the Administrative Order insists on the perpetuation of this evil discrimination and ultimately will not prosper and spread as most believers pray that it will.
AmadodeDios
· 3 months ago
Re: "While we were young I witnessed the straight normal Baha’i friends fornicate and drink and do drugs with impunity". Maybe that selective lenience was partly like Shoghi Effendi's delay in letting Western Baha'is know about not drinking alcohol - giving priority to the basics first, and (frankly) not scaring people away. (Dr. Muhajir told us NOT to mention not drinking, because people will run away and never learn about Baha'u'llah!) Couldn't this same reasoning justify being decent to people with different preferences, even for people who are not fully sure whether homosexuality is all right or not?
peyamb
· 3 months ago
Oh yes Dr. Muhajir. And some say he was comfortable not mentioning homosexuality too! His ex-wife on the otherhand... I had the pleasure of listening to a speec of her's when I was teen where she said "And everybody here asks for freedom, freedom. Even the gays! What do THEY want freedom for?" And then she goes off on a rant about the excesses and immorality of the West. Yeah, it didn't do much for helping me come to terms with my issues back then. It just helped push me farther back into the closet created for me by the Bahai community. But I'm sure she had issues with her ex-husband. :o)
AmadodeDios
· 1 week ago
I just noticed the two "ex-". Did Iran Muhajir divorce Rahmatullah Muhajir? Or do you mean "ex-" because he is dead and she is not?
peyamb
· 1 week ago
I'm not sure if they officially divorced. A fellow Bahai told me at the conference that they lived most of their lives seperately because she could not deal with living in rural areas and traveling the world like he did for the Faith. But after hearing her ugly speech against gays at a Summer school, years later I wondered if there were other reasons why she didn't stay with her husband.
AmadodeDios
· 1 week ago
I'm not original - this is a novel thought for me! Of course, they must have been somewhere on a continuum between secretly divorced / dysfunctional and an incredible love story that survived all the differences and distances! Now I feel like a gossip for wishing I knew! (Thanks for the insight!)
peyamb
· 1 week ago
I could be wrong. But it was a Bahai who had no malicious intent who told me this bit of information at a conference when I was younger. If they weren't divorced, then they were seperated because she could not continue living the life that he had chosen (traveling the world and lviing in rural areas). But if you have different information. I'd love to know. Thanks!
AmadodeDios
· 2 days ago
What can I say? I feel like an astronomer, trying to figure out what a galaxy somewhere is made of, by what I can see from here! I have known Baha'i couples who got along enviably well and supported each others' service; all the way to the other end, those who served heroically because home was not an option. I have heard Irán Muhajir tell anecdotes of marital harmony - but no one can maintain terror 100% of the time, so that is still "anecdotal" evidence. I really liked Dr. Muhajir...
farhan
· 4 months ago
Timwatts wrote : And not only gay people are going to find it so but all the kinds of people that the Baha’i Faith should be reaching out to.
Timwatts, as I see it, the Baha’i teachings are offered like a banquet to all humanity. Those who are enrolled in the Baha’i administrative order, are allowed to do service in the kitchen, but these have to abide by some community rules that have nothing to do with our spiritual value or how we are accepted in the eyes of God. Every one can benefit from the teachings, but not everyone is engaged in the kitchen to do the serving.
One of the conditions for being accepted for service within the community is having a sexual life restricted to within the marriage bonds and marriages can only take place between a man and a woman with the consent of parties and of the two parents on each side, but the community has no right to pry into people’s lives, so it is a matter between the person and God if he does not abide by God’s prescriptions. If someone insists on an open behaviour that defies the community rules, whether gay or non gay, he forfeits his administrative rights to serve (ad-ministrer = to serve) as a member of that community.
These rules cannot be changed other than by the decision of the UHJ who at the moment does not believe that gay marriages will one day be endorsed in Baha’i administration.
timwatts
· 4 months ago
God if he does not abide by God’s prescriptions.
Yes and here we have it. You beleive that God himself ruler of the universe who made all things and ordained everything who made gay and straight alike would then send messages to say that only the gay ones should have no fulfillment in their lives and shall not know a loving relationship with another human being...
"These rules cannot be changed other than by the decision of the UHJ who at the moment does not believe that gay marriages will one day be endorsed in Baha’i administration."
this is why people will ultimately reject the faith as this is not reasonable and everything must past the test of reasonableness. The immutable law of God cannot be changed by anyone least of all the MEN of the house of justice. It is not a matter of belief it's amtter of fact. Gay people exist what are you going to do about them...wanting to marry?
newbahai
· 4 months ago
I think ultimately the debate is really over the origin of homosexual feeling and or attractions - is a person somehow born gay? is he/she conditioned for same sex attraction by his/her genes? is it neurological? is it purely social or environmental?
Once we determine what causes homo/heterosexuality we will be better prepared to deal with the implications of a minority of humans having same sex attraction. However, as believers in a "revealed" religion with a revealed Word of God through the Blessed Beauty and his son and grandson we are bound to accept God's Word through God's Messengers - there has never been a single Messenger/Manifestation of God who has permitted homosexual relations as something that is what God intends for the human family
pey
· 4 months ago
Ultimately the debate is about justice and treating a minority with prejudice- something the Bahai community is supposed to eliminate in the world. I accept God's Messenger and His Son and His grandson. I just don't elevate them to the level of idol worship as you do. You can choose to be a fundamentalist in your way of accepting Bahaullah- that's your choice. I believe differently. As long as homosexuals are treated as second class citizens inside the Bahai community, then the world needs to know that the Bahai community is NOT just. Btw, there has never been a messenger of God that has permitted people using a curling iron, does using it make it immoral? You argument makes no sense, except to those with a fundamentalist mindset be they hasidic jews, hindu nationalists, Al Qaida, etc etc. ...
mavaddat
· 4 months ago
The debate is not about the origins of homosexuality, newbahai. In technical terms, we'd say this is a combination of the genetic fallacy and the naturalistic fallacy. Identifying the causal origin of a behaviour does not tell you whether that behaviour is justified or good, since a single causal origin can be the source of good or bad kinds of behaviour. So we have to identify good or bad behaviour by some other measure than origin.
Likewise, identifying a behaviour as "natural" or "unnatural" does nothing to tell you whether that behaviour is justified or good. There is "natural" behaviour that is completely immoral (most anthropologists agree that cannibalism, rape, incest, genocide, etc. were behaviours to which humans had a natural predispositions until they became regarded as bad only recently); and there is good behaviour that is "unnatural" (e.g., building buildings, wearing shoes, helping the sick, mentally unstable, and the dying, etc.).
So the argument is not about the origin of homosexuality. In fact, that the Bahá'í writings obviously do not recognize this simple fact about ethical reasoning is itself a good reason to doubt their relevance for effective moral dialogue.
The fact that there has "never been a single Messenger/Manifestation of God who has permitted homosexual relations" (even if it were true) is a manifestation of human prejudices. From a theological perspective, we might say that God doesn't challenge people beyond their capacity, and people have not (until today) had a capacity to accept homosexual relationships as valid. That might be an explanation you prefer. After all, no Manifestation/Messenger told us that the Internet was in line with God's intention for humans, but we seem to have no problem using that device, now don't we?
Personally, I take it as more plausible that religions are simply codifications of humanity's most basic prejudices, such that whatever beliefs a tribe has at the time of their religious invention becomes the law of their religion. In that case, it's no mystery that Judeao-Christo-Islamic religions would condemn homosexuality, because it was associated with so-called "pagan" tribes, effeminacy, and womanly qualities in general. Since all these religions generally hold women in contempt (including the Bahá'í Faith, despite all superficial pleadings to the contrary), it makes sense that they'd regard men who took on the role of women (or vice versa) as contemptible. But that's just my understanding. You can pick the one that suits you.
sonja
· 4 months ago
Farhan wrote: "Those who are enrolled in the Baha’i administrative order, are allowed to do service in the kitchen, but these have to abide by some community rules that have nothing to do with our spiritual value or how we are accepted in the eyes of God."
Farhan can you supply some Bahai Writings to support this viewpoint of yours please? The quotations in my blog seem to contradict this idea, stating that the principles of the Bahai Faith are for all people. Principes such as justice and equality.
farhan
· 4 months ago
Sonja, I will have to give this some thought before I find a quote. To my understanding, Gods prescriptions are clearly are for the benefit of all. It is up to each one of us to apply them or to assume the SPIRITUAL consequences if we reject them, it is between God and us.
I see participating in administrative functions as something else. I see it not as the direct the law of God, but as community requirements, and each community has its own standard for maintaining cohesion at a given time, depending on the maturity of its members and the requirements of its social environment.
pey
· 4 months ago
Hi Farhan. Your precious 9 men on the Hill said the following to a gay Bahai once: "Both you and your Baha'i friend must first recognize that a homosexual relationship subverts the purpose of human life and that determined effort to overcome the wayward tendencies which promote this practice which, like other sexual vices, is so abhorrent to the Creator of all mankind will help you both to return to a path that leads to true happiness. " HOW in the world do you continue to deceive people on here into believing that the Bahai community accepts gays and lesbians with open arms, but just doesn't allow them to serve in adminstrative functions. You are so wrong in what you are doing, in yoru deception to make the Bahai community and the AO look good at any cost. Even if that cost means gay youth in the Bahai community continually being fed this BS from those 9 men on the hill. People have died. I know those who have attempted suicide because of this rubbish. I thought of it for decades myself because I believed the crap that people like you fed me as a youth. Shame on you!
farhan
· 4 months ago
pey wrote: HOW in the world do you continue to deceive people on here into believing that the Bahai community accepts gays and lesbians with open arms, but just doesn't allow them to serve in adminstrative functions.
Farhan: the advice you are referring to is a spiritual advice addressing a private life; it would be a similar advice if the person was married and madly in love with another, or someone unable to marry lacking consent of parents, or someone offered a high position in politics and having to decline. How the person overcomes the dilemma between his spiritual engagement and personal life is a personal matter. No Baha’i has any right whatsoever of judging another person or spying on his behaviour.
Loss of administrative rights is a community decision, if a person does not comply with and even rejects community rules and can concern many aspects of our lives, including political implication.
How Baha’is in a specific community might welcome someone having lost administrative rights is widely determined by their social experience and background. To my understanding, since the opening up of the community activities to a “community of interest” since 1996, a wide variety of activities outside administrative functions are available to them.
timwatts
· 4 months ago
<<<<it would be a similar advice if the person was married and madly in love with another, or someone unable to marry lacking consent of parents>>>
I bet they wouldn't have been so insulted by a revoltingly predujiced letter from the UHJ though!!!
Baha'i according to their own sacred texts should be actively fighting for the relinquishing of their vile predujiuces and should be standing up to such bullying even if they weren't gay...it's truly revolting to hold these ideas...at least fascists and mass murderers didn't hide behind the shameful double talk and double dealings pretending to have the whole of mankind's welfare at heart...
It will be the BF that will be swept away by an uprising of the masses who are fed up to the back teeth of oppression and bigotry.....there enough of a rant
timwatts
· 4 months ago
"Both you and your Baha'i friend must first recognize that a homosexual relationship subverts the purpose of human life and that determined effort to overcome the wayward tendencies which promote this practice which, like other sexual vices, is so abhorrent to the Creator of all mankind will help you both to return to a path that leads to true happiness.
This can't be real can it...who in their right minds would say such a thing to anothr human being? Go on tell me it's made up surely...
How can God find anything abhorrrent? It's not as if he couldn't do anything about it....for example just change our natures...there simple...what a revolting thing to say.
dco
· 4 months ago
Simply out: "Both you and your Baha'i friend must first recognize that a homosexual relationship subverts the purpose of human life and that determined effort to overcome the wayward tendencies which promote this practice which, like other sexual vices, is so abhorrent to the Creator of all mankind will help you both to return to a path that leads to true happiness." Means to most GLBT folks "go away" They want to say it overtly, but BF decorum suggests that they beat around the bush...
Brian
· 1 month ago
Can you provide the date of that letter? I have never seen this and I am very familiar with the UHJ letters on this topic. Thanks.
peyamb
· 1 month ago
http://bahai-library.com/uhj/homosexuality.disc... It's in #7. Also read #2. Pretty scary stuff that these 9 men leave open the possibility of genetically altering a fetus in order to fix its homosexuality. Fun stuff they don't teach a seeker at firesides, huh?
Where does it say in the Baha'i writings that "homosexual relationships are not permitted" are these equated with sexual relationships? Minor point I know but words are important. According to the NSA of the USA relationships between people of the same sex are not permitted...that's surely going to cause a problem....left the faith 20 years back because i fell in love with a man and wanted to be with him...
Grover
· 4 months ago
"We shrink from very shame the subject of little boys" Kitab-i-Aqdas - a reference to pedophilia, but interpreted by Shoghi Effendi to mean homosexual relationships in general and some letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi saying that homosexuals are spiritually diseased, to love another man is great, but to express that love in a sexual way is not, and homosexuals can be cured with prayer and assistance from doctors. Very 1950s.
The scientific community has concluded homosexuality cannot be cured, it is perfectly natural, get over it homophobes... The modern Baha'i stance, supposedly informed by science and reason, still very 1950s.
timwatts
· 4 months ago
"We shrink from very shame the subject of little boys" Kitab-i-Aqdas - a reference to pedophilia, but interpreted by Shoghi Effendi to mean homosexual relationships
This is about child abuse and NOT gay sex.....Shoghi Effendi could not have equated this with homosexuality....it is clearly wrong?
As for spiritually diseased.....by their fruits ye shall know them?
Grover
· 4 months ago
Yes, well thats what it says in the notes in the Kitab'i'Aqdas: "The word translated here as "boys" has, in this context, in the Arabic original, the implication of paederasty. Shoghi Effendi has interpreted this reference as a prohibition on all homosexual relations" (p. 223).
"As for spiritually diseased.....by their fruits ye shall know them?"
Spiritually condemned is the word actually, along with aberration, and against nature... So yes, the wording in the Faith against homosexuality is quite strong.
Its odd really - why all the angst against sex in general? What is so bad about sex? Are the people who write these things just prudes and never had good sex in their entire lives?
mavaddat
· 4 months ago
Are the people who write these things just prudes and never had good sex in their entire lives?
Precisely. Good sex has enjoyed a fairly recent revival after two-millennia of being condemned because of its association with "pagan" practice. But it's unlikely that Bahá'u'lláh, 'Abdu'l-Bahá, or Shoghi Effendi felt an ounce of passion for their wives. They viewed marriage as a means to an end. Ironically, they had a truly perverted conception of human intimacy.
farhan
· 4 months ago
Grover wrote:
You haven't answered my question - what evidence do you have? And why are you equating scientific practice with business practice?
Grover, the Baha’i teachings consider the spiritual issues as being at the root of all our civilisation problems: whether political, economical, social, natural environment, etc; For science, we need is a conscience that allows us to use science for the benefit of humanity and which matches our scientific advances. Don’t hesitate in repeating questions if you feel I have missed one.
Grover wrote: why all the angst against sex in general?
Farhan: I think it is merely a means of consolidating the traditional family as the basic unit of society by restricting the sexual drive to within the family. Baha’i teachings even praise sexuality as long as it is canalised to within the couple. Let us have the Baha’i community this way, and the Lutherans another way and scientifically compare the outcome in some years.
timwatts
· 4 months ago
Well I know who my money is on....do you wnat to set a time limit on this..... by the way this is the first time i have ever heard a baha'i more or less saying his relgion is better than someone else's..
The fruits of the Baha'i faith are prejudice and division and we should indeed know them by theses same fruits....
farhan
· 4 months ago
Grove, there is a collection of love letters by Abdu'l-Baha to his wife; apparently it would prove to be contrary to what you presume; this having being said, the Baha'i teachings consider sexuality as merely one of the functions in this life, albeit an important one, the fundamental purpose of our temporary life in this world being to advance civilisation.
fubar
· 4 months ago
some of the officially "untranslated" mystical writings of bahaullah contain descriptions of the state of mystical-transcendent unity as being overtly sexual. "god" penetrates the believer. etc.
mix opium/hashish and living in caves waaaay too long, and people will think up some pretty wild stuff.
the theme is apparently borrowed from sufi poetry, which in turn may have borrowed it from bhakti-hinduism and/or buddhism (buddhist merchants had communities along the spice/silk roads through the middle east, at least in the early era of islam).
farhan
· 4 months ago
There is obviously a difference between pedophilia and homosexuality, and I have never see a Baha'i writing saying that homosexuality is a spiritual disease.
farhan
· 4 months ago
Timwatts wrote: Where does it say in the Baha'i writings that "homosexual relationships are not permitted" are these equated with sexual relationships?
Timwatts, the Baha’i standard of morality excludes all sexual activity outside marriage, and homosexual relations are considered as such; I wonder if Diogenus would loose his voting rights if he publicly exhibited himself? But ofcourse no one is allowed to squint into his barrel ;-)
timwatts
· 4 months ago
still waiting for an example of the writings which forbids gay relationships,,,
we have one so far about child abuse.....where are the others...if God finds it so abhorrent,,,,,it seems sadly missing from his words.
Did you know that in Persian the word for gay was .. baché baz.. ie someone who plays in a sexaul way with chidren....so ok we know pedaphilia is condemned what about gay sex...
Grover
· 4 months ago
As Sonja just said, Baha'u'llah only mentioned "little boys", I don't think 'Abdu'l-Baha said anything about the subject, and anything from Shoghi Effendi was written on his behalf - so the best we have is from SE's secretaries and the UHJ... Whats your preference?
sonjavank
· 4 months ago
Farhan wrote: "These rules cannot be changed other than by the decision of the UHJ who at the moment does not believe that gay marriages will one day be endorsed in Baha’i administration."
What rules Farhan? The UHJ has not made any on homosexuality but you have assumed that they have? So that's another theme for a topic of discussion. The distinctions between the UHJ as lawgiver and that fact that only Shoghi Effendi's own writing (in his own words) can be considered official interpretation of Bahai Scripture. Baquia if you could make a link here to where this is already discussed on your blog that would be great.
As far as I know many letters from the UHJ infer that gay Bahais must live celibate lives, but it is an inference not a rule. It is an important point because otherwise then our discussion would be about the rule that the UHJ has made concerning gay Bahais. If you claim that they have made a rule, then please share the ruling with us.
That is why I'm focussing on what is in the Bahai Writings, first on the theme of the ability of Bahai Institutions and in relation to that, of Bahai communities to adapt, and to have a flexible relationship with a changing world.
It seems to me that many homophic attitudes stem from Letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi. Those letters, written by various secretaries in the 1930s till 1957 relate to attitudes of the times. Some of these letters clearly cannot be treated as Scripture because it is clear from the content of some letters that the secretary had some limited knowledge of the Bahai Teachings which Shoghi Effendi would have known about. But more importantly than my concern with consistency is that Shoghi Effendi himself wrote very clearly that his authority was purely as interpretator of Bahai Scripture and not as law giver. The role of making law is for the UHJ.
What was common in previous decades was for gay Bahais often to live in a position of not telling and not being asked by their NSAs and not being sanctioned either. One example is of Mark Tobey who lived for decades with a male acquaintance and was a personal friend of Shoghi Effendi. This practice of not saying publically one was gay was also an exigency of time and place, but a number of countries have moved on, have changed not only laws but much more importantly attitudes towards homosexuality. What I find sad is that it seems that now the way homosexuals are being treated by the Bahai administration in some countries is moving further and further from “the exigencies and requirements of time and place”
Times have changed, and while I can understand that the UHJ would be very unlikely to wish to make any ruling, because it could endanger Bahais lives in countries where any statement regarding equal treatment of homosexuals might be used to imprison or kill Bahais, that doesn't mean that by their silence on making a ruling, that the opposite can be assumed as a rule. As Bahais we must obey the rules of the UHJ, but as for interpreting and understanding the Bahai Writings we must use our own reasoning -our own interpretations of the principles of the Bahai Faith. And so back to the original theme of my blog. First look at the Bahai Writings and see if any principle there would endorse this inequality, and then return to the practices of current Bahai adminstration to see if there's a way to understand the current practice of removing voting rights in some cases and in other cases not doing this.
farhan
· 4 months ago
Sonjavank wrote:What rules Farhan?
Sonjavank, I see the rules this way: 1) No sexuality outside marriage, for gays as for non-gays. 2) No present provisions for gay marriages. 3) No spying on people 4) Gays or non-gays not complying with rules privately figure it out with God 5) Gays or non-gays openly and persistently defying the rules loose administrative rights, which leaves a great many activities, specially all the teaching work, open to them.
I also, very personally, see another line of though in that gays represent a minority and as such should benefit from some compensation. If I were an assembly member (I haven’t been one for years), this would be an argument I would defend: more leniency to gays than non gays.
Devlin Barrett, The Associated Press: "President Barack Obama insisted Monday he still wants to scrap what he calls a discriminatory federal marriage law, even as his administration angered gay rights activists by defending it in court. The president said his administration's stance in a California court case is not about defending traditional marriage, but is instead about defending traditional legal practice."
Concourse on Low
· 4 months ago
Should religion adapt to culture, or should culture adapt to religion?
A conservative would characterize the adaption of religion to culture as abdication of its moral authority. A liberal would characterize it as progress and growth. These two orientations bump heads in every system.
dco
· 4 months ago
It seems to be that both should be open to the each other, a subtle dance, or check and balance... in the U.S. it was churches who both opposed and supported slavery... it was a federal mandate that ended it. The same goes for mixed marriage.
One can and does influence the other.
Concourse on Low
· 4 months ago
I absolutely agree with you, dco.
To refine the question, what aspects of Baha'i law are open to adapting to changing cultural norms, and what aspects are not? And why?
(Not just addressing the question to you, just thinking out loud.)
Eric
· 4 months ago
"Should religion adapt to culture, or should culture adapt to religion?"
Neither. I think there is room for diversity of opinion and for separate belief systems coexisting in a society. Why should any of us compromise our beliefs? I am who I am and will not compromise or adapt for culture or religion.
The Brazilian Government recognizes our marriage, and so I can now receive a permanent visa... it will be a long process, lots of documents and fingerprints involved... but they are saying yes, to gay marriage, and do not discriminate.
Thanks all for the great discussion (pro/con).
As I wrote earlier... what is better a gay Baha'i or a gay non-Baha'i? It seems that the AO has answered this... we GLBT folks are not wanted in this Faith.
farhan
· 4 months ago
dco wrote : It seems that the AO has answered this... we GLBT folks are not wanted in this Faith.
Dco, this is a short-cut assumption.
The vast majority of Baha’i activities today, including study circles, children’s classes, devotional meetings, commemorations, reflection meetings etc are open to everyone, regardless of their being Baha’is or not, or their sexual preferences. Some counties even have more non-Baha’i than Baha’i tutors in study circles.
Participating in the administration of the community (voting, 19 day feasts, Assemblies, contribution to Baha’i funds…) entails being enrolled and this activity requires some perquisites that include a chaste life. This is equally required from gay and non gay Baha’is; How can we imagine a community that accepts sexual relations outside marriage for gays and not for non-gays?
The comparison is imperfect, but in some aspects the requirement is comparable to celibacy required from Catholic priests. If they have a private affair, it is between them and God; if they openly decide to live a married life, they lose their position as a priest. The only loss of administrative rights I have seen in France has been for persistence in not conforming to marriage laws, never for homosexuality.
dco
· 4 months ago
Dear Farhan, I am sure you mean well, so I do not need the fireside list of howthe Faith functions (or dysfunctions). I have been a Baha'i for more then 30 years, I am aware of all the things on your list, but as a married Gay man who is very happily married to a non-Baha'i man, I am not from a prominent Baha'i family and we have not, do not, and never be welcome as a couple, or as a family at any gatherings... at best open honest healthy GLBT Baha'is who are out are removed of their rights, and thereby relegated second class citizenship. This is not a welcome message... the Faith is homophobic and allows bigotry toward GLBT people.
Craig Parke
· 4 months ago
dco,
I have been a Baha'i for 38 years. I am now completely sick of organized religion. Many people today are far too spiritual to find any meaning in it. I greatly honor and revere the Sufi insight of Baha'u'llah and I will always live by it. It opened many doors of insight to me which i use in life every day. But the Baha'i organization now has narrowed the Faith to the span of the black in the eye of a dead ant. The AO is a trainwreck. No one can take a breath. No one can bring the powers and energies of their own soul to the discourse and the avenues of service. Everything is top down micro managed right into the ground. People like PK run the show lock, stock, and barrel. That approach is not spiritual enough to find life in this World Age and anyone who thinks it does is completely tone deaf spiritually.
So live your life, dco, with as much individual human grace and dignity as you can manifest. My prayers and best wishes are with you and your companion.
I am now like Bird. My Faith has no name. I am of the no name religion. The Baha'i Faith was a nice try. The idea was so captivating that it was worth trying to help all those years. But it cannot be helped because it is now just a man made organization of terribly impaired people. If you have to put a label on a spiritual idea to market it, there is already nothing there.
No name is my religion. So I can be completely free to dwell in Spirit! There are other planets and other worlds with other creatures and other massive planes of the Universe far beyond the limitations of this world.
No name is my religion! Be happy in your life as you live each day with it's ever new possibilities.
farhan
· 4 months ago
Dear dco,
I have gay couples amongst my good friends who visit us for dinner. The Baha'i community is made of individuals who are influenced by the world and the prejudices around them and not entirely impregnated by Baha'i ideals. We obviously do have all kinds of phobia which results from the lack of information. When we meet gay we never refer to our sexual lives. Cant we meet people without referring to their sexual lives at all?
My idea is that if gay people did participate in activities open to them, for example, just like those non-gays having lost voting rights for cohabitation without having a Baha'i marriage, this would help create more understanding. The subject is worth discussing with the LSA of each community. Their reply will give us food for thought.
dco
· 4 months ago
This is good to know Farhan, thanks. The enlightened churches and synagogues here in Sacramento at least deal with it, they just welcome and love individuals unconditionally. Let us deal with the rules individually. The current way the Baha'is choose to enforce this is causing far more harm to the faith than folks care to admit. It has chased my son away from religion, and many of my colleagues. The Baha'is seem like some sort of weird wacko cult that talks about nice things, but in reality spends a lot of time looking into and micro-managing people's lives when it should be spending all its energy on creating god's kingdom on earth. A secret... when my friends come to dinner, the topic is never about sex... unless the food is bad.
farhan
· 4 months ago
Dco: The current way the Baha'is choose to enforce this is causing far more harm to the faith than folks care to admit
Farhan: On the long run we cannot harm God’s purpose but only our own selves. The harm resulting from our actions will be learning procedures for others. The call of God calls us to self-sacrifice, the abandon of advantages of this material world and investment in a spiritual life. People, as Shoghi Effendi pointed out to Marcus Bach develop a consumer attitude to religion: they praise what they can get out of it and consider teaching as a sort of marketing. This is the way Baha’u’llah reprimanded the religious leaders of His time in Iqan:
“Their hearts seem not to be inclined to knowledge and the door thereof, neither think they of its manifestations, inasmuch as in idle fancy they have found the door that leadeth unto earthly riches, whereas in the manifestation of the Revealer of knowledge they find naught but the call to self-sacrifice."
Dco: …spends a lot of time looking into and micro-managing people's lives Farhan: I am not sure if the “current way” you refer to is a Baha’i way or a way specific to the culture you live in. Squinting into people’s private lives is not at all a current way in Baha’i communities where I have lived.
Obviously though, if a person questions and contests openly and insistently the rules of the community he wishes to belong to, the reaction is to say you are saying that I do not belong to that community. Once again, i see a difference between our spiritual lives and community lives, although they are closely linked.
I don't know how the Baha'i stance on homosexuality is going to change, unless the doctrine of Shoghi Effendi and the UHJ's infallibility is grasped/or changed. If Shoghi Effendi interpreted a phrase from Baha'i scripture that literally meant pedophilia, as meaning all homosexual acts in general, then doesn't that mean that that is the official Baha'i view? Or was that quotation written on behalf of his secretary? But didn't he check what his secretaries wrote on his behalf, to see if it was accurate? This stuff was going out to the Baha'i community, after all. Or was that quotation addressed to a specific individual, and not to an entire community?
It would be interesting to know when Shoghi Effendi is intending to address the entire community, a specific local community, a national community, or an individual.
dco
· 4 months ago
Thanks brother Craig... your words are very kind and supportive. I am fast following your path, a my experience is much the same. MY rights were removed because I dared to talk openly on the internet about my wedding... shame!
timwatts
· 4 months ago
I have a number of questions to put into the debate and hope that they inspire someone to explain where I am going wrong in my thinking.
question 1 Is it wrong to be gey?
I don't mean having sexual relations with another of the same sex but just being gay?
question 2
Is it wrong to have sexual feelings for someone of the same sex?
Grover
· 4 months ago
Hi Tim,
Question 1 and 2: Depends which side of the Baha'i camp you're in. Liberal side - fine no problems. Conservative side - it is wrong. Seeing as most communities are quite small, you're probably going to run into trouble as some "well-meaning" conservative Baha'i is going to complain to the LSA, unless you keep it well hidden, then you'll either have the LSA or Arm of the Learned dropping by to "lovingly" educate you.
If you have sexual feelings towards someone of the same sex and think you might be gay you can either suppress it and probably be miserable, or embrace it and be what God made you to be.
timwatts
· 4 months ago
Right because I niavely thought that "wrong" was not a relative term int he same way as 2+2 always = 4 and doesn't depend on anyone person's opinion. It's not an absolute then?
farhan
· 4 months ago
Tim, the requirement of chastity is binding on all, gay or non gay. If we openly disobey to laws we can be sanctioned by the community. What happens in our private lives is something between us and God.
Baquia
· 4 months ago
Farhan, that's what I thought. But then I lived a little. For example, currently a child of an NSA member is living with their significant other (without Baha'i marriage). This has been going on for years. Yet the NSA has not sanctioned this person. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that they come from a very well known Baha'i family and that their parent is on the NSA.
LoL
farhan
· 4 months ago
Baquia wrote: I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that they come from a very well known Baha'i family and that their parent is on the NSA
Baquia, in my experience, sanctions are much more regular and severe when involving outstanding Baha'is (not necessarily their kids, I presume...). I know of NSA members sanctionned directly by the UHj for behaviour that would have gone unnoticed in the rank and file.
Craig Parke
· 4 months ago
I believe that any member of the UHJ that gives a speech anywhere in the world on any of their mere personal opinions, should be very severely formally sanctioned and reprimanded by the UHJ.
To use their high positions to give their mere personal opinions in a speech to Baha'i audiences is the height of selfishness, self centeredness, and egotism and it will be seen that way in the future.
Giving their personal opinions as members of the UHJ even when they put their standard disclaimer in the speech causes completely unnecessary and needless division because for many weak and thoughtless members of the Baha'i rank and file the personal opinions of the members of the UHJ are Holy Writ and are Sacred Scripture in the Baha'i Faith.
Why can't these men see this simple fact? Why can't they see the harm they have caused to the Faith by their egotism and excessive needyness?
The Faith is about the consciousness in the Universe of Baha'u'llah. It is most definitely NOT about the consciousness in the Universe of a man like Peter Khan.
It is time form them to a man to realize this spiritual fact and act accordingly before they embarrass themselves and their families any further with these displays of excessive egotism.
Once you are elected to the UHJ you should undergo permanent civil death and be absolutely forbidden to ever speak on your personal opinions to an audience anywhere in Earth both while you are serving and after you retire.
fubar
· 4 months ago
if they were sayings anything that made sense, it would not matter.
the probem is that what they say is appalling, stupid and backward.
an intelligent religion would get rid of such dunce leaders ASAP to minimize the many and various kinds of damage caused them by saying stupid things.
Baquia
· 4 months ago
It would seem then that we live in two different worlds my dear Farhan.
farhan
· 4 months ago
Baquia wrote: It would seem then that we live in two different worlds my dear Farhan.
Please explain, Baquia; you could be right. I live in a world where when the UHJ called for an increase in human resources and asked for a significant number of volunteers for the institute, I understood that the teacher training institutes of the 1960s were developing and new activities were becoming available alongside previous ones. This AND that and not this OR that. You live in a world where it was understood that EVERYONE had to do Ruhi and ONLY do Ruhi those who didn’t do Ruhi suddenly became CB, and all those who did Ruhi suddenly became stupid.
Grover
· 4 months ago
"You live in a world where it was understood that EVERYONE had to do Ruhi and ONLY do Ruhi those who didn’t do Ruhi suddenly became CB, and all those who did Ruhi suddenly became stupid."
Yup, thats the world I live in too.
timwatts
· 4 months ago
so it's ok to sleep with men if i do it secretly and not tell anyone.....and lie if someone asks me? Making gay sex sordid and hidden and tacitly agreeing it is wrong? Hypercrite I think the term is....I asked God to take away these feelings when I was 16 but he didn't presumeably for a reason unknown to me....perhaps he wants me to be gay..
farhan
· 4 months ago
Tim, I am not saying it is OK; I am saying that it is a personal issue between a person and God and Baha'is are forbidden to spy on others. If our behaviour openly defies community laws, the community has a duty to protect its unity and intervene and those concerned face a choice. We cannot expect non gays to be chaste before marriage and say it is OK to have gay relations outside marriage.
There is a difference between taking a one way street at night when no one is looking and doing the same thing at noon, causing a traffic jam and saying you disagree with this road being a one way street.
As Sonja rightly pointed out, these laws are social aspects of religion that institutions might apply differently depending when and where the laws are applied and can to some extent change according to the rulings of the UHJ.
timwatts
· 4 months ago
the secualr law changed in most parts of the world and for good reason and it is no longer breaking the civil law for same sex relations.....
the baha'i LAW seems at odds therefore and seems reactionary and out of date and you may not like the fact but having been a baha'i for over 30 years i know full well which aspects of the faith you don;t tell contacts about at firesides for fear of putting them off. this is marketing by any other name.
farhan
· 4 months ago
Timwatts, the Baha'i law is a spiritual law, applicable to believers only. The community laws are likewise for observance by those who wish to work in that community; they have nothing to do with secular laws, even though Baha'is believe that society will one day adopt many of their laws.
I totally disagree with Baha'is who are ready to dissimulate any laws so as to gain enrolments. The outline "Anna's Presentation" has been designed so that those wishing to become Baha'is get a clear picture of what they are adhering to. Of course if they later feel they have made a mistake, they are always free to leave without being in the least stigmatised.
timwatts
· 4 months ago
maybe you could explain the difference
spiritual law community law
the law which says that arsonists must be burned alive.....is it spiritual or commuity?
farhan
· 4 months ago
Timwatts wrote: maybe you could explain the difference spiritual law community law
Farhan: I am merely opposing spiritual laws with and without a social implication. I see an interaction between the two. Not obeying spiritual laws not only implies a spiritual shortcoming, but can also involve our community life and incur a reaction from the community which has a duty to protect its unity. For example, adultery not only impairs the progress of the soul but, for educative reasons, can incur a reaction from society.
I see praying, fasting, truthfulness, absence of prejudice, chastity, obeying the laws of God … as examples of spiritual laws. No one will question a believer on his private relations with God. When a behaviour has an incidence on community life, such as a Baha’i marriage, nominating someone during an election, family violence, there is also imply a reaction from the community . Timwatts wrote: the law which says that arsonists must be burned alive.....is it spiritual or commuity?
Farhan: I have not seen anything about being burnt “alive”. These laws are obviously not applicable whenever in contradiction with civil laws and only the UHJ can reply to your question. My personal guess is that pending the election of the UHJ, Baha’u’llah, Abdu’l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi gave some laws abrogating those of their times and understandable by their contemporaries and in their historical setting. I see laws concerning arson, theft, heritage in case of intestacy, bigamy as community laws adapted to the understanding of an epoch pending adequate application by the UHJ in due time. Gods laws are revealed and applied progressively and then adapted to each day and age. Hence the breakaway from polygamy was a progressive process. During Abdu’l-Baha’s lifetime the Baha’is respect towards their Muslim contemporaries practiced both the Muslim and the Baha’i fast and Abdu’l-Baha prayed in the Mosque and wore oriental clothes. This was a temporary practice changed by Shoghi Effendi.
dco
· 4 months ago
This is interesting.
If you read the letter they sent me which I posted at:
It seems that the AO has decided that it is ok to remove the rights of GLBT folks but those of us who are sanctioned have no recourse, rights or opportunity to defend or explain ourselves... this is not justice. This if it occurred at my university, it would be profoundly illegal.
But of course if you are a Baha'i from a "good" or "prominent" family, all the rules are quite different.
farhan
· 4 months ago
Timwatts asked: question 1 Is it wrong to be gey? I don't mean having sexual relations with another of the same sex but just being gay?
Tim, to my understanding, the Baha'is teachings do not consider a sexual orientation as wrong. They consider that in the interests of society, sexuality whether gay or non-gay has to be restricted to between married couples. At the same time no provisions are made for gay marriages, hence gay sexual relations are considered as not acceptable within the community.
Tim asked: question 2 Is it wrong to have sexual feelings for someone of the same sex?
Farhan: IMO, this situation that we meet in about perhaps 10% of the population is a great handicap in a community that does not accept sexuality outside marriage and does not provide for gay marriages.
timwatts
· 4 months ago
then why do Baha'is think (or more accurately are told) that being gay is a medical condition and that medical treatment should be sought? or prayers should be said to overcome this handicap....
Grover
· 4 months ago
Because this was the traditional view back in the 30s to 50s, and its a view the UHJ has stuck to today (despite evidence to the contrary). So if you are gay, tough luck, no sex, no getting married, no having a happy life in the Baha'i community. If you are heterosexual however, you can have as much sex as you like (strictly speaking its wrong outside of marriage, but that never stopped anyone), and get married, have lots of kids and get divorced (Baha'is have a high divorce rate - all those closet homosexuals and lesbians).
timwatts
· 4 months ago
Orry for the delay in replying I was out putting my mother to death as she was wearing garments of mixed fibre and according to the bible she should be killed.....the police arrived and were very understanding and asked me to put to death several others on their lists of miscreants...man planting crops of different type ... i couldn't of course as I had to give my daughter to be gang raped ...... so useful the Bible at times....i try and live by it's teachings
Tim, my understanding is that overcoming a sexual orientation and adopting away of life contrary to our wishes, whether gay or not gay – for example if you want to marry someone and the parents do not consent - entails efforts and suffering. This is a situation in which prayer and medical attention can help. I have never read a passage from writings saying it is a medical condition, but in some cases, ex for transexuality, there can be a medical solution.
The knowledge and understanding of the Baha'is in respect to this problem as in others can evolve.
timwatts
· 4 months ago
overcoming a sexual orientation and adopting away of life contrary to our wishes
These 2 things, Farhan joon, are not at all the same. I might wish for an XBOX and summon up the strength with support of family and friends and prayer to "overcome" the wish. To successfully overcome one's sexual preference....again the word implies a choice...i prefer apples to pears......
Sexual orientation is fixed and immutable and in part of the way gay people are and CANNOT be overcome. Supression just leads to mental illness and other problems...surely this is not what Baha'u'llah wants for me...he he does then I would reject him.....with a happy heart!
farhan
· 4 months ago
Tim wrote: Sexual orientation is fixed and immutable and in part of the way gay people are and CANNOT be overcome.
Farhan: This is partly true. Sexual orientation can change during our lifetime. People can be more or less exclusive in their orientation. Tim: Supression just leads to mental illness and other problems... It can, but not necessarily. What about people whom for various reasons live celibacy all their lives? Perhaps 10%; the same percentage as gays ? What about a married person in love with another? Or a couple unable to marry lacking parents consent? All these people suffer and can become depressed, or invest their interests and lives elsewhere.
timwatts
· 4 months ago
and I bet none of them statistically speaking absent from sex ( I mean abstain)
timwatts
· 4 months ago
Sexual orientation is hard wired into our brains..asking people to "overcome it" is not only pointless as it is impossible...but cruel and misleading....society would still be protected if it relinquished this prejudice which is blindly mirrored in the baha'i faith....how could community cohesion be harmed? are you suggesting that hitherto majority orientations will suddenly decide to have same sex realtionships abandoning marriage and procreation? Tell me how denying gays basic rights protects the community?
farhan
· 4 months ago
Timwatts: by the way this is the first time i have ever heard a baha'i more or less saying his relgion is better than someone else's..
Farhan: This would be a violation of Baha’i principles; what we can say is that it is the latest update of the same religion.
Timwatts : still waiting for an example of the writings which forbids gay relationships,,,
Farhan : I now of no other quote than the ones largely distributed on Internet. My understanding is that sexual relations are only allowed within marriage, and no provisions have been made for same-sex marriages, hence same sex relations are not allowed to Baha’is.
Timwatts: i see you are lumping gays together with child abusers like all iranians i have met due to the words "bache baz" meaning gay....
Farhan: Not at all, although I agree that the mistake is common; historically, gay relations have been mentored in young boys, for example by Spartans.
Timwatts: even child molesters realise that they are harming others....and want to stop for the most part....
Farhan: this is not always true; some abusers believe that they are playing innocent and even useful games that an uncompromising and puritan society does not tolerate. Their only regret is that society does not allow them to do what they want.
Timwatts: child molster is not a sexual orientation by the way
Farhan: I might be misusing the English word. The French word I intended to use is “préférence sexuelle” it can be an exclusive preference, or an occasional one, it can be a homo or heterosexual attraction, it can be with or without enactment, with and without violence, it can be acquired, and perhaps innate, although most aggressors have themselves been victims as a child, which suggests it is more often acquired.
Timwatts : asking people to "overcome it" is not only pointless as it is impossible...but cruel and misleading....
Farhan: i have never seen Baha’i writings talking about changing orientation, but behaviour and way of life. They are also only requiring this way of life from those who wish to be active members of the community. Would abstinence for gays be more difficult than for non-gays? In your view, the 15 million French celibates would fall sick if they abstained? However, I do agree that non gays have the choice of marrying that gays do not have.
Timwatts: how could community cohesion be harmed?
Farhan: how can we expect chastity from non gay youths and not from gay? And accept unmarried gay couples and not accept unmarried non-gay couples? Some churches are accepting gay marriages. We will see how the experience turns out. Why expect the Baha’is to be pioneers in this field?
timwatts
· 4 months ago
They consider that in the interests of society, sexuality whether gay or non-gay has to be restricted to between married couples.
This is indeed scary...how could society be possibly helped by a large proportion of it's population supressing something as basic as their sexuality.....who wants to be part of such a society.....put your hands up!
farhan
· 4 months ago
Tim, the Baha'is are not marketing their beliefs, trying to comply with the customer's wishes. They are trying to share their faith with those interested and trying to apply their principles in their everyday lives. As a doctor or as an individual Iam on your side. If I were a member of a Baha'i institution trying to uphold community life, i would say that we cannot allow gay relations freely and yet restrict non gay relations to within marriage. I would also say that 10% of the population is a minority that according to Baha'i principles deserves some kind of a compensation.
timwatts
· 4 months ago
You would have more chance of interesting people if the faith could be seen as fair compassionate and even handed.and not perpetuating the evils of past predujices.
At the end of the line of course one can always state that if you don;tlike the rules of the club then don;t join....but there is something fundamentally worng with this as many gays will be growing up in a relgion that rejects them to the very core of their being....
farhan
· 4 months ago
I agree with you Tim, but to my knowledge these are the community rules for Baha'is at this time. I am not making the rules, but obeying them. I agree others might be having an even harder time than myself.
dco
· 4 months ago
I shared this in other forums but it is worth repeating.
A number of years my city was rocked by the murder of a prominent gay couple in their home and the firebombing and burning of 3 synagogues by a pair of neo-Nazis. The next evening there were 10,00 of us with candles in protest in front of the state capitol, chanting “not in our city!”. It was beautiful, it was powerful, it was right, and still gives me goose bumps.
The Baha'is of course were no were to be seen, despite the groups of other religious and human rights organizations. Despite the fact the the masses were meeting on the very spot that the Master himself had once walked and talked to people many years ago.
With in a week, my local school district (2 of the synagogues were in it) convened a group of community members to meet with the superintendent. I was honored to be asked to participate – as both a gay man and as a Baha'i. My community sent no note of congratulations or even acknowledgment. The group was made up of men and women, a rabbi, a couple of pastors and priests, some lay persons, etc.
Over the next 2 years we met and were charged with dealing with hate crimes and bigotry in the schools. After a few months the rabbi called me one day and asked,
“Daniel, I have two lesbians who want to be married in the synagogue, tell me your thoughts”.
I shared with him my experience with bigotry, narrow-mindedness, homophobia with in the Baha'i community. He also told me about similar things n his congregation.
Finally I asked,
“what is better a Jewish lesbian couple or non-Jewish lesbian couple?”
He thanked me.
A week later I read in the paper that he had married the first lesbian couple in his synagogue. This was by the way long before Gay marriage was even on the horizon here in California. The are now the most welcoming place in town, and are growing.
Meanwhile the capitol city of the most populous state in the richest country on earth has no Baha'i Center.
Many of my friend and colleagues keep asking me why I put up with this homophobic religion? To be honest its gets harder to explain it away... to me the message from the letter the NSA sent me , is this "a non-Baha'i gay man is prefered to a Baha'i gay man”.
fubar
· 4 months ago
according to what I remember being discussed at feast, or similar gathering, the sacramento lsa (no geniuses) took a long time "consulting" about the incident, and probably had to wait weeks/months for "guidance" from the auxilliary bored members and/or USBNC.
(maintaining the purity of bahai laws is more important to risk-averse lsa folk then any spontaneous participation in a real unity movement about civil rights.)
there was a serious group of people that wanted to form a non-profit group to fund purchase of a bahai center about 10 years ago. unfortunately one of the principles was feared to be so incompetent by people with actual business experience that the whole project was derailed by the secret elite uberpowers hiding behind the curtain.
bahai = amateur stuff + bureaucratic quagmire.
dco
· 4 months ago
thanx fubar... if you livein Sac shoot me an email, lets talk
mavaddat
· 4 months ago
Hi Sonja,
As Always, I appreciate your dedication to the principles of justice and fairness in opposition to the current practice of Bahá'í law. However, I must respectfully disagree with the fundamental premise of your argument, which intends to preserve the importance of the Bahá'í law. You apologize with your comparison of Bahá'í law to Dutch law, for example, by stating:
I’m not suggesting for one minute that Dutch Law supercedes Baha’i Law, but we need to think about the issues involved in applying Baha’i principles in a changing world.
However, I believe this is a mistake: I would say of course Dutch law supercedes Bahá'í law. Of course. Dutch law is a collection of principles derived by groups of people working together from secular reasoning, anticipating the future by observing historical lessons, and building on that solid foundation by a system of common law that allows for new and dynamic interpretations of these aforementioned principles. Bahá'í law, by contrast (and despite the work of Dr. Nader Saiedi to the opposite conclusion), is a collection of random articles of faith, general principles abstracted from then-current wisdom, and specific behavioral prohibitions and prescriptions that were important from the perspective of one Iranian nobleman a few hundred years ago, which are then (Allah'u'akbar) subject to amendment by a small, elite group of cloistered men today whose authority is upheld by a perpetual chain of self-congratulation. These laws are, in other words, utterly irrelevant by any objective standard of ethical reasoning or any important measure of normative evaluation.
Don't get me wrong: It's not that the Bahá'í laws are all universally ridiculous, per se, but the authoritarian way in which they are justified most certainly is universally ridiculous. To understand the distinction, suppose you had a political science exam, one question of which asked you what form of government you believed was the most effective, and for the second part, why you think so. For the first part, let's say you put the very respectable answer of "parliamentary democracy." For the second part, however, you respond, "Yea, verily I am the King of kings, and my decree is binding, such that whosoever will question my judgement has made a mockery of the Noumena, reality as it is within itself, to which I alone have unmitigated access." Surely you would not only fail your exam, but the teacher would want to see you after class to see if you were alright, wouldn't he? So why give Bahá'u'lláh a pass? Quite simply, I think Bahá'u'lláh fails to give his laws warrant by any reasonable standard of justification.
So while I absolutely agree with you when you write,
[I]f the Baha’i Teachings are so great, then we will find the answer by applying the Baha’i principles of justice and equality,
I must nevertheless deny your antecedent ("the Baha’i Teachings are so great"). They are not great. There is no room for the authoritarianism of the Bahá'í Faith (which we will admit if we understand its writings plainly, without undue bias) within a reasonable, ethical framework.
But what about room for change in the Bahá'í Faith? Although the quotations you provided are no doubt genuine, they are also easily contradicted in application to specific laws. As I've written elsewhere, for example, the Bahá'í Faith does not provision for change regarding its homophobic agenda, as the Universal House of Justice unashamedly declares (05 Jun 1993):
Regarding the question of whether or not same-sex marriages would ever be permitted by the Universal House of Justice, the enclosed extracts indicate clearly that it would not. In addition, it is interesting to note that 'Abdu'l-Bahá says in a Tablet:
Know thou that the command of marriage is eternal. It will never be changed nor altered. This is divine creation and there is not the slightest possibility that change or alteration affect this divine creation (marriage).
So if we're willing to admit this, and regard the Bahá'í Faith honestly, I think that we must change the premise of respect and regard that we have for Bahá'í law. There simply doesn't seem to be any ground for such respect, so far as I can see.
But of course, that's just in my opinion. I would love to know your thoughts on the ideas I present, Sonja. Thanks!
sonjavank
· 4 months ago
thanks for your post M:
You wrote: "You apologize with your comparison of Bahá'í law to Dutch law"
No, I didn't mean to imply that Dutch law is less than Bahai law, but i'll elaborate on this below. I made that comment because when I write here, I see myself as writing to a Bahai audience and wanted to be sure no one would think I was disregarding the relevance of Bahai law.
As Bahais we must obey the laws of the country. Or put more strictly, Bahai Law states this, so actually it is Bahai Law which places more importance to a law of the country.
None must contend with those who wield authority over the people; leave unto them that which is theirs, and direct your attention to men's hearts.
Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 54
God hath committed into your hands the reins of the government of the people, that ye may rule with justice over them, safeguard the rights of the downtrodden, and punish the wrongdoers.
Baha'u'llah, The Summons of the Lord of Hosts, p. 188
So I agree, of course, Dutch law dominates over Bahai law. Baha'u'llah has stated this himself.
As to your reasoning for Dutch law being superior Baha'u'llah makes a similiar argument in his tablet to Queen Victoria:
We have also heard that thou hast entrusted the reins of counsel into the hands of the representatives of the people. Thou, indeed, hast done well, for thereby the foundations of the edifice of thine affairs will be strengthened, and the hearts of all that are beneath thy shadow, whether high or low, will be tranquillized. It behoveth them, however, to be trustworthy among His servants, and to regard themselves as the representatives of all that dwell on earth.
Baha'u'llah, The Proclamation of Baha'u'llah, p. 33
And I agree with you, a law is much better if as you wrote: "is a collection of principles derived by groups of people working together from secular reasoning, anticipating the future by observing historical lessons, and building on that solid foundation by a system of common law that allows for new and dynamic interpretations of these aforementioned principles."
This is the way social laws work best but I wouldn't too happy if a group people used those same procedures for how we should say prayers. Symbollic values and questions of truth are not decided by majority vote. Culture is an influence and civil law can certainly affect culture. Such as here in the Netherlands where in general there is tolerance towards a diversity of sexual identity. But the political processes has its limits.
So if a law of a country is to dominate what is religious law for?
You wrote that Bahai law: "is a collection of random articles of faith, general principles abstracted from then-current wisdom, and specific behavioral prohibitions and prescriptions that were important from the perspective of one Iranian nobleman a few hundred years ago. They are, in other words, utterly irrelevant by any objective standard of ethical reasoning or any important measure of normative evaluation."
We have Bahai principles such as equality, independent investigation of truth, the balance of religion and science and so on and then we have the text of the Kitab-i-Adqas which seems to come out of a medival age.
Bahai Law has two components: The text of the Aqdas and the "Questions and Answers" and similiar tablets by Baha'u'llah, and then what the UHJ legistrates and the NSAs + LSAs apply and refine, etc.
In the form and content the Aqdas imitates Islamic law. Because it imitates Islamic law, it can supercede Islamic law in a society. Islamism (the idea that Islamic law is also state law) is a twentieth century innovation. In Baha'u'llah's time religious laws were mainly in the private sphere and state administered (the state had control). So one way to view this aspect of Bahai law, is as a response to Islamic law. For example, in Islamic law a woman had to have permission from her father to marry. Baha'u'llah changed this so that men had to ask as well, and to have their mother's permission. Instead of abolishing something with deep cultural roots he has used the principle of equality to modify it.
I think it is likely that Baha'u'llah intended his laws to be used as principles which individuals and institutions could work with.
Think not that We have revealed unto you a mere code of laws. Nay, rather, We have unsealed the choice Wine with the fingers of might and power
Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 21
Baha'u'llah states that he doesn't give just us a code of laws. I would argue that the code of laws he established is the UHJ as legistrator of laws. A UHJ which is flexible and free to change its own laws in a changing world.
It is fantastic that you end your posting on the question of the nature of marriage because this is going to the topic of my next blog. I'm busy these days, but hope it will be there in a month or so.
fubar
· 4 months ago
sonja wrote: And I agree with you, a law is much better if as you wrote: "is a collection of principles derived by groups of people working together from secular reasoning, anticipating the future by observing historical lessons, and building on that solid foundation by a system of common law that allows for new and dynamic interpretations of these aforementioned principles."
This is the way social laws work best but I wouldn't too happy if a group people used those same procedures for how we should say prayers. ...
---
yes, but this is the problem:
if a majority in a country converted to fundamentalist-bahai belief, they could simply vote in a dictatorship, rewrite the constitution to make being a critic of such bahai religion punishable by torture/etc.
there is nothing in the bahai system that could stop such an occurrance, even of the uhj wanted it stopped (short of a war).
mavaddat
· 4 months ago
Sonja, I present to you the crux of the problem, as I see it:
You think the Bahá'í Faith's opposition to homosexuality can be changed, whereas the Universal House of Justice and Shoghi Effendi both agree the law of homophobia cannot be repealed, since they agree the Bahá'í Faith's opposition to homosexuality is decreed by Bahá'u'lláh himself. You may protest that Bahá'u'lláh did not actually speak about homosexuality as such, but that is completely irrelevant. (Of course, I sympathize with Bahá'í moderates who have trouble seeing how irrelevant this is, as it can be maddening to see such injustices perpetrated on so little evidence). Nevertheless, the reason why it's irrelevant is that Shoghi Effendi was granted infallible authority to interpret Bahá'u'lláh (by 'Abdu'l-Bahá) and Shoghi Effendi interpreted Bahá'u'lláh as condemning homosexuality. So whether you personally believe that Bahá'u'lláh never condemned homosexuality is as relevant to the faithful Bahá'í as whether women are actually qualified to serve on the House of Justice. They simply couldn't care less what Bahá'u'lláh did or did not say, since Shoghi Effendi clearly tells them what to believe Bahá'u'lláh said and they accept that unconditionally (remember, he was infallible). (At this point, we will do well to remember that the Bahá'í Faith has no clergy, because people blindly followed the clergy in past dispensations. That is to say, the Bahá'í prohibition of clergy is a load of Boole sheet.)
It seems, however, that I was not clear about my point regarding the superiority of Dutch law to Bahá'í law. You seemed to take my point as one of practice, so that (to you) what I meant was that a Dutch citizen should practice Dutch law above Bahá'í law. Thus, you quoted Bahá'u'lláh praising Queen Victoria for promoting democracy and suggested that this shows "Baha'u'llah makes a similiar argument [to mine]."
This is not what I meant by saying that Dutch law is superior to Bahá'í law.
What I meant was that Bahá'í law is approximately worthless by any objective standard. It is irrelevant, not just for practice by citizens of specific countries, but even for consideration by any person anywhere in the world. I want to be clear that I do not merely mean the current Bahá'í Administrative Order. I mean the Bahá'í Faith itself, as authored by the so-called "Central Figures". The authoritative Bahá'í law is a deluded man's fancy, an empty pantomime of the shadow of justice; it is a charade aimed at mimicking actual equality and wellbeing with the mere semblance of equality and wellbeing; it is, in short, not worthy of the attention of anyone actually concerned about human welfare or justice. If this is similar to an argument by Bahá'u'lláh, I would be surprised indeed.
The point, however, isn't that the particular laws of the Bahá'í Faith are each and every one of them somehow wrong or immoral -- no. Don't get me wrong: I think that racial and gender equality, the elimination of extremes of wealth and poverty, and universal compulsory education are wonderful goals (on the other hand, many of the Bahá'í laws are arbitrary, ridiculous, or unjust). The point is not about the particular laws, but that there is no justification for any of the laws within the Bahá'í framework except to fulfil God's will. At best, the Bahá'í writings are ambivalent about whether human happiness has any intrinsic worth, and more often, the Bahá'í dogma considers human happiness is a mere means to fulfilling God's will (lest we forget God's greater plan!).
So you see, the worth of the Bahá'í Faith is the same as the worth of an elementary school cheater who copies the answers from his neighbour (in this case, Enlightenment philosophy, a thousand years of Islamic jurisprudence, Sufi tradition, social custom, etc.). Even Bahá'u'lláh's lame attempt at an analogy in the verse you cited
Think not that We have revealed unto you a mere code of laws. Nay, rather, We have unsealed the choice Wine with the fingers of might and power [...]
is an appropriation of Omar Khayyam's famous literary device, except Bahá'u'lláh wholly mangles it and employs it as a rhetorical trick, without any meaning. (I mean, "fingers of might and power"? What ridiculous imagery. This is the great literary talent we're supposed to admire?)
If you want to decide procedures for how you want to say prayers, then go ahead. Symbolic values and questions of truth are indeed not decided by majority vote. But to suggest that authoritative decree has any more right to decide such matters is simply to make a mockery of their importance. My point is that we discard the Bahá'í Faith with all its haughty claims of infallibility and assaulting words for those who dare question its decrees, and instead, seek the wisdom that the Bahá'í Faith appropriates from the source itself: human history, science, philosophy, and literature. Not only can we do this safely with no apprehensions of losing anything valuable, a commitment to justice and fairness and equal regard for people of all sexual orientations would demand it of us. So I sincerely hope one day we will all overcome the comfort of dogmatism and be joined together in this endeavour.
sonjavank
· 4 months ago
Mavaddat: So much of what you state in your post as Bahai this or that had me in fits of laughter.
Incase you are serious, I'll respond to one of your points.
"You may protest that Bahá'u'lláh did not actually speak about homosexuality as such, but that is completely irrelevant."
Well, well, sorry to contradict you, but it is very relevent at least to Bahais!
mavaddat
· 4 months ago
Sonja, it is a shame you did not take my post more seriously. You cling to a faith that condemns the most intimate part of your brother's relationship, but why? Social justice does not depend on the Bahá'í Faith, but the Bahá'í Faith depends on Bahá'ís to continue to support its dogmatic framework. It's the desire for dogmatism that is the problem here, not the particular prohibition on homosexuality. Even if the prohibition were eliminated, there are other laws that need revision, or some future impediment to justice would arise, and the whole issue of how to interpret would be revived again. It is ridiculous. We are trying to mould the Bahá'í Faith into a respectable religion when it is the dogmatism at its bedrock that keeps it ridiculous.
Well, well, sorry to contradict you, but it is very relevent at least to Bahais!
You have a very high regard for Bahá'ís, Sonja. You seem to think that they are committed to independent investigation of the truth, that they question their authorities, and that their religion commends this to them.
This is, sadly, not the case.
If Shoghi Effendi tells them otherwise, Bahá'ís really do not care what Bahá'u'lláh actually said. Likewise, if the Universal House of Justice tells Bahá'ís that Shoghi Effendi tells them that homosexuality is forbidden, Bahá'ís don't care to delve into a hermeneutic investigation to determine if this is true. They regard Shoghi Effendi as infallible, they regard the Universal House of Justice as infallible, and they trust that their authorities are telling them the truth.
There is nothing in all the "independent investigation" rhetoric of the Bahá'í writings which encourages Bahá'ís to question their own religious authorities. Not even one measly verse. All of the admonitions to independent investigation are addressed to those outside the Bahá'í community, while Bahá'ís are told:
O SON OF BEING! With the hands of power I made thee and with the fingers of strength I created thee; and within thee have I placed the essence of My light. Be thou content with it and seek naught else, for My work is perfect and My command is binding. Question it not, nor have a doubt thereof.
And:
Were He to decree as lawful the thing which from time immemorial had been forbidden, and forbid that which had, at all times, been regarded as lawful, to none is given the right to question His authority. Whoso will hesitate, though it be for less than a moment, should be regarded as a transgressor.
And:
Let it not be imagined that the House of Justice will take any decision according to its own concepts and opinions. God forbid! The Supreme House of Justice will take decisions and establish laws through the inspiration and confirmation of the Holy Spirit, because it is in the safekeeping and under the shelter and protection of the Ancient Beauty, and obedience to its decisions is a bounden and essential duty and an absolute obligation, and there is no escape for anyone. ('Abdu'l-Bahá, "Rahíq-i-Makhtúm" vol. I, pp. 302-4; also, "Bahá'í News" 426 September 1966, p. 2; also, cited in "Wellspring of Guidance" pp. 84-6)
It is this attitude that stands in the way of justice. Let us be done with this dogmatism once and for all and finally employ a respectable dialogue.
mavaddat
· 4 months ago
Sonja, I took your comments seriously. How have I forgone the right to be treated reciprocally? Do I not deserve to be taken seriously? I would hope we can discuss these matters without laughing at one another.
sonjavank
· 4 months ago
My apologizes Mavaddat, I really thought you were joking.
In my posting you were responding to, I thought I clearly showed (that's why I used so many quotations - i want get past what people say they think the Bahai Writings are about, to what the Bahai Writings actually say) that Shoghi Effendi never penned anything on the subject of homosexuality either. And the point of my post was that it boiled down to the policies of the UHJ. Your response ignored all of that to state that "the Universal House of Justice and Shoghi Effendi both agree the law of homophobia cannot be repealed"
I don't even know where to start in way of response to this statement as I've already clearly shown that this is not the case. So I assumed you were joking. I was not laughing at you.
mavaddat
· 4 months ago
In my posting you were responding to, I thought I clearly showed [...]
No, I wasn't responding to that post in the response you said you laughed at. I was responding to the post with which you begin:
thanks for your post M:
You wrote: "You apologize with your comparison of Bahá'í law to Dutch law" [...]
If you look down this thread, you'll see that I did respond to your post in which you argue that Shoghi Effendi never interpreted Bahá'u'lláh on pederasty, that the letters were from his secretary, etc. Scroll down, and you'll see my response.
Your response ignored all of that to state that "the Universal House of Justice and Shoghi Effendi both agree the law of homophobia cannot be repealed"
No. You're confusing my response above with my response below. My statement that "the Universal House of Justice and Shoghi Effendi both agree the law of homophobia cannot be repealed" was before reading your post below.
I don't (as most Bahá'ís do not) accept the premise that Shoghi Effendi's secretaries did not speak for him. You acknowledge that Shoghi Effendi's secretaries have some authority, but that the authority is not the same as Shoghi Effendi's. That's fine. So you ask, how much authority did Shoghi Effendi's secretaries really have?
My point is that this cannot possibly matter for deciding how we ought to treat gay people. It's not that "if you're a Bahá'í, then it matters to you." Objectively speaking, the relevance of such exercises for determining whether homosexuality should be condemned is as relevant as asking whether the stars that comprise Taurus agree with the local street psychic prediction. They're just irrelevant. If a Bahá'í chooses to care about such matters in deciding how to regard homosexuality, then they're choosing to abdicate their moral sense for authority -- a means of thinking about morality that has nothing to do with human welfare, happiness, or experience.
dco
· 4 months ago
Thank you so much everybody for the dialogue...
dco
· 4 months ago
Lutherans To Sanctify Gay Marriages
The Evangelical Lutheran Church voted today to allow individual congregations to bless same-sex marriages.
“I’ve been a life-long member at Redeemer Lutheran Church [in Atlanta], and I was never comfortable asking my church to bless my relationship,” said Bob Gibeling, who is at the assembly. “This offers great hope to me that when I find a future life-long partner, my own beloved congregation will want to bless that union.” The change in the Evangelical Lutheran Church does not require pastors or congregations to bless same-sex unions, but allows those comfortable with it to do so. Gay pastors can serve in Lutheran churches, but only if they are celibate. A vote expected later today will determine whether Lutheran churches can call and install gay pastors who are in relationships.
The Evangelical Lutherans are the largest sect of their denomination with 4.7M members at 10,000 churches. Today's move is opposed by other Lutheran sects and should further splinter the denomination.
Labels: Lutheran Church, marriage equality, religion
Amanda
· 4 months ago
Comments aren't posting.
Amanda
· 4 months ago
Baquia,
I got about 10 Disqus notifications for comments posted to Trouble with the World from Fubar and Concourse on Low that never appeared on the actual site within the last 24 hours. Some comments briefly appeared and then disappeared. I also posted a comment I received a Disqus notification for that never posted.
The Contact form also wasn't working earlier today with multiple attempts- "Fatal Error."
Is the comment system broken, or did you get hacked? Everything cool?
Best, Amanda
Baquia
· 4 months ago
Amanda, thanks for letting me know. I've checked and afaik the comments are not in the spam folder or anywhere else (from where I may rescue them). So I'm not sure what happened. I'm sorry if a comment was not recorded by the system. Unfortunately, other than trying again to post it, there is not much I can do.
fubar
· 4 months ago
what happened was that DISQUS would briefly post the item, then in a few seconds/minutes (upon refesh of the client browser cache?), it was gone.
If you can get logs of the interface between DISQUS and your actual blog, you might see what happened. if not, then it seems likeit would have been a glitch more internal to DISQUS.
as Amanda says, the item was however distributed via DISQUS email.
my guess is that some kind of server/net maintenance, or overload, was going on (late night) that caused the glitch, but it could have been a security breach.
i'll try to repost my cr*pola if someone wants me to, but it probably isn't worth the time.
Baquia
· 4 months ago
I think I've found your comments - apparently they somehow fell through the cracks of disqus but are in the main wordpress commenting database. strange :-/ I'll see what I can do to rescue them from purgatory.
farhan
· 4 months ago
newbahai wrote: I think ultimately the debate is really over the origin of homosexual feeling and or attractions
Farhan: this might be important to you, to somehow decide if you are to “blame” or not. It is also useful to activists who wish to establish that ALL orientation is genetic and comparable to skin colour. However experience shows that orientation can change in life and many factors can determine a homosexual behaviour: genetics, hormones, opportunities, experience, social setting, etc. There is a site that discuss this in an open and scientific manner: http://borngay.procon.org/
The Baha’i faith is a belief system that promotes a way of life. This involves spiritual values that are applied to a community life. Teachings might have only a spiritual incidence: prayer, studying the writings, truthfulness, abandoning prejudice, loving our neighbour, fasting… other teachings also have a community incidence: marriage, not participating in political issues… untruthfulness, theft, adultery are hence condemned spiritually, but can also entail a condemnation by the community, if it is felt as a threat to community life, and even in some cases condemned by criminal law.
pey
· 4 months ago
So when you become gay Farhan, please give me a call. I'd like to know how exactly your orientation changed. Mine as far back as I remember, has NOT! Oh and I was conditioned by people like you to turn out straight, married and a perfect Persian Bahai. Fortunately I didn't listen to ignorant people such as yourself, I did not marry some poor girl and ruin her life, all because of such ignorance espoused by fools inside the Bahai community. The Bahai Faith is a belief system Farhan- one which I believe in. Things such as equality, unity, peace. love, brotherhood. BUT fundamentalism, idolatry of the 9 men on the hill, and homophobia, naaah that's not the Bahai Faith. That may be what you are espousing, but it's not Abdul-Baha.
timwatts
· 4 months ago
I nearly ruined a poor little iranian girls life..thre was so much pressure to conform and be "normal" goodness me i treated her badly...eventually she asked me if we were going to gt married but of course i wasn't allowed to tell her the reason so i made something up which must have been very hurtful to her....i am ashamed of what i did..but hey the Baha'is made me ........so I blame them now and not me...i wouldnthave struck up a freindship on false grounds if being gay were accepted.....shameful shameful shameful....to make liars of good people/// how can this be religion...
fubar
· 4 months ago
western religion, of the patriarchal variety, is deeply flawed by a basic problem: it is premised on a "middle man scam".
the scam "assumes" that priests/prophets are needed for "common man" to experience the divine.
(Buddhism and Yogic "religion" largely avoids this problem.)
Priest classes became necessary when people started irrigation farming 5000+ years ago, and needed a social mechanism to make people OBEY the "daddy" figure, and follow rules about sharing the precious water.
By elevating the "daddy" archetype to something called "god", the priests could get more people to conform to the water rules, and a bunch of other rules that arose as cities grew, leisure and literacy became the sign of the "refined" classes, etc.
Slavery was invented. "Obeying" and "submitting" were elevated to a "spiritual" status so that the slaves would be reticent to violate social standards that they had been brainwashed into thinking were somehow connected to the progress of their "soul" in this world and/or the next.
"Submission" was simply an idea meant to stop slave revolts. There is nothing "spiritual" about it. Other shamanistic ("descender") religions had developed perfectly good spiritual technologies/practices for stripping away illusions and ego long before the "submission" thing was invented.
So much for ethics, laws, theology: they all participated in the formation of absolutist empire building projects (which to be fair, did lead, slowly, to advances in civilization that are produced by increasingly wealthy, complex societies that have "beat" their tribal competitors).
People were having "spiritual" and "transcendent" (mystic, etc.) experiences LONG LONG before "religion" (irrigation laws) ever existed.
No "religion" is needed for "spiritual transformation".
No "middle man scam" is needed.
No "slave" mentality is needed (since industrial machines were invented by MODERN CAPITALISTS WHO BELIEVED IN "REAL" DEMOCRACY).
No "prophets" or "priests" or "bahai administators" (spiritual "middle men") are needed for human beings to access the spiritual energy that exists in everything from human DNA to the far reaches of the first star dust blown out from the big bang at the beginning of the universe.
"Progressive revelation" is very very very bad science, and is inferior to developmental theory as an explanation of either history, or consciousness.
Bahai theology very badly explains evolution.
dco
· 4 months ago
Thanks Pey, you saved me the electrons... this idea that people can change is rubbish... and seems to my mind perpetrated by those who wish to clothe their homophobia in acceptable terms... if you change, or can change I might say you are bisexual at best... and not gay. But above all, why the constant preoccupation with changing gays? The House has told us that homosexuality is not a sin, we don't need to change, we just have to live celibate, lonely, crazy making lives... or leave.
farhan
· 4 months ago
Sonja, could we also say that laws aim at bringing about a change of nature?
timwatts
· 4 months ago
NO we can't. Laws can be made to try and change people's behaviour but not (their) nature(s) Nature is not changeable..it can be hidden and camouflaged and marginalised and ridiculed and legislated against if it happens not to be the majority nature....here i think is what you understand by "nature" you mean it to be the "nomal" majority view.....
Are you saying that if the law forbids gay relations they will stop doing it?
farhan
· 4 months ago
Tiwatts wrote: Laws can be made to try and change people's behaviour but not (their) nature(s) Nature is not changeable.
Farhan: I agree
As to what a community can accept in a certain social situation, it is up o the LSA of that community to decide.
dco
· 4 months ago
A valuable new resource from the mother of Matthew Shepard:
Right then in the interests of trying to probe the complete craziness of the Baha'i Faith's views on HOMOSEXUALITY what would be the reation to the following scenarios...
1> two men holding hands at a feast 2> 2 men kissing each other on the lips
are these activities also not allowed.....is it just anal sex that is not allowed? what about between staight couples.....?
Grover
· 4 months ago
Depends which country you come from. In India guys hold hands all the time in public, even sleep together, spooning, they don't see it as gay, just normal. Heaven forbid if they hold hands with ladies in public though!
2 men kissing - well, don't they do that in Italy? Or you mean really passionate kisses? Bit racy, probably liven up Feast quite nicely! One friend of mine told me about some guy that decided to come to Feast as a cross dresser as a bit of a joke - you should've seen the flames!
Anal sex is not permitted full stop for either hetero or gay in the Baha'i Faith :(
timwatts
· 4 months ago
gay anal sex is therefore doubly wrong as they are doing it out of wedlock......
is it is the writings ...? can we have a quote.....i might read it out in persian at our next feast as a reminder that no one should be doing it....
Grover
· 4 months ago
Here's what there is:
49. QUESTION: Concerning the penalties for adultery, sodomy, and theft, and the degrees thereof. ANSWER: The determination of the degrees of these penalties rests with the House of Justice. The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 121
Bahá'u'lláh makes provision for the Universal House of Justice to determine, according to the degree of the offence, penalties for adultery and sodomy (Q and A 49). The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 223
Ye are forbidden to commit adultery, sodomy and lechery. Baha'u'llah, untranslated tablet - Compilations, The Compilation of Compilations vol. I, p. 57
And that is it. Baha'u'llah can be surprisingly blunt when he wants to be. The UHJ hasn't set any penalties yet as far as I'm aware.
I was wondering why. Is it one of those prohibitions that will change with time?
e.g. circumcision, compulsory back then, nowadays not practiced except in eastern cultures and occasionally in western - reason? We're much more hygenic now.
e.g. pork, prohibited in muslim culture because pigs are unclean, but modern pig rearing methods are pretty clean, disease is not a problem (except for swine flu) and pork is yummy.
e.g. oral sex, horror! Well everyone was pretty filthy back in the days, so it probably wasn't the best thing to do. Now standard practice for every good sexual relationship, not even mentioned in Baha'i writings.
e.g. masturbation, horror! common practice for any enterprising individual or groups (Farhan practices written masturbation everyday), not even mentioned in Baha'i writings, except from SE's sweaty secretaries and the UHJ. God knows why it was prohibited in the first place, apart from sour pus priests not wanting anyone to have any fun if they couldn't have any.
e.g. anal sex, well, we all know why, but modern day society has condoms, lube, etc. Modern technology has made it possible!
e.g. vaginal sex, the main reason was and still is kids, but everyone is doing pretty well with modern contraception, so why not let people play a little?
What other naughty deviant fun practices will modern day technology make possible I wonder?
Barb Ruth-Wright
· 4 months ago
It seems clear to me that Baha'is are not on the side of the angels when it comes to GLBT folks. I tried to explain to a Baha'i friend once that the Baha'i stance contributes to an atmosphere which encourages gay bashing and physical abuse (this was around the time of the Matthew Shepard murder). "Oh, I hope not!" she said.
Because I take seriously the principle of agreement of religion with science, and because I take seriously Baha'u'llah's statement that "the best beloved of all things in my sight is justice" which means that we must see with our own eyes - in other words, pay attention to our own experience in the world, and because I take seriously the principle of unity in diversity, and believe deeply that the more diverse we are as a people, the stronger we are - for all these reasons, I am convinced that the current Baha'i stance on homosexuality is simply wrong. We cannot force change from the top, but we can, as responsible Baha'is, educate ourselves on this issue - this means listening to those who are wronged, and really listen, not with a hidden agenda of changing their view but to listen truly, to another truth.
Then, after listening, if we feel so moved by conscience, as many of us do, (and yes, conscience is a God-given guide in making moral decisions), we must be willing to speak out, to speak our own understanding, as an essential part of consultation, whether formal or not, involving one other person or many, among Baha'is. We cannot shrink from the truth - we don't have to have a final answer or resolution - we just have to educate ourselves, and then speak the truth we know - things will progress from there.
Craig Parke
· 4 months ago
You wrote:
"Then, after listening, if we feel so moved by conscience, as many of us do, (and yes, conscience is a God-given guide in making moral decisions), we must be willing to speak out, to speak our own understanding, as an essential part of consultation, whether formal or not, involving one other person or many, among Baha'is. We cannot shrink from the truth - we don't have to have a final answer or resolution - we just have to educate ourselves, and then speak the truth we know - things will progress from there."
That, indeed, was what I thought the Baha'i Faith was: affirming the advancement and development of sacred individual human conscience. I honestly thought all these years that was what Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha taught. I thought that was what religion was all about. But now I see that was a mindset from Protestant Christianity that I innocently brought into the Faith from my background. I was WRONG!
That belief, sadly, is COMPLETE OLDTHINK in the Baha'i Faith of today. It is even quaint. In the NEWTHINK Baha'i Faith of today you do what you are told by the people elected to do all your thinking for you and all the thinking for the entire Baha'i community worldwide. You keep quiet or you will be investigated by an ABM or AABM if your are reported for thought crimes or any thoughts of individual conscience on any matter or issue. You do what you are told and you do not question or ask why or wherefore. You live in fear at all times that your unsanctioned and unapproved thought crimes will be discovered. The same old, same old in "organized" religion. People had genuinely hoped for something better than this. But what you wrote is beautiful and is still how I feel souls should live. But the individual is nothing now in the Baha'i Faith. If you have any individual thoughts or a (gasp) personal conscience still residing in you, you will have to recant for crimes against YEAR ONE or something. It is only sanctioned groupthink that is permitted.
What these guys say goes. What these guys say as their own personal interpretation to captive Baha'i audiences IS the Baha'i Faith. What the latest social theories of the members of the ITC discuss over lunch IS THE BAHA'I FAITH now. What these people have as their personal opinions is pure, sacred, Divine Revelation. People like PK and his lifetime incumbent brethren completely own the Baha'i faith as their own personal satrap. What they say is the standard. And what they say goes for everyone and no one has the right to as "why" or "wherefore". Period.
"We have inherited a dangerous delusion from Christianity that our individual conscience is supreme. This is not a Baha'i belief. In the end, in the context of both our role in the community and our role in the greater world, we must be prepared to sacrifice our personal convictions or opinions. The belief that individual conscience is supreme is equivalent to 'taking partners with God' which is abhorrent to the Teachings of the Faith." - Douglas Martin Former Member of the Universal House of Justice Baha'i Faith
So it goes.
timwatts
· 4 months ago
I would join this religion.......this is the Faith I once knew..very sad..
farhan
· 4 months ago
Timwatts wrote: What do you beleive do you beleive that homosexuality is ABNORMAL?
Farhan: The question as I see it is not what is normal or abnormal. The question is what can I do which will be in the best interests of humanity, as an individual, and as a member of society. Christ’s life was not “normal”; it was by far in the best interests of humanity.
farhan
· 4 months ago
Barb wrote: I am convinced that the current Baha'i stance on homosexuality is simply wrong.
Barb, I totally agree with the harmony of science and religion and the importance of justice. I also agree that the stigma and prejudice involved are totally unacceptable. To come to practical terms, would you suggest liberalising gay relations outside marriage or instating a gay marriage for Baha'is?
Barb Ruth-Wright
· 4 months ago
All Baha'is should be treated equally in regard to the requirements for marriage, leaving individuals free to choose their life partners, and understanding that it is a parental responsibility to accept or not accept the choice - no one else has a right to intervene, even in the most subtle way. Should people who are already married come into the faith, of course their marriage should be respected. Baha'is should always respect the institution of marriage, and strive to support in every way possible those who have chosen to marry.
This would be a step in the right direction.
I did not say harmony of science and religion - I said the agreement of religion with science. Otherwise we are left with superstition. As for abolishing stigma and prejudice, you cannot expect to do this when you label an adult, loving, committed relationship as spiritually unworthy. One cannot straddle the fence here - you must jump one way or another.
timwatts
· 4 months ago
I would have remained celebate if i knew that we were on equal footing with straights...I would have held out and have been proud to do so....
farhan
· 4 months ago
Timwatts, as I understand it, the Baha’i teachings speak very little about sin, evil and such concepts which are outdated pedagogical concepts for previous ages. The Baha’i teachings speak in terms of spiritual progress, acquiring of virtues and putting these virtues towards the service of mankind. The accent is not on what not to do, but on what we should gladly accomplish during our short lives in this world.
It is never too late to undertake this spiritual journey. What counts, is not what we appear to be compared to others, but what progress we have accomplished in compared with what God gave us. In the eyes of God, a person that others might consider as a sinner can be far more advanced than a prominent person who has not advanced from his initial starting point. No misgiving is too great, no shortcoming is insurmountable in the eyes of God.
peyamb
· 4 months ago
Here you again Farhan. Are you sure you aren't a Spin Doctor? How much longer are you going to try to make the Bahai writings (those from the UHJ and the secretaries of the UHJ and the Guardian) as not being against gay people. The Bahai community is not and never will be welcoming as long as we are treated as second class citizens. The Bahais consider homosexuality abnormal, evil, spiritually condemned, etc etc. (all words in the letters of the UHJ; so please stop with your spinning). And of all the garbage I have read from teh UHJ, the following has to be the worst. This came from a letter written to a mother who's son has come out to her and her husband has kicked that poor child out of the house for being gay. So what did the beloved 9 men on the hill advise to the woman? Did they resoundly tell her that she must bring that poor child back home and love him unconditionally? Did they tell her that her husband is wrong for what he had done? No, please read what they said: "Regarding your husband's refusal to permit your son to return home, it is understandable that a parent might feel deeply confused and angry when confronted with such questions which go to the very root of what it means to be a human being and what it means to educate and raise a child." Spin that Farhan! A child is thrown out and homeless, or your beloved UHJ who is supposedly speaking on behalf of God is telling this woman that yep homosexuality goes against what it means to be a human being! Disgusting!!!
farhan
· 4 months ago
Pey, I would be very surprised if the UHJ or any other Baha'i institution approbated the idea of a child being thrown out of home for homosexuality, which is obviously against the basic rules of parenthood and the prescriptions of the UHJ against stigma and prejudice. The minimal requirements for participating in administrative functions is an entirely different matter from our sacred duties towards others. This statement from the UHJ to the NSA of the US seems to outline the responsibility of every Baha’is very clearly to me.
"To regard homosexuals with prejudice and disdain would be entirely against the spirit of Baha'i Teachings. The doors are open for all of humanity to enter the Cause of God, irrespective of their present circumstances; this invitation applies to homosexuals as well as to any others who are engaged in practices contrary to the Baha'i Teachings."
The full letter can be seen here (#10): http://bahai-library.com/uhj/homosexuality.disc... Yes, they commend the woman for being compassionate and trying to keep unity in the family. But WHERE are the strong words against the Father. There are so many other religions that would take a stronger stance and say the true immorality/evil is a Father who turns his back on his son because of this. We don't see that in the letter. The UHJ is actually trying to be compassionate and understanding towards the parents because that bad child did the horrible thing of telling his parents who he really is. DO you know Farhan how difficult it is to come out to one's parents? Most gay people fear the worse. And add on to that a disgusting letter like this one from the UHJ that tells the parents that it is "understandable" why that sick father would feel the way he does, makes the situation even worse. I am so glad I never came out to my fundie Bahai parents when I was a teenager. Back then I actually believed the crap that you all fed to me. Maybe back then I would have actually killed myself and been yet another pititful statistic inside the Bahai community. Of course none of you would give a them, because a dead gay Bahai is way better than one who is out, happy and telling the world the suffering that goes on inside the Bahai community at the hands of people like you and the AO. I just pray that that child being referred to in the letter did not end up hurting himself when he sees that he is being rejected by his Father and getting lukewarm acceptance by hi mother and the supposedly supreme institution speaking on behalf of Almighty God!
Barb Ruth-Wright
· 4 months ago
It is my understanding that Baha'is are free to choose a life partner - prior to that choice, no one has any right to interference. Once the choice has been made, the parents, whether Baha'i or not, must give their permission to the union. When the requirement of permission has been met, the couple are free to marry each other - no one marries them; they marry each other, reciting a verse to abide by the will of God. Two Baha'i witnesses are required. Am I correct in my understanding?
farhan
· 4 months ago
Barb, I agree with most of what you say. I see you implicitly ruling out gay relations, as non gay relations, outside wedlock. Love between all, whatever the gender, is the rule, but not expressed physically. Stigma and prejudice should be abolished and minorities should be protected. This is my purpose for introducing the comparison with left handedness. I remember a colleague who would get into a rage and throw the instruments on the floor because the scissors would not work, instead of buying scissors for left handed.
What you describe of the Baha’i marriage is the spiritual and essential part, what goes on between a person and God and would be valid for someone stranded on an isolated island. I understand the passage in Aqdas on « livat » translated as « sodomy » referring to homosexuality, whether male or female and not anal penetration. All this is our private deal with God, but Baha’is also interact with a community and need to abide by community laws.
The crux of the subject would then boil down to social norms and standards within each community and the minimum requirements of the particular community we wish to belong to.
What you say about norms is valid for blood pressure and body temperature, but norms also refer to a “golden standard” towards which we wish to advance. It is statistically “abnormal” to be well fed, have clean water and access to education on this planet, but the golden standard is to rise above all these limitations of nature and this can only be accomplished through a harmonized community effort. Our aim hence is not to be “normal” but to advance along the path of human endeavour.
If someone decides to improve his situation by doing a PhD, he doesn’t start asking I am allowed to skip early morning lectures and bring a cell phone, my MP3 and sandwiches to the conference room. His aim is to learn and he will try to see which books he has to buy and where he has to find references. As Abdu’l-Baha says, it is not sufficient to choose the right professor: we have to go to the university, enroll and advance in the path of knowledge and virtue.
We adhere to a religion to see how we can improve ourselves and the society we live in. This is why I consider discussions as to “norms” of what is acceptable and what is not in order to maintain an ID card as well below the true purpose of religion.
timwatts
· 4 months ago
<<<<>>>>
Anyone know what this means?
<<<<If someone decides to improve his situation by doing a PhD, he doesn’t start asking I am allowed to skip early morning lectures and bring a cell phone, my MP3 and sandwiches to the conference room. >>>>>
So Here we see more clearly into Farhan's thinking....being a Baha'i is improving your education....trying to bend the rules for your own private confort is a kind of cheating....I take it from this that you think being GAY something which is beyond our control and as a result of being gay wanting to have a relationship with someone you love is a kind of back sliding and anti-social behaviour.....
I would add to your analogy a little..... imagine the Phd student but theey can't get into the lecture room becasue they are in a wheel chair and as a result cannot manage the stairs.....the lecturer tells her ...well with prayer and medical advice and effort grow new working legs....and then you will be welcome.....or put a ramp in...
farhan
· 4 months ago
Timwatts wrote : they are in a wheel chair and as a result cannot manage the stairs.....
Farhan: are you saying that being gay is a handicap? I am saying that it is a minority situation that needs help, and that societies are not tuned to that duty as yet.
You might believe that the solution is to liberalise gay relations or make provisions for gay marriages, I believe that societies have a right to reflect and hesitate before making such a decision unprecedented in human history.
Timwatts: being a Baha'i is improving your education....trying to bend the rules for your own private confort is a kind of cheating....
Farhan: That is not my opinion. My belief is that when we accept a manifestation of God, which no one is obliged to do, we are accepting an ideal towards which we hope to evolve and we come together with others having the same goal; some have an easier time than others who as you say are handicapped.
We are supposed to help each other, as this is not a competition, but an effort for mutually raising our global capacities. Some people in Baha’i communities have not grasped this fact as yet and they bring about power issues. The handicap might come from our family background, addictions, health problems, or whatever. The handicapped person should be helped and has a greater merit, and is spiritually more advanced than a person without handicaps, but it is not a good idea to lower the standard for everyone.
Stigma and prejudice towards others is unacceptable and has to be corrected. I consider it as more grievous than not observing community rules, but this does not mean that each community does not have the right to establish it's own regulations within the limits of state laws.
Now we have to find how to help each other, including the socially handicapped bigoted puritans, into becoming better people.
Barb Ruth-Wright
· 4 months ago
Farhan,
Making provision for gay marriage is hardly unprecedented in human history - have you been paying attention to the world around you?
And "to reflect and hesitate" is often a euphemism for dragging one's feet while others do the hard, right thing. As in the abolition of slavery, as in giving women the vote, etc. Societies do not reflect and hesitate - the individuals who make up those societies do, and what we do as individuals matters.
I do not wish to be rude, Farhan, but I must say that in general, I find your arguments in support of the Baha'i community's immoral behavior toward the gays in their midst, unconvincing in the extreme. This is, however, fine with me - when you start making convincing arguments in this regard, then I will begin to worry.
Alison Hart
· 4 months ago
Rev. Michael Rinehart, Bishop of the Texas-Louisiana Gulf Coast Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) is in the process of burying his father-in-law. It is from that perspective that he discusses his thoughts on the recent vote to allow partnered gay clergy:
He writes: "Possibly homosexuality is, as I’ve suggested, a 'good thing' for some people, and a 'bad thing' for others."
Now there's a thought!
Alison Hart
· 4 months ago
Oh, and I thought this remark by the Lutheran bishop, God bless him, really says it all, it really says absolutely everything that needs to be said about the heart of this issue, for Lutherans or Baha'is or anyone else:
"At the bottom of things, this conversation is about fear and manipulation, not sex."
Yes, that's just what it's about! The debate over homo-sex is just a diversion, just a symptom of a deeper problem. Fear. Manipulation. A "literalism of scriptural words." Authoritarianism.
Aqdasocracy!
I can't believe Baha'u'llah would want this. He wouldn't want people "revoked" or forbidden from Feast because they were "openly gay." He wasn't stupid, he was far-sighted, broad-minded, with a great depth of judgment, he was open to the future, he wasn't some hard-hearted hard-line preacher or strict evangelist, he understood people, he knew how to make concessions for the greater good, he was flexible, not rigid.
I can only think that the UHJ has come to believe that the Faith will not win any more hearts, that it's basically gone as far as it can go, and so they've decided to consolidate their control so that their subordinates act according to their wishes, so that we have this precious elitist community of "okay" Baha'is (who serve in the kitchen! LOL) and the "not okay" Baha'is who just don't meet the "special specifications" (but that doesn't mean we have clergy! LOL). So it's very sad, and it's the death-knell for this "emerging global religion," because, as Peter Khan says, "No time scale is given, but it may well be decades or indeed centuries," so yes, the game can go on forever, the Faith gets smaller, but the tide will turn in only a few more centuries ... keep donating!!!
Well, I plan to visit the local ELCA congregation on Sunday. Good luck to Sonja and dco and others, best wishes.
dco
· 4 months ago
Thanks... AH... a big hug!
timwatts
· 4 months ago
<<<<Farhan: are you saying that being gay is a handicap? I am saying that it is a minority situation that needs help, and that societies are not tuned to that duty as yet. >>>
OOOOH NO YOU DON'T ....nice try although being gay in the baha'i faith certainly is a handicap.....as you well know i was likening someone in a wheel chair to being gay in the sense that they are discriminated against through NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN......so please don't put words in my mouth....
farhan
· 4 months ago
Tim, being left handed in a right handed world is a handicap, although nobody's fault. It is not being "sinistralophobic" to point it out. It was ofcourse a still much greater handicap some centuries ago when you might have been burnt at the stake. It so happens that lefthanded people are often smarter than others, so this compensates that ;-)
sonjavank
· 4 months ago
Farhan, You wrote: "I would be very surprised if the UHJ or any other Baha'i institution approbated the idea of a child being thrown out of home for homosexuality"
Daniel's voting rights were removed because he was married and the reason given by the NSA which I quoted in the blog above was because of 'same sex marriage' and his “support of homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle for Baha’is”.
Luckily Daniel's son is no longer a child, but surely if I follow your argumentation (which I agree with personally) that Bahais should try and use the Bahai principles to guide their actions. Then removing a Bahai from the membershi rolls because they married is going against the rules and prescriptions of supporting family life. While other Bahais have same sex partners in the same country and do not marry and are not punished. And worse, their children grow up understanding that in the eyes of the Bahai community their parents are not treated with the respect other couples are.
You state that losing one's voting rights is not a big deal, but it is the intent. The removal and the reason for removal that is extremely important. One of the reasons, that obviously, something seems terribly wrong with removing Daniel's voting rights, is because the NSA's letter give his marriage as a reason. A NSA is punishing someone for making the life-long commitment of marriage!
Change is happening and actually change in attitudes towards Bahai communities accepting all people as equal members with equal responsibilities + rights will come. I do believe this and I do see change happening, but many Bahais then ignore the Bahai Writings or do as Farhan, make argumentation for rules in differing categories, etc. If you follow this argumentation, then the implication is that for gays it would be better not to declare themselves to join the Bahai community. The Bahai Teachings, surely, should be there for all. I do not think Baha'ullah would have intended that the rules for membership would mean, only some types of people.
What my goal is with this blog is to look and see if there is anything in the Bahai Writings that contradicts an equal acceptance of diverse sexual identities, because, surely, the Bahai Faith shouldn't require Bahais to live with double standards. One for their gay friends and one for their straight friends. It seems to me that Farhan is trying to do this (admirable, b.t.w.) because he sees that - I assume - the homophobic attitudes in the letters written by secretaries on behalf of Shoghi Effendi as part of the unchangeable Bahai Scripture. I don't, so I don't think there is a need for Bahais to create "if" and "but" clauses for the Bahai teachings in order to accept our LGBT brothers and sisters on equal terms.
That the UHJ seems to treat the letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, also doesn't mean that the UHJ is forever locked into the unchangeable. The UHJ is free to be flexible. Free to make law. Free to change its policies. However, naturally, it will only make a policy or change one if it sees a need. The practice of how our LGBT Bahais are treated by the Bahai administration is diverse. This is not in itself terrible if Bahais see this as something in transition. So, in some countries openly accepting gay marriage for example might endanger other Bahais or Bahais in other countries, but, to actively remove Bahais from the rolls because they marry is quite another matter.
farhan
· 4 months ago
Sonjavank: The removal and the reason for removal that is extremely important
Farhan: I agree; it is very important spiritually, perhaps as a means of informing the community of the importance of rules, but not comparable to a child being abandoned or rejected by his parents.
Sonjavank: A NSA is punishing someone for making the life-long commitment of marriage!
Farhan: they would be doing _exactly_ the same if the couple married without consent of parents or if a person got involved in politics. It is an educative action towards whatever might be a threat to the stability of the community and not specifically against gays. That individuals in the community might be homophobic or bigots, is another matter that equally needs attention in our immature communities.
I see a difference between breaking a rule and publicly announcing your disagreement with a rule. In the first case you are saying I accept the laws of this community, but i am unable to comply; in the second you are saying I disagree with the rules of this community.
Sonjavank: the implication is that for gays it would be better not to declare themselves to join the Bahai community
Farhan: a good point. Some youth even wait to have a stabilised life before declaring! My taking is that part of our spiritual education is accepting God’s will above our own. By avoiding this confrontation, we are like a patient running away from a necessary injection. We have difficult choices in our lives; it is by making the right choice that the stumbling block becomes a stepping stone. If we duck all the obstacles we will not progress spiritually, but again, only the one who wishes to undertake that spiritual journey upwards, away from his own will and nearer to that of God can accept such a sacrifice. There is no question of imposing it on others, but whatever the motives of the UHJ, I humbly accept their arbitration and any necessary reforms the decide necessary.
Meanwhile, we have a duty to reduce the stigma and prejudice in our societies and within our communities towards gays and one way of advancing is in asking our LSA which activities are officially open to them.
Sonjvank: …he sees that - I assume - the homophobic attitudes in the letters written by secretaries on behalf of Shoghi Effendi as part of the unchangeable Bahai Scripture
Farhan: Even if we made abstraction of all the scriptures and comments by secretaries, if I were a member of a secular institution confronted with the decision of instating gay marriages (thanks God I am not), I cannot see how an international community could cope at the present hour in human history, with all the implications involved in such a legislative change in family structure.
I am not against innovations, but I would say, as a principle of precaution, let us wait and see what results experiments are going to produce elsewhere. We now have a small cohort over some 25 years of gay parenthood studies behind us. We still don’t know how these kids from gay parents are going to cope with parenthood.
Grover
· 4 months ago
Here we go again, Farhan dominating the blog with screeds and screeds of tripe like a run down record. Give up people. There is no point even bothering to debate with him, although it does make Baquia's blog look really really active. Farhan was birthed by Peter Khan himself.
Baquia, you sure there isn't some hidden conspiracy where you are paying Farhan to do what he does ;P
Baquia
· 4 months ago
Grover,
LoL - yes I pay Farhan to expose himself as a bigot and a fundamentalist without an iota of compassion or progressive thought. It is a pretty penny but worth it.
dco
· 4 months ago
Dearest Farhan... they look the other way for prominent Baha'is and their children... I have no name, the persecution my family gives me because I am a Baha'i is matched only the persecution of the Baha'is because I am gay.
Removal of rights IS a big deal.
farhan
· 3 months ago
dco wrote: the persecution my family gives me because I am a Baha'i is matched only the persecution of the Baha'is because I am gay.
Well, this is appalling and an obvious violation of Baha'i principles. This is why we all need spiritualisation through a deeper study of the writings. As to the community requirements, which under no circumstances warrant misbehaviour from Baha'is, I agree that it is not a small deal and a great dilemma for a conscientious soul.
dco
· 3 months ago
Thanks Farhan... one needs to take this to the USA NSA... nothing will happen until all Bahaís all stand up to this nonsense...
Baquia
· 4 months ago
"We now have a small cohort over some 25 years of gay parenthood studies behind us. We still don’t know how these kids from gay parents are going to cope with parenthood."
This sentence is just disgusting. Especially from someone who claims to be educated (a medical doctor).
No matter. The world is ever evolving and as much as Farhan and others like him would want to tether us to such backward thinking, civilization moves forward. If you want to see the future, just go talk to a group of youth and ask them what they think of homosexuality and if it is an issue with them.
Every time I read something as pathetic and vile as these words above, I remind myself that such things were also written about the issue of slavery, women's rights and racial equality and many other issues - all under a similar guise of dialogue and scientific debate. But as we all know, such issues have been removed from contestation.
So my suggestion to you (and myself) would be to not get too upset by looking at such minutia but to cast your gaze to the horizon. The future is good and it is coming. Hopefully we'll be around to see it and be part of it.
peyamb
· 4 months ago
And Farhan we have decades of mixed marriages between religions, we still don't know how confused these poor children of Bahai/Christian will turn out. We have years of mixed race marriages, we still don't know how these poor kids are going to cope with raising their own children. etc etc With every post Farhan you show more and more of your ignorance- and you think you are teaching or defending the Faith? Oyy veyy! But to you dilemma... these kids will be GREAT parents who will raise more loving/tolerant children than any kids raised in some very dysfunctional hetero fortressess of well-being!
Barb Ruth-Wright
· 4 months ago
Farhan,
I know how at least three kids from gay parents are going to cope with parenthood. We just returned from a family reunion. Two of the children of my sister-in-law, who is lesbian and in a long-term relationship, were there with children of their own (her other three children were there as well - one engaged, the other two younger). One of those "kids" is soon to have a second child. Both these "kids of gay parents" are excellent parents to their children. And those children cannot be distinguished in any significant way from the children from "straight families" who were there. They are all healthy and happy, well developed children.
And it gets weirder, Farhan. My husband, who is gay (put that in your pipe and smoke it, Farhan - figure that out with your black and white theology), raised his son as a single parent, while actively gay, and he did an excellent job of parenting. His son is well adjusted, responsible, dependable, loving, sensitive and generous, has an excellent job. He is now a loving uncle to children of the family and of friends, and he is supremely qualified to be an excellent and loving parent when he and his wife have children.
You said sometime back, and I may paraphrase a little, "whatever helps us toward love and reconciliation is more precious....". Yes, Farhan?
If you will forgive my observation, you try to fit life to your theories and theology, rather than observing life and using that observation to adjust your theories.
Wake up, Farhan. Please.
Don't spin this, Farhan - I don't want to hear it.
Barb
dco
· 4 months ago
Lets see...
My son is 24, just returned from 8 months as a Fulbright/MTV scholar in Mali, and is going on to grad school. He graduated from the IB program here in high school, and the top of his class at UC Berkeley. His girlfriend, also a Haas Scholar, has a 4 yr old kid (a mistake her freshman year, her family supported her to succeed) is headed to a MFA program at UCLA. My son is a great step parent, and they come and visit our home frequently.
Interestingly enough, they are disgusted by the Baha'is. They ran into many at school and found them to use his discriptors "weird", arrogant, insular, overwhelmingly Persian, conservative... and out of touch.
When I got my letter they all drove over from the Bay Area to hang with me that evening... if that is not family, I don't know what it is. They knew how much I love this Faith and even tho its not their path, they came to support me.
Interestingly enough, she filmed and produced the wedding video, and my son was our best man... he's perfectly OK with being around gay folks, and doesn't find it a problem. He knows what he is and enjoys diversity.
Interestingly my ex-wife (his birth mother) also is disgusted by the Baha'is. Never joined when we were married as found the nutty, weird... etc.
Gay parents tend to produce higher achiever kids, because if they are parents, its because they really want to be...
a true story...
when he was in high school, he had some buddies over to study... I brought in some snacks and sodas... when I left, one of his friends said, thinking I couldn't hear:
"I wish my parents were gay, your dads are cool!"
he said, " its no difference, they are assholes just like yours"
M & I sat in the living room grinning...
Sorry, but we did something good...
Barb Ruth-Wright
· 4 months ago
Excellent, excellent! (big smile).
You have made me very happy this day, dco.
The more stories we hear, the better. Whether they are happy or sad stories, or even angry ones - does not matter. They teach us, and we need teaching.
And for what it's worth, others of us are disgusted by Baha'is as well; that is one reason we speak out. The other reason is that we love the Faith, and we do not believe this is how it was meant to be.
Barb
ramfar
· 4 months ago
Agreed. Once more for clarity: the Baha'i Faith is a conservative religious group. All conservative religious groups are, almost by definition, homophobic, misogynistic, and narrow-minded. This is not complicated, people.
dco
· 4 months ago
Thanks Barb... You have made me very happy this day, too!
peyamb
· 4 months ago
WHAT?! You mean your son's girlfriend, brought up by straight parents, had a child out of wedlock?! And your son, brought up by a gay dad, is supporting her? Wow, heterosexuals just should NOT bring up children in this world. :o) Just kidding!
dco
· 4 months ago
yep...
sonjavank
· 4 months ago
Yes hetero's should give their kids to gays to bring up. i've got two sons on offer :) Actually they are too useful so I'd prefer to keep them around.
Barb, I like your idea and I would suggest you try get some stories and write them down. I've some of Bahais who know are dead - and am not sure open I can be about them. But just think about collecting the stories first and worry about how you publish them later. You need the stories first and as you work on this, it'll become clearer. You probably need to garantee anonymity.
I can't help much because I have jobs and kids + half finished projects (including a book). I focus where I can on blogging.
Barb Ruth-Wright
· 4 months ago
Thanks, Sonjavank.
It has occurred to me as well that the most important thing, for whoever does this, is to just plunge in and call for the stories, and that a way forward will be seen as one goes along. I'm not worried about the publishing part. Perhaps it could even be done completely on line somehow. I don't know what I'm talking about in that regard - just an idea.
My own opinion is that it be done in such a way as to target two audiences - gay Baha'is or former gay Baha'is for a feeling of solidarity and encouragement, and the non-gay Baha'i community in general - to provoke thought, self-examination, and perhaps discussion.
As for help - I just realized I have a fantastic resource at my disposal (it's odd how an idea will drop into one's mind and then you only gradually realize the pieces already in place to help realize the idea). A young man who is the son of a Baha'i friend, and who is himself estranged I think from the Baha'i community, though friendly to Baha'is - I don't know if he has ever been a Baha'i himself - is a computer whiz. He is absolutely a genius with computers. I call him whenever I have any question or problem. I am reasonably certain he would be enthusiastic to help with any on-line mechanics of this project, and I would pay him, as I always do, so it would be employment for him. He could help and advise with absolutely anything I wanted to do, and could work closely with me. I think he could advise and help to some extent if someone else took this on, as well.
Anyway, for now I think I will wait a couple weeks or so and see what develops in terms of response - perhaps that more capable person will materialize and take the lead, and I and others can offer help.
I would not want people to be put off by my statement about checking details and verifying stories - I certainly don't think anyone should be prying into people's lives. I'm just thinking that there has to be a way to be reasonably certain the stories are authentic - Amanda offered a little advice in this regard. Perhaps we just have to trust each other. I agree that anonymity would absolutely have to be guaranteed for those requesting that, and any confidentiality would have to be scrupulously respected.
My husband, by the way, is already enthusiastic about this idea - always good to have support at home.
Thanks for your kind words and advice.
Barb
dco
· 4 months ago
count me in... Daniel
timwatts
· 4 months ago
I teach secondary school 11-16 and in a rough sorry challenging area and i have to say the vast majority of kids are fiercely defensive of their gay friends of which we have many....they won't allowed homophopia and are quick to challenge any that they see from the less "educated" kids...
farhan
· 3 months ago
Barb wrote : you try to fit life to your theories and theology, rather than observing life and using that observation to adjust your theories.
Barb, I have been involved in ethical decision making in these issues for some 20 years now. This involves people who call on medical teams for medical assistance for procreation, and sociologists, psychologists and law makers impartially trying to find the best solution for the would-be parents, the kids and for society.
I am saying that the people I interact with say they don’t know. You quote stories of successful families and say you know. Law-makers require scientific evidence and there is a huge amount of exchange in Europe as the bioethics laws are being discussed.
For the moment the studies I have had access to cover a couple of decades and suggest that children raised by gay families are doing statistically better than those raised by non-gay families. The objection to this has been that the gay parents studied were statistically more educated, financially better off, more meticulous since conscious of being observed. Another objection is that we need more time to see how these kids will act as parents.
If you know of more recent studies I am not aware of, I would be grateful to have access to them. If anyone feels that my comments here have been unscientific, I would be glad to have them assessed by any scientific committee in France or in the US; the reply can be shared here.
This has nothing to do with my personal opinions as a Baha’i which concern my beliefs and not my professional activities and my patients. My guess, as a Baha’i, is that Abdu’l-Baha would promote love and fellowship amongst gays and non-gays, the same requirements concerning chastity, and encourage marriages between gays and non-gays, and not intermarriage amongst themselves.
We also have to consider at what pace a society can evolve without creating havoc. A hundred years ago Abdu’l-Baha encouraged mixed marriages in the US but forty years ago the film “Guess who is coming to dinner” was banned in the US, but not in France.
peyamb
· 3 months ago
So why is it you don't have any objections or obstacles to a Bahai marrying a non-Bahai? Have you already done the research to show that the children turn out ok? Two parents with very different philisophical/spiritual outlook on life can harm a child's upbringing. It is much easier and healthier for a child to have parents that believe the same moral structure and give continuity in the family- is that not right? Yet somewho, you have no problem with these types of marriages- they are not even worthy of your great scientific mind that is, you know, just observing for the good of humanity
farhan
· 3 months ago
Peyamb wrote: So why is it you don't have any objections or obstacles to a Bahai marrying a non-Bahai? Have you already done the research to show that the children turn out ok?
Farhan: we have generations of examples before us and we know the challenges, the pitfalls and advantages; there is no ongoing social debate on this subject, and Baha’i teachings encourage them. No one is ranting about them, so why should I waste my time suggesting a new legislation when I am living through them?
Peyamb: Yet somewho, you have no problem with these types of marriages- they are not even worthy of your great scientific mind that is, you know, just observing for the good of humanity
Farhan: I observe the laws of society as you do, and I occasionally give recommendations if my opinion is sought. It so happens that gay marriages and parenthood are being discussed in France amongst other subjects for the oncoming revision of the 1994 bioethical laws by lawmakers, biologists, moralists and various associations. These laws are also under discussion as an innovation in the US and elsewhere in the world. Your views are as valuable to me (and perhaps even more so) as many others.
The fact that Baha’i teachings do not endorse them for Baha’is, does not alter the fact that I am working in a society where they exist, where a new legislation is being discussed for those who do not wish to be guided by Baha’i teachings, so I cannot ignore them. The fact that the Baha’i teachings suggest that science in the future will enable us to cure many diseases through appropriate diets, does not allow me to apply medical treatments other than those now endorsed by present day science. I have to live in the present world with an eye on the future.
peyamb
· 3 months ago
"we have generations of examples before us " That's not scientific data. Have you analyzed these Bahai/other religion families to see how the children grew up. Is the divorce rate higher among them? Have they turned to drugs? Are they criminials? You can't say empirical evidence that we offer regarding children from same-sex families is NOT valid, yet apply it as ok ("we have generatinos of families" without any analysis). Seems yet again hypocritical on your part. Have you learned that word hypocrisy yet Farhan?
farhan
· 3 months ago
Peyamb wrote : Seems yet again hypocritical on your part. Have you learned that word hypocrisy yet Farhan?
Peyamb, You have your experience and opinions, I have mine. I am willing to enter into a dialogue so as to share experiences, and where I might learn and perhaps advance in my opinions. I am not willing to enter into a wrestling match where people throw junk at each other.
Baquia
· 3 months ago
While peyamb's tone is rather harsh, the point he brings up is valid. What he's asking is that you apply the same standard across the board. Not selectively as you are currently doing.
farhan
· 3 months ago
Baquia wrote : the point he brings up is valid. What he's asking is that you apply the same standard across the board. Not selectively as you are currently doing.
Baquia, as I have repeated several times, interracial and interreligious marriages have existed over the ages. No one is discussing a change in religious beliefs or legislation in this respect. If the discussion on this subject comes up, I can provide my own personal experience; I believe that people should not be encouraged towards mixed marriages unless they are willing to face the challenges involved.
I am being informed of the suffering of the gays unable to live their orientation in a world where the majority of citizens see no need for a change in religious beliefs and in legislation, neither of which I have any bearing upon. I am occasionally invited to give my views which are close to that of the majority of my colleagues who choose tolerance and caution, a position that you find “disgusting” and contrary to your personal understanding of science.
I agree that many fears expressed 20 years back have been eliminated, but that in many parts of the world, including France, where interracial and interreligious marriages are not questioned, the legislator hesitates to innovate by accepting gay marriages and parenthood.
Is it so difficult to see the selective difference between continuing an age-old situation and adopting an innovation?
I am interested in a dialogue on this subject and I am saying that 1) I do not see sexual orientation as a race 2) I do not see sexual orientation as slavery 3) I do not see GLTB as a specific social group or gender, and if did, I wonder if we should not promote unity by encouraging intermarriage between gays and non-gays or between gays and lesbians. 5) Within the framework of civil laws, we should let religions apply their principles without pressuring them so that we can compare results. 6) Efforts should be made at improving dialogue between gays and non-gays and avoiding that it becomes a source of further misunderstanding and resentment through harsh and scatological language.
Grover
· 3 months ago
Awwwww, Farhan, playing the martyr! My heart bleeds! It is amazing how you've never considered, despite everyone on this blog telling you, that you might actually be arrogant, biased, prejudiced, bigoted, patronizing, condescending, and blinkered. If you want to improve humanity's lot, and as you say "improving dialogue between gays and non-gays and avoiding that it becomes a source of further misunderstanding and resentment" maybe you should look in the mirror.
farhan
· 3 months ago
Grover wrote : you might actually be arrogant, biased, prejudiced, bigoted, patronizing, condescending, and blinkered
Thanks, Grover, for your definition of anyone expressing an opinion that insistently differs from yours. Once again, you are addressing your views of a participant in a dialogue, and not providing your views on the subject being discussed.
Grover
· 3 months ago
I love it how you try and turn it round and pin the blame on someone else for your own failings. Farhan, almighty God, perfect in everyway, can't handle it when people point out your shortcomings and the reasons why your "dialogue between gays and non-gays" "becomes a source of further misunderstanding and resentment".
farhan
· 3 months ago
Grover wrote: you try and turn it round and pin the blame on someone else for your own failings. Farhan
Once again Grover, we are here to share views, not to compare or blame those holding views. When people have no further argument to present on the subject being examined, they start to make comments on those holding the views. Sonja has suggested that the Baha’is might change their position towards gay marriages; I find this improbable in a foreseeable future. You disagree with me. As Baquia wisely pointed out, time will tell who will have made the right guess. There is no need to call each other names.
farhan
· 3 months ago
Grover wrote: you try and turn it round and pin the blame on someone else for your own failings. Farhan
Once again Grover, we are here to share views, not to compare or blame those holding views. When people have no further argument to present on the subject being examined, they start to make comments on those holding the views. Sonja has suggested that the Baha’is might change their position towards gay marriages; I find this improbable in a foreseeable future. You disagree with me. As Baquia wisely pointed out, time will tell who will have made the right guess. There is no need to call each other names.
peyamb
· 3 months ago
Thank you for considering what I said throwing "junk" at you. My point stands though- YOU are a hypocrite. You keep trying to fool others here with your facade of understanding and tolerance, when all you are trying to do is show a kind/gentle side of the Bahais towards gays. This side DOES NOT exist. I can see through all the smoke and so yes, I will call you out on it, even if it means with harsh (but true) comments. You represent what I see among the fundamentalist minded inside the Bahai community. I can't let you fool the world with your words. Sorry!
farhan
· 3 months ago
Peyamb wrote: all you are trying to do is show a kind/gentle side of the Bahais towards gays. This side DOES NOT exist.
Peyamb, who said I represented the Baha’is ? I am just one Baha’i, and I share my understanding that is subject to change. I am trying to dialogue on issues, and not you, me or other Baha’is.
Barb Ruth-Wright
· 3 months ago
hmmmmm......encourage marriages between gays and non-gays, and not intermarriage amongst themselves.
I guess you mean gays should not intermarry among themselves, but non-gays should do that. But then there are marriages between gays and gays that are heterosexual - i.e. between gay men and lesbians. There have been such things recorded in history. It gets complicated, doesn't it, Farhan?
But I catch your drift - according to your beliefs, a man should never enter into a sacred, legal, loving commitment to another man, and a woman should never enter into a sacred, legal, loving commitment to another woman - even if they are interested in providing a safe, loving, legal environment for children, i.e. family. Better they should all just shack up - no point in seeking stability.
Have I got it right now?
I think we should agree to disagree, and I am willing to do that. Let's give it a rest.
Barb
farhan
· 3 months ago
Barb wrote : according to your beliefs, a man should never enter into a sacred, legal, loving commitment to another man, and a woman should never enter into a sacred, legal, loving commitment to another woman
No, Barb. This is not my belief and in any case I am willing to consider other beliefs in a dialogue but not in a wrestling match.
Since I chose to live and work in France, I apply the laws here and I participate in discussions about gay marriages and parenthood. My understanding is that what we have seen over the last 25 years is reassuring, but not sufficient at this time for the legislator (which I am not) to promote laws in favour of gay marriages and parenthood. I also consider it necessary to allow all religious communities to apply whatever prescriptions they deem necessary, without putting them under pressure, so that in time we can compare results.
If I am asked the opinion of Baha’is in this matter, I would say that they have elected delegates who have elected NSAs who in turn have elected an international body that condemns discrimination against gays, requires chastity from its members without distinguishing between gays and non-gays and does not make provisions for religious gay marriages. Being gay is not equated to a separate race or to a form of slavery. My understanding is that if we did wish to separate people with different orientations as different races, the Baha’i principle would encourage interracial marriages and not segregation of gays from non-gays is different communities.
peyamb
· 3 months ago
If asked that opinion, please also include that the 9 men also have said that: 1) gays have a disorder that we believe can be cured through prayer and determined effort 2) that they can sympathize with an angry parent that has refused their gay child to come back to the house and did not condemn that parent in the letter 3) that they believe that some day genetic manipulation of a fetus could possibly get rid of the disease of homosexuality 4) that an openly gay person (like Daniel) will be kicked out of the Bahai community and have no equal rights as other Bahais; when absolutely no one knows what he is doing in his bedroom and it is no one's business shall I go on? Will you also be fair and mention all these things or will you continue to be a hypocrite and try to fool people into believing how sweet the Bahai AO and the community is towards the LGBT community. Yes Farhan, "LGBT COMMUNITY". We are a community by default because of the ignorance that exists in the world. Oops sorry, am I flinging junk again?
Barb Ruth-Wright
· 4 months ago
It would be wonderful if someone would take on the task of collecting the stories of gay Baha'is, whether currently members or not, and of sympathetic friends and family in relationship to the Faith. Has anyone already suggested this? Stories hold the power to bring about necessary change, because they affect us at an emotional level, beyond reason and logic. A story will stick in the mind, will poke and aggravate to thought, can inspire and give hope.
I have a very wee bit of experience - I spent many years reading manuscripts, copy-editing and proof-reading for Calyx Journal of Literature by Women in a volunteer capacity, while I earned my living as a medical transcriptionist. I certainly would be willing to help if needed, or even to take the task on myself if no one else would step forward.
Think of it - a collection of stories to encourage and nourish gay Baha'is, and to provoke reflection and self-examination in non-gay Baha'is. Would this not be useful and a joy to behold?
I wonder if Kalimat would consider publishing such a collection?
Anyone out there interested?
Amanda
· 4 months ago
Barb, that's a fantastic idea. I know Peyam has expressed a similar thought process in the past, in a different context. A lot of people have posted short statements, including extremely abbreviated personal stories on the peteition I created here: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/stop-bahai-ant...
It would be possible to put a call for stories out on YouTube in reply to this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Guidl-7oGn4&feat... and moderate the comments so it isn't a troll-fest, or just ask people to reply by private email to the users YouTube account who want to be involved. Creating it and managing it is beyond my current capacity, but I'd be happy to help you. There are also other forums online people are already tuned into where the word could get spread. Seeing it published would be great. GETTING it published would be tricky, but well worth it.
Good luck.
Thanks for all your lovely comments here.
dco
· 4 months ago
awesome... just awesome... lets do this!
farhan
· 3 months ago
Good idea, dco; there might already be an advance in statistics i consulted a couple of years ago.
After quoting religions on gay relations, marriages and parenthood, it would be good to quote scientists and see what percentage of them are better informed than myself.
fubar
· 4 months ago
farhan - please find a psychiatrist. this blog is not a good place to seek help for your mental health problems.
---
thanks for another example of backward thinking and distortion.
backward religious ideas and rules (such as found in bahai) are unnecessary for "spiritual" transformation.
backward religious ideas and rules (such as found in bahai) are unnecessary for social progress.
you yourself are a perfect example of how backward religious ideas/memes inevitably lead to retardation of spiritual development and a lack of social progress.
you defend bahai because you have been socially programmed to believe in absolutisms.
in any society where the "center of gravity" shifts toward postmodernism, absolutisms (e.g., many/most bahai beliefs) are seen as backward.
further, bahai adds little/nothing to the discussion of what is wrong with postmodernism, or solutions.
farhan wrote: "My taking is that part of our spiritual education is accepting God’s will above our own. ... If we duck all the obstacles we will not progress spiritually, but again, only the one who wishes to undertake that spiritual journey upwards, away from his own will and nearer to that of God can accept such a sacrifice. "
timwatts
· 4 months ago
If in this revelation God has allowed things that were previously forbidden like the eating of pock for example then I would like to explore the reason for this....the prohibition was liften because eating pork is no longer presents a health issue (in the richer countires at least) God has allowed us to enjoy the fruits of this world and indeed has provided them for the use of man.....If yolu think gay relationships are now harmful you will have to demonstrate that they are by citing some examples....you say elswhere that it undemines the family and marriage..again you have to provide evidence for this....I am sure in myself that neither Baha'u'llah nor God wants me to be unhappy in this life so what the "ahibah" are doing to their gay brothers and sisters is deeply shameful and I beleive they will have to answer to their maker so you ought to be helping them overcome their views....
Barb Ruth-Wright
· 4 months ago
The Gay Baha'i Story Project is going to happen, folks - one way or another. If I take this on (I think I already have) as opposed to someone else, there will be a call for stories relatively soon - sometime after the two weeks are up. I will be traveling for much of the month of October and first week in November so will be mid-November before I can give my complete attention to this, but I will be thinking and working on it some during my travel. Any of you who are interested, please begin to think about your stories related to the gay experience in the Baha'i Faith. Please pass the word to anyone you know who might be interested in offering a story. This includes non-Baha'i friends and family who are sympathetic. I do not know for sure in what way or in what form stories will be requested. There are many details to work out already. I will begin to get advice and investigate how to go about this.
My greatest thanks to those who have already offered comments and stories - this is so heartwarming - I felt a little weepy last night (happy weepy) and could not sleep at first - my head was swimming with the possibilities.
You all are the greatest resource - if you give me stories, I will hold them sacred, and the path will unfold.
Barb
dco
· 4 months ago
great! this should be good! When you get a chance, tell us how you want the stories... posted here first or sent to you and how...
all my very best!
Daniel Orey
Barb Ruth-Wright
· 4 months ago
Will do. And if you have an opinion as to the best way to go about this, please offer it.
Thanks.
Barb
Barb Ruth-Wright
· 4 months ago
slight revision - Gay/Lesbian Baha'i Story Project - I have thought of the term "gay" as inclusive of both women and men, but my husband reminds me that some lesbians do not want to be considered under the umbrella term of "gay." Such comment/criticism is welcome - if I am the one to do this, the only way I will make it through is if you all help and comment and give your opinions.
This is, of course, a working title - who knows what we will end up with - will depend on the material that comes in.
Barb
dco
· 4 months ago
lgbt or glbt works for most of us
I am gay, she's a lesbian... etc
dco
· 3 months ago
Folks - another
Corvino: Other people’s judgments
By John Corvino, columnist, 365gay.com 08.28.2009 10:54am EDT
“You don’t just want us to tolerate what you gay people do,” my skeptical questioner announced, “you want us to think that it’s RIGHT.” Send / Share Add Comment Whenever I hear this point–and it’s pretty often–I always think to myself, “Duh.” Of course I want people to think homosexuality is “right.” Why would anyone think I wouldn’t?
Actually, the latter question is not entirely rhetorical. Even my fellow gays ask me why we should care about other people’s moral approval. Beyond the obvious pragmatic advantages - for example, more moral approval means more favorable voting attitudes means more legal rights means an easier life - why should we give a damn what other people think? And while we’re on the subject, why should THEY care? Why are our lives any of their business?
There’s a myth circulating among well-meaning people that “morality is a private matter,” and that therefore “we shouldn’t judge other people.” This is nonsense of the highest order. Morality is about how we treat one another. It’s about fairness and justice. It’s about what we as a society are willing to tolerate, what we positively encourage, and what we absolutely forbid. It is the furthest thing from a private matter.
There’s a story I always tell in my introductory ethics classes about a freshman who wrote a paper defending moral relativism. His paper was laden with references to what’s “true for you” versus what’s “true for me,” what’s “right for you” versus what’s “right for me” and so on. I gave the paper an F. Surprised and angry, the student came to my office demanding a justification.
“Well,” I carefully explained, “I graded your paper the way I grade all papers. I stood at the top of a staircase and threw a batch of papers down the stairs. Those that landed on the first few stairs got A’s…then B’s, C’s and so on. You wrote a long, heavy paper. It went to the bottom of the stairs. It got an F.”
“That’s not right!” he blurted out.
“You mean, that’s not right…FOR YOU,” I responded, grinning.
The moral of the story (aside from, tenured professors do the darndest things) is this: despite all of our talk of “right for you,” deep down we believe in public moral standards. We may disagree about what those are, and about what actions fall under their purview - but we still believe that right and wrong aren’t entirely relative. (For the record, the grading story is entirely fictional.)
One might object that grading affects other, non-consenting people, whereas relationships affect only the people involved. There are two problems with this objection.
The main one is that the latter point is just false. Unless one endorses a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” secrecy, relationships have a public presence and thus public consequences. Gays aren’t waging the marriage battle just so we can all go back in the closet. Like most people, we want to stand up before family and friends, proclaim our love, have it celebrated for the beautiful thing that it is. (At least, that’s what many of us want.)
We want to send the message to young gays and lesbians that there’s nothing wrong with them; that they, too, deserve to love and be loved, and that there’s nothing sinful or wrong about that. We want to be treated equally in the eyes of the law. All of these aims affect other people in various ways.
Second, the objection invites the response, “Says who?” Who decides that only actions affecting other people are appropriate targets of moral scrutiny? Who decides that that’s the right way to look at morality? And there’s no way to answer such questions without engaging in a bit of moralizing. Value judgments are inescapable that way.
Those who claim that they’re not taking any moral stances about other people’s lives are, by that very claim, taking a moral stance about other people’s lives - a “tolerant’ one, though not necessarily a very admirable one. Sometimes, other people’s behavior really sucks, and we should say so.
“Saying so” is part of the confusion here. There’s a difference between MAKING moral judgments and OFFERING them, not to mention a difference between offering them respectfully and wagging your finger in people’s faces. The latter is not just self-righteous; it’s generally counterproductive. I suspect when people say that “we shouldn’t judge other people,” it’s really the latter, pompous kind of moralizing they’re concerned to avoid. But we shouldn’t confuse the rejection of bad moralizing with the rejection of moralizing altogether.
In short, we should care what other people think, and do, because the moral fabric touches us all.
********************
John Corvino, Ph.D. is an author, speaker, and philosophy professor at Wayne State University in Detroit. His column “The Gay Moralist” appears Fridays on 365gay.com.
For more about John Corvino, or to see clips from his “What’s Morally Wrong with Homosexuality?” DVD, visit www.johncorvino.com
AH
· 3 months ago
Here's a piece you might like found about marriage by the above writer:
He quotes Mrs. King who said "Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood."
dco
· 3 months ago
Corvino's "What’s Morally Wrong with Homosexuality?” DVD, found at www.johncorvino.com is an excellent resource. Folks may want to buy it and sent it to their LSA's
Alison
· 3 months ago
Pastor Sylvia Hayward-Harris, who is straight, is in the Process of opening The Vision Church of Bermuda, "a radically inclusive Pentecostal church" which would be open to people of all sexual orientations.
Hayward-Harris tells the Bermuda Sun: "Often people who are in authority at the church demand more of their flock than they do of themselves. I would like to have a place where people feel free to be themselves - to live in their truth, whatever that truth may be. It's very strange to me that in order to be a part of a traditional church you have to live a lie if you are gay or lesbian. That is not Christian to me. Excluding gay people has always been a problem on this island. I know one young man who won't come back because he was attacked by a gang of guys with helmets. To be fully Christian, we must fully welcome all of God's children to the table of the Lord - women, children, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgender, those with special needs, those of every race... all have full acceptance into the complete life of our fellowship...Our desire for Bermuda is to actualise God's power to transform our often divisive and unhealthy cultures of hate, self-hate and violence into a community of healing and reconciliation."
A true Baha'i!
Alison
· 3 months ago
Islam recognizes homosexuality
Abdul Khalik, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta
Homosexuals and homosexuality are natural and created by God, thus permissible within Islam, a discussion concluded here Thursday.
Moderate Muslim scholars said there were no reasons to reject homosexuals under Islam, and that the condemnation of homosexuals and homosexuality by mainstream ulema and many other Muslims was based on narrow-minded interpretations of Islamic teachings.
Siti Musdah Mulia of the Indonesia Conference of Religions and Peace cited the Koran's al-Hujurat (49:3) that one of the blessings for human beings was that all men and women are equal, regardless of ethnicity, wealth, social positions or even sexual orientation.
"There is no difference between lesbians and nonlesbians. In the eyes of God, people are valued based on their piety," she told the discussion organized by nongovernmental organization Arus Pelangi.
"And talking about piety is God's prerogative to judge," she added.
"The essence of the religion (Islam) is to humanize humans, respect and dignify them."
Musdah said homosexuality was from God and should be considered natural, adding it was not pushed only by passion.
Mata Air magazine managing editor Soffa Ihsan said Islam's acknowledgement of heterogeneity should also include homosexuality.
He said Muslims needed to continue to embrace ijtihad (the process of making a legal decision by independent interpretation of the Koran and the Sunnah) to avoid being stuck in the old paradigm without developing open-minded interpretations.
Another speaker at the discussion, Nurofiah of the Nahdlatul Ulama (NU), said the dominant notion of heterogeneity was a social construction, leading to the banning of homosexuality by the majority.
"Like gender bias or patriarchy, heterogeneity bias is socially constructed. It would be totally different if the ruling group was homosexuals," she said.
Other speakers said the magnificence of Islam was that it could be blended and integrated into local culture.
"In fact, Indonesia's culture has accepted homosexuality. The homosexual group in Bugis-Makassar tradition called Bissu is respected and given a high position in the kingdom.
"Also, we know that in Ponorogo (East Java) there has been acknowledgement of homosexuality," Arus Pelangi head Rido Triawan said.
Condemnation of homosexuality was voiced by two conservative Muslim groups, the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) and Hizbut Thahir Indonesia (HTI).
"It's a sin. We will not consider homosexuals an enemy, but we will make them aware that what they are doing is wrong," MUI deputy chairman Amir Syarifuddin said.
Rokhmat, of the hardline HTI, several times asked homosexual participants in attendance to repent and force themselves to gradually return to the right path.
dco
· 3 months ago
maybe someone can find the actual quote, but I remember reading something about the Blessed Beauty saying if the Baha`is don´t get it together he will cause it to be raised from the midmost point of the ocean... or something like that?
I wonder if he was talking about Bermuda? hehehe...
farhan
· 3 months ago
There is also a quote from Baha'u'llah saying that if the Baha'is dont arise to serve, God would raise the pebbles (or the grains of sand) to serve Him.
peyamb
· 3 months ago
I've read that some Bahais think the king of Samoa becomiing a Bahai was predicted by Bahaullah because of this quote. Hmmmm, does that mean the Bahais have been astray for decades? :o)
dco
· 3 months ago
yeah apparently it was the wrong ocean...
Barb Ruth-Wright
· 3 months ago
I apologize to everyone for using the term "shack up" - I was trying to make a point about the importance of giving committed couples the benefit and blessing of marriage - but I chose a poor way to get the point across.
Sorry. It really is time for me to bow out of this particular conversation.
Barb
dco
· 3 months ago
Not to worry.... GLBT people shack up with style... a little paint, some curtains, a table, some flowers and the shack is a palace.....
Barb Ruth-Wright
· 3 months ago
(Big smile) Thank you.
Barb
Baquia
· 3 months ago
It would be good if we would respect Sonja's work in this article by actually paying attention to what she has written. However, personally I don't think that those who are against equal rights for LGBT will somehow be convinced through proofs or arguments.
As Max Planck said: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
This is already happening, as it has happened with so many other social advances. It is only a matter of time, of life, of death and of a new generation replacing the old. An ever advancing civilization moving forward by throwing aside the shackles forged by past errors.
farhan
· 3 months ago
Baquia wrote: It is only a matter of time, of life, of death and of a new generation replacing the old. An ever advancing civilization moving forward by throwing aside the shackles forged by past errors.
I totally agree, Baquia, and as we say the proof of the pudding is in the eating. This is why we should allow various trends to develop or to die down by themselves and let smart people throw in their lot with the trend that seems to them the most appropriate. The process of integration and disintegration repeatedly described by Shoghi Effendi confirms your view. As one example: “Such simultaneous processes of rise and of fall, of integration and of disintegration, of order and chaos, with their continuous and reciprocal reactions on each other, are but aspects of a greater Plan, one and indivisible, whose Source is God, whose author is Baha'u'llah, the theater of whose operations is the entire planet, and whose ultimate objectives are the unity of the human race and the peace of all mankind.” (Advent of Divine Justice (3:1, page: [73])
peyamb
· 3 months ago
"This is why we should allow various trends to develop or to die down by themselves" This is the root of the problem Farhan- you are ignorant and pompous in your "innocent" remarks. The love and commitment that two people finally want to show towards each other, the respect they expect from society, the confirmation they finally want from decades and centuries of oppression... YOU call a mere "trend". It is not a trend Farhan. It is a freeing from the shackles of hate and injustice that ignorance such as yours has inflicted on gays and lesbians for so long. The process that is set in motion is about justice and you, the Bahai AO, no one can put a stop to it. How would you feel if the Bahai Faith was looked at as just a trend to allow to die down or develop? Your words constantly, in a subtle manner insult.
farhan
· 3 months ago
Peyamb wrote: How would you feel if the Bahai Faith was looked at as just a trend to allow to die down or develop? Your words constantly, in a subtle manner insult.
I would feel that being in a minority group of hardly one in a thousand citizens of this planet, others are fully entitled to holding views very different from mine. I would not feel in the least insulted, and by sincerity, and fleeing hypocrisy, I would continue to give my views next to theirs, as I am doing here, next to the vast majority of those on this blog whose views differ from mine. Perhaps I should be more careful and add IMHO before each sentence to avoid appearing pompous?
You express the views of perhaps 10% - a hundred times more numerous than Baha’is - on this planet, and express the views of the vast majority of contributors of this blog, and you feel “subtly” insulted if my views differ from yours. Would I become a “nice” person and no longer a hypocrite if I lied and gave the views you hope to hear, or are you interested to see me appear as a bigot and hear what I might have to say on the subject?
Barb Ruth-Wright
· 3 months ago
Well, talk about a hypocrite - here I am again when I said it was time for me to hang it up - we all have trouble with our deeds matching our words occasionally.
Farhan, I hope we can agree that when you step on sensitive toes, someone is going to say ouch!, probably loudly, and probably say a good deal more as well. For example, during the struggle for justice for blacks in the USA, segregationists certainly had a right to voice their opinions, and they did. And there was a loud cry in response to some of those opinions from those who had suffered, and in some cases from their friends who were not black, but were working toward justice.
This is not a usual Baha'i discussion of what color paper we should use for our flyers for Race Unity Day - with everyone giving their opinion and some people abhorring the color red, and being offended when others disagree. This discussion is a discussion toward Justice, and comes out of a long history of discrimination, physical abuse, and punishment toward gay folks. And those folks have friends, and family. So when you step on sensitive toes, they are going to respond vehemently.
Of course you have a right to your opinion, and I trust that you are sincere in your opinion, and seeking to learn from the opinions of others. But don't be shocked when people say ouch! loudly and a good deal more. A lot of emotion goes along with the history of any significant discrimination, and it may be hard for someone who has never experienced that particular discrimination to understand the emotion. But trust me, there's good reason for it. And it is oh, so wrong to blame people for having that very justified emotion and speaking out accordingly.
Barb
peyamb
· 3 months ago
No you should stop pretending to be here for dialouge and understanding when all you are trying to do is give the straightforward fundamentalist party line of the present AO. I don't want you to give me the views I want to hear, that's between you and God to decide. I just want to be honest about who you are- not just some simple Bahai here for dialouge and understanding. You are not.
farhan
· 3 months ago
Pey wrote : I just want to be honest about who you are- not just some simple Bahai here for dialouge and understanding. You are not.
Pey, I have been here under my true name, and all my messages have been truthful and honest; I have certainly not been participating with the intent of hurting anyone’s feelings. I intend to invest more time elsewhere and I am grateful to those who by contradicting me have helped me towards a better understanding of this problem here.
fubar
· 3 months ago
farhan, you are a liar and distortion artist. the record of your comments on this blog provide an abundance of evidence. please see a competent psychiatrist for help.
fubar
· 3 months ago
A case can be made that things have gotten worse as people have died. "Bad memes" tend to survive in the collective unconscious and re-emerge (sometimes in morphed form) regardless of the individual leaders/followers.
Anyways, the whole point of the western system of social equality is to have "rule by law". Historically, this has been incremental. (Currently, the problem is that law is being subverted by corrupt/wealthy/corporate interests. Presumably some populist uprising is called for.)
In order for there to be an expansion of equality via law, a process of social/political change has to happen. Various theories of social change have been proposed, and I'm not aware that there is any broad agreement that people have to die in order for collective transformation to happen. I personally find that idea (change via death) to be bleak, and contrary to abundant evidence of individual intellectual/spiritual transformation (or other paradigm shifts).
Also consider that some futurists predict that the wealthy will have access to life extension medical technologies that will result in average lifespans of 120 to 150 years.
Just because bahais are (generally) inept/incompetent at (or resistant to) transformation doesn't mean that other people are similarly inept.
bahais are like people that stand around and talk about the need for a grand structure, who lack either the tools or talent to actually build much more than an outhouse. after the outhouse is built, the first person to sit on the throne falls into the pit upon completion of their business. anyone that dares to point out that the person seeking relief has fallen into a stinky hole is accused of "disloyalty" to the grand scheme.
for the few that do have talent (e.g., sonja), the inevitable frustration over the lack of "tools" in the bahai system leads to an understandable, and well intentioned, desire to "make stuff up".
the reality is that bahai culture is currently incapable of the kind of transformation required to adapt to social change. the very scripture that sonja hopes can be used to inspire forward progress contains too many other "backward" elements that "check" the hoped for forward movement. specifically, there is a lack of a mechanism to jettison, or fundamentally rework, outdated metaphysics, outdated organizational practices, and so forth so that the religious culture can provide meaning as existential problems and needs change/evolve.
indeed, what appear to be the case is the opposite, the organizational culture is capable of creating an atmosphere of amnesia about social progress and justice and "real" transformation, via the manipulation of public opinion (Ruhi, etc.). any semi-organized attempt to create alternate, critical, nonconforming, or dissident perspectives (Dialogue, Kalimat, Talisman, H-Bahai) is attacked and marginalized.
by the time bahai culture does change, and adjust to a new paradigm that others create, the rest of the world will have long since "moved past" the issues.
the crucial issue at play is about methods of transformation. the spiritual "roadmap" that exists in bahai culture was designed for a process of transformation that had no awareness of evolution or postmodern culture.
"lack of awareness" = "two missing tools" = "outhouse religion"
Craig Parke
· 3 months ago
I agree Baquia. That is the lesson of history. It is the evolution of ideas taking root and advancing in the hearts and minds of human beings in generational cycle after cycle that is the cause of advancement. This process is most dynamic among thinkers who know how to think and then take direct action in opportunities around them by every means possible. The Baha'i Faith has no thinkers so this process of life and death cycles of perception, evaluation, and advancement with be very rapidly outdistanced by other more intelligent and courageous people and other much more free, open, and dynamic spiritual communities. To get the most insight on the true depth of the Teachings a spiritual seeker must understand the secret that Baha'u'llah was NOT a PERSON. Baha'u'llah was a A STATE OF CONSCIOUSNESS. His followers flunked the test in record time again in human history as all the Abrahamic religions have in the past before this one too. People worship the lamp and not the light and as a consequence miss the system of spiritual insight over and over in human history. It is the same old, same old. The huge neurotic Mommy/Daddy psychological system projection of the Ages in franchise groupthink "organized" religion. Here we go again. Already we have clergy. So many people had hoped for something much better this time out. So many people had hoped for the liberation of esoteric spiritual understanding. It certainly is there in the Kitab-I-Iqan. The mission of the Baha'is was very, very simple. Spiritualizing the planet is child's play if you understand basic cosmic principles. These principles are all around us and can be discerned by intelligent observation.
The first thing in life is to understand the psychological dynamics of your own family and develop a support system around you starting with your family. He seems to not have grasped this at all. Maybe it was something in the drinking water of the 1930's but Shoghi Effendi made something essentially very easy mind bogglingly incredibly complicated. He seems to have not understood the principle of natural force multipliers in human endeavors. If you want to understand that, study the dynamics of rock music, and system of psychological resonance in human beings.
So there must be some Divine Message in this that the Faith as it was shaped carries within it the hermetically sealed phased cognitive dissonance that will insure that it falls further and further behind with each death and re-birth cycle of just social advancement with each new generation as the new World Age unfolds. It is a quite remarkable Catch-22 to behold.
As the energies of the New World Age progresses which I still honestly believe were inaugurated in the 19th Century by the Bab and Baha'u'lla's souls going through a space-time cosmic spiritual vortex, those same energies will outdistance the Faith. The spectacular failure of the Baha'i Faith up until now is truly a wonder and a prodigy! People like PK being elected to anything whatsoever in the Faith is the ultimate cherry on top. It is amazing, amazing stuff as an outcome. I think the organization of the Faith will become the final autopsy on the 3,000 years legacy of the dysfunctional organizations we now know as the Abrahamic religions. I think the final autopsy report will bear much fruit in the final demise of organized religion in terms of brain chemistry, major human personality disorders, and organizational theory. I think this final analysis at some point over the next 300-500 years will be the final gift of the Abrahamic religions to mankind. They will have proven how ABSOLUTELY NOT to do anything as an organization if you want to truly be effective in any field of endeavor. I think we must learn this scientific observation regarding organizational theory before we can have a world civilization. We have to solve it.
Shoghi Effendi did not seem to understand the true dynamics of human progress in the cycle he often pointed out. When it come to human organizations the issue is not about "non involvement in politics" the issue is about "non involvement in mental illness." For the time being it appears less prayer and more Prozac is in order in the BAO. There has to be a better way to get neurotransmitter levels up than filling out Ruhi workbooks 1,000 times with the same people in one's lifetime cradle to the grave over and over until insanity or welcomed death occurs. There just has to be a better way to achieve progress like letting people be creative under their own energy to think freely and come up with their own bottom up empowerment.
Meanwhile, with each generational cycle of death and re-birth the Baha'i Faith will look more and more like the dust bowl of Oklahoma in the 1930's. It is now a very curious Grapes of Wrath with one too many a John Steinbeck on LSD writing the narrative. Just one too many a Tom Joad appearing everywhere out of the haze.
The UHJ has essentially told the Baha'is to get off the land of their own hearts. If you can't make the paper payment to the bankers get off the land.
Just a quick weekend note to everyone on the importance on the Ruhi Book 1929 Full Sequence of Courses. Unless people wake up worldwide and start to understand the game being played on them, it doesn't matter if you are a Baha'i or an atheist or who or what your God is or what your sexual orientation is. You will die broke in the gutter living as a perpetual slave with your entire life saving flushed every 70 years over and over and your sons and daughters sent to endless war by the Military Industrial Complexes of the world...forever.
The history of the entire human race is the history of the psychological needs of unchallenged and unchecked criminal elites. This is true of all of the Abrahamic religions over the centuries which is open for study. They are a 3,000 year old textbook history of this organizational and social phenomenon. The great religion of today is the religion of money and it's clergy is the unchallenged financial elite bankers of the world. Educate yourself by studying the links of the Ruhi Book 1929 Full Sequence of Courses.
Unregulated OTC Credit Default Swaps are STILL LEGAL everywhere in the world after they took down 150 year old financial institution(s) a year ago! It is like a nuclear reactor blew up killing millions of people with radioactivity and we just keep building them. It is amazing, amazing stuff. There is still no serious financial regulation ANYWHERE in the world. Zero. Nada. Zippo. These boys play to win. Once bailed out by the governments they control, they will just keep the insider game going and not give up one inch of their control over the wealth of the entire world. That is the situation we are in. Absolutely nothing whatsoever will be done. Nothing. Until people educate themselves and rise up.
It is clear that it may take 100-500 years using Internet technology, but a new political party will have to be formed in the United States it we all do not want to die as slaves and take the entire world with us. And somebody eventually will start a free and open bottom up global religion based upon Cosmic Divine Justice. It is only a matter of time.
Meanwhile, educate yourself as to the long term worldwide situation developed over the last 500 years so you try to tip the scale that you do NOT die along the road living out of your car.
CRASH COURSE IN ECONOMICS 101 - 21 VIDEOS (4 HOURS) edit link h t t p : // www . chrismartenson .com/crashcourse
ELLEN BROWN EXPLAINS THE LAST 350 YEARS - 5 VIDEOS edit link h t t p : // www .youtube. com/watch?v=QU0XiklHPMc edit link h t t p : // www .webofdebt .com/ edit link h t t p : // webofdebt .wordpress .com/
DOUGLAS RUSHKOFF EXPLAINS THE LAST 500 YEARS - 1 VIDEO Life Incorporated: How The World Became A Corporation, And How To Take It Back. by Douglas Rushkoff edit link h t t p : // lifeincorporated .net/
STUDY THE HISTORY OF THE 300 YEAR OLD FRACTIONAL RESERVE BRITISH BANKING SYSTEM MODEL THAT STILL RULES US TODAY - 5 VIDEOS edit link h t t p : // www .youtube .com/watch?v=vVkFb26u9g8
And remember, as Shoghi Effendi wrote, the Baha'is have NO GUIDANCE WHATSOEVER on ECONOMICS except for a few general principles. The members of the current UHJ are academics at the level of high school teachers who essentially traffic in other peoples writings and ideas. There will be NO ORIGINAL THOUGHT OUT GUIDANCE OF ANY KIND FOR 1,000 YEARS on what to do about endless derivatives in the world economy. You are going to have to figure out what to do YOURSELF.
Craig you're such an alarmist. Banks have been failing since banks began. Markets have cycled through booms and busts since mankind took up agriculture back whenever. And yes real people get hurt in the process. When has it ever been otherwise? Will it really ever change?
I would add to your list "The Predator State" by James K. Galbraith and "The Ascent of Money" by Niall Ferguson, two fine works that put the current situation into much needed policy and historical perspective.
Is it not strange that corporations and other entities chartered by a government of the people should be so contemptuous of their maker? Something to ponder.
Derivitives in the world economy are probably here to stay at least for the time being. I am not sure what counsel on their usage the UHJ could give except to remind us that Baha'u'llah prohibits gambling and games of chance (speculation), encourages us to expend our wealth on our families and bretheren in the faith, and to carry on a trade or profession. Baha'u'llah's advice to treat tradesmen with deference sounds like a fair wage standard to me. He gives permission to charge interest on personal notes but not to engage in usury (as creditor or borrower) as is practised with credit cards or some home equity lines of credit. Those few general principles carry a lot of weight I think and have helped me personally keep my head above water. And I didn't need the UHJ to tell me what is what in other words and have a hard time understanding why some do.
You may be interested to discover that Pension Funds are at present buying up Iowa farmland which is surprising since returns on land are not that great. Iowa has 10 percent of prime agricultural land in the nation. Another bubble in the making?
Craig Parke
· 3 months ago
You have some good points. I have not read the two books you mention but I have certainly heard of both of them. I plan on reading them soon.
I think derivatives on the scale they have now attained are financial nuclear weapons. They are out and out gambling. But there appears to be no political will yet in the world to strictly regulate them. We'll see what happens at the G20 in Pittsburgh this month. I have no trouble with Credit Default Swaps between the actual holders of the debt. But Naked Credit Default Swaps are pure gambling and how such a thing was ever allowed to exist is absolutely amazing. When they permitted them in the law changes of 1998 and 2002 they were well aware of the history of the Panic of 1907 and the changes were specifically made exempt from New York state gambling laws against the "bucket shop" practices of that time. It was just amazing stuff to ever be allowed to happen.
Meanwhile, I say this time it is different. This is not a standard "business cycle". Not by any means. This is very, very serious. We are in a place no one has ever been before.
But I guess as Peter Khan says, if you are going door to door for the Faith you are "safe."
Yep. That's the ticket.
fubar
· 3 months ago
economic failure led to fascism/nazism. being alarmist is good.
I personally think that thousands of "those bastard up on wall street" (Richard Nixon) should be hung for treason (corrupting the legislature).
Anyways - the basic bahai principle is simple: avoid extremes of wealth and poverty.
implementing the idea is the hard part.
the current system (protestant capitalism, natural law) originally assumed that religion would provide an ethical structure to check greed and excess (and the inevitable corruption of the political structure).
that was a modernist assumption.
a new set of laws (accountability/incentive structures) need to be put in place that are more holistic, and reflect postmodern and integral values.
until then, the old system will grind on, generating regressive behavior amongst the economic-political elites, which will lead to social-economic instability.
people have been dumbed-down so much that they do not know what is being done to them (exploitation/inequality), but if things get bad enough, some wil relearn how to "work against the system" in order to survive.
"transpartisan" politics is one possible direction.
Craig Parke
· 3 months ago
Does anyone know what the UHJ's guidance is on the next big thing of the "securitization" of life insurance policies? Did the Bab, or Baha'u'llah give guidance on this? Did Abdu'l-Baha or Shoghi Effendi comment on this kind of new proposal?
At the very least does the UHJ members-in-waiting from the ITC have an opinion on this? Does anyone know if they are even now discussing it over lunch? Or does Peter Khan, most of all, have guidance on this since he has personal opinions of guidance on every known and unknown topic in the Universe? Does anyone know if the Writings say this is a good idea?
Does anyone know if anyone on Wall Street or the UHJ has ever read Laurie Garrett's famous book of the 1990's that would seem to say that this really is not a good bet to make with other people's money?
Does anyone know what the guidance is or do we all have to figure this out on our own for ourselves?
Barb Ruth-Wright
· 3 months ago
I have a question - probably this has been already covered long since, but I'd like to know others' thoughts.
If the UHJ and the Guardianship had existed at the same time, Shoghi Effendi said, I believe, that he had the obligation to ask the UHJ to reconsider any decision he felt should be considered again - but that he had no right to change their decision - their decision after consultation had final sway. And that they had the responsibility of legislating on anything not specifically revealed in the writings of Baha'u'llah.
If the Guardian's opinion would not be binding in this instance, but could be overridden by the considered opinion of the UHJ, does this say anything about the weight of the Guardian's statements in relationship to the UHJ decisions, regarding anything not explicitly revealed in Baha'u'llah's writings?
I'm too lazy right now to go pull the quote regarding this - it's in WOB, I believe, but I know where to find it easily enough, and reviewed it recently. It seems a little bit of a fuzzy area, and I'm just wondering how others see this. I think this question relates to the possible mechanisms for change in the Faith, and the possibility for the UHJ to move with the times, when it deems this wise.
Thanks.
Barb
Craig Parke
· 3 months ago
Barb,
You bring up a very interesting point. I have seen the specifics of this discussed at times on several underground sites as to how can this important check and balance power of the Guardian simply does not exist now with no Living Guardian and the possible catastrophic consequences. The clear fact is it indeed does not exist. No one, therefore, can ever stand up to have a check and balance "moment" of any kind to ask for a "reconsideration" on the power of the UHJ. But I don't think anyone has brought it up from this other viewpoint yet you point out here in any discussion I have seen so far. I think everyone feels the Faith will always be fundamentalist and authoritarian from here on out for a full thousand years until the next Manifestation completely pulls the plug on everything within the first five minutes of the next Revelation way down the road. Meanwhile, nothing will go anywhere within the Faith as it cannot adapt to anything in the organic advancement of free and open advancement and discussion within human society and it falls further and further behind stuck in the mindset of a very tiny group of completely insular mind bendingly impotent and ineffective "Admin-o-centric" community of people in 1957.
I have always seen the "completely missing Living Guardian" factor as a very curious kind of cosmic "bank shot" over the next 1,000 years. It is a factor guaranteed to keep the Baha'i Faith permanently hamstrung from ever being able to achieve any kind of effective thesis-antithesis-synthesis dynamic. there is just no way around this permanent situation which is now set in stone. The Faith is permanently held back, The same with no women allowed on the UHJ. The world will, therefore, very quickly outdistance the Faith. It will never be a player as the planetary civilization is built by the souls truly immersed in the free and open energies of the New World Age. Many other people and many other spiritual communities will be much more noble from their own innate spiritual connections with the Cosmos. But there has to be some Cosmic meaning why the Baha'is will never attain any real power in the world for the next 1,000 years. What could the cosmic meaning be to be destined to always be a bridesmaid and never a bride? As the last Abrahamic religion it truly makes me ponder the wonder of such a profound mystery. Hamstrung with no real bottom up structure to safeguard a consultative dynamic of any kind or a dynamic system of consultative checks and balances, It will always be playing with doll babies instead of a real living child decade after decade for a full thousand years. Why?
Why did Shoghi Effendi apparently purposely decide to allow it to become completely hamstrung by not appointing a Livine Guardian in his lifetime as he was required to do by the specific text of the W&T of Abdu'l-Baha?
I have thought and thought about this during all my years in the Faith and I just can't understand what message he was trying to send to the future?
fubar
· 3 months ago
With respect, it seems to me that the bigger structure of bahai belief is the real problem here. Prophets, 1000 year cycles, and all that stuff (if taken literally) IS THE PROBLEM. ("middle man scam") NOT THE SOLUTION.
No prophets are needed, no progressive revelation is needed, because "evolution happens". Consciousness unfold/infolds, the impulse to seek "the good, the true, and the beautiful" is eternal. The impulse to experience transcendence is eternal (both the "ascender" and "descender" paths - via egolessness or body experience). It existed before religion. Please note that bahai scripture appears (officially untranslated) to contain descriptions, borrowed from suf poetry, of the "ultimate" state of spiritual bliss and mysticaly unity ("descender" spirituality) as being metaphorically sexual: God "penetrates" the "seeker", etc.
(To put it into crude context, imagine god "penetrating" the 9 uhj men with "spirit" during a particularly "infallible" moment - while they are "legislating" about homosexuality. The irony seems considerable.)
Great archetypal leaps forward probably happen long before some so called "prophet" recycles some old story from ancient culture that mapped an archetypal template out, and "predicted" how the newly emerged appearance (reconfiguration) of such an archetype would change people and culture, cause large scale paradigm shifts, etc.
The great civilizations (slave systems) were imperial projects that required "universal" (mythic) religion to impose conformity (more efficient if the goal is to beat down other cultures). Once humanity passed from a medieval world to a modern (and postmodern) world, such mythic religion lost out to rationalism.
The only way to get back the original spiritual/transcendent elements that are missing from modern/postmodern culture is to cast off the imperialist elements of religion.
The idea that only "prophets" can act as intermediaries between "god" and human beings is something that needs to be cast off.
Humanity needs spiritual geniuses as much as it ever has, just not ones that are instruments of the archetypal images of faded slave civilizations.
Kurt
· 3 months ago
Barb,
The quote you are looking for in WOB is in Dispensation of Baha'u'llah, pg 150. Sen McGlinn wrote an essay on this question last December entitled "He Cannot Override..." and it can be found at senmcglinn.wordpress.com. You will have to scroll down the main page to find it. I think you will find his discussion satisfactory. Best of luck.
Baquia
· 3 months ago
Yes, you're right Kurt. Thanks for pointing that out. Here is Sen's article: He Cannot Override
fubar
· 3 months ago
great question. the basic themes in the bahai writings that pertain involve trying to prevent the usual "worse case scenarios" seen in human history:
1) having an imamate (guardianship) to "prevent schism" (disunity), and 2) having a quasi-democracy (houses of justice) to "prevent orthodoxy".
(Organized religion has a giant problem: it can be used to do very good things, or exploited to justify very bad things. bahai tries to address the problemm by building on islamic solutions, but the "solution" came apart because of the weirdly narrow inheritance thing with the guardianship.)
Also: if the "international tribunal" and other "secular" governmental structures are to co-exist w/ bahai to deal with the "non-religious" aspects of life (???), then the problem under discussion takes on a somewhat different characteristic than if bahai governing bodies were "supreme" social institutions.
In terms of checks & balances and the use of "public opinion", if a uhj starts doing crazy/corrupt stuff, a guardian could potentially lead a "PR" campaign to pressure the uhj (or change election of members).
similarly, a uhj could use "public opinion" (and perhaps "legislation"!?!) to thwart a "crazy/corrupt" guardian.
Assuming that such a system "makes sense" (note that another thread on this blog made clear recently that it DOES NOT, since it has common historical origins in the archeology of ideas in iranian culture that produced the iranian theocracy-dictatorship that rules the country), it is apparent that when there is no imam, the legislative branch becomes "dangerous" since it has to take on the role of "enforcer" by imposing doctrinal "unity" (conformity).
Thus, the slide into rigid "legislative" orthodoxy becomes inevitable, and rapid, without an imam/guardian.
---
the problem with this whole discussion isn't the uhj's reticence to toss out the dumb stuff that shoghi effendi said about homosexuality. it is that the american fundamentalists and iranian authoritarians that are the ruling elites know that "liberalizing" ANY aspect of bahai would create even more demands for further "reforms", and undermine their pathological grip on power.
their agenda now has to be to stop any and all discussion of reform (or "real accountability"), of ANY SIGNIFICANT KIND.
fubar
· 3 months ago
re: the general discussion of social change and "nature" (evolution, or whatever).
In the following book, there is a fascinating linkage between integralism, multiculturalism, spirituality and democracy.
excerpt: | To devise a theory of education is to address the questions of culture, | cultural values and cultural identity formation in the child. In this | original study, Robert Mitchell gives us a scholarly overview of cultural | education in America's schools. He demonstrates how the public trust | of universal education fails our children and our democracy. He then | advocates reframing our concept of education in terms of a sacred | trust that teaches the culture of democracy. Turning to the question | of the role of the teacher, Mr. Mitchell weaves together anecdotal | evidence of a teacher archetype with advanced theories in archetypal | psychology. This compelling work breaks new ground to provide us | with a refreshingly new and visionary approach to K-12 education. | | Limited preview - 2005 - 352 pages
About the Author
Robert Mitchell was born in 1945 and raised in California and Illinois. He studied architecture at the University of Illinois for two years before receiving his Bachelor of Science degree in Mathematics from Troy State University. He is a veteran who served in the Vietnam War and was honorably discharged in 1970. He then lived in Europe, North Africa and Mexico, working as a freelance writer and designer for eight years before becoming a teacher in a small private American secondary school in Mexico. In a career spanning nearly 30 years, Mr. Mitchell has taught English, history, art and mathematics in both public and private schools in the United States and abroad. He currently lives in Maryland and teaches mathematics in a small private secondary school near Washington DC.
Comment: In the section on developmental psychology, the author specifically points out the psychological problems, which become social problems, of denying the "magical" and ritual stage of human development in modernist (rational) cultures.
Because of the secular nature of schools and culture, there is a "missing" element of ritual, specifically a "missing" ritual of transformation from "childlike" magic consciousness to "rational" modern consciousness.
This results in a "non-integrated" personality and culture, where "rational" consciousness has marginalized magic and ritual consciousness.
If Mark Turner and George Lakoff's work in cognitive linguistics is valid, then the human brain best operates as a "metaphor machine", not as a machine to only work in a rational manner. Forcing "rationalist"models on human nature causes big problems, amongst which are "too much bureaucracy" (e.g., the rise of transnational pedagogues, therapists, planners - as described by Ivan Illich in "Vernacular Values")
Grover
· 3 months ago
Hey everyone, David sent me a fascinating article. I'll just quote some of it here:
"In conversation," noted Smedslund (1970, pp. 217-218), "we always assume that the other person is logical... When our expectations are not fulfilled, we normally attribute it to a lack of understanding on our part... but not to genuine illogicality on his part... logic must be presupposed, since it is characteristic of any activity of any integrated system and is a part of the very notion of a person."
So what happens when a person is not logical or doesn't possess our kind of logic? I always wondered why all our discussions with Farhan and people similar never ever went anywhere. We do our bit in the assumption that they have a similar logic and rationality to us. And they probably say whatever makes sense to them and whatever we say just washes over them because their sense of logic and rationality is different to ours.
sonjavank
· 3 months ago
Hi Grover,
re: "So what happens when a person is not logical or doesn't possess our kind of logic?"
I don't see this in such black and white terms. For example, I brought up the issue of the status of the Letters of Shoghi Effendi as being an aspect of what is changeable because these are not part of Bahai Scripture, but in response to me various posters continued to quote these letters as if they were scripture. For me, this seemed illogical. Obviously to those posters, they either didn't see my point or ignored it or for them my idea that they are not part of scripture is illogical.
That's part of the reason I've been silent (I'm also extremely busy). I didn't know where to start because it seemed logical to me that Bahai Scripture were the writings of Baha'u'llah, 'Abdul-Bahai, and the official interpretations of Shoghi Effendi and that all other texts, while not necessarily less important, have the potential for change because they are not in the former category which is not subject to change.
So, Grover, my point here. If you want to communicate with Farhan in a different manner, take another approach or try to find some common ground and work from that. Farhan, I don't agree with most of what you have written but I thank you for continuing with your comments because some other Bahais might share your views and more importantly, in airing our diverse views and discussing these we can all learn how to express ourselves better and I've found that I've been able to develop a lot of my ideas from those I've disagreed with.
fubar
· 3 months ago
"logic"? lol. yes, every system of culture has its own "internal logic" that imparted some kind of "survival value" at some point ni the evolution of the culture system.
farhan is a polemicist, advocating the "mainstream" pro-administration party-line. this is tribal stuff, or at least cultural imperialism. think "absolutism".
question: is iranian bahai culture PTSD? (internalized persecutions)
bahai culture should contain some kind of "ritual" process for cleaning out the "bad spirits" of what happened to bahais in iran. instead, the bad stuff has been internalized within the "we have perfect assemblies" mindset, and bahais have regressed to the point of absorbing the paradigm of oppression. can someone find any positive reference to "liberation" in any recent, major official bahai communication? probably not.
it would be nice if the current ruling elites of bahai could "see" the logic in what sonja is saying. but they won't because the entire paradigm that they operate from is based on "false unity" (M. Scott Peck).
"honesty" and rational "logic" are difficult.
it is best to study how the other primates that are close to humans in the evolutionarty scheme behave: alpha male protects the harem. alpha female dictates who gets their fur groomed and who gets the food, in which order. most of the primate brain, including human, is devoted to social bonding (via magic/myth structures). which translates into conformism. and its opposite, the exclusion of nonconforming individuals.
as sonja insightfully states, the "rational" thing to do would be to promote real "tolerance", "inclusion" and understanding of varying perspectives about controvesial issues.
however, the bahai establishment doesn't take that stance, they take the stance that only conformists will be accepted. it's all about "in-group" and "out-group" dynamics, and "monkey brain" domination stuff.
I suppose that a cynical view might be that some of the "progressives" that are currently excluded are trying to gain acceptance into the "in-group" again by promoting "innovations" in bahai theology.
if so, the current politics of the in-group are increasingly resistant to such innovations. perhaps that will change, but it doesn't seem likely in the near future.
the larger question is "is bahai in a death spiral?" incapable of working out solutions to issues such as doctrinal inflexibility? being pulled down into a "gravity well of shiism"?
my experience is that innovations only survive in bahai culture if they reinforce the status quo, and support the eternal process of bureaucratic reinvention that all dysfunctional, failed organizational cultures engaged in.
as such, acceptance of glbt will only happen when it serves the larger interests to do so (the "internal logic" of bahai tribalism/imperialism). again, given the current, increasingly absolutist mindset amongst the ruling bahai elites, it is hard to imagine how they would ever see such acceptance as being beneficial.
Grover
· 3 months ago
Maybe I should say instead of different kind of logic or rationality, they possess a different set of starting assumptions.
Eg: Farhan - letters written by or on behalf of Shoghi Effendi = Shoghi Effendi speaking for God because AB's will and testament says so, yada yada yada = authentic Baha'i scripture - therefore cannot be ignored and not subject to change (sorry Farhan I'm putting words in your mouth).
Actually, Sonja, why would you argue that Shoghi Effendi writings has less validity or applicability than 'Adbu'l-Baha or Baha'u'llah? Or would you argue that their validity and applicability depends on their context (which is what I would do). I just can't see how, if you were doing what AB's will and testament asked, you could disregard them (sorry, me being fundamentalist - lol, and I'm not even a believer anymore ;P).
For me belief is like a house of cards. I've found personally that the danger of having such an absolutist belief system is what happens something comes along that cause you to question what's going on - e.g. Ruhi, cluster meetings and so on - you start questioning what the UHJ is doing, and then suddenly the whole house of cards that is your belief system collapses, and suddenly you don't believe in the Faith anymore and suddenly Baha'u'llah and so on have no more weight or credibility than a door to door salesman (which is where I'm at at the moment).
So unfortunately, with regards to conversations with Farhan, I'd say most of us have had bruising experiences with the Faith and are operating from a state of either cognitive conflict or outright disbelief (and we're actually thinking about what we believe), whereas Farhan is operating from a state of happy go lucky faith and belief (and got his head buried in the sand and is not questioning the tenants of his belief - which is a happy status quo position for any believer because it doesn't cause any undue distress).
Barb Ruth-Wright
· 3 months ago
Hi Grover -
Your comments remind me of a quote I copied down a long time ago: "Belief is a wound that knowledge heals."
Re faith and loss of it, in relationship to Baha'i Faith - I think the Faith is a tool, only a tool, and its usefulness will depend on how well we learn to use it. The problem, I think, comes when our faith is in The Faith, rather than in what lies much deeper, beyond it. There is always this tension between the eternal faith of God and the outer forms with which we humans attempt to capture, contain, confine it - which we never can, of course - thank goodness.
This is just my take on things. Best wishes to you.
Barb
Alison
· 3 months ago
The eternal faith and the outer forms ... a beautiful dance!
This was forwarded me earlier today and feel it shows so beautifully how other faiths move forward light years ahead of Bahai:
So beautiful. Bahai has become like evangelicalism ... just out of touch. Not for the future, but for the past, in a comfy chair.
sonjavank
· 3 months ago
NO! I did not and have never written that the writings of Shoghi Effendi have less validity than 'Adbu'l-Baha or Baha'u'llah.
Please read my post again: I said that "it seemed logical to me that Bahai Scripture were the writings of Baha'u'llah, 'Abdul-Bahai, and the official interpretations of Shoghi Effendi and that all other texts, while not necessarily less important, have the potential for change because they are not in the former category which is not subject to change."
The 1000s of letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, not Shoghi Effendi's own writing are what I'd put in the category that is not Bahai Scripture.
In my post of 2 weeks ago on this same thread I quoted one of the Letters of Shoghi Effendi which spoke of the status of these letters:
"I wish to call your attention to certain things in "Principles of Bahá'í Administration" which has just reached the Guardian; although the material is good, he feels that the complete lack of quotation marks is very misleading. His own words, the words of his various secretaries, even the Words of Bahá'u'lláh Himself, are all lumped together as one text. This is not only not reverent in the case of Bahá'u'lláh's Words, but misleading. Although the secretaries of the Guardian convey his thoughts and instructions and these messages are authoritative, their words are in no sense the same as his, their style certainly not the same, and their authority less, for they use their own terms and not his exact words in conveying his messages. He feels that in any future edition this fault should be remedied, any quotations from Bahá'u'lláh or the Master plainly attributed to them, and the words of the Guardian clearly differentiated from those of his secretaries. "
Shoghi Effendi, The Unfolding Destiny of the British Baha'i Community, p. 260"
Shoghi Effendi never considered his own station nor writings to be the same as that of Baha'u'llah or 'Abdu'l-Baha:
"Though the Guardian of the Faith has been made the permanent head of so august a body he can never, even temporarily, assume the right of exclusive legislation. ...
Exalted as is the position and vital as is the function of the institution of the Guardianship in the Administrative Order of Bahá´u´lláh, ... its importance must, whatever be the language of the Will, be in no wise over-emphasized. The Guardian of the Faith must not under any circumstances, and whatever his merits or his achievements, be exalted to the rank that will make him a co-sharer with `Abdu´l-Bahá in the unique position which the Center of the Covenant occupies-much less to the station exclusively ordained for the Manifestation of God. So grave a departure from the established tenets of our Faith is nothing short of open blasphemy."
"it seemed logical to me that Bahai Scripture were the writings of Baha'u'llah, 'Abdul-Bahai, and the official interpretations of Shoghi Effendi and that all other texts, while not necessarily less important, have the potential for change because they are not in the former category which is not subject to change."
Goes to show it pays to read all of the post and not just get carried away with one part :)
Barb Ruth-Wright
· 3 months ago
Badhras
Of course sharing ideas is important - it's called consultation. It is one of our first and most sacred obligations as Baha'is. Of course what we say matters - all of us - Farhan, you, everybody. This is a fundamental principle of our faith.
Ideas exert power - they are indeed one of the most potent forces for change. This is why governments sometimes ban them.
Forgive me, but it appears from your comments that you have not been paying close attention to the conversation here.
As for the rank and file - I would hardly call them shallow. We are all, after all, created in the image of God - this is why speaking our heart is a sacred obligation and a precious right.
You seem not to have caught on that at least some of us here love the Baha'i Faith, and because we love it, we expect the best of it. That is why we are here. That is why we speak.
Barb
Badhras
· 3 months ago
If the goal is to share ideas with people that feel alone, I presume this forum succeeds in that regard.
If the goal is to share ideas with the people who are probably responsible for the status quo such that they might think critically of the religion to which they subscribe, probably not so much.
If the goal is to share ideas with like-minded people and organize thoughts and refine tactics, then I'll concede that there's probably something here.
I have waded through a lot of "debate"... I see very little gained. There's a lot of other material that's interesting... it doesn't take the form of debate.
peyamb
· 3 months ago
You hit on the spot in the first comment you made. Don't presume. YES, this forum does indeed help those of us who feel alone, rejected and ignored in teh Bahai community wether it is that gay kid suffering in silence, the academics who are threatened with expulsion, etc etc. You don't see much gained, because well...maybe none of this pertains to you. You probably have a content, sheltered life in the bubble of a Bahai community that you live in where the biggest concern ever brought up is wether to have chips or pretzels. And if you are happy with this type of community... well then this is not the place for you. But there are many, many frustrated ones in the Bahai community who wish they could make real constructive change inside the Bahai community, but they keep hitting a wall. At least they have places online where they can feel at home.
Badhras
· 3 months ago
Quit hitting the wall :)
It just reminds those behind it there's somebody outside.
I'm not suggesting you surrender, either. Enough people and sometimes the right people need to want change in order for change to happen...
peyamb
· 3 months ago
Thanks. I have. I haven't been to a Feast or Fireside in,hmmm a decade I think. My heart just goes out to the lonely ones inside the Bahai community. I remember what it was like to be gay, Persian, 14 years old and scared to death that anyone finds out. Fortunately times have changed. If the Bahai community is not willing to change, I at least watn that 14 year old to know there is hope, they can leave that horrible environment and still be a Bahai. But I just wish more Bahais, including YOU, would help make the Bahai community the welcoming environment it was meant to be. Instead of just saying "well just leave".
Badhras
· 3 months ago
I promise never to ask somebody to leave.
I might advise them of that option. I might warn them that others might do so. Offering other assistance, sure. I'll do much in the spirit of service, but I'll never be the one to ask somebody to leave.
Honestly, the decision to leave should be between the individual and God. I believe that context is everything, and the combination of circumstances in somebody's life can make the difference in how one chooses their path. I can only offer the thoughts of my very imperfect conscience.
That said, I understand why some are forced out, but I really view it as a last resort option because said individual's activities are simply drawing too much attention.
With regards to the rest of the community, the only thing I can do is to inject doubt into certitude and inject certitude into compassionate. I have my reasons for not "rattling the cage" so to speak, but it has nothing to do with wanting to suck up to any AO or individuals of reknown. It's a genuine, inner motivation... it just doesn't resonate with my sense of dharma... and equally so, I'm simply not in any position to effect meaningful change that way. I sense my role is very different from that...
... call it a quiet, unassuming, port in a storm.
Badhras
· 3 months ago
...as to the chips or pretzels. I much prefer cheesecake, but that's usually not an option so I don't worry about it. I usually go and get what I want or need from Feast and then I leave. If this place makes you feel at home, so be it.
as for communities... I'm reminded of some lyrics from Sting: (oh god, heresy. using pop culture to make a point.) "men go crazy in congregations, we each get better one by one."
It's not a universal truism by any measure, but it rings true in some cases for a reason.
Since the ITC will some day rule the entire world (they currently run the Baha'i Faith - definitely NOT the UHJ), does anyone know what they are now discussing over lunch on Mt. Carmel regarding Volker's recent paper on regulating financial markets?
The ITC are the Jesuit's of the Baha'i Faith. Their ever budding theorist insights trump all. They are, in essence, the authors of a continuous New Refried Revelation ALL day EVERY day in the Ministry of Truth. The Ruhi Courses are just the beginning. So I think their views on future economic policy in the bureaucratic Baha'i World Theocratic Computerized Super State that will top down run EVERYTHING on Earth is very important to learn now so every one can figure out what to do with their pay check.
Does anyone know what their policy will be on the as of yet unregulated world wide OTC credit default swaps market? Is there anything in the Kitab-I-Aqdas about liquidity in securitized investment instruments? Does anyone know what their views are on these important issues? If they are not solved TODAY, there may be no TOMORROW as all the money on Earth may be vaporized? Does anyone know what the "guidance" is on this?
Remember the balance as to whether this market has a legitimate financial purpose or is mere gambling is in the accuracy of the mathematics. Does anyone know if our guys have been through the C/C++ code used in these risk/pricing models to make sure they are in compliance with the laws of the Universe? Does anyone know?
.h t t p : // www.scicomp. com/derivativesmodeling/pricingcreditderivatives
There is also some Open Source code out there on this too. Have our guys been through it to make sure it is in compliance with the Kitab-I-Aqdas regarding C/C++ algorithms as to all assumptions and logic states?
.h t t p : // www. isda. org/press/press012909.html
Peter Khan says we are all "safe" if we are just doing what the UHJ says going door to door teaching the Faith and taking the Ruhi Courses over and over and filling out the blanks perfectly over and over. But I still have an uneasy feeling with the anniversary of the collapse of Lehman Brothers coming up. Are any of our guys going over these macro economic and micro economic issues? Especially the mathematics in the computer code? Just say'in.
dco
· 3 months ago
Gay-friendly church launches anti-discrimination campaign.
A liberal church movement based in Texas has launched a campaign that is “designed to ask people whether Jesus would discriminate against others,” according to PinkNews.
The Would Jesus Discriminate? movement launched its campaign on the web by quoting a series of Biblical passages suggesting Jesus never discriminated against gays.
The DFW Metropolitan Community Churches, which have five chapters in the Texas area, say they provide an alternative to the perceived discrimination and intolerance from “religious institutions [which] have used their interpretation of the Bible to justify discrimination against women, ethnic minorities, and people with a different sexual orientation and/or identity issues.”
This Church is a homophobic monster mega church in our suburbs, it probably has more people in its congregation that there are Baha'is int he USA, never the less I was moved by this. I have long felt if the UHJ and NSA wrote to every person on the roles, the same message... ti would trigger the long awaited entry by troops... but alas... the arrogance we have!
In the spirit of peace, church apologizes to those it has hurt
By Jennifer Garza jgarza@sacbee.com Published: Monday, Sep. 14, 2009 - 12:00 am | Page 1A Last Modified: Monday, Sep. 14, 2009 - 8:36 am
The Rev. Rick Cole stepped onto the podium Sunday and into the Sacramento church's troubled past.
In front of a packed and stunned congregation, the senior pastor of Capital Christian Center apologized to anyone who had been hurt by the church, acknowledging pain that church leaders may have caused individuals and the community.
The pastor then mentioned two people "whose stories attracted national media attention and caused a lot of pain."
Both were in the audience of 2,400 people.
One was Christina Silvas. In 2001, church officials asked Silvas to withdraw her daughter from the church-run school because Silvas was working as a stripper. On Sunday, Silvas sat with her daughters during the worship service.
Ben Sharpe, who had been banned from his eighth-grade graduation in 1995 after getting a buzz cut, sat with his mother and family friends during the service. School officials had prohibited Sharpe, an African American and a star student, from participating in the ceremony because his haircut violated school policy.
The church's action set off a media firestorm, with many accusing church leaders of racism.
Fourteen years later, Colemade an emotional plea to Sharpe.
"On behalf of leaders who did not intend to betray Ben Sharpe and his family, but by our actions much pain was caused, I want to publicly ask forgiveness," said Cole, struggling to control his emotions. "I also want to apologize to our community for the seeds sown of racial division."
Cole left the podium, walked over to Sharpe and embraced him and his mother, Faye. The congregation rose in a standing ovation, many people reaching for tissues.
Cole's apology is the latest and most high-profile one to date by a Sacramento-area pastor.
In recent months, other church leaders have apologized and made efforts to reach out to people who may feel hurt or betrayed by religion and have left the church.
At Impact Community Church in Elk Grove, congregants made gift baskets and dropped them off at gay civil-rights organizations and strip clubs with attached notes apologizing for the words and actions of some religious leaders. On Good Friday, Flood, Restoration Life and Vineyard Christian Fellowship posted apologies at downtown kiosks. Under a picture of Pat Robertson someone had written, "He doesn't speak for me."
Cole said he decided to apologize while preparing for this week's sermon.
"This has been weighing on my heart," the pastor said in an interview before the sermon. "This should have been done long ago, I don't want to let any more time go by."
After the sermon, Silvas, teary-eyed, called Cole's heartfelt apology amazing. "For so long all I felt was shame - people whispered about me, calling me the stripper mom," said Silvas, 31.
She said she had been urged by friends and attorneys to sue Capital Christian but had declined.
Now working for the state, Silvas quietly returned to the church about a year ago. Last year, she said, Cole and other church leaders offered a full scholarship to Silvas' two daughters.
"Coming back to church and my girls going to school here is more valuable than what any settlement would have bought," she said.
Sunday was the first time Sharpe has stepped into the sanctuary at Capital Christian Center in 14 years.
Church leaders at the time had said Sharpe's haircut violated school policy, which had been written to discourage students from adopting a skinhead look.
Cole does not want to criticize school leaders at the time. His father, Glen Cole, was pastor of the church-run school.
"The letter of the law was applied instead of the spirit of it," said Cole during his sermon. "The letter of the law kills, while the spirit gives life."
The Sharpe family later reached a legal settlement with the church.
Sharpe said he had put the incident behind him long ago. He agreed to attend Sunday's service because he said church officials seemed sincere.
"The power of those two words, 'I'm sorry' - it's incredible." Sharpe said. He said watching and listening to Cole "was something I'll never forget." "Fourteen years ago, I would never have imagined this would have happened," said Faye Sharpe. "He didn't have to do this....It's wonderful that he did."
Sharpe, who will be 28 on Wednesday, went on to have a stellar academic career. In 1999, he graduated from Jesuit High School as valedictorian.
He earned his bachelor's and master's degrees in civil engineering from Stanford. He is working on his doctorate at UC Davis and is a researcher at a nonprofit group, the International Council on Clean Transportation, in San Francisco.
Four years ago, Sharpe, who was working in Texas as an engineer, was walking on the street when he was struck by a car. He has undergone 16 surgeries and has since recovered.
Sunday, more wounds were healed.
"Finally," Sharpe said, his voice catching. "After all these years, closure."
"The power of those two words, 'I'm sorry' - it's incredible." Sharpe said.
This is beautiful.
Barb Ruth-Wright
· 3 months ago
Hi everyone -
The Gay/Lesbian Baha'i Story Project is ready to go, sans a few celebratory graphics which will be added soon. In your address bar, go to gaybahai.net. (If you just put that in your search engine, you may reach another gay baha'i web site which is not related - will take the search engines a while to catch up with us, I think.)
For those who are interested, please pass the word in whatever way you think will be effective. At least a couple of stories are "in the works" already and will most likely come along in a few to several weeks. I expect this to be a gradually unfolding path. We have done our part - now it's up to you!
Stories may be short or long, spontaneous or well thought out - I hope the mood will be one of sitting around a campfire together late at night, and we begin to tell stories...
Barb
Barb Ruth-Wright
· 3 months ago
Eric Sartori - if you're listening here, your experience of your own "intentional effort" at self-education about gays/lesbians was quite beautiful - it could be re-posted as a story, just as is, on GLBSP if you are so inclined....
And dco, your "vignette" of experience with the children could also be re-posted as is, as an "appetizer," if you wish to do so.
Barb
dco
· 3 months ago
Another couple that would not be welcome in the Baha'i Faith... unless they divorced.
Posted on Sep 15, 2009 @ 08:20AM Random Things
The Game Show Network’s Newlywed Game will make history this year--by adding same-sex celebrity pairs to their format.
The network is in the midst of producing special Celebrity Newlywed Game episodes, one of which will feature the first gay contestants ever: George Takei (Sulu from the original Star Trek series) and longtime partner Brad Altman.
The duo married in September 2008 in Los Angeles, Ca., just before the state's Proposition 8 approval banned same-sex marriage.
While Takei and Altman will mark the groundbreaking game show moment, they weren't the first asked. GSN approached Ellen DeGeneres and her partner Portia de Rossi to participate, the blondes turning down the offer as they did their own version on Ellen's talk show in March of '08.
Other celebrity couples featured in upcoming episodes this year will include, first America’s Next Top Model winner Adrienne Curry and Brady Bunch star Christopher Knight, Bachelor Bob Guiney and All My Children actress Rebecca Budig as well as Baywatch babe Brande Roderick and former NFL linebacker Glenn Cadrez.
The Takei episode will be taped next week and air in November. A newlywed couple is defined by having been married in the past four years. The show is hosted by Carnie Wilson.
Religious intolerance cuts deep in gay community, Gold says by Laura Smith, April 14, 2009
Mitchell Gold speaks to the Elon community on injustice of religious persecution toward the gay community.
On Tuesday, civil rights activist, Mitchell Gold spoke to the Elon community at the Elon School sharing what he described as "such an incredibly painful memory."
Gold is the current CEO of the Mitchell Gold and Bob Williams furniture business, founder of Faith in America (a non-profit organization aimed at educating people about how religious-based bigotry is used to justify discrimination against homosexuals) and is now the author of his book, "Crisis."
"Crisis" was published in September 2008 and is a compilation of stories from those who have experienced religious intolerance and persecution as a result of growing up gay in America, something Gold felt quite a bit himself.
"People use the Bible to marginalize and dehumanize people," Gold said.
Growing up Jewish, Gold knew what it meant to be an oppressed minority. He also saw the discrimination towards black Americans that took place in the 1950s and 1960s.
He did not know how much he would one day experience that same intolerance for being gay.
"It's a problem because it's not acceptable," Gold said on realizing he was gay as a young teenager.
Gold described how he lived in fear every day of how his family would react if they knew he was gay. He feared getting beaten up at school, being seen as an outcast and not getting a decent job.
"I don't want one more kid to go through what I had to go through during my teenage years," Gold said.
He even contemplated suicide and saw a psychiatrist for help, who helped him learn to live being gay.
"I was lucky," Gold said of being able to get help and gain happiness.
Gold later moved to New York City, where being gay was commonplace and openly accepted. He got a job at Bloomingdale's, where several of the employees were gay. He even met someone he could settle down with, his current business partner, Bob Williams.
He even got to meet actor Richard Chamberlain, whom he discovered was gay as well. "I got really comfortable," Gold said.
But all of this changed in 1988 when he moved down South to North Carolina.
"It's interesting to see how being naïve can be a good thing," he said of not realizing the difference of homosexual social acceptance in the South.
Gold began hearing conversations from co-workers and employees who described marriage as only being between a man and a woman.
"I started realizing there was a real movement afoot," Gold said of seeing how large of an intolerant sentiment there was toward gays.
He then realized this persecution was no different than what he had seen as a child. "The same kind of discrimination that was used so horribly against black people was being used against gay people," he said.
Gold began his personal movement to create awareness of religious intolerance towards the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) community.
"This country has a sad history of segregation," Gold said. "I wanted to go out and teach people and remind them of that. Most decent people in America don't want to be a part of that history. Most decent people don't want to continue that hatred."
"Crisis" was compiled with contributors such Chamberlain, U.S. Congressman Barney Frank, Major League baseball player Billy Bean, TV actor Alec Mapa and former tennis champion Martina Navatilova. All are gay and openly talk about the struggle and pain of being a gay teenager in the book.
Gold is happy to be living in North Carolina, where there is currently no federal ban on gay marriage.
"In the state of North Carolina, we have the chance to be the shining light of this country," Gold said.
Gold said he hopes Americans will see the harm that intolerance toward the LGBT causes.
"Anybody who is oppressed has the right to confront their oppressor," he said.
Proceeds from "Crisis" go toward seven national gay advocacy programs for teens.
Barb Ruth-Wright
· 3 months ago
If I could re-phrase just a bit:
Baha'is use the Faith to marginalize and dehumanize people.
Thank you, Daniel - you're posting a lot of really useful information.
dco
· 3 months ago
I am curious about folks reflections on The Dallas Principles. Which are eight guiding principles that underlie a call to action. In order to achieve full civil rights now, the principles avow:
1.Full civil rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals must be enacted now. Delay and excuses are no longer acceptable.
2.We will not leave any part of our community behind.
3.Separate is never equal.
4.Religious beliefs are not a basis upon which to affirm or deny civil rights.
5.The establishment and guardianship of full civil rights is a non-partisan issue.
6.Individual involvement and grassroots action are paramount to success and must be encouraged.
7.Success is measured by the civil rights we all achieve, not by words, access or money raised.
8.Those who seek our support are expected to commit to these principles.
My own take on this statement, is that its usefulness lies in individual response to it. In other words, when I read it, I consider that there is no excuse for further delay ON MY PART, but I do not wish to use it in an accusatory way toward others who may or may not be doing their part, in my view. For those of use who care, there is some small (or not) thing we can do in our own day to day lives, to help bring about justice for GLBTs, and it's time to get moving - even if it's something as small as speaking up in a personal conversation with someone. If each one of us who cares took this statement as a call to action on our part, and did whatever we could, from day to day, that would make a huge difference. But I don't want, myself, to use it as a challenge to others I know, to whack them over the head with it. I will act from conscience in response to it, and perhaps someone I interact with will, as a result, be moved to act in a way that will make a difference - but I am primarily concerned with my own response to it, my own responsibility before God.
Does this make sense?
I guess what I'm saying is that words are just words, until they are manifest in action, and the only person whose action I can control is myself. I do not wish to force others, but hope to move them toward action by what I choose to do myself - deeds, not words.
And I guess I'm also saying that, for me, #6 is the most important part of this statement.
Barb
la checca
· 3 months ago
wow 365 commenti
Tante checche nella fede bahai?? o di piu'
culattoni unitevi
Baquia
· 3 months ago
would you feel the same if one of the 'checche' were your son or daughter?
Barb Ruth-Wright
· 3 months ago
Baquia -
I've been waiting for someone to translate the above message, for those of us who are "monolingual" - could you please.....?
Thank you, Fubar. I didn't realize I could translate this online myself - thank you for educating me! (Remember, I am on the bottom rung of the "low-techie ladder.")
Barb
Baquia
· 3 months ago
as fubar shows, it isn't really worth repeating or translating [sigh]
Barb Ruth-Wright
· 3 months ago
true, sadly true - but I did learn something in the process....
fubar
· 3 months ago
stupid and rude.
dco
· 3 months ago
I really liked this quote from Larry Krammer I found on the blog: Joe.My. God:
We get what we fight for. And we are not fighting. Every single one of us is not fighting. They fight better than we do. There is a concerted and never ending vein of hate in this country and in this world dedicated to keeping us in our place. It is evil to force people to be what we are not -- free. We are not free.
"I love being gay. I love gay people. How can I say this without offending everyone else, I think we're better than other people. I think we are smarter. I think we are more talented. I think we are more aware. I think we make better friends. I think we make better lovers. I think we're more tuned in to what's happening, tuned into the moment, tuned into our emotions, and other people's emotions.
"Yes, I think that gay people are better than other people. I think the only thing we are not so good at is fighting back. I hear talk of the new generation of gays and the old generation of gays, and how different we are. That is not true. We are all one generation. We are all related. We are all each other's brothers and sisters. We are all one family, the gay family. And I passionately and desperately want all my brothers and sisters to stay alive and well and on this earth, with total equality with every straight person. Being gay is the most important thing in my life. I love being gay. I hope you do, too." - Legendary gay/AIDS activist and author Larry Kramer, telling the audience at Dallas Pride to fight harder.
Daniel Orey Sacramento
Barb Ruth-Wright
· 3 months ago
Thanks again, Daniel -
The eternal question for me is, how do you fight the opposition without joining them on the low road? This is a question Gary and I toss around every once in a while, and I'm not sure we've ever come up with a really good answer. Optimist that I (sometimes) am, I insist in believing that it's possible to fight a clean fight - though when someone is hurling lies and insults, the temptation is definitely there to hurl a little mud myself. Righteous anger is a good thing, I think - a very useful emotion - but how do we go about setting standards for ourselves about how to express it most effectively?
Maybe this isn't a problem for most people - but for me, it is. I have as sharp a tongue as any when I want to. When I told a Cherokee spiritual leader that Gary and I had joked that my Indian name should be "Snapping Turtle," he looked at me very seriously and said, "Then you should be very careful how you choose your words." So I try to do that.
So how to be compassionately combative? How to fight the good fight?
I am definitely open to suggestions.
By the way, is there something missing from this quote - he is saying it is evil to force people to be free? What does he mean?
Barb
Barb Ruth-Wright
· 3 months ago
I will say that I think part of the answer to my own question, is to stick to the facts - to demonstrate the facts of ordinary, and not so ordinary, gay lives, for instance. And to use emotion in a dramatic, positive way that is hard to forget - hence the importance of storytelling, drama, song, dance, the theatre...
dco
· 3 months ago
Not sure, it stuck me as odd... but I think he is saying that it is evil to force people into being what they are not... but in more reflection, he is talking that the evil force is trying to keep us from being free...
amishindian
· 3 months ago
When I think of the history of the Guardian I am reminded of the story of Jesus when the disciples were repulsed by the sight of the dead carcass of a dog but Jesus instead pointed out what beautiful teeth the dog had. Yes we have the excommunications, women not on the UHJ, the anti-gay positions etc. But I still love the beautiful buildings and grounds in Haifa. And most especially the beautiful message that the days of the Guardian demonstrate - that in this day God chose not to work through Popes, Imams and Guardians but instead through a democratically elected Universal House of Justice made up of men women, gay, straight and dare I say transgender of all ethnicities that make up the human race.
Craig Parke
· 3 months ago
amishindian,
In reading your post this morning I saw your note to me from a year ago on your Disgus log list! I really don't know if we met back then but maybe send me an e-mail craig (at) craigparke (dot) com if you want to touch base a bit!
I went on Pilgrimage in 1982. It was basically good in the generally positive and informative sense but I had a mystical experience that kind of foreshadowed your experience in 1980. I sensed something was very right and I also sensed something was very wrong all at the same time. Perhaps this conflict in my subconscious resulted in the mystical experience in 1982 in Haifa. The meaning didn't kick in until I saw Peter Khan speak in person in early 2001 in Milwaukee months before 9/11. I had never heard of the guy. I was astonished at his sneering arrogance and naked brutality. Then I remembered my mystical experience in 1982 in Haifa while standing and meditating alone in the unfinished shell of the room in the super structure that would become the consultation chamber of the Universal House of Justice.
Peace be upon you and everyone here.
Barb Ruth-Wright
· 3 months ago
amishindian,
I always feel refreshed by your beautiful words - they mean a great deal to me. I have a deep love for the Guardian and the sacrifice he made for the Faith - what a burden he must have felt when he realized his beloved grandfather was dead, and the mantle had fallen upon his shoulders, at his young age, with his whole life before him!
I too have that odd paradoxical feeling that Craig mentions, of things being right and wrong all at the same time - I trust somehow things will come out right in the end. Your words remind me, too, of one of my favorite quotes from Abdu'l-Baha:
"At the gate of the garden some stand and look within, but do not care to enter. Others step inside, behold its beauty, but do not penetrate far. Still others encircle this garden, inhaling the fragrance of the flowers, and having enjoyed its full beauty, pass out again by the same gate. But there are always some who enter and, becoming intoxicated with the splendor of what they behold, remain for life to tend the garden."
I have been largely inactive in the Faith for many years, and even resigned for several months at one time, not long ago. But it didn't feel right to be outside the Faith, and I re-entered. I have still been mostly inactive because I feel uncomfortable with the tone of things in my community, and in the Faith at large, and since I have trouble holding my tongue, it seems best to step back and let things proceed without me. The Story Project is my way, I guess, of trying to be of service by attempting to lessen some of the prejudice among the Baha'is, something I can do from a quiet corner.
You must continue to speak, we need to hear you.
Barb
fubar
· 3 months ago
the buildings at the BWC no longer contain much that is authentic, they only contain a shallow reflection of the memory of something authentic (deeply human, honeest, just, decent, compassionate, altruistic, and so forth).
what is important are the people, not the system.
however, the status quo in bahai privileges the "system". as habermas says "systems colonize lifeworld".
anyone that asserts that people are more important the the system will be marginalized and attacked, and if they persist, viciously so.
the changes you are advocating, which I support, could easily been seen as a (near) "CB" agenda by the reactionaries/fundies/authoritarians in the bahai system (the dominant leadership mode).
bahai belief has become belief in an increasingly soulless, dysfunctional and psychopathic "system", not faith in the good, beautiful and true in the human soul.
back to the original topic, of change being a law of nature:
the paper at the following link does a good job of summarizing several of the main ways of thinking about the current problems with postmodern "transformation" in global culture.
(predictably, there has been almost no real, significant discussion of those topics in the bahai community. at least not much discussion that transcends the usual glib "missionary" mentality, self-referential "bahai" logic that utterly lacks objectivity, etc.)
Out of Our Depth and Treading Water: Reflections on Consciousness, Culture and New Learning Technologies
------------------------------------------------------ Bernie Neville Graduate School of Education at La Trobe University Australia
------------------------------------------------------ Copyright authors and Journal of Integral Studies.
... In this paper I start with the premise that at the turn of this century we are in the midst of profound cultural and psychological change. During the past half-century we have had some of our species’ sharpest minds trying to get to grips with the evidence that something significant is going on in the evolution of human consciousness and culture. I want to rehearse something of what they have said, before reflecting on what this might mean for our work as teachers in an information-rich society. Specifically I want to look at our age from four different perspectives:
[] postmodern social analysis, [] the history of consciousness, [] constructivist developmental psychology and [] archetypal psychology.
Each of these perspectives is represented in the work of a group of thinkers. While the thinkers in each group share ideas, there is no indication that they are influenced by people from the other groups, or even that they are aware of their existence. Yet, as you will see, their conclusions about the kind of consciousness which is emerging in what we now conventionally call the information age have a great deal in common. ...
The information society is guided by a fantasy of the marketplace, in which exchange is an end in itself - a fantasy of deregulation, free interchange, commodification. Knowledge, like wisdom, health, pleasure, law, spirituality and relationship, is now a commodity whose only value is its market value. Economic rationalism is only one manifestation of this kind of thinking. The consciousness of the marketplace permeates all areas of life.
A further characteristic of the postmodern condition, which Lyotard sees as another consequence of the information revolution, is the decline of orthodoxy. The "grand narratives" of the modern, industrial era - Marxism, Rationalism, Christianity - have been set aside in favour of an increasing relativisation of values, ethics and beliefs. Even conventionally religious people are no longer inclined to make claims to absolute truth. ... Meanwhile modern science, having failed to construct a paradise, is being supplanted by a postmodern science characterized by incomplete information, catastrophe and chaos, indeterminacy, paradox, discontinuity, and a tendency to uncover new questions rather than new answers, a tendency to complexify rather than to simplify.
In a postmodern consciousness the significance of the image is magnified to a point where we are floating in a sea of images which are no longer expected to represent any reality or truth. ... If teachers have a sense that there is a gap between the way they sense the world and the way their students sense it, and that tried and true methods of teaching do not seem to work so well any more, they may be right. ... Kegan argues that the shift from third to fourth to fifth order thinking in not simply a matter of individual cognitive development. We are dealing here not only with personal development but with cultural change. In pre-scientific societies third order thinking was perfectly adequate to meet the demands of the environment. Fourth order thinking both enabled and was demanded by the Age of Science. The culture in which we find ourselves at the end of the twentieth century demands that we be capable of dialectical, post-ideological, transpersonal, fifth order thinking. When we were at school we may not have been taught to think like this, and we may use this skill rather clumsily. It may, indeed, be beyond many of us much of the time. But our children and students may be more capable of it than our parents and teachers ever could be, and if we ignore this we will not make much contact with them. ... The evolution of consciousness: emerging integrality The observations on culture and consciousness which Lyotard was making in the seventies and Kegan has been making in the nineties had already been made by Jean Gebser (1949) in the forties.
As a student of European language and literature Gebser became convinced that language was being used in quite new ways in this century, and that this new use of language represented a change in the way the world was being experienced. His original insight came through his discovery in the poetry of Rilke of a mode of experiencing which is no longer perspectival, dualistic and time-bound. He sought and found the same phenomenon in other European poets (notably Eliot and Valéry). His reflections on this led him to look across a wide range of arts and sciences for clues to the nature of this change. They also led him to years of research into archaeology and history, in an attempt to determine whether there was a trajectory in the evolution of human consciousness and culture which might explain the transformation which he thought he could discern in his own time. Out of these researches he developed a theory of what he called structures of consciousness.
In Gebser’s model of structures of consciousness he distinguished between four discrete mutations of consciousness: the archaic consciousness of primal human beings, the magical consciousness of the stone age, the mythical consciousness which developed after the ice ages, and the mental consciousness which emerged with the great classical civilizations and which has dominated European culture since the middle ages. These evolutional mutations are fundamentally different ways of experiencing reality. The central premise of his work, however, was that a new structure of consciousness was beginning to emerge in the twentieth century, a structure which he called integral consciousness.
While Gebser’s major work, The Ever Present Origin (1949), sets out these structures in evolutionary sequence, he did not wish to imply that they are historical developments leading to integral consciousness as the ultimate human achievement. He maintained rather that they are intertwined and ever-present, and that it is the dynamic interplay between them which constitutes culture. While he presents his theory as a theory of the evolution of consciousness, he is adamant that he is not doing so within a fantasy of historical “development” or “progress”. Our tendency to think in such terms is an artifact of our dominant mental consciousness, in which our experience of time is linear and quantified. Rather, reality is unfolding process, and the archaic, magic, mythical, mental and emerging integral structures are all valid ways of apprehending it. In Gebser’s understanding we are shaped and determined not only by the present and the past but by the future. Most significantly, all of the structures have both “efficient” and “deficient” forms and we have no basis for being romantic about either past or future. We have no assurance that we will experience the emerging integral structure only in its “efficient” form.
For Gebser the rational consciousness which has dominated European civilization since the enlightenment was not the supreme achievement in human development but rather the deficient form of the mental structure which emerged about three thousand years ago. He saw the deficiency in the rational consciousness of the past four centuries as deriving from its arrogant devaluation and suppression of the earlier structures. In the thirties and forties it was clear to him that the rational structure was collapsing and that European civilization was slipping back into a deficient magical-mythical structure. At the same time he found indications that a new structure was emerging. He suggested that this new structure involved the integration of the four older structures ... With or without assistance from the analysts of postmodernity we can find in our literature, science, cinema and the daily news a dominant narrative of complexity and chaos, of the vanishing of boundaries, of deceit, denial and delusion among our leaders, of the preference for image over substance, of the loss of familial and tribal bonds, of the disappearance of our conventional grounds for moral judgments, of an unwillingness to confront reality, of the abandonment of rationality, of the proliferation of information, of the slipperiness of ideas and ideals which once seemed solid and graspable, of a market-place so ubiquitous and noisy that we cannot escape it.
So what is the “old story” in this?
In The Political Psyche (1993) Andrew Samuels has explored the myth of the Greek god Hermes as an approach to understanding contemporary economic and political culture and to dealing with our splits and confusions about capitalism and the market economy. I have argued elsewhere (Neville, 1992) that "the postmodern condition" may be construed as an inflation of late twentieth century European consciousness (wherever it is found) by the image and energy of Hermes. Taking seriously Hillman's dictum that we are always in one archetypal fantasy or another, I have argued that post-industrial society is caught in a Hermes fantasy.
The Homeric Hymn to Hermes (Hesiod, trans. Athanassakis, 1976) tells us how, to avoid the gods, Maia, the nymph who was Zeus' lover, hid in a deep cave, where she bore a son
who was a shrewd and coaxing schemer, cattle - rustling robber, and a bringer of dreams, a watcher by night and a gate-keeper, soon destined to show forth glorious deeds among the immortal gods. ... Archetypal psychology suggests that we can find the images of the Hermes myth dominating our culture in the recent past and the present time. We can argue that the complexity of our planetary situation and the unwillingness of political leaders to admit their inability to manage it belong to this pattern, as does the pervasive tendency to deal with crises through "image control" rather than effective action, the dominance of the stock market and the collapse of consensus ethics. I suggest that eco-feminism, in its challenge to the anthropocentricity and hero-pathology of the modern age, belongs to the same pattern as postmodern science, the information superhighway, the multicultural society, the “end of enclosure” and the worship of the unregulated market, for Hermes is very much Mummy’s boy.
If our culture is possessed by one god rather than another, we have to point to Hermes, the god of information and communication, the friendly god who constantly deceives us.
The Greeks did not distinguish between “good gods” and “bad gods”. The nasty or pathological aspects of behaviour were shared out among all the gods. Hermes has his good side and his bad side. However, Hermes himself makes no distinction between good and bad. We might not like some characteristics of the Age of Hermes: the deceit, delusion, irresponsibility and amorality; the collapse of boundaries, the substitution of image for substance, the attack on rationality, the groundlessness, the destabilization, the commodification; the restlessness of the god of travelers who never stays in one place. However, they go hand in hand with other Hermetic qualities which characterize our age: the pluralism, the flexibility, the capacity for transformation, the inventiveness, the relativism, the playfulness, the magic, the tolerance, the invitation to escape from psychological and cultural prisons, the acceptance of paradox, the acknowledgment of process, the concern for Mother Earth.
Hermes is not the only god dominant in our culture. There are other more oppressive gods demanding our worship. But I suggest that it is Hermes’ story, rather than any other, which currently says who we are. ... I am beginning with Kegan’s third level because I don’t wish to complicate this argument any further by discussing the early years of schooling.)
Teachers in such a context (third order, mythical structure) assume that schooling should be aimed at engendering dependence and conformity in students. Teaching focuses on transmitting to students what is already known in the community. Learning need not be passive, but it is essentially receptive rather than creative. The function of the school (or university) is to enculturation the next generation into the values, ethics, knowledge and customs of the family, tribe, church or nation. The child needs to learn and accept what is acknowledged as truth by the community and to learn also how to behave in a manner which the community approves. The school exists within a narrative where certain values and purposes and truths are taken for entirely for granted.
Education in such a society is essentialist. The curriculum is content-centered. Those in authority know exactly what should be taught and learned.
On the other hand, if schooling is constructed by the mental consciousness of a modern-scientific society, it assumes a capacity for fourth order thinking. Such a schooling aims to produce students who are autonomous individuals, who take responsibility for their own behaviour, who take nothing for granted but critically examine their own society and the truths it presents to them. Teachers believe that the best learning is self-directed and active, rather than receptive and conformist. There is an underlying assumption that human beings are able to discover the truth about the universe if they observe it carefully enough and think about it hard enough.
Such an education looks critically at the principles which guide its own and other societies, in a search for universal principles for human behaviour. It is non-essentialist because we cannot yet confidently state the truth. It is student-centered because the individual student is the best judge of what he or she needs to learn right now in order to deal with the world as he or she finds it. ... Kegan argues that many of us have difficulty in achieving and maintaining fourth order consciousness. Gebser warns us against privileging mental consciousness over mythical consciousness. Our consciousness is multi-layered, and it is the taken-for-grantedness of our deepest assumptions and culturally embedded narratives which give our lives meaning and direction, even though our mental consciousness may take a critical stance towards them and even though others may find them simply wrong.
However, the point of this paper is to address the question of what sort of schooling is demanded by fifth order thinking, integral consciousness, the postmodern condition, the information society and the Age of Hermes.
May I suggest the following.
Where third order schooling aims at dependence and fourth order thinking aims at independence, fifth order thinking aims at interdependence. ... The role of information technology is central to this. It both enables and demands the dissolution of boundaries, the development of transegoic consciousness, the transcendence of rational, linear, dualistic thinking and the constraints of quantified space and time. It both enables and demands the emergence of an holistic, eco-centric, process-oriented, constructivist curriculum. It both enables and demands a new way of thinking both from students and their teachers. ...
dco
· 3 months ago
The new battle in California
Society protects and defends the rights of prisoners, who have been stripped of most of their civil rights, to enter into a civil marriage. Those who argue that homosexuality is a “lifestyle choice” are willfully ignoring the American Psychological Association and of the science of psychology, that homosexuality is an orientation. It is not a choice anymore than being heterosexual is a choice. On which calendar date did you sit down and chose your sexual orientation? Most of us discovered our orientation when we went through puberty. Some of us experienced discrimination, hatred, verbal, emotional and physical abuse in addition to the general angst, which marked that stage of development. Prop 8 legalized discrimination against a minority group into the California State Constitution and in so doing, promotes bigotry and social stigmatization of persons who have a same sex orientation.
Being a Christian is a choice, yet no one would dream (so far) of placing the rights of people to freely choose their religion up for a public vote. Regardless of one’s religious views, we all live in a pluralistic civil society. The only way that such a society can function peacefully is for all citizens to respect each other’s civil rights. Stripping any minority of its civil rights, which is precisely what Prop 8 accomplished, threatens the civil rights of every minority group in our society.
Several religions, many theologians, the APA and almost all international Psychological Associations agree that homosexuality is not a choice, but like heterosexuality, an orientation. Laws, such as Prop 8, which target a minority group and strip away their civil rights, are born of ignorance, prejudice and they promote discrimination and bigotry. I am honored to be one of the proponents of a ballot initiative, which will restore the right to a civil marriage to all Californians regardless of their sexual orientation. This new proposition will also write into our State Constitution the right of religious groups to deny religious marriage to same sex couples. This new proposition restores and protects civil marriage for all Californians while simultaneously protecting the rights of religious groups to deny religious marriage to same sex couples.
Good for you, Daniel, for helping initiate this proposition - everybody should be able to support this.
dco
· 3 months ago
ps... this isn't me, I forgot to clip in the author (Fred Karger) its in the link... my bad!
Masud Samandari
· 3 months ago
Hi everyone,
I recently came across this music video by the Icelandic band Sigur Ros called Viðrar vel til loftárása and I really liked it, so I wanted to share it with all of you, although I suspect that many of you have already seen it.
I don't want to spark a debate, but I just found the video to be quite moving and powerful.
And how would the UHJ respond to such a father? Maybe with quotes such as this: "The House of Justice was sorry to learn from your letter that your son has recently informed you that he is a homosexual. " "You will, no doubt, want to urge your son to seek appropriate counselling; "(aka reparative therapy; maybe even shock treatment, who knows). "Regarding your husband's refusal to permit your son to return home, it is understandable that a parent might feel deeply confused and angry when confronted with such questions which go to the very root of what it means to be a human being and what it means to educate and raise a child" (so it is understandable for a father to throw his child out because that child is now so anti-human and such an uneducated child; instead of what the father has done is completely wrong and he should immediately welcome his son back into the home because THAT is what Abdul-Baha would have wanted!!!). Sorry Masud, not trying to foster any debate here, justr trying to tell the truth of what gays face in the Bahai community if they turn to our beloved UHJ!
Barb Ruth-Wright
· 3 months ago
Indeed, the fear and ugliness of the father's emotions are quite striking - who would want to be like that?
Sonja- Thank you. I had previously addressed the misattribution of the two passages (that were written on BEHALF OF Shoghi Effendi and not BY Shoghi Effendi) in the comments section of the video. But it's certainly hard to find there now, and conveniently YouTube now has an Annotations function, so I just had my secretary add the corrections on my behalf. (The correction still reflects my own agency and point of view, however- not a rogue departure from my instructions.)
I have to say one more thing here, after reading elsewhere a comment by a gay Baha'i that "the UHJ can't change this" in reference to the Baha'i stance toward homosexuality and gay Baha'is.
I say nonsense. The UHJ re-interpreted Shoghi Effendi's comment about Baha'is going door to door with pamphlets being undignified and undesirable. Now it's fine for Baha'is to go door to door, just like the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons do, no matter how offensive it might be, because it now seems useful for them to do so. The UHJ CAN CHANGE the current stance toward gay Baha'is - they simply do not have the will to do so, perhaps because of their own unacknowledged prejudice in regard to homosexuality. If they wanted to change it, they could - trust me. I am reminded of that old joke that, if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.
The people with the real power, however, to change the current stance toward gay Baha'is are the gay Baha'is themselves, and their friends and families. As long as gay Baha'is accept a bogus excuse for the administration's "inability" to change things, nothing will change. Gay Baha'is must have enough dignity and self-respect and yes, courage, to effect change, to set in motion events that will result in a change of attitude. This can happen; there is absolutely no doubt in my mind about that. But it won't happen unless gay Baha'is who love the Faith, and those who love them, find within themselves the conviction and strength to take this issue on. People's lives, literally, are at stake, and I hope and pray that this will happen, but I am not holding my breath.
Barb
dco
· 2 months ago
Yes... "The people with the real power, however, to change the current stance toward gay Baha'is are the gay Baha'is themselves"
YES!
This is so true... if GLBT people were as united as the folks united against us we would move mountains.
We have such friends such as Desmond Tutu, President Obama, and yet we hide, live in fear, are silent, and do not reach out to each other.
I am sitting here in Sacramento, sad that I could not make it to Washington to march ($$$), and listening to the religious leaders speak and thinking once again...
WHERE ARE WE?
Folks the moment we are even 1/2 as united and strong as the forces arrayed against us will be the moment that they WILL have to listen to us.
May God forgive them for the harm they are causing to GLBT youth and their friends and family.... because right now, I just cannot.
Oh no Daniel. They are welcome. They'll just be told that they are "friends" to the Faith, not really a part of the community. They wouldn't be able to vote, give to the fund, attend Feast and help make any decisions in the community- you know minor things like that according to Farhan. But oh yeah, they are so welcome to deal with the stares, the letters from secretaries telling them that their love is wrong, their children being taught in Sunday school that chastitiy means marriage between a man and a woman only, etc. etc. But yeah, they are welcome just like every one else.
dco
· 2 months ago
Haggis leaves Scientology “Crash” director Paul Haggis has severed his ties with the Church of Scientology, in part because of what he alleged as the organization’s stance against gay marriage. Haggis wrote a letter addressed to Tommy Davis, the head of Scientology’s Celebrity Centre. In it, Haggis said he was disappointed by the church’s tacit denial of gay rights in the debate over California’s gay marriage ban. The 56-year-old Haggis, who won an Oscar in 2005 for co-writing “Crash,” said he was quitting the church after 35 years. “I could not, in good conscience, be a member of an organization where gay-bashing was tolerated,” wrote Haggis, who also wrote the Oscar-winning “Million Dollar Baby.” The letter, dated Aug. 19, was published in a blog about Scientology and has since been circulated online. Ziggy Kozlowski, a publicist for Haggis, confirmed the director wrote the letter. He said it was intended to remain private. Davis said Haggis’ complaints were based on misunderstandings and that he has since spoken to the filmmaker. Davis strenuously disagreed with Haggis’ claim that the Church of Scientology is anti-gay.
dco
· 2 months ago
Tomorrow Obama signs the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes bill...
in particular Ellen discusses her coming out, her ideas on the purpose of life and her marriage.
Ellen continued with, “Anybody who’s married knows there is a difference. It feels like you’re home. There’s an anchor, there’s a safety. I’m going to be with her until the day I die and I know that.”
dco
· 1 month ago
Thanks!
dco
· 2 weeks ago
From JMG: HomoQuotable - John Corvino
"I have long advocated using the term 'bigot' sparingly when referring to gay-rights opponents. It’s not that I don’t think bigotry is a serious problem. On the contrary, it’s vital to identify bigotry for what it is and to expose its tragic effects. It’s also important to learn the lessons of history, including the ways in which bigotry can hide behind religion, concern for children’s welfare, and other seemingly benign motives.
"But there’s a difference between identifying bigotry, on the one hand, and labeling any and all people who disagree with us as bigots, on the other. Such labeling tends to function as a conversation-stopper, cutting us off from the 'moveable middle' and ultimately harming our progress. It’s also unfair to the many decent people who genuinely strive to understand us even where, for sincere and complex reasons, they cannot accept our position. [snip]
"Many of our opponents are fundamentally decent people. For both principled and pragmatic reasons, we don’t want to saddle them with an identity that suggests their being beyond redemption. In other words, we don’t want to label them 'bigots' prematurely. At the same time, we don’t want to shrink from identifying the evil of anti-gay bigotry, wherever and whenever it occurs. And so, we can distinguish. We can point out the sin of bigotry forcefully while using the epithet of 'bigot' sparingly (though that epithet, too, has its uses). Because, in the end, we do know it when we see it." - John Corvino, writing for Independent Gay Forum.
Barb Ruth-Wright
· 2 weeks ago
Thanks for this, Daniel. There's altogether too much name-calling in the world, imo. It seems a fine line to walk, to work for gay rights, and oppose false charges and assumptions about gays, and at the same time try to work according to Baha'i principles of social interaction. One must be bold, but not mean-spirited, must point out the often unpalatable truth without being self-righteous, must always hope for the potential for change and believe such change is possible, even in the most prejudiced. I find this very difficult, but most worthwhile tasks are not easy.
His DVD is great, and shoudl be seen by Bahaí admistrators
Barb Ruth-Wright
· 2 weeks ago
Thanks for reminding me of this, Daniel. I have watched this clip before and was quite impressed by it, but never followed up. I may order his DVD for local use - I agree, all Baha'i administrators should see this, and they should see "Inlaws and Outlaws" as well. We just received this one in the mail and it is supposed to be shown by one of our local universities, and perhaps a local theatre as well. We hope to share it at least with a few friends and a local church, and to encourage local Baha'is to see it.
Barb
fubar
· 6 days ago
re: John Corvino on using "bigot" for anyone that doesn't agree with pro-gay politics
Thanks for the excellent material.
Corvino has made a very good start in recognising the well-known problems with "identity politics" (that can apply to gender issues, racial issues, green issues, etc.).
My argument last year, during the heated debate about the anti-gay marriage vote in california, was that identity politics are counter-productive not only to the GLBT's movement's valid long-term objectives, but also to the larger process of social movement toward increased tolerance.
Rationale: identity politics tend to be paradigm-regressive. In other words a tribal ("us vs. them") attitude tends to set in amongst the members of a identity group. Then the thought police come out of the woodwork and "punish" (or marginalize) anyone that doesn't conform to group norms/ideas.
(hmmm,..... sounds exactly like bahai administration?)
Extremism and radicalism tends to set in on both "sides", and more moderate, pragmatic solutions are rejected or ignored.
However, there are obviously some short-term benefits to identity politics. Otherwise they wouldn't have any appeal. An increased sense of solidarity and validation of grievances (usually early in a movement, or stage of a movement) being the main ones I can think of at the moment.
The problem is that a transition usually has to be made to a bridge-building strategy, and the group-think that tends to set in from identity politics works against those that advocate such outreach.
On a individual psycho-spiritual level, I think the issue has to do with unconditional acceptance and compassion.
People need healing around all sorts of issues, including this one. A healing approach, based on compassion, should include aceptance of the basic human decency of both those that agree and disagree. Otherwise, the tedency to dehumanize people is reinforced, hardly something that seems consistent with the higher sentiments and aims of the wider tolerance movement.
Bye!
peyamb
· 3 days ago
I understand what you are saying, but many gays (and supporters believe) that the transition has come and compassion towards someone who is blatantantly bigoted is not always a good approach. We reached this mark with race issues years ago. Take for instance the stupid magistrate in the South who wouldn't issue a marriage license to a black man and a white woman. In his mind he had legit reasons and felt he wasn't discriminating against anyone, but guess what? HE lost his job and got some angry responses. I give it a couple of more decades and soon no one will dare discriminate against us either without feeling the wrath of society.
peyamb
· 2 weeks ago
Anti gay bill in Uganda: http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=49189 So where does the Bahai community stand in all this? It's time for the UHJ to put its money where its mouth is when it comes to Human Rights. The Bahai community has a House of Worship in that country. Will the Bahais be silent? Last year they demonstrated with others in Uganda against gays. Now what? Will the Bahais in Uganda support such a horrible bill? Or just sit idly by while homosexuals are discriminated against and even murdered by the government? If the UHJ doesn't stand up and say something, given that there is a significant percentage of Ugandas who are Bahais, then those 9 men's letters are not worth the paper they are written on. Don't come crying about the persecution of Bahais in Iran if you are not willing to say anything about this bill in Uganda. Do the right thing!
Barb Ruth-Wright
· 2 weeks ago
I have been waiting, and waiting, to hear the UHJ say that the work of Baha'is in Uganda against gays (and their support of the "interfaith rainbow coalition" - which should win some kind of award for euphemism of the century) is wrong, wrong, wrong - I haven't heard a thing yet. The Baha'i Community cannot expect any further recognition from the rest of the world in regard to support for human rights if they do not renounce what is happening in Uganda. Remaining silent in this case is not an option. Baha'is like to straddle the fence when convenient, I think - it's time to take a stand on this particular issue and let the world know where they stand.
Barb
peyamb
· 2 weeks ago
I wouldn't hold my breath Barb. This whole article was posted by Baquia in regards to an apology by the Tory party for Section 28 (a ban on councils and schools promoting homosexuality as a valid lifestyle). Did you know that the NSA of the UK wrote a letter in support of this ban? http://bahai-library.com/?file=nsa_statement_ho... Where is the apology from the present UK NSA regarding this asinine letter written back in 1996. We would all long be dead from lack of air if we had waited.
Barb Ruth-Wright
· 2 weeks ago
Thank you, Peyamb. Yes, I have been aware previously of activity of the UK NSA in this regard. These folks always want to equate chastity and fidelity with heterosexuality - now there's a joke. What I want is for the Baha'i institutions to shout to the world - from the rooftops - what their true and complete positions are in regard to gays, birth control (their ultimate goal - not the present temporary compromise), abortion (i.e. women's reproductive rights), the principle of separation of church and state, their violation of their own basic principle of equality of women and men, and freedom of Baha'i academic scholars of religion. I just want the world to know what the Baha'is stand for, in addition to all the nice-nice stuff that gets publicized all the time. Some people will like and admire their stance (The Family might, for instance), a lot of people will not. The Baha'i world is drifting, imo, into very dangerous territory in regard to human rights. I just want people to know the facts, and then they can make their own judgment about those facts. I particularly want BAHAI'S to know the facts - because altogether too many of them don't - they haven't done their homework, and perhaps a lot of them don't really want to know or to have to think about it. The Baha'i Faith is what we, the Baha'is make it - it's time for us to wake up and think hard about what we want to support. The Baha'i Faith doesn't belong only to the institutions; it belongs to the Baha'is, to all of us - we are responsible for what it becomes in the world. It might be worthwhile for folks to look up Paul Deardorf's resignation letter (written in the 90s, I believe) - he was a very active Baha'i, and worked with ABMs, as I recall. It's easily available online. Whether he ever rejoined the Faith, I do not know, but he certainly brought up some points worth considering.
Barb
Barb Ruth-Wright
· 2 weeks ago
oops, my mistake. The name is Paul Dodenhoff, not Paul Deardorf - I didn't double-check the name before posting. Sorry about that, and my sincere apology to Paul Deardorf - should he be out there somewhere....we oldies do get a bit muddled in our thinking from time to time. Time for my nap now.
Yeah, it was that horrible letter published in the American Bahai that made me write to National and tell them to stop sending me such awful propaganda. Oh and I told them to consider my cancelation to the American Bahai as my last "donation" to the fund (since they no longer had to waste stamps mailing it to me!)
Lili
· 1 week ago
this was really thought provoking. thank you for posting this, and i'm sorry to hear how difficult this situation is for your brother and yourself.
All Comments
It used to anger me to read about these closeted gay men that served and praised the Bahai community. But now I realize that they were just a product of their times. What other choice did they have? The Bahai Faith was convenient. As was becoming a priest in the Catholic church. A religion of Don't ask don't tell was better than a religion of "we'll hunt you down and kick you out". But times have changed and the current "mark Tobey's" inside of the Bahai community have to make a choice. Continue your hypocrisy or stand up on the side of justice. God is watching.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ0IgECXE18
"I increasingly see organized religion as actually my enemy. They treat me as their enemy. Not all Christians, of course. Not all Jews, not all Muslims. But the leaders. . . . Why should I take the judgment of a declared celibate about my sexual needs? He's basing his judgment on laws that would fit life in the Bronze Age. So if I'm lost to God, organized religion is to blame."
- Sir Ian McKellen, speaking to the Los Angeles Times.
Just as thinking twice about giving to the Bahai Fund. Better yet, do as Abdul-Baha did, and just give some money direct to a deserving soul.
Mavaddat: you have perfectly identified the source of the problem.
The inherent weakness of the Baha’i Faith is authoritarianism rather than fundamentalism. The Faith has inherited a literalism of scriptural words similar to the Islamic tradition. The appeal to authoritarianism betrays an obsession with ideological purity and legalistic piety. In the context of late modern or post-modern social and scientific realities, this approach is psychologically abusive and socially toxic.
As Bob Altemeyer notes about authoritarian followers:
“They are highly submissive to established authority, aggressive in the name of that authority, and conventional to the point of insisting everyone should behave as their authorities decide. They are fearful and self-righteous and have a lot of hostility in them that they readily direct toward various out-groups. They are easily incited, easily led, rather un-inclined to think for themselves, largely impervious to facts and reason, and rely instead on social support to maintain their beliefs. They bring strong loyalty to their in-groups, have thick-walled, highly compartmentalized minds, use a lot of double standards in their judgments, are surprisingly unprincipled at times, and are often hypocrites.”
Someone wrote:
"In the same way that I obey the laws of the land in which I am a citizen of, I as a Baha'i, have no qualms in obeying the House when they set down a law. That is their role and my role as a member of the community is to abide."
And that is precisely the problem.
Is it ever right to violate a law of the land? Some people contend
that an individual ought to break a human law, provided that it is
contrary to divine law. What is divine law? Who decides? Shall
the individual decide, or is that the duty of the community? Or of
the clergy? Was it right for the Abolitionists to violate the
provisions of the fugitive slave law? Were this handful of men,
able and conscientious as they were, as likely to be right
regarding the welfare of society as the large majority of citizens
whose representatives had enacted the fugitive slave law?
Under what circumstances, if any, is it one's duty to disobey a law
of the state? Would the fact that an individual believed it his
duty to violate the law justify a judge in declining to punish him?
Thoreau declined to pay a tax that he believed unjust and accepted
his punishment, declaring that if he paid the penalty he might thus
arouse public sentiment and secure the repeal of the law. Was John
Brown justified in attempting illegally to free slaves by force of
arms?
Critical thought and reflective analysis are not a part of submissive obedience. I refer you to this link to further look at this problem:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=NL0uxDscjdo
Sonja has had the guts to come out as a straight woman in the defense of glbt Baha'is. Few if any straight people have gone this far. As well, it is my experience that the vast majority of glbt folks stand by or hide and have allowed other glbt's to be martyred.
Those of us with activist colleagues in more progressive religious groups, see believers who are united, open, and fearless... where are you people? Lets spend less time, picking on the messenger, and talking about solutions.
We should all be horrified that a religion that aspires to be progressive and modern, is behaving alike the dishonet, lying, lunatic, evangelical fringe... and persecutes its minority membership so. This is not who we are! People, there are good , decent people being thrown out for no reason other than institutionalized homophobia, or because they do not have connections or a name, there are youth committing suicide, and there is ignorance being perpetrated as divinely ordained law... yet no one feels free or safe to discuss it, or stand up for those who have been wronged!
Damn right I am angry!
We need a whole herd of Alisons and Sonjas right now!
Keep posting, its good stuff!
I have also found these two articles on another blog:
hadleyives.blogspot.com/.../picking-and-choosing-in-religion.html
http://hadleyives.blogspot.com/2009/01/what-doe...
These were very well written and offer some really good counsel.
Thank you for your terrific post!
These two below quotes are why I got off the Baha'i train 6 years ago after 32 years of completely dedicated service in the Faith. Have you ever seen these quotes?
"We have inherited a dangerous delusion from Christianity that our individual conscience is supreme. This is not a Baha'i belief. In the end, in the context of both our role in the community and our role in the greater world, we must be prepared to sacrifice our personal convictions or opinions. The belief that individual conscience is supreme is equivalent to 'taking partners with God' which is abhorrent to the Teachings of the Faith."
- Douglas Martin
Former Member of the Universal House of Justice
Baha'i Faith
"The experience of the Ruhi Institute has shown that we do not suppress
the imagination or the personality of the participants when we refrain
from posing questions such as, 'What does this mean to you?'; on the
contrary, we are helping to nurture the development of communities which
look first to the Writings as the principal basis of consultation whenever they are faced with a question.
We believe that the habit of thinking about the implications of the
Writings with the minimum of personal interpretation would eliminate a
great share of the disagreements which afflict consultation in many
communities, and would make the activities of our communities more
effective."
"TO THE COLLABORATORS" - Ruhi Book One
I will not sit in the same room with the incredibly weak and cowardly people who now call themselves "Baha'is" who betrayed their own religion and allowed this to be done to it by organizational sociopaths at the top with deranged and deluded brain chemistry. It is absolutely shameful.
No critical thought is allowed or permitted in the Baha'i Faith anymore. Period. It is terribly tragic and it is absolutely frightening for the future of the human race if the Baha'is with the current mindset - or ANY unchallenged groupthink organized religion for that matter - ever attain any real power in the world. The system is now so abusive and predatory that I now very deeply regret all the decades I whole heartedly supported it thinking it could do good in the world.
The final biochemical state of any groupthink organized religion is a very dangerous brain chemistry. that is all that is involved here. A very simple analysis of brain chemistry. The human race must understand this dangerous mechanism in any organization before we can progress to the next step of social evolution. This is why the many voices on the Internet is so very important now.
Again, thank you for your excellent post!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrEbJBFWIPk&feat...
And consider this - if a lie repeated often enough comes to be revered as truth, how much more powerful is the truth repeated again, and again, and again - we must keep repeating it until people get it - they will, eventually.
Barb
More Bahais need to be out about treating gays as equals!
This man in the youtube film is wonderful. Dare I say it, so Abdul-Baha like.
This is a very superficial answer - I am aware of that. Nevertheless, I think that patriarchal religion, of whatever sort, expresses an underlying fear of the potential power of women. I'm not saying that is all there is to religion - not at all. I am talking about the way that religion has been used by men in power to keep women "in their place." This has nothing whatever to do with the goal of the Prophets in regard to the spiritual behavior of all humans - it is an appropriation of legitimate spiritual teaching in order to carry out a patriarchal goal.
As I said - very superficial answer, and one not well thought out at this point - but I am convinced that this is at least part of the answer, and I would be interested to know what others think.
Barb
>>He states, in a Tablet addressed to
>>a follower of the Faith in Persia,
>>"the eldest son hath been given
>>extraordinary distinctions. Even the
>>station of prophethood hath been his
>>birthright."
If I had live in His time, I would have asked Abdul-Baha "So what? So what if partriarchial people from the past made the first born male and males in general such distinction? Isn't this supposed to be a new age where women and men are equal?" And guess what? I bet Abdul-Baha would have been loving, understanding and maybe even have changed His mind. Who knows? I seriously doubt he would have taken the fundamentalist, closed, "my way or the highway" approach of the present Bahai administration and it's mindless followers.
No Barb, you are not being superficial- you are hitting it right on the mark. When fundamentalist divorce these people (including Bahaullah) from their human side- the side that actually lived in a historical period with it's biases and traditions, then you end up with a religion that continues being out of touch. A religion that will stay stagnant as the world progresses.
Daniel Orey
http://www.irqr.net/aboutus.htm
http://letters-of-the-living.blogspot.com/2009/...
which is your blog A and I love the sharp "let deeds not words be your adorning" reference for Bahais :)
and now I realise you made this film which I"d seen somewhere else (sorry don't remember the context now):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Guidl-7oGn4&feat...
It is beautifully made ...
but
you mis-attribute quotations.
Shoghi Effendi never wrote any of those things.
I realise many Bahais do like-wise but I prefer to stick what is actually in the Bahai Writings. I kinda wish you'd remake the movie with these things corrected because the point is fantastic. Making poeple aware and trying to get Bahais to stand up for equality and human rights.
This blog blew me away:
http://www.moralcourage.com/get-involved/moral-...
A Bahai says: "What you are putting forth here is really a surface analysis. What is homosexuality? Is it an inherent identity (for that matter, is heterosexuality an identity?). Since our physical bodies do not continue with us after death, defining oneself in this way seems distinctly non-spiritual.
People who, voluntarily and through independent investigation, have decided that Bahá'u'lláh's words are true, try to follow his teachings, with help from communities and institutions; that's not prejudice. "
A disgusted seeker resonds: "Uh, yes, a person's sexual orientation is largely an inherent identity as, while we are in the body, sex, love, romance, and relationships are at the core of our being.
Moreover, it is innate and not changeable, according to science, which is supposed to be accepted by the Baha'i.
If the Baha'i Faith excludes gays and lesbians, then they have denied the unity of humanity and are utter hypocrites, and that sort of behavior is precisely what turns people away from religions in the first place."
The Baha'is need to learn something of gay history, and that folks in history they may have admired, were gays, and they never knew before that they were. They need to learn that some of our most intelligent and creative and gifted human beings have been gay - and that this is true of Baha'i history as well.
Silence betrays us all. People are free to come to their own conclusions, but let's give them some facts on which to base their conclusions. Space for such information is expected to be added to the GLBSP website, I hope soon. That is the plan. And who knows, maybe even some of our stories will be about people in history some of us never suspected were gay.
Barb
Thank you for the compliment - I consider it high praise, coming from you. I look forward to, and appreciate, any contribution you can make to the website.
Barb
I look forward to featuring it here to give it more exposure, as I'm sure are other Baha'i bloggers like Steve over at BahaisOnline.
Anyway, all I wanted to say was thanks, and that I am fortunate to have a computer whiz as an assistant, but I happily add you to our list of people we can consult if we run into a snag or have question. And any help you can offer in passing the word about the website is most appreciated!
Thanks - Barb
Crisis: 40 Stories Revealing the Personal, Social, and Religious Pain and Trauma of Growing Up Gay in America
Product Description (from Amazon):
A mental health crisis faces American teens right now--and it is one we can solve. Hundreds of thousands of gay teens face traumatic depression, fear, rejection, persecution, and isolation--usually alone. Studies show they are 190 percent more likely to used drugs or alcohol and four times more likely to attempt suicide. Homophobia and discrimination are at the heart of their pain. Love, support, and acceptance--all within our power to give--can save them.
This book is for: clergy, parents, educators, and politicians who cause harm with their words and actions; parents of gay teens; teens navigating this difficult time; and fair-minded people who want to help end the harm. Here are revealing stories by forty diverse Americans, some well known and some not, plus insights from straight clergy and parents explaining their support of gay people as whole human beings guaranteed equal rights by our Constitution.
Daniel Orey
Any group - but especially reformers, dissidents, critics and nonconformists - should always welcome alternative perpsectives, engage in profound self-examination and questions its assumptions (and tendencies toward "group think"), no matter how difficult or painful that may be.
(but please respond with something other than more trite drivel.)
re:
[you said]
| Farhan ... Please give some thought as to whether your efforts here are
| fruitful. You are clearly a Baha'i of reasonable intelligence and capability.
| I can't help but wonder if your talents would be better spent trying to
| reach out to different people.
Why? conformist bahais already agree with Farhan (which is to say, they accept bahai administration's hideous, backward, dehumanizing approach to the issue). Very few other people in the world care about the convoluted official bahai position on homosexuality.
The bahai purity/perfection myth is what drives most attitudes, not real, personal experience with the issue.
The reality is that anyone that stands up in most bahai communities and speaks out against homophobia, especially as it relates to bahai rules/roles/policies (medieval) will be marginalized, and if they persist against the stupid advice of people like Farhan in the bahai ruling elites, they will eventually be attacked by the bahai thought police (BTP). If they fight the BTPs, they will be more viciously attacked. I've seen it over and over for 30 years.
you said:
| Dear Everybody Else:
| Carry on, I suppose.
Arrogant and condescending. boring.
| It's clear that you enjoy this way too much, and whose to say you're not
| doing the Lord's work. As the writings go... "all are His servants and all
| abide by his bidding." People have postulated that the world is a stage,
| and what if God is a director and his casting sheet required all kinds of
| villains and heroes and anti-heroes... and honestly, who really knows
| which role you've signed up for. I sure as heck don't, but I'm sure God
| does.
ok, so you insult nonconformists, critics, dissidents, victims of bahai bureaucracy, then admit that you don't even know who is right or wrong.
"Have you no human decency?"
(to quote the judge in "Bonfire of the Vanities")
| On a serious note though, ever consider that the people that need to hear
| your interpretations of justice and compassion aren't here?
How do you know who is here, and why?
The people in bahai administration/aristocracy are, as you seem to imply, probably not generally paying attention, but there are presumably some AO thought police monitoring everything.
| Either you're here to vent and complain or you're here to effect change. I
| can see this forum being useful for the former. I'm not sure how it
| enables the latter.
Correct. You may not know it, but people seek consolation, and sense of belonging, compassion from others, and so forth, outside of the narrow context of bahai bureaucracy.
And, you attitude is a good example of how (according to bahai conformists) everything in life has to be bent to the purposes of the great project of clutural imperialism that is bahai culture.
In that "system" of thinking, nothing has intrinsic, human worth, unless it is on a image of "submission" to the imperial myth/ethos.
(Bahai followers are expected to be intellectual and spiritual "slaves".)
| I suppose you're sharing ideas, but it strikes me as effective as an
| institutionalized debating society with no real power. But hey, quite the
| intellectual and spiritual exercise, right? Believe me, I know that forums
| like this are fun.
Ok, now that you have puffed yourself up by putting people down, we now have another example, of the thousands of mindless, shallow, dehumanizing, conformist statements encountered in bahai community.
| But seriously... if you don't like the Baha'i Faith... then fine. Point taken.
| You win. 9 male homophobes live under the delusion that they rule the
| world. The rest of us are weak and dumb and are complacently propping
| up the other 9. End of discussion. You win!!!
Shallow. This is typical of why bahai culture lacks meaning. How old are you? Where do you live? How much money do you, or your parents, have?
| With that established, now what? Does anything else you have to say
| really matter? Seriously. Does it? Does your identity need acceptance
| from other "mainstream" Baha'is? And seriously, why would you want the
| acceptance of such shallow rank-and-file?
Matter to who? It doesn't seem that it mattters to you. Have you ever known homosexual bahais that have had their lives wrecked by the homophobia that is widespread in the bahai community?
Sonja's theory of bahai change is fascinating, she worked hard, and thought about it for a long time. Many of the people that disagree with her, on both sides, have also thought about the issue for a long time.
You however, seem to have arrived with a shallow viewpoint, and are just being disrespectful. A punk.
| Or are you just pissed off that the awesome club that you belong to has
| changed or perhaps you've changed in ways and you find that it no longer
| suits you. Are you too weak to just say, "I relinquish my membership in
| The Baha'i Faith. I simply do not have the passion to believe what I am
| expected to believe."
I'm an ex-bahai, so that does not apply to me. My personal opinion, which you seem to illustrate, is that bahai belief is what is weak. Conforming to stupid rules that are theologically inconsistent (at best), and refusing to protest the social injustice involved, is what is "weak". Being afraid of the bahai thought police is what is weak. Not caring enough about real human beings to protest a stupid religious system is what is weak. Not fighting against the conformism of the "bahai comfort zone" is what is weak.
| Hell... you can even dump the AO and the Baha'i Faith.
Done.
| Most of us have had to use these words for a different scenario, but it'd
| probably work for this scenario, too: "I just don't feel that spark,
| anymore. I'm just not in love with you. Sorry. I'm sure we can be friends
| though. I'm sure we'll run into each other at some social gatherings."
Some people get bored with the meaninless features of bahai "community".
Some people are more deeply troubled by the deeply ingrained patterns of dysfunctionality in bahai culture, and its resistance to improvement.
What you have done is to reduce meaning, not add to it. You also fail to demonstrate ANY of the good things about bahai belief. You lack compassion, empathy, and a sense of the depth of life. You are a typical uncaring person who pays superficial lip service to human values, while investing little or nothing in understanding, or living, what those values actually are.
What you are doing is called psychological "projection/transference" - you are attributing (via reversal) the things that are wrong with bahai to the very people that have dared to speak the truth about those wrongs.
This is an old, tired, rhetorical tactic of people that are weak, and lack passion for the truth. Is is the beginning of scapegoating, which is a disgusting and pernicious form of intellectual and spiritual laziness.
Unlike most of bahai culture, this blog is UNCENSORED. You could, if you cared about anything real, actually learn something about what that means instead of just engaging in the usual cultural imperialism, being hurtful, lacking any sense of appreciation for the eternal, transcendent aspects of life.
| Oh... and if it's that hard because your closest family and friends are in
| the Baha'i Faith and they don't believe like you, then they obviously need
| the in-depth discussions with you.
Can you please explain on what basis you have any right to glibly demean the experiences of gay bahais that have been trashed by their homophobic families, friends, bahai community?
| The ones that love you the most are
| obligated to give you that time, for your benefit as well as theirs.
Are you a social worker, or therapist? If not, you might want to be VERY CAREFUL giving advice about a incredibly sensitive topic to a group of people that might turn out to be STUPID and WRONG for some of those people.
|You
| carry a fire to which their faith ought to be tested... and who knows,
| maybe with enough exposure, they might realize they're the crazy ones.
The only people that haen't already realized that conforming to stupid bahai rules are mostly authoritarians/fundamentalists. This is deeply entrenched, dysfunctional pattern amongst bahai leadership elites.
| And if you and your family and friends are getting forced out... sheesh.
| IT'S AN UNHEALTHY RELATIONSHIP. Thank God for the opportunity to be
| forced out. Staying would imply that the comfort of familiar abuse is
| better than a chance to have a happy life elsewhere.
I personally think bahai is unhealthy for almost everyone. Being forced out is not a great opportunity for most people, it is a dehumanizing experience that leave deep scars. You inability to see that is, unfortunately, typical of the ignorant attitudes in the mainstream of bahai culture.
The utopian rhetoric of most bahais is clearly vacuous. It is a highly dysfunctional religion that hurts far more people than it helps.
Thanks for making that "reality" even more clear than it already was.
Thanks for presenting the opportunity to vent.
Have a NICE DAY.
Your post is humorous, as you attack me rather viciously. I suppose my tone invited it, but I think you missed my intent. Still, I'm very serious about the idea that "all are His servants"... including you, and I don't mean that in the trite, "God sent you to be evil so that the rest could be tested" kind of way. I mean that in the way that you are reflection or a side-effect of what the the Baha'i Faith has produced.
I also find it funny that you've linked me with Baha'i aristocracy.. wow, if only. How about "missed the last 5 or 6 Feasts, married to a closet atheist, Catholic parents, other Christian denomination in-laws, 1 facebook friend that is Baha'i, 4 Baha'i email addresses in my address book, left the community for almost a decade" kind of Baha'i? Yeah, I'm quite the well-connected, self-appointed Baha'i thought-police kind of guy, aren't I? I'm not sure why it matters how much money I make, but I don't have the luxury to sit around and police people for the AO, if that's what you're suggesting.
My goal is more to diffuse the rancor over mainstream Baha'i beliefs that aren't going to change anytime soon. There exists a momentum with regards to mainstream Baha'i culture/doctrine, and it ought to be factored to effect change. It's a tactical point, and I apologize for not making it clear. I waded through so much debate/arguments/apologies and by the time I posted my statement, I felt like I had read many variations on a theme, which is why I took a reductionist approach in my original message. The disputes back and forth over doctrinal stuff just started to annoy me...
Change takes time... and if acceptance of LGBT in the Baha'i Faith is going to change, I wager it changes because the scientific and the reliable sociological data continues to grow and new converts will bring that perspective into play. Right now, there are enough people outside of the Baha'i community that support the status quo employed by Baha'is. I'm not suggesting it is fair; it's simply my observation.
That said, I'm not God... so I don't even know if acceptance of LGBT is really part of the plan? What if it really is a genetic thing and gene therapy can "cure the gay"? (pardon the phrase) Perhaps this unpleasantness and societal discord is moreso for us to understand the urgency of finding such a cure. (gawd, i already hear the flamethrowers getting ready...) And who knows, maybe we go there and conclude "bad idea, too many side effects and the creation of psychotic heterosexuals just isn't worth it. let's just settle with just being nice to gay people"...
...And whose to say it's a completely genetic thing? This tendency to reduce behavior to binary outcomes based on genetics is irritating. Many of the lesbians I've met have huge trust issues with men, thanks to abuse... but there's no way I would suggest all are like that.
...and yes, I know you want to end-game it at: let's just be inclusive with gay people. I understand why that option makes sense. I understand why it's just. I understand all of the good things... I just don't think it can take hold given the current context of the Baha'i Faith and the world it is in.
And as for Farhan, it's not my goal to reduce him to an idiot or a thoughtless uncaring a-hole. I think he's rather articulate and I commend him for trying to reach out and explain his viewpoints, but honestly... I just see a lot of people beating up the doctrinal thinking. I've lurked around a variety of places... I just don't see it leading anywhere, and I don't at all sense that serves the interests of the Baha'i Faith. But hey, if Farhan wants to stick around... that's his call! It's quite possible that he's seeing something I'm not.
I find your transference accusation, humorous, too. I make no apologies for the Baha'i Faith, of which I've had little to do in its making or current state, nor do I suggest that it's current form is ideal. At most I would wager that it might be ideal only in that God permits it to be in its current form that we might learn from it. Still, for me to say that it is a religion full of crap and evil seems wrong to me.
In some ways, I've had the inverse experience of you... I had every reason to not be a Baha'i, but the Writings and my conscience called. Not my wife, not my friends, not my neighbors, not my ex-GF from over a decade ago with whom I'd had little contact, not my child... NOBODY close to me facilitated the decision to reinstate myself a member of the Baha'i community. The process was hardly fun and it was emotionally painful because it really just between me and God. My only explanation is that God just wanted it that way, maybe for the benefit of my kids, or somebody else... or even me. I don't know. I certainly didn't ask for the call, but who the hell am I to argue.
And please, don't reduce me to some trite addict who found God because he destroyed his life in some terrible vice. I was husband to my wife long before, was father for over a year, was employed longer than married, financially stable, no arrest record, functional member of society, etc. etc.... oh yeah, I have some moving violations on my driving record, and I got a parking ticket recently for using multiple spaces. That said, my mostly functional existence continues today, after I chose to rejoin the Baha'i Faith.
That said, I apply this concept of "the call" to others... who the hell am I to judge if they don't get the call?
Still, I maintain that the ones closest to you are the ones who owe you their time. Whether they act properly or with compassion is another thing, but the Writings speak of patience and kindness, right? There is little achieved in parents trashing their kid who has a hard enough time coming out... and maybe that's just because if one of my kids came out to me a decade from now, I would give them my time and my thoughts because I'm obliged to do so... but also because I want to do so. That's my job, and it's a job that I love. As to what they should do, that's up to them. Why? For me to decide anything, is really to impose my ambition. I can only give them my sense of things, and it might not jive with what they want to hear, but they can always rely on the knowledge that I love them. That said, I'd probably be a bit sad if one of my kids was gay, much in the same way I'd probably be sad if they had down syndrome. There's no reason to not love your child in either scenario, but there are definitely some disadvantages to both. (and please, i'm not even suggesting either conditions are equivalent in terms of difficulty or severity or even from a perspective of genetic certainty... it's very imperfect comparison)
If the Baha'i Faith presents itself, as you see it through the people around you, as a bunch of a-holes, then leave. It seems better to leave on your terms than to be told to leave, but that's just my take. Still, why would you want to surround yourself with that? If your family turned out to be a-holes... major suckage, but that doesn't change the fact that leaving was the right thing to do. I know it's painful, and it's not my intent to ignore that. But in the end, leaving is sometimes the healthy thing, right? Like you did, right? Do you regret your decision? I reduced the discussion to such fundamental terms because that's where things usually end up.
And let's just suppose my kid grew up in that "institutionalized" Baha'i stuff and was active in the faith... and then one day declared LGBT, and I did what I claimed I would do. If the rest of the community saw the loss of a valuable member, then great. Let them feel that pain, and let them feel that conflict. If my kid turned out to be more rebellious and never quite fit in the community, and then eventually said "this Baha'i thing is crap," I wouldn't begrudge the community if they said "good riddance". Where I would take offense if my kid decided to leave and they replied with "good riddance" rather than a more polite, "we're sorry to see you go."
... and if my kid was LGBT and wanted to be a defiant dissident in the community, then I'd warn them of the possible repercussions and I would stay out of their way. It's really not my ambition to fight on either side of the LGBT question because I see validity on both sides, and I make no claim to have the certitude for either viewpoint. For me, I sense there's something balance, in-between, something different... but I haven't figured it out yet.
I've got no problem with change in the Baha'i Faith; I invite it. I'm not sure others are ready, but hey... change is the law of nature, right?
And as for change, there's something to be said about knowing when and where you can effect it. Sometimes fighting gravity is just dumb and suicidal... but sometimes you can use gravity in your favor.
You do not seem to be a "good listener". Or you are confused. In either case, thanks for the details, and I hope you find whatever "answers" it is you are seeking.
I've repeatedly said I'm an ex-bahai. The typical concept of "god" has much validity for me (I tend toward buddhism), but I repect other people's faith as long as it isn't the cause of injustice/etc.
I personally think bahai is too backward to change in a significant way in the near future. I do however continue to support reformers, and hope that in whatever small way, their faith in the good side of human nature, and in basic human decency, will have an effect on the world far greater in proportion to superficial appearances.
From Rabbi Michael Lerner's web site:
Our Jewish Renewal synagogue is a place where each
of us is encouraged to explore the spiritual realm, and to
work out our own understanding and our own relationship
with God. In the final analysis, one might decide that the very
word “God” (an English, not a Hebrew concept) is too loaded
and misses the complexity of spiritual life. Rabbi Lerner urges
us to not waste our time trying to convince ourselves to believe
in authoritarian or patriarchal concepts of God that we’ve
never been able to accept.
As he puts it: The God you don’t believe in doesn’t exist
so please don’t spend your time fighting against the God that you don’t believe in, but instead use your time with us to connect to whatever spiritual reality in the universe you can access.
Rabbi Lerner’s teacher, Abraham Joshua Heschel, used to talk about God as “ineffable” precisely to capture this reality:
Let us stop fighting
against the God that we
don’t believe in. We
stipulate that the God you
don’t believe in doesn’t
exist in order to make
room for you to encounter
the God or spiritual
reality of the universe that
you might believe in.
that our language is deeply limited and almost every attempt
to speak about spiritual reality can become a caricature,
turning what is a living reality into a lifeless and distorted
idolatry.
...
---end quote---
There are many other religious communities that offer "something better" than the narrow/rigid version of bahai that I've seen in numerous cities, states and countries for 30+ years.
Most bahais tolerate lies/deception. That is a sure sign of dysfunctional organizational culture. The world is poorer because of lies and injustice.
The larger "missionary scheme" of bahai is at a dead end, but the leadership is keeping the "slave mentality" going amongst the followers, and oppressing demands for freedom/democracy with predictable/absurd/reactionary arguments.
The postmodern version of bahai culture is still largely an unknown, but this blog is probably a good place to see the "good" version of the future of bahai. if the sheeple wake up.
"The typical concept of 'god' DOESN'T HAVE much validity for me"
eeeks.
Definitely Bermuda!
Baha'i's really think they will have a world religion, even though all other religions have failed to do this except by force, and even then, competing religions are practiced in secret. Your machine will never force itself on all people. To think universal government and eternal peace are attainable is to ignore that we are humans. People are selfish by their very nature, and this will inevitably lead to war. To say "homosexuality is not acceptable" suggests there will be those outside of your perfect religion, as there have always been homosexuals and there always will be, unless you exterminate them as they pop out, I suppose ("Arbeit macht frei!"). I can see some Persian Baha'i, like a Grand Wizard of the KKK, "Don't want 'em. Doesn't mean we don't like them, just means we don't want'em. We can round them up, send them all to Brazil and build a fence around it. It's a beautiful place, they LOVE it there."
Along with women, alcohol, and whatever else, your savior has decided that homosexuality is evil. Your PR geniuses love to say that homosexuality is a "distortion of spirit" or "a condition to which a person should not be reconciled," but you are as dogmatic as any other religions.
There are other, more fulfilling ways to accept life than finding some obscure religion and saying, "Oh, this one is right." I know it is hip and cool to be a Baha'i since so many Baha'i's are extremely wealthy and educated, but the question of the ages is how these people become (or remain) Baha'i's (or any other religion). You guys are SO GOOD at twisting and redefining word at will to combat any criticism, and I am sure you will have a very kind, modest, rational response to mine. My experience with Baha'i's is that they are convinced of their greatness and superiority - I have not sensed this level of self-righteousness except perhaps in evangelical southern baptist churches. I think what Baha'i's fail to realize is that they are PROTECTED BY THEIR OBSCURITY. If people actually knew half of what you believed, sure, many would say "Ah, they are harmless," but others would think, "Oh wow, this is the same old crap repackaged - why do we need ANOTHER one of these?"
Religion indefinitely creates war, and to suggest otherwise is delusional. Since Baha'i's have so many other religions to conquer, maybe you can put homosexuals at the front lines to form a great army to destroy the religions of the world. They won't get to heaven, but at least they will have done something valuable.
I have seen how you love bomb people and sucker them into fireside chats or devotions only to pressure them into becoming Baha'i's like you are running an Amway convention. Sure, it is all "Oh use independent investigation" until you get into the religion and become overloaded with dogma. I married a Baha'i, so I see all of this constantly. You prey on weak people to expand your empire of boring self-righteous Persians, pseudo-intellectuals, and hippies. I can't stand listening to you all talk about how stupid Christians are, how they are just "devolved" or "confused" or, oh God the worst of all, "They are Baha'i at heart." Ugh, barf me out. You people gossip more than any others, violating your basic beliefs. You also gamble and drink, yet say you don't in public. I don't know how you can take yourself seriously considering your religion has an ID CARD. I am sure there will be Baha'i splinter groups one day that do not follow the Universal House of Justice and don't think you need so much bureaucracy to be religious. And maybe those people will say, "Man, maybe gay people are just GAY, and not mutants, or misguided... we will allow them to be Baha'i's. Then your obsolete religion may actually be progressive. But seriously, I just can't imagine you people haven't grown up that you have to write these enormous posts trying to reconcile something that is OBVIOUSLY DEPLORABLE (preaching equality while denying homosexuals the same rights) with your religion, when by your very nature you know being a homosexual is just... well, being a homosexual. There is nothing right or wrong with it, it just is. If you think homosexuals choose to be gay, then I think you need to meet some, or some post-op homosexuals. Your savior uses an age old and bizarrely narrow version of humanity, that there are straight men and women and that is it. I have known feminine straight men, butch straight women, and men that look and act like women and prefer other men, and vice versa. I have met men that are bisexual and otherwise completely "normal." Your conception of gender is so UNprogressive. I don't know how you live with yourselves.
re: "Much of the Baha'i faith that is rooted in obsolete ideas, and I Baha'i's are not allowed to question the tenets of the ethos (I've seen Baha'i's question the writings in a group of people, and the response is one of immense surprise and negativity)."
Generally correct. It has gotten worse. In the 1960s/70s a lot of "open minded" people became bahais, but by the 1980s, their attempts at finding a real place within bahai were increasingly subject to conformist pressures, if not direct, sometimes, vicious attacks. e.g., a friend of mine with a PhD in anthropology was told by "important" (fundamentalist-idiot) bahais that doing yoga was "spiritually dangerous" (evil) because it was "occult".
As you may know, there were a number of attempts by non-conformists, scholars, critics and dissidents to fight the prevailing attitude of bahai narrow-mindedness.
Some of the more well-known ones (USA) are/were Kalimat Press, Dialogue Magazine (http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/docs/vol2/dialog.htm), and the "talisman" email list, and subsequent web sites/blogs, such as this one.
Also various mild, internal reform initiatives have taken place, such as
MDS/ABS, where bahai international development, or aid workers, or bahai scholars, tried to "push the boundaries". Generally speaking, those that propose ideas in such venues that could potentially lead to deep questions about the validity of basic bahai theology/ideology are studiously ignored (http://bahai-library.com/conferences/common.thr...), marginalized, or attacked.
There are of course many good people in the bahai community. some doing great things for other people in their communities, or the world. However, unless they "submit/obey" to the prevailing bureaucratic/fundamentalist/authoritarian mindset (and agree to be exploited by bogus "leaders"), they are not "truly accepted" by the mainstream. Some people are willing to give up their brain, but most see no reason to, and start to drift away when they see that nothing much can usually be done to reverse the dysfunctional tendencies that prevail.
Some of the most innovative bahais I knew started adopting "integral thinking" 10 years ago, and that appears to be the "better thing" to bahai.
http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/books/kosmos/e...
---excerpt---
...
Put simply, a theory is a map of a territory, while a paradigm is a practice that brings forth a territory in the first place. The paradigm or social practice itself is called an "exemplar" or "injunction," and the theory is called, well, the theory. The point is that knowledge revolutions are generally combinations of new paradigm-practices that bring forth a new phenomenological territory plus new theories and maps that attempt to offer some sort of abstract or contoured guidance to the new territories thus disclosed and brought forth. But a new theory without a new practice is simply a new map with no real territory, or what is generally called "ideology."
A scientific revolution is the result of new paradigms and new theories coming into accord with each other, both of which are anchored, not in abstractions but in social practices. These revolutions are embraced, at the start, by a handful of individuals at the leading edge, but, if validated, these new exemplar-worldviews (paradigms-and-theories) are accepted by the larger culture or knowledge community, becoming a new "normal" or "legitimated" science, which stabilizes and carries forward until the next set of pesky data arises that refuses to be humbled in the existing scheme of things, and new and heretofore undisclosed territories start to shimmer on the horizon of the possible.
A similar process is now at play, I believe, in the nascent integral salons spontaneously forming around the world. Before we discuss that possibility in more detail, here is another example of a knowledge revolution, this time in politics.
The rise of the modern, liberal, representative democracies in the West involved, among innumerable other things, a significant shift in values from traditional to modern, which particularly began in Europe around 1600 and accelerated to something of a crisis pitch by the mid-1770s. Traditional values (e.g., blue, mythic-membership, conventional) tended to be conformist, ethnocentric, hierarchical, mythic-religious, and based on individuals conforming strongly to the present order. Modern values, on the other hand, tend to be egalitarian (not hierarchical), individualistic (not conformist), scientific (not mythic-fundamentalist), and place a premium on equality (not slavery).
This shift from blue to orange, or from traditional values to modern values, was presaged in the salons or "small gatherings of moderns" (the word salon is French, but these gatherings were also occurring in England, Scotland, and Germany, among others), where the social practice of dialoging according to orange values was carefully exercised. That is, the practice of dialogue geared toward mutual understanding, reciprocal exchange, postconventional equality and freedom was practiced by small groups of leading-edge elites. This was a collective, communal, intersubjective, dialogical discourse at the orange wave of consciousness--a social practice, paradigm, or injunction of dialogical discourse within an elite subculture whose center of gravity was orange or higher.
This new exemplar or social practice gave rise to a set of novel experiences, insights, data, illuminations, and interpersonal understandings, which new political theories then sought to capture. Most of these new theories of liberal democracy shared the idea that the only way to integrate individual and social is to have the individual feel that he or she is participating in the laws that govern his or her behavior. In the States this was popularly summarized by the phrase, "No taxation without representation," and it essentially meant that a people have the right to be self-governing. This new practice of dialogical discourse and self-governance (generally called a "social contract") was conceptualized in different ways by leading-edge individuals ranging from John Locke to Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Paine to Thomas Jefferson, Immanuel Kant to James Madison.
This self-governance is not a felt requirement of blue (which will follow the law if it is part of tradition), and it is not felt requirement of red (which will follow the law if it issues from the power leader). Only at orange does interiority start to demand a hand in the laws that regulate its own behavior.
(Of course, there were several other social injunctions that were part of the orange tetra-worldspace, including an industrial base that was one of single largest factors in reducing the need for slavery, and which lessened the demand for physical strength in order to succeed in the public sphere, thus paving the way for, and actually allowing, the various liberation movements, including feminism and abolition. But we are here focusing on the subset of social practices or paradigms within the rising cultural elite that was forging a new and revolutionary form of governance that would tetra-mesh with new techno-economic base.)
. . .
---end---
Clearly bahai contains many backward elements. Some critics have stated that bahai is "being pulled back down into the cultural gravity well of shiism". (paradigm regression)
Good luck.
Thanks for the interesting feedback.
I'm not sure how you would see an "unchained" uhj developing from the current, paradigm regressive, dysfunctional bahai "system"/culture.
There would have to be something like the "truth and reconciliation" process (used in S. Africa and elsewhere) where the people that run/support the current exploitative system admit their errors, commit to a process of deep improvement, leave "bad" ideas and behavior behind, embrace radical accountability/transparency, and so forth.
Then, you would see the "miracle of rising from the dead".
Here is an example that probably is very close to what most "open-minded/progressive/western bahais" outside the "leadership aristocracy" would enthusiastically embrace:
(apologies in advance for the length of the material.)
===================================
http://www.beyttikkun.org/fmd/files/FoundingPer...
imagine replacing "Jewish" with "Baha'i" in the following excerpts:
BEYT TIKKUN
The House of Love and Healing
A Jewish Renewal Synagogue
“Join us as we seek to connect to the ultimate spiritual
reality of the universe with joy, awe, wonder and
radical amazement.”
A Jewish Renewal and Politics of Meaning Oriented Synagogue
for the San Francisco Bay Area
Under the leadership of
Rabbi Michael Lerner
Jewish Spirituality and the Joyous Commitment
To Heal and Transform the World
Many Jews have felt distanced from Judaism because
their experience growing up in the Jewish world was alienating.
Instead of encountering a vibrant spirituality, they encountered
a community that felt spiritually lifeless. Very few
people today recall moments in their childhood when their
parents seemed to be excited about going to synagogue because
they were about to have a spiritual experience that
would broaden their understanding or deepen their connection
to God.
All too often young people found a Jewish community
that reflected the materialism and selfishness of the larger
American society. Instead of Judaism being a spiritual and
political alternative to the ethos of “me-firstism” and “looking
out for no. 1,” it seemed to be a communal manifestation of
market-driven values. Despite Judaism’s powerful injunctions
concerning “tikkun olam” (the Jewish obligation to be
involved in healing and transforming the world), it often
seemed as if Jews were only concerned about their own survival.
While no one can blame Jews for worrying about survival
after the experience of two thousand years of oppression
culminating in the Holocaust, the community that emerged
from this trauma often seemed so bent out of shape, so paranoid
about those who raised questions or doubts, so intolerant
of those who challenged Israeli policies, and so joyless, that
they were unable to open to themselves or their children the
riches of the Jewish heritage and thus were unable to hold the
loyalty of many of their young people.
Welcome to Beyt Tikkun!
~1~
No wonder, then, that many younger Jews have
sought spiritual nourishment in various Eastern or New Age
philosophies, or have sought an ethical community through
their involvement in purely secular political movements.
Others have given up on community altogether and sought
solace in the development of an inner life or psychological
wholeness. From these experiences, many Jews have
learned valuable lessons that can enrich the Jewish community
and deepen Jewish spirituality.
We at Beyt Tikkun are part of a global effort to create a
Jewish Renewal movement that reclaims Judaism from
conformism, materialism and spiritual deadness. Among its
central injunctions are:
Be Real. We are building a Jewish life in which people
can be involved in a real way that feels right to them, not just
to please parents or relatives. We do not believe that one
should participate in rituals and prayers that feel meaningless
or oppressive.
Don’t split spirituality from social change. A central
message of our Torah is that the God of creation is the God
of liberation: there should be no separation between our
spiritual life and our ethical life. No matter how deep our
inner experience, we are not living a “spiritually realized
life” when we ignore the pain and suffering of others. Our
Torah and our Prophets insisted that spiritual life could not
be separated from political struggle to heal and transform
the world. So Jewish spiritual life must also explicitly address
how we as individuals and as a community can participate
most effectively in the struggles for social justice,
peace, ecological sanity and a world based on love and openheartedness.
But I’m Not Sure I Can Believe in God
As children, many of us learned conceptions of God
that are unacceptable to us as adults. We heard of a patriarchal
and authoritarian God who sat up in heaven and inter-
~2~
vened in human affairs at will, sometimes responding to our
prayers if we were good or said them right, sometimes
ignoring us when we needed Him. This God was most
mysteriously absent during the Holocaust.
You may have to let go of this picture of God in order to
actually encounter the God of the universe. We are more
inclined to another conception—God as the Power of healing
and transformation, the Force in the universe that makes it
possible to break the repetition compulsion to pass on to the
next generation the pain that was done to us. In Rabbi
Michael Lerner’s book, Jewish Renewal, you will find a way
of thinking about God that does not require you to abandon
your intellect or subordinate yourself to an arbitrary and
vengeful father figure.
Our Jewish Renewal synagogue is a place where each
of us is encouraged to explore the spiritual realm, and to
work out our own understanding
and our own relationship
with God. In the final analysis,
one might decide that the very
word “God” (an English, not a
Hebrew concept) is too loaded
and misses the complexity of
spiritual life. Rabbi Lerner urges
us to not waste our time trying
to convince ourselves to believe
in authoritarian or patriarchal
concepts of God that we’ve
never been able to accept.
As he puts it: The God you don’t
believe in doesn’t exist
so please don’t spend your time fighting against the God
that you don’t believe in, but instead use your time with us
to connect to whatever spiritual reality in the universe you
can access.
Rabbi Lerner’s teacher, Abraham Joshua Heschel, used to
talk about God as “ineffable” precisely to capture this reality:
Let us stop fighting
against the God that we
don’t believe in. We
stipulate that the God you
don’t believe in doesn’t
exist in order to make
room for you to encounter
the God or spiritual
reality of the universe that
you might believe in.
~3~
that our language is deeply limited and almost every attempt
to speak about spiritual reality can become a caricature,
turning what is a living reality into a lifeless and distorted
idolatry.
We welcome you to develop your own spiritual life in
the context of BEYT TIKKUN. Prayer services combine
spiritual reflection, meditation, singing and study. You need
not do what everyone else is doing. Use the time and space
to deepen your own relationship with the ineffable—and
then, as it feels comfortable, join us as we seek to connect to
the ultimate spiritual reality of the universe with joy, music,
awe, wonder and radical amazement.
Is This Authentic Judaism?
This question was first raised against the rabbis who
wrote the Talmud. They were challenged by those who
wanted to stick to a more literalistic interpretation of Torah.
The truth is that Judaism has
gone through powerful transformations
throughout history and
it is precisely those transformations
that have enabled it to
survive. Renewing Judaism is an
authentic process precisely because
it refuses to allow each
generation to lose touch with
God’s healing and transformation
energies. Jewish Renewal is a process by which we reconnect
to God by transforming rituals and practices that lack
meaning and depth in a post-modern context.
Our Jewish Renewal synagogue is also deeply committed
to preserving tradition. Our first instinct is to reclaim,
not discard. There is a great spiritual, ethical, philosophical,
psychological and political wisdom build into our
Jewish tradition. As a community, BEYT TIKKUN is committed
to studying this tradition and exploring its insights.
Our first instinct is to
reclaim, not discard.
There is great spiritual,
ethical, philosophical,
psychological and
political wisdom built
into Jewish tradition.
~4~
Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan, the founder of the Jewish
Reconstructionist Movement, used to say our tradition has a
vote but not a veto. A hundred generations have gone
before us, each making its contribution to tradition. Under
the guise of interpretation, each changed the Torah it received.
We will continue this tradition, combining reverence
and study with our commitment to authenticity and spiritual
aliveness.
Open and Welcoming to All
BEYT TIKKUN welcomes you. Our aim is to build a
community of people who are forging an authentic Jewish
Renewal life. You are welcome to join us at whatever level
of commitment or interest you have. It’s fine to put “one toe
in” and gradually find a level of involvement that feels right
to you.
Don’t be embarrassed if you don’t know the prayers
or melodies when you first become involved with us. Many
congregants gradually learned them, and you will gradually
learn them as well. Don’t be embarrassed if you don’t know
Hebrew. We encourage you to ask about words or terms that
you don’t understand. If you don’t know much about Judaism,
it’s most likely not your fault, but the responsibility of
the Jewish community which was unable to turn you on as a
child and create in you the desire to learn it. Or, maybe your
parents were not Jewish or had distanced themselves from
Judaism and never exposed you to the best of it.
We welcome and honor gays and lesbians into our
community. We are committed to fighting against homophobia
in the Jewish community and in American life. We
welcome and honor single parent families and seek to provide
them with support. And, we also welcome and honor
heterosexual couples and traditional style families.
Because most American Jews derive from European/
Ashkenazic backgrounds, other Jews have sometimes felt
excluded from traditional Jewish communities. We welcome
~5~
Sephardic Jews into our community, knowing that we have
much to learn from them. We hope they will feel honored in
our synagogue.
We also welcome Black Jews (who have often been
ignored in Jewish life) and Jews from South and Central
America, and hope that they will bring their rich cultural
traditions into the life of our synagogue. Recent immigrants
from Russia and Eastern Europe, and Israelis are also invited
to participate in our synagogue.
We welcome Jews from all class backgrounds. Jewish
life is often dominated by those with money, while others
have been made to feel marginalized. We cannot avoid the
reality that our community needs money to pay for staff,
facilities, publicity, etc. While we certainly want to honor
people who generously donate their money to help sustain
the community, we will not give unequal attention to gifts of
money over gifts of time and energy.
We welcome converts and take an active role in encouraging
conversion to Judaism. Conversion was discouraged
in the Jewish world only after Christian societies
made it a capital crime for Jews to convert Christians to
Judaism. In many countries of Europe, the entire Jewish
population could be expelled from a city if even one Christian
was converted to Judaism. No wonder
Jews became deeply resistant to
conversion. From our standpoint,
converts play a central role in bringing
new energy and new wisdom into
Jewish life. We encourage non-
Jews to learn about Judaism so
that they may consider conversion.
We also welcome interfaith
couples. We believe that every step
taken to affirm Judaism is positive
and should be supported.
~6~
Singles
Our congregation
welcomes singles and believes
that our members have a
special obligation to take care of
them. Too many people believe
in American society’s ideal of
meritocracy which presumes
that “you can make it if you
really try” and the corollary
that “if things aren’t working
out, you have nobody to blame but
yourself”. In the economic sphere, this way of
thinking leads some people to feel perfectly justified
in taking advantage of the poor and leads some to blame
themselves for not being more successful. Inevitably, this
way of thinking seeps into our personal lives so that many
people come to believe that if they are single and don’t want
to be, it must be some personal failing on their part. Because
this self-blame is so widespread, others feel that they might
embarrass a single person if they were to arrange an introduction
to someone who may be appropriate.
Throughout Jewish history, the community took
primary responsibility for making shidduchim (connecting
people to each other). It is only in a market society where
each person is forced to fend for her or himself that this
practice disappears. While we do not want to return to the
days when arranged marriages coerced people into relationships
that were stultifying (particularly to women), we do
want to create a community in which “making matches” is
encouraged. For this reason, at each of our events we dedicate
some time to introducing people to each other and we
encourage each member of our community to take responsibility
to help singles who are interested to meet one another.
~7~
Couples often find it easier to socialize with other
couples, but we encourage couples to invite singles to their
homes for Shabbat and holiday meals.
Some people are single because they want to be and we
respect this option as well. We are creating a community in
which singles feel safe and supported so that they do not feel
pressured to be in relationships that may not be right for
them. At the same time, as a community we support longterm
loving relationships. We do not accept the model,
rampant in American society, that sees the autonomous individual
capable of standing alone, as the fundamental building
block for a healthy world. Rather, we believe the healthy
individual is one who can acknowledge the human need we
have for loving relationships, and can allow herself or himself
to experience the vulnerability that a loving commitment to
another entails.
BEYT TIKKUN is a Hallachic Community
. . .
~8~
The Politics of Meaning
. . .
We are building a community of
people who challenge the ethos
of selfishness and materialism
in American society. We work
to maximize love and caring, as
well as ethical, spiritual, and
ecological sensitivity.
~9~
We reject the notion that the only “real oppression” is
economic oppression. In this society most people suffer
from a spiritual deprivation of meaning enforced by a competitive
marketplace which rewards selfishness and materialism
and encourages a deep and widespread cynicism. The
deprivation of meaning is just as real as the deprivation of
economic or political rights—and the resulting oppression of
middle-income people is central to our concerns. In our
community, we reject the “comparative victimology” which
insists that one group is “more oppressed” than another and
focus instead on our common humanity and on healing our
common and socially-rooted pain.
There is a coercive “political correctness” that is
popular in the Bay Area and that leads people to feel that
their political work must be involved in the championing of
“the most oppressed.” Our view is that it is equally important
to develop a deeper understanding of the ways in which
our own lives have been mis-shaped and undermined by the
dominant ethos of selfishness and materialism and by the
systematic denial of our spiritual needs. When people fully
understand this, they will understand why they personally
need to live in a society that treats every human being as
created in the image of God. That understanding leads us to
a deeper commitment to the healing of our planet and to
challenging the globalization of selfishness that manifests in
unfair global economic arrangements, destruction of our
environment and an unwillingness to share what we have
with others.
. . .
Israel
. . .
~10~
Yet, we believe both as a matter of ethics and a matter of
rational self-interest and survival that Jewish national sovereignty
cannot be secure if it is won at another people’s expense.
So, we support the creation of a demilitarized Palestinian
state. As a community, we are engaged in public actions to
support the forces of peace in Israel.
It is our obligation as Jews to speak out against Israeli
policies that violate our best understanding of Judaism’s
commitment to seeing every human being as created in the
image of God and as equally valuable and deserving of respect.
Jewish pain and Jewish suffering is no warrant for the
oppression of others.
We are outraged at acts of terrorism against Israelis and we
condemn all such acts. Whenever an Israeli is hurt by acts of
violence, our community feels pain. We also
feel pain at the daily humiliations and denial
of freedom imposed on the Palestinian people.
We are outraged at the killing and maiming of
Palestinians, whether by the Israeli military
forces occupying the West Bank or by Jewish
settlers who are unwilling to grant to Palestinians
the same rights to national self-determination
that we Jews rightfully claim for ourselves.
We are critical of the widespread
violation of human rights that has accompanied
the occupation and supportive of Israelis
who refuse to participate in those activities. We believe it is
the responsibility of American Jews to speak out on these
issues with the same vigor that we spoke out against violations
of human rights in the countries where we do not live
(e.g., Tibet, Chechnya, China, Colombia, Bosnia, Rwanda,
Iran, Iraq, Syria, etc.).
We steadfastly oppose the use of state power to coerce
religious behavior or to privilege orthodox variants of Juda-
~11~
ism over other kinds of Jewish life. We are critical of governmental
moves that restrict the rights of Reform, Conservative,
Renewal, or Reconstructionist Judaism within Israel or
that invalidate the legitimacy of conversions performed by
rabbis from these strands of Judaism.
We hope to build people-to-people ties with many
Israelis, to encourage our own members to learn Hebrew
and to visit Israel frequently, and to encourage Israelis to
visit us.
The Spiritual Practice of This Community
Our goal is to have every member of the BEYT
TIKKUN community involved in some arena of personal
and communal spiritual practice. Here is what we have in
mind:
Shabbat (the Sabbath) is not simply about going to
synagogue. It is a 25-hour spiritual, meditative, psychological
and intellectual process which involves a withdrawal
from the normal consciousness
of domination and
control over time and space.
On Shabbat we enter into a
consciousness that is focused
on awe, wonder, amazement,
celebration, pleasure
(through food, sex and intellectual
exchange), aloneness and community. We are building
a community of Bay Area people who support each other
in experiencing Shabbat.
The Personal Practice of Our Community
We foster as many spontaneous acts of love and
caring as possible—coupled with a compassion for each of
us and a recognition that most of us will fail to fully embody
this ideal most of the time.
~12~
We believe that the world cannot be healed solely
through individual healing. Social transformation is essential.
Nevertheless, we want to foster
a community in which we each do
what we can to embody our
highest ideals.
Here are some things
which we seek to develop in
ourselves:
GMILUT CHESED—acts of
lovingkindness.
TZEDAKAH—a life of
selfless giving, letting go of
attachment to possessions
and power, and giving not
for the sake of recognition but because “giving to give, not to
get” is the best way to live.
KINDNESS TO ANIMALS—one of the reasons our community
has chosen to have only vegetarian events.
CARE OF PEOPLE IN NEED—not just Jews, but everyone.
SHALOM BAYIT—to make peace in our relationships and
in the world.
INTERNAL AWARENESS—of one’s own processes, of
others’ needs, and of one’s own place in the universe, developed
through meditation and self-reflection.
~13~
RECOGNIZING GOD IN EVERY HUMAN BEING—and
acting on that knowledge.
JOYFULNESS—a life in which we can playfully and happily
affirm ourselves, each other, and the universe.
OPENNESS TO PLEASURE—allowing ourselves to experience
the joy of physical, spiritual, ethical and intellectual
pleasure.
Daily Spiritual Work
We hope our members will take some time each day
to center themselves and check in with the universe, with
God, with their own deepest selves, and with the Jewish
tradition. At some future point we may have a daily prayer
service. In the meantime, we hope our members will shape
a time each day in which they can reconnect.
Fighting Lashon Ha’Ra—Hurtful Speech about
Others
One of the most destructive features of contemporary
life is the way people put each other down. The old ditty
“words can never hurt me” was decisively rejected by our
rabbis, who thousands of years ago forbade Jews to engage
in hurtful speech towards others. Even true statements can
be needlessly hurtful. Jewish religious law not only forbids
us from participating in such speech, but from listening to it.
Indeed, listening to such speech can be just as destructive to
our souls as actually initiating it. One of the goals of BEYT
TIKKUN is to build mutual support for each other, and to
resist the tendency of people to spread negative thoughts or
feelings about others or about themselves.
Of course, lashon ha’ra does not preclude us from
engaging in constructive criticism. This is best done face-to-
~14~
face with the person we are critiquing, and in circumstances
in which the person has been asked if s/he feels safe and
ready to hear critical feedback.
The prohibition against lashon ha’ra does not prohibit
us from critiquing public officials or leaders of political
movements for mistakes in their political activity. It does,
however, suggest that even for these public officials our
primary focus should not be on the details of their personal
lives, but only on their political actions.
If we can create a community which struggles against
lashon ha’ra, we will be making a real and very concrete
contribution to the healing of our planet.
Making our Spiritual Practice Real
In the first year of BEYT TIKKUN, our central focus was on
the creation of a regular Shabbat service. Now, the goal is to
deepen our Shabbat observance and encourage each individual
to engage in personal spiritual practice. We encourage
each member to be engaged in these practices:
Prayer and Meditation
Our goal is to help our members integrate some form of
prayer or meditation into their daily lives. We provide
instruction and resources so members can learn more about
Jewish prayer, meditation and Shabbat observance. Here are
some options:
Pray or meditate for 15 minutes every day. It’s a perfect way
to begin the day that can give a renewed sense of purpose
and mission to life.
. . .
~15~
Community Participation
. . .
Education
. . .
~16~
Children’s School
. . .
Our main goal is to teach the following values:
Awe and wonder at the grandeur of creation
Gratitude
Generosity and Hopefulness
Love and Caring
Commitment to the Jewish people and to Humanity
. . .
Developing an Inner Spiritual Life
. . .
Learning the prayers, rituals, and mitzvot of Jewish life
Learning Torah and the Torah traditions
Tikkun Olam
Joyfulness
. . .
~17~
Bar/Bat Mitzvah Program
. . .
Adult Education
. . .
~18~
Torah Study:
. . .
Community
. . .
Beyt Tikkun Structure
. . .
~19~
A Synagogue With a Vision and a Leader
There are several approaches to building a synagogue.
In many traditional synagogues the central building
block is a board composed of wealthy people who hire a
rabbi and cantor and raise money for the venture. Unfortunately,
many times this ends up giving excessive power to
the wealthy and the message gets communicated that what
really counts is having money. In opposition to this, some
Jewish Renewal communities have formed around an antileadership
or ultra-democratic culture that insists on equal
power for each person in the group in shaping the community.
Some of these ventures have been wonderful successes.
But a problem sometimes emerges: people who have
little knowledge, spiritual experience, or psychological
sophistication sometimes use the democratic process to work
out unresolved personal issues. Or, they displace quite
legitimate anger at the wealthy and powerful elites in the
larger society, onto people in their own groups with marginally
more power than themselves. In these contexts, talented
leaders find themselves the targets of unwarranted suspicion
and hostility and often withdraw from the community.
. . .
~20~
We are not creating a community of equals with
regard to religious matters. We each enter our community at
different levels of knowledge, psychological awareness, and
religious education. We are not all equally prepared to
participate in shaping the community’s spiritual life. Living
in a progressive culture that privileges democratic forms,
many people have the expectation that they should get a
chance to vote on everything and feel resentful or coerced
when they are not included in decision-making. For this
reason, we want to make clear that this is not the practice or
expectation of this community.
~21~
Is It Contradictory to Have to Pay for This
Kind of Spiritual Life? Shouldn’t It Be Free?
. . .
Barb
Barb
thanks for sharing this FUBAR
Daniel Orey
http://revolked2.blogspot.com/
Barb & DCO,
Glad you liked it.
On a related theme, raised elsewhere in this thread (?), in the following article, a Christian-Buddhist dialogue, there is a discussion of the connection between the original word root for "obey" ("to listen deeply"), and the practice of becoming liberated from ego.
The article doesn't make it explicit, but I think what both the Christian mystic and Buddhist are saying is that the experience of egolessness in both traditions is basically the same thing. Thus, the "radical" aspect of this is that in Buddhism there does not have to be a "manifestation", or "prophet" that intermediates between "man" and "God" - the Buddhist meditator can potentially reach the same level of egolessness as Christ did.
http://www.shambhala.com/html/catalog/items/isb...
In any case, while reading the article, what I thought about was the Beatles song "Let it Be":
How could anyone's sexual preferences/orientation have anything to do with attaining awareness of formlessness (the highest goal of "spiritual" people)?
How could anyone's sexual preferences/orientation have anything to do with being in a state of "egolessness" and awareness of ultimate "emptiness"?
Any Baha'i meditator can immerse themself in the devotional atmosphere, and practice of detachment, that leads to such "formlessness".
iirc, Dr. Juan Cole wrote an article about one of bahaullah's (officially untranslated) "mystical" tablets that has themes that are parallel with buddhist/yogic ideas about the topic of "the ultimate = the void".
Apparently the greatest devotional act is NOT devotion to the image of a prophet, or rules, or bureaucracy, or scripture, but devotion to nothingness/formlessness/egolessness.
Every human being can be liberated into nothingness by giving up ego.
"Let it be".
Devoutly love emptiness. Because it liberates.
And "let people be". Don't force them into false constructs or categories such as "good people = straight", and "bad people = gay".
Emptiness is neither gay or straight, and neither is "God".
---
"There is, monks, an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned. If, monks, there were no unborn… no escape would be discerned from what is born, become, made, conditioned. But because there is an unborn..., therefore an escape is discerned from what is born, become, made, conditioned.”
~ The Buddha
Ud 8:3
Translator: Bhikkhu Bodhi
Udana 8:3
In the Buddha’s Words, Bhikkhu Bodhi (ed), Wisdom 2005, p. 366.
Thank you for this very timely post for me today. I really needed to bring this to mind due to a recent death. Do not morn those who have returned to the formless because they have been liberated back to the unborn, unbecome, unmade, and unconditioned. In the formless is reunion with the All. This is the true spirituality. The true mindful remembrance. Because we forget this we suffer in life. At any moment we dwell in the formless. Our form here is only temporary. We are as vast as the limitless uncreated in the Universe. This is my grief in the Baha'i Faith that these men made it so small. Something that could have embraced all became nothing more than the black in the eye of a dead ant so without Spirit. What these men did is truly one of the great tragedies of world history and will bring the rebuke of severe Divine Judgment upon their heads because undiminished Spirit is what all are seeking now across the world. They put a roadblock in the path of individual reunion with the formless. Atman is Brahman. When I remember that there is no sorrow. there is no loss. There is only liberation from all false constructs and the delusions of men and their systems of false consciousness. The drum of individual spirit needs to beat of it's own. It cannot be managed or controlled by others and never should be. Individual spirit is sacred to each human soul. Reunion with the formless is what all form seeks and will receive in the end. We must dwell in it now in our individual liberation.
Thank you for reminding me of that sacred state. My religion has no name once again after decades in the Baha'i Faith. My religion has no name. In that the form can become the formless and the Universe is again vast and limitless.
and suggest that you make it as a blog.
I can help with the practicalities of this if you need it. Certainly with design (one of my jobs).
I'd suggest you make it a blog with comments turns off, so it functions like a website, but one you can keep adding new stores to - and can keep refining it. I suggest you turn comments off, so that the focus remains on the stories and keep the whole atmosphere as one of celebration (outing). By celebration, I don't mean that sad stories are ignored, of course not, but I what I suggest is that it is a place for gay presence in the Bahai community (and that's a celebration :))
Perhaps refer people to on Bahairants to a blog made at the time of the first story, that announces and relates specifically to this topic. I'm happy to write such a blog if B doesn't beat me to it. That way the discussion can still go on, and you don't get flooded in comments which might be hard to keep up with - when it is finding and presenting the stories that is important. I can suggest some individuals with stories. You need to give me your email address (mine is on my design page).
It depends on your resourses and goals as to whether you would make it a website, and / or if you use something like wordpress or blogspot.
Personally I use a website on my own space for anything I consider important because I have full control over this, however using something like wordpress is much cheaper and most likely easier when it comes to management of the location. You can also have full control such as B would have, where s/he uses a wordpress template but hosts it on her/his own space.
lovely initiative, go for it!
Barb
O SON OF SPIRIT!
The best beloved of all things in My sight is Justice; turn not away therefrom if thou desirest Me, and neglect it not that I may confide in thee. By its aid thou shalt see with thine own eyes and not through the eyes of others, and shalt know of thine own knowledge and not through the knowledge of thy neighbor. Ponder this in thy heart; how it behooveth thee to be. Verily justice is My gift to thee and the sign of My loving-kindness. Set it then before thine eyes.
4. O FILHO DA JUSTIÇA
Para onde pode ir o apaixonado senão à terra de seu bem-amado? E qual apaixonado poderá ficar tranqüilo longe do desejo de seu coração? Para quem ama verdadeiramente, a união é a vida e a separação é a morte. O seu peito está vazio de paciência e o seu coração está privado de paz. Incontáveis vidas ele renunciará a fim de se apressar para onde se encontra o seu bem-amado.
4. O SON OF JUSTICE!
Whither can a lover go but to the land of his beloved? And what seeker findeth rest away from his heart's desire? To the true lover reunion is life, and separation is death. His breast is void of patience and his heart hath no peace. A myriad lives he would forsake to hasten to the abode of his beloved.
Daniel Orey
Barb
So, I wait to see what response there is - are people willing to tell their stories (of course anonymity is possible, always)? Is anyone else willing to spearhead such a project? Or to commit to contributing skills and assistance or advice in some other way? Reading and assessment (huge task) and copy-editing and verification of details and story - I see only the very tip of the iceberg of such a project. But I am willing to begin - in fact I would relish it. And if someone else is willing to take on such a task, I relish helping as much as possible with it. I am retired, I have resources (limited), I have time, I have enthusiasm, and as I said, a modicum of experience with manuscript assessment and preparation. I am certain there must be other people better qualified than I am, however - let's hear from them.
I have signed your petition, by the way, and was so amazed and gratified to run across it.
Barb
Daniel Orey
http://revolked2.blogspot.com/
"I had moved back to Tucson with my kids because I just thought it was quieter, and my family was there. But Tucson has turned out to be a very conservative place, and I didn’t want my kids coming home from school saying things like ‘That’s so gay.’ So we moved back to San Francisco, and I sent my kids to a school that actively taught that homophobic remarks are just… not OK, and my kids’ attitudes have changed as a result of it.
"Look, my kids are going to be able to form their own ideas, but at least I wanted them to be able to question things. My son is super pro-gay rights, and even though he has a girlfriend, I wanted him to know that as he emerged sexually, he’d be able to do whatever he wanted to do. You know, that it’s not something you have a choice over." - Pop and country music legend Linda Ronstadt, talking to Planet Out. It's a great interview.
I posted it at: http://revolked2.blogspot.com/
This is my understanding.
Peyamb, from what we learn from Sonja, there is a move towards this in some communities. The LSA has much to say in such matters and can decide which activities are open to non enrolled people who have never been considered as second zone citizens, except perhaps by some bigots, but as the "community of interest".
Farhan: back to my PhD analogy, if someone finds it difficult to follow a PhD course because the requirements are inadapted to his choices, why not try something else? You ask a community to change it’s rules to suit you, when other communities offer precisely the rules you are requesting. Some 6 M people elect delegates who elect NSA members who elect 9 members so as to arbitrate on such matters. We cannot stigmatize such a community for its views and values as I see done here.
If I were not a Baha’i, as a doctor to a Baha’i patient, as any doctor unaware of the Baha’i Faith would do, I would say if this community does not suit you, find one that does and be happy. I would be scientifically interested to see the outcome of these social experiments.
As a Baha’i I am saying we need to improve our attitude towards gay people, but I believe that that the family structure prescribed by Baha’u’llah is in the best interests of humanity. I cannot, either as a Baha’i, or as a doctor, attempt to oblige a community to change it’s regulations on family structure to suit a minority.
This is my understanding today; it would evolve: no spin, no obfuscation, no lies.
Again, your views are absolutist. They lead to corruption, ignorance and backwardness. They only appeal to those that are at a low level of development, and thus need the "comfort" of narrow-minded absolutist values.
You logic is twisted, and is unsatisfactory to people that want real solutions to social justice problems.
The bahai election system, as has been explained in detail on this blog previously, is manipulated by the bahai leadership elites to maintain the status quo, and structurally flawed.
The real problem of the world is that postmodern culture has "deconstructed" societies, and people are sitting in a pile of (memetic) rubble trying to figure out what it all means.
Backward religions like bahai were incapable of resisting being deconstructed, and thus, have no basis for authenticity - from the perspective of those that are trying to find "answers" to the existential problems of postmodern culture.
bahai = cultural imperialism.
bahai = absolutism.
Until bahai theologians discover a basis for the existential problems faced by human beings at the leading edge of cultural evolution, and have it accepted by the leadership elites, bahai will remain a tradition-bound, oppressive project.
In the last 25 years, the theological innovators in the bahai community have been viciously attacked and marginalized.
your pathetic utopian apologetics, which ignore people's real problems, are inadequate.
I would revise my statement to say that "some" Baha'is are deeply homophobic - my experience is not broad enough to say accurately that "many" Baha'is are deeply - and note I say deeply - homophobic. As for the nine men on the hill, I have no way of knowing what their deepest feelings are - I believe that they are supporting, as a body, what they feel it is their duty to support - beyond that I cannot say.
As for what is possible to achieve and what is not, I believe it is always good practice for our vision to exceed our reach - this is how we move forward. If you're going to reach, reach for the stars.
My experience has been the most Baha'is are homophobic, and most of them being the smiling quiet and unable or unwilling to speak out type. As in, "are you married?
"yes, I am, he is math teacher like myself"
"Really? Oh how nice!"
then next thing I know... wham...
I see that my reply to you did not post here - I guess because I replied from my e-mail - I wasn't thinking.
My reply was meant to post for all to see, so feel free to share it if you like. I am minimally adept with technology - I sort of struggle along and do the best I can.
Barb
So what is really in the Bahai Writings? And if not, where do these homophobic ideas come from? And is it possible for the Bahai community to ever treat individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation, with equality?
So to the Bahai Writings as much as I know relying on English translations only here.
I'm focussing on the Bahai writings because to start with this is what the Bahai Faith is based on and secondly these writings are not subject to change. So anything authentic (meaning tablets or writings with a signature or seal on the original or written by a known copyist of Baha'u'llah or 'Abdul-Baha. And this is a complicated issue because in some cases there are several copies of some tablets that are considered authentic Bahai scripture.
And then add to this that what we have in English are translations and translations can never be exact for all cases of writing.
Bahais accept the Bahai Writings as being only that authored by The Bab, Baha'u'llah and 'Adbul-Baha. And Shoghi Effendi's own writing only defines the Bahai teachings where it interpretes the Bahai Scriptures. Shoghi Effendi had excellent English so we can look at his own texts ourselves.
So let's start with the Kitab-i-Aqdas as we have it in English because it is the only place in a text of Bahai Scripture where there is something concerning homosexuality mentioned.
In the preface to this book it is written by the Universal House of Justice or the Research department (no author is given in the 1992 edition for the preface) that:
The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. vii
Nothing indicates which parts where penned by Shoghi Effendi in his role as interpretator of the Baha'u'llah's Writings and what was not written by him, so we have to take all text apart from what is in the Aqdas as either something the UHJ is interpreting, which we know they cannot do or as commentary open for debate, even should the UHJ then decide that some point in the commentary is now to be law they have legistrated on.
I make this point, because even should the UHJ make a law to legistrate that, for example, same sex marriage is forbidden by Bahais, we as Bahais would still be free to discuss and debate this. The laws that the UHJ makes one year, it can also change next year. Obedience to laws doesn't mean silence. And of course, if Bahais may not discuss or debate laws the UHJ have made, well, that leaves very little wriggle room for the Bahai principle of independent investigation, let alone the possibility for Bahai communities to address or relate or to understand these laws.
So now to the text of the Aqdas as it is in the 1992 edition in English:
Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 58
And now to what is now in the notes to the Aqdas.
The Research department or the UHJ have written in the notes section:
ibid, p. 223
So let's assume this is the voice of the UHJ of the early 1990s because this publication is considered an official document by the Bahai Administration. That the UHJ state "Shoghi Effendi has interpreted" and then refer a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, indicates that they are treating letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi as if Shoghi Effendi himself wrote them. The letter they quote above does not have a reference to anything in Bahai Scripture and the letter does not state that it is an interpretation. This is very important if we are serious about what really is part of unchangeable Bahai Scripture and what isn't.
Unfortunately Shoghi Effendi never penned anything himself in regards to the status of these letters written on his behalf, except I assume, when he must have been annoyed enough to ask a secretary to write the following:
Shoghi Effendi, The Unfolding Destiny of the British Baha'i Community, p. 260
What this doesn't tell us, is whether the 'authority' of the letters by secretaries is an extension of the Guardian's executive authority as head of the Faith -- meaning, "it must be obeyed by the addresse" or of the Guardian's authority as authorised interpreter of the writings, meaning "they become part of the sacred text." What we can say is there is nothing explicit to indicate that a letter by a secretary can share in the Guardian's unique role as authorised interpreter.
There is also nothing explicit to say that the Guardian's secretaries do **not** share the authority of interpretation. However the phrase "their authority less" seems to suggest this, because an exective authority can be greater or less, direct or indirect, can apply to a local or individual situation or to all Bahai communities, but when the Guardian interprets scripture that interpretation becomes part of the scripture concerned.
Sen has an essay on this on his blog. Scroll down the list to "COMMENTARY on Seena Fazel and Khazeh Fananapazir´s "Some interpretive principles in the Bahá´í Writings."
If something is considered part of the Bahai Writings, it cannot be changed. That is, sex with children can never be OK in Bahai law, because this is part of what Baha'u'llah's text in the Aqdas. All the texts in the notes have been penned by others and unless the texts in the notes refer to quotations from the Bahai Scripture themselves, they are all open to change by the UHJ.
I would also imagine that if the UHJ were to make a law, that it would clearly state that it was making a law. So in my view, it is unclear to me what the actual status is of the texts in the notes section. I make this point because in 1992 when the Aqdas was first printed in English a list of corrections was distributed about 6 months later. In regards to the Aqdas, the corrections were minor things like typos, but in the notes, sometimes a whole paragraph was deleted, such as in note 108. I can only assume that this paragraph no longer reflects the position or thinking of the UHJ whereas at an earlier time it did.
The UHJ is free to change the texts of the notes as it wishes. Perhaps this could be seen as them making laws? I don't know.
Rather than debating whether or not the UHJ make law when they make statements in official Bahai documents, I prefer to focus on the principle of Bahai Law as I understand it, in general behind this. That is, anything UHJ decides or states is subject to change by a later UHJ.
If any statement on the wrongs of homosexuality is by UHJ, then it is subject to change.
There is a point I see often overlooked in comments. Beyond the personal and spiritual aspects of Baha’i teachings, there is also an implication regarding community life to which they are of course linked. For example, Baha’u’llah condemns very strongly back-biting and also states that he who uses opium or follows his mundane desires is not of Him, even though he bears His name. These comments refer a spiritual condemnation and consequences of such acts. They do not mean that someone who back bites or an opium user are automatically disenroled from the community, unless the behaviour is a threat to community cohesion.
Furthermore, an action might also have consequences in respect to the criminal laws of a country where we live. A child molester might argue that his orientation and hence his behaviour were naturally acquired at birth, but beyond the spiritual consequences in the hands of God, he will be facing community and also criminal charges.
I am not lumping homosexuality with any of these, but explaining that some writings refer to the spiritual requirements, which to me are essential, and others to the community requirements which interact with the first.
IMO, as a doctor and and individual, I would wish the least possible tension, and the more people have fun, the better.
As a citizen I would say that the crux of the matter for all religions has been to canalise the sexual drive into marriage; as no provisions have been made for gay marriages, and procreation and upbringing of off springs have been an essential (although non exclusive) aim, gay relations on exactly the same basis as adultery are detrimental to the social structure.
As a doctor i would say that gays being part of a minority group, they deserve some kind of a protection, just as left-handed people.
As an individual i would say park your car wherever you want but don't get caught. if I were a mayor, i would say for safety reasons and the common good, parking has to be restricted and offenders sanctioned.
Farhan: not so sure; it can alos make people much more handy by being ambidextrous. Also, if you have an accident and are obliged to use the other hand, after a while it is difficult to switch back to the original, so lefthandedness can be acquired. Try googling lefthandedness: some stricking similarity with homosexuality; for ex:
http://www.narth.com/docs/lefthand.html
I am guessing that you bring up lefthandedness because I've done this in the past. Your suggestion that the oppression and suffering I had as a child who was forced to write with her right-hand is somehow 'justified' is as offensive to me as are the comparisions you have made of homosexuality with illness.
Obviously you do not have a clue. Yes, I am furious! How dare you assume that it is OK to beat a 5 year old because she is born left-handed. Shame on you. And if you didn't realise that kids were beaten for writing with their left-hand, now you know. Even as an adult I still have visions of the strap or the ruler that used to come slamming down onto my left-hand. That as a 5 year old, I had to pretend I was using my right-hand while it covered over my left hand doing the writing, when the teacher was on the other side of the room.
Just think, a 5 year old learning to write has to watch out for the punishment - either of using her lefthand or because she couldn't make her right hand co-ordinate like the other kids in the room. - imagine it. A kid having to learn to be subversive - while other kids could just learn to write.
That I was the only kid in the class at 8 years of age who couldn't write, when the nuns decided that it was better to have a kid who wrote with her left-hand after all than one who couldn't write at all. Funnily enough they let me draw with my left-hand and perhaps that's why I draw much better than I write :)
The idea that an adult uses their other hand for a while is quite a different issue. The disorders come from oppression, supression, the belief that you are wrong (as a young child or as an adult) and the treatment of others (being beaten up by the other kids because of my oddness is no joke).
-If- you are suggesting in your comparision with lefthandedness and homosexuality that there's no reason in the world why people born with diversity should be discriminated against, ok, yes. Please stop making comparisions of homosexuality with illness in that case. Think about it, being lefthanded is not an illness anymore than homosexuality is. It is not any more 'deviant' than racial diversity.
I am suggesting, in reply to Timwatts, that there is an interesting debate on about relations between homosexuality and left handedness you can read on Internet; you can try the address I gave or : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-handedness
I am not suggesting children should be forced or beaten, but that ambidextrous people do not necessarily become sick people and in fact are often smarter than others. I have never suggested that homosexuality was an illness; otherwise I would not have introduced the subject of similarity with left-handedness.
Ambidextrous people are born that way Farhan they are not forced.......
Tim, it is not because this does happens in some cases that it ALWAYS happens that way. We can break a leg doing ski, but not all those doing ski break a leg and you can break a leg elsewhere than doing ski. Left handedness can in some cases be acquired and not always inborn. Left handed people who practice, can become ambidextrous. A right handed person can learn to become ambidextrous in some situations. I am right handed but do my knots with the left hand, and this helps me operate faster. Beyond what we believe, we need statistical evidence before we can be sure of something and you can find some information on the sites I suggested.
I did not say it always happens....what is the point of this ski analogy
you first suggested somthing i did not say then find examples disproving it....
this is typical politician tactics in a debate.
where did i say that forcing left handed people to write with their right hand ALWAYS causuing them to stutter?>
where ? where? where
The rest of your post is very odd.
Listen I suppose with a lot of promting and effort i could train myself to sleep (have sex) with women....this does not make me straight does it.... Does training yourslef to tie knots with the other hand mean you are ambidextrous....or does it mean that whatever handedness you were born with you manged with practice and no doubt lots of prayers managed to use the other hand? this is not what handedness means to me....
In ye olden days left handed people were considered agents of satan and bad luck...try googling that?....is this the similarity you are looking for?
There is a similarity concerning stigma and prejudice. There is a similarity about the different causes, and more if you study the subject.
You mean the different causes of homosexuality are similar to the different causes for left handedness...?
no I am not sure what you mean...
What does being a doctor have to do with such an assertion...
So if a heterosexual couple can not conceive a child, are they also 'detrimental to the social structure'?
If not, why not?
This does not mean that if there are other natural hindrances towards a general goal like family making that a society will abandon measures that are applicable. It is not because a percentage of individuals are unable to participate in a collective enterprise that the enterprise has to be abandoned, not does it mean that it has to be imposed on all.
I feel that an important point is to consider individual "pro-choice" arguments on one hand and the social "pro-life" on the other. A just society would be an equilibrium between individual choices and collective choices. When a person is in a position of responsibility towards a society, he has to take both into consideration.
tell us what you really think as you the person....
Daniel Orey
Farhan: Of course not. Nothing like that has happened in places where gay marriages took place. If I imagine that no writings concerning homosexuality existed at all, I doubt if in the present world situation, a member of a Baha’i assembly (of which I am not) or of the UHJ could defend gay marriages that would be against the laws of most countries. Nor could I see how they could liberalise gay relations and yet prohibit non-gay relations outside marriage. This could lead to an irresponsible attitude towards marriage.
I am sorry you feel confused by different hats. When I work as a physician, I have to observe neutrality and secularity, and to defend the patient’s rights over state laws, for example by protecting confidentiality against state action. When I work as an expert designated by a court, I am serving the state and I have to inform the patient of my mission and not take sides for or against the parties involved, for example the insurance on one side and the patient on the other. If I am an LSA member, I have been elected to protect that community and I have to represent the position of that community, in view of the Baha’i teachings. I cannot say that being a doctor I am neutral.
We all give our opinions, but social structures that are "regulators" of the social body also have opinions.
compensation for gays===doctor hat
destroyer of society = baha'i hat
change our natures like you can change which hand you wirte with = doctor hat
nothing wrong with being gay= ? hat
what do you beleive about gay people ##
<<<<If I imagine that no writings concerning homosexuality existed at all, I doubt if in the present world situation, a member of a Baha’i assembly (of which I am not) or of the UHJ could defend gay marriages that would be against the laws of most countries. Nor could I see how they could liberalise gay relations and yet prohibit non-gay relations outside marriage. This could lead to an irresponsible attitude towards marriage.>>>>
I can't unpick what the sense here is...
I don't want to make you public enemy no. 1 but i do think you ought to have just 1 opinion...
Farhan: I said I was not sure about the correlation between stuttering and having opposed left-handedness being scientifically established. Some scientists agree, others don’t. Statistics don’t seem to be conclusive. You gave the example of your brother and I argued that we need statistics on a larger scale than one case. You went on to say that ambidextrous people were born that way, again a subject of controversy. It has been alleged that there is a prevalence of left-handedness amongst lesbians; again a subject not completely established. In the link I provided, some seem to believe it, others seem to have proved it contrary; it is a subject of controversy.
Timwatts: You mean the different causes of homosexuality are similar to the different causes for left handedness...?
Farhan: Many human conditions are not clearly cut: all genetic, OR entirely acquired. They can be partly this AND that; to me this is also true of mathematics, poetry, music, diabetes, homosexuality and left-handedness. In addition, the stigma and prejudice linked with the two are similar.
Timwatts: what do you beleive about gay people
Farhan: I believe our understanding improves with the years, it is a condition met in some 5 to 10% of populations, partly innate and partly acquired, sometimes an exclusive preference, sometimes an occasional one, sometimes enacted and sometimes repressed, a minority that deserves protection, which is unable to live it out in marriage in the present world conditions, which societies are not prepared to liberalise. As a doctor defending my patient I wish it were more easy for them, and would say that it is probable that exceptional talents and gifts are also linked with these conditions. If I were responsible for society, as a mayor, I would say I understand societies which liberalise and those that do not liberalise gay marriages, and this will allow us to compare in later years. I agree to allow those who choose to be Lutherans and those who choose to be Baha’is to experiment different community rules. I disagree to see Lutherans or Baha’is insulted for their choice. As a Baha’i on an LSA I would say that those who choose to be Baha’is choose to comply by community rules, as I strive to do as a Baha’i. TAFN; good night!
remember our duty to consult competent medical advice....
by the way she wasn't able to cure my gayness although she was only a speech therapist....##
<<Farhan: Many human conditions are not clearly cut: all genetic, OR entirely acquired. They can be partly this AND that; to me this is also true of mathematics, poetry, music, diabetes, homosexuality and left-handedness. In addition, the stigma and prejudice linked with the two are similar>>>
You mean the causes of many human conditions are not clear cut?.... and... what's your point here?
<<<to me this is also true of mathematics, poetry, music, diabetes, homosexuality and left-handedness. In addition, the stigma and prejudice linked with the two are similar. >>>
I'm not sure again what you mean....the stigma and prejudice are similar? you mean left handedness and being gay??? tthis is not true at all... no one is refused a hotel bed room becasue they are left handed what are you saying?
And yet again you make your long list of afflcitions and include diabetes in the same list as being gay again given more fuel to the notion that you beleive it to be an illness.....
Your doctor hat says no... othrwise you'd be sacked as a doctor for holding these views
but your baha'i hat says it is an illness.... both cannot be right they are mutually exclusive...
Farhan: it doesn’t; it says everything is not all black or all white. The quotes say that homosexuality and transexuality might have medical implications. There is nothing about being a disease, spiritual or otherwise.
I dug this out for your speech therapist: an interesting study cited in Time nearly 70 years ago:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,917...
The gist: far from causing stuttering, forcing children to switch from left-handedness to right-handedness was associated with less stuttering. Left-handers and ambidextrous students both had more than twice the stuttering rate of right handers and switchers. Of course, those able to successfully switch may have had more developed left brains in the first place (that old problem of correlation vs causation).
Other sources : http://thestutteringbrain.blogspot.com/2008/08/...
http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/archives...
To say that transexuality might have medical implications is simply a ridiculous statement...do you mean that a transexual might want to undergo gender reassignement surgery?...well i never you don't say... OR are you saying that the cause of transexauality has a "medical" origin...whatever that means.....
How is this connected with homosexuality...
SO to recap Baha'is don't beleive that being gay has a medical origin and they don't advise gay people to seek medical attention......
As to your reseach re stuttering I will admit that the forcing of children to change hands is largely discredited as an explanation for stuttering nowadays..
the original point was that it was wring to force change on left handers....because it causes harm (the process) and also it was impossible to change people's sexuality and no lessons could be drawn from the success or otherwise of chnaging handedness
Farhan: a transsexual is someone who feels that he or she has been assigned by nature with the wrong body and needs gender reassignment, including surgery. Before states accept this, they need the opinion of medical experts. Baha’is submit to medical opinion.
Timwatts: OR are you saying that the cause of transexuality has a "medical" origin
Farhan: we don’t really know yet. Some scientists argue that the presence of hormones in used water persist in nature could modify our fertility, orientation and sense of gender. You can find controversial papers on all this through Google. If you provide me with an E Mail address I can send you articles.
Tiwatts: SO to recap Baha'is don't beleive that being gay has a medical origin and they don't advise gay people to seek medical attention
Farhan: Baha’is say that science is in it’s infancy. I have seen nothing in the writings saying homosexuality is a disease and in fact even for doctors the definition and implications of a disease are not always easy. Being in a minority situation, whatever the reason, can entail medical and psychological problems that can be assisted by spiritual and medical help.
do you beleive that homosexuality is ABNORMAL?
Farhan: The question as I see it is not what is normal or abnormal. The question is what can I do which will be in the best interests of humanity, as an individual, and as a member of society. Christ’s life was not “normal”; it was by far in the best interests of humanity.
You try so hard. You really do. I don't know whether to applaud your efforts or to have pity or to simply offer some prayers.
Please give some thought as to whether your efforts here are fruitful. You are clearly a Baha'i of reasonable intelligence and capability. I can't help but wonder if your talents would be better spent trying to reach out to different people.
Dear Everybody Else:
Carry on, I suppose. It's clear that you enjoy this way too much, and whose to say you're not doing the Lord's work. As the writings go... "all are His servants and all abide by his bidding." People have postulated that the world is a stage, and what if God is a director and his casting sheet required all kinds of villains and heroes and anti-heroes... and honestly, who really knows which role you've signed up for. I sure as heck don't, but I'm sure God does.
On a serious note though, ever consider that the people that need to hear your interpretations of justice and compassion aren't here?
Either you're here to vent and complain or you're here to effect change. I can see this forum being useful for the former. I'm not sure how it enables the latter. I suppose you're sharing ideas, but it strikes me as effective as an institutionalized debating society with no real power. But hey, quite the intellectual and spiritual exercise, right? Believe me, I know that forums like this are fun.
But seriously... if you don't like the Baha'i Faith... then fine. Point taken. You win. 9 male homophobes live under the delusion that they rule the world. The rest of us are weak and dumb and are complacently propping up the other 9. End of discussion. You win!!!
With that established, now what? Does anything else you have to say really matter? Seriously. Does it? Does your identity need acceptance from other "mainstream" Baha'is? And seriously, why would you want the acceptance of such shallow rank-and-file?
Or are you just pissed off that the awesome club that you belong to has changed or perhaps you've changed in ways and you find that it no longer suits you. Are you too weak to just say, "I relinquish my membership in The Baha'i Faith. I simply do not have the passion to believe what I am expected to believe."
Hell... you can even dump the AO and the Baha'i Faith. Most of us have had to use these words for a different scenario, but it'd probably work for this scenario, too: "I just don't feel that spark, anymore. I'm just not in love with you. Sorry. I'm sure we can be friends though. I'm sure we'll run into each other at some social gatherings."
Oh... and if it's that hard because your closest family and friends are in the Baha'i Faith and they don't believe like you, then they obviously need the in-depth discussions with you. The ones that love you the most are obligated to give you that time, for your benefit as well as theirs. You carry a fire to which their faith ought to be tested... and who knows, maybe with enough exposure, they might realize they're the crazy ones.
And if you and your family and friends are getting forced out... sheesh. IT'S AN UNHEALTHY RELATIONSHIP. Thank God for the opportunity to be forced out. Staying would imply that the comfort of familiar abuse is better than a chance to have a happy life elsewhere.
-------------
Yes it does Badrhas. It matters because that scared 14 year old Bahai kid who's growing up believing that he is diseased, that the God speaking through those 9 men is telling him that he needs to overcome his sexuality in order to please not only his family, but Almighty God as well... that kid Badhras may actually be reading this blog. He obviously won't be able to turn to his family or his Bahai community, but maybe he can see online that there are Bahais who understand, who have been there. From another venue (youtube) I met countless people who thought that they were alone inside the Bahai community, who felt trapped. When they read our words, they broke down in tears, knowing that they were not alone all those years. Maybe in your eyes you see nothing but useless banter and feel sorry for Farhan trying to tell us how all is rosy in the Bahai community for everyone. It isn't. And we are here to share the truth with the world- good and bad. Because if the world turns to the Bahai community, all they will get is the sanitized good in order to swell the ranks.
My point is this. You've already made your point. The banter has been made and its purpose can be realized. I'll concede that you can make more points for the purpose of elucidation and clarification, but really... end game. You win, right?
If there's a new discussion post, perhaps a new debate could start... but again, the cycle would probably repeat, right? You win.
Farhan could continue debating, but to what end? I suppose he could inject his thoughts on a new discussion topic, continue to apologize or reach out or whatever... continue to confirm that those who subject themselves to the interpretation of the 9 are fundamentally rank-and-file drones, despite their intelligence and stated intents of compassion.
And if Farhan and others like him stopped coming here, you'd still be here to make your points. I don't begrudge you making those points. I apologize if my post came across as STFU message.
I'll concede that forums that welcome complaints are a wonderful place for those who feel disenfranchised to find some solace from loneliness. Still, I would encourage something more actionable. Advice on how to leave the Faith while maintaining some civility with family might be a start... or how to find happiness as a self-hating closeted individual... or even something more along the lines of how to organize and file a formal complaint at a national or international level such that people might notice. Heck, why not organize to have some new studies done that show gay people who try to "pray away the gay" are usually apt to commit suicide and suffer other mental issues. Whatever it is... shoot for something actionable.
I have no interest in "swelling the ranks" for the sake of others. From my vantage point, either the Baha'i Faith calls to you or it doesn't. The conflict (or the sucky part) is when one finds themselves conflicted in that decision. I'm in no position to judge whether joining or leaving the Baha'i Faith is good for an individual. Each of us has a rational soul to figure that out.
These types of decisions are the hardest that we face, but honestly, the decision is fundamentally an issue between that person and God, right? The rest, relationship to self, relationship to family, relationship to Baha'i community, relationship to world at large, is a matter of how the individual frames their understanding of the first. Sometimes, these other relationships mean more than our relationship to God, but sometimes we go there and gain a better understanding of the supremacy of the former.
My sense is that we're all on our way to God. Some of us have a more scenic route through "hell", but we'll find ourselves in His presence eventually... and who's to say they know anybody's judgment at their time of death.
--------------
Hmmm, or better yet, creating Bahai communities where the individual doesn't feel their only option is to "politely" leave the community. How about unity in diversity for a change?
I don't think Baha'u'llah was referring to only some types of flowers or to just the straight leaves on the tree of humanity.
In fact, I'd argue that any Bahai who thinks that gays need to 'leave' are going against Baha'u'llah's teachings of equality and diversity. The unity is already there as we come from the same tree, right?
Seriously, I'd never tell anybody to leave, but I suspect there are others who embrace that ambition.
That said, I'm not yet convinced that condoning homosexual marriage/activity is really part of the "bigger plan". There may be something to be said about tolerating it right now given circumstances, but I don't know.
Instead of advise on how the family could accept their gay son as a fully funtioning part of the Bahai community. We are not the ones with the problem. The fundamentalist, rigid Bahais are the ones that need to change. Please help that happen in the Bahai community. In the end it is between you and God if you decide to make a difference. Peace!
Long-lived, cultural prejudices die hard.
With regards to homophobic parents, sometimes it's a matter of starting smaller. How about just accepting your gay son. Forget Baha'i for a moment. Problem exists in gay and even agnostic or atheist families.
Once they get that concept, they become better advocates for the concept of inclusion to the community.
For what it's worth, if I encounter a gay kid in the community, I promise to be nice... life affirming...
I can't change the fundamentalists because they don't see you as a casualty of the Faith. It's my belief that some changes occur because the assaults on one's conscience are too much to bear.
If you look at the way things have changed since the beginning of this Dispensation, some of the most meaningful changes come from people tasting the bitterness of their own hate and less from the sweetness of compassion from others.
I am sorry that you have had to endure what you've endured, but that is chance and circumstance and status quo that is beyond my control.
The Baha'i Faith has a long history with Covenant Breakers. Those closest to the top have sometimes found themselves on the "breaking side".
I really sense there's something much bigger here... something longer than my lifetime. This won't get resolved anytime soon, but I sense it will get resolved because of the momentum around being fair with gays... not to mention the growing body of scientific and sociological data.
i see you are lumping gays together with child abusers like all iranians i have met due to the words "bache baz" meaning gay....
even child molesters realise that they are harming others....and want to stop for the most part....
No one said they were constantly linked and my response to Timwatts apparently did not appear. I hope you do consider paedophilia as pathological. It can be an occasional or a permanent preference, homo or heterosexual, enacted or only a fantasy; in many cases the abusers have been abused themselves as a child, suggesting that it can be acquired and not necessarily innate.
What I did say, in distinguishing our spiritual, community and legal responsibilities that they could also be subject to legal action.
you must redefine what sex is.....any definition cannot include elements of
non-consent....
My iranian friend told me once that it was common in his village for the men to gratify themselves with "melons" or "chickens".....is this sex?
Farhan: I agree
Timwatts: you must redefine what sex is.....any definition cannot include elements of non-consent....
Farhan: biologically, sex is a great machine for producing diversity through procreation, as opposed to non sexual reproduction that produces a genetically identical individual. Sociologically, sex is also a great machine to get very different individuals from Mars and Venus who would otherwise have a hard time getting along, to make a family together, and mix their genetic and cultural heritage and produce biological and cultural diversity. To compensate such meritorious efforts towards evolution, nature also provides us with gratification. Now as usual, we get smart guys wanting to get all the gratification without making those meritorious efforts and taking all the responsibility, and this somehow defeats the purpose of nature. So religions come and say it’s not natural and clamp down on these poor people and try to bring them back to the path of wisdom.
To some extent, but only to SOME extent, our bodies do not ONLY belong to us; society invests in us from child hood and can expect to get something back. We are not free to do everything we wish, even if there is consent on both sides.
Timwatts: My iranian friend told me once that it was common in his village for the men to gratify themselves with "melons" or "chickens".....is this sex?
Farhan: It’s bestiality for animals and in some legislation it is considered it as a criminal offence. For vegetables I am not sure.
or, maybe one morning the baboons on the dump in haifa will all get sick and die, and whoever replaces them will simply decide to exhibit some basic human decency and get rid of all the dunce theology in bahai scripture by declaring it unscientific and thus null/void.
This is really wonderful, and will take me some time to digest.
In the name of the many silent and fearful GLBT's who read this list, thank you so very much! It obviously took a long time and a great deal of thought!
You are very dear, not to mention brave. You stand as a great light to many of us who have been thrown out, have left, or stand quietly by in fear.
Hugs!
Daniel
thank you for your article. Despite the fact that I know not much about the Bahá'í faith and hence cannot constructively contribute to the discussion, it still concerns me to see how troublesome a gay marriage appears to the NSA. Instead of, let's say, loving support, the institution even goes as far as to deprive the "trespasser" of his Bahá'í membership rights?
Well, I have been happily married to my husband for 4 years now and I couldn't help but think of the following quotation by Rudolf Steiner...
"Leben in der Liebe zum Handeln und Lebenlassen im Verständnisse des fremden Wollens ist die Grundmaxime der freien Menschen."
("To live in love towards our actions, and to let live in the understanding of the other person's will, is the fundamental maxim of free men and women.")
(Philosoph of Freedom, Chapter 9)
Here's to that.
Big hug from Berlin,
Christian Siegmund (né Schmidt)
How scientific is the writing and thoughts of Abdulbaha Abbas the Son of the Glory of Allah?
"Such is the immutability of His revealed Word. Such is the elasticity which characterizes the functions of His appointed ministers. The first preserves the identity of His Faith, and guards the integrity of His law. The second enables it, even as a living organism, to expand and adapt itself to the needs and requirements of an ever-changing society."
The debate (or absence of one) in the faith is mirrored in the majority of Christian churches specifically the Anglican Church. Search the bible from cover to cover and reference to homosexuality as we understand it today is just not there. How could it be? It did not exist as it does today. What did exist was an exploitative relationship where sex was used in a power struggle and not as a manifestation of mutual love and affection.
Gay Baha’is don’t want to engage in random sexual pleasure and gratification in the absence of a loving relationship what they want and deserve is to be treated the same as heterosexual Baha’is. While we were young I witnessed the straight normal Baha’i friends fornicate and drink and do drugs with impunity and when mention was made of “gays” it quickly turned to revulsion and the quoting of hidden Persian or Arabic texts to which I had no access which purported to forbid gay relationships. I know one should not be put off by the behaviour of the believers but when one is faced with prejudice and hatred by your co-religionists it is unbearable.
Reason is highly prized in the faith. Men (and women) of intellect have been openly targeted in the past through direct teaching. The faith is fundamentally flawed in that the believers and the Administrative Order insists on the perpetuation of this evil discrimination and ultimately will not prosper and spread as most believers pray that it will.
Couldn't this same reasoning justify being decent to people with different preferences, even for people who are not fully sure whether homosexuality is all right or not?
I have known Baha'i couples who got along enviably well and supported each others' service; all the way to the other end, those who served heroically because home was not an option. I have heard Irán Muhajir tell anecdotes of marital harmony - but no one can maintain terror 100% of the time, so that is still "anecdotal" evidence. I really liked Dr. Muhajir...
Timwatts, as I see it, the Baha’i teachings are offered like a banquet to all humanity. Those who are enrolled in the Baha’i administrative order, are allowed to do service in the kitchen, but these have to abide by some community rules that have nothing to do with our spiritual value or how we are accepted in the eyes of God. Every one can benefit from the teachings, but not everyone is engaged in the kitchen to do the serving.
One of the conditions for being accepted for service within the community is having a sexual life restricted to within the marriage bonds and marriages can only take place between a man and a woman with the consent of parties and of the two parents on each side, but the community has no right to pry into people’s lives, so it is a matter between the person and God if he does not abide by God’s prescriptions. If someone insists on an open behaviour that defies the community rules, whether gay or non gay, he forfeits his administrative rights to serve (ad-ministrer = to serve) as a member of that community.
These rules cannot be changed other than by the decision of the UHJ who at the moment does not believe that gay marriages will one day be endorsed in Baha’i administration.
Yes and here we have it. You beleive that God himself ruler of the universe who made all things and ordained everything who made gay and straight alike would then send messages to say that only the gay ones should have no fulfillment in their lives and shall not know a loving relationship with another human being...
"These rules cannot be changed other than by the decision of the UHJ who at the moment does not believe that gay marriages will one day be endorsed in Baha’i administration."
this is why people will ultimately reject the faith as this is not reasonable and everything must past the test of reasonableness.
The immutable law of God cannot be changed by anyone least of all the MEN of the house of justice. It is not a matter of belief it's amtter of fact. Gay people exist what are you going to do about them...wanting to marry?
Once we determine what causes homo/heterosexuality we will be better prepared to deal with the implications of a minority of humans having same sex attraction. However, as believers in a "revealed" religion with a revealed Word of God through the Blessed Beauty and his son and grandson we are bound to accept God's Word through God's Messengers - there has never been a single Messenger/Manifestation of God who has permitted homosexual relations as something that is what God intends for the human family
Likewise, identifying a behaviour as "natural" or "unnatural" does nothing to tell you whether that behaviour is justified or good. There is "natural" behaviour that is completely immoral (most anthropologists agree that cannibalism, rape, incest, genocide, etc. were behaviours to which humans had a natural predispositions until they became regarded as bad only recently); and there is good behaviour that is "unnatural" (e.g., building buildings, wearing shoes, helping the sick, mentally unstable, and the dying, etc.).
So the argument is not about the origin of homosexuality. In fact, that the Bahá'í writings obviously do not recognize this simple fact about ethical reasoning is itself a good reason to doubt their relevance for effective moral dialogue.
The fact that there has "never been a single Messenger/Manifestation of God who has permitted homosexual relations" (even if it were true) is a manifestation of human prejudices. From a theological perspective, we might say that God doesn't challenge people beyond their capacity, and people have not (until today) had a capacity to accept homosexual relationships as valid. That might be an explanation you prefer. After all, no Manifestation/Messenger told us that the Internet was in line with God's intention for humans, but we seem to have no problem using that device, now don't we?
Personally, I take it as more plausible that religions are simply codifications of humanity's most basic prejudices, such that whatever beliefs a tribe has at the time of their religious invention becomes the law of their religion. In that case, it's no mystery that Judeao-Christo-Islamic religions would condemn homosexuality, because it was associated with so-called "pagan" tribes, effeminacy, and womanly qualities in general. Since all these religions generally hold women in contempt (including the Bahá'í Faith, despite all superficial pleadings to the contrary), it makes sense that they'd regard men who took on the role of women (or vice versa) as contemptible. But that's just my understanding. You can pick the one that suits you.
Farhan can you supply some Bahai Writings to support this viewpoint of yours please? The quotations in my blog seem to contradict this idea, stating that the principles of the Bahai Faith are for all people. Principes such as justice and equality.
I see participating in administrative functions as something else. I see it not as the direct the law of God, but as community requirements, and each community has its own standard for maintaining cohesion at a given time, depending on the maturity of its members and the requirements of its social environment.
Farhan: the advice you are referring to is a spiritual advice addressing a private life; it would be a similar advice if the person was married and madly in love with another, or someone unable to marry lacking consent of parents, or someone offered a high position in politics and having to decline. How the person overcomes the dilemma between his spiritual engagement and personal life is a personal matter. No Baha’i has any right whatsoever of judging another person or spying on his behaviour.
Loss of administrative rights is a community decision, if a person does not comply with and even rejects community rules and can concern many aspects of our lives, including political implication.
How Baha’is in a specific community might welcome someone having lost administrative rights is widely determined by their social experience and background. To my understanding, since the opening up of the community activities to a “community of interest” since 1996, a wide variety of activities outside administrative functions are available to them.
I bet they wouldn't have been so insulted by a revoltingly predujiced letter from the UHJ though!!!
Baha'i according to their own sacred texts should be actively fighting for the relinquishing of their vile predujiuces and should be standing up to such bullying even if they weren't gay...it's truly revolting to hold these ideas...at least fascists and mass murderers didn't hide behind the shameful double talk and double dealings pretending to have the whole of mankind's welfare at heart...
It will be the BF that will be swept away by an uprising of the masses who are fed up to the back teeth of oppression and bigotry.....there enough of a rant
This can't be real can it...who in their right minds would say such a thing to anothr human being? Go on tell me it's made up surely...
How can God find anything abhorrrent? It's not as if he couldn't do anything about it....for example just change our natures...there simple...what a revolting thing to say.
It's in #7. Also read #2. Pretty scary stuff that these 9 men leave open the possibility of genetically altering a fetus in order to fix its homosexuality. Fun stuff they don't teach a seeker at firesides, huh?
and
http://revolked2.blogspot.com/2009/06/why-i-won...
thank you so very much Sonja!
"homosexual relationships are not permitted" are these equated with sexual relationships? Minor point I know but words are important. According to the NSA of the USA relationships between people of the same sex are not permitted...that's surely going to cause a problem....left the faith 20 years back because i fell in love with a man and wanted to be with him...
The scientific community has concluded homosexuality cannot be cured, it is perfectly natural, get over it homophobes... The modern Baha'i stance, supposedly informed by science and reason, still very 1950s.
This is about child abuse and NOT gay sex.....Shoghi Effendi could not have equated this with homosexuality....it is clearly wrong?
As for spiritually diseased.....by their fruits ye shall know them?
the Arabic original, the implication of paederasty. Shoghi
Effendi has interpreted this reference as a prohibition on all
homosexual relations" (p. 223).
"As for spiritually diseased.....by their fruits ye shall know them?"
Spiritually condemned is the word actually, along with aberration, and against nature... So yes, the wording in the Faith against homosexuality is quite strong.
Its odd really - why all the angst against sex in general? What is so bad about sex? Are the people who write these things just prudes and never had good sex in their entire lives?
You haven't answered my question - what evidence do you have? And why are you equating scientific practice with business practice?
Grover, the Baha’i teachings consider the spiritual issues as being at the root of all our civilisation problems: whether political, economical, social, natural environment, etc; For science, we need is a conscience that allows us to use science for the benefit of humanity and which matches our scientific advances. Don’t hesitate in repeating questions if you feel I have missed one.
Grover wrote: why all the angst against sex in general?
Farhan: I think it is merely a means of consolidating the traditional family as the basic unit of society by restricting the sexual drive to within the family. Baha’i teachings even praise sexuality as long as it is canalised to within the couple. Let us have the Baha’i community this way, and the Lutherans another way and scientifically compare the outcome in some years.
The fruits of the Baha'i faith are prejudice and division and we should indeed know them by theses same fruits....
mix opium/hashish and living in caves waaaay too long, and people will think up some pretty wild stuff.
the theme is apparently borrowed from sufi poetry, which in turn may have borrowed it from bhakti-hinduism and/or buddhism (buddhist merchants had communities along the spice/silk roads through the middle east, at least in the early era of islam).
"homosexual relationships are not permitted" are these equated with sexual relationships?
Timwatts, the Baha’i standard of morality excludes all sexual activity outside marriage, and homosexual relations are considered as such; I wonder if Diogenus would loose his voting rights if he publicly exhibited himself? But ofcourse no one is allowed to squint into his barrel ;-)
we have one so far about child abuse.....where are the others...if God finds it so abhorrent,,,,,it seems sadly missing from his words.
Did you know that in Persian the word for gay was .. baché baz..
ie someone who plays in a sexaul way with chidren....so ok we know pedaphilia is condemned what about gay sex...
What rules Farhan? The UHJ has not made any on homosexuality but you have assumed that they have? So that's another theme for a topic of discussion. The distinctions between the UHJ as lawgiver and that fact that only Shoghi Effendi's own writing (in his own words) can be considered official interpretation of Bahai Scripture. Baquia if you could make a link here to where this is already discussed on your blog that would be great.
As far as I know many letters from the UHJ infer that gay Bahais must live celibate lives, but it is an inference not a rule. It is an important point because otherwise then our discussion would be about the rule that the UHJ has made concerning gay Bahais. If you claim that they have made a rule, then please share the ruling with us.
That is why I'm focussing on what is in the Bahai Writings, first on the theme of the ability of Bahai Institutions and in relation to that, of Bahai communities to adapt, and to have a flexible relationship with a changing world.
It seems to me that many homophic attitudes stem from Letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi. Those letters, written by various secretaries in the 1930s till 1957 relate to attitudes of the times. Some of these letters clearly cannot be treated as Scripture because it is clear from the content of some letters that the secretary had some limited knowledge of the Bahai Teachings which Shoghi Effendi would have known about.
But more importantly than my concern with consistency is that Shoghi Effendi himself wrote very clearly that his authority was purely as interpretator of Bahai Scripture and not as law giver. The role of making law is for the UHJ.
What was common in previous decades was for gay Bahais often to live in a position of not telling and not being asked by their NSAs and not being sanctioned either. One example is of Mark Tobey who lived for decades with a male acquaintance and was a personal friend of Shoghi Effendi.
This practice of not saying publically one was gay was also an exigency of time and place, but a number of countries have moved on, have changed not only laws but much more importantly attitudes towards homosexuality. What I find sad is that it seems that now the way homosexuals are being treated by the Bahai administration in some countries is moving further and further from “the exigencies and requirements of time and place”
Times have changed, and while I can understand that the UHJ would be very unlikely to wish to make any ruling, because it could endanger Bahais lives in countries where any statement regarding equal treatment of homosexuals might be used to imprison or kill Bahais, that doesn't mean that by their silence on making a ruling, that the opposite can be assumed as a rule. As Bahais we must obey the rules of the UHJ, but as for interpreting and understanding the Bahai Writings we must use our own reasoning -our own interpretations of the principles of the Bahai Faith.
And so back to the original theme of my blog. First look at the Bahai Writings and see if any principle there would endorse this inequality, and then return to the practices of current Bahai adminstration to see if there's a way to understand the current practice of removing voting rights in some cases and in other cases not doing this.
Sonjavank, I see the rules this way:
1) No sexuality outside marriage, for gays as for non-gays.
2) No present provisions for gay marriages.
3) No spying on people
4) Gays or non-gays not complying with rules privately figure it out with God
5) Gays or non-gays openly and persistently defying the rules loose administrative rights, which leaves a great many activities, specially all the teaching work, open to them.
I also, very personally, see another line of though in that gays represent a minority and as such should benefit from some compensation. If I were an assembly member (I haven’t been one for years), this would be an argument I would defend: more leniency to gays than non gays.
Obama Disses Marriage Law as Justice Defends It
http://www.truthout.org/081709V?n
Devlin Barrett, The Associated Press: "President Barack Obama insisted Monday he still wants to scrap what he calls a discriminatory federal marriage law, even as his administration angered gay rights activists by defending it in court. The president said his administration's stance in a California court case is not about defending traditional marriage, but is instead about defending traditional legal practice."
A conservative would characterize the adaption of religion to culture as abdication of its moral authority. A liberal would characterize it as progress and growth. These two orientations bump heads in every system.
One can and does influence the other.
To refine the question, what aspects of Baha'i law are open to adapting to changing cultural norms, and what aspects are not? And why?
(Not just addressing the question to you, just thinking out loud.)
Neither. I think there is room for diversity of opinion and for separate belief systems coexisting in a society. Why should any of us compromise our beliefs? I am who I am and will not compromise or adapt for culture or religion.
http://revolked2.blogspot.com/2009/08/great-new...
The Brazilian Government recognizes our marriage, and so I can now receive a permanent visa... it will be a long process, lots of documents and fingerprints involved... but they are saying yes, to gay marriage, and do not discriminate.
Thanks all for the great discussion (pro/con).
As I wrote earlier... what is better a gay Baha'i or a gay non-Baha'i? It seems that the AO has answered this... we GLBT folks are not wanted in this Faith.
Dco, this is a short-cut assumption.
The vast majority of Baha’i activities today, including study circles, children’s classes, devotional meetings, commemorations, reflection meetings etc are open to everyone, regardless of their being Baha’is or not, or their sexual preferences. Some counties even have more non-Baha’i than Baha’i tutors in study circles.
Participating in the administration of the community (voting, 19 day feasts, Assemblies, contribution to Baha’i funds…) entails being enrolled and this activity requires some perquisites that include a chaste life. This is equally required from gay and non gay Baha’is; How can we imagine a community that accepts sexual relations outside marriage for gays and not for non-gays?
The comparison is imperfect, but in some aspects the requirement is comparable to celibacy required from Catholic priests. If they have a private affair, it is between them and God; if they openly decide to live a married life, they lose their position as a priest. The only loss of administrative rights I have seen in France has been for persistence in not conforming to marriage laws, never for homosexuality.
I have been a Baha'i for 38 years. I am now completely sick of organized religion. Many people today are far too spiritual to find any meaning in it. I greatly honor and revere the Sufi insight of Baha'u'llah and I will always live by it. It opened many doors of insight to me which i use in life every day. But the Baha'i organization now has narrowed the Faith to the span of the black in the eye of a dead ant. The AO is a trainwreck. No one can take a breath. No one can bring the powers and energies of their own soul to the discourse and the avenues of service. Everything is top down micro managed right into the ground. People like PK run the show lock, stock, and barrel. That approach is not spiritual enough to find life in this World Age and anyone who thinks it does is completely tone deaf spiritually.
So live your life, dco, with as much individual human grace and dignity as you can manifest. My prayers and best wishes are with you and your companion.
I am now like Bird. My Faith has no name. I am of the no name religion. The Baha'i Faith was a nice try. The idea was so captivating that it was worth trying to help all those years. But it cannot be helped because it is now just a man made organization of terribly impaired people. If you have to put a label on a spiritual idea to market it, there is already nothing there.
No name is my religion. So I can be completely free to dwell in Spirit! There are other planets and other worlds with other creatures and other massive planes of the Universe far beyond the limitations of this world.
No name is my religion! Be happy in your life as you live each day with it's ever new possibilities.
I have gay couples amongst my good friends who visit us for dinner. The Baha'i community is made of individuals who are influenced by the world and the prejudices around them and not entirely impregnated by Baha'i ideals. We obviously do have all kinds of phobia which results from the lack of information. When we meet gay we never refer to our sexual lives. Cant we meet people without referring to their sexual lives at all?
My idea is that if gay people did participate in activities open to them, for example, just like those non-gays having lost voting rights for cohabitation without having a Baha'i marriage, this would help create more understanding. The subject is worth discussing with the LSA of each community. Their reply will give us food for thought.
Farhan: On the long run we cannot harm God’s purpose but only our own selves. The harm resulting from our actions will be learning procedures for others. The call of God calls us to self-sacrifice, the abandon of advantages of this material world and investment in a spiritual life. People, as Shoghi Effendi pointed out to Marcus Bach develop a consumer attitude to religion: they praise what they can get out of it and consider teaching as a sort of marketing. This is the way Baha’u’llah reprimanded the religious leaders of His time in Iqan:
“Their hearts seem not to be inclined to knowledge and the door thereof, neither think they of its manifestations, inasmuch as in idle fancy they have found the door that leadeth unto earthly riches, whereas in the manifestation of the Revealer of knowledge they find naught but the call to self-sacrifice."
Dco: …spends a lot of time looking into and micro-managing people's lives
Farhan: I am not sure if the “current way” you refer to is a Baha’i way or a way specific to the culture you live in. Squinting into people’s private lives is not at all a current way in Baha’i communities where I have lived.
Obviously though, if a person questions and contests openly and insistently the rules of the community he wishes to belong to, the reaction is to say you are saying that I do not belong to that community. Once again, i see a difference between our spiritual lives and community lives, although they are closely linked.
http://www.thisisoz.com.au/
Bahai=Caffe macchiato
It would be interesting to know when Shoghi Effendi is intending to address the entire community, a specific local community, a national community, or an individual.
question 1
Is it wrong to be gey?
I don't mean having sexual relations with another of the same sex but just being gay?
question 2
Is it wrong to have sexual feelings for someone of the same sex?
Question 1 and 2: Depends which side of the Baha'i camp you're in. Liberal side - fine no problems. Conservative side - it is wrong. Seeing as most communities are quite small, you're probably going to run into trouble as some "well-meaning" conservative Baha'i is going to complain to the LSA, unless you keep it well hidden, then you'll either have the LSA or Arm of the Learned dropping by to "lovingly" educate you.
If you have sexual feelings towards someone of the same sex and think you might be gay you can either suppress it and probably be miserable, or embrace it and be what God made you to be.
LoL
Baquia, in my experience, sanctions are much more regular and severe when involving outstanding Baha'is (not necessarily their kids, I presume...). I know of NSA members sanctionned directly by the UHj for behaviour that would have gone unnoticed in the rank and file.
To use their high positions to give their mere personal opinions in a speech to Baha'i audiences is the height of selfishness, self centeredness, and egotism and it will be seen that way in the future.
Giving their personal opinions as members of the UHJ even when they put their standard disclaimer in the speech causes completely unnecessary and needless division because for many weak and thoughtless members of the Baha'i rank and file the personal opinions of the members of the UHJ are Holy Writ and are Sacred Scripture in the Baha'i Faith.
Why can't these men see this simple fact? Why can't they see the harm they have caused to the Faith by their egotism and excessive needyness?
The Faith is about the consciousness in the Universe of Baha'u'llah. It is most definitely NOT about the consciousness in the Universe of a man like Peter Khan.
It is time form them to a man to realize this spiritual fact and act accordingly before they embarrass themselves and their families any further with these displays of excessive egotism.
Once you are elected to the UHJ you should undergo permanent civil death and be absolutely forbidden to ever speak on your personal opinions to an audience anywhere in Earth both while you are serving and after you retire.
the probem is that what they say is appalling, stupid and backward.
an intelligent religion would get rid of such dunce leaders ASAP to minimize the many and various kinds of damage caused them by saying stupid things.
Please explain, Baquia; you could be right. I live in a world where when the UHJ called for an increase in human resources and asked for a significant number of volunteers for the institute, I understood that the teacher training institutes of the 1960s were developing and new activities were becoming available alongside previous ones. This AND that and not this OR that. You live in a world where it was understood that EVERYONE had to do Ruhi and ONLY do Ruhi those who didn’t do Ruhi suddenly became CB, and all those who did Ruhi suddenly became stupid.
Yup, thats the world I live in too.
There is a difference between taking a one way street at night when no one is looking and doing the same thing at noon, causing a traffic jam and saying you disagree with this road being a one way street.
As Sonja rightly pointed out, these laws are social aspects of religion that institutions might apply differently depending when and where the laws are applied and can to some extent change according to the rulings of the UHJ.
the baha'i LAW seems at odds therefore and seems reactionary and out of date and you may not like the fact but having been a baha'i for over 30 years i know full well which aspects of the faith you don;t tell contacts about at firesides for fear of putting them off. this is marketing by any other name.
I totally disagree with Baha'is who are ready to dissimulate any laws so as to gain enrolments. The outline "Anna's Presentation" has been designed so that those wishing to become Baha'is get a clear picture of what they are adhering to. Of course if they later feel they have made a mistake, they are always free to leave without being in the least stigmatised.
spiritual law
community law
the law which says that arsonists must be burned alive.....is it spiritual or commuity?
Farhan: I am merely opposing spiritual laws with and without a social implication. I see an interaction between the two. Not obeying spiritual laws not only implies a spiritual shortcoming, but can also involve our community life and incur a reaction from the community which has a duty to protect its unity. For example, adultery not only impairs the progress of the soul but, for educative reasons, can incur a reaction from society.
I see praying, fasting, truthfulness, absence of prejudice, chastity, obeying the laws of God … as examples of spiritual laws. No one will question a believer on his private relations with God. When a behaviour has an incidence on community life, such as a Baha’i marriage, nominating someone during an election, family violence, there is also imply a reaction from the community .
Timwatts wrote: the law which says that arsonists must be burned alive.....is it spiritual or commuity?
Farhan: I have not seen anything about being burnt “alive”. These laws are obviously not applicable whenever in contradiction with civil laws and only the UHJ can reply to your question. My personal guess is that pending the election of the UHJ, Baha’u’llah, Abdu’l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi gave some laws abrogating those of their times and understandable by their contemporaries and in their historical setting. I see laws concerning arson, theft, heritage in case of intestacy, bigamy as community laws adapted to the understanding of an epoch pending adequate application by the UHJ in due time.
Gods laws are revealed and applied progressively and then adapted to each day and age. Hence the breakaway from polygamy was a progressive process. During Abdu’l-Baha’s lifetime the Baha’is respect towards their Muslim contemporaries practiced both the Muslim and the Baha’i fast and Abdu’l-Baha prayed in the Mosque and wore oriental clothes. This was a temporary practice changed by Shoghi Effendi.
If you read the letter they sent me which I posted at:
http://revolked2.blogspot.com/2009/05/lets-star...... someone must have been offended and reported me for talking about my marriage on the internet.
It seems that the AO has decided that it is ok to remove the rights of GLBT folks but those of us who are sanctioned have no recourse, rights or opportunity to defend or explain ourselves... this is not justice. This if it occurred at my university, it would be profoundly illegal.
But of course if you are a Baha'i from a "good" or "prominent" family, all the rules are quite different.
question 1
Is it wrong to be gey?
I don't mean having sexual relations with another of the same sex but just being gay?
Tim, to my understanding, the Baha'is teachings do not consider a sexual orientation as wrong. They consider that in the interests of society, sexuality whether gay or non-gay has to be restricted to between married couples. At the same time no provisions are made for gay marriages, hence gay sexual relations are considered as not acceptable within the community.
Tim asked: question 2 Is it wrong to have sexual feelings for someone of the same sex?
Farhan: IMO, this situation that we meet in about perhaps 10% of the population is a great handicap in a community that does not accept sexuality outside marriage and does not provide for gay marriages.
or prayers should be said to overcome this handicap....
The knowledge and understanding of the Baha'is in respect to this problem as in others can evolve.
These 2 things, Farhan joon, are not at all the same. I might wish for an XBOX and summon up the strength with support of family and friends and prayer to "overcome" the wish. To successfully overcome one's sexual preference....again the word implies a choice...i prefer apples to pears......
Sexual orientation is fixed and immutable and in part of the way gay people are and CANNOT be overcome. Supression just leads to mental illness and other problems...surely this is not what Baha'u'llah wants for me...he he does then I would reject him.....with a happy heart!
Farhan: This is partly true. Sexual orientation can change during our lifetime. People can be more or less exclusive in their orientation.
Tim: Supression just leads to mental illness and other problems...
It can, but not necessarily. What about people whom for various reasons live celibacy all their lives? Perhaps 10%; the same percentage as gays ? What about a married person in love with another? Or a couple unable to marry lacking parents consent? All these people suffer and can become depressed, or invest their interests and lives elsewhere.
Farhan: This would be a violation of Baha’i principles; what we can say is that it is the latest update of the same religion.
Timwatts : still waiting for an example of the writings which forbids gay relationships,,,
Farhan : I now of no other quote than the ones largely distributed on Internet. My understanding is that sexual relations are only allowed within marriage, and no provisions have been made for same-sex marriages, hence same sex relations are not allowed to Baha’is.
Timwatts: i see you are lumping gays together with child abusers like all iranians i have met due to the words "bache baz" meaning gay....
Farhan: Not at all, although I agree that the mistake is common; historically, gay relations have been mentored in young boys, for example by Spartans.
Timwatts: even child molesters realise that they are harming others....and want to stop for the most part....
Farhan: this is not always true; some abusers believe that they are playing innocent and even useful games that an uncompromising and puritan society does not tolerate. Their only regret is that society does not allow them to do what they want.
Timwatts: child molster is not a sexual orientation by the way
Farhan: I might be misusing the English word. The French word I intended to use is “préférence sexuelle” it can be an exclusive preference, or an occasional one, it can be a homo or heterosexual attraction, it can be with or without enactment, with and without violence, it can be acquired, and perhaps innate, although most aggressors have themselves been victims as a child, which suggests it is more often acquired.
Timwatts : asking people to "overcome it" is not only pointless as it is impossible...but cruel and misleading....
Farhan: i have never seen Baha’i writings talking about changing orientation, but behaviour and way of life. They are also only requiring this way of life from those who wish to be active members of the community. Would abstinence for gays be more difficult than for non-gays? In your view, the 15 million French celibates would fall sick if they abstained? However, I do agree that non gays have the choice of marrying that gays do not have.
Timwatts: how could community cohesion be harmed?
Farhan: how can we expect chastity from non gay youths and not from gay? And accept unmarried gay couples and not accept unmarried non-gay couples? Some churches are accepting gay marriages. We will see how the experience turns out. Why expect the Baha’is to be pioneers in this field?
This is indeed scary...how could society be possibly helped by a large proportion of it's population supressing something as basic as their sexuality.....who wants to be part of such a society.....put your hands up!
At the end of the line of course one can always state that if you don;tlike the rules of the club then don;t join....but there is something fundamentally worng with this as many gays will be growing up in a relgion that rejects them to the very core of their being....
A number of years my city was rocked by the murder of a prominent gay couple in their home and the firebombing and burning of 3 synagogues by a pair of neo-Nazis. The next evening there were 10,00 of us with candles in protest in front of the state capitol, chanting “not in our city!”. It was beautiful, it was powerful, it was right, and still gives me goose bumps.
The Baha'is of course were no were to be seen, despite the groups of other religious and human rights organizations. Despite the fact the the masses were meeting on the very spot that the Master himself had once walked and talked to people many years ago.
With in a week, my local school district (2 of the synagogues were in it) convened a group of community members to meet with the superintendent. I was honored to be asked to participate – as both a gay man and as a Baha'i. My community sent no note of congratulations or even acknowledgment. The group was made up of men and women, a rabbi, a couple of pastors and priests, some lay persons, etc.
Over the next 2 years we met and were charged with dealing with hate crimes and bigotry in the schools. After a few months the rabbi called me one day and asked,
“Daniel, I have two lesbians who want to be married in the synagogue, tell me your thoughts”.
I shared with him my experience with bigotry, narrow-mindedness, homophobia with in the Baha'i community. He also told me about similar things n his congregation.
Finally I asked,
“what is better a Jewish lesbian couple or non-Jewish lesbian couple?”
He thanked me.
A week later I read in the paper that he had married the first lesbian couple in his synagogue. This was by the way long before Gay marriage was even on the horizon here in California. The are now the most welcoming place in town, and are growing.
Meanwhile the capitol city of the most populous state in the richest country on earth has no Baha'i Center.
Many of my friend and colleagues keep asking me why I put up with this homophobic religion? To be honest its gets harder to explain it away... to me the message from the letter the NSA sent me , is this "a non-Baha'i gay man is prefered to a Baha'i gay man”.
(maintaining the purity of bahai laws is more important to risk-averse lsa folk then any spontaneous participation in a real unity movement about civil rights.)
there was a serious group of people that wanted to form a non-profit group to fund purchase of a bahai center about 10 years ago. unfortunately one of the principles was feared to be so incompetent by people with actual business experience that the whole project was derailed by the secret elite uberpowers hiding behind the curtain.
bahai = amateur stuff + bureaucratic quagmire.
As Always, I appreciate your dedication to the principles of justice and fairness in opposition to the current practice of Bahá'í law. However, I must respectfully disagree with the fundamental premise of your argument, which intends to preserve the importance of the Bahá'í law. You apologize with your comparison of Bahá'í law to Dutch law, for example, by stating:However, I believe this is a mistake: I would say of course Dutch law supercedes Bahá'í law. Of course. Dutch law is a collection of principles derived by groups of people working together from secular reasoning, anticipating the future by observing historical lessons, and building on that solid foundation by a system of common law that allows for new and dynamic interpretations of these aforementioned principles. Bahá'í law, by contrast (and despite the work of Dr. Nader Saiedi to the opposite conclusion), is a collection of random articles of faith, general principles abstracted from then-current wisdom, and specific behavioral prohibitions and prescriptions that were important from the perspective of one Iranian nobleman a few hundred years ago, which are then (Allah'u'akbar) subject to amendment by a small, elite group of cloistered men today whose authority is upheld by a perpetual chain of self-congratulation. These laws are, in other words, utterly irrelevant by any objective standard of ethical reasoning or any important measure of normative evaluation.
Don't get me wrong: It's not that the Bahá'í laws are all universally ridiculous, per se, but the authoritarian way in which they are justified most certainly is universally ridiculous. To understand the distinction, suppose you had a political science exam, one question of which asked you what form of government you believed was the most effective, and for the second part, why you think so. For the first part, let's say you put the very respectable answer of "parliamentary democracy." For the second part, however, you respond, "Yea, verily I am the King of kings, and my decree is binding, such that whosoever will question my judgement has made a mockery of the Noumena, reality as it is within itself, to which I alone have unmitigated access." Surely you would not only fail your exam, but the teacher would want to see you after class to see if you were alright, wouldn't he? So why give Bahá'u'lláh a pass? Quite simply, I think Bahá'u'lláh fails to give his laws warrant by any reasonable standard of justification.
So while I absolutely agree with you when you write,I must nevertheless deny your antecedent ("the Baha’i Teachings are so great"). They are not great. There is no room for the authoritarianism of the Bahá'í Faith (which we will admit if we understand its writings plainly, without undue bias) within a reasonable, ethical framework.
But what about room for change in the Bahá'í Faith? Although the quotations you provided are no doubt genuine, they are also easily contradicted in application to specific laws. As I've written elsewhere, for example, the Bahá'í Faith does not provision for change regarding its homophobic agenda, as the Universal House of Justice unashamedly declares (05 Jun 1993):So if we're willing to admit this, and regard the Bahá'í Faith honestly, I think that we must change the premise of respect and regard that we have for Bahá'í law. There simply doesn't seem to be any ground for such respect, so far as I can see.
But of course, that's just in my opinion. I would love to know your thoughts on the ideas I present, Sonja. Thanks!
You wrote: "You apologize with your comparison of Bahá'í law to Dutch law"
No, I didn't mean to imply that Dutch law is less than Bahai law, but i'll elaborate on this below. I made that comment because when I write here, I see myself as writing to a Bahai audience and wanted to be sure no one would think I was disregarding the relevance of Bahai law.
As Bahais we must obey the laws of the country. Or put more strictly, Bahai Law states this, so actually it is Bahai Law which places more importance to a law of the country.
Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 54
Baha'u'llah, The Summons of the Lord of Hosts, p. 188
So I agree, of course, Dutch law dominates over Bahai law. Baha'u'llah has stated this himself.
As to your reasoning for Dutch law being superior Baha'u'llah makes a similiar argument in his tablet to Queen Victoria:
Baha'u'llah, The Proclamation of Baha'u'llah, p. 33
And I agree with you, a law is much better if as you wrote: "is a collection of principles derived by groups of people working together from secular reasoning, anticipating the future by observing historical lessons, and building on that solid foundation by a system of common law that allows for new and dynamic interpretations of these aforementioned principles."
This is the way social laws work best but I wouldn't too happy if a group people used those same procedures for how we should say prayers. Symbollic values and questions of truth are not decided by majority vote. Culture is an influence and civil law can certainly affect culture. Such as here in the Netherlands where in general there is tolerance towards a diversity of sexual identity. But the political processes has its limits.
So if a law of a country is to dominate what is religious law for?
You wrote that Bahai law: "is a collection of random articles of faith, general principles abstracted from then-current wisdom, and specific behavioral prohibitions and prescriptions that were important from the perspective of one Iranian nobleman a few hundred years ago. They are, in other words, utterly irrelevant by any objective standard of ethical reasoning or any important measure of normative evaluation."
We have Bahai principles such as equality, independent investigation of truth, the balance of religion and science and so on and then we have the text of the Kitab-i-Adqas which seems to come out of a medival age.
Bahai Law has two components: The text of the Aqdas and the "Questions and Answers" and similiar tablets by Baha'u'llah, and then what the UHJ legistrates and the NSAs + LSAs apply and refine, etc.
In the form and content the Aqdas imitates Islamic law. Because it imitates Islamic law, it can supercede Islamic law in a society. Islamism (the idea that Islamic law is also state law) is a twentieth century innovation. In Baha'u'llah's time religious laws were mainly in the private sphere and state administered (the state had control). So one way to view this aspect of Bahai law, is as a response to Islamic law. For example, in Islamic law a woman had to have permission from her father to marry. Baha'u'llah changed this so that men had to ask as well, and to have their mother's permission. Instead of abolishing something with deep cultural roots he has used the principle of equality to modify it.
I think it is likely that Baha'u'llah intended his laws to be used as principles which individuals and institutions could work with.
Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 21
Baha'u'llah states that he doesn't give just us a code of laws. I would argue that the code of laws he established is the UHJ as legistrator of laws. A UHJ which is flexible and free to change its own laws in a changing world.
It is fantastic that you end your posting on the question of the nature of marriage because this is going to the topic of my next blog. I'm busy these days, but hope it will be there in a month or so.
And I agree with you, a law is much better if as you wrote: "is a collection of principles derived by groups of people working together from secular reasoning, anticipating the future by observing historical lessons, and building on that solid foundation by a system of common law that allows for new and dynamic interpretations of these aforementioned principles."
This is the way social laws work best but I wouldn't too happy if a group people used those same procedures for how we should say prayers.
...
---
yes, but this is the problem:
if a majority in a country converted to fundamentalist-bahai belief, they could simply vote in a dictatorship, rewrite the constitution to make being a critic of such bahai religion punishable by torture/etc.
there is nothing in the bahai system that could stop such an occurrance, even of the uhj wanted it stopped (short of a war).
You think the Bahá'í Faith's opposition to homosexuality can be changed, whereas the Universal House of Justice and Shoghi Effendi both agree the law of homophobia cannot be repealed, since they agree the Bahá'í Faith's opposition to homosexuality is decreed by Bahá'u'lláh himself. You may protest that Bahá'u'lláh did not actually speak about homosexuality as such, but that is completely irrelevant. (Of course, I sympathize with Bahá'í moderates who have trouble seeing how irrelevant this is, as it can be maddening to see such injustices perpetrated on so little evidence). Nevertheless, the reason why it's irrelevant is that Shoghi Effendi was granted infallible authority to interpret Bahá'u'lláh (by 'Abdu'l-Bahá) and Shoghi Effendi interpreted Bahá'u'lláh as condemning homosexuality. So whether you personally believe that Bahá'u'lláh never condemned homosexuality is as relevant to the faithful Bahá'í as whether women are actually qualified to serve on the House of Justice. They simply couldn't care less what Bahá'u'lláh did or did not say, since Shoghi Effendi clearly tells them what to believe Bahá'u'lláh said and they accept that unconditionally (remember, he was infallible). (At this point, we will do well to remember that the Bahá'í Faith has no clergy, because people blindly followed the clergy in past dispensations. That is to say, the Bahá'í prohibition of clergy is a load of Boole sheet.)
It seems, however, that I was not clear about my point regarding the superiority of Dutch law to Bahá'í law. You seemed to take my point as one of practice, so that (to you) what I meant was that a Dutch citizen should practice Dutch law above Bahá'í law. Thus, you quoted Bahá'u'lláh praising Queen Victoria for promoting democracy and suggested that this shows "Baha'u'llah makes a similiar argument [to mine]."
This is not what I meant by saying that Dutch law is superior to Bahá'í law.
What I meant was that Bahá'í law is approximately worthless by any objective standard. It is irrelevant, not just for practice by citizens of specific countries, but even for consideration by any person anywhere in the world. I want to be clear that I do not merely mean the current Bahá'í Administrative Order. I mean the Bahá'í Faith itself, as authored by the so-called "Central Figures". The authoritative Bahá'í law is a deluded man's fancy, an empty pantomime of the shadow of justice; it is a charade aimed at mimicking actual equality and wellbeing with the mere semblance of equality and wellbeing; it is, in short, not worthy of the attention of anyone actually concerned about human welfare or justice. If this is similar to an argument by Bahá'u'lláh, I would be surprised indeed.
The point, however, isn't that the particular laws of the Bahá'í Faith are each and every one of them somehow wrong or immoral -- no. Don't get me wrong: I think that racial and gender equality, the elimination of extremes of wealth and poverty, and universal compulsory education are wonderful goals (on the other hand, many of the Bahá'í laws are arbitrary, ridiculous, or unjust). The point is not about the particular laws, but that there is no justification for any of the laws within the Bahá'í framework except to fulfil God's will. At best, the Bahá'í writings are ambivalent about whether human happiness has any intrinsic worth, and more often, the Bahá'í dogma considers human happiness is a mere means to fulfilling God's will (lest we forget God's greater plan!).
So you see, the worth of the Bahá'í Faith is the same as the worth of an elementary school cheater who copies the answers from his neighbour (in this case, Enlightenment philosophy, a thousand years of Islamic jurisprudence, Sufi tradition, social custom, etc.). Even Bahá'u'lláh's lame attempt at an analogy in the verse you citedis an appropriation of Omar Khayyam's famous literary device, except Bahá'u'lláh wholly mangles it and employs it as a rhetorical trick, without any meaning. (I mean, "fingers of might and power"? What ridiculous imagery. This is the great literary talent we're supposed to admire?)
If you want to decide procedures for how you want to say prayers, then go ahead. Symbolic values and questions of truth are indeed not decided by majority vote. But to suggest that authoritative decree has any more right to decide such matters is simply to make a mockery of their importance. My point is that we discard the Bahá'í Faith with all its haughty claims of infallibility and assaulting words for those who dare question its decrees, and instead, seek the wisdom that the Bahá'í Faith appropriates from the source itself: human history, science, philosophy, and literature. Not only can we do this safely with no apprehensions of losing anything valuable, a commitment to justice and fairness and equal regard for people of all sexual orientations would demand it of us. So I sincerely hope one day we will all overcome the comfort of dogmatism and be joined together in this endeavour.
So much of what you state in your post as Bahai this or that had me in fits of laughter.
Incase you are serious, I'll respond to one of your points.
"You may protest that Bahá'u'lláh did not actually speak about homosexuality as such, but that is completely irrelevant."
Well, well, sorry to contradict you, but it is very relevent at least to Bahais!
This is, sadly, not the case.
If Shoghi Effendi tells them otherwise, Bahá'ís really do not care what Bahá'u'lláh actually said. Likewise, if the Universal House of Justice tells Bahá'ís that Shoghi Effendi tells them that homosexuality is forbidden, Bahá'ís don't care to delve into a hermeneutic investigation to determine if this is true. They regard Shoghi Effendi as infallible, they regard the Universal House of Justice as infallible, and they trust that their authorities are telling them the truth.
There is nothing in all the "independent investigation" rhetoric of the Bahá'í writings which encourages Bahá'ís to question their own religious authorities. Not even one measly verse. All of the admonitions to independent investigation are addressed to those outside the Bahá'í community, while Bahá'ís are told:And:And:It is this attitude that stands in the way of justice. Let us be done with this dogmatism once and for all and finally employ a respectable dialogue.
In my posting you were responding to, I thought I clearly showed (that's why I used so many quotations - i want get past what people say they think the Bahai Writings are about, to what the Bahai Writings actually say) that Shoghi Effendi never penned anything on the subject of homosexuality either. And the point of my post was that it boiled down to the policies of the UHJ.
Your response ignored all of that to state that "the Universal House of Justice and Shoghi Effendi both agree the law of homophobia cannot be repealed"
I don't even know where to start in way of response to this statement as I've already clearly shown that this is not the case. So I assumed you were joking. I was not laughing at you.
I don't (as most Bahá'ís do not) accept the premise that Shoghi Effendi's secretaries did not speak for him. You acknowledge that Shoghi Effendi's secretaries have some authority, but that the authority is not the same as Shoghi Effendi's. That's fine. So you ask, how much authority did Shoghi Effendi's secretaries really have?
My point is that this cannot possibly matter for deciding how we ought to treat gay people. It's not that "if you're a Bahá'í, then it matters to you." Objectively speaking, the relevance of such exercises for determining whether homosexuality should be condemned is as relevant as asking whether the stars that comprise Taurus agree with the local street psychic prediction. They're just irrelevant. If a Bahá'í chooses to care about such matters in deciding how to regard homosexuality, then they're choosing to abdicate their moral sense for authority -- a means of thinking about morality that has nothing to do with human welfare, happiness, or experience.
The Evangelical Lutheran Church voted today to allow individual congregations to bless same-sex marriages.
“I’ve been a life-long member at Redeemer Lutheran Church [in Atlanta], and I was never comfortable asking my church to bless my relationship,” said Bob Gibeling, who is at the assembly. “This offers great hope to me that when I find a future life-long partner, my own beloved congregation will want to bless that union.” The change in the Evangelical Lutheran Church does not require pastors or congregations to bless same-sex unions, but allows those comfortable with it to do so. Gay pastors can serve in Lutheran churches, but only if they are celibate. A vote expected later today will determine whether Lutheran churches can call and install gay pastors who are in relationships.
The Evangelical Lutherans are the largest sect of their denomination with 4.7M members at 10,000 churches. Today's move is opposed by other Lutheran sects and should further splinter the denomination.
Labels: Lutheran Church, marriage equality, religion
I got about 10 Disqus notifications for comments posted to Trouble with the World from Fubar and Concourse on Low that never appeared on the actual site within the last 24 hours. Some comments briefly appeared and then disappeared. I also posted a comment I received a Disqus notification for that never posted.
The Contact form also wasn't working earlier today with multiple attempts- "Fatal Error."
Is the comment system broken, or did you get hacked? Everything cool?
Best,
Amanda
If you can get logs of the interface between DISQUS and your actual blog, you might see what happened. if not, then it seems likeit would have been a glitch more internal to DISQUS.
as Amanda says, the item was however distributed via DISQUS email.
my guess is that some kind of server/net maintenance, or overload, was going on (late night) that caused the glitch, but it could have been a security breach.
i'll try to repost my cr*pola if someone wants me to, but it probably isn't worth the time.
I'll see what I can do to rescue them from purgatory.
Farhan: this might be important to you, to somehow decide if you are to “blame” or not. It is also useful to activists who wish to establish that ALL orientation is genetic and comparable to skin colour. However experience shows that orientation can change in life and many factors can determine a homosexual behaviour: genetics, hormones, opportunities, experience, social setting, etc. There is a site that discuss this in an open and scientific manner: http://borngay.procon.org/
The Baha’i faith is a belief system that promotes a way of life. This involves spiritual values that are applied to a community life. Teachings might have only a spiritual incidence: prayer, studying the writings, truthfulness, abandoning prejudice, loving our neighbour, fasting… other teachings also have a community incidence: marriage, not participating in political issues… untruthfulness, theft, adultery are hence condemned spiritually, but can also entail a condemnation by the community, if it is felt as a threat to community life, and even in some cases condemned by criminal law.
the scam "assumes" that priests/prophets are needed for "common man" to experience the divine.
(Buddhism and Yogic "religion" largely avoids this problem.)
Priest classes became necessary when people started irrigation farming 5000+ years ago, and needed a social mechanism to make people OBEY the "daddy" figure, and follow rules about sharing the precious water.
By elevating the "daddy" archetype to something called "god", the priests could get more people to conform to the water rules, and a bunch of other rules that arose as cities grew, leisure and literacy became the sign of the "refined" classes, etc.
Slavery was invented. "Obeying" and "submitting" were elevated to a "spiritual" status so that the slaves would be reticent to violate social standards that they had been brainwashed into thinking were somehow connected to the progress of their "soul" in this world and/or the next.
"Submission" was simply an idea meant to stop slave revolts. There is nothing "spiritual" about it. Other shamanistic ("descender") religions had developed perfectly good spiritual technologies/practices for stripping away illusions and ego long before the "submission" thing was invented.
So much for ethics, laws, theology: they all participated in the formation of absolutist empire building projects (which to be fair, did lead, slowly, to advances in civilization that are produced by increasingly wealthy, complex societies that have "beat" their tribal competitors).
People were having "spiritual" and "transcendent" (mystic, etc.) experiences LONG LONG before "religion" (irrigation laws) ever existed.
No "religion" is needed for "spiritual transformation".
No "middle man scam" is needed.
No "slave" mentality is needed (since industrial machines were invented by MODERN CAPITALISTS WHO BELIEVED IN "REAL" DEMOCRACY).
No "prophets" or "priests" or "bahai administators" (spiritual "middle men") are needed for human beings to access the spiritual energy that exists in everything from human DNA to the far reaches of the first star dust blown out from the big bang at the beginning of the universe.
"Progressive revelation" is very very very bad science, and is inferior to developmental theory as an explanation of either history, or consciousness.
Bahai theology very badly explains evolution.
Are you saying that if the law forbids gay relations they will stop doing it?
Farhan: I agree
As to what a community can accept in a certain social situation, it is up o the LSA of that community to decide.
http://www.matthewshepard.org/site/PageServer?p...
1> two men holding hands at a feast
2> 2 men kissing each other on the lips
are these activities also not allowed.....is it just anal sex that is not allowed? what about between staight couples.....?
2 men kissing - well, don't they do that in Italy? Or you mean really passionate kisses? Bit racy, probably liven up Feast quite nicely! One friend of mine told me about some guy that decided to come to Feast as a cross dresser as a bit of a joke - you should've seen the flames!
Anal sex is not permitted full stop for either hetero or gay in the Baha'i Faith :(
is it is the writings ...? can we have a quote.....i might read it out in persian at our next feast as a reminder that no one should be doing it....
49. QUESTION: Concerning the penalties for adultery, sodomy, and theft, and the degrees thereof.
ANSWER: The determination of the degrees of these penalties rests with the House of Justice.
The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 121
Bahá'u'lláh makes provision for the Universal House of Justice to determine, according to the degree of the offence, penalties for adultery and sodomy (Q and A 49).
The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 223
Ye are forbidden to commit adultery, sodomy and lechery.
Baha'u'llah, untranslated tablet - Compilations, The Compilation of Compilations vol. I, p. 57
And that is it. Baha'u'llah can be surprisingly blunt when he wants to be. The UHJ hasn't set any penalties yet as far as I'm aware.
I was wondering why. Is it one of those prohibitions that will change with time?
e.g. circumcision, compulsory back then, nowadays not practiced except in eastern cultures and occasionally in western - reason? We're much more hygenic now.
e.g. pork, prohibited in muslim culture because pigs are unclean, but modern pig rearing methods are pretty clean, disease is not a problem (except for swine flu) and pork is yummy.
e.g. oral sex, horror! Well everyone was pretty filthy back in the days, so it probably wasn't the best thing to do. Now standard practice for every good sexual relationship, not even mentioned in Baha'i writings.
e.g. masturbation, horror! common practice for any enterprising individual or groups (Farhan practices written masturbation everyday), not even mentioned in Baha'i writings, except from SE's sweaty secretaries and the UHJ. God knows why it was prohibited in the first place, apart from sour pus priests not wanting anyone to have any fun if they couldn't have any.
e.g. anal sex, well, we all know why, but modern day society has condoms, lube, etc. Modern technology has made it possible!
e.g. vaginal sex, the main reason was and still is kids, but everyone is doing pretty well with modern contraception, so why not let people play a little?
What other naughty deviant fun practices will modern day technology make possible I wonder?
Because I take seriously the principle of agreement of religion with science, and because I take seriously Baha'u'llah's statement that "the best beloved of all things in my sight is justice" which means that we must see with our own eyes - in other words, pay attention to our own experience in the world, and because I take seriously the principle of unity in diversity, and believe deeply that the more diverse we are as a people, the stronger we are - for all these reasons, I am convinced that the current Baha'i stance on homosexuality is simply wrong. We cannot force change from the top, but we can, as responsible Baha'is, educate ourselves on this issue - this means listening to those who are wronged, and really listen, not with a hidden agenda of changing their view but to listen truly, to another truth.
Then, after listening, if we feel so moved by conscience, as many of us do, (and yes, conscience is a God-given guide in making moral decisions), we must be willing to speak out, to speak our own understanding, as an essential part of consultation, whether formal or not, involving one other person or many, among Baha'is. We cannot shrink from the truth - we don't have to have a final answer or resolution - we just have to educate ourselves, and then speak the truth we know - things will progress from there.
"Then, after listening, if we feel so moved by conscience, as many of us do, (and yes, conscience is a God-given guide in making moral decisions), we must be willing to speak out, to speak our own understanding, as an essential part of consultation, whether formal or not, involving one other person or many, among Baha'is. We cannot shrink from the truth - we don't have to have a final answer or resolution - we just have to educate ourselves, and then speak the truth we know - things will progress from there."
That, indeed, was what I thought the Baha'i Faith was: affirming the advancement and development of sacred individual human conscience. I honestly thought all these years that was what Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha taught. I thought that was what religion was all about. But now I see that was a mindset from Protestant Christianity that I innocently brought into the Faith from my background. I was WRONG!
That belief, sadly, is COMPLETE OLDTHINK in the Baha'i Faith of today. It is even quaint. In the NEWTHINK Baha'i Faith of today you do what you are told by the people elected to do all your thinking for you and all the thinking for the entire Baha'i community worldwide. You keep quiet or you will be investigated by an ABM or AABM if your are reported for thought crimes or any thoughts of individual conscience on any matter or issue. You do what you are told and you do not question or ask why or wherefore. You live in fear at all times that your unsanctioned and unapproved thought crimes will be discovered. The same old, same old in "organized" religion. People had genuinely hoped for something better than this. But what you wrote is beautiful and is still how I feel souls should live. But the individual is nothing now in the Baha'i Faith. If you have any individual thoughts or a (gasp) personal conscience still residing in you, you will have to recant for crimes against YEAR ONE or something. It is only sanctioned groupthink that is permitted.
What these guys say goes. What these guys say as their own personal interpretation to captive Baha'i audiences IS the Baha'i Faith. What the latest social theories of the members of the ITC discuss over lunch IS THE BAHA'I FAITH now. What these people have as their personal opinions is pure, sacred, Divine Revelation. People like PK and his lifetime incumbent brethren completely own the Baha'i faith as their own personal satrap. What they say is the standard. And what they say goes for everyone and no one has the right to as "why" or "wherefore". Period.
"We have inherited a dangerous delusion from Christianity that our individual conscience is supreme. This is not a Baha'i belief. In the end, in the context of both our role in the community and our role in the greater world, we must be prepared to sacrifice our personal convictions or opinions. The belief that individual conscience is supreme is equivalent to 'taking partners with God' which is abhorrent to the Teachings of the Faith."
- Douglas Martin
Former Member of the Universal House of Justice
Baha'i Faith
So it goes.
Farhan: The question as I see it is not what is normal or abnormal. The question is what can I do which will be in the best interests of humanity, as an individual, and as a member of society. Christ’s life was not “normal”; it was by far in the best interests of humanity.
Barb, I totally agree with the harmony of science and religion and the importance of justice. I also agree that the stigma and prejudice involved are totally unacceptable. To come to practical terms, would you suggest liberalising gay relations outside marriage or instating a gay marriage for Baha'is?
This would be a step in the right direction.
I did not say harmony of science and religion - I said the agreement of religion with science. Otherwise we are left with superstition. As for abolishing stigma and prejudice, you cannot expect to do this when you label an adult, loving, committed relationship as spiritually unworthy. One cannot straddle the fence here - you must jump one way or another.
It is never too late to undertake this spiritual journey. What counts, is not what we appear to be compared to others, but what progress we have accomplished in compared with what God gave us. In the eyes of God, a person that others might consider as a sinner can be far more advanced than a prominent person who has not advanced from his initial starting point. No misgiving is too great, no shortcoming is insurmountable in the eyes of God.
"To regard homosexuals with prejudice and disdain would be entirely against the spirit of Baha'i Teachings. The doors are open for all of humanity to enter the Cause of God, irrespective of their present circumstances; this invitation applies to homosexuals as well as to any others who are engaged in practices contrary to the Baha'i Teachings."
http://bahai-library.com/uhj/homosexuality.uhj....
Yes, they commend the woman for being compassionate and trying to keep unity in the family. But WHERE are the strong words against the Father. There are so many other religions that would take a stronger stance and say the true immorality/evil is a Father who turns his back on his son because of this. We don't see that in the letter. The UHJ is actually trying to be compassionate and understanding towards the parents because that bad child did the horrible thing of telling his parents who he really is. DO you know Farhan how difficult it is to come out to one's parents? Most gay people fear the worse. And add on to that a disgusting letter like this one from the UHJ that tells the parents that it is "understandable" why that sick father would feel the way he does, makes the situation even worse. I am so glad I never came out to my fundie Bahai parents when I was a teenager. Back then I actually believed the crap that you all fed to me. Maybe back then I would have actually killed myself and been yet another pititful statistic inside the Bahai community. Of course none of you would give a them, because a dead gay Bahai is way better than one who is out, happy and telling the world the suffering that goes on inside the Bahai community at the hands of people like you and the AO. I just pray that that child being referred to in the letter did not end up hurting himself when he sees that he is being rejected by his Father and getting lukewarm acceptance by hi mother and the supposedly supreme institution speaking on behalf of Almighty God!
What you describe of the Baha’i marriage is the spiritual and essential part, what goes on between a person and God and would be valid for someone stranded on an isolated island. I understand the passage in Aqdas on « livat » translated as « sodomy » referring to homosexuality, whether male or female and not anal penetration. All this is our private deal with God, but Baha’is also interact with a community and need to abide by community laws.
The crux of the subject would then boil down to social norms and standards within each community and the minimum requirements of the particular community we wish to belong to.
What you say about norms is valid for blood pressure and body temperature, but norms also refer to a “golden standard” towards which we wish to advance. It is statistically “abnormal” to be well fed, have clean water and access to education on this planet, but the golden standard is to rise above all these limitations of nature and this can only be accomplished through a harmonized community effort. Our aim hence is not to be “normal” but to advance along the path of human endeavour.
If someone decides to improve his situation by doing a PhD, he doesn’t start asking I am allowed to skip early morning lectures and bring a cell phone, my MP3 and sandwiches to the conference room. His aim is to learn and he will try to see which books he has to buy and where he has to find references. As Abdu’l-Baha says, it is not sufficient to choose the right professor: we have to go to the university, enroll and advance in the path of knowledge and virtue.
We adhere to a religion to see how we can improve ourselves and the society we live in. This is why I consider discussions as to “norms” of what is acceptable and what is not in order to maintain an ID card as well below the true purpose of religion.
Anyone know what this means?
<<<<If someone decides to improve his situation by doing a PhD, he doesn’t start asking I am allowed to skip early morning lectures and bring a cell phone, my MP3 and sandwiches to the conference room. >>>>>
So Here we see more clearly into Farhan's thinking....being a Baha'i is improving your education....trying to bend the rules for your own private confort is a kind of cheating....I take it from this that you think
being GAY something which is beyond our control and as a result of being gay wanting to have a relationship with someone you love is a kind of back sliding and anti-social behaviour.....
I would add to your analogy a little..... imagine the Phd student but theey can't get into the lecture room becasue they are in a wheel chair and as a result cannot manage the stairs.....the lecturer tells her ...well with prayer and medical advice and effort grow new working legs....and then you will be welcome.....or put a ramp in...
Farhan: are you saying that being gay is a handicap? I am saying that it is a minority situation that needs help, and that societies are not tuned to that duty as yet.
You might believe that the solution is to liberalise gay relations or make provisions for gay marriages, I believe that societies have a right to reflect and hesitate before making such a decision unprecedented in human history.
Timwatts: being a Baha'i is improving your education....trying to bend the rules for your own private confort is a kind of cheating....
Farhan: That is not my opinion. My belief is that when we accept a manifestation of God, which no one is obliged to do, we are accepting an ideal towards which we hope to evolve and we come together with others having the same goal; some have an easier time than others who as you say are handicapped.
We are supposed to help each other, as this is not a competition, but an effort for mutually raising our global capacities. Some people in Baha’i communities have not grasped this fact as yet and they bring about power issues. The handicap might come from our family background, addictions, health problems, or whatever. The handicapped person should be helped and has a greater merit, and is spiritually more advanced than a person without handicaps, but it is not a good idea to lower the standard for everyone.
Stigma and prejudice towards others is unacceptable and has to be corrected. I consider it as more grievous than not observing community rules, but this does not mean that each community does not have the right to establish it's own regulations within the limits of state laws.
Now we have to find how to help each other, including the socially handicapped bigoted puritans, into becoming better people.
Making provision for gay marriage is hardly unprecedented in human history - have you been paying attention to the world around you?
And "to reflect and hesitate" is often a euphemism for dragging one's feet while others do the hard, right thing. As in the abolition of slavery, as in giving women the vote, etc.
Societies do not reflect and hesitate - the individuals who make up those societies do, and what we do as individuals matters.
I do not wish to be rude, Farhan, but I must say that in general, I find your arguments in support of the Baha'i community's immoral behavior toward the gays in their midst, unconvincing in the extreme. This is, however, fine with me - when you start making convincing arguments in this regard, then I will begin to worry.
http://www.ktre.com/Global/story.asp?S=10989715
He writes: "Are you proposing a Bibliocracy?"
Are we proposing an Aqdasocracy? Or do we already have it?
Here is a truly insightful post from a Baha'i perspective:
http://hadleyives.blogspot.com/2009/01/what-doe...
He writes: "Possibly homosexuality is, as I’ve suggested, a 'good thing' for some people, and a 'bad thing' for others."
Now there's a thought!
"At the bottom of things, this conversation is about fear and manipulation, not sex."
Yes, that's just what it's about! The debate over homo-sex is just a diversion, just a symptom of a deeper problem. Fear. Manipulation. A "literalism of scriptural words." Authoritarianism.
Aqdasocracy!
I can't believe Baha'u'llah would want this. He wouldn't want people "revoked" or forbidden from Feast because they were "openly gay." He wasn't stupid, he was far-sighted, broad-minded, with a great depth of judgment, he was open to the future, he wasn't some hard-hearted hard-line preacher or strict evangelist, he understood people, he knew how to make concessions for the greater good, he was flexible, not rigid.
I can only think that the UHJ has come to believe that the Faith will not win any more hearts, that it's basically gone as far as it can go, and so they've decided to consolidate their control so that their subordinates act according to their wishes, so that we have this precious elitist community of "okay" Baha'is (who serve in the kitchen! LOL) and the "not okay" Baha'is who just don't meet the "special specifications" (but that doesn't mean we have clergy! LOL). So it's very sad, and it's the death-knell for this "emerging global religion," because, as Peter Khan says, "No time scale is given, but it may well be decades or indeed centuries," so yes, the game can go on forever, the Faith gets smaller, but the tide will turn in only a few more centuries ... keep donating!!!
Well, I plan to visit the local ELCA congregation on Sunday. Good luck to Sonja and dco and others, best wishes.
OOOOH NO YOU DON'T ....nice try although being gay in the baha'i faith certainly is a handicap.....as you well know i was likening someone in a wheel chair to being gay in the sense that they are discriminated against through NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN......so please don't put words in my mouth....
You wrote: "I would be very surprised if the UHJ or any other Baha'i institution approbated the idea of a child being thrown out of home for homosexuality"
Daniel's voting rights were removed because he was married and the reason given by the NSA which I quoted in the blog above was because of 'same sex marriage' and his “support of homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle for Baha’is”.
Luckily Daniel's son is no longer a child, but surely if I follow your argumentation (which I agree with personally) that Bahais should try and use the Bahai principles to guide their actions. Then removing a Bahai from the membershi rolls because they married is going against the rules and prescriptions of supporting family life. While other Bahais have same sex partners in the same country and do not marry and are not punished. And worse, their children grow up understanding that in the eyes of the Bahai community their parents are not treated with the respect other couples are.
You state that losing one's voting rights is not a big deal, but it is the intent. The removal and the reason for removal that is extremely important.
One of the reasons, that obviously, something seems terribly wrong with removing Daniel's voting rights, is because the NSA's letter give his marriage as a reason. A NSA is punishing someone for making the life-long commitment of marriage!
Change is happening and actually change in attitudes towards Bahai communities accepting all people as equal members with equal responsibilities + rights will come. I do believe this and I do see change happening, but many Bahais then ignore the Bahai Writings or do as Farhan, make argumentation for rules in differing categories, etc. If you follow this argumentation, then the implication is that for gays it would be better not to declare themselves to join the Bahai community. The Bahai Teachings, surely, should be there for all. I do not think Baha'ullah would have intended that the rules for membership would mean, only some types of people.
What my goal is with this blog is to look and see if there is anything in the Bahai Writings that contradicts an equal acceptance of diverse sexual identities, because, surely, the Bahai Faith shouldn't require Bahais to live with double standards. One for their gay friends and one for their straight friends. It seems to me that Farhan is trying to do this (admirable, b.t.w.) because he sees that - I assume - the homophobic attitudes in the letters written by secretaries on behalf of Shoghi Effendi as part of the unchangeable Bahai Scripture. I don't, so I don't think there is a need for Bahais to create "if" and "but" clauses for the Bahai teachings in order to accept our LGBT brothers and sisters on equal terms.
That the UHJ seems to treat the letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, also doesn't mean that the UHJ is forever locked into the unchangeable. The UHJ is free to be flexible. Free to make law. Free to change its policies.
However, naturally, it will only make a policy or change one if it sees a need.
The practice of how our LGBT Bahais are treated by the Bahai administration is diverse. This is not in itself terrible if Bahais see this as something in transition. So, in some countries openly accepting gay marriage for example might endanger other Bahais or Bahais in other countries, but, to actively remove Bahais from the rolls because they marry is quite another matter.
Farhan: I agree; it is very important spiritually, perhaps as a means of informing the community of the importance of rules, but not comparable to a child being abandoned or rejected by his parents.
Sonjavank: A NSA is punishing someone for making the life-long commitment of marriage!
Farhan: they would be doing _exactly_ the same if the couple married without consent of parents or if a person got involved in politics. It is an educative action towards whatever might be a threat to the stability of the community and not specifically against gays. That individuals in the community might be homophobic or bigots, is another matter that equally needs attention in our immature communities.
I see a difference between breaking a rule and publicly announcing your disagreement with a rule. In the first case you are saying I accept the laws of this community, but i am unable to comply; in the second you are saying I disagree with the rules of this community.
Sonjavank: the implication is that for gays it would be better not to declare themselves to join the Bahai community
Farhan: a good point. Some youth even wait to have a stabilised life before declaring! My taking is that part of our spiritual education is accepting God’s will above our own. By avoiding this confrontation, we are like a patient running away from a necessary injection. We have difficult choices in our lives; it is by making the right choice that the stumbling block becomes a stepping stone. If we duck all the obstacles we will not progress spiritually, but again, only the one who wishes to undertake that spiritual journey upwards, away from his own will and nearer to that of God can accept such a sacrifice. There is no question of imposing it on others, but whatever the motives of the UHJ, I humbly accept their arbitration and any necessary reforms the decide necessary.
Meanwhile, we have a duty to reduce the stigma and prejudice in our societies and within our communities towards gays and one way of advancing is in asking our LSA which activities are officially open to them.
Sonjvank: …he sees that - I assume - the homophobic attitudes in the letters written by secretaries on behalf of Shoghi Effendi as part of the unchangeable Bahai Scripture
Farhan: Even if we made abstraction of all the scriptures and comments by secretaries, if I were a member of a secular institution confronted with the decision of instating gay marriages (thanks God I am not), I cannot see how an international community could cope at the present hour in human history, with all the implications involved in such a legislative change in family structure.
I am not against innovations, but I would say, as a principle of precaution, let us wait and see what results experiments are going to produce elsewhere. We now have a small cohort over some 25 years of gay parenthood studies behind us. We still don’t know how these kids from gay parents are going to cope with parenthood.
Baquia, you sure there isn't some hidden conspiracy where you are paying Farhan to do what he does ;P
LoL - yes I pay Farhan to expose himself as a bigot and a fundamentalist without an iota of compassion or progressive thought. It is a pretty penny but worth it.
Removal of rights IS a big deal.
Well, this is appalling and an obvious violation of Baha'i principles. This is why we all need spiritualisation through a deeper study of the writings. As to the community requirements, which under no circumstances warrant misbehaviour from Baha'is, I agree that it is not a small deal and a great dilemma for a conscientious soul.
This sentence is just disgusting. Especially from someone who claims to be educated (a medical doctor).
No matter. The world is ever evolving and as much as Farhan and others like him would want to tether us to such backward thinking, civilization moves forward. If you want to see the future, just go talk to a group of youth and ask them what they think of homosexuality and if it is an issue with them.
Every time I read something as pathetic and vile as these words above, I remind myself that such things were also written about the issue of slavery, women's rights and racial equality and many other issues - all under a similar guise of dialogue and scientific debate. But as we all know, such issues have been removed from contestation.
So my suggestion to you (and myself) would be to not get too upset by looking at such minutia but to cast your gaze to the horizon. The future is good and it is coming. Hopefully we'll be around to see it and be part of it.
I know how at least three kids from gay parents are going to cope with parenthood. We just returned from a family reunion. Two of the children of my sister-in-law, who is lesbian and in a long-term relationship, were there with children of their own (her other three children were there as well - one engaged, the other two younger). One of those "kids" is soon to have a second child. Both these "kids of gay parents" are excellent parents to their children. And those children cannot be distinguished in any significant way from the children from "straight families" who were there. They are all healthy and happy, well developed children.
And it gets weirder, Farhan. My husband, who is gay (put that in your pipe and smoke it, Farhan - figure that out with your black and white theology), raised his son as a single parent, while actively gay, and he did an excellent job of parenting. His son is well adjusted, responsible, dependable, loving, sensitive and generous, has an excellent job. He is now a loving uncle to children of the family and of friends, and he is supremely qualified to be an excellent and loving parent when he and his wife have children.
You said sometime back, and I may paraphrase a little, "whatever helps us toward love and reconciliation is more precious....". Yes, Farhan?
If you will forgive my observation, you try to fit life to your theories and theology, rather than observing life and using that observation to adjust your theories.
Wake up, Farhan. Please.
Don't spin this, Farhan - I don't want to hear it.
Barb
My son is 24, just returned from 8 months as a Fulbright/MTV scholar in Mali, and is going on to grad school. He graduated from the IB program here in high school, and the top of his class at UC Berkeley. His girlfriend, also a Haas Scholar, has a 4 yr old kid (a mistake her freshman year, her family supported her to succeed) is headed to a MFA program at UCLA. My son is a great step parent, and they come and visit our home frequently.
Interestingly enough, they are disgusted by the Baha'is. They ran into many at school and found them to use his discriptors "weird", arrogant, insular, overwhelmingly Persian, conservative... and out of touch.
When I got my letter they all drove over from the Bay Area to hang with me that evening... if that is not family, I don't know what it is. They knew how much I love this Faith and even tho its not their path, they came to support me.
Interestingly enough, she filmed and produced the wedding video, and my son was our best man... he's perfectly OK with being around gay folks, and doesn't find it a problem. He knows what he is and enjoys diversity.
Interestingly my ex-wife (his birth mother) also is disgusted by the Baha'is. Never joined when we were married as found the nutty, weird... etc.
Gay parents tend to produce higher achiever kids, because if they are parents, its because they really want to be...
a true story...
when he was in high school, he had some buddies over to study... I brought in some snacks and sodas... when I left, one of his friends said, thinking I couldn't hear:
"I wish my parents were gay, your dads are cool!"
he said, " its no difference, they are assholes just like yours"
M & I sat in the living room grinning...
Sorry, but we did something good...
You have made me very happy this day, dco.
The more stories we hear, the better. Whether they are happy or sad stories, or even angry ones - does not matter. They teach us, and we need teaching.
And for what it's worth, others of us are disgusted by Baha'is as well; that is one reason we speak out. The other reason is that we love the Faith, and we do not believe this is how it was meant to be.
Barb
Barb, I like your idea and I would suggest you try get some stories and write them down. I've some of Bahais who know are dead - and am not sure open I can be about them. But just think about collecting the stories first and worry about how you publish them later. You need the stories first and as you work on this, it'll become clearer. You probably need to garantee anonymity.
I can't help much because I have jobs and kids + half finished projects (including a book). I focus where I can on blogging.
It has occurred to me as well that the most important thing, for whoever does this, is to just plunge in and call for the stories, and that a way forward will be seen as one goes along. I'm not worried about the publishing part. Perhaps it could even be done completely on line somehow. I don't know what I'm talking about in that regard - just an idea.
My own opinion is that it be done in such a way as to target two audiences - gay Baha'is or former gay Baha'is for a feeling of solidarity and encouragement, and the non-gay Baha'i community in general - to provoke thought, self-examination, and perhaps discussion.
As for help - I just realized I have a fantastic resource at my disposal (it's odd how an idea will drop into one's mind and then you only gradually realize the pieces already in place to help realize the idea). A young man who is the son of a Baha'i friend, and who is himself estranged I think from the Baha'i community, though friendly to Baha'is - I don't know if he has ever been a Baha'i himself - is a computer whiz. He is absolutely a genius with computers. I call him whenever I have any question or problem. I am reasonably certain he would be enthusiastic to help with any on-line mechanics of this project, and I would pay him, as I always do, so it would be employment for him. He could help and advise with absolutely anything I wanted to do, and could work closely with me. I think he could advise and help to some extent if someone else took this on, as well.
Anyway, for now I think I will wait a couple weeks or so and see what develops in terms of response - perhaps that more capable person will materialize and take the lead, and I and others can offer help.
I would not want people to be put off by my statement about checking details and verifying stories - I certainly don't think anyone should be prying into people's lives. I'm just thinking that there has to be a way to be reasonably certain the stories are authentic - Amanda offered a little advice in this regard. Perhaps we just have to trust each other. I agree that anonymity would absolutely have to be guaranteed for those requesting that, and any confidentiality would have to be scrupulously respected.
My husband, by the way, is already enthusiastic about this idea - always good to have support at home.
Thanks for your kind words and advice.
Barb
Barb, I have been involved in ethical decision making in these issues for some 20 years now. This involves people who call on medical teams for medical assistance for procreation, and sociologists, psychologists and law makers impartially trying to find the best solution for the would-be parents, the kids and for society.
I am saying that the people I interact with say they don’t know. You quote stories of successful families and say you know. Law-makers require scientific evidence and there is a huge amount of exchange in Europe as the bioethics laws are being discussed.
For the moment the studies I have had access to cover a couple of decades and suggest that children raised by gay families are doing statistically better than those raised by non-gay families. The objection to this has been that the gay parents studied were statistically more educated, financially better off, more meticulous since conscious of being observed. Another objection is that we need more time to see how these kids will act as parents.
If you know of more recent studies I am not aware of, I would be grateful to have access to them. If anyone feels that my comments here have been unscientific, I would be glad to have them assessed by any scientific committee in France or in the US; the reply can be shared here.
This has nothing to do with my personal opinions as a Baha’i which concern my beliefs and not my professional activities and my patients. My guess, as a Baha’i, is that Abdu’l-Baha would promote love and fellowship amongst gays and non-gays, the same requirements concerning chastity, and encourage marriages between gays and non-gays, and not intermarriage amongst themselves.
We also have to consider at what pace a society can evolve without creating havoc. A hundred years ago Abdu’l-Baha encouraged mixed marriages in the US but forty years ago the film “Guess who is coming to dinner” was banned in the US, but not in France.
Farhan: we have generations of examples before us and we know the challenges, the pitfalls and advantages; there is no ongoing social debate on this subject, and Baha’i teachings encourage them. No one is ranting about them, so why should I waste my time suggesting a new legislation when I am living through them?
Peyamb: Yet somewho, you have no problem with these types of marriages- they are not even worthy of your great scientific mind that is, you know, just observing for the good of humanity
Farhan: I observe the laws of society as you do, and I occasionally give recommendations if my opinion is sought. It so happens that gay marriages and parenthood are being discussed in France amongst other subjects for the oncoming revision of the 1994 bioethical laws by lawmakers, biologists, moralists and various associations. These laws are also under discussion as an innovation in the US and elsewhere in the world. Your views are as valuable to me (and perhaps even more so) as many others.
The fact that Baha’i teachings do not endorse them for Baha’is, does not alter the fact that I am working in a society where they exist, where a new legislation is being discussed for those who do not wish to be guided by Baha’i teachings, so I cannot ignore them. The fact that the Baha’i teachings suggest that science in the future will enable us to cure many diseases through appropriate diets, does not allow me to apply medical treatments other than those now endorsed by present day science. I have to live in the present world with an eye on the future.
That's not scientific data. Have you analyzed these Bahai/other religion families to see how the children grew up. Is the divorce rate higher among them? Have they turned to drugs? Are they criminials? You can't say empirical evidence that we offer regarding children from same-sex families is NOT valid, yet apply it as ok ("we have generatinos of families" without any analysis). Seems yet again hypocritical on your part. Have you learned that word hypocrisy yet Farhan?
Peyamb, You have your experience and opinions, I have mine. I am willing to enter into a dialogue so as to share experiences, and where I might learn and perhaps advance in my opinions. I am not willing to enter into a wrestling match where people throw junk at each other.
Baquia, as I have repeated several times, interracial and interreligious marriages have existed over the ages. No one is discussing a change in religious beliefs or legislation in this respect. If the discussion on this subject comes up, I can provide my own personal experience; I believe that people should not be encouraged towards mixed marriages unless they are willing to face the challenges involved.
I am being informed of the suffering of the gays unable to live their orientation in a world where the majority of citizens see no need for a change in religious beliefs and in legislation, neither of which I have any bearing upon. I am occasionally invited to give my views which are close to that of the majority of my colleagues who choose tolerance and caution, a position that you find “disgusting” and contrary to your personal understanding of science.
I agree that many fears expressed 20 years back have been eliminated, but that in many parts of the world, including France, where interracial and interreligious marriages are not questioned, the legislator hesitates to innovate by accepting gay marriages and parenthood.
Is it so difficult to see the selective difference between continuing an age-old situation and adopting an innovation?
I am interested in a dialogue on this subject and I am saying that 1) I do not see sexual orientation as a race 2) I do not see sexual orientation as slavery 3) I do not see GLTB as a specific social group or gender, and if did, I wonder if we should not promote unity by encouraging intermarriage between gays and non-gays or between gays and lesbians. 5) Within the framework of civil laws, we should let religions apply their principles without pressuring them so that we can compare results. 6) Efforts should be made at improving dialogue between gays and non-gays and avoiding that it becomes a source of further misunderstanding and resentment through harsh and scatological language.
Thanks, Grover, for your definition of anyone expressing an opinion that insistently differs from yours. Once again, you are addressing your views of a participant in a dialogue, and not providing your views on the subject being discussed.
Once again Grover, we are here to share views, not to compare or blame those holding views. When people have no further argument to present on the subject being examined, they start to make comments on those holding the views.
Sonja has suggested that the Baha’is might change their position towards gay marriages; I find this improbable in a foreseeable future. You disagree with me. As Baquia wisely pointed out, time will tell who will have made the right guess. There is no need to call each other names.
Once again Grover, we are here to share views, not to compare or blame those holding views. When people have no further argument to present on the subject being examined, they start to make comments on those holding the views.
Sonja has suggested that the Baha’is might change their position towards gay marriages; I find this improbable in a foreseeable future. You disagree with me. As Baquia wisely pointed out, time will tell who will have made the right guess. There is no need to call each other names.
Peyamb, who said I represented the Baha’is ? I am just one Baha’i, and I share my understanding that is subject to change. I am trying to dialogue on issues, and not you, me or other Baha’is.
I guess you mean gays should not intermarry among themselves, but non-gays should do that. But then there are marriages between gays and gays that are heterosexual - i.e. between gay men and lesbians. There have been such things recorded in history. It gets complicated, doesn't it, Farhan?
But I catch your drift - according to your beliefs, a man should never enter into a sacred, legal, loving commitment to another man, and a woman should never enter into a sacred, legal, loving commitment to another woman - even if they are interested in providing a safe, loving, legal environment for children, i.e. family. Better they should all just shack up - no point in seeking stability.
Have I got it right now?
I think we should agree to disagree, and I am willing to do that. Let's give it a rest.
Barb
No, Barb. This is not my belief and in any case I am willing to consider other beliefs in a dialogue but not in a wrestling match.
Since I chose to live and work in France, I apply the laws here and I participate in discussions about gay marriages and parenthood. My understanding is that what we have seen over the last 25 years is reassuring, but not sufficient at this time for the legislator (which I am not) to promote laws in favour of gay marriages and parenthood. I also consider it necessary to allow all religious communities to apply whatever prescriptions they deem necessary, without putting them under pressure, so that in time we can compare results.
If I am asked the opinion of Baha’is in this matter, I would say that they have elected delegates who have elected NSAs who in turn have elected an international body that condemns discrimination against gays, requires chastity from its members without distinguishing between gays and non-gays and does not make provisions for religious gay marriages. Being gay is not equated to a separate race or to a form of slavery. My understanding is that if we did wish to separate people with different orientations as different races, the Baha’i principle would encourage interracial marriages and not segregation of gays from non-gays is different communities.
1) gays have a disorder that we believe can be cured through prayer and determined effort
2) that they can sympathize with an angry parent that has refused their gay child to come back to the house and did not condemn that parent in the letter
3) that they believe that some day genetic manipulation of a fetus could possibly get rid of the disease of homosexuality
4) that an openly gay person (like Daniel) will be kicked out of the Bahai community and have no equal rights as other Bahais; when absolutely no one knows what he is doing in his bedroom and it is no one's business
shall I go on? Will you also be fair and mention all these things or will you continue to be a hypocrite and try to fool people into believing how sweet the Bahai AO and the community is towards the LGBT community. Yes Farhan, "LGBT COMMUNITY". We are a community by default because of the ignorance that exists in the world. Oops sorry, am I flinging junk again?
I have a very wee bit of experience - I spent many years reading manuscripts, copy-editing and proof-reading for Calyx Journal of Literature by Women in a volunteer capacity, while I earned my living as a medical transcriptionist. I certainly would be willing to help if needed, or even to take the task on myself if no one else would step forward.
Think of it - a collection of stories to encourage and nourish gay Baha'is, and to provoke reflection and self-examination in non-gay Baha'is. Would this not be useful and a joy to behold?
I wonder if Kalimat would consider publishing such a collection?
Anyone out there interested?
It would be possible to put a call for stories out on YouTube in reply to this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Guidl-7oGn4&feat... and moderate the comments so it isn't a troll-fest, or just ask people to reply by private email to the users YouTube account who want to be involved. Creating it and managing it is beyond my current capacity, but I'd be happy to help you. There are also other forums online people are already tuned into where the word could get spread. Seeing it published would be great. GETTING it published would be tricky, but well worth it.
Good luck.
Thanks for all your lovely comments here.
After quoting religions on gay relations, marriages and parenthood, it would be good to quote scientists and see what percentage of them are better informed than myself.
---
thanks for another example of backward thinking and distortion.
backward religious ideas and rules (such as found in bahai) are unnecessary for "spiritual" transformation.
backward religious ideas and rules (such as found in bahai) are unnecessary for social progress.
you yourself are a perfect example of how backward religious ideas/memes inevitably lead to retardation of spiritual development and a lack of social progress.
you defend bahai because you have been socially programmed to believe in absolutisms.
in any society where the "center of gravity" shifts toward postmodernism, absolutisms (e.g., many/most bahai beliefs) are seen as backward.
further, bahai adds little/nothing to the discussion of what is wrong with postmodernism, or solutions.
farhan wrote:
"My taking is that part of our spiritual education is accepting God’s will above our own. ... If we duck all the obstacles we will not progress spiritually, but again, only the one who wishes to undertake that spiritual journey upwards, away from his own will and nearer to that of God can accept such a sacrifice. "
My greatest thanks to those who have already offered comments and stories - this is so heartwarming - I felt a little weepy last night (happy weepy) and could not sleep at first - my head was swimming with the possibilities.
You all are the greatest resource - if you give me stories, I will hold them sacred, and the path will unfold.
Barb
all my very best!
Daniel Orey
Thanks.
Barb
Such comment/criticism is welcome - if I am the one to do this, the only way I will make it through is if you all help and comment and give your opinions.
This is, of course, a working title - who knows what we will end up with - will depend on the material that comes in.
Barb
I am gay, she's a lesbian... etc
Corvino: Other people’s judgments
By John Corvino, columnist, 365gay.com
08.28.2009 10:54am EDT
“You don’t just want us to tolerate what you gay people do,” my skeptical questioner announced, “you want us to think that it’s RIGHT.”
Send / Share
Add Comment
Whenever I hear this point–and it’s pretty often–I always think to myself, “Duh.” Of course I want people to think homosexuality is “right.” Why would anyone think I wouldn’t?
Actually, the latter question is not entirely rhetorical. Even my fellow gays ask me why we should care about other people’s moral approval. Beyond the obvious pragmatic advantages - for example, more moral approval means more favorable voting attitudes means more legal rights means an easier life - why should we give a damn what other people think? And while we’re on the subject, why should THEY care? Why are our lives any of their business?
There’s a myth circulating among well-meaning people that “morality is a private matter,” and that therefore “we shouldn’t judge other people.” This is nonsense of the highest order. Morality is about how we treat one another. It’s about fairness and justice. It’s about what we as a society are willing to tolerate, what we positively encourage, and what we absolutely forbid. It is the furthest thing from a private matter.
There’s a story I always tell in my introductory ethics classes about a freshman who wrote a paper defending moral relativism. His paper was laden with references to what’s “true for you” versus what’s “true for me,” what’s “right for you” versus what’s “right for me” and so on. I gave the paper an F. Surprised and angry, the student came to my office demanding a justification.
“Well,” I carefully explained, “I graded your paper the way I grade all papers. I stood at the top of a staircase and threw a batch of papers down the stairs. Those that landed on the first few stairs got A’s…then B’s, C’s and so on. You wrote a long, heavy paper. It went to the bottom of the stairs. It got an F.”
“That’s not right!” he blurted out.
“You mean, that’s not right…FOR YOU,” I responded, grinning.
The moral of the story (aside from, tenured professors do the darndest things) is this: despite all of our talk of “right for you,” deep down we believe in public moral standards. We may disagree about what those are, and about what actions fall under their purview - but we still believe that right and wrong aren’t entirely relative. (For the record, the grading story is entirely fictional.)
One might object that grading affects other, non-consenting people, whereas relationships affect only the people involved. There are two problems with this objection.
The main one is that the latter point is just false. Unless one endorses a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” secrecy, relationships have a public presence and thus public consequences. Gays aren’t waging the marriage battle just so we can all go back in the closet. Like most people, we want to stand up before family and friends, proclaim our love, have it celebrated for the beautiful thing that it is. (At least, that’s what many of us want.)
We want to send the message to young gays and lesbians that there’s nothing wrong with them; that they, too, deserve to love and be loved, and that there’s nothing sinful or wrong about that. We want to be treated equally in the eyes of the law. All of these aims affect other people in various ways.
Second, the objection invites the response, “Says who?” Who decides that only actions affecting other people are appropriate targets of moral scrutiny? Who decides that that’s the right way to look at morality? And there’s no way to answer such questions without engaging in a bit of moralizing. Value judgments are inescapable that way.
Those who claim that they’re not taking any moral stances about other people’s lives are, by that very claim, taking a moral stance about other people’s lives - a “tolerant’ one, though not necessarily a very admirable one. Sometimes, other people’s behavior really sucks, and we should say so.
“Saying so” is part of the confusion here. There’s a difference between MAKING moral judgments and OFFERING them, not to mention a difference between offering them respectfully and wagging your finger in people’s faces. The latter is not just self-righteous; it’s generally counterproductive. I suspect when people say that “we shouldn’t judge other people,” it’s really the latter, pompous kind of moralizing they’re concerned to avoid. But we shouldn’t confuse the rejection of bad moralizing with the rejection of moralizing altogether.
In short, we should care what other people think, and do, because the moral fabric touches us all.
********************
John Corvino, Ph.D. is an author, speaker, and philosophy professor at Wayne State University in Detroit. His column “The Gay Moralist” appears Fridays on 365gay.com.
For more about John Corvino, or to see clips from his “What’s Morally Wrong with Homosexuality?” DVD, visit www.johncorvino.com
http://www.365gay.com/opinion/corvino-always-an...
http://pamshouseblend.com/diary/12797/julian-bo...
He quotes Mrs. King who said "Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood."
Hayward-Harris tells the Bermuda Sun: "Often people who are in authority at the church demand more of their flock than they do of themselves. I would like to have a place where people feel free to be themselves - to live in their truth, whatever that truth may be. It's very strange to me that in order to be a part of a traditional church you have to live a lie if you are gay or lesbian. That is not Christian to me. Excluding gay people has always been a problem on this island. I know one young man who won't come back because he was attacked by a gang of guys with helmets. To be fully Christian, we must fully welcome all of God's children to the table of the Lord - women, children, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgender, those with special needs, those of every race... all have full acceptance into the complete life of our fellowship...Our desire for Bermuda is to actualise God's power to transform our often divisive and unhealthy cultures of hate, self-hate and violence into a community of healing and reconciliation."
A true Baha'i!
Abdul Khalik, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta
Homosexuals and homosexuality are natural and created by God, thus permissible within Islam, a discussion concluded here Thursday.
Moderate Muslim scholars said there were no reasons to reject homosexuals under Islam, and that the condemnation of homosexuals and homosexuality by mainstream ulema and many other Muslims was based on narrow-minded interpretations of Islamic teachings.
Siti Musdah Mulia of the Indonesia Conference of Religions and Peace cited the Koran's al-Hujurat (49:3) that one of the blessings for human beings was that all men and women are equal, regardless of ethnicity, wealth, social positions or even sexual orientation.
"There is no difference between lesbians and nonlesbians. In the eyes of God, people are valued based on their piety," she told the discussion organized by nongovernmental organization Arus Pelangi.
"And talking about piety is God's prerogative to judge," she added.
"The essence of the religion (Islam) is to humanize humans, respect and dignify them."
Musdah said homosexuality was from God and should be considered natural, adding it was not pushed only by passion.
Mata Air magazine managing editor Soffa Ihsan said Islam's acknowledgement of heterogeneity should also include homosexuality.
He said Muslims needed to continue to embrace ijtihad (the process of making a legal decision by independent interpretation of the Koran and the Sunnah) to avoid being stuck in the old paradigm without developing open-minded interpretations.
Another speaker at the discussion, Nurofiah of the Nahdlatul Ulama (NU), said the dominant notion of heterogeneity was a social construction, leading to the banning of homosexuality by the majority.
"Like gender bias or patriarchy, heterogeneity bias is socially constructed. It would be totally different if the ruling group was homosexuals," she said.
Other speakers said the magnificence of Islam was that it could be blended and integrated into local culture.
"In fact, Indonesia's culture has accepted homosexuality. The homosexual group in Bugis-Makassar tradition called Bissu is respected and given a high position in the kingdom.
"Also, we know that in Ponorogo (East Java) there has been acknowledgement of homosexuality," Arus Pelangi head Rido Triawan said.
Condemnation of homosexuality was voiced by two conservative Muslim groups, the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) and Hizbut Thahir Indonesia (HTI).
"It's a sin. We will not consider homosexuals an enemy, but we will make them aware that what they are doing is wrong," MUI deputy chairman Amir Syarifuddin said.
Rokhmat, of the hardline HTI, several times asked homosexual participants in attendance to repent and force themselves to gradually return to the right path.
I wonder if he was talking about Bermuda? hehehe...
Sorry. It really is time for me to bow out of this particular conversation.
Barb
Barb
As Max Planck said: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
This is already happening, as it has happened with so many other social advances. It is only a matter of time, of life, of death and of a new generation replacing the old. An ever advancing civilization moving forward by throwing aside the shackles forged by past errors.
I totally agree, Baquia, and as we say the proof of the pudding is in the eating. This is why we should allow various trends to develop or to die down by themselves and let smart people throw in their lot with the trend that seems to them the most appropriate. The process of integration and disintegration repeatedly described by Shoghi Effendi confirms your view. As one example:
“Such simultaneous processes of rise and of fall, of integration and of disintegration, of order and chaos, with their continuous and reciprocal reactions on each other, are but aspects of a greater Plan, one and indivisible, whose Source is God, whose author is Baha'u'llah, the theater of whose operations is the entire planet, and whose ultimate objectives are the unity of the human race and the peace of all mankind.” (Advent of Divine Justice (3:1, page: [73])
This is the root of the problem Farhan- you are ignorant and pompous in your "innocent" remarks. The love and commitment that two people finally want to show towards each other, the respect they expect from society, the confirmation they finally want from decades and centuries of oppression... YOU call a mere "trend". It is not a trend Farhan. It is a freeing from the shackles of hate and injustice that ignorance such as yours has inflicted on gays and lesbians for so long. The process that is set in motion is about justice and you, the Bahai AO, no one can put a stop to it. How would you feel if the Bahai Faith was looked at as just a trend to allow to die down or develop? Your words constantly, in a subtle manner insult.
I would feel that being in a minority group of hardly one in a thousand citizens of this planet, others are fully entitled to holding views very different from mine. I would not feel in the least insulted, and by sincerity, and fleeing hypocrisy, I would continue to give my views next to theirs, as I am doing here, next to the vast majority of those on this blog whose views differ from mine. Perhaps I should be more careful and add IMHO before each sentence to avoid appearing pompous?
You express the views of perhaps 10% - a hundred times more numerous than Baha’is - on this planet, and express the views of the vast majority of contributors of this blog, and you feel “subtly” insulted if my views differ from yours. Would I become a “nice” person and no longer a hypocrite if I lied and gave the views you hope to hear, or are you interested to see me appear as a bigot and hear what I might have to say on the subject?
Farhan, I hope we can agree that when you step on sensitive toes, someone is going to say ouch!, probably loudly, and probably say a good deal more as well. For example, during the struggle for justice for blacks in the USA, segregationists certainly had a right to voice their opinions, and they did. And there was a loud cry in response to some of those opinions from those who had suffered, and in some cases from their friends who were not black, but were working toward justice.
This is not a usual Baha'i discussion of what color paper we should use for our flyers for Race Unity Day - with everyone giving their opinion and some people abhorring the color red, and being offended when others disagree. This discussion is a discussion toward Justice, and comes out of a long history of discrimination, physical abuse, and punishment toward gay folks. And those folks have friends, and family. So when you step on sensitive toes, they are going to respond vehemently.
Of course you have a right to your opinion, and I trust that you are sincere in your opinion, and seeking to learn from the opinions of others. But don't be shocked when people say ouch! loudly and a good deal more. A lot of emotion goes along with the history of any significant discrimination, and it may be hard for someone who has never experienced that particular discrimination to understand the emotion. But trust me, there's good reason for it. And it is oh, so wrong to blame people for having that very justified emotion and speaking out accordingly.
Barb
Pey, I have been here under my true name, and all my messages have been truthful and honest; I have certainly not been participating with the intent of hurting anyone’s feelings. I intend to invest more time elsewhere and I am grateful to those who by contradicting me have helped me towards a better understanding of this problem here.
Anyways, the whole point of the western system of social equality is to have "rule by law". Historically, this has been incremental. (Currently, the problem is that law is being subverted by corrupt/wealthy/corporate interests. Presumably some populist uprising is called for.)
In order for there to be an expansion of equality via law, a process of social/political change has to happen. Various theories of social change have been proposed, and I'm not aware that there is any broad agreement that people have to die in order for collective transformation to happen. I personally find that idea (change via death) to be bleak, and contrary to abundant evidence of individual intellectual/spiritual transformation (or other paradigm shifts).
Also consider that some futurists predict that the wealthy will have access to life extension medical technologies that will result in average lifespans of 120 to 150 years.
Just because bahais are (generally) inept/incompetent at (or resistant to) transformation doesn't mean that other people are similarly inept.
bahais are like people that stand around and talk about the need for a grand structure, who lack either the tools or talent to actually build much more than an outhouse. after the outhouse is built, the first person to sit on the throne falls into the pit upon completion of their business. anyone that dares to point out that the person seeking relief has fallen into a stinky hole is accused of "disloyalty" to the grand scheme.
for the few that do have talent (e.g., sonja), the inevitable frustration over the lack of "tools" in the bahai system leads to an understandable, and well intentioned, desire to "make stuff up".
the reality is that bahai culture is currently incapable of the kind of transformation required to adapt to social change. the very scripture that sonja hopes can be used to inspire forward progress contains too many other "backward" elements that "check" the hoped for forward movement. specifically, there is a lack of a mechanism to jettison, or fundamentally rework, outdated metaphysics, outdated organizational practices, and so forth so that the religious culture can provide meaning as existential problems and needs change/evolve.
indeed, what appear to be the case is the opposite, the organizational culture is capable of creating an atmosphere of amnesia about social progress and justice and "real" transformation, via the manipulation of public opinion (Ruhi, etc.). any semi-organized attempt to create alternate, critical, nonconforming, or dissident perspectives (Dialogue, Kalimat, Talisman, H-Bahai) is attacked and marginalized.
by the time bahai culture does change, and adjust to a new paradigm that others create, the rest of the world will have long since "moved past" the issues.
the crucial issue at play is about methods of transformation. the spiritual "roadmap" that exists in bahai culture was designed for a process of transformation that had no awareness of evolution or postmodern culture.
"lack of awareness" = "two missing tools" = "outhouse religion"
The first thing in life is to understand the psychological dynamics of your own family and develop a support system around you starting with your family. He seems to not have grasped this at all. Maybe it was something in the drinking water of the 1930's but Shoghi Effendi made something essentially very easy mind bogglingly incredibly complicated. He seems to have not understood the principle of natural force multipliers in human endeavors. If you want to understand that, study the dynamics of rock music, and system of psychological resonance in human beings.
So there must be some Divine Message in this that the Faith as it was shaped carries within it the hermetically sealed phased cognitive dissonance that will insure that it falls further and further behind with each death and re-birth cycle of just social advancement with each new generation as the new World Age unfolds. It is a quite remarkable Catch-22 to behold.
As the energies of the New World Age progresses which I still honestly believe were inaugurated in the 19th Century by the Bab and Baha'u'lla's souls going through a space-time cosmic spiritual vortex, those same energies will outdistance the Faith. The spectacular failure of the Baha'i Faith up until now is truly a wonder and a prodigy! People like PK being elected to anything whatsoever in the Faith is the ultimate cherry on top. It is amazing, amazing stuff as an outcome. I think the organization of the Faith will become the final autopsy on the 3,000 years legacy of the dysfunctional organizations we now know as the Abrahamic religions. I think the final autopsy report will bear much fruit in the final demise of organized religion in terms of brain chemistry, major human personality disorders, and organizational theory. I think this final analysis at some point over the next 300-500 years will be the final gift of the Abrahamic religions to mankind. They will have proven how ABSOLUTELY NOT to do anything as an organization if you want to truly be effective in any field of endeavor. I think we must learn this scientific observation regarding organizational theory before we can have a world civilization. We have to solve it.
Shoghi Effendi did not seem to understand the true dynamics of human progress in the cycle he often pointed out. When it come to human organizations the issue is not about "non involvement in politics" the issue is about "non involvement in mental illness." For the time being it appears less prayer and more Prozac is in order in the BAO. There has to be a better way to get neurotransmitter levels up than filling out Ruhi workbooks 1,000 times with the same people in one's lifetime cradle to the grave over and over until insanity or welcomed death occurs. There just has to be a better way to achieve progress like letting people be creative under their own energy to think freely and come up with their own bottom up empowerment.
Meanwhile, with each generational cycle of death and re-birth the Baha'i Faith will look more and more like the dust bowl of Oklahoma in the 1930's. It is now a very curious Grapes of Wrath with one too many a John Steinbeck on LSD writing the narrative. Just one too many a Tom Joad appearing everywhere out of the haze.
The UHJ has essentially told the Baha'is to get off the land of their own hearts. If you can't make the paper payment to the bankers get off the land.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGky0q2j_78
So it goes.
The history of the entire human race is the history of the psychological needs of unchallenged and unchecked criminal elites. This is true of all of the Abrahamic religions over the centuries which is open for study. They are a 3,000 year old textbook history of this organizational and social phenomenon. The great religion of today is the religion of money and it's clergy is the unchallenged financial elite bankers of the world. Educate yourself by studying the links of the Ruhi Book 1929 Full Sequence of Courses.
Unregulated OTC Credit Default Swaps are STILL LEGAL everywhere in the world after they took down 150 year old financial institution(s) a year ago! It is like a nuclear reactor blew up killing millions of people with radioactivity and we just keep building them. It is amazing, amazing stuff. There is still no serious financial regulation ANYWHERE in the world. Zero. Nada. Zippo. These boys play to win. Once bailed out by the governments they control, they will just keep the insider game going and not give up one inch of their control over the wealth of the entire world. That is the situation we are in. Absolutely nothing whatsoever will be done. Nothing. Until people educate themselves and rise up.
It is clear that it may take 100-500 years using Internet technology, but a new political party will have to be formed in the United States it we all do not want to die as slaves and take the entire world with us. And somebody eventually will start a free and open bottom up global religion based upon Cosmic Divine Justice. It is only a matter of time.
Meanwhile, educate yourself as to the long term worldwide situation developed over the last 500 years so you try to tip the scale that you do NOT die along the road living out of your car.
CRASH COURSE IN ECONOMICS 101 - 21 VIDEOS (4 HOURS)
edit link h t t p : // www . chrismartenson .com/crashcourse
ELLEN BROWN EXPLAINS THE LAST 350 YEARS - 5 VIDEOS
edit link h t t p : // www .youtube. com/watch?v=QU0XiklHPMc
edit link h t t p : // www .webofdebt .com/
edit link h t t p : // webofdebt .wordpress .com/
DOUGLAS RUSHKOFF EXPLAINS THE LAST 500 YEARS - 1 VIDEO
Life Incorporated: How The World Became A Corporation, And How To Take It Back.
by Douglas Rushkoff
edit link h t t p : // lifeincorporated .net/
STUDY THE HISTORY OF THE 300 YEAR OLD FRACTIONAL RESERVE BRITISH BANKING SYSTEM MODEL THAT STILL RULES US TODAY - 5 VIDEOS
edit link h t t p : // www .youtube .com/watch?v=vVkFb26u9g8
And remember, as Shoghi Effendi wrote, the Baha'is have NO GUIDANCE WHATSOEVER on ECONOMICS except for a few general principles. The members of the current UHJ are academics at the level of high school teachers who essentially traffic in other peoples writings and ideas. There will be NO ORIGINAL THOUGHT OUT GUIDANCE OF ANY KIND FOR 1,000 YEARS on what to do about endless derivatives in the world economy. You are going to have to figure out what to do YOURSELF.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNq8LoYjG2E
Good night and good luck.
I would add to your list "The Predator State" by James K. Galbraith and "The Ascent of Money" by Niall Ferguson, two fine works that put the current situation into much needed policy and historical perspective.
Is it not strange that corporations and other entities chartered by a government of the people should be so contemptuous of their maker? Something to ponder.
Derivitives in the world economy are probably here to stay at least for the time being. I am not sure what counsel on their usage the UHJ could give except to remind us that Baha'u'llah prohibits gambling and games of chance (speculation), encourages us to expend our wealth on our families and bretheren in the faith, and to carry on a trade or profession. Baha'u'llah's advice to treat tradesmen with deference sounds like a fair wage standard to me. He gives permission to charge interest on personal notes but not to engage in usury (as creditor or borrower) as is practised with credit cards or some home equity lines of credit. Those few general principles carry a lot of weight I think and have helped me personally keep my head above water. And I didn't need the UHJ to tell me what is what in other words and have a hard time understanding why some do.
You may be interested to discover that Pension Funds are at present buying up Iowa farmland which is surprising since returns on land are not that great. Iowa has 10 percent of prime agricultural land in the nation. Another bubble in the making?
I think derivatives on the scale they have now attained are financial nuclear weapons. They are out and out gambling. But there appears to be no political will yet in the world to strictly regulate them. We'll see what happens at the G20 in Pittsburgh this month. I have no trouble with Credit Default Swaps between the actual holders of the debt. But Naked Credit Default Swaps are pure gambling and how such a thing was ever allowed to exist is absolutely amazing. When they permitted them in the law changes of 1998 and 2002 they were well aware of the history of the Panic of 1907 and the changes were specifically made exempt from New York state gambling laws against the "bucket shop" practices of that time. It was just amazing stuff to ever be allowed to happen.
Meanwhile, I say this time it is different. This is not a standard "business cycle". Not by any means. This is very, very serious. We are in a place no one has ever been before.
But I guess as Peter Khan says, if you are going door to door for the Faith you are "safe."
Yep. That's the ticket.
I personally think that thousands of "those bastard up on wall street" (Richard Nixon) should be hung for treason (corrupting the legislature).
Anyways - the basic bahai principle is simple: avoid extremes of wealth and poverty.
implementing the idea is the hard part.
the current system (protestant capitalism, natural law) originally assumed that religion would provide an ethical structure to check greed and excess (and the inevitable corruption of the political structure).
that was a modernist assumption.
a new set of laws (accountability/incentive structures) need to be put in place that are more holistic, and reflect postmodern and integral values.
until then, the old system will grind on, generating regressive behavior amongst the economic-political elites, which will lead to social-economic instability.
people have been dumbed-down so much that they do not know what is being done to them (exploitation/inequality), but if things get bad enough, some wil relearn how to "work against the system" in order to survive.
"transpartisan" politics is one possible direction.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/business/06in...
At the very least does the UHJ members-in-waiting from the ITC have an opinion on this? Does anyone know if they are even now discussing it over lunch? Or does Peter Khan, most of all, have guidance on this since he has personal opinions of guidance on every known and unknown topic in the Universe? Does anyone know if the Writings say this is a good idea?
Does anyone know if anyone on Wall Street or the UHJ has ever read Laurie Garrett's famous book of the 1990's that would seem to say that this really is not a good bet to make with other people's money?
http://www.lauriegarrett.com/index_coming.html
Does anyone know what the guidance is or do we all have to figure this out on our own for ourselves?
If the UHJ and the Guardianship had existed at the same time, Shoghi Effendi said, I believe, that he had the obligation to ask the UHJ to reconsider any decision he felt should be considered again - but that he had no right to change their decision - their decision after consultation had final sway. And that they had the responsibility of legislating on anything not specifically revealed in the writings of Baha'u'llah.
If the Guardian's opinion would not be binding in this instance, but could be overridden by the considered opinion of the UHJ, does this say anything about the weight of the Guardian's statements in relationship to the UHJ decisions, regarding anything not explicitly revealed in Baha'u'llah's writings?
I'm too lazy right now to go pull the quote regarding this - it's in WOB, I believe, but I know where to find it easily enough, and reviewed it recently.
It seems a little bit of a fuzzy area, and I'm just wondering how others see this. I think this question relates to the possible mechanisms for change in the Faith, and the possibility for the UHJ to move with the times, when it deems this wise.
Thanks.
Barb
You bring up a very interesting point. I have seen the specifics of this discussed at times on several underground sites as to how can this important check and balance power of the Guardian simply does not exist now with no Living Guardian and the possible catastrophic consequences. The clear fact is it indeed does not exist. No one, therefore, can ever stand up to have a check and balance "moment" of any kind to ask for a "reconsideration" on the power of the UHJ. But I don't think anyone has brought it up from this other viewpoint yet you point out here in any discussion I have seen so far. I think everyone feels the Faith will always be fundamentalist and authoritarian from here on out for a full thousand years until the next Manifestation completely pulls the plug on everything within the first five minutes of the next Revelation way down the road. Meanwhile, nothing will go anywhere within the Faith as it cannot adapt to anything in the organic advancement of free and open advancement and discussion within human society and it falls further and further behind stuck in the mindset of a very tiny group of completely insular mind bendingly impotent and ineffective "Admin-o-centric" community of people in 1957.
I have always seen the "completely missing Living Guardian" factor as a very curious kind of cosmic "bank shot" over the next 1,000 years. It is a factor guaranteed to keep the Baha'i Faith permanently hamstrung from ever being able to achieve any kind of effective thesis-antithesis-synthesis dynamic. there is just no way around this permanent situation which is now set in stone. The Faith is permanently held back, The same with no women allowed on the UHJ. The world will, therefore, very quickly outdistance the Faith. It will never be a player as the planetary civilization is built by the souls truly immersed in the free and open energies of the New World Age. Many other people and many other spiritual communities will be much more noble from their own innate spiritual connections with the Cosmos. But there has to be some Cosmic meaning why the Baha'is will never attain any real power in the world for the next 1,000 years. What could the cosmic meaning be to be destined to always be a bridesmaid and never a bride? As the last Abrahamic religion it truly makes me ponder the wonder of such a profound mystery. Hamstrung with no real bottom up structure to safeguard a consultative dynamic of any kind or a dynamic system of consultative checks and balances, It will always be playing with doll babies instead of a real living child decade after decade for a full thousand years. Why?
Why did Shoghi Effendi apparently purposely decide to allow it to become completely hamstrung by not appointing a Livine Guardian in his lifetime as he was required to do by the specific text of the W&T of Abdu'l-Baha?
I have thought and thought about this during all my years in the Faith and I just can't understand what message he was trying to send to the future?
No prophets are needed, no progressive revelation is needed, because "evolution happens". Consciousness unfold/infolds, the impulse to seek "the good, the true, and the beautiful" is eternal. The impulse to experience transcendence is eternal (both the "ascender" and "descender" paths - via egolessness or body experience). It existed before religion. Please note that bahai scripture appears (officially untranslated) to contain descriptions, borrowed from suf poetry, of the "ultimate" state of spiritual bliss and mysticaly unity ("descender" spirituality) as being metaphorically sexual: God "penetrates" the "seeker", etc.
(To put it into crude context, imagine god "penetrating" the 9 uhj men with "spirit" during a particularly "infallible" moment - while they are "legislating" about homosexuality. The irony seems considerable.)
Great archetypal leaps forward probably happen long before some so called "prophet" recycles some old story from ancient culture that mapped an archetypal template out, and "predicted" how the newly emerged appearance (reconfiguration) of such an archetype would change people and culture, cause large scale paradigm shifts, etc.
The great civilizations (slave systems) were imperial projects that required "universal" (mythic) religion to impose conformity (more efficient if the goal is to beat down other cultures). Once humanity passed from a medieval world to a modern (and postmodern) world, such mythic religion lost out to rationalism.
The only way to get back the original spiritual/transcendent elements that are missing from modern/postmodern culture is to cast off the imperialist elements of religion.
The idea that only "prophets" can act as intermediaries between "god" and human beings is something that needs to be cast off.
Humanity needs spiritual geniuses as much as it ever has, just not ones that are instruments of the archetypal images of faded slave civilizations.
The quote you are looking for in WOB is in Dispensation of Baha'u'llah, pg 150. Sen McGlinn wrote an essay on this question last December entitled "He Cannot Override..." and it can be found at senmcglinn.wordpress.com. You will have to scroll down the main page to find it. I think you will find his discussion satisfactory. Best of luck.
1) having an imamate (guardianship) to "prevent schism" (disunity), and
2) having a quasi-democracy (houses of justice) to "prevent orthodoxy".
(Organized religion has a giant problem: it can be used to do very good things, or exploited to justify very bad things. bahai tries to address the problemm by building on islamic solutions, but the "solution" came apart because of the weirdly narrow inheritance thing with the guardianship.)
Also: if the "international tribunal" and other "secular" governmental structures are to co-exist w/ bahai to deal with the "non-religious" aspects of life (???), then the problem under discussion takes on a somewhat different characteristic than if bahai governing bodies were "supreme" social institutions.
In terms of checks & balances and the use of "public opinion", if a uhj starts doing crazy/corrupt stuff, a guardian could potentially lead a "PR" campaign to pressure the uhj (or change election of members).
similarly, a uhj could use "public opinion" (and perhaps "legislation"!?!) to thwart a "crazy/corrupt" guardian.
Assuming that such a system "makes sense" (note that another thread on this blog made clear recently that it DOES NOT, since it has common historical origins in the archeology of ideas in iranian culture that produced the iranian theocracy-dictatorship that rules the country), it is apparent that when there is no imam, the legislative branch becomes "dangerous" since it has to take on the role of "enforcer" by imposing doctrinal "unity" (conformity).
Thus, the slide into rigid "legislative" orthodoxy becomes inevitable, and rapid, without an imam/guardian.
---
the problem with this whole discussion isn't the uhj's reticence to toss out the dumb stuff that shoghi effendi said about homosexuality. it is that the american fundamentalists and iranian authoritarians that are the ruling elites know that "liberalizing" ANY aspect of bahai would create even more demands for further "reforms", and undermine their pathological grip on power.
their agenda now has to be to stop any and all discussion of reform (or "real accountability"), of ANY SIGNIFICANT KIND.
In the following book, there is a fascinating linkage between integralism, multiculturalism, spirituality and democracy.
http://books.google.com/books?id=7KX4JQevUsAC
"NURTURING THE SOULS OF OUR CHILDREN: EDUCATION AND THE CULTURE OF DEMOCRACY "
Paperback: 352 pages
Publisher: AuthorHouse (June 27, 2005)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 1420823728
ISBN-13: 978-1420823721
excerpt:
| To devise a theory of education is to address the questions of culture,
| cultural values and cultural identity formation in the child. In this
| original study, Robert Mitchell gives us a scholarly overview of cultural
| education in America's schools. He demonstrates how the public trust
| of universal education fails our children and our democracy. He then
| advocates reframing our concept of education in terms of a sacred
| trust that teaches the culture of democracy. Turning to the question
| of the role of the teacher, Mr. Mitchell weaves together anecdotal
| evidence of a teacher archetype with advanced theories in archetypal
| psychology. This compelling work breaks new ground to provide us
| with a refreshingly new and visionary approach to K-12 education.
|
| Limited preview - 2005 - 352 pages
About the Author
Robert Mitchell was born in 1945 and raised in California and Illinois. He
studied architecture at the University of Illinois for two years before
receiving his Bachelor of Science degree in Mathematics from Troy State
University. He is a veteran who served in the Vietnam War and was
honorably discharged in 1970. He then lived in Europe, North Africa and
Mexico, working as a freelance writer and designer for eight years before
becoming a teacher in a small private American secondary school in
Mexico. In a career spanning nearly 30 years, Mr. Mitchell has taught
English, history, art and mathematics in both public and private schools
in the United States and abroad. He currently lives in Maryland and teaches
mathematics in a small private secondary school near Washington DC.
----------------------------------------------------------
Comment:
In the section on developmental psychology, the author specifically points out the psychological problems, which become social problems, of denying the "magical" and ritual stage of human development in modernist (rational) cultures.
Because of the secular nature of schools and culture, there is a "missing" element of ritual, specifically a "missing" ritual of transformation from "childlike" magic consciousness to "rational" modern consciousness.
This results in a "non-integrated" personality and culture, where "rational" consciousness has marginalized magic and ritual consciousness.
If Mark Turner and George Lakoff's work in cognitive linguistics is valid, then the human brain best operates as a "metaphor machine", not as a machine to only work in a rational manner. Forcing "rationalist"models on human nature causes big problems, amongst which are "too much bureaucracy" (e.g., the rise of transnational pedagogues, therapists, planners - as described by Ivan Illich in "Vernacular Values")
"In conversation," noted Smedslund (1970, pp. 217-218), "we always assume that the other person is logical... When our expectations are not fulfilled, we normally attribute it to a lack of understanding on our part... but not to genuine illogicality on his part... logic must be presupposed, since it is characteristic of any activity of any integrated system
and is a part of the very notion of a person."
So what happens when a person is not logical or doesn't possess our kind of logic? I always wondered why all our discussions with Farhan and people similar never ever went anywhere. We do our bit in the assumption that they have a similar logic and rationality to us. And they probably say whatever makes sense to them and whatever we say just washes over them because their sense of logic and rationality is different to ours.
re: "So what happens when a person is not logical or doesn't possess our kind of logic?"
I don't see this in such black and white terms.
For example, I brought up the issue of the status of the Letters of Shoghi Effendi as being an aspect of what is changeable because these are not part of Bahai Scripture, but in response to me various posters continued to quote these letters as if they were scripture. For me, this seemed illogical. Obviously to those posters, they either didn't see my point or ignored it or for them my idea that they are not part of scripture is illogical.
That's part of the reason I've been silent (I'm also extremely busy). I didn't know where to start because it seemed logical to me that Bahai Scripture were the writings of Baha'u'llah, 'Abdul-Bahai, and the official interpretations of Shoghi Effendi and that all other texts, while not necessarily less important, have the potential for change because they are not in the former category which is not subject to change.
So, Grover, my point here. If you want to communicate with Farhan in a different manner, take another approach or try to find some common ground and work from that. Farhan, I don't agree with most of what you have written but I thank you for continuing with your comments because some other Bahais might share your views and more importantly, in airing our diverse views and discussing these we can all learn how to express ourselves better and I've found that I've been able to develop a lot of my ideas from those I've disagreed with.
farhan is a polemicist, advocating the "mainstream" pro-administration party-line. this is tribal stuff, or at least cultural imperialism. think "absolutism".
question: is iranian bahai culture PTSD? (internalized persecutions)
bahai culture should contain some kind of "ritual" process for cleaning out the "bad spirits" of what happened to bahais in iran. instead, the bad stuff has been internalized within the "we have perfect assemblies" mindset, and bahais have regressed to the point of absorbing the paradigm of oppression. can someone find any positive reference to "liberation" in any recent, major official bahai communication? probably not.
it would be nice if the current ruling elites of bahai could "see" the logic in what sonja is saying. but they won't because the entire paradigm that they operate from is based on "false unity" (M. Scott Peck).
"honesty" and rational "logic" are difficult.
it is best to study how the other primates that are close to humans in the evolutionarty scheme behave: alpha male protects the harem. alpha female dictates who gets their fur groomed and who gets the food, in which order. most of the primate brain, including human, is devoted to social bonding (via magic/myth structures). which translates into conformism. and its opposite, the exclusion of nonconforming individuals.
as sonja insightfully states, the "rational" thing to do would be to promote real "tolerance", "inclusion" and understanding of varying perspectives about controvesial issues.
however, the bahai establishment doesn't take that stance, they take the stance that only conformists will be accepted. it's all about "in-group" and "out-group" dynamics, and "monkey brain" domination stuff.
I suppose that a cynical view might be that some of the "progressives" that are currently excluded are trying to gain acceptance into the
"in-group" again by promoting "innovations" in bahai theology.
if so, the current politics of the in-group are increasingly resistant to such innovations. perhaps that will change, but it doesn't seem likely in the near future.
the larger question is "is bahai in a death spiral?" incapable of working out solutions to issues such as doctrinal inflexibility? being pulled down into a "gravity well of shiism"?
my experience is that innovations only survive in bahai culture if they reinforce the status quo, and support the eternal process of bureaucratic reinvention that all dysfunctional, failed organizational cultures engaged in.
as such, acceptance of glbt will only happen when it serves the larger interests to do so (the "internal logic" of bahai tribalism/imperialism). again, given the current, increasingly absolutist mindset amongst the ruling bahai elites, it is hard to imagine how they would ever see such acceptance as being beneficial.
Eg: Farhan - letters written by or on behalf of Shoghi Effendi = Shoghi Effendi speaking for God because AB's will and testament says so, yada yada yada = authentic Baha'i scripture - therefore cannot be ignored and not subject to change (sorry Farhan I'm putting words in your mouth).
Actually, Sonja, why would you argue that Shoghi Effendi writings has less validity or applicability than 'Adbu'l-Baha or Baha'u'llah? Or would you argue that their validity and applicability depends on their context (which is what I would do). I just can't see how, if you were doing what AB's will and testament asked, you could disregard them (sorry, me being fundamentalist - lol, and I'm not even a believer anymore ;P).
For me belief is like a house of cards. I've found personally that the danger of having such an absolutist belief system is what happens something comes along that cause you to question what's going on - e.g. Ruhi, cluster meetings and so on - you start questioning what the UHJ is doing, and then suddenly the whole house of cards that is your belief system collapses, and suddenly you don't believe in the Faith anymore and suddenly Baha'u'llah and so on have no more weight or credibility than a door to door salesman (which is where I'm at at the moment).
So unfortunately, with regards to conversations with Farhan, I'd say most of us have had bruising experiences with the Faith and are operating from a state of either cognitive conflict or outright disbelief (and we're actually thinking about what we believe), whereas Farhan is operating from a state of happy go lucky faith and belief (and got his head buried in the sand and is not questioning the tenants of his belief - which is a happy status quo position for any believer because it doesn't cause any undue distress).
Your comments remind me of a quote I copied down a long time ago: "Belief is a wound that knowledge heals."
Re faith and loss of it, in relationship to Baha'i Faith - I think the Faith is a tool, only a tool, and its usefulness will depend on how well we learn to use it. The problem, I think, comes when our faith is in The Faith, rather than in what lies much deeper, beyond it. There is always this tension between the eternal faith of God and the outer forms with which we humans attempt to capture, contain, confine it - which we never can, of course - thank goodness.
This is just my take on things. Best wishes to you.
Barb
This was forwarded me earlier today and feel it shows so beautifully how other faiths move forward light years ahead of Bahai:
http://pamshouseblend.com/diary/12903/ma-rev-ir...
So beautiful. Bahai has become like evangelicalism ... just out of touch. Not for the future, but for the past, in a comfy chair.
Please read my post again: I said that
"it seemed logical to me that Bahai Scripture were the writings of Baha'u'llah, 'Abdul-Bahai, and the official interpretations of Shoghi Effendi and that all other texts, while not necessarily less important, have the potential for change because they are not in the former category which is not subject to change."
The 1000s of letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, not Shoghi Effendi's own writing are what I'd put in the category that is not Bahai Scripture.
In my post of 2 weeks ago on this same thread I quoted one of the Letters of Shoghi Effendi which spoke of the status of these letters:
"I wish to call your attention to certain things in "Principles of Bahá'í Administration" which has just reached the Guardian; although the material is good, he feels that the complete lack of quotation marks is very misleading. His own words, the words of his various secretaries, even the Words of Bahá'u'lláh Himself, are all lumped together as one text. This is not only not reverent in the case of Bahá'u'lláh's Words, but misleading. Although the secretaries of the Guardian convey his thoughts and instructions and these messages are authoritative, their words are in no sense the same as his, their style certainly not the same, and their authority less, for they use their own terms and not his exact words in conveying his messages. He feels that in any future edition this fault should be remedied, any quotations from Bahá'u'lláh or the Master plainly attributed to them, and the words of the Guardian clearly differentiated from those of his secretaries. "
Shoghi Effendi, The Unfolding Destiny of the British Baha'i Community, p. 260"
Shoghi Effendi never considered his own station nor writings to be the same as that of Baha'u'llah or 'Abdu'l-Baha:
"Though the Guardian of the Faith has been made the permanent head of so august a body he can never, even temporarily, assume the right of exclusive legislation. ...
Exalted as is the position and vital as is the function of the
institution of the Guardianship in the Administrative Order of
Bahá´u´lláh, ... its importance must, whatever be the language of the Will, be in no wise over-emphasized. The Guardian of the Faith must not under any circumstances, and whatever his merits or his achievements, be exalted to the rank that will make him a co-sharer with `Abdu´l-Bahá in the unique position which the Center of the Covenant occupies-much less to the station exclusively ordained for the Manifestation of God. So grave a departure from the established tenets of our Faith is nothing short of open blasphemy."
World Order of Baha'u'llah page 150-151
written by Shoghi Effendi
http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/se/WOB/wob-40.h...
"it seemed logical to me that Bahai Scripture were the writings of Baha'u'llah, 'Abdul-Bahai, and the official interpretations of Shoghi Effendi and that all other texts, while not necessarily less important, have the potential for change because they are not in the former category which is not subject to change."
Goes to show it pays to read all of the post and not just get carried away with one part :)
Of course sharing ideas is important - it's called consultation. It is one of our first and most sacred obligations as Baha'is. Of course what we say matters - all of us - Farhan, you, everybody. This is a fundamental principle of our faith.
Ideas exert power - they are indeed one of the most potent forces for change. This is why governments sometimes ban them.
Forgive me, but it appears from your comments that you have not been paying close attention to the conversation here.
As for the rank and file - I would hardly call them shallow. We are all, after all, created in the image of God - this is why speaking our heart is a sacred obligation and a precious right.
You seem not to have caught on that at least some of us here love the Baha'i Faith, and because we love it, we expect the best of it. That is why we are here. That is why we speak.
Barb
If the goal is to share ideas with the people who are probably responsible for the status quo such that they might think critically of the religion to which they subscribe, probably not so much.
If the goal is to share ideas with like-minded people and organize thoughts and refine tactics, then I'll concede that there's probably something here.
I have waded through a lot of "debate"... I see very little gained. There's a lot of other material that's interesting... it doesn't take the form of debate.
It just reminds those behind it there's somebody outside.
I'm not suggesting you surrender, either. Enough people and sometimes the right people need to want change in order for change to happen...
I might advise them of that option. I might warn them that others might do so. Offering other assistance, sure. I'll do much in the spirit of service, but I'll never be the one to ask somebody to leave.
Honestly, the decision to leave should be between the individual and God. I believe that context is everything, and the combination of circumstances in somebody's life can make the difference in how one chooses their path. I can only offer the thoughts of my very imperfect conscience.
That said, I understand why some are forced out, but I really view it as a last resort option because said individual's activities are simply drawing too much attention.
With regards to the rest of the community, the only thing I can do is to inject doubt into certitude and inject certitude into compassionate. I have my reasons for not "rattling the cage" so to speak, but it has nothing to do with wanting to suck up to any AO or individuals of reknown. It's a genuine, inner motivation... it just doesn't resonate with my sense of dharma... and equally so, I'm simply not in any position to effect meaningful change that way. I sense my role is very different from that...
... call it a quiet, unassuming, port in a storm.
as for communities... I'm reminded of some lyrics from Sting: (oh god, heresy. using pop culture to make a point.) "men go crazy in congregations, we each get better one by one."
It's not a universal truism by any measure, but it rings true in some cases for a reason.
http://www.group30.org/pubs/reformreport.pdf
The ITC are the Jesuit's of the Baha'i Faith. Their ever budding theorist insights trump all. They are, in essence, the authors of a continuous New Refried Revelation ALL day EVERY day in the Ministry of Truth. The Ruhi Courses are just the beginning. So I think their views on future economic policy in the bureaucratic Baha'i World Theocratic Computerized Super State that will top down run EVERYTHING on Earth is very important to learn now so every one can figure out what to do with their pay check.
Does anyone know what their policy will be on the as of yet unregulated world wide OTC credit default swaps market? Is there anything in the Kitab-I-Aqdas about liquidity in securitized investment instruments? Does anyone know what their views are on these important issues? If they are not solved TODAY, there may be no TOMORROW as all the money on Earth may be vaporized? Does anyone know what the "guidance" is on this?
Remember the balance as to whether this market has a legitimate financial purpose or is mere gambling is in the accuracy of the mathematics. Does anyone know if our guys have been through the C/C++ code used in these risk/pricing models to make sure they are in compliance with the laws of the Universe? Does anyone know?
.h t t p : // www.scicomp. com/derivativesmodeling/pricingcreditderivatives
There is also some Open Source code out there on this too. Have our guys been through it to make sure it is in compliance with the Kitab-I-Aqdas regarding C/C++ algorithms as to all assumptions and logic states?
.h t t p : // www. isda. org/press/press012909.html
Peter Khan says we are all "safe" if we are just doing what the UHJ says going door to door teaching the Faith and taking the Ruhi Courses over and over and filling out the blanks perfectly over and over. But I still have an uneasy feeling with the anniversary of the collapse of Lehman Brothers coming up. Are any of our guys going over these macro economic and micro economic issues? Especially the mathematics in the computer code? Just say'in.
A liberal church movement based in Texas has launched a campaign that is “designed to ask people whether Jesus would discriminate against others,” according to PinkNews.
The Would Jesus Discriminate? movement launched its campaign on the web by quoting a series of Biblical passages suggesting Jesus never discriminated against gays.
The DFW Metropolitan Community Churches, which have five chapters in the Texas area, say they provide an alternative to the perceived discrimination and intolerance from “religious institutions [which] have used their interpretation of the Bible to justify discrimination against women, ethnic minorities, and people with a different sexual orientation and/or identity issues.”
see: http://www.whywouldwe.org/
and
http://www.365gay.com/news/gay-friendly-church-...
In the spirit of peace, church apologizes to those it has hurt
By Jennifer Garza
jgarza@sacbee.com
Published: Monday, Sep. 14, 2009 - 12:00 am | Page 1A
Last Modified: Monday, Sep. 14, 2009 - 8:36 am
The Rev. Rick Cole stepped onto the podium Sunday and into the Sacramento church's troubled past.
In front of a packed and stunned congregation, the senior pastor of Capital Christian Center apologized to anyone who had been hurt by the church, acknowledging pain that church leaders may have caused individuals and the community.
The pastor then mentioned two people "whose stories attracted national media attention and caused a lot of pain."
Both were in the audience of 2,400 people.
One was Christina Silvas. In 2001, church officials asked Silvas to withdraw her daughter from the church-run school because Silvas was working as a stripper. On Sunday, Silvas sat with her daughters during the worship service.
Ben Sharpe, who had been banned from his eighth-grade graduation in 1995 after getting a buzz cut, sat with his mother and family friends during the service. School officials had prohibited Sharpe, an African American and a star student, from participating in the ceremony because his haircut violated school policy.
The church's action set off a media firestorm, with many accusing church leaders of racism.
Fourteen years later, Colemade an emotional plea to Sharpe.
"On behalf of leaders who did not intend to betray Ben Sharpe and his family, but by our actions much pain was caused, I want to publicly ask forgiveness," said Cole, struggling to control his emotions. "I also want to apologize to our community for the seeds sown of racial division."
Cole left the podium, walked over to Sharpe and embraced him and his mother, Faye. The congregation rose in a standing ovation, many people reaching for tissues.
Cole's apology is the latest and most high-profile one to date by a Sacramento-area pastor.
In recent months, other church leaders have apologized and made efforts to reach out to people who may feel hurt or betrayed by religion and have left the church.
At Impact Community Church in Elk Grove, congregants made gift baskets and dropped them off at gay civil-rights organizations and strip clubs with attached notes apologizing for the words and actions of some religious leaders. On Good Friday, Flood, Restoration Life and Vineyard Christian Fellowship posted apologies at downtown kiosks. Under a picture of Pat Robertson someone had written, "He doesn't speak for me."
Cole said he decided to apologize while preparing for this week's sermon.
"This has been weighing on my heart," the pastor said in an interview before the sermon. "This should have been done long ago, I don't want to let any more time go by."
After the sermon, Silvas, teary-eyed, called Cole's heartfelt apology amazing. "For so long all I felt was shame - people whispered about me, calling me the stripper mom," said Silvas, 31.
She said she had been urged by friends and attorneys to sue Capital Christian but had declined.
Now working for the state, Silvas quietly returned to the church about a year ago. Last year, she said, Cole and other church leaders offered a full scholarship to Silvas' two daughters.
"Coming back to church and my girls going to school here is more valuable than what any settlement would have bought," she said.
Sunday was the first time Sharpe has stepped into the sanctuary at Capital Christian Center in 14 years.
Church leaders at the time had said Sharpe's haircut violated school policy, which had been written to discourage students from adopting a skinhead look.
Cole does not want to criticize school leaders at the time. His father, Glen Cole, was pastor of the church-run school.
"The letter of the law was applied instead of the spirit of it," said Cole during his sermon. "The letter of the law kills, while the spirit gives life."
The Sharpe family later reached a legal settlement with the church.
Sharpe said he had put the incident behind him long ago. He agreed to attend Sunday's service because he said church officials seemed sincere.
"The power of those two words, 'I'm sorry' - it's incredible." Sharpe said. He said watching and listening to Cole "was something I'll never forget." "Fourteen years ago, I would never have imagined this would have happened," said Faye Sharpe. "He didn't have to do this....It's wonderful that he did."
Sharpe, who will be 28 on Wednesday, went on to have a stellar academic career. In 1999, he graduated from Jesuit High School as valedictorian.
He earned his bachelor's and master's degrees in civil engineering from Stanford. He is working on his doctorate at UC Davis and is a researcher at a nonprofit group, the International Council on Clean Transportation, in San Francisco.
Four years ago, Sharpe, who was working in Texas as an engineer, was walking on the street when he was struck by a car. He has undergone 16 surgeries and has since recovered.
Sunday, more wounds were healed.
"Finally," Sharpe said, his voice catching. "After all these years, closure."
original at: http://www.sacbee.com/topstories/story/2180746....
This is beautiful.
The Gay/Lesbian Baha'i Story Project is ready to go, sans a few celebratory graphics which will be added soon. In your address bar, go to gaybahai.net. (If you just put that in your search engine, you may reach another gay baha'i web site which is not related - will take the search engines a while to catch up with us, I think.)
For those who are interested, please pass the word in whatever way you think will be effective. At least a couple of stories are "in the works" already and will most likely come along in a few to several weeks. I expect this to be a gradually unfolding path. We have done our part - now it's up to you!
Stories may be short or long, spontaneous or well thought out - I hope the mood will be one of sitting around a campfire together late at night, and we begin to tell stories...
Barb
And dco, your "vignette" of experience with the children could also be re-posted as is, as an "appetizer," if you wish to do so.
Barb
Posted on Sep 15, 2009 @ 08:20AM
Random Things
The Game Show Network’s Newlywed Game will make history this year--by adding same-sex celebrity pairs to their format.
The network is in the midst of producing special Celebrity Newlywed Game episodes, one of which will feature the first gay contestants ever: George Takei (Sulu from the original Star Trek series) and longtime partner Brad Altman.
The duo married in September 2008 in Los Angeles, Ca., just before the state's Proposition 8 approval banned same-sex marriage.
While Takei and Altman will mark the groundbreaking game show moment, they weren't the first asked. GSN approached Ellen DeGeneres and her partner Portia de Rossi to participate, the blondes turning down the offer as they did their own version on Ellen's talk show in March of '08.
Other celebrity couples featured in upcoming episodes this year will include, first America’s Next Top Model winner Adrienne Curry and Brady Bunch star Christopher Knight, Bachelor Bob Guiney and All My Children actress Rebecca Budig as well as Baywatch babe Brande Roderick and former NFL linebacker Glenn Cadrez.
The Takei episode will be taped next week and air in November. A newlywed couple is defined by having been married in the past four years. The show is hosted by Carnie Wilson.
Religious intolerance cuts deep in gay community, Gold says
by Laura Smith, April 14, 2009
Mitchell Gold speaks to the Elon community on injustice of religious persecution toward the gay community.
On Tuesday, civil rights activist, Mitchell Gold spoke to the Elon community at the Elon School sharing what he described as "such an incredibly painful memory."
Gold is the current CEO of the Mitchell Gold and Bob Williams furniture business, founder of Faith in America (a non-profit organization aimed at educating people about how religious-based bigotry is used to justify discrimination against homosexuals) and is now the author of his book, "Crisis."
"Crisis" was published in September 2008 and is a compilation of stories from those who have experienced religious intolerance and persecution as a result of growing up gay in America, something Gold felt quite a bit himself.
"People use the Bible to marginalize and dehumanize people," Gold said.
Growing up Jewish, Gold knew what it meant to be an oppressed minority. He also saw the discrimination towards black Americans that took place in the 1950s and 1960s.
He did not know how much he would one day experience that same intolerance for being gay.
"It's a problem because it's not acceptable," Gold said on realizing he was gay as a young teenager.
Gold described how he lived in fear every day of how his family would react if they knew he was gay. He feared getting beaten up at school, being seen as an outcast and not getting a decent job.
"I don't want one more kid to go through what I had to go through during my teenage years," Gold said.
He even contemplated suicide and saw a psychiatrist for help, who helped him learn to live being gay.
"I was lucky," Gold said of being able to get help and gain happiness.
Gold later moved to New York City, where being gay was commonplace and openly accepted. He got a job at Bloomingdale's, where several of the employees were gay. He even met someone he could settle down with, his current business partner, Bob Williams.
He even got to meet actor Richard Chamberlain, whom he discovered was gay as well.
"I got really comfortable," Gold said.
But all of this changed in 1988 when he moved down South to North Carolina.
"It's interesting to see how being naïve can be a good thing," he said of not realizing the difference of homosexual social acceptance in the South.
Gold began hearing conversations from co-workers and employees who described marriage as only being between a man and a woman.
"I started realizing there was a real movement afoot," Gold said of seeing how large of an intolerant sentiment there was toward gays.
He then realized this persecution was no different than what he had seen as a child.
"The same kind of discrimination that was used so horribly against black people was being used against gay people," he said.
Gold began his personal movement to create awareness of religious intolerance towards the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) community.
"This country has a sad history of segregation," Gold said. "I wanted to go out and teach people and remind them of that. Most decent people in America don't want to be a part of that history. Most decent people don't want to continue that hatred."
"Crisis" was compiled with contributors such Chamberlain, U.S. Congressman Barney Frank, Major League baseball player Billy Bean, TV actor Alec Mapa and former tennis champion Martina Navatilova. All are gay and openly talk about the struggle and pain of being a gay teenager in the book.
Gold is happy to be living in North Carolina, where there is currently no federal ban on gay marriage.
"In the state of North Carolina, we have the chance to be the shining light of this country," Gold said.
Gold said he hopes Americans will see the harm that intolerance toward the LGBT causes.
"Anybody who is oppressed has the right to confront their oppressor," he said.
Proceeds from "Crisis" go toward seven national gay advocacy programs for teens.
Baha'is use the Faith to marginalize and dehumanize people.
Thank you, Daniel - you're posting a lot of really useful information.
1.Full civil rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals must be enacted now. Delay and excuses are no longer acceptable.
2.We will not leave any part of our community behind.
3.Separate is never equal.
4.Religious beliefs are not a basis upon which to affirm or deny civil rights.
5.The establishment and guardianship of full civil rights is a non-partisan issue.
6.Individual involvement and grassroots action are paramount to success and must be encouraged.
7.Success is measured by the civil rights we all achieve, not by words, access or money raised.
8.Those who seek our support are expected to commit to these principles.
for more info see: http://www.thedallasprinciples.org/The_Dallas_P...
My own take on this statement, is that its usefulness lies in individual response to it. In other words, when I read it, I consider that there is no excuse for further delay ON MY PART, but I do not wish to use it in an accusatory way toward others who may or may not be doing their part, in my view. For those of use who care, there is some small (or not) thing we can do in our own day to day lives, to help bring about justice for GLBTs, and it's time to get moving - even if it's something as small as speaking up in a personal conversation with someone. If each one of us who cares took this statement as a call to action on our part, and did whatever we could, from day to day, that would make a huge difference. But I don't want, myself, to use it as a challenge to others I know, to whack them over the head with it. I will act from conscience in response to it, and perhaps someone I interact with will, as a result, be moved to act in a way that will make a difference - but I am primarily concerned with my own response to it, my own responsibility before God.
Does this make sense?
I guess what I'm saying is that words are just words, until they are manifest in action, and the only person whose action I can control is myself. I do not wish to force others, but hope to move them toward action by what I choose to do myself - deeds, not words.
And I guess I'm also saying that, for me, #6 is the most important part of this statement.
Barb
Tante checche nella fede bahai?? o di piu'
culattoni unitevi
I've been waiting for someone to translate the above message, for those of us who are "monolingual" - could you please.....?
Italian to english:
"Much checche in the belief bahai?? or of more'"
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/checche
-
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/checca
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/culattoni
-
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/culattone
-
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/culo
Barb
We get what we fight for. And we are not fighting. Every single one of us is not fighting. They fight better than we do. There is a concerted and never ending vein of hate in this country and in this world dedicated to keeping us in our place. It is evil to force people to be what we are not -- free. We are not free.
"I love being gay. I love gay people. How can I say this without offending everyone else, I think we're better than other people. I think we are smarter. I think we are more talented. I think we are more aware. I think we make better friends. I think we make better lovers. I think we're more tuned in to what's happening, tuned into the moment, tuned into our emotions, and other people's emotions.
"Yes, I think that gay people are better than other people. I think the only thing we are not so good at is fighting back. I hear talk of the new generation of gays and the old generation of gays, and how different we are. That is not true. We are all one generation. We are all related. We are all each other's brothers and sisters. We are all one family, the gay family. And I passionately and desperately want all my brothers and sisters to stay alive and well and on this earth, with total equality with every straight person. Being gay is the most important thing in my life. I love being gay. I hope you do, too." - Legendary gay/AIDS activist and author Larry Kramer, telling the audience at Dallas Pride to fight harder.
Daniel Orey
Sacramento
The eternal question for me is, how do you fight the opposition without joining them on the low road? This is a question Gary and I toss around every once in a while, and I'm not sure we've ever come up with a really good answer. Optimist that I (sometimes) am, I insist in believing that it's possible to fight a clean fight - though when someone is hurling lies and insults, the temptation is definitely there to hurl a little mud myself. Righteous anger is a good thing, I think - a very useful emotion - but how do we go about setting standards for ourselves about how to express it most effectively?
Maybe this isn't a problem for most people - but for me, it is. I have as sharp a tongue as any when I want to. When I told a Cherokee spiritual leader that Gary and I had joked that my Indian name should be "Snapping Turtle," he looked at me very seriously and said, "Then you should be very careful how you choose your words." So I try to do that.
So how to be compassionately combative? How to fight the good fight?
I am definitely open to suggestions.
By the way, is there something missing from this quote - he is saying it is evil to force people to be free? What does he mean?
Barb
In reading your post this morning I saw your note to me from a year ago on your Disgus log list! I really don't know if we met back then but maybe send me an e-mail craig (at) craigparke (dot) com if you want to touch base a bit!
I went on Pilgrimage in 1982. It was basically good in the generally positive and informative sense but I had a mystical experience that kind of foreshadowed your experience in 1980. I sensed something was very right and I also sensed something was very wrong all at the same time. Perhaps this conflict in my subconscious resulted in the mystical experience in 1982 in Haifa. The meaning didn't kick in until I saw Peter Khan speak in person in early 2001 in Milwaukee months before 9/11. I had never heard of the guy. I was astonished at his sneering arrogance and naked brutality. Then I remembered my mystical experience in 1982 in Haifa while standing and meditating alone in the unfinished shell of the room in the super structure that would become the consultation chamber of the Universal House of Justice.
Peace be upon you and everyone here.
I always feel refreshed by your beautiful words - they mean a great deal to me. I have a deep love for the Guardian and the sacrifice he made for the Faith - what a burden he must have felt when he realized his beloved grandfather was dead, and the mantle had fallen upon his shoulders, at his young age, with his whole life before him!
I too have that odd paradoxical feeling that Craig mentions, of things being right and wrong all at the same time - I trust somehow things will come out right in the end. Your words remind me, too, of one of my favorite quotes from Abdu'l-Baha:
"At the gate of the garden some stand and look within, but do not care to enter. Others step inside, behold its beauty, but do not penetrate far. Still others encircle this garden, inhaling the fragrance of the flowers, and having enjoyed its full beauty, pass out again by the same gate. But there are always some who enter and, becoming intoxicated with the splendor of what they behold, remain for life to tend the garden."
I have been largely inactive in the Faith for many years, and even resigned for several months at one time, not long ago. But it didn't feel right to be outside the Faith, and I re-entered. I have still been mostly inactive because I feel uncomfortable with the tone of things in my community, and in the Faith at large, and since I have trouble holding my tongue, it seems best to step back and let things proceed without me. The Story Project is my way, I guess, of trying to be of service by attempting to lessen some of the prejudice among the Baha'is, something I can do from a quiet corner.
You must continue to speak, we need to hear you.
Barb
what is important are the people, not the system.
however, the status quo in bahai privileges the "system". as habermas says "systems colonize lifeworld".
anyone that asserts that people are more important the the system will be marginalized and attacked, and if they persist, viciously so.
the changes you are advocating, which I support, could easily been seen as a (near) "CB" agenda by the reactionaries/fundies/authoritarians in the bahai system (the dominant leadership mode).
bahai belief has become belief in an increasingly soulless, dysfunctional and psychopathic "system", not faith in the good, beautiful and true in the human soul.
back to the original topic, of change being a law of nature:
the paper at the following link does a good job of summarizing several of the main ways of thinking about the current problems with postmodern "transformation" in global culture.
(predictably, there has been almost no real, significant discussion of those topics in the bahai community. at least not much discussion that transcends the usual glib "missionary" mentality, self-referential "bahai" logic that utterly lacks objectivity, etc.)
http://www.cejournal.org/GRD/neville.htm
excerpts:
Out of Our Depth and Treading Water: Reflections on Consciousness, Culture and New Learning Technologies
------------------------------------------------------
Bernie Neville
Graduate School of Education at La Trobe University
Australia
------------------------------------------------------
Copyright authors and Journal of Integral Studies.
... In this paper I start with the premise that at the turn of this century we are in the midst of profound cultural and psychological change. During the past half-century we have had some of our species’ sharpest minds trying to get to grips with the evidence that something significant is going on in the evolution of human consciousness and culture. I want to rehearse something of what they have said, before reflecting on what this might mean for our work as teachers in an information-rich society. Specifically I want to look at our age from four different perspectives:
[] postmodern social analysis,
[] the history of consciousness,
[] constructivist developmental psychology and
[] archetypal psychology.
Each of these perspectives is represented in the work of a group of thinkers. While the thinkers in each group share ideas, there is no indication that they are influenced by people from the other groups, or even that they are aware of their existence. Yet, as you will see, their conclusions about the kind of consciousness which is emerging in what we now conventionally call the information age have a great deal in common.
...
The information society is guided by a fantasy of the marketplace, in which exchange is an end in itself - a fantasy of deregulation, free interchange, commodification. Knowledge, like wisdom, health, pleasure, law, spirituality and relationship, is now a commodity whose only value is its market value. Economic rationalism is only one manifestation of this kind of thinking. The consciousness of the marketplace permeates all areas of life.
A further characteristic of the postmodern condition, which Lyotard sees as another consequence of the information revolution, is the decline of orthodoxy. The "grand narratives" of the modern, industrial era - Marxism, Rationalism, Christianity - have been set aside in favour of an increasing relativisation of values, ethics and beliefs. Even conventionally religious people are no longer inclined to make claims to absolute truth.
...
Meanwhile modern science, having failed to construct a paradise, is being supplanted by a postmodern science characterized by incomplete information, catastrophe and chaos, indeterminacy, paradox, discontinuity, and a tendency to uncover new questions rather than new answers, a tendency to complexify rather than to simplify.
In a postmodern consciousness the significance of the image is magnified to a point where we are floating in a sea of images which are no longer expected to represent any reality or truth.
...
If teachers have a sense that there is a gap between the way they sense the world and the way their students sense it, and that tried and true methods of teaching do not seem to work so well any more, they may be right.
...
Kegan argues that the shift from third to fourth to fifth order thinking in not simply a matter of individual cognitive development. We are dealing here not only with personal development but with cultural change. In pre-scientific societies third order thinking was perfectly adequate to meet the demands of the environment. Fourth order thinking both enabled and was demanded by the Age of Science. The culture in which we find ourselves at the end of the twentieth century demands that we be capable of dialectical, post-ideological, transpersonal, fifth order thinking. When we were at school we may not have been taught to think like this, and we may use this skill rather clumsily. It may, indeed, be beyond many of us much of the time. But our children and students may be more capable of it than our parents and teachers ever could be, and if we ignore this we will not make much contact with them.
...
The evolution of consciousness: emerging integrality
The observations on culture and consciousness which Lyotard was making in the seventies and Kegan has been making in the nineties had already been made by Jean Gebser (1949) in the forties.
As a student of European language and literature Gebser became convinced that language was being used in quite new ways in this century, and that this new use of language represented a change in the way the world was being experienced. His original insight came through his discovery in the poetry of Rilke of a mode of experiencing which is no longer perspectival, dualistic and time-bound. He sought and found the same phenomenon in other European poets (notably Eliot and Valéry). His reflections on this led him to look across a wide range of arts and sciences for clues to the nature of this change. They also led him to years of research into archaeology and history, in an attempt to determine whether there was a trajectory in the evolution of human consciousness and culture which might explain the transformation which he thought he could discern in his own time. Out of these researches he developed a theory of what he called structures of consciousness.
In Gebser’s model of structures of consciousness he distinguished between four discrete mutations of consciousness: the archaic consciousness of primal human beings, the magical consciousness of the stone age, the mythical consciousness which developed after the ice ages, and the mental consciousness which emerged with the great classical civilizations and which has dominated European culture since the middle ages. These evolutional mutations are fundamentally different ways of experiencing reality. The central premise of his work, however, was that a new structure of consciousness was beginning to emerge in the twentieth century, a structure which he called integral consciousness.
While Gebser’s major work, The Ever Present Origin (1949), sets out these structures in evolutionary sequence, he did not wish to imply that they are historical developments leading to integral consciousness as the ultimate human achievement. He maintained rather that they are intertwined and ever-present, and that it is the dynamic interplay between them which constitutes culture. While he presents his theory as a theory of the evolution of consciousness, he is adamant that he is not doing so within a fantasy of historical “development” or “progress”. Our tendency to think in such terms is an artifact of our dominant mental consciousness, in which our experience of time is linear and quantified. Rather, reality is unfolding process, and the archaic, magic, mythical, mental and emerging integral structures are all valid ways of apprehending it. In Gebser’s understanding we are shaped and determined not only by the present and the past but by the future. Most significantly, all of the structures have both “efficient” and “deficient” forms and we have no basis for being romantic about either past or future. We have no assurance that we will experience the emerging integral structure only in its “efficient” form.
For Gebser the rational consciousness which has dominated European civilization since the enlightenment was not the supreme achievement in human development but rather the deficient form of the mental structure which emerged about three thousand years ago. He saw the deficiency in the rational consciousness of the past four centuries as deriving from its arrogant devaluation and suppression of the earlier structures. In the thirties and forties it was clear to him that the rational structure was collapsing and that European civilization was slipping back into a deficient magical-mythical structure. At the same time he found indications that a new structure was emerging. He suggested that this new structure involved the integration of the four older structures
...
With or without assistance from the analysts of postmodernity we can find in our literature, science, cinema and the daily news a dominant narrative of complexity and chaos, of the vanishing of boundaries, of deceit, denial and delusion among our leaders, of the preference for image over substance, of the loss of familial and tribal bonds, of the disappearance of our conventional grounds for moral judgments, of an unwillingness to confront reality, of the abandonment of rationality, of the proliferation of information, of the slipperiness of ideas and ideals which once seemed solid and graspable, of a market-place so ubiquitous and noisy that we cannot escape it.
So what is the “old story” in this?
In The Political Psyche (1993) Andrew Samuels has explored the myth of the Greek god Hermes as an approach to understanding contemporary economic and political culture and to dealing with our splits and confusions about capitalism and the market economy. I have argued elsewhere (Neville, 1992) that "the postmodern condition" may be construed as an inflation of late twentieth century European consciousness (wherever it is found) by the image and energy of Hermes. Taking seriously Hillman's dictum that we are always in one archetypal fantasy or another, I have argued that post-industrial society is caught in a Hermes fantasy.
The Homeric Hymn to Hermes (Hesiod, trans. Athanassakis, 1976) tells us how, to avoid the gods, Maia, the nymph who was Zeus' lover, hid in a deep cave, where she bore a son
who was a shrewd and coaxing schemer,
cattle - rustling robber, and a bringer of dreams,
a watcher by night and a gate-keeper, soon destined
to show forth glorious deeds among the immortal gods.
...
Archetypal psychology suggests that we can find the images of the Hermes myth dominating our culture in the recent past and the present time. We can argue that the complexity of our planetary situation and the unwillingness of political leaders to admit their inability to manage it belong to this pattern, as does the pervasive tendency to deal with crises through "image control" rather than effective action, the dominance of the stock market and the collapse of consensus ethics. I suggest that eco-feminism, in its challenge to the anthropocentricity and hero-pathology of the modern age, belongs to the same pattern as postmodern science, the information superhighway, the multicultural society, the “end of enclosure” and the worship of the unregulated market, for Hermes is very much Mummy’s boy.
If our culture is possessed by one god rather than another, we have to point to Hermes, the god of information and communication, the friendly god who constantly deceives us.
The Greeks did not distinguish between “good gods” and “bad gods”. The nasty or pathological aspects of behaviour were shared out among all the gods. Hermes has his good side and his bad side. However, Hermes himself makes no distinction between good and bad. We might not like some characteristics of the Age of Hermes: the deceit, delusion, irresponsibility and amorality; the collapse of boundaries, the substitution of image for substance, the attack on rationality, the groundlessness, the destabilization, the commodification; the restlessness of the god of travelers who never stays in one place. However, they go hand in hand with other Hermetic qualities which characterize our age: the pluralism, the flexibility, the capacity for transformation, the inventiveness, the relativism, the playfulness, the magic, the tolerance, the invitation to escape from psychological and cultural prisons, the acceptance of paradox, the acknowledgment of process, the concern for Mother Earth.
Hermes is not the only god dominant in our culture. There are other more oppressive gods demanding our worship. But I suggest that it is Hermes’ story, rather than any other, which currently says who we are.
...
I am beginning with Kegan’s third level because I don’t wish to complicate this argument any further by discussing the early years of schooling.)
Teachers in such a context (third order, mythical structure) assume that schooling should be aimed at engendering dependence and conformity in students. Teaching focuses on transmitting to students what is already known in the community. Learning need not be passive, but it is essentially receptive rather than creative. The function of the school (or university) is to enculturation the next generation into the values, ethics, knowledge and customs of the family, tribe, church or nation. The child needs to learn and accept what is acknowledged as truth by the community and to learn also how to behave in a manner which the community approves. The school exists within a narrative where certain values and purposes and truths are taken for entirely for granted.
Education in such a society is essentialist. The curriculum is content-centered. Those in authority know exactly what should be taught and learned.
On the other hand, if schooling is constructed by the mental consciousness of a modern-scientific society, it assumes a capacity for fourth order thinking. Such a schooling aims to produce students who are autonomous individuals, who take responsibility for their own behaviour, who take nothing for granted but critically examine their own society and the truths it presents to them. Teachers believe that the best learning is self-directed and active, rather than receptive and conformist. There is an underlying assumption that human beings are able to discover the truth about the universe if they observe it carefully enough and think about it hard enough.
Such an education looks critically at the principles which guide its own and other societies, in a search for universal principles for human behaviour. It is non-essentialist because we cannot yet confidently state the truth. It is student-centered because the individual student is the best judge of what he or she needs to learn right now in order to deal with the world as he or she finds it.
...
Kegan argues that many of us have difficulty in achieving and maintaining fourth order consciousness. Gebser warns us against privileging mental consciousness over mythical consciousness. Our consciousness is multi-layered, and it is the taken-for-grantedness of our deepest assumptions and culturally embedded narratives which give our lives meaning and direction, even though our mental consciousness may take a critical stance towards them and even though others may find them simply wrong.
However, the point of this paper is to address the question of what sort of schooling is demanded by fifth order thinking, integral consciousness, the postmodern condition, the information society and the Age of Hermes.
May I suggest the following.
Where third order schooling aims at dependence and fourth order thinking aims at independence, fifth order thinking aims at interdependence.
...
The role of information technology is central to this. It both enables and demands the dissolution of boundaries, the development of transegoic consciousness, the transcendence of rational, linear, dualistic thinking and the constraints of quantified space and time. It both enables and demands the emergence of an holistic, eco-centric, process-oriented, constructivist curriculum. It both enables and demands a new way of thinking both from students and their teachers.
...
Society protects and defends the rights of prisoners, who have been stripped of most of their civil rights, to enter into a civil marriage. Those who argue that homosexuality is a “lifestyle choice” are willfully ignoring the American Psychological Association and of the science of psychology, that homosexuality is an orientation. It is not a choice anymore than being heterosexual is a choice. On which calendar date did you sit down and chose your sexual orientation? Most of us discovered our orientation when we went through puberty. Some of us experienced discrimination, hatred, verbal, emotional and physical abuse in addition to the general angst, which marked that stage of development. Prop 8 legalized discrimination against a minority group into the California State Constitution and in so doing, promotes bigotry and social stigmatization of persons who have a same sex orientation.
Being a Christian is a choice, yet no one would dream (so far) of placing the rights of people to freely choose their religion up for a public vote. Regardless of one’s religious views, we all live in a pluralistic civil society. The only way that such a society can function peacefully is for all citizens to respect each other’s civil rights. Stripping any minority of its civil rights, which is precisely what Prop 8 accomplished, threatens the civil rights of every minority group in our society.
Several religions, many theologians, the APA and almost all international Psychological Associations agree that homosexuality is not a choice, but like heterosexuality, an orientation. Laws, such as Prop 8, which target a minority group and strip away their civil rights, are born of ignorance, prejudice and they promote discrimination and bigotry. I am honored to be one of the proponents of a ballot initiative, which will restore the right to a civil marriage to all Californians regardless of their sexual orientation. This new proposition will also write into our State Constitution the right of religious groups to deny religious marriage to same sex couples. This new proposition restores and protects civil marriage for all Californians while simultaneously protecting the rights of religious groups to deny religious marriage to same sex couples.
see original at: http://fathergeofffarrow.blogspot.com/2009/09/n...
I recently came across this music video by the Icelandic band Sigur Ros called Viðrar vel til loftárása and I really liked it, so I wanted to share it with all of you, although I suspect that many of you have already seen it.
I don't want to spark a debate, but I just found the video to be quite moving and powerful.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=34ZtT4Th9Ys
"The House of Justice was sorry to learn from your letter that your son has recently informed you that he is a homosexual. " "You will, no doubt, want to urge your son to seek appropriate counselling; "(aka reparative therapy; maybe even shock treatment, who knows). "Regarding your husband's refusal to permit your son to return home, it is understandable that a parent might feel deeply confused and angry when confronted with such questions which go to the very root of what it means to be a human being and what it means to educate and raise a child" (so it is understandable for a father to throw his child out because that child is now so anti-human and such an uneducated child; instead of what the father has done is completely wrong and he should immediately welcome his son back into the home because THAT is what Abdul-Baha would have wanted!!!).
Sorry Masud, not trying to foster any debate here, justr trying to tell the truth of what gays face in the Bahai community if they turn to our beloved UHJ!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Exk9aFC6S0M&feat...
see original at: http://fathergeofffarrow.blogspot.com/2009/10/y...
Sonja-
Thank you. I had previously addressed the misattribution of the two passages (that were written on BEHALF OF Shoghi Effendi and not BY Shoghi Effendi) in the comments section of the video. But it's certainly hard to find there now, and conveniently YouTube now has an Annotations function, so I just had my secretary add the corrections on my behalf. (The correction still reflects my own agency and point of view, however- not a rogue departure from my instructions.)
Thanks,
Amanda
I say nonsense. The UHJ re-interpreted Shoghi Effendi's comment about Baha'is going door to door with pamphlets being undignified and undesirable. Now it's fine for Baha'is to go door to door, just like the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons do, no matter how offensive it might be, because it now seems useful for them to do so. The UHJ CAN CHANGE the current stance toward gay Baha'is - they simply do not have the will to do so, perhaps because of their own unacknowledged prejudice in regard to homosexuality. If they wanted to change it, they could - trust me. I am reminded of that old joke that, if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.
The people with the real power, however, to change the current stance toward gay Baha'is are the gay Baha'is themselves, and their friends and families. As long as gay Baha'is accept a bogus excuse for the administration's "inability" to change things, nothing will change. Gay Baha'is must have enough dignity and self-respect and yes, courage, to effect change, to set in motion events that will result in a change of attitude. This can happen; there is absolutely no doubt in my mind about that. But it won't happen unless gay Baha'is who love the Faith, and those who love them, find within themselves the conviction and strength to take this issue on. People's lives, literally, are at stake, and I hope and pray that this will happen, but I am not holding my breath.
Barb
YES!
This is so true... if GLBT people were as united as the folks united against us we would move mountains.
We have such friends such as Desmond Tutu, President Obama, and yet we hide, live in fear, are silent, and do not reach out to each other.
I am sitting here in Sacramento, sad that I could not make it to Washington to march ($$$), and listening to the religious leaders speak and thinking once again...
WHERE ARE WE?
Folks the moment we are even 1/2 as united and strong as the forces arrayed against us will be the moment that they WILL have to listen to us.
May God forgive them for the harm they are causing to GLBT youth and their friends and family.... because right now, I just cannot.
Daniel Orey
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlmL66UNjnQ&feat...
Daniel Orey
Sacramento, California
“Crash” director Paul Haggis has severed his ties with the Church of Scientology, in part because of what he alleged as the organization’s stance against gay marriage.
Haggis wrote a letter addressed to Tommy Davis, the head of Scientology’s Celebrity Centre. In it, Haggis said he was disappointed by the church’s tacit denial of gay rights in the debate over California’s gay marriage ban.
The 56-year-old Haggis, who won an Oscar in 2005 for co-writing “Crash,” said he was quitting the church after 35 years. “I could not, in good conscience, be a member of an organization where gay-bashing was tolerated,” wrote Haggis, who also wrote the Oscar-winning “Million Dollar Baby.”
The letter, dated Aug. 19, was published in a blog about Scientology and has since been circulated online. Ziggy Kozlowski, a publicist for Haggis, confirmed the director wrote the letter. He said it was intended to remain private.
Davis said Haggis’ complaints were based on misunderstandings and that he has since spoken to the filmmaker. Davis strenuously disagreed with Haggis’ claim that the Church of Scientology is anti-gay.
play this loud!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_NpxTWbovE&feat...
Barb
http://revolked2.blogspot.com/2009/10/keeping-f...
http://www.whiteknot.org/stories.html
please take a moment and consider adding your name to the petion:
http://gay.americablog.com/2009/11/dont-ask-don...
http://networkedblogs.com/p17264062
in particular Ellen discusses her coming out, her ideas on the purpose of life and her marriage.
Ellen continued with, “Anybody who’s married knows there is a difference. It feels like you’re home. There’s an anchor, there’s a safety. I’m going to be with her until the day I die and I know that.”
"I have long advocated using the term 'bigot' sparingly when referring to gay-rights opponents. It’s not that I don’t think bigotry is a serious problem. On the contrary, it’s vital to identify bigotry for what it is and to expose its tragic effects. It’s also important to learn the lessons of history, including the ways in which bigotry can hide behind religion, concern for children’s welfare, and other seemingly benign motives.
"But there’s a difference between identifying bigotry, on the one hand, and labeling any and all people who disagree with us as bigots, on the other. Such labeling tends to function as a conversation-stopper, cutting us off from the 'moveable middle' and ultimately harming our progress. It’s also unfair to the many decent people who genuinely strive to understand us even where, for sincere and complex reasons, they cannot accept our position. [snip]
"Many of our opponents are fundamentally decent people. For both principled and pragmatic reasons, we don’t want to saddle them with an identity that suggests their being beyond redemption. In other words, we don’t want to label them 'bigots' prematurely. At the same time, we don’t want to shrink from identifying the evil of anti-gay bigotry, wherever and whenever it occurs. And so, we can distinguish. We can point out the sin of bigotry forcefully while using the epithet of 'bigot' sparingly (though that epithet, too, has its uses). Because, in the end, we do know it when we see it." - John Corvino, writing for Independent Gay Forum.
Anyway, thanks for sharing this.
http://www.johncorvino.com/
His DVD is great, and shoudl be seen by Bahaí admistrators
Barb
Thanks for the excellent material.
Corvino has made a very good start in recognising the well-known problems with "identity politics" (that can apply to gender issues, racial issues, green issues, etc.).
My argument last year, during the heated debate about the anti-gay marriage vote in california, was that identity politics are counter-productive not only to the GLBT's movement's valid long-term objectives, but also to the larger process of social movement toward increased tolerance.
Rationale: identity politics tend to be paradigm-regressive. In other words a tribal ("us vs. them") attitude tends to set in amongst the members of a identity group. Then the thought police come out of the woodwork and "punish" (or marginalize) anyone that doesn't conform to group norms/ideas.
(hmmm,..... sounds exactly like bahai administration?)
Extremism and radicalism tends to set in on both "sides", and more moderate, pragmatic solutions are rejected or ignored.
However, there are obviously some short-term benefits to identity politics. Otherwise they wouldn't have any appeal. An increased sense of solidarity and validation of grievances (usually early in a movement, or stage of a movement) being the main ones I can think of at the moment.
The problem is that a transition usually has to be made to a bridge-building strategy, and the group-think that tends to set in from identity politics works against those that advocate such outreach.
On a individual psycho-spiritual level, I think the issue has to do with unconditional acceptance and compassion.
People need healing around all sorts of issues, including this one. A healing approach, based on compassion, should include aceptance of the basic human decency of both those that agree and disagree. Otherwise, the tedency to dehumanize people is reinforced, hardly something that seems consistent with the higher sentiments and aims of the wider tolerance movement.
Bye!
So where does the Bahai community stand in all this? It's time for the UHJ to put its money where its mouth is when it comes to Human Rights. The Bahai community has a House of Worship in that country. Will the Bahais be silent? Last year they demonstrated with others in Uganda against gays. Now what? Will the Bahais in Uganda support such a horrible bill? Or just sit idly by while homosexuals are discriminated against and even murdered by the government? If the UHJ doesn't stand up and say something, given that there is a significant percentage of Ugandas who are Bahais, then those 9 men's letters are not worth the paper they are written on. Don't come crying about the persecution of Bahais in Iran if you are not willing to say anything about this bill in Uganda. Do the right thing!
Barb
Where is the apology from the present UK NSA regarding this asinine letter written back in 1996. We would all long be dead from lack of air if we had waited.
Barb
Barb
Yeah, it was that horrible letter published in the American Bahai that made me write to National and tell them to stop sending me such awful propaganda. Oh and I told them to consider my cancelation to the American Bahai as my last "donation" to the fund (since they no longer had to waste stamps mailing it to me!)
thank you for posting this, and i'm sorry to hear how difficult this situation is for your brother and yourself.
http://revolked2.blogspot.com/2009/12/conversio...
http://fathergeofffarrow.blogspot.com/2009/12/w...
http://revolked2.blogspot.com/2009/12/this-from...