Baha'i Rants - Latest Comments in Change is a Law of Nature

Re: Change is a Law of Nature

Fubar — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 15:07:18 -0000

" I would presume that anyone else who wandered the same path as I have would have done the same."

This is one of the basic problems with fundamentalist bahais, they assume that the satisfaction they get from being narrow-minded conformists is "normal", and as such should be imposed on people, even if coercion is necessary.

Cultural imperialism and medieval thinking.

Re: Change is a Law of Nature

Baquia — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 01:27:34 -0000

Welcome JinxÇ to BahaiRants and thanks for your comment (although you might want to see someone about your quotitis).

Do you realize that according to the same covenant you use as a cudgel, Shoghi Effendi as Guardian does not and can not create Baha'i law? that neither Baha'u'llah nor Abdu'l-Baha said anything about homosexuality? and that the Guardian's tentative writings on this issue are tenuous at best based on a handwritten note in the side margin of his copy of the Aqdas?

This is not an issue of "bowing" to political or social pressure as you put it. Far from it. This is where you err in my humble opinion. You completely and utterly misunderstand the issue and cast it within an all too familiar framework of "us" vs. "them" which allows the corollary of dragging in a bagful of "covenant" quotes with which to bash everyone into submission.

Thanks but no thanks. Been there, done that. Let's move on to a real discussion now.

Oh and you say "... I for one would not remain a member of this Faith if that were by any means to suddenly be changed by...
anyone."

NEWSFLASH! You're in the wrong religion my friend. The Baha'i Faith has a staggering amount of flexibility deliberately built into it and has metamorphosed to such a degree that an early believer would hardly recognize it today. Is that a bad thing? I don't think so.

I humbly suggest that you actually inquire about and study the religion that you purport to be so passionate about because while you can copy/paste like the wind, it is clear your comprehension could use some improvement.

I don't want to alarm you too much but here's just one small example of "change" that you may find if and when you embark on a true journey of search and knowledge: originally Baha'i LSA's were not democratically elected as they are now. Yikes!

Didn't mean to alarm you my dear friend. It is true. Here's another (brace yourself!!) originally LSA's and NSA's were only open to men. That's right. Baha'i women, no matter how educated, spiritual, skilled, etc. were not even able to stand as candidates.

Double YIKES!!

There are many more of course. But I'm sure your heart needs rest now. And you can find out more yourself. If you care to.

Re: Change is a Law of Nature

JinxÇ — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 23:05:14 -0000

I am proud to say that I have been a Bahá'i since the
age of eleven when I first received my first personal revelation of the Faith.
I still consider myself imperfect and by no means fully knowledgable on all
aspects of the Faith and its teachings, when I compare myself to many of my
more learned Bahá'í Friends. When I became a Bahá'í I was fully informed of the
rules and laws of the Faith, which I wholeheartedly accepted. I would presume
that anyone else who wandered the same path as I have would have done the
same.

"... Therefore, in the beginning the believers
must make their steps firm in the Covenant so that the confirmations
of Baha’u'llah may encircle them from all sides, the cohorts of the Supreme Concourse may become their supporters and helpers,
and the exhortations and advices of ‘Abdu’l-Baha, like unto the pictures
engraved on stone, may remain permanent and ineffaceable in the tablets of all
hearts." (”Tablets of the Divine Plan Revealed by ‘Abdu’l-Baha
to the North American Baha’is” rev. ed. (Wilmette: Baha’i Publishing Trust,
1977), p. 49)

The purpose of this comment I would like to make is this:

If one is fully aware that in the Hindu religion the
cow is sacred and that Hindu's are forbidden to eat of its meat or kill a cow
or mistreat a cow, how totally absurd it would be to suggest that one would
become a Hindu, fully conscious of these sacred rules, and then seek to change
these sacred rules of that religion to suit their own personal needs and/or
requirement(s).

"That the forces of irreligion, of a purely
materialistic philosophy, of unconcealed paganism have been unloosed, are now
spreading, and, by consolidating themselves, are beginning to invade some of
the most powerful Christian institutions of the western world, no unbiased
observer can fail to admit. That these institutions are becoming increasingly
restive, that a few among them are already dimly aware of the pervasive
influence of the Cause of Bahá'u'lláh, that they will, as their inherent
strength deteriorates and their discipline relaxes, regard with deepening
dismay the rise of His New World Order, and will gradually determine to assail
it, that such an opposition will in turn accelerate their decline, few, if any,
among those who are attentively watching the progress of His Faith would be
inclined to question.

This menace of secularism that has attacked Islam and
is undermining its remaining institutions, that has invaded Persia, has
penetrated into India, and raised its triumphant head in Turkey, has already
manifested itself in both Europe and America, and is, in varying degrees, and
under various forms and designations, challenging the basis of every
established religion..." (In a letter
written by Shoghi Effendi, 11 March 1936 to the Bahá'ís of the West, published in
"The World Order of Bahá'u'lláh: Selected Letters", pp. 180-81)

Therefore, the same applies to the rules of my Beloved
Faith! For anyone to become a Bahá'í of their own accord and having full
knowledge of the basic rules of the Faith to expect that such a Great
Revelation and Institution will change its rules merely to suit the wishes of
any individual would be equally absurd! Acceptance of and obediance to The
Cause of God which has been sent down by the Pen on High is a basic principle
of the Bahá'í Faith.

"The Baha’is must cling firmly to the knowledge
that the Cause is safely in God’s hands, that the Covenant of Baha’u'llah is
incorruptible and that they can have complete confidence in the ability of the
Universal House of Justice to function “under the care and protection of the
Abha Beauty, under the shelter and unerring guidance of His Holiness, the
Exalted One”…." (28 May 1975, from a letter written on behalf of the
Universal House of Justice to an individual believer)

and

"The Covenant is the “axis of the oneness of the
world of humanity” because it preserves the unity and integrity of the Faith
itself and protects it from being disrupted by individuals who are convinced
that only their understanding of the Teachings is the right one — a fate that
has overcome all past Revelations. The Covenant is, moreover, embedded in the
Writings of Baha’u'llah Himself. Thus, as you clearly see, to accept
Baha’u'llah is to accept His Covenant; to reject His Covenant is to reject
Him." (3 January 1982, from a letter written on behalf of
the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer)

The reason why certain behaviours are forbidden have
clearly been laid down by Bahá'u'lláh, being that they are unacceptable,
rather, abhorrent in the eyes of God, and I for one would not remain
a member of this Faith if that were by any means to suddenly be changed by
anyone. For me the sactity and preservation of the Faith is primary.

"It should also be borne in mind that the
machinery of the Cause has been so fashioned, that whatever is deemed necessary
to incorporate into it in order to keep it in the forefront of all progressive
movements, can, according to the provisions made by Baha'u'llah, be safely
embodied therein. To this testify the words of Baha'u'llah, as recorded in the
Eighth Leaf of the exalted Paradise: "It is incumbent upon the Trustees of
the House of Justice to take counsel together regarding those things which have
not outwardly been revealed in the Book, and to enforce that which is agreeable
to them. God will verily inspire them with whatsoever He willeth, and He,
verily, is the Provider, the Omniscient."... the House of Justice [has]
been invested by Baha'u'llah with the authority to legislate whatsoever has not
been explicitly and outwardly recorded in His holy Writ... 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." (Shoghi Effendi, World Order of Baha'u'llah, p. 22-3)

The reason why most other religions are in so much
chaos today is because they have been bowing to political and social pressures
and have deviated far too much on far too many of their basic principles, which
has cause division among their ranks.

"Today, the most important affair is firmness in
the Covenant, because firmness in the Covenant wards off differences.

. . .Baha’u'llah covenanted, not that I (’Abdu’l-Baha)
am the Promised One, but that ‘Abdu’l-Baha is the Expounder of the Book and the
Centre of His Covenant, and that the Promised One of Baha’u'llah will appear
after one thousand or thousands of years. This is the Covenant which
Baha’u'llah made. If a person shall deviate, he is not acceptable at the
Threshold of Baha’u'llah. In case of differences, ‘Abdu’l-Baha must be
consulted. They must revolve around his good pleasure. After ‘Abdu’l-Baha,
whenever the Universal House of Justice is organized it will ward off
differences." (’Abdu’l-Baha, cited in “Star of the West”, vol. 4,
no. 14 (November 1913), p. 237-38)

and

"Inasmuch as great differences and divergences of
denominational belief had arisen throughout the past, every man with a new idea
attributing it to God, Baha’u'llah desired that there should not be any ground
or reason for disagreement among the Baha’is. Therefore, with His own pen He
wrote the Book of His Covenant, addressing His relations and all people of the
world, saying, “Verily, I have appointed One Who is the Center of My Covenant.
All must obey Him; all must turn to Him; He is the Expounder of My Book, and He
is informed of My purpose. All must turn to Him. Whatsoever He says is correct,
for, verily, He knoweth the texts of My Book. Other than He, no one doth know
My Book.” The purpose of this statement is that there should never be discord
and divergence among the Baha’is but that they should always be unified and
agreed…. Therefore, whosoever obeys the Center of the Covenant appointed by
Baha’u'llah has obeyed Baha’u'llah, and whosoever disobeys Him has disobeyed
Baha’u'llah….

Beware! Beware! lest anyone should speak from the
authority of his own thoughts or create a new thing out of himself. Beware!
Beware! According to the explicit Covenant of Baha’u'llah you should care
nothing at all for such a person. Baha’u'llah shuns such souls. " (”The Promulgation
of Universal Peace: Talks Delivered by ‘Abdu’l-Baha during His Visit to the
United States and Canada in 1912, 2nd ed. (Wilmette:
Baha’i Publishing Trust, 1982), pp. 322-23)

and

"Numerous and powerful have been the forces that have
schemed, both from within and from without, in lands both far and near, to
quench its light and abolish its holy name. Some have apostatized from its
principles, and betrayed ignominiously its cause. Others have hurled against it
the fiercest anathemas which the embittered leaders of any ecclesiastical
institution are able to pronounce. Still others have heaped upon it the
afflictions and humiliations which sovereign authority can alone, in the
plenitude of its power, inflict.

The utmost its avowed and secret enemies could hope to
achieve was to retard its growth and obscure momentarily its purpose. What they
actually accomplished was to purge and purify its life, to stir it to still
greater depths, to galvanize its soul, to prune its institutions, and cement
its unity. A schism, a permanent cleavage in the vast body of its adherents,
they could never create.

They who betrayed its cause, its lukewarm and
faint-hearted supporters, withered away and dropped as dead leaves, powerless
to cloud its radiance or to imperil its structure. Its most implacable
adversaries, they who assailed it from without, were hurled from power, and, in
the most astonishing fashion, met their doom…

Meanwhile the Faith that had been the object of such
monstrous betrayals, and the target for such woeful assaults, was going from
strength to strength, was forging ahead, undaunted and undivided by the
injuries it had received. In the midst of trials it had inspired its loyal
followers with a resolution that no obstacle, however formidable, could
undermine. It had lighted in their hearts a faith that no misfortune, however
black, could quench. It had infused into their hearts a hope that no force,
however determined, could shatter." (Shoghi
Effendi, The World Order of Baha’u'llah, p. 195)

and

"…the believers need to be deepened in
their knowledge and appreciation of the Covenants of both Bahá’u’lláh and
‘Abdu’l-Bahá. This is the stronghold of the Faith of every Bahá’í, and that
which enables him to withstand every test and the attacks of the enemies
outside the Faith, and the far more dangerous, insidious, lukewarm people
inside the Faith who have no real attachment to the Covenant, and consequently
uphold the intellectual aspect of the teachings while at the same time undermining
the spiritual foundation upon which the whole Cause of God rests." (Written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, The Light of Divine Guidance v II, p. 84)

My personal suggestion to anyone who cannot accept the
principles of this Great Cause of God to simply reevaluate your own motives and
act according to your own conscience!

Re: Change is a Law of Nature

Guest — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 15:23:06 -0000

Dear Sonja,

As a 30-plus year Baha'i--and a trans-woman married to a cis woman--I dare not state my name for fear of administrative reprisals. That being said, how do I defend my religious beliefs to my own self, let alone to anyone else? Because of the Faith's stand on same-sex marriages--along with the recent directive from the UHJ forbidding us from participating in equal-rights demonstrations for the LGBT community--I rarely refer to myself anymore as a Baha'i. I am ashamed of my religion which on the one hand preaches equality and justice and on the other hand prevents me from actively seeking it.

Just knowing there are other Baha'i's who believe as I do gives me hope.

Re: Change is a Law of Nature

peyamb — Sun, 24 Oct 2010 20:54:05 -0000

And speaking of declining...I asked my nephew today why he didn't go to Sunday classes. He told me that they are cancelled. There wasn't anyone who wanted to teach the classes and not enough kids- so they didn't start them back up this Fall. This is a good size city and capital in the South with a Bahai center. Truly sad! In a weird way, I'm actually heartbroken. This is not what I want to see, but oh well....

Re: Change is a Law of Nature

Craig Parke — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 22:49:30 -0000

I think anyone who has been in the Baha'i Faith for a long time will recognize the Cosmic Wisdom of perhaps a New Divine Law in the next Dispensation "No two Baha'is should EVER be permitted to marry each other!" THAT would indeed be a very helpful and very useful social law to advance the general mental health of people! I think it will be one of the First Laws of the next Manifestation who will most certainly be a woman. She will utter it when she rides up onto Mt. Carmel on her Harley!

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

Re: Change is a Law of Nature

pey — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 16:14:42 -0000

The problem really is the balance between literalism and spirit. There is no balance at the present in the Bahai community. It has turned more and more to a literalist approach mimicking Christian evangelical churches. For instance, if an atheist wants to marry a Bahai, they can't have a Bahai wedding. Unless the atheist lies and utters the words "We shall verily abide by the will of God". So if no Bahai wedding, then what? Remove the Bahai's voting rights? In the environment today that would be done in the Bahai community. Instead of finding compromise and working within the spirit of whatever "law". This is biggere than the gay issue my friend. It is about the future of this small declining religion.

Re: Change is a Law of Nature

DCO — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 13:22:25 -0000

I think many of went thru that stage... "if I over compensate they won't find me out"

Its my feeling that most of the homophobes in the Faith are really closet cases... especially the ones that feel that it is a choice...

Re: Change is a Law of Nature

DCO — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 13:20:40 -0000

Thanks Pey and Barb...

A question: Do you "support" atheist marriage? Interfaith marriage? Divorce and remarriage? All are legal, all go against Christian and/or traditional ideas about marriage, and yet there's no "Christian" movement to deny marriage rights to atheists or people marrying outside their respective faiths or people divorcing and remarrying.

make me think...

A Baha'i can marry a non-Baha'i... but just can't be gay or have a gay wedding?

Re: Change is a Law of Nature

Pey — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 10:17:33 -0000

Years ago, I attended a talk at conference in Texas by some Bahai psychiatrist. And he claimed the whole "gay suicide" thing was blown out of proportion. That really there weren't that many people killing themselves. Uh, hello? ONE PERSON killing themselves is more than enough! But that is the attitude you get from these Bahais. I"ve heard other times. One poster here saying a while back that maybe that Bahai kids suicide was a "sweet release". Another one, Masud was his name, telling me that I'm making the suicide thing up in order to get sympathy to push my point. THIS is how fundamentalist Bahais think. So I say tell the world how they think. Let everyone know. I wrote to Dan Savage and told him my story and thanked him for his post. I made sure that he knew it wasn't only Christians who are creating this toxic, yet "polite", environment in their communities. Throw in Bahais too!

Re: Change is a Law of Nature

Pey — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 09:42:53 -0000

It needs to be sent to the secretraiat of the Universal House of Justice. You can absolutely substitute "christian" above for "bahai". Growing up I heard so many of those "polite" comments against gays from other Bahai kids. Sadly, I made them myself. Why? Because although I had been taught to speak like that agains minorities or other religions was wrong, I had learned the opposite when it came to gays and lesbians. The same shit happens day in and day out inside the Bahai community and yes I was also one of those Bahai gay children who was filled with despair!

Re: Change is a Law of Nature

Barbruthw — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 22:28:29 -0000

Thanks for sharing this, Pey. Aptly said. And it needs to be heard.

Barb

Re: Change is a Law of Nature

Pey — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 08:03:31 -0000

This has to be posted here. Especially since so many Bahais try to act like the victim as this Christian is when speaking about LGBT issues. It's from a blog by Dan Savage who has started the "It Gets Better" Campaign:
Gay Kids Are Dying, Fuck Your Feelings. DAN SAVAGE pulling no punches.
.by Terry Dean Bartlett on Thursday, October 14, 2010 at 6:19pm.Gay Kids Are Dying, Fuck Your Feelings

October 14, 2010

Dear Dan: I was listening to the radio yesterday morning, and I heard an interview with you about your It Gets Better campaign. I was saddened and frustrated with your comments regarding people of faith and their perpetuation of bullying. As someone who loves the Lord and does not support gay marriage, I can honestly say I was heartbroken to hear about the young man who took his own life.

If your message is that we should not judge people based on their sexual preference, how do you justify judging entire groups of people for any other reason (including their faith)? There is no part of me that took any pleasure in what happened to that young man, and I know for a fact that is true of many other people who disagree with your viewpoint.

To that end, to imply that I would somehow encourage my children to mock, hurt, or intimidate another person for any reason is completely unfounded and offensive. Being a follower of Christ is, above all things, a recognition that we are all imperfect, fallible, and in desperate need of a savior. We cannot believe that we are better or more worthy than other people.

Please consider your viewpoint, and please be more careful with your words in the future.

—L.R.

Savage:

I'm sorry your feelings were hurt by my comments.

No, wait. I'm not. Gay kids are dying. So let's try to keep things in perspective: Fuck your feelings.

Why the hell not?

Sorry, L.R., but so long as you support the denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples, it's clear that you do believe that some people—straight people—are "better or more worthy" than others.

And—sorry—but you are partly responsible for the bullying and physical violence being visited on vulnerable LGBT children. The kids of people who see gay people as sinful or damaged or disordered and unworthy of full civil equality—even if those people strive to express their bigotry in the politest possible way (at least when they happen to be addressing a gay person)—learn to see gay people as sinful, damaged, disordered, and unworthy. And while there may not be any gay adults or couples where you live, or at your church, or in your workplace, I promise you that there are gay and lesbian children in your schools. And while you can only attack gays and lesbians at the ballot box, nice and impersonally, your children have the option of attacking actual gays and lesbians, in person, in real time.

Real gay and lesbian children. Not political abstractions, not "sinners." Gay and lesbian children.

Try to keep up: The dehumanizing bigotries that fall from the lips of "faithful Christians," and the lies about us that vomit out from the pulpits of churches that "faithful Christians" drag their kids to on Sundays, give your children license to verbally abuse, humiliate, and condemn the gay children they encounter at school. And many of your children—having listened to Mom and Dad talk about how gay marriage is a threat to family and how gay sex makes their magic sky friend Jesus cry—feel justified in physically abusing the LGBT children they encounter in their schools. You don't have to explicitly "encourage [your] children to mock, hurt, or intimidate" queer kids. Your encouragement—along with your hatred and fear—is implicit. It's here, it's clear, and we're seeing the fruits of it: dead children.

Oh, and those same dehumanizing bigotries that fill your straight children with hate? They fill your gay children with suicidal despair. And you have the nerve to ask me to be more careful with my words?

Did that hurt to hear? Good. But it couldn't have hurt nearly as much as what was said and done to Asher Brown and Justin Aaberg and Billy Lucas and Cody Barker and Seth Walsh—day-in, day-out for years—at schools filled with bigoted little monsters created not in the image of a loving God, but in the image of the hateful and false "followers of Christ" they call Mom and Dad.

Re: Change is a Law of Nature

DCO — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 01:42:03 -0000

On Dag Øistein Endsjø and Buddhist nuns...

I invite your thoughts over at revoked:

http://revolked2.blogspot.c...

Re: Change is a Law of Nature

Oreydc — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 01:40:27 -0000

On Dag Øistein Endsjø and Buddhist nuns...

I invite your thoughts over at revoked:

http://revolked2.blogspot.c...

Re: Change is a Law of Nature

guest — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 21:29:57 -0000

Hi. I'm a Baha'i who has always (well since age 11) been primarily attracted to people of my same physical sex. I was very lucky to have a very excellent Baha'i teacher during my junior youth years, and so from a young age I understood and individually determined to follow the explicit Baha'i teachings on the matter. It has been a challenge at times, but I have found this decision to be very rewarding. In particular I don't feel like I am missing out in my interpersonal relationships at all. As a result of having some control over my sexual impulses I have been able to have loving and very close but nonsexual relationships with people of both sexes.

Really all I feel I'm missing out on is the brief pleasure associated with romantic physical intimacy. Unfortunately, I know what this pleasure feels like, it feels like heroin. But avoiding exposure to random romantic and sexual stimuli from our sex-obsessed culture (like strictly avoiding watching anything on tv that I wouldn't do with my grandmother) really is effective at keeping me from jonesing for what I really don't want. The Tablet of Ahmad is lovely too.

In the last year or so (I'm in my mid 20's) I have noticed my orientation becoming slightly more flexible. And why shouldn't it? There are men of all types, just as I am a woman of a fairly unusual personality type. But whether I will ever end up ever in a marriage, I don't know--even if I found the right fellow, i'm not sure I want kids.

here's one of the many quotes related to this that I have found very illuminating:

Chastity in no way implies withdrawal from human relationships. It liberates people from the tyranny of the ubiquity of sex. A person who is in control of his sexual impulses is enabled to have profound and enduring friendships with many people, both men and women, without ever sullying that unique and priceless bond that should unite man and wife.

(The Universal House of Justice, Messages 1963 to 1986, p. 413)

Re: Change is a Law of Nature

dco — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 17:31:30 -0000

Here is what I wrote about it this morning on Revoked, I am sure the Baha'i haters here will be happy:

http://revolked2.blogspot.c...

Re: Change is a Law of Nature

peyamb — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 17:28:17 -0000

Funny, but I think Abdul-Baha would have done the exact same thing as that guy. The Bahai community, especially it's administrations, need a greater infusion of Abdul-Baha.

Re: Change is a Law of Nature

fubar — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 02:38:13 -0000

more further discussion with the famous blogger, Fabius Maximus:

---forwarded message---

[fubar.2]

I don’t understand why you don’t understand.

Prop 8 uses the power of the state for coercive purposes, something the constitution was generally supposed to stop.

I do not want fundamentalists telling my children that they can’t learn evolutionary theory in public schools. Prop 8 is in exactly the same category of political, intellectual and cultural backwardness. Why can’t you see the obvious???

(I get the feeling that if some religious groups succeeded in passing a law that forced you to eat a particular breakfast cereal that you don’t like, or can’t digest properly, that you would be more upset.)

Further comments inserted.

From: Fabius Maximus [mailto:fabmaximus@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 8:17 PM
To: []
Subject: RE: it is necessesary to make judgements about the agendas of "backward" religions / RE: [Fabius Maximus] Another American judge does his bit to weaken the foundation of the Republic

I don't understand most of this. Comments inserted.

________________________________________
From: [fubar.1]
To: fabmaximus@hotmail.com
Subject: it is necessesary to make judgements about the agendas of "backward" religions / RE: [Fabius Maximus] Another American judge does his bit to weaken the foundation of the Republic
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2010 20:04:17 -0700
", is an objectionable interference in California politics."

FM: Why? By what authority do you make that ruling? And of what relevance is it to this Federal government ruling?

[fubar.1]

It is my opinion, based on founding principles of the republic, specifically separation of church/state, and related principles that encourage social progress, and avoidance of religious activities that are organized around backward, pre-modern (anti-rationalist/anti-democratic) paradigms.

[FM] *** Sounds like you confuse your principles ("ourage social progress")with those of our regime. The first ammnd say no State church, no regulation of churches. "Seperation of church and state" is in a letter by Jefferson. Common confusion, always politically motivated. Much like citing the Dec of Indpend -- which is poetry, not a beam in our political structure.

[fubar.2]
Response:
My understanding is that the American founders built the “regime” structure on assumptions at the leading evolutionary edge of anglo-american thought, enlightenment philosophy, Whig rationalism, and so forth. From the English civil war on, the trajectory of the cultural evolution was away from mythic religious authority and the coercion of thought, beliefs and actions of individuals via the use of “traditional” state-religious power.

Core to those ideas was the rejection of traditional authority (ecclesiastic and aristocratic), and its replacement by Natural Law.

Jefferson’s letter was simply a confirmation of such, with his “spin” on the issue.

Ideas evolve, and some eventually become crystallized in law/policy, or provide important conceptual underpinnings to law and its interpretation and application (or acceptance of such by the people).

Your statement about poetry seems arrogant and dismissive. Actually now that I think about it, most of your upset on this issue seems arrogant and dismissive, almost “religious” (in the narrow minded sense).

- - -

[fubar.1]

The relevance is that Prop 8 itself was not the result of a grass roots democratic process that accurately reflected the best “progressive” thinking of Californians,

[FM] *** None of that has any place in our political regime.

[fubar.2]
Utter nonsense. It has its place to the extent that the people and their elected “representatives” attempt to bring it into the political and governance and legal processes.

Are you saying that no notion of “social progress” that has been a core influence stimulating a reform movement has ever legitimately taken place in American history? How about women’s right to vote? Civil rights movement? Anti-trust laws? Labor laws? Teaching of controversial science such as evolution that offends narrow-minded, irrational religious people?

- - -

[FM] Perhaps you should go to Vatacin City and auditon for Pope, or to Iran as Chief Mullah.

[fubar.2]

I fail to see why you feel the need to insult, particularly when your statements are so lacking in logic.

I’m arguing against religion, at least backward religion, interfering in society and politics. Are you drunk or on medications that impair judgment or other pertinent cognitive functions? I expect more from someone that otherwise appears to be a sophisticated, interesting, complex thinker that is usually tolerant of various perspectives.

- - -

[fubar.1]

So, the damage that the federal judge did (overturning election results) was probably about as bad as the inappropriate interference in election politics by the mormon and catholic church elites. Neither “side” has a completely clean ethical record, both are opportunistic.

[FM] *** You have not shown any interference, just political activity that you don't like. In any case, if there was any it would be less serious than actions of State officials.

[fubar.2]

I find this to be an astonishing statement seeing as it comes from someone that has made multiple statements deploring the stupidity and evil-damage done to the republic by both the PC/left and religious right. Even in this post, you use association with islamic fundamentalism as an insult. According to your logic, since there is nothing wrong with powerful religious organizations interfering in politics in order to coerce people and violate their liberty, you should not be insulting Iranian fundamentalists that do exactly that in practice!!!

You seem to be throwing at lot of confusing inconsistencies around, for reasons that are not apparent.

Are you upset that a gay republican judge made such a ruling? If so, why? Would you rather a non-gay judge to have made the ruling? Are you homophobic?

- - -

[fubar.1]

(If you would simply make a statement on the blog post about the potential evils of religious organizations interfering in politics, that would be satisfactory to me personally.

[FM] *** I would not say such a totalitarian statement.

[fubar.2]

It isn’t totalitarian, it is an acknowledgement of the history of religion as one of the primary tools of oppression throughout at least 5,000 years of “civilized” history.

Again, your thinking seems to be completely upside down.

- - -

FM: There is no bias in our system against religion, let along in favor of ideology.

[fubar.2]

That is silly. See above. To summarize: the whole point of the “regime” was to move corrupt religious authority (and related oppression) as far out of the political and governmental system as possible to prevent the coercion of belief, thought and action of citizens, and minimize the corrupting influence of state-religious authority.

The founders were well aware of the nature of the corruption that usually results from combining politics and religion, particularly when politicians “take over” religion.

example: in the Spanish Inquisition, the Crown attacked the Church and sought to impose the authority and power of the aristocracy on the Church.

In other cases, religious leaders use and manipulate politicians, usually for evil, self-serving purposes.

- - -

[fubar.1]

It might also be worth mentioning that depending on circumstances, religion can be either a bad or good influence, with Gandhi and MLK, Jr. being almost universally accepted examples of good influences of religious leaders during periods of social change.)

[FM] *** That can as easly be said of most human activity.

Hmmm, probably. But can you find a mainstream traditional/fundamentalist/conservative religion, that would actually agree with you? Most of them operate mainly on assumptions that are pre-modern, thus they claim some “magical” “special” status (e.g., infallibility) in everything for their leaders!

(This is simple: you can have religious myths, or science and democracy. Which do you want?)

In reality the only thing that is “special” about their authority is that is stands in contrast to modernism/rationalism/science, and usually can not admit to failure or imperfection.

Such a “one truth above all” attitude (anti-pattern) is exactly why it is bad for such religion to interfere in politics.

I do not want any such fundamentalist creeps to infringe on my liberties, or those of my friends or neighbors, or to artificially distort the evolutionary advance of the culture.

If you are actually opposed to social progress, then you would presumably have to advocate for its complete reversal, including the destruction of the constitutional framework (democracy) and return to rule by aristocracy and the high church (or, before that, tribalism, etc.), the return to living in caves, and so forth.

Again, I’m stunned by your apparent confusion about the basic nature of social progress, revolutions, paradigm shifts, and so forth. The American revolution was a major paradigm shift that was premised on a particular (modernist) ideal of social progress.

Unshackled by corrupt traditional religion and superstition, modernism, science, technology, literacy, and participatory democracy have made profound contributions to the betterment and progress of humanity.

Why reverse all that by encouraging backward religious organizations to interfere in politics via your blog posts?

- - -

[fubar.1]

Prop 8 did NOT offer a “third” MORE ENLIGHTENED choice to the voters – that of separating marriage rituals from the legal system so that religious organizations could FREELY chose whether to support gay marriages, or not.

[FM] *** So what?

So, you should not be so upset that a cr*p vote in favor of Prop 8 (which was the result of the corrupting interference of religious organizations and distortion of the voting process) was overturned by a cr*p federal court judgment.

Cr*p results in more cr*p.

At a minimum, you should simply provide balanced commentary. The voting process for propositions/referenda in California has been extensively corrupted by special interests, including both liberals/democrats and conservatives/republicans.

Good social policy usually doesn’t result from corruption.

Good society usually doesn’t result from “politicized” religious groups, or their opponents, continually attempting to manipulate and corrupt public opinion in their favor via the “big money” mass media.

The deeper problems in our society (including erosion of the constitution), which you have brilliantly elucidated in many posts on your blog, are obscured by the distraction of people by stupid religious controversies (mainly gay marriage and abortion, unless I’m forgetting any others at the moment [oops - evolution]).

I can not understand why you are now promoting the “agenda” of the same religious groups that distract the people from the real issues that threaten the constitution!

Seems utterly bizarro. Not good for religion, or politics.

- - -

[fubar.1]

As such, Prop 8 INFRINGES on religious organizations that seek to provide support, via marriage rituals and other related cultural, spiritual and pastoral activities, to non-heterosexual partners seeking “marriage equality”. As such, it also violate the LIBERTIES of citizens, and inappropriately injects religion into governmental and legal (state) affairs in such as way as to create discriminatory treatment of gay partners wishing to marry in their religious organization of choice.

[FM] *** Most actions to promote individual liberty [infringe] the freedom of action of others. So what?

[fubar.2]

This issue (along with abortion and the teaching of evolution) rises far above the normal (if absurd) level of tension between religion and secular legal authority in a modern, participatory democratic republic.

Again, I have to ask if you would be opposed to religious organizations banning the teaching of scientific evolution in public schools? If you are, how is that different, as a matter of principle, from banning gay marriage?

If not, do you think that religious organizations should be able to create a law stopping women from voting, or a law permitting slavery? What is the limit on such religious idiocy and backwardness in your opinion (if you think there is one), and what are the underlying principles involved?

[end]

Re: Change is a Law of Nature

fubar — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 02:24:29 -0000

Wow, that would have been amazing to witness. Glad you found such cool people.

Re: Change is a Law of Nature

dco — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 00:46:52 -0000

This evening I went to sit with the Sacramento Buddhist Meditation Group, there were about 45 people.

After it was over, a gentlemen came up to me and introduced himself, and welcomed me... when he asked me what brought me there... I do not know why, but I suddenly blurted the whole story about being thrown out of the Baha'i Faith for being gay...

The man teared up, grabbed my arm, and looked me in the eye and said,

"how truly horrible, you will have no problem here" and went on to welcome me.

Maybe l should be thanking the NSA of the USA for their homophobia... through it all they have given me a new insight into what the Baha'i Faith really is all about, and have freed me to see what a truly spiritual and loving community is like, as I am deeply sad to say, it is most certainly not to be found in any Baha'i community, despite all the false promises and beautiful writings.

Thank you.

Re: Change is a Law of Nature

fubar — Sun, 08 Aug 2010 23:00:23 -0000

further discussion with the great Fabius Maximus blogger:

---forwarded message---

", is an objectionable interference in California politics."

FM: Why? By what authority do you make that ruling? And of what relevance is it to this Federal government ruling?

The relevance is that Prop 8 itself was not the result of a grass roots democratic process that accurately reflected the best “progressive” thinking of Californians, especially given the current social trends (which you mention at the end of your blog commentary) toward acceptance of gay marriage by the majority in the near future.

So, the damage that the federal judge did (overturning election results) was probably about as bad as the inappropriate interference in election politics by the mormon and catholic church elites.

Neither “side” has a completely clean ethical record, both are opportunistic.

(If you would simply make a statement on the blog post about the potential evils of religious organizations interfering in politics, that would be satisfactory to me personally. It might also be worth mentioning that depending on circumstances, religion can be either a bad or good influence, with Gandhi and MLK, Jr. being almost universally accepted examples of good influences of religious leaders during periods of social change.)

FM: We hold elections every few years. That's how these things are decided in our system, usually.

Again, my personal opinion, is that both Prop 8 (which imposes backward religious ideas on the citizens of the state of California, potentially in violation of their LIBERTIES), and the federal ruling stopping it, violate the founding principles (of a democratic republic).

I personally hope that a better solution is found by the California legislature, and/or by popular vote:

1) The legal aspects of marriage would be defined strictly by “civil unions” (contract law, or whatever is most pertinent).

2) The religious/spiritual/ethical aspects of marriage would be based on the individual’s choice (if any) of religious denomination.

If an individual wishes to not leave a backward religion for a more progressive one, but instead remain a member of a backward religious denomination/community that refuses to accept the validity of gay marriage, they should be willing to suffer the same basic consequences that all religious dissidents have throughout history (disapproval, marginalization, etc.), within the legal confines of american society.

Religious organizations should not be able to abuse those “dissidents” that remain within their organizations, beyond the act of declining on requests for the provision of gay marriage rituals and related pastoral support.

Re: Change is a Law of Nature

fubar — Sun, 08 Aug 2010 13:18:35 -0000

re:
http://fabiusmaximus.wordpr...

--forwarded nessage---

Hi FM,

Bias disclosure: I do not consider myself to be either liberal or conservative. Religiously, I’m ex-bahai, with no particular [current membership] affiliation, but I do have strong Buddhist and Integralist (“new age”, transpersonal and universal/unitarian) tendencies as regards spiritual matters. I feel happy for gay couples that want to get “married”, but would prefer a more nuanced solution (see further below).

- - -

Catholics and Mormons heavily supported, if not spearheaded, Prop 8.

In the case of Mormons, this was presumably/reportedly largely an out of state interference in California politics.

There are large numbers of Mormons in California, and there is obviously NO rational objection to them organizing to express their concerns (valid or not) about ethical issues and promote their views and values in elections.

Similarly, there are probably even [larger] numbers of Catholics in California, and there is obviously NO rational objection to them organizing to express their concerns about ethical issues and promote their views and values in elections.

In both cases, the support of out-of-state members of both groups, specifically their well funded organizational bureaucracies, is an objectionable interference in California politics.

In other words, while I vigorously support your concern about judicial activists undermining constitutional processes and principles for ideological or partisan reasons, I think that there should also be concerns about religious organizations that promote backward (or otherwise harmful) thinking becoming overly aggressive in the political arena.

(Yes, there is a large, subjective element to what is considered “backward” or “harmful”.)

fwiw – I was smeared and attacked by some ultra-libs that I know for advising them to avoid their usual tactics (demonizing conservatives or anyone else that wasn’t “marching in lockstep” with the PC/left) during the election.

I have a personal distaste for radicalism, extremisms and absolutism on either the left or right.

The election in which Prop 8 was voted on was another in a long line of unfortunate exercises in brinksmanship and indulgence in excessive ideological conflict (by both “sides”).

To the extent that such as CALCULATED, it is even more reprehensible.

The “bottom line” to me is that Prop 8, if left standing, would have continued to inflict harm on a significant number of gay couples who could not afford to be patient until some future election in which public opinion shifts (presumably inevitably) toward majority support of gay marriage.

- - -

I think that the idea of removing state involvement in “blessing” ALL forms of marriage might have some merit as an alternative solution to the gay marriage issue. In other words, all marriages would be recorded as “contracts” (civil unions) by the state. Then the people involved in the “union” would go to their religious organization of choice for purposes of enacting “marriage” rituals and other related cultural practices.

The idea that the state should be in the business of defining quasi-religious matters is an unsolvable mess.

Yes, I’m aware the some/many(?) gay activists want to attack religions and force them to accept “full marriage equality”. I understand the sentiment, but feel it is an inappropriate interference in traditional religion.

Thanks for taking these disorganized comments into consideration.

From: Fabius Maximus [mailto:fabmaximus@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 8:42 AM
To: []
Subject: RE: [Fabius Maximus] Another American judge does his bit to weaken the foundation of the Republic

"Wasn't the interference by conservative religious organizations, "

What interference?

> Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2010 15:15:39 +0000
> To: fabmaximus@hotmail.com
> From: []
> Subject: [Fabius Maximus] Another American judge does his bit to weaken the foundation of the Republic

> Wasn't the interference by conservative religious organizations, including a large, out-of-state religious organization that historically engaged in terrorism against US citizens, in support of Prop 8, also ethically and constitutionally problematic?
>

Re: Change is a Law of Nature

dco — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 19:14:37 -0000

Orthodox Rabbis Sign Declaration of Acceptance

August 3, 2010 by Gay Agenda News Team
Orthodox Rabbis Sign Declaration of Acceptance

A group of approximately 150 Orthodox rabbis have signed and issued a statement which list 12 reasons why gay men and lesbians should be accepted within the Orthodox community.

The statement reads:

“Embarrassing, harassing or demeaning someone with a homosexual orientation or same-sex attraction is a violation of Torah prohibitions that embody the deepest values of Judaism.”

and..

“Jews with homosexual orientations or same sex-attractions should be welcomed as full members of the synagogue and school community.”

This is a huge step forward for a both the Orthodox Jewish and gay communities.

Re: Change is a Law of Nature

fubar — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 00:59:09 -0000

OW, some more "off-topic" stuff that you might find useful:

http://integrallife.com/app...

http://integrallife.com/nod...

excerpt:

Here Ken [Wilber] discusses the dangers of “one person, one vote” approaches to democracy. If we consider the fact that people grow through three major stages of development—ego-centric, ethno-centric, and world-centric—and then try to get a sense of where the majority of the people current exists, we find that nearly 70% of the world’s population remains at an ethno-centric stage or lower. Democracy is inherently a world-centric system of governance, and “one person, one vote” an ideal way to enact the democratic process. But if the majority of the voters have not themselves achieved a world-centric level of consciousness, it begins to fall apart pretty quickly, with effects as broad as Kansas banning the teaching of evolution to the democratic election of Hamas in Palestine—even the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (aka the Nazis) came into power through a plurality election in 1933. Although one does not garner a tremendous amount of popularity criticizing the “one person, one vote” ethic, without a sophisticated understanding of how this system of governance actually plays itself out in the real world, and without finding some way to limit the influence of pre-rational beliefs and mob-rule, democracy can actually become the last best hope for fascism in the 21st century.

---

linked from: http://www.kenwilber.com/bl...