When I received a letter from a Baha'i Continental Counsellor indicating that I was under threat of being declared a Covenant-breaker, the impact on me personally was less than on my family. My wife is a Baha'i as are many of her family members, . . . The very real threat of being declared a Covenant breaker meant my wife had to face the decision of joining me as a heretic or divorcing me so that she could maintain her relationships with her family and other lifelong friends. Since [my wife] had no intention of divorcing me, the choices then extended out to her family. Her sister would not refuse to socialize with us so she would automatically be declared a covenant breaker along with her husband and children. Many of my close Baha'i friends would also be faced with the decision of maintaining friendships or joining me as a heretic. The whole thing is absurd and quite medieval. But it does raise the issue which you point out so well; how anyone would want to belong to a group which is willing to act this way and be so cruel is beyond me. That is why I voluntarily left the religion. Not in order to escape punishment but because the Baha'i community had become such an unhealthy place spiritually. I was terribly saddened that my spiritual home of 25 years had turned into a prison and nightmare.
Quoted by Karen Bacquet in "Enemies Within: Conflict and Control in the Baha'i Community" [60] Scholl, Steven. (2000). April 26 post to talism...@yahoogroups.com. See Steven Scholl's related comments:
>I will respond to your question about covenant breakers since I have > specific personal knowledge about this.
> When I discovered the Orthodox Baha'i Faith and realized the truth that > the > main (Heteodox) organization had faithlessly turned away from the > fundamental verities of the Faith by disposing of the essential > Institutions > of the Guardianship and the Hands of the Cause, and rejecting and removing > from the Faith the divinely guided and appointed Second Guardian, I > attempted to quietly withdraw from that organization. However, after some > in my community had questioned my withdrawal, I was contacted by and > refused > to speak to one of their "Counsellors." Shortly afterward, I was declared > a > covenant-breaker. My wife and kids were contacted and told that if they > did > not shun me, all of their Baha'i friends would shun them too (and this > happened).
>When I received a letter from a Baha'i Continental Counsellor indicating >that I was under threat of being declared a Covenant-breaker, the impact on >me personally was less than on my family. My wife is a Baha'i as are many of >her family members, . . . The very real threat of being declared a Covenant >breaker meant my wife had to face the decision of joining me as a heretic or >divorcing me so that she could maintain her relationships with her family >and other lifelong friends. Since [my wife] had no intention of divorcing >me, the choices then extended out to her family. Her sister would not refuse >to socialize with us so she would automatically be declared a covenant >breaker along with her husband and children. Many of my close Baha'i friends >would also be faced with the decision of maintaining friendships or joining >me as a heretic. The whole thing is absurd and quite medieval. But it does >raise the issue which you point out so well; how anyone would want to belong >to a group which is willing to act this way and be so cruel is beyond me. >That is why I voluntarily left the religion. Not in order to escape >punishment but because the Baha'i community had become such an unhealthy >place spiritually. I was terribly saddened that my spiritual home of 25 >years had turned into a prison and nightmare.
>Quoted by Karen Bacquet in "Enemies Within: Conflict and Control in the >Baha'i Community" [60] Scholl, Steven. (2000). April 26 post to >talism...@yahoogroups.com. >See Steven Scholl's related comments:
> How do Bahai's respond to situations like the above? Is it mandatory > that they all must agree with this type of behavior?
Absolutely. The Bahai who fails to obey the injunction regarding contact with a CB will himself be designated as one, with the consequent penalties.
Covenant breaking is viewed as a disease and a hereditary one at that. The late Guardian (d 1957) declared almost his entire extended family to be Covenant Breakers. In the late nineties a bahai in New Zealand was declared a Covenant Breaker because she refused to cease contact with descendants of those anathematised.
There is significant anecdotal evidence on the attitude of Bahais to CBs which amounts to a heightened paranoia. Thus the presence of books by CBs will prevent a Bahai sleeping and/or generate an especially malodorous smell. Indeed there is an anecdote which states there is an L-shaped room so designed that members of the Universal House of Justice can interview Covenant Breakers without seeing them.
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 12:25:19 +0100, "Finnegan's Wake" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>Absolutely. The Bahai who fails to obey the injunction regarding contact >with a CB will himself be designated as one, with the consequent penalties.
Hmm I see.
>Covenant breaking is viewed as a disease and a hereditary one at that.
You must excuse my lack of knowledge here regarding the Bahai faith, but were you serious in the above statement? Do Bahai's really believe that Covenant Breaking is hereditary?
>The late Guardian (d 1957) declared almost his entire extended family to be >Covenant Breakers. In the late nineties a bahai in New Zealand was declared >a Covenant Breaker because she refused to cease contact with descendants of >those anathematised.
Okay.
>There is significant anecdotal evidence on the attitude of Bahais to CBs >which amounts to a heightened paranoia. Thus the presence of books by CBs >will prevent a Bahai sleeping and/or generate an especially malodorous >smell. Indeed there is an anecdote which states there is an L-shaped room so >designed that members of the Universal House of Justice can interview >Covenant Breakers without seeing them.
Not sure how to discuss the above LOL so I had best remain silent for now. :-)
> Thank you for the web page reference. I was reading through those > pages yesterday they were very informative.
You're welcome. You well understand, already, I'm sure, that everyone here on talk.religion.bahai is vying to influence you along the lines of their point of view, myself included. Ultimately, as you know, you'll have to make up your own mind on how to understand the contradictions and oppressions of the Baha'i Faith. My attempt on my website is to preserve what others have strained every effort to suppress.... That's my view. I believe I owe that to my fellow Baha'is who are unaware of all the tyranny that exists, and to my fellow citizens, rather than leaving them completely to the malice of calculating predators. Again, my view.
>>When I received a letter from a Baha'i Continental Counsellor indicating >>that I was under threat of being declared a Covenant-breaker, the impact >>on >>me personally was less than on my family. My wife is a Baha'i as are many >>of >>her family members, . . . The very real threat of being declared a >>Covenant >>breaker meant my wife had to face the decision of joining me as a heretic >>or >>divorcing me so that she could maintain her relationships with her family >>and other lifelong friends. Since [my wife] had no intention of divorcing >>me, the choices then extended out to her family. Her sister would not >>refuse >>to socialize with us so she would automatically be declared a covenant >>breaker along with her husband and children. Many of my close Baha'i >>friends >>would also be faced with the decision of maintaining friendships or >>joining >>me as a heretic. The whole thing is absurd and quite medieval. But it does >>raise the issue which you point out so well; how anyone would want to >>belong >>to a group which is willing to act this way and be so cruel is beyond me. >>That is why I voluntarily left the religion. Not in order to escape >>punishment but because the Baha'i community had become such an unhealthy >>place spiritually. I was terribly saddened that my spiritual home of 25 >>years had turned into a prison and nightmare.
> How do Bahai's respond to situations like the above? Is it mandatory > that they all must agree with this type of behavior?
> Thank you for your time > - Res
They may not agree, but they dare not, had best not, utter a single syllable to that effect.... Juan Cole remarks in an excerpt in The Baha'i Technique: "Silent suffering of tyranny and injustice from one's leaders is the actual definition of a Baha'i in good standing." http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/technique.htm
> >Covenant breaking is viewed as a disease and a hereditary one at that.
> You must excuse my lack of knowledge here regarding the Bahai faith, > but were you serious in the above statement? Do Bahai's really believe > that Covenant Breaking is hereditary?
The short answer is "YES!" - the average Joe Bahai belives a CB is evil incarnate and extends that suspicion to members of the family.
> >The late Guardian (d 1957) declared almost his entire extended family to be > >Covenant Breakers. In the late nineties a bahai in New Zealand was declared > >a Covenant Breaker because she refused to cease contact with descendants of > >those anathematised.
> Okay.
> >There is significant anecdotal evidence on the attitude of Bahais to CBs > >which amounts to a heightened paranoia. Thus the presence of books by CBs > >will prevent a Bahai sleeping and/or generate an especially malodorous > >smell. Indeed there is an anecdote which states there is an L-shaped room so > >designed that members of the Universal House of Justice can interview > >Covenant Breakers without seeing them.
> Not sure how to discuss the above LOL so I had best remain silent for > now. :-)
It is documented. I also have some experience in the field having been named locally as "the next best thing to a CB" and members of the community likely to be in contact with me have been advised to have few if any dealings.
This is one of the nastier sides of Bahaism and one that Bahais are reluctant to explain. It always seemed strange to me that as Christians attempt to undo years of strife by discourse among themselves, the Bahais create discord by anathematising those whose views of the faith fail to accord with the norm set at Haifa by a body, the legitimacy of which, at the least, is suspect.
Researcher wrote: > On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 12:25:19 +0100, "Finnegan's Wake" <m...@privacy.net> > wrote:
>>Absolutely. The Bahai who fails to obey the injunction regarding contact >>with a CB will himself be designated as one, with the consequent penalties.
> Hmm I see.
>>Covenant breaking is viewed as a disease and a hereditary one at that.
> You must excuse my lack of knowledge here regarding the Bahai faith, > but were you serious in the above statement? Do Bahai's really believe > that Covenant Breaking is hereditary?
You might do better to ask Baha'is, if you want to know what Baha'is believe.
It would seem to me that if Covenant Breaking were a hereditary, rather than environmental condition, than 'Abdu'l Baha would have been a Covenant Breaker with the overwhelming majority of His family members, decendents as well as siblings, as Dermod alludes to below.
>>The late Guardian (d 1957) declared almost his entire extended family to be >>Covenant Breakers. In the late nineties a bahai in New Zealand was declared >>a Covenant Breaker because she refused to cease contact with descendants of >>those anathematised.
> Okay.
Shoghi Effendi did say that people drew covenant breaker perspectives from their parents, so, what Dermod suggests is not completely baseless. The problem is that people make choices. Those children of Covenant Breaker Baha'is who don't accept Baha'u'llah, but are Christians, Muslims, or agnostics, are not going to be shunned as Covenant Breakers. Those children of Covenant Breaker Baha'is who are themselves Baha'is, need to choose, and if they associate with Covenant Breaker Baha'is, in time, they will be shunned as Covenant Breaker Baha'is themselves.
>>There is significant anecdotal evidence on the attitude of Bahais to CBs >>which amounts to a heightened paranoia. Thus the presence of books by CBs >>will prevent a Bahai sleeping and/or generate an especially malodorous >>smell. Indeed there is an anecdote which states there is an L-shaped room so >>designed that members of the Universal House of Justice can interview >>Covenant Breakers without seeing them.
On the other hand, we've had folks on this newsgroup posting on behalf of claiminats to being the second and the third (maybe even the fourth) various guardians of the Baha'i Faith, and still vanilla Baha'is post here w/o screaming off in hysteria.
> Not sure how to discuss the above LOL so I had best remain silent for > now. :-)
> On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 12:25:19 +0100, "Finnegan's Wake" <m...@privacy.net> > wrote:
> >Absolutely. The Bahai who fails to obey the injunction regarding contact > >with a CB will himself be designated as one, with the consequent penalties.
> Hmm I see.
Res, shunning a covenant breaker is not to punish him, but to protect other believers and the unity of the community. It is not a hereditary conclusion, but if one chooses to follow the foot steps of his/her parent(s) in opposition to the spirit of the faith then he/she will be a covenant breaker. However, if a remnant of a covenant breaker comes to the conclusion that his parent(s) were wrong and expresses his/her disassociation from their doctrine, then he/she would be considered a believer as any other person. The following articles may help to understand the position of Bahai community in regards to Covenant Breakers.
> >Covenant breaking is viewed as a disease and a hereditary one at that.
> You must excuse my lack of knowledge here regarding the Bahai faith, > but were you serious in the above statement? Do Bahai's really believe > that Covenant Breaking is hereditary?
> >The late Guardian (d 1957) declared almost his entire extended family to be > >Covenant Breakers. In the late nineties a bahai in New Zealand was declared > >a Covenant Breaker because she refused to cease contact with descendants of > >those anathematised.
> Okay.
> >There is significant anecdotal evidence on the attitude of Bahais to CBs > >which amounts to a heightened paranoia. Thus the presence of books by CBs > >will prevent a Bahai sleeping and/or generate an especially malodorous > >smell. Indeed there is an anecdote which states there is an L-shaped room so > >designed that members of the Universal House of Justice can interview > >Covenant Breakers without seeing them.
> Not sure how to discuss the above LOL so I had best remain silent for > now. :-)
> > You must excuse my lack of knowledge here regarding the Bahai faith, > > but were you serious in the above statement? Do Bahai's really believe > > that Covenant Breaking is hereditary?
> The short answer is "YES!" - the average Joe Bahai belives a CB is evil > incarnate and extends that suspicion to members of the family.
Res, Bahais do not believe in the existence of evil, per se, as this guy puts, but the absence of good results in evil, as this guy does :-)
> > >The late Guardian (d 1957) declared almost his entire extended family to > be > > >Covenant Breakers. In the late nineties a bahai in New Zealand was > declared > > >a Covenant Breaker because she refused to cease contact with descendants > of > > >those anathematised.
> > Okay.
> > >There is significant anecdotal evidence on the attitude of Bahais to CBs > > >which amounts to a heightened paranoia. Thus the presence of books by CBs > > >will prevent a Bahai sleeping and/or generate an especially malodorous > > >smell. Indeed there is an anecdote which states there is an L-shaped room > so > > >designed that members of the Universal House of Justice can interview > > >Covenant Breakers without seeing them.
> > Not sure how to discuss the above LOL so I had best remain silent for > > now. :-)
> It is documented. I also have some experience in the field having been > named locally as "the next best thing to a CB" and members of the community > likely to be in contact with me have been advised to have few if any > dealings.
this guy once asked to be considered Covenant breaker, apparently he finds a glory and self importance in the title, sad life.
> This is one of the nastier sides of Bahaism and one that Bahais are > reluctant to explain. It always seemed strange to me that as Christians > attempt to undo years of strife by discourse among themselves, the Bahais > create discord by anathematising those whose views of the faith fail to > accord with the norm set at Haifa by a body, the legitimacy of which, at the > least, is suspect.
this guy ... fortunately for him, no attention was given to his making noise about the UHJ not be the legitimate administrative body of the faith, he went on to refute the legitimacy of the Guardian and even farther to disrepute AbdulBaha in the hope to acquire the CV title, forgetting that he never was a Bahai to begin with. Some people have noble goals, some others have no goals.
>> Was there any reason ever given as to why the above changes you >> mentioned occurred?
>> Were those offices (of position I assume) removed because it was time >> to remove them or were they meant to exist for a far longer duration?
> The Will and Testament of Abdu'l-Baha created the Institution of the > Guardianship and named Shoghi Effendi as the first Guardian. Shoghi was > supposed to appoint his successor in his own lifetime (i.e. while he was > alive and not by a testamentary document). It was to be his first born > male descendent, but (loosely paraphrasing here) if he was not spiritually > up to the task, the Guardian is to appoint another "branch" to succeed > him. The Heterodox Bahais believe that only a descendant of Baha'u'llah > can be Guardian (and since there was no one who had not been > ex-communicated, they said Shoghi could not appoint one). The Orthodox > Baha'is believe that Shoghi was free to appoint any faithful believer and > that he did by naming Mason Remey as the President of the embryonic > Universal House of Justice (the Guardian is the sacred head of the UHJ). > Since only the Guardian can appoint Hands, there is no way for the > Heterodox to appoint any (I believe all but one of their Hands have died). > In other words, there is a fundamental disagreement as to succession of > authority. Regarding the duration of the offices, there is ample > authority in the Writings that these Institutions are the building blocks > of the Order of Baha'u'llah, a world civilization destined to bring > humanity into its long-awaited Golden Age. Thus, these Divine Insitutions > are to exist for at least 1000 years.
-- Res.
Reform Bahais bear no animosity towards either the organized Baha'is of Haifa nor the Orthodox Baha'is.
Merely as a statement of fact, as we see it, both denominations are wrong regarding the Covenant, the Will & Testament, and the Guardianship.
Relevant paragraphs, in this context, FROM On Bahai Liberty:
Dying without leaving a will in 1957, Shoghi Effendi left the Baha'i Faith with no infallible successor, no appointed Guardian, and no infallible interpreter of Baha'u'llah's Writings. Shoghi Effendi's own words state emphatically that without a Guardian the Baha'i Faith would be mutilated and completely deprived of the "unerring guidance of God." Subsequent to his death, Baha'i experience only corroborates his judgment. No matter to what extent the Hands of the Cause assumed, or presumed, an authority that neither Abdu'l-Baha's Will and Testament nor any of the writings of Shoghi Effendi bestowed, their innovations and attempts to lay a credible foundation for the uhj failed, and time has proven it, made it open and blatant as the noonday sun.
The end of the Guardianship and the innovations and attempts to fill in the gaps and unfulfilled portions of Abdu'l-Baha's Will and Testament have continued unabated since the earliest schism between the Hands of the Cause, their unilateral and unauthorized attempt to fill the interpretive void left by Shoghi Effendi's failure to foresee his untimely end and the commotions it would unleash upon Baha'u'llah's Faith. Neither the custodians nor the Orthodox Baha'is had, or have, a credible claim to assumption of the mantle of authority. Nothing in Abdu'l-Baha's Will and Testament nor Shoghi Effendi's writings anticipated or justified what they did after the Guardian's death. Similarly, the International Baha'i Council that the Hands put aside was not in the Will and Testament nor an instrument of the Master for the appointment of a new Guardian. That the Hands were nominated and appointed by Shoghi Effendi gave them no legitimate authority to assume, or usurp, the "rights and powers in succession to the Guardian," which they claimed, nor to change the method of creating a universal house of justice from what was stipulated by the Master in His Will and was already anticipated by the Guardian through the unfolding of the International Baha'i Council. Any pretense to "infallibility" ended with Shoghi Effendi, and subsequent Baha'i experience has proven it in the ruined and destroyed lives of many thousands of individuals, married couples, families, and Baha'i communities.
The eventual creation by the uhj of the continental board of counselors, a type of Baha'i college of cardinals, and the auxiliary boards, notorious for operating like the Jesuits at their worst, has only exacerbated the situation and deepened the rift between Baha'is in all walks of life and the barely concealed clergy that now exists and demands at every turn "obedience" to the covenant, as the "infallible" universal house of justice interprets it, ignoring that Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi both explicitly stated that only the Guardian has interpretive guidance and that the uhj has only legislative authority.
Respectfully, of other points of view on these matters,
Frederick Glaysher 95 Theses - On Bahai Liberty The Reform Bahai Faith www.ReformBahai.org
> > > You must excuse my lack of knowledge here regarding the Bahai faith, > > > but were you serious in the above statement? Do Bahai's really believe > > > that Covenant Breaking is hereditary?
> > The short answer is "YES!" - the average Joe Bahai belives a CB is evil > > incarnate and extends that suspicion to members of the family.
> Res, Bahais do not believe in the existence of evil, per se, as this guy > puts, but the absence of good results in evil, as this guy does :-)
So, Hess - what you're saying is that... Evil doesn't exist... but that our Dermod is clearly evil?
Have I got that right?
Paul
(PS - what is your response to Shoghi's "evil exists" speech?)
So, Freddie, would you then be the Guardian of the Reform Baha'i Faith? Since you are interpreting your 95 theses from Baha'i doctrine, you are essentially performing the duties of a Guardian.
> >> Was there any reason ever given as to why the above changes you > >> mentioned occurred?
> >> Were those offices (of position I assume) removed because it was time > >> to remove them or were they meant to exist for a far longer duration?
> > The Will and Testament of Abdu'l-Baha created the Institution of the > > Guardianship and named Shoghi Effendi as the first Guardian. Shoghi was > > supposed to appoint his successor in his own lifetime (i.e. while he was > > alive and not by a testamentary document). It was to be his first born > > male descendent, but (loosely paraphrasing here) if he was not spiritually > > up to the task, the Guardian is to appoint another "branch" to succeed > > him. The Heterodox Bahais believe that only a descendant of Baha'u'llah > > can be Guardian (and since there was no one who had not been > > ex-communicated, they said Shoghi could not appoint one). The Orthodox > > Baha'is believe that Shoghi was free to appoint any faithful believer and > > that he did by naming Mason Remey as the President of the embryonic > > Universal House of Justice (the Guardian is the sacred head of the UHJ). > > Since only the Guardian can appoint Hands, there is no way for the > > Heterodox to appoint any (I believe all but one of their Hands have died). > > In other words, there is a fundamental disagreement as to succession of > > authority. Regarding the duration of the offices, there is ample > > authority in the Writings that these Institutions are the building blocks > > of the Order of Baha'u'llah, a world civilization destined to bring > > humanity into its long-awaited Golden Age. Thus, these Divine Insitutions > > are to exist for at least 1000 years.
> -- > Res.
> Reform Bahais bear no animosity towards either the organized Baha'is of > Haifa nor the Orthodox Baha'is.
> Merely as a statement of fact, as we see it, both denominations are wrong > regarding the Covenant, the Will & Testament, and the Guardianship.
> Relevant paragraphs, in this context, FROM On Bahai Liberty:
> Dying without leaving a will in 1957, Shoghi Effendi left the Baha'i Faith > with no infallible successor, no appointed Guardian, and no infallible > interpreter of Baha'u'llah's Writings. Shoghi Effendi's own words state > emphatically that without a Guardian the Baha'i Faith would be mutilated and > completely deprived of the "unerring guidance of God." Subsequent to his > death, Baha'i experience only corroborates his judgment. No matter to what > extent the Hands of the Cause assumed, or presumed, an authority that > neither Abdu'l-Baha's Will and Testament nor any of the writings of Shoghi > Effendi bestowed, their innovations and attempts to lay a credible > foundation for the uhj failed, and time has proven it, made it open and > blatant as the noonday sun.
> The end of the Guardianship and the innovations and attempts to fill in the > gaps and unfulfilled portions of Abdu'l-Baha's Will and Testament have > continued unabated since the earliest schism between the Hands of the Cause, > their unilateral and unauthorized attempt to fill the interpretive void left > by Shoghi Effendi's failure to foresee his untimely end and the commotions > it would unleash upon Baha'u'llah's Faith. Neither the custodians nor the > Orthodox Baha'is had, or have, a credible claim to assumption of the mantle > of authority. Nothing in Abdu'l-Baha's Will and Testament nor Shoghi > Effendi's writings anticipated or justified what they did after the > Guardian's death. Similarly, the International Baha'i Council that the Hands > put aside was not in the Will and Testament nor an instrument of the Master > for the appointment of a new Guardian. That the Hands were nominated and > appointed by Shoghi Effendi gave them no legitimate authority to assume, or > usurp, the "rights and powers in succession to the Guardian," which they > claimed, nor to change the method of creating a universal house of justice > from what was stipulated by the Master in His Will and was already > anticipated by the Guardian through the unfolding of the International > Baha'i Council. Any pretense to "infallibility" ended with Shoghi Effendi, > and subsequent Baha'i experience has proven it in the ruined and destroyed > lives of many thousands of individuals, married couples, families, and > Baha'i communities.
> The eventual creation by the uhj of the continental board of counselors, a > type of Baha'i college of cardinals, and the auxiliary boards, notorious for > operating like the Jesuits at their worst, has only exacerbated the > situation and deepened the rift between Baha'is in all walks of life and the > barely concealed clergy that now exists and demands at every turn > "obedience" to the covenant, as the "infallible" universal house of justice > interprets it, ignoring that Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi both explicitly > stated that only the Guardian has interpretive guidance and that the uhj has > only legislative authority.
> Respectfully, of other points of view on these matters,
> Frederick Glaysher > 95 Theses - On Bahai Liberty > The Reform Bahai Faith > www.ReformBahai.org
>> You must excuse my lack of knowledge here regarding the Bahai faith, >> but were you serious in the above statement? Do Bahai's really believe >> that Covenant Breaking is hereditary?
>You might do better to ask Baha'is, if you want to know what Baha'is >believe.
>It would seem to me that if Covenant Breaking were a hereditary, rather >than environmental condition, than 'Abdu'l Baha would have been a >Covenant Breaker with the overwhelming majority of His family members, >decendents as well as siblings, as Dermod alludes to below.
That is a good point.
>Shoghi Effendi did say that people drew covenant breaker perspectives >from their parents, so, what Dermod suggests is not completely baseless.
Social and family influences ... yes I can understand that; though this is a bit different to heredity where such a thing may be passed on from generation to generation.
And yes ... I am aware of the research that is examining the relationships between genetic traits and behavior. :-)
However that research is still in its infancy and about as many cases against it can be made as there are for it. Time will tell I guess.
>The problem is that people make choices. Those children of Covenant >Breaker Baha'is who don't accept Baha'u'llah, but are Christians, >Muslims, or agnostics, are not going to be shunned as Covenant Breakers.
Okay.
>Those children of Covenant Breaker Baha'is who are themselves Baha'is, >need to choose, and if they associate with Covenant Breaker Baha'is, in >time, they will be shunned as Covenant Breaker Baha'is themselves.
That is perhaps where outsiders (like myself) would have problems in understanding it.
It is the age old conflict between religion and family especially so when the two collide.
Does one still visit and respect their parents or does one give them up on account that they hold to different views or beliefs. Likewise for parents if their child becomes a Covenant Breaker do they cut all ties or continue their parental role?
>On the other hand, we've had folks on this newsgroup posting on behalf >of claiminats to being the second and the third (maybe even the fourth) >various guardians of the Baha'i Faith, and still vanilla Baha'is post >here w/o screaming off in hysteria.
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 21:26:47 +0100, "Finnegan's Wake" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>"Researcher" wrote:
>> You must excuse my lack of knowledge here regarding the Bahai faith, >> but were you serious in the above statement? Do Bahai's really believe >> that Covenant Breaking is hereditary?
>The short answer is "YES!" - the average Joe Bahai belives a CB is evil >incarnate and extends that suspicion to members of the family.
I personally do not agree with shunning practices (as I have seen it in quite few countries in my travels along with the results).
However to be fair I have also seen that in some situations it has worked to keep a group of people or a tribe together which is far less harsh (and preferable to) some of the 'punishments' I have had the sad circumstances to see.
Some of the harsher 'punishments' (including death or mutilation) were at times for what would be considered minor infractions.
I do realize that in the West we take our 'rights' and 'freedoms' for granted and expect the same sort of rights in the various religious groups one may be associated to.
Strangely enough shunning is quite prevalent even amongst so-called mainstream groups whether it is a club; (religious/non-religious) one of the larger religions or even smaller sub-communities.
Either way it doesn't lessen the pain for those whom have been in the said group for a long time, also having family and friends involved makes it all the more difficult.
I finally came to the conclusion that people will be people, some are silly, greedy, manipulative, afraid, over protective etc ... and being people stupid decisions can (and are often) easily be made.
This sadly appears to be the case even more so within religious communities where the idea of keeping the faith 'pure' or free from 'perceived apostasy' exists. Add fear (of change or different ideas) and personal motives into the equation and almost any action can be justified.
As to hereditary another gentleman in this thread cleared that issue up.
-snip-
>It is documented. I also have some experience in the field having been >named locally as "the next best thing to a CB" and members of the community >likely to be in contact with me have been advised to have few if any >dealings.
I see.
>This is one of the nastier sides of Bahaism and one that Bahais are >reluctant to explain.
Not knowing the Bahai's personally it may well be a crisis of conscience, sometimes this happens in religious groups, where one thing is taught that runs contrary to ones own feelings or conscience.
Oddly enough this is often a symptom of a world that is rapidly changing around the said group along with a decline in membership. Is the Bahai membership growing or is it staying the same (or even in decline)?
>It always seemed strange to me that as Christians >attempt to undo years of strife by discourse among themselves, the Bahais >create discord by anathematising those whose views of the faith fail to >accord with the norm set at Haifa by a body, the legitimacy of which, at the >least, is suspect.
Time does that to most religions. Though within Christianity (mainly Protestant groups) there also exists various forms of shunning.
>Res, shunning a covenant breaker is not to punish him, but to protect other >believers and the unity of the community.
I understand the reasoning behind 'shunning' and it is far preferable to some of the methods employed in other cultures/countries.
However from what I do know; shunning is not only about 'protecting' a group but also about punishment (with a view to bring them back into the fold).
At its most basic level it is very similar to peer pressure which as we all know is a form of social control.
>It is not a hereditary conclusion, but if one chooses to follow the foot >steps of his/her parent(s) in opposition to the spirit of the faith then >he/she will be a covenant breaker. However, if a remnant of a covenant >breaker comes to the conclusion that his parent(s) were wrong and expresses >his/her disassociation from their doctrine, then he/she would be considered >a believer as any other person. The following articles may help to >understand the position of Bahai community in regards to Covenant Breakers.
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 05:20:05 GMT, "Hess" <noem...@people.put> wrote: >>>"Finnegan's Wake" wrote:
>> The short answer is "YES!" - the average Joe Bahai belives a CB is evil >> incarnate and extends that suspicion to members of the family.
>Hess wrote:
>Res, Bahais do not believe in the existence of evil, per se, as this guy >puts, but the absence of good results in evil, as this guy does :-)
Okay.
>this guy once asked to be considered Covenant breaker, apparently he finds a >glory and self importance in the title, sad life.
Well different people do things for different reasons, perhaps he is happier in the decision he made.
Either way not personally knowing all the facts (and I really do not want to know them ... it is not my business) it is hard for one to assume the motive or reasoning behind ones decisions.
As I mentioned in another reply people are fallible and make mistakes and do things for a wide variety of reasons (some which are not always evident) however this equally applies to those whom may be involved in the decision of 'shunning' a person.
No judgmental decision is free from the human factor and all such judgments can be open to other unknown motives.
I think the issue (well IMO) was not so much on one person but rather how being declared a Covenant breaker extends to married couples and family members; not to forget long time friends.
>this guy ... fortunately for him, no attention was given to his making noise >about the UHJ not be the legitimate administrative body of the faith, he >went on to refute the legitimacy of the Guardian and even farther to >disrepute AbdulBaha in the hope to acquire the CV title, forgetting that he >never was a Bahai to begin with. Some people have noble goals, some others >have no goals.
Sorry I wouldn't know that is somewhat outside of my query and approaching the personal (which I avoid).
>> Thank you for the web page reference. I was reading through those >> pages yesterday they were very informative.
>You're welcome. You well understand, already, I'm sure, that >everyone here on talk.religion.bahai is vying to influence you >along the lines of their point of view, myself included. Ultimately, >as you know, you'll have to make up your own mind on how >to understand the contradictions and oppressions of the Baha'i >Faith. My attempt on my website is to preserve what others >have strained every effort to suppress.... That's my view. I believe >I owe that to my fellow Baha'is who are unaware of all the >tyranny that exists, and to my fellow citizens, rather than leaving >them completely to the malice of calculating predators. Again, my view.
Not a problem Sir.
Just think of me as a no-body LOL; I really do appreciate the different views that all of you have taken the time to post.
And in my own limited way (sometimes it is a curse) I can see what both sides mean along with the reasoning that goes behind it.
>> How do Bahai's respond to situations like the above? Is it mandatory >> that they all must agree with this type of behavior?
>They may not agree, but they dare not, had best not, utter a single >syllable to that effect.... Juan Cole remarks in an excerpt in The Baha'i >Technique: "Silent suffering of tyranny and injustice from one's leaders >is the actual definition of a Baha'i in good standing." >http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/technique.htm
>THAT's the way it is....
If some may not agree then perhaps therein lies the possibility of a different understanding in the future.
I guess it really depends on the people themselves, it has been my observation that change rarely comes from the outside (of a group) but rather first from within the group.
Outsiders are often easily dismissed as being in 'ignorance' and hence even if right it would likely not be easily admitted and especially so for those whom are leaders.
> > > "Researcher" <auth@no_email.com> wrote in message > > > news:sdlkn0l6hk5s13otn9iegbhhf1rue0o63o@4ax.com... > > > > >Covenant breaking is viewed as a disease and a hereditary one at that.
> > > > You must excuse my lack of knowledge here regarding the Bahai faith, > > > > but were you serious in the above statement? Do Bahai's really believe > > > > that Covenant Breaking is hereditary?
> > > The short answer is "YES!" - the average Joe Bahai belives a CB is evil > > > incarnate and extends that suspicion to members of the family.
> > Res, Bahais do not believe in the existence of evil, per se, as this guy > > puts, but the absence of good results in evil, as this guy does :-)
> So, Hess - what you're saying is that... Evil doesn't exist... but > that our Dermod is clearly evil?
> Have I got that right?
Yup and so has he! Dermod is evil therefore he does not exist! Long live Tim Finnegan!
> > > "Researcher" <auth@no_email.com> wrote in message > > > news:sdlkn0l6hk5s13otn9iegbhhf1rue0o63o@4ax.com... > > > > >Covenant breaking is viewed as a disease and a hereditary one at that.
> > > > You must excuse my lack of knowledge here regarding the Bahai faith, > > > > but were you serious in the above statement? Do Bahai's really believe > > > > that Covenant Breaking is hereditary?
> > > The short answer is "YES!" - the average Joe Bahai belives a CB is evil > > > incarnate and extends that suspicion to members of the family.
> > Res, Bahais do not believe in the existence of evil, per se, as this guy > > puts, but the absence of good results in evil, as this guy does :-)
> So, Hess - what you're saying is that... Evil doesn't exist... but > that our Dermod is clearly evil?
> Have I got that right?
Poodle palu, appears that you confused between "is" and "does". is does refer to a physical or metaphysical existence, short or log term, while does is not bounded to independency of a motion, action, behavior which is vanished by the end of its doing. you can do evil and that doing is not independent of you yourself, which also may be interpreted as: doing evil makes you evil, but you cant blame it on that poor biblical angel. However, your doomhead is very sick, apparently his self-recovery system is out of order, and needs a lots of professional help. Having in mind what Bahaullah said "the end is not known ...", a man can come to realization by the last breath of his life, a sincere one is always accepted regardless of what he had had don.
> (PS - what is your response to Shoghi's "evil exists" speech?)
actually I am very familiar with Showghi's view on evil, if you posted the article it would be an interesting subject to be discussed.
> > > > "Researcher" <auth@no_email.com> wrote in message > > > > news:sdlkn0l6hk5s13otn9iegbhhf1rue0o63o@4ax.com... > > > > > >Covenant breaking is viewed as a disease and a hereditary one at > that.
> > > > > You must excuse my lack of knowledge here regarding the Bahai faith, > > > > > but were you serious in the above statement? Do Bahai's really > believe > > > > > that Covenant Breaking is hereditary?
> > > > The short answer is "YES!" - the average Joe Bahai belives a CB is > evil > > > > incarnate and extends that suspicion to members of the family.
> > > Res, Bahais do not believe in the existence of evil, per se, as this guy > > > puts, but the absence of good results in evil, as this guy does :-)
> > So, Hess - what you're saying is that... Evil doesn't exist... but > > that our Dermod is clearly evil?
> > Have I got that right?
> Yup and so has he! Dermod is evil therefore he does not exist! Long live > Tim Finnegan!
doohead, Dermod and Finnegan both do same thing, therefore, although you exist but will vanish. Apparently, changing handler had no effect on you, except that now you duck.
> On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 05:20:05 GMT, "Hess" <noem...@people.put> wrote:
> >>>"Finnegan's Wake" wrote:
> >> The short answer is "YES!" - the average Joe Bahai belives a CB is evil > >> incarnate and extends that suspicion to members of the family.
> >Hess wrote:
> >Res, Bahais do not believe in the existence of evil, per se, as this guy > >puts, but the absence of good results in evil, as this guy does :-)
> Okay.
> >this guy once asked to be considered Covenant breaker, apparently he finds a > >glory and self importance in the title, sad life.
> Well different people do things for different reasons, perhaps he is > happier in the decision he made.
I am not sure how that would make a person happy, but my point is that one should not be imposed a point of view, rather do independent investigation of the truth that I trust to be a long and delicate process which many would make it easy by relying on the said of those who impose better. At any rate, I suppose everybody has his own cycle to reach a conclusion or confusion.
> Either way not personally knowing all the facts (and I really do not > want to know them ... it is not my business) it is hard for one to > assume the motive or reasoning behind ones decisions.
> As I mentioned in another reply people are fallible and make mistakes > and do things for a wide variety of reasons (some which are not always > evident) however this equally applies to those whom may be involved in > the decision of 'shunning' a person. > No judgmental decision is free from the human factor and all such > judgments can be open to other unknown motives.
I agree with the first part of your assertion, however, the business of shunning people has not been a decision made by humans, no matter how unfortunate and painful it had been. Only the central figures of the faith and the elected bodies had exercised the shunning, after having gone through extreme efforts to retain the unity. the following article may help in understanding of the subject. http://www.northill.demon.co.uk/relstud/history.htm#lead
> I think the issue (well IMO) was not so much on one person but rather > how being declared a Covenant breaker extends to married couples and > family members; not to forget long time friends.
Although, maybe altogether no more than a three dozens were announced covenant breakers, however, this is matter of priorities. Abdulbaha says the orderly of the world is based on two pillars of reward and punishment. As strange as it might seem, it is reported that the Guardian was field by extreme grief and even crying when had to announce the breaking of the covenant by an individual, on the contrast, would appear only sorrowful for the passing of a loved one. The extend of the damage a covenant breaker could inflict on the health of the community is multiplied through friends and even family members. This is the very unfortunate reality of the covenant breaking.
> >this guy ... fortunately for him, no attention was given to his making noise > >about the UHJ not be the legitimate administrative body of the faith, he > >went on to refute the legitimacy of the Guardian and even farther to > >disrepute AbdulBaha in the hope to acquire the CV title, forgetting that he > >never was a Bahai to begin with. Some people have noble goals, some others > >have no goals.
> Sorry I wouldn't know that is somewhat outside of my query and > approaching the personal (which I avoid).
perhaps I was too much into details. No Bahai would be shunned in the community until and unless he/she raising fierce opposition against the central figures or the institution on the faith. Otherwise the plurality of the opinion in the faith is as large as the number of its members, yet unified in adhering to the central figures and the institution.
> There is significant anecdotal evidence on the attitude of Bahais to CBs > which amounts to a heightened paranoia. Thus the presence of books by CBs > will prevent a Bahai sleeping and/or generate an especially malodorous > smell
The following extract from a discussion on another forum a few years ago supports your view that such attitudes exist though I would say, in my experience, it is a small minority who hold these kind of views. I have removed actual names but the posting was public and is publically archived.
"I was a relatively new Baha'i, and I was told that covernant breakers books were a no no for reading. So when I went to the library once and found this dreaded book on the shelf beside all the beautiful Baha'i books, I took the covernant breakers book home with me, and put it under my bed in a box. From the moment I did that, things in my life began getting very bad,I am not joking, and I became quite ill. Emotionally, spiritually, and physically. Anyway, (distinguished Baha'i)came to visit my home, and I had forgotten that I had the book at all, not noticing anything any different was happening, as this sort of sickness came over me slowly and so for me, being in the middle of something like this, I was too close to the situation to notice. During the evenings talk at a Baha'i Meeting, he spoke of covernant breakers and it suddenly reminded me of that stupid book I had taken off the shelf, and hid under my bed. So, I told him how I had gotten rid of this book, and that I was never going to put it back. I loved the Faith so much you see, and wanted to protect the community. He told me to take the book right back to the library, immediately. That it was important not to stop folks from reading it, but......the Baha'is must not read it at all. Then he went on to say that the books of covernant breakers were like a rotten apple, that once it has been read by a Baha'i, that it can destroy the spiritual life of a community. That it is like an infection, and that we must protect the Baha'i community from such disease. He told me to do it as quickly as possible. I instantly obeyed and did just that the very next morning, and I must admit, my illness subsided, and the community became healthy again."
> >Res, shunning a covenant breaker is not to punish him, but to protect other > >believers and the unity of the community.
> I understand the reasoning behind 'shunning' and it is far preferable > to some of the methods employed in other cultures/countries.
Appears similar, but a great deal of difference.
> However from what I do know; shunning is not only about 'protecting' a > group but also about punishment (with a view to bring them back into > the fold).
To announce one as covenant breaker far exceeds the death punishment, for first terminates the life on this earth and the second the life hereafter. The gravity of covenant breaking is not to be confused with mere punishment, it is in reality to protect other souls from dying, where death of a soul, in relative terms, refers to its inexistence in comparison to the existence of all other souls.
> At its most basic level it is very similar to peer pressure which as > we all know is a form of social control.
I would like to look at this as education method. Bahaullah, has promised that His faith will not be subject to schism as religions of the past. He, considers the opposition as bobbles carried to shore by the ocean wave, burst in contact, very short lived. At any rate, we all know God is most merciful.
> >It is not a hereditary conclusion, but if one chooses to follow the foot > >steps of his/her parent(s) in opposition to the spirit of the faith then > >he/she will be a covenant breaker. However, if a remnant of a covenant > >breaker comes to the conclusion that his parent(s) were wrong and expresses > >his/her disassociation from their doctrine, then he/she would be considered > >a believer as any other person. The following articles may help to > >understand the position of Bahai community in regards to Covenant Breakers.
>"The Reform Bahai Faith" wrote: >Res. >Reform Bahais bear no animosity towards either >the organized Baha'is of Haifa nor the Orthodox Baha'is. >Merely as a statement of fact, as we see it, both >denominations are wrong regarding the Covenant, >the Will & Testament, and the Guardianship.
Thank you for the information you presented below; I found it very interesting. It will take me awhile to go through it all carefully.
=======
>"The Reform Bahai Faith" wrote:
Relevant paragraphs, in this context, FROM On Bahai Liberty:
Dying without leaving a will in 1957, Shoghi Effendi left the Baha'i Faith with no infallible successor, no appointed Guardian, and no infallible interpreter of Baha'u'llah's Writings. Shoghi Effendi's own words state emphatically that without a Guardian the Baha'i Faith would be mutilated and completely deprived of the "unerring guidance of God." Subsequent to his death, Baha'i experience only corroborates his judgment. No matter to what extent the Hands of the Cause assumed, or presumed, an authority that neither Abdu'l-Baha's Will and Testament nor any of the writings of Shoghi Effendi bestowed, their innovations and attempts to lay a credible foundation for the uhj failed, and time has proven it, made it open and blatant as the noonday sun.
The end of the Guardianship and the innovations and attempts to fill in the gaps and unfulfilled portions of Abdu'l-Baha's Will and Testament have continued unabated since the earliest schism between the Hands of the Cause, their unilateral and unauthorized attempt to fill the interpretive void left by Shoghi Effendi's failure to foresee his untimely end and the commotions it would unleash upon Baha'u'llah's Faith. Neither the custodians nor the Orthodox Baha'is had, or have, a credible claim to assumption of the mantle of authority. Nothing in Abdu'l-Baha's Will and Testament nor Shoghi Effendi's writings anticipated or justified what they did after the Guardian's death. Similarly, the International Baha'i Council that the Hands put aside was not in the Will and Testament nor an instrument of the Master for the appointment of a new Guardian. That the Hands were nominated and appointed by Shoghi Effendi gave them no legitimate authority to assume, or usurp, the "rights and powers in succession to the Guardian," which they claimed, nor to change the method of creating a universal house of justice from what was stipulated by the Master in His Will and was already anticipated by the Guardian through the unfolding of the International Baha'i Council. Any pretense to "infallibility" ended with Shoghi Effendi, and subsequent Baha'i experience has proven it in the ruined and destroyed lives of many thousands of individuals, married couples, families, and Baha'i communities.
The eventual creation by the uhj of the continental board of counselors, a type of Baha'i college of cardinals, and the auxiliary boards, notorious for operating like the Jesuits at their worst, has only exacerbated the situation and deepened the rift between Baha'is in all walks of life and the barely concealed clergy that now exists and demands at every turn "obedience" to the covenant, as the "infallible" universal house of justice interprets it, ignoring that Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi both explicitly stated that only the Guardian has interpretive guidance and that the uhj has only legislative authority.
=======
>Respectfully, of other points of view on these matters, >Frederick Glaysher >95 Theses - On Bahai Liberty >The Reform Bahai Faith >www.ReformBahai.org
=========
Again thank you for taking the time to present this.
> > There is significant anecdotal evidence on the attitude of Bahais to CBs > > which amounts to a heightened paranoia. Thus the presence of books by CBs > > will prevent a Bahai sleeping and/or generate an especially malodorous > > smell
> The following extract from a discussion on another forum a few years ago > supports your view that such attitudes exist though I would say, in my > experience, it is a small minority who hold these kind of views. I have > removed actual names but the posting was public and is publically
archived.
Lovely tale and similar to the accounts in Piff's book.
I'm not so sure that only a small minority is involved. Fairly recently a friend of mine informed a member of the AO that there was an Orthodox Bahai cell in Northern Ireland; the recipient of this news went "white" to such an extent that the informant genuinely thought he was going to have a heart attack. I also know, from more than one source, that my name was circulated around the community as a "proto Covenant Breaker" who was to be avoided.
If it is only a small minority it seems to have an influence far beyond its numbers. Hatred of enemies, real or imaginary, is an adhesive applied to the Bahai community. Look at Hessy and I rest my case!
|
