the bahai faith and homosexuals
Seon Ferguson
thought Bahai's were tolerant of gay people. But my cousin said her friend
got kicked out because he was gay. Is this a common occurrence? her friend
is in Scotland. Is it different in each country? (the acceptance thing) I'm
straight but I see nothing wrong with homosexuality.
diamondsouled
In most western counties most Baha'is will turn a blind eye to a
person's sexual orientation. Of course you have some narrow minded
fanatical Baha'is in some communities who are all too willing to keep
an eye out for any behavior they personally see as heretical and then
reporting it to the Baha'i thought police, the protection branch.
Usually the worse that will happen if it is found out that a person is
gay is that they will lose their administrative rights, this would be
for being openly gay. I'm not aware of anyone who has been
excommunicated/had their names removed from Baha'i membership roles
for being gay.
I would be interested in the details if this is the case though.
It is still held by Baha'i powers that be, the UHJ, that homosexuality
is a mental disorder which can be cured; this even though there is
recent scientific evidence to the contrary. It is unlikely that this
position will ever change because it is based on the opinion of Shoghi
Effendi who is believed to be infallible.
Cheers
Larry Rowe
t h
Baha'is. Also sexual activities outside of marriage are not
acceptable for anyone. Sexual orientation is no one else's business.
It is hard to have a sexual relationship that is not public.
For starters two or more people know about it. Then many of their
friends know about it. So people thinking about joining
the Baha'i Faith need to know about any laws that may impact them.
Tom
Seon Ferguson
since posting this message I have realised that although the Bahai faith is
honest in that it tolerates gay people, if you are in a gay relationship or
openly gay as you say you can lose administration rights. Christians may not
talk to gay people but at least there is no way for a gay person to lose any
rights in Christianity.
"diamondsouled" <ro...@northwestel.net> wrote in message
news:0sKdnV_v4MwrFkvU...@giganews.com...
paha...@onetel.net.uk
> Lol it can be cured? I guess they are backwards people in all faiths. Yeah
> since posting this message I have realised that although the Bahai faith is
> honest in that it tolerates gay people, if you are in a gay relationship or
> openly gay as you say you can lose administration rights. Christians may not
> talk to gay people but at least there is no way for a gay person to lose any
> rights in Christianity.
>
Yeah - but saying "Christians think X" is always something of a
lottery, because there are so many varieties of Christian!
Some liberal Christian denominations are actively welcoming of gay
people.
With the Baha'is, there's little chance of doing that, since there's
meant to be only one Baha'i Faith, and the Baha'is are basically stuck
in the 50s, since their attitudes are based on what Shoghi wrote, and
HIS attitudes are based on the psychology and psychiatry of the 50s.
Paul
PaulHammond
Seon Ferguson wrote:
> Lol it can be cured? I guess they are backwards people in all faiths. Yeah
> since posting this message I have realised that although the Bahai faith is
> honest in that it tolerates gay people, if you are in a gay relationship or
> openly gay as you say you can lose administration rights. Christians may not
> talk to gay people but at least there is no way for a gay person to lose any
> rights in Christianity.
>
I swear I responded to this earliet - but my reply seems to have
disappeared into the ether.
To paraphrase - I said that Sean should be careful about generalising
statements about what Christians think and believe - since there are
so many varieties of Christianity available.
For sure, some Christians protest about gay people, and some
extremists make physical threats outside abortion clinics.
But there are other Christian denominations that are actually
welcoming and encouraging towards gay people.
This option - to go and find a congenial denomination if you're gay -
is one that isn't available to gay Baha'is - there being only the one
Baha'i Faith, and such an emphasis on Unity and discouragement of
schism and splitting away from the main faith.
Then I made a comment about how the Baha'i Faith's attitude towards
homosexuality is stuck in the 50s - because its attitude depends so
much upon what Shoghi Effendi wrote, and HIS writings were informed by
the beliefs of psychology and psychiatry about Homosexuality in the
50s - which have now absolutely changed.
(Back in the 50s, most psychiatrists thought that being gay was
"Deviation" or disease, and that it ought to be possible to "cure" gay
men)
Paul
Seon Ferguson
<paha...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:ALedncCsCse4AErU...@giganews.com...
Yeah I was thinking of the liberal Christians because they do allow gay
people into their churches. However some Christians refuse to change with
the times like the national spiritual assembly. I used to think the Bahai
faith was pretty liberal as well but after being told how they treat gay
people I realise it is far from the truth. Why are they so obsessed with
what some bloke wrote in the 50s? Is he related to Bahaullah or something?
Seon Ferguson
"PaulHammond" <paha...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:IMmdnRkNZs_PAErU...@giganews.com...
I got it. psychiatrists can change their attitudes- Even some Christians
can. Looks like the Bahai faith really does need to be reformed.
NUR
interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO,
that he is probably working for them."
-- Eric Stetson, September 2003
NUR
mike...@yahoo.com
>the beliefs of psychology and psychiatry about Homosexuality in the
>50s - which have now absolutely changed.
This subject has nothing to do with science. Whether or not people are
born gay or not is irrelevant. This is about a persons free will.
Throughout history there are examples of monks starving themselves to
death, living in isolation, or choosing a life of chastity, all of
these being examples that people can choose and exercise a level of
free will over their environment and basic needs for their faith.
All major religions preach that people are created in the image of
God and therefore as a consequence possess free will. Deny this and
you may as well deny your basic humanity. It is very likely that some
people are born gay and they may never change their inclination on the
matter or even desire to change. That's a question for science to
determine and has little to do with the Baha'i Faith. What is relevant
to the Baha'i Faith is that as Baha'is we believe that free will
allows one to choose their actions based on their own will and not
environmental determinants. A young girl may choose to go to the
gallows and sacrifice all that she is and ever will be for her faith,
a father and his young son may gladly choose death over recanting
their faith. We call these challenges a blessing that we may
demonstrate our faith to God. Across this world there are a plethora
of examples of men and women who exercised their free will to choose
God and their Faith over all that they possess.
We all have our challenges and really who among us can claim
perfection? Honestly when I think of Baha'u'llahs admonitions about
gossiping destroying our soul and then look at his and the Guardians
statements about homosexuality as a condition to be treated with love,
forbearance and compassion then I wonder if we're making a mountain
out of a mole hill? Really when I think of it, gossip is prevalent in
many communities, do we really have our priorities straight?
In regards to other religions, are we talking about the stoning
provisions in some forms of Judaism and Islam? In theory Buddhism and
Hinduism sound tolerant, but in cultural practice in their homeland
communities they run an equal risk of stoning or worse. And what of
Christianities response to the matter for the past 1800 years? What
Paul suggests is that we ignore the track record of Christianity for
the past couple of thousand years and focus on the last 25 years and
in particular limit our scope to a few sects? As if to state that it
makes up for the gay boy that was dragged across town chained to a
pick-up truck in those other christian areas? Doesn't sound
reasonable?
Of the major world religions the Baha'i Faith is the only one that
has from its' outset taken a tactic of non-violence. At worst the
person loses their voting rights which is a far cry from the stoning/
excommunication approach in the religions of the past. If tomorrow all
those Islamic or right wing Christians became Baha'i, the worst a gay
person would have to worry over is whether or not he'd lose voting
rights? Contrasted with the brutal attacks and repression that
currently take place in those other communities I'd say it's at least
a step up.
PaulHammond
mike.
First of all, you compare being gay, and being told that it's a
disease or something you've got to overcome with being a martyr, or
being a sacrifice.
People shouldn't BE sacrificed for other people's ignorance.
Then, you say that because Baha'is don't stone gay people, they should
be thankful for small mercies - or because I've mentioned the fact
that these days, gay friendly Christians exist, I'm somehow at fault
for NOT mentioning the fact that gay men have been persecuted for
centuries.
Well, I'm sure when the Baha'is have had a bit longer, they'll have a
record of prejudice to compare with the Christians - but didn't Abdu'l
Baha say something about having a "sin covering eye"? So forgive me
if I choose to emphasise the spiritual progress by which some
christians have now surpassed the Baha'is, who like to think of
themselves as SO much more spiritually advanced than everyone else.
Incidentally, that attitude of Baha'i superiority towards other
religions certainly comes through loud and clear!
Baha'is need to get up to speed on sexuality and move into the 21st
century! Stop trying to pretend that what Shoghi thought about gay
people in the 1950s is the last word!
Mike Noxaura
Okies, while i'm on the outside of the Faiths main body for personal
reasons similar to this (sisters gay), i have noticed something
interesting: there isn't "1 bahai faith" and never has been. google
"bahai sects" and there's an interesting site of the same name. I
usually use the term "Bayani" as it's more appropriate for me, and the
Bahai Faith is part of that tree.
More importantly, i just joined an egroup of Bahais trying to move
away from the more conservative main for several reasons, including
Gay Rights. These guys totally disregard S E as not even having been a
Guardian, in which case, the UHOJ can jump in a lake. I think a move
to a more modern, open minded faith would be ideal.
mike...@yahoo.com
>disease
Interesting that you assume such a position on this matter. I read in
you emotion but no truth. Lucky it's in writing, so I'm calling you
out on your spin, where'd I mention the word disease? Here's what I
said:
"It is very likely that some people are born gay and they may never
change their inclination on the
matter or even desire to change. "
So again, where'd I mention the word disease? Is your goal the truth
or your truth?
mike...@yahoo.com
>reasons similar to this (sisters gay)
I'm amazed at the extreme response many Baha'is have taken on this
matter on both sides. Here's some food for thought. 90%+ of the male
population engages in masturbation (65% female). So why isn't there
equal concern over the subject? After all, if we believe that 90% of
our male population which is likely reflected in the Baha'i community
engages in an act that the Guardian described almost verbatim in the
exact same way that he described homosexuality then why no concern?
This statistic has changed little since the 50's and there really
hasn't been any push to cure the male psyche of his natural need to
engage in this activity. (BTW the Guardian also stated that this was
against our nature as well) You don't find male Baha'is protesting and
forming social groups to assert their sexual identity with
masturbation. As a society we quietly accept it.
Going back and to this day you'll find Buddhist monestaries waking
their boys early in the morning to curb their natural inclinations
towards engaging in this activity. This is nothing new, even the Bab
had proscriptions on the matter. So if you want to be a Bayani, you'd
better be prepared to accept that you'll encounter laws advising you
against masturbation. You could argue that based on the statistics
religion in general must be discriminatory towards men.
So now we have the Guardian providing us with an interpretation in
which he plainly stated in regards to both masturbation and
homosexuality that the sexual impulse should only be expressed for the
purpose of procreation. Nothing here is inconsistent with any other
mainstream religion. The only real difference is in the response. In
former religions you were stoned, excommunicated, socially ostracized
and worse. In the Faith people who openly engage in the behavior lose
their voting rights.
Perhaps the answer comes back to this. Religion provides us with a
standard. Is masturbation harmful to anyone? Clearly it's natural,
replete with examples through nature and even displayed among the most
innocent of children. Does being homosexual make you any worse or
better than the 90+% of men or children who engage in this activity?
Clearly not. The only difference being that one behavior is more
publicly transparent than the other. What religion provides is a
standard by which we may all measure ourselves in our own way. No one
can claim moral superiority because the truth is that we all have our
shortcomings. The standards are seemingly impossible to attain,
meaning that our spiritual development isn't about being perfect, it's
about our own personal growth and struggle.
A gay person in this faith may choose to live their lives as Baha'is
openly or in quiet with or without their voting rights sometimes
unfortunately being held to an artificially higher standard than those
90+% men who engage in their own activities. Maybe the answer is that
those 90+% men should remain quiet on the matter lest they find
themselves to be hypocrites.
Could either exercise their will to choose not to engage in these
activities? Certainly.
The real sin in my estimation comes when a person chooses to believe
that just because they are inclined to engage in any activity it
therefore must be right. Worse yet, is the act of division or engaging
in an act of division by attempting to form a sect or splinter group
that suits your desires. By doing so, you've undermined the
fundamental purpose of religion being that of unity. Testifying to
this faith all the while creating a schism is the worst form of
hypocrisy and frankly you're better off living out your life accepting
the truth that no one is perfect.
paha...@onetel.net.uk
You didn't mention the word "disease"
But you did mention "tests" and "martyrdoms" and "choices"
Which strongly suggests to me that you think the correct attitude for
a gay Baha'i to have is to imagine that God is testing him.
You also suggest that your faith ought to be getting some kind of
medal for the fact that its model is just nicely telling them that
their sexual orientation is wrong, rather than stoning them or
imprisioning them.
And you suggested that the correct attitude to have towards Christians
who are tolerant, or even enthusiatically supportive of sexual
diversity is to ignore their advanced spiritual attitudes, and instead
assume that the ones who hold up placards suggesting that God despises
gay people should be taken as more representative.
I don't normally read in soc.religion.bahai - I'm a regular poster in
talk.religion.bahai, where the style of debate is probably much more
robust than you're used to over there. This is the thread that got
cross-posted by an occasional contributor at talk.religion.bahai, who
in my opinion is genuinely interested in finding out more from a
perspective beyond the usual suspects in this group.
My previous post was made somewhat in anger - because the attitudes
you displayed in your previous posts made me see red!
I'm willing to apologise for being intemperate - but as a non-Baha'i I
don't see why I should give your faith credit for being a religion
that's only a little bit mean to gay people emotionally rather than
being physically mean to them.
Baha'u'llah himself didn't write anything about loving relationships
between people of the same sex, and Shoghi Effendi was far too much
informed by the current scientific opinion of his time. I think it's
a shame that historical events have made it difficult for the Baha'is
of today ever to change or contradict those opinions given by Shoghi
on these matters - as our first poster in this thread suggested,
people who don't know much about the Baha'is, and think of them as a
liberal and welcoming faith that preaches tolerance and unity in
diversity, tend to assume that that attitude of tolerance extends
towards those of different sexualities as well as different races -
and they are often surprised when they find that it doesn't.
Paul
mike...@yahoo.com
>You didn't mention the word "disease"
Now we're getting to a rational discussion
>But you did mention "tests" and "martyrdoms" and "choices"
>Which strongly suggests to me that you think the correct attitude for
>a gay Baha'i to have is to imagine that God is testing him.
God isn't testing anyone. We _all_ test ourselves by what we perceive
as God's truth. There's a huge difference. God already knows who we
are, why would an infinite being all-capable, all-knowing, undefinable
need to test you? What's he gonna find out? What you present is poorly
thought out christian theology at its' best, rooted in perceptions of
God as some Zeus-like character. It's about knowing yourself and
advancing yourself spiritually, and ultimately uplifting others
through the demonstration of your faith.
This concept isn't hard, you work out and suffer during the process
but eventually you become stronger and healthier as a result.
Spirituality is the same.
>And you suggested that the correct attitude to have towards Christians
>who are tolerant, or even enthusiatically supportive of sexual
>diversity is to ignore their advanced spiritual attitudes, and instead
Interesting, most every religion I've studied looks at suffering in
the path of faith as a route to spiritual development. Yet, what you
propose as advanced, is that we should all (gay or straight) accept
our spiritual state as-is, no need for development. This is your
version of advanced? To me it sounds rather spiritually complacent.
Sexual diversity is a reality of nature. It exists and there is no
doubt that all of it (including homosexuality) serves an evolved
biologic purpose. My argument has never been to negate this. What I
point out is that our individual spiritual development hinges on
attempting to rise above our nature and asserting our identity as
spiritual beings rather than physical creatures. Why is it that
fasting in some form or another is found in almost every religion?
Religion is seemingly at odds with our nature at every level, yet it
proves to be the vehicle of our spiritual development.
>My previous post was made somewhat in anger - because the attitudes
>you displayed in your previous posts made me see red!
>I'm willing to apologise for being intemperate - but as a non-Baha'i I
>don't see why I should give your faith credit for being a religion
>that's only a little bit mean to gay people emotionally rather than
>being physically mean to them.
Hey, if it's mean then it must be mean to just about everyone
including (as I mentioned in another post) the 90+% of men who are
naturally inclined to masturbate. (BTW that statistic has been
reported as high as 98+% in some other Journals) So what's your point
here? That gay people somehow are above the same admonishment that
applies to just about every living male? At least in that sense it's
equitable. About the only difference is one behavior can be but not
necessarily is more transparent. My advice is that no one's perfect
and these standards exist as extremely hard to attain goals that we
all struggle towards.
If a gay person is content with their sexuality but feels more
inclined to work on other spiritual issues like back-biting..etc. then
that person has his priorities right. My point is that most people
(gay or straight) have bigger issues to be concerned with than their
sexuality. If that person really feels inclined to live an openly gay
lifestyle, then the worst that may occur is they'll lose their voting
rights. Losing your voting rights doesn't infer that the community or
God loves you any less. In the grand context of the history of Islam
and christianity this hardly sounds mean.
>Baha'u'llah himself didn't write anything about loving relationships
>between people of the same sex, and Shoghi Effendi was far too much
Sorry buddy, that's just not true. The Aqdas was clear. Words change
their meaning over time. Just as we use the term gay in english. At
one time it meant happy. Baha'u'llah described it all too clearly in
the language of his time and location. There are some misguided non-
native historians who've overlooked this truth due to their sense of
compassion and poor skills at translation. My background is Persian
and I know the history of their terminology all too well. The
Guardians translation on this subject was accurate. Any other spin on
this is at best a poorly contrived lie.
>informed by the current scientific opinion of his time. I think it's
>a shame that historical events have made it difficult for the Baha'is
>of today ever to change or contradict those opinions given by Shoghi
I have little doubt that the science of his times affected his
approach to the subject but regardless of science it would have done
little to change the end result of his translation. As I stated
earlier, we all possess free will and we are not genetically
programmed machines incapable of exceeding our programming. This is
the premise of every religion. I can accept that for a Gay person this
is no small feat, hard and seemingly impossible which is why I would
offer this counsel, there are other more important issues that we all
must work on.
All Bad
I appreciate your thoughts on these serious questions. We don't get to see
much of this as a proportion of the message traffic on TRB.
I believe the sanction for a pattern of homosexual activity, or alcohol
consumption, is loss of administrative priveleges, not just not voting at
Rizwon or district convention, but excluded from district convention,
excluded from Feast, not allowed to contribute to the fund, etc. If you
lost admin privileges, you should be invited to Holy Day commemorations if
the community remembers to do so.
I live in the US. As some states recognize gay marriage some Baha'i
communities, at some time, may be in the position of recognizing gay
marriage, so it is good to be open minded, and informed, as you are.
As you know, the Kitabi Aqdas appears to allow a man to marry two wives and
'Abdu'l Baha correctly forbade it. Yet, when a bigmist declares as a
Baha'i, he is not required to disavow either of his prior marriage
commitments. When a seeker who is in a gay marriage declares, the community
needs to think about a) rejecting the declaration, b) asking him to divorce
his spouse before accepting the declaration, or c) accepting the declaration
and the prior gay marriage, to include the committments implicit in a
marriage.
What do you think?
- All Bad
<mike...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7bmdndpTJsQ_DWvU...@giganews.com...
paha...@onetel.net.uk
> >You didn't mention the word "disease"
>
> Now we're getting to a rational discussion
>
I don't think we are, actually. You appear to be trying to put your
assumptions onto me.
> >But you did mention "tests" and "martyrdoms" and "choices"
> >Which strongly suggests to me that you think the correct attitude for
> >a gay Baha'i to have is to imagine that God is testing him.
>
> God isn't testing anyone. We _all_ test ourselves by what we perceive
> as God's truth. There's a huge difference. God already knows who we
> are, why would an infinite being all-capable, all-knowing, undefinable
> need to test you? What's he gonna find out? What you present is poorly
> thought out christian theology at its' best, rooted in perceptions of
> God as some Zeus-like character. It's about knowing yourself and
> advancing yourself spiritually, and ultimately uplifting others
> through the demonstration of your faith.
>
I'm an atheist personally. But you DID seem to have a big problem
with my mentioning the Christian denominations I admire, while not
mentioning the views of those Christians I think are prejudiced.
I also mentioned Abdu'l Baha's concept of the "sin-covering eye"
maybe as a professing Baha'i you should be attempting to put his views
into practice?
> This concept isn't hard, you work out and suffer during the process
> but eventually you become stronger and healthier as a result.
> Spirituality is the same.
>
> >And you suggested that the correct attitude to have towards Christians
> >who are tolerant, or even enthusiatically supportive of sexual
> >diversity is to ignore their advanced spiritual attitudes, and instead
>
> Interesting, most every religion I've studied looks at suffering in
> the path of faith as a route to spiritual development. Yet, what you
> propose as advanced, is that we should all (gay or straight) accept
> our spiritual state as-is, no need for development. This is your
> version of advanced? To me it sounds rather spiritually complacent.
>
I propose that the first task of any gay person is to accept
themselves as God made them.
YOU had a problem with the fact that I didn't mention the Christians
of the past that used to stone gay people, when I was mentioning TO
SOMEBODY ELSE the idea that considering all Christians as believers in
the same monolithic anti-gay viewpoint was unfair, seeing as how
Christian opinion covers a range of responses to homosexuality.
Oh, and yes, I DO think that any religion which accepts gay people as
they are is de-facto more spiritually advanced than those that preach
prejudice.
You seem to be projecting your problems onto me, I think.
> Sexual diversity is a reality of nature. It exists and there is no
> doubt that all of it (including homosexuality) serves an evolved
> biologic purpose. My argument has never been to negate this. What I
> point out is that our individual spiritual development hinges on
> attempting to rise above our nature and asserting our identity as
> spiritual beings rather than physical creatures.
Sorry, but the fact that Baha'is will not accept the possibility of
gay marriage is something that I consider to be a failing in the
Baha'i Faith - not something to be gotten around by talking about
something else entirely.
The original question of the originator of this thread was seeking
clarification of a Baha'i position, and information regarding how gay
Baha'is are treated by other Baha'is. I don't see how your paragraph
above clarifies, well, anything really.
> Why is it that
> fasting in some form or another is found in almost every religion?
Because it makes you think.
> Religion is seemingly at odds with our nature at every level, yet it
> proves to be the vehicle of our spiritual development.
>
How would you relate that statement to the fact of gay sexuality?
> >My previous post was made somewhat in anger - because the attitudes
> >you displayed in your previous posts made me see red!
> >I'm willing to apologise for being intemperate - but as a non-Baha'i I
> >don't see why I should give your faith credit for being a religion
> >that's only a little bit mean to gay people emotionally rather than
> >being physically mean to them.
>
> Hey, if it's mean then it must be mean to just about everyone
> including (as I mentioned in another post) the 90+% of men who are
> naturally inclined to masturbate. (BTW that statistic has been
> reported as high as 98+% in some other Journals) So what's your point
> here? That gay people somehow are above the same admonishment that
> applies to just about every living male?
I don't see the point you're making. THe Baha'i Faith discriminates
against gay people. straight people are allowed to find somebody to
marry. Gay people are not. Of course, we are always able to fall
short of high standards. But I think it's possible for people to live
without masturbating, should that be a standard someone chooses to set
for themselves. It's possible to live without drinking alcohol (at
least for me - I tried that for about 4 years while I was thinking of
becoming Baha'i) It's not possible for gay people to "cure"
themselves straight.
At least in that sense it's
> equitable. About the only difference is one behavior can be but not
> necessarily is more transparent. My advice is that no one's perfect
> and these standards exist as extremely hard to attain goals that we
> all struggle towards.
>
> If a gay person is content with their sexuality but feels more
> inclined to work on other spiritual issues like back-biting..etc. then
> that person has his priorities right. My point is that most people
> (gay or straight) have bigger issues to be concerned with than their
> sexuality. If that person really feels inclined to live an openly gay
> lifestyle, then the worst that may occur is they'll lose their voting
> rights. Losing your voting rights doesn't infer that the community or
> God loves you any less. In the grand context of the history of Islam
> and christianity this hardly sounds mean.
>
Sorry, but discrimination against gay people is wrong. People
shouldn't lose their voting rights for being openly gay - they should
have the same rights to an open sexual relationship as any other
Baha'i.
> >Baha'u'llah himself didn't write anything about loving relationships
> >between people of the same sex, and Shoghi Effendi was far too much
>
> Sorry buddy, that's just not true.
Yes, buddy, it is true. Baha'u'llah wrote instructions regarding
child abuse between older and younger men. He didn't say anything
about loving relationships between people of the same sex.
>The Aqdas was clear.
I'm willing to accept a clear quote on this point, but I believe the
Aqdas itself does not mention the concept of gay marriage.
> Words change
> their meaning over time. Just as we use the term gay in english. At
> one time it meant happy. Baha'u'llah described it all too clearly in
> the language of his time and location. There are some misguided non-
> native historians who've overlooked this truth due to their sense of
> compassion and poor skills at translation. My background is Persian
> and I know the history of their terminology all too well. The
> Guardians translation on this subject was accurate. Any other spin on
> this is at best a poorly contrived lie.
>
Well, I will await your direct quote on this point. If you can't
prove that point directly, I will expect an apology for being called a
liar here.
> >informed by the current scientific opinion of his time. I think it's
> >a shame that historical events have made it difficult for the Baha'is
> >of today ever to change or contradict those opinions given by Shoghi
>
> I have little doubt that the science of his times affected his
> approach to the subject but regardless of science it would have done
> little to change the end result of his translation. As I stated
> earlier, we all possess free will and we are not genetically
> programmed machines incapable of exceeding our programming. This is
> the premise of every religion. I can accept that for a Gay person this
> is no small feat, hard and seemingly impossible which is why I would
> offer this counsel, there are other more important issues that we all
> must work on.
Oh. I'm not gay, by the way.
But I do find that all this stuff about "harder tests" strikes me as
so much cant for excusing prejudice.
Paul
mike...@yahoo.com
>I believe the sanction for a pattern of homosexual activity, or alcohol
>consumption, is loss of administrative priveleges, not just not voting at
>Rizwon or district convention, but excluded from district convention,
>excluded from Feast, not allowed to contribute to the fund, etc. If you
>lost admin privileges, you should be invited to Holy Day commemorations if
>the community remembers to do so.
No arguments here on the letter of the law. But I would state that as
of yet, in the many Baha'i communities that I have observed in action,
I have not seen this occur. About the only time this would occur is
when a person chooses to become extremely vocal on the subject and/or
chooses to challenge the Guardian. But yes, the Faith will treat overt
alcohol consumption and overt homosexual activity in much the same
way. I also appreciate that you are making this clear.
>I live in the US. As some states recognize gay marriage some Baha'i
>communities, at some time, may be in the position of recognizing gay
>marriage, so it is good to be open minded, and informed, as you are.
I noted this in another posting. But the Baha'i community will not
contest civil unions endorsed by the government. Because they can
apply to family members or any other arrangement (so long as they are
not of the opposite sex, which ironically would not be an issue). But
It will never recognize marriage, for the specific reason that the
marriage is reserved for the traditional family unit (Baby factory if
you will). The concept of spiritual procreation is central to its'
theology. Ie. God endows man with this gift to bring a spiritual being
into existence, and therefore this institution of marriage must be
sacred in that regard and endorsed by God.
>As you know, the Kitabi Aqdas appears to allow a man to marry two wives and
>'Abdu'l Baha correctly forbade it. Yet, when a bigmist declares as a
>Baha'i, he is not required to disavow either of his prior marriage
>commitments.
This actually shouldn't surprise you. Going along with this theme of
'baby factory' it would run counter to the Baha'i intuition to break
apart such a family no matter how non-traditional if it has already
engaged in this spiritually procreative process. The idea centers on
our belief that whether people appreciate this or not, sex in the act
of procreation is a spiritual act to be of course endorsed by God. In
any other context it is a material act.
>When a seeker who is in a gay marriage declares, the community
>needs to think about a) rejecting the declaration, b) asking him to divorce
>his spouse before accepting the declaration, or c) accepting the declaration
>and the prior gay marriage, to include the committments implicit in a
>marriage.
>What do you think?
I think that the seeker may wisely choose to keep their sexual
identity to their own self and not make an issue of it. It's not as if
Baha'is seek absolution from each other, our relationship with God is
personal. With time, wisdom and with loving friendship it would be
unlikely that they will ever have an issue. Look if 90% of men do
engage in masturbation then these people are no worse or better off
than those 90%. When men start bragging about the act in a community
then by all means, share.
mike...@yahoo.com
>themselves as God made them.
I think we're in agreement on this point. We're all made differently
with different skills, behavioral inclinations etc. There's nothing
wrong with recognizing yourself and accepting that God has created you
this way. What is wrong is being complacent with who you are. To a
Baha'i, life is about this struggle of becoming something you are not.
It is why we as a society value people overcoming their respective
issues, be it poverty, various handicaps etc to become something
they're not. This is the concept of spiritual advancement. It starts
(as you suggest) with accepting who you are. But it ends with your
personal transformation into something that you were not.
>YOU had a problem with the fact that I didn't mention the Christians
>of the past that used to stone gay people, when I was mentioning TO
My problem is that you treat an isolated sect of christianity as
representative of christianity when it is not. Are you aware that
south of the US border there are billions of christians who would make
me look as a saint in your eyes. They wont even acknowledge AIDs
forget homosexuality. Or even within this country the millions of
conservative right wing christians? You gloss over this issue without
acknowledgment. I judge christianity (or Islam) in it's totality.
Based on the rule, not the exception. I am prejudiced in this regard.
I look at the big picture and the sum total of a religion. What's the
impact? Right now there are billions of christians who would not even
enter into a discussion with you let alone consider homosexuality. I
contrast this with the attitude taken of the 5-6 million Baha'is out
there. In their totality what I observe is this. Baha'is being so
compassionate that in some communities they still elect openly Gay
members to their assemblies. It is a stark contrast between the two. I
can state this with complete certainty, Gay people would enjoy a night
and day superior quality of life in a Baha'i world.
>Oh, and yes, I DO think that any religion which accepts gay people as
>they are is de-facto more spiritually advanced than those that preach
>prejudice.
I would wonder if you are truly an athiest, you would have no regard
for any religion (I should know). Your use of the term prejudice
carries some invalid implications. For example. A black person is
black for no other reason than he is black. The color of his skin says
nothing about his behavior, skills or inclinations. To claim it does
is the definition of prejudice. A homosexual person is someone who has
a specific behavioral inclination.
Forget the Baha'i Faith, society is replete with admonitions that are
geared to modify and discourage a multitude of behaviors. Some have
obvious reasons, others relate back to traditions and others are
religious in nature. What you can state about all of them is that by
and large they are judgment calls. It would be wrong to call all of
these admonitions prejudice or discrimination. I can accept that there
are reasons for these admonitions, some of which I'm certain you'll
find offensive but are no less true.
>Sorry, but the fact that Baha'is will not accept the possibility of
>gay marriage is something that I consider to be a failing in the
>Baha'i Faith - not something to be gotten around by talking about
>something else entirely.
I have little doubt that civil union of various types will be fully
supported in a Baha'i world. But I firmly believe that the term
marriage will be reserved for the traditional family unit. Based on
the track record of the US for the last thirty years, I believe
there's good reason for the state to be keenly interested in the
preservation of the traditional family unit. It is of value to us all.
> Why is it that
> fasting in some form or another is found in almost every religion?
>>Because it makes you think.
About what?
>THe Baha'i Faith discriminates against gay people.
Not so, it moderates a specific behavior as it does so many other
behaviors. Gay people who are born Gay are not any more or less
spiritual than a person born heterosexual or the other 90-98% of males
born with an inclination to masturbate. It doesn't target any one
group specifically, but states simply this: the sexual impulse is to
be limited to the act of procreation. In the past, priests would claim
a superior spiritual state by taking a vow of chastity, now if you
really want to achieve that state you'll need to forgo most of your
inclinations (Gay or straight).
> But I think it's possible for people to live without masturbating, should that be a standard someone chooses to set
> for themselves.
A statistic as high as 90% can only mean one thing: genetically
programmed behavior. Sorry, but while it may be simple for you, you
are projecting yourself onto a statistic that says otherwise.
>becoming Baha'i) It's not possible for gay people to "cure"
>themselves straight.
I would agree. Some gay people (not all) are born gay and the idea
that they will be cured (or want to be cured) is absurd. The Guardian
was clearly unaware of this and to be fair he wasn't a scientist. I
have no obligation to appreciate his position on science. This is the
science of our times. But I would also state that there are a
multitude of other behaviors out there that are incurable, (ie.
masturbation). I doubt you'll find many man stepping up to be cured of
their need to masturbate. As I've stated, just because something is in
our nature doesn't make it right. But if you wish to achieve that
superior spiritual state then it stands that you'll need to make a
litany of hard sacrifices that most people, Gay or straight, don't
make.
The only way you can get a Baha'i community to be aware of your
sexual inclinations is to seriously make it an issue. Short of that, I
can easily see a community living out the don't ask-don't tell
philosophy.
>>Yes, buddy, it is true. Baha'u'llah wrote instructions regarding
>>child abuse between older and younger men. He didn't say anything
>>about loving relationships between people of the same sex.
I know you'll find this offensive but it is the truth. For His time
and location (and even now in some Iranian villages) people did not so
readily distinguish between the the pedophile and the gay person. They
were treated as the same and often interchangeably. I've had (he's
deceased) a grandfather from those villages, they did not distinguish
the two. It is no hard stretch of the imagination to appreciate this
point when you observe the current president of Iran and his
statements concerning homosexuality. You are talking about a culture
and its' language that has been anything but kind to this subject.
So yes, it would make things alot easier to spin it another way, but
the Guardians translation was accurate. You may choose not to accept
this, but I think you'd be losing touch with the reality of the
situation. I will offer no apology for speaking this truth.
>Oh. I'm not gay, by the way.
Honestly, I don't care? What I do care about is the truth and
preventing the spread of mis-information. What happens when someone
buys your story concerning the Faiths laws on this only to investigate
it after the fact and find the truth to be otherwise? You're doing no
one a favor by spreading such mis-information. It's one thing to be
indignant about the Faiths position on the matter, it's another
entirely to create a false hope for some that is profoundly wrong.
compx2
Perhaps if enough reasonable people answer you on this you will begin
to see that Baha'i views on this matter do not have to agree with your
view. It is so obvious to any non-Baha'i reading here that the view
you espouse here is just plain intolerant of homosexuality.
I am a Baha'i and I do not share your view. And that should be okay
with you. It is certainly okay with me that you have your views.
However I am sickened by the fact that your views and those like them
seem to define my religion. Your views are not Baha'i views, but
rather the views of a single Baha'i.
We are all tested, and you say we are testing ourselves.
Are we tested by prohibitions against hair length? How about the
financial laws, prohibitions against all manner of personal acts which
are conveniently overlooked? Why are Baha'is more concerned with
homosexuality than with commands to be generous or daily prayer?
Should we canvas Baha'is about when and where they perform abolutions?
In my view, the Baha'is have no more place investigating sex lives of
believers than reading our income tax declarations.
I understand there is a proclivity in the US to declare our sexual
preferences in public, and I see nothing wrong with that. But sex has
no place in the Baha'i Faith. It is as though we need to know a
person's profession and how often they copulate and with whome in
order to know that person better. We are about making ourselves
better people, acquiring virtues, helping others through sacrifice and
discipline. But Baha'is talk only too little about these things.
Anyway I doubt anyone is reading this stuff seriously. Baha'is look
for justification of intolerance and non-Baha'is look for affirmations
of our intolerance. It is such a divisive issue, and it is the Baha'i
community that makes this divisive. Issues like this make me wonder
about the future of the Baha'i Faith, and my membership in such an
intolerant institution. The point of my religion is not membership
based upon sexual preference.
I am not about to advocate any sanction of a Baha'i for sexual
activity. I would hope other Baha'is would be Baha'i-like and leave
this stuff alone. It seems Baha'is want to defend intolerance and
forget about the more important teachings of our faith. If we all
took a look at our own sexual practices and allowed others to do the
same without our interference we would see the effects of adding
tolerance to our communities.
Thanks for reading. --Kent
PaulHammond
mikera...@yahoo.com wrote:
I don't know where you're getting the idea that Baha'u'llah wants
marriages to be baby-factories from. That seems to be an individual
interpretation of yours you are putting on as an extra condition to
what you think marriages are for.
I'd be interested to know how your advice to a gay man who already has
a husband "keeping it quiet" applies. The analogy with masturbation
doesn't seem especially to fit this case, either.
Masturbation is a vice rarely indulged in in public. But bringing
your partner to social events, and not denying his existence doesn't
strike me as much of an option for any honest person. Besides not
being a vice at all.
Personally, I think the seeker may come across "gay people not welcome
here" attitudes like yours, and wisely decide that this religion that
can't accept them how God made them is not the one for them, rather
than choose either to deny themselves or deny their life-partner.
Paul
mike...@yahoo.com
> It is so obvious to any non-Baha'i reading here that the view
>you espouse here is just plain intolerant of homosexuality.
Really? How? Merely labels. Sounds like political spin to me and
nothing more.
>I am a Baha'i and I do not share your view. And that should be okay
>with you.
Actually it is, within a specific framework I can accept your
position. That framework being our covenant and administration. So
long as you can respect our covenant which includes the Guardian and
our administration then I have no problems with a diversity of
opinion.
>It is certainly okay with me that you have your views.
>However I am sickened by the fact that your views and those like them
>seem to define my religion. Your views are not Baha'i views, but
>rather the views of a single Baha'i.
The general idea behind unity is accepting that we will never agree
but are willing to accept what comes through as a result of
consultation. If tomorrow our elected administration adopted your
views on this matter, I'd accede to them in the better interest of
unity. This is how the world achieves peace. Not through polarization,
extremism, tantrums and mindless labels when your view isn't adopted,
but through rational consultation and acceptance of the groups
decision.
>We are all tested, and you say we are testing ourselves.
>Are we tested by prohibitions against hair length? How about the
>financial laws, prohibitions against all manner of personal acts which
>are conveniently overlooked? Why are Baha'is more concerned with
>homosexuality than with commands to be generous or daily prayer?
Actually if you read my post as opposed to labelling it, you'd note
my very same concern. Baha'is do worry too much over issues like this
when there are bigger moral issues like back-biting..etc. that we
should all be working on. Is your point here to agree with me. Perhaps
you should read what I'm writing.
>Should we canvas Baha'is about when and where they perform abolutions?
>In my view, the Baha'is have no more place investigating sex lives of
>believers than reading our income tax declarations.
Interesting. No disagreement here. Perhaps you should read more.
>I understand there is a proclivity in the US to declare our sexual
>preferences in public, and I see nothing wrong with that. But sex has
>no place in the Baha'i Faith. It is as though we need to know a
>person's profession and how often they copulate and with whome in
>order to know that person better. We are about making ourselves
>better people, acquiring virtues, helping others through sacrifice and
>discipline. But Baha'is talk only too little about these things.
No disagreements.
>Anyway I doubt anyone is reading this stuff seriously.
Apparently more than you think.
> Baha'is look for justification of intolerance
Sounds like a prejudiced statement to me. You've just characterized
5-6 million people most of whom you've never met. Is this really
reflective of who you are? apparently it's in line with your need to
label views that you don't read.
>and non-Baha'is look for affirmations of our intolerance. It is such a divisive issue, and it is the Baha'i
community that makes this divisive.
Hardley, if you follow the headlines today you'll know that this is a
divisive issue which affects our society as a whole and reflects into
the Baha'i community.
>Issues like this make me wonder about the future of the Baha'i Faith, and my membership in such an
>intolerant institution.
Interesting point of view. In a time when the mormon faith is
expanding as a pre-eminent christian sect while other christian sects
lose their membership, when Islam is the fastest growing religion
period, it is a hard arguement to make that the Baha'i faith should
seek any more of a tolerant position than it has already. You're in
for a cold reality check on this issue.
What you'll discover is exactly what unitarinism has experienced.
"The Unitarian Universalist (UU) membership statistics are a rude
awakening. While 630,000 people self-identified as UUs in 2001 as
compared with 502,000 in 1990, the number of members belonging to UU
societies declined from 282,000 to 218,000 from 1968 to 2001. This
represents an aggregate decline of 7 percent. Less than 2 percent of
UU congregations account for 24 percent of the growth in the
denomination. "This means that about 20 congregations are doing
significant growth for us," commented Rev. Cooley, "But 30 percent
have shrunk by 10 percent or more in the last decade."
"How do UUs compare to other denominations? Over the same time period,
Presbyterians have declined 50.1%, Methodists declined 52%, UCC
declined of 60% while Evangelicals have grown by 50% or more. The most
conservative churches are growing and the most liberal churches are
growing.
==>"Churches that try to please everyone are losing membership," said
Rev. Cooley."<==
http://www.uua.org/events/generalassembly/2007/choicesthat/30825.shtml
The statistics back this guy up. The Bahai Faith in the united states
during that same time frame went from 10,000 to the 150,000 it is
today. When you consider it as a forgein religion with a guy and his
fez, it's impressive. Baha'is don't need to apologize for our point of
view nor do we need to please everyone. we are obliged to think and
treat people with love. The mistake has been to ignore our traditions
and to seek the please everyone attitude.
> The point of my religion is not membership
>based upon sexual preference.
Good, that's how it should be.
>I am not about to advocate any sanction of a Baha'i for sexual
>activity. I would hope other Baha'is would be Baha'i-like and leave
>this stuff alone.
agreed. I really get the feeling that your not into reading what I
say. I'd like to claim that my feelings are hurt, but if you want to
denounce me all the while presenting mostly my view, I could think of
no greater compliment.
mike...@yahoo.com
>I don't know where you're getting the idea that >Baha'u'llah wants marriages to be baby-factories >from. That seems to be an individual interpretation >of yours you are putting on as an extra condition to
>what you think marriages are for.
"Marry, O people, that from you may appear he who will remember Me
amongst My servants; this is one of My commandments unto you; obey it
as an assistance to yourselves."
(Compilations, Baha'i Prayers, p. 102)
I wonder if He's proposing spontaneous generation? While I'd admitt
that there are nicer ways than my choice of words for describing it,
the end result is the same. All the same it's the marriage prayer and
as best I can tell the reason supplied for marriage.
>I'd be interested to know how your advice to a gay >man who already has a husband "keeping it quiet" >applies.
Short of holding hands, french kissing etc. or other overt acts of
sexual affection which Baha'is Gay or not are not supposed to do in
public anyway. I don't see why any Baha'i would have a need to know
the relationship of two men (or women) appearing together. It's simply
not a concern. Heterosexual men who show up in pairs and are friends
with intimate details of each others lives are never asked if they are
gay? So why would there even be a need to make it an issue. Most
intelligent adults who figure it out will likely not care to pursue or
'witch hunt' the matter.
>Personally, I think the seeker may come across "gay >people not welcome here"
Thats your spin. But hardley my position. Oddly Kent inadvertently
described much of our position on the matter. Our sexuality is a
private issue between the individual believer and God . How we choose
to display it, regulate it or with whom we choose to share it, is
another issue.
No one is obliged to ask if you are Gay anymore than if you
masturbate or participate in any other sexual behavior. But when you
make it a public issue, that is your choice.
Want to introduce your friend, great. Go to it. The Baha'i rules of
public behavior make it impossible to distinguish the heterosexual
from the homosexual couple. So unless you volunteer your status it may
or may not be an issue depending upon the Baha'i you are talking with.
At the end of the day no one is forced to be Baha'i. It's a personal
choice, and its' highly unlikely that any Baha'i will ever take an
aggressive stance on this position other than to protect its' own
position. Frankly, as Kent puts it, this is a non-issue and should
neither challenge nor impede ones' desire to be a Baha'i. If it is an
issue then perhaps the person is what I'd call a consumer of religion
and not appreciating the true purpose or value of religion.
compx2
> Really? How? Merely labels. Sounds like political spin to me and
> nothing more.
I have been here on srb almost continually since its inception. I
have heard it all, but only recently, the past five years or so, have
I been able to hear the Baha'i Party Line as it plays to reasonable
people. By reasonable people I mean those who understand that
restrictions on people based on sexual preference or sex means
intolerance toward those people based on sexual preference or sex.
There is no doubt that the Baha'i Party Line restricts people based
upon sexual preferences or sex. Do you deny it? Do you really think
it is productive to debate that issue?
My issue is that the Baha'i Party Line is not the Baha'i Faith, and I
would rather talk about my issue than defend the Baha'i Party Line
which I view as your view. I put it this way: Baha'is can believe in
all manner of ridiculous interpretation of calamity or future world
commonwealth without molestation from those promoting most of the
debate on newsgroups and SRB. But let them promote sexual tolerance
and we arrive at this type of objection from those promoting
themselves as Baha'is. It is as though being silly is okay, but being
reasonable is not tolerated in the Baha'i Faith.
> So
> long as you can respect our covenant which includes the Guardian and
> our administration then I have no problems with a diversity of
> opinion.
Yeah, and I will let you be a Baha'i as well.
> If tomorrow our elected administration adopted your
> views on this matter,
Yeah, well, constant speculation of "what ifs" leave me bored.
> Not through polarization,
> extremism, tantrums and mindless labels when your view isn't adopted,
> but through rational consultation and acceptance of the groups
> decision.
So that is my issue. When you interpret Baha'i doctrine to be
intolerant, and you support that doctrine I call that polarizing, if
not extremism, mindless labels, etc. Rational consultation would
admit that restrictions on groups is intolerance of those groups.
> Baha'is do worry too much over issues like this
> when there are bigger moral issues like back-biting..etc. that we
> should all be working on. Is your point here to agree with me. Perhaps
> you should read what I'm writing.
The points I see you making here and on other threads do not seem to
me spiritually uplifting, promoting unity, self betterment,
generousity, atonement, all manner of virtuous behavior and life
affirming, soul wrenching, Writings affirming self dedication. We
could all do with more virtue and encouragement. Perhaps we, as
Baha'is, should begin and end all our dealings with all people
following this sort of example. What do you think?
> Sounds like a prejudiced statement to me. You've just characterized
> 5-6 million people most of whom you've never met. Is this really
> reflective of who you are? apparently it's in line with your need to
> label views that you don't read.
Doesn't your interaction with me here seem to support my view? Isn't
your statement polarizing, and mine, well, at least it is true as it
refers to your lines written and quoted above? If you support the
views I espouse (you say you agree) it seems to me you should show
it, and not point out that I don't personally know 5-6 million
Baha'is. Is your point that these 5-6 million Baha'is don't post here
and might very well agree with you and me? Because if that is your
point, well, you could have made that point in better ways. It
appears to me you are more interested in discrediting me and my view,
even though you say you agree with me.
> Hardley, if you follow the headlines today you'll know that this is a
> divisive issue which affects our society as a whole and reflects into
> the Baha'i community.
Okay, point taken. Baha'is have a higher divorce rate than the
general population, or at least we used to. Perhaps we have more
problems than the general population. Perhaps striving to follow
God's Laws for this day makes us less admirable and less virtuous than
the general population. Maybe I am wrong, that the problem is not
that we focus on the wrong teachings but rather God's Chosen People
are anal retentive, neurotic facists. Only time will tell.
> You're in
> for a cold reality check on this issue.
I would welcome clarification. It seems to me your statistics, though
citing growth in percentages of some religious affiliations, show an
overall significant loss of people affiliating with religions.
Statistics are 80% correct 30% of the time.
> Baha'is don't need to apologize for our point of
> view nor do we need to please everyone. we are obliged to think and
> treat people with love. The mistake has been to ignore our traditions
> and to seek the please everyone attitude.
I thought we agreed that unity of the Baha'i Faith meant allowing each
of us our own understanding of God, God's True Religion, His Writings
and affiliation with His administrative order. You seem now to be
promoting the same old intolerance we have seen in our religion
instead of promoting our unity under His Godhead.
> agreed. I really get the feeling that your not into reading what I
> say.
Ditto.
Warm Baha'i Love. --Kent
mike...@yahoo.com
>My issue is that the Baha'i Party Line is not the Baha'i Faith, and I
>would rather talk about my issue than defend the Baha'i Party Line
>which I view as your view.
I think this is a key point you raise here. The Baha'i Faith is the
Baha'i party line. The Baha'i community in essence becomes through
consultation the de facto Guardian. Meaning that as a community,
through consultation we come to terms on what is or isn't acceptable.
To illustrait if tomorrow Baha'is as a community decided that
homosexuals shouldn't lose their voting rights, it would be so. Oddly
when gay people leave the faith or openly assume a hostile stance to
the administration they inadvertantly undermine their own potential
rights in the Baha'i community and undermine the possibility of
change.
The Baha'i community will never change what the Guardian enacted, but
it may change the legislation on the matter. There are already
examples of this. The law of divorce (for example). Baha'u'llah in the
Aqdas stated that Baha'is may forgo the year of patience if a spouse
is known to be unfaithful, but in actuality the administration has
chosen to still require Baha'is to live out their year even if a
spouse is openly cheating. I can see the wisdom in the
Administration's choice on the matter and I don't debate it, but in
practicality I also recognize that it is different from what
Baha'u'llah stated in the Aqdas.
My point is that our administration represents the mindset of our
community. This mindset can be changed only through consultation and/
or the introduction of new Baha'is. But if you marginalize these new
Baha'is at the outset by enciting them into a political process
against the administration you ironically subvert your own intentions.
> I put it this way: Baha'is can believe in
>all manner of ridiculous interpretation of calamity or future world
>commonwealth without molestation from those promoting most of the
>debate on newsgroups and SRB. But let them promote sexual tolerance
>and we arrive at this type of objection from those promoting
>themselves as Baha'is. It is as though being silly is okay, but being
>reasonable is not tolerated in the Baha'i Faith.
There is a reason for this seeming absurdity. The calamity people are
not adopting a stance that is in direct confrontation with the
Guardian or the administration. They're not out there trying to form
the calamity party. And to be fair there are plenty of hints at
calamity in our writings. But the sexual tolerance people have
unwittingly associated themselves with a covenant-breaker position by
attempting to undermine the Guardians translations on the matter. All
the while being clueless that by doing so they have forced the Baha'i
community in the opposite direction. Worse yet, they discredit
theirselves when attacking his translations that native Iranians
accept at face value. This shows a deep failure on their part to
understand the mechanics of the Baha'i administration.
>> Not through polarization,
>> extremism, tantrums and mindless labels when your view isn't adopted,
>> but through rational consultation and acceptance of the groups
>> decision.
>So that is my issue. When you interpret Baha'i doctrine to be
>intolerant, and you support that doctrine I call that polarizing, if
>not extremism, mindless labels, etc. Rational consultation would
>admit that restrictions on groups is intolerance of those groups.
By your standards what you say is true, but this is a big world with
a diversity of opinion and with the majority of people as you define
them being intolerant. What is your answer? To ignore them and walk
away from the table until they burn your skyscrapers? This is the
problem, it's why we have war. Politics don't work and you are seeing
this in action. The real answer is to let go of your ego and come to
the table and consult in the true spirit of consultation. Ultimately
it is to trust that what is true will come to be.
If you sincerely want to change the world and/or the Baha'i community
then my advice is this. Do not marginalize the Gay community by
encouraging it to adopt an anti-guardian/ anti-administration tact. Do
not form parties. Instead teach the people _you know_ to be Baha'i
and trust in the result of majority consultation. The administration
will always reflect the sentiments in totality of the community.
mac...@beloved.com
>
>
> To illustrait if tomorrow Baha'is as a community decided that
> homosexuals shouldn't lose their voting rights, it would be so.
administrative order have always decided that homosexuals shouldn't
lose their voting rights.
The rule, as I understood, was and is that to lose your voting rights
on a sexual issue your behaviour had to be so flagrant as to amount to
a public rejection of Baha'u'llah's teachings on sexual issues. Just
to be homosexual or to, in private, fail to live up to any of
Baha'u'llah's teaching is not and, I believe, never has been grounds
for loss of voting rights.
Here is Shofhi Effendi on the subject:
"He feels, therefore, that, through loving advice, through repeated
warnings, any friends who are flagrantly immoral should be assisted,
and, if possible, restrained. If their activities overstep all bounds
and become a matter of public scandal, then the Assembly can consider
depriving them of their voting rights. However, he does not advise
this course of action' and feels it should only be resorted to in very
flagrant cases."
(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 367)
Note that is must be a "matter of public scandal" before an Assembly
can consider loss of voting rights. Even then he does not advise this
course of action.
Frankly, in modern Australia where I live, its hard to imagine
someone's homosexuality becoming a "matter of public scandal".
This does not, of course, alter our own individual attempts, as
homosexuals, heterosexuals or whatever we sometimes think we may be,to
live up to Baha'u'llah's counsels of perfection.
> The law of divorce (for example). Baha'u'llah in the
> Aqdas stated that Baha'is may forgo the year of patience if a spouse
> is known to be unfaithful, but in actuality the administration has
> chosen to still require Baha'is to live out their year even if a
> spouse is openly cheating. I can see the wisdom in the
> Administration's choice on the matter and I don't debate it, but in
> practicality I also recognize that it is different from what
> Baha'u'llah stated in the Aqdas.
>
What passage in the Aqdas are you thinking of? I know a passage
"Should a woman be divorced in consequence of a proven act of
infidelity, she shall receive no maintenance during her period of
waiting. Thus hath the day-star of Our commandment shone forth
resplendent from the firmament of justice. Truly, the Lord loveth
union and harmony and abhorreth separation and divorce.
" (Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 44)
However that relates to the financial arrangements during the year of
patience not forgoing it (at least in the English but also in Shoghi
Effendi's codification of the Aqdas which was written in English I
believe so translation issues don't seem to arise.
For the benefit of newcomers I should point out that the Baha'i Faith
has always applied the principle that laws expressed for one gender
apply in the reverse
"It is apparent from the Guardian's writings that where Bahá'u'lláh
has expressed a law as between a man and a woman it applies, mutatis
mutandis, between a woman and a man unless the context should make
this impossible." (The Universal House of Justice, Messages 1963 to
1986, p. 272)
compx2
You neglected to deal with this:
Me: "Perhaps striving to follow God's Laws for this day makes us less
admirable and less virtuous than the general population. Maybe I am
wrong, that the problem is not that we focus on the wrong teachings
but rather God's Chosen People are anal retentive, neurotic facists.
Only time will tell."
You:
> I think this is a key point you raise here. The Baha'i Faith is the
> Baha'i party line. The Baha'i community in essence becomes through
> consultation the de facto Guardian.
If I thought that was true I would resign this instant. If Baha'is
continue to try to convince me that God's Religion is supposed to be
as you say it is, Mikera, then who would want to be a member? The
answer is only those others who do not make sense. No rational person
would be a Baha'i, and from what you say, the Baha'i Faith doesn't
want them.
But that is not my point. My point is that God does not want the
Baha'i Faith as you define it. By definition God is better than
that. According to Baha'u'llah and the Baha'i Writings (but according
to you, not the Baha'i Faith) God wants us to strive for virtue,
dignity, nobility, not pig-headed, nonsense. If God were what you and
the rest of the Baha'i Faith believes it is then I would be atheist.
The Religion of God is beyond me. But I learned about Him from the
Baha'i Teachings. Others learned about the Religion of God from other
Sources, and that does not make God and His Religion less true.
Neither does not following the Baha'i Faith or even not recognizing
Baha'i Administration mean that anyone is lost or going to hell or on
the wrong path. Those followers of the One True Religion know it, and
know their bretheren regardless of the names of their religions.
That is the point I am trying to make. You and all the Baha'is have
it backwards. The Religion of God comes from the people who shine the
Light of God. And those who do not shine that Light, the Universally
Admired and Sought by all, Known to all, the Day Spring of the Ancient
of Days... Those who do not call people to that Light and shine for
all to see are lost even if they know the Greatest Name of God and
attend Feasts.
Your Baha'i Friend, -- Kent
mike...@yahoo.com
>The Religion of God is beyond me. But I learned about Him from the
>Baha'i Teachings. Others learned about the Religion of God from other
>Sources, and that does not make God and His Religion less true.
>Neither does not following the Baha'i Faith or even not recognizing
>Baha'i Administration mean that anyone is lost or going to hell or on
>the wrong path. Those followers of the One True Religion know it, and
>know their bretheren regardless of the names of their religions.
Perhaps this is the quote you are reflecting on?
Why do you call yourselves Christians, Buddhists, Mohammedans,
Bahais? You must learn to distinguish the sun of truth from whichever
point of the horizon it is shining! People think religion is confined
in an edifice, to be worshipped at an altar. In reality it is an
attitude toward divinity which is reflected through life.
"This movement eludes organization -- it is the realization of a new
spirit. The foundation of that spirit is the love of God; and its
method, the love and service of mankind. Many who have never heard of
this revelation teach its laws and spiritual truths. These people are
performing what BAHA'O'LLAH hath commanded though they never heard of
him. The power of BAHA'O'LLAH'S words is compelling -- therefore, you
must know and love them. For instance, in the spring season trees
burst forth into verdure, though they are not conscious of the
sunshine, of the falling rain or the gentle breeze -- nevertheless,
the power of nature urges them on to yield forth their fruits."
(Abdu'l-Baha, Divine Philosophy, p. 14)
>That is the point I am trying to make. You and all the Baha'is have
>it backwards. The Religion of God comes from the people who shine the
>Light of God. And those who do not shine that Light, the Universally
>Admired and Sought by all, Known to all, the Day Spring of the Ancient
>of Days... Those who do not call people to that Light and shine for
>all to see are lost even if they know the Greatest Name of God and
>attend Feasts.
In spirit there is nothing wrong with what you state. But in practical
application you must consider this quote:
Christ and Bahá'u'lláh
A friend asked how the teachings of Bahá'u'lláh contrasted with the
teachings of Jesus Christ. "The teachings are the same." declared
'Abdu'l-Bahá; "It is the same foundation and the same temple. Truth is
one, and without division. The teachings of Jesus are in a
concentrated form. Men do not agree to this day as to the meaning of
many of His sayings. His teachings are as a flower in the bud. Today,
the bud is unfolding into a flower! Bahá'u'lláh has expanded and
fulfilled the teachings, and has applied them in detail to the whole
world.
(Abdu'l-Baha, Abdu'l-Baha in London, p. 92)
The Baha'i Faith is that flower, which represents the culmination of
Christianity among other religions. There are now 30,000+ sects of
christianity, no one can agree on what the plant looks like? Can you
claim to look at a seed and know the flowers it will produce or how to
go about building the tree? But Baha'u'llah gave us this framework.
In practical application it provides us with some clear cut answers.
Answers like how do you achieve peace? Do you go to war, do you fight,
do you impose your vision of the truth on others? Or do you forgo your
ego, let go of your personal attachment to your vision of the truth,
share it with others in a spirit of consultation and resign yourself
to the answer that comes from this consultation?
What is evil? We are enjoined to raise the flags of righteousness and
tolerance. This means being righteous ourselves, while being tolerant
of others. You claim righteousness and harp on the Baha'is as somehow
evil, but you are intolerant of any who would disagree with your
vision of truth. What was your phrase?
mike...@yahoo.com
>The rule, as I understood, was and is that to lose your voting rights
>on a sexual issue your behaviour had to be so flagrant as to amount to
>a public rejection of Baha'u'llah's teachings on sexual issues. Just
For brevity's sake I wasn't clear in my original posting. Yes, I
completely agree with what you are stating. No arguments about this.
>"He feels, therefore, that, through loving advice, through repeated
>warnings, any friends who are flagrantly immoral should be assisted,
>and, if possible, restrained. If their activities overstep all bounds
>and become a matter of public scandal, then the Assembly can consider
>depriving them of their voting rights. However, he does not advise
>this course of action' and feels it should only be resorted to in very
>flagrant cases."
> (Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 367)
>What passage in the Aqdas are you thinking of? I know a passage
>"Should a woman be divorced in consequence of a proven act of
>infidelity, she shall receive no maintenance during her period of
That's the one. The key word here is the past tense: "divorced" prior
to her year of patience. In the US, you are expected to live out the
year of patience and not initiate the divorce until the end of the
year of patience. Even if she's pregnant by a third party. Harsh, but
true.
My point wasn't to dive into the justice or wisdom of this law.
Personally, I see its' wisdom and have no interest in disputing it.
Merely to point out that it is in practice different than what I read
in the Aqdas.
As an aside, I can't speak for Australia but in the US the financial
laws are also still applied for the duration of that year. I guess one
consolation is that an average pregnancy takes nine months.
Really my goal isn't to argue this. I'm merely pointing out that in
practice the Baha'i Faith becomes a reflection of what the Baha'i
community agrees on through consultation. I firmly believe that
whatever we do agree on in unity through consultation in our
assemblies becomes endorsed (if you will) by God and in practice
becomes the will of God. The keystone to all of this is our unity, and
everything else is secondary.
mac...@beloved.com
> >What passage in the Aqdas are you thinking of? I know a passage
> >"Should a woman be divorced in consequence of a proven act of
> >infidelity, she shall receive no maintenance during her period of
>
> That's the one. The key word here is the past tense: "divorced" prior
> to her year of patience. In the US, you are expected to live out the
> year of patience and not initiate the divorce until the end of the
> year of patience. Even if she's pregnant by a third party. Harsh, but
> true.
>
To be honest I think to emphasise the past tense in a phrase like
"Should a woman be divorced..." is stretching a point but thats only
me and my use of English. I can't read the original so I wouldn't
want to make a fuss about it. Still I find your idea that the Baha'i
communities collective standards and behaviour effectively fulfilling
a role similar to the Guardian interesting enough to pursue. However
I don't think this example works - the passage in the Synopsis and
Codification is
"(d) The wife who is to be divorced as a result of her unfaithfulness
forfeits the payment of the expenses during the waiting period." so I
think the community is actually faithfully following the Guardian's
interpretation in this case. I'm afraid I don't know the financial
rulings that apply in Australia - I actually don't think there would
be many cases where it would become an issue - I think most couples
resolve it themselves. I'm fairly confident that if an Assembly had to
rule they would rule on the basis of their understanding of the
Writings, authoritative interpretations, and elucidations rather than
community beliefs and practices.
Still the core idea is interesting and, I suspect, is closer to what
really happens in religious communities then more cmmon Baha'i views
which see everything in terms of the Writings and the administrative
order. I have heard that some versions of Buddhism see the community
(Sangha) as a whole as a source of wisdom almost on a par with the
original teachings but have no real knwledge of that.
mac...@beloved.com
> >What passage in the Aqdas are you thinking of? I know a passage
> >"Should a woman be divorced in consequence of a proven act of
> >infidelity, she shall receive no maintenance during her period of
>
> That's the one. The key word here is the past tense: "divorced" prior
> to her year of patience. In the US, you are expected to live out the
> year of patience and not initiate the divorce until the end of the
> year of patience. Even if she's pregnant by a third party. Harsh, but
> true.
>
compx2
Baha'i Faith from the Baha'i Writings, and I think about those
Writings, and the teachings, and the Baha'is, and I become confused
about how the Baha'is can be so wrong when they have those Writings
and those Teachings. They have the right guidance, but they are oh so
wrongly guided.
And now Mikera reminds me that Baha'is think of the Writings and the
Teachings as axiomatic quotes, lines in a legal document, and then I
know why Baha'is are not Baha'i like.
With your help, I now clearly se why Baha'is can see "Be generous" and
say that is not a law, but cutting one's hair is a law. How guidance
is different from a command. And that which was sent down in clouds
of glory should be analyzed for gematria and correlation with pearls
of wisdom, but never guide one's behavior. Or if one's behavior is
affected, let everyone know it is for teaching the Faith, that be
especially good to non-Baha'is... Or maybe I have that backwards.
Anyway, the point is I don't use quotes to back up a point. Truth is
truth regardless who or Who says it.
When Baha'is get that point straight it will be a much better
religion.
Warm Baha'i Love, --Kent
> >dignity, nobility, not pig-headed, nonsense.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -