Breaking the materialism
mike3
I read this:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.bahai/msg/a383968bdb6b96d3?hl=en&dmode=source
"We here in America are materialistic and do not understand most
spiritual things. We all have spiritual stations, some higher than
others. The Hands of the Cause of God were regular believers like
you and me that did things that especially pleased the Beloved
Guardian of the Faith and the Sign of God on earth. As a result the
Beloved Guardian elevated their spiritual stations and called them
Hands of the Cause of God. Hand of the Cause of God Bill Sears
was one of them.
We are taught we who have lower spiritual stations do not
understand those with higher spiritual stations. We can not
understand Hand of the Cause Bill Sears because his spiritual
station is out of sight for us. He understands us but we do not
understand him. The Beloved Guardian has a very, very high
spiritual station, higher than the House of Jstice. The House of
Justice can not elevate spiritual stations like the Beloved Guardian
and for this reason there are no more Hands of the Cause of God.
There are only two Hands of the Cause of God still with us in this
plane, Mr. Furutan and Mr. Varqa.
Besides the Beloved Guardian is Prophetic and the House of
Justice is legelative only and not prophetic. Please read the letters
of the Beloved Guardian to the NSA-USA in the CIDADEL of FAITH
and in THE ADVENT OF DIVINE JUSTICE. Please read the letters
of the Beloved Guardian to other NSAs around the world, especially
India and England. The Baha'i Faith is spiritual and not material.
We Americans though we are spiritual our stations are so low we
really live on a material plane and even though we think we live
spiritual lives we really judge and look at the world with material
eyes. This is evidenced by our low numbers of believers compared
to our national population. The love of God in our country has
mostly died out and has been replaced by lifeless hearts and worldly
desires. morgan, DFC."
Does this mean that there is no way an American can possibly get out
of this American trap and become more spiritual, and get "above" the
material plane? As it says that the "stations" of America is so low,
and also implies that only great authorities that aren't here any more
(like the Guardian) can raise the station.
What's up with this bit? Does this mean that one is "DOOMED TO
MATERIALISM" and can *never* break free, even if they accept something
like the Baha'i Faith, because the American thing is so unshakable?
What gives with all this?!
t h
First this is just someone's opinion. He is paraphrasing things from
various sources.
He is ignoring other letters and articles from Abdul-Baha and Shoghi
Effendi about
the high spiritual station of America and Canada.
So my opinions:
Yes our society and culture in North America is highly materialistic.
All the media
constantly broadcast the message that happiness and fulfillment depend
on how
much stuff you have - he who dies with the most toys wins. A great sex
life (with
a knockout gorgeous stud or babe) is an essential component of that
fulfillment and
you can get it by buying all this stuff. You can't get much more
materialistic than
that!
No it is not impossible to rise above this materialism. Some people do
it all the
time. Some Baha'is do it. Some other folks do it. Blanket
condemnation of all
Americans may be politically correct with some people but it is not
justified. Do
a google search on voluntary simplicity - there are lots of people even
organizing
to do this!
What gives is that this is just the opinions of one person who was perhaps
discouraged or disillusioned when he wrote that piece.
Cheers,
Tom
sonj...@gmail.com
> "We here in America are materialistic and do not understand most
> spiritual things. ...
> We Americans though we are spiritual our stations are so low we
> really live on a material plane and even though we think we live
> spiritual lives we really judge and look at the world with material
> eyes. This is evidenced by our low numbers of believers compared
> to our national population. The love of God in our country has
> mostly died out and has been replaced by lifeless hearts and worldly
> desires. morgan, DFC."
> Does this mean that one is "DOOMED TO
> MATERIALISM" and can *never* break free, even if they accept something
> like the Baha'i Faith, because the American thing is so unshakable?
> What gives with all this?!
What's up? Someone called morgan, DFC, has made some generalisations
and expressed his opinion. I don't think either holds any water, but
he's quite entitled to his opinions.
Sen
diamondsouled
IMHO this focus on the 'materialism' of others is symptomatic of
other such things which inflict the Baha'i community, such as
apocalypticism and triumphalism.
When you believe that your personal system of belief is the only
salvation for the entire world, and that the present world order must
be rolled up so your new world order can be rolled out, such unhealthy
focus on the 'materialism' of others can manifest itself.
The essence of spirituality is a focus of the goodness of others and
an active cultivation of such goodness in others and ones self.
As Abdu'l-Baha himself said:
Let them see no one as their enemy, or as wishing them ill, but think
of all humankind as their friends; regarding the alien as an intimate,
the stranger as a companion, staying free of prejudice, drawing no
lines.
(Abdu'l-Baha, Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha, p. 1)
Drawing lines between ourselves and others because of perceived
materialism is counterproductive.
Cheers
Larry Rowe
mike...@yahoo.com
>Does this mean that there is no way an American can possibly get out
>of this American trap and become more spiritual, and get "above" the
>material plane? As it says that the "stations" of America is so low,
>and also implies that only great authorities that aren't here any more
>(like the Guardian) can raise the station.
>What's up with this bit? Does this mean that one is "DOOMED TO
>MATERIALISM" and can *never* break free, even if they accept something
>like the Baha'i Faith, because the American thing is so unshakable?
>What gives with all this?!
I'm not so sure about the person you are citing (His english is
questionable). I
can't say that he represents a mainstream Baha'i viewpoint of America.
The reality is
that america has both extremes. While it is true that america is
confronted with high
degrees of materialism, it is also true that people who rise above
this materialism
are that much more spiritual than any one else and that's not just
Baha'is.
Some quotes to mull over..
And lastly this glorious promise in another of those immortal Tablets:
"Should
success crown your enterprise, America will assuredly evolve into a
center from which
waves of spiritual power will emanate, and the throne of the Kingdom
of God, will, in
the plenitude of its majesty and glory, be firmly established."
(Shoghi Effendi, Citadel of Faith, p. 29)
In other words if Baha'is succeed in teaching the faith here, this
country may
without opposition become both the material and spiritual throne of
the world.
I find the United States of America an exceedingly progressive nation,
the government
just, the people in a state of readiness and the principle of equality
established to
an extraordinary degree. Therefore it is my hope that inasmuch as the
standard of
international peace must be upraised it may be upraised upon this
continent, for this
nation is more deserving and has greater capacity for such an initial
step than any
other.
(Abdu'l-Baha, Foundations of World Unity, p. 26)
Spiritual tests can be good or bad depending on how you look at it.
Jesus was
crucified for his spirituality. America has a great spiritual destiny.
But that
destiny might not be what some people want.
"AMERICA TO EVOLVE UNTIL LAST TASK IS DISCHARGED
Whatever the Hand of a beneficent and inscrutable Destiny has reserved
for this
youthful, this virile, this idealistic, this spiritually blessed and
enviable nation,
however severe the storms which may buffet it in the days to come in
either
hemisphere, however sweeping the changes which the impact of
cataclysmic forces from
without, and the stirrings of a Divine embryonic Order from within,
will effect in
its structure and life, we may, confident in the words uttered by
'Abdu'l-Bahá, feel
assured that that great republic -- the shell that enshrines so
precious a member of
the world community of the followers of His Father -- will continue to
evolve,
undivided and undefeatable, until the sum total of its contributions
to the birth,
the rise and the fruition of that world civilization, the child of the
Most Great
Peace and hallmark of the Golden Age of the Dispensation of
Bahá'u'lláh, will have
been made, and its last task discharged."
(Shoghi Effendi, Citadel of Faith, p. 37)
I think this quote about sums it all up.
diamondsouled
Justices views are on materialism:
These profound possibilities reside in the will of the individual to
take initiative, to act in accordance with the guidance offered by
Bahá'í institutions, and to maintain such action regardless of the
myriad distractions posed by the disintegration of a society adrift in
a sea of materialism.
(The Universal House of Justice, A Wider Horizon, Selected Letters
1983-1992, p. 27)
It is portentous of the profound change in the structure of present-
day society which attainment to the Lesser Peace implies. Hopeful as
are the signs, we cannot forget that the dark passage of the Age of
Transition has not been fully traversed; it is as yet long, slippery
and tortuous. For godlessness is rife, materialism rampant.
(The Universal House of Justice, A Wider Horizon, Selected Letters
1983-1992, p. 79)
-------
Cheers
Larry Rowe
mike3
> >Does this mean that there is no way an American can possibly get out
> >of this American trap and become more spiritual, and get "above" the
> >material plane? As it says that the "stations" of America is so low,
> >and also implies that only great authorities that aren't here any more
> >(like the Guardian) can raise the station.
> >What's up with this bit? Does this mean that one is "DOOMED TO
> >MATERIALISM" and can *never* break free, even if they accept something
> >like the Baha'i Faith, because the American thing is so unshakable?
> >What gives with all this?!
>
> I'm not so sure about the person you are citing (His english is
> questionable). I
> can't say that he represents a mainstream Baha'i viewpoint of America.
> The reality is
> that america has both extremes. While it is true that america is
> confronted with high
> degrees of materialism, it is also true that people who rise above
> this materialism
> are that much more spiritual than any one else and that's not just
> Baha'is.
>
But does this only apply to Americans, i.e. what happens to someone in
some other country that rises above whatever materialism, corruption,
etc. they have in that place? Will they be unable to get it, no matter
how much they want it, and they'll have to suffer some awful spiritual
misery because of it just because they weren't born in America? I sure
hope not.
Furthermore, if it's not just Baha'is that can be "much more
spiritual",
then how does this jive with stuff that suggests it is God-given
obligation
to accept the messenger, as doesn't that equal being a Baha'i? And if
so,
then how can they be "much more spiritual"? If they haven't done that
then
haven't they failed one of the most if not THE most important duty
there
is? If so, how can they be more spiritual? Please note that I'm not
saying
they aren't [more spiritual], rather I think there's something I've
missed
or keep missing.
Who would this be, and why not?
t h
some people want."
Well many Americans expect something like a 'Pax Americanus' where
American ideas of
capitalism, unlimited property rights, rampant materialism, promiscuity,
unbridled freedom of
expression (consider TV advertising and programming), factionalism, etc.
are adopted by
the whole world and we all come under the rubric of 'he who dies with
the most toys wins'
or some such. Some American Baha'is even may expect something like this
tho they would
leave out the worst parts. The problem with this is that the worst
parts of American culture
are intrinsic to our current (I am American) political/economic/legal
structure.
What do you see the future (say 300 years out) global culture looking lik
e?
Cheers,
Tom
diamondsouled
I would think that it applies to the developed 'West' in general but
since America has been at the centre of the development of capitalism
in the West it is also, in a manner of speaking, the centre of
materialism in the West.
I do have to agree that the divide between the developed world and
the third world needs to bridged. Just how to do this without having
to resort to dictatorial governance is the question.
The present financial crisis is bound to have a lasting and perhaps
permanent effect on America's role as the centre of capitalism in the
world.
With China as well as India rising quickly to fill in where America
has fallen there is likely to be a profound shift in our geopolitical
reality.
James Lovelock who proposed the Gaia hypothesis states that he
believes that our human population will be reduced to 1 billion people
or less by the end of this millenium and that much of the equatorial
region of our planet will become uninhabitable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Lovelock
If this scenario is true I would imagine that humanities views to do
with materialism will go through a profound shift as well.
Cheers
Larry Rowe
mike3
<snip>
> "Who would this be and why not?" "But that destiny might not be what
> some people want."
>
> Well many Americans expect something like a 'Pax Americanus' where
> American ideas of
> capitalism, unlimited property rights,
This one I'm curious about. What exactly is the "proper" level of
property
rights, anyway? I can't imagine none at all, either. So it's got to be
somewhere in the middle.
> rampant materialism, promiscuity,
^^^^^^^^^^^
You mean like all the "sexy" clothes and stuff, all the bikinis, etc.?
> unbridled freedom of
> expression (consider TV advertising and programming),
Like with all the crude sex references, the babes, bloody horror,
etc.?
> factionalism, etc.
> are adopted by
> the whole world and we all come under the rubric of 'he who dies with
> the most toys wins'
> or some such.
Which is a sad view of life, actually.
> Some American Baha'is even may expect something like this
> tho they would
> leave out the worst parts. The problem with this is that the worst
> parts of American culture
> are intrinsic to our current (I am American) political/economic/legal
> structure.
>
But can anything to be done about it? Also, in the Baha'i religion one
is prohibited from partisan forms of politics, so what would be the
Baha'i
method for addressing the problems of America? Is there some
nonpartisan
method?
> What do you see the future (say 300 years out) global culture looking lik
> e?
>
300 years is quite far in the future. But I hope we'll have more
peace,
less materialism, better morals, etc. I just can't see it going on the
way
it is right now for really long any more.
mike3
> Hi Mike,
>
> I would think that it applies to the developed 'West' in general but
> since America has been at the centre of the development of capitalism
> in the West it is also, in a manner of speaking, the centre of
> materialism in the West.
>
> I do have to agree that the divide between the developed world and
> the third world needs to bridged. Just how to do this without having
> to resort to dictatorial governance is the question.
>
What would _you_ think should be done?
> The present financial crisis is bound to have a lasting and perhaps
> permanent effect on America's role as the centre of capitalism in the
> world.
>
> With China as well as India rising quickly to fill in where America
> has fallen there is likely to be a profound shift in our geopolitical
> reality.
>
> James Lovelock who proposed the Gaia hypothesis states that he
> believes that our human population will be reduced to 1 billion people
> or less by the end of this millenium and that much of the equatorial
> region of our planet will become uninhabitable.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Lovelock
>
> If this scenario is true I would imagine that humanities views to do
> with materialism will go through a profound shift as well.
>
Also, and I dont now if you've heard about it, but "peak oil" I see as
probably having a singificant effect on materialism too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil
When we run out of the oil we need to fuel our greed, I bet that will
probably shake it up quite a bit as well. And this will be much, much
less than a millennium from now. Peak oil may already have happened,
too, the only question is when will the "crunch" get bad enough. It
could cause a sigmificant population crash too, esp. in those areas
most
dependent on petroleum for food production, e.g. USA. It'll probably
also have a nasty effect on China too. They don't seem to be growing
less dependent on black sludge, rather more so and in the worst
time, when supplies of it are going to start dwindling. If we've
peaked
out now then in 2030 supplies will be at least as low as they were in
1988 (assuming a symmetrical curve). And with demand far higher...
well...
> Cheers
>
> Larry Rowe
mike...@yahoo.com
>What do you see the future (say 300 years out) global culture looking lik
>e?
> I do have to agree that the divide between the developed world and
> the third world needs to bridged. Just how to do this without having
> to resort to dictatorial governance is the question.
The american economy is not exportable and is heavily reliant on
slave labor. Yes, I said it, slave labor. China carries our economy
right now and china pays it's workers with a bowl of rice for an
honest days work. If that's not slavery then shoot me. That's what our
economy has been reduced to, our lifestyle and flagrant inefficiency
and opulence must be paid for.
The tragedy or liberation depending upon how you look at it is that
the system in so many ways is not sustainable. If we're talking
environment, decreases in crop yields will ultimately force famine,
and I've little doubt that the rich will be oblivious to the starving,
at least until they're on our doorsteps with guns. If we're talking
politics, the moral and political corruption will force dictatorship,
even if it hides in guise of a republican government. If we're talking
resources, we consume 75% of our worlds resources? There simply is not
enough resources to give everyone the American lifestyle and
simultaneously expect our planet to survive. Yet, we sell this.
Put it this way. If tomorrow, we magically solved the oil issue,
solved the pollution issue, and could produce a renewable clean energy
to give everyone the american lifestyle. The heat generated from cars
and household heaters/coolers in the hands of 3 billion people will be
sufficient for irreversible change to the climate.
Allow it to find it's natural tipping point and you'll be lucky to
find many people alive. I hate to contradict Baha'u'llah here but
this calamity is totally foreseeable. Most things like politics are
reversible and will have little impact on humanity in the long term.
But the environment will be an irreparable stain on this world for a
few thousand years at least. The leaders of today will assume their
place in infamy along side such people as Hitler. History will not
look kindly on this.
> The present financial crisis is bound to have a lasting and perhaps
>permanent effect on America's role as the centre of capitalism in the
>world.
The crisis is hardly over nor is it a singular event. It's just round
one in a great many on the horizon. On the short term the credit
markets are in failure(check out advanta.com) and for what is to come
you should hold on tight. Globalizing the first world currencies with
the dollar will be a last ditch effort to escape the surmounting
problems. Initially it will seem to make everyone rich.
> With China as well as India rising quickly to fill in where America
>has fallen there is likely to be a profound shift in our geopolitical
>reality.
India and China will survive only because the poor have little to
lose. In a way, they will not understand a significant difference.
My point here in all of this doom fear mongering is to point out that
our leadership is so far off the mark, that our political systems are
so vested in corporate interests that they are inept to act and
incapable of changing our direction. Ultimately, they will _all_
gladly welcome a religious war as a solution to oh so many
problems.
t h
mike3 wrote:
> On May 27, 9:24 am, t h <thdg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>
>> "Who would this be and why not?" "But that destiny might not be what
>> some people want."
>>
>> Well many Americans expect something like a 'Pax Americanus' where
>> American ideas of
>> capitalism, unlimited property rights,
>>
>
> This one I'm curious about. What exactly is the "proper" level of
> property
> rights, anyway? I can't imagine none at all, either. So it's got to be
> somewhere in the middle.
>
>
I think reasonable use that doesn't hurt others or the environment. As
a retired agronomist, I think of agricultural practices. No flow of
pollutants off the land or down to ground water. Don't allow all the
soil to erode. Oregon had land use plans that prevented some farm
properties from being converted to subdivisions. That was weakened
recently but was a very good idea if implemented cleanly without corruption.
Property rights need to be flexible and somewhat fluid. If we find an
accepted practice that is determined to be a hazard, then it must be
stopped. Should there be some compensation for property that lost
significant value because of stopping an accepted practice? Seems OK.
Renting your storefront (next to the school) to a porn business is
harmful (IMO)
>> rampant materialism, promiscuity,
>>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
> You mean like all the "sexy" clothes and stuff, all the bikinis, etc.?
>
And the TV/movies promoting sex out of marriage often on a casual
basis. Some ads do that too. Buy this perfume and you can have your
pick from the stud tree! :-)
>
>> unbridled freedom of
>> expression (consider TV advertising and programming),
>>
>
> Like with all the crude sex references, the babes, bloody horror,
> etc.?
>
yeah
>
>> factionalism, etc.
>> are adopted by
>> the whole world and we all come under the rubric of 'he who dies with
>> the most toys wins'
>> or some such.
>>
>
> Which is a sad view of life, actually.
>
>
>> Some American Baha'is even may expect something like this
>> tho they would
>> leave out the worst parts. The problem with this is that the worst
>> parts of American culture
>> are intrinsic to our current (I am American) political/economic/legal
>> structure.
>>
>>
>
> But can anything to be done about it? Also, in the Baha'i religion one
> is prohibited from partisan forms of politics, so what would be the
> Baha'i
> method for addressing the problems of America? Is there some
> nonpartisan
> method?
>
It requires patience and faith. Always promoting the unifying
principles. Pointing out the examples of partisanship causing problems
(that is easy during elections and during legislative sessions).
Understanding the alternatives and being able to talk about them
(consultation, Baha'i election process, voluntary reductions of extremes
of wealth and poverty, seeing all humanity as part of your immediate
family, ...). Eventually the body politic changes its attitude so that
destructive practices become unacceptable. Thus we have seen huge
changes on racism, womans' rights, pollution, political corruption,
education, attitude to other countries and peoples, etc. over the last
century and a half. As public attitudes change, the wrangling political
factions provide the required legislation (or new factions come to
power). I think the changed public attitudes are far more important in
getting laws passed than the political infighting.
Cheers,
Tom
mike3
<snip>
> Put it this way. If tomorrow, we magically solved the oil issue,
> solved the pollution issue, and could produce a renewable clean energy
> to give everyone the american lifestyle. The heat generated from cars
> and household heaters/coolers in the hands of 3 billion people will be
> sufficient for irreversible change to the climate.
So then it would seem that the American lifestyle has to go, as it's
just
flat out unsustainable.
<snip>
> The crisis is hardly over nor is it a singular event. It's just round
> one in a great many on the horizon. On the short term the credit
> markets are in failure(check out advanta.com) and for what is to come
> you should hold on tight. Globalizing the first world currencies with
> the dollar will be a last ditch effort to escape the surmounting
> problems. Initially it will seem to make everyone rich.
But what would be the result of a collapse of the American empire? As
not
only do I see it as woefully unsustainable, but that its doom is quite
near,
almost certainly in this millennium and quite possibly even this
century.
> India and China will survive only because the poor have little to
> lose. In a way, they will not understand a significant difference.
I suppose not, but they sure won't reach the "glory" -- i.e. the
extravagance
and craziness -- of America or whatever they dream of having right now
and will get a hard slap in the face trying to get there.
> My point here in all of this doom fear mongering is to point out that
> our leadership is so far off the mark, that our political systems are
> so vested in corporate interests that they are inept to act and
> incapable of changing our direction. Ultimately, they will _all_
> gladly welcome a religious war as a solution to oh so many
> problems.
Well actually I didn't think they were close to the mark. They're not,
obviously, and totally corrupt.
But what should we, as people, _do_ here? Esp. from the Baha'i point
of
view. In that view it seems that one is not allowed to get into the
politics,
so trying to change the political systems and leadership would
actually
seem to do more harm than good (otherwise why prohibit?)?
t h
I think the reason for avoiding political entanglements is just that -
to stay out of it. Divisive
struggles are corrupting. You develop attitudes of 'us' and 'them'. If
the Baha'is were to get
into the partisan fray then we would just be another player contributing
to the collapse of a
corrupt and unsustainable system.
Instead we are responsible for articulating the principles for a new
global system and promoting
them with our increasing capacity. We are also responsible for raising
awareness of the Source
of these principles. Shoghi Effendi has clearly stated that the social
and economic principles
that Baha'u'llah and Abdul-Baha proclaimed will be empty without the
belief that they are the
Word of God as well as practical and intelligent.
I reiterate that I do not think that partisan politics contributes much
or anything to solving social
and economic injustices or problems. Reform legislation is only passed
(or effective) when it
has overwhelming public support. Thus in the 1960s thru 1970s much of
America was horrified
at the violence against the peaceful protesters in the southern states
and inspired by their sacrifices.
Thats why President Lyndon Johnson was able to get his civil rights
legislation thru Congress.
Tom
mike3
> Hi Mike,
<snip>
> > This one I'm curious about. What exactly is the "proper" level of
> > property
> > rights, anyway? I can't imagine none at all, either. So it's got to be
> > somewhere in the middle.
>
> I think reasonable use that doesn't hurt others or the environment. As
> a retired agronomist, I think of agricultural practices. No flow of
> pollutants off the land or down to ground water. Don't allow all the
> soil to erode. Oregon had land use plans that prevented some farm
> properties from being converted to subdivisions. That was weakened
> recently but was a very good idea if implemented cleanly without corrupti
on.
>
I'd suppose so.
> Property rights need to be flexible and somewhat fluid. If we find an
> accepted practice that is determined to be a hazard, then it must be
> stopped. Should there be some compensation for property that lost
> significant value because of stopping an accepted practice? Seems OK.
>
Who would this compensation be given to? To the one whose property
lost
the value when they stopped the hazardous practices? If so, I'd think
it's
a good idea as well.
> Renting your storefront (next to the school) to a porn business is
> harmful (IMO)>> rampant materialism, promiscuity,
>
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^
> > You mean like all the "sexy" clothes and stuff, all the bikinis, etc.?
>
> And the TV/movies promoting sex out of marriage often on a casual
> basis. Some ads do that too. Buy this perfume and you can have your
> pick from the stud tree! :-)
>
Which then only serves to degrade sex even more, making it into
something
casual, i.e. it makes things more crass/promotes a more crass view and
way of approaching it.
>
>
> >> unbridled freedom of
> >> expression (consider TV advertising and programming),
>
> > Like with all the crude sex references, the babes, bloody horror,
> > etc.?
>
> yeah
>
:)
<snip>
> > But can anything to be done about it? Also, in the Baha'i religion one
> > is prohibited from partisan forms of politics, so what would be the
> > Baha'i
> > method for addressing the problems of America? Is there some
> > nonpartisan
> > method?
>
> It requires patience and faith. Always promoting the unifying
> principles. Pointing out the examples of partisanship causing problems
> (that is easy during elections and during legislative sessions).
> Understanding the alternatives and being able to talk about them
> (consultation, Baha'i election process, voluntary reductions of extremes
> of wealth and poverty, seeing all humanity as part of your immediate
> family, ...). Eventually the body politic changes its attitude so that
> destructive practices become unacceptable. Thus we have seen huge
> changes on racism, womans' rights, pollution, political corruption,
> education, attitude to other countries and peoples, etc. over the last
> century and a half. As public attitudes change, the wrangling politica
l
> factions provide the required legislation (or new factions come to
> power). I think the changed public attitudes are far more important in
> getting laws passed than the political infighting.
>
So therefore the other method (the one involving getting into that
political stuff) may *not* actually create real, lasting, true change,
but
may only contribute to more troubles?
mike3
> mike3 wrote:
<snip>
> > Well actually I didn't think they were close to the mark. They're not,
> > obviously, and totally corrupt.
>
> > But what should we, as people, _do_ here? Esp. from the Baha'i point
> > of
> > view. In that view it seems that one is not allowed to get into the
> > politics,
> > so trying to change the political systems and leadership would
> > actually
> > seem to do more harm than good (otherwise why prohibit?)?
>
> Hi Mike,
> I think the reason for avoiding political entanglements is just that -
> to stay out of it. Divisive
> struggles are corrupting. You develop attitudes of 'us' and 'them'.
If
> the Baha'is were to get
> into the partisan fray then we would just be another player contributing
> to the collapse of a
> corrupt and unsustainable system.
>
And so therefore it is not a constructive thing that can create true,
lasting
positive change, but is only a destructive thing, and one should
contribute
to the *con*structive process, not the *de*structive one.
I.e. yes, it is because it does more harm than it does good.
> Instead we are responsible for articulating the principles for a new
> global system and promoting
> them with our increasing capacity. We are also responsible for raising
> awareness of the Source
> of these principles. Shoghi Effendi has clearly stated that the social
> and economic principles
> that Baha'u'llah and Abdul-Baha proclaimed will be empty without the
> belief that they are the
> Word of God as well as practical and intelligent.
>
But how is that last bit done, anyway?
> I reiterate that I do not think that partisan politics contributes much
> or anything to solving social
> and economic injustices or problems. Reform legislation is only passed
> (or effective) when it
> has overwhelming public support. Thus in the 1960s thru 1970s much of
> America was horrified
> at the violence against the peaceful protesters in the southern states
> and inspired by their sacrifices.
> Thats why President Lyndon Johnson was able to get his civil rights
> legislation thru Congress.
>
So then one has to go for the grass roots. But isn't supporting/
opposing
the legislation a political thing?
mike3
Yes, it is only round 1 in a long series of big blows that will break
the
back of the current corrupted-to-hell system. Look up "The Long
Emergency"
for more.
> > With China as well as India rising quickly to fill in where America
> >has fallen there is likely to be a profound shift in our geopolitical
> >reality.
>
> India and China will survive only because the poor have little to
> lose. In a way, they will not understand a significant difference.
>
> My point here in all of this doom fear mongering is to point out that
> our leadership is so far off the mark, that our political systems are
> so vested in corporate interests that they are inept to act and
> incapable of changing our direction. Ultimately, they will _all_
> gladly welcome a religious war as a solution to oh so many
> problems.
And a resource war too. Because we've been too, too greedy.
I this also part of why, say, a Baha'i should not involve themselves
with the political systems? Because it is simply too corrupted and
destructive to be bothered with, and so getting in there would do only
more harm than good, and quite possibly just more harm?
Douglas McAdam
On Jul 18, 2009, at 9:21 PM, mike3 wrote:
>> My point here in all of this doom fear mongering is to point out
>> that
>> our leadership is so far off the mark, that our political systems are
>> so vested in corporate interests that they are inept to act and
>> incapable of changing our direction. Ultimately, they will _all_
>> gladly welcome a religious war as a solution to oh so many
>> problems.
>
> And a resource war too. Because we've been too, too greedy.
> I this also part of why, say, a Baha'i should not involve themselves
> with the political systems? Because it is simply too corrupted and
> destructive to be bothered with, and so getting in there would do only
> more harm than good, and quite possibly just more harm?
Dear Mike-
I agree and yet I also see a way to help make improvements without
getting mired down in the system. As citizens we have the right to
vote and to challenge certain decisions or laws and if we see an
injustice we can do something about it in a legal way without getting
enmeshed in the corruption. There are examples of Baha'is starting
up progressive SED projects, programs, even writing papers, teaching
etc. with regard to the need to change laws. I myself helped change a
law in California when I first became a Baha'i. We can encourage more
citizens to become socially active, to vote, etc.
Our present and past civil, social and religious leaders have me
doubting our education system. If the kinds of decisions being made
today, mostly coming from the supposedly well educated from ivy league
schools, are causing all these problems then we need to change our
entire education system and re-educate citizens.
regards,
doug