Crisis of Faith
compx2
the Baha'is.
It seems to me those of us who wish to be called Baha'is must follow
some inconsequential laws, but primarily live a life that attempts to
bring Glory to the Faith of God. I see many people of many religions
who do that, and see no difference whatever between us and them.
However I see Baha'is teaching a false division between such people,
and disagree with that. I see artificial walls being set up by
Baha'is about the drinking of alcohol, women on the House of Justice,
politics, sexuality, and the Name of God for this day. As Baha'is we
accept these things freely, but in my opinion saying that these things
must be accepted by others is just plain wrong.
All we should be asking others to accept is that our actions are what
may bring Glory to God, and we should all choose to associate God's
virtue with our names and our lives. I have been saying so for a
decade in Interfaith circles, but find now that Baha'is themselves
don't accept such ideas. The Baha'i idea of a single world religion
is not, in my opinion, the Universal and Eternal Religion of God that
Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha spoke about, but rather a non-existent
Baha'i Faith that will brand the foreheads of thieves, burn arsonists,
prohibit alcohol and drugs to the entire world, and sex to anyone who
is not a married heterosexual. Enforcement of the length of a man's
hair is a point of confusion, however. It just seems to me Baha'is
are not thinking correctly.
In my opinion Baha'is freely accept such things and will not force
compliance with Baha'i law on anyone, ever. We should not argue that
alcohol is poison in moderation just because we have chosen not to
partake. We should not say the reason women are not elected to the
House of Justice is because such a thing is good for humanity. We
just accept it as a law, we do not know why. And most importantly
anyone who strives to bring virtue to their lives in God's name is on
the right path toward God.
But that I cannot speak my mind to Baha'is is a point of contention,
and I don't want to be the cause of such contention. I have so much
problem with the Ruhi books I have stopped studying them, even though
the community involvement is wonderful.
--Kent
Bill Hyman
It is easy to find fault with other Baha'is if that is what we want to do,
but we should use a sin covering eye.
The same goes with the Ruhi courses. They are an attempt to bring a
systematic approach to teaching and provide study courses to keep converts
in the Faith. They are not perfect but they are doing that. There are
constant changes in our approaches as we evaluate our activities. If you
have a better system use it and learn how to improve it.
I believe that Baha'u'llah is the law giver for this age and, although I do
not really understand the reasons for some of the laws, I support them, and
I fully expect that they will be incorporated in the future world
commonwealth, as the Universal House of Justice considers it timely.
Bill
diamondsouled
Good to see you posting here.
Crises of faith can be a good thing because they challenge us to look
more deeply into ourselves, because they force us to examine more
closely beliefs and interpretations that we may, unquestioningly, have
come to take for granted as being the gospel truth.
Ironically it is my study of comparative religion that has personally
brought me to a point where I can accept the Baha'i Faith and the
Baha'i community for what it is in reality, warts and all.
All religions have their light and dark sides. As religions age their
dark tendencies tend to come to the fore. It is easy to trace this
tendency in past religions. Baha'is may loath to to see that the
Baha'i faith is as prone to this tendency as all religions which
preceded it but in fact it is.
An examination of the history of the Baha'i Faith clearly shows a
history of crises.
The challenge for Baha'is, as with all religionists, is too
personally move past the limitations of such crises and to find faith
that is based on rationally based beliefs and not on myth alone. The
problem with basing faith on myth alone, or primarily on myth, is that
it can lead to a situation where a person is forced into a state of
cognitive dissonance, a state of intellectual compromise. When we do
this we are treading a dangerous path, the same path that Islamist
fundamentalists are convinced is the way to serve God.
Serving God isn't so simple. It requires that we closely examine our
beliefs and do not allow ourselves to conduct ourselves in a manner,
or condone behaviours in others, that our consciences find repugnant.
Cheers
Larry Rowe
compx2
previous messages you have posted.
> It is easy to find fault with other Baha'is...
The trouble is, Bill, it is virtually *ALL* Baha'is. It seems to me
people who freely choose to better themselves and those around them
through adhering to discipline and other virtuous acts, who avoid
telling people what they should or shouldn't do beyond the
undisputable fact that they should act on goodness as they themselves
perceive it... these people are the ones who are rightly guided, who
know the straight path, who are acquainted with the Ancient of Days.
Not many of them are Baha'is, as you yourself show in your message.
> The same goes with the Ruhi courses.
It is good to get together in community. But the things Baha'is are
teaching with the Ruhi send me running for my Interfaith group.
> I believe that Baha'u'llah is the law giver for this age...
Apparently you believe the Baha'is are the police force for this age.
That for time eternal no one has been able to enforce sexual chastity,
eradicate recreational drugs, or otherwise enforce virtue. But your
group can. That is my difference with you and your group. In my
opinion virtue must be freely chosen, as you and I chose it, Bill. No
other way will work, and that is the Baha'i way.
> I do
> not really understand the reasons for some of the laws, I support them...
Which is why you and I are Baha'is, why we chose to follow those
laws. I do not support enforcing those laws on anyone at all,
forever. That is our difference.
> I fully expect that they will be incorporated in the future world
> commonwealth, as the Universal House of Justice considers it timely.
I pray to God you are wrong.
Warm Baha'i love, --Kent
> > the Baha'is.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
diamondsouled
It is quite natural that individual faiths have teachings that set
them apart from all others faiths. All faiths wish to be treated as
being special. This is why it is so hard for faith communities to move
on.
Although the Abrahamic God that Jews, Christians, Muslims, Baha'is,
Mormons, worship is the same god religionists from all these
traditions believe that their particular faith is special.
The myth of God's chosen people has been at the same time both one of
humanities most unifying and disunifying concepts.
The truth is that all people, regardless of their chosen faith, are
measured through their character. This being true even of people with
no faith.
"Be thou of the people of hell-fire, but be not a hypocrite. Be thou
an unbeliever, but be not a plotter. Make thy home in taverns, but
tread not the path of the mischief-maker. Fear thou God, but not the
priest. Give to the executioner thy head, but not thy heart. Let thine
abode be under the stone, but seek not the shelter of the cleric." ~
Baha'u'llah ~
In other words be true to yourself, and to society as well,
regardless of your beliefs.
Cheers
Larry Rowe
Bill Hyman
On 2/26/09 7:07 AM, "compx2" <com...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I do
>> not really understand the reasons for some of the laws, I support them...
>
> Which is why you and I are Baha'is, why we chose to follow those
> laws. I do not support enforcing those laws on anyone at all,
> forever. That is our difference.
>
>> I fully expect that they will be incorporated in the future world
>> commonwealth, as the Universal House of Justice considers it timely.
>
> I pray to God you are wrong.
Hi Kent:
The Baha'is laws will be the standard for the planet, but I do not see them
applicable to those who are not Baha'is. Everyone will be Baha'i.
Bill
diamondsouled
them
applicable to those who are not Baha'is. Everyone will be Baha'i.
Howdy Bill,
Let's just change a few words in what you are saying:
The Islamic laws will be the standard for the planet, but I do not see
them applicable to those who are not Muslims. Everyone will be Muslim.
Actually this is the far likelier scenario seeing that there are only
some 5 million Baha'is and 1 billion Muslims in the world.
As well, how does the triumphalism that is expressed through such
words convey that reconciliation between religions that is so central
to Baha'i teachings?
To me what is of true importance is not that any single religious
belief system become the one and only belief system but that the
essential validity of all forms of human spiritual expression are
recognized for their potential positive contribution to humanities
collective welfare.
This includes non-theistic religious approaches such as Buddhism,
polytheistic approaches such that exist in India and will forseeably
continue to exist, as well as theistic approaches in so far as they
contribute positively to humanities collective welfare.
Cheers
Larry Rowe
Bill Hyman
On 2/28/09 1:30 AM, "diamondsouled" <ro...@northwestel.net> wrote:
> The Baha'is laws will be the standard for the planet, but I do not see
> them
> applicable to those who are not Baha'is. Everyone will be Baha'i.
>
> Howdy Bill,
>
> Let's just change a few words in what you are saying:
Hi Larry:
I am not changing my words. You are suggesting your theory.
My view is not triumphalism. It is my understanding of what is in our
scripture. I do not know how it will come about, but probably after a lot of
trauma as the older religions deteriorate further, although I would prefer
it to be a result of "consultative will," rather than "unimaginable
horrors," many of which are already apparent. The sooner the world accepts
the teachings and laws of Baha'u'llah the better off it will be. He is the
Lord of this Age.
Bill
Douglas McAdam
I agree and at first thought that since we have been down this road
before I would not enter the dicussion because usually the opposing
views come from non-Baha'is or those who have somehow been
disenfranchised or in some way lost their memberships. I don't know
what Larry's present membership condition is so I do not mean to
include him in that critique.
There are literally hundreds of quotes from various sources in our
Writings all pointing the future Baha'i World Commonwealth that are
clear in that when we reach the Golden Age there will be believers and
non-Baha'i believers but no other religions and it will be a united
world with Baha'i Laws in force etc. I have yet to find one who
opposes this goal to produce any quotes that clearly back up their
position.
The Age of Prophecy where we are promised the Kingdom of God on earth
to be established has been fulfilled by Baha'u'llah and the New World
Order, the Kingdom of God, the Baha'i Commonwealth, Golden Age etc. is
now being built but we are a long way off from its realization,
chiefly because we Baha'is are not always reaching the goals set forth
to us by the infallible House of Justice.
I have yet, in over forty years as a Baha'i, seen any scholarly works
that show quotes from our Writings that in any way refute the fact
that the world will someday be mostly Baha'i with a Baha'i
Commonwealth and all its intended institutions, laws etc. to be in
force.
As I said, to me, after all I have read and experienced these
proponents that say there will not be a Baha'i govt, etc. are not able
to produce quotes to back up their assumptions and allegations.
Please let us stick to the Writings in these most serious of issues.
God bless,
doug
diamondsouled
The deterioration of older religions that you refer to I would
suggest is endemic to organized religion, period. Religion which has
inflexibly raised the spiritual expression of any single human being
to the absolute.
It would be just as easy for a Muslim to say: The Islamic laws will
be the standard for the planet, but I do not see them applicable to
those who are not Muslims. Everyone will be Muslim. For a Jew to say:
The Judaic laws will be the standard for the planet, but I do not see
them applicable to those who are not Jews. Everyone will be a Jew; For
a Christian to say: The Christian laws will be the standard for the
planet, but I do not see them applicable to those who are not
Christians. Everyone will be Christian; For a Buddhist to say: The
Buddhist laws will be the standard for the planet, but I do not see
them applicable to those who are not Buddhists. Everyone will be
Buddhist; For a Mormon to say: The Mormon laws will be the standard
for the planet, but I do not see them applicable to those who are not
Mormons. Everyone will be Mormon; I hope you see where this is going.
For a Scientologist to say: Scientology laws will be the standard for
the planet, but I do not see them applicable to those who are not
scientologists. Everyone will be scientologists. And so it goes for
each and every single cause created by every prophet, guru, teacher,
philiosopher, on and on.
As I said before: The myth of God's chosen people has been at the
same time both one of humanities most unifying and disunifying
concepts.
Unifying in what way? Buy bringing communities of individual
believers together. Disunifying in what way? By the setting apart of
each and every one of these communities as the one and only true and
correct way.
Abdu'l-Baha points to the reason that religion is: "the most harmful
agency on this planet." * As well he states: "we must investigate the
original intention." Is the original intention of religion for it to
be an exclusive path that has no room left for any diversity, or for
it to foster a compassionate approach to all of human spirituality
where the beauty of all expressions of human spirituality is
recognized for it's validity, for it's beauty in diversity. A person
has to truly ask themselves: where does reconciliation between
religions lay? In such reconciliation lays the original intention, not
in any one religious group or individual stating: Our religious laws
will be the standard for the planet, but I do not see them applicable
to those who are not with us. Everyone will be with us. There is no
room for other in such an approach, there is no room for the reality
of human spiritual diversity.
Cheers
Larry Rowe
*Thus religion which was destined to become the cause of friendship
has become the cause of enmity. Religion, which was meant to be sweet
honey, is changed into bitter poison. Religion, the function of which
was to illumine humanity, has become the factor of obscuration and
gloom. Religion, which was to confer the consciousness of everlasting
life, has become the fiendish instrument of death. As long as these
superstitions are in the hands and these nets of dissimulation and
hypocrisy in the fingers, religion will be the most harmful agency on
this planet. These superannuated traditions, which are inherited unto
the present day, must be abandoned, and thus free from past
superstitions we must investigate the original intention. The basis on
which they have fabricated the superstructures will be seen to be one,
and that one, absolute reality; and as reality is indivisible,
complete unity and amity will be instituted and the true religion of
God will become unveiled in all its beauty and sublimity in the
assemblage of the world.
(Abdu'l-Baha, Divine Philosophy, p. 161)
compx2
Larry is making a simple point:
The Baha'is with your view, Bill, are showing intolerance, prejudice,
institutionalized, fundamentalist, myopic interpretation of scripture,
all
the while accusing all religion before them of doing the same thing.
If Muslims or Christians want to form a government, well, they are
misguided. I say that if Baha'is want to form a government then we
are
misguided in exactly the same way.
Baha'u'llah came to us with clear teachings about how to treat our
neighbors, how to distinguish ourselves from the rest of humanity, how
to
follow the truest path to Him. But we have subverted those teachings.
We
now assert that God wants us to force virtue on the world, according
the
world government which only we know about, so far. I say that is
absolutely
false, and I want nothing to do with those teachings.
If what you are teaching, Bill, is the Baha'i Faith then I want
nothing to
do with the Baha'i Faith.
I am looking for the Spirit of God, the teachings that inspire virtue
and
understanding of God's Will for humanity, the view from the mountain
top
that sees all humanity regardless of culture, language, education or
any
other consideration, all humanity striving for peace, love and justice
for
all. And I see you and the Baha'i Faith standing in the way of those
teachings, asserting that only we know how to find such love and peace
and
justice. And if others don't follow us voluntarily we will force them
to.
That, Bill, is not my religion. I am a Baha'i.
Warm Baha'i Love, --Kent
"Bill Hyman" <pc...@blueskynet.as> wrote in message
news:_Lidnakx6PTrPjTU...@giganews.com...
Dr. RTJ
believe the overwhelming majority will be but I've seen nothing in the
writings that specifically says that every single section of the
planet will be Bahai...such a concept just isn't logical.
compx2
Beyond that, Dr.RTJ, how can one distinguish one's self from the rest
if we are all called the name "Baha'i". Will there be grades of
Baha'is?
I understand there will be very little privacy in the future. Even
now just about everything can be caught on some camera or other.
Those wishing to commit uncharitable acts are generally caught in
those acts now, how much more in the future?
But the point is we are a personal religion. We freely choose to do
the things we do. We should not have to justify or declare that what
we do is better than what everyone else does. That is for
Baha'u'llah. We simply follow the laws and teachings as a matter of
faith, and that includes NOT telling people that we are better because
we don't drink, or because we have no women on our supreme governing
body, or because we fast...
If the Faith is true, those things will become apparent. It seems to
me more important that we follow the discipline given us than
precisely what that discipline is. For example, we don't drink. It
cannot hurt to NOT drink. It does not necessarily hurt to drink as
countless good people alive today and in history prove, but to forsake
recreational drugs cannot hurt us. What does hurt us is telling
everyone else that they must do it as well. We do it volunarily, but
they must do it according to a law we want to write and enforce around
the world. Saying that hurts us, makes us an aspiring totalitarian
regime. And it is not true.
And women on the House? If we say it is a good idea to NOT have women
on the house we are sexist. If we just accept it and do not try to
defend it, it is discipline. Fasting? Shall we force the world to
fast every spring?
--Kent
Douglas McAdam
My understanding and I'm sure I read a quote on this, is that there
will only be Baha'is and non-believers but no other religions.
This is the Baha'i Cycle, the Age of Fulfillment and the Age of
Prophecy or Adamic Cycle is ended. This Cycle is to last 5,000
centuries, the Golden Age, the Most Great Peace, etc. and the coming
Manifestation will be a Law Giver not a Prophet. It makes sense to me
but yet when I ask Christians if they believe we can have world unity
and love they say no. I then ask them if they pray and say the Lord's
Prayer and they say yes and then I say, the Lords prayer says "Thy
Kingdom come, Thy Will be done on earth as it is in heaven.", so why
pray for it if you don't believe it is possible? They always look
puzzled.
regards,
doug
diamondsouled
Hello Dr RTJ,
Actually if current religious growth trends don't change it is far
more likely that humanity will end up mostly Muslim. Even Mormons have
a greater chance of becoming a world embracing religion than Baha'i.
Both religions began close to the same time; there are 6 million
Baha'is claimed and twice as many Mormons claimed, 12 million.
My thought is that it is laudable concepts themselves, such as the
equality of women, that are of true vital importance and not the
religion of who is espousing such concepts.
Cheers
Larry Rowe
Douglas McAdam
Guardian said?
Everything I read says the Baha'i Faith is the fulfillment of all
former prophecies, that it is destined to be the Baha'i Commonwealth,
a world embracing religion whose laws will be universally accepted and
applied.
Where in our Writings does it say anything else but that it is
destined to be a World Commonwealth?
regards,
doug
Dr. RTJ
Do most Bahais believe that world government will essentially be a
Bahai theocracy?
Bill Hyman
On Mar 10, 3:20 pm, "Dr. RTJ" <rjenkin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Simple human nature dictates that the whole world will not be Bahai. I
> believe the overwhelming majority will be but I've seen nothing in the
> writings that specifically says that every single section of the
> planet will be Bahai...such a concept just isn't logical.
Here is a quotation from the Baha'i writings:
Gleanings of the Writings of Baha'u'llah P.73
>The hour is approaching when we will witness the power of the one true God
>triumphing over all created things and the signs of His sovereignty
>encompassing all creation. On that day ye will discover how all else besid
es
>Him will have been forgotten and come to be regarded as utter nothingness.
From this quotation I infer that everyone on this planet will be Baha'i, bu
t
I do not claim infallible interpretation.
Bill
t h
really does.
Also it is probably irrelevant as in 50 years most Baha'is will be quite
a different group
and the same for 50 years after that and so on.
You are speculating on something that will come to pass in whatever form
in a few centuries
or longer so trying to clarify the details seems pointless to me.
Studying what the writings
say and what they might mean could be valuable but the above question is
fruitless.
Cheers,
Tom
Douglas McAdam
I once heard an ABM say in a talk that the Baha'i Commonwealth was a
whole new concept in the world. It contains the best parts of all
previous forms of government and more. It is not Communist, Marxist,
Capitalist, Socialism, Democracy, Republic, etc, etc. but it contains
the best parts of all and more. The term theocracy means a form of
govt where priests rule and that is not Baha'i.
The system seems be where God is at the top. Next is the
Manifestation, and next the Master and then the spirit divides into a
the twin institutions of Guardianship and House of Justice and under
this the system splits with one side representing the Appointed and
the other side the Elected arm and under each arm are institutions and
both arms meet at the bottom at the community level. Communication
can occur horizontally, diagonally and vertically. There is no system
like it in the world.
You would have to read the various books by the Guardian to get a
better idea of this system.
regards,
doug
Dr. RTJ
wrote:
Well kinda. Theocracy meaning that the the structure of the gov't
would be solely based on the Bahai Faith.
diamondsouled
to the Baha'i faith is Baha'i scholar Sen McGlinn's: Church and State:
A postmodern political theology.
It is available at Kalimat press:
http://www.kalimat.com/church_and_state.htm
There is a widely held folk Baha'i belief that the Administrative
Order of the Baha'i faith will govern all aspects of human activity.
Sen's book outlines, through reference to the Baha'i writings, how
this folk Baha'i belief is a misinterpretation and how Baha'i
teachings actually outline a clear delineation between secular and
religious governance.
Cheers
Larry Rowe
mike...@yahoo.com
> There is a widely held folk Baha'i belief that the Administrative
> Order of the Baha'i faith will govern all aspects of human activity.
> Sen's book outlines, through reference to the Baha'i writings, how
> this folk Baha'i belief is a misinterpretation and how Baha'i
> teachings actually outline a clear delineation between secular and
> religious governance.
>
> Cheers
>
the Guardian.
We must build up our own Bahá'í system, and leave the faulty systems
of the world to go their way. We cannot change them through becoming
involved in them; on the contrary, they will destroy us."
(Shoghi Effendi, Directives from the Guardian, p. 55)
"We see therefore that we must do two things -- Shun politics like the
plague, and be obedient to the Government in power in the place where
we reside... We must obey in all cases except where a spiritual
principle is involved, such as denying our Faith. For these spiritual
principles we must be willing to die. What we Bahá'ís must face is the
fact that society is disintegrating so rapidly that moral issues which
were clear a half century ago are now hopelessly confused and what is
more, thoroughly mixed up with battling political interests. That is
why the Bahá'ís must turn all their forces into the channel of
building up the Bahá'í Cause and its Administration. They can neither
change nor help the world in any other way at present. If they become
involved in the issues the Governments of the world are struggling
over, they will be lost. But if they build up the Bahá'í pattern they
can offer it as a remedy when all else has failed." 58
(Shoghi Effendi, Directives from the Guardian, p. 55)
Help me out here. I know that both Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha
championed constitutional democracies, but they also called our faith
a spiritual democracy. The quote from the Guardian combined with their
statements leads me to agree with that folk view on the matter. I can
see the paradigm of Rome mixed with a little easter Island taking
place now, so it's no stretch of my imagination to consider that a day
may come when the administration is all we got.
Douglas McAdam
I have never heard of such a belief as the Admin. Order "governing all
aspects of Baha'i life". My understanding is that the Admin . Order,
as revealed by Baha'u'llah and articulated by the Guardian, is that it
is supposed to be the clear channel through which the Revelations of
God will flow, uninterrupted by the ego. I think, as a former mgmt.
and staff trainer with many years of experiences in many and varied
types of industries, that our culture has misunderstood the instrument
of administration to mean those who govern instead of those who
channel the overall spirit or energy of an organization to achieve its
purpose. It is the major investor (s) that set the purpose and govern
the business through the hiring or appointment of managers with a
system of managing. Herein lies a real problem in our society for the
morals and ethics of individuals, the cross purposes from egos, etc.
interfere with the overall efficiencies. We are now experiencing the
major effects of these humanly devised and operated organizations in
our overall economic, political and social systems that are not built
and operated upon a model of reality that consists of both material
and spiritual aspects. It was destined to decline and fall because of
the need for a new method, system and transformation of the human
souls to administer to a whole new set of world conditions and
increased populations as our systems of communication, travel etc.
have made it possible to interact with varied and diverse cultures,
nations, etc. We are now moving into a world community as nation
building has ended. Obviously we cannot operate as we did during the
building of and operations of tribes, cities and nations. A future
Baha'i World Commonwealth is unfolding but what that will be an how it
will operate is beyond our present level of intellectual and spiritual
condition as I understand things. All we can do is fulfill the House
of Justice Plans and then we will see it all come into being, the
entire Kingdom of God being established on earth and I simply cannot
see that Kingdom as having any characteristics such as what we now
have in terms of a secular government. I simply cannot imagine a time
in the near and far future when we will have a government that has no
basis in the spirit, which is one of the meanings of secular.
While this might be interesting to some I feel I am in no level of
spiritual development to offer any realistic speculation of what that
future World Commonwealth might be and how it will operate except to
maybe posit that it most certainly will be opposite anything we now
see in our world systems which are falling apart. The best thing we
can do is strive to fulfill the Plans of the House of Justice and
there are still goals of the past that are unfulfilled such as the two
I am listing below which to me are very serious goals to leave
unachieved.
They are -
"What they desperately need is to know how to live
their lives – they need to know who they are, to what purpose they
exist, and how they should act towards one another; and once they know
the answers to these questions they need to be helped to gradually
apply these answers to everyday behavior. It is to the solution of
this basic problem of mankind that the greater part of all our energy
and resources should be directed….”The Universal House of Justice
from
a letter dated November 19,1974
“...the time for the expansion of social and economic
development as an aspect of the work of the Cause has arrived and it
cannot be neglected without grave consequences to the life of Bahá’í
communities...”
— January 2, 1984; excerpt from a Letter from the Universal House of
Justice, To the Followers of Bahá’u’lláh in every Land,
published in
“Messages from the Universal House of Justice, 1963-1986: in The Third
Epoch of the Formative Age,” 1996, p. 613, titled “Acute Needs of
the
International Funds”
So let us ask ourselves if we are or are not fulfilling these goals
which in the end will lead to the establishment of that future World
Commonwealth and maybe in their fulfillment we may then understand how
this wonderful new and divinely revealed system will work.
God bless,
doug
Dr. RTJ
"We must obey in all cases except where a spiritual
> principle is involved, such as denying our Faith."
modern day liberal policies.
diamondsouled
http://www.sonjavank.com/sen/pdfs/theocratic.pdf
Sen is far more informed than myself on this subject. Actually more
informed than any other Baha'i I know of.
Hope this clarifies things a bit.
Cheers
Larry
diamondsouled
> This is exactly why no Bahai should ever find him/herself supporting
> modern day liberal policies.
Hello Dr.RTJ,
Mmmm. Compared to his Islamic contemporaries Baha'u'llah was quite a
liberal. Even today amongst many Muslims he would be considered a
liberal for suggesting the equality of women with men.
I heard an interesting program yesterday on universal day care.
Although this is a: "modern day liberal", policy it makes makes good
practical sense; as well Scandanavian counties have shown through
experience that it works positively to advance the general education
of the populace.
Actually truly progressive policies will almost always seem to be
'liberal', as was the policy of allowing women to vote at first.
Baha'i is about the progressive I was led to believe.
Cheers
Larry Rowe
diamondsouled
belittling or demeaning. Perhaps the term layperson would be a better
one to use.
All religions have their lay community and their learned community.
Although the Baha'i faith was to differ in this regard with there
being no clergy not all believers have the desire or the vocation to
become learned, to become scholars. I include myself amongst those,
the lay people.
Often the greatest of religious scholars are seen by their
contemporaries as a threat because they push the envelope of
understanding. Often it takes some time until their contributions to
the advancement of their religions are truly understood or fully
appreciated.
At times this tendency can cause some friction between lay people and
intellectual scholars.
Cheers
Larry Rowe
mike...@yahoo.com
Before we go too far allow me to elaborate on a few points. There's
alot here to discuss so I'm going to break it up. First, dealing with
Sen's article.
"For that matter, is the party-based approach to politics always
unhealthy?"
Sorry but I disagree entirely. Whether Sen or others appreciate this
point, there is a developing cynicism towards old party style
politics. Americans are abandoning their faith in a system rooted in
dirt, smear, and ultimately this party based system. Its' failings are
all too evident. And it is naive to assume that somehow we've
achieved the pinnacle of government. There is a flood of evidence that
our leadership has failed us which is mounting daily in the form of
the environment, economy and war. The system as it is, is not
sustainable. So please excuse my cynicism on this matter.
Picture this idea for a second, no parties and people elected based
not on rhetoric (or wrestling/football skills) but on genuine
qualifications (resume). Sounds like a Baha'i could get elected in
that system right alongside a non-Baha'i.
Competition is outdated, consultation is the way of the future. This
means working together in unity to achieve a worthy goal. The goal
should always be to seek the truth, and not to win at all costs in
spite of the truth. Rush (insanely) wishing our president's failure is
a great example of this current failing in the party mindset.
The economies of the future will be different. Imagine that tomorrow
energy were freely available at no cost. So it's pointless to
speculate here.
With that key point of difference stated, I do agree with Sen (in
part) on the nature of a Baha'i state. As I see it, the Baha'i
administration is a spiritual ark in a time of great floods in the
form of science, religion, and government. I see the Baha'i
administration as being the life preserver that will insure the
continuation of the constitutional democracies.
Think of it this way. What will be the response of modern democracies
to Islam? Right now, in some areas of the world it will take about one
generation for an Islamic minority to become a voting majority. Islam
is showing only signs that it is growing, and growing faster that any
other religion. What will happen to those democracies. Will they
outlaw Islam? What of your church state issue then?
I see history repeating itself here. Rome fell and the roman church
served to stabilize Europe and give legitimacy to the newer
governments. In the end, it gave Europe some level of cohesion and
order. I can speculate that some democracies will falter in response
to Islam (among other environmental/social issues) and that if
developed, the Baha'i faith may offer this world an Ark of sorts for
those governments to reform in a way that will allow for a maintenance
of order.
The short and sweet of it must be this. Whatever government comes to
be, Baha'is can't oppress non-Baha'is and therefore we can't deny them
a right to vote. But our administration won't allow for non-Baha'is to
vote for a Baha'i administration. This leads me to the logical
deduction that it must come to be that there will be a secular
government alongside a Baha'i administration as it's social/legal
advisor. But in the nearer future there may be points in history where
the Baha'i administration is all that remains.
Douglas McAdam
On Mar 22, 2009, at 9:05 PM, mike...@yahoo.com wrote:
> The short and sweet of it must be this. Whatever government comes to
> be, Baha'is can't oppress non-Baha'is and therefore we can't deny them
> a right to vote. But our administration won't allow for non-Baha'is to
> vote for a Baha'i administration. This leads me to the logical
> deduction that it must come to be that there will be a secular
> government alongside a Baha'i administration as it's social/legal
> advisor. But in the nearer future there may be points in history where
> the Baha'i administration is all that remains.
Dear friend-
Up to this point I agreed with you. However to me the fulfillment of
the Kingdom of God on earth would not include a secular govt. In
time, given that we Baha'i fulfill our goals of teaching and enrolling
believers, the majority of people will be Baha'is but there will still
be non-believers, or those in process. The Baha'i Commonwealth will
be such that the Revelation of Baha'u'llah, God's Message for the
next 5,000 centuries, will be channeled through Baha'u'llah's Admin.
Order, something a secular govt cannot do.
Here is a quote that very seldom seems to come up in discussions -
“The second of these spiritual standards which apply to the possessor
of knowledge is that he should be the defender of his faith. It is
obvious that these holy words do not refer exclusively to searching
out the implications of the Law, observing the forms of worship,
voiding greater and lesser sins, practicing the religious ordinances,
and by all these methods, protecting the Faith. They mean rather that
the whole population should be protected in every way; that every
effort should be exerted to adopt a combination of all possible
measures to raise up the Word of God, increase the number of
believers, promote the Faith of God and exalt it and make it
victorious over other religions. If, indeed, the Muslim religious
authorities had persevered along these lines as they ought to have
done, by now every nation on earth would have been gathered into the
shelter of the unity of God and the bright fire of "that He may make
it victorious over every other religion"
*23 would have flamed out like the sun in the midmost heart of the
world.
*23- Qu'ran 9:33;48:28,61:19 Abdu’l-Baha) page 41, Secret of Divine
Civilization
Peace,
doug
Dr. RTJ
That's why I used the phrase "modern day liberalism." You're using a
Webster's definition of liberal meaning change.
Specifically, you're universal daycare example is wrong. Research
shows that in the U.S. Head Start kids have no overall academic
advantage over one's that aren't enrolled in pre-school.
The Bahai Faith is about change through spiritual principles. The use
of secular gov't force doesn't qualify.
Lastly, in reference to a post below, of course I, as a Bahai want
Obama to "fail." When an individual holds a ideology that is immoral
(Marxism) or some would even say evil, you're darn right I want him to
"fail."
diamondsouled
I have to agree that a nonpartisan/nonsectarian approach is
preferable in many ways. As long as it doesn't impede the natural
dynamic that always exists between people of differing cognitive
styles.
One thing that a thinking person can't help but notice as they age is
that their beliefs and opinions become more conservative. This is the
natural outcome of maturation. You grow out of the risk taking age and
begin to appreciate a bigger picture.
Thing is some of our most creative and inspired people are our
youngest people, they need to be allowed to push the envelope, they
need to be able to suggest such 'liberal' things as: "yes women should
be allowed to vote, yes women should be treated as completely equal."
Today in Canada this doesn't seem so liberal or progressive but 150
years ago it was. As it still is in many Muslim countries today,
unfortunately.
The problem with any system of governance, whether it be political or
religious, if that system does not allow for a diversity of opinion
and interpretation to be freely expressed is that such a system
inevitably leads to exclusivism, to disunity.
I think that Abdu'l-Baha' had it right in manys ways, we must put
aside our limited unities of self interests and find a common unity
that transcends religious, political and philosophical diversity,
which puts the common interests of humanity ahead of all such limited
self interests:
The unity which is productive of unlimited results is first a unity
of mankind which recognizes that all are sheltered beneath the
overshadowing glory of the All-Glorious; that all are servants of one
God; for all breathe the same atmosphere, live upon the same earth,
move beneath the same heavens, receive effulgence from the same sun
and are under the protection of one God. This is the most great unity,
and its results are lasting if humanity adheres to it; but mankind has
hitherto violated it, adhering to sectarian or other limited unities
such as racial, patriotic or unity of self-interests; therefore no
great results have been forthcoming. Nevertheless it is certain that
the radiance and favors of God are encompassing, minds have developed,
perceptions have become acute, sciences and arts are widespread and
capacity exists for the proclamation and promulgation of the real and
ultimate unity of mankind which will bring forth marvelous results. It
will reconcile all religions, make warring nations loving, cause
hostile kings to become friendly and bring peace and happiness to the
human world. It will cement together the Orient and Occident, remove
forever the foundations of war and upraise the ensign of the Most
Great Peace. These limited unities are therefore signs of that great
unity which will make all the human family one by being productive of
the attractions of conscience in mankind.
(Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 257)
It is important for Baha'is to realize where their self interests lay
and to closely examine whether or not those self interests are in
common with all of the diversity of humanity.
Cheers
Larry Rowe
diamondsouled
I don't think that there is really any doubt that Early Childhood
Education and Care can have a profound effect on a person's ability to
be able to contribute positively to the society that they live in.
Ideally this ECEC should be occurring in people's homes but with many
couples both at work having quality places for children to learn and
grow in becomes of vital importance.
What occurs in a child's life between the time they are born and the
time they enter primary school determines to a large part whether or
not that child will succeed in school and later in their adult life.
It is a reality that children of people from poorer and less educated
families will have a far greater difficulty keeping up with their
peers as well as completing high school and going on to secondary
education.
I recently listened to a program on CBC radio and the reality is that
40-50 % of children from poorer neighbourhoods will not graduate from
high school where only 5-6 % of children from wealthier neighbourhoods
do not graduate.
The only effective way to deal with this social inequity is to level
the playing field by providing quality ECEC for all children.
The experience in Scandanavian countries shows that this is a simple
and effective way to correct the imbalance in the education of
children from differing social economic realities. To my mind it is as
well one of the most effective means of eventually eliminating
poverty.
By the way my wife has been a teacher for the past 16 years and I
have seen first hand the reality behind the stats about the
educational success and failure of Canada's children. We lived for two
years on a first nations reserve and Heather has taught a majority of
first nations children in that 16 years. The challenges are huge but
headway is being made. I have no doubt whatsoever from our 16 year
experience that putting into place an effective universal daycare
system here in Canada would greatly aid in this process.
Cheers
Larry Rowe
mike...@yahoo.com
>Dear friend-
>Up to this point I agreed with you. However to me the fulfillment of
>the Kingdom of God on earth would not include a secular govt. In
Let me preface my statement with the fact that I'm no prophet so what
we're doing here is purely speculation. Also that Baha'is by virtue of
our teachings can't impose our theology on non-Baha'is. So whatever
government comes to be even should it have theocratic over-tones it
must be one that respects those laws of our faith concerning the
treatment of non-Baha'is. I hope we can agree on that point.
My opinion is that people have mis-understood the Guardian in regards
to government. He was rightfully pointing out the corruption and the
fact that the systems were are doomed to fail. (I agree). He was also
right about the destructive nature of politics and the party system.
He readily referenced rome as an example of our future and would often
advise people to read the rise and fall of rome. So it stands that I
can forsee that one day corruption is so bad that the governments will
collapse on their own. I think he rightfully envisioned that when this
transpires all that may be left is the Baha'i Administration, from
which will come new governments. But this does not mean that our
administration will be the government. Here's why:
The thirteenth Glad-Tidings
The men of God's House of Justice have been charged with the affairs
of the people. They, in truth, are the Trustees of God among His
servants and the daysprings of authority in His countries.
O people of God! That which traineth the world is Justice, for it is
upheld by two pillars, reward and punishment. These two pillars are
the sources of life to the world. Inasmuch as for each day there is a
new problem and for every problem an expedient solution, such affairs
should be referred to the Ministers of the House of Justice that they
may act according to the needs and requirements of the time. They
that, for the sake of God, arise to serve His Cause, are the
recipients of divine inspiration from the unseen Kingdom. It is
incumbent upon all to be obedient unto them. All matters of State
should be referred to the House of Justice, but acts of worship must
be observed according to that which God hath revealed in His Book.
O people of Baha! Ye are the dawning-places of the love of God and the
daysprings of His loving-kindness. Defile not your tongues with the
cursing and reviling of any soul, and guard your eyes against that
which is not seemly. Set forth that which ye possess. If it be
favourably received, your end is attained; if not, to protest is vain.
Leave that soul to himself and turn unto the Lord, the Protector, the
Self-Subsisting. Be not the cause of grief, much less of discord and
strife. The hope is cherished that ye may obtain true education in the
shelter of the tree of His tender mercies and act in accordance with
that which God desireth. Ye are all the leaves of one tree and the
drops of one ocean.
(Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 26)
The fifteenth Glad-Tidings
Although a republican form of government profiteth all the peoples of
the world, yet the majesty of kingship is one of the signs of God. We
do not wish that the countries of the world should remain deprived
thereof. If the sagacious combine the two forms into one, great will
be their reward in the presence of God.
In former religions such ordinances as holy war, destruction of books,
the ban on association and companionship with other peoples or on
reading certain books had been laid down and affirmed according to the
exigencies of the time; however, in this mighty Revelation, in this
momentous Announcement, the manifold bestowals and favours of God have
overshadowed all men, and from the horizon of the Will of the Ever-
Abiding Lord, His infallible decree hath prescribed that which We have
set forth above.
We yield praise unto God -- hallowed and glorified be He -- for
whatsoever He hath graciously revealed in this blessed, this glorious
and incomparable Day. Indeed if everyone on earth were endowed with a
myriad tongues and were to continually praise God and magnify His Name
to the end that knoweth no end, their thanksgiving would not prove
adequate for even one of the gracious favours We have mentioned in
this Tablet. Unto this beareth witness every man of wisdom and
discernment, of understanding and knowledge. 29
We earnestly beseech God -- exalted be His glory -- to aid the rulers
and sovereigns, who are the exponents of power and the daysprings of
glory, to enforce His laws and ordinances. He is in truth the
Omnipotent, the All-Powerful, He Who is wont to answer the call of
men. 31
(Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 28)
If our thinking is to be dispensational, then why would Baha'u'llah
advocate a King and advise the 'sagacious' to combine the republic
with a king? At the same time he makes a provision for the house of
Justice, being that institution that will guide the state in it's
legislature. The Glad tidings are enumerated and specific, they are
not a function of time or place. They represent central tenants of our
faith.
In the books of the prophets certain glad-tidings are recorded which
are absolutely true and free from doubt.
(Abdu'l-Baha, Foundations of World Unity, p. 71)
To me it sounds like Baha'u'llah is advocating a Constitutional
monarchy like England which may well represent the model that comes
from our administrative order, only lacking the party politics. I can
well envision that a superior form of government would not elect a
wrestler, weight lifter, football player but people who are
intellectually qualified to the task of administrating. Charisma, and
cults of personality are things of the past, they bring us down as a
society and prove only that we are immature and uneducated as a
society.
To me it is clear beyond doubt, the Houses of Justice dispense
authority to the state (or King), provide the state with a legislative
framework (ie. guidance on laws). But there is a clear provision for a
constitutional republican monarchy (like England). This government
only has to take it's authority from the faith and accept its'
guidance on laws.
At the end of the day this is my opinion, and my piece of the
consultation and really who am I. What counts is that whatever we
decide as a community, we do so in loving unity. We must remain true
to our faith's central tenants and the glad tidings are not ambiguous.
I have complete trust that if our Baha'i community is educated in our
Lord's writings then only the truth will come to be.
Sen McGlinn
> the Guardian.
>
> We must build up our own Bahá'í system, and leave the faulty systems
> of the world to go their way. We cannot change them through becoming
> involved in them; on the contrary, they will destroy us."
> (Shoghi Effendi, Directives from the Guardian, p. 55)
>
> "We see therefore that we must do two things -- Shun politics like the
> plague, and be obedient to the Government in power in the place where
of
> building up the Bahá'í Cause and its Administration. They can neither
> change nor help the world in any other way at present. If they become
> involved in the issues the Governments of the world are struggling
> over, they will be lost. But if they build up the Bahá'í pattern they
> can offer it as a remedy when all else has failed." 58
> (Shoghi Effendi, Directives from the Guardian, p. 55)
>
> Help me out here. I know that both Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha
> championed constitutional democracies, but they also called our faith
> a spiritual democracy.
The "spiritual democracy" quote is kitab-e hearsay, your other two are
letters on behalf of the Guardian. But never mind: none of them say
that the "the Administrative Order of the Baha'i faith will govern all
aspects of human activity", which is the folk belief in question. What
the Guardian himself said is:
"
"Theirs is not the purpose, while endeavoring to conduct and perfect
the administrative affairs of their Faith, to violate, under any
circumstances, the provisions of their country's constitution, much
less to allow the machinery of their administration to supersede the
government of their respective countries." ( The World Order of
Baha'u'llah 66.)
and Abdu'l-Baha wrote:
"Should they place in the arena the crown of the government of the
whole world, and invite each one of us to accept it, undoubtedly we
shall not condescend, and shall refuse to accept it." ( Tablets of the
Divine Plan 51)
and
"The signature of that meeting should be the Spiritual Gathering
(House of Spirituality) and the wisdom therein is that hereafter the
government should not infer from the term "House of Justice" that a
court is signified, that it is connected with political affairs, or
that **at any time it will interfere with governmental affairs.**
Hereafter, enemies will be many. They would use this subject as a
cause for disturbing the mind of the government and confusing the
thoughts of the public." (Tablets of Abdu'l-Baha Abbas vol. 1, page 5,
also printed with minor editorial changes in Baha'i World Faith
405).
In the Lawh-e Ashraf, Baha'u'llah writes:
"The one true God, exalted be His glory, hath ever regarded, and will
continue to regard, the hearts of men as His own, His exclusive
possession. All else, whether pertaining to land or sea, whether
riches or glory, He hath bequeathed unto the Kings and rulers of the
earth. From the beginning that hath no beginning the ensign
proclaiming the words "He doeth whatsoever He willeth" hath been
unfurled in all its splendor before His Manifestation. What mankind
needeth in this day is obedience unto them that are in authority, and
a faithful adherence to the cord of wisdom. The instruments which are
essential to the immediate protection, the security and assurance of
the human race have been entrusted to the hands, and lie in the grasp,
of the governors of human society. This is the wish of God and His
decree.... ." (Gleanings, CII 206-7)
and in the Epistle to the Son of the Wolf:
Every nation must have a high regard for the position of its
sovereign, must be submissive unto him, must carry out his behests,
and hold fast his authority. The sovereigns of the earth have been and
are the manifestations of the power, the grandeur and the majesty of
God. This Wronged One hath at no time dealt deceitfully with anyone.
Every one is well aware of this, and beareth witness unto it. Regard
for the rank of sovereigns is divinely ordained, as is clearly
attested by the words of the Prophets of God and His chosen ones. He
Who is the Spirit (Jesus) -- may peace be upon Him -- was asked: "O
Spirit of God! Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar or not?" And He
made reply: "Yea, render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to
God the things 90 that are God's." He forbade it not. These two
sayings are, in the estimation of men of insight, one and the same,
for if that which belonged to Caesar had not come from God, He would
have forbidden it. And likewise in the sacred verse: "Obey God and
obey the Apostle, and those among you invested with authority." By
"those invested with authority" is meant primarily and more especially
the Imams -- the blessings of God rest upon them! They, verily, are
the manifestations of the power of God, and the sources of His
authority, and the repositories of His knowledge, and the daysprings
of His commandments. Secondarily these words refer unto the kings and
rulers -- those through the brightness of whose justice the horizons
of the world are resplendent and luminous. We fain would hope that His
Majesty the Shah will shine forth with a light of justice whose
radiance will envelop all the kindreds of the earth. It is incumbent
upon every one to beseech the one true God on his behalf for that
which is meet and seemly in this day.
(Baha'u'llah, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, p. 89)
to get back to the Guardian again, he wrote:
I can do no better than quote some of Bahá'u'lláh's Own testimonies,
leaving the reader to shape his own judgment as to the falsity of such
a deduction. In His "Epistle to the Son of the Wolf" He indicates the
true source of kingship: "Regard for the rank of sovereigns is
divinely ordained, as is clearly attested by the words of the Prophets
of God and His chosen ones. He Who is the Spirit [Jesus] -- may peace
be upon Him -- was asked: 'O Spirit of God! Is it lawful to give
tribute to Caesar, or not?' And He made reply: 'Yea, render to Caesar
the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.'
(Shoghi Effendi, The Promised Day is Come, p. 71)
in the slow and hidden process of secularisation invading many a
Government department under the courageous guidance of the Governors
of outlying provinces -- in all of these a discerning eye can easily
discover the symptoms that augur well for a future that is sure to
witness the formal and complete separation of Church and State.
(Shoghi Effendi, The Unfolding Destiny of the British Baha'i
Community, p. 76)
etc... there really are hundreds of such passages. The separation of
Church and State is one of the most fundamental bahai teachings,
repeated time and again because the enemies of the Faith have always
claimed that its eventual aim is to supplant the governments and
establish a Bahai theocracy. :
"One of their many calumnies was that this servant had raised aloft a
banner in this city, had summoned the people together under it, had
established a new sovereignty for himself, ... and, God forbid, had
purposed to cause the gravest breach in the mighty power of the Crown.
May the Lord protect us from such atrocious falsehoods! According to
the direct and sacred command of God ... We must obey and be the
well-wishers of the governments of the land, regard disloyalty unto a
just king as disloyalty to God Himself and wishing evil to the
government a transgression of the Cause of God. With these final and
decisive words, how can it be that these imprisoned ones should
indulge in such vain fancies; incarcerated, how could they show forth
such disloyalty!" (Will and Testament, pages 7-8)
Doug - the issue is not whether the Writings expect a commonwealth of
nations with its world executive, legislature and judiciary, and a
Bahai Commonwealth whose supreme organ is the Universal House of
Justice -- clearly both are specified in the Writings. The question is
whether they are the same thing, or two different parts of one world
order. Since in the commonwealth of nations the three powers are
separated, which are combined in the Universal House of Justice, and
since the electoral methods for the UHJ and for the world tribunal are
both specified by Abdu'l-baha, and are both different, and since he
refers in his Will and Testament to both the UHJ and the Tribunal,
using different terms for them, I think it is clear that they were two
quite distinct things in Abdu'l-Baha's mind.
There's more on this on my blog at
http://tinyurl.com/worldorderelections
http://tinyurl.com/twocommonwealths
At one time SAQ had footnotes saying that the tribunal was the UHJ,
and the UHJ the Tribunal. Later the Bahais understood that these were
two separate things. In the same way, the Bahai Commonwealth and the
commonwealth of nations have got confused : when they are understood
to be two different things, all sorts of apparent contradictions are
cleared up
Douglas McAdam
Any thoughts about what this quote means?
1922. As to his question about the permissibility of promulgating the
divine teachings without relating them to the Most Great Name, you
should answer: "This blessed Name hath an effect on the reality of
things. If these teachings are spread without identifying them with
this holy Name, they will fail to exert an abiding influence in the
world. The teachings are like the body, and this holy Name is like the
spirit. It imparteth life to the body. It causeth the people of the
world to be aroused from their slumber."
Regards,
doug
(From a Tablet - translated from the Persian)On Mar 23, 2009, at 3:38
Douglas McAdam
You are quite right about the fact we are merely speculating and none
of us is a prophet and our views are merely a personal interpretation
that cannot be taken as authoritative and nor can we use them to
judge others. As an example of how we can see and understand things
differently I do not get the same conclusion you do from the quotes
you provided.
My understanding is that, like it says, ---
> All matters of State
> should be referred to the House of Justice, but acts of worship must
> be observed according to that which God hath revealed in His Book.
And the King is not an authority but only a figurehead who announces
what the House of Justice decides.
Also there is no forcing of Baha'i laws on others anymore than what we
do now in secular govt. where a party such as Republican might enact
laws even though Democrats oppose them. All people, no matter what
party or what beliefs must obey our Federal govt. and likewise I am
understanding that in the future all peoples will abide by all laws.
The Baha'i laws make sense. We have the harmony of science and
religion and so I doubt there is anything in Baha'i Laws that would
not somehow be in agreement with reason.
regards,
doug
Christian Gruber
Uhh... that's a pretty strong statement. Look at some of the writings
on the institution of Huquq'u'llah and Mashriq'ul-Adhkar. A lot of
them look pretty "liberal" to me, in terms of caring for certain
sectors of the population by means of taxation on wealth.
I think it's a mistake for any Baha'i to decide that the Faith is in
favour of liberalism or conservatism of libertarianism or
pastafarianism or any other ism. It tends to go its own way, which
does match some aspects of all of the above (well, maybe not
pastafarianism... ;)
And in general, I find that "no Baha'i should ever..." statements to
be the least helpful and accurate. Not saying you're wrong, RTJ, just
that I find that typically to be the case.
Christian.
Christian Gruber
> I am in a crisis of faith. Not the Baha'i Faith, but rather faith in
> the Baha'is.
Your not the first, and not the last. The Guardian opined that
Baha'is would be the biggest test for Baha'is.
> As Baha'is we
> accept these things freely, but in my opinion saying that these things
> must be accepted by others is just plain wrong.
I think many Baha'is do this, but the Faith very strongly asserts that
the Baha'i Laws, while perhaps spiritually applicable to all, are not
enforceable on those who have not declared their allegiance to
Baha'u'llah. Specifically a Baha'i can offer his opinion based on his
scripture that an act is not in the spiritual interest of the actor,
but a Baha'i cannot legitimately pressure that person, nor vilify him
for the act. In my own view, if they're doing that, they're missing
the point.
> But that I cannot speak my mind to Baha'is is a point of contention,
> and I don't want to be the cause of such contention. I have so much
> problem with the Ruhi books I have stopped studying them, even though
> the community involvement is wonderful.
>
> --Kent
You can speak your mind to me any time, without contention. I may
agree or disagree, but I will never (well, I will try not to) judge or
condemn. I can't see a case for ugly condemnation by a Baha'i as
being consistent with the spirit of the religion, or the example of
`Abdu'l-Baha.
sincerely,
Christian
Douglas McAdam
I appreciate the amount of time you must have spent in providing all
these quotes and yet they do not lead me to the same conclusion you
have, which only goes to show we all have different interpretations
and understandings. I also realize that we are merely speculating
from our current level of spiritual development and we both know that
generally speaking we are in the infancy stage of this growth and thus
we tend to impose our current and conditioned views and standards on a
Revelation that is to last 5,000 centuries. I take a look at all this
from that standpoint, i.e. that I am to question even our current
meanings of words and practices. For example we have bible quotes
about the Kingdom of God to be established on earth and I somehow
cannot even think that when heaven on earth is established it will
also have a secular govt. And I give some thought to the term
"secular" as well as the term "separation of church and state". What
do they "really' mean in terms of the Baha'i Revelation?
Here in America we are supposed to abide by the separation of church
and state rule but we don't and I know from first hand experience that
this is true. What I have experienced is there is a misconception on
behalf of most people what church or religion means in this country
and I also know that many people do there best, both overtly and
covertly, to have "their" church have the power over things.
I also asked myself "what does secular and religion really mean".
Here is one definition-
secular |ˈsekyələr|adjective1 denoting attitudes,
activities, or
other things that have no religious or spiritual basis : secular
buildings | secular moral theory. Contrasted with sacred .
I simply cannot imagine our Bahai Revelation eventually leading to a
time when a govt. will not have a spiritual basis.
Also I think there will be a difference between what the term
"Church" and "State" means as when we finally reach a more spiritual
stage of development.
In short, I simply cannot imagine a future world order that will see
us having a secular form of govt. because that to me is not what
exists in the spiritual world and this world is but a reflection of
that "real" spiritual world, according to my understanding.
Also I think that we, at this stage of our development, cannot really
imagine and speculate with any degree of reality, what the future
world will be like, except maybe to say it will be mostly opposite or
in contrast with what we now have.
regards,
doug
Sen McGlinn
> Sorry but I disagree entirely. Whether Sen or others appreciate this
> point, there is a developing cynicism towards old party style
> politics. Americans are abandoning their faith in a system rooted in
> dirt, smear, and ultimately this party based system.
I agree : it is not old style parties I am thinking of. The old
ideological and competing parties have had their day - and it has been
a fairly brief day, from the early-19th to the late-20th centuries.
I’ve discussed the future of political parties and Bahais’
participation in them in my book, Church and State, at pages 346-356
and particularly in the section on open democracy at pages 350-352. I
distinguish there between ideological parties, a relatively recent
phenomenon, and parties in the sense of the organisation of social
interests who should be represented in decision-making.
I start by taking issue with various scholars who have attributed
Baha’u’llah’s stance in recognising the authority of kings and rulers
to pragmatic considerations relating to the vulnerability of the young
Bahai community. While it is reasonable to suppose that the safety of
the Bahai community must have weighed heavily with Baha’u’llah and
Abdu’l-Baha, they both wrote works advocating and foretelling
parliamentary democracy and other democratic reforms in Iran, which in
itself would have been an offence if they had been living in that
country. They had these books printed in Bombay and distributed
through the Bahai community, which must have been regarded as an act
of sedition by the Iranian government. However great their concern for
the safety of the Bahai community may have been, it did not weigh
heavily enough to make them withdraw from a position of principle in
relation to democracy, so it seems unwarranted to regard their
recognition of the legitimacy of the Qajar state as a mere tactical
position. This recognition has more substantial roots in Baha’u’llah’
s
vision of the deep structure of the universe (i.e., his metaphysics).
...
Peter Smith’s excellent paper on ‘Millenarianism in the Babi and
Baha’i Religions’ (1982) represents the Bahai Faith as advocating
progressive political positions, such as constitutional rather than
absolute monarchy and the development of an international political
order, but also says that the Bahais “were not to concern themselves
with political affairs.” This is an odd comment coming from a
historian, since Baha’u’llah and Abdu’l-Baha were both closely
involved in progressive political movements, while not having any
political ambitions for themselves, and Abdu’l-Baha wrote to Thornton
Chase that
: Thou hast asked regarding the political affairs. In the United
States
: it is necessary that the citizens shall take part in elections.
: This is a necessary matter and no excuse from it is possible.
: My object in telling the believers that they should not interfere
: in the affairs of government is this: That they should not make any
: trouble and that they should not move against the opinion of the
: government, but obedience to the laws and the administration of
: the commonwealth is necessary. Now, as the government of America
: is a republican form of government,
**it is necessary that all the citizens shall take part in the
elections of officers and take part in the affairs of the republic.**
(Abdu'l-Baha, Tablets of Abdu'l-Baha v2, p. 342)
So in a democracy, Bahais MUST “take part in the affairs of the
republic.”
Any number of examples could be given in the Bahai secondary
literature that give the same impression, that the Bahai teachings are
against any involvement in political affairs. This contains an element
of truth, but embraces at least three confusions. The first is
historical, and one would have expected Smith to avoid it. The
practical instructions given to Bahais regarding political behaviour,
and the example set by their leaders, have changed over time and in
different countries. For example, in Iran the constitutional
revolution of 1905-6 led to a marked withdrawal of the Bahai community
from involvement with progressive political movements, partly to
preserve the safety of the community and partly because conservative
religious forces had seized control of the coalition backing the
revolution, and these forces insisted that the Bahai minority should
be excluded from the political process. This was the price that
‘progressives’ such as Afghani and Malkum Khan paid, for having used
religious networks to mobilise support for democratic change, not
realising apparently that the separation of church and state is not a
fruit of democracy and progressive government, but its foundation.
Later, in the United States of the McCarthy era, the Bahais found it
impossible even to register as a voter without becoming entangled in
the polarized party-political system. From the 1940s to 1960s, Bahais
from the United States were instrumental in founding many of the Bahai
communities outside of the Middle East. To this day one finds Bahais
who think that Bahais are required to abstain from voting, and may
even hope that the political system will eventually be destroyed by
such concerted abstention. But as Abdu’l-Baha’s letter to Thornton
Chase shows, the principle that Bahais must support and obey their
governments means that, in a democratic society, they must fulfil the
political duties of citizenship, as participants. This is the general
principle. There are exceptional circumstances in which this is not
possible: in Iran because the price of participation would have been
to deny being Bahai, in McCarthy’s America because the price was
signing up for one or other mainstream party and against the communist
party. Such temporary exigencies should not be confused with political
quietism as a matter of principle (as in some world-denying
millennialist movements), and the present situation should not be read
back into the time and teachings of Baha’u’llah. World peace is the
goal, and Abdu’l-Baha has stated that the enfranchisement of women and
their participation in politics will be a factor in securing it:
: “If, in the future, women like unto men are given the franchise,
: assuredly they shall prevent the occurrence of war ..”
(letter of Abdu’l-Baha printed in Star of the West Vol. 10 No.3. April
28 1919, 39-40)
Are we to suppose that Bahai women should participate in politics, and
Bahai men should not? Or that women in general should participate, but
the Bahai women, who have as much stake in achieving lasting peace as
any of their sex, and more guidance on how to go about it, should not
lift a finger?
Clearly the institutional separation of politics and religion cannot
mean that believers cannot be political: this is an aburdity.
The second confusion here is between taking part “in the affairs of
the republic,” which is encouraged, and joining external
organizations, whether political, religious or social. Bahais are
called on to support and participate in progressive movements, (Shoghi
Effendi, Baha’i Administration 126, 174; God Passes By 330.) but also
to exercise great caution in joining organizations so far as this
implies giving allegiance to them or to an ideology, or supporting the
organization’s actions and programme as a whole. In particular they
are not permitted to be registered members of the Bahai community and
at the same time members of a church or a political party. This policy
dates from the 1920s [footnoted sources] and, in my opinion, will
eventually have to be changed. One would not expect the writings of
Baha’u’llah or Abdu’l-Baha to mention it, since institutionalised
political parties in the contemporary sense did not exist in the
Middle East of their time. Indeed ideological political parties are a
relatively recent and, I think, short-lived phenomenon. Prior to the
20th century, parties such as the Tories and Whigs of English
politics, or those in France and the United States, represented
interests rather than ideologies. Baha’u’llah and Abdu’l-Baha
supported a consultative government in which various interests, such
as the nobility, agricultural interest, labour and capital would be
represented, and it is hard to see how the interests and concerns of
farmers, for example, can be represented in parliament unless they are
organised to choose their representatives and to maintain contact with
them. Twentieth-century ideological parties, on the other hand, were
built on a homogeneity of class interests that no longer exists, and
on a claim that one ideology could provide the coordinating function
in society. The policy in force in the Bahai community from the 1930s
to today, that Bahais cannot be members of a political party, is
evidently defensible so far as it refers to an era of ideological
politics. But since democracy requires political parties, or something
with the same function and a different name, and the Bahai teachings
evidently endorse democratic government and also require believers to
contribute to the system of government they live under (democratic or
not), the position of the Bahais in an era of non-ideological politics
becomes less clear.
Multi-party democracies today consist of a mixture of ideological
parties such as communists and racists, purely pragmatic parties with
varying ideas and emphases about how to achieve good government, and
largely pragmatic parties that are still living with a party tradition
inherited from the ideological era, such as Labour parties. It would
be invidious for a National Spiritual Assembly to make case-by-case
judgements that membership or candidacy for some political parties is
permissible, but not for others, so the policy could only be changed
where all or most parties have shed any ideological, race or class
basis. The question evidently requires more study, but as a rule of
thumb I would suggest that those parties that allow multiple party
memberships and public selection of candidates can be supposed to be
representing legitimate social interests, rather than ideologies.
These have been called open parties. Although no country today has a
political system based on open parties, Paul Hilder has assembled a
list of parties and platforms in many countries that are experimenting
with new concepts of the political party, in the face of falling
memberships and the declining relevance of the traditional political
party. His article was published on www.opendemocracy.net in January
2005.
Ideologies compete, but interests overlap. A farming family for
example may wish to support both an organisation that ensures that the
concerns of the countryside are heard in parliament, and one that is
primarily concerned with ensuring that legislation takes into account
the needs of families with young children. At election time a decision
must be made as to which issue is most urgent, or which organisation
warrants the greater confidence, but a vote for one is not a vote
against the other, if they recognise their complementary nature. In
this situation there seems to be no objection in fundamental principle
to Bahais joining one or other, or both.
The third confusion – to summarise that section of my book enormously
– is that the teaching of the separation of the institutions of church
and state is being confused with non-involvement of the believers in
politics, ie with political quietism.
~~ Sen McGlinn
Sen McGlinn
wrote:
> As to his question about the permissibility of promulgating the
> divine teachings without relating them to the Most Great Name, you
> should answer: "This blessed Name hath an effect on the reality of
> things. If these teachings are spread without identifying them with
> this holy Name, they will fail to exert an abiding influence in the
> world. The teachings are like the body, and this holy Name is like the
> spirit. It imparteth life to the body. It causeth the people of the
> world to be aroused from their slumber."
> (From a Tablet - translated from the Persian)
Shoghi Effendi says something similar:
Not even, I venture to assert, would the very act of devising the
machinery required for the political and economic unification of the
world -- a principle that has been increasingly advocated in recent
times -- provide in itself the antidote against the poison that is
steadily undermining the vigor of organized peoples and nations. What
else, might we not confidently affirm, but the unreserved acceptance
of the Divine Program enunciated, with such simplicity and force as
far back as sixty years ago, by Bahá'u'lláh, embodying in its
essentials God's divinely appointed scheme for the unification of
mankind in this age, coupled with an indomitable conviction in the
unfailing efficacy of each and all of its provisions, is eventually
capable of withstanding the forces of internal disintegration which,
if unchecked, must needs continue to eat into the vitals of a
despairing society. It is towards this goal -- the goal of a new World
Order, Divine in origin, all-embracing in scope, equitable in
principle, challenging in its features -- that a harassed humanity
must strive.
(Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha'u'llah, p. 34)
In other words, the principles will have no (or little) effect without
becoming a disciple of Baha'u'llah. The reason is clear if you look at
the disputes that rage especially between people who accept a common
principle, and argue about its application. Bahais have the same
disputes, but they also share a common devotion to the person of
Baha'u'llah, and a religious identity and practice. That keeps us
together when we disagree on an intellectual level or about the best
plan for now. Moreover, the principles without the transformation of
individuals can only ameliorate problems.
Your quote is particularly about the indirect method of teaching.
Shoghi Effendi writes:
"...the World Unity activity is being carried out as an experiment to
test the efficacy of the indirect method of teaching;"
(Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha'u'llah, p. 9)
I think this makes it clear that he uses the term "indirect method" to
describe teaching Bahai principles and supporting organisations,
without using the name Bahai. He encouraged the World Unity activities
strongly:
"Regarding the series of World Unity meetings ... I wish to express my
keen appreciation of such a splendid conception,.."
(Shoghi Effendi, Baha'i Administration, p. 108)
"As to the policy that should be adopted with regard to these
Conferences ... as the Movement grows in strength and power the
National Spiritual Assemblies should be encouraged, ... to resort to
the twofold method of directly and indirectly winning the enlightened
public to the unqualified acceptance of the Bahá'í Faith. The one
method would assume an open, decisive and challenging tone. The other,
without implying in any manner the slightest departure from strict
loyalty to the Cause of God, would be progressive and cautious.
Experience will reveal the fact that each of the methods ... should be
judiciously attempted and utilized.
(Shoghi Effendi, Baha'i Administration, p. 124)
"Let him consider the degree of his hearer's receptivity, and decide
for himself the suitability of either the direct or indirect method
of teaching, whereby he can impress upon the seeker the vital
importance of the Divine Message, and persuade him to throw in his lot
with those who have already embraced it."
(Shoghi Effendi, The Advent of Divine Justice, p. 51)
Abdu'l-Baha, in your quote, says that the teachings without the name
"will fail to exert an abiding influence". (note: he was asked wither
indirect teaching is **permissible,** his answer is not "it is not
permissible" but rather "it will not have a lasting influence.") But
Shoghi Effendi in ADJ seems to allow it, as a step towards embracing
the Message. In another letter he writes:
"In connection with the series of World Unity Conferences ... I feel
that in order to reap the fullest advantage and benefit from this
laudable effort, it is absolutely essential to follow up with the aid
of enlightened, experienced and capable teachers the interest which
has been aroused. Such a group of teachers should judiciously select
those few among the many interested, and endeavor with patience and
sympathy and by constant intimate personal intercourse, to prepare
them gradually for the entire and unreserved acceptance of the
fundamentals of the Bahá'í Revelation.
(Shoghi Effendi, Baha'i Administration, p. 117)
In Unfolding Destiny he encourages indirect teaching, not just as a
step towards conversion, but also as a way of creating a circle of
people in society who are positively-inclined to the Bahais:
"Membership in non-political organisations of this type is, indeed,
the best method of teaching indirectly the Message by making useful
and frequent contacts with well-known and influential persons who, if
not completely won to the Faith, can at least become of some effective
use to it."
(Shoghi Effendi, The Unfolding Destiny of the British Baha'i
Community, p. 91)
and in a religiously conservative setting (which, I gather, is what
you deal with Doug), he writes:
"Religious conservatism, particularly in England, constitutes indeed a
serious obstacle .... In view of that, it is, at least for the
present, more advantageous to teach the Message in an indirect way, so
as to gradually attract and confirm those who have the spiritual
capacity of appreciating the Cause in its fullness."
(Shoghi Effendi, The Unfolding Destiny of the British Baha'i
Community, p. 433)
In short, the Guardian welcomed indirect teaching
- as an adjunct to direct teaching
- as a step towards conversion
- because the Faith needs friends as well as converts.
- but not if it involved any compromise or deception.
~~ Sen McGlinn
Sen McGlinn
On Mar 26, 6:26 pm, Douglas McAdam <douglasmca...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
> As to his question about the permissibility of promulgating the
> divine teachings without relating them to the Most Great Name, you
> should answer: "This blessed Name hath an effect on the reality of
> things. If these teachings are spread without identifying them with
> this holy Name, they will fail to exert an abiding influence in the
> world. The teachings are like the body, and this holy Name is like
the
> spirit. It imparteth life to the body. It causeth the people of the
> world to be aroused from their slumber."
religious identity and pra ctice. That keeps us together when we
disagree
on an intellectual level or about the best plan for now. Moreover, the
principles without the transformation of individuals can only
ameliorate
problems.
Your quote is particularly about the indirect method of teaching.
Shoghi
Effendi writes:
"...the World Unity activity is being carried out as an experiment to
test
the efficacy of the indirect method of teaching;"
(Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha'u'llah, p. 9)
I think this makes it clear that he uses the term "indirect method" to
describe teaching Bahai principles and supporting organisations,
without
using the name Bahai. He encouraged the World Unity activities
strongly:
"Regarding the series of World Unity meetings ... I wish to express my
keen appreciation of such a splendid conception,.."
(Shoghi Effendi, Baha'i Administration, p. 108)
"As to the policy that should be adopted with regard to these
Conferences
.... as the Movement grows in strength and power the National Spiritual
Assemblies should be encouraged, ... to resort to the twofold method
of
directly and indirectly winning the enlightened public to the
unqualified
acceptance of the Bahá'í Faith. The one method would assume an open,
decisive and challenging t one. The other, without implying in any
manner
the slightest departure from strict loyalty to the Cause of God, would
be
progressive and cautious. Experience will reveal the fact that each of
the
methods ... should be judiciously attempted and utilized.
(Shoghi Effendi, Baha'i Administration, p. 124)
"Let him consider the degree of his hearer's receptivity, and decide
for
himself the suitability of either the direct or indirect method of
teaching, whereby he can impress upon the seeker the vital importance
of
the Divine Message, and persuade him to throw in his lot with those
who
have already embraced it."
(Shoghi Effendi, The Advent of Divine Justice, p. 51)
Abdu'l-Baha, in your quote, says that the teachings without the name
"will
fail to exert an abiding influence". (note: he was asked wither
indirect
teaching is **permissible,** his answer is not "it is not permissible"
but
rather "it will not have a lasting influence.") But Shoghi Effendi in
ADJ
seems to allow it, as a step towards embracing the Message. In another
letter he writes:
"In connection with the series of World Unity Conferences ... I feel
that
in order to reap the fullest advantage and benefit from this laudable
effort, it is absolutely essential to follow up with the aid of
enlightened, experienced and capable teachers the interest which has
been
aroused. Such a group of teachers should judiciously select those few
among the many interested, and end eavor with patience and sympathy
compx2
I would never put these words in anyone's mouth but my own, but you
quote 'Abdu'l-Baha saying
"They [enemies of the Faith] would use this subject [world government
aspirations for the Baha'i Faith] as a cause for disturbing the mind
of the government and confusing the thoughts of the public."
If that means that those who assert such aspirations for the Baha'i
Faith enemies of the Faith, that makes those Baha'is who assert this
issue (ie. practically all Baha'is) enemies of the Faith of God
according to 'Abdu'l-Baha.
--Kent
> There's more on this on my blog athttp://tinyurl.com/worldorderelectionsh
ttp://tinyurl.com/twocommonwealths
>
> At one time SAQ had footnotes saying that the tribunal was the UHJ,
> and the UHJ the Tribunal. Later the Bahais understood that these were
> two separate things. In the same way, the Bahai Commonwealth and the
> commonwealth of nations have got confused : when they are understood
> to be two different things, all sorts of apparent contradictions are
> cleared up- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dr. RTJ
wrote:
True but here's the difference: the Bahai Faith is voluntary. These
things should not be supported if they're being forced by secular
government upon a "free" population, this is called tyranny.
mike3
> Just to be clear my use of the term 'folk' was not meant to be
> belittling or demeaning. Perhaps the term layperson would be a better
> one to use.
>
> All religions have their lay community and their learned community.
> Although the Baha'i faith was to differ in this regard with there
> being no clergy not all believers have the desire or the vocation to
> become learned, to become scholars. I include myself amongst those,
> the lay people.
>
> Often the greatest of religious scholars are seen by their
> contemporaries as a threat because they push the envelope of
> understanding. Often it takes some time until their contributions to
> the advancement of their religions are truly understood or fully
> appreciated.
>
Does this mean one can't be a really good positive force in helping
the world unless one does that?!
mike...@yahoo.com
>But since democracy requires political parties, or something
>with the same function and a different name,
Sen, I truly appreciate your historical review of the matter and must
agree with some of it except for a few points which grab my attention.
It's an opinion that democracy and the party system must go hand in
hand. There really is no reason apart from our limited mental
paradigms that a democracy needs a party system.
The party system even reformed as an open party is still based on the
concept of division and is counter to the very core of our theology.
The premise of the Faith is finding common ground and unification, not
division along political lines. Personally, I think our democracies
would fare much better without the party system.
I can envision that a future Baha'i government will be very similar
to the US government only instead of being married to the church is
instead aligned with the Baha'i administration for guidance. In this
sense it wouldn't be truly secular, but really we can't claim that our
current government in practice is secular.
The framework for this Baha'i commonwealth will be the Baha'i
administration, and it will be this Baha'i administration that confers
authority on the governments. While they may separate entities, the
source of their power and authority will come from our
administration.
But I think our key difference of opinion centers on the party system
as it is (or could be). As a Baha'i, the concept of the any party
system is flat out unacceptable because it is based on division. Our
goal is to unify and not engage in acts of division. Consultation when
understood and practiced properly will prove to be a far superior
system. I really do believe that there are alternatives to the party
system that simply have not been explored which can better serve a
democracy.
mike...@yahoo.com
> And the King is not an authority but only a figurehead who announces
> what the House of Justice decides.
So what is Baha'u'llahs purpose in revealing the 15th glad tiding?
Why talk about a republican government? What's your interpretation on
this matter.
The fifteenth Glad-Tidings
Although a republican form of government profiteth all the peoples of
the world, yet the majesty of kingship is one of the signs of God. We
do not wish that the countries of the world should remain deprived
thereof. If the sagacious combine the two forms into one, great will
be their reward in the presence of God.
I seriously doubt that so much emphasis would be placed on the
republican government that it would be enumerated in a glad-tiding if
it were intended to merely be a transient thing.
Sen
> It's an opinion that democracy and the party system must go hand in
> hand. There really is no reason apart from our limited mental
> paradigms that a democracy needs a party system.
Is there an option?
Let's start with the older concept of the "estates" :
Certain laws and principles are necessary and indispensable for
Persia. However, it is fitting that these measures should be adopted
in conformity with the considered views of His Majesty -- may God aid
him through His grace -- and of the learned divines and of the high-
ranking rulers. Subject to their approval a place should be fixed
where they would meet.
(Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 92)
The idea is that all the principles "estates" of society should be
represented, because the input from them all is required, and because
no reform and plan can succeed unless it also has widespread support.
Translating that into contemporary society, can a strategic plan for
society as a whole succeed without support from labour, and the
capitalists, women, families, young people, farmers, the major
religious communities, etc?
In a monarchy, this representation of all sectors can be achieved by
appointment. In the United Kingdom, the Bishops represent religion,
the hereditary peers represent nobility which once meant, the big
landowners, the lower house represents the people. Only the last had
to be elected. But society has moved on, and that structure hardly
works any more.
If the society is democratic, and if it is no longer self-evident who
should represent the farmers, the landowners, the religious
communities, then what choice is there but for people themselves to
form groups and chose those who will represent them? If a society
thinks, for instance, that the farming or ecological interest should
be represented, how can this be achieved except by organisations of
people interested in farming and ecology?
> The party system even reformed as an open party is still based on the
> concept of division and is counter to the very core of our theology.
What about a country, or a company, that says that a certain percent
of its members of parliament/the board should be women? Do you see
that as based on the concept of division? I don't: I think that the
"social estates" idea that we can see in the quote from Baha'u'llah
above, and practices such as quotas and positive discrimination, are
inclusive, not divisive. Ideological parties are divisive, but the
representation of diverse interests is just the opposite, it unites
> The framework for this Baha'i commonwealth will be the Baha'i
> administration, and it will be this Baha'i administration that confers
> authority on the governments. While they may separate entities, the
> source of their power and authority will come from our
> administration.
Wow! where did you get that from? It seems to be just the opposite of
what Baha'u'llah says:
"The sovereigns of the world ... are the manifestations of the power
of
God and the daysprings of His authority." (Ishraqat 2)
"He Who is the Spirit (Jesus) -- may peace be upon Him -- was asked:
"O Spirit of God! Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar or not?" And
He made reply: "Yea, render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and
to God the things that are God's." He forbade it not. These two
sayings are, in the estimation of men of insight, one and the same,
for if that which belonged to Caesar had not come from God, He would
have forbidden it.
(Baha'u'llah, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, p. 89)
Caesar gets authority from God -- not from the Manifestation, not from
the priests and the temple. Abdu'l-Baha makes a similar point in the
Sermon on the Art of Governance:
"... this prohibition and prevention, ... is divided into two types.
The
first protector and restrainer is the power of governance .... Just
monarchs, accomplished representatives, wise ministers, and intrepid
military leaders constitute the executive centre in this power of
governance, ... The second type of educator and governor of the human
world is sacred and spiritual power: the heavenly Books that have been
sent down, the prophets of God, and spiritual souls and devout
religious
leaders." (http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/trans/vol7/govern.htm)
The prophets and scriptures are placed within the second category,
not as ruling over both categories. This explains why the sovereignty
of
the Manifestations and Imams, described in the Iqan, is different in
kind
to the sovereignty of the kings. Politics is not a sub- department of
religion, it is itself a power undergirded by God, with its own
mandate
from God, just as much as religion has.
In light of this, it would be equally wrong for the religious order to
confer authority on the religious, or for the religious leaders to
confer authority on the state.
~~ Sen McGlinn
mike...@yahoo.com
> And the King is not an authority but only a figurehead who announces
> what the House of Justice decides.
So what is Baha'u'llahs purpose in revealing the 15th glad tiding?
Why talk about a republican government? What's your interpretation on
this matter.
The fifteenth Glad-Tidings
Although a republican form of government profiteth all the peoples of
the world, yet the majesty of kingship is one of the signs of God. We
do not wish that the countries of the world should remain deprived
thereof. If the sagacious combine the two forms into one, great will
be their reward in the presence of God.
I seriously doubt that so much emphasis would be placed on the
lenorel95
left to human devices. The path is being laid now.
Warmly,
Lenore
<mike...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:U9SdnWAKk80vgH3U...@giganews.com...
lenorel95
the impression that there would be one Monarch for the world.
My understanding is that we will retain nations (probably in different
configurations than now) and that the nations will work together--like the
United Nations.
(Note: kingship is used in the passage. This concept can include male or
females)
The Monarch and the Assembly of Representatives will have many jobs. Each
nation will have a system of laws and ordinances that are needed for the
particular area of the world and its peoples. Building and maintaining
public services, as we have now, will require a large amount of time and
energy to manage. Additionally, given the vast differences in global
geography, potential for natural disasters, physical resources, there will
be much work in providing for public services such as public health and
security.
I was visiting with another Baha'i this evening about current events. We
speculated about the vast changes that will be needed in the next few
hundred years. Now, groups that are operating in a tribal system, are being
brought along, kicking and screaming into a global society. We both are
looking forward to seeing, with the distance of time (we'll both be in the
next world), how this time will be remembered in the annals of humanity.
Greetings to all,
Lenore
Sen
>
> I seriously doubt that so much emphasis would be placed on the
> republican government that it would be enumerated in a glad-tiding if
> it were intended to merely be a transient thing.
Indeed, and the Bisharat is only one of countless passages that refer
to the institutions of civil government, whether monarchial or
republican or -- ideally -- the two together continuing into the
future.
In the Promised Day is Come, from page 70, Shoghi Effendi explains
that the words : "From two ranks amongst men power hath been seized:
kings and ecclesiastics" do NOT mean an end to Monarchy, but rather
its continuation in a different spirit, as implied by the words "Only
in order to proclaim the Cause of God and spread abroad His Faith will
anyone be willing to bear this grievous weight." Shoghi Effendi says:
"Let none, however, mistake or unwittingly misrepresent the purpose of
Baha'u'llah. ... His teachings embody no principle that can, in any
way, be construed as a repudiation, ... of the institution of
kingship. ... the declining fortunes of the sovereigns of His Own
generation, ... should, in no wise, be confounded with the future
position of that institution. Indeed if we delve into the writings of
the Author of the Baha'i Faith, we cannot fail to discover unnumbered
passages in which, in terms that none can misrepresent, the principle
of kingship is eulogized, the rank and conduct of just and fair-minded
kings is extolled, the rise of monarchs ruling with justice and even
professing His Faith, is envisaged, and the
solemn duty to arise and ensure the triumph of Baha'i sovereigns is
inculcated.
.... to infer from the recital of the woeful disasters that have
overtaken so many of [the kings], that His followers
either advocate or anticipate the definite extinction of the
institution of kingship, would indeed be tantamount to a distortion of
His teaching.
I can do no better than quote some of Baha'u'llah's Own
testimonies, leaving the reader to shape his own judgment as to the
falsity of such a deduction. ... "
This continues, in a substantial compilation on this topic assembled
by Shoghi Effendi himself. To give just one example:
"... In one of His Tablets Baha'u'llah has also written: "The one
true God,
exalted be His glory, hath bestowed the government of the earth upon
the
kings. To none is given the right to act in any manner that would run
counter to the considered views of them who are in authority. That
which
He hath reserved for Himself are the cities of mens hearts; and of
these the
loved ones of Him Who is the Sovereign Truth are, in this Day, as the
keys." "
The idea that "the King is not an authority but only a figurehead who
announces what the House of Justice decides." is contrary to explicit
and central Bahai teachings: it is an idea that both the Guardian (as
in the example above) and the Master have battled against in the
strongest terms. Among the words of Abdu'l-Baha on this topic :
"Should they place in the arena the crown of the government of the
whole world, and invite each one of us to accept it, undoubtedly we
shall not condescend, and shall refuse to accept it." ( Tablets of the
Divine Plan 51)
http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/TDP/tdp-8.html#pg51
and
"The signature of that meeting should be the Spiritual Gathering
(House of Spirituality) and the wisdom therein is that hereafter the
government should not infer from the term "House of Justice" that a
court is signified, that it is connected with political affairs, or
that **at any time it will interfere with governmental affairs.**
Hereafter, enemies will be many. They would use this subject as a
cause for disturbing the mind of the government and confusing the
thoughts of the public." (Tablets of Abdu'l-Baha Abbas vol. 1, page 5,
also printed with minor editorial changes in Baha'i World Faith
405).
This is just what has happened: the Bahais were and are being attacked
by enemies who accuse them of planning to set up a world theocratic
state. And some of the Bahais have adopted the very accusations of
these enemies!!
Abdu'l-Baha complains:
"One of their many calumnies was that this servant had raised aloft a
banner in this city, had summoned the people together under it, had
established a new sovereignty for himself, ... and, God forbid, had
purposed to cause the gravest breach in the mighty power of the Crown.
May the Lord protect us from such atrocious falsehoods! According to
the direct and sacred command of God ... We must obey and be the
well-wishers of the governments of the land, regard disloyalty unto a
just king as disloyalty to God Himself and wishing evil to the
government a transgression of the Cause of God. With these final and
decisive words, how can it be that these imprisoned ones should
indulge in such vain fancies; ... " (Will and Testament, pages 7-8)
mike...@yahoo.com
I must agree with Sen on this point. As Baha'is we should strive to
remain true to Baha'u'llah's wishes on the matter. I cannot ignore the
glad tidings and for that reason, I'll respect the need for a
republican government. I think our real issue as Baha'is isn't with
our governments but rather with politics. Here's a relevant quote:
In this Cause consultation is of vital importance, but spiritual
conference and not the mere voicing of personal views is intended. In
France I was present at a session of the senate, but the experience
was not impressive. Parliamentary procedure should have for its object
the attainment of the light of truth upon questions presented and not
furnish a battleground for opposition and self-opinion. Antagonism and
contradiction are unfortunate and always destructive to truth. In the
parliamentary meeting mentioned, altercation and useless quibbling
were frequent; the result, mostly confusion and turmoil; even in one
instance a physical encounter took place between two members. It was
not consultation but comedy.
(Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 72)
My theory is that the Baha'i system of consultation will ultimately
be perfused into our governments and lead to their prosperity. The
problem right now is that most people haven't understood how to
consult and truly appreciated the advantages of consultation. But I
can see that when it is properly used, it will prove to be such a
social advantage that society will look back on it as being tantamount
to the discovery of fire.