The Politically-Motivated Use of "Fundamentalism" by Bahai "Liberals"
Mr Mahdi
proclivity towards following the "fundamentals" of a particular belief or
creed. But what the word "fundamentalism" really means and how it is used does
not coincide with the linguistically correct sense of "following the
fundamentals." Often used to label a group or person as intolerant, bigoted,
superstitious, fanatical, and just plain crazy, "fundamentalism" creates a
notion that those who believe in adhering and interpreting religious beliefs in
a "literal way" are intolerant, bigoted, superstitious, fanatical and just
plain crazy.
As for Bahai "liberals," they represent a group of mostly Western academics and
scholars who felt discontent with the "appearance of a traditional religion" in
the current Bahai movement. Many felt that the Bahai movement today lacks is
the original "liberal" spirit that initially set the Bahai religion apart from
"traditional religions" early in its history. The "liberals" often confuse the
dynamic nature of "liberalism" to certain beliefs incorporated into the Bahai
faith which were at a certain point of human history were seen as "liberal" but
were actually static beliefs not subject to change. Many of these Bahai
"liberals" have resigned from the Bahai faith, but are not true apostates
because most of them wholeheartedly believe that Bahaullah and the Bahai faith
are divinely inspired and commissioned by God. Their "resignation" is really a
falling out with the Bahai administration; since the Bahai administration and
the Bahai faith are really one entity they are regarded as "ex-Bahais."
"Liberalism" is a dynamic belief system which often is manifested in a
movement. Liberalism often tries to redefine morality, religious beliefs,
mores, public sentiments, etc., in a way that would be in line to the liberal
interest agenda and viewpoint on how things should be *at the moment of time.*
For example, it is considered "liberal" to support same-sex marriages, although
the majority of people would not agree with same-sex "marriages," liberals try
to present to the society their viewpoint as progressive and fair. These leave
the majority of people who do not support same-sex marriages as not progressive
and fair but more intolerant and bigoted. This is a highly
politically-motivated movement bent on creating a society that they feel should
exist in order to have a better world for all people. Their attempt at
creating their own utopia by redefining and overhauling beliefs, sentiments,
morality, and systems of the society shows how much they want to take over the
world.
As with the previous example of same-sex marriages, a "liberal" would want such
a thing to be allowed while a person who happens to adhere to religious
scripture would be against such a thing. This according to "liberalism" makes
a person who believes in same-sex marriages a "liberal" while a person who
doesn't (because of adherence to religious belief) a "fundamentalist." This
use of "fundamentalist" for a person who believes in following religious codes
creates the impression that such a person is a "literalist," intolerant,
bigoted, superstitious, fanatical and just plain crazy person who wants to
subject society to backward, archaic laws that are anti-progressive and
oppressive.
The Bahai faith is a movement that has laws that are integral to its belief
system. These laws are definitely static; not subject to change or revision.
This fact alone is against what "liberal" Bahais are trying to do; i.e., revise
Bahai beliefs to be compatible with the "liberalism" movement. They in a way
want to negate the source of the Bahai faith which Bahais believe is from God
and replace it with a man-made source where man not God determines what should
be right or wrong. This type of behavior is definitely anti-religion and shows
how much "liberals" want to take over the world and subject it to what they
believe is right and wrong. This is far from the image "liberals" try to
present themselves; as a tolerant, progressive group of people that believes in
acceptance of different viewpoints in a way one is not trying to impose their
beliefs on others. Liberals do not regard themselves as "fundamentalists"
because they believe "fundamentalism" is a literal adherence to religious
beliefs. Liberals also refuse to see themselves as fanatical and intolerant
bigots because they believe they are trying to make the society more tolerant
and progressive; thus justifying many liberals' behaviors that are definitely
fanatical and intolerant in many instances.
Finally we must understand the difference between liberalism and the Bahai
faith. The Bahai faith has beliefs and principles that were regarded as
liberal but the creed of the Bahai faith is not based on liberalism. Just like
when a "conservative" (another loaded, politically-motivated term) has a
"liberal belief" on an issue, that doesn't make that person have his
philosopical viewpoints all of a sudden based on "liberalism." The fact is
that a belief that is considered now as "liberal" will be considered the norm
in a few decades from now. The belief hasn't changed to make it go from
liberal to commonly accepted; what has changed is the public sentiments on that
belief. What liberal Bahais have a hard time understanding is that a belief
that was considered "liberal" when the Bahai faith first appeared does not mean
that the creed of the Bahai faith is based on liberalism; on the contrary, it
is based on a static creed that has decided to include beliefs that are
considered by the people at that time period as "liberal."
The evolution of the dynamic, inconsistent, and erratic nature of public
sentiments is proof that man is not capable of creating an ideology that agrees
with human nature. Such a belief system cannot properly organize man's affair
in the proper way; it has a hard time just to determine what should part of law
and what shouldn't. Just like the death penalty and Prohibition, man has made
the erratic decisions of allowing something, then banning it, then allowing it
again; and still the debate on the death penalty for example rages on where
each side it trying to uphold their viewpoints. Such a thing is what liberals
like to hide and deny from the public; because liberals want to present
themselves as consistent and understanding of what the majority of people want,
and to make inconsistent erratic decisions on a issue is to prove how much of a
sham man-made attempts at discerning what is right or wrong is.
Mahdi
Romane
news:sd276.5045$%b.3...@e420r-sjo2.usenetserver.com...
> Some would think that the word "fundamentalism" means a movement or a
I am reminded of the following quotes from Baha'u'llah in Tablets of
Baha'u'llah, page 155 (Asl-i-Kullu'l-Khayr (Words of Wisdom))
"THE source of all good is trust in God, submission unto His command, and
contentment with His holy will and pleasure"
"The essence of religion is to testify unto that which the Lord hath
revealed, and follow that which He hath ordained in His mighty Book"
"The source of all glory is acceptance of whatsoever the Lord hath bestowed,
and contentment with that which God hath ordained."
Romane
Roger Reini
>belief. What liberal Bahais have a hard time understanding is that a belief
>that was considered "liberal" when the Bahai faith first appeared does not mean
>that the creed of the Bahai faith is based on liberalism; on the contrary, it
>is based on a static creed that has decided to include beliefs that are
>considered by the people at that time period as "liberal."
>
I would not agree with your contention that the Baha'i Faith is
static. Some laws and ordinances are, in fact, not subject to change
during this dispensation. Anything explicitly set forth in the
Kitab-i-Aqdas (as authoritatively interpreted) is set in stone, i.e.
the laws forbidding multiple spouses, the forms of obligatory prayer,
etc. Only another Manifestation of God can change those, and He/She
won't be appearing for at least another 850 years or so from today.
But the Universal House of Justice does have the authority to issue
new laws to cover situations not specified in the text. For instance,
after the House determined that no further Hands of the Cause of God
could be appointed, it established the Continental Boards of
Counselors and gave them most of if not all of the functions of the
Hands. It has authorized the creation of regional spiritual
assemblies (spanning multiple countries) and regional councils
(serving in between the local and the national spiritual assembly in a
specific country).
Roger Reini (ro...@rreini.com)
Bill Collins
> proclivity towards following the "fundamentals" of a particular belief or
> creed. But what the word "fundamentalism" really means and how it is used
does
> not coincide with the linguistically correct sense of "following the
> fundamentals." Often used to label a group or person as intolerant,
bigoted,
> superstitious, fanatical, and just plain crazy, "fundamentalism" creates a
> notion that those who believe in adhering and interpreting religious
beliefs in
> a "literal way" are intolerant, bigoted, superstitious, fanatical and just
> plain crazy.
>
> As for Bahai "liberals," they represent a group of mostly Western
academics and scholars who felt >discontent with the "appearance of a
traditional religion" in
There is a lot going on in Mr. Mahdi's message, and it only partially
reaches into the problematical and basically illegitimate construction that
is being placed upon the Baha'i Faith and community with the phrases
"liberal," "conservative" and "fundamentalist." I think it is important in
these discussions to engage in some demonstration of one's statements
through presentation of a little evidence, and to take down a few of the red
flags. I am somewhat constrained in writing this posting because I dislike
intensely the need to mention specific names of those who have resorted to
using the politicized nomenclature. So I have largely pointed to repeated
ideas or statements that those on this list have almost certainly read.
The original meaning of "fundamentalist" in the religious sense comes from a
movement in the early 20th century to return Protestant Christianity to the
fundamentals of Christian belief. It was founded on a generally literalist
reading of the Bible text, and focused on such basics as the nature of sin,
the mission of Jesus Christ as the substitutionary atonement for sin, Jesus
Christ's literal resurrection, and the like. As time has gone on, it has
become a term by which to define any adherent of a religion who takes a
rigid, anti-intellectual, literalist, unthinking, blindly obedient,
intolerant view of those who do not subscribe to his particular worldview.
In Christianity, one would have to state that there are many
"fundamentalisms" because different sects may adhere to somewhat different
fundamentals.
There has emerged in the last decade or so an attempt by some Baha'is,
former Baha'is, and opponents of the Baha'i Faith, to define a Baha'i
community filled with unthinking "fundamentalists" whose goal is to kill
freedom, choke liberality, censor beliefs, and create a theocratic
dictatorship. Their particular goal is to convince the world, and Baha'is
in particular, that Baha'i institutions have a nefarious design to control
every aspect of individuals' lives and to deprive them of rights. That
neither of these assertions is true is totally beside the point, because the
desire of the accusers here seems to be to have a Baha'i Faith which is made
over into an image with which they would feel more comfortable and in which
they would have more influence -- American, partisanly political,
democratic, liberal, extremely tolerant, and hands-off on issues of
sexuality, speech and community discourse.
The paradigm of the Baha'i Faith is unity. This is a spiritual unity around
the Revelation of Baha'u'llah, a covenantal unity around the Baha'i Covenant
and the Head of the Faith, an organizational unity around institutions that
are uniformly constituted and elected, and a community unity around a shared
culture. Disagreement over beliefs is never per se the basis on which
individuals begin to launch themselves into difficulty. In the Baha'i
Faith, believers can hold a lot of beliefs about all kinds of things (read
David Piff's book "Baha'i Lore" [Oxford; George Ronald, 2000]), but they are
not permitted to put forth personal beliefs as either authoritative, as the
center of a movement, or as a bludgeon to force institutions or other
Baha'is to relinquish the teachings as they have been authoritatively
interpreted. The institutions and other Baha'is are being attacked as
fundamentalists primarily because the institutions and believers have acted
as required by the constitutive principles of the Faith to protect the unity
of the community and the constitutional authority of the institutions as
stated by Baha'u'llah and His lawful successors. Whatever one's personal
belief, for a Baha'i to take up the cudgel on the internet to attack the
Universal House of Justice's authority and decisions, to make slanderous
assertions about the moral character of members of the National Spiritual
Assembly, to strategize about winning victories against the institutions of
the Faith, or to write articles touting the Baha'i system as a kind of
abusive spy network, is subject to a response from the Baha'i community
and/or institutions. The Baha'i community rejects these statements, based
as they are not on fact but on the personal distaste that these individuals
appear to have for Baha'i institutions and the Baha'i teachings that do not
fit in with their individual preferences. The majority of those who are
launching these attacks on the institutions have never themselves served on
local or national spiritual assemblies, and have tenuous connection to the
wider and very diverse Baha'i community whom they at one and the same time
attack but say they are defending.
Shoghi Effendi wrote very firmly against the introduction of objectionable
politicized terms like "liberal," "conservative," and "reactionary" into a
description of the Baha'i community. I would suggest, however, that whether
or not Shoghi Effendi wrote this is immaterial to those who launch such
attacks. Dr. Cole in "Modernity and the Millennium" makes very clear in his
final statements and notes that the Baha'i Faith took a wrong turn under the
leadership of Shoghi Effendi. For Dr. Cole, and for many of the former
Baha'is who have been involved in special internet groups and writing
articles, Shoghi Effendi got it all wrong. If one carries this logic
further, constitutive principles to which these commentators object, and
that Shoghi Effendi reiterated based upon 'Abdu'l-Baha, may call into
question 'Abdu'l-Baha as well. One need only review the endless discussions
about the membership of the Universal House of Justice to see this in
action.
Whenever anyone lets opposition overwhelm his clear thinking, other problems
arise. If we view the most visited religious web site on the internet --
The Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
the very individuals who have
attacked the community on the basis of its "fundamentalism" have distorted
and falsified the current situation to make themselves appear blameless and
the Baha'i institutions intolerant. Clearly, large elements of the wording
accusing the Faith of intolerance appears like to have been supplied by
individuals who have been making the same accusations in internet
discussions. The discussion on homosexuality at the Ontario Consultants
site is a case in point. I have reiterated over and over again in this and
other forums, after years of experience on local assemblies, more than a
decade at the World Centre, attendance at sessions of the Baha'i Network on
AIDS, Sexuality and Addiction, and friendships with many believers who are
trying to come to terms with their sexuality, that the Baha'i Faith does not
deprive anyone of rights because he/she is homosexual. The only sanctions
occur for flagrant public actions that bring the Baha'i community into
disrepute. The accusation is
that homosexuals are "excommunicated." The internet opponents of the Faith
have found it helpful to confuse the public and uninformed Baha'is about
sanctions in the Faith. No one can be "excommunicated" for homosexuality.
Excommunication is being cut off and declared a covenant-breaker, and this
occurs only for rebellion against the Head of the Faith and any attempt to
create a movement or gain a following in opposition to that Head. Baha'is
are forbidden contact with a person who is "excommunicated." This action is
dire and quite rare. The deprivation of administrative rights that may
result from flagrant immorality, on the other hand, does not cut off the
person from being a Baha'i; it deprives the individual so sanctioned from
attending 19-day feasts, giving to the Baha'i fund, attending Baha'i-only
meetings, having a Baha'i marriage, and voting or being voted for in Baha'i
elections. In all other ways, the person is free to attend firesides, meet
with and be a friend of Baha'is, teach the Faith, etc. What opponents are
doing is making it appear that the Baha'i community prevents homosexuals
from becoming members, and then punishes them by the most dire consequence
if discovered. This is a consciously constructed falsehood.
I disagree, however, with Mahdi's assertion that Baha'i teachings are
"static." The Baha'i texts are much more dynamic than that. Baha'u'llah's
revelation, and 'Abdu'l-Baha's inspired interpretation, form together a kind
of constitution for the spiritual and organizational community of the Faith.
These are "fixed" in the sense that what is revealed in the Sacred
Scriptures of the Baha'i Faith cannot be changed until the next
Manifestation. But they are not static in the sense of having one and only
one way in which they can be applied. And our understanding of some things
in the Baha'i Scriptures may only be possible with the passage of time. The
Universal House of Justice has repeatedly emphasized that just as there is a
process of progressive revelation that reoccurs every thousand years or so,
likewise within the Baha'i Faith there has been a process of unfolding
interpretation of those texts in the work of 'Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi
Effendi, and a progressive unfoldment of the ramifications of the teachings
as new situations are encountered and the community grows. The Baha'i
Faith's institutions and community take a progressive stance on dealing with
human problems. The solutions will not be immediate - they take time.
People do not change overnight.
I strongly suggest that readers of this newsgroup ponder deeply the
motivations behind the use of labels like "liberal" and "conservative,"
"fundamentalist" and "intellectual." One can catch the tenor from the
description of an e-group for Baha'i academics: "The list is dedicated to
liberal, open and non-fundamentalist discussions of the Babi/Baha'i
movements and other related areas. The list is open to Baha'i and
non-Baha'is alike interested in the liberal stream of Baha'i thinking only
and as such fundamentalist Baha'i interpretations and attacks on the liberal
and also liberal academic tradition is not considered pertinent. New list
members should send an introductory bio within the first three days after
subscription." In statements prepared by some ex-Baha'is, liberal in this
case may be defined as someone who thinks that homosexual acts should not be
considered immoral, believes that membership of the Universal House of
Justice must include women now, believes that literature review is
censorship, wants term limits on membership in Baha'i institutions and other
modifications to the Baha'i electoral system, disagrees with the notion that
there is such a thing as covenant-breaking, and so on. In the Baha'i
Sacred Texts several of these items (homosexuality, membership of the House
of Justice, covenant-breaking) have been clearly and explicitly stated,
followed by additional interpretations, all of which, according to the
constitutional principles of the Baha'i Faith, are not changeable until the
next Manifestation. Others of them (specific electoral practices and
principles, literature review) have been set in place by the Head of the
Faith as operational expressions of general Baha'i principles, including the
principles of unity, absolute freedom of conscience for electors, and
wisdom. The Baha'i Faith is not a club whose principles are determined by
consensus; it is an association of believers in a divine revelation, parts
of which are really clear, and cannot be interpreted away as allegorical;
some operational expressions are under the aegis of the Head of the Faith,
and can only be changed when that person or institution has determined that
a change is advisable.
For those who are interested in reading a cogent academic synthesis of
Baha'u'llah's spiritual message, including a rather formidable answer to
recent distortions of that message like the use of this politicized
language, I recommend Nader Saiedi's "Logos and Civilization: Spirit,
History and Order in the Writings of Baha'u'llah" (Bethesda: University of
Maryland Press, 2000). Dr. Saiedi is also author of a book "The Birth of
Social Theory : Social Thought in the Enlightenment and Romanticism" from
the same publisher in 1993.
Bill Collins
Nima Hazini
> Often used to label a group or person as intolerant, bigoted,
>superstitious, fanatical, and just plain crazy, "fundamentalism" creates a
>notion that those who believe in adhering and interpreting religious
beliefs in
> "literal way" are intolerant, bigoted, superstitious, fanatical and just
>plain crazy.
While certain fundamentalists of the Hindu, Jewish, Chrisitian and
especially Islamic cloth have demonstrated violence, rampant intolerance,
bigotry, superstition, fanaticism and just plain craziness in the past, that
does not mean that all fundamentalists are necessarily that way, since these
things are an effect not the cause or description of fundamentalism.
Fundamentalism, at its basis, is about a set of beliefs, ideological
priorities, assumptions and a certain attitude about religion in the modern
world. Many have analysed its presence in the global village among us, but
none as poignantly and in analytical and typological detail as the team of
scholars and specialists assembled by Martin E. Marty (University of
Chicago) and R. Scott Appleby (University of Notre Dame) for what has come
to be christened as the FUNDAMENTALISM PROJECT. The FUNDAMENTALISM PROJECT
has already produced 8 fat, thick volumes of detailed articles and
monographs on the phenomena of religious fundamentalism wordlwide spanning
traditions from Christianity to Islam and Judaism to fundamentalist
responses in the South Asian and Far Eastern traditions. In the 1st volume
of the Fundamentalism Project: *FUNDAMENTALISMS OBSERVED* (Chicago: 1991),
the editors have identified 9 common typologies of fundamentalism. To wit,
1) It mounts a protest against the marginalization of religion in
secularizing societies.
2) It selectively reshapes the religious tradition (i.e. it may represent
itself as a restatement of the essence of the religion, but in fact it picks
and chooses from the tradition) and it accepts some aspects of modernity
while rejecting others.
3) It sees the moral world as divided sharply into good and evil.
4) It emphasizes the absolutism and inerrancy of its scriptures (and thus
rejects Western critical academic scholarship on that corpus).
5) It has a millennialist emphasis.
6) It has an elect, chosen membership.
7) It draws sharp boundaries between the saved and the sinful.
8) It maintains an authoritarian, charismatic leadership structure.
9) It has strict behavioral requirements for its people.
In another important work on the fundamentalist phenomena in
Christianity, Judaism and Islam, i.e. _The Defenders of God: The
Fundamentalist Revolt Against the Modern Age_ (Columbia SC: 1995),
Professor Bruce B. Lawrence of Duke University (Religious Studies) points
out that,
Fundamentalism is the affirmation of religious authority as holistic and
absolute, admitting of neither criticism nor reduction; it is expressed
through the collective demand that specific creedal and ethical dictates
derived from scripture be publicly recognized and legally enforced (p. 27).
Earlier he pointed out,
Fundamentalism is shaped both by its interaction with modernity and its
reaction against modernism. It is a two-way, not a one-way, exchange. It
affects "secular humanists" as well as their fundamentalist opponents. And
it is an exchange that has taken place, and continues to take place, on a
global scale, drawing into its orbit all religious traditions not just Islam
[Judaism or Christianity] (p xiv).
Later on he notes,
...Fundamentalist challenges have arisen in several traditions. One could
locate cadres that are Sikh or Buddhist, _Baha'i_ [he references Denis
Maceoin's "Baha'i Fundamentalism and the Western Academic Study of the Babi
Movement"] or Hindu (p. 6).
On pp. 100-101 Lawrence delineates the common "traits" of fundamentalists:
1. Fundamentalists are advocates of a pure minority viewpoint against a
sullied majority or dominant group. They are the righteous remanant turned
vanguard, and even when the remanant/vanguard seizes political power and
seems to become a majority, as happened in Iran in 1979, they continue to
perceive and project themselves as a minority.
2. Fundamentalists are oppositional. They do not merely disagree with their
enemies, they confront them. While the evil Other is an abstract sense of
anomie or uprootedness, it is located in particular groups who perpetuate
the prevailing "secular" ethos. Fundamentalists confront those secular
people who exercise political or judicial power. Often they also confront
"wayward" religious professionals [or percieved "wayward" scholars or
intellectuals].
3. Fundamentalists are secondary-level male elites. They claim to derive
authority from a direct, unmediated appeal to scripture, yet because
interpretive principles are often vague, they must be carried by charismatic
leaders who are invariably male. Notions of a just social order in Iran, or
a halakhic polity in Israel, or a Christian civilization in America require
continuous, repeated reinterpretation. In each instance what seems to an
outsider to be arbitrary retrieval of only some elements from a common past
is to fundamentalists the necessary restoration of an eternally valid divine
mandate. And it is a mandate mediated through exclusively male interpretors.
4. Fundamentalists generate their own technical vocabulary. Reflecting the
polysemy of language, they use special terms that bind insiders to each
other, just as they prempt interference from outsiders. Halakha for Jews,
shari'a for Muslims, [the "covenant" or "infallibility" for Baha'is], and
"creation" for Christians represent...[four]...terms, each of which would be
open to several interpretations but which fundamentalists invest with
particular meaning that exceptionalizes, even as it appears to validate,
their ideological stance.
5. Fundamentalism has historical antecedents, but no ideological precursors.
As Marc Bloch warned, one should never confuse ancestry with explanation.
Though the antecedents of fundamentalism are varied and distant - Maccabean
revolt for Jews, the Protestant Reformation for Christians, the Wahhabi
revolt for Sunnis Muslims, the martyrdom of Husayn for Shi'is -
fundamentalism as a religious ideology is very recent. It did not emerge in
Protestant America until the end of the last century. It has only become
apparent in Judaism during the last fifty years, and since it represents a
delayed reaction to the psychological hegemony of European colonial rule, it
could only occur in majoritarian Muslim countries after they had become
independent nation-states, that is, in most instances, after World War II.
So given all this, it is a rather big non sequitor (i.e. fallacy of
reasoning) to assert that fundamentalism is merely a Western boggeyman ploy
or that Armstrong and others who are studying the phenomena are conflating
or misconstruing nationalism and religious identity assertion and lumping
them all under a tenuously common rubric. For the reasons stated above, the
global phenomenon of fundamentalism is a very real one and one only need
look at the the IRI or the Taliban regime as two sore thump examples of its
presence and existence.
>"Liberalism" is a dynamic belief system which often is manifested in a
>movement.
The discourse of Liberalism makes the following set of assumptions,
1. Discursive dynamicity (i.e. liberal discourse) is the product of a
continuous process of rational discourse.
2. Rational discourse is possible even among those who do not share the same
culture, religion, belief system nor even the same ideological
consciousness.
3.Rational discourse can produce mutual understanding and
cultural/philosophical consensus, as well as sometimes agreement on
particulars.
4. Consensus permits of stable social arrangements, and is the rational
basis of the choice of coherent strategies.
5. Rational strategic choice is the basis of improving the human condition
possibly through collective action.
6. Liberalism as such can exist only where and when its social and
intellectual prerequisites exist.
<snip>
Given that the Baha'i teachings uphold such principles as 'An ever advancing
civilization' and the progressive unfoldment of religious truth in history,
liberalism by definition is not incompatible with the Baha'i faith.
Fanatism, rigid ideological dogmatism and especially that which advocates
violence to achieve certain political ends, which certain religious
fundamentalists such as the Taliban and Khomeinists continually advocate,
are however incontrovertibly incompatible with the Baha'i faith and its
teachings.
As far as the issue of same-sex marriages or homosexuality and the Baha'i
faith, this is casting hubris on an issue not all liberals agree on, and
which does not define liberalism as such. Liberalism at base is about a set
of philosophical assumptions made about the world. Furthermore, liberal
believers can be found in all the major world traditions. There are Islamic
liberals, Chrisitian liberals, Jewish liberals, so on and so forth. By
virtue of subscribing to the priorities of the Open Society and hence
liberalism does not automatically exclude a believer from being a believer.
Such hubristic arguments, regularly trounced by bona fide religious
fundamentalists (especially of the Islamic stripe) are pure red herrings.
regards,
Nima
Romane
news:g3F76.2571$N96.5...@typhoon.kc.rr.com...
> There is a lot going on in Mr. Mahdi's message, and it only partially
> reaches into the problematical and basically illegitimate construction
that
> is being placed upon the Baha'i Faith and community with the phrases
These issues are ones which will possibly be faced more strongly in the
future as the Baha'i Faith continues its growth, gaining adherents from all
of the worlds Faiths. We of the west have not suffered from repression and
persecution as such; whether we will or will not I would hate to
second-guess. Baha'u'llah explains the motivation for these attacks
throughout His Writings.
To date, in our supposedly "liberal" and "freethinking" western society, the
attacks are restricted to a few perpetrators, and not always for reasons of
personal or political gain, but my personal opinion is that they will
increase, and that we will begin to see more of the followers as distinct
from the leaders become involved. However, remember the story of
Baha'u'llah who, being taken as a captive, stopped the procession because
they were moving too quickly for a woman to throw a rock in His face, to
give her that opportunity, because she was doing it for the upholding of her
Faith; and she then abandoned her action after she looked in His eyes and
saw there His greatness. We who are currently upholding the Teachings of
Baha'u'llah are in a similar position.
Abdu'l-Baha, in Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha, page 235, says
the following:
"How else could the Tree of Anisa have been planted here, the flag of the
Testament be flown, the intoxicating cup of the Covenant be lifted to these
lips? All these blessings and bestowals, the very means of proclaiming the
Faith, have come about through the scorn of the ignorant, the opposition of
the foolish, the stubbornness of the dull-witted, the violence of the
aggressor. Had it not been for these things, the news of the Bab's advent
would not, to this day, have reached even into lands hard by. Wherefore we
should never grieve over the blindness of the unwitting, the attacks of the
foolish, the hostility of the low and base, the heedlessness of the divines,
the charges of infidelity brought against us by the empty of mind."
Romane
John Haukness
cultures and see the problematic nature of his topic, as a good problem to
illumine in the manner he chose. In my area, I think the notion of
liberalism as better than fundamentalism's moment of time for me was a
"scholarly assertion from one Baha'i quarter that Quddus was the
Manifestation not the Bab, but fundamentalist's got that part of history
wrong so now we live with the mistake, and that Tahirih did not say that
women would be emancipated.
I only mention this because Amin Banani just published in the Association of
Baha'i Studies that she "most likely" did not say it and have a feeling
among other things Mr. Banani is responding to the scholarship I witnessed
some 10 years ago where the assertion was made. Part of this is the
consensus liberal view that Nabil and The Guardian work with limited
information. But on this issue of Tahirih, I expect that the Universal House
of Justice will be shortly offering their own explaination on this, as the
very basis for the publishing that Tahirih "most likely" didn't say that
women would be emanicpated, is most likely based on a mathematical formula,
that is, what ever it is she said upon her death, the odds of those comments
are one in millions because she could have said anything.
But, the same mathematical formula applys to what Varga said at his death,
as when the daggar was pulled out of his belly Nabil and Shoghi Effendi
write "I'm feeling better than you," to his executioner, and the Poet
Varga's son was chronicaled as raising from the floor as a corpse, and those
two events are just as unlikely mathematically as Tahirih's quoted statement
by Nabil and Shoghi Effendi. Indeed Quddus reviving Mullah Husayn to say
good by after Husayn's death, indeed all of Mullah Husayn's expliots at
Tabarsi, indeed most all of God Passes By and Dawnbreakers is based on scant
and now lost documentation. So if Tahirih most likely did not say "you can
kill me but you can't stop the emancipation of women, then most of the rest
of the Dawn Breakers and God Passes By stories are equally of "most likely"
didn't happen. Unless Mr. Banani has a formula where he can explain which
stories and accounts have enough statistical basis to count verses Tahirih's
which doesn't pass muster.
The thought that there is a large commoner group of Baha'is with a
fundamentalist view who create a super natural Tahirih and who's
fundamentalism creates in them a craving to make Tahirih and other Babi
stories up to suit their fundamentalist cravings is something which indeed
should be balanced with a liberal craving to chronical everything as "most
likely" not happening to anything that is out of the ordinary. Indeed the
craving to have scientific humanistic life as "only" ordianary. au revoir
john haukness, MEd.
---->> Some would think that the word "fundamentalism" means a movement or a
>> proclivity towards following the "fundamentals" of a particular belief or
>> creed. But what the word "fundamentalism" really means and how it is used
>does
>> not coincide with the linguistically correct sense of "following the
>> fundamentals." Often used to label a group or person as intolerant,
>bigoted,
>> superstitious, fanatical, and just plain crazy, "fundamentalism" creates
a
>> notion that those who believe in adhering and interpreting religious
>beliefs in
>> a "literal way" are intolerant, bigoted, superstitious, fanatical and
just
>> plain crazy.
>>
>> As for Bahai "liberals," they represent a group of mostly Western
>academics and scholars who felt >discontent with the "appearance of a
>traditional religion" in
>> the current Bahai movement [snip]
>
dmcadam
>There is a lot going on in Mr. Mahdi's message, and it only partially
>reaches into the problematical and basically illegitimate construction that
>is being placed upon the Baha'i Faith and community with the phrases
>"liberal," "conservative" and "fundamentalist." I think it is important in
>these discussions to engage in some demonstration of one's statements
>through presentation of a little evidence, and to take down a few of the red
>flags. I am somewhat constrained in writing this posting because I dislike
>intensely the need to mention specific names of those who have resorted to
>using the politicized nomenclature. So I have largely pointed to repeated
>ideas or statements that those on this list have almost certainly read.
Dear Bill-
I thoroughly enjoyed your informative piece on the issue at hand and
would like to add a few thoughts.
The terms "fundamentalist", "cult" and others of popular or common usage
are quite different in definition by professionals in the academic fields
of social sciences. Religion, cult, etc are all defined differently and
don't have the negative connotations that common usage has of these
terms.
Sometimes, some academics or other serious scholars, tend to use a term
like this to identify or categorize someones point of view or opinion and
do not necessarily mean to put down anyone. Most academics are striving
for preciseness in their work and terms as social scientists often do and
do not necessarily have any evil intent. But, as you say, there are
others who do and we need to be wary of them.
Unfortunately, of equal danger, are those Baha'is who feel that anyone
who questions or searches deeper, beyond traditional or conventional
beliefs, is an enemy of the Faith and they falsely accuse them of being
in opposition to the Covenant. While I have read and heard academics and
other scholars offer some pretty hairy ideas etc. I also have heard their
opposition offer judgmental attitudes and replies that should be reserved
for institutions to make. From my perspective we have no right to judge
and evaluate anyone or their opinions by using any type of language or
terms that close doors on consultation. We all are supposed to offer our
opinions fully, frankly and openly but tempered with courtesy, tact and
wisdom and I feel that we end the search for unity and truth by using any
kind of judgmental language and terminology.
For some reason many people today suffer from the "let it all hang out
attitude and behavior" feeling they are being honest. It simply does not
work to foster good relations and consultation. The Beloved Master made
it very clear we are to set forth our full, frank and honest opinions,
tempered with courtesy, tact and wisdom. Somehow, some of the friends
stress the first portion of the advice but forget the latter.
There are social scientists today who feel America is resembling
characteristics of the former pre-Nazi Italy and Germany long ago. It is
a worrisome condition. Anti-intellectualism is one of these
characteristics. So whenever an intellectual offers an opinion out of
the main stream and challenging current beliefs they risk being labeled
in a degrading manner and likewise often retaliate with negative views
towards their oppressors.
These kinds of practices on behalf of both sides of the issue to me are
opposite our station of servitude to God and humanity. The Writings are
clear what our reality and station is, that of a celestial being with a
station and condition of servitude. This means that our physical,
intellectual and spiritual conditions are all related to this purpose or
condition. The soul was created to know and love God, to acquire
virtues, to carry on an ever advancing civilization and other ways of
servitude. The physical body and intellectual powers were likewise
created to serve this higher self and normal relations occur when both
the lower and higher natures are in line with their created purpose. Can
we justify putting down one another as acts of servitude? Or rather
would it be better to make our appeals to another person's higher nature
where the lower nature's "satanic strength" is translated into that
"heavenly power" needed for spiritual transformation.
I'm not trying to defend anyone or anything but we must all realize who
we are, why we are here and how best to conduct ourselves to realize our
spiritual purpose. If we truly knew the realities of self, human
relations, time, right and wrong behavior as well as our purpose and
powers as living souls in seed form as clearly articulated in the
Writings, we could never treat each other in any other way but from a
station of servitude, like 'Abdu'l-Baha did.
It's getting so nobody can state their conscience without someone playing
God and passing judgment in some manner.
I am most concerned over this matter and would caution us all to lift
ourselves up to a higher level of consciousness where we see God's
Glorious Purpose and find less of an interest in seeing evil and fighting
or trying to right wrongs. From my experience concentrating and focusing
on evil only produces more. Let's focus on the spiritual solutions to
the evils in the world that are caused by overly strengthened egos.
Bill I feel you stated some wonderful points and principles very clearly
and concisely without losing the virtues of courtesy, tact and wisdom.
with deep respect,
doug
Peter Terry
Perhaps it is timely for this subject to be discussed openly
and in some detail?
A little history, if you don't awfully mind...the first few genera-
tions of Babi and Baha'i scholars were all of them, Middle
Eastern, mostly learned Muslims, some of them very highly
trained in Islamic philosophy, mysticism, law and theology.
Some of these scholars were prolific writers, others were
not...of course we know alot more about those who were
writers than those who weren't. The traditions of scholar-
ship these earliest generations employed were adopted
from Islamic learned culture. They have undergone some
modifications perhaps in the course of being employed
by Baha'is, but these traditions are still very much intact
in the Persian Baha'i community, and are also increasing-
ly in evidence in the contributions of many Persian Baha'i
scholars to Baha'i studies, particularly in English language
venues. There are all sorts of strengths in this approach
including, in many cases, virtually encyclopedic familiarity
with the Writings of the Bab and Baha'u'llah, 'Abdu'l-Baha
and Shoghi Effendi, in Persian and Arabic, and often a
similar familiarity with the Bible and the Qur'an, sometimes
with the hadith (Islamic traditions, which, in the case of Shi-
i Islam, includes the traditions associated with the twelve
Imams). In addition to this, there are scholars from this
background who are very familiar with written sources for
Babi and Baha'i history. These scholars were engaged
in collecting and codifying very large numbers of docu-
ments associated with Babi and Baha'i history, which
were preserved in private and community libraries and
archives, and which led to the establishment of the Inter-
national Baha'i Library and the International Baha'i Ar-
chives in Haifa as well as the holdings of the Iranian
National Baha'i Archives. When we consider that most of
the Persian and Arabic (and Turkish!) texts associated
with Babi and Baha'i scholarship are not translated into
English or any other Western language, and that many of
them cannot be properly understood apart from the over-
all context of this untranslated corpus, we can all see how
valuable this approach is to anyone who wishes to become
informed regarding the Babi and Baha'i religions.
By the 1860s there were European intellectuals who began
to study and write about the Babi religion, and by the 1890s
about the Baha'i religion. All of these Western writers were
able to read Persian and Arabic to some extent, and worked
from manuscript sources as well as interviews with contem-
porary Babis and Baha'is. These intellectuals amassed
important collections of texts, including historical sources,
and these have made their way into certain European and
American libraries and archives. These Western intellectuals
wrote books and articles on the Babi and Baha'i religions,
and their written works continue to be cited by authors over
a hundred years after their initial publication. They made
many Babi and Baha'i texts accessible to Western readers,
in the English, French and Russian languages in particular,
and tried their best to understand and explain the intricacies
of Babi and Baha'i doctrine and history. It was through their
efforts that European and American intellectuals came to
become somewhat informed about the Babi and Baha'i
religions. The approach they adopted was more or less
the Western Orientalist approach, which seems to be
based on the assumption that Western culture is able to
evaluate the merits of other cultures (and not vice versa),
and that the Western secular manner of interpreting things
is adequate to a deep understanding of non-Western non-
secular phenomena. This approach was, more or less a-
dopted by subsequent generations of Western intellectuals
who have studied the Baha'i Faith. The fact that some of
these intellectuals have been, some for long periods of
time, avowed members of the Baha'i Faith, has had very
interesting implications for the evolution of Baha'i scholar-
ship in the community of believers. It has resulted in the
often uncomfortable co-existence and sometimes profita-
ble collaboration between Persian Baha'i scholars trained
in the proto-Islamic approach and Western Baha'i scholars
trained in the proto-Orientalist approach. In some cases
Western scholars tried to adopt the proto-Islamic approach
while Persian scholars tried to adopt the proto-Orientalist
approach, and some individuals sought to combine the
two or to pick and choose what they liked from the two.
My perspective is from the midst of the fray so to speak.
>From this front line vision it seems to me that the whole
question of Baha'i scholarship needs to be re-examined,
independently of the two predominant approaches, and
in the light of the Baha'i teachings. It seems to me that the
Baha'i teachings provide a more inclusive context than
the armed camps either of those who calls themselves
"liberals" or those who are denominated "fundamental-
ists". And if we wish to find the truth, are we not better
served by being inclusive than by drawing lines in the
sand and then hating our playmates for being on the
other side of those lines?
With warm regards, Peter
Jay Paine
>Reply to Bill Collins message 1/12/2001 11:05 AM
>
>Religion, cult, etc are all defined differently and don't have the negative
connotations that common usage has of these terms.<
Dear Doug
Probably the most wide-spread and dangerous "cult" in the world today is the
"cult" of cancerous materialism. The North American variety is being
discussed below in 1954:
"Parallel with this, and pervading all departments of life--an evil which
the nation, and indeed all those within the capitalist system, though to a
lesser degree, share with that state and its satellites regarded as the
sworn enemies of that system--is the crass materialism, which lays excessive
and ever-increasing emphasis on material well-being, forgetful of those
things of the spirit on which alone a sure and stable foundation can be laid
for human society. It is this same cancerous materialism, born originally in
Europe, carried to excess in the North American continent, contaminating the
Asiatic peoples and nations, spreading its ominous tentacles to the borders
of Africa, and now invading its very heart, which Bahá'u'lláh in unequivocal
and emphatic language denounced in His Writings, comparing it to a devouring
flame and regarding it as the chief factor in precipitating the dire ordeals
and world-shaking crises that must necessarily involve the burning of cities
and the spread of terror and consternation in the hearts of men.
(Shoghi Effendi, July 28, 1954 Citadel of Faith, p. 124-125 )
The influence of this modern materialism is so great, and widespread that to
call it a 'cult' is stretching the term a bit. It's now gone past being a
'cult' and grown into a full blown culture.
This culture of materialism gives the appearence of defining things they way
they are in the world; as in " well, that's just the way it is". A lot of
the time, we tend to be influenced and acquiesce and not notice. Not to be
underestimated. But then, neither should we underestimate the Cause of God.
The right Diagnosis and Remedy for the ills of the world.
Peace, Jay
dmcadam
Hi Jay-
I'm inclined to agree with you.
If one observes the media etc. one cannot help but be concerned about the growing lack of dignity and respect and the overemphasis on sex in our society. In our SED project for Offenders we are constantly dealing with gross materialism affecting the overall attitudes of these men and women. Their whole frame of reference is alcohol, drugs, parties, sex, and the like. They seem to have lost all sense of dignity and respect, have a very pessimistic attitude, do not believe anyone can stop the crime and vi
olence or have world peace because it is just a part of life that is natural to be corrupt etc. Their language is definitely a reflection of materialism. Sporting events, basketball, football and the like seem to be a kind of religion to many.
However I don't believe America is the only society that is suffering. In fact all culture have their own manifestations of matierialism. And some under the guise of a religion. What kind of a religion could condone bombings, violence of conflict etc., if not one of a materialitic basis?
Although these signs are increasing we have the Teachings to counteract them and bring about a whole new development in the world. Unfortunately the good things that are happening in this process are not so readily seen because the media focusses mostly on the evil in the world.
warmly,
doug
>dmcadam wrote in message:
>
>>Reply to Bill Collins message 1/12/2001 11:05 AM
>>
>>Religion, cult, etc are all defined differently and don't have the negative
>connotations that common usage has of these terms.<
>
>Dear Doug
>
>Probably the most wide-spread and dangerous "cult" in the world today is the
>"cult" of cancerous materialism. The North American variety is being
>discussed below in 1954:
>
>"Parallel with this, and pervading all departments of life--an evil which
>the nation, and indeed all those within the capitalist system, though to a
>lesser degree, share with that state and its satellites regarded as the
>sworn enemies of that system--is the crass materialism, which lays excessive
>and ever-increasing emphasis on material well-being, forgetful of those
>things of the spirit on which alone a sure and stable foundation can be laid
>for human society. It is this same cancerous materialism, born originally in
>Europe, carried to excess in the North American continent, contaminating the
>Asiatic peoples and nations, spreading its ominous tentacles to the borders
>of Africa, and now invading its very heart, which Bah·'u'll·h in unequivocal
Timothy Casey
conclusion(interpretations). Where the two clash, it is standard practice
for the evidence to be censored or hidden or lied about to maintain the
conclusion (Western examples are well documented in the book "Telling Lies
for God" by Ian R. Plimer).
In such a system where almost by definition, the value of honesty is so
degraded, there is no constraint on deviant behaviour that suits the
interests of the organisation. If the behaviour is evidence against the
power of the fundamentalist conclusion, then that behaviour is lied about
too. Thus incidents of Fundamentalist violence are denied or disassociated
when in actual fact they are based on the same Fundamentalist principle of
conclusion before evidence - A principle which in extreme cases is extended
from the destruction of knowledge in defence of faith (book-burning and
censorship), to the destruction of lives and livelihoods in the defence of
faith (vandalism, murder and holocaust).
In practice, Liberalism places evidence before the conclusion, and so
when the evidence does not stack up to the conclusion, the conclusion is
questioned. This is the standard academic practice which is responsible for
the phenomenal material advancement of modern civilisation. Fundamentalism
on the other hand has ever held back civilisation, for anything that
challenges a "valid" conclusion must be hidden.
Can the evidence first system be applied to religion? I think it can
when a religion has clear statements of purpose such as the Ninth Ishraq and
the Covenant in the Baha'i Faith, and the Golden Rule as stated in Jewish,
Zoroastrian, and Christian texts - To wit:
"[...]The Religion of God is for love and unity; make it not the cause of
enmity and dissension.[...]"
(Baha'u'llah: The Covenant, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, Page: 220)
"The purpose of religion as revealed from the heaven of God's holy Will
is to establish unity and concord amongst the peoples of the world; make it
not the cause of dissension and strife. The religion of God and His divine
law are the most potent instruments and the surest of all means for the
dawning of the light of unity amongst men. The progress of the world, the
development of nations, the tranquillity of peoples, and the peace of all
who dwell on earth are among the principles and ordinances of God. Religion
bestoweth upon man the most precious of all gifts, offereth the cup of
prosperity, imparteth eternal life, and showereth imperishable benefits upon
mankind. It behoveth the chiefs and rulers of the world, and in particular
the Trustees of God's House of Justice, to endeavour to the utmost of their
power to safeguard its position, promote its interests and exalt its station
in the eyes of the world. In like manner it is incumbent upon them to
enquire into the conditions of their subjects and to acquaint themselves
with the affairs and activities of the divers communities in their
dominions. We call upon the manifestations of the power of God - the
sovereigns and rulers on earth - to bestir themselves and do all in their
power that haply they may banish discord from this world and illumine it
with the light of concord.
"It is incumbent upon everyone to firmly adhere to and observe that
which hath streamed forth from Our Most Exalted Pen. God, the True One,
beareth Me witness, and every atom in existence is moved to testify that
such means as lead to the elevation, the advancement, the education, the
protection and the regeneration of the peoples of the earth have been
clearly set forth by Us and are revealed in the Holy Books and Tablets by
the Pen of Glory.[...]"
(Baha'u'llah: The Ninth Ishraq, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, Pages: 129-130)
"Religion should unite all hearts and cause wars and disputes to vanish
from the face of the earth, give birth to spirituality, and bring life and
light to each heart. If religion becomes a cause of dislike, hatred and
division, it were better to be without it, and to withdraw from such a
religion would be a truly religious act. For it is clear that the purpose
of a remedy is to cure; but if the remedy should only aggravate the
complaint it had better be left alone. Any religion which is not a cause of
love and unity is no religion."
(`Abdu'l-Baha: Paris Talks, Page: 130)
"Baha'u'llah says that religion must be conducive to love and unity.
If it proves to be the source of hatred and enmity, its absence is
preferable; for the will and law of God is love, and love is the bond
between human hearts. Religion is the light of the world. If it is made
the cause of darkness through human misunderstanding and ignorance, it would
be better to do without it."
(`Abdu'l-Baha: Promulgation of Universal Peace, Page: 287)
Likewise, in Christianity, we have the Golden rule cited in the Gospels as
the purpose of religion:
"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you, for this is the Law
and the Prophets."
(Matthew 7:12)
And love as the fulfilment of all the law:
"Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves
another has fulfilled the law."
(Romans 13:8)
In the Zoroastrian Faith:
"And this, too, was thus considered by them [those of the primitive faith,
the ancients of those acquainted with the religion - From 94:1], that that
nature only is good when it shall not do unto another whatever is not good
for its own self; and that wisdom only is good when it thoroughly
understands how to utilize the advantage of that happiness which has
occurred, and shall not suffer vexation on account of harm which has not
occurred; and that intellect only is good which understands that it does not
understand that which it does not understand."
(Dadestan-i Denig ('Religious Decisions') 94:5)
In the Hebrew Faith:
"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. That is the entire Law;
all the rest is commentary."
(Talmud, Shabbat 31a)
Both Abdu'l-Baha and the New Testament have communicated statements to the
effect that "God is love" (1John 4:8,16), (Abdu'l-Baha: Foundations of World
Unity; p. 73, 102. Paris Talks; p. 180, 181. Promulgation of Universal
Peace; p. 159, 290, 315) - Interesting implications for the great
Atheist/Theist debate...
Thus interpretations of religious writ sharing the religion of origin with
such statements can be tested against the goals of that religion. As such,
the study of religion can be conducted scientifically if the religion
concerned has goals and values. Another test of religious truth is
conscience, in the definition applied to conscience by 'Abdu'l-Baha as
follows:
“These are effectual and sufficient proofs that the conscience of man is
sacred and to be respected; and that liberty thereof produces widening of
ideas, amendment of morals, improvement of conduct, disclosure of the
secrets of creation, and manifestation of the hidden verities of the
contingent world. Moreover, if interrogation of conscience, which is one of
the private possessions of the heart and the soul, take place in this world,
what further recompense remains for man in the court of divine justice at
the day of general resurrection? Convictions and ideas are within the scope
of the comprehension of the King of kings, not of kings; and soul and
conscience are between the fingers of control of the Lord of hearts, not of
[His] servants. So in the world of existence two persons unanimous in all
grades [of thought] and all beliefs cannot be found. `The ways unto God are
as the number of the breaths of [His] creatures' is a mysterious truth, and
`To every [people] We have appointed a [separate] rite'(50) is one of the
subtleties of the Qur'an.”
(`Abdu'l-Baha: A Traveler's Narrative, Pages: 91-92)
The problem with the evidence first system is that where evidence is not
complete, then neither are the conclusions drawn complete. Thus it is still
possible to make mistakes. With the acceptance of the reality of Human
fallibility one must also accept that there is no absolute but God - and to
assert that any other thing is absolute is tantamount to intellectual
idolatry. Given that fundamentalism takes the conclusion first and filters
the evidence to fit this preconceived "absolute", one can only say that
Fundamentalism is just a fancy word for intellectual idolatry.
Now that our cards are on the table, is idolatry a truly religious,
albeit "traditional", practice? The following quotes come to mind:
"O SON OF SPIRIT! The best beloved of all things in My sight is Justice;
turn not away therefrom if thou desirest Me, and neglect it not that I may
confide in thee. By its aid thou shalt see with thine own eyes and not
through the eyes of others, and shalt know of thine own knowledge and not
through the knowledge of thy neighbor. Ponder this in thy heart; how it
behooveth thee to be. Verily justice is My gift to thee and the sign of My
loving-kindness. Set it then before thine eyes."
(Baha'u'llah: Arabic Hidden Words, Page: 2)
(Baha'u'llah: Tablets of Baha'u'llah, Page: 37)
"I say unto you: Weigh carefully in the balance of reason and science
everything that is presented to you as religion. If it passes this test,
then accept it, for it is truth! If, however, it does not so conform, then
reject it, for it is ignorance!"
(`Abdu'l-Baha: Paris Talks, Page: 144)
"Any religious belief which is not conformable with scientific proof and
investigation is superstition, for true science is reason and reality, and
religion is essentially reality and pure reason; therefore, the two must
correspond. Religious teaching which is at variance with science and reason
is human invention and imagination unworthy of acceptance, for the
antithesis and opposite of knowledge is superstition born of the ignorance
of man. If we say religion is opposed to science, we lack knowledge of
either true science or true religion, for both are founded upon the premises
and conclusions of reason, and both must bear its test."
(`Abdu'l-Baha: Promulgation of Universal Peace, Page: 107)
"Glory be to God! What an extraordinary situation now obtains, when no one,
hearing a claim advanced, asks himself what the speaker's real motive might
be, and what selfish purpose he might not have hidden behind the mask of
words. You find, for example, that an individual seeking to further his own
petty and personal concerns, will block the advancement of an entire people.
To turn his own water mill, he will let the farms and fields of all the
others parch and wither. To maintain his own leadership, he will
everlastingly direct the masses toward that prejudice and fanaticism which
subvert the very base of civilization.
"Such a man, at the same moment that he is perpetrating actions which
are anathema in the sight of God and detested by all the Prophets and Holy
Ones, if he sees a person who has just finished eating wash his hands with
soap - an article the inventor of which was Abdu'llah Buni, a Muslim - will,
because this unfortunate does not instead wipe his hands up and down the
front of his robe and on his beard, set up a hue and cry to the effect that
the religious law has been overthrown, and the manners and customs of
heathen nations are being introduced into ours. Utterly disregarding the
evil of his own ways, he considers the very cause of cleanliness and
refinement as wicked and foolish."
(`Abdu'l-Baha: Secret of Divine Civilization, Pages: 103-104)
Now I could be labelled as a "Fundamentalist" for bringing up such
fundamental Baha'i principles. However, these principles support the
evidence first and conclusion last process that is so "fundamental" in
finding the truth. In fact I find it hard not to be downright dogmatic about
such things - And so yet again, Thesius unwittingly treads the path of
Procrustes in his effort to do right...
Opinions are like fundaments; Everybody's got one!
--
Timothy Casey
South Australia
wor...@iprimus.com.au
Formerly
ca...@smart.net.au
(1997-2000 AD)
Inspired by...
"Mr Mahdi" <mrm...@aol.com> who wrote in message
news:sd276.5045$%b.3...@e420r-sjo2.usenetserver.com...
[SNIP]
Bill Collins
news:949or4$5e4$1...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU...
> In practice, Fundamentalism never places evidence(facts) before the
> conclusion(interpretations). Where the two clash, it is standard practice
> for the evidence to be censored or hidden or lied about to maintain the
> conclusion (Western examples are well documented in the book "Telling Lies
> for God" by Ian R. Plimer).
This is a very useful operational definition of fanaticism (not simply
"fundamentalism") of all types, and it is worth attending to. As Mr. Casey
points out, the Baha'i Faith has a large number of paeans to reason,
conscience, science, the investigation of reality, and evidence. What I
think is a problem today is that polarization in the larger world has been
introduced into the Baha'i community. This polarization is about what
constitutes evidence, when is authority legitimate, and how should it be
critiqued.
When the words "liberal" and "liberalism" are used, there is possibility for
confusion unless terms are defined. "Liberal" has a general social meaning
of generous, bountiful, broad-minded, tolerant, and the like. In my
experience, most Baha'is are liberal in this sense. There is a political
meaning to "liberal" which implies advocacy of policies that are in tune
with what is considered politically liberal at the time it is used (in the
U.S., a strong federal government was once advocated by conservatives,
whereas later it was advocated by liberals). The Baha'i teachings, when
taken as a complete set of intertwined principles, does not mesh with
everything that is now or has been in the past considered either
conservative or liberal, in either the political or religious sense.
"Liberalism" can refer to the state of being generous, broad-minded, etc.;
it also once referred to an economic theory that advocated a kind of
free-market system free of all regulation (what would now be a kind of
conservative economics); it can also, loosely, refer to the post-enlightenme
nt and, if you will, "scientific" use of evidence to come to conclusions.
Being liberal is something I advocate. But this is not, I think, what is at
the heart of the problems that many Baha'is have had in dealing with those
who arrogate to themselves the label "liberal" to distinguish themselves
from "fundamentalists." (I might add that I am not sympathetic to Baha'is
who want to overstate their adherence to the strictest interpretation of
laws, or who straitjacket people whose development is apparently slower than
their own, so please don't start sending me private flames about where you
think I am on the "political" spectrum). But in my half-century lifetime,
I have run into equal numbers of "liberals" and "conservatives" who are
impervious to evidence. Their conclusions are already drawn, and they have
no need of further information, dialogue, or exploration of issues in a
courteous way.
There are critics who, for instance, advocate Baha'i recognition that
homosexuality is biologically determined, and by extension, that acting on
homosexual impulses not only cannot be controlled, but is almost certainly
the right of the individual who has these feelings. If we take Mr. Casey's
definition of a fundamentalist, then those who are advocating this could be
considered fundamentalist because they are clinging to a conclusion, not
evidence. Everyone is going to have to suspend judgement on the scientific
bases of this issue, because the scientific community, and social
scientists, have been hotly debating this for some time, and the evidence is
not at all clear. As with so many similar complex human issues, this is one
where biology, family relationships, life experience, personal will, faith
and a host of other things are involved.
There are critics from the other end of the spectrum who have questioned
Shoghi Effendi's statements that minorities should not only be protected,
but in some instances should be "preferred" (e.g. in Baha'i elections in a
tie vote between people where one is a member of a minority and is
automatically elected without reballoting). There are social thinkers who
are even now attempting to prove in books and articles that "affirmative
action" is morally wrong, economically damaging, and social scientifically
destructive. What makes this statement by Shoghi Effendi more authoritative
and acceptable than his statements about homosexual acts being wrong? Is
this statement by Shoghi Effendi more acceptable to someone who considers
himself politically "liberal" because of evidence, or because it already
fits with what he thinks of as liberal?
People who have become Baha'is have investigated the claims, behavior and
teachings of Baha'u'llah (a certain kind of evidence). He makes a claim to
have the authority to set certain constraints on human behavior. Is this
evidence for Baha'u'llah's teachings illegitimate because it is based on
certain authority claims? Do we all have to come to a reasoned
understanding of Baha'u'llah's teachings (and their later interpretation)
before we will accept or abide by them? What is the source of moral
authority? If it is the individual conscience alone, then whatever any
individual believes and wants to do has to be condoned. What kind of world
does that create? If the source of moral authority is outside the
individual, then which moral authority is it? These questions are at the
heart of this ongoing debate.
Today in the Washington Post there was a long article about the effort of
the mayor of Gary, Indiana to prevent this country's most rabid branch of
the Ku Klux Klan from demonstrating on the steps of city hall. The KKK
leaders know that the city of Gary is 80% African American, just as they
know that their annual march in Skokie, Illinois is in a city that has a
high percentage of Jewish inhabitants. Does free speech trump all other
rights and obligations? What right to free speech has been denied if a hate
group is prevented from marching on city property? Would their being
prevented from marching prevent them from having the freedom to spread and
advocate distasteful ideas? Does the law require that public order be
risked, and that the population of a city be insulted? How free is free
speech in any society, culture or community? What is the range of discourse
in the Baha'i community, and how should it be channeled?
I am with Mr. Casey in quoting the following passage from 'Abdu'l-Baha's
"Secret of Divine Civilization":
"Glory be to God! What an extraordinary situation now obtains, when no one,
hearing a claim advanced, asks himself what the speaker's real motive might
be, and what selfish purpose he might not have hidden behind the mask of
words. You find, for example, that an individual seeking to further his own
petty and personal concerns, will block the advancement of an entire people.
To turn his own water mill, he will let the farms and fields of all the
others parch and wither. To maintain his own leadership, he will
everlastingly direct the masses toward that prejudice and fanaticism which
subvert the very base of civilization."
Readers would do well to ponder on the motives of those who label others as
"fundamentalists," "liberals," "conservatives," "reactionaries" etc., or who
label themselves as "liberals" or "conservatives," "faithful" or "loyal
opposition."
Bill Collins
Timothy Casey
> People who have become Baha'is have investigated the claims, behavior and
> teachings of Baha'u'llah (a certain kind of evidence). He makes a claim
to
> have the authority to set certain constraints on human behavior. Is this
> evidence for Baha'u'llah's teachings illegitimate because it is based on
> certain authority claims? Do we all have to come to a reasoned
> understanding of Baha'u'llah's teachings (and their later interpretation)
> before we will accept or abide by them? What is the source of moral
> authority? If it is the individual conscience alone, then whatever any
> individual believes and wants to do has to be condoned. What kind of
world
> does that create? If the source of moral authority is outside the
> individual, then which moral authority is it? These questions are at the
> heart of this ongoing debate.
>
society or subculture. Conscience is separate and distinct from the desire
to vent anger on a convenient minority, etc. As stated in Abdu'l-Baha's
quote on conscience, the individual does not determine conscience, the "Lord
of Hearts" does. As such, conscience is one in its behaviour. Only the
individual, in which dwells conscience, knows if her/his actions abide in
that conscience. Only that individual is in the exact situation that has
lead her/his conscience to a given conclusion. This is indeed a problem when
trying to regulate human behaviour to be compatible with the cohabitation of
a large number of beings in a confined space such as a city or a state, or
in this age - The whole world! Especially when it is so easy for people to
simply lie about the clarity of their conscience when this approach is
taken. Thus any valid set of laws is a generalization that can be used as an
external test of conscience in most situations - A social standard if you
will, that sets a minimum requirement of behaviour for the preservation of
equal and just individual rights by the civilisation whose purpose is
equallity of individual rights.
Of course, as with all generalisations (possibly including this one!)
there are exceptions. Thus, more important than the laws are the values upon
which, they are based. These values govern the application and
interpretation of such laws and the full effect of the laws can only be
achieved if the laws are constrained to serving the values upon which they
are based. Such values I suspect, have a more direct link with the
conscience. When present such values give meaning to law so that instead of
being a meagre obligation, the law can be used as an impassioned mission to
become a better human being.
Baha'u'llahs teachings are not based on claims of authority, rather the
claims of authority voiced by Baha'u'llah are based on the usefulness and
validity of His advocated values and His Laws that such values govern -
Hence the "see with thine own eyes" quote. If a given law seems to have no
theoretical grounds for justification, there is no harm in experimenting
with it to find out what it does - If it causes no harm to others nor
offense to conscience. However, I think that every law in the Baha'i
dispensation can be linked to the promulagation of a principle value - so
that even when there seems to be no purpose or requirement, one can usually
be found by analysing the relationship of the Law with the values that it
serves.
Considering certain polarisations between Baha'is such as academic vs.
authoritarian, active vs. inactive; seem to be based on ignorance and a
desire to pluck the splinter from another's eye instead of removing the log
from ones own eye. This in itself sheds light on the usefulness of some of
the more arcane laws such as daily obligatory prayers, and reading the
writings no less than twice a day...
> Today in the Washington Post there was a long article about the effort of
> the mayor of Gary, Indiana to prevent this country's most rabid branch of
> the Ku Klux Klan from demonstrating on the steps of city hall. The KKK
> leaders know that the city of Gary is 80% African American, just as they
> know that their annual march in Skokie, Illinois is in a city that has a
> high percentage of Jewish inhabitants. Does free speech trump all other
> rights and obligations? What right to free speech has been denied if a
hate
> group is prevented from marching on city property? Would their being
> prevented from marching prevent them from having the freedom to spread and
> advocate distasteful ideas? Does the law require that public order be
> risked, and that the population of a city be insulted? How free is free
> speech in any society, culture or community? What is the range of
discourse
> in the Baha'i community, and how should it be channeled?
One should always be careful with such concepts as "taste". Bicycles were
once considered a "distasteful idea". In many places, _safe_ bicycle
clothing is considered a "distasteful" thing. As for trespass, this is
action not speech! Rather than censor hate groups and make "martyrs" out of
them, is it not wiser to just let them make fools of themselves and be done
with it? After all, as long as such groups are around, we cannot afford to
take our prized values for granted - An oversight that could one day lead us
to forgetting our values and losing touch with the meaning and purpose of
our laws. The fact that such groups are well known bigots has probably made
recruitmment per capita, much harder for them - And is the product of their
own freedom of speech in a society that is free to voice a differing view!
The greater the freedom of communiication of such groups, the better known
will their lies and decietfulness be - Begging the question of what has the
morality they claim to promote, been sacrificed to?
dmcadam
Hi Timothy-
I welcome with interest your note on conscience. I use this word a lot with our Offenders program but in the context of that little voice within us that alerts or warns us when we are about to take some action. The word, I understand means with (con) kn
owledge (science). It is something we acquire first from the do's and don'ts of our early training and then from life experiences.
Often this "conscience" is derived from faulty or irrational knowledge and thus by deepening, assimilating the Teachings of the Baha'i Faith we are learning a NEW (Non-Ego-Willed) conscience from the Manifestation of God.
Here are a few excerpts from the program we are using for Offenders in and out of Jail in our SED project. They come from Marian Lippitts' Successful Self Direction program.--
~~~~~~~~~~
This HUM-man also has a conscience that is part of what is imprinted on those brain cells‹a sense of right and wrong. And this, too, may or may not be in line with reality or with what I know now. But when my HUM-man feels guilty or blames someone, I can
find myself feeling and reacting that way‹even when in my heart I may no longer agree with that standard of values.
This is where inner conflict develops, or how the outer Self begins to take over and control ME. So it is important for me to learn to distinguish between this outer Self and the REAL ME that is . For nothing can be more frustrating to my Inner Self than
to be put through the motions of feeling and reacting in ways that I donąt really feel in my heart.
In mankindąs present state of civilization, imperfect as it is, I see clearly that conscience is now part of the human make-up. Obviously it is not always advisable or even possible for me to T-R-A-P or S-P-U. Often such reactions can be tragically destru
ctive. I am not free to TAKE what belongs to other people; and even when I can REPEAT what is pleasant to me, it may not produce good results now or in the long run, and therefore to do so would be neither intelligent nor successful. Sometimes, too, there
seems to be NO way to STOP or PREVENT what is unpleasant or painful to me. So I must find ways other than by FLIGHT or FIGHT to deal with the unpleasant things of life and what I DONąT LIKE. In short although I have a strong compulsion from my lower natu
re to behave like an animal, I should check the impulse at least long enough to consider alternative ways of behaving that might achieve more successful results. I should choose what is wise rather that what is pleasant or łnatural.˛ That is what my mind
and will are for. Conscience develops by recognizing right and wrong actions.
As I grow up, I shall find that the HUM-man that is under my control is fantastically equipped to express what is in my heart. For it was designed and created for that purpose, and has an inner urge to obey and serve ME, even against its own instincts. Th
is is one way the human body differs from every other living organism.
Conscience begins to develop as soon as a person is convinced about what is right and wrong, and then deliberately chooses the wrong behavior. It is a lament of the higher nature when it had been ignored or overruled by the lower nature. As a child whose
higher nature was clamoring to be expressed, conscience often tormented me. It has been said that
łThe truth is not so much that man has conscience, as that conscience has man.˛ (Dorner, ibid, p. 92)
Yet the human nature that has not learned to overrule the animal impulses, can rationalize just about anything that ego-will dictates, no matter how wrong it may be. For
łThe voice of conscience is so delicate that it is easy to stifle it; but it is also so clear that it is impossible to mistake it.˛ (Mad. de Stael, ibid, p. 93)
This then is one source of inner conflict: for my higher nature always desires what is truly right and successful; but my lower nature is concerned only with satisfying its own desires, and my ego always demands its own way. As Rousseau put it:
łConscience is the voice of the soul, as the passions are the voice of the body. No wonder they often contradict each other.˛ (Ibid p. 93
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
warmly,
doug
dmcadam
Reply to Timothy Casey message 1/20/2001 8:29 PM
Hi Timothy-
I welcome with interest your note on conscience. I use this word a lot with
our Offenders program but in the context of that little voice within us that
alerts or warns us when we are about to take some action. The word, I
understand means with (con) knowledge (science). It is something we acquire
first from the do's and don'ts of our early training and then from life
experiences.
Often this "conscience" is derived from faulty or irrational knowledge and
thus by deepening, assimilating the Teachings of the Baha'i Faith we are
learning a NEW (Non-Ego-Willed) conscience from the Manifestation of God.
Here are a few excerpts from the program we are using for Offenders in and
out of Jail in our SED project. They come from Marian Lippitts' Successful
Self Direction program.--
~~~~~~~~~~
This HUM-man also has a conscience that is part of what is imprinted on
those brain cells This is where inner conflict develops, or how the outer
Self begins to take over and control ME. So it is important for me to learn
to distinguish between this outer Self and the REAL ME that is . For nothing
can be more frustrating to my Inner Self than to be put through the motions
of feeling and reacting in ways that I donąt really feel in my heart.
In mankindąs present state of civilization, imperfect as it is, I see
clearly that conscience is now part of the human make-up. Obviously it is
not always advisable or even possible for me to T-R-A-P or S-P-U. Often such
reactions can be tragically destructive. I am not free to TAKE what belongs
to other people; and even when I can REPEAT what is pleasant to me, it may
not produce good results now or in the long run, and therefore to do so
would be neither intelligent nor successful. Sometimes, too, there seems to
be NO way to STOP or PREVENT what is unpleasant or painful to me. So I must
find ways other than by FLIGHT or FIGHT to deal with the unpleasant things
of life and what I DONąT LIKE. In short although I have a strong compulsion
from my lower nature to behave like an animal, I should check the impulse at
least long enough to consider alternative ways of behaving that might
achieve more successful results. I should choose what is wise rather that
what is pleasant or łnatural.˛ That is what my mind and will are for.
Conscience develops by recognizing right and wrong actions.
As I grow up, I shall find that the HUM-man that is under my control is
fantastically equipped to express what is in my heart. For it was designed
and created for that purpose, and has an inner urge to obey and serve ME,
even against its own instincts. This is one way the human body differs from
warmly,
doug
>lead her/his conscience to a given conclusion. This is indeed a problem
when
>trying to regulate human behaviour to be compatible with the cohabitation
of
>a large number of beings in a confined space such as a city or a state, or
>in this age - The whole world! Especially when it is so easy for people to
>simply lie about the clarity of their conscience when this approach is
>taken. Thus any valid set of laws is a generalization that can be used as
an
>external test of conscience in most situations - A social standard if you
>will, that sets a minimum requirement of behaviour for the preservation of
>equal and just individual rights by the civilisation whose purpose is
>equallity of individual rights.
> Of course, as with all generalisations (possibly including this one!)
>there are exceptions. Thus, more important than the laws are the values
upon
>which, they are based. These values govern the application and
>interpretation of such laws and the full effect of the laws can only be
>achieved if the laws are constrained to serving the values upon which they
>are based. Such values I suspect, have a more direct link with the
>conscience. When present such values give meaning to law so that instead of
>being a meagre obligation, the law can be used as an impassioned mission to
>become a better human being.
[snip]
Bill Collins
What Timothy Casey writes below is well said. It is nevertheless important
for individual Baha'is (and we're all faced with this at some time) not to
set their own understanding of a principle above the content of revelation
(or authoritative interpretation) itself. So long as we can maintain the
humility to search for the real principle behind revealed and interpreted
provisions that we don't understand, then we can develop in ways that
Baha'u'llah intended but that we cannot necessarily immediately foresee or
control.
I also agree that the word "distasteful" in reference to the speech rights
of the KKK in my earlier posting was inadequate to the question I was
endeavoring to ask, which was about where any society sets the limits of
discourse. I agree that hate groups might give up demonstrating if no one
even showed up to voice opposition to their demonstrations. Baha'is have
been involved in efforts to counter hate group demonstrations by motivating
"Unity" events held in other venues. An organization in the U.S. called the
Southern Poverty Law Center has another technique: if a hate group or its
members commit a crime, they bring a civil suit for damages that will put
the hate group out of business. It has been quite effective in closing some
organizations down, although it still doesn't change the hearts of the
members of these organizations, who usually move on into another hate group.
My other question, which the Baha'i community struggles to sort out, is
whether any one right (such as free speech in the U.S. constitutional sense)
trumps all other rights, and in what way this applies within the Baha'i
context where the Universal House of Justice is assigned to "guarantee the
personal rights, freedom and initiative of the individual."
Bill Collins
"Timothy Casey" <wor...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:94dah9$b1n$1...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU...
> Baha'u'llahs teachings are not based on claims of authority, rather
the
> claims of authority voiced by Baha'u'llah are based on the usefulness and
> validity of His advocated values and His Laws that such values govern -
> Hence the "see with thine own eyes" quote. If a given law seems to have no
> theoretical grounds for justification, there is no harm in experimenting
> with it to find out what it does - If it causes no harm to others nor
> offense to conscience. However, I think that every law in the Baha'i
> dispensation can be linked to the promulagation of a principle value - so
> that even when there seems to be no purpose or requirement, one can
usually
> be found by analysing the relationship of the Law with the values that it
> serves.
[snip]
Timothy Casey
As to the freedom of discourse, Bill Collin's question concerning the
wider picture pertaining to other human rights as well, is most important.
Such rights need to be weighed up in the light of equal rights for all
individuals, so that the exercise of Human Rights by one individual can
never be allowed to infringe on the Human Rights of any other individual.
Hence the need to define laws such that they are the best generalisation for
the equal protection of the human rights of all individuals. Thus freedom of
expression in the Baha'i Faith exists with limitations such as: Backbiting
is forbidden along with any form of criticism that does not offer a better
solution (destructive criticism and such academic pursuits as begin and end
in words):
"26. O SON OF BEING! How couldst thou forget thine own faults and busy
thyself with the faults of others? Whoso doeth this is accursed of Me."
(Baha'u'llah: Arabic Hidden Words, Page: 26)
"27. O SON OF MAN! Breathe not the sins of others so long as thou art
thyself a sinner. Shouldst thou transgress this command, accursed wouldst
thou be, and to this I bear witness."
(Baha'u'llah: Arabic Hidden Words, Page: 27)
"The Great Being saith: The learned of the day must direct the people
to acquire those branches of knowledge which are of use, that both the
learned themselves and the generality of mankind may derive benefits
therefrom. Such academic pursuits as begin and end in words alone have
never been and will never be of any worth."
(Baha'u'llah: Tablets of Baha'u'llah, Page: 169)
Is it possible for one human right to trump another where the exercise
and application of human rights is based upon the all important value of
equality? Where such rights apply in equal measure and limitation to all
individuals as described above? I wait with interest for examples...
More on Freedom of Expression:
"16 June 1912 8
"Talk at Central Congregational Church
"Hancock Street, Brooklyn, New York
"Notes by Esther Foster
"This is a goodly temple and congregation, for - praise be to God! -
this is a house of worship wherein conscientious opinion has free sway.
Every religion and every religious aspiration may be freely voiced and
expressed here. Just as in the world of politics there is need for free
thought, likewise in the world of religion there should be the right of
unrestricted individual belief. Consider what a vast difference exists
between modern democracy and the old forms of despotism. Under an
autocratic government the opinions of men are not free, and development is
stifled, whereas in democracy, because thought and speech are not
restricted, the greatest progress is witnessed. It is likewise true in the
world of religion. When freedom of conscience, liberty of thought and right
of speech prevail - that is to say, when every man according to his own
idealization may give expression to his beliefs - development and growth are
inevitable."
(`Abdu'l-Baha: Promulgation of Universal Peace, Page: 197)
The point here is that expression of opinion is different to the assertion
of opinion. The temple and congregation concerned may well express an
opinion, but do not assert their opinion such that others may not express
their own opinions.
"I feel that regarding such interpretations (of verses from the
Scriptures) no one has the right to impose his view or opinion and require
his listeners to believe in his particular interpretation of the sacred and
prophetic writings. I have no objection to your interpretations and
inferences so long as they are represented as your own personal observations
and reflections. It would be unnecessary and confusing to state
authoritatively and officially a dogmatic Baha'i interpretation to be
universally accepted and taught by believers. Such matters I feel should be
left to the personal judgement and insight of individual teachers.... <End>
12 December 1929"
(Shoghi Effendi: Unfolding Destiny, Page: 423)
I would like to draw particular attention at this point, to the unnecessary
and confusing nature of dogma as expressed by Shoghi Effendi in the quote
above. I might add that dogmas, creeds and canons are the foundations upon
which schism is built. Where any lack of tolerance for individual opinion
exists, there is fertile ground for this ultimate act of intolerance.
"The existence of authoritative interpretations does not preclude the
individual from engaging in the study of the Teachings and thereby arriving
at a personal interpretation or understanding. A clear distinction is,
however, drawn in the Baha'i Writings between authoritative interpretation
and the understanding that each individual arrives at from a study of its
Teachings. Individual interpretations based on a person's understanding of
the Teachings constitute the fruit of man's rational power and may well
contribute to a greater comprehension of the Faith. Such views,
nevertheless, lack authority. In presenting their personal ideas,
individuals are cautioned not to discard the authority of the revealed
words, not to deny or contend with the authoritative interpretation, and not
to engage in controversy; rather they should offer their thoughts as a
contribution to knowledge, making it clear that their views are merely their
own."
(Baha'u'llah: Aqdas: Notes, Pages: 221-222)
Expression, "as a contribution to knowledge" assists development while
assertion as the imposing of a view or opinion, stifles development by
suppressing the full expression of diversity. On the issue of consultation,
this is a vital point:
"The members thereof [of a spiritual assembly] must take counsel together in
such wise that no occasion for ill-feeling or discord may arise. This can
be attained when every member expresseth with absolute freedom his own
opinion and setteth forth his argument. Should anyone oppose, he must on no
account feel hurt for not until matters are fully discussed can the right
way be revealed. The shining spark of truth cometh forth only after the
clash of differing opinions. If after discussion, a decision be carried
unanimously well and good; but if, the Lord forbid, differences of opinion
should arise, a majority of voices must prevail."
(`Abdu'l-Baha: Selections ... `Abdu'l-Baha, Page: 87)
Generalising the above statement, one would conclude that it is the fullest
diversity of input that will lead to the fullest disclosure of the facts. As
such, even the humblest, quietest, most shy must be heard: Every person must
feel free to honestly express knowledge or an opinion so that the community
may be best informed of its choices. Such an expression is subject to the
limitation that it does not form part of an assertion by infringing upon the
rights of others.
One of the characteristics of fundamentalism is that because it puts the
conclusion first and the evidence is considered to be secondary, it is an
assertion of opinion as opposed to being the expression of an opinion. It is
not open to development by learning new things. Nor is fundamentalism open
to the idea that its interpretation is not the final word... ...At least
the Baha'i Faith is humbled by the prominent knowledge of Progressive
Revelation and that one day, the Baha'i dispensation will be replaced by a
more developed and more relevant dispensation.
--
Timothy Casey
South Australia
wor...@iprimus.com.au
Formerly
ca...@smart.net.au
(1997-2000 AD)
Food for thought:
"If five people meet together to seek for truth, they must begin by cutting
themselves free from all their own special conditions and renouncing all
preconceived ideas. In order to find truth we must give up our prejudices,
our own small trivial notions; an open receptive mind is essential. If our
chalice is full of self, there is no room in it for the water of life. The
fact that we imagine ourselves to be right and everybody else wrong is the
greatest of all obstacles in the path towards unity, and unity is necessary
if we would reach truth, for truth is one."
(`Abdu'l-Baha: Paris Talks, Page: 136)
Other quotes on this theme by Abdu'l-Baha:
Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 6;
Baha'i World Faith, p. 411;
Paris Talks, p.136;
Consultation, p. 97.
"Bill Collins" <wc...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:CDvwu.A....@bounty.bcca.org...
[SNIP]
Susan Maneck
>of Justice will be shortly offering their own explaination on this, as the
>very basis for the publishing that Tahirih "most likely" didn't say that
>women would be emanicpated, is most likely based on a mathematical formula,
>that is, what ever it is she said upon
>her death, the odds of those comments
>are one in millions because she could have said anything.
>But, the same mathematical formula applys to what Varga said at his death,
>as when the daggar was pulled out of his belly Nabil and Shoghi Effendi
>write "I'm feeling better than you," to his executioner, and the Poet
>Varga's son was chronicaled as raising from the floor as a corpse, and those
>two events are just as unlikely mathematically as Tahirih's quoted statement
>by Nabil and Shoghi Effendi.
Dear John,
In the first place, Nabil doesn't say that Tahirih pronounced these words. The
reason historians would argue that Tahirih probably didn't say them has nothing
to do with mathematical calculations. It has to do with not being able to find
any eye-witness report that she did indeed say them. We cannot simply accept
that the account given in God Passes By is correct because Shoghi Effendi wrote
it, because the Guardian explicitly stated he was not infallible in matters of
history.
The case of the martyrdom of Varqa and Ruhullah is an entirely different
matter. My recollection is that there were three Baha'i witnesses to those
events.
warmest, Susan
"And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time
left to start again . . "
Don McLean's American Pie
http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/