The following is an essay I have written on the relationship between
moral relativism and progressive revelation in the faith.  I invite
anyone interested in the challenges Baha'is currently face to give it a
read.

MORAL RELATIVISM AND THE BAHA'I FAITH

A wise man once wrote that the measure of a philosophy can be taken
from its detractors.  Great ideas have always had great enemies.  And
moral relativism has, of late, attracted some very prominent opponents.
 Not long before he was elected to what must surely be the largest
organized church in the world, the current pope Benedict XVI warned the
Catholic faithful about this in no uncertain terms.  "We are
moving," he said "towards a dictatorship of relativism . . . that
recognizes nothing definite and leaves only one's own ego and one's own
desires as the final measure."  Very shortly after that, no less a
person than the president of the United States praised the previous
pope for resisting "the tides of moral relativism" and warned the
nation's schools not to "surrender to moral confusion and
relativism."  As far as ideas go, moral relativism seems very good at
earning condemnation from high places.  This kind of attention from
great secular and religious leaders puts it in fairly exclusive
company.

But what is moral relativism?  And why are popes and presidents alike
so eager to condemn it?  And why is it especially important for
Baha'is to understand what is at stake?  To start with, it is easy to
start off on the wrong foot.  Many of the people who think moral
relativism a bad thing, and even a few who think it is a good thing
will try to say that it is the same as amoralism: the belief that there
is no standard of right and wrong, and that actions have no ethical
value.  While this is one definition, it is not the only one, and it is
not the one I am interested in discussing.  For there is also another
definition of moral relativism, one far more appealing, which I believe
a good number of people share with me, even if they would not use quite
the same words.  Moral relativism, as I understand it, is not the
belief that right and wrong do not exist, but that they depend upon
circumstances.  It means recognizing that what is good in one specific
time and place is not necessarily good in another, that the right
choice for one individual is not always the right choice for everyone.

As a philosophical perspective, moral relativism is different from
sheer amoralism in that it makes room, not only for morality, but even
for the idea of a single, divinely ordained truth.  It does not mean
giving up belief in a God who represents a perfect and unchanging
standard of goodness.  Someone can believe in the same sort of God
which the pope and the president say they do and still be a moral
relativist.  Moral relativism does not claim that God or God's law
can change, only that as human beings, our relationship to that fixed
and unmoving truth is always shifting.  It means looking at moral truth
the same way we have become used to looking at the sun since the time
of Galileo and Copernicus.  I know that the sun does not really move
around the earth, but all the same, it rises and sets, swinging further
North in the summer and South in the winter.  This is because, while
the sun does not actually move, I move in relation to it.  In the same
way, right and wrong change from situation to situation not because God
changes, but because we do.  This is what is meant by moral relativism.
 It means that morality is relative to the human condition.  It arises
out of the relationship between the unchanging nature of God and the
constantly changing needs of human beings.

To give another example, one drawn not from science but poetry, there
is a place at the end of the Divine Comedy where Dante describes what
it is like to behold God.  When Dante looks, he says that he sees a
glorious whirl of colors and shapes: the vision of God is shifting
constantly before his eyes.  But does this mean God is actually
changing?  No, Dante explains, God is perfect and unchanging from the
beginning until the end of time.  It is not God who is changing, but
his perception of God.  Human eyes and human minds cannot take in the
fullness of the divine perfection all at once, they cannot take in more
than a little at a time.  Like an ant looking at an elephant, Dante
sees one thing, then another and another: new aspects of God are always
being revealed to him.  He is looking at one big thing but only seeing
one little piece at a time.

This attitude is especially relevant to Baha'is because it seems, to
me at least, to have a great deal in common with how Baha'u'llah
and Abdu'l Baha encourage us to understand the unfolding of
progressive revelation.  Both assure us that the fundamental truth
which underlies all the world's religions is the same.  However
unlike some of the teachings of Buddhism, Christianity, or Sikhism may
seem, they are all actually one, Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l Baha
would tell us.  They explain the apparently great divergences in all of
these faiths through the concept of progressive revelation.  This
characteristic Baha'i teaching works very much like the account Dante
gives of his vision of God.  Just as Dante cannot behold God all at
once, but sees first one thing, then another; so Baha'u'llah and
Abdu'l Baha tell us that God's truth is gradually revealed through
his different manifestations.  Each messenger of God gives us another
piece of the divine truth, but everything is part of a greater whole.
It seems to be changing because we can never see it all at once.  The
message appears different in different times, they tell us, because
human needs are different as human communities change and grow.  This
is the essence of progressive revelation, and it is also the essence of
moral relativism.  What is right in one time and place, the founders of
the Baha'i faith make clear, is not necessarily right in another.
Abdu'l Baha defends the law of Moses not because it is right
eternally, but because it was right for the people who received it at
that particular time.  Islam too had its time and place.  But none of
these manifestations are right for all times and all places, which is
why God's revelation must always be renewed.

Then of course there are those people who, against what Baha'u'llah
and Abdu'l Baha would argue, try to insist that a single revelation
is universally valid.  They put it forward as the unique, perfect, and
irreplaceable expression of divine truth.  Some Muslims have viewed the
Koran this way, many Jews have encouraged this approach to the Torah,
and fundamentalist Christians believe it about the books of the Old and
New Testaments in combination.  Whatever the revelation is, the
attitude is the same.  The principles of the faith are considered
binding for all time, appropriate for every person in every situation.
If this were true, there would be no need for progressive revelation:
one divine dispensation would be enough.  One book could contain all
the answers, and - as a few Jewish, Christian and Muslim believers
still seem to think today - could describe and foretell everything
that has happened or that ever will; either openly or encoded in
prophecy.  The appeal of this position is obvious.  People who believe
this can base their lives on the letter of the teaching without ever
needing to consider anything else.  The difficult job the rest of us
face, the job of trying to judge whether or not to apply a given
principle to a situation, the task of thinking has been taken care of
for them.  They can solve the most challenging life choices like
someone taking a test with the key right in front of them: they just
have to look up the answers and fill them in. What people like this
forget is the essential lesson of progressive revelation - and moral
relativism.  Even if the truth stays put, human beings and their needs
go on moving.  And so just as the sun keeps dropping beneath the
horizon, the truth is always running away from us, always on the move:
and if we stand still too long, it will leave us behind.  This is
something that has happened again and again through recorded history.
People become attached to one revelation and will not accept the next.
Because they refuse to move, the truth gets away from them.  As the law
of Moses gives way that of Jesus; or Mohammed is replaced by the Bab;
the people who hang on hardest to the truth they know are the very ones
who end up losing it.  Situations change, and they stick with what was
right for the generation that came before them.  And all the while, His
truth keeps marching on.

Up until this point, I think most Baha'is would be in agreement.
This seems to be a fairly common understanding of progressive
revelation: that while previous manifestations were appropriate for the
conditions they spoke to, it is not necessary or even wise to follow
all of their commandments indiscriminately here and now.  They are not
useless or irrelevant, but we have to examine them carefully to decide
what still applies to our situation and what does not.  Now, what fewer
Baha'is would agree to is the claim that this same sort of caution is
also required, to a lesser extent, in following the teachings of
Baha'u'llah himself.  Many Baha'is seem to feel that because
Baha'u'llah is the most recent manifestation of God, the one whose
teachings are most relevant to our current needs, they can be followed
to the letter, without any discrimination whatsoever.  This is
something I have heard many times among believers.  On any issue, big
or small, from deciding the age to hold children responsible for crimes
to the rules for contracting a marriage, Baha'u'llah's word is
considered decisive.  In less than two hundred years, the sacred
writings have become what the Torah has been for more than two
thousand, an infallible guide to the needs of every person and every
community.

Why so many believers feel this way is easy to understand. ...

read more »

 >More than single out any particular commandment, I
 >wanted to ask whether we need to swallow everything whole.  It is not

 >this teaching of the faith or that which I object to, it is an
attitude
 >which is often implied towards the teachings generally.  We see this
 >attitude whenever someone tells us 'Baha'u'llah says' as if it
 >were an unanswerable response to any question, whenever someone
 >uses the phrase 'a fundamental principle of the faith' as if here all

 >difference, all discussion, all thought must stop.

     Here is what Shoghi Effendi said on this subject:

     "To be a Bahá'í is to accept the Cause in its entirety. To
take exception to one basic principle is to deny the authority and
sovereignty of Bahá'u'lláh, and therefore is to deny the Cause."
(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to the National
Spiritual Assembly of the United States and Canada, May 30, 1930:
Bahá'í News, No. 43, August 1930, p. 3

     ". . . we should be careful to present the teachings in their
entirety and not to alter them for the sake of others. Allegiance to
the Faith cannot be partial and half-hearted. Either we should accept
the Cause without any qualification whatsoever or cease calling
ourselves Bahá'ís. The new believers should be made to realize that
it is not sufficient for them to accept some aspects of the teachings
and reject those which cannot suit their mentality in order to become
fully recognized and active followers of the Faith. In this way all
sorts of misunderstandings will vanish and the organic unity of the
Cause will be preserved."  Directives from the Guardian, p. 11

     Unlike the above guidance from the Guardian, your essay seems to
suggest that the laws and principles of the Baha'i Faith are a
smorgasbord from which Baha'is can pick and choose those that "suit
their mentality."  Beyond that, it seems to even suggest that Baha'is
can, with clear conscience, directly disobey particular commands within
the Baha'i Writings, i.e., the prohibition against same-sex marriages
or the prohibition against political involvement, if they personally
feel that those commands are antiquated and that the modern Western
moral code of conduct is more enlightened.

     Eventhough individuals, like Dante, may not be able to see "the
big picture" that doesn't mean that the Manifestations of God don't.
In fact, isn't that precisely why wise men defer to Their judgment?

     Does not Progressive Revelation mean that the Manifestation of God
adapts the eternal truths of creation to each stage of human
development?  I feel that it is a distortion of this principle to
suggest that it gives license to each individual Baha'i to further
adapt the Baha'i Teachings to his particular proclivities.

     The importance of such an unflinching adherence to the teachings
of the Manifestation of God was touched on by Christ, Himself, at the
end of His Sermon on the Mount.

     "Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth
them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a
rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew,
and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a
rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them
not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon
the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds
blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of
it." Matthew 7:24-27

Carl,

Essentially, you get what I'm saying right.  I'd rather say 'needs'
than 'proclivities' but I think we do need to be flexible and creative
in applying divine principles.  This is why I am a member of Amnesty
International and it's why I march on behalf of gay rights, and against
the war in Iraq.  Because god has told me to love other people and make
sure that they are accorded the same dignity and respect I receive
myself.  I agree that we should stand by the *basic* principles of the
faith, but what is a basic principle?  Unity of humanity, equality of
men and women?  Surely I have stood by these principles?  And you are
right that a manifestation of God sees and reveals more than any human
being could, but Baha'u'llah's manifestation is already more than one
hundred years old.  As fallible human beings we need to move on with it
and apply it to the different conditions of our lives as best we can.

Brendan

Surely I have stood by these principles?  And you are

Dear Brendan,

For anyone who takes the authority of revelation seriously there is a
danger here. Rather than bowing to God's will we simply change the
religion to suit our own personal tastes. But you are right that
religions need to be flexible and change with the times. That is why
Baha'u'llah ordained the Universal House of Justice, so we could
continue to receive divine guidance. But if each person is simply going
to do what suits them, we might as well have no revelation at all.

warmest, Susan

On 8 Jul 2005 22:20:29 GMT, "Polychrysos" <brendancc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Which is exactly the reason that there are near 3,000 versions of
Christianity and 500 versions of Muhammadism.  It is also the reason
that God sends another Manifestation of God to mankind to straighten
out what mankind has done to His religion. There is one version of the
Baha'i Faith.

OK, I have been a member and also a member of the ACLU and
demonstrated during the civil rights movement and the Anti-Vietnam War
movements and marched and worked in other progressive movements, so
have many others.

I am in favor of "Gay Rights" but marriage isn't one of those rights,
Neither is "free-love"nor is the right to "do as thy will".
Been there! Done that! got the T-shirt and the pillowcase.

I note the lower case "god" in your last sentence, probably a Freudian
slip.
Actually the Golden rule is to do unto others, as you would have done
unto you.

  BAHA'I,Tablets of Baha'u'llah,p.64
  And if thine  eye be turned towards justice,
  choose thou for thy neighbor that which
  thou choosest for thyself.
CHRISTIANITY, Matthew 7:12
  In everything, do to others what you would
  have them do to you.

Obedience to God!

You have left a few dozen out.

The ones that you agree with.

And when fallible human beings screwup the religion that God has sent
because:
" Baha'u'llah's manifestation is already more than one hundred years
old.."
 and
"As fallible human beings we need to move on with it
and apply it to the different conditions of our lives as best we can."

Sounds to me like the best way to insure that another Manifestation of
God will be sent sooner rather than later.

I might suggest that the Unitarian Universalist Church would probably
be a more comfortable fit for you.

Pax Terra
By their fruits you shall know them.
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering,
gentleness, goodness, faith,  meekness, temperance"
Galatians 5

William,

Does it matter so much whether or not I capitalize goD?  Do you think
He minds?  What do you mean when you say it is a 'Freudian slip'.  Do
you really feel typographical errors are a good guide to someone's
sincerity of belief?  As to my point about demonstrating against the
war in Iraq and about being a member of Amnesty, well, I just meant
that these are things the UHJ doesn't seem to approve of -- the
memebership in Amnesty is explicitly forbidden -- but I do them anyway.
 As for the Unitarians, I don't know how you could talk about that
being a 'fit'.  I was born a Baha'i, I was raised a Baha'i and I love
the revelation of Baha'u'llah.  So I tell you, I really don't see why I
would want to be a Unitarian (although it's fine for many people).  It
makes me sad that you would think I don't belong here.  Best wishes.

Brendan

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 18:39:10 CST, "Polychrysos"

Depends, as I said possible a "Freudian slip' meaning a sub-conscious
addition or omission.  The comment was tongue-in-cheek I apologize for
offending you.
BTW my membership with the Amnesty group was prior to me becoming a
Baha'i as were my demonstrations against the Vietnam war.  I did serve
in the Air Force in the early 60's.

As I recall when a person signs a declaration card they swear that
they will obey the laws and ordinances of the Baha'i Faith.  Contained
in this are directives regarding membership in various organizations,
for example The Guardian forbids Baha'is to be members of the Masonic
Order and other "secret societies".  
If the Universal House of Justice forbids membership in Amnesty and a
Baha'i chooses to flagrantly disobey that law then they are liable for
administrative sanctions.
A Baha'i in good standing cannot be involved in an apparent homosexual
relationship and retain their administrative rights.  I do know, and
am friends with several homosexual Baha'is; they remain celebrate just
as un-married heterosexual Baha'is do.
A Baha'i cannot consume alcohol in public without being sanctioned.
A Baha'i cannot engage in partisan politics without loss of voting
rights.

Sounds to me like you have a cognitive dissonance.  You want to be a
member of the Baha'i Faith but you don't want to be bound by the laws
or maybe just a few of the laws.  There is an old saying,"In for a
dime, in for a dollar." There will come a time when you will have to
chose to fish or cut bait, I would suggest that you decide which
instead of waiting for the sword to fall.  Either obey the Laws that
you have sworn to obey or don't, your choice.  If you elect not to
obey them, then sooner or later you will be sanctioned.
I do recall a charismatic gentleman who was a well known Baha'i in the
area who told me that he would be buried with a 9 pointed star on his
tombstone.  Three months later he had lost his administrative rights
for misconduct and eventually removed himself from the Baha'i Faith.

It makes me sad to see you going through the dissonance that you are.
I realize that this is a growth thing for you.  Others including
myself have gone through the same types of tests.  Some stayed and
some left the Baha'i Faith.  You are going to be forced to make a
decision sooner or later whether you like it or not.  
I have known a couple of ex-Baha'i's that have found that the UUChurch
a substitute.

Pax Terra
Ye shall know them by their fruits: Matt. 7:16
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering,
gentleness, goodness, faith,  meekness, temperance": Gal. 5

William,

The essence of your posting is that I will have to choose between
obeying every injunction you mention, even the ones that don't fit me,
or being kicked out of the faith.  What can I say, except that I hope
this isn't true?  Understand me here, I don't just accept the
legitimacy of authority in the faith, I LOVE the institutions of the
faith: but love and disagreement can go together.  As a human being,
even more so as I Baha'i, I have a right to dissent, to disagree, and
remain answerable to my own conscience.  No offense, but I hope the
relevant authorities will not think as you do.  I hope they will
respect my conscience and understand that I still have a great deal to
offer the cause of Baha'u'llah even if I dissent from some of their
opinions.  I want to serve and I will serve as long as I am allowed to,
but as Socrates observed more than two thousand years ago, sometimes
the greatest service we can offer is criticism.  I love the faith and
the institutions of the faith, and I will continue to criticize them
out of love, out of the hope that they can constantly improve, as long
as I am able.

And while it's not directly relevant to my case, that bit about the
fellow getting thrown out of the faith because of how he wanted to
decorate his tombstone...  Well, that really doesn't seem fair to me.
Best wishes.

Brendan

Dear Brendon-
You seem to appreciate directness and so I do hope you will forgive me
for mine.
You say you are a mature and deepened Baha'i of long standing.  
Therefor you should know Baha'u'llah has placed twin duties upon us and
we cannot have one without the other He said.  To paraphrase it says we
must recognize the Manifestation and then obey.  It says nothing about
we only do this if we agree.  Also there are provisions in the Writings
for our conscience and a laid down policy for us to follow when we feel
confused, or disagree or something.  This is a public forum and not the
place where one can go and get expert opinion for you are only going to
get fallible opinions here.  My advice is to take your problem to the
Institutions like the Writings tell us to and then follow their advice.

regards,
doug

On Jul 11, 2005, at 4:10 PM, Polychrysos wrote:

Doug,

The principle thing which puzzles me about your posting is the
suggestion that issues which concern the faith, issues which are of
vital concern to all believers, that these issues shouldn't be raised
in a public forum.  This seems like a very suitable venue to debate the
things that matter to us most.  Public forums are fine place to put
forward the vital example of open discussion and dialogue that
distinguishes the faith.  As I've said elsewhere, it's easy to have
unity when you are always in agreement.  That we can maintain unity and
maintain a civil tone while we dispute so sharply: to me this is a real
triumph of the cause, something to celebrate rather than lament.

And why should it be a problem that the opinions of the people here
happen to be fallible?  Is that the same thing as saying they are
worthless? We only work through our fallible opinions by means of
discussion. Eventually, truth emerges, but only through the clash of
fallible viewpoints.

And I hope I didn't give anyone else the impression that I am an
exceptionally mature or deepened Baha'i.  I am a Baha'i of longstanding
-- my whole life -- but maturity and deepening in the writings is an
ongoing process which no one ever completes.  While I'm no wiser than
the next person, I am reasonably articulate.  I am writing here not
because my views are specially profound, but because they are mine, and
because other believers I know have expressed similar feelings.  Right
or wrong, this is what I think, and it is what at least a few other
believers -- admittedly a minority -- also think.  Because I am good at
stringing words together I thought I was well-qualified to articulate
what I have been feeling.  Ultimately, being heard matters as much as
being agreed with, and I chose this public forum to air different
concerns, not only mine but those I have heard from others.  Thanks
again for the message.

Brendan

On 11 Jul 2005 16:10:10 GMT, "Polychrysos" <brendancc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Please read again what I said: I said Administrative Sanctions (loss
of voting rights) not being declared a "covenant breaker' and removed.
A person can only leave the Baha'i Faith by withdrawing (formally or
informally) or being declared a "covenant breaker".
You agreed to obey the laws and ordinances of the Baha'i Faith when
you declared your belief as a Baha'i.  Now you say that you reject
that oath.

Yes and NO, if there is a law or ordinance or ruling by an assembly
you have the right to partition for a review of that decision however
pending that review you still have to obey the rule/decision..
The procedure to follow is contained in many books on Baha'i
administration.
BTW I have personally appealed several decisions of Assemblies and
been vindicated by the National Assembly.  I obeyed the decision and
followed administrative guidelines.  The decision was overturned by
the National Spiritual Assembly.

In for a dime, in for a dollar.
I went through a similar circumstance shortly after I declared.  I had
to come to the question of who was smarter God or me.  If God was
smarter than I would have to obey even if I didn't see the wisdom.  If
I was smarter than what was I doing listening to God when I already
knew better.
I decided that God knew more and I obeyed.

Actually it had nothing to do with how he wanted to decorate his
tombstone.  He was saying to me that "I will always be a Baha'i no
matter what." He was/got involved in misconduct and got his
Administrative Rights removed.  He rejoined the army and later became
a Chaplin of another religion.

Pax Terra
Ye shall know them by their fruits: Matt. 7:16
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering,
gentleness, goodness, faith,  meekness, temperance": Gal. 5

William,

Clearly, we can both agree to disagree on this, but I have to mention a
small thing.  Sometimes you confuse me by mentioning something and then
saying it isn't relevant.  If how the fellow wanted to decorate his
tombstone had nothing to do with how he got kicked out, why was it the
only relevant circumstance of his case you mentioned?  It was the only
fact about him you told me, why shouldn't I think it was relevant to
his getting thrown out?  And the same goes for when you brought up how
you'd been a member of Amnesty.  It's just how my mind works, but why
bring it up, why mention that you HAVE been a member before you are a
Baha'i when my point was about being on presently.  In the end it
doesn't matter, but I'd love to know why you mentioned the tombstone
decoration, or Amnesty, in the first place. Best wishes.

Brendan

On 12 Jul 2005 18:30:14 GMT, "Polychrysos" <brendancc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

What I told you was exactly what he told me.   My translation was that
he would always be a member of the Baha'i Faith and would die a member
of the Baha'i Faith.  (BTW he was wrong).  The rest is information
that came to light months later and under different circumstances and
from different people. .
Which I also related, to you.

I sort of wonder if you have ever heard the word hubris?

I had the same decision to make as you do.  Who is smarter God or me?
there are two mutually exclusive answers:
#1 If God isn't smarter than what am I doing being a hypocrite and a
member of a organization that I don't believe in; espousing a religion
that I don't believe in.
or
#2 If God is smarter, then shut up and get with the program.

Pax Terra
God said BE!
and Symmetry was fractured!

Dear Brendan,

The consequence of flagrantly disobeying the laws is that one loses
ones administrative rights, not that they are kicked out of the Faith
under usual circumstances. However, if a Baha'i is actively promoting
disobedience, I think it becomes a covenental issue and the Universal
House of Justice might well decide to remove someone from the rolls or
worse. But let's take the case of wanting to join Amnesty
International. It seems to me a Baha'i might have a number of choices.

1) Obey the Universal House of Jusitce and not joing Amnesty
International whenever to do so would not compromise Baha'i principles
or endanger the Faith.

2) Ignore what the House said and quietly join Amnesty International.
Such disobedience might well have spiritual consequences, but since it
isn't flagrant it probably wouldn't have administrative ones.

3) Publicly proclaim you are disobeying the House on this issue, which
is basically what you are doing. If after counselling, you persisted in
this course you might well lose your administrative rights.

4) Start a campaign encouraging others to ignore the House's
injunstions. At that level it becomes a covenental issue which could
jeopardize your membership in the community.

5) Decide it is more important to you to be a member of Amnesty
International than to be a Baha'i.

 Understand me here, I don't just accept the

Baha'u'llah says, "Obey My laws for love of my Beauty."

He was not willing to separate love from obedience.

  As a human being,

As a Baha'i you have an obligation to obey Baha'i laws whether you
disagree with them or not.

warmest, Susan

On 7/14/05, sman...@jam.rr.com <sman...@jam.rr.com> wrote:

[...]

Hello everybody,

This discussion struck me as odd and raised a couple of questions with me:

Firstly, would it be prohibited to even  participate in  a Amnesty
Int'l letter-writing campaign (I remember  in college Amnesty would
set up tables and you could read about the different cases they were
working on and  you would be asked to write a letter to a foreign
government. You could do this without signing up as a "member" or
paying dues etc.)

Secondly, what does it mean to be a "political" organization for the
purposes of Bahai laws. It was my understanding that Amnesty
International wasn't "ideological" in the sense that it  worked on
behalf of political prisoners who were being  imprisoned by
governments  which were both religious and secular, both on the right
and on the left.

To be honest I'm not intimately familiar with all of their workings
but they seem to look more like an NGO than some   kind of political
party. I don't think they run   candidates. As far as I can tell they
basically try to  influence    regimes to  release prisoners by
writing a bunch of letters.

Did  the UHJ specifically mention that Bahais  are prohibited from
joining that organization  or is it part of a more general
commandment?

Peace

Gilberto

William,

Bearing in mind that one can know a word without understanding it, your
message has to make me laugh a little.  Having spent many hours among
the verses of Euripides -- "heko dios pais tende thebaion chtona" -- I
suppose I have to confess to having come across 'hybris' once or twice.
 To answer your main point, I won't repeat myself.  Check the Peter
Khan thread and you'll be able to read my latest response to Suzanne
Gerstner.  There are many times, when what God does lies outside of our
moral accountability, that we can't understand, and shouldn't try.  But
with our own life choices, we must understand.  The essence of my
response to Suzanne, which through a regrettable accident was posted
twice, is that obeying a moral commandment we don't understand can't
possibly be pleasing to God.  Do check it out.

Brendan

Susan,

I will go on publicly proclaiming my right, my obligation to do what I
am doing.  This is not necessarily because I want others to do the
same, but because it is worth discussing regardless of whether they
think my example a good or a bad one.  As for the bit about obeying
against our conscience, I would advise that you, like William, take a
look at my latest response to Susanne.  God wants me to be truthful
with Him, and I am not going to pretend I think capital punishment just
or that I do not have an obligation to actively campaign on behalf of
political parites -- I was a volunteer for the New Democratic candidate
here in the last election.  Even if God feels I am mistaken in doing
this, the last thing He wants is for me to act as if I have learned my
lesson without really learning it.  I know that you will read what I
have said on the Peter Khan thread.  Best wishes.

Brendan

In a message dated 7/14/2005 9:52:13 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  

As a human being,

As a Baha'i you have an obligation to obey Baha'i laws  whether you
disagree with them or not.

To reinforce Susan's  response------

    In the Kitab-i-Aqdas, Verse 1, Page 21  Baha'u'llah states:

"The first duty prescribed by God for His servants is the recognition of  Him
is the Dayspring of His Revelation and the Fountain of His laws .....It  
behooveth everyone who reacheth this most sublime station, this summit of  
transcendent glory, to observer every ordinance of Him Who is the Desire of the  
world.  These twin duties are inseparable.  Neither is acceptable  without the
other."..............

ejackson

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 20:50:05 CST, "Polychrysos"

Not really interested.  Just a cautionary tale for others that may
contemplate the same set or a similar set of actions you are
espousing.

I am quite sure that you will do exactly what you want to do when you
want to do it no matter what you have sworn to.  I think that you will
find yourself minus administrative rights in the near future and out
of the Baha'i Faith one way or another if you persist in flaunting
your disobedience.

As always it is your chioce.

Pax Terra
Ye shall know them by their fruits: Matt. 7:16
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering,
gentleness, goodness, faith,  meekness, temperance": Gal. 5

It is very pleasing to God in my opinion, probably more pleasing than if we
understand.
It's called obedience.
Obedience without understanding is called faith.
God's commandments are for everyone, not just for those who understand them.

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.15/49 - Release Date: 7/14/05

obeying a moral commandment we don't understand can't

Dear Brendan,

This is what the House of Justice had to say in this regard:

"A Baha'i will understand that an upright life is based upon observance
of certain principles which stem from Divine Revelation and which he
recognizes as essential for the well-being of both the individual and
society. In order to uphold such principles, he knows that, in certain
cases, the voluntary submission of the promptings of his own personal
conscience to the decision of the majority is a conscientious
requirement, as in wholeheartedly accepting the majority decision of an
Assembly at the outcome of consultation."
http://methodologies.susanmaneck.com/

warmest, Susan

Brendan,

 > and I am not going to pretend I think capital punishment just

It would really be better for all of us if you would stop broadcasting every
one of your actions which is contrary to the guidance of the Universal
House.  Pretty soon you'll be telling about your favorite drinking spots.
Seriously, if you want to disobey Baha'i Law, please consider being quiet
about it.

Dean

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.15/49 - Release Date: 7/14/05

On 7/15/05 11:33 AM, in article inged1hkdc2mpkfpmmk2lbeapaf9tpu...@4ax.com,

Yes, remember: if you open your mouth because you have a beef with the way
things are done, you're going to get tattled on and have your voting rights
taken away.

Some people like to busy themselves with the shortcomings of others.

Dear Brendan,

Since Baha'is are not really in the position to make such decisions I
think this is not even an issue.

As you know Shoghi Effendi said that Baha'is were not allowed to do
this and it is something you could lose your voting rights for. I
suspect that there are plenty of Baha'is who quietly register for
political parties in the US so they can vote in the primaries. But
actiely participating in political campaigns can lead to sanctions.

 Even if God feels I am mistaken in doing

I think you imagine you know more about what God wants than you think
you do. What you are suggesting would not only create chaos in the
Baha'i community but in every family and in the state as well. If you
don't find this out sooner you will know it as soon as your four year
old tries to avoid doing anything you tell him to with his whiney "but
whyyyy?'
You may even try and tell him why, but it will find it will do you no
good. He doesn't really want a reason why, he just wants to do what he
wants.

I hope your kids don't get run over by a truck  because the last thing
you want is for them to act as if they have learned their lesson
without really learning it.

warmest, Susan

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:49:45 CST, "Jimmy James, Capitalist Lion Tamer"

Actually contrary to your (incumbent's) protestations, there is a
procedure for requesting reconsideration of various ordinances for
those who are sincerely questioning.  I have utilized them several
times and they do work.  Are you really sincere about your questions
or not?  Have you even attempted to utilize the avenues open to you?
Considering the postings that you have made here, I think not.
You appear to me to be like the man who buys a new car and comes out
in the morning to see that a tire is gone flat and then spends all
their time yelling and screaming and cursing at the car and tire
complaining about it.  It makes for an interesting show but the person
doing it sure looks stupid to others.

 I am reminded of the man who went to a leper colony. He looked in the
mirror one day and saw that he had contracted leprosy,  He looked
again at his disfigured face and said, "But On Me It Looks Good!"

Pax Terra
Ye shall know them by their fruits: Matt. 7:16
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering,
gentleness, goodness, faith,  meekness, temperance": Gal. 5