the bahai faith and homosexuals
Seon Ferguson
thought Bahai's were tolerant of gay people. But my cousin said her friend
got kicked out because he was gay. Is this a common occurrence? her friend
is in Scotland. Is it different in each country? (the acceptance thing) I'm
straight but I see nothing wrong with homosexuality.
diamondsouled
In most western counties most Baha'is will turn a blind eye to a
person's sexual orientation. Of course you have some narrow minded
fanatical Baha'is in some communities who are all too willing to keep
an eye out for any behavior they personally see as heretical and then
reporting it to the Baha'i thought police, the protection branch.
Usually the worse that will happen if it is found out that a person is
gay is that they will lose their administrative rights, this would be
for being openly gay. I'm not aware of anyone who has been
excommunicated/had their names removed from Baha'i membership roles
for being gay.
I would be interested in the details if this is the case though.
It is still held by Baha'i powers that be, the UHJ, that homosexuality
is a mental disorder which can be cured; this even though there is
recent scientific evidence to the contrary. It is unlikely that this
position will ever change because it is based on the opinion of Shoghi
Effendi who is believed to be infallible.
Cheers
Larry Rowe
Seon Ferguson
since posting this message I have realised that although the Bahai faith is
honest in that it tolerates gay people, if you are in a gay relationship or
openly gay as you say you can lose administration rights. Christians may not
talk to gay people but at least there is no way for a gay person to lose any
rights in Christianity.
"diamondsouled" <ro...@northwestel.net> wrote in message
news:0sKdnV_v4MwrFkvU...@giganews.com...
paha...@onetel.net.uk
> Lol it can be cured? I guess they are backwards people in all faiths. Yeah
> since posting this message I have realised that although the Bahai faith is
> honest in that it tolerates gay people, if you are in a gay relationship or
> openly gay as you say you can lose administration rights. Christians may not
> talk to gay people but at least there is no way for a gay person to lose any
> rights in Christianity.
>
Yeah - but saying "Christians think X" is always something of a
lottery, because there are so many varieties of Christian!
Some liberal Christian denominations are actively welcoming of gay
people.
With the Baha'is, there's little chance of doing that, since there's
meant to be only one Baha'i Faith, and the Baha'is are basically stuck
in the 50s, since their attitudes are based on what Shoghi wrote, and
HIS attitudes are based on the psychology and psychiatry of the 50s.
Paul
PaulHammond
Seon Ferguson wrote:
> Lol it can be cured? I guess they are backwards people in all faiths. Yeah
> since posting this message I have realised that although the Bahai faith is
> honest in that it tolerates gay people, if you are in a gay relationship or
> openly gay as you say you can lose administration rights. Christians may not
> talk to gay people but at least there is no way for a gay person to lose any
> rights in Christianity.
>
I swear I responded to this earliet - but my reply seems to have
disappeared into the ether.
To paraphrase - I said that Sean should be careful about generalising
statements about what Christians think and believe - since there are
so many varieties of Christianity available.
For sure, some Christians protest about gay people, and some
extremists make physical threats outside abortion clinics.
But there are other Christian denominations that are actually
welcoming and encouraging towards gay people.
This option - to go and find a congenial denomination if you're gay -
is one that isn't available to gay Baha'is - there being only the one
Baha'i Faith, and such an emphasis on Unity and discouragement of
schism and splitting away from the main faith.
Then I made a comment about how the Baha'i Faith's attitude towards
homosexuality is stuck in the 50s - because its attitude depends so
much upon what Shoghi Effendi wrote, and HIS writings were informed by
the beliefs of psychology and psychiatry about Homosexuality in the
50s - which have now absolutely changed.
(Back in the 50s, most psychiatrists thought that being gay was
"Deviation" or disease, and that it ought to be possible to "cure" gay
men)
Paul
Seon Ferguson
<paha...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:ALedncCsCse4AErU...@giganews.com...
Yeah I was thinking of the liberal Christians because they do allow gay
people into their churches. However some Christians refuse to change with
the times like the national spiritual assembly. I used to think the Bahai
faith was pretty liberal as well but after being told how they treat gay
people I realise it is far from the truth. Why are they so obsessed with
what some bloke wrote in the 50s? Is he related to Bahaullah or something?
Seon Ferguson
"PaulHammond" <paha...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:IMmdnRkNZs_PAErU...@giganews.com...
I got it. psychiatrists can change their attitudes- Even some Christians
can. Looks like the Bahai faith really does need to be reformed.
NUR
interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO,
that he is probably working for them."
-- Eric Stetson, September 2003
NUR
mike...@yahoo.com
>the beliefs of psychology and psychiatry about Homosexuality in the
>50s - which have now absolutely changed.
This subject has nothing to do with science. Whether or not people are
born gay or not is irrelevant. This is about a persons free will.
Throughout history there are examples of monks starving themselves to
death, living in isolation, or choosing a life of chastity, all of
these being examples that people can choose and exercise a level of
free will over their environment and basic needs for their faith.
All major religions preach that people are created in the image of
God and therefore as a consequence possess free will. Deny this and
you may as well deny your basic humanity. It is very likely that some
people are born gay and they may never change their inclination on the
matter or even desire to change. That's a question for science to
determine and has little to do with the Baha'i Faith. What is relevant
to the Baha'i Faith is that as Baha'is we believe that free will
allows one to choose their actions based on their own will and not
environmental determinants. A young girl may choose to go to the
gallows and sacrifice all that she is and ever will be for her faith,
a father and his young son may gladly choose death over recanting
their faith. We call these challenges a blessing that we may
demonstrate our faith to God. Across this world there are a plethora
of examples of men and women who exercised their free will to choose
God and their Faith over all that they possess.
We all have our challenges and really who among us can claim
perfection? Honestly when I think of Baha'u'llahs admonitions about
gossiping destroying our soul and then look at his and the Guardians
statements about homosexuality as a condition to be treated with love,
forbearance and compassion then I wonder if we're making a mountain
out of a mole hill? Really when I think of it, gossip is prevalent in
many communities, do we really have our priorities straight?
In regards to other religions, are we talking about the stoning
provisions in some forms of Judaism and Islam? In theory Buddhism and
Hinduism sound tolerant, but in cultural practice in their homeland
communities they run an equal risk of stoning or worse. And what of
Christianities response to the matter for the past 1800 years? What
Paul suggests is that we ignore the track record of Christianity for
the past couple of thousand years and focus on the last 25 years and
in particular limit our scope to a few sects? As if to state that it
makes up for the gay boy that was dragged across town chained to a
pick-up truck in those other christian areas? Doesn't sound
reasonable?
Of the major world religions the Baha'i Faith is the only one that
has from its' outset taken a tactic of non-violence. At worst the
person loses their voting rights which is a far cry from the stoning/
excommunication approach in the religions of the past. If tomorrow all
those Islamic or right wing Christians became Baha'i, the worst a gay
person would have to worry over is whether or not he'd lose voting
rights? Contrasted with the brutal attacks and repression that
currently take place in those other communities I'd say it's at least
a step up.
NUR
> Of the major world religions the Baha'i Faith is the only one that
> has from its' outset taken a tactic of non-violence.
Nonsense.
"At first not a few prominent Babis, including even several "Letters
of the Living" and personal friends of the Bab, adhered faithfully to
Subh-e Azal. One by one these disappeared, most of them, as I fear
cannot be doubted, by the foul play on the part of too zealous
Baha'is. "Companions" (as-hab), Mirza Riza Kulli and Mirza Nasr'ullah
of Tafrish, were stabbed or poisoned in Adrianople and Acre. Two of
the "Letters of the Living," Aka Siyyid `Ali the Arab, and Mulla Rajab
`Ali Kahir, were assassinated, the one at Tabriz, the other at
Kerbela. The brother of the latter, Aka Ali Muhammad, was also
murdered in Baghdad [by a Baha'i]....
E.G. Browne in his introduction to his translation of the Tarikh-e
Jadid (New History of Mirza `Ali Muhammad, the Bab), 1975, pp.xxiii-
xxiv.
PaulHammond
you DON'T cross-post it into soc.religion.bahai, I don't think there's
much chance Mike will ever see what you're saying.
If it gets through, you'll be able to see my response from about half
an hour ago appearing soon.
Paul
NUR
-- Eric Stetson, September 16, 2003
> I think he meant specifically towards gays, Nima
No, she/he didn't. This is a blanket, unnuanced statement.
>>Of the major world religions the Baha'i Faith is the only one that
>> has from its' outset taken a tactic of non-violence.
Perhaps if you'd take your head out you'd recognize it as one too.
W
PaulHammond
NUR wrote:
> On Apr 15, 12:01 pm, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is
> interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO,
> that he is probably working for them."
>
> -- Eric Stetson, September 16, 2003
>
>
>
> > I think he meant specifically towards gays, Nima
>
> No, she/he didn't. This is a blanket, unnuanced statement.
>
Well, you are, certainly, good at those.
But you seem to have missed the context - this thread is called
"baha'i faith and homosexuals", or it was before you changed it to "I
don't like Paul"
And, seeing as how you DIDN'T crosspost it to soc.religion.bahai, Mike
is never going to see your response.
Since I don't particularly like what he's said either, it's pretty
pointless of you to pick a fight with me over it.
The following is published online at http://www.bahai-faith.com/apology.html
and is intended for mass circulation. Please publicize this in any
way you think would be appropriate and to anyone you think would be
interested.
An Apology to the Baha'is of This World and the World Beyond
by Eric Stetson - November 12, 2008
Dear Baha'i Friends,
I declared my faith in the Baha'i religion on March 21, 1998; was an
observant and active Baha'i for about four years; and resigned my
membership in the Baha'i community on November 5, 2002, about six
years ago. Before leaving the faith, I wrote and published on the
internet a book calling for reform of the Baha'i Faith and claiming
prophetic authority to do so, but soon decided I no longer believed
in Baha'u'llah's claim of prophethood nor my own. I became a
Christian and a strong critic of Baha'u'llah, the Baha'i faith and
its organization. Because of the high visibility of my website,
www.Bahai-Faith.com, many thousands of people were exposed to my
critical views, which I couched as a Christian witness to the truth
of
Christ and the falsehood of Baha'u'llah and his religion. I
apparently became well enough known among Baha'is that I was
identified in an academic article by Baha'i author Moojan Momen as
one of twelve noteworthy modern "apostates" of the Baha'i Faith.
Looking back, I believe some of my criticisms were more justified
than
others. Some were based on facts that are not in dispute,
whereas other things I said were gratuitous and harsh judgments that
were not in the spirit of Christ. Between the years 2002 and 2008, I
have gradually progressed from the point of condemning Baha'u'llah to
hell (a judgment that only rebounded back upon myself while I
believed it) to a recognition that, whether or not he was inspired by
God and regardless of any specific mistakes he may have made, he was
surely a man who was trying to make a positive difference in the
world
and deserves much credit for that.
So let me join the Baha'is this year, this day, in saying "Happy
birthday Baha'u'llah!" The world is a better place and many souls
have been lifted up to greater heights because you were born and
lived
on this earth and shared your spiritual message with its
people. I love you -- not in the way Baha'is do as a follower of the
religion you founded, but as a fellow child of God who yearns to do
good for my brothers and sisters in the human family and who
appreciates the positive things you did in your life in the face of
extraordinary trials.
I apologize for excessive and sometimes unfair criticisms I have
voiced against Baha'u'llah, his successors, and the Baha'i community.
I ask forgiveness from all of you -- those who are in this world as
well as those in the world beyond. I especially ask those who have
been martyred for their Baha'i faith to forgive me. I know that you
sacrificed yourselves for something worth dying for: a vision of
humanity united in inclusive love, common purpose, and peace among
nations and religions under One God. Let me have as much courage and
strength to live for these ideals as you had to die for them.
If I am considered by any Baha'is to be an "enemy of the Faith," an
angry apostate, or other such negative appellations, I ask that you
no longer regard me in this way. Instead, consider me a friend and
colleague in the broad-based movement toward a universal spiritual
vision for humanity's future and a global civilization based on
mutual
respect and reconciliation of all.
Though I disagree with Baha'u'llah and his successors on some
important points and believe them all to have been fallible human
beings like anyone else, I recognize that they received some valuable
divine inspiration and that -- though it is almost certainly not
God's plan for the Baha'i faith ever to become the largest religion
in the world -- nevertheless the existence of the Baha'i faith has,
on balance, been a positive thing in history. Above all, I believe
Baha'u'llah will be remembered as a man who made a serious attempt to
bring spiritual and societal progress to the Islamic world -- a
civilization which was, and in some ways still is, desperately in
need of advancement beyond the beliefs and practices of the Middle
Ages. We should be grateful for his efforts in this regard, despite
whatever details of his claims and his teachings one may disagree
with. Furthermore, we should thank Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi for
their sincere attempt to take the basic principles taught by
Baha'u'llah and use this as the basis for creating a world-embracing
faith tradition that, in their own time and considering their own
cultural background, was very progressive -- and which in some ways
remains so today.
I am writing this letter and sharing it publicly because this is a
crucial time in world history, a time when it is vitally important
for people to put aside their religious differences in order to work
together for the sake of all who are living today and for those yet
unborn. I do not wish for my disagreement with some aspects of Baha'i
theology and organizational practices to be a barrier preventing me
from uniting with Baha'is when it may be desirable for furthering our
common goals which transcend the boundaries of religion. I do not
wish for Baha'is to feel that I am someone they must regard as a
source of negative energy to be avoided.
Now is not the time for making petty arguments or holding grudges.
Now is a weighty time, a grave time, a time when the very future of
humanity is at stake. It is a time when people, nations, and the
earth itself are facing a unique confluence of challenges
unprecedented in human history. Now is the time for serious people --
spiritual people who care about all that is good and who would be
part of healing our planet -- to come together in reconciliation,
forgive each other of our faults and mistakes, and look to a new
vision beyond the limits of the past.
There is also another reason for this letter, a personal reason.
About six months ago, I had a visionary dream which moved me
powerfully. Just as I shared my dreams that led me to question and
speak out against some practices of the Baha'i Faith several years
ago, I feel a responsibility to share this dream as well --
regardless of how anyone, either adherents or opponents of the Baha'i
Faith, may think of it or interpret it.
In the dream, I was walking (floating actually, in my astral body as
is common in dreams and visions) through a vast garden approaching a
shrine containing Baha'u'llah's tomb. There were many pathways in
this garden, coming from all directions toward the shrine at the
center. When I reached the shrine, I entered and found myself in a
large auditorium filled with crimson-colored seats which were
arranged in a semicircle around the focal point, a raised platform on
which was Baha'u'llah's sarcophagus with a tentlike canopy over it.
All of the seats were empty. The sarcophagus containing Baha'u'llah's
body was draped with a cloth on which was embroidered a large cross.
I became aware of many souls ascending the platform, one after
another, and putting papers in a slot in the sarcophagus. On these
papers were their prayers which were addressed to Baha'u'llah. I
suddenly felt moved to offer to Baha'u'llah a prayer of my own. I
approached the sarcophagus and placed in the slot a paper on which I
had written, in the ink of the spirit, the simple but powerful
words, "Forgive me." Overcome with emotion as my prayer entered
Baha'u'llah's resting place, I expressed my sorrow for hurting him
and his people and pleaded for forgiveness. I embraced and clung to
the sarcophagus for a period of time, felt my sadness and guilt turn
to a deep inner peace, then let go and turned to exit the shrine.
Walking back through the garden, I find that I am accompanied by the
person who first introduced me to the Baha'i faith in this earthly
lifetime. We talk with each other in a pleasant and amicable tone. I
explain to him that I cannot be a member of the Baha'i Faith, but
that like many people, I am "half Baha'i." I express my belief that
Baha'u'llah was a prophet, but not as great as he claimed to be. I
also share my faith in the teaching of Jesus Christ that all human
beings are the sons and daughters of God, who is our spiritual Parent
(see Matthew 6:9); that in fact we are all manifestations of God or
in a sense "gods" (see John 10:30-36). As the dream ends, I perceive
that the Baha'i walking beside me is friendly and somewhat receptive
to what I'm telling him.
To conclude this letter, I will reiterate that I apologize to the
Baha'is for criticizing their religion excessively and that I seek
their forgiveness for doing so. Anything negative I may say from now
on about the Baha'i Faith will be said in a respectful way and with
the clear understanding that there is much that is good about this
faith which must also be recognized and applauded.
Like all religions and religious organizations, the Baha'i Faith has
its flaws, to be sure. I am not going to pretend otherwise for the
sake of a superficial feel-good relationship that lacks the bracing
honesty borne out of true respect and care. I have also spoken and
written extensively about the problems with Christianity, in an
attempt to bring a more universalist and progressive spirit to the
church and body of Christ -- so I am well aware that every religion,
even my own, is imperfect and can benefit from some criticism which
ought to spark needed reflection and change. However, I often failed
to acknowledge along with my criticisms of the Baha'i Faith that it
has been and continues to be a beneficial influence in the lives of
many people and that this is to be celebrated, as the positive
effects of a flawed Christianity and other religions are likewise to
be praised. The flaws of the Baha'i Faith, though real, need not be
unduly emphasized.
I do ask the Baha'is to consider fairly and with an open mind the
concerns of people who leave the Baha'i Faith or hold dissenting
opinions within it. You should not caricature them as being angry and
hateful people, when in most cases this is not true. The majority of
people who leave the faith and speak up about why they did so, or who
believe in Baha'u'llah but openly disagree with some policies of
Baha'i religious institutions, are good people who simply are acting
according to the promptings of their conscience. They may be mistaken
or they may be correct, but in all but a small minority of cases they
are primarily motivated not by base and vile emotions but by a
sincere desire to uphold what they believe to be truth and justice.
I call upon Baha'is to focus on promoting the highest, most universal
principles of your faith and to work with anyone from any religion to
advance those principles, rather than excessively focusing on the
person of Baha'u'llah or the Baha'i administrative order. The world
doesn't need yet another religion offering salvation through rigid
doctrinal belief in one man or one church. What the world needs today
is people from all faiths and denominations to put aside their narrow
and exclusive mindset and recognize that we all are God's children
and we all have important ideas to contribute to the discussion, in
order that together we may solve or mitigate the severe problems
humanity is facing and that the human race may be uplifted to its
full divine potential. I ask you to join me in this transcendent
understanding and this great calling.
May God bless and inspire you all.
Love always,
Eric Stetson
Aor
PaulHammond
mike.
First of all, you compare being gay, and being told that it's a
disease or something you've got to overcome with being a martyr, or
being a sacrifice.
People shouldn't BE sacrificed for other people's ignorance.
Then, you say that because Baha'is don't stone gay people, they should
be thankful for small mercies - or because I've mentioned the fact
that these days, gay friendly Christians exist, I'm somehow at fault
for NOT mentioning the fact that gay men have been persecuted for
centuries.
Well, I'm sure when the Baha'is have had a bit longer, they'll have a
record of prejudice to compare with the Christians - but didn't Abdu'l
Baha say something about having a "sin covering eye"? So forgive me
if I choose to emphasise the spiritual progress by which some
christians have now surpassed the Baha'is, who like to think of
themselves as SO much more spiritually advanced than everyone else.
Incidentally, that attitude of Baha'i superiority towards other
religions certainly comes through loud and clear!
Baha'is need to get up to speed on sexuality and move into the 21st
century! Stop trying to pretend that what Shoghi thought about gay
people in the 1950s is the last word!
Mike Noxaura
Okies, while i'm on the outside of the Faiths main body for personal
reasons similar to this (sisters gay), i have noticed something
interesting: there isn't "1 bahai faith" and never has been. google
"bahai sects" and there's an interesting site of the same name. I
usually use the term "Bayani" as it's more appropriate for me, and the
Bahai Faith is part of that tree.
More importantly, i just joined an egroup of Bahais trying to move
away from the more conservative main for several reasons, including
Gay Rights. These guys totally disregard S E as not even having been a
Guardian, in which case, the UHOJ can jump in a lake. I think a move
to a more modern, open minded faith would be ideal.
mike...@yahoo.com
>disease
Interesting that you assume such a position on this matter. I read in
you emotion but no truth. Lucky it's in writing, so I'm calling you
out on your spin, where'd I mention the word disease? Here's what I
said:
"It is very likely that some people are born gay and they may never
change their inclination on the
matter or even desire to change. "
So again, where'd I mention the word disease? Is your goal the truth
or your truth?
mike...@yahoo.com
>reasons similar to this (sisters gay)
I'm amazed at the extreme response many Baha'is have taken on this
matter on both sides. Here's some food for thought. 90%+ of the male
population engages in masturbation (65% female). So why isn't there
equal concern over the subject? After all, if we believe that 90% of
our male population which is likely reflected in the Baha'i community
engages in an act that the Guardian described almost verbatim in the
exact same way that he described homosexuality then why no concern?
This statistic has changed little since the 50's and there really
hasn't been any push to cure the male psyche of his natural need to
engage in this activity. (BTW the Guardian also stated that this was
against our nature as well) You don't find male Baha'is protesting and
forming social groups to assert their sexual identity with
masturbation. As a society we quietly accept it.
Going back and to this day you'll find Buddhist monestaries waking
their boys early in the morning to curb their natural inclinations
towards engaging in this activity. This is nothing new, even the Bab
had proscriptions on the matter. So if you want to be a Bayani, you'd
better be prepared to accept that you'll encounter laws advising you
against masturbation. You could argue that based on the statistics
religion in general must be discriminatory towards men.
So now we have the Guardian providing us with an interpretation in
which he plainly stated in regards to both masturbation and
homosexuality that the sexual impulse should only be expressed for the
purpose of procreation. Nothing here is inconsistent with any other
mainstream religion. The only real difference is in the response. In
former religions you were stoned, excommunicated, socially ostracized
and worse. In the Faith people who openly engage in the behavior lose
their voting rights.
Perhaps the answer comes back to this. Religion provides us with a
standard. Is masturbation harmful to anyone? Clearly it's natural,
replete with examples through nature and even displayed among the most
innocent of children. Does being homosexual make you any worse or
better than the 90+% of men or children who engage in this activity?
Clearly not. The only difference being that one behavior is more
publicly transparent than the other. What religion provides is a
standard by which we may all measure ourselves in our own way. No one
can claim moral superiority because the truth is that we all have our
shortcomings. The standards are seemingly impossible to attain,
meaning that our spiritual development isn't about being perfect, it's
about our own personal growth and struggle.
A gay person in this faith may choose to live their lives as Baha'is
openly or in quiet with or without their voting rights sometimes
unfortunately being held to an artificially higher standard than those
90+% men who engage in their own activities. Maybe the answer is that
those 90+% men should remain quiet on the matter lest they find
themselves to be hypocrites.
Could either exercise their will to choose not to engage in these
activities? Certainly.
The real sin in my estimation comes when a person chooses to believe
that just because they are inclined to engage in any activity it
therefore must be right. Worse yet, is the act of division or engaging
in an act of division by attempting to form a sect or splinter group
that suits your desires. By doing so, you've undermined the
fundamental purpose of religion being that of unity. Testifying to
this faith all the while creating a schism is the worst form of
hypocrisy and frankly you're better off living out your life accepting
the truth that no one is perfect.
All Bad
<mike...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:JJmdnRSdvJQ3i3DU...@giganews.com...
AB: Could you recap how you got to this point? I'm wondering if this is a
cross post from SRB. Either that or I somehow missed the dialog before your
response. We don't usually see much successful crossposting from SRB to
TRB.
AB: When I read what you respond to, _at_face_value_ this looks right to
me, the bit that I can see. Some people do describe homosexuality as a
disease - not saying it is a disease - just saying some say it is, and not
seeing a full sentence.
AB: I liked that movie "Milk", and that is what I know about homosexuality
in 2009. Everything else I know is probably from the 70s.
- All Bad
paha...@onetel.net.uk
> <mikera...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:JJmdnRSdvJQ3i3DU...@giganews.com...
>
> > >First of all, you compare being gay, and being told that it's a
> >>disease
>
> > Interesting that you assume such a position on this matter. I read in
> > you emotion but no truth. Lucky it's in writing, so I'm calling you
> > out on your spin, where'd I mention the word disease? Here's what I
> > said:
>
> > "It is very likely that some people are born gay and they may never
> > change their inclination on the
> > matter or even desire to change. "
>
> > So again, where'd I mention the word disease? Is your goal the truth
> > or your truth?
>
> AB: Could you recap how you got to this point? I'm wondering if this is a
> cross post from SRB. Either that or I somehow missed the dialog before your
> response. We don't usually see much successful crossposting from SRB to
> TRB.
>
This was me, Pat. Seon Ferguson cross-posted his question about
homosexuality and the Baha'is into soc.religion.bahai too, which I
hadn't realised, probably until I saw some replies coming from there.
my whole sentence was:
"First of all, you compare being gay, and being told that it's a
disease or something you've got to overcome with being a martyr, or
being a sacrifice. "
And having gone and read over the post just now, I have to admit that
he didn't compare being gay with a disease - but he did talk of
martyrdom and sacrifice, and people choosing to take up vows of
chastity and become monks and nuns.
I posted rather too much out of the white heat of anger, and conflated
what Mike had actually said with a possible way of interpreting what
Shoghi Effendi had said.
To be honest, I'm surprised that my post was allowed - since I didn't
call people names, but I did express myself very strongly in saying
that what he had said made me feel disgusted.
It's something of a disease posting here and knowing who you're
normally posting to, that it's easy to forget that maybe moderating
your tone for other fora would be a good idea!
Paul
paha...@onetel.net.uk
You didn't mention the word "disease"
But you did mention "tests" and "martyrdoms" and "choices"
Which strongly suggests to me that you think the correct attitude for
a gay Baha'i to have is to imagine that God is testing him.
You also suggest that your faith ought to be getting some kind of
medal for the fact that its model is just nicely telling them that
their sexual orientation is wrong, rather than stoning them or
imprisioning them.
And you suggested that the correct attitude to have towards Christians
who are tolerant, or even enthusiatically supportive of sexual
diversity is to ignore their advanced spiritual attitudes, and instead
assume that the ones who hold up placards suggesting that God despises
gay people should be taken as more representative.
I don't normally read in soc.religion.bahai - I'm a regular poster in
talk.religion.bahai, where the style of debate is probably much more
robust than you're used to over there. This is the thread that got
cross-posted by an occasional contributor at talk.religion.bahai, who
in my opinion is genuinely interested in finding out more from a
perspective beyond the usual suspects in this group.
My previous post was made somewhat in anger - because the attitudes
you displayed in your previous posts made me see red!
I'm willing to apologise for being intemperate - but as a non-Baha'i I
don't see why I should give your faith credit for being a religion
that's only a little bit mean to gay people emotionally rather than
being physically mean to them.
Baha'u'llah himself didn't write anything about loving relationships
between people of the same sex, and Shoghi Effendi was far too much
informed by the current scientific opinion of his time. I think it's
a shame that historical events have made it difficult for the Baha'is
of today ever to change or contradict those opinions given by Shoghi
on these matters - as our first poster in this thread suggested,
people who don't know much about the Baha'is, and think of them as a
liberal and welcoming faith that preaches tolerance and unity in
diversity, tend to assume that that attitude of tolerance extends
towards those of different sexualities as well as different races -
and they are often surprised when they find that it doesn't.
Paul
NUR
or in any way served with the Baha'i Internet agency?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Baha’i_Internet_Agency
Yes or No?
mike...@yahoo.com
>You didn't mention the word "disease"
Now we're getting to a rational discussion
>But you did mention "tests" and "martyrdoms" and "choices"
>Which strongly suggests to me that you think the correct attitude for
>a gay Baha'i to have is to imagine that God is testing him.
God isn't testing anyone. We _all_ test ourselves by what we perceive
as God's truth. There's a huge difference. God already knows who we
are, why would an infinite being all-capable, all-knowing, undefinable
need to test you? What's he gonna find out? What you present is poorly
thought out christian theology at its' best, rooted in perceptions of
God as some Zeus-like character. It's about knowing yourself and
advancing yourself spiritually, and ultimately uplifting others
through the demonstration of your faith.
This concept isn't hard, you work out and suffer during the process
but eventually you become stronger and healthier as a result.
Spirituality is the same.
>And you suggested that the correct attitude to have towards Christians
>who are tolerant, or even enthusiatically supportive of sexual
>diversity is to ignore their advanced spiritual attitudes, and instead
Interesting, most every religion I've studied looks at suffering in
the path of faith as a route to spiritual development. Yet, what you
propose as advanced, is that we should all (gay or straight) accept
our spiritual state as-is, no need for development. This is your
version of advanced? To me it sounds rather spiritually complacent.
Sexual diversity is a reality of nature. It exists and there is no
doubt that all of it (including homosexuality) serves an evolved
biologic purpose. My argument has never been to negate this. What I
point out is that our individual spiritual development hinges on
attempting to rise above our nature and asserting our identity as
spiritual beings rather than physical creatures. Why is it that
fasting in some form or another is found in almost every religion?
Religion is seemingly at odds with our nature at every level, yet it
proves to be the vehicle of our spiritual development.
>My previous post was made somewhat in anger - because the attitudes
>you displayed in your previous posts made me see red!
>I'm willing to apologise for being intemperate - but as a non-Baha'i I
>don't see why I should give your faith credit for being a religion
>that's only a little bit mean to gay people emotionally rather than
>being physically mean to them.
Hey, if it's mean then it must be mean to just about everyone
including (as I mentioned in another post) the 90+% of men who are
naturally inclined to masturbate. (BTW that statistic has been
reported as high as 98+% in some other Journals) So what's your point
here? That gay people somehow are above the same admonishment that
applies to just about every living male? At least in that sense it's
equitable. About the only difference is one behavior can be but not
necessarily is more transparent. My advice is that no one's perfect
and these standards exist as extremely hard to attain goals that we
all struggle towards.
If a gay person is content with their sexuality but feels more
inclined to work on other spiritual issues like back-biting..etc. then
that person has his priorities right. My point is that most people
(gay or straight) have bigger issues to be concerned with than their
sexuality. If that person really feels inclined to live an openly gay
lifestyle, then the worst that may occur is they'll lose their voting
rights. Losing your voting rights doesn't infer that the community or
God loves you any less. In the grand context of the history of Islam
and christianity this hardly sounds mean.
>Baha'u'llah himself didn't write anything about loving relationships
>between people of the same sex, and Shoghi Effendi was far too much
Sorry buddy, that's just not true. The Aqdas was clear. Words change
their meaning over time. Just as we use the term gay in english. At
one time it meant happy. Baha'u'llah described it all too clearly in
the language of his time and location. There are some misguided non-
native historians who've overlooked this truth due to their sense of
compassion and poor skills at translation. My background is Persian
and I know the history of their terminology all too well. The
Guardians translation on this subject was accurate. Any other spin on
this is at best a poorly contrived lie.
>informed by the current scientific opinion of his time. I think it's
>a shame that historical events have made it difficult for the Baha'is
>of today ever to change or contradict those opinions given by Shoghi
I have little doubt that the science of his times affected his
approach to the subject but regardless of science it would have done
little to change the end result of his translation. As I stated
earlier, we all possess free will and we are not genetically
programmed machines incapable of exceeding our programming. This is
the premise of every religion. I can accept that for a Gay person this
is no small feat, hard and seemingly impossible which is why I would
offer this counsel, there are other more important issues that we all
must work on.
All Bad
<mike...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7bmdndpTJsQ_DWvU...@giganews.com...
>
Hi Mike,
I appreciate your thoughts on these serious questions. We don't get to see
much of this as a proportion of the message traffic on TRB.
I believe the sanction for a pattern of homosexual activity, or alcohol
consumption, is loss of administrative priveleges, not just not voting at
Rizwon or district convention, but excluded from district convention,
excluded from Feast, not allowed to contribute to the fund, etc. If you
lost admin privileges, you should be invited to Holy Day commemorations if
the community remembers to do so.
I live in the US. As some states recognize gay marriage some Baha'i
communities, at some time, may be in the position of recognizing gay
marriage, so it is good to be open minded, and informed, as you are.
As you know, the Kitabi Aqdas appears to allow a man to marry two wives and
'Abdu'l Baha correctly forbade it. Yet, when a bigmist declares as a
Baha'i, he is not required to disavow either of his prior marriage
commitments. When a seeker who is in a gay marriage declares, the community
needs to think about a) rejecting the declaration, b) asking him to divorce
his spouse before accepting the declaration, or c) accepting the declaration
and the prior gay marriage, to include the committments implicit in a
marriage.
What do you think?
- All Bad
NUR
On Apr 28, 9:04 am, "All Bad" <AllBad_notrea...@md.metrocast.net>
wrote:
http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pat_kohli
Pat Kohli, or Patrick Kohli, is a member of the Haifan Baha'i Faith
[1]
who makes regular contributions to the USENET newsgroup
talk.religion.bahai[2]. He is a computer programmer who has worked on
software for various projects, including military systems.
Contents [hide]
1 Background
2 Articles and Resources
2.1 Related SourceWatch Articles
2.2 References
2.3 External Articles
[edit]Background
He "is a computer scientist assigned to 4.5.3.3. He works for PMA-231
as the Open Architecture (OA) IPT lead, in the OA/FORCEnet IPT of the
Network Centric Warfare IPT. Prior to this he worked at Saint Inigoes
for 4.5 and developed a prototype next generation flight data
recorder, using COTS components, to meet incident reporting,
maintenance and FOQA needs. Pat also supported the old PMA-282 which
did weapon control systems for guided missiles. Pat has an MS in
computer Information Systems from Florida Tech." [3]
"Pat Kohli, NCW Open Architecture Lead, demonstrated how the E-2/C-2
program office (PMA-231) is continuously evaluating and implementing
software modernization to facilitate transition of the existing E-2
operational flight program to an environment using commercially
available systems. Venlet said, "The Naval Aviation Enterprise has
embraced open architecture as a fundamental building block of weapon
system development from its very inception. Our government/industry
teams continue to leverage these open system strategies and concepts
in achieving reduction in overall development cycle times and
delivering increased system capabilities to the Fleet faster and
cheaper. The advantages of integrating open architecture designs and
contracting strategies are measurable and pronounced as is
substantiated by our E-2D Advanced Hawkeye and P-8 Multi-Mission
Aircraft development programs. The key to continued success will be
maintaining the close partnership with industry experts, as we
provide
the right capabilities, at the right time and right cost to the joint
warfighter."The E-2 Hawkeye team has been representing and directly
supporting Venlet's executive office - the aviation domain lead for
open architecture initiatives - since June 2004, because of its role
as a battle management command and control platform and a central
network communications node in aviation. E-2 Program Manager Capt.
Randy Mahrsaid, "Today's evolving E-2 open architecture model paves
the way for a more mature system to be used by the E-2D prior to it
taking its place in the fleet."[3]
Pat Kohli has maintained a consistent web presence since the late
1990s, particularly on USENET, addressing both external critics and
dissenters within the Haifan Baha'i Faith tradition to which he
belongs [5]. In 1998, he voted against the creation of the USENET
group, talk.religion.bahai, as an un-moderated discussion forum for
issues relating to the Baha'i faith [4]. Official discussion
regarding
the creation of this group may also be found at: [6]. He posts under
the handles Mr All Bad and All_Bad [5]
[edit]Articles and Resources
[edit]Related SourceWatch Articles
PMA Group
[edit]References
↑ Letter from Assistant Secretary, Kishan Manocha, on Behalf of
National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United Kingdom [1],
dated October 8, 2002, Accessed 17 February, 2009.
↑ Discussion Archive of USENET group Talk.Religion.Baha'i, [2],
Accessed February 17, 2009
↑ 3.0 3.1 Drema Ballengee-Grunst, "Assistant SecNav visits NAVAIR T&E
laboratory", November 10, 2005.
↑ Record of votes cast regarding the creation of the USENET group,
talk.religion.bahai,[3], Accessed February 17, 2009.
↑ Excerpt from USENET group talk.religion.bahai,[4], Accessed
February
17, 2009.
[edit]External Articles
Retrieved from "http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pat_Kohli"
Categories: United States | Religion | Military | War/peace
All Bad
I appreciate your thoughts on these serious questions. We don't get to see
much of this as a proportion of the message traffic on TRB.
I believe the sanction for a pattern of homosexual activity, or alcohol
consumption, is loss of administrative priveleges, not just not voting at
Rizwon or district convention, but excluded from district convention,
excluded from Feast, not allowed to contribute to the fund, etc. If you
lost admin privileges, you should be invited to Holy Day commemorations if
the community remembers to do so.
I live in the US. As some states recognize gay marriage some Baha'i
communities, at some time, may be in the position of recognizing gay
marriage, so it is good to be open minded, and informed, as you are.
As you know, the Kitabi Aqdas appears to allow a man to marry two wives and
'Abdu'l Baha correctly forbade it. Yet, when a bigmist declares as a
Baha'i, he is not required to disavow either of his prior marriage
commitments. When a seeker who is in a gay marriage declares, the community
needs to think about a) rejecting the declaration, b) asking him to divorce
his spouse before accepting the declaration, or c) accepting the declaration
and the prior gay marriage, to include the committments implicit in a
marriage.
What do you think?
- All Bad
<mike...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7bmdndpTJsQ_DWvU...@giganews.com...
>
>
paha...@onetel.net.uk
> >You didn't mention the word "disease"
>
> Now we're getting to a rational discussion
>
I don't think we are, actually. You appear to be trying to put your
assumptions onto me.
> >But you did mention "tests" and "martyrdoms" and "choices"
> >Which strongly suggests to me that you think the correct attitude for
> >a gay Baha'i to have is to imagine that God is testing him.
>
> God isn't testing anyone. We _all_ test ourselves by what we perceive
> as God's truth. There's a huge difference. God already knows who we
> are, why would an infinite being all-capable, all-knowing, undefinable
> need to test you? What's he gonna find out? What you present is poorly
> thought out christian theology at its' best, rooted in perceptions of
> God as some Zeus-like character. It's about knowing yourself and
> advancing yourself spiritually, and ultimately uplifting others
> through the demonstration of your faith.
>
I'm an atheist personally. But you DID seem to have a big problem
with my mentioning the Christian denominations I admire, while not
mentioning the views of those Christians I think are prejudiced.
I also mentioned Abdu'l Baha's concept of the "sin-covering eye"
maybe as a professing Baha'i you should be attempting to put his views
into practice?
> This concept isn't hard, you work out and suffer during the process
> but eventually you become stronger and healthier as a result.
> Spirituality is the same.
>
> >And you suggested that the correct attitude to have towards Christians
> >who are tolerant, or even enthusiatically supportive of sexual
> >diversity is to ignore their advanced spiritual attitudes, and instead
>
> Interesting, most every religion I've studied looks at suffering in
> the path of faith as a route to spiritual development. Yet, what you
> propose as advanced, is that we should all (gay or straight) accept
> our spiritual state as-is, no need for development. This is your
> version of advanced? To me it sounds rather spiritually complacent.
>
I propose that the first task of any gay person is to accept
themselves as God made them.
YOU had a problem with the fact that I didn't mention the Christians
of the past that used to stone gay people, when I was mentioning TO
SOMEBODY ELSE the idea that considering all Christians as believers in
the same monolithic anti-gay viewpoint was unfair, seeing as how
Christian opinion covers a range of responses to homosexuality.
Oh, and yes, I DO think that any religion which accepts gay people as
they are is de-facto more spiritually advanced than those that preach
prejudice.
You seem to be projecting your problems onto me, I think.
> Sexual diversity is a reality of nature. It exists and there is no
> doubt that all of it (including homosexuality) serves an evolved
> biologic purpose. My argument has never been to negate this. What I
> point out is that our individual spiritual development hinges on
> attempting to rise above our nature and asserting our identity as
> spiritual beings rather than physical creatures.
Sorry, but the fact that Baha'is will not accept the possibility of
gay marriage is something that I consider to be a failing in the
Baha'i Faith - not something to be gotten around by talking about
something else entirely.
The original question of the originator of this thread was seeking
clarification of a Baha'i position, and information regarding how gay
Baha'is are treated by other Baha'is. I don't see how your paragraph
above clarifies, well, anything really.
> Why is it that
> fasting in some form or another is found in almost every religion?
Because it makes you think.
> Religion is seemingly at odds with our nature at every level, yet it
> proves to be the vehicle of our spiritual development.
>
How would you relate that statement to the fact of gay sexuality?
> >My previous post was made somewhat in anger - because the attitudes
> >you displayed in your previous posts made me see red!
> >I'm willing to apologise for being intemperate - but as a non-Baha'i I
> >don't see why I should give your faith credit for being a religion
> >that's only a little bit mean to gay people emotionally rather than
> >being physically mean to them.
>
> Hey, if it's mean then it must be mean to just about everyone
> including (as I mentioned in another post) the 90+% of men who are
> naturally inclined to masturbate. (BTW that statistic has been
> reported as high as 98+% in some other Journals) So what's your point
> here? That gay people somehow are above the same admonishment that
> applies to just about every living male?
I don't see the point you're making. THe Baha'i Faith discriminates
against gay people. straight people are allowed to find somebody to
marry. Gay people are not. Of course, we are always able to fall
short of high standards. But I think it's possible for people to live
without masturbating, should that be a standard someone chooses to set
for themselves. It's possible to live without drinking alcohol (at
least for me - I tried that for about 4 years while I was thinking of
becoming Baha'i) It's not possible for gay people to "cure"
themselves straight.
At least in that sense it's
> equitable. About the only difference is one behavior can be but not
> necessarily is more transparent. My advice is that no one's perfect
> and these standards exist as extremely hard to attain goals that we
> all struggle towards.
>
> If a gay person is content with their sexuality but feels more
> inclined to work on other spiritual issues like back-biting..etc. then
> that person has his priorities right. My point is that most people
> (gay or straight) have bigger issues to be concerned with than their
> sexuality. If that person really feels inclined to live an openly gay
> lifestyle, then the worst that may occur is they'll lose their voting
> rights. Losing your voting rights doesn't infer that the community or
> God loves you any less. In the grand context of the history of Islam
> and christianity this hardly sounds mean.
>
Sorry, but discrimination against gay people is wrong. People
shouldn't lose their voting rights for being openly gay - they should
have the same rights to an open sexual relationship as any other
Baha'i.
> >Baha'u'llah himself didn't write anything about loving relationships
> >between people of the same sex, and Shoghi Effendi was far too much
>
> Sorry buddy, that's just not true.
Yes, buddy, it is true. Baha'u'llah wrote instructions regarding
child abuse between older and younger men. He didn't say anything
about loving relationships between people of the same sex.
>The Aqdas was clear.
I'm willing to accept a clear quote on this point, but I believe the
Aqdas itself does not mention the concept of gay marriage.
> Words change
> their meaning over time. Just as we use the term gay in english. At
> one time it meant happy. Baha'u'llah described it all too clearly in
> the language of his time and location. There are some misguided non-
> native historians who've overlooked this truth due to their sense of
> compassion and poor skills at translation. My background is Persian
> and I know the history of their terminology all too well. The
> Guardians translation on this subject was accurate. Any other spin on
> this is at best a poorly contrived lie.
>
Well, I will await your direct quote on this point. If you can't
prove that point directly, I will expect an apology for being called a
liar here.
> >informed by the current scientific opinion of his time. I think it's
> >a shame that historical events have made it difficult for the Baha'is
> >of today ever to change or contradict those opinions given by Shoghi
>
> I have little doubt that the science of his times affected his
> approach to the subject but regardless of science it would have done
> little to change the end result of his translation. As I stated
> earlier, we all possess free will and we are not genetically
> programmed machines incapable of exceeding our programming. This is
> the premise of every religion. I can accept that for a Gay person this
> is no small feat, hard and seemingly impossible which is why I would
> offer this counsel, there are other more important issues that we all
> must work on.
Oh. I'm not gay, by the way.
But I do find that all this stuff about "harder tests" strikes me as
so much cant for excusing prejudice.
Paul
NUR
NUR
mike...@yahoo.com
>I believe the sanction for a pattern of homosexual activity, or alcohol
>consumption, is loss of administrative priveleges, not just not voting at
>Rizwon or district convention, but excluded from district convention,
>excluded from Feast, not allowed to contribute to the fund, etc. If you
>lost admin privileges, you should be invited to Holy Day commemorations if
>the community remembers to do so.
No arguments here on the letter of the law. But I would state that as
of yet, in the many Baha'i communities that I have observed in action,
I have not seen this occur. About the only time this would occur is
when a person chooses to become extremely vocal on the subject and/or
chooses to challenge the Guardian. But yes, the Faith will treat overt
alcohol consumption and overt homosexual activity in much the same
way. I also appreciate that you are making this clear.
>I live in the US. As some states recognize gay marriage some Baha'i
>communities, at some time, may be in the position of recognizing gay
>marriage, so it is good to be open minded, and informed, as you are.
I noted this in another posting. But the Baha'i community will not
contest civil unions endorsed by the government. Because they can
apply to family members or any other arrangement (so long as they are
not of the opposite sex, which ironically would not be an issue). But
It will never recognize marriage, for the specific reason that the
marriage is reserved for the traditional family unit (Baby factory if
you will). The concept of spiritual procreation is central to its'
theology. Ie. God endows man with this gift to bring a spiritual being
into existence, and therefore this institution of marriage must be
sacred in that regard and endorsed by God.
>As you know, the Kitabi Aqdas appears to allow a man to marry two wives and
>'Abdu'l Baha correctly forbade it. Yet, when a bigmist declares as a
>Baha'i, he is not required to disavow either of his prior marriage
>commitments.
This actually shouldn't surprise you. Going along with this theme of
'baby factory' it would run counter to the Baha'i intuition to break
apart such a family no matter how non-traditional if it has already
engaged in this spiritually procreative process. The idea centers on
our belief that whether people appreciate this or not, sex in the act
of procreation is a spiritual act to be of course endorsed by God. In
any other context it is a material act.
>When a seeker who is in a gay marriage declares, the community
>needs to think about a) rejecting the declaration, b) asking him to divorce
>his spouse before accepting the declaration, or c) accepting the declaration
>and the prior gay marriage, to include the committments implicit in a
>marriage.
>What do you think?
I think that the seeker may wisely choose to keep their sexual
identity to their own self and not make an issue of it. It's not as if
Baha'is seek absolution from each other, our relationship with God is
personal. With time, wisdom and with loving friendship it would be
unlikely that they will ever have an issue. Look if 90% of men do
engage in masturbation then these people are no worse or better off
than those 90%. When men start bragging about the act in a community
then by all means, share.
NUR
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2009/01/stop-juan-cole.php
I found your site through Juan Cole's. I knew Juan Cole via a
completely non-political online group and have found him to be a
decent intelligent man who has a passion for Middle Eastern culture.
To engage in idiotic name calling demeans both of you.
For the record, here's Juan's own defense
"Pulitzer-prize winning author Lawrence Wright wrote in his Looming
Tower, p. 307: "On April 11, 1996, when Atta was twenty-seven years
old, he signed a standardized will he got from the al-Quds mosque.l It
was the day Israel attacked Lebanon in Operation grapes of Wrath.
According to one of his friends, Atta was enraged,and by filling out
his last testament during the attack he was offering his life in
response.
In my initial posting I had misremembered one detail, which is that
the will was signed when Operation Grapes of Wrath began, not on the
day of the Qana massacre. I corrected that within a few hours."
To deny Arab rage has any legitimacy defies common sense. They may be
their own worst enemies, but Gazan's have as legitimate a claim on
their ancestral homes as the ancient historical claims of the
Isreali's. Very little mention is ever made of the ethnic cleansing by
the Isreali's in 1948.
Posted by: Paul Hammond at January 8, 2009 5:45 PM
I met Dr. Cole elsewhere, but have been reading in blog for 3 years or
more. Often I disagree with him and have been able to post comments
there. You are right I am new to MJT and have just read several of his
articles. I stand by my comments whether they resonate with you or
not.
Posted by: Paul Hammond at January 9, 2009 4:55 AM
All Bad
You've discovered that Paul Hammond uses the internet and expresses his
respect for those whom he respects. I could have told you that.
Did you know he majored in Maths and tends bar?
Did you know his name is Paul Hammond?
Had you figured out yet that he is not a Baha'i, not on a Baha'i Internet
Committee, and won't be bothered to dignify your stupid, but repeatedly
asked question?
- All Bad
"NUR" <wahid...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1783e891-3eca-4540...@d25g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
NUR
NUR
PaulHammond
Pat, THIS Paul Hammond who has been posting onto Juan's politics blog
isn't me. Perhaps it's the American Paul Hammond who used to post
here occassionally. Perhaps it's a different person of the same name
unrelated to either of us.
Remember the story of how I once met at a maths conference, another
man called Paul Hammond who had gained an MSc from Liverpool
University a few years after I was there, with even the same
supervisor I had when I was there?
Paul
All Bad
"PaulHammond" <paha...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:4f6b47f6-4a49-4b99...@v17g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Pat, THIS Paul Hammond who has been posting onto Juan's politics blog
> isn't me. Perhaps it's the American Paul Hammond who used to post
> here occassionally. Perhaps it's a different person of the same name
> unrelated to either of us.
>
> Remember the story of how I once met at a maths conference, another
> man called Paul Hammond who had gained an MSc from Liverpool
> University a few years after I was there, with even the same
> supervisor I had when I was there?
>
Did you see that there is a Sourcewatched Paul Hammond?
Better yet, did you see that there is a god?
If there were no god, by now, nutjob would be howling about how a
bahooveyeyeyeyey (you) is poisoning the children (the tobacco Paul Hammond
on SW).
Back to serious: Who is the Paul Hammond posting to Iranian.com? Reading
him, I thought he was you. I don't read the Juan Cole blogs, well, for, uh,
you know, well, uh, we are entitled to feel differently about someone who
really does have some criticisms of how the US government has pursued Middle
Eastern policies. I read the obviously American spelling "standardized" as
Juan's and took the comments, and interpreted the sympathetic remarks as
reasonable moderation.
- All Bad
NUR
NUR
> Pat, THIS Paul Hammond who has been posting onto Juan's politics blog
> isn't me. Perhaps it's the American Paul Hammond who used to post
> here occassionally. Perhaps it's a different person of the same name
> unrelated to either of us.
Methinks the lady doth protest too much! The writing style is
identical. But that Paul Hammond claims to live in Virginia while your
story is that you live in the UK. In any case, your protestations help
us narrow the search for your sorry limey buttocks and tighten the
noose around your neck even further.
W
All Bad
On May 4, 2:55 pm, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
> Pat, THIS Paul Hammond who has been posting onto Juan's politics blog
> isn't me. Perhaps it's the American Paul Hammond who used to post
> here occassionally. Perhaps it's a different person of the same name
> unrelated to either of us.
WA: Methinks the lady doth protest too much! The writing style is
Nobody cares what you think about Paul Hammond.
- All Bad
WA: identical. But that Paul Hammond claims to live in Virginia while your
Aor
wrote:
> Nobody cares what you think about Paul Hammond.
You are nobody. That much is true. Since you don't care, then it is
none of your concern as to who does....hack!
http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pat_Kohli
NUR
> isn't me.
Methinks the "limey" doth protest too much!
Check out who this Paul Hammond says he'd like to meet- "Karen
Bacquet"
Paul Hammond
Paul Hammond
"All Things Richmond"
Male
100 years old
Richmond, Virginia
United States
Last Login: 5/05/2009
Mood: determined Mood Image
View My: Pics | Videos
Contacting Paul Hammond
MySpace URL:
www.myspace.com/paxham
Get Flash now!
In order to listen or view this content you will have to upgrade your
version of Flash.
Paul Hammond's Interests
General Locally grown music and produce, Civil War sites, Richmond and
Virginia history, Urban Renewal, environmental transformation, new
ideas, old ideas, politics and non partisan action.
Music Paul Simon, Jackson Browne, Susan Greenbaum, Folk, Pop, Rock,
Traditional and Acoustic Music
Films Documentaries, dramas, not to bloody action thrillers, childrens
films. The Never Ending Story, Savanah Smiles
Television Discovery Channel, Man Vs. Wild, Planet Earth, The Blue
Planet, Cash Cab PBS: Nature, Nova
Books The Year of Jubilo, The Outlander Series, Historical fiction,
The Masters of Rome series
Heroes Mahatma Ghandi
Groups: Custom Myspace Help, Official Myspace Support
View All Paul Hammond's Groups
Paul Hammond's Details
Status: Single
Here for: Networking, Friends
Ethnicity: Other
Zodiac Sign: Virgo
Occupation: Free Lance
Income: $250,000 and Higher
Paul Hammond's Networking
Music - Marketing - Promoter
Word of Mouth Productions
Paul Hammond Having a pissing contest with Jack Lauderback
view more
Paul Hammond's Latest Blog Entry [Subscribe to this Blog]
Pissing contest underway (view more)
Blogging in Richmond (view more)
Why bother (view more)
[View All Blog Entries]
Paul Hammond's Blurbs
About me:
I am a Richmond transplant who has taken root here. I have adopted
Richmond as my hometown and dedicated myself to it. I have found in
Richmond a place unique in America in the center of a beautiful state
that offers more than I could every need. I have yet to exhaust the
plentiful destinations that are available within the city and the
state and have found many wonderful places that I have returned over
and over again.
Who I'd like to meet:
Jimmy Carter, Karen Bacquet
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=27218300&blogId=332533669
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Why bother
Current mood: rejuvenated
Category: Religion and Philosophy
If you haven't managed to piss somebody off then you're just not
trying.
PaulHammond
NUR wrote:
> On May 4, 2:55 pm, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
> > Pat, THIS Paul Hammond who has been posting onto Juan's politics blog
> > isn't me. Perhaps it's the American Paul Hammond who used to post
> > here occassionally. Perhaps it's a different person of the same name
> > unrelated to either of us.
>
> Methinks the lady doth protest too much! The writing style is
> identical.
No it isn't. This doesn't sound at all like me!
"To deny Arab rage has any legitimacy defies common sense."
But that Paul Hammond claims to live in Virginia while your
> story is that you live in the UK.
I guess you could, oh, I dunno, look for the IP address of where I'm
posting from to see if I actually live in England?
Paul
maybe...@gmail.com
What years did you attend Keele university again, Paul?
PH:"We cannot expect non-Baha'is to just take it for granted
that our
view of the Central Figures of our Faith is the only correct
one."
One more time, with emphasis added in capitals:
PH:"WE cannot expect non-Baha'is to just take it for granted
that OUR
view of the Central Figures of OUR Faith is the only correct
one."
SIgned off at the end:
PH: Allah-u-Abha
--
Paul Hammond
paha...@onetel.net.uk
> On May 6, 4:01 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > NUR wrote:
> > > On May 4, 2:55 pm, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
> > > > Pat, THIS Paul Hammond who has been posting onto Juan's politics blog
> > > > isn't me. Perhaps it's the American Paul Hammond who used to post
> > > > here occassionally. Perhaps it's a different person of the same name
> > > > unrelated to either of us.
>
> > > Methinks the lady doth protest too much! The writing style is
> > > identical.
>
> > No it isn't. This doesn't sound at all like me!
>
> > "To deny Arab rage has any legitimacy defies common sense."
>
> > But that Paul Hammond claims to live in Virginia while your
>
> > > story is that you live in the UK.
>
> > I guess you could, oh, I dunno, look for the IP address of where I'm
> > posting from to see if I actually live in England?
>
> > Paul
>
> What years did you attend Keele university again, Paul?
>
What was your name again, May?
In 1996, I was posting from Euro-PA - you'll find a clue in my email
address. That was a work address.
Where do you work, May?
Namaste!
Paul
maybe...@gmail.com
PH:"We cannot expect non-Baha'is to just take it for granted that our
NUR
First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is
interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO,
that he is probably working for them."
-- Eric Stetson, September 16, 2003
> In 1996, I was posting from Euro-PA - you'll find a clue in my email
> address. That was a work address.
Yes, we know. One of Europe's biggest agribusinesses,
http://www.euro-pa.co.uk/
You would have been working here,
http://www.britishservices.co.uk/business/cambridgeshire/peterborough.htm
Euro P A
11 Church Street
Northborough, Peterborough, Cambridgeshire, PE6 9BN
Phone: 01733 253006
We're looking through all angles.
Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai
From: Paul Hammond <p...@euro-pa.demon.co.uk>
Date: 1996/04/03
Subject: Re: Praying to Baha'u'llah
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
original
| Report this message | Find messages by this author
In article <4jpqgc...@cloyd.cs.cornell.edu>, John Haukness
<haukn...@tenet.edu> writes
>Allah-u-Abha Stephi: So we can talk about sexual exploits adults have
>with children, the best way to inject heroin, how to rob a bank? The
>point is I have seen discussions of Abdul Baha having only an average mind
>and not being able to grasp the complexities of modern socity, I have
>seen that Shoghi Effendi wrote to individuals so his writings do not
>apply to the community,
I find it interesting that John puts discussion of Abdu'l-Baha and
Shoghi Effendi on a level with Child Abuse, Drug Abuse and Crime.
We certainly must talk about Child Abuse, Drug Abuse and Crime, for
if
we do not fully understand a problem, how can we possibly hope to
solve it in the world ? Burying our heads in the sand and pretending
problems do not exist just will not do.
But leaving this to one side, I find the suggestion that Baha'is
should
not dare to even consider the possibility that Abdu'l-Baha was just
an
average man with an average mind, or that it would be off limits for
a
Baha'i to try to discover the context of Shoghi's words in order to
understand them better absolutely shocking!
To begin with, non-Baha'is have no idea who Abdu'l-Baha is. How can a
Baha'i communicate with a non-Baha'i if they are unwilling to
remember
a time when they had not heard of the Master? How can they cope with
the argument that Abdu'l-Baha was an unremarkable man if they've
never
been allowed to consider the possibility themselves, and therefore
worked out for themselves just WHAT it was about Abdu'l-Baha that was
so wonderful? We cannot expect non-Baha'is to just take it for
granted
that our view of the Central Figures of our Faith is the only correct
one.
In my opinion, it is the actions and history of His life which
convince
one of the greatness of Abdu'l-Baha, and of Shoghi Effendi. These
actions and history are not increased one iota just because of the
fact
that thousands of Baha'is never speak of Him, except in the most
reverent tones. In fact, I think a humourless attitude towards the
Central Figures is the one thing most likely to turn enquirers away
with
the words 'lighten up!' burning in their brains.
We are out to change the world, aren't we?
How are we going to do that if we jump every time a bad word is said
about Abdu'l-Baha ?
<rhetorical question mode off> :)
Sorry to get so heated John, don't take it personally! I just
strongly
disagree with what you said.
Allah-u-Abha
--
Paul Hammond p...@euro-pa.demon.co.uk
Baha'i .sig under construction ....
compx2
Perhaps if enough reasonable people answer you on this you will begin
to see that Baha'i views on this matter do not have to agree with your
view. It is so obvious to any non-Baha'i reading here that the view
you espouse here is just plain intolerant of homosexuality.
I am a Baha'i and I do not share your view. And that should be okay
with you. It is certainly okay with me that you have your views.
However I am sickened by the fact that your views and those like them
seem to define my religion. Your views are not Baha'i views, but
rather the views of a single Baha'i.
We are all tested, and you say we are testing ourselves.
Are we tested by prohibitions against hair length? How about the
financial laws, prohibitions against all manner of personal acts which
are conveniently overlooked? Why are Baha'is more concerned with
homosexuality than with commands to be generous or daily prayer?
Should we canvas Baha'is about when and where they perform abolutions?
In my view, the Baha'is have no more place investigating sex lives of
believers than reading our income tax declarations.
I understand there is a proclivity in the US to declare our sexual
preferences in public, and I see nothing wrong with that. But sex has
no place in the Baha'i Faith. It is as though we need to know a
person's profession and how often they copulate and with whome in
order to know that person better. We are about making ourselves
better people, acquiring virtues, helping others through sacrifice and
discipline. But Baha'is talk only too little about these things.
Anyway I doubt anyone is reading this stuff seriously. Baha'is look
for justification of intolerance and non-Baha'is look for affirmations
of our intolerance. It is such a divisive issue, and it is the Baha'i
community that makes this divisive. Issues like this make me wonder
about the future of the Baha'i Faith, and my membership in such an
intolerant institution. The point of my religion is not membership
based upon sexual preference.
I am not about to advocate any sanction of a Baha'i for sexual
activity. I would hope other Baha'is would be Baha'i-like and leave
this stuff alone. It seems Baha'is want to defend intolerance and
forget about the more important teachings of our faith. If we all
took a look at our own sexual practices and allowed others to do the
same without our interference we would see the effects of adding
tolerance to our communities.
Thanks for reading. --Kent
PaulHammond
mikera...@yahoo.com wrote:
I don't know where you're getting the idea that Baha'u'llah wants
marriages to be baby-factories from. That seems to be an individual
interpretation of yours you are putting on as an extra condition to
what you think marriages are for.
I'd be interested to know how your advice to a gay man who already has
a husband "keeping it quiet" applies. The analogy with masturbation
doesn't seem especially to fit this case, either.
Masturbation is a vice rarely indulged in in public. But bringing
your partner to social events, and not denying his existence doesn't
strike me as much of an option for any honest person. Besides not
being a vice at all.
Personally, I think the seeker may come across "gay people not welcome
here" attitudes like yours, and wisely decide that this religion that
can't accept them how God made them is not the one for them, rather
than choose either to deny themselves or deny their life-partner.
Paul
PaulHammond
NUR wrote:
> On May 5, 5:04 pm, pahamm...@onetel.net.uk wrote:
>
> First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is
> interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO,
> that he is probably working for them."
>
> -- Eric Stetson, September 16, 2003
>
>
>
> > In 1996, I was posting from Euro-PA - you'll find a clue in my email
> > address. That was a work address.
>
> Yes, we know. One of Europe's biggest agribusinesses,
> http://www.euro-pa.co.uk/
>
Erm, no, actually - there were a grand total of four people working
there in 1996.
I think you've gotten confused between the size of some of the
businesses we were consulting for, and the size of the consultancy.
John Strak's wife, Clare Wenner DID used to work for a big company,
however - Geest, down the road in Spalding.
But none of this has anything to do with the Baha'i faith, or the
subject of THIS thread, homosexuality.
Paul
Tell me, May, who were you working for in 1996? What was the exact
state of your religious beliefs at that time? And what's you name?
How much does Nima pay you to post here?
maybe...@gmail.com
PaulHammond wrote:
> NUR wrote:
> > On May 5, 5:04 pm, pahamm...@onetel.net.uk wrote:
> >
> > First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is
> > interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO,
> > that he is probably working for them."
> >
> > -- Eric Stetson, September 16, 2003
> >
> >
> >
> > > In 1996, I was posting from Euro-PA - you'll find a clue in my email
> > > address. That was a work address.
> >
> > Yes, we know. One of Europe's biggest agribusinesses,
> > http://www.euro-pa.co.uk/
> >
>
> Erm, no, actually - there were a grand total of four people working
> there in 1996.
>
> I think you've gotten confused between the size of some of the
> businesses we were consulting for, and the size of the consultancy.
>
> John Strak's wife, Clare Wenner DID used to work for a big company,
> however - Geest, down the road in Spalding.
>
> But none of this has anything to do with the Baha'i faith, or the
> subject of THIS thread, homosexuality.
>
> Paul
>
> Tell me, May, who were you working for in 1996? What was the exact
> state of your religious beliefs at that time? And what's you name?
>
> How much does Nima pay you to post here?
No dice, Paul.
NUR
> I don't know where you're getting the idea that Baha'u'llah wants
> marriages to be baby-factories from.
“Enter into wedlock, O people, that ye may bring forth one who will
make mention of me amid My servants. This is My bidding unto you;
hold fast to it as an assistance to yourselves.”
http://www.bahaiprayers.org/marriage1.htm
A true dickhead you are, HamHead!
NUR
First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is
interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO,
that he is probably working for them."
-- Eric Stetson, September 16, 2003
> How much does Nima pay you to post here?
Nothing. May is here for free deriving pleasure from kicking three
shades out of an other-people's-underwearer-smelling limey wanker
suchas you.
W
All Bad
NUR wrote:
> On May 5, 5:04 pm, pahamm...@onetel.net.uk wrote:
>
> First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is
> interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO,
> that he is probably working for them."
>
> -- Eric Stetson, September 16, 2003
>
>
>
> > In 1996, I was posting from Euro-PA - you'll find a clue in my email
> > address. That was a work address.
>
> Yes, we know. One of Europe's biggest agribusinesses,
> http://www.euro-pa.co.uk/
>
PH: Erm, no, actually - there were a grand total of four people working
there in 1996.
AB: Did you notice the use of the first person plural? Does the Borg
collective have its own research and analysis group, spying in you, in some
baffoon fashion such that you need to tell them what is big and small?
PH: I think you've gotten confused between the size of some of the
businesses we were consulting for, and the size of the consultancy.
PH: John Strak's wife, Clare Wenner DID used to work for a big company,
however - Geest, down the road in Spalding.
PH: But none of this has anything to do with the Baha'i faith, or the
subject of THIS thread, homosexuality.
Paul
PH: Tell me, May, who were you working for in 1996? What was the exact
state of your religious beliefs at that time? And what's you name?
PH: How much does Nima pay you to post here?
AB: I don't suppose May has figured out how much Wahid is billing for the
activities of the two of them.
- All Bad
All Bad
WA: A true dickhead you are, HamHead!
AB: I read the part about bringing forth _one_ who will make mention. I
don't see the indiscriminate "be fruitful and multiply" part. Is that why
contraceptives are not forbidden to Baha'is, as they are forbidden to
Catholics and maybe other Christian denominations?
AB: Oh, I was being rhetorical with the question above, unlike the
following one. Are there no bounds to the extent you will advertise your
ignorance?
- All Bad
Aor
wrote:
See also, PAT KOHLI LIES ABOUT HIS IDENTITY,
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=User:Owen
-
http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pat_kohli
paha...@onetel.net.uk
But, why are you so scared to answer ANY personal questions about
where YOU are coming from?
Are you scared the answers might compromise you?
Paul
NUR
First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is
interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO,
that he is probably working for them."
-- Eric Stetson, September 16, 2003
> Are you scared the answers might compromise you?
She doesn't have to answer any of your questions. You go smell your
used underwear, sicko!
W
mike...@yahoo.com
> It is so obvious to any non-Baha'i reading here that the view
>you espouse here is just plain intolerant of homosexuality.
Really? How? Merely labels. Sounds like political spin to me and
nothing more.
>I am a Baha'i and I do not share your view. And that should be okay
>with you.
Actually it is, within a specific framework I can accept your
position. That framework being our covenant and administration. So
long as you can respect our covenant which includes the Guardian and
our administration then I have no problems with a diversity of
opinion.
>It is certainly okay with me that you have your views.
>However I am sickened by the fact that your views and those like them
>seem to define my religion. Your views are not Baha'i views, but
>rather the views of a single Baha'i.
The general idea behind unity is accepting that we will never agree
but are willing to accept what comes through as a result of
consultation. If tomorrow our elected administration adopted your
views on this matter, I'd accede to them in the better interest of
unity. This is how the world achieves peace. Not through polarization,
extremism, tantrums and mindless labels when your view isn't adopted,
but through rational consultation and acceptance of the groups
decision.
>We are all tested, and you say we are testing ourselves.
>Are we tested by prohibitions against hair length? How about the
>financial laws, prohibitions against all manner of personal acts which
>are conveniently overlooked? Why are Baha'is more concerned with
>homosexuality than with commands to be generous or daily prayer?
Actually if you read my post as opposed to labelling it, you'd note
my very same concern. Baha'is do worry too much over issues like this
when there are bigger moral issues like back-biting..etc. that we
should all be working on. Is your point here to agree with me. Perhaps
you should read what I'm writing.
>Should we canvas Baha'is about when and where they perform abolutions?
>In my view, the Baha'is have no more place investigating sex lives of
>believers than reading our income tax declarations.
Interesting. No disagreement here. Perhaps you should read more.
>I understand there is a proclivity in the US to declare our sexual
>preferences in public, and I see nothing wrong with that. But sex has
>no place in the Baha'i Faith. It is as though we need to know a
>person's profession and how often they copulate and with whome in
>order to know that person better. We are about making ourselves
>better people, acquiring virtues, helping others through sacrifice and
>discipline. But Baha'is talk only too little about these things.
No disagreements.
>Anyway I doubt anyone is reading this stuff seriously.
Apparently more than you think.
> Baha'is look for justification of intolerance
Sounds like a prejudiced statement to me. You've just characterized
5-6 million people most of whom you've never met. Is this really
reflective of who you are? apparently it's in line with your need to
label views that you don't read.
>and non-Baha'is look for affirmations of our intolerance. It is such a divisive issue, and it is the Baha'i
community that makes this divisive.
Hardley, if you follow the headlines today you'll know that this is a
divisive issue which affects our society as a whole and reflects into
the Baha'i community.
>Issues like this make me wonder about the future of the Baha'i Faith, and my membership in such an
>intolerant institution.
Interesting point of view. In a time when the mormon faith is
expanding as a pre-eminent christian sect while other christian sects
lose their membership, when Islam is the fastest growing religion
period, it is a hard arguement to make that the Baha'i faith should
seek any more of a tolerant position than it has already. You're in
for a cold reality check on this issue.
What you'll discover is exactly what unitarinism has experienced.
"The Unitarian Universalist (UU) membership statistics are a rude
awakening. While 630,000 people self-identified as UUs in 2001 as
compared with 502,000 in 1990, the number of members belonging to UU
societies declined from 282,000 to 218,000 from 1968 to 2001. This
represents an aggregate decline of 7 percent. Less than 2 percent of
UU congregations account for 24 percent of the growth in the
denomination. "This means that about 20 congregations are doing
significant growth for us," commented Rev. Cooley, "But 30 percent
have shrunk by 10 percent or more in the last decade."
"How do UUs compare to other denominations? Over the same time period,
Presbyterians have declined 50.1%, Methodists declined 52%, UCC
declined of 60% while Evangelicals have grown by 50% or more. The most
conservative churches are growing and the most liberal churches are
growing.
==>"Churches that try to please everyone are losing membership," said
Rev. Cooley."<==
http://www.uua.org/events/generalassembly/2007/choicesthat/30825.shtml
The statistics back this guy up. The Bahai Faith in the united states
during that same time frame went from 10,000 to the 150,000 it is
today. When you consider it as a forgein religion with a guy and his
fez, it's impressive. Baha'is don't need to apologize for our point of
view nor do we need to please everyone. we are obliged to think and
treat people with love. The mistake has been to ignore our traditions
and to seek the please everyone attitude.
> The point of my religion is not membership
>based upon sexual preference.
Good, that's how it should be.
>I am not about to advocate any sanction of a Baha'i for sexual
>activity. I would hope other Baha'is would be Baha'i-like and leave
>this stuff alone.
agreed. I really get the feeling that your not into reading what I
say. I'd like to claim that my feelings are hurt, but if you want to
denounce me all the while presenting mostly my view, I could think of
no greater compliment.
mike...@yahoo.com
>I don't know where you're getting the idea that >Baha'u'llah wants marriages to be baby-factories >from. That seems to be an individual interpretation >of yours you are putting on as an extra condition to
>what you think marriages are for.
"Marry, O people, that from you may appear he who will remember Me
amongst My servants; this is one of My commandments unto you; obey it
as an assistance to yourselves."
(Compilations, Baha'i Prayers, p. 102)
I wonder if He's proposing spontaneous generation? While I'd admitt
that there are nicer ways than my choice of words for describing it,
the end result is the same. All the same it's the marriage prayer and
as best I can tell the reason supplied for marriage.
>I'd be interested to know how your advice to a gay >man who already has a husband "keeping it quiet" >applies.
Short of holding hands, french kissing etc. or other overt acts of
sexual affection which Baha'is Gay or not are not supposed to do in
public anyway. I don't see why any Baha'i would have a need to know
the relationship of two men (or women) appearing together. It's simply
not a concern. Heterosexual men who show up in pairs and are friends
with intimate details of each others lives are never asked if they are
gay? So why would there even be a need to make it an issue. Most
intelligent adults who figure it out will likely not care to pursue or
'witch hunt' the matter.
>Personally, I think the seeker may come across "gay >people not welcome here"
Thats your spin. But hardley my position. Oddly Kent inadvertently
described much of our position on the matter. Our sexuality is a
private issue between the individual believer and God . How we choose
to display it, regulate it or with whom we choose to share it, is
another issue.
No one is obliged to ask if you are Gay anymore than if you
masturbate or participate in any other sexual behavior. But when you
make it a public issue, that is your choice.
Want to introduce your friend, great. Go to it. The Baha'i rules of
public behavior make it impossible to distinguish the heterosexual
from the homosexual couple. So unless you volunteer your status it may
or may not be an issue depending upon the Baha'i you are talking with.
At the end of the day no one is forced to be Baha'i. It's a personal
choice, and its' highly unlikely that any Baha'i will ever take an
aggressive stance on this position other than to protect its' own
position. Frankly, as Kent puts it, this is a non-issue and should
neither challenge nor impede ones' desire to be a Baha'i. If it is an
issue then perhaps the person is what I'd call a consumer of religion
and not appreciating the true purpose or value of religion.
compx2
> Really? How? Merely labels. Sounds like political spin to me and
> nothing more.
I have been here on srb almost continually since its inception. I
have heard it all, but only recently, the past five years or so, have
I been able to hear the Baha'i Party Line as it plays to reasonable
people. By reasonable people I mean those who understand that
restrictions on people based on sexual preference or sex means
intolerance toward those people based on sexual preference or sex.
There is no doubt that the Baha'i Party Line restricts people based
upon sexual preferences or sex. Do you deny it? Do you really think
it is productive to debate that issue?
My issue is that the Baha'i Party Line is not the Baha'i Faith, and I
would rather talk about my issue than defend the Baha'i Party Line
which I view as your view. I put it this way: Baha'is can believe in
all manner of ridiculous interpretation of calamity or future world
commonwealth without molestation from those promoting most of the
debate on newsgroups and SRB. But let them promote sexual tolerance
and we arrive at this type of objection from those promoting
themselves as Baha'is. It is as though being silly is okay, but being
reasonable is not tolerated in the Baha'i Faith.
> So
> long as you can respect our covenant which includes the Guardian and
> our administration then I have no problems with a diversity of
> opinion.
Yeah, and I will let you be a Baha'i as well.
> If tomorrow our elected administration adopted your
> views on this matter,
Yeah, well, constant speculation of "what ifs" leave me bored.
> Not through polarization,
> extremism, tantrums and mindless labels when your view isn't adopted,
> but through rational consultation and acceptance of the groups
> decision.
So that is my issue. When you interpret Baha'i doctrine to be
intolerant, and you support that doctrine I call that polarizing, if
not extremism, mindless labels, etc. Rational consultation would
admit that restrictions on groups is intolerance of those groups.
> Baha'is do worry too much over issues like this
> when there are bigger moral issues like back-biting..etc. that we
> should all be working on. Is your point here to agree with me. Perhaps
> you should read what I'm writing.
The points I see you making here and on other threads do not seem to
me spiritually uplifting, promoting unity, self betterment,
generousity, atonement, all manner of virtuous behavior and life
affirming, soul wrenching, Writings affirming self dedication. We
could all do with more virtue and encouragement. Perhaps we, as
Baha'is, should begin and end all our dealings with all people
following this sort of example. What do you think?
> Sounds like a prejudiced statement to me. You've just characterized
> 5-6 million people most of whom you've never met. Is this really
> reflective of who you are? apparently it's in line with your need to
> label views that you don't read.
Doesn't your interaction with me here seem to support my view? Isn't
your statement polarizing, and mine, well, at least it is true as it
refers to your lines written and quoted above? If you support the
views I espouse (you say you agree) it seems to me you should show
it, and not point out that I don't personally know 5-6 million
Baha'is. Is your point that these 5-6 million Baha'is don't post here
and might very well agree with you and me? Because if that is your
point, well, you could have made that point in better ways. It
appears to me you are more interested in discrediting me and my view,
even though you say you agree with me.
> Hardley, if you follow the headlines today you'll know that this is a
> divisive issue which affects our society as a whole and reflects into
> the Baha'i community.
Okay, point taken. Baha'is have a higher divorce rate than the
general population, or at least we used to. Perhaps we have more
problems than the general population. Perhaps striving to follow
God's Laws for this day makes us less admirable and less virtuous than
the general population. Maybe I am wrong, that the problem is not
that we focus on the wrong teachings but rather God's Chosen People
are anal retentive, neurotic facists. Only time will tell.
> You're in
> for a cold reality check on this issue.
I would welcome clarification. It seems to me your statistics, though
citing growth in percentages of some religious affiliations, show an
overall significant loss of people affiliating with religions.
Statistics are 80% correct 30% of the time.
> Baha'is don't need to apologize for our point of
> view nor do we need to please everyone. we are obliged to think and
> treat people with love. The mistake has been to ignore our traditions
> and to seek the please everyone attitude.
I thought we agreed that unity of the Baha'i Faith meant allowing each
of us our own understanding of God, God's True Religion, His Writings
and affiliation with His administrative order. You seem now to be
promoting the same old intolerance we have seen in our religion
instead of promoting our unity under His Godhead.
> agreed. I really get the feeling that your not into reading what I
> say.
Ditto.
Warm Baha'i Love. --Kent
mike...@yahoo.com
>My issue is that the Baha'i Party Line is not the Baha'i Faith, and I
>would rather talk about my issue than defend the Baha'i Party Line
>which I view as your view.
I think this is a key point you raise here. The Baha'i Faith is the
Baha'i party line. The Baha'i community in essence becomes through
consultation the de facto Guardian. Meaning that as a community,
through consultation we come to terms on what is or isn't acceptable.
To illustrait if tomorrow Baha'is as a community decided that
homosexuals shouldn't lose their voting rights, it would be so. Oddly
when gay people leave the faith or openly assume a hostile stance to
the administration they inadvertantly undermine their own potential
rights in the Baha'i community and undermine the possibility of
change.
The Baha'i community will never change what the Guardian enacted, but
it may change the legislation on the matter. There are already
examples of this. The law of divorce (for example). Baha'u'llah in the
Aqdas stated that Baha'is may forgo the year of patience if a spouse
is known to be unfaithful, but in actuality the administration has
chosen to still require Baha'is to live out their year even if a
spouse is openly cheating. I can see the wisdom in the
Administration's choice on the matter and I don't debate it, but in
practicality I also recognize that it is different from what
Baha'u'llah stated in the Aqdas.
My point is that our administration represents the mindset of our
community. This mindset can be changed only through consultation and/
or the introduction of new Baha'is. But if you marginalize these new
Baha'is at the outset by enciting them into a political process
against the administration you ironically subvert your own intentions.
> I put it this way: Baha'is can believe in
>all manner of ridiculous interpretation of calamity or future world
>commonwealth without molestation from those promoting most of the
>debate on newsgroups and SRB. But let them promote sexual tolerance
>and we arrive at this type of objection from those promoting
>themselves as Baha'is. It is as though being silly is okay, but being
>reasonable is not tolerated in the Baha'i Faith.
There is a reason for this seeming absurdity. The calamity people are
not adopting a stance that is in direct confrontation with the
Guardian or the administration. They're not out there trying to form
the calamity party. And to be fair there are plenty of hints at
calamity in our writings. But the sexual tolerance people have
unwittingly associated themselves with a covenant-breaker position by
attempting to undermine the Guardians translations on the matter. All
the while being clueless that by doing so they have forced the Baha'i
community in the opposite direction. Worse yet, they discredit
theirselves when attacking his translations that native Iranians
accept at face value. This shows a deep failure on their part to
understand the mechanics of the Baha'i administration.
>> Not through polarization,
>> extremism, tantrums and mindless labels when your view isn't adopted,
>> but through rational consultation and acceptance of the groups
>> decision.
>So that is my issue. When you interpret Baha'i doctrine to be
>intolerant, and you support that doctrine I call that polarizing, if
>not extremism, mindless labels, etc. Rational consultation would
>admit that restrictions on groups is intolerance of those groups.
By your standards what you say is true, but this is a big world with
a diversity of opinion and with the majority of people as you define
them being intolerant. What is your answer? To ignore them and walk
away from the table until they burn your skyscrapers? This is the
problem, it's why we have war. Politics don't work and you are seeing
this in action. The real answer is to let go of your ego and come to
the table and consult in the true spirit of consultation. Ultimately
it is to trust that what is true will come to be.
If you sincerely want to change the world and/or the Baha'i community
then my advice is this. Do not marginalize the Gay community by
encouraging it to adopt an anti-guardian/ anti-administration tact. Do
not form parties. Instead teach the people _you know_ to be Baha'i
and trust in the result of majority consultation. The administration
will always reflect the sentiments in totality of the community.
John MacLeod
>
> To illustrait if tomorrow Baha'is as a community decided that
> homosexuals shouldn't lose their voting rights, it would be so.
administrative order have always decided that homosexuals shouldn't lose
their voting rights.
The rule, as I understood, was and is that to lose your voting rights on
a sexual issue your behaviour had to be so flagrant as to amount to a
public rejection of Baha'u'llah's teachings on sexual issues. Just to
be homosexual or to, in private, fail to live up to any of Baha'u'llah's
teaching is not and, I believe, never has been grounds for loss of
voting rights.
Here is Shoghi Effendi on the subject:
"He feels, therefore, that, through loving advice, through repeated
warnings, any friends who are flagrantly immoral should be assisted,
and, if possible, restrained. If their activities overstep all bounds
and become a matter of public scandal, then the Assembly can consider
depriving them of their voting rights. However, he does not advise this
course of action' and feels it should only be resorted to in very
flagrant cases."
(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 367)
Note that is must be a "matter of public scandal" before an Assembly can
consider loss of voting rights. Even then he does not advise this
course of action.
Frankly, in modern Australia where I live, its hard to imagine someone's
homosexuality becoming a "matter of public scandal".
This does not, of course, alter our own individual attempts, as
homosexuals, heterosexuals or whatever we sometimes think we may be,to
live up to Baha'u'llah's counsels of perfection.
> The law of divorce (for example). Baha'u'llah in the
> Aqdas stated that Baha'is may forgo the year of patience if a spouse
> is known to be unfaithful, but in actuality the administration has
> chosen to still require Baha'is to live out their year even if a
> spouse is openly cheating. I can see the wisdom in the
> Administration's choice on the matter and I don't debate it, but in
> practicality I also recognize that it is different from what
> Baha'u'llah stated in the Aqdas.
>
>
What passage in the Aqdas are you thinking of? I know a passage
"Should a woman be divorced in consequence of a proven act of
infidelity, she shall receive no maintenance during her period of
waiting. Thus hath the day-star of Our commandment shone forth
resplendent from the firmament of justice. Truly, the Lord loveth union
and harmony and abhorreth separation and divorce. " (Baha'u'llah, The
Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 44)
However that relates to the financial arrangements during the year of
patience not forgoing it (at least in the English but also in Shoghi
Effendi's codification of the Aqdas which was written in English I
believe so translation issues don't seem to arise.
For the benefit of newcomers I should point out that the Baha'i Faith
has always applied the principle that laws expressed for one gender
apply in the reverse
"It is apparent from the Guardian's writings that where Bah�'u'll�h has
expressed a law as between a man and a woman it applies, mutatis
mutandis, between a woman and a man unless the context should make this
impossible." (The Universal House of Justice, Messages 1963 to 1986,
p. 272)