More on the meaning of "Fundamentalism" and its use by Bahai Liberals
Nima Hazini
literature of the social sciences on the subject of fundamentalism, and
still hubristically insists the word is politically loaded without
addressing any of the points outlined in my reply to him or the typologies
which characterize what "fundamentalism" is. MrMahdi also poses a straw man
and non sequitor by casting 'secular' extremists on the Left as possible
fundamentalists whereas the very definition of the word characterizes a
phenomenon in 'religion' (not secular groups) in modernity. So, again, for
the benefit of the readership of this NG, let me put forth the 9 basic
descriptives of "fundamentalism" outlined by Marty and Appleby in volume 1
of the FUNDAMENTALISM PROJECT: Fundamentalisms Observed_ (Chicago: 1991):
1) Fundamentalism mounts a protest against the marginalization of religion
in secularizing societies.
2) Fundamentalism selectively reshapes the religious tradition (i.e. it may
represent itself as a restatement of the essence of the religion, but in
fact it picks
and chooses from the tradition) and it accepts some aspects of modernity
while rejecting others.
3) Fundamentalism sees the moral world as divided sharply into good and
evil.
4) Fundamentalism emphasizes the absolutism and inerrancy of its scriptures
(and thus rejects Western critical academic scholarship on that corpus).
5) Fundamentalism has a millennialist emphasis.
6) Fundamentalism has an elect, chosen membership.
7) Fundamentalism draws sharp boundaries between the saved and the sinful.
8) Fundamentalism maintains an authoritarian, charismatic leadership
structure.
9) Fundamentalism has strict behavioral requirements for its people.
To quote from an upcoming article on the phenomenon of Baha'i
fundamentalism:
"The first major ideological characteristic of fundamentalism, is a reaction
against the marginalization of religion in secular societies. Among Baha'i
fundamentalists, this reaction takes the form of a belief in a future
theocracy, in which they expect Baha'i ecclesiastical institutions to take
over the civil state, and which differentiates them from Baha'i liberals and
moderates. The belief appears to be rooted primarily in oral traditions
attributed to Shoghi Effendi and letters written on his behalf by
secretaries, since although he does speak of a future Baha'i
commonwealth in his published works, its character remains vague. Hand of
the Cause John Robarts reported his version of a long conversation with
Shoghi Effendi expatiating on this idea (Robarts 1993). Some Baha'is
believed that he held that a melding of religion and state would not occur
during the thousand-year dispensation of Baha'u'llah himself, but only
toward the end of the Baha'i "cycle," of some 500,000 years (Hofman 1953).
There are two problems for Baha'i fundamentalists. The first is that
Baha'u'llah's own writings, and those of `Abdu'l-Baha are frankly
anti-theocratic. The second is that in Baha'i law, oral traditions are
supposed to be discounted in favor of written texts. Fundamentalists thus
tend to hew to generalities when explaining their belief, lacking scriptural
support."
"The second feature of fundamentalism is selectivity. Fundamentalists
select and reshape aspects of the tradition, all the while asserting that
they have recaptured its pristine essence. They are also selective in
their responses to modernity. They embrace some aspects of it (such as
certain types of technology), while vehemently rejecting others. Baha'i
fundamentalists engage in all three types of selectivity as well. They
frequently make a claim to be engaging in traditional practices that are in
fact innovations, and can do so with some success because the history and
texts of the Baha'i faith are relatively little studied and authorities
have often actively suppressed historical sources. We have already
mentioned the problem that theocratic beliefs are unscriptural. That is, the
scriptural tradition in the Baha'i faith strove for a separation of religion
and state as a way of making room for liberty of conscience for Baha'is in
Shi`ite Iran (McGlinn 1999, Cole 1998c:17-47). In his Treatise on Leadership
of the early 1890s `Abdu'l-Baha said that religious institutions, including
Baha'i ones, are never to intervene in affairs of state or political matters
unbidden, and that whenever in history they have done so it has resulted in
a huge disaster. (`Abdu'l-Baha in Cole 1998a). He clearly envisaged the
state
and religious institutions as complementary, "like milk and honey."
"Baha'is, including Baha'i fundamentalists, have for the most part embraced
modernity. They have a vision of building a peaceful global society and for
the most part have a positive view of technological advances. Still,
the selectivity of Baha'i fundamentalists toward modernity can be witnessed
in the severe misgivings that some of them have expressed about the
Internet" or such issues as democracy and the separation of religion and
politics."
"Fundamentalist Baha'is put special emphasis on moral Manichaeanism. They
see the world as comprised of a small cadre of those "firm in the Covenant."
They....admit a larger number of Baha'is who are "infirm" but
perhaps not dangerously so. They worry about smaller numbers of "liberal"
or "dissident" Baha'is who [they believe] attempt to "undermine" the
Covenant."
"Baha'i fundamentalism puts great emphasis on the absolutism and inerrancy
of scripture. This belief is quite widespread but not universal. It is
tested most fiercely with regard to issues such as evolution. `Abdu'l-Baha
maintained, in Sufi and Neoplatonic fashion, that human beings have always
been a distinct species and that human beings are not animals, insofar as
they are endowed with a soul. He also argued that the morphological
similarities between humans and apes might be merely functional (e.g, sharks
and porpoises resemble one another but are not immediately related), and
maintained that "the missing link" would never be found. These
assertions have foundered against the DNA revolution, which has found that
humans, chimpanzees and bonobos share 98 percent of the same genes and are
clearly closely related. During a discussion of his statements on
evolution, a typical poster to SRB wrote, "Dear all, On the topic of
evolution: Clearly we should understand as clearly as possible what
'Abdu'l-Baha says on this subject. Because we believe His statements on
matters pertaining to the Revelation of Baha'u'llah and all of creation are
infallible, we must be clear about what it is we believe, or are accepting"
(SRB 6 July 1997)."
"Baha'i fundamentalists emphasize belief in an imminent catastrophe they
refer to as "the Calamity" (Smith 1982). One contributor to a Baha'i-only
list wrote, "I would like to open a discussion on a subject which many of us
are somewhat unwilling to address - namely, the impending (year 2,000)
calamity which is supposed to create grave upheaval (literally) not only
here in California, but also on the East Coast, and other parts of the
world . . ." (Pers. Comm, March 14, 1994)."
"Fundamentalist Baha'is have an authoritarian view of how the Baha'i
"administrative order" should function. There is a great emphasis on
obedience. The typical logic of Baha'i fundamentalists roots obedience in
the legitimacy of authority, disallowing a rational examination of the
substance of a command or an inquiry into whether the body giving the
command has the "constitutional" prerogative to give it. In this way,
arbitrary commands by Baha'i bodies are made to be an either-or proposition.
If one accepts Baha'u'llah, one accepts his administrative order, and must
obey whatever it orders one to do, whether one agrees in
conscience or no. Rejection of the command, ipso facto, represents a
rejection of Baha'u'llah (Semple 1991). Thus, fundamentalist Baha'is
secretly consider liberals and some moderates "not Baha'is" at all because
they do not demonstrate sufficient willingness to immerse their wills in the
authority of the Baha'i administration."
"Fundamentalist Baha'is believe that Baha'i institutions such as the local
assembly or the NSA can be divinely guided, and that the Universal House of
Justice is infallible. The technical terminology in Persian is not
unambiguous, and Baha'i texts make distinctions that this approach
disregards. Contemporary Baha'i fundamentalists avoid thinking
constitutionally about such issues, asserting the infallibility of the House
of Justice in an undifferentiated manner. [One] American Baha'i and mystery
writer...wrote, "The Guidance and infallibility of the Universal House of
Justice are assured and promised. We are specifically directed, as an act
of faith, to offer instant, exact, and complete obedience to Baha'u'llah's
House of Justice. We are warned of the dire
spiritual dangers inherent in ignoring this directive, and we are admonished
to be vigilant, firm, and uncompromising in our loyalty, support, obedience
and love for the this Divinely Ordained Institution."
(Talisman9 Archives, 23 May 2000).
Fundamentalist Baha'is view "the member's time, space and activity" as "a
group resource, not an individual one" (Almond et al. 408). In some
communities enormous pressure is put on individuals by fundamentalists to
"teach the faith" or proselytize others. Some more liberal (or just shy)
Baha'is report being extremely uncomfortable with this pressure and cite it
as a reason they became inactive or withdrew from membership. Constant
appeals are also made for Baha'is to donate money, to "give till it hurts,"
and most of these donations appear to go to monumental building projects at
the Baha'i world center in Haifa or to bureaucratic purposes at the National
Baha'i Center in Wilmette. The Baha'i administration appears to do almost
no charity work (measured as a percentage of their budget), especially for
non-Baha'is. Although Baha'is do not have a distinctive form of dress, they
do have special ritual forms of prayer, and they fast in the Muslim way.
They are under surveillance for behavior that might contravene Baha'i law."
Mr Mahdi <mrm...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:93vk57$e2u$1...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU...
I would like to respond in general to some of those commented on my essay.
When I say that creed of the Bahai Faith is static, what I meant was that
according to the Bahai Faith, the only one who has the authority to "change"
or
overhaul a belief within the Bahai Faith is someone who is given "waHy"
(revelation). Bahais believe that God continues to send messengers and
prophets (aka as "Manifestations" in Bahai terminology), so when there is a
belief that is eventually abrogated (in a religion) occurs, according to
what
Bahais believe, a "Manifestation" of God is given this authority to execute
the
abrogation of a certain belief or practice. So it goes back to what Bahais
believe is the source of beliefs; God not man or any of his "interest
groups."
There has never been an accurate and definite definition of "fundamentalism"
by
Bahai liberals. Because the beliefs of those accused by Bahai liberals as
being "fundamentalist" varies (e.g., some would have varying viewpoints on
certain issues within the Bahai Faith; some would be seen as having a
"liberal"
belief while others a more "conservative" inclination) and the use of
"fundamentalism" as a label for these people as politically-motivated
tactic,
it has not helped people in understanding what exactly makes a Bahai a
"Bahai
fundamentalist." There is no set or consistent criteria Bahai liberals have
where one can label a person a "Bahai fundamentalist" in a way that is
accurate
and justified.
I would like for someone to show us what makes a Bahai a "Bahai
fundamentalist"
and if this criteria to label people is accurate, consistent, and justly
applied without the obvious politically-motivated intentions behind its use.
If you study the origin of the word fundamentalism, it was meant to describe
Christians who followed a "literal interpretation" of the Bible. In other
words, fundamentalism was a basicly a literal approach made by Christians to
the Bible. It had nothing to do with extremism or militancy.
What the word fundamentalism brought out was a negative feeling amongst
people
who didn't agree with people who took everything literally. So later on,
esp.
during the Islamic awakening happening around the world, anybody who did
anything "for the cause of religion," (esp. things that were considered
"bad')
was labeled a fundamentalist, even though he could be violating the very
fundamentals of his religion or belief. At the meantime, the atheistic
secular
Communists were never labeled "fundamentalists," because many people who
used
fundamentalism to attack religion were of course secularists themselves, and
to
call a fellow secularist a fundamentalist would not look good for
secularism.
So when a secularist like an extremist Communist does something extreme, he
is
not called a "fundamentalist" but when a person who is not secularist does
something extreme, he is called a fundamentalist. That is why the term is
not
only loaded but politically-motivated.
Mahdi
--
----- Original Message -----
From: Nima Hazini <lotu...@wxc.com.au>
Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai
Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2001 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: The Politically-Motivated Use of "Fundamentalism" by Bahai
"Liberals"
Mr Mahdi <mrm...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:sd276.5045$%b.3...@e420r-sjo2.usenetserver.com...
> Often used to label a group or person as intolerant, bigoted,
>superstitious, fanatical, and just plain crazy, "fundamentalism" creates a
>notion that those who believe in adhering and interpreting religious
beliefs in
> "literal way" are intolerant, bigoted, superstitious, fanatical and just
>plain crazy.
While certain fundamentalists of the Hindu, Jewish, Chrisitian and
especially Islamic cloth have demonstrated violence, rampant intolerance,
bigotry, superstition, fanaticism and just plain craziness in the past, that
does not mean that all fundamentalists are necessarily that way, since these
things are an effect not the cause or description of fundamentalism.
Fundamentalism, at its basis, is about a set of beliefs, ideological
priorities, assumptions and a certain attitude about religion in the modern
world. Many have analysed its presence in the global village among us, but
none as poignantly and in analytical and typological detail as the team of
scholars and specialists assembled by Martin E. Marty (University of
Chicago) and R. Scott Appleby (University of Notre Dame) for what has come
to be christened as the FUNDAMENTALISM PROJECT. The FUNDAMENTALISM PROJECT
has already produced 8 fat, thick volumes of detailed articles and
monographs on the phenomena of religious fundamentalism wordlwide spanning
traditions from Christianity to Islam and Judaism to fundamentalist
responses in the South Asian and Far Eastern traditions. In the 1st volume
of the Fundamentalism Project: *FUNDAMENTALISMS OBSERVED* (Chicago: 1991),
the editors have identified 9 common typologies of fundamentalism. To wit,
1) It mounts a protest against the marginalization of religion in
secularizing societies.
2) It selectively reshapes the religious tradition (i.e. it may represent
itself as a restatement of the essence of the religion, but in fact it picks
and chooses from the tradition) and it accepts some aspects of modernity
while rejecting others.
3) It sees the moral world as divided sharply into good and evil.
4) It emphasizes the absolutism and inerrancy of its scriptures (and thus
rejects Western critical academic scholarship on that corpus).
5) It has a millennialist emphasis.
6) It has an elect, chosen membership.
7) It draws sharp boundaries between the saved and the sinful.
8) It maintains an authoritarian, charismatic leadership structure.
9) It has strict behavioral requirements for its people.
In another important work on the fundamentalist phenomena in
Christianity, Judaism and Islam, i.e. _The Defenders of God: The
Fundamentalist Revolt Against the Modern Age_ (Columbia SC: 1995),
Professor Bruce B. Lawrence of Duke University (Religious Studies) points
out that,
Fundamentalism is the affirmation of religious authority as holistic and
absolute, admitting of neither criticism nor reduction; it is expressed
through the collective demand that specific creedal and ethical dictates
derived from scripture be publicly recognized and legally enforced (p. 27).
Earlier he pointed out,
Fundamentalism is shaped both by its interaction with modernity and its
reaction against modernism. It is a two-way, not a one-way, exchange. It
affects "secular humanists" as well as their fundamentalist opponents. And
it is an exchange that has taken place, and continues to take place, on a
global scale, drawing into its orbit all religious traditions not just Islam
[Judaism or Christianity] (p xiv).
Later on he notes,
...Fundamentalist challenges have arisen in several traditions. One could
locate cadres that are Sikh or Buddhist, _Baha'i_ [he references Denis
Maceoin's "Baha'i Fundamentalism and the Western Academic Study of the Babi
Movement"] or Hindu (p. 6).
On pp. 100-101 Lawrence delineates the common "traits" of fundamentalists:
1. Fundamentalists are advocates of a pure minority viewpoint against a
sullied majority or dominant group. They are the righteous remanant turned
vanguard, and even when the remanant/vanguard seizes political power and
seems to become a majority, as happened in Iran in 1979, they continue to
perceive and project themselves as a minority.
2. Fundamentalists are oppositional. They do not merely disagree with their
enemies, they confront them. While the evil Other is an abstract sense of
anomie or uprootedness, it is located in particular groups who perpetuate
the prevailing "secular" ethos. Fundamentalists confront those secular
people who exercise political or judicial power. Often they also confront
"wayward" religious professionals [or percieved "wayward" scholars or
intellectuals].
3. Fundamentalists are secondary-level male elites. They claim to derive
authority from a direct, unmediated appeal to scripture, yet because
interpretive principles are often vague, they must be carried by charismatic
leaders who are invariably male. Notions of a just social order in Iran, or
a halakhic polity in Israel, or a Christian civilization in America require
continuous, repeated reinterpretation. In each instance what seems to an
outsider to be arbitrary retrieval of only some elements from a common past
is to fundamentalists the necessary restoration of an eternally valid divine
mandate. And it is a mandate mediated through exclusively male interpretors.
4. Fundamentalists generate their own technical vocabulary. Reflecting the
polysemy of language, they use special terms that bind insiders to each
other, just as they prempt interference from outsiders. Halakha for Jews,
shari'a for Muslims, [the "covenant" or "infallibility" for Baha'is], and
"creation" for Christians represent...[four]...terms, each of which would be
open to several interpretations but which fundamentalists invest with
particular meaning that exceptionalizes, even as it appears to validate,
their ideological stance.
5. Fundamentalism has historical antecedents, but no ideological precursors.
As Marc Bloch warned, one should never confuse ancestry with explanation.
Though the antecedents of fundamentalism are varied and distant - Maccabean
revolt for Jews, the Protestant Reformation for Christians, the Wahhabi
revolt for Sunnis Muslims, the martyrdom of Husayn for Shi'is -
fundamentalism as a religious ideology is very recent. It did not emerge in
Protestant America until the end of the last century. It has only become
apparent in Judaism during the last fifty years, and since it represents a
delayed reaction to the psychological hegemony of European colonial rule, it
could only occur in majoritarian Muslim countries after they had become
independent nation-states, that is, in most instances, after World War II.
So given all this, it is a rather big non sequitor (i.e. fallacy of
reasoning) to assert that fundamentalism is merely a Western boggeyman ploy
or that Armstrong and others who are studying the phenomena are conflating
or misconstruing nationalism and religious identity assertion and lumping
them all under a tenuously common rubric. For the reasons stated above, the
global phenomenon of fundamentalism is a very real one and one only need
look at the the IRI or the Taliban regime as two sore thump examples of its
presence and existence.
>"Liberalism" is a dynamic belief system which often is manifested in a
>movement.
The discourse of Liberalism makes the following set of assumptions,
1. Discursive dynamicity (i.e. liberal discourse) is the product of a
continuous process of rational discourse.
2. Rational discourse is possible even among those who do not share the same
culture, religion, belief system nor even the same ideological
consciousness.
3.Rational discourse can produce mutual understanding and
cultural/philosophical consensus, as well as sometimes agreement on
particulars.
4. Consensus permits of stable social arrangements, and is the rational
basis of the choice of coherent strategies.
5. Rational strategic choice is the basis of improving the human condition
possibly through collective action.
6. Liberalism as such can exist only where and when its social and
intellectual prerequisites exist.
<snip>
Given that the Baha'i teachings uphold such principles as 'An ever advancing
civilization' and the progressive unfoldment of religious truth in history,
liberalism by definition is not incompatible with the Baha'i faith.
Fanatism, rigid ideological dogmatism and especially that which advocates
violence to achieve certain political ends, which certain religious
fundamentalists such as the Taliban and Khomeinists continually advocate,
are however incontrovertibly incompatible with the Baha'i faith and its
teachings.
As far as the issue of same-sex marriages or homosexuality and the Baha'i
faith, this is casting hubris on an issue not all liberals agree on, and
which does not define liberalism as such. Liberalism at base is about a set
of philosophical assumptions made about the world. Furthermore, liberal
believers can be found in all the major world traditions. There are Islamic
liberals, Chrisitian liberals, Jewish liberals, so on and so forth. By
virtue of subscribing to the priorities of the Open Society and hence
liberalism does not automatically exclude a believer from being a believer.
Such hubristic arguments, regularly trounced by bona fide religious
fundamentalists (especially of the Islamic stripe) are pure red herrings.
regards,
Nima
patk...@my-deja.com
In article <940at1$i8n$1...@gnamma.connect.com.au>,
"Nima Hazini" <lotu...@wxc.com.au> wrote:
> MrMahdi obviously did not read my long reply which quoted from the
> literature of the social sciences on the subject of fundamentalism,
and
> still hubristically insists the word is politically loaded without
> addressing any of the points outlined in my reply to him or the
typologies
> which characterize what "fundamentalism" is.
I would think that 'conservative' and 'liberal' are just as loaded. The
curious thing is that on SRB, where he posts his fantasies, I don't see
folks tossing about the term "Baha'i fundamentalist" or "fundamentalist
Baha'i", at least not the Baha'is. If he is talking about _anything_,
I'd like to see examples.
> MrMahdi also poses a straw man
> and non sequitor by casting 'secular' extremists on the Left as
possible
> fundamentalists whereas the very definition of the word characterizes
a
> phenomenon in 'religion' (not secular groups) in modernity.
Bales of straw! Wagons of straw! A great mow of straw! I don't see
the Baha'i SRB posters (liberal, conservative, or vanilla w/ a hint of
pistachio) calling anyone "Baha'i fundamentalist" or "fundamentalist
Baha'i". I suspect that is like his latest newsflash on Wendi, who has
allegedly slammed Iranians as not necessarily knowledgeable about the BF
- OOOOOHHHHHHHH!!!!! AAAAHHHHHH! A lot of nothing.
> So, again, for
> the benefit of the readership of this NG, let me put forth the 9 basic
> descriptives of "fundamentalism" outlined by Marty and Appleby in
volume 1
> of the FUNDAMENTALISM PROJECT: Fundamentalisms Observed_ (Chicago:
1991):
>
> 1) Fundamentalism mounts a protest against the marginalization of
religion
> in secularizing societies.
That is there thing.
> 2) Fundamentalism selectively reshapes the religious tradition (i.e.
it may
> represent itself as a restatement of the essence of the religion, but
in
> fact it picks
> and chooses from the tradition) and it accepts some aspects of
modernity
> while rejecting others.
Again, I don't think this is the esentials of fundamentalism.
> 3) Fundamentalism sees the moral world as divided sharply into good
and
> evil.
See my previous.
> 4) Fundamentalism emphasizes the absolutism and inerrancy of its
scriptures
> (and thus rejects Western critical academic scholarship on that
corpus).
See my previous.
> 5) Fundamentalism has a millennialist emphasis.
See my previous.
> 6) Fundamentalism has an elect, chosen membership.
Okay; but it is a broad elect.
> 7) Fundamentalism draws sharp boundaries between the saved and the
sinful.
Okay, but it not a big deal.
> 8) Fundamentalism maintains an authoritarian, charismatic leadership
> structure.
Non-essential, even not common.
> 9) Fundamentalism has strict behavioral requirements for its people.
No. Some are Christians.
IMV Christian fundamentalism (late 19th, early 20th CE) was an attempt
to crib a page from early Islam, to some extent a revival of the
Protestant Reformation, a revival to give Christianity some
comprehensibility. By brushing away some of that "Paradise Lost" fog,
Christianity could be a comprehensible faith, focused around Blessed
Jesus and His teachings, the Lord and Savior the fundamentalist claims
to accept as his own. The simplified version, Christianity in a
nutshell could be adopted by all sorts of people. It bypassed the
Athanasian conundrum and all the rest of the nonsense which had
fragmented the Reformation. Beyond Billy Graham, I'd say it remains to
be seen if it will really take.
I think the stuff that Marty and Appleby describe is traditionalism at
its revanchist worst - not at all about religion or spirituality, but
about control an imitation of ancestral forms, the sort of nonsense
that fundamentalism could side step.
See your observations about textual inerrancy. You'll point out that
the fundies are actually selective and I'll say that you are simply
describing the incoherence that stems from tradation, in this case a
short one and that it will fall away with time.
> "The second feature of fundamentalism is selectivity. Fundamentalists
> select and reshape aspects of the tradition, all the while asserting
that
> they have recaptured its pristine essence. They are also selective in
> their responses to modernity. They embrace some aspects of it (such
as
> certain types of technology), while vehemently rejecting others.
Baha'i
> fundamentalists engage in all three types of selectivity as well.
They
> frequently make a claim to be engaging in traditional practices that
are in
> fact innovations, and can do so with some success because the history
and
> texts of the Baha'i faith are relatively little studied and
authorities
> have often actively suppressed historical sources.
One of the fun things about 'tradition' is there are so many. The
Mormon 'tradional' family has one dad, several wives and a bunch of
kids. Someone else's traditional family has a bunch of uncles and aunts
hanging around, and so it goes. I'm opposed to attempts to graft
non-Baha'i traditions into our practice as our practice.
> We have already
> mentioned the problem that theocratic beliefs are unscriptural. That
is, the
> scriptural tradition in the Baha'i faith strove for a separation of
religion
> and state as a way of making room for liberty of conscience for
Baha'is in
> Shi`ite Iran (McGlinn 1999, Cole 1998c:17-47). In his Treatise on
Leadership
> of the early 1890s `Abdu'l-Baha said that religious institutions,
including
> Baha'i ones, are never to intervene in affairs of state or political
matters
> unbidden, and that whenever in history they have done so it has
resulted in
> a huge disaster. (`Abdu'l-Baha in Cole 1998a). He clearly envisaged
the
> state
> and religious institutions as complementary, "like milk and honey."
I'm not so sure it is so clear cut. Is the Umumi Beytu'l Adel a
religious body or a civil one?
> "Baha'is, including Baha'i fundamentalists, have for the most part
embraced
> modernity. They have a vision of building a peaceful global society
and for
> the most part have a positive view of technological advances. Still,
> the selectivity of Baha'i fundamentalists toward modernity can be
witnessed
> in the severe misgivings that some of them have expressed about the
> Internet" or such issues as democracy and the separation of religion
and
> politics."
>
> "Fundamentalist Baha'is put special emphasis on moral Manichaeanism.
They
> see the world as comprised of a small cadre of those "firm in the
Covenant."
> They....admit a larger number of Baha'is who are "infirm" but
> perhaps not dangerously so. They worry about smaller numbers of
"liberal"
> or "dissident" Baha'is who [they believe] attempt to "undermine" the
> Covenant."
Hmmm. It looks like you may define yourself out of a subject. You seem
to be confining the fundamentalist now only to the paranoid. No wonder
some might take offense to the term fundamentalist.
> "Baha'i fundamentalism puts great emphasis on the absolutism and
inerrancy
> of scripture. This belief is quite widespread but not universal.
It tends to run counter to those who might wave their pilgrims notes and
shreik about "the calamity! the calamity!". The text emphasizes the
text over hearsay. The critics also turn to the text in critiquing the
AO and AO loyalists. I don't think "the text" is so much a rallying
point for the few sick souls who imagine themselves the scant elect on
the eve of the apocalypse, but the only thing that others use to try to
call them to their senses.
> It is
> tested most fiercely with regard to issues such as evolution.
`Abdu'l-Baha
> maintained, in Sufi and Neoplatonic fashion, that human beings have
always
> been a distinct species and that human beings are not animals, insofar
as
> they are endowed with a soul.
Dr. Senapathy's "Independent Birth of Organisms" also implies numerous
distinct origins of 'species'
> He also argued that the morphological
> similarities between humans and apes might be merely functional (e.g,
sharks
> and porpoises resemble one another but are not immediately related),
Sharks tend to have a tail which is perpendicularly oriented, like the
osteichthys, porposes have tails which are horizontally oriented. Their
swimming motion is distinct.
> and
> maintained that "the missing link" would never be found. These
> assertions have foundered against the DNA revolution, which has found
that
> humans, chimpanzees and bonobos share 98 percent of the same genes and
are
> clearly closely related.
The DNA revolution has not produced the missing link. DNA projections
put a common ancestor for chimps and humans in the 3-5 MY range.
Hominid bones go back further than that. There are DNA similarities
between humans and gorillas, which are not common to chimps and chimp
gorilla similarities not common to humans. The initial explanation for
DNA similarities is common ancestry - because it is consistent with
Darwin's popular but discredited theory. Ancestyr is not the only
vector, though for heritable DNA. Bacteria acquire antiobiotic
resistance by exchanging DNA with unrelated strains of bacteria. Gene
therapy is conducted with tailored viruses. Primative viruses could
have swapped DNA across related species living in proximate terrain. So
long as non-ancestral vectors remained in place, the two populations
could have evolved even more closely over many generations.
> During a discussion of his statements on
> evolution, a typical poster to SRB wrote, "Dear all, On the topic of
> evolution: Clearly we should understand as clearly as possible what
> 'Abdu'l-Baha says on this subject. Because we believe His statements
on
> matters pertaining to the Revelation of Baha'u'llah and all of
creation are
> infallible, we must be clear about what it is we believe, or are
accepting"
> (SRB 6 July 1997)."
It is also constructive to note that the Master's statements about
humans being more than animals is a religious one, one to believe in.
Evolution, in contrast, is not rightly subject to belief; it is a
scientific theory, subject to falsification and revision, as evidence
and science grows.
> "Baha'i fundamentalists emphasize belief in an imminent catastrophe
they
> refer to as "the Calamity" (Smith 1982). One contributor to a
Baha'i-only
> list wrote, "I would like to open a discussion on a subject which many
of us
> are somewhat unwilling to address - namely, the impending (year 2,000)
> calamity which is supposed to create grave upheaval (literally) not
only
> here in California, but also on the East Coast, and other parts of the
> world . . ." (Pers. Comm, March 14, 1994)."
I have actually known a 'calamity Baha'i'. I found him to be a meek
fellow who simply expressed what I consider our genes' worst fear, an
anxiety about our collective extinction. He did so in a Baha'i context.
He didn't seem to be into judging or controlling others. I think he
suffered from giving too much credence to some other calamity Baha'i who
pointed out the relevant pilgrim's notes and not enough trust in the
text, but I think we talked that out and as you can see, I was just
judgin him as being insufficiently deepened and I'm not now, nor ever
was a calamity Baha'i.
> "Fundamentalist Baha'is have an authoritarian view of how the Baha'i
> "administrative order" should function.
Give me a break!!! _Everyone_ has ideas about this. As far as I can
tell, this is the biggest target of complaints among the disaffected
ex-Baha'is. Surely you wouldn't argue they are _all_ a bunch of
fundies?
> There is a great emphasis on
> obedience. The typical logic of Baha'i fundamentalists roots
obedience in
> the legitimacy of authority, disallowing a rational examination of the
> substance of a command or an inquiry into whether the body giving the
> command has the "constitutional" prerogative to give it. In this way,
> arbitrary commands by Baha'i bodies are made to be an either-or
proposition.
> If one accepts Baha'u'llah, one accepts his administrative order, and
must
> obey whatever it orders one to do, whether one agrees in
> conscience or no. Rejection of the command, ipso facto, represents a
> rejection of Baha'u'llah (Semple 1991). Thus, fundamentalist Baha'is
> secretly consider liberals and some moderates "not Baha'is" at all
because
> they do not demonstrate sufficient willingness to immerse their wills
in the
> authority of the Baha'i administration."
So, what are you saying here, the only 'correct' view of the AO is as a
garden club? Buddy, this is my religious leadership. If you think that
they are there simply to pass out wafers every Sunday, I disagree.
> "Fundamentalist Baha'is believe that Baha'i institutions such as the
local
> assembly or the NSA can be divinely guided, and that the Universal
House of
> Justice is infallible. The technical terminology in Persian is not
> unambiguous, and Baha'i texts make distinctions that this approach
> disregards. Contemporary Baha'i fundamentalists avoid thinking
> constitutionally about such issues, asserting the infallibility of the
House
> of Justice in an undifferentiated manner. [One] American Baha'i and
mystery
> writer...wrote, "The Guidance and infallibility of the Universal House
of
> Justice are assured and promised. We are specifically directed, as
an act
> of faith, to offer instant, exact, and complete obedience to
Baha'u'llah's
> House of Justice. We are warned of the dire
> spiritual dangers inherent in ignoring this directive, and we are
admonished
> to be vigilant, firm, and uncompromising in our loyalty, support,
obedience
> and love for the this Divinely Ordained Institution."
> (Talisman9 Archives, 23 May 2000).
The important thing is that the assembly is to be obeyed. If they want
inputs, the friends should provide them. If someone is concerned that
an assembly is pursuing a bad course, they should appeal the matter, but
while an appeal is in progress, it is best to go along with the
direction given. The assembly is elected by us. To assume that they
are only to be obeyed when one feels like it, is to asume that the
assembly has no authority at all.
> Fundamentalist Baha'is view "the member's time, space and activity" as
"a
> group resource, not an individual one" (Almond et al. 408). In some
> communities enormous pressure is put on individuals by fundamentalists
to
> "teach the faith" or proselytize others. Some more liberal (or just
shy)
> Baha'is report being extremely uncomfortable with this pressure and
cite it
> as a reason they became inactive or withdrew from membership.
Are there Baha'i dues, that Baha'is must pay to be a member in good
standing or loose their temple priveleges? Do we drag new declarants
out to our communes so that they can sell flowers at the airport for six
months? Yes, the assembly does ask for help, but no, they don't demand
that people pay a set amount, or insist that Baha'is work so many hours
on this project or another. If this does go on _anywhere_, I hope it
does get brought to the attention of the regional or national assembly.
> Constant
> appeals are also made for Baha'is to donate money, to "give till it
hurts,"
> and most of these donations appear to go to monumental building
projects at
> the Baha'i world center in Haifa or to bureaucratic purposes at the
National
> Baha'i Center in Wilmette. The Baha'i administration appears to do
almost
> no charity work (measured as a percentage of their budget), especially
for
> non-Baha'is.
Hahahaha! Go visit a church some Sunday. When they pass the plate,
they don't even care if you are a member. Watch some "Christian TV",
they really really really need your money to stay on the air and spreda
the good news about how they really really really need your money to
stay on the air and spreda the good news about how they really really
really need your money to stay on the air and spreda the good news about
how they really really ....
> Although Baha'is do not have a distinctive form of
dress, they
> do have special ritual forms of prayer, and they fast in the Muslim
way.
> They are under surveillance for behavior that might contravene Baha'i
law."
>
I know of one instance where a Baha'i was reported to an assembly for
contravention of Baha'i law. A wife told her hubby she was cheating on
him and he asked the assembly for help with his marital problems. That
does not mean that some wacked out Baha'i does not spy on some other
Baha'i and report 'contraventions' to the LSA, but I think it is an
exception that is more about the party concerned than about the BF.
BTW, I was surprised that the mods continue to let the joker post away
on his Limbaughesque track, given that he doesn't seem to be talking
aobut anything that can be observed at SRB. I hope my comments in that
vein get posted. Maybe Mahid got bored w/ us and that is why he is at
SRB w/ his act.
KN!
- Pat
ko...@ameritel.net
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/