Obama and the Religion of God
compx2
*...of course I, as a Bahai want Obama to "fail." When an individual
holds a ideology that is immoral (Marxism) or some would even say
evil, you're darn right I want him to "fail."*
I can see both sides of this coin, as a Baha'i. For one, I believe
the spiritual priniciples unleashed, clarified, renewed and
specifically affirmed by all the Baha'i Writings are true regardless
what name we call God.
So, if the principles are correct, then the extent to which Obama or
us or the administrative order of the Baha'i Faith follow those
principles, they and we, are correct.
On the other hand, misplaced faith is not correct whether that faith
is placed in Obama or a Baha'i administrative order or any other
entity. We should place our faith only in God, as we understand Him,
call Him, and allow Him in our lives.
According to my faith, borne of the Baha'i Faith (not the
administrative order of the Baha'i Faith), not placing my full faith
and confidence in the One True God (by whatever name He is called) is
misplaced faith and evident error.
--Kent
Christian Gruber
> Another writer said:
>
> *...of course I, as a Bahai want Obama to "fail." When an individual
> holds a ideology that is immoral (Marxism) or some would even say
> evil, you're darn right I want him to "fail."*
>
Really? People actually think Obama holds to a marxist ideology? Has
anyone actually read Marx (other than Susan and Mark Foster)? He's
not seizing property from private hands - he's buying it with public
funds. Quasi-socialist maybe, but hardly marxist. No revolution of
the proletariat, no putting away the bourgoisie, etc. :) The funny
thing, is that he's following the advice of some ardent capitalists
who are ultimately coming to the conclusion that some intervention is
necessary to keep the system afloat.
I'd be very interested if someone could provide me with quotes by
Obama indicating his Marxism. And incidentally, I'm not sure it's
supportable as a Baha'i position that Marxism, per-se, is immoral or
evil. It has a strong moral aspect, and the Guardian of the Baha'is
called "Communism" evil, but he did so in the 40's (I believe) and
Communist countries had so strayed from their Marxist roots that it's
not clear to me he was referring to Marxism at all. But again, the
thing I'd be interested is real evidence of Obama's marxism, 'cause I
don't see it.
Christian.
Tahirih-Starr*
It may be a good idea to pray for all leaders in this day --- that
they may be free to follow their own just inclinations in their
administration. Some one told me today that I should write to Obama
putting forward some of my insights in the hopes he'd be able to
relate to the truths therein in his own inner being.
Baha'is are under the shadow of Baha'u'llah:
The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, by Bahá'u'lláh, p. 236:
164. the sacred Lote-Tree # 148 The "sacred Lote-Tree" is a reference
to the ~Sadratu'l-Muntaha , the "Tree beyond which there is no
passing" (see note 128). It is used here symbolically to designate
Bahá'u'lláh.
Sadratu'l-Muntaha': "The 'Tree beyond which there is no passing'.
Originally the tree which, in ancient times, the Arabs planted to mark
the end of the road. In the Baha'i Writings, a symbol of the
Manifestation of God, the 'Tree beyond which neither men or angels can
pass'; specifically Baha'u'llah
....A Basic Baha'i Dictionary, page 200
Gleanings, page 70-71
Who standeth beyond the Sadratu'l-Muntahá. Whoso hath failed to
recognize Him will have condemned himself to the misery of remoteness,
a remoteness which is naught but utter nothingness and the essence of
the nethermost fire. Such will be his fate, though to outward seeming
he may occupy the earth's loftiest seats and be established upon its
most exalted throne."
Because the Baha'i Faith has been termed the Lesser or Minor Plan it
is conceivable that there is provision for some outside the religion
perse to be serving the Source(Glory of God) in the Greater or Major
Plan in the over-all scheme.
Taking these two thoughts into consideration it is wise to put them
into a perspective that serves the Age in which one is living rather
than to stick to an outdated literal interpretation which could cause
division or fear. I would suggest that it is in this way that the
continual flow of revelation that the Bab spoke of works throughout
humanity whether they are fully aware of it or not.
I enjoyed thinking about your discussion which I noticed when I came
by, and will come back soon in case you have a reply.
With Living Love, Starr*
Dr. RTJ
wrote:
Fine, in order to avoid a semantic "who's on first?" I'll use a more
general term, "statist", i.e. someone who values the supremacy of the
state over the individual which is of course, immoral and something
that no Bahai should find themselves supporting.
Gilberto Simpson
> Fine, in order to avoid a semantic "who's on first?" I'll use a more
> general term, "statist", i.e. someone who values the supremacy of the
> state over the individual which is of course, immoral and something
> that no Bahai should find themselves supporting.
>
Are you sure that your views about the state vs. the individual are
really a part of the Bahai faith? Your comments made me think right
away of what the Guardian said about pacifism:
"With reference to the absolute pacifists, or conscientious objectors
to war; their attitude, judged from the Bahá'í standpoint is quite
anti-social and due to its exaltation of the individual conscience
leads inevitably to disorder and chaos in society. Extreme pacifists
are thus very close to the anarchists, in the sense that both of these
groups lay an undue emphasis on the rights and merits of the
individual. The Bahá'í conception of social life is essentially based
on the subordination of the individual will to that of society. It
neither suppresses the individual nor does it exalt him to the point
of making him an anti-social creature, a menace to society. As in
everything, it follows the `golden mean'. The only way that society
can function is for the minority to follow the will of the majority."
Dr. RTJ
wrote:
If you believe that humans are innately good (which I believe is a
Bahai concept) then when left alone they will make correct moral
decisions. Collectivism isn't something that should be forced by any
entity in power and if the Guardian was suggesting that it should be,
then he's wrong.
t h
(without education) people may
become worse than animals.
The same is true with respect to animals: notice that when the animal is
trained it becomes domestic, and also that man, if he is left without
education, becomes bestial, and, moreover, if left under the rule of
nature, becomes lower than an animal, whereas if he is educated he
becomes an angel. (From Some Answered Questions, pp7-12.)
It is best to read any passage in context so I suggest reading the
entire article from Some Answered Questions. There are many other
references to the necessity for training, guicance, and the restraint of
laws to help people develop their good nature.
Cheers,
Tom
mike3
wrote:
However, how does this jive with the idea that a Baha'i should
"conscientiously object" to war? Although it also says that one should
not
go so far with it as to actually violate the laws and commands of the
governments, and so one may have to fight in the war anyways, but
that is not what I'm referring to: the quote makes it sound like ANY
such
"conscientious objection" is not only a wrong but a grave one that
could
destroy the entire world!
t h
solution to a problem
rather than resort to violence. It also acknowledges that sometimes
force is needed.
Most of the time wars are a waste of resources for both societies that
get involved.
Bahai's can demonstrate this with historical examples. Look at the
conflict between
Eritrea and Ethiopia over a few miles of desert along their border.
This has cost each
country far more than the little bits of desert are worth. Usually the
root causes of
war are fear, ambition, and pride.
Now if my government becomes involved in a situation leading to war,
then I must
obey the laws and avoid combat if it is legal to do so. In the USA this
has usually
been possible by serving as a non-combatant. Thus many Baha'i men were
drafted
during the Korean and Viet Nam wars and served as medics. The US Baha'i
community did not take an official position on those wars. Rather we
emphasized
that when possible a peaceful solution is always better and that
humanity needs to
develop the international mechanisms to head off wars in the future.
That, of course,
is even more obvious today.
Tom
mike3
Thank you for the response.
mike3
However, I still don't get it -- the quote says "With reference to the
absolute pacifists, *or conscientious objectors to war*; their
attitude,
judged from the Bahá'í standpoint is quite anti-social and due to its
exaltation of the individual conscience leads inevitably to disorder
and chaos in society." (emphasis mine) Yet you say that if the law
allows
it, one should "conscientiously object" to war. Was it referring to
cases
where people attempt to _break_ laws and stuff to object to it?
Because if
not, then wouldn't this be "antisocial" and so "wrong" according to
this
quote?
t h
from the barbarians across
the border and full participation by everyone is needed to ward them
off, should you proclaim
that any resistance is evil? And perhaps chain your group of objectors
across the gate of the
army base or the ammo factory?
Tom
mike3
This is the rub: You say:
"Now if my government becomes involved in a situation leading to war,
then I *must obey the laws* and *avoid combat *if it is legal to do
so**."
So obviously if in the situation you mention any objection is not
legal,
then one should not do it as one must obey the laws. If the government
has
forbidden it, that is. But what about in the OTHER case when it IS
legal to
object? Or is the "you" up there something other than a government?
Because
in my original post, I was asking about what happens when the
*government
permits* the objection, so the individual can choose (without running
afoul
of the government's law) to object or not to, up of course to the
terms of
the law.
If the "you" does *not* refer to a government, then you'd seem to be
suggesting
that whether objection is permissible when there is no legal barrier
depends
on the situation, however the quote from the Guardian seems more
blanket --
"objection" is NEVER permissible, period, it's always "antisocial" and
"wrong".
Yet in this case you seem to be implying the situation has an effect
and in
a *different* situation such as a case where the "society" is instead
hellbent
on agressing the world and taking everything over in a ruthless
imperial campaign,
objection might be okay, however the quote from the Guardian seems to
say no,
regardless of the details of the law.
So what's up here?
mike3
So does this mean that most people now since they don't know about the
messenger (Baha'u'llah) and practice Baha'i Faith, are really really
bad??? As they don't have that "divine" education?
Furthermore, how does "education" get rid of the "individual" to a
huge
degree?
t h
Faith. Gilberto (a muslim I think)
correctly brought in quotes from the Baha'i scriptures to straighten out
some of it.
If you read widely in the Baha'i scriptures on education you will see
that the teacher is to regard
the student as a mine of hidden gems (unique latent abilities). The
teacher is to instill a general
education (including religion, morals, and politeness) and to help the
student find and develop those
hidden talents. A true understanding of any religion does lead to a
great degree of true humility as
we come to understand our individual insignificance compared to the
majesty of God. That is
not the same as getting rid of the individual and becoming assimilated
into the Borg (thats a
reference to the star trek series).
Cheers,
Tom
t h
permissable
(for Baha'is) is the full passivist position. This would be the person who
objects to war in any form and for any reason or to any foirm of force or
violence on religious or spiritual grounds. The Baha'i Faith strongly
condemns the wars that have been fought throughout human history but it
also clearly affirms that societies and nations have a right to use
force to
defend themselves against attack by other nations or by individual
law-breakers. Indeed all nations are to rise up together to put down any
aggressor nation (when we have a trustworthy global procedure for
identifying such a nation).
Cheers,
Tom
mike3
> I think what the Guardian is referring to as anti-social and not
> permissable
> (for Baha'is) is the full passivist position. This would be the person
who
> objects to war in any form and for any reason or to any foirm of force or
> violence on religious or spiritual grounds. The Baha'i Faith strongly
> condemns the wars that have been fought throughout human history but it
> also clearly affirms that societies and nations have a right to use
> force to
> defend themselves against attack by other nations or by individual
> law-breakers.
So, there'd be nothing wrong with having police, and even police with
guns, for example.
However to me the quotes did not seem to be talking only about such
extreme positions.
> Indeed all nations are to rise up together to put down any
> aggressor nation (when we have a trustworthy global procedure for
> identifying such a nation).
>
(And presumably a unified global government, no?)
However, the type of war I was thinking about objection to was
aggressive war.
Also, does this mean that in doing this process, if it should be
required, they should nuke the whole place until it hums with
radioactivity and all innocent people are killed as well as the
ones that were actually doing the aggressing, and nothing is
left except a giant smoking crater? (as it makes it sound like
they should all throw everything they've got at it.)
<snip>
mike3
Thank you for the explanation.