Baha'i position on Firearms
rayb...@gmail.com
One of the amendments that I cherish dearly in the United States
constitution is the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms'. I
believe that it is important for an individual to at least have the
option to own a firearm for self-defense purposes. Especially since
crime proliferates during times of economic upheaval (as we are
currently experiencing here in America). What is the Baha'i position
on owning and carrying firearms? I happened to run across one letter
from the Universal House of Justice that touched upon this very
subject, but it doesn't really give that much information, and I am
assuming that it is not an official pronouncement but more of a
suggestion. http://bahai-library.com/file.php?fileuhj_guidance_self_defe
nse
Here's one small excerpt:
"We have, however, advised the National Spiritual Assembly of the
United States that under the present circumstances in that country it
is preferable that Bahá'ís do not buy nor own arms for their
protection or the protection of their families."
Why would the UHJ advise against carrying firearms? Wouldn't an issue
like this be under the purview of one's conscience (or, perhaps, under
the purview of the law of the land)? And I can't figure it out why it
preferable not to have firearms for protection during times of social
and economic difficulty. Does anyone have thoughts on this issue?
Thanks.
Douglas McAdam
I have never understood the whole idea of defense in the first place.
We are told in religion that the next world is preferable to this
one. We come into this world with the purpose of acquiring the needed
virtues that will go forward to the next world. There is no death
after life, meaning that it is only our bodies that return to the
earth to be recycled for the soul goes forward throughout eternity and
infinitude. So why the fear of death then? Why do we need firearms
or weapons to protect ourselves when in reality we are going to a
better place anyways? So based on my reading of the various Writings
concerning the wonderful transition we make to go forward I have never
understood why we fear death so much that we have to arm ourselves.
Isn't there a quote about how we should not defend ourselves but we
should defend our friends? That did not make sense to me either but
when I encounter things that don't make sense I am reminded of
something an old teacher told me that the reason we are confused is
because we are not yet deep enough in understanding the Writings and
as we become more spiritually developed we will end these confusions.
regards,
doug
rayb...@gmail.com
I appreciate yours views on this subject, and I actually agree with
much of what you wrote. Since this life is so utterly fleeting, it
doesn't make since to get caught up in materialism, worldliness,
covetousness, power struggles, etc. And like you say, there is no
reason to fear death since our souls live on after this life. But that
doesn't mean I don’t find this life miraculous enough to take simple
measures to preserve the time that I do have. There is an old Arab
that goes something like "tie up your camel and trust in God."
In the letter, he UHJ point out that Abdul-Baha and Shoghi Effedi
taught that self-defense is permissible and the right thing to do. But
apparently that doesn't involve firearms. The UHJ advises that it is
not preferable for Baha'is to own and buy firearms. Like I said in my
first posting, the letter doesn't shed too much light on the subject.
And it sounds like more of a recommendation or suggestion rather than
an ex cathedra pronouncement. And, of course, context does play a role
when it states "under the present circumstances" before saying that
Baha'is should not own or buy guns. But, still, it's like saying, "at
the present time, it is not preferable for Baha'is to exercise freedom
of speech." I view the second amendment as a fundamental human right
that shall not be infringed. Here's the full letter:
Guidance on Self-Defense
by Universal House of Justice
Compiled by Geoffrey W. Marks.
Published in Messages from the Universal House of Justice: 1963-1986,
The Third Epoch of the Formative Age page 148
Wilmette, IL: Bahá'í Publishing Trust, 1996
1969-05-26
The National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of Canada
Dear Bahá'í Friends,
We have reviewed your letter of April 11th, asking about the
teachings of the Faith on self-defense and any guidance on individual
conduct in the face of increasing civil disorder in North American
cities.
From the texts you already have available it is clear that
Bahá'u'lláh has stated that it is preferable to be killed in the path
of God's service than to kill, and that organized religious attack
against Bahá'ís should never turn into any kind of warfare, as this is
strictly prohibited in our Writings.
A hitherto untranslated Tablet from 'Abdu'l-Bahá, however, points
out that in the case of attack by robbers and highwaymen, a Bahá'í
should not surrender himself, but should try, as far as circumstances
permit, to defend himself, and later on lodge a complaint with the
government authorities. In a letter written on behalf of the Guardian,
he also indicates that in an emergency when there is no legal force at
hand to appeal to, a Bahá'í is justified in defending his life. In
another letter the Guardian has further point out that the assault of
an irresponsible assailant upon a Bahá'í should be resisted by the
Bahá'í, who would be justified, under such circumstances, in
protecting his life.
The House of Justice does not wish at the present time to go beyond
the guidelines given in the above-mentioned statements. The question
is basically a matter of conscience, and in each case the Bahá'í
involved must use his judgment in determining when to stop in self-
defense lest his action deteriorate into retaliation.
Of course the above principles apply also in cases when a Bahá'í
finds himself involved in situations of civil disorder. We have,
however, advised the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States
that under the present circumstances in that country it is preferable
that Bahá'ís do not buy nor own arms for their protection or the
protection of their families.
With loving Bahá'í greetings,
THE UNIVERSAL HOUSE OF JUSTICE
rayb...@gmail.com
finds himself involved in situations of civil disorder. We have,
however, advised the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States
that under the present circumstances in that country it is preferable
that Bahá'ís do not buy nor own arms for their protection or the
protection of their families.
With loving Bahá'í greetings,
Suzanne
> Greetings,
>
> One of the amendments that I cherish dearly in the United States
> constitution is the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms'. I
> believe that it is important for an individual to at least have the
> option to own a firearm for self-defense purposes.
I have never understood why people need to be able to kill other
people in self defense. There are other means of defending onself
which can incapacitate a person instantly, but temporarily. These can
be improved upon and made more widely available. Why should people
have the right to end the earthly life of human souls?
Best wishes,
Suzanne
carl...@cableone.net
for
> as a fundamental human right that shall not be infringed.
In this statement you reference the United States Constitution’s
Bill of Rights (specifically its First and Second Amendments) as
though it is a sacred document that has infallible moral authority to
the degree that if the Universal House of Justice offers guidance that
varies even a hair's breath from it then that guidance should be
rejected as an infringement on fundamental human rights. Let's not
forget that the Bill of Rights was written by men and is only as
infallible as the men were who wrote it.
Not only does the Universal House of Justice's discouragement of
gun ownership conflict with the blanket license of gun ownership
expressed in the Bill of Rights, the "freedom of speech" allowed in
the Bahá’í Writings is also not as broad as the Bill of Rights would
allow. For instance, there a number of speech forms that are actually
forbidden in the Bahá’í Writings—speech forms which the US Bill of
Rights would allow. A few examples are backbiting, excessive
criticism, lying, public decent from Assembly decisions. The Writings
of the Bahá’í Faith do not simply say that it would be "preferable"
that Bahá’ís not engage in such speech. Such speech is categorically
forbidden within the Bahá’í Community!
That having been said both living in the United States and being
a member of the Bahá’í Community are voluntary acts. If one were to
find the secular laws under which one lives to be excessively
oppressive one could chose to move to a different country. At the
same time, if one finds Bahá’í Law to be excessively restrictive one
could chose not to become a member of the Bahá’í Community. Choosing
to obey Bahá’í Law is an act of complete freedom for a Bahá’í.
And so
Bahá’u’lláh wrote, ‘Say: True liberty consisteth in man's submiss
ion
unto My commandments, little as ye know it. Were men to observe that
which We have sent down unto them from the Heaven of Revelation, they
would, of a certainty, attain unto perfect liberty.” Gleanings
Carl Brehmer
ratu...@yahoo.co.uk
>
> One of the amendments that I cherish dearly in the United States
> constitution is the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms'
Dear Raybach,
In common I'm afraid with much of the rest of the world, I've never
been able to understand this American obsession with gun ownership. A
constitutional right to bear arms? What a very odd concept! It might
make a certain sense in a frontier culture, but has little meaning
when you are trying to build a settled community and society.
Baha'i teachings frankly say very little on the subject, and that's
probably wise. The Babi religion was very violent in many ways, rising
up in a revolution against the Shah and the Shi'ite establishment.
Just read the accounts of the Fort of Shaykh Tabarsi to understand the
environment the Baha'i Faith was born into. When Baha'u'llah declared
his mission and started to change Babi teachings, he went the other
way - stressing utmost obedience and loyalty to the recognised
government, non involvement in politics and advocating a form of
pacifism and world peace.
In the Kitab i Aqdas, para 159, Baha'u'llah writes:
"It hath been forbidden you to carry arms unless essential"
Note 173 elaborates using quotes from Abdul-Baha and Shoghi Effendi
saying it may be essential "for self protection in a dangerous
environment".
I personally read that to mean you would only be justified in carrying
weapons in wholly exceptional circumstances.
Regards,
Andrew
mike3
> Dear friend-
> I have never understood the whole idea of defense in the first place.
>
> We are told in religion that the next world is preferable to this
> one. We come into this world with the purpose of acquiring the needed
>
> virtues that will go forward to the next world. There is no death
> after life, meaning that it is only our bodies that return to the
> earth to be recycled for the soul goes forward throughout eternity and
>
> infinitude. So why the fear of death then? Why do we need firearms
> or weapons to protect ourselves when in reality we are going to a
> better place anyways?
Obviously this life has some sort of importance otherwise there would
be
no laws against murder, suicide, etc.
> So based on my reading of the various Writings
>
> concerning the wonderful transition we make to go forward I have never
>
> understood why we fear death so much that we have to arm ourselves.
> Isn't there a quote about how we should not defend ourselves but we
> should defend our friends? That did not make sense to me either but
>
> when I encounter things that don't make sense I am reminded of
> something an old teacher told me that the reason we are confused is
> because we are not yet deep enough in understanding the Writings and
> as we become more spiritually developed we will end these confusions.
>
To me, though, it is not confusing at all. But I guess some people may
find it so.
<snip>
mike3
> I have never understood the whole idea of defense in the first place.
>
> We are told in religion that the next world is preferable to this
> one. We come into this world with the purpose of acquiring the needed
>
> virtues that will go forward to the next world. There is no death
> after life, meaning that it is only our bodies that return to the
> earth to be recycled for the soul goes forward throughout eternity and
>
> infinitude. So why the fear of death then? Why do we need firearms
> or weapons to protect ourselves when in reality we are going to a
> better place anyways?
Obviously this life has some sort of importance otherwise there would
be
no laws against murder, suicide, etc.
> So based on my reading of the various Writings
>
> concerning the wonderful transition we make to go forward I have never
>
> understood why we fear death so much that we have to arm ourselves.
> Isn't there a quote about how we should not defend ourselves but we
> should defend our friends? That did not make sense to me either but
>
> when I encounter things that don't make sense I am reminded of
> something an old teacher told me that the reason we are confused is
> because we are not yet deep enough in understanding the Writings and
> as we become more spiritually developed we will end these confusions.
>
To me, though, it is not confusing at all. But I guess some people may
find it so.
<snip>
mike3
wrote:
> On Jan 9, 7:57 am, rayba...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Greetings,
>
> > One of the amendments that I cherish dearly in the United States
> > constitution is the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms'
>
> Dear Raybach,
>
> In common I'm afraid with much of the rest of the world, I've never
> been able to understand this American obsession with gun ownership. A
> constitutional right to bear arms? What a very odd concept! It might
> make a certain sense in a frontier culture, but has little meaning
> when you are trying to build a settled community and society.
>
This might be interesting for you to read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu
tion#Background
And maybe also read the cited sources too.
I'm not sure if I'd be "obsessed" with guns either, even though I'm an
American.
I don't have any, by the way. Although I don't think getting rid of
guns would
get rid of violence, either, because the root causes of violence are
deeper.
> Baha'i teachings frankly say very little on the subject, and that's
> probably wise. The Babi religion was very violent in many ways, rising
> up in a revolution against the Shah and the Shi'ite establishment.
> Just read the accounts of the Fort of Shaykh Tabarsi to understand the
> environment the Baha'i Faith was born into. When Baha'u'llah declared
> his mission and started to change Babi teachings, he went the other
> way - stressing utmost obedience and loyalty to the recognised
> government, non involvement in politics and advocating a form of
> pacifism and world peace.
>
> In the Kitab i Aqdas, para 159, Baha'u'llah writes:
>
> "It hath been forbidden you to carry arms unless essential"
>
> Note 173 elaborates using quotes from Abdul-Baha and Shoghi Effendi
> saying it may be essential "for self protection in a dangerous
> environment".
>
> I personally read that to mean you would only be justified in carrying
> weapons in wholly exceptional circumstances.
>
Well I suppose that it would not be really necessary to carry an arm
in a peaceful town, that's for sure. I'd also suppose that if one has
a job
such as being a police officer where the carrying of weapons is a
requirement
and not an option, then it would be permitted. But I guess that's what
you'd
mean by "wholly exceptional circumstances", right?
Brent Poirier
The guidance of the House is an official pronouncement, and it is
intentionally in the form of a recommendation. If it's a
recommendation, that's what it is, not a prohibition. The House of
Justice knows the difference. The guidance of the House of Justice is
based first of all on what Baha'u'llah says in the Most Holy Book, and
this guidance is found in Note 173 to the Most Holy Book. The House
first quotes the verse in the Aqdas from Baha'u'llah in Paragraph 159
of the Aqdas, "It hath been forbidden you to carry arms unless
essential." The guidance prepared under the guidance of the House
then states, "Bahá'u'lláh confirms an injunction contained in the
Bayan which makes it unlawful to carry arms, unless it is necessary to
do so. With regard to circumstances under which the bearing of arms
might be "essential" for an individual, Abdu'l-Bahá gives permission
to a believer for self-protection in a dangerous environment. Shoghi
Effendi in a letter written on his behalf has also indicated that, in
an emergency, when there is no legal force at hand to appeal to, a
Bahá'í is justified in defending his life."
The thing is the phrases "dangerous environment" and "emergency" and
whether "there is no legal force at hand to appeal to", and also your
term, that the Second Amendment is a "fundamental human right that
shall not be infringed." If I understand you correctly, when people
say that arms aren't necessary because we have the police to protect
us and we live in a peaceful and ordered society, people who feel the
need to bear arms do not agree. They feel that we live in a very
dangerous world, and that the police are either ineffectual, or there
aren't enough officers to go around, or they can't get to your home in
time if an armed criminal confronts you -- so, we are all "in a
dangerous environment".
And I would just offer a few observations. First of all, I would
observe the conduct of the Universal House of Justice in the Holy
Land. It's a pretty dangerous place. The Faith has no shortage of
enemies, and they can easily gain access to the gardens and Shrines.
We have a good system of volunteer guards, and a good communication
system for notifying the police authorities if the need arises. But
the Baha'i Holy Places are not an armed camp. But, they are well-
protected, in a perilous world. There are less obvious means of
protection, and the House has arranged for world-class security. The
House of Justice is a group of sensible men, above and beyond being
divinely guided.
Another thing I would observe is the absolute terms in which you have
presented, and apparently hold, your view -- that the Second Amendment
is an absolute, and it shall not be abridged or compromised. And I
would suggest a careful, prayerful study of the Divine Writings. Not
those bearing on this subject -- just, the Writings of Baha'u'llah, on
*any* subject. For example, at the very beginning of the Book of
Certitude Baha'u'llah writes of how to approach the Manifestations of
God:
"... they that tread the path of faith, they that thirst for the wine
of certitude, must cleanse themselves of all that is earthly -- their
ears from idle talk, their minds from vain imaginings, their hearts
from worldly affections, their eyes from that which perisheth. They
should put their trust in God, and, holding fast unto Him, follow in
His way. Then will they be made worthy of the effulgent glories of the
sun of divine knowledge and understanding, and become the recipients
of a grace that is infinite and unseen" Then a few pages later He
refers to those who have "sanctified their eyes, their ears, and their
hearts from whatever they had seen, heard, and felt." (The Kitab-i-
Iqan, pp. 3 & 14)
I suggest that what He is saying is to be willing to set aside
everything we think we know; everything we are convinced of; and to
turn solely to Baha'u'llah's Writings as the standard of truth. This
is not easy -- to defy the mind, to defy all evidence, and to turn
solely to the House of Justice, on the strength of the guidance of
Abdu'l-Baha that it is the source of all good, and freed from all
error.
But really, I personally think that when a person finds something the
House of Justice has written, with which, to a greater or lesser
degree, he disagrees; this is a great spiritual opportunity. This is
a tool, a vehicle for spiritual growth, a gift from above.
Shoghi Effendi wrote of a great divine principle when he said, through
his secretary, "The Guardian particularly appreciates the fact that
you have been faithfully observing Bahá'u'lláh's injunction regarding
the recital of the daily obligatory prayers, and have thereby set such
a high example before your Bahá'í fellow-youth. These daily prayers
have been endowed with a special potency which only those who
regularly recite them can adequately appreciate." (Compilation on the
Baha'i Life).
Shoghi Effendi is here stating a divine principle -- that the only
people who truly understand the reason for a law and the potency of a
law, are those who obey it. The gifts come from carrying out the
divine injunction. And this is a test, a scientifically provable
test, that we can run in our own lives: We can carry out the divine
guidance in order to prove that it is divine guidance. And I have
found that when I disagree with something the House has stated --
that's a terrific opportunity to grow. Because my faith tells me --
Baha'u'llah and the Master tell me -- that what the House of Justice
writes is correct. But in that instance, my own experience, or my
thoughts, or my professional training -- something else tells me that
another view is correct. And I have found that truth takes guts. It
takes inner courage to place my heart and beliefs on the chopping
block, to test the truth of the divine guidance, in an area that
really matters to me. I don't want some wishy-washy faith, some namby-
pamby belief system. I want truth. I want something that will hold
water, and will change a profoundly wicked and cruel world. So, this
is a perfect opportunity, and so I follow the divine guidance that I
don't quite believe in or trust. And as Shoghi Effendi has written,
"only those who" obey the guidance "can adequately appreciate" it.
Testing truth requires putting the guidance into practice. It can't be
done from the armchair. The intellect can only take us so far. If we
want real truth, truth you can live by, that will get you through the
hard times, truth that you can use, truth that you have absolute
confidence will change this darkened world, then we have to confront
our own perceptions, our own convictions. We have to have the courage
to see if Baha'u'llah knows what He's talking about. And I have
found, these are priceless opportunities.
Brent
rjenk...@gmail.com
wrote:
> On Jan 9, 7:57 am, rayba...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Greetings,
>
> > One of the amendments that I cherish dearly in the United States
> > constitution is the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms'
>
> Dear Raybach,
>
> In common I'm afraid with much of the rest of the world, I've never
> been able to understand this American obsession with gun ownership. A
> constitutional right to bear arms? What a very odd concept! It might
> make a certain sense in a frontier culture, but has little meaning
> when you are trying to build a settled community and society.
This is a simple concept: The founders (Jefferson et al) wanted to
ensure that the government did not have a monopoly on force.
Christian Gruber
If that is the ultimate purpose of the clause, then, since Baha'is are
duty-bound by religious law to be obedient to the Government in the
land in which they abide, there should be no thought of counter-force
to the government. I think this is actually one of those places where
the core of Baha'i teachings is at odds with the underlying premises
of the American revolution and the founding documents that it
birthed. The ability of a people to overthrow a tyranny by force of
arms and replace it, if it does not serve the needs of the people is
self-evident to the American founding fathers, but it doesn't seem
quite as obvious to Baha'u'llah, who prescribed an alternative
approach of loyalty and consultation - the war of words and ideas, so
to speak.
The other question is that, until the most recent Supreme Court
decision affirmed the individual application of this clause, it is
written in a way that makes it seem much more like the right of of the
people to bear arms is in the context of state militias, which provide
a buffer against federal power. In fact, in all of American history,
this amendment has only been tested once at the supreme court level
(that's over 200 years) and it just this year was found to support the
individual carry concept. This means for 200 years it was ambiguous
what the framers of the American constitution meant. That's not a
strong basis. I could see a future court overturning it depending on
how the winds blew.
Anyway, it's irrelevant to me. My nation (Canada) does not carry such
a clear right in its constitution, but we still have more guns per
capita than the USA, though we also have less murder-by-gun per
capita, and a vastly smaller incarcerated population. I'm not clear
that guns are necessarily causal vis-a-vis violent crime - but I think
they make the consequences of such crime more critical.
As for myself, I know how to shoot, do not own a firearm, but study
Aikido to keep myself able to protect the innocent if I should be
obliged to do so. Pray God I should never be required to use that
knowledge. If faced with a gun-toting robber, however, I would very
likely hand over my goods, on a statistical argument. If I am no
threat, odds are better that I'll come out with less damage. If I
think I have less change of surviving if I do not confront, THEN I
will act, but only then. After all, `Abdu'l-Baha did say we could
defend ourselves from "Highwaymen". If I can pay him to go away, I'll
do that and file a report. If not, I'll attempt to disarm and disable
him.
cheers,
Christian.