Globalization
Varqa
society. It has brought into existence a socio-economic culture that, at the
practical level, constitutes the world in which the aspirations of the human
race will be pursued in the century now opening. No objective observer, if
he is fair-minded in his judgement, will deny that both of the two
contradictory reactions it is arousing are, in large measure, well
justified. The unification of human society, forged by the fires of the
twentieth century, is a reality that with every passing day opens
breathtaking new possibilities. A reality also being forced on serious minds
everywhere, is the claim of justice to be the one means capable of
harnessing these great potentialities to the advancement of civilization. It
no longer requires the gift of prophecy to realize that the fate of humanity
in the century now opening will be determined by the relationship 135
established between these two fundamental forces of the historical process,
the inseparable principles of unity and justice.
(Commissioned by The Universal House of Justice, Century of Light)
http://bahai-library.org/published.uhj/century.light/
QisQos
> Globalization itself is an intrinsic feature of the evolution of human
> society. It has brought into existence a socio-economic culture that, at the
> practical level, constitutes the world in which the aspirations of the human
> race will be pursued in the century now opening.
>
> http://bahai-library.org/published.uhj/century.light/
The assumption that human society "evolves" is based on secular
humanism and logical positivism - two principles which appear to be
driving the Bahai faith. However, does it necessarily follow that
centralization of authority, regimentation of social structures and
"globalization" represent a step towards "better things" for humanity,
they may just as much portend its degeneracy.
Is globalism a more "evolved" form of government? Is democracy the
cherished ideal? Plato would argue that this is not the case in his
"Republic". And furthermore is democracy the stated plan of the
bahaist movement as elucidated by Shoghi Effendi?
Centrally planned governmants have by and large been failures, and the
bahaist method of governance using the Shoghist model seems to echo
the failed formulations which characterized big government in the 20th
century. Each and every centrally planned economy has failed. At the
basis of this failure has been their destruction of the family as the
social unit, and the degradation of motherhood as a vocation necessary
to the sustenance of human society. Families, not individuals are the
fundamental social unit of importance in any societal structure.
The United States moved away from the central planning models of the
Roosevelt "New Deal". German National Socialism, Stalinism and Maoism
failed as well. Bahaism is stuck in a 20th century model of central
planning which echoes itself in UHJ terminology, "5 year plans" and
the like. This type of thinking, promoted by the Effendists even today
shows just how fossilized bahai thinking has become.
For example, one premise is that the move towards nation states was an
evolution of human society, in fact it is not so. If we use social
order as the criterion for advanced civilization, empire is a more
stable and organized social structure. Through empire, cultural,
linguistic and societal differences can be overcome to promote the
common weal. When empires were overturned in the chaos that marked the
early modern period, nationalistic interests prevailed to disturb the
peace of Europe and elsewhere. The idea of one world government
which is touted as social evolution actually existed in the form of
Empire in the past.
To claim that now, international bodies like the UN or League of
Nations represent a step forward is a fallacy. In fact these attempts
at federation are merely attempts to restore empire without an
emperor. This is hardly an evolutionary leap, and are merely steps
towards empire just as the Roman senate was a prelude to Caesar.
Looking at the idea of the Shoghist guardianship - it is little more
than the Caesaro-Papism of the Byzantine Empire using a non-christian
foundation of faith based autocracy. Again, this is not an
evolutionary leap but simply an attempt to dress up an old model in a
new garment.
To claim that modern federations represent an evolutionary leap in
governance is incorrect, federations have been tried and have failed
before. the initial federation of States which we call the USA was
overturned by Abraham Lincoln and the War of Secession in which the
autonomy of independent states was replaced by a centralized
government which has periodocally been the place of dictators
(Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, possibly Bush II) ever since. Two hundred years
is a drop of spittle in the river of social history and our American
experiment is not doing so well (nor is the bahaist cause for that
matter). Other attempts at democracy and federation fared worse -
witness the idealism of the French revolution, the Mexican revolution,
the dreams of pan-arabism, clearly federations and democracies fail
more often than not because they are inherently less stable forms of
governance and must necessarily be brought about by the destruction of
older more stable orders.
Human civilization has not been on an evolutionary trajectory, but
rather has suffered periods of high social organization and high
levels of chaos - with the latter state being the more usual state of
affairs.
Technological prowess is not necessarily a sign of forward evolution
since of course civilization has always succeeded at developing the
tools which drove its foundation, and quite often invented the tools
which were its undoing and resulted in the actual loss of knowledge
and technology.
For example, the Roman development of concrete advanced the great
building prowess of the empire, the use of which afterwards was
forgotten or fell into disuse until very recently. Our modern ability
to rapidly build great cities and infrastructure is dependent upon an
invention that was first used to build an empire. Gothic cathedral
building required a high degree of social organization and technical
ability - to classify the medieval period as "the dark ages" is quite
a misnomer, and moderns would be hard pressed to build something of
comparable complexity and enduring beauty today.
The pyramids of Egypt - again their construction required great social
organization and who could build something of comparable size, quality
and durability today - or afford to?
The very idea central to the Bahai faith that human society is
evolving towards some perfect ideal is in essence freemasonic and
prehaps the bahais and freemasons owe their ideology to a common
source, Abdul Baha calls them the Illuminati in one of his talks.
Bahai also shares in the concept of deism with the central tenets of
freemasonry - that God is unknowable and on occasion inspires
leadership in a man to promote the advancement of civilization towards
a divine goal, a common theme shared between the two.
The belief that God is somehow steering humanity towards a divine
civilization is pure freemasonry - nor is this idea substantiated by a
realistic look at history. More often than not brief periods of order
are overturned by longer periods of degeneracy - a period which
appears to be knock ing at the door of the world today regardless of
Bahaullah's dreams of a world of peace, unity and 19 day feasts.
Qis
Pat Kohli
QisQos wrote:
> "Varqa" <varqa...@address.com> wrote in message news:<jzmPa.63228$Mc4.8...@news0.telusplanet.net>...
> > Globalization itself is an intrinsic feature of the evolution of human
> > society. It has brought into existence a socio-economic culture that, at the
> > practical level, constitutes the world in which the aspirations of the human
> > race will be pursued in the century now opening.
> >
> > (Commissioned by The Universal House of Justice, Century of Light)
> > http://bahai-library.org/published.uhj/century.light/
>
> The assumption that human society "evolves" is based on secular
That human society evolves is not an assumption, but an observation. The word 'evolution' means gradual
change. That human society has gradually changed can be observed by studying history, and archeology. Over
thousands of years, the society of hunters and gathers has changed into herders, and then into farmers, and
then into trades people. This is observation, not assumption.
(snippage of unread deductions based on mistaken premise that evolution of society ia an assumption, based on
something or other)
There is a difference between fact and opinion; call it my opinion if you want.
Best wishes!
- Pat
kohli at ameritel.net
Susan Maneck
>cherished ideal? Plato would argue that this is not the case in his
>"Republic".
That's correct. He favored totalitarianism. Do you?
>Centrally planned governmants have by and large been failures,
Then why are you bringing Plato's Republic into the picture?
>
>Looking at the idea of the Shoghist guardianship - it is little more
>than the Caesaro-Papism of the Byzantine Empire
LOL, that's rather amusing given the fact he had no empire! Caesaro-Papism
refers to secular government controlling religion, not the kind of theocratic
model the Guardian had in mind as the ultimate goal.
>Two hundred years
>is a drop of spittle in the river of social history and our American
>experiment is not doing so well (nor is the bahaist cause for that
>matter). Other attempts at democracy and federation fared worse -
So I take it you would like to go back to monarchy?
>Gothic cathedral
>building required a high degree of social organization and technical
>ability - to classify the medieval period as "the dark ages" is quite
>a misnomer,
The "Dark Ages" does not refer to the High Middle Ages which is when the Gothic
Cathedrals were built, it refers to the period between the 5th and 10th
centuries.
Susan Maneck
>basis of this failure has been their destruction of the family as the
>social unit, and the degradation of motherhood as a vocation necessary
>to the sustenance of human society. Families, not individuals are the
>fundamental social unit of importance in any societal structure.
Hmm. I suppose Christianity should be accused of doing the same thing? As was
mentioned in the thread with Eric Stetson, not much encouragement was given to
families:
"I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is
concerned about the Lord's affairs -- how he can please the Lord. But
a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world -- how he
can please his wife..." (1 Corinthians 7:32-33)
And then of course, we have these:
Matthew 10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and
the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in
law.
36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
Luke 12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay;
but rather division:
52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against
two, and two against three.
53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the
father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother;
the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against
her mother in law.
Stronger still
Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and
wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he
cannot be my disciple.
Varqa
1Cor7:32 was designed to abolish the Jewish law of divorce which was rampant
among the nations, which allowed a man to give his wife out of the door
giving her a piece of paper indicating the reason of his decision.
Jesus in order to make it firm in the minds of His followers to abandon
divorce for simple reasons, told them not to divorce their wives. But to
make the law flexible as well as firm, He added that in worse case when
divorce becomes inevitable then He advised the believer not to marry again
but rather to spend his rest of life in serving his Lord.
Other verses of Bible regarding dividing families also in its own context is
references to those who come to believe in the new Manifestation of God, and
through this action the divine principle of "separation and distinction"
takes place and believer from non-believer would be separated and become
distinct. Such "separation and distinction" even can ake place in one family
if some members are weak in the Covenant. The same thing even takes place in
the very family of each Manifestation as we can see in the history of lives
of Manifestations of God.
"Susan Maneck " <sma...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030712132034...@mb-m23.aol.com...
Susan Maneck
>among the nations, which allowed a man to give his wife out of the door
>giving her a piece of paper indicating the reason of his decision.
>
>Jesus in order to make it firm in the minds of His followers to abandon
>divorce for simple reasons, told them not to divorce their wives. But to
>make the law flexible as well as firm, He added that in worse case when
>divorce becomes inevitable then He advised the believer not to marry again
>but rather to spend his rest of life in serving his Lord.
Dear Varqa,
You are conflating something Jesus said with what Paul said much later. Paul,
not Jesus wrote Corinthians. Jesus abolished divorce and Paul recommended
celibacy. This celibacy was being recommended to single people, not divorcees.
Paul clearly saw marriage as a second best choice saying "It's better to marry
than to burn" for those who could not maintain their celibacy.
>
>Other verses of Bible regarding dividing families also in its own context is
>references to those who come to believe in the new Manifestation of God, and
>through this action the divine principle of "separation and distinction"
Yes, that is the context for those passages. The fact remains that early
Christianity was none to keen on family life.
warmest, Susan
Gaza Yaza
> Dear Varqa,
>
> You are conflating something Jesus said with what Paul said much later. Paul,
> not Jesus wrote Corinthians. Jesus abolished divorce and Paul recommended
> celibacy. This celibacy was being recommended to single people, not divorcees.
> Paul clearly saw marriage as a second best choice saying "It's better to marry
> than to burn" for those who could not maintain their celibacy.
Souless sex brings self hatred.
GazaYaza
QisQos
> >Looking at the idea of the Shoghist guardianship - it is little more
> >than the Caesaro-Papism of the Byzantine Empire
>
> LOL, that's rather amusing given the fact he had no empire! Caesaro-Papism
> refers to secular government controlling religion, not the kind of theocratic
> model the Guardian had in mind as the ultimate goal.
>
The distinction is really semantic between the secular-religious of
the Byzantine Emperor and that "divine civilization" envisioned by the
Shoghist model, Dr. Maneck.
One could argue that Shoghist bahaism is the ultimate secularization
of the religious impulse: the purpose of religion is to foster
societal evolution - the ever advancing civilization according to the
Bahai model, correct?
Well, this humanistic rationale coupled with the deism of the Bahais
is essentially a secular, not a theocratic governance.
Again, this distinction you may consider to be entirely semantic,
however, among those who are inclined to a more involved God, in the
person of Jesus Christ who was sacrificed for the redemption of
humanity, such people would not see how the Shoghist model is anything
other than secular humanism cloaked in Voltaire's deism.
<>
> So I take it you would like to go back to monarchy?
>
And what pray tell is the harm in monarchy if the King is holy and
just and the culture civilized? Does not your own Bahaullah speak to
the effect that the Monarch is the "Shadow of God on earth?" Why then
are Bahais such rabid republicanists and parliamentarians? Could it be
that the Shoghist model has more in common with the ideals of the
French revolution and Jacobinism than it does his Ancestor? Would it
not have benefitted the early Bahais to serve the cause of Sultan,
"The Shadow of God on Earth" rather than to be seditious partisans of
the freemasonic Young Turks?
So taken up with the 19th century spirit of revolution that the Babi -
Bahais lost both the war and the battle?
So now, the model of Assemblies from Haifa to Peoria and all inbetween
-are these any different than Bolshevik Politburo? Absent Guardian,
just committees ensuring party loyalty and political orthodoxy - only
lacking the gunbarrel to enforce rigorous adherence?
Of course the resemblance of the Bahai system to New World Order
conspiracy theories is not lost on many and hence the quick
equivalence made in the minds of those prone to make such judgements.
<>
> The "Dark Ages" does not refer to the High Middle Ages which is when the Gothic
> Cathedrals were built, it refers to the period between the 5th and 10th
> centuries.
>
Of course Professor, however the tendency among the educated and
uneducated is to refer to the period from 450-1492 as "The Dark Ages"
and it is this tendency I was addressing. Your clarification is
welcome, and it is hoped that your fellows would learn from your
elucidation on this matter. One wonders if the so called "dark ages"
were really only peculiar to Brittania, Gaul and Lombardy, since it
would seem the Byzant did not suffer the same affliction. I presume
the appelation "dark ages" arises from British historianship and their
tendency to color anything Catholic with the same tar-brush as they
would Africa "the Dark Continent": wholly unBritish and wholly unholy
therefore.
Susan Maneck
>of the religious impulse: the purpose of religion is to foster
>societal evolution - the ever advancing civilization according to the
>Bahai model, correct?
That phrase may be a bit misleading. I presume you are referring to the
following passage:
All men have been created to carry forward an ever-advancing civilization. The
Almighty beareth Me witness: To act like the beasts of the field is unworthy of
man. Those virtues that befit his dignity are forbearance, mercy, compassion
and loving-kindness towards all the peoples and kindreds of the earth.
(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 214)
The term translated as " created
to carry forward an ever-advancing civilization" is created to carry forward an
ever-advancing civilization is "asalih alam khalq shod'" The term "asalih alam"
also appears in a passage in Gleanings which immediately follows this one but
here it is translated as "the reformation of the age."
The most literal translation of *asalih alam* would probably the 'reparation of
the world." In other words, it is not really a humanistic sentiment at all. As
far as Deism goes, Baha'is are in no way Deists. If God were not intimately
involved in the world there would be no Manifestation or Revelation. I can't
think of anything less 'deistic' than what the House wrote me in its critique
of certain forms of academic study of religion:
" related paradigm for the study of religion has gradually consolidated itself
in the prevailing academic culture during the course of the present century. It
insists that all spiritual and moral phenomena must be understood through the
application of a scholarly apparatus devised to explore existence in a way that
ignores the issues of God's continuous relationship with His creation and His
intervention in human life and history. Yet, from a Baha'i point of view, it is
precisely this intervention that is the central theme of the Teachings of the
Founders of the revealed religions ostensibly being studied." July 20, 1997.
> One wonders if the so called "dark ages"
>were really only peculiar to Brittania, Gaul and Lombardy, since it
>would seem the Byzant did not suffer the same affliction.
The Dark Ages marks a constriction of the civilized zone which stretched across
Afro-Eurasian. Civilization in the very center like the Byzantine were less
effected, though it too suffered extensive deurbanization. But areas like
Western Europe who were really only on the very fringes of civilization to
begin were really left out in the cold. It was the rise of the Tang Dynasty in
China and the Abbassid Empire in the Islamic world that brought an end to this
recession.
warmest, Susan