Review of Sen's article on theocracy
Susan Maneck
Sen McGlinn's article "Theocratic Assumptions in Baha'i Literature" argues
that, contrary to the belief commonly held by Baha'is and reflected in
secondary literature to the effect that our Teachings support the eventual
establishment of a theocratic government, a close examination of the
scriptures would lend support for the Western notion of a separation of
church and state. The article singles out for criticism the writings of
certain Baha'i authors such as John Hatcher and Loni Bramson but for the
most part Mr. McGlinn sets up what he himself calls a 'straw man' to argue
the normative theocratic position which he then proceeds to critique.
In McGlinn's survey of the Baha'i scriptures he includes the Writings of
Baha'u'llah such as the passages wherein He makes the distinction between
the spiritual and worldly sovereignty and enjoins obedience to government
yet he leaves out key passages wherein Baha'u'llah states that the "All
matters of State should be referred to the House of Justice."1
McGlinn's discussion of 'Abdu'l-Baha's Writings focuses on the Risaliy-i
Siyasiyyah, The Secret of Divine Civilization and A Traveler's Narrative,
texts where 'Abdu'l-Baha decries 'ulama interference in matters of state
as evidence that 'Abdu'l-Baha supported the separation of church and state.
He omits in Abdu'l-Baha's explicit references to the Universal House of
Justice enacting secular law [qanun] and civil law [akham-i madaniyyih.]2
In his discussion of Shoghi Effendi's writings, McGlinn begins by pointing
out the instances where the Guardian applauded the growth of secularization
in the Middle East apparently believing this had more to do with the
Guardian's supposed belief in separate spheres of religion and state rather
than because it decreased the power of a clergy which was persecuting the
Baha'i community. He also points out a key passage where the Guardian states
that Baha'is in establishing their administrative institutions have no
intention of violating the constitution of any government, much less of
taking it over.3 McGlinn goes so far as to argue that Shoghi Effendi's
selection of scriptures to translate in the years 1932-1939 were aimed at
teaching the Baha'is that their religious institutions were not never to
assume the reins of temporal government. If so it seems rather strange that
he would have had his secretaries write letters such as these:
Eventually, however, as you have rightly conceived it, the Movement will, as
soon as it is fully developed and recognized, embrace both religious and
political issues. In fact Bahá'u'lláh clearly states that affairs of state
as well as religious questions are to be referred to the House of Justice
into which the Assemblies of the Bahá'ís will eventually evolve.4
And:
The Bahá'ís will be called upon to assume the reins of government when they
will come to constitute the majority of the population in a given country,
and even then their participation in political affairs is bound to be
limited in scope unless they obtain a similar majority in some other
countries as well.5
In his treatment of The World Order of Baha'u'llah, McGlinn argues that
when Shoghi Effendi predicted the establishment of a Baha'i State he was
merely speaking of the time when the Baha'i Faith would become the state
religions much as is the case in countries such as England. It did not mean
that Baha'i Institutions would take over any of the functions of government.
McGlinn even suggests that Baha'u'llah's own praise for that government
included praise for their church/state relations. Given the fact that Baha'
u'llah only praises the British for combining kingship and consultation,
this seems highly speculative. McGlinn insists that when Shoghi Effendi used
the term Baha'i Commonwealth he meant nothing more than the Baha'i religious
community [` umma]. McGlinn points out that Edward Gibbon used the term
'Christian Commonwealth' to refer to the Christian community prior to
Constantine. There are two problems with this argument. Gibbon uses the term
only once in his mammoth work and then only to point out the ways in which
the church replicated many of the functions of government as the Roman
Empire was declining.6 Second, Shoghi Effendi never uses the term 'Baha'i
Commonwealth' to refer to the Baha'i community of the past or the present,
but only for a future state of affairs. Had it referred merely to the Baha'i
community in general he would have surely used it in those contexts.
McGlinn accounts for the prevalence of Baha'i belief in theocracy by arguing
that it is rooted in tampered version of talks given by 'Abdu'l-Baha in
Promulgation of Universal Peace and Paris Talks, texts which he insists
constitute nothing more than pilgrim's notes upon which no rigorous scholar
would rely. Yet strangely, he tries to account for the theocratic ideas of
the Western Baha'is by reference to a single set of notes from Kheiralla's
lessons. If Mr. McGlinn wishes to utilize oral reports to explain concepts
of theocracy as they appear in the Baha'i community would not it have made
more sense to examine all of the numerous pilgrim's notes derived from the
time of Shoghi Effendi most of which strongly reflect the theocratic ideas
which McGlinn rejects? On the one hand McGlinn insists that "we know what
Kheirella taught' on the basis of this single set of notes while on the
other he either ignores or discredits the numerous oral talks of both 'Abdu'
l-Baha and the Guardian! While McGlinn is correct that oral reports cannot
be used to determine Baha'i doctrine or practice, from a historical
standpoint such reports cannot be discarded either.
McGlinn strangely refers to the Guardian's writings as 'scriptural sources'
although this is not generally done in the Baha'i community, going so far as
to insert in quotation marks as passage saying that the Guardians
interpretations "become part of the sacred text and cannot be changed,"
leaving the reader with the false impression that this passage is from an
authoritative source. Yet no source whatsoever is offered for this
quotation. McGlinn omits any mention of letters written on the Guardian's
behalf as well as the elucidations given by the Universal House of Justice.
The problems associated with these omissions can be seen in his rejection of
any notion of a progressive unfoldment of the Baha'i World Order, something
he derisively refers to as "dispensationalism."7 McGlinn instead argues for
a much more frozen conception of the Baha'i Writings wherein the political
institutions mentioned in the Writings must continue to exists. Letters
written on behalf of the Guardian indicate that precisely the opposite is
the case.
"As regards the International Executive referred to by the Guardian in his
'Goal of a New World Order' it should be noted that this statement refers by
no means to the Bahá'í Commonwealth of the future, but simply to that world
government which will herald the advent and lead to the final establishment
of the World Order of Bahá'u'lláh. The formation of this International
Executive, which corresponds to the executive head or board in present-day
national governments, is but a step leading to the Bahá'í world government
of the future, and hence should not be identified with either the
institution of the Guardianship or that of the International House of
Justice."8
We also have this letter written on the Guardian's behalf which is in direct
contradiction to McGlinn's thesis that Baha'i and governmental institutions
cannot be merged:
The Universal Court of Arbitration and the International Tribunal are the
same. When the Bahá'í State will be established they will be merged in the
Universal House of Justice.9
The most serious omission of sources in this article is the April 27, 1995
letter on the subject of the separation of church and state addressed to Sen
McGlinn himself. That letter, which is several pages in length refutes the
very positions which McGlinn takes in this article and appears to support
the evolutionary approach to resolving apparent contradictions which appear
in the texts. The question then arises as to why McGlinn ignores this key
authoritative source. The most obvious reason is that he did not like this
letter very much as demonstrated by these comments he made regarding it made
on the Baha'i Studies email list:
I don't think the letter shows the House in a very good
light, and those who wish the UHJ well should allow the letter
to sink into the archives of the forgotten.10
And also:
Feel free to bring up any of the arguments and facts in that letter, as
your own, and I will as cheerfully knock them down, but let's
leave the UHJ out.11
Sen McGlinn appears to do precisely that when he presents the gist of the
House's arguments (minus the evidence and sources used to substantiate
their case) in the form of his anonymous straw-man. It would appear that
McGlinn does not regard the House of Justice's statements on this issue
authoritative. In stressing the immutability of scripture, and in confining
his sources to only those texts which are written by Baha'u'llah, 'Abdu'
l-Baha or Shoghi Effendi directly, McGlinn implies that other authoritative
sources such as letters written on behalf of the Guardian or elucidations
from the House of Justice cannot overrule it. As a statement of principle
this is true, but beside the point. The manner in which it is used in
practice in this article implies that such sources cannot be used to
overrule the author's own personal understanding of those writings. Yet it
is quite clear that the Guardian regarded it as within the purview of the
function of the Universal House of Justice to determine what is the proper
relationship between the Baha'i and political institutions:
"And as we make an effort to demonstrate that love to the world may we also
clear our minds of any lingering trace of unhappy misunderstandings that
might obscure our clear conception of the exact purpose and methods of this
new world order, so challenging and complex, yet so consummate and wise. We
are called upon by our beloved Master in His Will and Testament not only to
adopt it unreservedly, but to unveil its merit to all the world. To attempt
to estimate its full value, and grasp its exact significance after so short
a time since its inception would be premature and presumptuous on our part.
We must trust to time, and the guidance of God's Universal House of Justice,
to obtain a clearer and fuller understanding of its provisions and
implications."12
And elsewhere:
"Touching the point raised in the Secretary's letter regarding the nature
and scope of the Universal Court of Arbitration, this and other similar
matters will have to be explained and elucidated by the Universal House of
Justice, to which, according to the Master's explicit instructions, all
important and fundamental questions must be referred."13
Whatever ones personal feelings regarding the House's position on the issue
of the proper relationship between religion in state, it is clear from the
above that no discussion of the Baha'i Teachings on this matter is complete
without reference to the elucidations of the Universal House of Justice.
Having said all this, I think that in some sense the Baha'i Teachings do
call for the separation of religious and secular government. But this
distinction can only be understood if we cease to frame the question in
terms of Western debates on question of the 'separation of church and state.
' The hidden assumption in all the discussions which have taken place thus
far on his issue is that Baha'i administrative institutions are analogous to
the Christian church and that references to government in the Baha'i
writings refer to executive, legislative and judicial functions found in
Western society. I would challenge that assumption. For the most part the
Baha'i Writings were not written in a context of Western institutions of
church and state. They were written in the context of the religious and
political institutions as they existed in the Middle East, both in theory
and in practice, and in the context of changes which the Central Figures
wished to make in this arrangement. In the Islamic world the religious
sphere is not dominated by a institutional church, but rather by a class of
clerics known as the 'ulama or the learned. Law was seen as something
divinely revealed and interpreted by the 'ulama. Laws issued by rulers
themselves were considered less than legitimate. The 'ulama then, had (or
claimed) a virtual monopoly over both legislative and judicial functions,
leaving to the rulers only the executive function of government. The Central
Figures called for a separation of the 'ulama from the state, not a
Western-style separation of 'church and state.' This separation of the
functions of learned and the rulers, is something which is already
reflected in the Baha'i Administrative Order itself wherein legislative
function was given to the Houses of Justice, while the learned serve merely
in an advisory capacity. Law is still seen as ultimately divine in nature,
as in Islam, but the now the democratic process itself has been sacralized.
There remains however, a distinction
This House of Justice enacteth the laws and the government enforceth them.
The legislative body must reinforce the executive, the executive must aid
and assist the legislative body so that through the close union and harmony
of these two forces, the foundation of fairness and justice may become firm
and strong . . .14
I would argue with that this dual-partite conception of the state
organization resolves some of the apparent contradictions found in Baha'i
texts without resorting to the an evolutionary concept, which, while
undoubtedly there in some cases, do not adequately address the question as
to precisely what role Baha'i institutions are to play in the Baha'i
Commonwealth. It also can serve to relieve concerns which might arise in
connection with the idea that religious institutions might possess the
coercive power of the state. By the 'government' retaining the executive
functions, the power of coercion remains theirs, not that of specifically
Baha'i institutions.
While there may well be several possible understandings of the proper
relationship between religion and state envisioned for eventual World Order
of Baha'u'llah, anything which claims to represent the Baha'i Teachings on
this matter must take into account the full breadth of authoritative sources
and these include letters written on behalf of the Guardian and elucidations
made by the Universal House of Justice. While a historian might well
consider the writings of a specific Baha'i figure in isolation from later
pronouncements, a Baha'i theologian cannot do justice to the Teachings
without considering what all the authoritative sources have to say.
1.Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, revealed after the Kitab-i-Aqdas,
translated by Habib Taherzadeh, (Haifa, Baha'i World Centre, 1978) p. 27.
2. *Qanun *is the word used in the passage from the Will and Testament: "The
House of Justice enacteth the law and the governmet enforceth it." The
reference to the House of Justice making civil law can be found in 'Abdu'
l-Baha's Tablet on the Functioning of the Universal House of Justice which
is in Majmu'ih-yi Maka'tibi 'Abdu'l-Baha, Iranian National Baha'i Archives,
Vol. 59, pp. 275-280.
3. The passage in question states as follows:
"Theirs is not the purpose, while endeavoring to conduct and perfect the
administrative affairs of their Faith, to violate, under any circumstances,
the provisions of their country's constitution, much less to allow the
machinery of their administration to supersede the government of their
respective countries." Baha'i Administration, p. 149.
The Universal House of Justice explained this passage in their letter to Sen
McGlinn as follows:
"As for the statement made by Shoghi Effendi in his letter of 21 March 1932,
the well-established principles of the Faith concerning the relationship of
the Baha'i institutions to those of the country in which the Baha'is reside
make it unthinkable that they would ever purpose to violate a country's
constitution or so to meddle in its political machinery as to attempt to
take over the powers of government. This is an integral element of the
Baha'i principle of abstention from involvement in politics. However, this
does not by any means imply that the country itself may not, by
constitutional means, decide to adopt Baha'i laws and practices and modify
its constitution or method of government accordingly." (27 April 1995.)
4. 30 November 1930. Cited in a letter written on behalf of the Universal
House of Justice and addressed to Sen McGlinn April 27, 1995.
5.19 November 1939 Cited in this same letter from the Universal House of
Justice to Sen McGlinn.
6 . Edward Gibbon, Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, (New York: Random
House, n.d.) vol. 1, pp. 417.
7 . The term "Dispensationalism" normally refers to a classic form of
Christian Fundamentalism.
8. From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual
believer, March 17, 1934 Helen Hornby, compiler, Lights of Guidance: A Baha'
i Reference File , (New Delhi: Baha'i Publishing Trust, 1988) p. 320.
9. Letter written on behalf of the Guardian in June 17 1933. Cited in a
memorandum from the Research Department dated June 27, 1996.
10. Baha'I Studies Archives, March 21, 2002.
11. Baha'i Studies Archives, March 16, 2002.
12. Shoghi Effendi, Baha'i Administration, (Wilmette, Ill: Baha'i
Publishing Trust, 1974) p. 62.
13. Baha'i Administration, p. 47
14. Abdu'l-Baha, The Will and Testament, p. 14. This dual-partite division
of the functions of the affairs of state would seem to be supported in talks
given by 'Abdu'l-Baha as well:
"Thee centre of the executive power is the government, and the legislative
power lies in the hands of thoughtful and wise men. On the other hand, if
these strong pillars and firm foundations are not complete and
comprehensive, how can it be supposed that there will be safety and
salvation for the nation? But as, in these latter days, such excellency is
rare, the government and the whole body of the nation are in sore need of
just and discerning directions. Thus it is of the utmost importance to
establish an assembly of learned men, who, being proficient in the different
sciences and capable of dealing with all the present and future requirements
will settle the questions in accordance with forbearance and firmness.
All the civic affairs and the legislation of material laws for the
increasing needs of the enlightened humanity belong to the House of Justice.
This the House of Justice, will be not only a body for the legislation of
laws according to the spirit and requirement of the time, but a board of
arbitration for the settlement of all disputes arising between peoples. When
the Universal House of Justice is organized the members will do their utmost
for the realization of greater cordiality and comity amongst the nations.
The Laws of Bahá'u'lláh are the unchangeable, organic laws of the Universal
House of Justice. They are the very foundation upon which the structure of
additional legislation is built... Again, I repeat, the House of Justice,
whether National or Universal, has only legislative power and not executive
power...
(From words of 'Abdu'l-Bahá in: Star of the West, Vol. VII, No. 15, pp.
138-139)
Karen Bacquet
stance, aren't you? I've watched you talk with Sen, and he really gets
under your skin. Why? I've never understood why it's thought to be so
darned important that all Baha'is view what would be, in any case, the
far-distant future, the same way.
I haven't had the chance to read the article you're critiquing yet, so I
can't respond properly about the arguments Sen makes there, but I don't
understand why anti-theocratic views are held to be so threatening. Why
is it so terrible that some Baha'is don't think we ought to rule the
world? Heaven knows, by time we got to that point, if we ever do,
people's views of Baha'i governance will change substantially --
probably to something so different that neither side we have today
would expect it.
Susan Maneck
>stance, aren't you?
Dear Karen,
I'm not so much bugged by the anti-theocratic stance, Karen, as I am by the
selective use of sources. Personally I might even prefer Sen's vision. But I
won't twist the Teachings to make them match my own preferences that way.
>I've watched you talk with Sen, and he really gets
>under your skin. Why?
Mostly because it was so obvious that he was deliberately defying the Universal
House of Justice.
> I've never understood why it's thought to be so
>darned important that all Baha'is view what would be, in any case, the
>far-distant future, the same way.
As I said, that isn't the issue. The issue is whether one is preserving the
integrity of the Teachings or trying to remake them in ones own image.
>Why
>is it so terrible that some Baha'is don't think we ought to rule the
>world?
That's fine, but they still have an obligation to accurately present what the
Baha'i Teachings actually say on the issue.
Karen Bacquet
Susan Maneck wrote:
>>You're *really* bugged by the anti-theocratic
>>stance, aren't you?
>
>
> Dear Karen,
>
> I'm not so much bugged by the anti-theocratic stance, Karen, as I am by the
> selective use of sources. Personally I might even prefer Sen's vision. But I
> won't twist the Teachings to make them match my own preferences that way.
Dear Susan,
I don't believe that Baha'u'llah or 'Abdu'l-Baha' taught theocracy;
whether or not Shoghi Effendi did is a matter of debate. But Sen really
believes he didn't -- why does that necessarily mean he is "twisting"?
In fact, Sen *defends* Shoghi Effendi from people who criticize him for
being theocratic. He swooped in on me once for something critical I'd said.
Randy Burns
said "refer matters of state to the House of Justice" but at one time he
offered a role in the House of Justice to the Kings of the Earth, did he
not?
Personally I don't think Shoghi Effendi is that well understood, and he is
not given credit for his sense of humor either.
Cheers, Randy
--
Karen Bacquet <bac...@tco.net> wrote in message
news:3F0EC394...@tco.net...
Karen Bacquet
Randy Burns wrote:
> I see no evidence that Baha'u'llah taught theocracy. Baha'u'llah may have
> said "refer matters of state to the House of Justice" but at one time he
> offered a role in the House of Justice to the Kings of the Earth, did he
> not?
>
> Personally I don't think Shoghi Effendi is that well understood, and he is
> not given credit for his sense of humor either.
Dear Randy,
What I always find intesting about the theocracy debate is that the
theocrats see it as so plain and obvious that this is an essential part
of Baha'i teaching, yet the anti-theocrats are earnestly scratching
their heads trying to figure out how such a wacky idea became prevalent
in the Baha'i community!
Love, Karen
http://www.bacquet.tk
Karen Bacquet
Karen Bacquet wrote:
>
>
> Randy Burns wrote:
>
>> I see no evidence that Baha'u'llah taught theocracy. Baha'u'llah may
>> have
>> said "refer matters of state to the House of Justice" but at one time he
>> offered a role in the House of Justice to the Kings of the Earth, did he
>> not?
>>
>> Personally I don't think Shoghi Effendi is that well understood, and
>> he is
>> not given credit for his sense of humor either.
>
>
> Dear Randy,
>
> What I always find intesting about the theocracy debate is that the
> theocrats see it as so plain and obvious that this is an essential part
> of Baha'i teaching, yet the anti-theocrats are earnestly scratching
> their heads trying to figure out how such a wacky idea became prevalent
> in the Baha'i community!
Actually, I just had the thought that Baha'i institutions *can't* govern
in a Baha'i state, or one where the Faith is the state religion. Given
the emphasis Shoghi Effendi put on protecting the rights of non-Baha'is,
and even covenant-breakers, to have Baha'i institutions rule, which
non-Baha'is cannot vote for, would strip them of the most basic of civil
rights -- the right to have a voice in government. You couldn't make
that vision work unless 100% of a country was composed of BIGS. In
addition, if you have a set-up where you *must* be a Baha'i in order to
participate in the government, that is a form of religious coercion,
which the Faith also stands against. Either that, or you'd have to let
non-Baha'is vote for Baha'i institutions, which would alter the
exclusively Baha'i character of those institutions. The whole scenario
just doesn't work.
I've tried to picture what would happen if some small country became
majority-Baha'i, and tried even to even pass a law making the faith a
state religion along the lines of what they have in England and other
European countries -- and, you know, I just don't see the minority just
quietly saying "That's o.k., you're the majority, we'll let you do
that." The most you could probably get away with, without riots in the
streets, is cosmetic things like recognizing Baha'i holy days as state
holidays.
Another thing to consider is that the majority of Baha'is themselves
would have to support a theocracy. I think it's a stretch to assume
that just because you're a Baha'i, you're going to want to get rid of
secular government. They don't all do so *now*, when it's all
theoretical and not a real possibility. You'd have to have an
overwhelming majority, with few dissenters, to make that transition
without bloodshed, which presumably, theocrats want to do. It's a fantasy.
Love, Karen
http://www.bacquet.tk
Cal E. Rollins
I don't understand it either. Considering what the Guardian predicts
could happen to us when the politicians grab ahold of us (as they surely
will) I would think we'd be pushing for non-church and state
involvement. But then again we are told that persecution will move us
ahead of the list of other religions by bringing in the troops. I'm
just glad I'm retired, so I can't lose my job and be evicted from my
home and my kids hounded out of school because I preach eventual
overthrow of the governments of the world. This New World Order, One
World Government thing is not a happy issue, in America at least. I'd
clutch at any straw or straw man that says Baha'u'llah didn't say that.
But, of course, if He did say it then we've got to take our lumps and
die heroic deaths. --Cal
Cal E. Rollins
Hey, wait a minute! Didn't Baha'u'llah praise the British for getting
rid of slavery not just that other stuff? Or was that just praise of
the Queen who didn't seem to have much to do with it? --Cal
Cal E. Rollins
Have you told Sen that he is defying the House of Justice? Did the
House of Justice tell him that or are you now a member-at-large with
powers of defame and degrade? --Cal
Cal E. Rollins
Your last comment about bloodshed is prophetic in my opinion. Don't you
think we wouldn't resort to bloodshed to achieve or maintain our
God-given right to rule through ur Theocracy? Look at our bloody history
and our close ties with Israel. Bloodshed should be no problem in that
regard. In fact we're called upon to expect it. --Cal
Karen Bacquet
If you have to kill in order to achieve your religious vision, then it's
not a vision worth fighting for. Baha'u'llah says "It is better for you
to be slain than that you should slay." Maybe we should look at
alteratives, hmm? Like maybe *not* building a theocracy, but a vital
religious community.
>
Pat Kohli
Susan Maneck wrote:
> (snip)
>
> In McGlinn's survey of the Baha'i scriptures he includes the Writings of
> Baha'u'llah such as the passages wherein He makes the distinction between
> the spiritual and worldly sovereignty and enjoins obedience to government
> yet he leaves out key passages wherein Baha'u'llah states that the "All
> matters of State should be referred to the House of Justice."1
>
I am tempted to say, "the exception proves the rule", right here. I think I
recently read someone discussing that, as a rule, rather than an exception, I
hope.
Yes! Baha'u'llah not only said that "matters of state should be referred to the
House of Justice"; I believe He had that appended to the Kitabi Aqdas. That is
not all He said though. He also said that "acts of worship must be observed
according to that which God hath revealed in His Book." Thus, there _does_ seem
to be room for a 'separation of church and state' perspective, where, the
elective institutions are replaced by the state, which could eschew involvement
in liturgical matters as things which are already decided in the text.
"All matters of State should be referred to the House of Justice, but acts of
worship must be observed according to that which God hath revealed in His Book."
"Bisharat", para 36
http://bahai-library.org/writings/bahaullah/tb/2.html
"All matters of State should be referred to the House of Justice, but acts of
worship must be observed according to that which God hath revealed in His Book."
"Ishraqat", para 68
http://bahai-library.org/writings/bahaullah/tb/7.html
(snip)
Best wishes!
- Pat
kohli at ameritel.net
Susan Maneck
>to be room for a 'separation of church and state' perspective, where, the
>elective institutions are replaced by the state, which could eschew
>involvement
>in liturgical matters as things which are already decided in the text.
Dear Pat,
I'm a little confused here. Are you suggesting that our Houses of Justice would
be 'replaced' by the state?
I don't think there is anything in the Writings which suggests that.
Susan Maneck
Dear Karen,
That depends on what you mean by theocracy. Baha'u'llah did say that matters of
state were in the hands of the House of Justice. And 'Abdu'l-Baha made it clear
that the House of Justice was to make secular law (qanun), civil law ([akham-i
madaniyyih.] He also makes it quite clear that they are to be the future
legislature. However, the executive arm of government is apparently separate
from them.
>But Sen really
>believes he didn't -- why does that necessarily mean he is "twisting"?
Because of the way he ignores key pieces of evidence such as letters written on
behalf of the Guardian which explain those passages in WOB in a way quite the
opposite of what Sen proposes.
It is unethical for a historian to do this kind of thing. For instance the
standards of professional conduct requires: "requires an awareness of one's own
bias and a readiness to follow sound method and analysis wherever they may
lead. It demands disclosure of all significant qualifications of one's
arguments."
By omitting key sources which Sen is well aware of he is failing to make such a
disclosure.
>In fact, Sen *defends* Shoghi Effendi from people who criticize him for
>being theocratic. He swooped in on me once for something critical I'd said.
Yes, I know. He has recreated the Guardian in his own image.
Susan Maneck
>said "refer matters of state to the House of Justice" but at one time he
>offered a role in the House of Justice to the Kings of the Earth, did he
>not?
Dear Randy,
I'm not sure what you are referring to here, but it is my understanding that
Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha both seemed to limit the functions of the Houses
of Justice to legislation and perhaps judicial functions. But They appear
pretty consistent in consider the executive arm entirely separate. That
certainly leaves room for kings or elected officials.
Susan Maneck
>Actually, I just had the thought that Baha'i institutions *can't* govern
>in a Baha'i state, or one where the Faith is the state religion. Given
>the emphasis Shoghi Effendi put on protecting the rights of non-Baha'is,
>and even covenant-breakers, to have Baha'i institutions rule, which
>non-Baha'is cannot vote for, would strip them of the most basic of civil
>rights -- the right to have a voice in government.
Dear Karen,
Again, 'Abdu'l-Baha gives the House of Justice the right to legislate, not
govern, that is left to the executive arm.
As far as civil rights go, we have not yet spelled out as a Baha'i community
what we consider those rights to be, but I think we need to. The rights of
non-Baha'is and Covenant breakers which 'Abdu'l-Baha Shoghi Effendi insisted
must be preserved involved primarily property rights and the right not to be
discriminated against in employment. I think the House of Justice needs to
asked whether our conception of civil rights includes the right to a voice in
government.
However, I can think of at least one way in which that could be preserved,
namely multiple legislatures. You may note that at one time Baha'u'llah speaks
of the House of Justice having jurisdiction over the 'millet' which in the
Ottoman Empire referred to separate self-governing religious communities. It
could be that different communities might therefore have separate legislatures.
Susan Maneck
>theocrats see it as so plain and obvious that this is an essential part
>of Baha'i teaching, yet the anti-theocrats are earnestly scratching
>their heads trying to figure out how such a wacky idea became prevalent
>in the Baha'i community!
Dear Karen,
You say that without even addressing the evidence which I have just provided
and which is provided as well in the letter to Sen McGlinn:
http://bahai-library.org/uhj/theocracy.html
It goes without saying that you won't see something if you don't open your
eyes.
errol9
sma...@aol.com wrote on 12/7/03 6:05 am:
> That depends on what you mean by theocracy. Baha'u'llah did say that matters
> of state were in the hands of the House of Justice.
The UHJ hasn't even control of the road sweepers and binmen of Haifa
nevermind having anything to do with matters of any state....Errol
Susan Maneck
just glad I'm retired, so I can't lose my job and be evicted from my
home and my kids hounded out of school because I preach eventual
overthrow of the governments of the world."
That's clearly *not* what the Writings say as was indicated to Sen in the 1995
letter he received:
"As for the statement made by Shoghi Effendi in his letter of 21 March 1932,
the well-established principles of the Faith concerning the relationship of
the Baha'i institutions to those of the country in which the Baha'is reside
make it unthinkable that they would ever purpose to violate a country's
constitution or so to meddle in its political machinery as to attempt to
take over the powers of government. This is an integral element of the
Baha'i principle of abstention from involvement in politics. However, this
does not by any means imply that the country itself may not, by
constitutional means, decide to adopt Baha'i laws and practices and modify
its constitution or method of government accordingly." (27 April 1995.)
Susan Maneck
rid of slavery not just that other stuff?"
Yeah, but I don't know how that is relevant to this thread.
" Or was that just praise of
the Queen who didn't seem to have much to do with it?""
He praised the queen for Parliament as well.
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
"Susan Maneck " <sma...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030712021702...@mb-m11.aol.com...
> As far as civil rights go, we have not yet spelled out as a Baha'i
community
> what we consider those rights to be, but I think we need to.
Better from a Bahai POV not to spell out rights which would never be granted
just as they are not now accorded any respect.
>The rights of
> non-Baha'is and Covenant breakers which 'Abdu'l-Baha Shoghi Effendi
insisted
> must be preserved involved primarily property rights and the right not to
be
> discriminated against in employment. I think the House of Justice needs to
> asked whether our conception of civil rights includes the right to a voice
in
> government.
It doesn't for it also excludes any right to a fair judicial process in
which the rights of an individual are in any way respected.
> However, I can think of at least one way in which that could be preserved,
> namely multiple legislatures. You may note that at one time Baha'u'llah
speaks
> of the House of Justice having jurisdiction over the 'millet' which in the
> Ottoman Empire referred to separate self-governing religious communities.
It
> could be that different communities might therefore have separate
legislatures.
Now that would be a jolly mish mash of disorder - different legislatures and
codes of law for the Catholics, the Presbyterians, the Anglicans, the Jews,
the Muslims etc etc. all living within one defined geographic area. The
inevitable result would be confusion over which set of laws governed
relationships between the different communities; great for the lawyers and
it would, of course, encourage mobility of religion. A Bahai picked up and
charged with adultery (a crime against his legal code) would immediately opt
for trial by the Presbyterians who do not impose civil or criminal penalties
for such a misdemeanour.
Theocracy is the one certain failed type of government for any civilised
pluralist society. It is the development thereof within the current AO that
makes Bahai so unattractive to civilised, caring and thinking people.
"Still kill-filed after all these months! What a wonderful world!"
>
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
"errol9" <err...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:BB359C01.2BA8D%err...@ntlworld.com...
Judging from the current lack of expertise in governance with which the AO
is endowed, this is undoubtedly a "good thing".
Cal E. Rollins
Religious community. Same difference. It's got to have a specially
anointed leadership with special, exalted followers which always leads
to a put-down of the unanointed. Then violence ensues with people
killing and getting killed. Ours is not going to be any different.
--Cal
Cal E. Rollins
Didn't I read somewhere the speculation that the Supreme Tribunal might
replace the Universal House of Justice? --Cal
Randy Burns
--
Susan Maneck <sma...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030712020932...@mb-m11.aol.com...
> I'm not sure what you are referring to here, but it is my understanding
that
> Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha both seemed to limit the functions of the
Houses
> of Justice to legislation and perhaps judicial functions. But They appear
> pretty consistent in consider the executive arm entirely separate. That
> certainly leaves room for kings or elected officials.
Well I didn't mention Abdu'l-Baha. Let's leave Him out of it for the time
being. Is there a listing of Baha'u'llahs writings that mention or seem to
indicate a Baha'i theocracy? So far you have only mentioned the one quote
about the House of Justice. It seems to me that a large majority of
Baha'u'llah's quotes on government make no mention or even hint or imply a
Baha'i government, though he does seem to downplay Kings and approve of some
form of constitutional rule.
Cheers, Randy
Randy Burns
> > Baha'u'llah such as the passages wherein He makes the distinction
between
> > the spiritual and worldly sovereignty and enjoins obedience to
government
> > yet he leaves out key passages wherein Baha'u'llah states that the "All
> > matters of State should be referred to the House of Justice."1
This passage could mean that when "matters of state" occur which pertain to
the Baha'i Faith in any part of the world that it would be referred to the
House of Justice for decision, could it not?
> "All matters of State should be referred to the House of Justice, but acts
of
> worship must be observed according to that which God hath revealed in His
Book."
This could still mean that while "matters of state" which pertain to Baha'i
can be referred to the House of Justice, matters of worship (which might
come under the purview of state involvement) cannot be changed to satisfy
statist demands but rather must continue to conform to the Book.
Cheers, Randy
>
Karen Bacquet
And you're a daughter of the wondrous vision, I suppose.
I was simply commenting on the irony -- both sides of the debate seem to
see their point of view as very plain and obvious. Unlike you, I don't
need to assume that anyone is acting in bad faith.
I've got a whole file on theocracy, Susan. I was planning on someday
even making up a compilation of anti-theocratic sentiments in the
Writings. I've got other things to tend to today, but I'll be back.
Karen Bacquet
>
>
> Judging from the current lack of expertise in governance with which the AO
> is endowed, this is undoubtedly a "good thing".
Dear Dermod,
I think the one thing that would banish all thoughts from the minds of
Baha'is on the desirability of theocracy would be for them to actually
try it somewhere, anywhere in the world. What are they going to do when
those who object to it start protesting -- jail them all? As I said, it
would never fly unless you have a country that is 100% Baha'i, and even
then, you are using religious coercion, because Baha'is would no longer
be free to leave the religion without giving up their rights as a
citizen of their country.
Somehow I keep picturing some poor shmuck with with one of those local
problems that are not a big deal philosophically, but can make life
miserable -- potholes in the road, zoning issues, a building permit or
whatever. The guy is denied satisfaction from the LSA, has to wend his
way through the upper levels of the bureaucracy, where he will probably
be ignored. He can't get a neighborhood coalition together, because
that is banned; he's going to have a devil of a time changing things
through the vote; he can't even publicly protest as an individual
without risking his status as a voting citizen. This is utopia?
Love, Karen
http://www.bacquet.tk
>
>
Pat Kohli
Susan Maneck wrote:
> >Thus, there _does_ seem
> >to be room for a 'separation of church and state' perspective, where, the
> >elective institutions are replaced by the state, which could eschew
> >involvement
> >in liturgical matters as things which are already decided in the text.
>
> Dear Pat,
>
> I'm a little confused here. Are you suggesting that our Houses of Justice would
> be 'replaced' by the state?
I see as a possible future, a world in which non-partison Houses of Justices are
elected by the general public, and which will rule over cities and states, much as
town councils and legislatures rule today. I would not argue that it _must_ be, but
I would say it is consistent with what I'm aware of.
>
> I don't think there is anything in the Writings which suggests that.
I see no need to repeat myself. I'll infer that you and I simply understand the
verse from Bisharat and Ishraqat in different ways. Que sera sera.
Randy Burns
>
>
> Somehow I keep picturing some poor shmuck with with one of those local
> problems that are not a big deal philosophically, but can make life
> miserable -- potholes in the road, zoning issues, a building permit or
> whatever. The guy is denied satisfaction from the LSA, has to wend his
> way through the upper levels of the bureaucracy, where he will probably
> be ignored. He can't get a neighborhood coalition together, because
> that is banned; he's going to have a devil of a time changing things
> through the vote; he can't even publicly protest as an individual
> without risking his status as a voting citizen. This is utopia?
This is why I say that Baha'is just don't "get" Shoghi Effendi's ironic
sense of humor.
Cheers, Randy
errol9
on 12/7/03 5:05 pm:
> As I said, it would never fly unless you have a country that is 100% Baha'i
Can one Imagine (lets take Egypt as an example) as being called the "Baha'i
Republic of Egypt" with 96% of its population being Baha'i? Would they (with
Baha'i law) be any different than Iran is today (with sharia law) with 96%
of its population Muslim? ............Errol
Pat Kohli
Susan Maneck wrote:
> >I don't believe that Baha'u'llah or 'Abdu'l-Baha' taught theocracy;
>
> Dear Karen,
>
> That depends on what you mean by theocracy. Baha'u'llah did say that matters of
> state were in the hands of the House of Justice. And 'Abdu'l-Baha made it clear
> that the House of Justice was to make secular law (qanun), civil law ([akham-i
> madaniyyih.] He also makes it quite clear that they are to be the future
> legislature. However, the executive arm of government is apparently separate
> from them.
>
> >But Sen really
> >believes he didn't -- why does that necessarily mean he is "twisting"?
>
> Because of the way he ignores key pieces of evidence such as letters written on
> behalf of the Guardian which explain those passages in WOB in a way quite the
> opposite of what Sen proposes.
> It is unethical for a historian to do this kind of thing. For instance the
> standards of professional conduct requires: "requires an awareness of one's own
> bias and a readiness to follow sound method and analysis wherever they may
> lead. It demands disclosure of all significant qualifications of one's
> arguments."
> By omitting key sources which Sen is well aware of he is failing to make such a
> disclosure.
>
Eh eh ehemmm!
A difference of understanding in how the future will unfold need not be an
_ethical_ issue. I'm not having a fit about your selection of phrases from
Bisharat and Ishraqat, and then accusing you of an ethical problem! You simply saw
the phrase as consistent with your interpretation and did not realize that the next
phrase was completely consistent with separation interpretation, and even seemed to
be _advocating_ it. That you don't see these things does not mean you have an
_ethical_ problem, at least not to me. Instead it suggests that you walk into your
reading with the baggage you brought with you, just as I walk into my reading of
the verses with the baggage I brought. Rather than accusations of ethical
problems, had you tried an attempt at dialog with Sen?
Best wishes!
Karen Bacquet
>
>
>>However, I can think of at least one way in which that could be preserved,
>>namely multiple legislatures. You may note that at one time Baha'u'llah
>
> speaks
>
>>of the House of Justice having jurisdiction over the 'millet' which in the
>>Ottoman Empire referred to separate self-governing religious communities.
>
> It
>
>>could be that different communities might therefore have separate
>
> legislatures.
>
> Now that would be a jolly mish mash of disorder - different legislatures and
> codes of law for the Catholics, the Presbyterians, the Anglicans, the Jews,
> the Muslims etc etc. all living within one defined geographic area. The
> inevitable result would be confusion over which set of laws governed
> relationships between the different communities; great for the lawyers and
> it would, of course, encourage mobility of religion. A Bahai picked up and
> charged with adultery (a crime against his legal code) would immediately opt
> for trial by the Presbyterians who do not impose civil or criminal penalties
> for such a misdemeanour.
And what about non-religious issues? Religious law codes cover private
devotional rituals, family law, and punishments for basic crimes, but
there are a whole lot of issues that it *doesn't* cover. Will
non-Baha'is have a voice in those things? Or are their rights going to
be limited strictly to property rights, the right to employment, and
whatever else Susan mentioned? Are they going to have the right to free
expression, of public protest, or is the whole country going to be
subject to the limitations now just imposed upon Baha'is? Besides, a
"millet" system still doesn't address that most basic of citizenship
rights -- the right to vote. So, you can vote for the members of your
religious court. Big deal. Will that court have any power outside of
granting divorces and dividing inheritances? Will non-Baha'is have a
voice in economic policy, environmental policy, and a whole host of
other important issues that aren't found in the world's scriptures?
The only way for everyone's rights to be protected is to have all
religions represented in the government -- then we are back where we
started, where the Baha'i institutions are not ruling in secular matters.
And, you're right, Dermod -- what with multiple religious courts is that
people will sign up with the more lenient ones, perhaps even to the
extent that it's going to be tough to maintain a country with a Baha'i
majority, and the whole theocracy would fall apart. This would be a
really unstable form of government, when the only sure vehicle for
public protest is for people to disenroll. Or are they going to take
that choice away? I think the assumption of the theocrats must be that
in the future, people won't want the civil rights we have now -- those
things are "Old World Order", ya know. :-)
Love, Karen
http://www.bacquet.tk
Karen Bacquet
>
>
> "As for the statement made by Shoghi Effendi in his letter of 21 March 1932,
> the well-established principles of the Faith concerning the relationship of
> the Baha'i institutions to those of the country in which the Baha'is reside
> make it unthinkable that they would ever purpose to violate a country's
> constitution or so to meddle in its political machinery as to attempt to
> take over the powers of government. This is an integral element of the
> Baha'i principle of abstention from involvement in politics. However, this
> does not by any means imply that the country itself may not, by
> constitutional means, decide to adopt Baha'i laws and practices and modify
> its constitution or method of government accordingly." (27 April 1995.)
"Adopting Baha'i laws and practices" is a whole different thing than the
kind of theocracy that is widely believed in the community, where the
Baha'i institutions *are* the government of a particular country. I was
literally told that the LSA would one day be the City Council, and the
NSA would run the national government, etc. I would expect that if,
Baha'is ever became a significant number in any particular country, they
would have an influence, just as any interest group has an influence.
If they are a majority, certainly that would have the potential for
changing a country's laws -- although exactly how that is supposed to
happen without Baha'is getting involved in politics is anybody's guess.
This letter almost leaves the impression that what the UHJ is
predicting is that non-Baha'is will be so impressed by the Baha'i system
that they will decide on their own to adopt it. If that's so, the
Baha'is have some major work to do.
Randy Burns
Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message
news:3F104353...@ameritel.net...
>
> > I'm a little confused here. Are you suggesting that our Houses of
Justice would
> > be 'replaced' by the state?
This idea actually seems to be closer to what the writings say than other
things I have read.
> I see as a possible future, a world in which non-partison Houses of
Justices are
> elected by the general public, and which will rule over cities and states,
much as
> town councils and legislatures rule today. I would not argue that it
_must_ be, but
> I would say it is consistent with what I'm aware of.
I agree and would argue that this is what Baha'u'llah was implying in His
writings. I don't see that these Houses of Justice have to be considered to
be religious in nature, but I do think that religion and politics is
essential the "same thing" and that eventually the two ideas "religion" and
"politics" will no longer be considered as separate ideas but rather as a
single idea.
Cheers, Randy
Pat Kohli
Randy Burns wrote:
> > > In McGlinn's survey of the Baha'i scriptures he includes the Writings of
> > > Baha'u'llah such as the passages wherein He makes the distinction
> between
> > > the spiritual and worldly sovereignty and enjoins obedience to
> government
> > > yet he leaves out key passages wherein Baha'u'llah states that the "All
> > > matters of State should be referred to the House of Justice."1
>
> This passage could mean that when "matters of state" occur which pertain to
> the Baha'i Faith in any part of the world that it would be referred to the
> House of Justice for decision, could it not?
>
Do you anticipate that matters of the a religious community would be matters of
state, rather than simple civil or ecclesiastical matters? I'd have expected
you to follow a separation interpretation. I'm just surprised that you seem to
anticipate a Baha'i state to an extent that Baha'i religious matters can be
state matters.
Best wishes!
- Pat
kohli at ameritel.net
(snip)
Karen Bacquet
>
>
> Dear Karen,
>
> You say that without even addressing the evidence which I have just provided
> and which is provided as well in the letter to Sen McGlinn:
> http://bahai-library.org/uhj/theocracy.html
> It goes without saying that you won't see something if you don't open your
> eyes.
Susan,
This is a complex issue, and it's going to take me some time to address
it all. The UHJ letter seems to be unavailable at the moment, and in
any case, I have some initial comments:
First of all, I don’t see the problem as simply belief in theocracy, but
in the House’s insistence that we *must* believe in theocracy as an
essential part of Baha’i teaching, and that arguments put against it are
somehow an attempt to undermine Baha’i teaching. As I’ve said before,
the whole thing is very speculative, very much along the lines of
Christian eschatological expectation. It isn’t like we are dealing with
something like women’s exclusion from the UHJ, which is a current policy
that defines how Baha’is do things right now. Why can’t it be a matter
of debate in the community without these insinuations about the motives
of those who hold to an anti-theocratic view?
The thing that convinced me that Baha’u’llah didn’t teach theocracy was
Juan’s explanation in M&M, which I read before coming online. When
Baha’u’llah’s statements about earthly sovereignty being worthless, and
that He was instead interested in the hearts of men were put in the
context of the Shi’ih messianic expectation that the returned Imam would
rule as a temporal ruler, it all just fell into place. It’s like Jesus’
statements about His kingdom not being of this world make a whole lot
more sense when you know that the Jews expected their Messiah to rule in
a earthly fashion. Baha’u’llah was not just talking in the voice of a
mystic who is detached from the world; He was answering a specific
expectation that would necessarily be aroused by His claim. He had no
interest in being an earthly ruler; it would seem very odd that he would
expect his followers to do it instead.
Also, again and again, even in His Book of the Covenant, Baha’u’llah
emphasizes that His followers must obey earthly governments, pray on
behalf of kings, support just rulers etc. This doesn’t lend itself to
an expectation that there should be no earthly governments to obey,
support, or pray for. We aren’t told to pray for the day when all of
them are swept away for the sake of the New World Order ruled by Baha’i
Houses of Justice; we are told to support justice where we find it on
the earth already.
So, while I think there’s room for debate about the authorized
interpreters, Shoghi Effendi in particular, I don’t believe Baha’u’llah
taught that his religion would function as a theocracy replacing the
existing governments of the world.
Addressing the beginning of your review of Sen's article: When in
comes to the definitions of Arabic legal terms such as “siyasa” and
“qunun”, you know very well I can’t go there. What I see is that they
are arguments about the meaning of these legal terms, especially what
they meant in the nineteenth century as opposed to today. If I have to
judge on the basis of expertise, Susan, Juan’s got it more than you do.
What do you expect me to do with that? All I see is that there is,
apparently, room for debate -- and that debate should flourish, again,
without assigning motives to anyone. You get down to that, and I could
assign AO-defenders like yourself a strong motive to tow the party line.
There’s nobody unbiased here.
More later.
Karen Bacquet
>
> Dear Karen,
>
> Again, 'Abdu'l-Baha gives the House of Justice the right to legislate, not
> govern, that is left to the executive arm.
> As far as civil rights go, we have not yet spelled out as a Baha'i community
> what we consider those rights to be, but I think we need to. The rights of
> non-Baha'is and Covenant breakers which 'Abdu'l-Baha Shoghi Effendi insisted
> must be preserved involved primarily property rights and the right not to be
> discriminated against in employment. I think the House of Justice needs to
> asked whether our conception of civil rights includes the right to a voice in
> government.
Dear Susan,
That sounds a whole lot like non-Baha'is will have the civil rights that
Baha'is will let them have. Maybe non-Baha'is might have a notion of
rights that includes a voice in government, and they aren't going to
want to let go of it. Your whole scenario sounds very much like a
"separate, but equal" kind of arrangement; I don't think non-Baha'is are
going to consent to being second-class citizens without a fight.
Karen Bacquet
So, you're saying non-Baha'is could vote for President, but we wouldn't
let them have representation in the legislature? I'd hope at least, we
don't plan on taxing them; we Americans raised a revolution over that.
Or is expecting taxation without representation just one of those
adolescent Old World Order things that's going by the wayside? Or are
their religious courts going to handle their taxation? It would be a
pretty powerful motivation for conversion, if other religions could give
people lower taxes, or even let them be tax-free.
How many of these other religious courts are there going to be anyway?
If people don't like what their religious court is doing, they could
create another denomination of the religion, and insist on their own
court. Are covenant-breakers going to be allowed to have their own
legislatures or courts?
This is a mess, Susan. The reason our system of government works is
because Americans, whether liberal or conservative, basically believe in
the system. Non-Baha'is aren't going to believe in a Baha'i system. In
fact, they're going to fight it, and you can't blame them. Wouldn't you
fight it if Christian theocrats had a realistic chance of taking over
the government, even if they promised the rights of non-Christians would
be protected? If any country goes beyond very cosmetic changes, there
would be civil war. Are Baha'is going to be willing to shoot people to
bring about this theocratic vision? Because that's what it would take
to make it happen.
>
>
>
> http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
>
multiman
From what I have seen, the moment he tried to get a group together to
discuss the pothole problem, some one (unpaid secret police) would
immediately run tot he LSA and report his "lack of unity" and the
whole thing would fall apart into an endless inquiry and warning to be
more supportive of the decisions fo the LSA to be slow in fixing
potholes. After all to unitedly support the descision to have
potholes will more quickly fix them then being disunified and trying
to get them fixed.
On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 10:05:04 -0700, Karen Bacquet <bac...@tco.net>
wrote:
Karen Bacquet
multiman wrote:
> From what I have seen, the moment he tried to get a group together to
> discuss the pothole problem, some one (unpaid secret police) would
> immediately run tot he LSA and report his "lack of unity" and the
> whole thing would fall apart into an endless inquiry and warning to be
> more supportive of the decisions fo the LSA to be slow in fixing
> potholes. After all to unitedly support the descision to have
> potholes will more quickly fix them then being disunified and trying
> to get them fixed.
Dear Multiman,
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Part and parcel with the
theocratic stance is this fantasy that somehow the LSA will always keep
the potholes fixed. What makes a system work is not that everybody
always does what they are supposed to; what makes a system work is that
there's a means of addressing the problem if they don't.
I have no rights within the Baha'i community -- and that's o.k., because
I neither want nor need them. But if I had to renounce all rights as a
citizen when I had my crisis of conscience, that would be a whole
different matter. Would people like me be allowed free speech in a
Baha'i state, or is the UHJ dreaming of the day when Baha'i dissenters
can be silenced through the force of civil law? Which religious
court/legislature would represent me? Another part of the fantasy is
that all dissent will disappear -- except I have heard of Baha'is saying
that CBs will be sent to jail.
Theocracy, by its very nature, is a totalitarian form of government.
Love, Karen
http://www.bacquet.tk
Randy Burns
homosexuals to marry (same sex marriage) that this would be a matter of
"state" that the UHJ would have to address in order to reconcile Baha'i
doctrine with the laws of a country. Again if a country passed a law which
forbids holding secret meetings, the UHJ would be allowed to rule that the
Baha'is of that country do not have to hold such meetings but could make
feasts or LSA meetings open instead of closed. These are matters
reconciling "state" with "church". But Baha'u'llah says that in cases of
private worship no such allowances to state laws can be made.
It's impossible to say whether this is what Baha'u'llah is saying without
having further knowledge of the original text, however.
Cheers, Randy
--
Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message
news:3F105D6C...@ameritel.net...
Susan Maneck
>the Baha'i Faith in any part of the world that it would be referred to the
>House of Justice for decision, could it not?
Dear Randy,
There is nothing in the passage which suggests it does mean that. Aside from
that we have 'Abdu'l-Baha's clear statements that the House of Justice can make
both secular (qanun) and civil law
[akham-i madaniyyih.]
warmest, Susan
Susan Maneck
>homosexuals to marry (same sex marriage) that this would be a matter of
>"state" that the UHJ would have to address in order to reconcile Baha'i
>doctrine with the laws of a country. Again if a country passed a law which
>forbids holding secret meetings, the UHJ would be allowed to rule that the
>Baha'is of that country do not have to hold such meetings but could make
>feasts or LSA meetings open instead of closed. These are matters
>reconciling "state" with "church". But Baha'u'llah says that in cases of
>private worship no such allowances to state laws can be made.
Boy, you are really stretching it Randy! Do you really think Baha'u'llah was
saying that Baha'i law could be changed to fit the whims of state?
Susan Maneck
>predicting is that non-Baha'is will be so impressed by the Baha'i system
>that they will decide on their own to adopt it. If that's so, the
>Baha'is have some major work to do.
>
That we do!
>I was
>literally told that the LSA would one day be the City Council, and the
>NSA would run the national government, etc.
From my reading it might well be that the LSA could become the City Council.
They can't take over the Mayor's office however.
warmest, Susan
Susan Maneck
>need to assume that anyone is acting in bad faith.
Dear Karen,
I don't need to make *any* assumptions. But when someone has had all this
evidence shoved in their face like Sen has and then chooses to ignore it
completely even though it comes from authoritative sources, there is definitely
a problem going on. And don't say the House can't interpret. The Guardian made
it quite clear that it was their own elucidations that would determine the
exact relationship between relgion and state.
>I've got a whole file on theocracy, Susan. I was planning on someday
>even making up a compilation of anti-theocratic sentiments in the
>Writings.
Instead of making a compilation of 'sentiments' how about making a compilation
of what *all* the authoritative sources have to say on the matter?
warmest, Susan
Susan Maneck
>any case, I have some initial comments:
I'll be happy to make it available in its entirety:
THE UNIVERSAL HOUSE OF JUSTICE
BAHA'I WORLD CENTRE
Department of the Secretariat 27 April 1995
Dear Baha'i Friend,
Your email of 19 February 1995 addressed to the Research Department was
referred to the Universal House of Justice. In it you quote two phrases which
appear in a book you have recently read, and which seem from the context to be
citations from Shoghi Effendi. These phrases are "Baha'i theocracy" and
"humanity will emerge from the immature civilization in which church and state
are separate". You ask whether these references can be authenticated and dated.
We have been instructed to send you the following reply.
A reference to "Baha'i theocracy" is to be found in a letter written on behalf
of the Guardian to an individual Baha'i on 30 September 1949. This reads as
follows:
He thinks your question is well put: what the Guardian was referring to was the
theocratic systems, such as the Catholic Church and the Caliphate, which are
not divinely given as systems, but man-made, and yet, being partly derived from
the teachings of Christ and Muhammad are in a sense theocracies. The Baha'i
theocracy, on the contrary, is both divinely ordained as a system and, of
course, based on the teachings of the Prophet Himself.
The other passage does not comprise words of Shoghi Effendi, although its
purport was approved by him. As you yourself have since discovered, it can be
found in The Baha'i World, volume VI, on page 199, in a statement entitled
"concerning Membership in Non-Baha'i Religious Organizations", about which the
Guardian's secretary had written on his behalf on 11 December 1935: "The
Guardian has carefully read the copy of the statement you had recently prepared
concerning non-membership in non-Baha'i religious organizations, and is pleased
to realize that your comments and explanations are in full conformity with his
views on the subject."
The complete paragraph in which the words appear is as follows:
In the light of these words, it seems fully evident that the way to approach
this instruction is in realizing the Faith of Baha'u'llah as an every-growing
organism destined to become something new and greater than any of the revealed
religions of the past. Whereas former Faiths inspired hearts and illumined
souls, they eventuated in formal religions with an ecclesiastical organization,
creeds, rituals and churches, while the Faith of Baha'u'llah, likewise renewing
man's spiritual life, will gradually produce the institutions of an ordered
society, fulfilling not merely the function of the churches of the past but
also the function of the civil state. By this manifestation of the Divine Will
in a higher degree than in former ages, humanity will emerge from that immature
civilization in which church and state are separate and competitive
institutions, and partake of a true civilization in which spiritual and social
principles are at last reconciled as two aspects of one and the same Truth.
You also ask how these statements could be reconciled with Shoghi Effendi's
comment on page 149 of Baha'i Administration, which appears to anticipate "a
future that is sure to witness the formal and complete separation of Church and
State", and with the following words in his letter of 21 March 1932 addressed
to the Baha'is of the United States and Canada:
Theirs is not the purpose, while endeavoring to conduct and perfect the
administrative affairs of their Faith, to violate, under any circumstances, the
provisions of their country's constitution, much less to allow the machinery of
their administration to supersede the government of their respective countries.
A careful reading of the letter dated 6 December 1928 in which the Guardian's
comment about the separation of Church and State occurs would suggest that,
rather than enunciating a general principle, Shoghi Effendi is simply reviewing
"the quickening forces of internal reform" that had "recently transpired
throughout the Near and Middle East", and enumerating a number of factors that
impinge on the development of the Faith in those parts of the world.
As for the statement made by Shoghi Effendi in his letter of 21 March 1932, the
well-established principles of the Faith concerning the relationship of the
Baha'i institutions to those of the country in which the Baha'is reside make it
unthinkable that they would ever purpose to violate a country's constitution or
so to meddle in its political machinery as to attempt to take over the powers
of government. This is an integral element of the Baha'i principle of
abstention from involvement in politics. However, this does not by any means
imply that the country itself may not, by constitutional means, decide to adopt
Baha'i laws and practices and modify its constitution or method of government
accordingly. The relationship between the principle of abstention from
involvement in politics and the emergence of the Baha'i State is commented on
later in this letter. In the meantime we can quote the following extracts from
letters written on behalf of the Guardian in response to queries from
individual believers, which indicate that the relationship is an evolving one:
Regarding the question raised in your letter, Shoghi Effendi believes that for
the present the Movement, whether in the East or the West, should be
dissociated entirely from politics. This was the explicit injunction of
`Abdu'l-Baha... Eventually, however, as you have rightly conceived it, the
Movement will, as soon as it is fully developed and recognized, embrace both
religious and political issues. In fact Baha'u'llah clearly states that affairs
of state as well as religious questions are to be referred to the House of
Justice into which the Assemblies of the Baha'is will eventually evolve. (30
November 1930)
The Baha'is will be called upon to assume the reins of government when they
will come to constitute the majority of the population in a given country, and
even then their participation in political affairs is bound to be limited in
scope unless they obtain a similar majority in some other countries as well.
(19 November 1939)
The Baha'is must remain non-partisan in all political affairs. In the distant
future, however, when the majority of a country have become Baha'is then it
will lead to the establishment of a Baha'i State. (19 April 1941)
A proper understanding of all the above passages, and of their implications,
requires an acceptance of two fundamental principles for the exegesis of Baha'i
Texts.
The first, which derives from the Covenant, is the principle that the writings
of `Abdu'l-Baha and the Guardian are thoroughly imbued with the spirit of the
Revelation of Baha'u'llah and intimately linked with the Teachings of
Baha'u'llah Himself. this principle is clearly expounded in two paragraphs from
a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer on 19
March 1946:
Whatever the Master has said is based on the teachings of Baha'u'llah. He was
the perfect Interpreter, had lived with Him all His life; therefore what He
says has the same standing, even if a text of Baha'u'llah is not available ...
We must take the teachings as a great, balanced whole, not seek out and oppose
to each other two strong statements that have different meanings; somewhere in
between, there are links uniting the two. That is what makes our Faith so
flexible and well balanced. for instance there are calamities for testing and
for punishment -- there are also accidents, plain cause and effect!
Baha'u'llah has given us a Revelation designed to raise mankind to heights
never before attained. It is little wonder that the minds of individual
believers, no matter how perceptive, have difficulty in comprehending its
range. It is the words of `Abdu'l-Baha and the Guardian which elucidate this
vast Revelation and make clear the manner in which different statements relate
to one another and what is implied by the Revealed Word. Without the bright
light of the Covenant, this Faith, like all those before it, would be torn to
pieces by the conflicting opinions of scholars applying limited human reasoning
to divinely revealed truths.
The second fundamental principle which enables us to understand the pattern
towards which Baha'u'llah wishes human society to evolve is the principle of
organic growth which requires that detailed developments, and the understanding
of detailed developments, become available only with the passage of time and
with the help of the guidance given by that Central Authority in the Cause to
whom all must turn. In this regard one can use the simile of a tree. If a
farmer plants a tree, he cannot state at that moment what its exact height will
be, the number of its branches or the exact time of its blossoming. he can,
however, give a general impression of its size and pattern of growth and can
state with confidence which fruit it will bear. The same is true of the
evolution of the World Order of Baha'u'llah. For example, we find the following
illuminating explanation in a letter written by Shoghi Effendi to the Baha'is
in America on 23 February 1924:
And as we make an effort to demonstrate that love to the world may we also
clear our minds of any lingering trace of unhappy misunderstandings that might
obscure our clear conception of the exact purpose and methods of this new world
order, so challenging and complex, yet so consummate and wise. We are called
upon by our beloved Master in His Will and Testament not only to adopt it
unreservedly, but to unveil its merit to all the world. To attempt to estimate
its full value, and grasp its exact significance after so short a time since
its inception would be premature and presumptuous on our part. We must trust to
time, and the guidance of God's Universal House of Justice, to obtain a clearer
and fuller understanding of its provisions and implications. But one word of
warning must be uttered in this connection. Let us be on our guard lest we
measure too strictly the Divine Plan with the standard of men. I am not
prepared to state that it agrees in principle or in method with the prevailing
notions now uppermost in men's minds, nor that it should conform with those
imperfect, precarious, and expedient measures feverishly resorted to by
agitated humanity. Are we to doubt that the ways of God are not necessarily the
ways of man? Is not faith but another word for implicit obedience, whole
hearted allegiance, uncompromising adherence to that which we believe is the
revealed +P 61 and express will of God, however perplexing it might first
appear, however at variance with the shadowy views, the impotent doctrines, the
crude theories, the idle imaginings, the fashionable conceptions of a transient
and troublous age? If we are to falter or hesitate, if our love for Him should
fail to direct us and keep us within His path, if we desert Divine and emphatic
principles, what hope can we any more cherish for healing the ills and
sicknesses of this world?
Pending the establishment of the Universal House of Justice, whose function it
is to lay more definitely the broad lines that must guide the future activities
and administration of the Movement, it is clearly our duty to strive to obtain
as clear a view as possible of the manner in which to conduct the affairs of
the Cause, and then arise with single mindedness and determination to adopt and
maintain it in all our activities and labours.
At this time we have the benefit of many subsequent interpretations by Shoghi
Effendi and also the initial guidance of the Universal House of Justice, which
will continue to elucidate aspects of this mighty system as it unfolds. In
striving to attain a "clearer and fuller understanding" of the World Order of
Baha'u'llah, we need to contemplate the operation of the Baha'i principles of
governance and social responsibility as they persist through changing sets of
conditions, from the present time when the Baha'i community constitutes a small
number of people living in a variety of overwhelmingly non-Baha'i societies, to
the far different situation in future centuries when the Baha'is are becoming,
and eventually have become, the vast majority of the people.
The Administrative Order is certainly the nucleus and pattern of the World
Order of Baha'u'llah, but it is in embryonic form, and must undergo major
evolutionary developments in the course of time. Certain passages in the
writings on this subject establish matters of principle, certain ones describe
the ultimate goal of the Most Great Peace, and certain of them relate to stages
of development on the way to the attainment of that goal. For example, in this
familiar passage in His Will and Testament, `Abdu'l-Baha states:
This House of Justice enacteth the laws and the government enforceth them. The
legislative body must reinforce the executive, the executive must aid and
assist the legislative body so that through the close union and harmony of
these two forces, the foundation of fairness and justice may become firm and
strong, that all the regions of the world may become even as Paradise itself.
In response to a question about the "government" in the above passage, Shoghi
Effendi's secretary wrote on his behalf, on 18 April 1941, the following
clarification:
By "Government" ... is meant the executive body which will enforce the laws
when the Baha'i Faith has reached the point when it is recognized and accepted
entirely by any particular nation.
The same relationship between legislature and executive is expressed in the
well-known passage in "the Unfoldment of World civilization", showing how one
principle is applied over successive periods.
A world executive, backed by an international force, will carry out the
decisions arrived at, and apply the laws enacted by, this world legislature,
and will safeguard the organic unity of the whole commonwealth.
In relation to other international institutions, the Guardian has given the
following guidance:
Touching the point raised in the Secretary's letter regarding the nature and
scope of the Universal Court of Arbitration, this and other similar matters
will have to be explained and elucidated by the Universal House of Justice, to
which, according to the Master's explicit Instructions, all important
fundamental questions must be referred.
In his letter to the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United
States and Canada written on 27 February 1929, Shoghi Effendi stated:
Not only will the present day Spiritual Assemblies be styled differently in
future, but they will be enabled also to add to their present functions those
powers, duties, and prerogatives necessitated by the recognition of the Faith
of Baha'u'llah, not merely as one of the recognized religious systems of the
world, but as the State Religion of an independent and Sovereign Power. And as
the Baha'i Faith permeates the masses of the peoples of East and West, and its
truth is embraced by the majority of the peoples of a number of the Sovereign
States of the world, will the Universal House of Justice attain the plenitude
of its power, and exercise, as the supreme organ of the Baha'i Commonwealth,
all the rights, the duties, and responsibilities incumbent upon the world's
future superstate.
Complementing these words are [sic] the Guardian's repeated and forceful
requirement that Baha'is strictly abstain from involvement in politics. This
requirement has far-reaching implications for the method by which Baha'u'llah's
Administrative Order will evolve into His World Order. We can consider, for
example, the well-known passage in his letter of 21 March 1932 to the Baha'is
in the United States and Canada:
Let them refrain from associating themselves, whether by word or by deed, with
the political pursuits of their respective nations, with the policies of their
governments and the schemes and programmes of parties and factions .... Let
them affirm their unyielding determination to stand, firmly and unreservedly,
for the way of Baha'u'llah, to avoid the entanglements and bickerings
inseparable from the pursuits of the politician, and to become worthy agencies
of that Divine Polity which incarnates God's immutable Purpose for all men....
...Let them beware lest, in their eagerness to further the aims of their
beloved Cause, they should be led unwittingly to bargain with their Faith, to
compromise with their essential principles, or to sacrifice, in return for any
material advantage which their institutions may derive, the integrity of their
spiritual ideals.
As one studies these words, one begins to understand the processes at work in
the gradual unfoldment and establishment of the Baha'i System.
Clearly the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth is a "political"
enterprise, and the Teachings of the Faith are filled with "political"
principles -- using the word in the sense of the science of government and of
the organization of human society. At the same time the Baha'i world community
repeatedly and emphatically denies being a "political" organization, and
Baha'is are required, on pain of deprivation of their administrative rights, to
refrain from becoming involved in "political" matters and from taking sides in
"political" disputes. In other words, the Baha'is are following a completely
different path from that usually followed by those who wish to reform society.
They eschew politcal methods towards the achievement of their aims, and
concentrate on revitalizing the hearts, minds and behaviour of people and on
presenting a working model as evidence of the reality and practicality of the
way of life they propound.
The Baha'i Administrative Order is the "nucleus and pattern" of the divinely
intended future political system of the world, and undoubtedly non-Baha'i
governments will benefit from learning how this system works and from adopting
its procedures and principles in overcoming the problems they face.
Nevertheless, this Administration is primarily the framework and structure
designed to be a channel for the flow of the spirit of the Cuase and for the
application of its Teachings. As the Guardian wrote:
It is surely for those to whose hands so priceless a heritage has been
committed to prayerfully watch lest the tool should supersede the Faith itself,
lest undue concern for the minute details arising from the administration of
the Cause obscure the vision of its promoters, lest partiality, ambition, and
worldliness tend in the course of time to becloud the radiance, stain the
purity, and impair the effectiveness of the Faith of Baha'u'llah.
The gradual process of the evolution of the Baha'i Administrative Order into
the World Order of Baha'u'llah has been described by Shoghi Effendi in many of
his writings, as in the following excerpt from his letter of 30 April 1953 to
the All-America Intercontinental Teaching Conference:
This present Crusade, on the threshold of which we now stand, will, moreover,
by virtue of the dynamic forces it will release and its wide repercussions over
the entire surface of the globe, contribute effectually to the acceleration of
yet another process of tremendous significance which will carry the steadily
evolving Faith of Baha'u'llah through its present stages of obscurity, of
repression, of emancipation and of recognition stages one or another of which
Baha'i national communities in various parts of the world now find themselves
[in] to the stage of establishment, the stage at which the Faith of Baha'u'llah
will be recognized by the civil authorities as the State Religion, similar to
that which Christianity entered in the years following the death of the Emperor
Constantine, a stage which must later be followed by the emergence of the
Baha'i state itself, functioning, in all religious and civil matters, in strict
accordance with the Laws and Ordinances of the Kitab i Aqdas, the Most Holy,
the Mother Book of the Baha'i Revelation, a stage which, in the fullness of
time, will culminate in the establishment of the World Baha'i Commonwealth,
functioning in the plenitude of its powers, and which will signalize the long
awaited advent of the Christ promised Kingdom of God on earth the Kingdom of
Baha'u'llah mirroring however faintly upon this humble handful of dust the
glories of the Abha Kingdom.
In answer to those who raise objections to this vision of a worldwide
commonwealth inspired by a Divine Revelation, fearing for the freedom of
minority groups or of the individual under such a system, we can explain the
Baha'i principle of upholding the rights of minorities and fostering their
interests. We can also point to the fact that no person is ever compelled to
accept the Faith of Baha'u'llah and moreover, unlike the situation in certain
other religions, each person has complete freedom to withdraw from the Faith if
he decides that he no longer believes in its Founder or accepts His Teachings.
In light of these facts alone it is evident that the growth of the Baha'i
communities to the size where a non-Baha'i state would adopt the Faith as the
State Religion, let alone to the point at which the State would accept the Law
of God as its own law and the National House of Justice as its legislature,
must be a supremely voluntary and democratic process.
As the Universal House of Justice wrote in its letter of 21 July 1968 to the
National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United States:
It is not our purpose to impose Baha'i teachings upon others by persuading the
powers that be to enact laws enforcing Baha'i principles, nor to join movements
which have such legislation as their aim. The guidance that Baha'i institutions
offer to mankind does not comprise a series of specific answers to current
problems, but rather the illumination of an entirely new way of life. Without
this way of life the problems are insoluble; with it they will either not arise
or, if they arise, can be resolved.
Two quotations from the writings of the Guardian bear particularly on these
principles of the rights and prerogatives of minorities and of individuals. In
The Advent of Divine Justice is a passage which is of fundamental significance
for Baha'i consititutional law:
Unlike the nations and peoples of the earth, be they of the East or of the
West, democratic or authoritarian, communist or capitalist, whether belonging
to the Old World or the New, who either ignore, trample upon, or extirpate, the
racial, religious, or political minorities within the sphere of their
jurisdiction, every organized community enlisted under the banner of
Baha'u'llah should feel it to be its first and inescapable obligation to
nurture, encourage, and safeguard every minority belonging to any faith, race,
class, or nation within it.
As for the protection of the rights of individuals, there is the following
translation of a forceful passage which apears in a letter from Shoghi Effendi
to the Baha'is of iran, written in July 1925, in relation to a situation
involving a Covenant-breaker:
...the mere fact of disaffection, estrangement, or recantation of belief, can
in no wise detract from, or otherwise impinge upon, the legitimate civil rights
of individuals in a free society, be it to the most insignificant degree. Were
the friends to follow other than this course, it would be tantamount to a
reversion on their part, in this century of radiance and light, to the ways and
standards of a former age: they would reignite in men's breasts the fire of
bigotry and blind fanaticism, cut themselves off from the glorious bestowals of
this promised Day of God, and impede the full flow of divine assistance in this
wondrous age.
All Baha'is, and especially those who make a profound study of the Cause, need
to grasp the differences between the Baha'i concepts of governance and those of
the past, and to abstain from measuring Baha'i institutions and methods against
the faulty man-made institutions and methods hiterto current in the world. The
Guardian graphically stressed these differences in his letter of 8 February
1934, know as "The Dispensation of Baha'u'llah":
The Baha'i Commonwealth of the future, of which this vast Administrative Order
is the sole framework, is, both in theory and practice, not only unique in the
entire history of political institutions, but can find no parallel in the
annals of any of the world s recognized religious systems No form of democratic
government; no system of autocracy or of dictatorship, whether monarchical or
republican; no intermediary scheme of a purely aristocratic order; nor even any
of the recognized types of theocracy, whether it be the Hebrew Commonwealth, or
the various Christian ecclesiastical organizations, or the Imamate or the
Caliphate in Islam none of these can be identified or be said to conform with
the Administrative Order which the master hand of its perfect Architect has
fashioned.
Among the many complementary Teachings in the Faith which resolve the dilemmas
of past societies are those of the unity of mankind on the one hand, and
loyalty to the covenant on the other. As already mentioned, no one in this
Dispensation is compelled to be a Baha'i, and the division of humankind into
the "clean" and the "unclean", the "faithful" and the "infidels", is abolished.
At the same time, anyone who does choose to be a Baha'i accepts the Covenant of
Baha'u'llah and, while free expression of opinion within the Baha'i community
is encouraged, this cannot ever be permitted to degenerate to the level of
undermining the Covenant for this would vitiate the very purpose of the
Revelation itself.
One of the major concerns of the Universal House of Justice, as the Baha'i
Administrative Order unfolds, will be to ensure that it evolves in consonance
with the spirit of the Baha'i Revelation. While many beneficial aspects of
human society at large can be safely incorporated into Baha'i Administration,
the House of Justice will guard against the corrupting influence of those non
Baha'i political and social concepts and practices which are not in harmony
with the divine standard.
The House of Justice appreciates your concern about such a fundamental issue,
and asks us to assure you of its prayers in the Holy Shrines for the
confirmation of your services to the Cause of God.
With loving Baha'i greetings, For Department of the Secretariat
Susan Maneck
>This passage could mean that when "matters of state" occur which pertain to
>the Baha'i Faith in any part of the world that it would be referred to the
>House of Justice for decision, could it not?
Dear Randy,
What the passage very literally said was *amur-i siyasat* namely political
matters. Political matters are being separated from matters of worship and the
former is being assigned to the House of Justice.
warmest, Susan
Susan Maneck
>First of all, I don’t see the problem as simply belief in theocracy, but
>in the House’s insistence that we *must* believe in theocracy as an
>essential part of Baha’i teaching, and that arguments put against it are
>somehow an attempt to undermine Baha’i teaching.
>As I’ve said before,
>the whole thing is very speculative,
But Karen, the Guardian explicitly states that it is within their authority to
decide this issue. Therefore there is no speculation to it, what they say is
what the Teachings are by definition. Again let, me post those quotes which
place the ultimate authority on this matter with the House of Justice, even
above his own:
"And as we make an effort to demonstrate that love to the world may we also
clear our minds of any lingering trace of unhappy misunderstandings that
might obscure our clear conception of the exact purpose and methods of this
new world order, so challenging and complex, yet so consummate and wise. We
are called upon by our beloved Master in His Will and Testament not only to
adopt it unreservedly, but to unveil its merit to all the world. To attempt
to estimate its full value, and grasp its exact significance after so short
a time since its inception would be premature and presumptuous on our part.
We must trust to time, and the guidance of God's Universal House of Justice,
to obtain a clearer and fuller understanding of its provisions and
implications." Shoghi Effendi, Baha'i Administration, (Wilmette, Ill: Baha'i
Publishing Trust, 1974) p. 62.
"Touching the point raised in the Secretary's letter regarding the nature
and scope of the Universal Court of Arbitration, this and other similar
matters will have to be explained and elucidated by the Universal House of
Justice, to which, according to the Master's explicit instructions, all
important and fundamental questions must be referred." Baha'i Administration,
p. 47
>Why can’t it be a matter
>of debate in the community without these insinuations about the motives
>of those who hold to an anti-theocratic view?
Because the Guardian said the elucidations of the House will determine this
matter and in this case the inidivual in question has chosen to deliberately
defy the House by contradicting those elucidations.
>The thing that convinced me that Baha’u’llah didn’t teach theocracy was
>Juan’s explanation in M&M, which I read before coming online.
Yes, and Juan make some very selective translations choices in order to make it
appear that way. For instance o Cole insists that the passage in Ishraqat which
has been translated as "All matters of state should be referred to the House of
Justice" is "certainly a major error" for he
states *siyasat* during Baha'u'llah's time meant nothing more than leadership
and
referred only to the House's power to apply religious sanctions. Yet not
ten pages earlier in the book Cole refers to the fact that Baha'u'llah had
asked ‘Abdu'l-Baha to write a book on political science using the term
‘ilm-i siyasat.
At one point Cole insists that
the passage to a Tablet to Shaykh Salman, foretelling the day would come when
no man would wish to be king, translated in Promised Day Has Come as "Those
will be the days when wisdom (‘aql) will become manifest among humankind" is
a mistranslation of ‘aql motivated probably by the supposed "antimodernists"
sentiments of Baha'is of 1920's and 1930's. Instead, it should have been
translated as Reason, thus showing its confluence with Enlightenment thought.
This, despite the fact that Cole elsewhere himself translates ‘aql as wisdom
in connection with the titles of non-Baha'i authors, and indeed translates
Baha'u'llah's own phraseology that way not four sentences earlier. [ Since
Shoghi Effendi, not "Baha'is" of that period, translated the passage in
question, it is apparently he who is being accused of being reactionary.]
Aside from this kind of selective translation the maor problem is that Juan
fails to place Baha'u'llah wihtin the context of His culture and time. Instead
he makes Him into some kind of western Enlightenment philosophe. . Like Sen he
uses the same
'separation of church and state' language which would have
been meaningless in the Islamic world. What Baha'u'llah and ‘Abdu'l-Baha were
arguing for is not the separation of
religion and state, but the dis-establishment of the legal authority of the
religious scholars. And this certainly need not preclude the eventual
establishment of a Baha'i polity. Cole
presumes that Baha'u'llah view of legitimate government recognized only the two
alternatives seen in the West, "whether governments rule by divine fiat or by
consent of the ruled" ignoring the fact that Islamic political theory had
always argued that both things were operative.
>When
>Baha’u’llah’s statements about earthly sovereignty being worthless, and
>that He was instead interested in the hearts of men were put in the
>context of the Shi’ih messianic expectation that the returned Imam would
>rule as a temporal ruler
Yes, Baha'u'llah was not trying to personally rule the world. That doesn't mean
He didn't set up the system by which the world should eventually be ruled.
>Also, again and again, even in His Book of the Covenant, Baha’u’llah
>emphasizes that His followers must obey earthly governments, pray on
>behalf of kings, support just rulers etc. This doesn’t lend itself to
>an expectation that there should be no earthly governments to obey,
Who said anything about there being no government?
>We aren’t told to pray for the day when all of
>them are swept away for the sake of the New World Order ruled by Baha’i
>Houses of Justice; we are told to support justice where we find it on
>the earth already.
And that precludes trying to establish a more just system in the future? I may
pray for President Bush, but I still hope he gets 'swept away' in the next
election!
>So, while I think there’s room for debate about the authorized
>interpreters, Shoghi Effendi in particular,
Except in this case Shoghi Effendi placed the ultimate elucidation of this
matter in the Hands of the House of Justice. So whatever they say on the
subject *is* the Teachings.
> If I have to
>judge on the basis of expertise, Susan, Juan’s got it more than you do.
Yes, he does have more expertise in this area than I do. That is why it was
such a shock for me to see him mistranslate a word which any second year Arabic
student would have known. It had to be deliberate.
You get down to that, and I could
>assign AO-defenders like yourself a strong motive to tow the party line.
Except in my case, I had agreed with Juan and Sen on this topic until I saw the
way Juan was messing with the translation.
warmest, Susan
Susan Maneck
>Baha'i state, or is the UHJ dreaming of the day when Baha'i dissenters
>can be silenced through the force of civil law?
Dear Karen,
Why don't you ask them?
>Another part of the fantasy is
>that all dissent will disappear -- except I have heard of Baha'is saying
>that CBs will be sent to jail.
Did you hear a Baha'i say it, or did you hear Juan Cole say a Baha'i said it?
Because that is the only place I've heard it.
>Theocracy, by its very nature, is a totalitarian form of government.
LOL. The only totalitarian forms of government which have ever existed on the
face of the earth were entirely secular. Those were communism and fascism.
warmest, Susan
Susan Maneck
>
>A difference of understanding in how the future will unfold need not be an
>_ethical_ issue. I'm not having a fit about your selection of phrases from
>Bisharat and Ishraqat,
Dear Pat,
There is a difference between reviewing someone's elses article or bringing in
quotes in the course of a discussion from writing an article which claims to be
surveying all the Baha'i Writings on a particular issue and ignoring key
passages. Were I to write a full-length article on the issue of religion and
state in the Baha'i Teachings I would be obliged to survey *all* the relevant
sources I was aware of and explain any discrepancies.
>You simply saw
>the phrase as consistent with your interpretation and did not realize that
>the next
>phrase was completely consistent with separation interpretation
Which phrase exactly are you talking about?
warmest, Susan
Susan Maneck
>Well I didn't mention Abdu'l-Baha. Let's leave Him out of it for the time
>being.
Dear Randy,
If we are talking about the Baha'i Teachings and not simply Baha'u'llah's
thought we cannot leave out 'Abdu'l-Baha's Writings. And Sen claims to writing
about the 'Baha'i Teachings' The authoritative interpretations form an
inseparable part of the Teachings.
Aside from 'Abdu'l-Baha's statement we have this letter written on behalf of
the Guardian which clearly interprets what Baha'u'llah meant by affairs of
state:
"Regarding the question raised in your letter, Shoghi Effendi believes that for
the present the Movement, whether in the East or the West, should be
dissociated entirely from politics. This was the explicit injunction of
`Abdu'l-Baha... Eventually, however, as you have rightly conceived it, the
Movement will, as soon as it is fully developed and recognized, embrace both
religious and political issues. In fact Baha'u'llah clearly states that affairs
of state as well as religious questions are to be referred to the House of
Justice into which the Assemblies of the Baha'is will eventually evolve." (30
November 1930)
warmest, Susan
Susan Maneck
>So, you're saying non-Baha'is could vote for President, but we wouldn't
>let them have representation in the legislature?
Dear Karen,
That is a question that would have to be raised with the House of Justice. But
as I suggested, there may be separate legislatures.
>Or is expecting taxation without representation just one of those
>adolescent Old World Order things that's going by the wayside?
LOL. We already have taxation wihtout representation, Karen. Don't your kids
have to pay sales tax when they buy a candy bar? But I suspect that taxes
will be collected by the executive not the legislative arm.
> The reason our system of government works is
>because Americans, whether liberal or conservative, basically believe in
>the system.
Exactly. And we won't have a Baha'i system until the vast majority of Baha'is
believe in it.
But the question of whether or not theocracy would be a good thing, or even a
plausible thing is really irrelevant here. The real question is what are the
Baha'i Teachings on this matter?
warmest, Susan
Susan Maneck
>devotional rituals, family law, and punishments for basic crimes, but
>there are a whole lot of issues that it *doesn't* cover.
Dear Karen,
'Abdu'l-Baha explicitly gave the House of Justice jurisdiction over religious,
secular and civil law. So I don't think there is much of anything left.
>Will
>non-Baha'is have a voice in those things? Or are their rights going to
>be limited strictly to property rights, the right to employment, and
>whatever else Susan mentioned?
Again, ask the House of Justice.
>Are they going to have the right to free
>expression, of public protest, or is the whole country going to be
>subject to the limitations now just imposed upon Baha'is?
Unlikely, since the Guardian stated that even the limitations currently placed
on Baha'is would eventually be removed.
>Besides, a
>"millet" system still doesn't address that most basic of citizenship
>rights -- the right to vote. So, you can vote for the members of your
>religious court. Big deal. Will that court have any power outside of
>granting divorces and dividing inheritances?
I didn't say anything about courts. I believe I mentioned legislatures. Why
assume their jurisidiction would be limited to things like divorces and
inheritance?
>ces and dividing inheritances? Will non-Baha'is have a
>voice in economic policy, environmental policy, and a whole host of
>other important issues that aren't found in the world's scriptures?
Again, ask the House of Justice those questions.
>The only way for everyone's rights to be protected is to have all
>religions represented in the government -- then we are back where we
>started, where the Baha'i institutions are not ruling in secular matters.
The first part of your statement is probably true. The second part does not
necessarily follow.
But again, these questions are all irrelevant to the issue. The issue isn't
whether or not theocracy is a good thing, it is what are the Baha'i Teachings
on this question?
warmest, Susan
Susan Maneck
>rights that includes a voice in government, and they aren't going to
>want to let go of it.
Dear Karen,
And you assume they won't get it. Again, I can't answer those questions because
they aren't in the Writings. Shoghi Effendi left this for the elucidation of
the House of Justice. So if you want to know the answer to these questions, ask
them.
warmest, Susan
errol9
on 13/7/03 2:12 am:
> Would people like me be allowed free speech in a
> Baha'i state, or is the UHJ dreaming of the day when Baha'i dissenters
> can be silenced through the force of civil law?
Isn't this exactly what Susan Maneck, Pat Kohli and the UK NSA tried to do
with me (using baha'i AO law) after they failed in getting my ISP (civil
law for the internet) to kick me off TRB, ARB and SCI?
Letter from NSA of the Baha'is of the United Kingdom'
27 Rutland gate, London SW7 1PD
October 18,2002
Mr George Fleming
Dear Baha'i friend,
The national Spirtual assembly appreciates your desire to
defend the good name of our beloved Faith and the sincerity with
which you seek to do so. However, uour recent imvolvement in
certain email discussion groups may have inadvertently helped
the cause of those very individuals from whom you are seeking
to protect the Faith, and this has become a source of some
concern to the National Assembly.
The national Spiritual Assembly therefore instructs you, with
immediate effect, to cease and disist from participating in the
SCI, TRB and ARB e-discussion lists and in any other
unmoderated discussions conducted over email. Further, you
are requested to cease direct communication with Pat Kohli and
Susan Maneck and the national Spirtual Assembbly of the United
States. However should you have a grievance which you would
like to bring to the attention of the latter body you are kindly asked
to refer such a matter to the attention of the National Assembly of
the United Kingdom.
The national Assembly further asks you to refrain from
discussing any of the issues raised in this letter with anyone
other than Councellor Shahriavi, the national Spirtual Assembly
of the United Kingdom, or Auxiliary Board members Denis Coyle
and Ann O'Sullivan.
The National Spirtual Assembly trusts that you will abide by what
is now being asked of you. Should you fail to do so, the national
Assembly will have no choice but to take further action.
With loving Baha'i greetings.
National Spirtual Assembly
Kishan Manocha, Assistant Secretary.
George Fleming
Belfast N Ireland
Dear National Spirtual Assembly members
After reading your letter 18/10/02 were you stated:
"The NSA therefore instructs you, with immediate effect, to cease
and desist from particpating in SCI, TRB, and ARB e-discussion
lists and in any other unmoderated discussions conducted over
e/mail"
Along with SCI there are some 42,760 more unmoderated
groups on the internet which are not Baha'i related unmoderated
newsgroups.
I therefore believe this instruction is totally against me my human
and freedom of rights, and therefore have been left with no
alternattive other than to resign from the Baha'i Faith.
I herby declare that on 21/10/02 George Fleming Belfast N
Ireland has resigned his membership from the Baha'i Faith.
Membership Number ******
Signed George Fleming Bahai Faith membership card
enclosed.
Susan Maneck
>I see as a possible future, a world in which non-partison Houses of Justices
>are
>elected by the general public,
Dear Pat,
Ahhh, but that's not replacing them, that is opening up their membership to
non-Baha'is. That scenario's possible but it doesn't seem to likely to me
because the membership of the Houses of Justice was set in the Will and
Testament and I don't see how that could change.
warmest, Susan
errol9
sma...@aol.com wrote on 13/7/03 5:20 am:
That would be the biggest joke of the century, especially in the City I live
in. I could just see Ulster Unionists and Irish Republicans inviting the
Baha'i LSA of Belfast to take over the council. The Baha'is here couldn't
organise a kids tea party without having debates, discussions, consultations
and threatening some members with loss of voting rights over an argument
whether they should use plastic cups instead of cardboard disposable ones at
the party......Errol
>
> warmest, Susan
>
>
>
>
> http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
>
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
"Susan Maneck " <sma...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030713020415...@mb-m01.aol.com...
>
> >First of all, I don't see the problem as simply belief in theocracy, but
> >in the House's insistence that we *must* believe in theocracy as an
> >essential part of Baha'i teaching, and that arguments put against it are
> >somehow an attempt to undermine Baha'i teaching.
> >As I've said before,
> >the whole thing is very speculative,
>
> But Karen, the Guardian explicitly states that it is within their
authority to
> decide this issue. Therefore there is no speculation to it, what they say
is
> what the Teachings are by definition. Again let, me post those quotes
which
> place the ultimate authority on this matter with the House of Justice,
even
> above his own:
It is not a Universal House of Justice without a Guardian. I've seen
nothing cited to indicate that Abdul Baha or Shoghi Rabbani ever envisaged
the House without a Guardian and they were charged with the interpretation
etc. of these things in their time. Without the "infallible interpreter"
the Grumpies can lay no claim to being the UHJ envisaged in the Writings.
They can elucidate all they want but their elucidations have little or no
efficacy and are certainly not binding in the way that those of a properly
constituted UHJ would be.
One interesting aside on this illegitimate UHJ is the membership. The Hands
specifically excluded themselves from eligibility to be elected to the body
which styles itself the UHJ on the grounds that being so well known they
would be obvious candidates perhaps to the detriment of better qualified
ones. I have a dim recollection that perhaps Shoghi himself propounded this
ineligibility. After all was not the AO predicated on the separation of the
Learned and the Rulers?
Yet elections to this self styled UHJ are dominated by the Counsellors of
the ITC, the head of the Learned Arm as successors to the Hands. My how
things are turned on their head once there is no head teacher around to keep
the lads in order!
Don't rely to this, as I wouldn't want to have to tempt the DST into a
response. I'm still kill-filed after all these months - ain't life (or
something else) a bitch!
sad that I won't be around for the next week - I'm off to the land of the
DSTs, or dragons, for the unitiated!
Randy Burns
Baha'u'llah upon this subject? There is only a two line sentence and
nothing else?
Cheers, Randy
--
Susan Maneck <sma...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030713022205...@mb-m01.aol.com...
Randy Burns
about legislating new religious laws for Baha'is? that is what the passage
has always meant to me. Where does Abdu'l-Baha say that Baha'i authorities
will have civil rule over nations?
Cheers, Randy
--
Susan Maneck <sma...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030713011633...@mb-m01.aol.com...
Randy Burns
Baha'u'llah said that Baha'is have to obey civil governments. If a country
passed a law that "required" all religions to fully honor same sex marriage
then I would expect the Baha'i faith to comply with that law. I don't think
that will happen but it could. What if a country passed a law requiring all
religions to honor such marriages? the only recourse for the UHJ would be
to declare that nations government as illegitimate and that is something
that Shoghi Effendi refused to do in regard to the Nazi regime or the Soviet
regime of Stalin! so how likely is that. Clearly state laws cannot cause
changes in Baha'i worship but in Baha'i laws, apparently yes.
Cheers, Randy
--
Susan Maneck <sma...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030713011837...@mb-m01.aol.com...
Randy Burns
Susan Maneck <sma...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030713014750...@mb-m01.aol.com...
>
> Dear Randy,
>
> What the passage very literally said was *amur-i siyasat* namely political
> matters. Political matters are being separated from matters of worship and
the
> former is being assigned to the House of Justice.
All the better then. Political matters between the Baha'is faith and civil
governments should be handled by the House of Justice. That is what we do
now isn't it? I don't see where Baha'u'llah takes power for civil control
of general non-Baha'i population and places that in the hands of the House
of Justice. Unless you assume that by House of Justice he is not referring
to a Baha'i institution at all but rather to a civil institution which is
comprised of non-Baha'is and Baha'is (if any are elected).
In the Aqdas where Baha'u'llah orders local Houses of Justice to be elected,
the only requirement is that elected members must be rijal, no where does He
say that they have to be Baha'is.
Cheers, Randy
Karen Bacquet
>
> But again, these questions are all irrelevant to the issue. The issue isn't
> whether or not theocracy is a good thing, it is what are the Baha'i Teachings
> on this question?
O.K., I went through True Seeker, and put in "kings", "kingdoms",
"government", and "state". Again and again, Baha'u'llah says the God
has given rulership to secular rulers, that Baha'is should do nothing
subversive (I'd think cherishing hopes for a theocratic future would be
pretty subversive), and that he himself wanted nothing to do with
earthly sovereignity. I only found two verses which can really be
interpreted in a theocratic fashion: The one where "affairs of State"
are entrusted to the House of Justice" -- and that can be translated as
"affairs of leadership" or "administrative affairs". I know you don't
like Juan's translation, but I see no obligation on my part to ignore it
on that account. The whole thing is ambiguous as far as I'm concerned.
Then there is the verse where "affairs" are given to "kings, presidents,
and the House of Justice". I had the thought there that perhaps
Baha'u'llah was intending to introduce legislative bodies in countries
where they didn't exist -- which was a lot of them at that time. I
don't see that he is intending here the *replacement* of existing
legislative bodies with Houses of Justice -- that he is taking
responsibility for "affairs" away from them. I never even found where
Baha'u'llah mentions such bodies as Congress or Parliament -- except in
his praise of Queen Victoria, where he thought they were a good thing.
I don't think you can build a strong case for theocratic government out
of the Writings of Baha'u'llah. I'll get back to 'Abdu'l-Baha' and
Shoghi Effendi later.
*******************
O ye the loved ones and the trustees of God! Kings are the
manifestations of the power, and the daysprings of the might and riches,
of God. Pray ye on their behalf. He hath invested them with the
rulership of the earth and hath singled out the hearts of men as His Own
domain. Conflict and contention are categorically forbidden in His Book.
This is a decree of God in this Most Great Revelation. It is divinely
preserved from annulment and is invested by Him with the splendour of
His confirmation. Verily He is the All-Knowing, the All-Wise.
(Kitab-i-Ahd; Tablets of Baha’u’llah; p.220-221)
Dispute not with any one concerning the things of this world and its
affairs, for God hath abandoned them to such as have set their affection
upon them. Out of the whole world He hath chosen for Himself the hearts
of men--hearts which the hosts of revelation and of utterance can
subdue. Thus hath it been ordained by the Fingers of Bahá, upon the
Tablet of God's irrevocable decree, by the behest of Him Who is the
Supreme Ordainer, the All-Knowing. (Gleanings; p.279)
It is now incumbent upon His Majesty the Sháh-- may God, exalted be
He, protect him--to deal with this people with loving-kindness and
mercy. This Wronged One pledgeth Himself, before the Divine Kaaba, that,
apart from truthfulness and trustworthiness, this people will show forth
nothing that can in any way conflict with the world-adorning views of
His Majesty. Every nation must have a high regard for the position of
its sovereign, must be submissive unto him, must carry out his behests,
and hold fast his authority. The sovereigns of the earth have been and
are the manifestations of the power, the grandeur and the majesty of
God. This Wronged One hath at no time dealt deceitfully with anyone.
Every one is well aware of this, and beareth witness unto it. Regard for
the rank of sovereigns is divinely ordained, as is clearly attested by
the words of the Prophets of God and His chosen ones. He Who is the
Spirit (Jesus)--may peace be upon Him--was asked: "O Spirit of God! Is
it lawful to give tribute to Caesar or not?" And He made reply: "Yea,
render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that
are God's." He forbade it not. These two sayings are, in the estimation
of men of insight, one and the same, for if that which belonged to
Caesar had not come from God, He would have forbidden it. And likewise
in the sacred verse: "Obey God and obey the Apostle, and those among you
invested with authority." By "those invested with authority" is meant
primarily and more especially the Imáms-- the blessings of God rest upon
them! They, verily, are the manifestations of the power of God, and the
sources of His authority, and the repositories of His knowledge, and the
daysprings of His commandments. Secondarily these words refer unto the
kings and rulers--those through the brightness of whose justice the
horizons of the world are resplendent and luminous. We fain would hope
that His Majesty the Sháh will shine forth with a light of justice whose
radiance will envelop all the kindreds of the earth. It is incumbent
upon every one to beseech the one true God on his behalf for that which
is meet and seemly in this day. (Epistle to the Son of the Wolf p. 89-90)
O kings of the earth! He Who is the King of Kings hath appeared, arrayed
in His most wondrous glory, and is summoning you unto Himself, the Help
in Peril, the Self-Subsisting. Take heed lest pride deter you from
recognizing the Source of Revelation, lest the things of this world shut
you out as by a veil from Him Who is the Creator of heaven. Arise, and
serve Him Who is the Desire of all nations, Who hath created you through
a word from Him, and ordained you to be, for all time, the emblems of
His sovereignty. 83 By the righteousness of God! It is not Our wish to
lay hands on your kingdoms . Our mission is to seize and possess the
hearts of men. Upon them the eyes of Bahá are fastened. (Kitab-i-Aqdas
p.49-50)
THE one true God, exalted be His glory, hath ever regarded, and will
continue to regard, the hearts of men as His own, His exclusive
possession. All else, whether pertaining to land or sea, whether riches
or glory, He hath bequeathed unto the kings and rulers of the earth.
From the beginning that hath no beginning the ensign proclaiming the
words `He doeth whatsoever He willeth' hath been unfurled in all its
splendour before His Manifestation. What mankind needeth in this day is
obedience unto them that are in authority, and a faithful adherence to
the cord of wisdom. The instruments which are essential to the immediate
protection, the security and assurance of the human race have been
entrusted to the hands, and lie in the grasp, of the governors of human
society. . . We cherish the hope that one of the kings of the earth
will, for the sake of God, arise for the triumph of this wronged, this
oppressed people. Such a king will be eternally extolled and glorified.
God hath prescribed unto this people the duty of aiding whosoever will
aid them, of serving his best interests, and of demonstrating to him
their abiding loyalty. They who follow Me must strive, under all
circumstances, to promote the welfare of whosoever will arise for the
triumph of My Cause, and must at all times prove their devotion and
fidelity unto him. (Proclamation of Baha’u’llah p.12-15)
O ye the beloved of the one true God! Pass beyond the narrow retreats
of your evil and corrupt desires, and advance into the vast immensity of
the realm of God, and abide ye in the meads of sanctity and of
detachment, that the fragrance of your deeds may lead the whole of
mankind to the ocean of God's unfading glory. Forbear ye from concerning
yourselves with the affairs of this world and all that pertaineth unto
it, or from meddling with the activities of those who are its outward
leaders. The one true God, exalted be His glory, hath bestowed the
government of the earth upon the kings . To none is given the right to
act in any manner that would run counter to the considered views of them
who are in authority. That which He hath reserved for Himself are the
cities of men's hearts; and of these the loved ones of Him Who is the
Sovereign Truth are, in this Day, as the keys. (Gleanings p.241)
Know thou that We have annulled the rule of the sword, as an aid to
Our Cause, and substituted for it the power born of the utterance of
men. Thus have We irrevocably decreed, by virtue of Our grace. Say: O
people! Sow not the seeds of discord among men,
and refrain from contending with your neighbor, for your Lord hath
committed the world and the cities thereof to the care of the kings of
the earth, and made them the emblems of His own power, by virtue of the
sovereignty He hath chosen to bestow upon them. He hath refused to
reserve for Himself any share whatever of this world's dominion. To this
He Who is Himself the Eternal Truth will testify. The things He hath
reserved for Himself are the cities of men's hearts, that He may cleanse
them from all earthly defilements, and enable them to draw nigh unto the
hallowed Spot which the hands of the infidel can never profane.
(Gleanings p.303)
According to the fundamental laws which We have formerly revealed in the
Kitáb-i-Aqdas and other Tablets, all affairs are committed to the care
of just kings and presidents and of the Trustees of the House of
Justice. (Tablets of Baha’u’llah p.92)
All matters of State should be referred to the House of Justice, but
acts of worship must be observed according to that which God hath
revealed in His Book. (Tablets of Baha’u’llah (Tablets of Baha’u’llah
p.26-27)
The One true God . . . hath bestowed outward sovereignty (mamlakat-i
zahirih) upon the kings. No one is permitted to commit [irtikab] an act
that would run contrary to the judgment of the leaders of the country
[ra'i-yi ru'asa-yi mamlakat]. That which He [God] hath desired for Himself
are the cities of the hearts of his servants. (Cole translation)
"Most imagine that this Servant has the intention of establishing a
full-blown government on earth--even though, in all the Tablets, He has
forbidden the servants to accept such a rank [of rulership] . . . Kings are
the manifestations of divine power, and Our intent is only that they should
be just. If they keep their gaze upon justice, they are reckoned as of
God" (Cole translation; M&M)
Karen Bacquet
Randy Burns wrote:
> So are you saying that there are no additional writings from the Pen of
> Baha'u'llah upon this subject? There is only a two line sentence and
> nothing else?
Dear Randy,
Check out my most recent post -- I found two, two-line sentences; that's
pretty much all there is in the Writings of Baha'u'llah to hang one's
theocratic hat on, and both can be taken more than one way. It's a
pretty thin thread connecting Baha'u'llah to theocracy.
Love, Karen
http://www.bacquet.tk
Cal E. Rollins
What do you mean you can't answer the questions, because they aren't in
the Writings? How do you know what's in the Writings? There's plenty
of stuff that we have in the Archives that hasn't even been translated.
And most of that is not even available to scholars who speak Arabic and
Persian--neither of which you do. Maybe you should say that you have'nt
heard of anything on the subject. Probably the House of Justice hasn't
either but It can at least research it through the RD. --Cal
Cal E. Rollins
Does the NSA of Canada honor same-gender marriage or the LSAs of
Vermont? --Cal
Cal E. Rollins
There's only a word in the Aqdas about homosexuality and we have pages
of religious law built around it, so why all the fuss about two lines?
That's a lot. Didn't somebody say that in this Day a jot contains
everything in the universe (or words to that effect)? --Cal
Cal E. Rollins
Long before I ever heard of Juan Cole, I heard in New Mexico, where we
were dealing on a daily basis with covenant breakers' harassment, that
in the future World Order covenant breakers would be put to death. We
didn't have the Aqdas and I couldn't verify that, but I was hoping it
was there. It could still be somewhere and we don't know it yet. I
should thnk that anybody causing spiritual death to themselves and
others ought not to live to plague society, but I could be wrong.
Prison does give the person opportunity for rehabilitation and is
probably kinder than lethal injection. --Cal
Eric Stetson
> This is a mess, Susan. The reason our system of government works is
> fact, they're going to fight it, and you can't blame them. Wouldn't you
> fight it if Christian theocrats had a realistic chance of taking over
> the government, even if they promised the rights of non-Christians would
> be protected? If any country goes beyond very cosmetic changes, there
> would be civil war. Are Baha'is going to be willing to shoot people to
> bring about this theocratic vision? Because that's what it would take
> to make it happen.
Thanks for pointing this out, Karen. Let's all be clear about what
theocracy ultimately means. It means that the government (the people
with the guns) is controlled by people of only one religious faith who
believe they represent God and all their decisions are divinely
guided. That is the most dangerous system of government imaginable.
To establish a Baha'i theocracy would require civil war, in which
Baha'is shoot non-Baha'is who are protesting against a Baha'i
theocracy.
Under a Baha'i theocracy, non-Baha'is would have fewer rights than
Baha'is, ex-Baha'is would probably have even fewer rights, and
"Covenant-breakers" would be the equivalent of the Untouchable Caste
in Hinduism. The "Covenant-breakers" would probably end up living in
filthy ghettos and impoverished third-world type villages and would
almost certainly form guerrilla armies that would be a source of
continuous civil war. What young male "Covenant-breaker" would not
feel a burning desire, even a moral duty, to take up arms against the
repressive and discriminatory Baha'i theocratic order?
Baha'is, is that the kind of world you want to live in? Is that the
world of tolerance, peace, unity and equality that Baha'is advertise
as the goal of the faith? Think about it. And then, if you still are
prepared to defend the concept of a future Baha'i theocracy, be
prepared for people to consider the Baha'i Faith an extremist movement
akin to such morally and spiritually repugnant belief systems as
Nazism, Fascism, Communism, and Wahhabi and Khomeinist Islam.
Eric Stetson
Ex-Baha'i Christian Testimony
http://www.bahai-faith.com
Randy Burns
Randy
--
Cal E. Rollins <crol...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:20739-3F...@storefull-2335.public.lawson.webtv.net...
Eric Stetson
> But the question of whether or not theocracy would be a good thing, or even a
> plausible thing is really irrelevant here. The real question is what are the
> Baha'i Teachings on this matter?
Another important question is, if it is determined that the Baha'i
teachings do ordain theocracy, then is the Baha'i religion something
that people should support? After all, people make judgments about
the truth or falsehood of a religion in part based on the values it
teaches. Theocracy is a pretty controversial value. One must ask,
does such a value really come from God, or from the idle fancies and
vain imaginations of men?
Eric Stetson
http://www.bahai-faith.com
Karen Bacquet
>
>
> Thanks for pointing this out, Karen. Let's all be clear about what
> theocracy ultimately means. It means that the government (the people
> with the guns) is controlled by people of only one religious faith who
> believe they represent God and all their decisions are divinely
> guided. That is the most dangerous system of government imaginable.
>
> To establish a Baha'i theocracy would require civil war, in which
> Baha'is shoot non-Baha'is who are protesting against a Baha'i
> theocracy.
Dear Eric,
The main reason I mention this is because Baha'is cannot resort to
violence without violating another fundamental tenet of our faith --
that is, that we cannot use "the sword" to promote our religion. Holy
war is abolished in the Baha'i Faith. The theocratic fantasy is that
somehow this transition will be achieved peacefully, with non-Baha'is
not protesting about it. It would be unfair to depict this version of
Baha'i eschatology as a violent one i.e. that Baha'is are dreaming of
conquering the world by force. However, it *is* a completely
unrealistic one -- that somehow it will all miraculously happen without
force. It is not impossible, however, that Baha'is will someday be
forced to choose between theocratic asperations, which many believe to
be essential, and non-violence, which *is* an essential feature of
Baha'u'llah's teaching. I ardently hope that Baha'is will always choose
the non-violent course.
>
> Under a Baha'i theocracy, non-Baha'is would have fewer rights than
> Baha'is, ex-Baha'is would probably have even fewer rights, and
> "Covenant-breakers" would be the equivalent of the Untouchable Caste
> in Hinduism. The "Covenant-breakers" would probably end up living in
> filthy ghettos and impoverished third-world type villages and would
> almost certainly form guerrilla armies that would be a source of
> continuous civil war. What young male "Covenant-breaker" would not
> feel a burning desire, even a moral duty, to take up arms against the
> repressive and discriminatory Baha'i theocratic order?
In theory, covenant-breakers are supposed to have the right to own
property and to be employed. In fact, 'Abdu'l-Baha' was quite furious at
some Baha'is who tried to get a CB fired from his job, saying the man
had a right to earn a living. However, you are familiar with how
covenant-breakers are regarded on the popular level. You can't single
out a class of people as being "spiritually diseased" and so on, and
*not* have them regarded as second-class citizens. And you are correct
that there remains the question of what would happen to dissidents under
a Baha'i theocracy. Based upon current-day attitudes, the outlook isn't
encouraging.
>
> Baha'is, is that the kind of world you want to live in? Is that the
> world of tolerance, peace, unity and equality that Baha'is advertise
> as the goal of the faith? Think about it. And then, if you still are
> prepared to defend the concept of a future Baha'i theocracy, be
> prepared for people to consider the Baha'i Faith an extremist movement
> akin to such morally and spiritually repugnant belief systems as
> Nazism, Fascism, Communism, and Wahhabi and Khomeinist Islam.
Yeah, it makes us look pretty bad -- people have already made those
kinds of comparisons. That's one reason why Baha'is don't advertise it;
I didn't have a clue about theocratic teaching until *after* I signed my
card. Fortunately, I no longer regard support for a theocratic regime
part of Baha'i teaching, which makes me one of those dissidents whose
rights would be in jeopardy if that vision ever came about. But there
are alternative visions: Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha' had a lot of
good things to say about democracy and freedom of conscience.
Love, Karen
http://www.bacquet.tk
Pat Kohli
Randy Burns wrote:
> I'm suggesting that in cases where a country passes a law, such as allowing
> homosexuals to marry (same sex marriage) that this would be a matter of
> "state" that the UHJ would have to address in order to reconcile Baha'i
> doctrine with the laws of a country. Again if a country passed a law which
> forbids holding secret meetings, the UHJ would be allowed to rule that the
> Baha'is of that country do not have to hold such meetings but could make
> feasts or LSA meetings open instead of closed. These are matters
> reconciling "state" with "church". But Baha'u'llah says that in cases of
> private worship no such allowances to state laws can be made.
>
I see. This is not surprising. My bad.
>
> It's impossible to say whether this is what Baha'u'llah is saying without
> having further knowledge of the original text, however.
Scientifically, conclusions are tentative.
Blessings!
- Pat
kohli at ameritel.net
multiman
Well long ago I heard one Baha'i say he thought the island of
Madgasgar could be emptied and all covenant breakers sent there and
let them run the idland while the rest of the world went on about
Baha'i buisness but from what Cal says below int he next post to Susan
I must wonder what kind of horrible world this AO of the heterdox
would lead to. My God!
On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 19:12:32 -0700, Karen Bacquet <bac...@tco.net>
wrote:
>
>
>multiman wrote:
>> From what I have seen, the moment he tried to get a group together to
>> discuss the pothole problem, some one (unpaid secret police) would
>> immediately run tot he LSA and report his "lack of unity" and the
>> whole thing would fall apart into an endless inquiry and warning to be
>> more supportive of the decisions fo the LSA to be slow in fixing
>> potholes. After all to unitedly support the descision to have
>> potholes will more quickly fix them then being disunified and trying
>> to get them fixed.
>
>Dear Multiman,
>
>This is exactly what I'm talking about. Part and parcel with the
>theocratic stance is this fantasy that somehow the LSA will always keep
>the potholes fixed. What makes a system work is not that everybody
>always does what they are supposed to; what makes a system work is that
>there's a means of addressing the problem if they don't.
>
>I have no rights within the Baha'i community -- and that's o.k., because
>I neither want nor need them. But if I had to renounce all rights as a
>citizen when I had my crisis of conscience, that would be a whole
>different matter. Would people like me be allowed free speech in a
>Baha'i state, or is the UHJ dreaming of the day when Baha'i dissenters
>can be silenced through the force of civil law? Which religious
>court/legislature would represent me? Another part of the fantasy is
>that all dissent will disappear -- except I have heard of Baha'is saying
>that CBs will be sent to jail.
>
>Theocracy, by its very nature, is a totalitarian form of government.
>
>
>Love, Karen
>http://www.bacquet.tk
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 10:05:04 -0700, Karen Bacquet <bac...@tco.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Judging from the current lack of expertise in governance with which the AO
>>>>is endowed, this is undoubtedly a "good thing".
>>>
>>>Dear Dermod,
>>>
>>>I think the one thing that would banish all thoughts from the minds of
>>>Baha'is on the desirability of theocracy would be for them to actually
>>>try it somewhere, anywhere in the world. What are they going to do when
>>>those who object to it start protesting -- jail them all? As I said, it
>>>would never fly unless you have a country that is 100% Baha'i, and even
>>>then, you are using religious coercion, because Baha'is would no longer
>>>be free to leave the religion without giving up their rights as a
>>>citizen of their country.
>>>
>>>Somehow I keep picturing some poor shmuck with with one of those local
>>>problems that are not a big deal philosophically, but can make life
>>>miserable -- potholes in the road, zoning issues, a building permit or
>>>whatever. The guy is denied satisfaction from the LSA, has to wend his
>>>way through the upper levels of the bureaucracy, where he will probably
>>>be ignored. He can't get a neighborhood coalition together, because
>>>that is banned; he's going to have a devil of a time changing things
>>>through the vote; he can't even publicly protest as an individual
>>>without risking his status as a voting citizen. This is utopia?
>>>
>>>Love, Karen
>>>http://www.bacquet.tk
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>
multiman
Mien Kampf woulod be a good reference source for this kind of Baha'i
thinking.
multiman
It already did. Didnt you noitce that in the Will and Testament the
Head of the UHJ is the guardian of the Faith, 9 members plus a 10 the
guardian, now it is 9 and a rotating presendency. You dont find that
in the Will and Testament.
Pat Kohli
Dermod Ryder wrote:
> "Susan Maneck " <sma...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20030713020415...@mb-m01.aol.com...
> >
> > >First of all, I don't see the problem as simply belief in theocracy, but
> > >in the House's insistence that we *must* believe in theocracy as an
> > >essential part of Baha'i teaching, and that arguments put against it are
> > >somehow an attempt to undermine Baha'i teaching.
> > >As I've said before,
> > >the whole thing is very speculative,
> >
> > But Karen, the Guardian explicitly states that it is within their
> authority to
> > decide this issue. Therefore there is no speculation to it, what they say
> is
> > what the Teachings are by definition. Again let, me post those quotes
> which
> > place the ultimate authority on this matter with the House of Justice,
> even
> > above his own:
>
> It is not a Universal House of Justice without a Guardian.
If the UHJ needed a Guardian to be the UHJ, likely Baha'u'llah, Who
invented/induced/institutionlized/'first wrote of' the UHJ, would have written
of the need of a Guardian for a UHJ to be a _real_ Universal House of Justice.
> I've seen
> nothing cited to indicate that Abdul Baha or Shoghi Rabbani ever envisaged
> the House without a Guardian and they were charged with the interpretation
> etc. of these things in their time.
Quite correct, and now we are fifty years later. Tempus fugit.
Health wealth, and may the coppers not pinch you for speeding,
Pat Kohli
Susan Maneck wrote:
> >I'm suggesting that in cases where a country passes a law, such as allowing
> >homosexuals to marry (same sex marriage) that this would be a matter of
> >"state" that the UHJ would have to address in order to reconcile Baha'i
> >doctrine with the laws of a country. Again if a country passed a law which
> >forbids holding secret meetings, the UHJ would be allowed to rule that the
> >Baha'is of that country do not have to hold such meetings but could make
> >feasts or LSA meetings open instead of closed. These are matters
> >reconciling "state" with "church". But Baha'u'llah says that in cases of
> >private worship no such allowances to state laws can be made.
>
> Boy, you are really stretching it Randy! Do you really think Baha'u'llah was
> saying that Baha'i law could be changed to fit the whims of state?
I would hope any changes would be w/in a range, but I do believe that
was part
of the point of _having_ Houses of Justice: to change the laws to suit
the
changing circumstances. State whims would be a big part of changing
circumstances.
Best wishes!
Eric Stetson
> I have heard of Baha'is saying
> that CBs will be sent to jail.
Really? Who said that? Was it anyone important in the AO? I would
be very interested to find out who holds this view and if it has any
influence in Baha'i circles of power.
Thanks,
Eric
Randy Burns
back, man.
Randy
--
Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message
news:3F11D2AA...@ameritel.net...
Karen Bacquet
Nobody in power that I know of; just Baha'i fundie scuttlebutt. I can't
even really say how widespread that belief is; I hope not very. In any
case, it certainly isn't textually-based. All kinds of wacky ideas like
this get circulated in the community, especially when it comes to
speculation about the Baha'i future. Isn't there more difference about
eschatology than any other aspect of Christianity? I once said that to
another Christian friend of mine, and he said "Boy, *that*'s the truth!"
When it comes to looking at a divinely-ordained future, the imagination
runs free, no matter what religion you are. :-)
Love, Karen
http://www.bacquet.tk
>
> Thanks,
> Eric
Susan Maneck
>> It's impossible to say whether this is what Baha'u'llah is saying without
>> having further knowledge of the original text, however.
>
You turn to Shoghi Effendi's authoriatative interpretation:
"Regarding the question raised in your letter, Shoghi Effendi believes that for
the present the Movement, whether in the East or the West, should be
dissociated entirely from politics. This was the explicit injunction of
`Abdu'l-Baha... Eventually, however, as you have rightly conceived it, the
Movement will, as soon as it is fully developed and recognized, embrace both
religious and political issues. In fact Baha'u'llah clearly states that affairs
of state as well as religious questions are to be referred to the House of
Justice into which the Assemblies of the Baha'is will eventually evolve." (30
November 1930)
Susan Maneck
>To establish a Baha'i theocracy would require civil war, in which
>Baha'is shoot non-Baha'is who are protesting against a Baha'i
>theocracy.
Dear Eric,
Both Baha'u'llah and the House of Justice have excluded that possibility so you
needn't worry about it.
>Under a Baha'i theocracy, non-Baha'is would have fewer rights than
>Baha'is, ex-Baha'is would probably have even fewer rights, and
>"Covenant-breakers"
Again, you don't know that. You can let your imagination take you all kinds of
places.
warmest, Susan
Susan Maneck
>violence without violating another fundamental tenet of our faith --
>that is, that we cannot use "the sword" to promote our religion.
Dear Karen,
Not only can we not use it to promote our religion but we can't use it to
overthrow any government. So this isn't even within the realm of possibility.
But again, Karen, the question of how a Baha'i theocracy might come about, or
whether one is desirable is completely irrelevant to whether or not it is a
part of the Teachings. You have yet to address this question adequately. When
someone claims to be a Baha'i yet discount the notion of theorcay and tries to
prove its not in the Writings simply because they don't like it then they are
trying to remake the Faith in their own image, and that is just plain wrong.
warmest, Susan
Susan Maneck
>So are you saying that there are no additional writings from the Pen of
>Baha'u'llah upon this subject? There is only a two line sentence and
>nothing else?
Randy,
The entire Aqdas is full of laws which the House of Justice is expected to
enforce. And many of these involve criminal law.
warmest, Susan
Eric Stetson
> Eric Stetson wrote:
> > Karen Bacquet <bac...@tco.net> wrote in message news:<3F10C010...@tco.net>...
> >
> >>I have heard of Baha'is saying
> >>that CBs will be sent to jail.
> >
> >
> > Really? Who said that? Was it anyone important in the AO? I would
> > be very interested to find out who holds this view and if it has any
> > influence in Baha'i circles of power.
>
> Nobody in power that I know of; just Baha'i fundie scuttlebutt.
Thank goodness!
> Isn't there more difference about
> eschatology than any other aspect of Christianity? I once said that to
> another Christian friend of mine, and he said "Boy, *that*'s the truth!"
> When it comes to looking at a divinely-ordained future, the imagination
> runs free, no matter what religion you are. :-)
Yeah, that's for sure! I remember even back when I was a Baha'i at
college I would have discussions with my Christian friends about
eschatology and they would argue about stuff like the precise timing
of the rapture. "Are you pre-trib, mid-trib, or post-trib?" was the
question. Each position had complex Biblical arguments to support it.
After studying the issue as a Christian myself, I've come to the
conclusion that the idea of a "rapture" such as presented in the
popular _Left Behind_ series of books is highly speculative and
probably false. But many Christians want to think they won't have to
go through the end-times tribulation. Eschatology is some fun stuff.
I think people tend to take it too seriously. -- Eric
Susan Maneck
>Surely when Abdu'l Baha says that the UHJ can legislate he is only talking
>about legislating new religious laws for Baha'is?
Randy,
No, as I said before He used words which specifically refer to secular law and
civil law.
>that is what the passage
>has always meant to me.
That's because you don't know the Persian and Arabic. *Shariah* means religious
law. *Qanun* means secular law. 'Abdu'l-Baha specifically said that the House
of Justice makes Qanun and the government enforces it.
>Where does Abdu'l-Baha say that Baha'i authorities
>will have civil rule over nations?
Is no one actually reading my article? It's all in there. The Houses of Justice
don't rule, the legislate. Here are the passages:
"This House of Justice enacteth the laws (qanun) and the government enforceth
them. The legislative body must reinforce the executive , the executive must
aid and assist the legislative body so that through the close union and harmony
of these two forces, the foundation of fairness and justice may become firm and
strong, that all the regions of the world may become even as Paradise itself."
Will and Testament, p. 14.
Below is a passage where 'Abdu'l-Baha refers very specifically to civil law as
well. In order to make sense of this passage it should be kept in mind here
that civil law in Islamic societies was at the time under the purvey of the
'ulama. They were the ones who determined the law while the government was
supposed to merely enforce it.
"Briefly, this is the wisdom of referring the civil laws [akham-i madaniyyih]
to the House of Justice. In the religion of Islam, similarly, not every
ordinance was
explicitly revealed; nay not a tenth part of a tenth part was included in
the Text; although all matters of major importance were specifically
referred to, there were undoubtedly thousands of laws which were
unspecified. These were devised by the divines of a later age according to
the laws of Islamic jurisprudence, and individual divines made conflicting
deductions from the original revealed ordinances. All these were enforced.
Today this process of deduction is the right of the body of the House of
Justice, and the deductions and conclusions of individual learned men have
no authority, unless they are endorsed by the House of Justice. The
difference is precisely this, that from the conclusions and endorsements
of the body of the House of Justice whose members are elected by and known
to the worldwide Baha'i community, no differences will arise; whereas the
conclusions of individual divines and scholars would definitely lead to
differences, and result in schism, division, and dispersion. The oneness
of the Word would be destroyed, the unity of the Faith would disappear,
and the edifice of the Faith of God would be shaken." "Amr va Khalq",
Volume 4, Baha'i-Verlag, Germany 142 B.E. (1986), pp 298-302.
Now the following is taken from an oral talk by 'Abdu'l-Baha but I think it
pretty much elucidates what He was talking about in the Will and Testament.
"All the civic affairs and the legislation of material laws for the
increasing needs of the enlightened humanity belong to the House of Justice.
This the House of Justice, will be not only a body for the legislation of
laws according to the spirit and requirement of the time, but a board of
arbitration for the settlement of all disputes arising between peoples. When
the Universal House of Justice is organized the members will do their utmost
for the realization of greater cordiality and comity amongst the nations.
The Laws of Bahá'u'lláh are the unchangeable, organic laws of the Universal
House of Justice. They are the very foundation upon which the structure of
additional legislation is built... Again, I repeat, the House of Justice,
whether National or Universal, has only legislative power and not executive
power...
(From words of 'Abdu'l-Bahá in: Star of the West, Vol. VII, No. 15, pp.
138-139)
I think that pretty much spells out both the extent and limitations of the
power of the Houses of Justice.
warmest, Susan
Pat Kohli
Susan Maneck wrote:
> >The UHJ letter seems to be unavailable at the moment, and in
> >any case, I have some initial comments:
>
> I'll be happy to make it available in its entirety:
>
> THE UNIVERSAL HOUSE OF JUSTICE
> BAHA'I WORLD CENTRE
> Department of the Secretariat 27 April 1995
Well, it certainly looks a lot more involved than how I pictured it. Time will
tell how and when this evolves.
Eric Stetson
> The theocratic fantasy is that
> somehow this transition will be achieved peacefully, with non-Baha'is
> not protesting about it. It would be unfair to depict this version of
> Baha'i eschatology as a violent one i.e. that Baha'is are dreaming of
> conquering the world by force. However, it *is* a completely
> unrealistic one -- that somehow it will all miraculously happen without
> force.
Yeah, it's really so unrealistic that there's not much reason to worry
about it ever happening. In that sense, it could be chalked up as a
purely eschatological vision rather than a concrete expectation or
plan for the foreseeable future.
> It is not impossible, however, that Baha'is will someday be
> forced to choose between theocratic asperations, which many believe to
> be essential, and non-violence, which *is* an essential feature of
> Baha'u'llah's teaching. I ardently hope that Baha'is will always choose
> the non-violent course.
If the Baha'i Faith ever becomes that popular, then I guess we'll see
which value proves to be more important to the Baha'is. My own
suspicion is that the Baha'i Faith will never significantly grow
unless it liberalizes its doctrine about such issues as freedom of
expression, separation of church and state, etc. But I could be
wrong.
> In theory, covenant-breakers are supposed to have the right to own
> property and to be employed. In fact, 'Abdu'l-Baha' was quite furious at
> some Baha'is who tried to get a CB fired from his job, saying the man
> had a right to earn a living. However, you are familiar with how
> covenant-breakers are regarded on the popular level. You can't single
> out a class of people as being "spiritually diseased" and so on, and
> *not* have them regarded as second-class citizens.
Exactly. There's a big difference between theory and reality. The
world saw that with Communism. It looked great on paper but proved to
be a horror in real life.
> And you are correct
> that there remains the question of what would happen to dissidents under
> a Baha'i theocracy. Based upon current-day attitudes, the outlook isn't
> encouraging.
Can you imagine the people in the AO today with real police powers,
i.e. with guns and jail cells to use against dissidents? It would be
a nightmare.
> > Baha'is, is that the kind of world you want to live in? Is that the
> > world of tolerance, peace, unity and equality that Baha'is advertise
> > as the goal of the faith? Think about it. And then, if you still are
> > prepared to defend the concept of a future Baha'i theocracy, be
> > prepared for people to consider the Baha'i Faith an extremist movement
> > akin to such morally and spiritually repugnant belief systems as
> > Nazism, Fascism, Communism, and Wahhabi and Khomeinist Islam.
>
> Yeah, it makes us look pretty bad -- people have already made those
> kinds of comparisons. That's one reason why Baha'is don't advertise it;
> I didn't have a clue about theocratic teaching until *after* I signed my
> card.
Probably most people don't. I can't remember whether I did or not,
but if not I found out pretty quickly and I'm embarrassed to say I
actually embraced the idea for a while. I was very utopian then. So
were most of my Baha'i friends. I remember having lots of discussions
about Baha'i theocracy and I don't remember anyone saying they
disagreed with it. This was on a college campus, though, so maybe we
were all just ridiculously naive at that point. Or maybe people were
afraid of saying anything that might be vaguely construed as "contrary
to the Covenant." Looking back, I actually do suspect that we all
were talking a lot of BS to some extent, because nobody ever wanted to
say anything that contradicted what they thought was supposed to be
the party line. I definitely got that sense. Usually I was one of a
very few people in my community who ever openly disagreed with
anything.
> Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha' had a lot of
> good things to say about democracy and freedom of conscience.
True, they did say some good things. Too bad Shoghi Effendi
interpreted the teachings in such an authoritarian way. His vision
really changed the faith dramatically from what it would have been
otherwise.
The most striking thing I remember about my several years as a Baha'i,
surrounded by young, active hard-core Baha'is (and being one myself)
was the total fear of disagreement and debate. This mentality of
subtle coercion and false unity was so pervasive in my community that
I could almost feel it in the air, like a fog hanging over our
meetings, which by the way tended to be extremely long and
repetitious. I remember sitting through those long drawn-out meetings
for hours on end, thinking, why can't we just clear the air and get
something done for a change? Why all this BS coming out of people's
mouths? "Consultation" really just meant everyone trying to agree
with everyone else, even if nobody had actually said anything of
substance yet. I could tell that people had the impression that the
more "unified" you were, the holier you were. Any sign of true
argument or contradictory viewpoints was met with a suspicion of
"disunity" -- the feeling you had was that you were committing a sin
by disagreeing with someone else. Thus, nothing ever got done because
you could never cut through all the pious BS.
In a Baha'i theocracy with this attitude, I think probably all
decisions would end up being made by a very small group of people (or
maybe even one person) and everyone else would just follow along for
fear of being labelled a "source of disunity."
This comic, Communist-style version of "consultation" is obviously not
what Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha wanted, but somehow most Baha'is
today seem to think it is.
My mother has a friend from a formerly Communist country who once went
to a Baha'i fireside. The topic was the Baha'i one world order, i.e.
Baha'i theocracy. After the presentation, the speaker asked her what
she thought. She said, "This is just like Communism. I know what
Communism is like, because I lived under it. It's not a utopia, it's
hell on earth." Her investigation of the Baha'i Faith stopped right
there.
Eric Stetson
http://www.bahai-faith.com
Freethought110
According to Juan, Ali Nakhjavani (former uhj member) is the
originator of this idea.
Karen Bacquet
Eric Stetson wrote:
> Karen Bacquet <bac...@tco.net> wrote in message news:<3F11C09...@tco.net>...
>
>>The theocratic fantasy is that
>>somehow this transition will be achieved peacefully, with non-Baha'is
>>not protesting about it. It would be unfair to depict this version of
>>Baha'i eschatology as a violent one i.e. that Baha'is are dreaming of
>>conquering the world by force. However, it *is* a completely
>>unrealistic one -- that somehow it will all miraculously happen without
>>force.
>
>
> Yeah, it's really so unrealistic that there's not much reason to worry
> about it ever happening. In that sense, it could be chalked up as a
> purely eschatological vision rather than a concrete expectation or
> plan for the foreseeable future.
Dear Eric,
*That's* exactly why I think it's so foolish for *one* particular point
of view on it to be insisted on. It's like saying you can't be a
Christian unless you're a pre-trib dispensationalist.
>
>
> If the Baha'i Faith ever becomes that popular, then I guess we'll see
> which value proves to be more important to the Baha'is. My own
> suspicion is that the Baha'i Faith will never significantly grow
> unless it liberalizes its doctrine about such issues as freedom of
> expression, separation of church and state, etc. But I could be
> wrong.
I think you're right. One of the problems we've had with keeping
converts is that we promote ourselves as being a liberal, open, tolerant
religion, then whammo! you get hit with this other stuff. Most people
in our area who became Baha'is didn't last a year.
>>
>>Yeah, it makes us look pretty bad -- people have already made those
>>kinds of comparisons. That's one reason why Baha'is don't advertise it;
>>I didn't have a clue about theocratic teaching until *after* I signed my
>>card.
>
>
> Probably most people don't. I can't remember whether I did or not,
> but if not I found out pretty quickly and I'm embarrassed to say I
> actually embraced the idea for a while.
Yes, I'll confess I bought into it, too -- even though it bothered me.
I did a Scarlett O'Hara "I'll think about that tomorrow" about it. But
hallelujah! I've been set free, and don't have to accept things that
don't make sense to me in order to be a Baha'i. The pressure not to
think independently is insidious, and because there is a lid on
alternative ideas, you don't even have the tools to think with. I had
never even heard that some Baha'is don't believe in theocracy until I
read M&M; it was an amazing sort of epiphany.
>
>
>>Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha' had a lot of
>>good things to say about democracy and freedom of conscience.
>
>
> True, they did say some good things. Too bad Shoghi Effendi
> interpreted the teachings in such an authoritarian way. His vision
> really changed the faith dramatically from what it would have been
> otherwise.
That's very generous of you, Eric -- I've got to give you credit for
being fair-minded, even if you took another spiritual path.
>
> The most striking thing I remember about my several years as a Baha'i,
> surrounded by young, active hard-core Baha'is (and being one myself)
> was the total fear of disagreement and debate. This mentality of
> subtle coercion and false unity was so pervasive in my community that
> I could almost feel it in the air, like a fog hanging over our
> meetings, which by the way tended to be extremely long and
> repetitious. I remember sitting through those long drawn-out meetings
> for hours on end, thinking, why can't we just clear the air and get
> something done for a change? Why all this BS coming out of people's
> mouths? "Consultation" really just meant everyone trying to agree
> with everyone else, even if nobody had actually said anything of
> substance yet. I could tell that people had the impression that the
> more "unified" you were, the holier you were. Any sign of true
> argument or contradictory viewpoints was met with a suspicion of
> "disunity" -- the feeling you had was that you were committing a sin
> by disagreeing with someone else. Thus, nothing ever got done because
> you could never cut through all the pious BS.
Well, what I found was that nobody ever talked about anything really
important; it was all along the lines of what color t-shirs we should
wear in the parade. We had some major underlying tensions in the
community that we never faced head-on; everybody was afraid to.
>
> In a Baha'i theocracy with this attitude, I think probably all
> decisions would end up being made by a very small group of people (or
> maybe even one person) and everyone else would just follow along for
> fear of being labelled a "source of disunity."
>
> This comic, Communist-style version of "consultation" is obviously not
> what Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha wanted, but somehow most Baha'is
> today seem to think it is.
Consulation is supposed to be "frank"; everyone is supposed to be able
to freely air their feelings, with the aim that you come up with a
compromise that everyone can support. But, like I said, we rarely
talked about anything important.
Love, Karen
http://www.bacquet.tk
Freethought110
> Eric Stetson wrote:
> > Karen Bacquet <bac...@tco.net> wrote in message news:<3F10C010...@tco.net>...
> >
> >>I have heard of Baha'is saying
> >>that CBs will be sent to jail.
> >
> >
> > Really? Who said that? Was it anyone important in the AO? I would
> > be very interested to find out who holds this view and if it has any
> > influence in Baha'i circles of power.
>
> Nobody in power that I know of;
Shows how much you know. According to Juan Ali Nakhjavani once said
something to that effect.
Karen Bacquet
>
> But again, Karen, the question of how a Baha'i theocracy might come about, or
> whether one is desirable is completely irrelevant to whether or not it is a
> part of the Teachings. You have yet to address this question adequately. When
> someone claims to be a Baha'i yet discount the notion of theorcay and tries to
> prove its not in the Writings simply because they don't like it then they are
> trying to remake the Faith in their own image, and that is just plain wrong.
Oh, pull in your claws. I will never address the issue "adequately"
enough for you -- you know it and I know it, so cut the personal
comments and your assumptions about what's going on in my head. I
pulled out darn-near every cotton-pickin' thing Baha'u'llah ever said
about government, and he bestowed legitimacy on secular governments --
something quite radical for a person of Shi'ite background. The idea
that we are supposed to show this outward loyalty to governments while
in our hearts we're waiting for the whole thing to crumble so Baha'i
institutions can rule is just hypocritical. I don't believe Baha'u'llah
taught that, and if you don't like it, that's tough.
Oh, I forgot one, from the Iqan (quoting from memory so it may not be
exact): "Earthly sovereignity is not, and never has been, of any worth
in the eyes of God and that of His chosen ones."
Randy Burns
Freethought110 <freetho...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:83b59396.0307...@posting.google.com...
> erics...@yahoo.com (Eric Stetson) wrote in message
news:<f581312e.03071...@posting.google.com>...
> > Karen Bacquet <bac...@tco.net> wrote in message
news:<3F10C010...@tco.net>...
> > > I have heard of Baha'is saying
> > > that CBs will be sent to jail.
>
> originator of this idea.
Actually this isn't surprising. Aren't you a lawyer Nima? In the US
convicted felons lose their right to vote, I don't know about Australia. So
if there were a Baha'i theocracy then "all lawbreakers" per se would be
Covenant Breakers and would lose their right to vote and be a member in good
standing in the community.
This part of Karen's argument is weak. After all, secular society already
has CB's and these CB's are simply people who can't live by societies laws
and of course these CB's land in jail all the time and also lose their right
to vote. There is really no difference and generally most people shun these
CB's anyway just like Baha'is do. After all many people are reluctant to
hire or to be friendly with convicted felons and most such law breakers form
societies of their own anyway. I see no difference.
Cheers, Randy
Susan Maneck
>suspicion is that the Baha'i Faith will never significantly grow
>unless it liberalizes its doctrine about such issues as freedom of
>expression, separation of church and state, etc.
Dear Eric,
Then why are you still so obsessed about it that you have to come up with a
whole website attacking it?
>Can you imagine the people in the AO today with real police powers,
>i.e. with guns and jail cells to use against dissidents?
Yoo hoo. Is anyone paying attention? Abdu'l-Baha indicated that Baha'i elected
institutions won't have executive powers, only legislative ones.
warmest, Susan
Susan Maneck
>never even heard that some Baha'is don't believe in theocracy until I
>read M&M; it was an amazing sort of epiphany.
Except the author of M&M was saying at the time he wasn't a Baha'i.
Susan Maneck
>Oh, pull in your claws. I will never address the issue "adequately"
>enough for you -- you know it and I know it, so cut the personal
>comments and your assumptions about what's going on in my head.
Karen,
It's not a personal comment. It is a description of the fact that you are
debunking the notion of theocracy without addressing the essential issue of
whether or not it is indeed part of the Teachings.
>I don't believe Baha'u'llah
>taught that, and if you don't like it, that's tough.
If you want to isolate Baha'u'llah entirely from 'Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi
Effendi you might be able to come to that conclusion. But then we are no longer
talking about "Baha'i Teachings" are we? Because Baha'i Teachings include the
authoritative interpretations.
> "Earthly sovereignity is not, and never has been, of any worth
>in the eyes of God and that of His chosen ones."
So would it be your interpretation that no Baha'i should every have a voice in
government whatsoever? No, clearly Baha'u'llah is just saying the
Manifestations don't seek any personal gain or power.
warmest, Susan
Susan Maneck
>> matters. Political matters are being separated from matters of worship and
>the
>> former is being assigned to the House of Justice.
>
>All the better then. Political matters between the Baha'is faith and civil
>governments should be handled by the House of Justice. That is what we do
>now isn't it? I don't see where Baha'u'llah takes power for civil control
>of general non-Baha'i population and places that in the hands of the House
>of Justice.
Shoghi Effendi clearly did: "Bahá'u'lláh clearly states that affairs of state
as well as religious questions are to be referred to the House of Justice
into which the Assemblies of the Bahá'ís will eventually evolve."
>
>In the Aqdas where Baha'u'llah orders local Houses of Justice to be elected,
>the only requirement is that elected members must be rijal, no where does He
>say that they have to be Baha'is.
The stipulation that they be Baha'is is in the Will and Testament, not the
Aqdas.
warmest, Susan