Callousness of institutions
Swiss Heritage
demagoguery, is because of the devious, cold-blooded, and contemptuous
way Baha'i institutions, including the Universal House of Justice,
seem to treat people sometimes. They see signs of that in the language
of messages from the institutions, and above all in the words and
conduct of some people who spend their time in Internet discussions
arguing with critics of Baha'i administration.
I see all that too, and I can sympathize very well with the feeling
that it will never change by working within the boundaries drawn by
those same institutions, or at least that there are faster and better
ways to work for change that it would be wrong not to use.
I certainly am not impressed by the apologetics I've seen posted in
Internet discussions by people who argue with critics of Baha'i
administration. I have reasons of my own for strictly abstaining from
adversarial strategies, but I've never tried to discuss them with
anyone. For me, walking and working with abused and marginalized
people has a much higher priority than trying to persuade raging
castaways that their methods are wrong.
Jim
"Slowly, gradually, a marvelous world civilization will develop, with
a world Executive, supported by an international Force, guided by the
adjudications of a Supreme Tribunal, serving the interests of all
nations, implementing the decisions of a global Legislature, freely
elected by all the inhabitants of the diverse but unified planet,
mirroring, however faintly, His Kingdom."
- Fred Glaysher, "The Bower of Nil"
Swiss Heritage
wrote:
>Maybe one reason some Baha'is rally around Baha'i regime change
>demagoguery, is because of the devious, cold-blooded, and contemptuous
>way Baha'i institutions, including the Universal House of Justice,
>seem to treat people sometimes. They see signs of that in the language
>of messages from the institutions, and above all in the words and
>conduct of some people who spend their time in Internet discussions
>arguing with critics of Baha'i administration.
>
>I see all that too, and I can sympathize very well with the feeling
>that it will never change by working within the boundaries drawn by
>those same institutions, or at least that there are faster and better
>ways to work for change that it would be wrong not to use.
I can also see that the apparent cold-blooded, arrogant, contemptuous
attitude of the institutions; and the demagoguery and abusive language
of some of the castaways; might all arise from the same denial and
repression of femininity that underly child abuse, violence against
women, and orientationism.
Starr!!!!!!!!!!!!
I see it!!!!!!!!!!!
Now, there just *has* to be a racism factor in here somewhere, also.
Jim
Swiss Heritage
of raging Baha'i castaways, is that for many months I was raging in
exactly the same way, in my mind and with some people around me, about
the U.S. government and the global corporate empire it serves. As I
see it, upper-level managers of the Baha'i economy display the same
megalomania, arrogance, utilitarianism and soullessness, that
upper-level managers of the world's economy do, towards the earth and
its people.
Randy Burns
"Swiss Heritage" <geo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:h73u51pj9jlevi220...@4ax.com...
> Maybe one reason some Baha'is rally around Baha'i regime change
> demagoguery, is because of the devious, cold-blooded, and contemptuous
> way Baha'i institutions, including the Universal House of Justice,
> seem to treat people sometimes. They see signs of that in the language
> of messages from the institutions, and above all in the words and
> conduct of some people who spend their time in Internet discussions
> arguing with critics of Baha'i administration.
I see no reason to think that Baha'is should or could work for regime change
within the Baha'i Faith. Since the Faith is run by a Cadre system this is
for all intents and purposes an impossibility.
You are right that the attitude of the UHJ and its agents is a cause for
major concern. George Bernanos in speaking of the Catholic Church said "The
Saints were obedient, not subservient." There is a vast difference between
the two. No one obeys the laws of their government because they "love"
their government.
> I see all that too, and I can sympathize very well with the feeling
> that it will never change by working within the boundaries drawn by
> those same institutions, or at least that there are faster and better
> ways to work for change that it would be wrong not to use.
Baha'is need to understand the political nature of the AO and the underlying
basis of control exercised by the Cadre system. Since all religions in the
world today are becoming and slowly transforming themselves into political
entities, the Baha'i Faith also must do this. What confuses Baha'i rank and
filers is the common misbelief that the Institutions of the Faith are meant
to be spiritual in nature. Baha'u'lah set up the Mashriqs to be the
spiritual entities in the Faith and the AO as the political arm.
> I certainly am not impressed by the apologetics I've seen posted in
> Internet discussions by people who argue with critics of Baha'i
> administration. I have reasons of my own for strictly abstaining from
> adversarial strategies, but I've never tried to discuss them with
> anyone. For me, walking and working with abused and marginalized
> people has a much higher priority than trying to persuade raging
> castaways that their methods are wrong.
Actually they are wrong, for the reasons I state above. Their is no point
in asking for reform of the AO, but wider understanding of the underlying
facts is needed.
Cheers, Randy
geo...@yahoo.com
I think I might be on to something here.
Jim
Randy Burns
This is another quote from Bernanos you might have interest in:
"The responsibility of the one obeying is such a primary factor that it
immediately and unhesitatingly challenges the absolute resonsibility of the
commander to the one obeying. And the gesture of trust of a subordinate
laden with responsibility, who offers his person to a superior in obedience
to God, calls for the personal response of the superior. It is absolutely
impossible that a personal relationship of obedience should remains
one-sided, that is, be answered by the superior merely officially and
impersonally, according to administrative practices. The man who obeys
surrenders his person, and this is something so unheard of, that such
exposure--like that of Saint Francis on the square of Assisi--must be
enveloped at once by the cloak of the personal love of the superior. In
other words : no relationship, no matter how official, can do away with the
necessity of love. No superior in the Church may demand love merely because
of his official position, and obedience is always love! If he is not
willing, according to the measure of his powers, to render a personal,
Christian love in return and yet makes this demand, he becomes guilty
towards the loving man who obeys him."
Cheers, Randy
John MacLeod
<snip>
>for many months I was raging in
> exactly the same way, in my mind and with some people around me, about
> the U.S. government and the global corporate empire it serves.
Did you manage to get out of that mood, and, of so, how? And what was left?
How do you feel about the US government now and would you think it good if
your current feelings about the US gov were duplicated by the castaways
about the Baha'i government?
Swiss Heritage
I'll need some time to find words for all that. What I can say now is
that my view of Baha'i game masters and my view of the world's game
masters have been approaching each other, all for the better it seems
to me.
Jim
Swiss Heritage
<jrma...@consultant.com> wrote:
>
>"Swiss Heritage" <geo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:qf7v51ttu6b006m16...@4ax.com...
>
><snip>
>
>>for many months I was raging in
>> exactly the same way, in my mind and with some people around me, about
>> the U.S. government and the global corporate empire it serves.
>
>Did you manage to get out of that mood, and, of so, how?
Determination and perseverance. I've been working for most of my life
to learn not to demonize any category of people. Global game masters
were my last frontier. I kept trying and trying, and finally
succeeded.
>And what was left?
Possibilities. Maybe there are game masters like the ones I've
imagined, and maybe there aren't. Maybe some of them are as villainous
as I've imagined, and maybe they aren't. In any case I don't imagine
they are any more villainous than some other people are, in all
categories and at all levels of society. Their villainy impacts more
directly on more people, and on more of the Earth, that's all.
While I was imagining them as villains, I searched through the
writings for ideas of what God might do about it, and how I might
help. All of the ideas I found seem good to me, even if there are no
villains like the ones I've imagined.
I thought a lot about what might done to restrain and retrain the
marauders, and after some searching, I found signs that there are game
masters who love justice, and who are working on the problem, and that
demagoguery and muckraking do not help, and in fact make the work that
much harder. All they need me to do is keep on with my grass roots
work. I actually met one, I think, in an Internet discussion, who said
he's as happy about what I'm doing, as I am about what he's doing.
>How do you feel about the US government now
It looks to me like it puts the interests of global economic abusers
ahead of everything else.
>and would you think it good if
>your current feelings about the US gov were duplicated by the castaways
>about the Baha'i government?
I'm not sure. I'm not sure what anyone else should be doing. It
*looks* to me like they are missing some wonderful possibilities in
life, by not getting to know Baha'u'llah better and learning to trust
Him more, but I'm not sure.
I keep thinking of Roy Neary, in "Close Encounters of the Third Kind."
On the face of it, his obsession with building a mountain out of
shaving cream and mashed potatoes and whatever else he can find,
destroys his life. What could be more horrendous in life than
destroying your family? Yet in the end, his obsession turns out to
have a wonderful meaning.
I hesitate to say that it would be better for Wahid or Fred or Dermod
or Starr or anyone else not to be doing what they're doing. All the
same I feel like they are missing a lot, by not getting to know
Baha'u'llah better.
Above, I said that demagoguery and muckraking do not help, and yet my
current understanding of the world economy, which I'm very glad to
have, came to me partly through some other people's demagoguery and
muckraking. What can I say then, against other people's demagoguery
and muckraking? Only that I've found better things for me to do, and
there *might* be better things for them to do. Not by imitating what
I'm doing, but by getting to know Baha'u'llah better.
Jim
Cal E. Rollins
Having retired from the U.S. Government as well as been trained by the
Justice Department, I don't see much difference between the way the
current Baha'i system works than the American Government's.
However, the U.S. Government preaches separation of church and state
(more in tune with the original Faith) while the current Faith does not,
in fact rather shamelessly advocates the union of such. This even
though ample proof in the Writings have been marshalled to show
Baha'u'llah, 'Abdu'l-Baha, and the Guardian did not envision the church
taking over state affairs. Have you seen all the material offered on
such sites as Talisman9 to document this fact? --Cal
Cal E. Rollins
Are you assuming that by "getting to know Baha'u'llah better" that
means, tout de suite, knowing the workings of the evolving
Administrative Order? If so, I differ with you.
In fact, the Guardian tells us we don't even know where the entire Minor
Plan is going to go, except we have a promise that at some point it'll
meet up with Allah's Plan and do whatever Allah wishes it to do. You
sound like you've got everything down pat and clear, when in fact it
ain't. Don't be playing partners with Allah, 'cause Allah don't like
that. --Cal
All_Bad
> Jim, John,
>
> Having retired from the U.S. Government as well as been trained by the
> Justice Department, I don't see much difference between the way the
> current Baha'i system works than the American Government's.
>
> However, the U.S. Government preaches separation of church and state
The US governemtn is using faith based agencies to pursue a lot of stuff
these days. I'm surprised you missed that.
> (more in tune with the original Faith) while the current Faith does not,
> in fact rather shamelessly advocates the union of such.
Do you have examples of, perhaps, the AO advocating for Christian prayer
in school? Perhaps other examples of whatever it is you are referring to?
> This even
> though ample proof in the Writings have been marshalled to show
> Baha'u'llah, 'Abdu'l-Baha, and the Guardian did not envision the church
> taking over state affairs. Have you seen all the material offered on
> such sites as Talisman9 to document this fact? --Cal
Perhaps you could document the fact you refer to?
- Mr. All Bad
Swiss Heritage
Rollins) wrote:
>Jim,
>
>Are you assuming that by "getting to know Baha'u'llah better" that
>means, tout de suite, knowing the workings of the evolving
>Administrative Order?
No. What I said about getting to know Baha'u'llah better has nothing
to do with the workings of the AO. It has to do with responding to
injustice and abuse, and getting the most out of life.
>In fact, the Guardian tells us we don't even know where the entire Minor
>Plan is going to go, except we have a promise that at some point it'll
>meet up with Allah's Plan and do whatever Allah wishes it to do. You
>sound like you've got everything down pat and clear, when in fact it
>ain't.
Not at all. Maybe you missed the thread where I argued, in view of
what happened after Shoghi Effendi died, that we don't know the
future, including the future of the Baha'i Faith. I don't think that
anything we've ever heard in the Baha'i Faith, about the future, is
guaranteed, any more than anything else in life.
Jim
Swiss Heritage
"callousness," honestly!
Jim
Cal E. Rollins
Read the letter from the Universal House of Justice on Theocracy on the
Internet. Then read the incredibly informative stuff from scholars on
the subject on Talisman9 and H-Bahai. That should give you a pretty
good rap sheet on the problem we have with separation of church and
state.
True, some of the Repubs are trying to get faith-based initiatives
initiated but they ain't having much success. The Schiavo debacle was
the most recent attempt, although I felt ready to throw in my towel in
support of her case but have come to my senses after her death. --Cal
Has...@aol.com
> (more in tune with the original Faith) while the current Faith does
not,
> in fact rather shamelessly advocates the union of such. This even
> though ample proof in the Writings have been marshalled to show
> Baha'u'llah, 'Abdu'l-Baha, and the Guardian did not envision the
church
> taking over state affairs. Have you seen all the material offered on
> such sites as Talisman9 to document this fact?
All_Bad
Cal E. Rollins wrote:
> Pat,
>
> Read the letter from the Universal House of Justice on Theocracy on the
> Internet.
Gladly, but, perhaps you could apply your vast research skills to find
what you are refering to?
Had you read on the internet, what Shoghi Effendi had said, over 70
years ago? Surely you have heard about it by now!
"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."
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bhi/shogi/wob.txt
"State religion" wow! It sounds so European, so, old world, so
confused between church and state. I'm hoping you can find the time to
read, "The World Order of Baha'u'llah" someday. It could be a best
seller! Right?
> Then read the incredibly informative stuff from scholars on
> the subject on Talisman9 and H-Bahai.
Maybe you could post a link to that, too, so I don't get lost and read
stuff from young Shoghi Effendi imagining Baha'i as a state religion.
> That should give you a pretty
> good rap sheet on the problem we have with separation of church and
> state.
Right now, we are against it. No problems.
> True, some of the Repubs are trying to get faith-based initiatives
> initiated but they ain't having much success. The Schiavo debacle was
> the most recent attempt, although I felt ready to throw in my towel in
> support of her case but have come to my senses after her death. --Cal
>
My wife and I firmly supported the Schiavos. If it had dragged on a few
days longer, I'd have been tempted to telegram the Schindlers and tell
them to shut up and mourn their daughter the right way, and stop
dragging everyone through the tragedy every day.
- Mr. All Bad
All_Bad
> Oh, dear me! Cal, I wasn't thinking of you when I chose the world
> "callousness," honestly!
>
I'm wondering where Steve is. I thought it was his job to wound the
heels and all that.
- Mr. All Bad
Ross Campbell
The promised and prophesied Kingdom of God on Earth will
bring spiritual solutions for Earth's problems, all of
it's problems. The Institutions which will function within
that World Commonwealth of Baha'u'llah will function in harmony
with the spiritual Principles of His Revelation. Those
Institutions will be trained by those Principles and will
strive to obey them. For that reason, those Institutions will
be spiritual in nature--all of them, from the Local Spiritual
Assemblies to the "twin pillars" of the Administration of the
New World Order, namely the Guardianship and the Universal
House of Justice, and also the Institution of the Hands of
the Baha'i Faith in submission to the Guardian of the Baha'i
Faith. They will all be spiritual in nature. The Baha'i Faith
is spiritual in nature.
The website of the living Guardian of the Baha'i Faith:
Swiss Heritage
How do you know I'm not really Steve? You know how good I am at
impersonations. Maybe Steve and I are really the same person, and have
been all along. In fact, how do you know I'm not really Susan, and
Wahid, and George, and you?
love,
Ginger
Swiss Heritage
Rollins) wrote:
>Jim,
>
>Are you assuming that by "getting to know Baha'u'llah better" that
>means, tout de suite, knowing the workings of the evolving
>Administrative Order?
What I said (It *looks* to me like they are missing some wonderful
possibilities in life, by not getting to know Baha'u'llah better and
learning to trust Him more, but I'm not sure) applies as much to Susan
and Pat, and some others who are reputed to be AO supporters, as it
does to anyone else.
Jim
All_Bad
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 20:13:04 -0400, All_Bad
> <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Swiss Heritage wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Oh, dear me! Cal, I wasn't thinking of you when I chose the world
>>>"callousness," honestly!
>>>
>>
>>I'm wondering where Steve is. I thought it was his job to wound the
>>heels and all that.
>>
>>- Mr. All Bad
>
>
> How do you know I'm not really Steve?
The sheep speak to me, ewe know, and fill me in on who is, and who is
not Steve. Today you are still not Steve.
> You know how good I am at
> impersonations.
I do have this impression, in the back of my mind, that you have played
the impression game, BUT, I don't recall that Steve plays that one .....
> Maybe Steve and I are really the same person, and have
> been all along. In fact, how do you know I'm not really Susan, and
> Wahid, and George, and you?
>
I am the Walrus. Goo goo ga joob.
- Mr. All Bad
Cal E. Rollins
Thanks. I like the stuff done by Sen in the Netherlands. He did his
study and thesis in the area of Baha'i jurisprudence and studied the
Writings of Baha'u'llah, 'Abdu'l-Baha, and the Guardian on church and
state. The quotes he provides clearly let us know we ain't suppose to
be messing with state affairs. --Cal
Cal E. Rollins
Well, good on you (as I learned from Nima). I did write my
Congresspersons in support of keeping Schiavo alive. I also made sure
my kids knew that I wanted to be kept alive forever if necessary and
possible. Especially since it's this world where we gain what we need
for the next. I don't want nobody terminating me until I can milk every
drop of the Needful Milk for the Next World.
Now that quote you give from Shoghi Effendi about the Baha'i Super State
is out of context with the other things he's said. And certainly out of
context with what 'Abdu'l-Baha and Baha'u'llah have said. I'd start
with _Sec. of Divine Civilization_, then pull up Sen's cogent discussion
on Church and State for an eye-opener. --Cal
Swiss Heritage
Does anyone have any more comments on the following ideas and
observations?
1. Baha'i institutions are abusing people in some of the same ways
that governments and institutions do.
2. I see some people denying that, and saying that according to
God-appointed infallible sources, it's impossible.
3. I see some people advocating regime change as a solution.
4. One of the remedies I see, for all kinds of abuse, is learning to
value femininity.
5. The first place I look for solutions to any problem in society, is
in the writings of Baha'u'llah, with the help of Abdu'l-Baha, Shoghi
Effendi, and the Universal House of Justice.
Cal E. Rollins
Thank you, but when you refer to my vast research skills on Saturday,
you are in error. All this new-fangle stuff like Google leaves me cold.
I still struggle with trying to remember where I read this and that many
moons ago, and spend tons of time thumbing through my dog-eared and much
underlined books to find what I need. But in some respects this is
good, because I often fall upon something I'd missed and forget about
what I was looking for. Not good research skills at all.
So I rather envy you people who seem not to have read the entirety of
anything, especially from the Guardian, and never have had the
experience of waiting for him to send out a new Message and a new
Challenge for us to devour and respond to, often competitively. I say
envy because you can delve into the Googley-goop and come with stuff out
of context and blast it into the Cosmos as though it's the last word on
the Word. To boot, express arrogance and defensiveness about your
mechanically acquired new knowledge. I wish I could do that.
Fortunately I'm too old to learn those kinds of tricks. --Cal
Has...@aol.com
Has...@aol.com
Sen McGlinn's article "Theocratic Assumptions in Bahá'í Literature"
argues that, contrary to the belief commonly held by Bahá'ís 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 Bahá'í 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 Bahá'í scriptures he includes the Writings
of Bahá'u'lláh 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 Bahá'u'lláh states
that the "All matters of State should be referred to the House of
Justice."1
McGlinn's discussion of 'Abdu'l-Bahá's Writings focuses on the
Risaliy-i Siyasiyyah, The Secret of Divine Civilization and A
Traveler's Narrative, texts where 'Abdu'l-Bahá decries 'ulama
interference in matters of state as evidence that 'Abdu'l-Bahá
supported the separation of church and state. He omits in
Abdu'l-Bahá'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 Bahá'í community. He also points out a key
passage where the Guardian states that Bahá'ís 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
Bahá'ís 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 Bahá'u'lláh, McGlinn argues
that when Shoghi Effendi predicted the establishment of a Bahá'í
State he was merely speaking of the time when the Bahá'í Faith would
become the state religions much as is the case in countries such as
England. It did not mean that Bahá'í Institutions would take over any
of the functions of government. McGlinn even suggests that
Bahá'u'lláh's own praise for that government included praise for
their church/state relations. Given the fact that Bahá' u'llah only
praises the British for combining kingship and consultation, this seems
highly speculative. McGlinn insists that when Shoghi Effendi used the
term Bahá'í Commonwealth he meant nothing more than the Bahá'í
religious community [`ummá]. 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 'Bahá'í Commonwealth' to refer to
the Bahá'í community of the past or the present, but only for a
future state of affairs. Had it referred merely to the Bahá'í
community in general he would have surely used it in those contexts.
McGlinn accounts for the prevalence of Bahá'í belief in theocracy by
arguing that it is rooted in tampered version of talks given by
'Abdu'l-Bahá 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 Bahá'ís 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 Bahá'í 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-Bahá and the Guardian! While McGlinn is correct that
oral reports cannot be used to determine Bahá'í 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 Bahá'í 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 Bahá'í
World Order, something he derisively refers to as "dispensationalism."7
McGlinn instead argues for a much more frozen conception of the
Bahá'í 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 Bahá'í 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
Bahá'í 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 Bahá'u'lláh, 'Abdu' l-Bahá 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 Bahá'í 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 Bahá'í 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 Bahá'í 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 Bahá'í administrative institutions are
analogous to the Christian church and that references to government in
the Bahá'í writings refer to executive, legislative and judicial
functions found in Western society. I would challenge that assumption.
For the most part the Bahá'í 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 Bahá'í 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
Bahá'í 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 Bahá'í institutions are to play in
the Bahá'í 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 Bahá'í institutions.
While there may well be several possible understandings of the proper
relationship between religion and state envisioned for eventual World
Order of Bahá'u'lláh, anything which claims to represent the Bahá'í
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
Bahá'í figure in isolation from later pronouncements, a Bahá'í
theologian cannot do justice to the Teachings without considering what
all the authoritative sources have to say.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Bahá'u'lláh, Tablets of Bahá'u'lláh, revealed after the
Kitáb-i-Aqdas, translated by Habib Taherzadeh, (Haifa, Bahá'í 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-Bahá's Tablet on the Functioning of the Universal House of
Justice which is in Majmu'ih-yi Maka'tibi 'Abdu'l-Bahá, Iranian
National Bahá'í 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." Bahá'í 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 Bahá'í institutions to those of the country in
which the Bahá'ís 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 Bahá'í 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 Bahá'í 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
Bahá'í Reference File, (New Delhi: Bahá'í 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. Bahá'í Studies Archives, March 21, 2002.
11. Bahá'í Studies Archives, March 16, 2002.
12. Shoghi Effendi, Bahá'í Administration, (Wilmette, Ill: Bahá'í
Publishing Trust, 1974) p. 62.
13. Bahá'í Administration, p. 47
14. Abdu'l-Bahá, 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-Bahá 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)
All_Bad
Cal E. Rollins wrote:
> Pat,
>
> Thank you, but when you refer to my vast research skills on Saturday,
> you are in error.
Excuse me.
> All this new-fangle stuff like Google leaves me cold.
If you don't like the internet, get off it and quit whining.
> I still struggle with trying to remember where I read this and that many
> moons ago, and spend tons of time thumbing through my dog-eared and much
> underlined books to find what I need.
Yeah, right; you have not figured out you just make it up when it suits you?
> But in some respects this is
> good, because I often fall upon something I'd missed and forget about
> what I was looking for. Not good research skills at all.
>
Curiously, the imagination which lends otself to fiction does not also
fit the research bill - right?
>
> So I rather envy you people who seem not to have read the entirety of
> anything, especially from the Guardian, and never have had the
> experience of waiting for him to send out a new Message and a new
> Challenge for us to devour and respond to, often competitively.
"Blah blah blah" says a guy who now decides what Shoghi Effendi really
wrote, as if he has any respect.
> I say
> envy because you can delve into the Googley-goop and come with stuff out
> of context and blast it into the Cosmos as though it's the last word on
> the Word.
You lie, and you won't quit.
> To boot, express arrogance and defensiveness about your
> mechanically acquired new knowledge. I wish I could do that.
> Fortunately I'm too old to learn those kinds of tricks. --Cal
>
You are one pitiful lying weasel. The web as invented in the past ten
years, and you figured out who to route it through your television,
right? I sure don't know how to do that, you liar.
- Mr. All Bad
Cal E. Rollins
I'd read the stuff Sen wrote to scholars on Talisman9 and H-Bahai.
Susan's not on either of these lists and is rather inclined to
misinterpret or under-interpret. --Cal
Cal E. Rollins
Sorry. I didn't or don't decide what Shoghi Effendi wrote. I just read
in its entirety what I see of what he wrote. Since he was the last
interpreter, what he said seems up for grabs (unless we think
elucidation is interpretation). At least I say I've read him and you
admit you haven't and don't care to. Strange your admission, in my
opinion.
And, true, I don't have all that Googley skill you have. I'm still
stuck in the research mode that requires hunting down a book, reading
it, and taking pertinent notes on notecards. Passe I know, but I admit
it. I don't pretend to have even a modicum of Baha'i scholar skills, so
I leave the field open for you to apply your more superior ones.
However, I am accomplished enough to recognize those who do and those
who don't know beans. I recognize that Nima's Babi and Baha'i knowledge
excels yours, mine, or anyone else's I've heard from on this list..
--Cal
John MacLeod
>
> Does anyone have any more comments on the following ideas and
> observations?
>
> 1. Baha'i institutions are abusing people in some of the same ways
> that governments and institutions do.
Yes, but in fairness they also help people in some of the same ways
that governments and institutions do.
>
> 2. I see some people denying that, and saying that according to
> God-appointed infallible sources, it's impossible.
I have seen people saying its unusual but I've yet to see someone say its
impossible - can you give an example?
>
> 3. I see some people advocating regime change as a solution.
I'm not sure what you mean by "regime change"? Do you mean encouraging
people to vote against the incumbents or do you mean restructuring the
Faith? can you give an example of someone advocating this?
>
> 4. One of the remedies I see, for all kinds of abuse, is learning to
> value femininity.
>
Well yes, but perhaps the the first thing to do is stop abusing people.
> 5. The first place I look for solutions to any problem in society, is
> in the writings of Baha'u'llah, with the help of Abdu'l-Baha, Shoghi
> Effendi, and the Universal House of Justice.
Yes.
John MacLeod
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 10:49:44 +1000, "John MacLeod"
> <jrma...@consultant.com> wrote:
>
> Possibilities. Maybe there are game masters like the ones I've
> imagined, and maybe there aren't. Maybe some of them are as villainous
> as I've imagined, and maybe they aren't. In any case I don't imagine
> they are any more villainous than some other people are, in all
> categories and at all levels of society. Their villainy impacts more
> directly on more people, and on more of the Earth, that's all.
>
Yes, I think one of the great illusions we all fall prey to is the idea that
the rulers in life are inherently much better or much worse than others. I
think it's reasonable to assume that those who rise to positions of power
and influence will have certain character traits in common (or at least a
similar class background) but I don't think there's any evidence they are
morally, ethically better or worse than others. However, of course, their
failings and strengths do tend to have much more impact than others and
there are fewer restraints on them when they make misjudgements or get
obsessed by something. We all make these mistakes of course but for most of
us it passes with little damage done. But for the rulers, a great deal of
harm can be done before they wake up to themselves. "Power corrupts,
absolute power corrupts absolutely".
John MacLeod
"Cal E. Rollins" <crol...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:3812-426...@storefull-3277.bay.webtv.net...
> Jim, John,
>
> Having retired from the U.S. Government as well as been trained by the
> Justice Department, I don't see much difference between the way the
> current Baha'i system works than the American Government's.
>
Yes, having worked both for governments (not the US) and large and small
corporations I agree with you. The Faith does seem rather like a
government. In my experience administration in corporations is better with
more practical consultation freedom and etc than either the Faith or
government.
Swiss Heritage
<jrma...@consultant.com> wrote:
My thoughts exactly.
Jim
Cal E. Rollins
Power and its corruptibility. You got that right! From time to time I
love to read and reread "The Prince." Then I follow it up by "Le Petit
Prince." Sometimes I think many of the Baha'is I've known over the
decades mix Machiavelli and St. Exubery in their minds when they talk
about power as manipulated by the power brokers in our institutions. I'm
one of those jaded ones who see more of Machiavelli in us than the
author of the Little Prince. --Cal