Pey wrote: ok that post was utternly confusing. I really don't understand what you are saying.

Pey, billions are having their human rights trampled. They are all in our minds and prayers; we tend to more specially rise to defend those like Shirin Obadi, Gandhi or MLK who are defendants of human rights; If the Baha’is are persecuted in some countries it is specifically because of their engagement in values that defend human rights that irritate those violating such rights. If world public opinion is at this time in favour of Baha’is in Iran, it is not because they are just some of those billions of suffering people, but because they are champions of human rights.

Pey wrote: He moves whichever direction the UHJ puffs. Maybe you are a divinity doctor trying to fine tune your art of apolegetics.

Pey I have to admit you are right. In this respect I am not neutral, and I apologise for having pretended to be so. I now understand that the point of this exchange is not to decide how we can improve the situation of gays within the Faith or advance human rights, but to use these issues to decide if the UHJ is right or wrong. We have obviously not been on the same level of discussion, and I can now understand why people have been getting irritated with me, calling me names.

Baquia wrote: it is cultish that you believe that it is ok to fight for their rights but not for the rights of gays in Iran, or women in Iran or (insert downtrodden group here) in Iran. Have you considered a career in politics? seriously, you have a knack for it.

Baquia, it is cultish to believe that you can make a secular philanthropic association out of an institution that is designed to advance the spiritual union of the peoples of this planet, from which unity, peace and sustainable prosperity can emerge. If you were elected as a member of the UHJ, what reforms would you suggest?

Abdul'Baha has the answer to the global economic crisis; 20%-25%
profitsharing for workers, over and above wages. see http://www.profitsharinguprising.com

"Tell the rich of the midnight sighing of the poor."
Baha'u'llah see http://www.profitsharinguprising.com

"Do you wisely believe that people should flee all over the planet whenever the times get tough and their ideals are questioned?"
Now THAT is funny Farhan. I just caught this question you asked of Baquia, yet in another thread where we discussed your version of a future Bahai state you said: "Pey, if in a few centuries some states will have adopted Baha’i principles, perhaps some others may have not, and everyone will have the choice of choosing the state where to live, instead of living in a Baha’i state and trying to reform it’s laws." So do you still believe that in a future Bahai State if people don't like what they see, then they should leave or not leave as in Iran today.

Thanks for the link, Darian, very helpful!

Pey wrote: So do you still believe that in a future Bahai State if people don't like what they see, then they should leave or not leave as in Iran today

Pey, no one is talking about fleeing; at this time people choose the climate and social surroundings that suit them best. I see nothing in any Baha'i teaching that would indicate that a future Baha'i commonwealth would be intolerant like some states you want to compare it to. The only sign of "intolerance" I see complained about here are the "whispers" within the community and unenrolment of those who frankly and openly express their disbelief in the essential beliefs of a Faith which like all other Faiths is based on belief: no deportation, no persecution, no obligation to convert or to deny their beliefs, …. Just the honesty and clarity of not counting as a believer someone who openly declares he does not believe.

No if only it was that sweet and innocent Farhas. But you believe that a future state that submits to the UHJ will try to enforce Bahai laws (with no didscussion on the validity of these laws or the ability to change them). And you said if people don't enjoy such a Bahai state, then they can get up and move to another state that doesn't apply Bahai law. The intolerance IS in the application of Bahai laws to all of society. As a gay person, I would NOT have the opportunity to marry whom I choose to marry or adopt children with a partner in the Bahai state you envision. That is intolerance against me. And my only choice is to move. In Iran today, Bahai marriages are not recognized. That is an intolerance, so do you recommend that the Bahais in Iran move to other countries? You seem to say no. But if it is a Bahai state where a person is being discriminated against, then you say it is better for them to leave than to stir trouble. I don't get it.

Pey: The intolerance IS in the application of Bahai laws to all of society.
Farhan: I am not at all sure that in a Baha’i state, Baha’i principles would be applied to everyone, Christians having to celebrate mass with Coca Cola instead of wine, Muslims obliged to eat pork and unitarians prevented fro celebrating gay marriages. Some 30,000 US citizens are claiming the right to polygamy, and perhaps as many would claim the right to excision in France, both secular states with no religious laws inforced.
Pey: As a gay person, I would NOT have the opportunity to marry whom I choose to marry or adopt children with a partner in the Bahai state you envision. That is intolerance against me.
Farhan: What on earth makes you believe that Baha’i laws on personal status would be applied to non-Baha’is, and that Unitarians would be prevented from celebrating gay marriages, and Mormons from polygamy? I don’t get your point. I expect that the independent search for truth will be enforced, and only those who claim they believed in Baha’i principles would be accounted for as Baha’is and expected to apply Baha’i principles; I expect that secular states arbitrated by the UHJ would allow for some latitude. Would it be that lacking motives for grudge against the UHJ, you are projecting what they might do to you in a few centuries?

So there would be Taliban like Bahai states that have strict enforcement of Bahai law as dictated by the UHJ (no recognition of gay families or their ability to adopt) and maybe there will be States that don't care to follow everything the UHJ dictates (oh sorry, "suggests"). So again we are left with having to flee a Bahai Taliban type state to one that is more liberal and accepting of all. Also, I bring up the "gay" issue because it is a personal matter to me AND because it describes very well the scary scenario of a state functioning on strict adherence to Bahai law. With no ability to discuss or change those laws. If they are set in stone, then the future is very scary for anyone who happens to be gay and wanting to establish a family in a strict Bahai society. The only choice then really is leave for somewhere that is more tolerant while you can.

Pey wrote: But you believe that a future state that submits to the UHJ will try to enforce Bahai laws (with no didscussion on the validity of these laws or the ability to change them).
Farhan: In a science fiction scenario, I can imagine that in some centuries, the UHJ could be an arbitrating institution, applying Baha’i principles to any democratic system of government wishing to seek that arbitration. For the time being, the UHJ interprets this by ruling out discrimination against gays, but considering that this way of life and belief is not in tune with those who wish to call themselves Baha’is.

Pey: And you said if people don’t enjoy such a Bahai state, then they can get up and move to another state that doesn’t apply Bahai law.
Farhan: In a science fiction scenario, I can imagine that a Baha’i state would have attractive attributes; otherwise people would not have adopted its principles, like Constantine adopted Christianity 300 years after Christ. Apparently the only aspect of life in a Baha’i state that interests you would be the liberalisation or not of gay relations, without considering the fact that lacking spiritualisation and arbitration, life could entirely disappear on this planet. If masses of other people would prefer the Baha’i principles to no principles or other social principles, would you want to prevent adopting them? Who knows, we might have Taliban states as a choice for those who still prefer them, unless the Baha’i inspired states allow for Taliban principles within them.

Pey wrote: So there would be Taliban like Bahai states that have strict enforcement of Bahai law as dictated by the UHJ (no recognition of gay families or their ability to adopt)

Pey, I don’t believe there would ever be “Taliban like Baha’i states”, but you are free to imagine such a scenario that is insulting to my fellow Baha’is if you wish. We have enough to worry about for the survival of our planet at this time, and you are already in yourown priority with a scenario of gay relations and adoption in some centuries.

Pey wrote: So there would be Taliban like Bahai states that have strict enforcement of Bahai law as dictated by the UHJ (no recognition of gay families or their ability to adopt)

Pey, I don’t believe there would ever be “Taliban like Baha’i states”, but you are free to imagine such a scenario that is insulting to my fellow Baha’is if you wish. We have enough to worry about for the survival of our planet at this time, and you are already in yourown priority with a scenario of gay relations and adoption in some centuries.

Oh was this the same Constantine who had thousands of fellow Christians executed because their interpretation of the Bible didn't equal his? Thanks but I don't want a Bahai state like that either. Fortunately I don't think that the Bahais would ever regress to such horrible tactics as in the past, but I do believe that a strict control of a society where no one can discuss issues such as gay couples getting married and raising children (which is just ONE issue farhan that I care about; there are many more in the Bahai community). this is will not be a healthy society. And your solution is that such people just get up and leave. You said so yourself. How is that different from Baquia suggesting the same thing for the Bahais in Iran who are facing persecution? Again just the level of persecution?

Sorry maybe I misunderstood you when you said: "Who knows, we might have Taliban states as a choice for those who still prefer them, unless the Baha’i inspired states allow for Taliban principles within them. "
I thought you were saying that there will be a varied forms of Bahai states in the future-some Taliban like and others more liberal. But please Farhan, you can take your self-righteous indignation and keep it to yourself. As a Bahai, I am insulted by the thought of creating a Bahai state where people's freedoms are limited and their only option is to get up and leave. Many of us Bahais feel highly insulted by what you describe. But you have the right to your opinion.

Pey wrote : Many of us Bahais feel highly insulted by what you describe. But you have the right to your opinion.

What do which Baha’is feel insulting in what I described ?

Pey wrote: So there would be Taliban like Bahai states that have strict enforcement of Bahai law as dictated by the UHJ (no recognition of gay families or their ability to adopt)

Pey, I don’t believe there would ever be “Taliban like Baha’i states”, but you are free to imagine such a scenario that is insulting to my fellow Baha’is if you wish. We have enough to worry about for the survival of our planet at this time, and you are already in your own priority with a scenario of gay relations and adoption in some centuries.

well as long as a Bahai inspired state doesn't have penal codes that would imprison or deny rights to people who don't prescribe to strict Bahai law, then we are ok. But your previous posts don't lead me to believe that- nor what most traditional Bahais believe will be the future Bahai commomwealth. So if you feel insulted by what I fear could be the worse, then so be it.

Pey wrote : Fortunately I don't think that the Bahais would ever regress to such horrible tactics as in the past..

I don’t believe that for one minute either; I am sure that diversity of religions and traditions will persist, and the extent to which a Baha’i inspired state would allow gay marriages and polygamy outside the boundaries of our spiritual commitments and beliefs depends no doubt on the results of consultation in that state at a given time. There is a huge difference between spiritual prescription which we are free to “accept or leave” and state enforced penal offences that can lead to civil sanctions. I continue to believe that those who are offended by women in bikini or in veils, should choose live where they are not common.