Unfortunately the exact practice that Baha’u'llah was referring to cryptically is still being practiced today in Afghanistan. You can watch the PBS domentary following the above link as well as find a brief update on the situation from this recent Washington Post article.

Image credit: Barat Ali Batoor

Societal context is important because what we might consider salacious or inappropriate today, may very well have been the norm in another society. This is not an issue of ‘morality’ because that concept is very malleable throughout history. Not too long ago, slavery was not only considered normal, it was sanctioned by the prevalent religion. In Islam we have an institutionalized form of prostitution (nikah al-mut’ah) and it is a little known fact that polygamy is possible within the Baha’i Faith.

Wakashudo and Lycurgus
I provided a brief exposition of the Sambia tribe in Papau New Guinea. But there are many other examples to draw upon to illustrate the same point. In Japan, samurai and their apprentice would enter into a “brotherhood contract” which involved homosexual physical intimacy although not exclusively so (both were able to also have relations with women). The special relationship involved much more than physical intimacy. The samurai as mentor trained his apprentice in bushido, social etiquette and they were both honor bound to each other for life.

Going back further in history we have the example of Spartans. Today they are presented in films like “300″ to be the ultimate “macho” heterosexual man but Spartan society was actually built upon institutionalized homosexuality. Lycurgus, architect of Spartan society, believed that such bonds between Spartan soldiers served to strengthen their efficiency on the battlefield. Marriage to a woman and family life was relegated to a necessary inconvenience.

The wedding night of a Spartan bride is an interesting presentation of how “normal” sexual relations have changed over time. Her hair would be cut short to resemble a man and she would be fitted in full armor before being presented to her new husband. Plutarch writes “…afterwards comes the bridegroom, in his every-day clothes, sober and composed as having supped at the common table, and, entering privately into the room where the bride lies, unites her virgin zone, and takes her to himself; and after staying some time together, he returns composedly to his own apartment, to sleep as usual with the other young men.”

Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo
The binary distinction made today between homosexuality and heterosexuality is a recent concept. In Rome, not that far from Sparta, the gender of your sexual partner wasn’t important at all; slave-boy, or woman, all were fair game. What mattered and determined your place in society was whether you were the dominant partner or the submissive one. While today we view domination as a fetish, in ancient Rome it was the factor in categorizing people’s sexual status within a societal hierarchy.

There was no shame at all in taking a catamite as your lover as long as you were the one doing the penetrating. Likewise, fellatio or irrumatio as acts were acceptable. What determined status or shame was whether you were penetrating as the dominant or receiving as the subservient. The mouth of a high-born Roman male citizen was for noble uses like giving rousing speeches, reciting laws and philosophy and commanding armies into battle. Using it for baser purposes invited humiliation. In the patriarchal society of Rome, the most shameful sexual act a man could perform was cunnilingus. Not only would he be putting himself in the submissive position, he was being submissive to a woman! (gasp)

For more examples of the sexual mores of that time see the poems of Catullus (Carmen 16) and Martial’s Epigrams. And if you’re ever visiting Pompeii, it will be impossible to avoid the constant barrage of phallic symbols staring at you from walls, frescoes, statues, sculptures and even carved into the stone roads and sidewalks.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the world, Manchu mothers, grandmothers and nursemaids showed affection and love to the male child in their care by fellating them. Such an act was not considered sexual in nature at all and readily acceptable within their societal norms. Kissing the cheeks or face of the child however was considered sexual and therefore taboo.

The purpose of this brief walk through sexual history is not to merely titillate you dear reader with salacious stories but to point out that what you may consider to be salacious or ‘abnormal’ today was very much normal behavior in another time and place. I wonder, had Baha’u'llah been living in feudal Japan, would we now be parsing what exactly His condemnation of wakashūdo means?

Diagnosing Homosexuality
But some things are harder to change. The penchant to focus on who is the dominant continues to this day. The Turkish army allows for homosexual men to be exempt from an otherwise obligatory responsibility to their country. However, they must prove their homosexuality in a humiliating process to the satisfaction of the army. Acceptable “evidence” may consist of explicit pictures or videos of the candidate for military duty with another man. But he must be in the submissive role not the dominant to be considered ‘homosexual’.

While being openly gay or claiming to be gay in Turkey has serious social consequences, the army is concerned with false claims because there is no allowance for conscientious objectors to military service. As such it has ordered its doctors to ‘diagnose’ homosexuality. This brings us to the main point of this article: the pathology of homosexuality (or lack thereof).

One psychiatrist who was employed by the Turkish army tells the BBC: “Doctors are coming under immense pressure from their commanders to diagnose homosexuality, and they obey, even though there really are no diagnostic tools to determine sexual orientation. It is medically impossible, and not at all ethical.”

To placate their military bosses, psychiatrists working for the Turkish military use non-scientific tests like asking their subjects to draw trees, houses and interview them to see if they played with dolls when they were children.

In order to force the issue, Turkish military hospitals use the outdated 1968 DSM (from the American Psychiatric Association) to classify homosexuality as an illness and declare on the pink-colored official certificate of exemption that the person has a “psychosexual disorder (homosexuality)”.

Turkey’s minister for women and family affairs, Selma Aliye Kavaf, said in a 2010 interview: “I believe homosexuality is a biological disorder, an illness, and should be treated”.

Does that sound familiar to you? As a Baha’i, that is unfortunately quite familiar:

“To be afflicted this way is a great burden to a conscientious soul. But through the advice and help of doctors, through a strong and determined effort, and through prayer, a soul can overcome this handicap.”
Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual Baha’i (March 26, 1950)

“Homosexuality is highly condemned and often a great trial and cause of suffering to a person, as a Baha’i. Any individual so afflicted must, through prayer, and any other means, seek to overcome this handicap.”
Letter written to an individual Baha’i on behalf of Shoghi Effendi (October 6, 1956)

“Baha’u'llah has spoken very strongly against this shameful sexual aberration, as He has against adultery and immoral conduct in general. We must try and help the soul to overcome them.”
Letter written to an individual Baha’i on behalf of Shoghi Effendi (October 25 1949)

These words and others like them, written on behalf of the Guardian more than 60 years ago have set the tone for the official Baha’i stance on the issue. They contain several important but implied assertions, that homosexuality:

• is ‘not normal’
• is an ‘affliction’ or ‘handicap’
• is a choice
• can be ‘overcome’
• can be ‘cured’ by doctors

Such an understanding of human sexuality accurately reflects the prevalent social norms of the 1940′s and 1950′s. Today we know in fact that none of those implicit statements are true.

The Pathology of Homosexuality
The assumption that homosexuality was related to psychopathic, paranoid, and schizoid personality disorders was widely accepted at the time of Shoghi Effendi by medical professionals. Such a diagnosis resulted in barbaric treatments which included but were not limited to: hysterectomies and estrogen injections (for lesbians), electroshock therapy, chemical castration, surgical castration, and trans-orbital lobotomies. I shudder to think of Baha’is who took the advice offered to them and availed themselves of such options.

While viewing homosexuality as having pathology was the prevalent doxa back then, it is imperative to point out that it was the social doxa that imposed itself onto the medical doxa. Scientifically there was no basis whatsoever for the medical assumption that homosexuality had a definable pathology.

The infamous Alfred Kinsey was among the first to study homosexuality. In 1948 he published a report not only showing the ‘normalcy’ of homosexuals as people but also the first evidence of the ineffectiveness of sexual conversion therapies.

But it was not until 1956 that a young woman, already an outsider for being female in the male dominated field of psychology, destroyed the widely held orthodoxy that homosexuality was a ‘disease’ with the presentation of her research at the American Psychological Association’s Annual Convention in Chicago.

Dr. Evelyn Hooker applied for and was given a grant by the NIMH in 1953 for her study. She said years later, “It was exciting because it would have been the first time anybody ever looked at this behavior and said ‘we’ll use scientific tests to determine whether or not homosexuality is pathological.’” Dr. Hooker’s research was both simple and ground breaking. She examined a group of 30 homosexuals and 30 heterosexuals with psychoanalytical surveys and the Rorschach ink-blot test.

Dr. Hooker removed all identifiable marks from the test results and to even further remove any possibility of bias sent the results to three other preeminent psychologists for analysis. One of them was Dr. Bruno Klopfer who was convinced that he would be able to tell the homosexual subjects apart from the test group of heterosexuals just from the Rorschach test. He couldn’t. In fact, none of the three could. Mental health was equally distributed among the subjects tested and homosexuals exhibited none of the widely assumed markers of mental illness.

After Dr. Hooker, many other researchers attempted to find a scientific, objective and empirical method for identifying pathology in homosexuals. They all came to the same conclusion. As a result, in 1973 the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the official Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-II seventh printing). Today all official professional oversight organizations in the field of medicine, psychiatry and psychology from around the world have moved forward and reject the classification of homosexuality as a ‘disease’, ‘aberration’, ‘handicap’ or as having pathology.

For more on Dr. Evelyn Hooker, see this article at the Center for Research and Education on Gender and Sexuality at the San Francisco University and this article at the American Psychological Association as well as the 1992 documentary ‘Changing Our Minds: The Story of Dr. Evelyn Hooker’ narrated by Sir Patrick Stewart.

Unfortunately, the current Baha’i view is frozen in the 1950′s. If the Universal House of Justice posits that homosexuality is an ‘illness’, then the onus is on them to present evidence of its pathology. Many Baha’is who are well informed of the current medical advancements in this area have written as much to the institutions:

On the question of whether or not there is a biological predisposition to homosexuality, the letter indicates that the question is still open to dispute. In this regard, it may be important to note that while science may find that a predisposition to homosexuality is caused by genetic aberration, and in that sense may be considered “natural”, it does not follow that it is “natural” for some people to be homosexual. A comparison can be drawn with the evidence which suggests that there is a genetic flaw which produces a predisposition to alcoholism. Most people would hesitate to conclude from such evidence that a person with such a genetic aberration would be destined to become an alcoholic in spite of any efforts to the contrary. As the letter states, “The statistics which indicate that homosexuality is incurable are undoubtedly distorted by the fact that many of those who overcome the problem never speak about it in public, and others solve their problems without consulting professional counselors.” Furthermore, contrary evidence may well exist but may be overlooked by scientific reporting that is, for one reason or another, biased.
(From a memorandum prepared by the Research Department of the Universal House of Justice, 3 May 1994)

You mention recent research which indicates that there may be a genetic basis for homosexuality; you accept the Baha’i view of this matter, but you question the use of such terms as “abnormality, handicap, affliction, problem, etc.” since they can create misunderstandings. On the contrary, the House of Justice feels that just such words can be a great help to the individuals concerned. Human beings suffer from many problems, both physical and psychological. Some are the result of the individual’s own behaviour, some are caused by the circumstances in which he grew up, some are congenital. Some human beings are born blind, some suffer from incapacitating accidents or diseases. Such conditions present the individual affected, and those around him, with serious problems, and it is one of the challenges of the human condition that all those concerned should strive to overcome such problems and have understanding and sympathy for the individual so afflicted.
Letter to an individual Baha’i from the The Universal House of Justice (June 5, 1993)

You state that “homosexuals cannot be altered into heterosexuality, all such trials have failed and homosexuals remain so until the day they die.” This is a statement which is still open to dispute, and which Baha’is would question.
Letter written to the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha’is of the United States on behalf of the Universal House of Justice (September 11, 1995)

The comparison with alcoholism betrays the incorrect assumption being made. While alcoholism has a well defined pathology as well as effective treatments, there is no grounds for a similar claim to be made for homosexuality.

But more alarming than the facile comparison to alcoholism, is the argument against the mountain of evidence that homosexuality is neither pathological nor ‘curable’. In a tragic attempt at addressing the lack of evidence that homosexuality is curable, it is claimed that there is a conspiracy of ‘biased reporting’.

One of the principles of the Baha’i Faith is the unity and harmony between religion and science. As such, the current Baha’i teachings on homosexuality, unless modified, present a serious challenge to this principle. The advancement of science has provided an incrementally richer understanding of the nature of human sexuality. No scientific evidence exists to show that homosexuality presents any pathology, either physically or psychologically. Failing to produce a pathology for homosexuality, one is forced by logic to stop classifying it as an ‘illness’ or ‘disease’. And it would be more accurate to use the analogy of “left-handedness” rather than that of “alcoholism”.

Sexual Orientation Change Efforts or “Conversion Therapy”
In medicine, before a treatment is proffered it is customary and good form to first define the pathology being targeted. No professional medical practitioner worthy of their position would put the horse before the cart.

When it comes to the issue of homosexuality though, this doesn’t seem to faze those that offer to ‘cure’ those so ‘afflicted’. There is a not so small industry of therapists claiming that they can change a person’s sexual orientation. The largest organizations are NARTH and Exodus and the most famous practitioner of this odious pseudo-science, Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, the founder of NARTH.

Nicolosi subscribes to the theory that a rift between father son causes homosexuality. There is no link between paternal relations and sexual orientation of course. Many gay men have healthy and close relationships with their fathers and many heterosexual men have terrible relationships (or none at all) with their fathers. But in any case, Nicolosi’s narrative is that boys become sexually attracted to other boys and men because of a ‘masculinity deficit’ brought about by a break-down in the father-son relationship.

Most conversion or reparative therapies rely heavily on an addiction or abuse/neglect model to both explain and fix homosexuality. This modality can even be seen in official communications from the Baha’i institutions (as above which cite a comparison to alcoholism). Such therapies are harmful not only because they inculcate in people a ‘broken’ view of themselves but they also blame the person for its ineffectiveness – this is in contrast to real medical science where if a therapy doesn’t work either in medicine or psychotherapy, the patient is not blamed.

Surprisingly, one of the persons who championed the removal of homosexuality from the DSM in 1973 also gave Nicolosi, NARTH, Exodus and the plethora of similarly misguided therapists and organizations a temporary veneer of legitimacy. In 2001 Robert Spitzer, a prominent psychiatrist, released a study of 200 men who had been selected from Nicolosi’s conversion therapy. Spitzer’s conclusion was that for a few select individuals conversion therapy worked. The ‘ex-gay movement’ took this and ran with it as legitimizing their work. Before this not one single research had supported their claims (nor since).

However, Spitzer’s research was controversial. Not just because it flew in the face of accepted scientific norms but because there were some serious and devastating weaknesses in the structure of the study itself which called into question its conclusion. For one, the sample of subjects were selected by Nicolosi as successful conversion patients. No control group was measured alongside them. The study consisted of 45-minute phone interviews with 200 individuals who had been referred to him by Nicolosi.

Spitzer was attracted to the research exactly because of its controversial nature but later acquiesced to his critics, confessing that he wished he hadn’t done it in retrospect. Among his own reflections was the fact that while Nicolosi had been doing conversion therapy for 30+ years he could only offer a handful of successful candidates: “In all the years of doing ex-gay therapy, you’d think Nicolosi would have been able to provide more success stories. He only sent me nine patients.”

Spitzer attempted to retract his work and went on the record repudiating his study: “In retrospect, I have to admit I think the critiques are largely correct…The findings can be considered evidence for what those who have undergone ex-gay therapy say about it, but nothing more.” And in a letter to the editor of the Journal of Sexual Behavior where his research was published Spitzer wrote:

The Fatal Flaw in the Study – There was no way to judge the credibility of subject reports of change in sexual orientation.

I offered several (unconvincing) reasons why it was reasonable to assume that the subject’s reports of change were credible and not self-deception or outright lying. But the simple fact is that there was no way to determine if the subject’s accounts of change were valid.

I believe I owe the gay community an apology for my study making unproven claims of the efficacy of reparative therapy. I also apologize to any gay person who wasted time and energy undergoing some form of reparative therapy because they believed that I had proven that reparative therapy works with some “highly motivated” individuals.

After many decades of operation there is not one shred of evidence that conversion therapies are effective. In fact we have overflowing evidence to the contrary. The list is too long to cite here fully so here’s one example. By now we have seen so many scandals of prominent anti-gay politicians or men who are directly involved in the ex-gay therapy movement exposed as being homosexual that we are desensitized to the shock of it. For a recap see Truth Wins Out.

Primum non nocere
Even if we decide to ignore what we have learned since the 1950′s about homosexuality not being a disease, and even if we ignore the repudiation of Spitzer’s study and insist that for some conversion therapy is effective there is one more important aspect that must not be ignored. For every treatment we must balance the perceived good with the potential bad it might inflict. Such a trade-off analysis is done by every medical professional in partnership with the person being treated. While certain treatments may be effective, they may not be pursued because they present too high a risk of negative consequences. This is the Hippocratic oath: ‘First, do no harm’.

Such considerations are vital because reparative or conversion therapies are not benign but have the potential to serious harm a person’s mental health. We have left behind the barbaric mutilations that physical interventions such as castration or lobotomies entailed. Today conversion therapies fall under the general umbrella of cognitive behavior therapy (CBT). But even if we insist against all scientific grounds that there is a small chance of success we must take into account the risk of such treatment. There are many tragic stories of people who underwent conversion treatment with devastating results.

For this reason and for the fact that there is neither a scientifically defined pathology nor treatment for homosexuality, all major health organizations around the world not only reject the classification of homosexuality as a ‘disease’ but they have guidelines which instruct their members to not engage in conversion therapies. For a full list see this wikipedia article:

American Psychiatric Association: It is possible to evaluate the theories which rationalize the conduct of “reparative” and conversion therapies. Firstly, they are at odds with the scientific position of the American Psychiatric Association which has maintained, since 1973, that homosexuality per se, is not a mental disorder. The theories of “reparative” therapists define homosexuality as either a developmental arrest, a severe form of psychopathology, or some combination of both.

American Psychological Association Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation (PDF document)

Other American organizations critical of ‘reparative’ or conversion therpy:

• American Medical Association
• American Psychological Association
• American Counseling Association
• National Association of Social Workers
• American Academy of Pediatrics
• American Association of School Administrators
• American Federation of Teachers
• National Association of School Psychologists
• American Academy of Physician Assistants
• National Education Association

Norwegian Psychiatric Association: Homosexuality is no disorder or illness, and can therefore not be subject to treatment. A ‘treatment’ with the only aim of changing sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual must be regarded as ethical malpractice, and has no place in the health system.

The Australian Psychological Society acknowledges the lack of scientific evidence for the usefulness of conversion therapy, and notes that it can in fact be harmful for the individual.

World Health Organization: “sexual orientation by itself is not to be regarded as a disorder”

These official policy statements are important because they prevent health professionals from offering such treatments and protect patients. Recently a psychotherapist in the UK was found guilty of medical malpractice for attempting to treat the condition of homosexuality in one of her patients. Lesley Pilkington’s accreditation with the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy was suspended and she was ordered to undergo further professional training.

So to recap: there is no evidence that homosexuality is a ‘disease’, there is no evidence of an effective treatment, but there is ample evidence that attempting to change a person’s sexual orientation is dangerous.

The Dilemma for Baha’i Health Professionals
All of the above presents a challenge for Baha’i health professionals. On one hand they are academically trained and as members of an association must abide by their professional and ethical standards; and on the other hand as Baha’is they are educated from their Faith to view homosexuality as a ‘disease’ which should be treated. I do not envy them the cognitive dissonance such opposing views can inspire.

The vast majority of Baha’i health professionals deal with the dichotomy by favoring their professional and academic training. A few however choose to give priority to a few letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi 60 years ago. For example, Nossrat Peseschkian categorized homosexuality as ‘sexual disorder’ and ‘illness’.

Lynn Schrieber who has no academic or professional training gave a presentation about conversion therapy under the auspices of Baha’i institutions at the 2010 ABS Conference.

Mary K. Radpour who is active with BNASAA and a member of National Association of Social Workers engages in conversion therapy and has given numerous workshops and presentations at official Baha’i conferences and meetings.

It must be noted that the National Association of Social Workers policy statement on this issue is clearly against such treatment:

Reparative or conversion therapies claim, through the use of psychotherapy or other interventions, to eliminate a person’s sexual desire for a member of his or her own gender. The National Association of Social Workers’ National Committee on Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Issues (NCLGB) recognizes the emergence of these misleading therapies. Reparative and conversion therapies, sometimes called “transformational ministries,” have received wider attention against the backdrop of a growing conservative religious political climate (NASW, 1992), and through recent media campaigns supported by the Christian Coalition and the Family Research Council. By advancing their efforts through such propaganda, proponents of reparative and conversion therapies, such as the most commonly cited group NARTH, claim that their processes are supported by scientific data; however, such scientific support is replete with confounded research methodologies (Mills, 1999).

Nahzy Buck is not academically trained in this field but she has been given the podium for presentations which assert that ‘reorientation is possible and desirable’:

Finally, Dr. Chris Johnson who commented on Sonja’s blog claims to be a retired US psychotherapist who subscribes to the addiction model of homosexuality outlined above:

I am a retired Professor and psycho therapist in private practice in the U.S. I am a Baha’i who specializes in treatment of sex addictions. Homosexuality is a form of sex addiction and many gay in recovery go to 12 Step programs with Sexaholics Annoymous. I have treated many gays who want treatment through either inpatient and/or outpatient treatment plans.

The individuals who are not health professionals can be partially excused for their ignorance. While it is strange that a Baha’i is given the floor to expound on unscientific and unproven assertions which have the potential to harm those who implement them, we can understand that they are being given such an opportunity exactly because they are ‘toeing the party line’.

The individuals who are academically trained and members of a professional group not only do not have an excuse for their ignorance, they are willfully neglecting both science and the health of their patients. They risk an outcome similar to the UK psychotherapist who was sued for flagrant violations of their professional code of conduct.

Health professionals have a duty of care to not do harm, even if the patient explicitly requests it. Abiding by professional standards means explaining to the person the danger of undergoing conversion therapy, its unproven, unscientific nature and providing information of about sexual orientation coupled with counseling to help the person understand there is nothing inherently wrong with them for being attracted to the same sex. This should be the default position of all health professionals, Baha’i or otherwise.

The Scientific Method and Iterative Advancement of Knowledge
An ever advancing civilization is driven forward by two mutual forces: revelation and scientific progress. As Baha’is we believe both are equally important. When discussing the scientific view of homosexuality and the ignorance of same by the Baha’i institutions, many Baha’is point out that since science changed how it views homosexuality once, it may do so again. In their view, the harmony between science and religion will be brought about not by an adjustment by the Baha’i Faith but by science.

This betrays an ignorance of the nature of science and iterative advancement of knowledge. Science is not like a candy wrapper floating in the wind, going hither and thither, randomly landing on convictions before moving on to new ones. While science provides an evolving understanding of reality, it does so in a relatively incremental manner. Only rarely does it leap forward or smash previously held truths before replacing them with new ones.

More often than not, science builds upon itself in a slow, gradual and methodical way to propel us forward. The explanations that it provides us today can be overturned and reversed by new ones down the line but such a process is not random and it rarely reverses back on itself because once a great question is presented, examined, researched, experimented, etc. the conclusion is almost always the basis for future incremental advancement.

We can see this model of scientific advancement in such examples as germ theory, theory of relativity, climate change, evolution, etc. All of these were ‘great’ questions of their time. Many are still being resisted by those who refuse to acknowledge that within the scientific community, they are a settle matter. The question of anthropogenic climate change within US political circles is an embarrassing example of this.

It is precisely because science places a premium on empirical evidence and intellectual rigor that overturning previously established principles is so rare and valuable an occurrence. The rest of the time scientists plod along doing yeoman’s work by expanding our understanding within the established framework and widening the new horizon.

The danger here is that by not allowing science and religion to be congruent, the Baha’i Faith’s view about this important issue becomes an anachronism and damages the prestige of the Faith.

We’ve Here Before
The arguments against the granting of full rights and freedoms to homosexuals is strikingly similar to three other wrenching struggles that Western civilization already went through: slavery, women’s suffrage and racial prejudice. It is easy to forget today but for each of these hard-fought social advancements, many marshaled arguments similar to the ones we are seeing today.

But in each case the principles that underpinning the issue were the same: the oneness and equality of mankind. Both scientific evidence and religion provided a path to the same conclusion. Each of these social advancements came about gradually and reached a tipping point when a majority of people acknowledged the truth of unity and equality of mankind. History was not kind to those who were on the ‘wrong’ side. To those who ‘get it’: welcome to the new world order! To others, enjoy becoming anachronisms in the dust bin of history.

A great example of this is the Roman Catholic church’s refusal to accept science and cling to the biblical geocentric model of the universe. I’m sure you are all familiar with the shameful treatment of Galileo, one of humanity’s scientific giants. As early as 1990 Cardinal Ratzinger refused to apologize for the treatment of Galileo (357 years later). In 1992, two years after Ratzinger caused an uproar by his comments, Pope John Paul II wrote:

Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world’s structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture….

And in 2000 issued a full and blanket apology for the wrongs of the Catholic church in the past (including its treatment of Galileo). The example of the Catholic church in this issue and its transition from promoting geocentricism persecuting heliocentrism, to a reluctant acceptance of science shows us how damaging it is when a religious institution insists in rejecting reality. It is damaging not only to society but to the institution itself. For this and many other reasons, the Roman catholic church became a target of mockery and revulsion.

A Different Baha’i Response
So how do we reconcile a course correction as Baha’is? A good starting place is educating ourselves about the historical and etymological origins of the phrase Baha’u'llah used in the Aqdas: a specific practice of ritualized pederasty practiced in the Middle East (bache bazi). For me the key take-away is this:

By ignoring the homosexual relationships between women, which were marked by consensual agreement between adult equals, and condemning specifically a despicable act of ritualized pederasty marked by the abuse of power and dominance of an adult over less fortunate minors, was Baha’u’llah telling us more about equality, justice and human rights than about merely a sexual act or orientation?

The oft cited letters written on behalf of the Guardian need to be also taken in context. First, these were not official policy statements but responses to questions put forward by individual Baha’is seeking guidance from the one source they esteemed most highly. Although we only have the responses, it is easy to imagine how personal and painfully intimate they must have been. The answers are crafted to give ease and guidance to such individuals in their specific situation as they describe it, and it is appropriate to the possibilities offered by the society and science of that day.

Next, while reviewed, these letters were not written by Shoghi Effendi himself but by a secretary. As the Guardian, he was not able to and did not intend to create Baha’i law. It always amazes me that fellow Baha’is ignore the Administrative order and take any and every word written by a secretary on behalf of the Guardian regarding a specific personal issue to be a generally applicable Baha’i law!

The intentions of Shoghi Effendi on this topic are much less clear than suggested. The connection of that cryptic phrase from the Aqdas regarding the heinous activity of pederasty (ghelmaan and bache bazi) and homosexuality is tenuous and little understood. Supposedly it is a hand-made mark jotted down on the margin of his personal copy of the Aqdas. That’s it. Nothing more. As such it is not clear if this was meant to be a personal note, a reminder for further research, or for some other reason.

Finally, the institution of Guardianship was intended to continue after Shoghi Effendi. We all know it didn’t. But the fact that such an institution was meant to exist in parallel with the Universal House of Justice and provide continuing and evolving interpretation of Baha’i texts is a vitally important fact. If we imagine for a moment that the institution had continued, instead of lapsing with the death of Shoghi Effendi, it is not irrational to expect that a current Guardian would take into account the most up to date scientific findings when making an interpretation. The purpose of the institution of the Guardianship after all was to provide for a dynamic source of interpretation, allowing the Baha’i Faith to meet the contingent needs of society as it evolved and transformed.

Ultimately the decision of how to view homosexuality within the Baha’i Faith falls under the purview of the Universal House of Justice. They are the institution with the authority to make Baha’i law. For an example of what that may look like in the future, consider their view on trans-gender or transsexuality:

…at the present time, the Universal House of Justice considers the change of sex to be a medical question on which the advice of medical experts should be sought….

It has decided that changes of sex or attempts to change sex should, at the present time, be considered medical questions on which advice and guidance should be sought from experts in that field.
Research Department letter to individual Baha’i (26 December 2002)

It is only natural that the same respect that is given to medical professionals in the above response would be extended to them for the question of other issues, including homosexuality. According to these experts, gender reassignment has a proven track record of successfully helping patients change their gender and become happier, healthier individuals. The field of sexual orientation change on the other hand is littered with pseudo-science and harmful procedures that damage patients health.

There is also this letter which reminds us lovingly to ‘mind our own bees-wax’:

Regarding the matter of the young men you have raised in your letter: he feels that they should be treated like any other people seeking admittance to the Faith, and be accepted on the same basis. Our teachings, as outlined in the Advent of Divine Justice, on the subject of living a chaste life, should be emphasized to them just as every other applicant, but certainly no ruling whatsoever should be laid down in this matter. The Baha’is have certainly not yet reached that stage of moral perfection where they are in a position to too harshly scrutinize the private lives of other souls, and each individual should be accepted on the basis of his faith, and sincere willingness to try to live up to the Divine Standards; further than this we cannot go at present….
Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual Baha’i (November 4, 1948)

Homosexual Homophobes
The ugly side of this issue is homophobia. Unfortunately the Baha’i community is not immune. Recently the NSA of Uganda joined the “Interfaith Rainbow Coalition Against Homosexuality”. To their credit the Universal House of Justice has made it clear that such a stance is unacceptable for Baha’is. For more, see Sonja’s previous article.

Homosexuality has been observed in hundreds of species. Homophobia has been observed in only one.

Several studies have shown that there is a connection between homophobia and latent homosexual tendencies:

Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.
Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal?
Adams HE, Wright LW Jr, Lohr BA.

A more recent study used a different methodology to arrive at the same conclusion: “we identified a subgroup of participants who, despite self-identifying as highly straight, indicated some level of same-sex attraction”. For more, see this New York Times article.

These studies shed light on a peculiar pattern that has emerged in modern history where prominent politicians who espouse anti-gay views are eventually exposed for being homosexual themselves. The most famous you’ll probably recall are Ted Haggard and Larry Craig. But the list is actually quite long. Thankfully there is a website dedicated to archiving these individuals: Gay Homophobe.

We humans are very good at ‘othering’. In more barbaric times isolating one group from another by highlighting superficial differences served the much needed purpose of increasing cohesion and cooperation within the group. But as our civilization advances we are shifting from this model to one based on inclusion and unity.

The colorful stories shared at the beginning show that the modern distinction between homosexual and heterosexual is both an arbitrary and recent phenomena. The terms themselves were coined in 1868 by Karl Maria-Kertbeny in German (homosexualität) and entered English two decades later. He also suggested ‘monosexual’ for masturbators and ‘pygists’ for practitioners of anal sex. Those didn’t catch on as well.

Maria-Kertbeny’s intention as a human rights campaigner were to replace the pejorative labels of ‘sodomite’ and ‘pederast’ which were common in the 19th century. While the term ‘homosexuality’ is less insulting and more descriptive, it created a false path which we have trodden until now.

Ever since the concept was given a label, homosexuality has been seen and described as a ‘deviation’ from ‘normal’ sexuality; otherwise known as heterosexuality. This is odd because there is no ‘normal’ when it comes to human sexuality. And while usually scientists are careful to define ‘normal’ before moving on to deviations, the majority skipped this part when dealing with human sexuality. Thankfully Dr. Hooker’s work remedied this oversight. Like gender, human sexuality is much more nuanced. For more, see the illuminating book: “Straight: The Surprisingly Short History of Heterosexuality”.

Conclusion
There are two separate but important issues which present an insurmountable challenge to the current widely held Baha’i views on homosexuality: the classification of homosexuality as a ‘disease’ and the assertion of the plasticity of sexual orientation. Both of these remain empty assertions, unproven and devoid of supporting evidence.

There is no discernible evidence of pathology for homosexuality, no matter how hard scientists have looked. Individuals who are homosexual live normal lives, just as the rest of humanity and they have even included astonishingly gifted, intelligent, exemplary specimens of humanity: Alan Turing, Jane Addams, Oscar Wilde, etc.

If there is no pathology on an individual level, but what about on a group or societal level? Research shows that same sex families raise healthy, well-adjusted children and that they have the same issues and challenges that ‘normal’ families do.

The only way we can pretend that homosexuality is a disease is by ignoring a mountain of evidence and insist on using outdated ideas (like Turkey’s use of the 1968 DSM). Ask yourself, would you be comfortable with having you or your loved ones given healthcare on a level that was available 60 years ago and forgo any scientific advancements since then? or would you want the most advanced treatments based on the most up to date scientific knowledge?

Related posts:

1. Homosexuality: Blueprint or Recipe?
2. The Challenge of Homosexuality
3. The Challenge of Homosexuality – Part Deux

According to the House of Justice, the construction of the Temple in Chile and these new houses of worship mark the “Fifth Epoch of the Formative Age of the Faith”.

As well, several local Houses of Worship will be built in select localities. These should be familiar to Baha’is if they have been keeping up with the news of international teaching successes. A document from 2008, “Attaining the dynamics growth: Glimpses from five continents” prepared by the International Teaching Center outlined several of these localities.

Among them: Bihar Sharif in India which is a predominantly rural area with 1200 villages each with 1000 average population. Matunda Soy and Tiriki West clusters in Kenya were noted for their achievements in the 2008 Regional conference as part of the international Five Year conferences. A personal Baha’i blog from Tiriki West cluster offers a bit more detail. Another locality with this distinction is Norte del Cauca in Colombia which is the site of the original Ruhi courses.

Battambang in Cambodia was the site of a regional conference in 2009 with Baha’is participating from Laos, Thailand, Vietnam and Cambodia. Finally Tanna in the Pacific island of Vanuatu will also be a site for a local house of worship.

The Ridvan message is below:

Related posts:

1. Universal House of Justice: Ridvan Message 2008
2. Universal House of Justice: Ridvan Message 2009
3. Universal House of Justice: Ridvan Message 2011

The Divine Springtime is come, O Most Exalted Pen, for the Festival of the All-Merciful is fast approaching. Bestir thyself, and magnify, before the entire creation, the name of God, and celebrate His praise, in such wise that all created things may be regenerated and made new. Speak, and hold not thy peace. The day star of blissfulness shineth above the horizon of Our name, the Blissful, inasmuch as the kingdom of the name of God hath been adorned with the ornament of the name of thy Lord, the Creator of the heavens. Arise before the nations of the earth, and arm thyself with the power of this Most Great Name, and be not of those who tarry.

Baha’u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u'llah

Related posts:

1. Are You Happy?
2. Happy Naw Ruz Everyone!

The riots that swept through several boroughs of London and in smaller measure other UK cities recently left many shocked and bewildered. The catalyst seems to have been the police shooting of a local man earlier in August. However, there is no agreement on what exactly caused or prepared the environment for it to take place.

Among the many causes mentioned and analyzed are the demographic shifts creating a large percentage of youths within areas, poor relations with police, social estrangement, reduction in government programs, gang culture, criminal opportunism and social dissatisfaction brought on by extremes of wealth and poverty.

The National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha’is of the UK has prepared and distributed a short letter to their community addressing the riots. I truly don’t mean to pick on them but suggesting that the solution to such a complex problem is “more Ruhi” courses is disappointing to say the least. You can read the full letter below:

Related posts:

1. Bill Davis Comment On UHJ April 19th Letter
2. National Spiritual Assembly (United States) Letter – April 8, 2007
3. House of Justice Letter April 19 2007 – Response To NSA US

The subject of homosexuality continues to be a difficult topic within Baha’i theology. For many it presents an insurmountable challenge to accept the Baha’i Faith and for believers it is a topic of seemingly endless polemics.

There are many approaches we can take to attempt a better understanding of this issue. One of the most basic is to go back to the source and try to understand exactly what the Baha’i writings say.

If we search Baha’u'llah’s writings, we find something quite remarkable. Nowhere in Baha’u'llah’s writings is there an explicit mention of homosexuality (and neither by Abdu’l-Baha). Arguably, the only reference we have is an extremely brief mention in the Aqdas (more on that a bit later).

To understand why there is no wider mention of homosexuality and what exactly Baha’u'llah was referring and what Shoghi Effendi translated to the seemingly cryptic words, “the subject of boys”, we have to take a few steps back.

Sexual dynamics and mores differ greatly between cultures and time periods. What may be accepted sexual behavior at one point in time or within a specific society may be completely unknown or unacceptable in another time or place.

For example, the Sambia of Papua New Guinea believe that ingestion of semen is necessary for a boy to reach full maturity. To that end, starting at age 7, Sambia boys orally stimulate their adolescent peers (14-18) and ingest their semen. Upon reaching puberty, they then provide their semen so that the younger boys can reach full sexual maturity and become men.

To the Sambia, semen is a precious substance which is being gifted from the older generation to the younger to assure their development. The act is done not to derive pleasure but to give a nourishing substance that the Sambia believe is as necessary as mother’s milk. While to us this may seem to have homosexual overtones, to the Sambia this is a natural and necessary part of a boy’s development and has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality. In fact, the Sambia view homosexual acts to be as taboo and socially undesirable as incest.

Of course, because we all fall prey to the recency effect, what we see in our present culture is what we consider to be ‘normal’. But actually, ‘normal’ is rather subjective.

The way that we understand and define homosexual relationships today simply did not exist during Baha’u'llah’s time in the Middle East. That is, there was no recognition or allowance for a mutually consensual, exclusive relationship between two adult women (or men) living together and raising children together as a family. Therefore, since this model of family life did not exist, it is not reasonable to expect that the topic be given explicit treatment. Just as we don’t expect Baha’u'llah to have explicitly written about cloning or stem cell research.

That does not mean however that homosexuality did not exist at all in one guise or another during Baha’u'llah’s time. Homosexuality, after all, has been observed in nature among hundreds of species as well as throughout human history. So while the current definition of homosexual relationships may not have existed, there certainly have always been some forms of homosexuality in human society, just as there have been many other acceptable sexual expressions, beyond the institution of marriage between a man and a woman.

So to understand the extremely limited or non-existent Baha’i treatment of homosexuality, we have to first understand the sexual traditions prevalent in the Middle East during the 1800′s. These would be the norms that Baha’u'llah would be familiar with.

While the current definition of homosexuality didn’t apply, there is one exception that must be noted. In Iran at the time of Baha’u’llah, this exception was the somewhat more readily accepted practice of lesbianism. It is sometimes referred to as sisterhood sighe and involved the consensual relationship between two women that was sexual in nature but not exclusively so. This was practiced in a society that allowed woman to travel together and spend time together (especially in harems where women were only allowed to frequent with other women freely).

Janet Afary writes in her book “Sexual Politics in Modern Iran” (p. 8):

Among married women, same-sex relations known as sisterhood vows were also culturally recognized practices. Although we have much less information on female homosexuality, we know that such courtships involved an exchange of gifts, travel to a shrine, and cultivation of affection between the partners.

Jafary’s book includes the account of the court gynecologist and obstetrician, Dr. Polak, who was occupied in a singularly advantageous post to observe and report on such activity:

Tribady – or tabaq – among women is widespread, though not to the same extent as pederasty [among men]. A certain friendship pact between women is performed within certain ceremonies in particular mosques on the last Wednesday before New Year’s Day (char shanbeh suri). The rituals and the day point to its heathen origins. Once the pact is entered into, the women maintain an inviolable commitment. This act is called khahar khandegi (sister recognition). It is worth noting that, just as men who have relations with individuals of their own kind (sui generis) develop a repulsion toward women, so too do these women develop an opposite repulsion. Thus there is often an agreement or tolerance of one another.
(Polak [1861] 1982, 43-44)

While not legally or religiously acceptable we see that homosexual relations were in fact common. The institution of marriage, while recognized and respected, was in many cases wholly separate from the sexual life of the couple. Of course, this was much easier for the urban and wealthy individual.

The “repulsion” that Polak describes developing towards the opposite sex would today be recognized by a medical professional as a person’s inherent sexual orientation. Of course, the societal norms did not allow them to live openly and freely as a couple but many women and men would have if they could. Instead, they were forced into various clandestine relationships. This, then, was the sexual milieu with which Baha’u'llah was familiar.

Having noted the existence and prevalence of lesbianism, it is interesting that Baha’u'llah doesn’t use language that could include homosexual relations between women. Instead, the word that is used refers to the masculine.

Here is the brief mention by Baha’u'llah (verse 107) in the Kitab-i-Aqdas:

ennaa nastah-yi an nazkora hokma’l ghelmaane et-taqo’r-rahmana yaa mala’el emkaane wa laa tartakiboo maa nohitom ‘anho fil-lohe wa laa takoonoo fi haimaa ash-shahavaate minal haa’emina

This is translated into English (the bold is my own emphasis):

We shrink, for very shame, from treating the subject of boys. Fear ye the Merciful, O peoples of the world! Commit not that which is forbidden you in Our Holy Tablet, and be not of those who rove distractedly in the wilderness of their desire.

First, let’s start with defining the word used. The S. Haim Persian-English dictionary defines the Persian implications of the Arabic term “ghulaam” as: slave, page; lad, servant.

Clearly, Baha’u'llah is making a hasty reference to something embarrassing. Something that He would rather not even have to talk about but must. But what possibly could it be? From the context that the preceding sentence to the paragraph provides we can surmise that it must be of a sexual nature.

Fortunately for us as observers (and unfortunately for those directly involved) the practice that is being referred to is actually in place today in Afghanistan so we can study it with great detail. It is an old practice known as “bache bazi” – literally translated as ‘child play’ or ‘boy play’ that has made a rapid resurgence after being banned for a time by the Taliban.

This involves the practice of training young pubescent or pre-pubescent boys to entertain men by dressing as women and dancing for them. There is also a sexual nature to this relationship as the boy is expected to provide his body for his master’s delectation. A recent PBS Frontline documentary called, The Dancing Boys of Afghanistan exposes this practice in greater detail:

Please be advised that while the content is not graphic in nature, the story may be disturbing to sensitive souls. You can view the documentary at this link.

These relationships are markedly different from the homosexual relationships that we see practiced today. It is not a relationship between equals. Instead the adult male has resources, power, rank and authority and in effect ‘owns’ the younger male. He provides for the boy’s needs but expects certain reciprocation.

The boys are not involved of their own choosing but often sold into the practice by their impoverished families. Therefore, this is a far cry from a loving and consensual relationship between two adults. In short, this is pederasty and human trafficking – what most modern societies would consider very serious crimes.

To compound the tragedy, their own society holds men who own such young boys in high regard and honors them with prestige. This is partly because the activity is an expensive one and participating in it is a sign of wealth. As well, the practice is often continued by the very same individuals who were once victims. That is, upon reaching puberty and no longer being desirable, the young boys would then use their acquired skills to recruit younger boys and introduce them to bacheh bazi in a continuing chain of sexual abuse. After all, this is the only life they’ve known and the only skills they’ve acquired to make a livelihood for themselves.

Again, referring to “Sexual Politics in Modern Iran” Cambridge University Press, we see that this was a common practice during Baha’u'llah’s time:

Nineteenth-century Iranian society did not adhere to modern definitions or sensibilities concerning same-sex relations. Although legally prohibited, homosexual sex was common, and homoerotic passion was accommodated. Falling in love with a youth and celebrating that love were recognized practices, as long as the lovers remained circumspect and observed certain conventions. Elite urban men often flouted these conventions. In the royal court and among government officials, wealthy merchants, and clerics, the practice of keeping boy concubines was widespread and commonly known; close, homosexual relations between free adult men were less often discussed or divulged, however.

Ibid. (p. 104):

In the era of Naser al-Din Shah and Mozaffar al-Din Shah, Iranian society remained accepting of many male and female homoerotic practices, among them the staging of dances by mukhannathun (effeminate men) in coffee shops (Aubin [1908] 1983, 248-249). The state distinguished between permissible and illegal homosexual acts. Bringing male (or female) prostitute to lower-middle-class homes was illegal, but purchasing or hiring a boy as a servant for the exclusive sexual pleasure of the master (in middle-class or elite homes) was permissible. Here a man could hire a boy as his long-term servant/concubine without any social recrimination. Handsome boys from poor families were hired at elite homes around the age of eight and were known as gholam bacheh (page boys). Polak made a number of observations about the practice:

Through this vice, livat [lavat], betsche bazi [bacheh bazi], is strongly rebuked in the Qur’an and can even be punishable by death, it is nevertheless today generally widespread, among the lay people, especially… officers, schoolteachers, and even clerics. It is so overt that no one makes an attempt to conceal it. In almost every house of standing there is such a boy, even many, who are there to serve this purpose. No one is reserved about introducing them publicly. Indeed, one takes pride in possessing a splendid specimen. One is especially jealous about them. They are carefully watched and protected from seduction. (Polak [1861] 1982, 41)

He goes on to say that men often fought bloody battles over these boys: “One uses all possible means of seduction: money, [professional] advancement, even violence, in order to take possession of a boy” (Polak [1861] 1982, 41). At the same time, the abduction and rape of boys remained serious crimes:

Though pederasty is quietly tolerated, the punishment for the abduction of a boy is often significant. Often the abductor, because of legal action against him, has all of his genitals, including his penis, cut off, at which point the individual will seek to be part of the eunuch service. Several of these violently mutilated received positions as governors and ministers. (Polak [1861] 1982, 41)

By the 1880s the kidnapping and molestation of boys were still major offenses, but the punishment had been generally reduced to imprisonment and flogging. The police in Tehran were vigilant about missing children, and every attempt was made to find and reunite them with their families within a few house (see for example Shaykh Rezaei and Azari [1885-1888] 1999, I:181, 266, 397). If a common soldier or peddler took an eight-to-ten-year-old boy to a garden or a religious seminary with the intention of raping him, and was caught, he might be beaten by the citizenry and then turned over to the police (see for example Shaykh Rezaei and Azari [1885-1888] 1999, I:17, 39, 50, 103, II:428).

Furthermore, Afary quotes Robert Surieu (p. 89) – note that he uses the exact same (etymological) term as that used by Baha’u'llah in the Kitab-i-Aqdas, cited above:

From the Middle Ages to the Safavid period, the rulers and the great men of the [Persian] kingdom possessed, the ghelman (plural gholam) boys acquired at a tenderest age from the Turkish tribes of Central Asia, and later from the Caucasus. The prices paid for these boys were often very high… [in some cases around] 2000 pieces of gold… They were undoubtedly a costly luxury. Often, it is true, the merchants who traded in these ghelman educated them with great care just as they taught music, dancing, and poetry to the most beautiful girls who were destined for princely harems – so that intellectual accomplishments should be added to their physical attractions and thus enhance their price. (Surieu 1967, 170)

Here is a picture from 1905 depicting a “dancing boy” in Samarkand:

Considering that Baha’u'llah was born into nobility and moved within very elevated circles earlier in His life, there is no doubt that He would have been very familiar with this practice and probably would have even seen finely attired catamites at the Shah’s or ministers’ courts. Therefore, there was no need to further explain or detail the practice, especially considering this practice’s questionable morality. While it was something that was prevalent most chose to ignore it in formal and refined conversation. In that context, the fleeting and awkward mention in the Aqdas becomes much more understandable.

We have further exposition of the sexual mores of that time from R. Jackson Armstrong-Ingram:

It was simply taken-for-granted in Middle Eastern tradition that all men find boys sexually attractive and that men who are attracted to boys are not a ‘different’ type of men but, on the contrary, ‘normal’ men who desire intromissive ejaculation for which a boy taken in liwat is as fit as a woman taken in liwat or vaginal intercourse.”

“Liwat does not encompass fellatio or mutual masturbation. The latter is common in the middle east but generally considered simply one of those things young men do that does not need to be acknowledged or discussed. Nor can liwat include sexual activity between women as the perpetrator of liwat must have a penis. Some authorities consider sahq, sexual activity between women, as a form of zina, but this is problematic as standard definitions of zina require penetration.”

If we note the widespread use of dancing boys dressed as girls for prostitution in the Middle East; and the practice of female prostitutes dressing as boys to increase their appeal to customers who would engage in either anal or vaginal intercourse with them; and remember that the customers of both the dancing boys and the travesti girls are married men: It is evident that expecting recent western terms like ‘homosexual’ and ‘heterosexual’ to be readily applicable in this socio-cultural milieu in any meaningful way is futile.

We may also note for purposes of comparison that in late nineteenth century New York working class Italians, and the decidedly un-Mediterranean Irish, held that male sexuality centered on intromissive ejaculation and that the object used to achieve that was not particularly relevant for defining masculine identity. Intromissive ejaculation demonstrated the superiority of the penetrator and that was what mattered.

In both the West and the East, the principal aim of sexual norms was to bolster adult male dominance, both in situations of illicit sex and in marriage. Islamic marriage was based on a concept of husband as owner (malik) and wife as owned (mamluka) and even the most advanced muslim thinkers of the late nineteenth century assumed an innate disability to being female, even when they were directly citing Western sources. The West did generally assume the existence of an essential difference between men and women that provided a limit to women’s development. If women tried to emulate men beyond a certain point, this would result in them being literally desexed (unable to bear children) and becoming a neither man nor woman monstrosity.
Sexuality in the Aqdas by R. Jackson Armstrong-Ingram

And further in another essay R. Jackson Armstrong-Ingram writes:

A remark that it is shameful to keep a catamite presumably means first and foremost that it is shameful to keep a catamite. But from specific comments we may also develop generalizations. We are likely to be aided in generalizing by an understanding of the context in which the statement was made and received. However, apart from this there are two basic directions in which we may take our generalizing. The statement may be generalized to a condemnation of a broader range of homosexual acts; or it may be generalized to a condemnation of those in a position of power exploiting their dependents for their own ends. One type of generalization operates on the basis of presumed analogies among specific outward acts and the one in the statement; the other operates on the basis of a concern for the principles that may be inferred from the statement and how these may be related to motives, responsibilities, and relationships.

The important question is which type of generalization is more likely to produce results that may support a global value system that can flourish and develop in all cultures. Is God more interested in people’s actions than their hearts? Is the road to salvation a mechanically instrumental one? Of course actions matter, but what underlies the actions must matter at least as much if we are not to espouse a materialist view of existence. And not only individual actions matter but also the broader patterns of social interaction in which these actions are situated.
Baha’i Faith and Sexuality by R. Jackson Armstrong-Ingram

I hope that the above has served to provide the historical context for understanding directly what Baha’u'llah wrote in the Aqdas. Needless to say, as Baha’is, we of course pay attention to the translation and interpretation of the Guardian. Juxtaposing the two may provide us with a deeper insight into the discussion of the views and attitudes of the Baha’i Faith towards homosexuality.

Similar to the line of reasoning provided by R. Jackson Armstrong-Ingram above, but with one important distinction, here is a question to ponder:

By ignoring the homosexual relationships between women, which were marked by consensual agreement between adult equals, and condemning specifically a despicable act of ritualized pederasty marked by the abuse of power and dominance of an adult over less fortunate minors, was Baha’u'llah telling us more about equality, justice and human rights than about merely a sexual act or orientation?

I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Related posts:

1. Visualizing the Hidden Words of Baha’u'llah

Salman Rushdie delivers the Leiden Freedom Lecture in the St. Pieters church, Leiden, The Netherlands 18 June 2010

Freedom, he argued is the essence of life and the essence of creativity. So many Baha’is have told me that to be a Bahai and an artist means that you need to be ‘moderate’. Some, artists themselves, have presented all sorts of theories about art being at the service of something else, ranging from the idea of self-censorship in order not to offend to art as a framework for the lowest common denominator: the ubiquitous portrait paintings of ‘Abdul-Baha.

Screenshot of the Art Directory of Baha'i Inspired Artists Facebook Group - 18 June 2010

Not all pages include as many portraits as this page happens to, but this is a good representation of much of what is labeled as art in a Baha’i context. I am not criticizing any of this art nor this forum. Mark Granfar, has created an open forum for artworks to be placed and artists could place other forms of art if they wished. My point is that this forum reflects what you see in the Baha’i community in general.

I’m not knocking portrait painting nor those who choose to paint these types of images of ‘Abdul-Baha, but am asking where is the diversity, a tell-tale sign of freedom. Celebrations of ‘oneness’ wear a little thin, when that’s the only story on offer by a community.

When freedom of conscience, liberty of thought and right of speech prevail — that is to say, when every man according to his own idealization may give expression to his beliefs — development and growth are inevitable.
(Abdu’l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 197)

(E)ach elemental atom of the universe has the opportunity of expressing an infinite variety of those individual virtues. No atom is bereft or deprived of this opportunity or right of expression.
(Abdu’l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 285)

When I was fresh out of art school, I happily made artworks on themes of peace, diversity, portrait-like pieces, and so on, and felt completely free to do so. It was encouraging that various Baha’is in my community appreciated what I was doing and some even bought my work.

Myriam Bargetze performing in Atras de um arbusto um papa - formigas esverdeia de vergonha (An ant eater hiding behind a bush - turns green out of embarrassment), in the Lisbon Botanical gardens, Portugal, 1990

I was aware of work such as Joseph Beuys’ social sculpture projects and liked it, but it wasn’t my world. If a Baha’i had been making such work, I wouldn’t have thought this was ‘immoderate’, but because of the way I was living or perhaps because my Baha’i community was so open, whether art was ‘moderate’ or not, wasn’t a question I had.

That was a few decades ago and in the years I’ve been making art, I’ve never felt I needed to censor what I make. In fact I don’t think I could, and because I don’t show my art in Baha’i contexts I don’t have to think about this either. All good and fine.

However the ‘stale air’ is what I often encounter as art made, shown or discussed in Baha’i contexts. Perhaps this is the only possibility, that religious contexts cannot allow for too much artistic diversity? I’ve been told this and it sounds reasonable, however, how can art function if is not free? Other Baha’is have stated that the time for Baha’i art has not started yet, and I think to myself, ‘oh so we sit around and wait, and like magic, something called Baha’i art will appear out of nothing?’

My view is that it started the second the Baha’i Revelation started and art was free.

In this new century the attainment of science, arts and belles lettres, whether divine or worldly, material or spiritual, is a matter which is acceptable before God and a duty which is incumbent upon us all to accomplish…
(my own emphasis added – Abdu’l-Baha, Tablets of Abdu’l-Baha v2, p. 448)

When I look at what is written about the arts and creativity, it seems to me that Baha’i art is not about having the same material form, but about diversity, about difference and freedom of expression. Many artists do as I do, operate outside of Baha’i contexts, partly because there is space outside of the Baha’i community to develop, and there’s nothing wrong with this, and partly because there’s no space for art in the Baha’i community. It is not censored (at least in my case), but it is not made welcome. How can art touch a religious context if it is never shown in one. As much as I love classical music, my heart sinks when I hear it as ‘the music’ at a feast, because there’s no diversity.

In 2006, I called a workshop I gave at an Irish Baha’i summer school, “shocking art” where individuals could bring up the art that shocks them as a starting point for discussion. As it turned out, the individuals were all touched by contemporary art in some way and because of this had already developed their own dialogue. There was no need for me to show that ‘shocking art’ has a place in the world, and so in that context of freedom, I moved the workshop to exercises in expressing the new instead. We had clean air and so didn’t need to protest.

Rushdie’s metaphor got me thinking about how often Baha’is tell me off (usually online) for expressing what in their view is whining, when in my view it is critique. From their perspective I’m polluting their clean air (of no dissent) while for me the air is stuffy because my critique is seen as not being acceptable for a Baha’i to make. I promise, I really would complain less if there was more dialogue. :-) Seriously though, when individuals have differences of opinion and it is assumed that each party is sincere, then the differing opinions can be worked on. If one or another writes something like “well you can leave”, what that person is really saying is, your viewpoint does not belong here and mine does.

The shining spark of truth cometh forth only after the clash of differing opinions.
(Abdu’l-Baha, Selections from the Writings of Abdu’l-Baha, p. 87)

I also think that if we don’t have the freedom to express things that bother us, we can’t process them, learn from them, learn from the differing ideas. I think the fact that one of the Baha’i months is called ‘questions’ indicates that this is part of human nature, part of the development of the spirit and something that is an ongoing aspect of Baha’i community life.

For me making a work of art is more about asking questions, wrestling with some experience, than presenting answers – although art is wonderfully slippery and so is about both and neither.

I do think any artist should have complete freedom of expression. As Rushdie stated, you have to make the effort to open a book to read it, have to walk into a bookshop or a library. No one is forced to encounter art. Likewise with art in a gallery. There’s a lot of art I dislike, but some of it has inspired me to make art in response, and some of it I forget about. I’d be a poorer person if I hadn’t experienced it and yet this is not the same as someone who willingly places themselves or another into a life-threatening situation.

In 2004, at a talk I gave for the Baha’is, I was asked how I would treat Mapplethorpe’s photography in the context of Baha’i art. My answer was that it shouldn’t be censored and that it was focused on the material, and art focused on materiality can be as effective as art focused on spirituality. From another perspective, a detailed realistic painting is as much about materiality as a work by Mapplethorpe.

On the topic of censorship, Salman Rushdie told the story of a Pakistani film (“International Gorillay” (International Guerillas) in which Rushdie, depicted as a Rambo-like figure, is portrayed as plotting to cause the downfall of Pakistan by opening a chain of casinos and discos, tortures with audio recordings of his book, and was finally killed by a bolt of lighting sent from God!

The British Board of Film Classification refused to give it a certificate, meaning it would be banned in the U.K., because they feared they might be sued for the 25 or more instances of libel in the film. Rushdie said he didn’t want to be part to something being censored and so wrote a statement to the board saying he would not sue for libel if the film was released. And so they then released it. A large theater was hired for its first showing in Muslim-dominated Bradford — and no one turned up. However if the movie had been banned, the fact of censorship would have made it popular. As it was, the work was judged according to its quality: a badly made movie not worth the cost of entry.

I’d argue that even if the unbanned film had become popular in the U.K., it would have served as a form of discourse. Having the freedom to express also means having the freedom to judge the work, and learn from it or its mistakes or misrepresentations. If a community doesn’t have freedom, it doesn’t have the mechanisms for diversity.

How do we know if a community has freedom: we look at the diversity of its artforms. There are two responses to this in relation to the Baha’i community. Lots of Baha’is are doing diverse highly creative work and Baha’is are part of the world. Second: if Baha’i communities wish to take advantage of this air of liberty, they have to create a opportunities for it.

A starting point would be to remove ‘review’, so there’s no idea of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ ways of expression. Of course I’m grateful to Baquia for allowing a freedom of expression on this blog. If Baquia hadn’t, I wouldn’t have made the effort to write this to start with.

This is what I mean by creating opportunities. If artists know that their art is welcome -however materialistic or issue-based- then they will start making an artwork in relation to the Baha’i community and when they do, we’ll have the diversity needed for discourse to develop. As it stands at the moment, artists who are Baha’is such as myself, certainly make art inspired by the Baha’i writings and teachings, but what is missing is art and art discourse in relation to the Baha’i community. Perhaps this is a freedom only possible as a form of diaspora -from the point of view of an outsider. At least at the moment with the dominance of the Ruhi culture, this seems to be the case.

Related posts:

1. Documentary “I Am” Explores The Unity & Interconnectedness of All

It is, therefore, evident that it is possible to cure by foods, aliments and fruits; but as today the science of medicine is imperfect, this fact is not yet fully grasped. When the science of medicine reaches perfection, treatment will be given by foods, aliments, fragrant fruits and vegetables, and by various waters, hot and cold in temperature.
‘Abdu’l-Bahá in Some Answered Questions

Then I stumbled on this video from TED that illuminates one very real and practical path that is being taken by modern science. It is astonishing when we remind ourselves that Abdu’l-Baha’s words precede this research by more than 100 years:

Dr. William Li’s list of antiangiogenic foods

Can we eat to starve cancer?

The Angiogenesis Foundation

No related posts.

One of the most beautiful aspects of the Baha’i Writings in my view is that religious law can be flexible and adapt.

“The second classification or division comprises social laws and regulations applicable to human conduct. This is not the essential spiritual quality of religion. It is subject to change and transformation according to the exigencies and requirements of time and place.”

(Address by Abdu’l Baha Abbas before Congregation Emmanu-El, San Francisco, Cal.
(Martin A. Meyer, Rabbi) Saturday, October 12, 1912.
- Star of the West, Vol. 3, No. 13, p. 3)

Abdu’l-Baha places principles such as justice and equality into the first classification, as part of what all religion is concerned with and which does not change. By “second classificiation” Abdu’l-Baha is referring to daily practices that are to some degree related to social conditions while being based on principles in the first classification such as justice and equality.

Times are changed, and the need and fashion of the world are changed. Interference with creed and faith in every country causes manifest detriment, while justice and equal dealing towards all peoples on the face of the earth are the means whereby progress is effected.

(Abdu’l-Baha, A Traveller’s Narrative, p. 87)

While in London last month, I was reminded of the nature of change when I saw this photograph on the front pages of a newspaper and then read the accompanying article, about a public apology by the leader of the Tory party for past support for Section 28.

Section 28 (a ban on councils and schools promoting homosexuality as a valid lifestyle) was axed in 2003, but it was introduced in the 1980s under a Tory government which is why this apology is so significant. The words quoted in various newspapers were: “I’m sorry for Section 28. We got it wrong. It was an emotional issue. We have got to move on and we have moved on,”

Laws and statutes of governments civil and federal are in process of change and transformation. Sciences and arts are being moulded anew. Thoughts are metamorphosed. The foundations of human society are changing and strengthening.

(Abdu’l-Baha, Baha’i World Faith – Abdu’l-Baha Section, p. 228)

Seeing this image of the Prime Minister’s wife, Sarah Brown and another photograph of the Prime Minister meeting with Stonewall (they work to reduce homophobic bullying in schools), also part of the UK Gay Pride celebrations, gave me hope to think one day the Baha’i community could change too. Change enough so that gay Bahais wouldn’t lose their voting rights for doing what heterosexuals do: marry. We have a long way to go but that doesn’t mean that I have to give up.

The morals of humanity must undergo change. New remedies and solutions for human problems must be adopted. Human intellects themselves must change and be subject to the universal reformation. Just as the thoughts and hypotheses of past ages are fruitless today, likewise dogmas and codes of human invention are obsolete and barren of product in religion. Nay, it is true that they are the cause of enmity and conducive to strife in the world of humanity; war and bloodshed proceed from them, and the oneness of mankind finds no recognition in their observance. Therefore, it is our duty in this radiant century to investigate the essentials of divine religion, seek the realities underlying the oneness of the world of humanity and discover the source of fellowship and agreement which will unite mankind in the heavenly bond of love. This unity is the radiance of eternity, the divine spirituality, the effulgence of God and the bounty of the Kingdom. We must investigate the divine source of these heavenly bestowals and adhere unto them steadfastly. For if we remain fettered and restricted by human inventions and dogmas, day by day the world of mankind will be degraded, day by day warfare and strife will increase and satanic forces converge toward the destruction of the human race.

(Abdu’l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 144)

A few months ago my gay Baha’i brother Daniel Orey received a letter from his NSA which began with “It is with deep sadness that the National Spiritual Assembly has learned that you openly married your male companion in a same sex marriage ceremony…” further on the letter states that the National Spiritual Assembly has no choice but to remove his Baha’i membership rights because of his marriage and of his “support of homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle for Baha’is”.

All are one people, one nation, one species, one kind. The common interest is complete equality; justice and equality amongst mankind are amongst the chief promoters of empire and the principal means to the extension of the skirt of conquest. …Times are changed, and the need and fashion of the world are changed… …justice and equal dealing towards all peoples on the face of the earth are the means whereby progress is effected.

(Abdu’l-Baha, A Traveller’s Narrative, p. 87)

So how can I respond to this as a Baha’i myself who believes that homosexuals are as equal as heterosexuals with the same rights and responsibilities? Daniel is one of the few gay Baha’is who has not been afraid to be honest and open. I don’t blame gay Baha’is who have partners in secret and admittedly if a heterosexual couple married as Daniel did, they might lose their voting rights as well, because he didn’t get his parents’ permission and hence couldn’t have a Baha’i ceremony. But I’ll stick to two points made in the NSA’s letter, because they seem to be the reason for his loss of his voting rights: “same sex ceremony” and “support of homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle for Baha’is.”

It should also be borne in mind that the machinery of the Cause has been so fashioned, that whatever is deemed necessary to incorporate into it in order to keep it in the forefront of all progressive movements, can, according to the provisions made by Bahá’u'lláh, be safely embodied therein.

(Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha’u'llah, p. 22-23)

The topic of equality for homosexuals in the Bahai community often ends up with individuals getting emotional on one side or the other and there ends the dialogue. My attempt here is to see what we can do to move forward on this discussion because I do believe that the Bahai Teachings are for all of humanity and so far haven’t found anything in the Bahai Writings to contradict this. So as a Bahai I continue. This is an important issue for Baha’is to discuss, because, for example, in my own country, the Netherlands, it would be breaking the law to discriminate against homosexuals. I’m not suggesting for one minute that Dutch Law supercedes Baha’i Law, but we need to think about the issues involved in applying Baha’i principles in a changing world.

There’s obedience to one’s country on one hand. There’s the principle of equality. There’s the discussion about just what is the nature of marriage in the Bahai Writings? I would like to base this discussion on what is in the Writings, rather than what we have been told or heard is a Bahai Teaching. My attempt is not a protest nor any attempt to change any Baha’i Adiministration’s policy. My goal here is for a debate on this based on the Baha’i Writings because, I argue, if the Baha’i Teachings are so great, then we will find the answer by applying the Baha’i principles of justice and equality. We don’t need to pretend nor see it as a mystery, we can use science as our aid.

In various places Abdul-Baha states science is a way of keeping religion in balance as much as science needs ethics. And so back to my original thoughts on this topic: the theme of change as a principle of nature.

Science is the discoverer of the past. From its premises of past and present we deduce conclusions as to the future. Science is the governor of nature and its mysteries, the one agency by which man explores the institutions of material creation. All created things are captives of nature and subject to its laws. They cannot transgress the control of these laws in one detail or particular. The infinite starry worlds and heavenly bodies are nature’s obedient subjects. The earth and its myriad organisms, all minerals, plants and animals are thralls of its dominion. But man through the exercise of his scientific, intellectual power can rise out of this condition, can modify, change and control nature according to his own wishes and uses. Science, so to speak, is the breaker of the laws of nature.

(Abdu’l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 29)

Here is my suggestion for a debate on this topic in the hope of creating an atmosphere of consultative dialogue from various viewponts. To break up the discussion on the topic of homosexuality into several topics so we could see what we can learn from each other. Topics I thought I should try for in later blogs are “the nature of marriage” and “science and religion.” Suggestions for other topics are welcome.

This topic is on the theme of “change”, what is the role of this in the Baha’i Teachings and practice? How does this relate to the Baha’i Writings which don’t change (the fact that they are authenticated and written and seen as Scripture)? And other Writings that are important such as Letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi? What Baha’i principles favour the acceptance of same-sex marriage today, and which Bahai principles restrict this?

No related posts.

A mechanism of world inter-communication will be devised, embracing the whole planet, freed from national hindrances and restrictions, and functioning with marvellous swiftness and perfect regularity. A world metropolis will act as the nerve centre of a world civilization, the focus towards which the unifying forces of life will converge and from which its energizing influences will radiate. A world language will either be invented or chosen from among the existing languages and will be taught in the schools of all the federated nations as an auxiliary language to their mother tongue. A world script, a world literature, a uniform and universal system of currency, of weights and measures, will simplify and facilitate intercourse and understanding among the nations and races of mankind.

Keeping in mind that the above was written in 1938, you can’t help but be awed by his prophetic vision. We can easily identify many of the things he outlines.

The internet – connecting everyone, almost instantaneously; allowing for the world to bear witness to the violent crushing of protests on the streets of Tehran.

A supplementary language? English obviously. It is spoken and taught in almost every place on earth. It has become the de facto language of commerce, naval and aerial navigation, computer programming, etc.

A uniform and universal system of weights and measures? The metric system is the standard in all but 3 countries.

And just recently – at the G-8 Summit in L’Aquila, Italy – Russian President Dmitry Medvedev called for a “supranational” world currency and to have something to show the world leaders, he gave them a sample coin minted in Belgium:

It even has a website: Future World Currency

To be fair, this is not the first coin to be inspired by the phrase ‘unity in diversity’. In 2006 India minted a 10 Rupee coin designed by National Institute of Design which had the symbolic representation of the concept: 4 lines and dots coming together:

I know that this proposal won’t amount to much but it is remarkable news nevertheless. A world currency is still a long ways off, of course. But with the success of the Euro, which united Europe’s main group of countries and has since expanded to several others, the idea of a supranational currency is easier to imagine. Who knows, this vision of Shoghi Effendi may come true sooner than we think.

By the way, does anyone have any reference of a global currency in the writings of either Abdu’l-Baha or Baha’u'llah? As far as I can tell, there aren’t any but maybe I haven’t looked hard enough.

No related posts.