London July 4th 2009: Sarah Brown, wife of the British Prime Minister took part the London Pride March. This photo is used with permission by photographer, © Marco Secchi 2008.
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?
Thank you Sonja for this thoughtful contribution. A bit of synchronicity as a campaign is afoot to get the English government to apologize for the way that it treated one of the greatest minds of our modern era: Turing.
According to Abdulbaha, Muhammad the Rasoul of Allah in his 72 raids agains innocent people was defending himself
How scientific is the writing and thoughts of Abdulbaha Abbas the Son of the Glory of Allah?
Thanks for these quotes. In underligning the role of the UHj for the process of adaptation, Shoghi Effendi makes this statement (WOB p 14):
“Such is the immutability of His revealed Word. Such is the elasticity which characterizes the functions of His appointed ministers. The first preserves the identity of His Faith, and guards the integrity of His law. The second enables it, even as a living organism, to expand and adapt itself to the needs and requirements of an ever-changing society.”
Guest, I am not competent in the history of Islam, but what I can say for sure is that at this time in the history of our planet, whatever can help us towards love and reconciliation is more precious than considerations that will fan the flames of discord between, one sixth of humanity with the other five sixths.
To discriminate against me for my sexual preference, something that is outside of my control similar to that of my eye colour seems to me to be an outrage. And not only gay people are going to find it so but all the kinds of people that the Baha’i Faith should be reaching out to.
The debate (or absence of one) in the faith is mirrored in the majority of Christian churches specifically the Anglican Church. Search the bible from cover to cover and reference to homosexuality as we understand it today is just not there. How could it be? It did not exist as it does today. What did exist was an exploitative relationship where sex was used in a power struggle and not as a manifestation of mutual love and affection.
Gay Baha’is don’t want to engage in random sexual pleasure and gratification in the absence of a loving relationship what they want and deserve is to be treated the same as heterosexual Baha’is. While we were young I witnessed the straight normal Baha’i friends fornicate and drink and do drugs with impunity and when mention was made of “gays” it quickly turned to revulsion and the quoting of hidden Persian or Arabic texts to which I had no access which purported to forbid gay relationships. I know one should not be put off by the behaviour of the believers but when one is faced with prejudice and hatred by your co-religionists it is unbearable.
Reason is highly prized in the faith. Men (and women) of intellect have been openly targeted in the past through direct teaching. The faith is fundamentally flawed in that the believers and the Administrative Order insists on the perpetuation of this evil discrimination and ultimately will not prosper and spread as most believers pray that it will.
Timwatts wrote : And not only gay people are going to find it so but all the kinds of people that the Baha’i Faith should be reaching out to.
Timwatts, as I see it, the Baha’i teachings are offered like a banquet to all humanity. Those who are enrolled in the Baha’i administrative order, are allowed to do service in the kitchen, but these have to abide by some community rules that have nothing to do with our spiritual value or how we are accepted in the eyes of God. Every one can benefit from the teachings, but not everyone is engaged in the kitchen to do the serving.
One of the conditions for being accepted for service within the community is having a sexual life restricted to within the marriage bonds and marriages can only take place between a man and a woman with the consent of parties and of the two parents on each side, but the community has no right to pry into people’s lives, so it is a matter between the person and God if he does not abide by God’s prescriptions. If someone insists on an open behaviour that defies the community rules, whether gay or non gay, he forfeits his administrative rights to serve (ad-ministrer = to serve) as a member of that community.
These rules cannot be changed other than by the decision of the UHJ who at the moment does not believe that gay marriages will one day be endorsed in Baha’i administration.
God if he does not abide by God’s prescriptions.
Yes and here we have it. You beleive that God himself ruler of the universe who made all things and ordained everything who made gay and straight alike would then send messages to say that only the gay ones should have no fulfillment in their lives and shall not know a loving relationship with another human being…
“These rules cannot be changed other than by the decision of the UHJ who at the moment does not believe that gay marriages will one day be endorsed in Baha’i administration.”
this is why people will ultimately reject the faith as this is not reasonable and everything must past the test of reasonableness.
The immutable law of God cannot be changed by anyone least of all the MEN of the house of justice. It is not a matter of belief it's amtter of fact. Gay people exist what are you going to do about them…wanting to marry?
Dear Sonja,
thank you for your article. Despite the fact that I know not much about the Bahá'í faith and hence cannot constructively contribute to the discussion, it still concerns me to see how troublesome a gay marriage appears to the NSA. Instead of, let's say, loving support, the institution even goes as far as to deprive the “trespasser” of his Bahá'í membership rights?
Well, I have been happily married to my husband for 4 years now and I couldn't help but think of the following quotation by Rudolf Steiner…
“Leben in der Liebe zum Handeln und Lebenlassen im Verständnisse des fremden Wollens ist die Grundmaxime der freien Menschen.”
(“To live in love towards our actions, and to let live in the understanding of the other person's will, is the fundamental maxim of free men and women.”)
(Philosoph of Freedom, Chapter 9)
Here's to that.
Big hug from Berlin,
Christian Siegmund (né Schmidt)
Farhan wrote: “Those who are enrolled in the Baha’i administrative order, are allowed to do service in the kitchen, but these have to abide by some community rules that have nothing to do with our spiritual value or how we are accepted in the eyes of God.”
Farhan can you supply some Bahai Writings to support this viewpoint of yours please? The quotations in my blog seem to contradict this idea, stating that the principles of the Bahai Faith are for all people. Principes such as justice and equality.
http://revolked2.blogspot.com/2009/05/lets-star...
and
http://revolked2.blogspot.com/2009/06/why-i-won...
thank you so very much Sonja!
Farhan wrote: “These rules cannot be changed other than by the decision of the UHJ who at the moment does not believe that gay marriages will one day be endorsed in Baha’i administration.”
What rules Farhan? The UHJ has not made any on homosexuality but you have assumed that they have? So that's another theme for a topic of discussion. The distinctions between the UHJ as lawgiver and that fact that only Shoghi Effendi's own writing (in his own words) can be considered official interpretation of Bahai Scripture. Baquia if you could make a link here to where this is already discussed on your blog that would be great.
As far as I know many letters from the UHJ infer that gay Bahais must live celibate lives, but it is an inference not a rule. It is an important point because otherwise then our discussion would be about the rule that the UHJ has made concerning gay Bahais. If you claim that they have made a rule, then please share the ruling with us.
That is why I'm focussing on what is in the Bahai Writings, first on the theme of the ability of Bahai Institutions and in relation to that, of Bahai communities to adapt, and to have a flexible relationship with a changing world.
It seems to me that many homophic attitudes stem from Letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi. Those letters, written by various secretaries in the 1930s till 1957 relate to attitudes of the times. Some of these letters clearly cannot be treated as Scripture because it is clear from the content of some letters that the secretary had some limited knowledge of the Bahai Teachings which Shoghi Effendi would have known about.
But more importantly than my concern with consistency is that Shoghi Effendi himself wrote very clearly that his authority was purely as interpretator of Bahai Scripture and not as law giver. The role of making law is for the UHJ.
What was common in previous decades was for gay Bahais often to live in a position of not telling and not being asked by their NSAs and not being sanctioned either. One example is of Mark Tobey who lived for decades with a male acquaintance and was a personal friend of Shoghi Effendi.
This practice of not saying publically one was gay was also an exigency of time and place, but a number of countries have moved on, have changed not only laws but much more importantly attitudes towards homosexuality. What I find sad is that it seems that now the way homosexuals are being treated by the Bahai administration in some countries is moving further and further from “the exigencies and requirements of time and place”
Times have changed, and while I can understand that the UHJ would be very unlikely to wish to make any ruling, because it could endanger Bahais lives in countries where any statement regarding equal treatment of homosexuals might be used to imprison or kill Bahais, that doesn't mean that by their silence on making a ruling, that the opposite can be assumed as a rule. As Bahais we must obey the rules of the UHJ, but as for interpreting and understanding the Bahai Writings we must use our own reasoning -our own interpretations of the principles of the Bahai Faith.
And so back to the original theme of my blog. First look at the Bahai Writings and see if any principle there would endorse this inequality, and then return to the practices of current Bahai adminstration to see if there's a way to understand the current practice of removing voting rights in some cases and in other cases not doing this.
Where does it say in the Baha'i writings that
“homosexual relationships are not permitted” are these equated with sexual relationships? Minor point I know but words are important. According to the NSA of the USA relationships between people of the same sex are not permitted…that's surely going to cause a problem….left the faith 20 years back because i fell in love with a man and wanted to be with him…
One more bit of news:
Obama Disses Marriage Law as Justice Defends It
http://www.truthout.org/081709V?n
Devlin Barrett, The Associated Press: “President Barack Obama insisted Monday he still wants to scrap what he calls a discriminatory federal marriage law, even as his administration angered gay rights activists by defending it in court. The president said his administration's stance in a California court case is not about defending traditional marriage, but is instead about defending traditional legal practice.”
Should religion adapt to culture, or should culture adapt to religion?
A conservative would characterize the adaption of religion to culture as abdication of its moral authority. A liberal would characterize it as progress and growth. These two orientations bump heads in every system.
It seems to be that both should be open to the each other, a subtle dance, or check and balance… in the U.S. it was churches who both opposed and supported slavery… it was a federal mandate that ended it. The same goes for mixed marriage.
One can and does influence the other.
Oh and one more tidbit:
http://revolked2.blogspot.com/2009/08/great-new...
The Brazilian Government recognizes our marriage, and so I can now receive a permanent visa… it will be a long process, lots of documents and fingerprints involved… but they are saying yes, to gay marriage, and do not discriminate.
Thanks all for the great discussion (pro/con).
As I wrote earlier… what is better a gay Baha'i or a gay non-Baha'i? It seems that the AO has answered this… we GLBT folks are not wanted in this Faith.
I absolutely agree with you, dco.
To refine the question, what aspects of Baha'i law are open to adapting to changing cultural norms, and what aspects are not? And why?
(Not just addressing the question to you, just thinking out loud.)
“We shrink from very shame the subject of little boys” Kitab-i-Aqdas – a reference to pedophilia, but interpreted by Shoghi Effendi to mean homosexual relationships in general and some letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi saying that homosexuals are spiritually diseased, to love another man is great, but to express that love in a sexual way is not, and homosexuals can be cured with prayer and assistance from doctors. Very 1950s.
The scientific community has concluded homosexuality cannot be cured, it is perfectly natural, get over it homophobes… The modern Baha'i stance, supposedly informed by science and reason, still very 1950s.
This might be of interest to folks:
http://www.thisisoz.com.au/
Islam=Caffe solo
Bahai=Caffe macchiato
I don't know how the Baha'i stance on homosexuality is going to change, unless the doctrine of Shoghi Effendi and the UHJ's infallibility is grasped/or changed. If Shoghi Effendi interpreted a phrase from Baha'i scripture that literally meant pedophilia, as meaning all homosexual acts in general, then doesn't that mean that that is the official Baha'i view? Or was that quotation written on behalf of his secretary? But didn't he check what his secretaries wrote on his behalf, to see if it was accurate? This stuff was going out to the Baha'i community, after all. Or was that quotation addressed to a specific individual, and not to an entire community?
It would be interesting to know when Shoghi Effendi is intending to address the entire community, a specific local community, a national community, or an individual.
dco wrote : It seems that the AO has answered this… we GLBT folks are not wanted in this Faith.
Dco, this is a short-cut assumption.
The vast majority of Baha’i activities today, including study circles, children’s classes, devotional meetings, commemorations, reflection meetings etc are open to everyone, regardless of their being Baha’is or not, or their sexual preferences. Some counties even have more non-Baha’i than Baha’i tutors in study circles.
Participating in the administration of the community (voting, 19 day feasts, Assemblies, contribution to Baha’i funds…) entails being enrolled and this activity requires some perquisites that include a chaste life. This is equally required from gay and non gay Baha’is; How can we imagine a community that accepts sexual relations outside marriage for gays and not for non-gays?
The comparison is imperfect, but in some aspects the requirement is comparable to celibacy required from Catholic priests. If they have a private affair, it is between them and God; if they openly decide to live a married life, they lose their position as a priest. The only loss of administrative rights I have seen in France has been for persistence in not conforming to marriage laws, never for homosexuality.
Sonjavank wrote:What rules Farhan?
Sonjavank, I see the rules this way:
1) No sexuality outside marriage, for gays as for non-gays.
2) No present provisions for gay marriages.
3) No spying on people
4) Gays or non-gays not complying with rules privately figure it out with God
5) Gays or non-gays openly and persistently defying the rules loose administrative rights, which leaves a great many activities, specially all the teaching work, open to them.
I also, very personally, see another line of though in that gays represent a minority and as such should benefit from some compensation. If I were an assembly member (I haven’t been one for years), this would be an argument I would defend: more leniency to gays than non gays.
Timwatts wrote: Where does it say in the Baha'i writings that
“homosexual relationships are not permitted” are these equated with sexual relationships?
Timwatts, the Baha’i standard of morality excludes all sexual activity outside marriage, and homosexual relations are considered as such; I wonder if Diogenus would loose his voting rights if he publicly exhibited himself? But ofcourse no one is allowed to squint into his barrel
Sonja, I will have to give this some thought before I find a quote. To my understanding, Gods prescriptions are clearly are for the benefit of all. It is up to each one of us to apply them or to assume the SPIRITUAL consequences if we reject them, it is between God and us.
I see participating in administrative functions as something else. I see it not as the direct the law of God, but as community requirements, and each community has its own standard for maintaining cohesion at a given time, depending on the maturity of its members and the requirements of its social environment.
Dear Farhan, I am sure you mean well, so I do not need the fireside list of howthe Faith functions (or dysfunctions). I have been a Baha'i for more then 30 years, I am aware of all the things on your list, but as a married Gay man who is very happily married to a non-Baha'i man, I am not from a prominent Baha'i family and we have not, do not, and never be welcome as a couple, or as a family at any gatherings… at best open honest healthy GLBT Baha'is who are out are removed of their rights, and thereby relegated second class citizenship. This is not a welcome message… the Faith is homophobic and allows bigotry toward GLBT people.
Dear dco,
I have gay couples amongst my good friends who visit us for dinner. The Baha'i community is made of individuals who are influenced by the world and the prejudices around them and not entirely impregnated by Baha'i ideals. We obviously do have all kinds of phobia which results from the lack of information. When we meet gay we never refer to our sexual lives. Cant we meet people without referring to their sexual lives at all?
My idea is that if gay people did participate in activities open to them, for example, just like those non-gays having lost voting rights for cohabitation without having a Baha'i marriage, this would help create more understanding. The subject is worth discussing with the LSA of each community. Their reply will give us food for thought.
dco,
I have been a Baha'i for 38 years. I am now completely sick of organized religion. Many people today are far too spiritual to find any meaning in it. I greatly honor and revere the Sufi insight of Baha'u'llah and I will always live by it. It opened many doors of insight to me which i use in life every day. But the Baha'i organization now has narrowed the Faith to the span of the black in the eye of a dead ant. The AO is a trainwreck. No one can take a breath. No one can bring the powers and energies of their own soul to the discourse and the avenues of service. Everything is top down micro managed right into the ground. People like PK run the show lock, stock, and barrel. That approach is not spiritual enough to find life in this World Age and anyone who thinks it does is completely tone deaf spiritually.
So live your life, dco, with as much individual human grace and dignity as you can manifest. My prayers and best wishes are with you and your companion.
I am now like Bird. My Faith has no name. I am of the no name religion. The Baha'i Faith was a nice try. The idea was so captivating that it was worth trying to help all those years. But it cannot be helped because it is now just a man made organization of terribly impaired people. If you have to put a label on a spiritual idea to market it, there is already nothing there.
No name is my religion. So I can be completely free to dwell in Spirit! There are other planets and other worlds with other creatures and other massive planes of the Universe far beyond the limitations of this world.
No name is my religion! Be happy in your life as you live each day with it's ever new possibilities.
Thanks brother Craig… your words are very kind and supportive. I am fast following your path, a my experience is much the same. MY rights were removed because I dared to talk openly on the internet about my wedding… shame!
This is good to know Farhan, thanks. The enlightened churches and synagogues here in Sacramento at least deal with it, they just welcome and love individuals unconditionally. Let us deal with the rules individually. The current way the Baha'is choose to enforce this is causing far more harm to the faith than folks care to admit. It has chased my son away from religion, and many of my colleagues. The Baha'is seem like some sort of weird wacko cult that talks about nice things, but in reality spends a lot of time looking into and micro-managing people's lives when it should be spending all its energy on creating god's kingdom on earth. A secret… when my friends come to dinner, the topic is never about sex… unless the food is bad.
“Should religion adapt to culture, or should culture adapt to religion?”
Neither. I think there is room for diversity of opinion and for separate belief systems coexisting in a society. Why should any of us compromise our beliefs? I am who I am and will not compromise or adapt for culture or religion.
Dco: The current way the Baha'is choose to enforce this is causing far more harm to the faith than folks care to admit
Farhan: On the long run we cannot harm God’s purpose but only our own selves. The harm resulting from our actions will be learning procedures for others. The call of God calls us to self-sacrifice, the abandon of advantages of this material world and investment in a spiritual life. People, as Shoghi Effendi pointed out to Marcus Bach develop a consumer attitude to religion: they praise what they can get out of it and consider teaching as a sort of marketing. This is the way Baha’u’llah reprimanded the religious leaders of His time in Iqan:
“Their hearts seem not to be inclined to knowledge and the door thereof, neither think they of its manifestations, inasmuch as in idle fancy they have found the door that leadeth unto earthly riches, whereas in the manifestation of the Revealer of knowledge they find naught but the call to self-sacrifice.”
Dco: …spends a lot of time looking into and micro-managing people's lives
Farhan: I am not sure if the “current way” you refer to is a Baha’i way or a way specific to the culture you live in. Squinting into people’s private lives is not at all a current way in Baha’i communities where I have lived.
Obviously though, if a person questions and contests openly and insistently the rules of the community he wishes to belong to, the reaction is to say you are saying that I do not belong to that community. Once again, i see a difference between our spiritual lives and community lives, although they are closely linked.
I have a number of questions to put into the debate and hope that they inspire someone to explain where I am going wrong in my thinking.
question 1
Is it wrong to be gey?
I don't mean having sexual relations with another of the same sex but just being gay?
question 2
Is it wrong to have sexual feelings for someone of the same sex?
Timwatts asked:
question 1
Is it wrong to be gey?
I don't mean having sexual relations with another of the same sex but just being gay?
Tim, to my understanding, the Baha'is teachings do not consider a sexual orientation as wrong. They consider that in the interests of society, sexuality whether gay or non-gay has to be restricted to between married couples. At the same time no provisions are made for gay marriages, hence gay sexual relations are considered as not acceptable within the community.
Tim asked: question 2 Is it wrong to have sexual feelings for someone of the same sex?
Farhan: IMO, this situation that we meet in about perhaps 10% of the population is a great handicap in a community that does not accept sexuality outside marriage and does not provide for gay marriages.
then why do Baha'is think (or more accurately are told) that being gay is a medical condition and that medical treatment should be sought?
or prayers should be said to overcome this handicap….
“We shrink from very shame the subject of little boys” Kitab-i-Aqdas – a reference to pedophilia, but interpreted by Shoghi Effendi to mean homosexual relationships
This is about child abuse and NOT gay sex…..Shoghi Effendi could not have equated this with homosexuality….it is clearly wrong?
As for spiritually diseased…..by their fruits ye shall know them?
Hi Tim,
Question 1 and 2: Depends which side of the Baha'i camp you're in. Liberal side – fine no problems. Conservative side – it is wrong. Seeing as most communities are quite small, you're probably going to run into trouble as some “well-meaning” conservative Baha'i is going to complain to the LSA, unless you keep it well hidden, then you'll either have the LSA or Arm of the Learned dropping by to “lovingly” educate you.
If you have sexual feelings towards someone of the same sex and think you might be gay you can either suppress it and probably be miserable, or embrace it and be what God made you to be.
Because this was the traditional view back in the 30s to 50s, and its a view the UHJ has stuck to today (despite evidence to the contrary). So if you are gay, tough luck, no sex, no getting married, no having a happy life in the Baha'i community. If you are heterosexual however, you can have as much sex as you like (strictly speaking its wrong outside of marriage, but that never stopped anyone), and get married, have lots of kids and get divorced (Baha'is have a high divorce rate – all those closet homosexuals and lesbians).
Right because I niavely thought that “wrong” was not a relative term int he same way as 2+2 always = 4 and doesn't depend on anyone person's opinion. It's not an absolute then?
Orry for the delay in replying I was out putting my mother to death as she was wearing garments of mixed fibre and according to the bible she should be killed…..the police arrived and were very understanding and asked me to put to death several others on their lists of miscreants…man planting crops of different type … i couldn't of course as I had to give my daughter to be gang raped …… so useful the Bible at times….i try and live by it's teachings
Tim, my understanding is that overcoming a sexual orientation and adopting away of life contrary to our wishes, whether gay or not gay – for example if you want to marry someone and the parents do not consent – entails efforts and suffering. This is a situation in which prayer and medical attention can help. I have never read a passage from writings saying it is a medical condition, but in some cases, ex for transexuality, there can be a medical solution.
The knowledge and understanding of the Baha'is in respect to this problem as in others can evolve.
Tim, the requirement of chastity is binding on all, gay or non gay. If we openly disobey to laws we can be sanctionned by teh community. What happens in our private lives is something between us and God.
There is obviously a difference between pedophilia and homosexuality, and I have never see a Baha'i writing saying that homosexuality is a spiritual disease.
overcoming a sexual orientation and adopting away of life contrary to our wishes
These 2 things, Farhan joon, are not at all the same. I might wish for an XBOX and summon up the strength with support of family and friends and prayer to “overcome” the wish. To successfully overcome one's sexual preference….again the word implies a choice…i prefer apples to pears……
Sexual orientation is fixed and immutable and in part of the way gay people are and CANNOT be overcome. Supression just leads to mental illness and other problems…surely this is not what Baha'u'llah wants for me…he he does then I would reject him…..with a happy heart!
They consider that in the interests of society, sexuality whether gay or non-gay has to be restricted to between married couples.
This is indeed scary…how could society be possibly helped by a large proportion of it's population supressing something as basic as their sexuality…..who wants to be part of such a society…..put your hands up!
so it's ok to sleep with men if i do it secretly and not tell anyone…..and lie if someone asks me? Making gay sex sordid and hidden and tacitly agreeing it is wrong? Hypercrite I think the term is….I asked God to take away these feelings when I was 16 but he didn't presumeably for a reason unknown to me….perhaps he wants me to be gay..
Tim, the Baha'is are not marketing their beliefs, trying to comply with the customer's wishes. They are trying to share their faith with those interested and trying to apply their principles in their everyday lives. As a doctor or as an individual Iam on your side. If I were a member of a Baha'i institution trying to uphold community life, i would say that we cannot allow gay relations freely and yet restrict non gay relations to within marriage. I would also say that 10% of the population is a minority that according to Baha'i principles deserves some kind of a compensation.
Tim wrote: Sexual orientation is fixed and immutable and in part of the way gay people are and CANNOT be overcome.
Farhan: This is partly true. Sexual orientation can change during our lifetime. People can be more or less exclusive in their orientation.
Tim: Supression just leads to mental illness and other problems…
It can, but not necessarily. What about people whom for various reasons live celibacy all their lives? Perhaps 10%; the same percentage as gays ? What about a married person in love with another? Or a couple unable to marry lacking parents consent? All these people suffer and can become depressed, or invest their interests and lives elsewhere.
Tim, I am not saying it is OK; I am saying that it is a personal issue between a person and God and Baha'is are forbidden to spy on others. If our behaviour openly defies community laws, the community has a duty to protect its unity and intervene and those concerned face a choice. We cannot expect non gays to be chaste before marriage and say it is OK to have gay relations.
You would have more chance of interesting people if the faith could be seen as fair compassionate and even handed.and not perpetuating the evils of past predujices.
At the end of the line of course one can always state that if you don;tlike the rules of the club then don;t join….but there is something fundamentally worng with this as many gays will be growing up in a relgion that rejects them to the very core of their being….
I agree with you Tim, but to my knowledge these are the community rules for Baha'is at this time. I am not making the rules, but obeying them. I agree others might be having an even harder time than myself.
and I bet none of them statistically speaking absent from sex
the secualr law changed in most parts of the world and for good reason and it is no longer breaking the civil law for same sex relations…..
the baha'i LAW seems at odds therefore and seems reactionary and out of date and you may not like the fact but having been a baha'i for over 30 years i know full well which aspects of the faith you don;t tell contacts about at firesides for fear of putting them off. this is marketing by any other name.
Timwatts, the Baha'i law is a spiritual law, applicable to believers only. The community laws are likewise for observance by those who wish to work in that community; they have nothing to do with secular laws, even though Baha'is believe that society will one day adopt many of their laws.
I totally disagree with Baha'is who are ready to dissimulate any laws so as to gain enrolments. The outline “Anna's Presentation” has been designed so that those wishing to become Baha'is get a clear picture of what they are adhering to. Of course if they later feel they have made a mistake, they are always free to leave without being in the least stigmatised.
maybe you could explain the difference
spiritual law
community law
the law which says that arsonists must be burned alive…..is it spiritual or commuity?
Timwatts wrote: maybe you could explain the difference spiritual law community law
Farhan: I am merely opposing spiritual laws with and without a social implication. I see an interaction between the two. Not obeying spiritual laws not only implies a spiritual shortcoming, but can also involve our community life and incur a reaction from the community which has a duty to protect its unity. For example, adultery not only impairs the progress of the soul but, for educative reasons, can incur a reaction from society.
I see praying, fasting, truthfulness, absence of prejudice, chastity, obeying the laws of God … as examples of spiritual laws. No one will question a believer on his private relations with God. When a behaviour has an incidence on community life, such as a Baha’i marriage, nominating someone during an election, family violence, there is also imply a reaction from the community .
Timwatts wrote: the law which says that arsonists must be burned alive…..is it spiritual or commuity?
Farhan: I have not seen anything about being burnt “alive”. These laws are obviously not applicable whenever in contradiction with civil laws and only the UHJ can reply to your question. My personal guess is that pending the election of the UHJ, Baha’u’llah, Abdu’l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi gave some laws abrogating those of their times and understandable by their contemporaries and in their historical setting. I see laws concerning arson, theft, heritage in case of intestacy, bigamy as community laws adapted to the understanding of an epoch pending adequate application by the UHJ in due time.
Gods laws are revealed and applied progressively and then adapted to each day and age. Hence the breakaway from polygamy was a progressive process. During Abdu’l-Baha’s lifetime the Baha’is respect towards their Muslim contemporaries practiced both the Muslim and the Baha’i fast and Abdu’l-Baha prayed in the Mosque and wore oriental clothes. This was a temporary practice changed by Shoghi Effendi.
hahaha, you have a singular wit
Again, it depends how fundamental you want to be as to how absolute “wrong” is. Society has progressed a lot over the last century to a point where engaging in homosexual activity is longer regarded as illegal – I hope that the Baha'i community will follow suit, but I doubt it would be anytime soon.
Hmmm…the Central Figures were very concerned with showing respect for their Muslim contemporaries…sort of like when they dismissed orthodox Muslim understanding of Muhammad being the seal of the prophets and replaced it with a radically heterodox interpretation.
West Wing clip
Hi Sonya,
As Always, I appreciate your dedication to the principles of justice and fairness in opposition to the current practice of Bahá'í law. However, I must respectfully disagree with the fundamental premise of your argument, which intends to preserve the importance of the Bahá'í law. You apologize with your comparison of Bahá'í law to Dutch law, for example, by stating:
However, I believe this is a mistake: I would say of course Dutch law supercedes Bahá'í law. Of course. Dutch law is a collection of principles derived by groups of people working together from secular reasoning, anticipating the future by observing historical lessons, and building on that solid foundation by a system of common law that allows for new and dynamic interpretations of these aforementioned principles. Bahá'í law, by contrast (and despite the work of Dr. Nader Saiedi to the opposite conclusion), is a collection of random articles of faith, general principles abstracted from then-current wisdom, and specific behavioral prohibitions and prescriptions that were important from the perspective of one Iranian nobleman a few hundred years ago. They are, in other words, utterly irrelevant by any objective standard of ethical reasoning or any important measure of normative evaluation.
Don't get me wrong: It's not that the Bahá'í laws are all universally ridiculous, per se, but the authoritarian way in which they are justified most certainly is universally ridiculous. To understand the distinction, suppose you had a political science exam, one question of which asked you what form of government you believed was the most effective, and for the second part, why you think so. For the first part, let's say you put the very respectable answer of “parliamentary democracy.” For the second part, however, you respond, “Yea, verily I am the King of kings, and my decree is binding, such that whosoever will question my judgement has made a mockery of the Noumena, reality as it is within itself, to which I alone have unmitigated access.” Surely you would not only fail your exam, but the teacher would want to see you after class to see if you were alright, wouldn't he?
So while I absolutely agree with you when you write,
I must nevertheless deny your antecedent (“the Baha’i Teachings are so great”). They are not great. There is no room for the authoritarianism of the Bahá'í Faith (which we will admit if we understand its writings plainly, without undue bias) within a reasonable, ethical framework.
As I've written elsewhere, the Bahá'í Faith does not provision for change regarding its homophobic agenda, as the Universal House of Justice unashamedly declares (05 Jun 1993):
As an ex-bahai, I wish Sonja's version of bahai was the prevailing one. But it isn't.
I wish that evolution, psychology and sociology was more important than outmoded bahai/sufi metaphysics. But they aren't.
I wish that the principles of liberty and equality (and “healthy” pluralism) had precendence in “core” bahai theology, but they don't. What does have precendence in bahai theology is obedience and submission to an image of limited truth that carries the label “God/Allah”.
I am glad that the voices of non-conformists, critics and dissidents such as Sonja have not been silenced in the bahai community — even though there are a lot of “mainstream” bahais that go along with, or ask for, the kind of authoritarianism and fundamentalism that tries to silence or marginalize nonconformists, critics and dissidents.
I do disagree with some of the quotes. Yes, I think that abdu'l-baha was wrong about some of this stuff (just as he was wrong about buddhism).
First of all, the classification of “essential” vs. “social” teachings is crude and muddled. It is simply inferior to the more nuanced scientific, psychological and developmental theories (consciousness studies) that have emerged in the last 100 years.
re: “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.”
Comment
======
The above changes have nothing to do with “progressive revelation”, or any other “revelation” for that matter.
Those changes began, on a significant scale, in the 1600s, long before bahai's founders were born.
They are simply part of the unfoldment and evolution of consciousness.
Religion is a “follower” of evolution (social change), not a driver of it. abdu'l-baha, while probably far in front of other islamic thinkers of his time, badly muffed explaining evolution.
Thus, the seeds of doom were planted for bahai theology.
Until bahai culture is capable of accepting the need to simply jettison some major parts of “core” bahai theology, little progress is possible.
In human culture, there are “ascender” and “descender” religious cultures, “universalist” (absolutist) and “nature” (shamanist/pluralist) perspectives.
bahai is locked into a “universalist” paradigm, and thus, inevitably will attempt to impose a bahai form of “cultural imperialism” on any “descender” perspective in the world.
re: “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.”
Comment
======
again, abdu'l-baha gets it exactly backwards by trying to force the existential problems of a modern/postmodern age into a decrepit premodern metaphysical paradigm that contains false structures and partial truths.
religion is not the source of advancement/evolution, it is the follower. abdu'l-baha attempts a “trick” here by confusing some mystical/mythic force with the evolutionary tendency in the universe for consciousness to advance toward compassion and altruism and enlightenment. the “trick” is necessary because bahai theology has the “albatross” of prophetology and “progressive revelation” around its neck.
Yogic and buddhist and shamanist (descender) frameworks are simply better than islamo-sufi-bahai in being “open” enough to integrate evolutionary perspective.
re: “justice and equal dealing towards all peoples on the face of the earth are the means whereby progress is effected.”
Comment
======
Yes, wonderful. and obvious. however, as you eloquently explain in this article, in actual practice, bahai places obstacles in front of progress, justice and equality, it doesn't remove them. the contradiction is glaring and appalling.
elsewhere abdu'l-baha states that (paraphrasing) if religion becomes the cause of “disunity” it should be rejected.
I think that at this sad point in the history of bahai, the kinds of reforms that are needed are mostly impossible, and thus, such a rejection would be the more intelligent, and “spiritual” option.
However, again, I am very glad the Sonja and other reformers have not lost hope or optimism, or the desire to vigorously call for bahais to correct the worst flaws in their religion.
Topics: the basic underlying problem is that there is no explicit definition of “spiritually healthy sexuality” in bahai scripture. So, once again, religious “ethics” end up being an obstacle to the project of integrating science and spirit in the context of evolving culture.
There is simply too much stasis, rigidity and orthodoxy for bahai to be capable of staying current with social advances, particularly when they involve controversy.
Dr. Orey is one of the most outstanding social activists I have ever known. His commitment to social justice and equality is a great source of inspiration and learning. It is an appalling travesty that bahai administration treated him and his husband with such vile and egregious disrespect.
bahai administration has become mindless and heartless, and is at the end stage of its collapse as a source of anything human or meaningful.
bahai law is a joke, and has no integrity to “guard”.
the kitab-i-aqdas contains a requirement, in the first or second paragraph, for a follower to agree to a bahai system of universal/global cultural imperialism.
bahai laws are not of benefit to all. they are simply a system of cultural imperialism and authoritarianism.
the only benefit from bahai law is for fundamentalists and delusionals.
Rudolph Steiner was the pioneer/founder of one of the main branches of integral theory (the others were Jean Gebser and Sri Aurobindo).
The people that work to further Steiner's ideas and methods of attaining transcendence are contributing a vastly greater share than the bahai community does to the progress of humanity.
Sad, but true.
farhan,
you are ignorant, or senile. a foolish bufoon in any case.
a web search, such as http://www.google.com on “shoghi effendi homosexual disease” is easy.
http://bahai-library.org/uhj/homosexuality.uhj….
“No matter how devoted and fine the love may be between people of the same sex, to let it find
expression in sexual acts is wrong. To say that it is ideal is no excuse. Immorality of every sort is really forbidden by Baha’u'llah, and homosexual relationships he looks upon as such, besides being against nature…To be afflicted this way is a great burden to a
conscientious soul. But through the advice and help doctors, through a strong and determined effort, and through prayer, a soul can overcome this handicap.”
Shoghi Effendi (or a official letter writer of his)
“against nature” is the very definition of “disease”.
“handicap” is the definition of “disease”.
“affliction” is the definition of “disease”.
the uhj explains in very clear terms that no change in the guardian's/letter-writer's interpretation is possible.
the uhj also indicates that since gays are not obeying god's law, they are “evil”.
the uhj clear states that being gay is in the category of “handicaps or diseases of various kinds” that should be “overcome” by following bahai law.
—
you are playing silly mind games and twisting words.
your disregard for human suffering and injustice is a complete betrayal of the utopian ideals that you endlessly and opportunistically propagandize.
you are disgusting.
Lutherans To Sanctify Gay Marriages
The Evangelical Lutheran Church voted today to allow individual congregations to bless same-sex marriages.
“I’ve been a life-long member at Redeemer Lutheran Church [in Atlanta], and I was never comfortable asking my church to bless my relationship,” said Bob Gibeling, who is at the assembly. “This offers great hope to me that when I find a future life-long partner, my own beloved congregation will want to bless that union.” The change in the Evangelical Lutheran Church does not require pastors or congregations to bless same-sex unions, but allows those comfortable with it to do so. Gay pastors can serve in Lutheran churches, but only if they are celibate. A vote expected later today will determine whether Lutheran churches can call and install gay pastors who are in relationships.
The Evangelical Lutherans are the largest sect of their denomination with 4.7M members at 10,000 churches. Today's move is opposed by other Lutheran sects and should further splinter the denomination.
Labels: Lutheran Church, marriage equality, religion
history clearly shows that religion, according to nature, “adapts” to changes in culture, ESPECIALLY when those changes are driven by changes in the economic mode of a culture system, and a corresponding PARADIGM SHIFT happens (per evolution).
the first religious laws were invented when irrigation was invented (the dominant economic mode shifted from hunting/gathering to farming) and a ruling elite needed some system to control use of water by all participants in the shared system. “control” (rule/order) was achieved via specialists (priest classes) and religious laws that gave the religious law specialists social privilege (power).
“revelation” is simply the occurrence of a spiritual and political genius who crystallizes the already evolved zeitgeist before most other people realize what it is.
authority for the “revelation” is claimed to be from a higher power (God) to get people to adopt the newly emerged reality.
God/Revelations/Phophets do not “change” history, they are a product of it.
islamo-sufi-bahai history is a good example.
modernism began to develop in the 1500/s1600s, long after islam had declined, and long before bahai.
what “prophet” or “revelation” caused modernism to evolve as a paradigm shift from the 1500s to 1700s?
answer: NONE!
it was only 100+ years AFTER the paradigm shift got major “traction”, and caused european geopolitical power to ascend and upset the “legitimacy” the older, weaker, corrupted paradigms in the middle east that the (after-the-fact) “revelations of the bab/baha came about.
Agreed. Very well said, as usual. Thanks.
Ahh Farhan, here we go again. Trying to make the Bahai community look all rosy for gays, when it is not. The problem as you know Farhan is NOT about sex. You and the Bahai AO want to make it about sex, but it really isn't. If a gay Bahai couple enter the community, married with kids, and NEVER say anything about their sexual lives, then what right has the AO to take away their voting rights? Do you know what's going on in the bedrooms of straight Bahai couples living in Bahai marriages? Maybe they are committing sodomy, maybe the husband is forcing the wife to have sex against her will, maybe they are raping kids, you really don't know do you Farhan. yet these straight couples can live and function and serve in your kitchen without anyone saying anything. We are not supposed to pry in the private lives of believers, now are we Farhan? So why do we automatically kick gay people out of the kitchen Farhan? Oh, I know! Prejudice farhan. That's all. Pure prejudice for a religion that supposedly prides itself on being a banquet for ALL of mankind. Whatever….
Equal rights farhan. We don't want leniancy. We aren't committing any crimes. You don't need to spy, you are automatically kicking someone out if they claim to be gay and have a partner.
Except, a straight couple can leave the Faith, marry, then petition to return into the fold. Right Farhan? A man with a number of wives is not asked to divorce his wifes before he enters the faith, althought polygamy is supposed to be forbidden in the Faith. Righ Farhan? But when it comes to a gay couple with kids, they are automatically not allowed. They would be asked to divorce before they could fully participate in the community. And as far as their being other activities that gays could be a part of in the community, well let's just say as a 5th generation Bahai who has been active in communities on 3 continents, I have NEVER met openly gay people inside the community. They are ALWAYS closeted and hurting- like I was for decades. Sorry farhan, you are wrong again and of course misleading others to paint a rosy picture for the Bahai community. And of course we are here to tell the truth.
How do you know a gay couple with kids isn't being “chaste” as you put it? It's none of your business to pry into their lives, right Farhan? If you automatically assume they being unchaste by being openly gay, then I will automatically assume that straight Bahais in bahai marriages are also being unchaste. I would like to put cams in each bahai bedroom to make sure. It seems fair to me. How about it Farhan? Shall we start with you and your wife?
Comments aren't posting.
Baquia,
I got about 10 Disqus notifications for comments posted to Trouble with the World from Fubar and Concourse on Low that never appeared on the actual site within the last 24 hours. Some comments briefly appeared and then disappeared. I also posted a comment I received a Disqus notification for that never posted.
The Contact form also wasn't working earlier today with multiple attempts- “Fatal Error.”
Is the comment system broken, or did you get hacked? Everything cool?
Best,
Amanda
I think ultimately the debate is really over the origin of homosexual feeling and or attractions – is a person somehow born gay? is he/she conditioned for same sex attraction by his/her genes? is it neurological? is it purely social or environmental?
Once we determine what causes homo/heterosexuality we will be better prepared to deal with the implications of a minority of humans having same sex attraction. However, as believers in a “revealed” religion with a revealed Word of God through the Blessed Beauty and his son and grandson we are bound to accept God's Word through God's Messengers – there has never been a single Messenger/Manifestation of God who has permitted homosexual relations as something that is what God intends for the human family
Ultimately the debate is about justice and treating a minority with prejudice- something the Bahai community is supposed to eliminate in the world. I accept God's Messenger and His Son and His grandson. I just don't elevate them to the level of idol worship as you do. You can choose to be a fundamentalist in your way of accepting Bahaullah- that's your choice. I believe differently. As long as homosexuals are treated as second class citizens inside the Bahai community, then the world needs to know that the Bahai community is NOT just. Btw, there has never been a messenger of God that has permitted people using a curling iron, does using it make it immoral? You argument makes no sense, except to those with a fundamentalist mindset be they hasidic jews, hindu nationalists, Al Qaida, etc etc. …
Amanda, thanks for letting me know. I've checked and afaik the comments are not in the spam folder or anywhere else (where I might have rescued them). So I'm not sure what happened. I'm sorry if a comment was not recorded by the system. Unfortunately, other than trying again to post it, there is not much I can do.
Hi Farhan. Your precious 9 men on the Hill said the following to a gay Bahai once: “Both you and your Baha'i friend must first recognize that a homosexual relationship subverts the purpose of human life and that determined effort to overcome the wayward tendencies which promote this practice which, like other sexual vices, is so abhorrent to the Creator of all mankind will help you both to return to a path that leads to true happiness. ” HOW in the world do you continue to deceive people on here into believing that the Bahai community accepts gays and lesbians with open arms, but just doesn't allow them to serve in adminstrative functions. You are so wrong in what you are doing, in yoru deception to make the Bahai community and the AO look good at any cost. Even if that cost means gay youth in the Bahai community continually being fed this BS from those 9 men on the hill. People have died. I know those who have attempted suicide because of this rubbish. I thought of it for decades myself because I believed the crap that people like you fed me as a youth. Shame on you!
The debate is not about the origins of homosexuality, newbahai. This is a combination of the genetic fallacy and the naturalistic fallacy. Identifying causal origin of a behaviour does not tell you whether that behaviour is justified or good. A single causal origin can be the source of good or bad kinds of behaviour. So we have to identify good or bad behaviour by some other measure than origin.
Likewise, identifying at natural or unnatural does nothing to tell you whether that behaviour is justified or good. There is “natural” behaviour that is completely immoral (most anthropologists agree that cannibalism, rape, incest, genocide, etc. were behaviours to which humans had a natural predispositions until they became regarded as bad only recently); and there is good behaviour that is “unnatural” (e.g., building buildings, wearing shoes, helping the sick, mentally unstable, and the dying, etc.).
So the argument is not about the origin of homosexuality. In fact, that the Bahá'í writings obviously do not recognize this simple fact about ethical reasoning is itself a good reason to doubt their relevance for effective moral dialogue.
The fact that there has “never been a single Messenger/Manifestation of God who has permitted homosexual relations” is a manifestation of human prejudices. From a theological perspective, we might say that God doesn't challenge people beyond their capacity, and people have not (until today) had a capacity to accept homosexual relationships as valid. That might be an explanation you prefer. Personally, I take it as more plausible that religions are simply codifications of humanity's most basic prejudices, such that whatever beliefs a tribe has at the time of their religious invention becomes the law of their religion. In that case, it's no mystery that Judeao-Christo-Islamic religions would condemn homosexuality, because it was associated with so-called “pagan” tribes, effeminacy, and womanly qualities in general. Since all these religions generally hold women in contempt (including the Bahá'í Faith, despite all superficial pleadings to the contrary), it makes sense that they'd regard men who took on the role of women (or vice versa) as contemptible. But that's just my understanding. You can pick the one that suits you.
Yes, well thats what it says in the notes in the Kitab'i'Aqdas: “The word translated here as “boys” has, in this context, in
the Arabic original, the implication of paederasty. Shoghi
Effendi has interpreted this reference as a prohibition on all
homosexual relations” (p. 223).
“As for spiritually diseased…..by their fruits ye shall know them?”
Spiritually condemned is the word actually, along with aberration, and against nature… So yes, the wording in the Faith against homosexuality is quite strong.
Its odd really – why all the angst against sex in general? What is so bad about sex? Are the people who write these things just prudes and never had good sex in their entire lives?
Precisely. Good sex has enjoyed a fairly recent revival after two-millennia of being condemned because of its association with “pagan” practice. But it's unlikely that Bahá'u'lláh, 'Abdu'l-Bahá, or Shoghi Effendi felt an ounce of passion for their wives. They viewed marriage as a means to an end. Ironically, they had a truly perverted conception of human intimacy.
pey wrote: HOW in the world do you continue to deceive people on here into believing that the Bahai community accepts gays and lesbians with open arms, but just doesn't allow them to serve in adminstrative functions.
Farhan: the advice you are referring to is a spiritual advice addressing a private life; it would be a similar advice if the person was married and madly in love with another, or someone unable to marry lacking consent of parents, or someone offered a high position in politics and having to decline. How the person overcomes the dilemma between his spiritual engagement and personal life is a personal matter. No Baha’i has any right whatsoever of judging another person or spying on his behaviour.
Loss of administrative rights is a community decision, if a person does not comply with and even rejects community rules and can concern many aspects of our lives, including political implication.
How Baha’is in a specific community might welcome someone having lost administrative rights is widely determined by their social experience and background. To my understanding, since the opening up of the community activities to a “community of interest” since 1996, a wide variety of activities outside administrative functions are available to them.
Grover wrote:
You haven't answered my question – what evidence do you have? And why are you equating scientific practice with business practice?
Grover, the Baha’i teachings consider the spiritual issues as being at the root of all our civilisation problems: whether political, economical, social, natural environment, etc; For science, we need is a conscience that allows us to use science for the benefit of humanity and which matches our scientific advances. Don’t hesitate in repeating questions if you feel I have missed one.
Grover wrote: why all the angst against sex in general?
Farhan: I think it is merely a means of consolidating the traditional family as the basic unit of society by restricting the sexual drive to within the family. Baha’i teachings even praise sexuality as long as it is canalised to within the couple. Let us have the Baha’i community this way, and the Lutherans another way and scientifically compare the outcome in some years.
newbahai wrote: I think ultimately the debate is really over the origin of homosexual feeling and or attractions
Farhan: this might be important to you, to somehow decide if you are to “blame” or not. It is also useful to activists who wish to establish that ALL orientation is genetic and comparable to skin colour. However experience shows that orientation can change in life and many factors can determine a homosexual behaviour: genetics, hormones, opportunities, experience, social setting, etc. There is a site that discuss this in an open and scientific manner: http://borngay.procon.org/
The Baha’i faith is a belief system that promotes a way of life. This involves spiritual values that are applied to a community life. Teachings might have only a spiritual incidence: prayer, studying the writings, truthfulness, abandoning prejudice, loving our neighbour, fasting… other teachings also have a community incidence: marriage, not participating in political issues… untruthfulness, theft, adultery are hence condemned spiritually, but can also entail a condemnation by the community, if it is felt as a threat to community life, and even in some cases condemned by criminal law.
Grove, there is a collection of love letters by Abdu'l-Baha to his wife; apparently it would prove to be contrary to what you presume; this having being said, the Baha'i teachings consider sexuality as merely one of the functions in this life, albeit an important one, the fundamental purpose of our temporary life in this world being to advance civilisation.
Various posters have made varying claims about the Bahai Writings from saying that homosexuality is forbidden to that homosexuals cannot have partnerships.
So what is really in the Bahai Writings? And if not, where do these homophobic ideas come from? And is it possible for the Bahai community to ever treat individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation, with equality?
So to the Bahai Writings as much as I know relying on English translations only here.
I'm focussing on the Bahai writings because to start with this is what the Bahai Faith is based on and secondly these writings are not subject to change. So anything authentic (meaning tablets or writings with a signature or seal on the original or written by a known copyist of Baha'u'llah or 'Abdul-Baha. And this is a complicated issue because in some cases there are several copies of some tablets that are considered authentic Bahai scripture.
And then add to this that what we have in English are translations and translations can never be exact for all cases of writing.
Bahais accept the Bahai Writings as being only that authored by The Bab, Baha'u'llah and 'Adbul-Baha. And Shoghi Effendi's own writing only defines the Bahai teachings where it interpretes the Bahai Scriptures. Shoghi Effendi had excellent English so we can look at his own texts ourselves.
So let's start with the Kitab-i-Aqdas as we have it in English because it is the only place in a text of Bahai Scripture where there is something concerning homosexuality mentioned.
In the preface to this book it is written by the Universal House of Justice or the Research department (no author is given in the 1992 edition for the preface) that:
The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. vii
Nothing indicates which parts where penned by Shoghi Effendi in his role as interpretator of the Baha'u'llah's Writings and what was not written by him, so we have to take all text apart from what is in the Aqdas as either something the UHJ is interpreting, which we know they cannot do or as commentary open for debate, even should the UHJ then decide that some point in the commentary is now to be law they have legistrated on.
I make this point, because even should the UHJ make a law to legistrate that, for example, same sex marriage is forbidden by Bahais, we as Bahais would still be free to discuss and debate this. The laws that the UHJ makes one year, it can also change next year. Obedience to laws doesn't mean silence. And of course, if Bahais may not discuss or debate laws the UHJ have made, well, that leaves very little wriggle room for the Bahai principle of independent investigation, let alone the possibility for Bahai communities to address or relate or to understand these laws.
So now to the text of the Aqdas as it is in the 1992 edition in English:
Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 58
And now to what is now in the notes to the Aqdas.
The Research department or the UHJ have written in the notes section:
ibid, p. 223
So let's assume this is the voice of the UHJ of the early 1990s because this publication is considered an official document by the Bahai Administration. That the UHJ state “Shoghi Effendi has interpreted” and then refer a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, indicates that they are treating letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi as if Shoghi Effendi himself wrote them. The letter they quote above does not have a reference to anything in Bahai Scripture and the letter does not state that it is an interpretation. This is very important if we are serious about what really is part of unchangeable Bahai Scripture and what isn't.
Unfortunately Shoghi Effendi never penned anything himself in regards to the status of these letters written on his behalf, except I assume, when he must have been annoyed enough to ask a secretary to write the following:
Shoghi Effendi, The Unfolding Destiny of the British Baha'i Community, p. 260
What this doesn't tell us, is whether the 'authority' of the letters by secretaries is an extension of the Guardian's executive authority as head of the Faith — meaning, “it must be obeyed by the addresse” or of the Guardian's authority as authorised interpreter of the writings, meaning “they become part of the sacred text.” What we can say is there is nothing explicit to indicate that a letter by a secretary can share in the Guardian's unique role as authorised interpreter.
There is also nothing explicit to say that the Guardian's secretaries do **not** share the authority of interpretation. However the phrase “their authority less” seems to suggest this, because an exective authority can be greater or less, direct or indirect, can apply to a local or individual situation or to all Bahai communities, but when the Guardian interprets scripture that interpretation becomes part of the scripture concerned.
Sen has an essay on this on his blog. Scroll down the list to “COMMENTARY on Seena Fazel and Khazeh Fananapazir´s “Some interpretive principles in the Bahá´í Writings.”
If something is considered part of the Bahai Writings, it cannot be changed. That is, sex with children can never be OK in Bahai law, because this is part of what Baha'u'llah's text in the Aqdas. All the texts in the notes have been penned by others and unless the texts in the notes refer to quotations from the Bahai Scripture themselves, they are all open to change by the UHJ.
I would also imagine that if the UHJ were to make a law, that it would clearly state that it was making a law. So in my view, it is unclear to me what the actual status is of the texts in the notes section. I make this point because in 1992 when the Aqdas was first printed in English a list of corrections was distributed about 6 months later. In regards to the Aqdas, the corrections were minor things like typos, but in the notes, sometimes a whole paragraph was deleted, such as in note 108. I can only assume that this paragraph no longer reflects the position or thinking of the UHJ
whereas at an earlier time it did. The UHJ is free to change the texts of the notes as it wishes.
Perhaps this could be seen as them making laws? I don't know.
Rather than debating whether or not the UHJ make law when they make statements in official Bahai documents, I prefer to focus on the principle of Bahai Law as I understand it, in general behind this. That is, anything UHJ decides or states is subject to change by a later UHJ.
If any statement on the wrongs of homosexuality is by UHJ, then it is subject to change.
<<<<it would be a similar advice if the person was married and madly in love with another, or someone unable to marry lacking consent of parents>>>
I bet they wouldn't have been so insulted by a revoltingly predujiced letter from the UHJ though!!!
Baha'i according to their own sacred texts should be actively fighting for the relinquishing of their vile predujiuces and should be standing up to such bullying even if they weren't gay…it's truly revolting to hold these ideas…at least fascists and mass murderers didn't hide behind the shameful double talk and double dealings pretending to have the whole of mankind's welfare at heart…
It will be the BF that will be swept away by an uprising of the masses who are fed up to the back teeth of oppression and bigotry…..there enough of a rant
Sonjavank, I see you have access to Baha’i writings and other comments about homosexuality which are abundant in Internet
There is a point I see often overlooked in comments. Beyond the personal and spiritual aspects of Baha’i teachings, there is also an implication regarding community life to which they are of course linked. For example, Baha’u’llah condemns very strongly back-biting and also states that he who uses opium or follows his mundane desires is not of Him, even though he bears His name. These comments refer a spiritual condemnation and consequences of such acts. They do not mean that someone who back bites or an opium user are automatically disenroled from the community, unless the behaviour is a threat to community cohesion.
Furthermore, an action might also have consequences in respect to the criminal laws of a country where we live. A child molester might argue that his orientation and hence his behaviour were naturally acquired at birth, but beyond the spiritual consequences in the hands of God, he will be facing community and also criminal charges.
Well I know who my money is on….do you wnat to set a time limit on this….. by the way this is the first time i have ever heard a baha'i more or less saying his relgion is better than someone else's..
The fruits of the Baha'i faith are prejudice and division and we should indeed know them by theses same fruits….
“Both you and your Baha'i friend must first recognize that a homosexual relationship subverts the purpose of human life and that determined effort to overcome the wayward tendencies which promote this practice which, like other sexual vices, is so abhorrent to the Creator of all mankind will help you both to return to a path that leads to true happiness.
This can't be real can it…who in their right minds would say such a thing to anothr human being? Go on tell me it's made up surely…
How can God find anything abhorrrent? It's not as if he couldn't do anything about it….for example just change our natures…there simple…what a revolting thing to say.
still waiting for an example of the writings which forbids gay relationships,,,
we have one so far about child abuse…..where are the others…if God finds it so abhorrent,,,,,it seems sadly missing from his words.
Did you know that in Persian the word for gay was .. baché baz..
ie someone who plays in a sexaul way with chidren….so ok we know pedaphilia is condemned what about gay sex…
A child molester might argue that he is only doing what comes natural to him/her…the point is that sex must be between constenting adults and childrfen cannot give meaningful consent…
i see you are lumping gays together with child abusers like all iranians i have met due to the words “bache baz” meaning gay….
even child molesters realise that they are harming others….and want to stop for the most part….
child molster is not a sexual orientation by the way
thanks for your post M:
You wrote: “You apologize with your comparison of Bahá'í law to Dutch law”
No, I didn't mean to imply that Dutch nor Bahai law are some sort of hierarchy with each other, but i'll elaborate on this below. I made that comment because when I write here, I see myself as writing to a Bahai audience and wanted to be sure no one would think I was disregarding the relevance of Bahai law.
As Bahais we must obey the laws of the country. Or put more strictly, Bahai Law states this, so actually it is Bahai Law which places more importance to a law of the country.
Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 54
Baha'u'llah, The Summons of the Lord of Hosts, p. 188
So I agree, of course, Dutch Law dominates over Bahai law. Baha'u'llah has stated this himself.
As to your reasoning for Dutch Law being superior are similiar arguments Baha'u'llah wrote in his tablet to Queen Victoria:
Baha'u'llah, The Proclamation of Baha'u'llah, p. 33
And I agree with you, a law is much better if as you wrote: “is a collection of principles derived by groups of people working together from secular reasoning, anticipating the future by observing historical lessons, and building on that solid foundation by a system of common law that allows for new and dynamic interpretations of these aforementioned principles.”
This is the way social laws work best but I wouldn't too happy if a group people used those same procedures for how we should say prayers. Symbollic values and questions of truth are not decided by majority vote. Culture is an influence and civil law can certainly affect culture. Such as here in the Netherlands where in general there is tolerance towards a diversity of sexual identity. But the political processes has its limits.
What is religious law for?
You wrote that Bahai law: “is a collection of random articles of faith, general principles abstracted from then-current wisdom, and specific behavioral prohibitions and prescriptions that were important from the perspective of one Iranian nobleman a few hundred years ago. They are, in other words, utterly irrelevant by any objective standard of ethical reasoning or any important measure of normative evaluation.”
So we have Bahai principles such as equality, independent investigation of truth, the balance of religion and science and so on and then we have the text of the Kitab-i-Adqas which seems to come out of a medival age.
Bahai Law has two components: The text of the Aqdas and the “Questions and Answers” and similiar tablets by Baha'u'llah, and then what the UHJ legistrates and the NSAs + LSAs apply and refine, etc.
In the form and content the Aqdas imitates Islamic law. Because it imitates Islamic law, it can supercede Islamic law in a society. Islamism (the idea that Islamic law is also state law) is a twentieth century innovation. In Baha'u'llah's time religious laws were mainly in the private sphere and state administered. So one way to view this aspect of Bahai law, is as a response to Islamic law. For example, in Islamic law a woman had to have permission from her father to marry. Baha'u'llah changed this so that men had to ask as well, and to have their mother's permission. Instead of abolishing something with deep cultural roots he has used the principle of equality to modify it.
I think it is likely that Baha'u'llah intended his laws to be used as principles which individuals and institutions could work with.
Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 21
Baha'u'llah states that he doesn't give just us a code of laws. I would argue that the code of laws he established is the UHJ as legistrator of laws. A UHJ which is flexible and free to change its own laws in a changing world.
It is fantastic that you end your posting on the question of the nature of marriage because this is going to the topic of my next blog. I'm busy these days, but hope it will be there in a month or so.
Sexual orientation is hard wired into our brains..asking people to “overcome it” is not only pointless as it is impossible…but cruel and misleading….society would still be protected if it relinquished this prejudice which is blindly mirrored in the baha'i faith….how could community cohesion be harmed? are you suggesting that hitherto majority orientations will suddenly decide to have same sex realtionships abandoning marriage and procreation? Tell me how denying gays basic rights protects the community?
Simply out: “Both you and your Baha'i friend must first recognize that a homosexual relationship subverts the purpose of human life and that determined effort to overcome the wayward tendencies which promote this practice which, like other sexual vices, is so abhorrent to the Creator of all mankind will help you both to return to a path that leads to true happiness.” Means to most GLBT folks “go away” They want to say it overtly, but BF decorum suggests that they beat around the bush…
I shared this in other forums but it is worth repeating. A number of years my city was rocked by the murder of a prominet gay couple in their home and the firebombing and burning of 3 synagogues by a pair of neo-Nazis. The next evening there were 10,00 of us with candles in protest in front of the state capitol, chanting “not in our city!”. It was beautiful, it was powerful, it was right, and still gives me goose bumps.
The Baha'is of course were no were to be seen, despite the groups of other religious and human rights organizations. Despite the fact the the masses were meeting on the very spot that the Master himself had once walked and talked to people many years ago.
With in a week, my local school district (2 of the synagogues were in it) convened a group of community members to meet with the superintendent. I was honored to be asked to participate – as both a gay man and as a Baha'i. My community sent no not of congratulations or even acknowledgment. The group was made up of men and women, a rabbi, a couple of pastors and priests, some lay persons, etc.
Over the 2 years we met and were charged with dealing with hate crimes and bigotry in the schools. After a few months the rabbi called more one day and asked,
“Daniel, I have two lesbians who want to be married in the synagogue, tell me your thoughts”.
I shared with him my experience with bigotry, narrow-mindedness, homophobia with in the Baha'i community. He also told me about similar things n his congregation.
Finally I asked,
“what is better a Jewish lesbian couple or non-Jewish lesbian couple?”
He thanked me.
A week later I read in the paper that he had married the first lesbian couple in his synagogue. This was by the way long before Gay marriage was even on the horizon here in California. The are now the most welcoming place in town, and are growing.
Meanwhile the capitol city of the most populous state in the richest country on earth has no Baha'i Center.
Many of my friend and colleagues keep asking me why I put up with this homophobic religion? To be honest its gets harder to explain it away…
Thank you so much everybody for the dialogue…
Sonja -
This is really wonderful, and will take me some time to digest.
In the name of the many silent and fearful GLBT's who read this list, thank you so very much! It obviously took a long time and a great deal of thought!
You are very dear, not to mention brave. You stand as a great light to many of us who have been thrown out, have left, or stand quietly by in fear.
Hugs!
Daniel
As Sonja just said, Baha'u'llah only mentioned “little boys”, I don't think 'Abdu'l-Baha said anything about the subject, and anything from Shoghi Effendi was written on his behalf – so the best we have is from SE's secretaries and the UHJ… Whats your preference?
I love it. Farhan continues to insult and turns around and says he's just discussing ideas and not insulting people. Farhan, get a clue. YOU have just insulted a married gay couple raising wonderful children by telling them that God's Messenger for this day and age has lumped them together with back-biters, child molestors and opium users. Thanks a lot for “teaching” the Faith! Oh and btw, you are correct, back-biters are allowed to remain in the community (I know of a number of good Persian woman who open up their purses for Bahaullah and continue to back bit in the community; of course the AO would never think of kicking them out or their dollars). Of course on the otherhand, a gay couple with kids would automatically be told they are not welcome unless they divorce and as the blessed 9 men on the hill said “overcome their wayward tendencies”- you know the tendency to love someone and build a family with that person.
what happened was that DISQUS would briefly post the item, then in a few seconds/minutes (upon refesh of the client browser cache?), it was gone.
If you can get logs of the interface between DISQUS and your actual blog, you might see what happened. if not, then it seems likeit would have been a glitch more internal to DISQUS.
as Amanda says, the item was however distributed via DISQUS email.
my guess is that some kind of server/net maintenance, or overload, was going on (late night) that caused the glitch, but it could have been a security breach.
i'll try to repost my cr*pola if someone wants me to, but it probably isn't worth the time.
sonja wrote:
And I agree with you, a law is much better if as you wrote: “is a collection of principles derived by groups of people working together from secular reasoning, anticipating the future by observing historical lessons, and building on that solid foundation by a system of common law that allows for new and dynamic interpretations of these aforementioned principles.”
This is the way social laws work best but I wouldn't too happy if a group people used those same procedures for how we should say prayers.
…
—
yes, but this is the problem:
if a majority in a country converted to fundamentalist-bahai belief, they could simply vote in a dictatorship, rewrite the constitution to make being a critic of such bahai religion punishable by torture/etc.
there is nothing in the bahai system that could stop such an occurrance, even of the uhj wanted it stopped (short of a war).
Farhan, each of the vices that you list (back-biting, opium, child molestation) are self-evident as having a detrimental effect on a community. By lumping them in a discussion re homosexuality, are you implying that homosexuality is also detrimental to a community? If so, can you please provide some evidence?
Timwatts: by the way this is the first time i have ever heard a baha'i more or less saying his relgion is better than someone else's..
Farhan: This would be a violation of Baha’i principles; what we can say is that it is the latest update of the same religion.
Timwatts : still waiting for an example of the writings which forbids gay relationships,,,
Farhan : I now of no other quote than the ones largely distributed on Internet. My understanding is that sexual relations are only allowed within marriage, and no provisions have been made for same-sex marriages, hence same sex relations are not allowed to Baha’is.
Timwatts: i see you are lumping gays together with child abusers like all iranians i have met due to the words “bache baz” meaning gay….
Farhan: Not at all, although I agree that the mistake is common; historically, gay relations have been mentored in young boys, for example by Spartans.
Timwatts: even child molesters realise that they are harming others….and want to stop for the most part….
Farhan: this is not always true; some abusers believe that they are playing innocent and even useful games that an uncompromising and puritan society does not tolerate. Their only regret is that society does not allow them to do what they want.
Timwatts: child molster is not a sexual orientation by the way
Farhan: I might be misusing the English word. The French word I intended to use is “préférence sexuelle” it can be an exclusive preference, or an occasional one, it can be a homo or heterosexual attraction, it can be with or without enactment, with and without violence, it can be acquired, and perhaps innate, although most aggressors have themselves been victims as a child, which suggests it is more often acquired.
Timwatts : asking people to “overcome it” is not only pointless as it is impossible…but cruel and misleading….
Farhan: i have never seen Baha’i writings talking about changing orientation, but behaviour and way of life. They are also only requiring this way of life from those who wish to be active members of the community. Would abstinence for gays be more difficult than for non-gays? In your view, the 15 million French celibates would fall sick if they abstained? However, I do agree that non gays have the choice of marrying that gays do not have.
Timwatts: how could community cohesion be harmed?
Farhan: how can we expect chastity from non gay youths and not from gay? And accept unmarried gay couples and not accept unmarried non-gay couples? Some churches are accepting gay marriages. We will see how the experience turns out. Why expect the Baha’is to be pioneers in this field?
Sonja, I present to you the crux of the problem, as I see it:
You think the Bahá'í Faith's opposition to homosexuality can be changed whereas the Universal House of Justice and Shoghi Effendi both agree that the Bahá'í Faith's opposition to homosexuality is decreed by Bahá'u'lláh himself. Thus, the law of homophobia cannot be repealed. You may protest that Bahá'u'lláh did not actually speak about homosexuality as such, but that is completely irrelevant. I've noticed that Bahá'í moderates seem to have a great deal of trouble seeing how irrelevant this is. The reason why it's irrelevant is that Shoghi Effendi was granted infallible authority to interpret Bahá'u'lláh (by 'Abdu'l-Bahá) and Shoghi Effendi interpreted Bahá'u'lláh as condemning homosexuality. So whether you personally believe that Bahá'u'lláh never condemned homosexuality is as relevant to the faithful Bahá'í as whether women are actually qualified to serve on the House of Justice. They simply couldn't care less what Bahá'u'lláh did or did not say, since Shoghi Effendi clearly tells them what to believe Bahá'u'lláh said and they accept that unconditionally (remember, he was infallible). (At this point, we will do well to remember that the Bahá'í Faith has no clergy, because people blindly followed the clergy in past dispensations. That is to say, the Bahá'í prohibition of clergy is a load of Boole sheet.)
It seems, however, that I was not clear about my point regarding the superiority of Dutch law to Bahá'í law. You seemed to take my point as one of practice, so that (to you) what I meant was that a Dutch citizen should practice Dutch law above Bahá'í law. Thus, you quoted Bahá'u'lláh praising Queen Victoria for promoting democracy and suggested that this shows “Baha'u'llah makes a similiar argument [to mine].”
This is not what I meant by saying that Dutch law is superior to Bahá'í law.
What I meant was that Bahá'í law is approximately worthless by any objective standard. It is irrelevant, not just for practice by citizens of specific countries, but even for consideration by any person anywhere in the world. I want to be clear that I do not merely mean the current Bahá'í Administrative Order. I mean the Bahá'í Faith itself, as authored by the so-called “Central Figures”. The authoritative Bahá'í law is a deluded man's fancy, an empty pantomime of the shadow of justice; it is a charade aimed at mimicking actual equality and wellbeing with the mere semblance of equality and wellbeing; it is, in short, not worthy of the attention of anyone actually concerned about human welfare or justice. If this is similar to an argument by Bahá'u'lláh, I would be surprised indeed.
The point, however, isn't that the particular laws of the Bahá'í Faith are somehow wrong or immoral — no. Don't get me wrong: I think that racial and gender equality, the elimination of extremes of wealth and poverty, and universal compulsory education are wonderful goals. The point is that there is no justification for these goals within the Bahá'í framework except to fulfil God's will. At best, the Bahá'í writings are ambivalent about whether human happiness has any intrinsic worth, and more often, the Bahá'í dogma considers human happiness is a mere means to fulfilling God's will (lest we forget God's greater plan!).
So you see, the worth of the Bahá'í Faith is the same as the worth of an elementary school cheater who copies the answers from his neighbour (in this case, Enlightenment philosophy, a thousand years of Islamic jurisprudence, Sufi tradition, social custom, etc.). Even Bahá'u'lláh's lame attempt at an analogy in the verse you cited
is an appropriation of Omar Khayyam's famous literary device, except Bahá'u'lláh wholly mangles it and employs it as a rhetorical trick, without any meaning. (I mean, “fingers of might and power”? What ridiculous imagery. This is the great literary talent we're supposed to admire?)
If you want to decide procedures for how you want to say prayers, then go ahead. Symbolic values and questions of truth are indeed not decided by majority vote. But to suggest that authoritative decree has any more right to decide such matters is simply to make a mockery of their importance. My point is that we discard the Bahá'í Faith with all its haughty claims of infallibility and assaulting words for those who dare question its decrees, and instead, seek the wisdom that the Bahá'í Faith appropriates from the source itself: human history, science, philosophy, and literature. Not only can we do this safely with no apprehensions of losing anything valuable, a commitment to justice and fairness and equal regard for people of all sexual orientations would demand it of us. So I sincerely hope one day we will all overcome the comfort of dogmatism and be joined together in this endeavour.
I think I've found your comments – apparently they somehow fell through the cracks of disqus but are in the main wordpress commenting database. strange :-/
I'll see what I can do to rescue them from purgatory.
Baquia, we are discussing Baha'i teachings concerning homosexuality.
IMO, as a doctor and and individual, I would wish the least possible tension, and the more people have fun, the better.
As a citizen I would say that the crux of the matter for all religions has been to canalise the sexual drive into marriage; as no provisions have been made for gay marriages, and procreation and upbringing of off springs have been an essential (although non exclusive) aim, gay relations on exactly the same basis as adultery are detrimental to the social structure.
As a doctor i would say that gays being part of a minority group, they deserve some kind of a protection, just as left-handed people.
As an individual i would say park your car wherever you want but don't get caught. if I were a mayor, i would say for safety reasons and the common good, parking has to be restricted and offenders sanctioned.
Is this what justice is supposed to hinge on? Are we really supposed to delay granting people such a fundamental right as choosing with whom they spend the rest of their lives without fear of alienation until such exegetical gymnastics performed and interpretative minutiae are brought to light that will persuade those committed to unthinking dogmatism? Really? Is this the best we can do? To fixate on the various meanings of “authoritative,” to engage in correspondence calculus for deciding what letters to whom meant what for the community at large? Are we supposed to take this seriously? These are not the methods of people actually concerned with justice. This is a circus side show, not a way to arrange human affairs (including our most intimate relationships). How can we be expected to take the Bahá'í writings seriously when it doesn't take itself seriously? I commend Hume's instruction to us all for deciding how to regard the Bahá'í writings:
Mavaddat:
So much of what you state in your post as Bahai this or that had me in fits of laughter.
Incase you are serious, I'll respond to one of your points.
“You may protest that Bahá'u'lláh did not actually speak about homosexuality as such, but that is completely irrelevant.”
Well, well, sorry to contradict you, but it is very relevent at least to Bahais!
Sonja, it is a shame you did not take my post more seriously. You cling to a faith that condemns the most intimate part of your brother's relationship, but why? Social justice does not depend on the Bahá'í Faith, but the Bahá'í Faith depends on Bahá'ís to continue to support its dogmatic framework. It's the desire for dogmatism that is the problem here, not the particular prohibition on homosexuality. Even if the prohibition were eliminated, there are other laws that need revision, or some future impediment to justice would arise, and the whole issue of how to interpret would be revived again. It is ridiculous. We are trying to mould the Bahá'í Faith into a respectable religion when it is the dogmatism at its bedrock that keeps it ridiculous.
You have a very high regard for Bahá'ís, Sonja. You seem to think that they are committed to independent investigation of the truth, that they question their authorities, and that their religion commends this to them.
This is, sadly, not the case.
If Shoghi Effendi tells them otherwise, Bahá'ís really do not care what Bahá'u'lláh actually said. Likewise, if the Universal House of Justice tells Bahá'ís that Shoghi Effendi tells them that homosexuality is forbidden, Bahá'ís don't care to delve into a hermeneutic investigation to determine if this is true. They regard Shoghi Effendi as infallible, they regard the Universal House of Justice as infallible, and they trust that their authorities are telling them the truth.
There is nothing in all the “independent investigation” rhetoric of the Bahá'í writings which encourages Bahá'ís to question their own religious authorities. Not even one measly verse. All of the admonitions to independent investigation are addressed to those outside the Bahá'í community, while Bahá'ís are told:
And:
And:
It is this attitude that stands in the way of justice. Let us be done with this dogmatism once and for all and finally employ a respectable dialogue.
Sonja, I took your comments seriously. How have I forgone the right to be treated reciprocally? Do I not deserve to be taken seriously? I would hope we can discuss these matters without laughing at one another.
My apologizes Mavaddat, I really thought you were joking.
In my posting you were responding to, I thought I clearly showed (that's why I used so many quotations – i want get past what people say they think the Bahai Writings are about, to what the Bahais actually say) that Shoghi Effendi never penned anything on the subject of homosexuality either. And the point of my post was that it boiled down to the policies of the UHJ.
Your response ignored all of that to state that “the Universal House of Justice and Shoghi Effendi both agree the law of homophobia cannot be repealed”
I don't even know where to start in way of response to this statement as I've already clearly shown that this is not the case. So I assumed you were joking. I was not laughing at you.
No, I wasn't responding to that post in the response you said you laughed at. I was responding to the post with which you begin:
If you look down this thread, you'll see that I did respond to your post in which you argue that Shoghi Effendi never interpreted Bahá'u'lláh on pederasty, that the letters were from his secretary, etc. Scroll down, and you'll see my response.
No. You're confusing my response above with my response below. My statement that “the Universal House of Justice and Shoghi Effendi both agree the law of homophobia cannot be repealed” was before reading your post below.
I don't (as most Bahá'ís do not) accept the premise that Shoghi Effendi's secretaries did not speak for him. You acknowledge that Shoghi Effendi's secretaries have some authority, but that the authority is not the same as Shoghi Effendi's. That's fine. So you ask, how much authority did Shoghi Effendi's secretaries really have?
My point is that this cannot possibly matter for deciding how we ought to treat gay people. It's not that “if you're a Bahá'í, then it matters to you.” Objectively speaking, the relevance of such exercises for determining whether homosexuality should be condemned is as relevant as asking whether the stars that comprise Taurus agree with the local street psychic prediction. They're just irrelevant. If a Bahá'í chooses to care about such matters in deciding how to regard homosexuality, then they're choosing to abdicate their moral sense for authority — a means of thinking about morality that has nothing to do with human welfare, happiness, or experience.
while I agree with you and Hume, *IF* the bahai faith ever changes this specific policy, it will probably be because of the gyrations that reformers like sonja develop.
or, maybe one morning the baboons on the dump in haifa will all get sick and die, and whoever replaces them will simply decide to exhibit some basic human decency and get rid of all the dunce theology in bahai scripture by declaring it unscientific and thus null/void.
“These are not the methods of people actually concerned with justice. This is a circus side show, not a way to arrange human affairs (including our most intimate relationships).”
Mavaddat: you have perfectly identified the source of the problem.
The inherent weakness of the Baha’i Faith is authoritarianism rather than fundamentalism. The Faith has inherited a literalism of scriptural words similar to the Islamic tradition. The appeal to authoritarianism betrays an obsession with ideological purity and legalistic piety. In the context of late modern or post-modern social and scientific realities, this approach is psychologically abusive and socially toxic.
As Bob Altemeyer notes about authoritarian followers:
“They are highly submissive to established authority, aggressive in the name of that authority, and conventional to the point of insisting everyone should behave as their authorities decide. They are fearful and self-righteous and have a lot of hostility in them that they readily direct toward various out-groups. They are easily incited, easily led, rather un-inclined to think for themselves, largely impervious to facts and reason, and rely instead on social support to maintain their beliefs. They bring strong loyalty to their in-groups, have thick-walled, highly compartmentalized minds, use a lot of double standards in their judgments, are surprisingly unprincipled at times, and are often hypocrites.”
Someone wrote:
“In the same way that I obey the laws of the land in which I am a citizen of, I as a Baha'i, have no qualms in obeying the House when they set down a law. That is their role and my role as a member of the community is to abide.”
And that is precisely the problem.
Is it ever right to violate a law of the land? Some people contend
that an individual ought to break a human law, provided that it is
contrary to divine law. What is divine law? Who decides? Shall
the individual decide, or is that the duty of the community? Or of
the clergy? Was it right for the Abolitionists to violate the
provisions of the fugitive slave law? Were this handful of men,
able and conscientious as they were, as likely to be right
regarding the welfare of society as the large majority of citizens
whose representatives had enacted the fugitive slave law?
Under what circumstances, if any, is it one's duty to disobey a law
of the state? Would the fact that an individual believed it his
duty to violate the law justify a judge in declining to punish him?
Thoreau declined to pay a tax that he believed unjust and accepted
his punishment, declaring that if he paid the penalty he might thus
arouse public sentiment and secure the repeal of the law. Was John
Brown justified in attempting illegally to free slaves by force of
arms?
Critical thought and reflective analysis are not a part of submissive obedience. I refer you to this link to further look at this problem:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NL0uxDscjdo
according to what I remember being discussed at feast, or similar gathering, the sacramento lsa (no geniuses) took a long time “consulting” about the incident, and probably had to wait weeks/months for “guidance” from the auxilliary bored members and/or USBNC.
(maintaining the purity of bahai laws is more important to risk-averse lsa folk then any spontaneous participation in a real unity movement about civil rights.)
there was a serious group of people that wanted to form a non-profit group to fund purchase of a bahai center about 10 years ago. unfortunately one of the principles was feared to be so incompetent by people with actual business experience that the whole project was derailed by the secret elite uberpowers hiding behind the curtain.
bahai = amateur stuff + bureaucratic quagmire.
some of the officially “untranslated” mystical writings of bahaullah contain descriptions of the state of mystical-transcendent unity as being overtly sexual. “god” penetrates the believer. etc.
mix opium/hashish and living in caves waaaay too long, and people will think up some pretty wild stuff.
the theme is apparently borrowed from sufi poetry, which in turn may have borrowed it from bhakti-hinduism and/or buddhism (buddhist merchants had communities along the spice/silk roads through the middle east, at least in the early era of islam).
thanx fubar… if you livein Sac shoot me an email, lets talk
This is interesting.
If you read the letter they sent me which I posted at:
http://revolked2.blogspot.com/2009/05/lets-star...… someone must have been offended and reported me for talking about my marriage on the internet.
It seems that the AO has decided that it is ok to remove the rights of GLBT folks but those of us who are sanctioned have no recourse, rights or opportunity to defend or explain ourselves… this is not justice. This if it occurred at my university, it would be profoundly illegal.
But of course if you are a Baha'i from a “good” or “prominent” family, all the rules are quite different.
It is indeed offensive, if not old school. that sexual orientation and pedophilia are constantly linked…
Thank you Allsion this is excellent, but I beg to differ slightly, I will come to the defense of Sonja here.
Sonja has had the guts to come out as a straight woman in the defense of glbt Baha'is. Few if any straight people have gone this far. As well, it is my experience that the glbt folks hide or allow other glbt's to martyred.
Those of us with activist colleagues in more progressive religious groups, see believers who are untied, open, and fearless… where are you people? Lets spend less time, picking on the messenger, and talking about solutions.
We should all be horrified that a religion that aspires to be progressive and modern, is behaving alike the lunatic, evangelical fringe… and persecutes its minority membership so. there are good , decent people being thrown out for no reason other than institutionalized homophobia, there are youth committing suicide, and there is ignorance being perpetrated as divinely ordained law… and no one feels free to discuss it, or stand up for those who have been wronged!
Farhan, that's what I thought. But then I lived a little. For example, currently a child of an NSA member is living with their boyfriend (without Baha'i marriage). This has been going on for years. Yet the NSA has not sanctioned this person. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that they come from a very well known Baha'i family and that their parent is on the NSA.
LoL
Alison, I already addressed this: Individual Conscience
Alison,
Thank you for your terrific post!
These two below quotes are why I got off the Baha'i train 6 years ago after 32 years of completely dedicated service in the Faith. Have you ever seen these quotes?
“We have inherited a dangerous delusion from Christianity that our individual conscience is supreme. This is not a Baha'i belief. In the end, in the context of both our role in the community and our role in the greater world, we must be prepared to sacrifice our personal convictions or opinions. The belief that individual conscience is supreme is equivalent to 'taking partners with God' which is abhorrent to the Teachings of the Faith.”
– Douglas Martin
Former Member of the Universal House of Justice
Baha'i Faith
“The experience of the Ruhi Institute has shown that we do not suppress
the imagination or the personality of the participants when we refrain
from posing questions such as, 'What does this mean to you?'; on the
contrary, we are helping to nurture the development of communities which
look first to the Writings as the principal basis of consultation whenever they are faced with a question.
We believe that the habit of thinking about the implications of the
Writings with the minimum of personal interpretation would eliminate a
great share of the disagreements which afflict consultation in many
communities, and would make the activities of our communities more
effective.”
“TO THE COLLABORATORS” – Ruhi Book One
I will not sit in the same room with the incredibly weak and cowardly people who now call themselves “Baha'is” who betrayed their own religion and allowed this to be done to it by organizational sociopaths at the top with deranged and deluded brain chemistry. It is absolutely shameful.
No critical thought is allowed or permitted in the Baha'i Faith anymore. Period. It is terribly tragic and it is absolutely frightening for the future of the human race if the Baha'is with the current mindset – or ANY unchallenged groupthink organized religion for that matter – ever attain any real power in the world. The system is now so abusive and predatory that I now very deeply regret all the decades I whole heartedly supported it thinking it could do good in the world.
The final biochemical state of any groupthink organized religion is a very dangerous brain chemistry. that is all that is involved here. A very simple analysis of brain chemistry. The human race must understand this dangerous mechanism in any organization before we can progress to the next step of social evolution. This is why the many voices on the Internet is so very important now.
Again, thank you for your excellent post!
Baquia wrote: I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that they come from a very well known Baha'i family and that their parent is on the NSA
Baquia, in my experience, sanctions are much more regular and severe when involving outstanding Baha'is (not necessarily their kids, I presume…). I know of NSA members sanctionned directly by the UHj for behaviour that would have gone unnoticed in the rank and file.
dco wrote: It is indeed offensive, if not old school. that sexual orientation and pedophilia are constantly linked…
No one said they were constantly linked and my response to Timwatts apparently did not appear. I hope you do consider paedophilia as pathological. It can be an occasional or a permanent preference, homo or heterosexual, enacted or only a fantasy; in many cases the abusers have been abused themselves as a child, suggesting that it can be acquired and not necessarily innate.
What I did say, in distinguishing our spiritual, community and legal responsibilities that they could also be subject to legal action.
If left handedness were discriminated against in the same way would this appeal to visitors to firesides…..?it's interesting that you should compare gays to left handed people….i also know that in Iran bizarrely left handed people are forced on occasions to write with their right hands casuing stutters in later life…maybe this too is a spirital abhorrence?
If left handedness were discriminated against in the same way would this appeal to visitors to firesides…..?it's interesting that you should compare gays to left handed people….i also know that in Iran bizarrely left handed people are forced on occasions to write with their right hands casuing stutters in later life…maybe this too is a spirital abhorrence?
any behaviour can be acquired Farhan….behaviour is a choice……people without pathology can choose…..if people choose behaviours which harm others then this is to be sactioned……
you must redefine what sex is…..any definition cannot include elements of
non-consent….
My iranian friend told me once that it was common in his village for the men to gratify themselves with “melons” or “chickens”…..is this sex?
Timwatts: if people choose behaviours which harm others then this is to be sactioned.
Farhan: I agree
Timwatts: you must redefine what sex is…..any definition cannot include elements of non-consent….
Farhan: biologically, sex is a great machine for producing diversity through procreation, as opposed to non sexual reproduction that produces a genetically identical individual. Sociologically, sex is also a great machine to get very different individuals from Mars and Venus who would otherwise have a hard time getting along, to make a family together, and mix their genetic and cultural heritage and produce biological and cultural diversity. To compensate such meritorious efforts towards evolution, nature also provides us with gratification. Now as usual, we get smart guys wanting to get all the gratification without making those meritorious efforts and taking all the responsibility, and this somehow defeats the purpose of nature. So religions come and say it’s not natural and clamp down on these poor people and try to bring them back to the path of wisdom.
To some extent, but only to SOME extent, our bodies do not ONLY belong to us; society invests in us from child hood and can expect to get something back. We are not free to do everything we wish, even if there is consent on both sides.
Timwatts: My iranian friend told me once that it was common in his village for the men to gratify themselves with “melons” or “chickens”…..is this sex?
Farhan: It’s bestiality for animals and in some legislation it is considered it as a criminal offence. For vegetables I am not sure.
Timwatts wrote: left handed people are forced on occasions to write with their right hands casuing stutters in later life
Farhan: not so sure; it can alos make people much more handy by being ambidextrous. Also, if you have an accident and are obliged to use the other hand, after a while it is difficult to switch back to the original, so lefthandedness can be acquired. Try googling lefthandedness: some stricking similarity with homosexuality; for ex:
http://www.narth.com/docs/lefthand.html
We could also say that law is a change of nature
Farhan,
I am guessing that you bring up lefthandedness because I've done this in the past. Your suggestion that the oppression and suffering I had as a child who was forced to write with her right-hand is somehow 'justified' is as offensive to me as are the comparisions you have made of homosexuality with illness.
Obviously you do not have a clue. Yes, I am furious! How dare you assume that it is OK to beat a 5 year old because she is born left-handed. Shame on you. And if you didn't realise that kids were beaten for writing with their left-hand, now you know. Even as an adult I still have visions of the strap or the ruler that used to come slamming down onto my left-hand. That as a 5 year old, I had to pretend I was using my right-hand while it covered over my left hand doing the writing, when the teacher was on the other side of the room.
Just think, a 5 year old learning to write has to watch out for the punishment – either of using her lefthand or because she couldn't make her right hand co-ordinate like the other kids in the room. – imagine it. A kid having to learn to be subversive – while other kids could just learn to write.
That I was the only kid in the class at 8 years of age who couldn't write, when the nuns decided that it was better to have a kid who wrote with her left-hand after all than one who couldn't write at all. Funnily enough they let me draw with my left-hand and perhaps that's why I draw much better than I write
The idea that an adult uses their other hand for a while is quite a different issue. The disorders come from oppression, supression, the belief that you are wrong (as a young child or as an adult) and the treatment of others (being beaten up by the other kids because of my oddness is no joke).
-If- you are suggesting in your comparision with lefthandedness and homosexuality that there's no reason in the world why people born with diversity should be discriminated against, ok, yes. Please stop making comparisions of homosexuality with illness in that case. Think about it, being lefthanded is not an illness anymore than homosexuality is. It is not any more 'deviant' than racial diversity.
Sonjavank, I am not aware of any injustice from which you might have suffered, nor do not remember a post on this subject on which I think I commented here in February.
I am suggesting, in reply to Timwatts, that there is an interesting debate on about relations between homosexuality and left handedness you can read on Internet; you can try the address I gave or : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-handedness
I am not suggesting children should be forced or beaten, but that ambidextrous people do not necessarily become sick people and in fact are often smarter than others. I have never suggested that homosexuality was an illness; otherwise I would not have introduced the subject of similarity with left-handedness.
I believe that any member of the UHJ that gives a speech anywhere in the world on any of their mere personal opinions, should be very severely formally sanctioned and reprimanded by the UHJ.
To use their high positions to give their mere personal opinions in a speech to Baha'i audiences is the height of selfishness, self centeredness, and egotism and it will be seen that way in the future.
Giving their personal opinions as members of the UHJ even when they put their standard disclaimer in the speech causes completely unnecessary and needless division because for many weak and thoughtless members of the Baha'i rank and file the personal opinions of the members of the UHJ are Holy Writ and are Sacred Scripture in the Baha'i Faith.
Why can't these men see this simple fact? Why can't they see the harm they have caused to the Faith by their egotism and excessive needyness?
The Faith is about the consciousness in the Universe of Baha'u'llah. It is most definitely NOT about the consciousness in the Universe of a man like Peter Khan.
It is time form them to a man to realize this spiritual fact and act accordingly before they embarrass themselves and their families any further with these displays of excessive egotism.
Once you are elected to the UHJ you should undergo permanent civil death and be absolutely forbidden to ever speak on your personal opinions to an audience anywhere in Earth both while you are serving and after you retire.
What are you NOT SO SURE about, My brothere in law was forced to change his writing hand and he then went on the develop a stutter…he went to a speach therapist who told him that it was becasue he was forced to change hands….what are you not sure of???? Please do tell…..
Ambidextrous people are born that way Farhan they are not forced…….
<<<<<<As a doctor i would say that gays being part of a minority group, they deserve some kind of a protection, just as left-handed people.>>>>
What does being a doctor have to do with such an assertion…
You don't need to suggest it Farhan. your fundamentalist adherence to the 9 men on the hill suggest it for you. From the UHJ: “A number of sexual problems, such as homosexuality and transsexuality can well have medical aspects, and in such cases recourse should certainly be had to the best medical assistance.”
And as they replied to my letter when I wrote to them, they will not allow the best medical assistance if that assistance means that a gay person is told to accept himself, love himself and find someone to love in a healthy relationship. So much for harmony between science and religion. The 9 men will allow Bahais to drink alcohol if it prescribed as medicine, but not allow someone to love in a relationship. Hypocrisy! (oh wait Farhan doesn't know what that word means)
Well Farhan I read the article and can find no similarity between being left handed and gayness.
In ye olden days left handed people were considered agents of satan and bad luck…try googling that?….is this the similarity you are looking for?
A valuable new resource from the mother of Matthew Shepard:
http://www.matthewshepard.org/site/PageServer?p...
Timwatts wrote: what are you not sure of???? Please do tell…..
Tim, it is not because this does happens in some cases that it ALWAYS happens that way. We can break a leg doing ski, but not all those doing ski break a leg and you can break a leg elsewhere than doing ski. Left handedness can in some cases be acquired and not always inborn. Left handed people who practice, can become ambidextrous. A right handed person can learn to become ambidextrous in some situations. I am right handed but do my knots with the left hand, and this helps me operate faster. Beyond what we believe, we need statistical evidence before we can be sure of something and you can find some information on the sites I suggested.
Sorry this was not meant to attack Sonja. Yes she is a wonderful example and we should wish more Baha'is were like her!
It would seem then that we live in two different worlds my dear Farhan.
Try here: http://www.io.com/~cortese/sinistrality/index.html
There is a similarity concerning stigma and prejudice. There is a similarity about the different causes, and more if you study the subject.
Yes thank you that is a very good article and I agree completely with what you have written there.
I have also found these two articles on another blog:
hadleyives.blogspot.com/…/picking-and-choosing-in-religion.html
http://hadleyives.blogspot.com/2009/01/what-doe…
These were very well written and offer some really good counsel.
“As a citizen I would say that the crux of the matter for all religions has been to canalise the sexual drive into marriage; as no provisions have been made for gay marriages, and procreation and upbringing of off springs have been an essential (although non exclusive) aim, gay relations on exactly the same basis as adultery are detrimental to the social structure.”
So if a heterosexual couple can not conceive a child, are they also 'detrimental to the social structure'?
If not, why not?
A doctor is supposed to be non judgemental, impartial and neutral in his relations with is patients. As an LSA member, as a mayor, we have a responsibility towards the community and society. We have to act in each function as that function requires.
Thanks Ms A
We need a whole herd of Alisons and Sonjas right now!
Keep posting, its good stuff!
Baquia, when societies have a collective goal, they seek to advance it.
This does not mean that if there are other natural hindrances towards a general goal like family making that a society will abandon measures that are applicable. It is not because a percentage of individuals are unable to participate in a collective enterprise that the enterprise has to be abandoned, not does it mean that it has to be imposed on all.
I feel that an important point is to consider individual “pro-choice” arguments on one hand and the social “pro-life” on the other. A just society would be an equilibrium between individual choices and collective choices. When a person is in a position of responsibility towards a society, he has to take both into consideration.
Is your role as an LSA member, mayor enhanced by being judgemental, partial and what ever the opposite of neutral is? Don't you think this dualism night lead to double standards …..
No one has advocated giving up marriage……you are excluding people from it by denying them equal rights…. you do this because you really do think that homosexualty is abnormal, perverse, not the way things should be…etc…. Letting gays marry would not harm society at all…. i notice you didnt answer my question previously….do you think that if society allowed gay marriages this would open the flood gates and straights will suddenly decide to abandon marriage?….i wish you would stick to one opinion rather that putting different hats on…
tell us what you really think as you the person….
<<<Tim, it is not because this does happens in some cases that it ALWAYS happens that way. We can break a leg doing ski, but not all those doing ski break a leg and you can break a leg elsewhere than doing ski>>>>
I did not say it always happens….what is the point of this ski analogy
you first suggested somthing i did not say then find examples disproving it….
this is typical politician tactics in a debate.
where did i say that forcing left handed people to write with their right hand ALWAYS causuing them to stutter?>
where ? where? where
The rest of your post is very odd.
Listen I suppose with a lot of promting and effort i could train myself to sleep (have sex) with women….this does not make me straight does it…. Does training yourslef to tie knots with the other hand mean you are ambidextrous….or does it mean that whatever handedness you were born with you manged with practice and no doubt lots of prayers managed to use the other hand? this is not what handedness means to me….
Right then in the interests of trying to probe the complete craziness of the Baha'i Faith's views on HOMOSEXUALITY what would be the reation to the following scenarios…
1> two men holding hands at a feast
2> 2 men kissing each other on the lips
are these activities also not allowed…..is it just anal sex that is not allowed? what about between staight couples…..?
Timwatts wrote: do you think that if society allowed gay marriages this would open the flood gates and straights will suddenly decide to abandon marriage?
Farhan: Of course not. Nothing like that has happened in places where gay marriages took place. If I imagine that no writings concerning homosexuality existed at all, I doubt if in the present world situation, a member of a Baha’i assembly (of which I am not) or of the UHJ could defend gay marriages that would be against the laws of most countries. Nor could I see how they could liberalise gay relations and yet prohibit non-gay relations outside marriage. This could lead to an irresponsible attitude towards marriage.
I am sorry you feel confused by different hats. When I work as a physician, I have to observe neutrality and secularity, and to defend the patient’s rights over state laws, for example by protecting confidentiality against state action. When I work as an expert designated by a court, I am serving the state and I have to inform the patient of my mission and not take sides for or against the parties involved, for example the insurance on one side and the patient on the other. If I am an LSA member, I have been elected to protect that community and I have to represent the position of that community, in view of the Baha’i teachings. I cannot say that being a doctor I am neutral.
We all give our opinions, but social structures that are “regulators” of the social body also have opinions.
Please explain, Baquia
NO we can't. Laws can be made to try and change people's behaviour but not (their) nature(s) Nature is not changeable..it can be hidden and camouflaged and marginalised and ridiculed and legislated against if it happens not to be the majority nature….here i think is what you understand by “nature” you mean it to be the “nomal” majority view…..
Are you saying that if the law forbids gay relations they will stop doing it?
Tiwatts wrote: Laws can be made to try and change people's behaviour but not (their) nature(s) Nature is not changeable.
Farhan: I agree
As to what a community can accept in a certain social situation, it is up o the LSA of that community to decide.
Wearing different hats does not confuse me at all…. what does is your abilty to have several different opnions at the same time….
compensation for gays===doctor hat
destroyer of society = baha'i hat
change our natures like you can change which hand you wirte with = doctor hat
nothing wrong with being gay= ? hat
what do you beleive about gay people ##
<<<<If I imagine that no writings concerning homosexuality existed at all, I doubt if in the present world situation, a member of a Baha’i assembly (of which I am not) or of the UHJ could defend gay marriages that would be against the laws of most countries. Nor could I see how they could liberalise gay relations and yet prohibit non-gay relations outside marriage. This could lead to an irresponsible attitude towards marriage.>>>>
I can't unpick what the sense here is…
I don't want to make you public enemy no. 1 but i do think you ought to have just 1 opinion…
<<<<There is a similarity about the different causes, and more if you study the subject.>>>>
You mean the different causes of homosexuality are similar to the different causes for left handedness…?
no I am not sure what you mean…
So when you become gay Farhan, please give me a call. I'd like to know how exactly your orientation changed. Mine as far back as I remember, has NOT! Oh and I was conditioned by people like you to turn out straight, married and a perfect Persian Bahai. Fortunately I didn't listen to ignorant people such as yourself, I did not marry some poor girl and ruin her life, all because of such ignorance espoused by fools inside the Bahai community. The Bahai Faith is a belief system Farhan- one which I believe in. Things such as equality, unity, peace. love, brotherhood. BUT fundamentalism, idolatry of the 9 men on the hill, and homophobia, naaah that's not the Bahai Faith. That may be what you are espousing, but it's not Abdul-Baha.
Is it sex though…?
I nearly ruined a poor little iranian girls life..thre was so much pressure to conform and be “normal” goodness me i treated her badly…eventually she asked me if we were going to gt married but of course i wasn't allowed to tell her the reason so i made something up which must have been very hurtful to her….i am ashamed of what i did..but hey the Baha'is made me ……..so I blame them now and not me…i wouldnthave struck up a freindship on false grounds if being gay were accepted…..shameful shameful shameful….to make liars of good people/// how can this be religion…
Timwatts wrote: I did not say it always happens…. what is the point of this ski analogy
Farhan: I said I was not sure about the correlation between stuttering and having opposed left-handedness being scientifically established. Some scientists agree, others don’t. Statistics don’t seem to be conclusive. You gave the example of your brother and I argued that we need statistics on a larger scale than one case. You went on to say that ambidextrous people were born that way, again a subject of controversy. It has been alleged that there is a prevalence of left-handedness amongst lesbians; again a subject not completely established. In the link I provided, some seem to believe it, others seem to have proved it contrary; it is a subject of controversy.
Timwatts: You mean the different causes of homosexuality are similar to the different causes for left handedness…?
Farhan: Many human conditions are not clearly cut: all genetic, OR entirely acquired. They can be partly this AND that; to me this is also true of mathematics, poetry, music, diabetes, homosexuality and left-handedness. In addition, the stigma and prejudice linked with the two are similar.
Timwatts: what do you beleive about gay people
Farhan: I believe our understanding improves with the years, it is a condition met in some 5 to 10% of populations, partly innate and partly acquired, sometimes an exclusive preference, sometimes an occasional one, sometimes enacted and sometimes repressed, a minority that deserves protection, which is unable to live it out in marriage in the present world conditions, which societies are not prepared to liberalise. As a doctor defending my patient I wish it were more easy for them, and would say that it is probable that exceptional talents and gifts are also linked with these conditions. If I were responsible for society, as a mayor, I would say I understand societies which liberalise and those that do not liberalise gay marriages, and this will allow us to compare in later years. I agree to allow those who choose to be Lutherans and those who choose to be Baha’is to experiment different community rules. I disagree to see Lutherans or Baha’is insulted for their choice. As a Baha’i on an LSA I would say that those who choose to be Baha’is choose to comply by community rules, as I strive to do as a Baha’i. TAFN; good night!
well i can put you in touch with the speech therapist used to see a lot of stammers and stutters in people who have been coherced into changing their natural handedness……
remember our duty to consult competent medical advice….
by the way she wasn't able to cure my gayness although she was only a speech therapist….##
<<Farhan: Many human conditions are not clearly cut: all genetic, OR entirely acquired. They can be partly this AND that; to me this is also true of mathematics, poetry, music, diabetes, homosexuality and left-handedness. In addition, the stigma and prejudice linked with the two are similar>>>
You mean the causes of many human conditions are not clear cut?…. and… what's your point here?
<<<to me this is also true of mathematics, poetry, music, diabetes, homosexuality and left-handedness. In addition, the stigma and prejudice linked with the two are similar. >>>
I'm not sure again what you mean….the stigma and prejudice are similar? you mean left handedness and being gay??? tthis is not true at all… no one is refused a hotel bed room becasue they are left handed what are you saying?
And yet again you make your long list of afflcitions and include diabetes in the same list as being gay again given more fuel to the notion that you beleive it to be an illness…..
Your doctor hat says no… othrwise you'd be sacked as a doctor for holding these views
but your baha'i hat says it is an illness…. both cannot be right they are mutually exclusive…
Depends which country you come from. In India guys hold hands all the time in public, even sleep together, spooning, they don't see it as gay, just normal. Heaven forbid if they hold hands with ladies in public though!
2 men kissing – well, don't they do that in Italy? Or you mean really passionate kisses? Bit racy, probably liven up Feast quite nicely! One friend of mine told me about some guy that decided to come to Feast as a cross dresser as a bit of a joke – you should've seen the flames!
Anal sex is not permitted full stop for either hetero or gay in the Baha'i Faith
He can't tell you what he thinks because independent investigation of truth has ended in his mind once he accepts the “rules” of the community. It reminds me of a Jehova Witness meeting I attended as a Bahai youth once (tryin to learn about other religions and such). In the meeting I was awestruck at how even little kids could answer the elder's questions. Well guess what? The answer was in the back of their little magazine and the parents where whispering it in the kid's ear! That's basically what we have with Farhan- his mind as already been made up for him. It doesn't matter how many gay Bahais get disenfranchised in the community, it doesn't matter if a gay youth tries to kill herself inside the Bahai community… Farhan will continue believing and espousing the party line. BUT, he is just one type of Bahai, fortunately their are others out there that don't agree with his fundamentalist mentality.
gay anal sex is therefore doubly wrong as they are doing it out of wedlock……
is it is the writings …? can we have a quote…..i might read it out in persian at our next feast as a reminder that no one should be doing it….
Thanks Pey, you saved me the electrons… this idea that people can change is rubbish… and seems to my mind perpetrated by those who wish to clothe their homophobia in acceptable terms… if you change, or can change I might say you are bisexual at best… and not gay. But above all, why the constant preoccupation with changing gays? The House has told us that homosexuality is not a sin, we don't need to change, we just have to live celibate, lonely, crazy making lives… or leave.
Pey can you contact me when you can? I have question and I lost your email.
Daniel Orey
How do you manage to use so many words to say so little?
“You live in a world where it was understood that EVERYONE had to do Ruhi and ONLY do Ruhi those who didn’t do Ruhi suddenly became CB, and all those who did Ruhi suddenly became stupid.”
Yup, thats the world I live in too.
You're not alone. My brother had the same problem at primary school – he started writing with his left hand and got punished with the ruler.
Here's what there is:
49. QUESTION: Concerning the penalties for adultery, sodomy, and theft, and the degrees thereof.
ANSWER: The determination of the degrees of these penalties rests with the House of Justice.
The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 121
Bahá'u'lláh makes provision for the Universal House of Justice to determine, according to the degree of the offence, penalties for adultery and sodomy (Q and A 49).
The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 223
Ye are forbidden to commit adultery, sodomy and lechery.
Baha'u'llah, untranslated tablet – Compilations, The Compilation of Compilations vol. I, p. 57
And that is it. Baha'u'llah can be surprisingly blunt when he wants to be. The UHJ hasn't set any penalties yet as far as I'm aware.
I was wondering why. Is it one of those prohibitions that will change with time?
e.g. circumcision, compulsory back then, nowadays not practiced except in eastern cultures and occasionally in western – reason? We're much more hygenic now.
e.g. pork, prohibited in muslim culture because pigs are unclean, but modern pig rearing methods are pretty clean, disease is not a problem (except for swine flu) and pork is yummy.
e.g. oral sex, horror! Well everyone was pretty filthy back in the days, so it probably wasn't the best thing to do. Now standard practice for every good sexual relationship, not even mentioned in Baha'i writings.
e.g. masturbation, horror! common practice for any enterprising individual or groups (Farhan practices written masturbation everyday), not even mentioned in Baha'i writings, except from SE's sweaty secretaries and the UHJ. God knows why it was prohibited in the first place, apart from sour pus priests not wanting anyone to have any fun if they couldn't have any.
e.g. anal sex, well, we all know why, but modern day society has condoms, lube, etc. Modern technology has made it possible!
e.g. vaginal sex, the main reason was and still is kids, but everyone is doing pretty well with modern contraception, so why not let people play a little?
What other naughty deviant fun practices will modern day technology make possible I wonder?
Timwatts wrote: but your baha'i hat says it is an illness….
Farhan: it doesn’t; it says everything is not all black or all white. The quotes say that homosexuality and transexuality might have medical implications. There is nothing about being a disease, spiritual or otherwise.
I dug this out for your speech therapist: an interesting study cited in Time nearly 70 years ago:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,917...
The gist: far from causing stuttering, forcing children to switch from left-handedness to right-handedness was associated with less stuttering. Left-handers and ambidextrous students both had more than twice the stuttering rate of right handers and switchers. Of course, those able to successfully switch may have had more developed left brains in the first place (that old problem of correlation vs causation).
Other sources : http://thestutteringbrain.blogspot.com/2008/08/...
http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/archives...
<<<<Farhan: it doesn’t; it says everything is not all black or all white. The quotes say that homosexuality and transexuality might have medical implications. >>>>
To say that transexuality might have medical implications is simply a ridiculous statement…do you mean that a transexual might want to undergo gender reassignement surgery?…well i never you don't say… OR are you saying that the cause of transexauality has a “medical” origin…whatever that means…..
How is this connected with homosexuality…
SO to recap Baha'is don't beleive that being gay has a medical origin and they don't advise gay people to seek medical attention……
As to your reseach re stuttering I will admit that the forcing of children to change hands is largely discredited as an explanation for stuttering nowadays..
the original point was that it was wring to force change on left handers….because it causes harm (the process) and also it was impossible to change people's sexuality and no lessons could be drawn from the success or otherwise of chnaging handedness
It seems clear to me that Baha'is are not on the side of the angels when it comes to GLBT folks. I tried to explain to a Baha'i friend once that the Baha'i stance contributes to an atmosphere which encourages gay bashing and physical abuse (this was around the time of the Matthew Shepard murder). “Oh, I hope not!” she said.
Because I take seriously the principle of agreement of religion with science, and because I take seriously Baha'u'llah's statement that “the best beloved of all things in my sight is justice” which means that we must see with our own eyes – in other words, pay attention to our own experience in the world, and because I take seriously the principle of unity in diversity, and believe deeply that the more diverse we are as a people, the stronger we are – for all these reasons, I am convinced that the current Baha'i stance on homosexuality is simply wrong. We cannot force change from the top, but we can, as responsible Baha'is, educate ourselves on this issue – this means listening to those who are wronged, and really listen, not with a hidden agenda of changing their view but to listen truly, to another truth.
Then, after listening, if we feel so moved by conscience, as many of us do, (and yes, conscience is a God-given guide in making moral decisions), we must be willing to speak out, to speak our own understanding, as an essential part of consultation, whether formal or not, involving one other person or many, among Baha'is. We cannot shrink from the truth – we don't have to have a final answer or resolution – we just have to educate ourselves, and then speak the truth we know – things will progress from there.
Timwatts wrote: To say that transexuality might have medical implications is simply a ridiculous statement
Farhan: a transsexual is someone who feels that he or she has been assigned by nature with the wrong body and needs gender reassignment, including surgery. Before states accept this, they need the opinion of medical experts. Baha’is submit to medical opinion.
Timwatts: OR are you saying that the cause of transexuality has a “medical” origin
Farhan: we don’t really know yet. Some scientists argue that the presence of hormones in used water persist in nature could modify our fertility, orientation and sense of gender. You can find controversial papers on all this through Google. If you provide me with an E Mail address I can send you articles.
Tiwatts: SO to recap Baha'is don't beleive that being gay has a medical origin and they don't advise gay people to seek medical attention
Farhan: Baha’is say that science is in it’s infancy. I have seen nothing in the writings saying homosexuality is a disease and in fact even for doctors the definition and implications of a disease are not always easy. Being in a minority situation, whatever the reason, can entail medical and psychological problems that can be assisted by spiritual and medical help.
Barb wrote: I am convinced that the current Baha'i stance on homosexuality is simply wrong.
Barb, I totally agree with the harmony of science and religion and the importance of justice. I also agree that the stigma and prejudice involved are totally unacceptable. To come to practical terms, would you suggest liberalising gay relations outside marriage or instating a gay marriage for Baha'is?
I would join this religion…….this is the Faith I once knew..very sad..
I would have remained celebate if i knew that we were on equal footing with straights…I would have held out and have been proud to do so….
What do you beleive
do you beleive that homosexuality is ABNORMAL?
Timwatts, as I understand it, the Baha’i teachings speak very little about sin, evil and such concepts which are outdated pedagogical concepts for previous ages. The Baha’i teachings speak in terms of spiritual progress, acquiring of virtues and putting these virtues towards the service of mankind. The accent is not on what not to do, but on what we should gladly accomplish during our short lives in this world.
It is never too late to undertake this spiritual journey. What counts, is not what we appear to be compared to others, but what progress we have accomplished in compared with what God gave us. In the eyes of God, a person that others might consider as a sinner can be far more advanced than a prominent person who has not advanced from his initial starting point. No misgiving is too great, no shortcoming is insurmountable in the eyes of God.
Timwatts wrote: What do you beleive do you beleive that homosexuality is ABNORMAL?
Farhan: The question as I see it is not what is normal or abnormal. The question is what can I do which will be in the best interests of humanity, as an individual, and as a member of society. Christ’s life was not “normal”; it was by far in the best interests of humanity.
Timwatts wrote: What do you beleive do you beleive that homosexuality is ABNORMAL?
Farhan: The question as I see it is not what is normal or abnormal. The question is what can I do which will be in the best interests of humanity, as an individual, and as a member of society. Christ’s life was not “normal”; it was by far in the best interests of humanity.
It is my understanding that Baha'is are free to choose a life partner – prior to that choice, no one has any right to interference. Once the choice has been made, the parents, whether Baha'i or not, must give their permission to the union. When the requirement of permission has been met, the couple are free to marry each other – no one marries them; they marry each other, reciting a verse to abide by the will of God. Two Baha'i witnesses are required. Am I correct in my understanding?
As to the meaning of “abnormal” – it is, I believe, a reference to the deviation from a “norm.” Left-handedness is a deviation from the norm. Genius is a deviation from the norm. And so on, and so forth. In other words, there is no innate connotation of right or wrong in the proper use of this term – there is the “norm,” which constitutes the usual, the common, and there is the “abnorm” which is a deviation from the usual, and is the uncommon. If the “abnormal”, for example left-handed people, were to become more numerous in society than the “normal” (in this case, right-handed people), the “abnormal” would become the new “normal.”
This is my understanding.
This is an open-shut case. The Baha'i Faith, in its current interpretation, is deeply homophobic, just like every other conservative religious group.
Well said. Total and utter GroupThink. It would be terrifying if they ever actually got anywhere…
Here you again Farhan. Are you sure you aren't a Spin Doctor? How much longer are you going to try to make the Bahai writings (those from the UHJ and the secretaries of the UHJ and the Guardian) as not being against gay people. The Bahai community is not and never will be welcoming as long as we are treated as second class citizens. The Bahais consider homosexuality abnormal, evil, spiritually condemned, etc etc. (all words in the letters of the UHJ; so please stop with your spinning). And of all the garbage I have read from teh UHJ, the following has to be the worst. This came from a letter written to a mother who's son has come out to her and her husband has kicked that poor child out of the house for being gay. So what did the beloved 9 men on the hill advise to the woman? Did they resoundly tell her that she must bring that poor child back home and love him unconditionally? Did they tell her that her husband is wrong for what he had done? No, please read what they said: “Regarding your husband's refusal to permit your son to return home, it is understandable that a parent might feel deeply confused and angry when confronted with such questions which go to the very root of what it means to be a human being and what it means to educate and raise a child.” Spin that Farhan! A child is thrown out and homeless, or your beloved UHJ who is supposedly speaking on behalf of God is telling this woman that yep homosexuality goes against what it means to be a human being! Disgusting!!!
All Baha'is should be treated equally in regard to the requirements for marriage, leaving individuals free to choose their life partners, and understanding that it is a parental responsibility to accept or not accept the choice – no one else has a right to intervene, even in the most subtle way. Should people who are already married come into the faith, of course their marriage should be respected. Baha'is should always respect the institution of marriage, and strive to support in every way possible those who have chosen to marry.
This would be a step in the right direction.
I did not say harmony of science and religion – I said the agreement of religion with science. Otherwise we are left with superstition. As for abolishing stigma and prejudice, you cannot expect to do this when you label an adult, loving, committed relationship as spiritually unworthy. One cannot straddle the fence here – you must jump one way or another.
It is indeed my experience that Baha'is, many of them, are deeply homophobic, and the current interpretation encourages this. This is, however, open to change and improvement, as is any prejudice. This will require sustained, serious effort on the part of those who care to help the Baha'i Faith achieve its greatest potential. There is not much point, IMO, in just complaining about it. We must work, wherever and however we can, to eradicate this particular prejudice. A sense of humor, of course, is always helpful in nudging the human race along the path of spiritual growth.
Actually there is great point complaining about it when the Bahais who are homophobic happen to also be the 9 men leading this religion. They can't have their cake and eat it too as Farhan wants. If you are going to be a progressive community open to all of humanity, then you must allow some wiggle room- even if you don't fully support something. I'm not holding my breath that the UHJ will one day allow gay couples to say “we will all verily abide by the will of God”. That aint gonna happen. BUT, what I do hope is that they won't allow NSA's to do their witchhunt of getting rid of openly gay Bahais. I hope they turn the other way when more progressive LSA's allow gay couples to enter thier fold with their kids and maybe even let them have a commitment ceremony with the blessings of the local LSA members. Liberal Catholic congregations are doing this, so why not the Bahais? Oh I know why, because the authoritarian group-think mentality of the Adminstratie Order would never allow it! Maybe that's complaining on my part, but hey the world needs to know the truth of what it is like inside the Bahai community and administration.
You wrote:
“Then, after listening, if we feel so moved by conscience, as many of us do, (and yes, conscience is a God-given guide in making moral decisions), we must be willing to speak out, to speak our own understanding, as an essential part of consultation, whether formal or not, involving one other person or many, among Baha'is. We cannot shrink from the truth – we don't have to have a final answer or resolution – we just have to educate ourselves, and then speak the truth we know – things will progress from there.”
That, indeed, was what I thought the Baha'i Faith was: affirming the advancement and development of sacred individual human conscience. I honestly thought all these years that was what Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha taught. I thought that was what religion was all about. But now I see that was a mindset from Protestant Christianity that I innocently brought into the Faith from my background. I was WRONG!
That belief, sadly, is COMPLETE OLDTHINK in the Baha'i Faith of today. It is even quaint. In the NEWTHINK Baha'i Faith of today you do what you are told by the people elected to do all your thinking for you and all the thinking for the entire Baha'i community worldwide. You keep quiet or you will be investigated by an ABM or AABM if your are reported for thought crimes or any thoughts of individual conscience on any matter or issue. You do what you are told and you do not question or ask why or wherefore. You live in fear at all times that your unsanctioned and unapproved thought crimes will be discovered. The same old, same old in “organized” religion. People had genuinely hoped for something better than this. But what you wrote is beautiful and is still how I feel souls should live. But the individual is nothing now in the Baha'i Faith. If you have any individual thoughts or a (gasp) personal conscience still residing in you, you will have to recant for crimes against YEAR ONE or something. It is only sanctioned groupthink that is permitted.
What these guys say goes. What these guys say as their own personal interpretation to captive Baha'i audiences IS the Baha'i Faith. What the latest social theories of the members of the ITC discuss over lunch IS THE BAHA'I FAITH now. What these people have as their personal opinions is pure, sacred, Divine Revelation. People like PK and his lifetime incumbent brethren completely own the Baha'i faith as their own personal satrap. What they say is the standard. And what they say goes for everyone and no one has the right to as “why” or “wherefore”. Period.
“We have inherited a dangerous delusion from Christianity that our individual conscience is supreme. This is not a Baha'i belief. In the end, in the context of both our role in the community and our role in the greater world, we must be prepared to sacrifice our personal convictions or opinions. The belief that individual conscience is supreme is equivalent to 'taking partners with God' which is abhorrent to the Teachings of the Faith.”
- Douglas Martin
Former Member of the Universal House of Justice
Baha'i Faith
So it goes.
Barb, I agree with most of what you say. I see you implicitly ruling out gay relations, as non gay relations, outside wedlock. Love between all, whatever the gender, is the rule, but not expressed physically. Stigma and prejudice should be abolished and minorities should be protected. This is my purpose for introducing the comparison with left handedness. I remember a colleague who would get into a rage and throw the instruments on the floor because the scissors would not work, instead of buying scissors for left handed.
What you describe of the Baha’i marriage is the spiritual and essential part, what goes on between a person and God and would be valid for someone stranded on an isolated island. I understand the passage in Aqdas on « livat » translated as « sodomy » referring to homosexuality, whether male or female and not anal penetration. All this is our private deal with God, but Baha’is also interact with a community and need to abide by community laws.
The crux of the subject would then boil down to social norms and standards within each community and the minimum requirements of the particular community we wish to belong to.
What you say about norms is valid for blood pressure and body temperature, but norms also refer to a “golden standard” towards which we wish to advance. It is statistically “abnormal” to be well fed, have clean water and access to education on this planet, but the golden standard is to rise above all these limitations of nature and this can only be accomplished through a harmonized community effort. Our aim hence is not to be “normal” but to advance along the path of human endeavour.
If someone decides to improve his situation by doing a PhD, he doesn’t start asking I am allowed to skip early morning lectures and bring a cell phone, my MP3 and sandwiches to the conference room. His aim is to learn and he will try to see which books he has to buy and where he has to find references. As Abdu’l-Baha says, it is not sufficient to choose the right professor: we have to go to the university, enroll and advance in the path of knowledge and virtue.
We adhere to a religion to see how we can improve ourselves and the society we live in. This is why I consider discussions as to “norms” of what is acceptable and what is not in order to maintain an ID card as well below the true purpose of religion.
Peyamb wrote: Liberal Catholic congregations are doing this, so why not the Bahais?
Peyamb, from what we learn from Sonja, there is a move towards this in some communities. The LSA has much to say in such matters and can decide which activities are open to non enrolled people who have never been considered as second zone citizens, except perhaps by some bigots, but as the “community of interest”.
Pey, I would be very surprised if the UHJ or any other Baha'i institution approbated the idea of a child being thrown out of home for homosexuality, which is obviously against the rules of parenthood and the prescriptions of the UHJ against stigma and prejudice.
The minimal requirements for participating in administrative matters is an entirely different matter from our sacred duties towards others.
<<<<>>>>
Anyone know what this means?
<<<<If someone decides to improve his situation by doing a PhD, he doesn’t start asking I am allowed to skip early morning lectures and bring a cell phone, my MP3 and sandwiches to the conference room. >>>>>
So Here we see more clearly into Farhan's thinking….being a Baha'i is improving your education….trying to bend the rules for your own private confort is a kind of cheating….I take it from this that you think
being GAY something which is beyond our control and as a result of being gay wanting to have a relationship with someone you love is a kind of back sliding and anti-social behaviour…..
I would add to your analogy a little….. imagine the Phd student but theey can't get into the lecture room becasue they are in a wheel chair and as a result cannot manage the stairs…..the lecturer tells her …well with prayer and medical advice and effort grow new working legs….and then you will be welcome…..or put a ramp in…
The full letter can be seen here (#10): http://bahai-library.com/uhj/homosexuality.disc...
Yes, they commend the woman for being compassionate and trying to keep unity in the family. But WHERE are the strong words against the Father. There are so many other religions that would take a stronger stance and say the true immorality/evil is a Father who turns his back on his son because of this. We don't see that in the letter. The UHJ is actually trying to be compassionate and understanding towards the parents because that bad child did the horrible thing of telling his parents who he really is. DO you know Farhan how difficult it is to come out to one's parents? Most gay people fear the worse. And add on to that a disgusting letter like this one from the UHJ that tells the parents that it is “understandable” why that sick father would feel the way he does, makes the situation even worse. I am so glad I never came out to my fundie Bahai parents when I was a teenager. Back then I actually believed the crap that you all fed to me. Maybe back then I would have actually killed myself and been yet another pititful statistic inside the Bahai community. Of course none of you would give a them, because a dead gay Bahai is way better than one who is out, happy and telling the world the suffering that goes on inside the Bahai community at the hands of people like you and the AO. I just pray that that child being referred to in the letter did not end up hurting himself when he sees that he is being rejected by his Father and getting lukewarm acceptance by hi mother and the supposedly supreme institution speaking on behalf of Almighty God!
Considering me an outsider, a person in the “community of interest” is being discriminatory. I am Bahai with equal standing to YOU. Anything less is immoral and wrong and NOT the Bahai Faith. IT is obvious to all who have any sense of justice. No amount of spin can make it look better. If your LSA welcomes openly gay people who are committed to each other, then you are on the side of justice. If you set them aside into the “other” group, then you are discriminating against them. Period! Don't waste your time spinning with me. Maybe you'll fool some others here, but not me.
Timwatts wrote : they are in a wheel chair and as a result cannot manage the stairs…..
Farhan: are you saying that being gay is a handicap? I am saying that it is a minority situation that needs help, and that societies are not tuned to that duty as yet.
You might believe that the solution is to liberalise gay relations or make provisions for gay marriages, I believe that societies have a right to reflect and hesitate before making such a decision unprecedented in human history.
Timwatts: being a Baha'i is improving your education….trying to bend the rules for your own private confort is a kind of cheating….
Farhan: That is not my opinion. My belief is that when we accept a manifestation of God, which no one is obliged to do, we are accepting an ideal towards which we hope to evolve and we come together with others having the same goal; some have an easier time than others who as you say are handicapped.
We are supposed to help each other, as this is not a competition, but an effort for mutually raising our global capacities. Some people in Baha’i communities have not grasped this fact as yet and they bring about power issues. The handicap might come from our family background, addictions, health problems, or whatever. The handicapped person should be helped and has a greater merit, and is spiritually more advanced than a person without handicaps, but it is not a good idea to lower the standard for everyone.
Stigma and prejudice towards others is unacceptable and has to be corrected. I consider it as more grievous than not observing community rules, but this does not mean that each community does not have the right to establish it's own regulations within the limits of state laws.
Now we have to find how to help each other, including the socially handicapped bigoted puritans, into becoming better people.
Farhan,
You wrote: “I would be very surprised if the UHJ or any other Baha'i institution approbated the idea of a child being thrown out of home for homosexuality”
Daniel's voting rights were removed because he was married and the reason given by the NSA which I quoted in the blog above was because of 'same sex marriage' and his “support of homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle for Baha’is”.
Luckily Daniel's son is no longer a child, but surely if I follow your argumentation (which I agree with personally) that Bahais should try and use the Bahai principles to guide their actions. Then removing a Bahai from the membershi rolls because they married is going against the rules and prescriptions of supporting family life. While other Bahais have same sex partners in the same country and do not marry and are not punished. And worse, their children grow up understanding that in the eyes of the Bahai community their parents are not treated with the respect other couples are.
You state that losing one's voting rights is not a big deal, but it is the intent. The removal and the reason for removal that is extremely important.
One of the reasons, that obviously, something seems terribly wrong with removing Daniel's voting rights, is because the NSA's letter give his marriage as a reason. A NSA is punishing someone for making the life-long commitment of marriage!
Change is happening and actually change in attitudes towards Bahai communities accepting all people as equal members with equal responsibilities + rights will come. I do believe this and I do see change happening, but many Bahais then ignore the Bahai Writings or do as Farhan, make argumentation for rules in differing categories, etc. If you follow this argumentation, then the implication is that for gays it would be better not to declare themselves to join the Bahai community. The Bahai Teachings, surely, should be there for all. I do not think Baha'ullah would have intended that the rules for membership would mean, only some types of people.
What my goal is with this blog is to look and see if there is anything in the Bahai Writings that contradicts an equal acceptance of diverse sexual identities, because, surely, the Bahai Faith shouldn't require Bahais to live with double standards. One for their gay friends and one for their straight friends. It seems to me that Farhan is trying to do this (admirable, b.t.w.) because he sees that – I assume – the homophobic attitudes in the letters written by secretaries on behalf of Shoghi Effendi as part of the unchangeable Bahai Scripture. I don't, so I don't think there is a need for Bahais to create “if” and “but” clauses for the Bahai teachings in order to accept our LGBT brothers and sisters on equal terms.
That the UHJ seems to treat the letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, also doesn't mean that the UHJ is forever locked into the unchangeable. The UHJ is free to be flexible. Free to make law. Free to change its policies.
However, naturally, it will only make a policy or change one if it sees a need.
The practice of how our LGBT Bahais are treated by the Bahai administration is diverse. This is not in itself terrible if Bahais see this as something in transition. So, in some countries openly accepting gay marriage for example might endanger other Bahais or Bahais in other countries, but, to actively remove Bahais from the rolls because they marry is quite another matter.
Peyamb wrote: Considering me an outsider, a person in the “community of interest” is being discriminatory
Farhan: back to my PhD analogy, if someone finds it difficult to follow a PhD course because the requirements are inadapted to his choices, why not try something else? You ask a community to change it’s rules to suit you, when other communities offer precisely the rules you are requesting. Some 6 M people elect delegates who elect NSA members who elect 9 members so as to arbitrate on such matters. We cannot stigmatize such a community for its views and values as I see done here.
If I were not a Baha’i, as a doctor to a Baha’i patient, as any doctor unaware of the Baha’i Faith would do, I would say if this community does not suit you, find one that does and be happy. I would be scientifically interested to see the outcome of these social experiments.
As a Baha’i I am saying we need to improve our attitude towards gay people, but I believe that that the family structure prescribed by Baha’u’llah is in the best interests of humanity. I cannot, either as a Baha’i, or as a doctor, attempt to oblige a community to change it’s regulations on family structure to suit a minority.
This is my understanding today; it would evolve: no spin, no obfuscation, no lies.
Sonjavank: The removal and the reason for removal that is extremely important
Farhan: I agree; it is very important spiritually, perhaps as a means of informing the community of the importance of rules, but not comparable to a child being abandoned or rejected by his parents.
Sonjavank: A NSA is punishing someone for making the life-long commitment of marriage!
Farhan: they would be doing _exactly_ the same if the couple married without consent of parents or if a person got involved in politics. It is an educative action towards whatever might be a threat to the stability of the community and not specifically against gays. That individuals in the community might be homophobic or bigots, is another matter that equally needs attention in our immature communities.
I see a difference between breaking a rule and publicly announcing your disagreement with a rule. In the first case you are saying I accept the laws of this community, but i am unable to comply; in the second you are saying I disagree with the rules of this community.
Sonjavank: the implication is that for gays it would be better not to declare themselves to join the Bahai community
Farhan: a good point. Some youth even wait to have a stabilised life before declaring! My taking is that part of our spiritual education is accepting God’s will above our own. By avoiding this confrontation, we are like a patient running away from a necessary injection. We have difficult choices in our lives; it is by making the right choice that the stumbling block becomes a stepping stone. If we duck all the obstacles we will not progress spiritually, but again, only the one who wishes to undertake that spiritual journey upwards, away from his own will and nearer to that of God can accept such a sacrifice. There is no question of imposing it on others, but whatever the motives of the UHJ, I humbly accept their arbitration and any necessary reforms the decide necessary.
Meanwhile, we have a duty to reduce the stigma and prejudice in our societies and within our communities towards gays and one way of advancing is in asking our LSA which activities are officially open to them.
<<<<Farhan: are you saying that being gay is a handicap? I am saying that it is a minority situation that needs help, and that societies are not tuned to that duty as yet. >>>
OOOOH NO YOU DON'T ….nice try although being gay in the baha'i faith certainly is a handicap…..as you well know i was likening someone in a wheel chair to being gay in the sense that they are discriminated against through NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN……so please don't put words in my mouth….
Please note that I said “just” complaining about it – I did not say one should not complain, only that such complaint should be accompanied by some effort in changing the prejudice, such as speaking one's mind on this issue, which you do very well, may I say.
I would revise my statement to say that “some” Baha'is are deeply homophobic – my experience is not broad enough to say accurately that “many” Baha'is are deeply – and note I say deeply – homophobic. As for the nine men on the hill, I have no way of knowing what their deepest feelings are – I believe that they are supporting, as a body, what they feel it is their duty to support – beyond that I cannot say.
As for what is possible to achieve and what is not, I believe it is always good practice for our vision to exceed our reach – this is how we move forward. If you're going to reach, reach for the stars.
Tim, being left handed in a right handed world is a handicap, although nobody's fault. It is not being “sinistralophobic” to point it out. It was ofcourse a still much greater handicap some centuries ago when you might have been burnt at the stake. It so happens that lefthanded people are often smarter than others, so this compensates that
Here we go again, Farhan dominating the blog with screeds and screeds of tripe like a run down record. Give up people. There is no point even bothering to debate with him, although it does make Baquia's blog look really really active. Farhan was birthed by Peter Khan himself.
Baquia, you sure there isn't some hidden conspiracy where you are paying Farhan to do what he does ;P
Farhan,
Making provision for gay marriage is hardly unprecedented in human history – have you been paying attention to the world around you?
And “to reflect and hesitate” is often a euphemism for dragging one's feet while others do the hard, right thing. As in the abolition of slavery, as in giving women the vote, etc.
Societies do not reflect and hesitate – the individuals who make up those societies do, and what we do as individuals matters.
I do not wish to be rude, Farhan, but I must say that in general, I find your arguments in support of the Baha'i community's immoral behavior toward the gays in their midst, unconvincing in the extreme. This is, however, fine with me – when you start making convincing arguments in this regard, then I will begin to worry.
I think you were right the first time. The entire Baha'i culture is homophobic. What's more, this is not at all specific to the Baha'is. The same is true of ANY conservative religious group. They are all generally homophobic and misogynistic. These are essential elements of religious conservatism, irrespective of which creed or “messenger” is followed.
Rev. Michael Rinehart, Bishop of the Texas-Louisiana Gulf Coast Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) is in the process of burying his father-in-law. It is from that perspective that he discusses his thoughts on the recent vote to allow partnered gay clergy:
http://www.ktre.com/Global/story.asp?S=10989715
He writes: “Are you proposing a Bibliocracy?”
Are we proposing an Aqdasocracy? Or do we already have it?
Here is a truly insightful post from a Baha'i perspective:
http://hadleyives.blogspot.com/2009/01/what-doe...
He writes: “Possibly homosexuality is, as I’ve suggested, a 'good thing' for some people, and a 'bad thing' for others.”
Now there's a thought!
Oh, and I thought this remark by the Lutheran bishop, God bless him, really says it all, it really says absolutely everything that needs to be said about the heart of this issue, for Lutherans or Baha'is or anyone else:
“At the bottom of things, this conversation is about fear and manipulation, not sex.”
Yes, that's just what it's about! The debate over homo-sex is just a diversion, just a symptom of a deeper problem. Fear. Manipulation. A “literalism of scriptural words.” Authoritarianism.
Aqdasocracy!
I can't believe Baha'u'llah would want this. He wouldn't want people “revoked” or forbidden from Feast because they were “openly gay.” He wasn't stupid, he was far-sighted, broad-minded, with a great depth of judgment, he was open to the future, he wasn't some hard-hearted hard-line preacher or strict evangelist, he understood people, he knew how to make concessions for the greater good, he was flexible, not rigid.
I can only think that the UHJ has come to believe that the Faith will not win any more hearts, that it's basically gone as far as it can go, and so they've decided to consolidate their control so that their subordinates act according to their wishes, so that we have this precious elitist community of “okay” Baha'is (who serve in the kitchen! LOL) and the “not okay” Baha'is who just don't meet the “special specifications” (but that doesn't mean we have clergy! LOL). So it's very sad, and it's the death-knell for this “emerging global religion,” because, as Peter Khan says, “No time scale is given, but it may well be decades or indeed centuries,” so yes, the game can go on forever, the Faith gets smaller, but the tide will turn in only a few more centuries … keep donating!!!
Well, I plan to visit the local ELCA congregation on Sunday. Good luck to Sonja and dco and others, best wishes.
Thanks… AH… a big hug!
But who is to protect the individual who will be reported by anonymous sources, and is unable to defend themselves?
Barb
My experience has been the most Baha'is are homophobic, and most of them being the smiling quiet and unable or unwilling to speak out type. As in, “are you married?
“yes, I am, he is math teacher like myself”
“Really? Oh how nice!”
then next thing I know… wham…
Dearest Farhan… they look the other way for prominent Baha'is and their children… I have no name, the persecution my family gives me because I am a Baha'i is matched only the persecution of the Baha'is because I am gay.
Removal of rights IS a big deal.
“We now have a small cohort over some 25 years of gay parenthood studies behind us. We still don’t know how these kids from gay parents are going to cope with parenthood.”
This sentence is just disgusting. Especially from someone who claims to be educated (a medical doctor).
No matter. The world is ever evolving and as much as Farhan and others like him would want to tether us to such backward thinking, civilization moves forward. If you want to see the future, just go talk to a group of youth and ask them what they think of homosexuality and if it is an issue with them.
Every time I read something as pathetic and vile as these words above, I remind myself that such things were also written about the issue of slavery, women's rights and racial equality and many other issues – all under a similar guise of dialogue and scientific debate. But as we all know, such issues have been removed from contestation.
So my suggestion to you (and myself) would be to not get too upset by looking at such minutia but to cast your gaze to the horizon. The future is good and it is coming. Hopefully we'll be around to see it and be part of it.
Grover,
LoL – yes I pay Farhan to expose himself as a bigot and a fundamentalist without an iota of compassion or progressive thought. It is a pretty penny but worth it.
And Farhan we have decades of mixed marriages between religions, we still don't know how confused these poor children of Bahai/Christian will turn out. We have years of mixed race marriages, we still don't know how these poor kids are going to cope with raising their own children. etc etc With every post Farhan you show more and more of your ignorance- and you think you are teaching or defending the Faith? Oyy veyy! But to you dilemma… these kids will be GREAT parents who will raise more loving/tolerant children than any kids raised in some very dysfunctional hetero fortressess of well-being!
Farhan,
I know how at least three kids from gay parents are going to cope with parenthood. We just returned from a family reunion. Two of the children of my sister-in-law, who is lesbian and in a long-term relationship, were there with children of their own (her other three children were there as well – one engaged, the other two younger). One of those “kids” is soon to have a second child. Both these “kids of gay parents” are excellent parents to their children. And those children cannot be distinguished in any significant way from the children from “straight families” who were there. They are all healthy and happy, well developed children.
And it gets weirder, Farhan. My husband, who is gay (put that in your pipe and smoke it, Farhan – figure that out with your black and white theology), raised his son as a single parent, while actively gay, and he did an excellent job of parenting. His son is well adjusted, responsible, dependable, loving, sensitive and generous, has an excellent job. He is now a loving uncle to children of the family and of friends, and he is supremely qualified to be an excellent and loving parent when he and his wife have children.
You said sometime back, and I may paraphrase a little, “whatever helps us toward love and reconciliation is more precious….”. Yes, Farhan?
If you will forgive my observation, you try to fit life to your theories and theology, rather than observing life and using that observation to adjust your theories.
Wake up, Farhan. Please.
Don't spin this, Farhan – I don't want to hear it.
Barb
dco -
I see that my reply to you did not post here – I guess because I replied from my e-mail – I wasn't thinking.
My reply was meant to post for all to see, so feel free to share it if you like. I am minimally adept with technology – I sort of struggle along and do the best I can.
Barb
Lets see…
My son is 24, just returned from 8 months as a Fulbright/MTV scholar in Mali, and is going on to grad school. He graduated from the IB program here in high school, and the top of his class at UC Berkeley. His girlfriend, also a Haas Scholar, has a 4 yr old kid (a mistake her freshman year, her family supported her to succeed) is headed to a MFA program at UCLA. My son is a great step parent, and they come and visit our home frequently.
Interestingly enough, they are disgusted by the Baha'is. They ran into many at school and found them to use his discriptors “weird”, arrogant, insular, overwhelmingly Persian, conservative… and out of touch.
When I got my letter they all drove over from the Bay Area to hang with me that evening… if that is not family, I don't know what it is. They knew how much I love this Faith and even tho its not their path, they came to support me.
Interestingly enough, she filmed and produced the wedding video, and my son was our best man… he's perfectly OK with being around gay folks, and doesn't find it a problem. He knows what he is and enjoys diversity.
Interestingly my ex-wife (his birth mother) also is disgusted by the Baha'is. Never joined when we were married as found the nutty, weird… etc.
Gay parents tend to produce higher achiever kids, because if they are parents, its because they really want to be…
a true story…
when he was in high school, he had some buddies over to study… I brought in some snacks and sodas… when I left, one of his friends said, thinking I couldn't hear:
“I wish my parents were gay, your dads are cool!”
he said, ” its no difference, they are assholes just like yours”
M & I sat in the living room grinning…
Sorry, but we did something good…
Excellent, excellent! (big smile).
You have made me very happy this day, dco.
The more stories we hear, the better. Whether they are happy or sad stories, or even angry ones – does not matter. They teach us, and we need teaching.
And for what it's worth, others of us are disgusted by Baha'is as well; that is one reason we speak out. The other reason is that we love the Faith, and we do not believe this is how it was meant to be.
Barb
Agreed. Once more for clarity: the Baha'i Faith is a conservative religious group. All conservative religious groups are, almost by definition, homophobic, misogynistic, and narrow-minded. This is not complicated, people.
WHAT?! You mean your son's girlfriend, brought up by straight parents, had a child out of wedlock?! And your son, brought up by a gay dad, is supporting her? Wow, heterosexuals just should NOT bring up children in this world.
) Just kidding!
It would be wonderful if someone would take on the task of collecting the stories of gay Baha'is, whether currently members or not, and of sympathetic friends and family in relationship to the Faith. Has anyone already suggested this? Stories hold the power to bring about necessary change, because they affect us at an emotional level, beyond reason and logic. A story will stick in the mind, will poke and aggravate to thought, can inspire and give hope.
I have a very wee bit of experience – I spent many years reading manuscripts, copy-editing and proof-reading for Calyx Journal of Literature by Women in a volunteer capacity, while I earned my living as a medical transcriptionist. I certainly would be willing to help if needed, or even to take the task on myself if no one else would step forward.
Think of it – a collection of stories to encourage and nourish gay Baha'is, and to provoke reflection and self-examination in non-gay Baha'is. Would this not be useful and a joy to behold?
I wonder if Kalimat would consider publishing such a collection?
Anyone out there interested?
In my enthusiasm, I made a mistake – Calyx is a Journal of Art and Literature by Women…
I teach secondary school 11-16 and in a rough sorry challenging area and i have to say the vast majority of kids are fiercely defensive of their gay friends of which we have many….they won't allowed homophopia and are quick to challenge any that they see from the less “educated” kids…
Barb, that's a fantastic idea. I know Peyam has expressed a similar thought process in the past, in a different context. A lot of people have posted short statements, including extremely abbreviated personal stories on the peteition I created here: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/stop-bahai-ant...
It would be possible to put a call for stories out on YouTube in reply to this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Guidl-7oGn4&feat... and moderate the comments so it isn't a troll-fest, or just ask people to reply by private email to the users YouTube account who want to be involved. Creating it and managing it is beyond my current capacity, but I'd be happy to help you. There are also other forums online people are already tuned into where the word could get spread. Seeing it published would be great. GETTING it published would be tricky, but well worth it.
Good luck.
Thanks for all your lovely comments here.
yep…
Thanks Barb… You have made me very happy this day, too!
awesome… just awesome… lets do this!
Thanks, Amanda, for your encouraging remarks. My greatest handicap is a lack of technology expertise – I definitely would need help, were I to take on such a task. Certainly I am capable to learn and would be willing to take the time to learn necessary skills. Projects like this usually come out best if there is a network of support, I think. Diversity is a great tool, a necessary one.
So, I wait to see what response there is – are people willing to tell their stories (of course anonymity is possible, always)? Is anyone else willing to spearhead such a project? Or to commit to contributing skills and assistance or advice in some other way? Reading and assessment (huge task) and copy-editing and verification of details and story – I see only the very tip of the iceberg of such a project. But I am willing to begin – in fact I would relish it. And if someone else is willing to take on such a task, I relish helping as much as possible with it. I am retired, I have resources (limited), I have time, I have enthusiasm, and as I said, a modicum of experience with manuscript assessment and preparation. I am certain there must be other people better qualified than I am, however – let's hear from them.
I have signed your petition, by the way, and was so amazed and gratified to run across it.
Barb
Yes hetero's should give their kids to gays to bring up. i've got two sons on offer
Actually they are too useful so I'd prefer to keep them around.
Barb, I like your idea and I would suggest you try get some stories and write them down. I've some of Bahais who know are dead – and am not sure open I can be about them. But just think about collecting the stories first and worry about how you publish them later. You need the stories first and as you work on this, it'll become clearer. You probably need to garantee anonymity.
I can't help much because I have jobs and kids + half finished projects (including a book). I focus where I can on blogging.
Thanks, Sonjavank.
It has occurred to me as well that the most important thing, for whoever does this, is to just plunge in and call for the stories, and that a way forward will be seen as one goes along. I'm not worried about the publishing part. Perhaps it could even be done completely on line somehow. I don't know what I'm talking about in that regard – just an idea.
My own opinion is that it be done in such a way as to target two audiences – gay Baha'is or former gay Baha'is for a feeling of solidarity and encouragement, and the non-gay Baha'i community in general – to provoke thought, self-examination, and perhaps discussion.
As for help – I just realized I have a fantastic resource at my disposal (it's odd how an idea will drop into one's mind and then you only gradually realize the pieces already in place to help realize the idea). A young man who is the son of a Baha'i friend, and who is himself estranged I think from the Baha'i community, though friendly to Baha'is – I don't know if he has ever been a Baha'i himself – is a computer whiz. He is absolutely a genius with computers. I call him whenever I have any question or problem. I am reasonably certain he would be enthusiastic to help with any on-line mechanics of this project, and I would pay him, as I always do, so it would be employment for him. He could help and advise with absolutely anything I wanted to do, and could work closely with me. I think he could advise and help to some extent if someone else took this on, as well.
Anyway, for now I think I will wait a couple weeks or so and see what develops in terms of response – perhaps that more capable person will materialize and take the lead, and I and others can offer help.
I would not want people to be put off by my statement about checking details and verifying stories – I certainly don't think anyone should be prying into people's lives. I'm just thinking that there has to be a way to be reasonably certain the stories are authentic – Amanda offered a little advice in this regard. Perhaps we just have to trust each other. I agree that anonymity would absolutely have to be guaranteed for those requesting that, and any confidentiality would have to be scrupulously respected.
My husband, by the way, is already enthusiastic about this idea – always good to have support at home.
Thanks for your kind words and advice.
Barb
count me in… Daniel
again, glad to help
Daniel Orey
http://revolked2.blogspot.com/
I think the quote below says enough for me. Since I've been getting to know some gay and lesbian individuals, one thing has become abundantly clear to me: These people are amazing, wonderful and beautiful people. Many of them are people I want my daughter to know as a roll model as she grows up. If I hadn't made an intentional effort, I wouldn't know this for myself and I'd probably still be in a state of questioning how I feel about the subject. I think the next generation will make great strides in clearing the way for true equality and equal rights in our world. I grew up in a world where “Homo” and “Fag” were derogatory words used to belittle someone in the worst way possible. My fathers generation didn't think about it much, because it wasn't so common for people to be open, but the next generation is seeing things in a very different light. Why? I think they are seeing with their own eyes, and not with the eyes of someone else who's told them that homosexuality is wrong or evil.
O SON OF SPIRIT!
The best beloved of all things in My sight is Justice; turn not away therefrom if thou desirest Me, and neglect it not that I may confide in thee. By its aid thou shalt see with thine own eyes and not through the eyes of others, and shalt know of thine own knowledge and not through the knowledge of thy neighbor. Ponder this in thy heart; how it behooveth thee to be. Verily justice is My gift to thee and the sign of My loving-kindness. Set it then before thine eyes.
I just found this on JMG: It is an interview of Friendly Voices – Linda Ronstadt
“I had moved back to Tucson with my kids because I just thought it was quieter, and my family was there. But Tucson has turned out to be a very conservative place, and I didn’t want my kids coming home from school saying things like ‘That’s so gay.’ So we moved back to San Francisco, and I sent my kids to a school that actively taught that homophobic remarks are just… not OK, and my kids’ attitudes have changed as a result of it.
“Look, my kids are going to be able to form their own ideas, but at least I wanted them to be able to question things. My son is super pro-gay rights, and even though he has a girlfriend, I wanted him to know that as he emerged sexually, he’d be able to do whatever he wanted to do. You know, that it’s not something you have a choice over.” – Pop and country music legend Linda Ronstadt, talking to Planet Out. It's a great interview.
I posted it at: http://revolked2.blogspot.com/
Thanks Eric…
This reminds me of the quotes that we used at our wedding, since I am from California and M is from Brasil, it seemed right:
4. O FILHO DA JUSTIÇA
Para onde pode ir o apaixonado senão à terra de seu bem-amado? E qual apaixonado poderá ficar tranqüilo longe do desejo de seu coração? Para quem ama verdadeiramente, a união é a vida e a separação é a morte. O seu peito está vazio de paciência e o seu coração está privado de paz. Incontáveis vidas ele renunciará a fim de se apressar para onde se encontra o seu bem-amado.
4. O SON OF JUSTICE!
Whither can a lover go but to the land of his beloved? And what seeker findeth rest away from his heart's desire? To the true lover reunion is life, and separation is death. His breast is void of patience and his heart hath no peace. A myriad lives he would forsake to hasten to the abode of his beloved.
Daniel Orey
Indeed. Very fine post. It is all about Cosmic Divine Justice in all things now. And one aspect of Cosmic Divine Justice is a Cosmic Courtesy Flush on lifetime incumbents in ANY organization on Earth now whether it be religious, political, or economic where people are never held personally accountable for anything. All Groupthink is now off. The Fierce Cosmic Wrath of Divine Justice has come. It is not going to be pretty and the leadership of both Wall street and the Baha'i Faith had better start paying attention. There are many similarities. Entrenched arrogance will not wear well in the days that are coming.
AMEN BROTHER! THAT is my favorite quote from Baha'u'llah. It sums up to me everyting that He that His religion is about- JUSTICE! Not the nitpicky letters written on behalf of someone or some institution to some individual believer by some secretary. When the Bahai community turns its back on justice, then it is no different from the myriad little cults and religious groups out there making absolutely no positive difference in the world.
farhan – please find a psychiatrist. this blog is not a good place to seek help for your mental health problems.
—
thanks for another example of backward thinking and distortion.
backward religious ideas and rules (such as found in bahai) are unnecessary for “spiritual” transformation.
backward religious ideas and rules (such as found in bahai) are unnecessary for social progress.
you yourself are a perfect example of how backward religious ideas/memes inevitably lead to retardation of spiritual development and a lack of social progress.
you defend bahai because you have been socially programmed to believe in absolutisms.
in any society where the “center of gravity” shifts toward postmodernism, absolutisms (e.g., many/most bahai beliefs) are seen as backward.
further, bahai adds little/nothing to the discussion of what is wrong with postmodernism, or solutions.
farhan wrote:
“My taking is that part of our spiritual education is accepting God’s will above our own. … If we duck all the obstacles we will not progress spiritually, but again, only the one who wishes to undertake that spiritual journey upwards, away from his own will and nearer to that of God can accept such a sacrifice. “
The Gay Baha'i Story Project is going to happen, folks – one way or another. If I take this on (I think I already have) as opposed to someone else, there will be a call for stories relatively soon – sometime after the two weeks are up. I will be traveling for much of the month of October and first week in November so will be mid-November before I can give my complete attention to this, but I will be thinking and working on it some during my travel. Any of you who are interested, please begin to think about your stories related to the gay experience in the Baha'i Faith. Please pass the word to anyone you know who might be interested in offering a story. This includes non-Baha'i friends and family who are sympathetic. I do not know for sure in what way or in what form stories will be requested. There are many details to work out already. I will begin to get advice and investigate how to go about this.
My greatest thanks to those who have already offered comments and stories – this is so heartwarming – I felt a little weepy last night (happy weepy) and could not sleep at first – my head was swimming with the possibilities.
You all are the greatest resource – if you give me stories, I will hold them sacred, and the path will unfold.
Barb
Thank you, Eric, for a heartwarming and insightful comment. How wonderful that you made that intentional effort – I hope others will be inspired to do the same.
Barb
great! this should be good! When you get a chance, tell us how you want the stories… posted here first or sent to you and how…
all my very best!
Daniel Orey
If in this revelation God has allowed things that were previously forbidden like the eating of pock for example then I would like to explore the reason for this….the prohibition was liften because eating pork is no longer presents a health issue (in the richer countires at least) God has allowed us to enjoy the fruits of this world and indeed has provided them for the use of man…..If yolu think gay relationships are now harmful you will have to demonstrate that they are by citing some examples….you say elswhere that it undemines the family and marriage..again you have to provide evidence for this….I am sure in myself that neither Baha'u'llah nor God wants me to be unhappy in this life so what the “ahibah” are doing to their gay brothers and sisters is deeply shameful and I beleive they will have to answer to their maker so you ought to be helping them overcome their views….
slight revision – Gay/Lesbian Baha'i Story Project – I have thought of the term “gay” as inclusive of both women and men, but my husband reminds me that some lesbians do not want to be considered under the umbrella term of “gay.”
Such comment/criticism is welcome – if I am the one to do this, the only way I will make it through is if you all help and comment and give your opinions.
This is, of course, a working title – who knows what we will end up with – will depend on the material that comes in.
Barb
Will do. And if you have an opinion as to the best way to go about this, please offer it.
Thanks.
Barb
lgbt or glbt works for most of us
I am gay, she's a lesbian… etc
I can't imagine a Bahai Faith without Bahaullah and AbdulBaha or a world without gay folks. But I can imagine a Bahai Faith where the Guardianship is quietly, respectfully retired, where we can enjoy the gardens and buildings and thank him for that and never once thinking of excommunication. Real Bahais would never do that, even to a Guardian.
Well said.
Farhan,
Again, your views are absolutist. They lead to corruption, ignorance and backwardness. They only appeal to those that are at a low level of development, and thus need the “comfort” of narrow-minded absolutist values.
You logic is twisted, and is unsatisfactory to people that want real solutions to social justice problems.
The bahai election system, as has been explained in detail on this blog previously, is manipulated by the bahai leadership elites to maintain the status quo, and structurally flawed.
The real problem of the world is that postmodern culture has “deconstructed” societies, and people are sitting in a pile of (memetic) rubble trying to figure out what it all means.
Backward religions like bahai were incapable of resisting being deconstructed, and thus, have no basis for authenticity – from the perspective of those that are trying to find “answers” to the existential problems of postmodern culture.
bahai = cultural imperialism.
bahai = absolutism.
Until bahai theologians discover a basis for the existential problems faced by human beings at the leading edge of cultural evolution, and have it accepted by the leadership elites, bahai will remain a tradition-bound, oppressive project.
In the last 25 years, the theological innovators in the bahai community have been viciously attacked and marginalized.
your pathetic utopian apologetics, which ignore people's real problems, are inadequate.
robots?
western religion, of the patriarchal variety, is deeply flawed by a basic problem: it is premised on a “middle man scam”.
the scam “assumes” that priests/prophets are needed for “common man” to experience the divine.
(Buddhism and Yogic “religion” largely avoids this problem.)
Priest classes became necessary when people started irrigation farming 5000+ years ago, and needed a social mechanism to make people OBEY the “daddy” figure, and follow rules about sharing the precious water.
By elevating the “daddy” archetype to something called “god”, the priests could get more people to conform to the water rules, and a bunch of other rules that arose as cities grew, leisure and literacy became the sign of the “refined” classes, etc.
Slavery was invented. “Obeying” and “submitting” were elevated to a “spiritual” status so that the slaves would be reticent to violate social standards that they had been brainwashed into thinking were somehow connected to the progress of their “soul” in this world and/or the next.
“Submission” was simply an idea meant to stop slave revolts. There is nothing “spiritual” about it. Other shamanistic (“descender”) religions had developed perfectly good spiritual technologies/practices for stripping away illusions and ego long before the “submission” thing was invented.
So much for ethics, laws, theology: they all participated in the formation of absolutist empire building projects (which to be fair, did lead, slowly, to advances in civilization that are produced by increasingly wealthy, complex societies that have “beat” their tribal competitors).
People were having “spiritual” and “transcendent” (mystic, etc.) experiences LONG LONG before “religion” (irrigation laws) ever existed.
No “religion” is needed for “spiritual transformation”.
No “middle man scam” is needed.
No “slave” mentality is needed (since industrial machines were invented by MODERN CAPITALISTS WHO BELIEVED IN “REAL” DEMOCRACY).
No “prophets” or “priests” or “bahai administators” (spiritual “middle men”) are needed for human beings to access the spiritual energy that exists in everything from human DNA to the far reaches of the first star dust blown out from the big bang at the beginning of the universe.
“Progressive revelation” is very very very bad science, and is inferior to developmental theory as an explanation of either history, or consciousness.
Bahai theology very badly explains evolution.
if they were sayings anything that made sense, it would not matter.
the probem is that what they say is appalling, stupid and backward.
an intelligent religion would get rid of such dunce leaders ASAP to minimize the many and various kinds of damage caused them by saying stupid things.
farhan,
God recently told me to tell you that in order for you to be “spiritually clean”, you have to spend all your time licking your anus free of detritus.
(instead of posting stupid comments on the internet.)
YOU MUST OBEY.
Barb: I lke “The Lesbian | Gay Baha'i Story Project” as a title
and suggest that you make it as a blog.
I can help with the practicalities of this if you need it. Certainly with design (one of my jobs).
I'd suggest you make it a blog with comments turns off, so it functions like a website, but one you can keep adding new stores to – and can keep refining it. I suggest you turn comments off, so that the focus remains on the stories and keep the whole atmosphere as one of celebration (outing). By celebration, I don't mean that sad stories are ignored, of course not, but I what I suggest is that it is a place for gay presence in the Bahai community (and that's a celebration
)
Perhaps refer people to on Bahairants to a blog made at the time of the first story, that announces and relates specifically to this topic. I'm happy to write such a blog if B doesn't beat me to it. That way the discussion can still go on, and you don't get flooded in comments which might be hard to keep up with – when it is finding and presenting the stories that is important. I can suggest some individuals with stories. You need to give me your email (mine is on my design page).
It depends on your resourses and goals as to whether you would make it a website, and / or if you use something like wordpress or blogspot.
Personally I use a website on my own space for anything I consider important because I have full control over this, however using something like wordpress is much cheaper and most likely easier when it comes to management of the location. You can also have full control such as B would have, where s/he uses a wordpress template but hosts it on her/his own space.
lovely initiative, go for it!
All religions are inherently divisive. Baha'i's confidently speak about their progressiveness, but it is a sales ploy. Much of the Baha'i faith that is rooted in obsolete ideas, and I Baha'i's are not allowed to question the tenets of the ethos (I've seen Baha'i's question the writings in a group of people, and the response is one of immense surprise and negativity).
Baha'i's really think they will have a world religion, even though all other religions have failed to do this except by force, and even then, competing religions are practiced in secret. Your machine will never force itself on all people. To think universal government and eternal peace are attainable is to ignore that we are humans. People are selfish by their very nature, and this will inevitably lead to war. To say “homosexuality is not acceptable” suggests there will be those outside of your perfect religion, as there have always been homosexuals and there always will be, unless you exterminate them as they pop out, I suppose (“Arbeit macht frei!”). I can see some Persian Baha'i, like a Grand Wizard of the KKK, “Don't want 'em. Doesn't mean we don't like them, just means we don't want'em. We can round them up, send them all to Brazil and build a fence around it. It's a beautiful place, they LOVE it there.”
Along with women, alcohol, and whatever else, your savior has decided that homosexuality is evil. Your PR geniuses love to say that homosexuality is a “distortion of spirit” or “a condition to which a person should not be reconciled,” but you are as dogmatic as any other religions.
There are other, more fulfilling ways to accept life than finding some obscure religion and saying, “Oh, this one is right.” I know it is hip and cool to be a Baha'i since so many Baha'i's are extremely wealthy and educated, but the question of the ages is how these people become (or remain) Baha'i's (or any other religion). You guys are SO GOOD at twisting and redefining word at will to combat any criticism, and I am sure you will have a very kind, modest, rational response to mine. My experience with Baha'i's is that they are convinc