Baha’i Rants

Having watched the stunning rendition of Hallelujah! by k.d. lang at the Olympics, and reflecting on how great it is to have an out lesbian performer so honored, and so embraced by the audience, I was reminded of a funny story I read recently, in the book Out of the Past - Gay and Lesbian History from 1869 to the Present, by Neil Miller.

The story is from the section "The Age of McCarthy," when hysteria reigned in the U.S. regarding homosexuality, and gay witch-hunts were conducted by the government.:

"Panic about homosexuals in high places spread north to Canada, where the new 1952 immigration act explicitly barred homosexuals from entering the country. At the same time, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (the Mounties) established a special investigative unit called A-3 that concentrated exclusively on identifying and rooting out homosexuals in government jobs. Like their American counterparts, the A-3 investigators watched gay bars and public parks; they also recruited informers among gay men. The force soon had a list of 3,000 names, according to Canadian journalist John Sawatsky who investigated the Mounties' Security Service for his book, Men in the Shadows.

In one bizarre incident, Sawatsky writes, the A-3 unit attempted to plot groupings and gathering places of homosexuals on a map of the Canadian capital of Ottawa. Every area of the city with a concentration of homosexuals was identified and marked with a red dot. Soon, the map contained so many colored dots that it became an indecipherable mass of red ink. The investigators purchased another map - the largest one available. It, too, became a one {sic} great red smudge. Finally, a Mountie approached the Department of National Defence with a request that it fly over the city with high-resolution cameras in order to produce an even larger map. The Defence Department refused - it was experiencing a financial crunch at the time. At that point, the mapping of Ottawa's homosexuals came to an end."

Out of the Past is a great book - a highly entertaining and informative read.

Barb

Re EU and LGBT Rights:

http://revolked2.blogspot.com/2010/02/from-jmg-...

Thank you, Sen, for taking the time to make such a detailed reply to my questions. It is most helpful to me! Bless you for all that you do for all of us in helping to understand various questions.

Barb

Indeed thank you, this is really very helpful

You're welcome. My apologies to all readers that it appeared twice, as I fumbled with the Disqus interfaces. As for the far future, who know? But there is room now for Bahai communities to welcome same-sex couples whose marriages are leaglly recognised into the community. This would hardly cause a scandal in the societies where the state allows homosexuals to marry.

I have one more example of a letter written from a secretary which is no longer regarded as binding. In 1947 the principle was:

"The feasts are really for the believers only, but if a non-Bahá'í happens to come, we should not ask him to leave and hurt the person's feelings" (The Light of Divine Guidance v II, p. 57)


in 1954 it is tighter:

"The beloved Guardian has instructed me to write you concerning an action recently taken by your National Assembly, ... that non-Bahá'ís may attend 19-Day Feasts if "the earnestness of their interest in the Faith" is vouched for by a declared believer.  

The Guardian wishes me to direct your attention to the fact that none of the institutions of the Faith nor its cardinal principles may be changed under any circumstances.

The 19-Day Feast is an institution of the Cause, first established by the Báb, later confirmed by Bahá'u'lláh, and now made a prominent part of the administrative order of the Faith. These 19-Day Feasts are for the Bahá'ís, and the Bahá'ís exclusively, and no variation from this principle is permitted." (Shoghi Effendi, The Light of Divine Guidance v I, p. 211)

That led to the compromise of not holding the administrative part of the Feast when non-Bahais were present. This compromise is outlined in the first part of a letter from the UHJ dated 17 May 2009:

"... unanticipated visitors, who were by and large infrequent in the past, have been welcome to join the devotional and social portions of the Feast, but either they were asked to absent themselves during the administrative portion or that segment of the programme would be eliminated entirely.
Now, ... The House of Justice has decided that, in such instances, rather than eliminating the administrative portion completely or asking the visitors to withdraw, those conducting the programme can modify this part of the Feast to accommodate the guests. The sharing of local and national news and information about social events, as well as consultation on topics of general interest, such as the teaching work, service projects, the Fund, and so on, can take place as usual, while discussion of sensitive or problematic issues related to these or other topics can be set aside for another time ...
A similar approach to the administrative portion may be adopted when the Feast is celebrated in the home of a family with some members who are not Bahá’ís."

I can remember a time when such an adaption would have been unthinkable, in light of the 1954 letter. The "software programme" of the Bahai Faith has a good deal of flexibility and options; its operators are often unaware of the options available, fearful of doing something wrong, or unwilling to adapt to changes in the world that -- from their own socio-political agenda -- appear to them to be degeneration rather than progress. The process of change is bound to be slow and frustrating, but I don't believe it is impossible

Sen

In addition to welcoming an individual (or couple) legally married to a person of the same sex, into Baha'i membership, I think the Baha'i community has the following scenario to look forward to, in the not far distant future:

In some local Baha'i community where same-sex marriage is legal, the LSA will be approached by a same-sex couple, at least one of whom is a Baha'i, who wish to marry. This couple will have fulfilled all the requirements of Baha'i marriage, including obtaining the permission of parents, at least some of whom may be Baha'is. The LSA will make a decision to quietly witness the marriage of this couple, with no trumpet or fanfare, and issue them a Baha'i marriage certificate. Then their NSA, and the UHJ will have to decide how to handle this event, and whether or not to sanction everyone involved - LSA members, parents or participants who are Baha'is. This is a prediction - the future will reveal its accuracy.

The LSA is not required to witness a Bahai marriage: any two witnesses suffice, and the witnesses do not need to be Bahais. The other requirements are legal recognition, and permission from living parents (with certain possible exemptions). The question the LSA will face is whether to sanction a Bahai for getting married. If voting rights are removed, the person is normally informed of what he/she would have to do to get them back. Would an LSA or NSA be willing to put it in black and white, 'you have to get divorced' ?

It'll be interesting, and I expect it will happen several times with varying outcomes before things settle down

Hi again Sen -

I have searched Ocean admittedly very superficially, but I found quickly at least one letter from the UHJ in 1985 which stated that the Assembly involved had to ascertain the permission of parents, approve of the witnesses, and issue the marriage certificate. It is also apparent from other references that they are responsible for ensuring that all civil and Baha'i legal requirements are met. Perhaps there is something more recent which contravenes this?

I suppose the question would be, what are the Baha'i legal requirements? In my hypothetical situation, the Assembly would be deciding that one of those requirements was not that one person be male, the other female, if same-sex marriage were legal in their jurisdiction.

Barb

You're right Barb, I found the 1985 letter too. ""... The couple themselves perform the ceremony by each saying, in the presence of at least two witnesses, the prescribed verse 'we will all, verily, abide by the Will of God.' This ceremony is performed under the authority of a Spiritual Assembly which has the responsibility for ensuring that the various requirements of Bahá'í Law, such as obtaining the consent of the parents, are met, to whom the witnesses must be acceptable, and which issues the marriage certificate."

That is presumably the current policy. It's not specified by Abdu'l-baha or Baha'u'llah, for the obvious reason that most Bahais lived in places without Spiritual Assemblies. So they don't even give the Assembly jurisdiction over marriages, as far as I know. I've been searching to see if Shoghi Effendi said the two witnesses had to be approved by an assembly: so far I haven't found anything.

I assume this policy would apply in any country where there is a functioning administration. Clearly the Bahais in Iran cannot get their witnesses approved by an Assembly, nor those in several other countries where there are no Bahai Assemblies.

Thank you for this clarification, Sen. My understanding was that a LSA had to approve the two witnesses, whether they were LSA members (or Baha'is) or not, and that the LSA had to obtain the necessary paperwork to prepare the Baha'i marriage certificate (or appoint someone to do so), so that they were necessarily involved in some way. Do you mean that a couple could have a Baha'i marriage without any action or approval at all from the LSA, so that the LSA could say they were in no way culpable? An LSA does not have to verify the parents' permission?

This was certainly not the case with my Baha'i marriage, but perhaps they were just doing the customary things, without being required to do so?

This is most interesting, if this is the case, and casts quite a different light on the picture.

Barb

What is currently done with a straight couple (Bahais) who get a non-Bahai marriage ceremony? Let's say they marry against the parent's wishes. How will the couple be given back their voting rights? Would they need to divorce? Or a time has to pass and they say they are sorry, and the LSA accepts their apology. I'm curious about that. I'm sure this situation has happened in the past with straight Bahais.

ADDENDUM: its accuracy, or lack thereof, I meant to say.

Excellent! Thank you very much, Sen.

Barb

I have to say that I don't think it matters whether Shoghi Effendi penned the letters regarding homosexuality himself or not. It was undoubtedly his understanding that the sexual expression of same-sex love was not desirable or approved by Baha'u'llah. It would be surprising and somewhat amazing if he thought otherwise, considering the time in which he lived and functioned as Guardian, and the cultural background which so heavily influenced not only Iran, but much of the civilized world during his lifetime. He was obviously sympathetic toward those experiencing same-sex love - "No matter how fine the love..." , and "to say it is ideal..." - this is not the voice of a rabid homophobic. I have often thought that his concerns about his own sexual orientation must have influenced to at least a degree, his expression on this subject, and perhaps that has something to do with why he never apparently wrote himself definitively, rather delegated this task to his secretaries. That is just supposition on my part, but certainly his own concerns about his orientation must have affected how he dealt with this subject.

Now, having said that I think what was said on behalf of the Guardian was probably indeed what he thought at the time, I will say - so what? Do we think the Guardian could not possibly have made a mistake, considering his background and the time during which he lived? Would he have had any concept of the possibility of a loving, committed relationship, a monogamous sexual relationship, between men or between women, of gay marriage? When you read the scholarship of gay/lesbian historians relating to the time during which he lived, it is remarkable that he spoke as sympathetically as he did regarding homosexuality.

Which leads me to the real problem (I think). We are talking as if the Guardian and the UHJ were/are oracles, in the sense of being a person or persons through whom a deity speaks, rather than seeing them as ordinary people who were/are doing their best to do their job, and who are not perfect, and who may make mistakes.

As someone else has said here a while back - if the UHJ is incapable of making any mistakes, why have elections every five years? I mean, why mess with a sure thing? Baha'is are guilty of a dangerous kind of magical thinking in regard to Baha'i leadership. I have heard Baha'is in responsible positions within the faith say the equivalent of "if the UHJ tells me to jump off a cliff as if I were a lemming - I will do it! Instantly! Unhesitatingly! He who hesitates is lost!" Is this really what the wise Baha'u'llah intended for us? I remember Ruhiyyah Khanum saying in one of her writings - I think it was The Priceless Pearl, that the Baha'is were so silly (I am paraphrasing here) in regard to the Guardian. They thought as if it were just a magical thing - he just knew the right thing to do, always! And then she told how the Guardian agonized over decisions, as any of us would do - have we done the right thing, etc., and how this responsibility burdened his heart.

The fact that were the Guardian to have been alive when the UHJ was formed, he would have from time to time been expected to rein them in a bit, if he felt they were getting far afield, and that they in turn had the right to consider his intervention and reject his opinion - all this means that neither entity - neither the Guardian nor the UHJ - were perfect automatons, simply opening their mouths and letting the words of God pour out, without a thought in their heads. They were meant to be checks against one another.

We have been given a system of governing (the Baha'is) by groups of people elected by ourselves, and if things go seriously awry, we have a system of self-correction through the election every five years of a new UHJ, and every year of a new LSA and NSA. As I have said before, I think this system is being warped a bit, in that UHJ members seem to be coming more and more exclusively from a body appointed by the UHJ - hardly a system of self-correction. And in some cases votes cast by Baha'is can be overruled, as in the election of some regional councils. And there is apparently an effort to keep Baha'i homosexuals from any office of great responsibility in the Faith, even though they have been present in the very highest positions in the past.

It seems to be a human tendency for us to want something magical - an edict from on high that makes our difficult decisions for us, so that we are absolved of that very human responsibility. It is a tendency in the same league as the one that causes us from time to time to do great harm in the form of mobs. It seems to me that Baha'is are all too willing to sit and wait for edicts from on high, unerring guidance, so that they don't have to think too hard or feel responsible for their own decisions.

We think that the principle of agreement of religion with science will keep us from superstition - yet when it comes to the subject of homosexuality, the principle doesn't seem to be doing its job. We pride ourselves on our promotion of unity in diversity - except that one kind of diversity is not valued, no matter that it is represented by good, intelligent, gifted people doing good in the world, people the Baha'is are, or would be, lucky to have in their midst.

The Baha'i system will fail if we do not recognize that it requires of each and every Baha'i constant vigilance, use of our God-given intelligence, and the responsibility of making decisions rather than just waiting for someone to tell us what to do, or not do. I have had it "up to here" with the credulity and gullibility of many Baha'is, and with their lack of interest in and knowledge about the world in which they live, unless it is Baha'i teaching, or sanctioned in some way by Baha'i authorities. Baha'is need to educate themselves about, among other things, gay and lesbian history. They need to acquaint themselves with gays and lesbians. They need to reason their position out for themselves, based on facts and experience, not dogma. The Baha'i system, though it may survive (as I am sure it will) will fail in that it will fall far, far short of the vision of Baha'u'llah, if we do not do this.

I also do think, as Peyamb has said, that if the UHJ ever develops the will to change the Baha'i position regarding homosexuality, they will do so. However, we must recognize our own necessary role in promoting the development of that will - we can't just passively wait and hope for it to happen.

Barb

Barb I undestand what you are saying. And I don't believe the scenario you describe is what Bahaullah intended. But at the same time there are very strict/clear words from Abdul-Baha stating that we must be obedient to whatever Shoghi Effendi interprets. This we can not water down or brush aside. That is why I say 'IF' Abdul-Baha or Shoghi Effendi in their own words stated that Bahaullah meant A when he said B, then I will accept it. Either accept it and try to work with it inside the community, or just say "f" this and move on. We have the freedom to do that. But to argue that I don't really need to accept their interpretations while remaining a Bahai, just doesn't make sense to me. But again, I don't see those letters not penned by Shoghi Effendi the same way that you do. There are many hadiths in Islam that some Muslims believe came direct from the Prophet's mouth. They are equal to whatever was recorded in the Quran according to these people. But there are many other Muslims (and all Bahais) who believe that these Hadiths have no real weight. These letters penned by secretaries, in their own words, usually as responses to individual Bahais are not to me (or Sonja or many others) the actual words of SE interpreting A to mean B. What SE may have thought, felt, etc is all speculation on your part. You might be right, you might be wrong. But what is not speculation is a direct announcement by SE himself to the Bahai World that homosexuality is not to be openly allowed in the Bahai community. That I have not seen. Actually all I have seen is a long letter from the UHJ a few years back explaining the position of the Faith on homosexuality- which is something that can be changed with a new UHJ some day.

Thank you, Peyamb. Your words, and those of Sen and Sonja, are helping me to understand this concept of hadith better. I think that the opinion of Shoghi Effendi, at the times these letters were penned on his behalf (in the 1950s), was most likely accurately expressed in the letters (that Baha'u'llah had forbidden homosexuality). However, I also think that if the mind/spirit of Shoghi Effendi were to speak with us today, his opinion might very well be different as far as defining exactly what is meant by homosexuality, what it is that is forbidden. He would be, as he always was, very aware of what is happening in the world. He would be aware that many states and countries are now recognizing the right of gay folks to have a legally sanctioned union that would protect both parties to the union (resulting in "protected sex," as opposed to unprotected.) This is a subject altogether different from advocating promiscuous, "unprotected" sex for either heterosexuals or homosexuals. I don't know what Shoghi Effendi would say, were he speaking to us today on this subject, but I am reasonably certain that he would surprise the Baha'is, as he so often did when they thought they knew his thinking on a subject.

Were I an individual receiving one of those letters, in answer to my question at that time, I would have had to abide by that understanding, unless I had some guidance otherwise from Shoghi Effendi himself, directly, or unless I left the Faith. There would not have been any question of the possibility of gay marriage, of "protected sex" for homosexuals. It would have been a choice of "protected sex" in the form of a heterosexual marriage, or of "unprotected sex" in the form of a union of some kind with another person that did not constitute marriage. Of course I agree we cannot just go off willy-nilly and do whatever we want, regardless of what a legitimate Baha'i authority with the right to interpret says. However, then was then, and now is now. I do not at all think that a letter that Shoghi Effendi might have approved then, in any way defines what he might have to say on the matter now, given the evolution of thinking in much of the world regarding homosexuality and the rights of gays and lesbians, and the legalization of gay marriage in many places, and the quandary this poses for Baha'i communities when someone who is legally married to a person of the same sex wishes to become a Baha'i. This is not a hypothetical far-fetched question, but a situation that could come about at any time, or perhaps already has - I do not know.

The Universal House of Justice apparently presently looks at these letters on behalf of Shoghi Effendi as authoritative, since they quote at least one of the letters in the Notes of the Kitab-i-Aqdas, to back up the interpretation that the subject of "boys," while admittedly having the implication of pederasty, really includes homosexual relations of any and all sorts. It also seems apparent that this acceptance of the letters as authoritative is a choice, not an unavoidable interpretation, since as Sen I believe points out, all such letters are not accepted in that way, and the letters written by secretaries are themselves contradictory at times.

So, as a result of being better informed than I was, I am now more hopeful that there is room for the Universal House of Justice to come to a different conclusion regarding this matter. However, I still think that things are being "set in concrete" so to speak, and we can't just relax and wait for them to come to a different conclusion. We must keep educating ourselves, and our fellow Baha'is, while still being obedient to the current interpretation (if we are to remain Baha'is) - we must keep the pot stirred and not be silent, and be confident that if we do our utmost to seek truth in this matter, some kind of evolution in thinking will occur among Baha'is.

Barb

Jackson's book about the Mashriq gives some insight into the nasty factional infighting that existed in the early usa bahai community, in which the rich socialites become dominant over working class and social justice (race unity) factions.

most old "big" money in the northeastern usa originally came from financing the slave trade in the south. NYC's financial foundation is laid on the slave trade. Without the financiers of NYC, the southern slave trade could not have existed.

Horace Holley was very involved in old money church stuff in NYC, while running the NSA. For DECADES.

Connect the dots.

The view of "world peace" that these people wanted was pretty sick.

The article "The Provisions for Sexuality in the Kitab-i-Aqdas" is informative. One can "google" this title.

Barb

Jackson was such a great guy, very helpful with us in writing the letter to the NSA from the Gay Baha'i Fellowship... he is dearly missed (he passed away a year or so ago).

Daniel

I googled and read and re read and well it makes sense to me....this would be the basis for me to re join the faith sadly I doubt that the views expressed in the scholarly work will receive wide spread accceptance amoung the "I hate Gays bah'ai mainstream"

The whole issue for me rest on who interpreted LIWAT to mean gay? If it was SE then we are doomed to live in the closet ot out of the faith,,,

The article by Jackson Armstrong-Ingram,
"The Provisions for Sexuality in the Kitab-i-Aqdas in the Context of Late Nineteenth Century Eastern and Western Sexual Ideologies" is here: bahai-library.org/conferences/sex.aqdas.html

In the Questions + Answers section of the Aqdas, liwaat is translated as sodomy. In the Aqdas the section referring to 'boys' is translated as pedaesty which correlates with Jackson's argument that "Both zina and liwat are sexual relations that take place outside of a context in which the long term rights of both participants are regarded. Unlawful sex is literally unprotected sex -- it takes place in relationships that are not associated with social supports and long-term obligations. Lawful sex, as defined in the Aqdas, takes place in marriages, which are relationships embedded in a network of familial support and providing for the mutual development of the partners."

In all my searching around the only texts I have found that refer to homosexuality have been penned by secretaries writing Letters on behalf of Shoghi Effendi.

When Shoghi Effendi was writing in his role as official interpreter of the Bahai
Writings he cites the scripture he is interpreting. Sen's essay "More interpretive principles" bahai-library.org/articles/interpretive.principles.html gives some examples of this.

In the Aqdas there is no source given in the section of the Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, so I can only assume that it is not the case that the secretary who wrote that letter actually could read Baha'u'llah's mind, rather the writer wrote this assuming, based on his or her own's knowledge of the Bahai Faith, that this was a Bahai Teaching.

"A clear distinction is made in our Faith between authoritative interpretation and the interpretation or understanding that each individual arrives at for himself from his study of its teachings.
While the former is confined to the Guardian, the latter, according to the guidance given to us by the Guardian himself, should by no means be suppressed. In fact such individual interpretation is considered the fruit of man's rational power and conducive to a better understanding of the teachings, provided that no disputes or arguments arise among the friends and the individual himself understands and makes it clear that his views are merely his own. Individual interpretations continually change as one grows in
comprehension of the teachings..."

(From a letter of the Universal House of Justice to an individual
believer, May 27, 1966) (Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 311-312)

That leaves us with the question then, when is something penned by Shoghi Effendi to be considered interpretation, hence unchangeable, and how can we treat the status of the ten of thousands of Letters Written on his behalf.

Sen has written a few posts on these topics. One is here:
"anything Shoghi Effendi said is Baha´i doctrine"

The world has changed a lot since the times of Shoghi Effendi but even in his own time this Letter was written on his behalf.

"He has also said that whenever he has something of importance to say, he invariably communicates it to the National Spiritual Assembly or in his general letters. His personal letters to individual friends are only for
their personal benefit and even though he does not want to forbid
their publication, he does not wish them to be used too much by the
Bahá'í News. Only letters with special significance should be
published there."

(Letter Written on Behalf of Shoghi Effendi 1932.)

This is also an interesting essay one which I suspect is more othodox in its thinking. I get the feeling that the author knows absoltely nothing about Gay people. Have a read and I would be very interested in your comments

http://bahai-library.com/?file=hakim_notes_aqda...

no one that is sane is going to propose that sexuality, of whatever form, in the medieval muslim world, is universally applicable as cultural context for "the now". the question is: what is spiritually healthy sex? and what is spiritually unhealthy sex?

contrary to stoopid, and mostly unhelpful bahai dogma, it has nothing to do with medieval issues, the degenerate practice of slave boys, jokes about arabs and beautiful camels on long caravans, etc.

shoghi effendi prohibited homosexuality, via secretaries, because he was worried (as in so many other things) about "appearances", and wanted bahai to seem as "establishmentarian" as possible, to avoid controversy, avoid offending victorian/puritan attitudes in the west, and so forth.

really, this just demonstrates how little value human decency and social justice have in the bahai admin paradigm.

Tim, if by orthodox you mean 'most Bahais', I'd disagree because the article is so shallow. The author looks up a few diverse references to 'sodomy' in religious history - throws these together as if this is an argument and then throws a sentence in the middle stating that sodomy of the past = homosexuality of the present, without bothering even to give a single reason why he states this. Then the article continues about sodomy at which point I gave up reading it. Don't ask me if the article has a point. If this where a recipe, the cake would be a disaster.
So someone saying sodomy = homosexuality is just someone who hasn't done any research on what these two terms mean.

If anyone on this list has any queries about the article written by Jackson then we could discuss this.

Sonja,

I am sorry to ask you to repeat what you must have said many times, but I want clarification.

1. What do you think that the term translated as "homosexuality" under prohibitions in the Synopsis and Codification of the Kitab-i-Aqdas referred to? What behavior did this encompass in the original term? Who made the decision to use the word "homosexuality" here?

2. What do you think the term translated as "sodomy" in Questions and Answers #49 of the Kitab-i-Aqdas referred to (as in, the determination of the degrees of penalties for sodomy and adultery being left to the House of Justice). What behavior did this encompass in the original term? Is it different from the subject of "boys" (male/male pederasty)? Does Baha'u'llah define any penalty at all for adultery (involving a married person) and sodomy, or is the punishment left entirely to the Universal House of Justice? Who translated this term as "sodomy?"

3. Were the letters regarding homosexuality sent on behalf of the Guardian sent out without the approval of the Guardian? If so, how do we know this?

Thanks.

Barb

Hi Barb, you ask “Were the letters regarding homosexuality sent on behalf of the Guardian sent out without the approval of the Guardian? If so, how do we know this?”

The question is, what is the meaning of the Guardian’s approval? Did Shoghi Effendi himself want us to treat the letters by his secretaries as equivalent to his own words? Did he want us to treat them as authoritative interpretations of scripture? Would he want us to treat them as Bahai Law?

If we took the letters written by the Guardian's secretaries to be equivalent to authoritative interpretations of the scripture, how would we deal with the secretary's letter that says that "'this is the day which will not be followed by the night" (a prophecy of Baha'u'llah, in The Summons of the Lord of Hosts, p. 34) refers to a never-ending line of Guardians:

"The Guardians are the evidence of the maturity of mankind in the sense that at long last men have progressed to the point of having one world, and of needing one world management for human affairs. In the spiritual realm they have also reached the point where God could leave, in human hands (i.e. the Guardians'), guided directly by the Báb and Bahá'u'lláh, as the Master states in His Will, the affairs of His Faith for this Dispensation. This is what is meant by 'this is the day which will not be followed by the night'. In this Dispensation, Divine guidance flows on to us in this world after the Prophet's ascension, through first the Master, and then the Guardians. If a person can accept Bahá'u'lláh's function, it should not present any difficulty to them to also accept what He has ordained a divinely guided individual in matters pertaining to His Faith."
(From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer, November 25, 1948: Bahá'í News, No. 232, p. 8, June 1950) ditto Shoghi Effendi, Directives from the Guardian, p. 34)

The UHJ itself has NOT taken the above as a definitive interpretation of this prophecy - it says that the prophecy refers to the Administrative Order:

"The Bahá'í Dispensation is described in the words of its Founder as "a day that shall not be followed by night". Through His Covenant, Bahá'u'lláh has provided an unfailing source of divine guidance that will endure throughout the Dispensation. Authority to administer the affairs of the community and to ensure both the integrity of the Word of God and the promotion of the Faith's message is conferred upon the Administrative Order to which the Covenant has given birth.
(The Universal House of Justice, 1992 Dec 10, Issues Related to Study Compilation)
ditto in (The Universal House of Justice, 1997 Jul 20, Scholarship and Related Subjects)
ditto in (The Universal House of Justice, 1998 Mar 19, Complete Compilation on Scholarship)

But Shoghi Effendi says that it refers to the appointment of Abdu'l-Baha:

The continuity of that unerring guidance vouchsafed to it since its birth was now assured. The significance of the solemn affirmation that this is "the Day which shall not be followed by night" was now clearly apprehended. An orphan community had recognized in 'Abdu'l-Baha, in its hour of desperate need, its Solace, its Guide, its Mainstay and Champion.
(Shoghi Effendi, God Passes By, p. 245)


Or what about the letter from a secretary that says "He (the Guardian) does not feel that the friends should make a practice of saying grace or of teaching it to children. This is not part of the Bahá’í Faith, but a Christian practice,..." - when in fact it is ordained by Baha'u'llah, and Abdu'l-Baha said grace himself and gave us a number of prayers to use for the purpose (and Shoghi Effendi also said grace himself, at least sometimes) - see
http://senmcglinn.wordpress.com/2009/09/01/grace/
for the sources on this.

Or what about the secretary's letter that says "Regarding your question whether there is any special
ceremony which the believers should perform when they wish to "name" a baby; the Teachings do not provide for any ceremony whatever on such occasions. We have no "baptismal
service" in the Cause, ...", when in fact Abdu'l-Baha has given us a form for the "spiritual baptism" of a newborn child, in Tablets of Abdu'l-Baha pp 149-50.

Or the letter from a secretary that says ""The words Israel, used throughout the Bible, simply refers to the Jewish people, and not to the Chosen ones of this day." (From a letter
written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer, April 21, 1939; Lights of Guidance, p. 498)

Whereas the Guardian writes :
"Turning to Bahá'u'lláh and repeating his request, he was honored by a Tablet, in which Israel and his children were identified with the Báb and His followers respectively ... (God Passes By, p. 116)

Or what about the letter that says: "In regard to the question as to whether people ought to kill animals for food or not, there is no explicit statement in the Bahá'í Sacred Scriptures (as far as I know) in favour or against it."

Is this expressing the Guardian's ignorance, or the secretary's? There are tablets from Abdu'l-Baha on this topic. The letter goes on:

"It is certain, however, that if man can live on a purely vegetarian diet and thus avoid killing animals, it would be much preferable."

If we take this as the Guardian speaking as interpreter, he is offering an interpretion on something which he himself thinks is not in the Writings - and therefore is in the province of the UHJ not the Guardian. But he says in the Dispensation of Baha'u'llah that the Guardian will not do this. But it gets more puzzling, because the next sentence says

"This is, however, a very controversial question and the Bahá'ís are free to express their views on it." - so the writer (the secretary in my opinion) does not think this defines Bahai belief. But aren't the authoritative interpretations of the Guardian supposed to do that? Finally, note that the letter is written on a Holy Day: 9 July 1931. What are the chances that the Guardian was working on a Holy Day, and requiring his secretary to do the same! You can find the letter in The Compilation of Compilations vol. I, p. 475)

Or what about the letter that says "All Divine Revelation seems to have been thrown out in flashes. The Prophets never composed treatises. (The Unfolding Destiny of the British Baha'i Community, p. 453)

Is the Bisharat not an organised treatise? the Iqan? The Epistle to the Son of the Wolf? Other lines in the same letter suppose that prophethood is the perfection of the human station, whereas Bahai teaching is that revelation is transcendent, even if the place-of-revelation is human. And the letters' idiom is English, warning: "We can never afford to rest on our own oars, ..." (The Unfolding Destiny of the British Baha'i Community, p. 454) Persians do not rest on their oars since they have few flowing rivers, or boats on them. The letter is written in 1949 but refers to coming trials - so far as I know, only pilgrim's notes take that line at that time. The letter contains nothing to indicate that the person writing thinks they are reflecting the Guardian's direct instructions - it appears simply as personal opinions.

All this is not to say that the Guardian's letters can all be disregarded. That would be just as simplistic as supposing that all these letters are the words of Shoghi Effendi, and his authoritative interpretations of scripture, which can never be changed.

Shoghi Effendi himself wanted the Bahais to make a strong distinction between his writings and those of his secretaries. One of his secretaries warns

“Although the secretaries of the Guardian convey his thoughts and instructions and these messages are authoritative, their words are in no sense the same as his, their style certainly not the same, and their authority less, for they use their own terms and not his exact words in conveying his messages.” (Unfolding Destiny 260)

If these letters had doctrinal authority, it would not make much sense to say they had ‘less authority.’ I think the meaning here is that they share in Shoghi Effendi’s authority as Head of the Faith, they have to be followed by the assembly or individual to whom they are addressed, and we may suppose that they were the right thing to say, to the assembly or individual concerned (since Shoghi Effendi checked them, with very few exceptions). That’s doesn’t mean they are still the right thing for assemblies and individuals to be following now, when we have a different Head of the Faith and different issues and opportunities before us.

In fact the Bahai community today does not follow everything written in letters by or on behalf of Shoghi Effendi. Sometimes the instructions are contradictory, for example:

“…it is not compulsory that a ballot paper should contain necessarily nine votes. The individual voter may record less than 9 names, if he chooses to do so.” (Letters from the Guardian to Australia and New Zealand, p. 23.)

Versus

“Concerning the question you have asked as to whether in elections for Spiritual Assemblies the electors should cast exactly nine votes, … no electoral vote can be effective unless it is cast for exactly [nine]” (Unfolding Destiny, page 138)

If we had a general principle that “anything Shoghi Effendi said or published officially is Baha’i doctrine,” and included his secretaries' letters in that, we would have problem here! But such matters are not doctrinal, they fell to Shoghi Effendi to decide as Head of the Faith and he decided different things at different times, for different communities. Another example is the areas of LSA jurisdiction. One letter says that the principle can be determined by the National Spiritual Assembly (On behalf of Shoghi Effendi, Extracts from the USBN), another says the principle “laid down by the Guardian” is that “within a municipal area, where the people resident in the area pay taxes and vote, the Assembly can be elected, and holds jurisdiction.” (Letters from the Guardian to Australia and New Zealand, 130).

If the Guardian acting as Head of the Faith could change such matters, then it is not surprising that they also change when we have a new Head of the Faith. Shoghi Effendi says “the ruling is quite definite, that an Assembly must be elected on the first day of Ridvan, April 21st.” (Messages to Canada, 50) The Universal House of Justice later changed this, and more recently has changed it back.

Take away the three suppositions that what the secretary writes has the same authority as what Shoghi Effendi writes; that everything Shoghi Effendi writes is Bahai doctrine; and that doctrine is just another word for Bahai Law, and there is a better chance that the Bahai Faith will maintain that flexibility that will keep it in the forefront of progressive movements (World Order of Baha’u'llah, 22).

Sen

Hi Barb,

you ask “Were the letters regarding homosexuality sent on behalf of the Guardian sent out without the approval of the Guardian? If so, how do we know this?”

The question is, what is the meaning of the Guardian’s approval? Did Shoghi Effendi himself want us to treat the letters by his secretaries as equivalent to his own words? Did he want us to treat them as authoritative interpretations of scripture? Would he want us to treat them as Bahai Law?

If we took the letters written by the Guardian's secretaries to be equivalent to authoritative interpretations of the scripture, how would we deal with the secretary's letter that says that "'this is the day which will not be followed by the night" (a prophecy of Baha'u'llah, in The Summons of the Lord of Hosts, p. 34) refers to a never-ending line of Guardians:

"The Guardians are the evidence of the maturity of mankind in the sense that at long last men have progressed to the point of having one world, and of needing one world management for human affairs. In the spiritual realm they have also reached the point where God could leave, in human hands (i.e. the Guardians'), guided directly by the Báb and Bahá'u'lláh, as the Master states in His Will, the affairs of His Faith for this Dispensation. This is what is meant by 'this is the day which will not be followed by the night'. In this Dispensation, Divine guidance flows on to us in this world after the Prophet's ascension, through first the Master, and then the Guardians. If a person can accept Bahá'u'lláh's function, it should not present any difficulty to them to also accept what He has ordained a divinely guided individual in matters pertaining to His Faith."
(From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer, November 25, 1948: Bahá'í News, No. 232, p. 8, June 1950) ditto Shoghi Effendi, Directives from the Guardian, p. 34)

The UHJ itself has NOT taken the above as a definitive interpretation of this prophecy - it says that the prophecy refers to the Administrative Order:

"The Bahá'í Dispensation is described in the words of its Founder as "a day that shall not be followed by night". Through His Covenant, Bahá'u'lláh has provided an unfailing source of divine guidance that will endure throughout the Dispensation. Authority to administer the affairs of the community and to ensure both the integrity of the Word of God and the promotion of the Faith's message is conferred upon the Administrative Order to which the Covenant has given birth.
(The Universal House of Justice, 1992 Dec 10, Issues Related to Study Compilation)
ditto in (The Universal House of Justice, 1997 Jul 20, Scholarship and Related Subjects)
ditto in (The Universal House of Justice, 1998 Mar 19, Complete Compilation on Scholarship)

But Shoghi Effendi says that it refers to the appointment of Abdu'l-Baha:

The continuity of that unerring guidance vouchsafed to it since its birth was now assured. The significance of the solemn affirmation that this is "the Day which shall not be followed by night" was now clearly apprehended. An orphan community had recognized in 'Abdu'l-Baha, in its hour of desperate need, its Solace, its Guide, its Mainstay and Champion.
(Shoghi Effendi, God Passes By, p. 245)


Or what about the letter from a secretary that says "He (the Guardian) does not feel that the friends should make a practice of saying grace or of teaching it to children. This is not part of the Bahá’í Faith, but a Christian practice,..." - when in fact it is ordained by Baha'u'llah, and Abdu'l-Baha said grace himself and gave us a number of prayers to use for the purpose (and Shoghi Effendi also said grace himself, at least sometimes) - see
http://senmcglinn.wordpress.com/2009/09/01/grace/
for the sources on this.

Or what about the secretary's letter that says "Regarding your question whether there is any special
ceremony which the believers should perform when they wish to "name" a baby; the Teachings do not provide for any ceremony whatever on such occasions. We have no "baptismal
service" in the Cause, ...", when in fact Abdu'l-Baha has given us a form for the "spiritual baptism" of a newborn child, in Tablets of Abdu'l-Baha pp 149-50.

Or the letter from a secretary that says ""The words Israel, used throughout the Bible, simply refers to the Jewish people, and not to the Chosen ones of this day." (From a letter
written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer, April 21, 1939; Lights of Guidance, p. 498)

Whereas the Guardian writes :
"Turning to Bahá'u'lláh and repeating his request, he was honored by a Tablet, in which Israel and his children were identified with the Báb and His followers respectively ... (God Passes By, p. 116)

Or what about the letter that says: "In regard to the question as to whether people ought to kill animals for food or not, there is no explicit statement in the Bahá'í Sacred Scriptures (as far as I know) in favour or against it."

Is this expressing the Guardian's ignorance, or the secretary's? There are tablets from Abdu'l-Baha on this topic. The letter goes on:

"It is certain, however, that if man can live on a purely vegetarian diet and thus avoid killing animals, it would be much preferable."

If we take this as the Guardian speaking as interpreter, he is offering an interpretion on something which he himself thinks is not in the Writings - and therefore is in the province of the UHJ not the Guardian. But he says in the Dispensation of Baha'u'llah that the Guardian will not do this. But it gets more puzzling, because the next sentence says

"This is, however, a very controversial question and the Bahá'ís are free to express their views on it." - so the writer (the secretary in my opinion) does not think this defines Bahai belief. But aren't the authoritative interpretations of the Guardian supposed to do that? Finally, note that the letter is written on a Holy Day: 9 July 1931. What are the chances that the Guardian was working on a Holy Day, and requiring his secretary to do the same! You can find the letter in The Compilation of Compilations vol. I, p. 475)

Or what about the letter that says "All Divine Revelation seems to have been thrown out in flashes. The Prophets never composed treatises. (The Unfolding Destiny of the British Baha'i Community, p. 453)

Is the Bisharat not an organised treatise? the Iqan? The Epistle to the Son of the Wolf? Other lines in the same letter suppose that prophethood is the perfection of the human station, whereas Bahai teaching is that revelation is transcendent, even if the place-of-revelation is human. And the letters' idiom is English, warning: "We can never afford to rest on our own oars, ..." (The Unfolding Destiny of the British Baha'i Community, p. 454) Persians do not rest on their oars since they have few flowing rivers, or boats on them. The letter is written in 1949 but refers to coming trials - so far as I know, only pilgrim's notes take that line at that time. The letter contains nothing to indicate that the person writing thinks they are reflecting the Guardian's direct instructions - it appears simply as personal opinions.

All this is not to say that the Guardian's letters can all be disregarded. That would be just as simplistic as supposing that all these letters are the words of Shoghi Effendi, and his authoritative interpretations of scripture, which can never be changed.

Shoghi Effendi himself wanted the Bahais to make a strong distinction between his writings and those of his secretaries. One of his secretaries warns

“Although the secretaries of the Guardian convey his thoughts and instructions and these messages are authoritative, their words are in no sense the same as his, their style certainly not the same, and their authority less, for they use their own terms and not his exact words in conveying his messages.” (Unfolding Destiny 260)

If these letters had doctrinal authority, it would not make much sense to say they had ‘less authority.’ I think the meaning here is that they share in Shoghi Effendi’s authority as Head of the Faith, they have to be followed by the assembly or individual to whom they are addressed, and we may suppose that they were the right thing to say, to the assembly or individual concerned (since Shoghi Effendi checked them, with very few exceptions). That’s doesn’t mean they are still the right thing for assemblies and individuals to be following now, when we have a different Head of the Faith and different issues and opportunities before us.

In fact the Bahai community today does not follow everything written in letters by or on behalf of Shoghi Effendi. Sometimes the instructions are contradictory, for example:

“…it is not compulsory that a ballot paper should contain necessarily nine votes. The individual voter may record less than 9 names, if he chooses to do so.” (Letters from the Guardian to Australia and New Zealand, p. 23.)

Versus

“Concerning the question you have asked as to whether in elections for Spiritual Assemblies the electors should cast exactly nine votes, … no electoral vote can be effective unless it is cast for exactly [nine]” (Unfolding Destiny, page 138)

If we had a general principle that “anything Shoghi Effendi said or published officially is Baha’i doctrine,” and included his secretaries' letters in that, we would have problem here! But such matters are not doctrinal, they fell to Shoghi Effendi to decide as Head of the Faith and he decided different things at different times, for different communities. Another example is the areas of LSA jurisdiction. One letter says that the principle can be determined by the National Spiritual Assembly (On behalf of Shoghi Effendi, Extracts from the USBN), another says the principle “laid down by the Guardian” is that “within a municipal area, where the people resident in the area pay taxes and vote, the Assembly can be elected, and holds jurisdiction.” (Letters from the Guardian to Australia and New Zealand, 130).

If the Guardian acting as Head of the Faith could change such matters, then it is not surprising that they also change when we have a new Head of the Faith. Shoghi Effendi says “the ruling is quite definite, that an Assembly must be elected on the first day of Ridvan, April 21st.” (Messages to Canada, 50) The Universal House of Justice later changed this, and more recently has changed it back.

Take away the three suppositions that what the secretary writes has the same authority as what Shoghi Effendi writes; that everything Shoghi Effendi writes is Bahai doctrine; and that doctrine is just another word for Bahai Law, and there is a better chance that the Bahai Faith will maintain that flexibility that will keep it in the forefront of progressive movements (World Order of Baha’u'llah, 22).

Sen

When I read this "work" I felt I had been abused, I had to read it all but I got angrier all the time, glad it's not me...it is utter crap...and compard to the work of Jackson I lknow who was guided by the holy spirit in their work...if that's not too creepy

Thanks so much, Sonja, for your reply regarding Arabic terms translated as sodomy, etc. I have to say that when I look up "liwaat" I am discouraged by what I read, in reference to the Islamic background and understanding of the term. All the prohibitions regarding sexuality just seem so nutty and obsessive to me, and it seems this nuttiness has been retained to a degree for the Baha'is. Evolution of thinking in regard to matters such as homosexuality (and other sexual "offenses") which has long since taken place elsewhere seems absent in Baha'i law. Sexual behavior between consenting adults should not be a "punishable offense," period - in my view. And rape should not be considered as just another sexual offense - it is a crime of violence. Pedophilia is an altogether different subject from homosexuality, and should be a punishable offense, religion or no, and of course it is more often heterosexual than homosexual.

Regarding "sexual offenses," for a religion to offer guidance regarding sexual behavior is admirable, in my view, but to criminalize consenting sexual behavior for adults is just bizarre. One can only hope that there is never a Baha'i state capable of carrying out punishments for "crimes."

This whole topic is making me crazy - the Baha'is, while forward-looking and progressive in so many ways, seem very backward in their thinking in some areas. Is this what Baha'u'llah intended?

It seems very dangerous to me to have sexual behavior criminalized, with "punishment" to be determined by a body of people who are accountable to no one on earth, and who feel they speak for God and thus can begin to feel self-righteous about their views. I see nothing in the Kitab-i-Aqdas to prevent extreme punishment in future for sexual offenses such as sodomy or adultery, if the UHJ happened to believe that such punishment was necessary, and if they happened to have the temporal power of a State. That bothers me a lot. I don't think Baha'is are immune to the corruption and self-righteous cruelty that has often been a part of religion. It bothers me that many Baha'is seem to think we don't need to worry about that - that Baha'is are somehow protected against such evil in future. It would be nice if we were - but I don't think so!

And yes, we elect indirectly the UHJ, but changes are taking place, such as the expectation that UHJ new members will be elected from a group appointed by the UHJ, and the overriding of votes cast in regard to some regional councils, which makes change from the "grass roots" less likely.

Well, forgive me for ranting. As I said, this is making me crazy.

Barb

Barb,

A lot of the "progressive" stuff in bahai was designed as "bait-n-switch".

e.g., shoghi effendi clearly states that the bahai NWO was going to be a hybrid christian-islamo imperial project.

things like democracy were very "expendable" in that model.

I love both you and Sonia for your lovely and supportive rantings... beside, let us not forget where we post...

rant on ladies! you are both angels!

Yes, I enjoy the discussion too. I wish the local Bahai communities were this open- then maybe the Bahai Faith would be thriving today. I am more on Sonja's side though. I see these letters from secretaries being the "hadiths" of the Bahai Faith. The only weight that they carry is what the individual Bahai wishes to give them. They are not direct interpretations by Shoghi Effendi telling the Bahai world that A means B. Abdul-Baha gave a direct interpretation saying that Bahaullah meant monogomy when Bahaullah actually said polygamy is allowed in the Faith. You can say what you want about the actual "law" in the Faith, but because Abdul-Baha clearly stated in His own words that the law is monogomy, then that is the law. If Shoghi Effendi had done the same (or AB) in regards to homosexuality, then I would give up the fight. But they didn't. Bahaullah condeming sodomy could mean sex with a child slave, or a myriad of things (anal sex, homosexual sex even masturbation being punishable). Anyway, my two cents worth.

50 pts to Peyamb... you are spot on. thanks!

http://revolked2.blogspot.com/2010/01/andrea-sh...

a good man!

In response to Alison's post about Eric Stetson's project, I think what Eric is attempting to do is interesting, but it is not the answer to difficulties regarding Baha'i policies toward GLBTs. I think this problem will be addressed at some point by Baha'is. It will involve thinking outside the box - a feat that may take Baha'is a long time to come round to, but I do not believe that organizing a new "denomination" involving the Unitarians will appeal to many Baha'is, for obvious reasons.

The discussion Eric is beginning, however, is interesting - I see no harm in it, and am interested to see what people have to say, and I expect some Baha'is will be interested in joining in.

Barb

Barb, I don't think Eric's project is really designed to appeal to those Baha'is who are already members of the mainstream, so to speak. I think it's designed to appeal to people who are drawn to Baha'u'llah and the Baha'i Faith, but want no truck with the Baha'i International Community, the Administrative Order, etc. It's not thinking outside the box, it *is* outside the box. After all, if you believe in Baha'u'llah, you already *are* a Baha'i; you're free to join whichever community you wish, even if the mainstream, the "true" Baha'i faith, doesn't "recognize" your community of choice.

What Eric is doing is questioning and challenging some of the fundamental assumptions around the "received history" of the Faith which, again for obvious reasons, most Baha'is will likely find very threatening, and highly undesirable. As Eric himself acknowledges on his site, people will choose. I doubt his venture will ever gain the millions of members claimed by the A.O., but I imagine that for many people, that's not particularly relevant anyway. But I do expect that his project will probably attract far more adherents than many of the "Covenant-breaker" groups have managed to attract, for a whole number of reasons. I think it's a worthwhile venture, although it's still in its early stage. Time will tell.

Alison,

I have trouble understanding why any Baha'i, of whatever ilk, would want "no truck with the Baha'i international community." I do understand why someone might have difficulty with the way the A.O. is functioning these days, and some of the precedents that are being set. I think such difficulty can be dealt with by Baha'is (by which I mean members of the Baha'i Faith), if they choose to do so. Do not misread my meaning here - only God knows who is a Baha'i and who is not. I mean merely that those who have a voice (vote) can exercise it. This does not mean that others who have no such voice cannot do their part as well, as they see fit, to assist the believers to bring Baha'u'llah's vision for humanity to fruition.

I think Eric's venture may be a worthwhile one, and may start some dialogue on certain issues. As you say, time will tell. If his intent is sincere and his heart pure in this endeavor, some good will come of it.

Barb

"I have trouble understanding why any Baha'i, of whatever ilk, would want 'no truck with the Baha'i international community.'"

Yes, I can see that you have trouble with this, Barb, but presumably, there are those who don't.

"This does not mean that others who have no such voice cannot do their part as well, as they see fit, to assist the believers to bring Baha'u'llah's vision for humanity to fruition."

Yes, well, that's all very well and good, I suppose, but for some people these days it seems, or perhaps for many people, that's just "not good enough." At least, not anymore. Or, as one of my sainted aunts used to remark, "Yes, my dear, it's lovely, isn't it, but I'm afraid it just won't wash."

I think, in the final analysis, it's really about allowing the voiceless to, you know, actually have a voice, and a choice; rather than just "assisting" the "believers." (Evidently, those who have no such voice cannot be counted among the believers?)

Also, and this might be worth considering, maybe the Unitarian Bahais, as part of an emergent spiritual movement within the Unitarian Universalist Association, are helping, or perhaps will help, to bring Baha'u'llah's vision for humanity to fruition.

In any event, I'm sure the Unitarian Bahais will evolve quite independently of any other organization, so no need to worry. And, as you say, if the intent is sincere, really sincere, and not just oppositional, or reactive, but really, truly inclusive, then yes, I think some good will come of it.

There is a lot, quite a lot, really, of interest in it now it seems, and of course, a few attempts to derail it as well. But Eric, judging from his comments, is aware of these things anyway, and makes provision for them. But again, you know, time will tell. It all comes down to intent, doesn't it?

Alison,

Forgive me for not making myself clear. My intention was that yes, indeed, "believers" are people who believe in Baha'u'llah - period. And yes, I intended to make the point that "believers" of any kind might contribute to bringing Baha'u'llah's vision to fruition, just as you say the Unitarian Baha'is may do. I was simply saying that change within the Baha'i Faith is pretty much up to its members, since they are the only ones who can vote, and even all its members cannot, if they have been deprived of their administrative rights. Of course the public in general, which could include anyone, believers or not, can bring pressure to bear, even without the right to vote.

I think you assume I am more mainstream than I am - I doubt that Baha'i authorities consider me mainstream in the least, though I am a committed Baha'i. I don't condemn you for working outside of the body of the Baha'i Faith to bring about change - please do me the courtesy of not condemning my similar efforts within. We all work to achieve change in whatever way or place we can - let's support each other and not divide ourselves against each other. It is, of course, easy to misunderstand each other using electronic communication.

Peace and Blessings -

Barb

Oh yes, of course, please accept my apologies if I misconstrued what you were saying. I can see that you are a sincere, honest person of integrity, and I have enormous respect for that.

But, I really feel I must add that I just don't accept the notion that I'm working outside the body of the Baha'i Faith because, you see, in the first place, I'm not actually a member of the Unitarian Baha'i Fellowship, although I do think I might be at some point in the future, and also, because I have this view of the Faith as an actual world religion, not a static bureaucratic organizational structure called the Administrative Order, to which everyone who wants to be a Baha'i must belong. Yes, it's a testament to unity that most Baha'is are united under the UHJ, but there are many kinds of unity, a thousand Baha'i ways to kneel and kiss the ground, and I think this is what Eric Stetson and his friends are trying to promote, that history (and that includes Baha'i history) must always be open to revision when new facts, or new arguments, indicate that previous beliefs or theories are incomplete or just plain wrong. So yes, it's wonderful that people can tell their stories on your website, and I also think it's wonderful that the Unitarians welcome those who identify as Baha'i, and that gays and lesbians are welcomed by them, without being counseled to be, oh, "discreet," because this is, in my opinion, just another form of abuse, really. It feeds into the internalized shame of so many, that they feel they must hide their lives away, and join a faith group that wants them to do just that, and told to "just wait" until a decision is made, which it probably never will be. I don't now wish to enable that sort of thing by supporting a religious community or organization that teaches these things, or "understands" why gay Baha'is keep their partners secret, this is just a form of enabling abusive power relationships, I think. So, this is just where I'm at. I see the A.O. as a very conserving system, a sort of democratic centralism: what the top level says goes. So I'm not optimistic about this ever changing within the mainstream community, but I really do wish you well in all your efforts, it's very noble work.

This is the text from the Book of Laws (Kitab-i-Aqdas):

"It is forbidden you to wed your fathers' wives. We shrink, for very shame, from treating of the subject of boys. Fear ye the Merciful, O peoples of the world! Commit not that which is forbidden you in Our Holy Tablet, and be not of those who rove distractedly in the wilderness of their desires."

The Synopsis and Codification, which was published in English before the complete text of the Most Holy Book (Aqdas), lists under prohibitions a number of things, including "homosexuality." The S&C was begun by Shoghi Effendi and was one of the goals of his ten-year-plan. Incomplete upon Shoghi Effendi's death in 1957, the S&C was continued and completed by the Universal House of Justice, and was made available in 1973. In 1986 the Universal House of Justice decided that the time had come for publication and release of the entire Kitab-i-Aqdas, and such accomplishment was made a goal of the six-year-plan 1986-1992 (the copyright is 1992). Under the explanatory notes (not part of the text by Baha'u'llah), note #134 regarding "the subject of boys" states the following:

"The word translated here as 'boys' has, in this context, in the Arabic original, the implication of pederasty. Shoghi Effendi has interpreted this reference as a prohibition on all homosexual relations.

The Baha'i teachings on sexual morality center on marriage and the family as the bedrock of the whole structure of human society and are designed to protect and strengthen that divine institution. Baha'i law thus restricts permissible sexual intercourse to that between a man and the woman to whom he is married.

In a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi it is stated:

'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 in this way is a great burden to a conscientious soul. But through the advice and help of doctors, through a strong and determined effort, and through prayer, a soul can overcome this handicap.'

Baha'u'llah makes provision for the Universal House of Justice to determine, according to the degree of the defense, penalties for adultery and sodomy."

In the Questions and Answers section of the published Kitab-i-Aqdas, is the following question (#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 term translated "adultery" covers both fornication (between unmarried individuals) and adultery as we think of it (between a married person and a person he/she is not married to). The Arabic term translated as "adultery" is "zina." Rape is considered a form of zina, not an act of violence toward another person, as we think of it. Baha'u'llah's only prescribed penalty for fornication is a fine to be paid to the House of Justice. Punishment for other forms of sexual offense is to be left to the Universal House of Justice. It is unclear to me whether homosexuality is considered a form of zina, or is in another category altogether. But as stated above, reference is made to penalties for adultery and sodomy, to be determined by the House of Justice, so I assume "sodomy" is not considered under "fornication." I see nothing which prevents use of extreme punishments for either adultery (involving a married person) or "sodomy," i.e. homosexuality.

At any rate, homosexuality has definitely been equated with pederasty, which is outrageous. The term Baha'u'llah used had the meaning of pederasty - the Universal House of Justice says so, according to the notes to the Kitab-i-Aqdas. It is, as far as I can see, only statements made on Shoghi Effendi's behalf regarding homosexuality, which determine that the word used in the Kitab-i-Aqdas translation is "homosexuality," and not "pederasty."

I'm far from an expert on this matter, but this is how it appears to me. Baha'is are stuck with equating homosexuality with pederasty - a very difficult point to explain to modern minds. Perhaps in determining the "degrees" of offense, there will be some distinction made by the Universal House of Justice between pederasty and consensual same-sex activity - I don't know. Nevertheless, the fact is that "homosexuality," in whatever degree, is criminalized according to Baha'i law. No mention is made, as far as I can tell, of pederasty other than in relationship to homosexuality - never mind that most sexual abuse of children is committed by heterosexuals. There is so much wrong with this picture that I'd best stop before I really "go off" - don't get me started.

Barb

I somewhat disagree with you Barb. Does the present Bahai community under the leadership of the present UHJ condemn homosexuality and believe it should be punished? Yes. Does a future UHJ have to judge the same way? No! The present UHJ also allows for door to door teaching - something which was explicitly condemned by a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi. It is the UHJ's right to pick and choose how they will look at something. It is my right to express my conscience. The UHJ makes mistakes- the sooner they realize that, the sooner the Bahai community can become more tolerant and accepting. Their infalibility has nothing to do with what most Bahais believe. Anyway, I digress. Basically what I am saying is that the present UHJ has chosen the narrow, literalist application regarding homosexuality based on letters written on behalf of SE, but they choose a more liberal view when it comes to other matters such as door to door teaching. I have Faith that a future UHJ will have a different view.

Well, I hope you are right, Peyamb, but I don't think so. Door-to-door teaching was never listed as a punishable offense in the Book of Laws. Homosexuality is. Now, maybe a future UHJ could re-translate the Book of Laws and come up with a different term here? I don't know. Because the statements of Shoghi Effendi are considered authoritative, the UHJ feels it cannot interpret the words of Baha'u'llah otherwise - indeed, interpretation is not their province, is it, on matters already delineated by Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha and the Guardian? It is true, however, that the Guardian, had he lived, would have been in a position to ask the UHJ to reconsider a position if he thought it was wrong, but he could not overrule them, so perhaps you have a more valid point than I thought. I have made essentially the same argument you are making myself, perhaps here - I don't remember where I said it. But after further research and reading what the UHJ has to say about it, I don't think that the criminalization of homosexuality is something that any Universal House of Justice can change. They could implement a token, very slight penalty, perhaps, but I don't think they can change Shoghi Effendi's interpretation of what Baha'u'llah meant in this regard. I think I was guilty of wishful thinking to believe a future UHJ could do this. On the other hand, if the Guardian himself, as head of the UHJ, could not force his interpretation on them once they had been formed as an official body...maybe there is hope.

I would be interested if someone could get the present UHJ to say that it is POSSIBLE that a future UHJ could change the interpretation regarding homosexuality, even though the present UHJ doesn't see it that way. I don't think they will ever say this, because I think it is not possible, and is not just a matter of their interpretation.

Whatever the case, I think it is important for Baha'is to be knowledgeable and well informed on points such as this, and work actively for what they see as justice. We should never just sit back and accept without thinking for ourselves, and voicing our opinions.

There are other points, too, such as considering rape a form of zina, for which a fine might be levied on both parties, rather than considering it a violent crime, that are troublesome. A fine, even if it were just on the rapist, would hardly be adequate punishment for such a crime of violence. As I said, I am about as far as can be from being an expert on such questions in regard to Baha'i law - I would be happy to hear of others' thoughts in this regard. There is nothing I would like better than to discover that the criminalization of homosexuality is something that could be whisked away by a future House of Justice. It is an embarrassing stance for Baha'is to have, and a dangerous one.

Thanks for your thoughts, Peyamb.

Barb

Ok I had to investigate this door-to-door teaching thing. Yes you are right Barb that teaching the Faith in a bad way is not considered a crime in the Bahai Faith, but there is guidance direct from Bahaullah on how we are to teach the Faith. One example is this quote "It behoveth every one in this Day of God to dedicate himself to the teaching of the Cause with utmost prudence and steadfastness. Should he discover a pure soil, let him sow the seed of the Word of God, otherwise it would be preferable to observe silence." Then we have a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi in regards to door to door proclamation of the Bahai Faith and if this is in accordance with Bahaullah: "..to distribute Bahá’í pamphlets from door to door ... is undignified and might create a bad impression of the Faith” [the Guardian] “does not think the best interests of the Cause are served by such a method.” However, the UHJ in 2007 sends out a letter that softens (re-interprets) this very direct admonition from one of the Guardian's secretaries: "Cultures differ, and what may be considered dignified in one locality may not be so in another....In general, the institutions of the Faith should be flexible in such matters and avoid restricting unnecessarily the efforts of the believers to teach the Faith." So my point Barb is basically that when convenient (to help increase numbers or funds), the UHJ is willing to ignore/modify/explain away a letter written by a secretary of Shoghi Effendi. However when it is controversial topic such as Homosexuality and modifying it may not help increase ranks for now (aka piss off traditionalists in the Faith who are the majority that are probably supporting the Fund right now), then the UHJ follows the course and says their hands are tied to do change this "LAW" of Bahaullah. So again, there is NO law in the Kitab-i-Aqdas against homosexual relationships and families. All we have are letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi. Letters that the UHJ at times considers official interpretation that they can not change and other times disregards when convenient.

Peyamb,

I agree with most of what you say, except that "homosexuality" is prohibited in the Kitab-i-Aqdas, and unlike other things (backbiting, for example) which are prohibited, it is stated that the penalty for "sodomy" will be determined by the House of Justice. This equates to a "law" against "homosexuality," doesn't it? If you can show me how it does not, I would be most happy - I much prefer for "homosexuality" to not be a punishable offense (listed along with adultery) according to the Kitab-i-Aqdas, but I just don't see how what is there can be interpreted in that way. Am I missing something?

The only way out of this that I can see is that perhaps the word translated "homosexuality" should have been translated as "pederasty," which has no more to do with homosexuality than with heterosexuality. But as the Kitab-i-Aqdas stands now, with the translation of the Arabic term as "homosexuality" rather than as "pederasty," and the penalty for "sodomy" there is indeed a "law" against homosexuality.

I would like to know more about the Arabic term involved - could it, for instance, have referred to male/female child abuse, rather than just male/male? And what about the term which is translated as "sodomy?"

I really do want to understand this, but because I cannot read the text in the original language, I find it very difficult to understand exactly what is going here regarding the subject of homosexuality. I do agree with you that the UHJ finds a way to do what it wants to do, just as any religious authority does.

Barb

Barb

Hi Barb,

5 months ago I wrote a long post dealing with what is in the The Kitab-i-Aqdas in regards to homosexuality here with various references to quotations etc:

In summary the only parts of the 1992 English edition of The Kitab-i-Aqdas that are clearly authored by Baha'u'llah, and hence not open to change is the text of the Kitab-i-Aqdas + the Questions and Answers.
The notes, which is where homosexuality is mentioned could have been authored by the UHJ or by Shoghi Effendi who started work on the notes before he died. However to quote from my post:

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 + the Questions and Answers 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 law? 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 made by a UHJ, then it is subject to change.

Bahai Law has two components: The text of the Aqdas and the "Questions and Answers"
(Not the preface and editorial notes. The letters penned by secretaries on behalf of Shoghi Effendi mentioning homosexuality are in the notes.)
and similiar tablets by Baha'u'llah, and then what the UHJ legistrates and the NSAs + LSAs apply and refine, etc.

In the Questions and Answers, #49, is the text: "Concerning the penalties for adultery, sodomy, and theft, and the degrees thereof"
Baha'u'llah's answer: "The determination of the degrees of these penalties rests with the House of Justice." (The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 121, 1992 edition)

The question asks about:
zinaa' (= adultery, fornication) and
liwaat (= sodomy, paederasty) and
sariqa (= theft)

Liwaat is the word used meaning both sodomy and paederasty in Arabic and Persian so it will be up to the UHJ to determine whether this includes homosexuality or not.
In the notes (note 134, page 223) the UHJ at the time of the publication wrote that "the subject of boys had the implication of paederasty." and state that Shoghi Effendi interpreted this as a prohibition on all homosexuals but further down the only source they give is a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi. As I read this there is no source penned by Shoghi Effendi in his role as interpretator of the Bahai Writings.
However, unless (or until) a future UHJ makes a differing statement this connection made with homosexuality as a prohibition should be seen as their policy (at least that is the case 18 years ago), but this is not the same as a prohibition on homosexuality being penned by Baha'u'llah which is not subject to change.

Another thought on Question #49: In those times the punishment for those crimes was stipulated in Islamic law and not left up to the judge or ruler. So it seems that in Baha'u'llah's answer he making the punishment for these things at the discretion of the UHJ.

I think it is likely that Baha'u'llah intended his laws to be used as principles which individuals and institutions could work with.

"Think not that We have revealed unto you a mere code of laws. Nay, rather, We have unsealed the choice Wine with the fingers of might and power"
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.
(The above comes from a longer posting I wrote some months ago which is here)

And on that note while travelling homeward through the U.K. a few days ago was this headline in the papers:
"Anger at Pope's attack on British equality laws".

The Pope's argument being that it was against natural law. Interestingly one commentor wrote: "How can the sexual nature of 6-10% of humans be unnatural? How can something which occurs across the world in practically every culture and has been recorded since history itself began to be recorded be unnatural?
It would make more sense to suggest that mountains are unnatural, as they occur far less commonly than gay people.

It is not homosexuality which is unnatural, but the irrational hatred of it..."

"I don't think they can change Shoghi Effendi's interpretation of what Baha'u'llah meant in this regard."

There is no interpretation per se by Shoghi Effendi: only a letter written on his behalf by one of his secretaries. But the UHJ treats it as authoritative, as if it were actually written by S.E. himself.

"I think I was guilty of wishful thinking to believe a future UHJ could do this."

It is possible, but not probable; it's possible for the Vatican to change its discipline about priestly celibacy in the West and the practice of ordaining only men to its priesthood, but it's not very likely. Same with the Baha'i system: It is a very conserving system, a sort of democratic centralism: what the top level says goes. So yes, it's possible for the UHJ to change this, but not very likely, especially since there's been so much invested in upholding the current practice. Fifty, a hundred years from now, the situation will be the same as it is now, if not worse. Grady Means, in his book "The New Enlightenment," forecasts (correctly, I think) that authoritarian, doctrinaire religions will tend to become more fundamentalist in the future, not less, as they continue to lose influence (market share). So yes, no matter how much "faith" one has that a future UHJ will have a different view, this is wishful thinking taken to the point of delusion. Hope I'm wrong, but doubt it. The direction and restrictions of the Baha'i Faith under the UHJ has, I think, been pretty much set in stone for the next few centuries, at which point it will probably be a museum piece, or an obscure sect of millenarians ...

If I am quite honest, Alison (and I try to be, though don't always succeed), I think that the fact that the letter was written by Shoghi Effendi's Secretary is not important. Shoghi Effendi reviewed these letters - they were not sent out without his approval. I think that the view represented regarding homosexuality was indeed the view of Shoghi Effendi, even if he didn't pen the letter himself. (And there are other sources, I believe, for his understanding of homosexuality - not just the one letter.) He was a product of his times - could not help but be. And he was a product of the environment from which he came. If his opinion in this regard has not withstood the test of time (and it has not, in my opinion), then that fact needs to be dealt with. The patriarchal bent of the Faith, however, makes it unlikely that the interpretation will be significantly changed, because homophobia is intimately connected with patriarchy (again, in my opinion).

I do agree with Peyamb, I think, that if the Universal House of Justice were ever to have the WILL (i.e., much more than a mere inclination) to change this interpretation, they could find a way to do so. The will, however, is quite unlikely to appear for a very long time, if ever in this Dispensation. I do think that there is energy invested by the present Baha'i authorities in making sure that people with the wrong convictions do not ever get into a position which might cause them to be considered as possible future members of the Universal House of Justice. As you say, the attitude toward homosexuality is pretty much set in stone, and is likely to become more, not less so.

Barb

"I should add that there is always the remote possibility that God could cause the heart of the present Universal House of Justice to be touched by the stories of GLBTs, that the UHJ could have a conversion of understanding so powerful as to bring about a will to change."

It's possible. Granted, it's unlikely in the extreme, but possible.

All accredited American medical and psychological institutions agree there's no medical, psychological, or social reason to believe that sexual conduct between persons of the same sex is immoral or unhealthy. That includes the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the National Association of Social Workers to name only a few. Only religious dogmatists think it immoral.

"No use sitting around feeling hopeless, is there?"

Not at all! Some like to cling to suffering, but I'm very hopeful, not about the "real" Baha'i Faith, but about this initiative by Eric Stetson:

http://unitarianbahai.org/

"The Unitarian Bahai Fellowship accepts openly gay and lesbian Bahais – including those in committed same-sex relationships – as fully equal members of our organization."

No excuses, rationalizations, justifications, explanations, qualifications, rebuttals, quibbles, or spiritual window dressing: they openly accept single and partnered gay men and lesbians. That's it, period.

Well, we all have choices. Some people prefer to belong to a community or organization that relegates them to second-class status (psychological self-sabotage). Others prefer not to. Gays and lesbians can change their community affiliations and embrace different constructs on how they frame their understandings of religion, but they can't change their orientation which, as one of my more knowledgeable friends tells me, is "constitutive of their experience," by which he means (I think) that this distinction between "orientation" and "behavior" is false and artificial. So yes, I'm hopeful, but hopefully realistically hopeful. I think the writing is pretty much on the wall.

I should add that there is always the remote possibility that God could cause the heart of the present Universal House of Justice to be touched by the stories of GLBTs, that the UHJ could have a conversion of understanding so powerful as to bring about a will to change. Remote, perhaps, but still - it is possible, and it is that for which we work. No use sitting around feeling hopeless, is there?

Barb

this add has been rejected by CBS as being too controversial

http://revolked2.blogspot.com/2010/01/rejected-...

well, gee, it is a pretty scary thought, isn't it?

Why the Aqdas does not adress homosexuality?

http://revolked2.blogspot.com/2010/01/from-jmg-...

Daniel - I don't understand what you are saying/asking here. Homosexuality is addressed in the Book of Laws, because of the Guardian's interpretation of the word translated as "homosexuality." The word translated "homosexuality" has the meaning of pederasty, and the Arabic term used referred to boy "sex slaves," but the Guardian interpreted this to mean all homosexual relations, and homosexuality is criminalized in the Aqdas - it is not distinguished from pederasty, a mistaken understanding based on ignorance and prejudice. It is an offense with penalties, just as are arson, theft, murder, adultery, etc. The penalty is, as I understand it, left to the UHJ, and for now they choose to at least deprive people of their administrative rights, if people are "blatant" in their practice of homosexuality. There is nothing to prevent them from in future implementing a much more severe penalty.

Anyway - I don't understand your question?

I believe it literally says something about "boys"...

the Prop 8 court case is using ugly anti-gay stuff re: pedophilia... which those of us in the disbanded Gay Bahaí Fellowship were trying to get the powers to be to rethink the interpretation...

Friends... this is really moving... I pray that at some day in the great hopeful future that the Blessed Beauty has promised us all, that He will encourage our leadership to see the light like these good people have:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDiYeJ_bsQo

As usual, Baha'is fill pages and pages of Internet space steeped in their annoying intellectualism, avoiding the very simple and direct truth: God loves gays and lesbians. He created them. I was a deeply committed and deepened Baha'i for 21 years when God threw me a loop: He gave me a gay son. When my highly spiritual, kind, loving and devoted son came out to me at the tender age of 12, I did what Baha'u'llah asks and went to "consult on all matters" with my LSA. I asked for advice and support. In short, they rejected us. It was then I realized that the child whom never let me forget to pray with him every night, whom always upheld justice and racial equality, whom fought for the underdog amongst his peers and was the finest host at every meeting...THAT child...would one day establish a loving and monogamous partnership with a terrific guy and I WANT TO BE THERE. I want to meet that young man and make him a part of our family. And yes, they will have sex, as any loving couple should, and God bless them. Leaving the Faith has been devastating. I found a terrific blog directed to Gay Christians, met the owner, read his book, and now I am following Christ. 'Abdu'l-Baha, in particular, had profound love for Christ so I know I am on a good path. I doubt I will ever join a church, however. The reaction my son and I received has left him fearful of religionists. My main job now is to convince him that God never left his side.

thank you so very, very much... a great big hug from Sacramento for you and your son. We need more parents to stand up and fight for their kids openly like this! All my love and support to you!

This is a very touching story. It might be helpful to other gay Baha'is and their family members/friends to have it shared on the Gay/Lesbian Baha'i Story Project website. Please consider posting your story there for others to read - a lot of folks check in there periodically. Or I could post your comment there on the website, but only with your permission.

I'm not ready yet to give up on the Baha'is, because I believe there are a good many of them who question Baha'i policy on gays, but they mostly don't speak up, or they do so anonymously, fearful I suppose of retribution from Baha'i authorities. And what does that say to us about the Faith?

I hope that some day all Baha'is realize that gays are one of God's glorious variations of the standard model of human being, and that their presence in a community is a gift to be cherished, not an abnormality to be shoved under the rug and hidden from sight.

I feel at times that there is an impenetrable wall of prejudice among the Baha'is, and why try to pierce it? To hear of a courageous, wise, and loving Baha'i like you is indeed solace to the soul. Lucky son to have a mother like you. Shame on the community which failed you, and continues to fail gays and their families.

If you are interested to share your story, or just to see the website that has been set up for gay Baha'is and their friends/families to share their stories, google Gay/Lesbian Baha'i Story Project.

Best wishes to you and your son - I'm glad you have found a loving spiritual community. My husband and I have also been attending a church sunday school class where there is a much more accepting and understanding attitude toward gays. I doubt I will ever join either, as I am still officially a Baha'i, and estranged from the official Baha'i community, though I have good Baha'i friends.

Barb

And I should add to my note above, lucky you to have such a son - he sounds like a gem, as gay kids so often are...

Barb

Thank you for posting. And yet another wonderful, dedicated spiritual person shut out from the Bahai community because of the fundamentalists. I hope the UHJ is listening. Of course if you write to them like I did, you'll just get back a standard response letter from a secretary telling you the party line and that you are not a true Bahai- so basically "good bye; don't let the door hit you as you leave".

Shinjinsoul dear,

I do hope you are not a Baha'i?, for you make Baha'is look very bad here if you represent them - and I assume that is not your intent.

About vaginal sex equaling pleasure - I assure you, vaginal sex is far from being necessarily the most pleasurable for either men or women. What about oral sex? Mutual pleasuring with hands, lips, tongue, skin on skin? And besides, lesbians might feel a bit left out when you equate gay sex with anal sex, which is one variation of sexual technique, used by both heterosexuals and homosexuals. I suggest you read a good sex manual.

It may be that some folks might take offense at your implication that Down Syndrome might be a good reason to have an abortion. As for your advocacy of abortion as a means of getting rid of other babies with a genetic variation, are you sure this is what you want to say? There are endless genetic variations, after all, and depending on who has the power to say what variations are undesirable, all sorts of things could be eliminated. Are we ready to play God in that way?

As for your specific advocacy of using abortion to get rid of gay folks - you apparently have no idea of the contributions made over centuries of GLBT folks to human culture and accomplishment. It may be that whatever makes a person gay, may also make them gifted - has that occurred to you? Besides which, to advocate "getting rid" (good Nazi thinking) of folks who displease you, is very nasty.

Your statement here is so appalling as to leave one speechless and stunned. Please reconsider.

Barb

and I am inclined to award our dear Barb 10 pts for having listened to Dr Ruth so well... again, well played.

I have a vague notion of who Dr. Ruth is, but I don't have a t.v. and rarely see it (she is on t.v., right?) so I'm a little in the dark here - but I'll just take this as a compliment...(smile)

Barb

On somewhat of a tangent, but vaguely related:

re: Women dominating the ranks of college graduates – What’s the effect on America?

http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2009/07/08/w...
(also see: http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2009/07/07/w... )

excerpt:

"Women are pleased by their successes, their new opportunities, their agenda, their moral superiority. But underneath everything lies the more or less conscious awareness that they are still dual beings by nature, capable of doing most things men do and also wanting to have children. They may hope otherwise, but they fully expect to pursue careers, to have to pursue careers, while caring for children alone. And what they expect and plan for is likely to happen.

The men have none of the current ideological advantages of the women, but they can opt out without too much cost. In their relations with women they have little to say; convinced of the injustice of the old order, for which they were responsible, and practically incapable of changing the direction of the juggernaut, they wait to hear what is wanted, try to adjust but are ready to take off in an instant. They want relationships, but the situation is so unclear. They anticipate a huge investment of emotional energy that is just as likely as not to end in bankruptcy, to a sacrifice of their career goals without any clarity about what reward they will reap, other than a vague togetherness."

I was just reading through some of these comments and I felt compelled to write something here. Overcoming religiosity is possible. This isn't my guess, I personally know this to be so. There are signs as to the causes of them and treatment for these causes continue to be discovered and effectively prescribed. The scientific community has stopped the treatment of religiosity in the early 70's because of pressure from political interest and activist groups. But in fact, sufficient evidence exists for the effective treatment of religiosity. As one brief example, though not universally applicable, it is understood that religiosity, in sincere truth, serve as a reparative drive for us to fulfill the unmet needs that remain from going to too many spiritually dead firesides and feasts in our childhood. There is loving and professional assistance out there that will guide us to look into these experiences in our lives in an effort to help us overcome our difficulty. Change is possible; it is my hope that you will be willing to consider this. In the light of the Teachings, I believe the journey is very rewarding when we try to live by the supreme standard that is set out for us. There is love and support out there, but we may have to look for it.

I say well played, Fubar is awarded 10 pts for irony

hee, hee - always good to get another point of view. comic relief, I believe it's called...thanks, Fubar.

Barb

I was just reading through some of these comments and I felt compelled to write something here. Overcoming homosexuality is possible. This isn't my guess, I personally know this to be so. There are signs as to the causes of them and treatment for these causes continue to be discovered and effectively prescribed. The scientific community has stopped the treatment of homosexuality in the early 70's because of pressure from political interest and activist groups. But in fact, sufficient evidence exists for the effective treatment of same-sex attractions. As one brief example, though not universally applicable, it is understood that same-sex attractions, in sincere truth, serve as a reparative drive for us to fulfill the unmet needs that remain from our childhood. There is loving and professional assistance out there that will guide us to look into these experiences in our lives in an effort to help us overcome our difficulty. Change is possible; it is my hope that you will be willing to consider this. In the light of the Teachings, I believe the journey is very rewarding when we try to live by the supreme standard that is set out for us. There is love and support out there, but we may have to look for it.

With love,
--

p.s. If you would like to talk with me more about this, please feel free to email me, as I'm not on this website much. I just happened to stop by for the first time today.
Thanks --

To Guest:

I cannot deny your experience, since I'm a big believer in respect for others' experience. However, because of what is known about "reparative therapy" and what science tells us about sexual identity, I think it is likely that somewhere down the road you will "slip" and then you will feel you have failed, and you will be disappointed in yourself. The disappointment in that case should be directed toward the theory of "reparative therapy," not toward yourself.

If you are bisexual, then you might fool yourself into thinking you have successfully repressed the expression of your gay side (and incidentally I don't know why you are hesitant to use the word gay - it's a beautiful word - I do know that homophobic people are reluctant to use it); if you are at the far end of the sexuality spectrum on the homosexual side, then it is less likely you would be able to fool yourself in that way.

If you are happier, because of religious pressure, thinking that you have been "cured," then blessings to you. But do not make the mistake of assuming that other gays would share your happiness at such a thought. Many gays, thank God, are happy and well adjusted these days, having learned to accept their sexual identity and find joy in it. They would perhaps say that religious gays who are unhappy with their sexual identity would find happiness and fulfillment not in "reparative therapy" but in acceptance of who they are, and in seeing what they are as a gift to their community.

If in future your experience of "reparative therapy" fails, do not blame yourself. Remember what Peyamb and Tim W. have said. Consider the possibility that religion may be wrong on this question - God knows, religions have been wrong before.

Barb

The problem Barb is the premise that a gay person is sick and needs help. That's a bunch of B.S. and it's no wonder it makes us angry. Guest can sugar-coat anyway he likes, but it will make many people angry. As I've said before, I have no problem with a gay man wanting to marry a woman. If a gay person has fallen in love with someone of the opposite sex and they want to try to make it work, with all the hurdles- then hey go for it. Who am I to tell someone to give up on love? But the B.S. that the individual will ever get rid of their same-sex feelings and that THAT is the goal is wrong. The sooner Guest figures this out- the sooner he can have a true conversation with gay people.

I agree completely, Peyamb. There have been societies in the past that have been more wise and skilled in integrating "the different" into the social culture. Many Native American tribes did this, for instance, before the arrival of the Europeans. Homophobia, not homosexuality, is the illness which needs healing. It is possible to honor and make sacred the role of GLBT folks in society, rather than demonizing them, as our culture has done for so long. I have heard prominent Baha'is say they are not homophobic - how silly, of course they are not afraid of gays! "Some of my best friends, etc." "I even invite them to dinner!" Homophobia is deeply ingrained in our culture, as is racism, as is sexism - and homophobia and sexism are deeply related. Native American tribes which were more woman-centered were able to integrate GLBT people into their society - they were given a special role, sometimes sacred, and were honored and accepted for who they were. There have been other cultures able to do this. Patriarchy is very much related to homophobia. It is hard to see sexism, racism, homophobia when you are so immersed in it. Baha'is seem to see (at least to a limited extent) the existence of sexism and racism and seek to address those issues, but homophobia is still off their radar - they cannot even acknowledge they they are immersed in it. Change is possible, but it must start at grass-roots.

If, as Baha'is are told, we are in a transition period, changing from a more masculine culture to a more feminine and balanced one, we have an excellent opportunity to begin to heal the illness of homophobia, and to provide a sacred space for those among us who are GLBT. I feel as if we are at a fork in the road, and we can go either way. Thus far, we seem to be traveling back down the path of patriarchy and homophobia, but I still believe change is possible, if enough people educate themselves on this issue, and begin to speak up, rather than just turning their heads aside.

I guess the problem makes me more sad than angry, though I certainly experience flashes of anger - generally I try to cool down before speaking, which is easier to do online than in person. Love is a complicated thing, and love and sexuality are two separate issues, though certainly related.

I may be wrong about the possibility for change of religion - homophobia is a great and powerful evil, and when allied with religion, also a very powerful entity in our lives, it does seem quite an uphill battle. I have to keep taking steps toward change, and encouraging others to do so, even if I am wrong in that hope. I can't believe that those steps taken forward in darkness, without the assurance that anything will rise up to assist us, will not have somehow some effect that will be beneficial to someone, somewhere.


Barb

Please enlighten us. What were the unmet needs that I did not receive from my loving, straight parents who were firmly lived their lives according to the Bahai faith (Persian with ancestry back to the Letters of the Living). So what was I lacking that made me gay? The scientific community knows exactly what it is doing. It is saving young lives from the distress, suicidal thoughts and unnecessary pain that is inflicted on them by religious communities that preach reperative therapy. The last thing that the Bahai community is another Exodus type of organization that will lead people into the wilderness of false hopes. Change is not possible. Control- maybe (but why control something beuatiful that God made?). The journey is just as rewarding to love your soulmate of the same sex and build a family together. Love is the supreme standard- don't confuse it with your dogma.

Hi peyamb,
Unfortunately, I cannot give you an answer regarding your life, because I don't know you, and I won't pretend I can be of assistance the way someone with the know-how knowledge can. But if you are interested, please allow me to privately provide some references to you that may be helpful along those lines. I do know, however, that the work involves looking at our relationship with our same-gender and also opposite-sex gender, and understanding and/or redefining the relationship or boundaries that would have otherwise kept us from having our needs met and growing into our full potential. I know that sounds like a really risky statement, but I don't know how else to say it.. and I don't mean sound disdainful in any way, but rather to offer some additional insight.
Personally, regarding anything I have looked into, I have felt that I should always independently investigate the claim of any practice or treatment with careful attention to discern its validity, even though it may often be difficult and scary to do so. Often, I have felt the result of the attempt to be confirming. This is my personal experience. Also, I often think of what an ideal community would look like that is there to understand and provide endless and unconditional love and support. I believe we will get there.
Much love.

p.s. I don't feel comfortable leaving my email here, perhaps there is another way?

No need to leave me your email address. I know more than you might think. There is a vast array of information online. You can google Exodus and find it. None of it has impressed me. Please also independently investigate the claims of happy gay couples and ask yourself if dissuading a young, confused person from entering into such meaningful relationships is really what God wants. Maybe talk to the many Bahai men that lived lies for decades, being forced to deceive their opposite sex spouse in order to be a Bahai. Yeah, I also dream of a community that provides endless and uncoditional love to ALL people, including gay couples. Unfortunately the Bahai community is not there yet and it never will be if it dares promote reperative therapy to vulnerable souls. I'll pray that you see with your own eyes on not the eyes of others. Peace!

Well, I just think it's fair that those who want to overcome shouldn't feel oppressed and should equally be given the chance to do so if they wish. It's not for everybody, but those who desire to should have the freedom and support to do so. It's just a matter of choice and free will, no? I'm not here to talk about right or wrong, I'm just here to offer support. Let's not make it something else, aye?
Regards -

timwatts

"Don't you dare be so insulting to gay people"

-Well, I didn't want this to turn into a negative discussion. Like I said, I don't mean to insult anyone; I don't believe I've used any incriminating words here. I'm also hoping we can have mature dialogue with no insults. Anything I've said that was insulting, please accept my apology. But also please accept my words simply as a different perspective. Please don't bash my opinion.

"It's the interpretation of religion by humans who want god's will to be the same as our human predujuces that is the true horror."

-If it were human interpretation I wouldn't be here in the first place. As I'm here to discuss matters of overcoming, not religious politics, I don't have any further comment here.

"Even it it were possible to change someone's sexual preferece (I'd like to know how you would prove that it has worked by the way)"

-timwatts, if you are interested in opening this dialogue, I would be more than happy to discuss this with you. We can arrange for private discussion if you would like to continue the dialogue.


peyamb,

Same-sex love is an absolutely beautiful thing. To some degree it is more important than opposite-sex love. :) Not only is same-sex love healing, but it is essential. Because of our generally homophobic society here in the West, what we are lacking is support and understanding in the community and family-unit of the need for this type of love. Without it, it would be an inhumane injustice to us humans, as we all have a need for it.
Being "gay" (I'll also use that term for now), is a beautiful thing, and yes I believe God loves us for it. I don't think anyone should become "straight" (again term used in quotes). It's a gift to be gay and we have only to better understand the rewards from that fashioning. He is the Fashioner, after all. In general, our society needs to become aware of how deeply sexual it has become in all matters of everyday life, from TV, to movies, to billboard ads. Are we not constantly called upon to detach ourselves from this world and to rely our focus on the worlds of the spirit?
Not to imply this in a condescending way, but I believe (and know) change is possible. By the way, I realize how this is all online and completely faceless and ineffective I'm sure. So I'm sorry about that.
I'll look forward to staying in touch if you like.

Ok, I'm a little confused now. If you think same-sex love is a beautiful thing and essential; and being gay is a beautiful thing- then why offer some poor soul the false hope of overcoming those feelings to become straight? Why? If has Tim said you offer some black person who hates his skin color the opportunity to become white, so he feels better about himself, then whole world would see it as wrong. Instead of asking that person to learn to love themselves as God created them. Unfortunately, you don't see that when it comes to gays. By promoting reperative therapy in the Bahai community- you have started a negative discussion. You are hurting people- especially a vulneable youth in the community. And THAT is why we are so upset. You might have the greatest intentions, but it doesn't matter. And you are right- society has become sexual- just look at mockery that television has made of straight relationships. Does that mean that being straight is wrong? Should straight people stop having sex and building families? Maybe you should go teach EVERYONE (straight or gay) to overcome their desire for sex. At least then you are not being a bigot. You keep saying that you know change is possible, but you have no proof. There are so many stories of people who claimed they hand changed, only to come out (again) later in life. Our sexuality is ingrained in us. You can use drugs/therapy/shock whatever to make someone listless and asexual, but that does not mean that you have helped them overcome their orientation. All you've done is destroyed a soul.

Pey..joonam. Let's face it. Women had to throw themsleves int he front of horses and chain themselves to government buildings. Blacks had to use force to gt their civil rights and slaves had to be freed by force. Slavery abolished by wars. When we look back people who held the views that women had no rights along with slaves and blacks are considered backward and bigotted. No doubt gays will have to follow the same path to freedom and justice. It will be intersting to see what mealy mouthed pathetic reason Baha'is will then give for why it used to be considered an abonination and use such gymnastics as " well it was a mystery..all will be known in the fullness of time...etc ect ad nauseum crap" I am so angry at the posts here (except yours of course) they pretend to be all reasonalbe and liberal and tolerant but really they are as ravanous wolves....worse that down right homophobes at last i can understand why ignorant uneducated people can be lead to fear things they have not experience of. But in my experiences homophobes are afraid of some aspect of their own self that they have been taught to despise. Sometimes I fantase that gays are like angels and that our place in the kingdome is assured as we hav suffered and overcome so many trials in our lives. We are here for the purpose of testing the staights who have to work for thier place in the after life and if they fail to understand that gays are just as good as anyone else then they will find themselves at a disadvantge in the next world. Of course we will challenge homophobia and ignorance...and we will defend ourselves from haters and detractors and liars...yes liars most baha'is that i have met.....

Will you take the responsibility when that individual commits suicide because he couldn't, just couldn't "overcome" like you promised him? Will you take responsibility when for the broken family that occurss because a man no longer can keep up the farce of having "overcome" his sexuality? It is free will to choose how to live our lives. If a gay person, for positive reasons (love; not religious pressure) decides he wants to be with someone of the opposite sex- then great. That is a "choice", but recognizing that they will have to live with the reality that his feeligns for men will never go away. What you are offering are lies- snake oil. So yes I AM here to tell you that you are wrong for preying on vulnerable people that hate themselves so much that they have to become straight in order to feel accepted and "normal". You are wrong for suggesting what you are suggesting and I have no problem telling you so.

Yes and while you're at it try to get treatment for being black or white if you are not happy with your colour there are several methods that truly work (cf Micheal Jackson) I hear drugs can darken or lighten your skin. Plastic surgery for racial charateristics you'd like to change....

Even it it were possible to change someone's sexual preferece (I'd like to know how you would prove that it has worked by the way) why would youwant to there is nothing wrong with being gay and that's what you should be telling people who express a desire not to be so. Tell them God wants them gay.
It's the interpretation of religion by humans who want god's will to be the same as our human predujuces that is the true horror. Don't you dare be so insulting to gay people with your ridiculously evil, bigotted and ignorant comments. Just because gay people are peaceful by and large don't push it as we are getting mightily fed up at having to justify our very existance to a bunch of bigots like you...there are many buses in this world but we are not going to sit at the back do you hear? To take advantage of someone gay and suggest that it's ok to try and change if they don't want to be that way is an evil act. If people tried to understand more and not ram their predujice down their throats it would me living a gay life much easier....

in case you haven't already seen it:

http://exchristian.net/testimonies/2009/12/from...

Thanks, Fubar. This is exactly on target. EXCEPT I think one should not have to choose between faith - of whatever kind - and being true to one's self. Indeed, true faith necessarily entails being true to one's self. Why let others define one's faith? Gays/Lesbians are spiritual by nature as much as anyone else, and often more so IMHO. It doesn't have to be a case of either-or; it can be both-and.... It angers me that people are made by "religion" to feel they have to choose between their gay identity and their identity as spiritual beings of faith. This is not true religion. It is a false choice - doesn't have to be that way at all. It may be easier to choose one or the other - but that doesn't mean that choice is what speaks to our deepest needs as human beings. The majority defines most religions - but that's only because those who are in the minority let them. God is not white, male, or straight unless the believers make God that way. We say God is all-encompassing, but our actions say otherwise. We put God in little neatly arranged and labeled boxes that suit our limited vision. Though I understand the temptation to flee religion with a limited vision of the eternal, I would like to see more people stay and fight the good fight within, so that we can have whole lives and learn the meaning of community. What a dreamer, huh?

Barb

Barb & all,

I agree, but for GBLTs dealing with a fundamentalist church, things are probably even more bleak than in "mainsteam" bahai culture?
(Is that possible? lol.)

As you might know, I'm an ex-bahai for other reasons than because of sexual preference. (I'm a libertarian heterosexual male.) I think some basic points in bahai theology are wrong (manifestationology is a bogus, culturally narrow framing of spirituality), and bahai administration is hopelessly inept, if not corrupt, and probably incapable of reform in the next 1,000 years.

I do generally support bahai reformers, dissidents, nonconformists, and critics, they inspire me about what "faith" is really about - being liberated from clinging/ego, being better human beings, reaching for transcendance, equality, justice, compassion, altruism and unconditional loving acceptance of the difficulty of striving for beauty, goodness and truth. Right thought, right action, right speech, right feeling, etc.

Bless your dear soul, and keep up the good work!

It looks like the Talibangelicals are doing a re-think on supporting the death penalty legislation on gays in Uganda.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/04/anti-g...

Does anyone know if the NSA of Uganda is doing a re-think too on formal Baha'i participation in the death penalty legislation "rainbow of death" coalition?

O---M---G. Talibahaigelicals? lol.

this from Martha Stewart:

http://revolked2.blogspot.com/2009/12/this-from...

Interesting article re: fundamentalism:

http://fathergeofffarrow.blogspot.com/2009/12/w...

I thought this was hilarious:

http://revolked2.blogspot.com/2009/12/conversio...

this was really thought provoking.
thank you for posting this, and i'm sorry to hear how difficult this situation is for your brother and yourself.

I read a little bit about Mark Tobey's life here: http://www.gaybahai.net/notable-individuals/
It used to anger me to read about these closeted gay men that served and praised the Bahai community. But now I realize that they were just a product of their times. What other choice did they have? The Bahai Faith was convenient. As was becoming a priest in the Catholic church. A religion of Don't ask don't tell was better than a religion of "we'll hunt you down and kick you out". But times have changed and the current "mark Tobey's" inside of the Bahai community have to make a choice. Continue your hypocrisy or stand up on the side of justice. God is watching.

May I share some information I think is meaningful? I have been chatting with an old Baha'i who was a personal friend of Ruhiyyih Khanum. She said that one of Shoghi Effendi's administrators was gay.
This has, I think, several interesting repercussions for us. If we wish SE and RK (as his secretary) had not said / interpreted non-modern ideas, this can help us see them as a bit more reasonable. We have a "precedent" for peaceful coexistence. And my informant noted that SE "had no problem with letting the gay man handle SE's money!" and never touched the man's administrative rights. So, our precedent includes respect and apparently gratitude.

Of course it was easier to be gay and Bahai back then, because almost every gay man was closeted. So if you kept to yourself and no one talked about it, then sure you were accepted. Ruhiyyih Khanum was overall accepting of gay people too, but she also made comments about how it was wrong. The problem today is that gays no longer want to live in the closet. Don't Ask Don't Tell doesn't work for us in the military, nor should it in our religious communities. Period! So what will the Bahai community do? Accept us fully or not?

Or they just leave... and join a community of honest, good, decent, creative and talented people who contribute to the world around them.

Anti gay bill in Uganda: http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=49189
So where does the Bahai community stand in all this? It's time for the UHJ to put its money where its mouth is when it comes to Human Rights. The Bahai community has a House of Worship in that country. Will the Bahais be silent? Last year they demonstrated with others in Uganda against gays. Now what? Will the Bahais in Uganda support such a horrible bill? Or just sit idly by while homosexuals are discriminated against and even murdered by the government? If the UHJ doesn't stand up and say something, given that there is a significant percentage of Ugandas who are Bahais, then those 9 men's letters are not worth the paper they are written on. Don't come crying about the persecution of Bahais in Iran if you are not willing to say anything about this bill in Uganda. Do the right thing!

I have been waiting, and waiting, to hear the UHJ say that the work of Baha'is in Uganda against gays (and their support of the "interfaith rainbow coalition" - which should win some kind of award for euphemism of the century) is wrong, wrong, wrong - I haven't heard a thing yet. The Baha'i Community cannot expect any further recognition from the rest of the world in regard to support for human rights if they do not renounce what is happening in Uganda. Remaining silent in this case is not an option. Baha'is like to straddle the fence when convenient, I think - it's time to take a stand on this particular issue and let the world know where they stand.

Barb

I wouldn't hold my breath Barb. This whole article was posted by Baquia in regards to an apology by the Tory party for Section 28 (a ban on councils and schools promoting homosexuality as a valid lifestyle). Did you know that the NSA of the UK wrote a letter in support of this ban? http://bahai-library.com/?file=nsa_statement_ho...
Where is the apology from the present UK NSA regarding this asinine letter written back in 1996. We would all long be dead from lack of air if we had waited.

Thank you, Peyamb. Yes, I have been aware previously of activity of the UK NSA in this regard. These folks always want to equate chastity and fidelity with heterosexuality - now there's a joke. What I want is for the Baha'i institutions to shout to the world - from the rooftops - what their true and complete positions are in regard to gays, birth control (their ultimate goal - not the present temporary compromise), abortion (i.e. women's reproductive rights), the principle of separation of church and state, their violation of their own basic principle of equality of women and men, and freedom of Baha'i academic scholars of religion. I just want the world to know what the Baha'is stand for, in addition to all the nice-nice stuff that gets publicized all the time. Some people will like and admire their stance (The Family might, for instance), a lot of people will not. The Baha'i world is drifting, imo, into very dangerous territory in regard to human rights. I just want people to know the facts, and then they can make their own judgment about those facts. I particularly want BAHAI'S to know the facts - because altogether too many of them don't - they haven't done their homework, and perhaps a lot of them don't really want to know or to have to think about it. The Baha'i Faith is what we, the Baha'is make it - it's time for us to wake up and think hard about what we want to support. The Baha'i Faith doesn't belong only to the institutions; it belongs to the Baha'is, to all of us - we are responsible for what it becomes in the world. It might be worthwhile for folks to look up Paul Deardorf's resignation letter (written in the 90s, I believe) - he was a very active Baha'i, and worked with ABMs, as I recall. It's easily available online. Whether he ever rejoined the Faith, I do not know, but he certainly brought up some points worth considering.

Barb

oops, my mistake. The name is Paul Dodenhoff, not Paul Deardorf - I didn't double-check the name before posting. Sorry about that, and my sincere apology to Paul Deardorf - should he be out there somewhere....we oldies do get a bit muddled in our thinking from time to time. Time for my nap now.


Barb

I think you mean this letter Barb: http://www.bahai-faith.com/ex-Bahai-6.html

Yeah, it was that horrible letter published in the American Bahai that made me write to National and tell them to stop sending me such awful propaganda. Oh and I told them to consider my cancelation to the American Bahai as my last "donation" to the fund (since they no longer had to waste stamps mailing it to me!)

From JMG: HomoQuotable - John Corvino

"I have long advocated using the term 'bigot' sparingly when referring to gay-rights opponents. It’s not that I don’t think bigotry is a serious problem. On the contrary, it’s vital to identify bigotry for what it is and to expose its tragic effects. It’s also important to learn the lessons of history, including the ways in which bigotry can hide behind religion, concern for children’s welfare, and other seemingly benign motives.

"But there’s a difference between identifying bigotry, on the one hand, and labeling any and all people who disagree with us as bigots, on the other. Such labeling tends to function as a conversation-stopper, cutting us off from the 'moveable middle' and ultimately harming our progress. It’s also unfair to the many decent people who genuinely strive to understand us even where, for sincere and complex reasons, they cannot accept our position. [snip]

"Many of our opponents are fundamentally decent people. For both principled and pragmatic reasons, we don’t want to saddle them with an identity that suggests their being beyond redemption. In other words, we don’t want to label them 'bigots' prematurely. At the same time, we don’t want to shrink from identifying the evil of anti-gay bigotry, wherever and whenever it occurs. And so, we can distinguish. We can point out the sin of bigotry forcefully while using the epithet of 'bigot' sparingly (though that epithet, too, has its uses). Because, in the end, we do know it when we see it." - John Corvino, writing for Independent Gay Forum.

re: John Corvino on using "bigot" for anyone that doesn't agree with pro-gay politics

Thanks for the excellent material.

Corvino has made a very good start in recognising the well-known problems with "identity politics" (that can apply to gender issues, racial issues, green issues, etc.).

My argument last year, during the heated debate about the anti-gay marriage vote in california, was that identity politics are counter-productive not only to the GLBT's movement's valid long-term objectives, but also to the larger process of social movement toward increased tolerance.

Rationale: identity politics tend to be paradigm-regressive. In other words a tribal ("us vs. them") attitude tends to set in amongst the members of a identity group. Then the thought police come out of the woodwork and "punish" (or marginalize) anyone that doesn't conform to group norms/ideas.

(hmmm,..... sounds exactly like bahai administration?)

Extremism and radicalism tends to set in on both "sides", and more moderate, pragmatic solutions are rejected or ignored.

However, there are obviously some short-term benefits to identity politics. Otherwise they wouldn't have any appeal. An increased sense of solidarity and validation of grievances (usually early in a movement, or stage of a movement) being the main ones I can think of at the moment.

The problem is that a transition usually has to be made to a bridge-building strategy, and the group-think that tends to set in from identity politics works against those that advocate such outreach.

On a individual psycho-spiritual level, I think the issue has to do with unconditional acceptance and compassion.

People need healing around all sorts of issues, including this one. A healing approach, based on compassion, should include aceptance of the basic human decency of both those that agree and disagree. Otherwise, the tedency to dehumanize people is reinforced, hardly something that seems consistent with the higher sentiments and aims of the wider tolerance movement.

Bye!

I understand what you are saying, but many gays (and supporters believe) that the transition has come and compassion towards someone who is blatantantly bigoted is not always a good approach. We reached this mark with race issues years ago. Take for instance the stupid magistrate in the South who wouldn't issue a marriage license to a black man and a white woman. In his mind he had legit reasons and felt he wasn't discriminating against anyone, but guess what? HE lost his job and got some angry responses. I give it a couple of more decades and soon no one will dare discriminate against us either without feeling the wrath of society.

Thanks for this, Daniel. There's altogether too much name-calling in the world, imo. It seems a fine line to walk, to work for gay rights, and oppose false charges and assumptions about gays, and at the same time try to work according to Baha'i principles of social interaction. One must be bold, but not mean-spirited, must point out the often unpalatable truth without being self-righteous, must always hope for the potential for change and believe such change is possible, even in the most prejudiced. I find this very difficult, but most worthwhile tasks are not easy.

Anyway, thanks for sharing this.

It is tough... John Corvino´s resources are excellent, and are recommended see:
http://www.johncorvino.com/

His DVD is great, and shoudl be seen by Bahaí admistrators

Thanks for reminding me of this, Daniel. I have watched this clip before and was quite impressed by it, but never followed up. I may order his DVD for local use - I agree, all Baha'i administrators should see this, and they should see "Inlaws and Outlaws" as well. We just received this one in the mail and it is supposed to be shown by one of our local universities, and perhaps a local theatre as well. We hope to share it at least with a few friends and a local church, and to encourage local Baha'is to see it.

Barb

Listen up Universal House of Justice:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ0IgECXE18

This is great... thanks Pey!

thought this might be of interest to soe:

"I increasingly see organized religion as actually my enemy. They treat me as their enemy. Not all Christians, of course. Not all Jews, not all Muslims. But the leaders. . . . Why should I take the judgment of a declared celibate about my sexual needs? He's basing his judgment on laws that would fit life in the Bronze Age. So if I'm lost to God, organized religion is to blame."

- Sir Ian McKellen, speaking to the Los Angeles Times.

There's a wonderful interview here Ellen Degeneres on ‘Oprah’ - fantastic
http://networkedblogs.com/p17264062

in particular Ellen discusses her coming out, her ideas on the purpose of life and her marriage.

Ellen continued with, “Anybody who’s married knows there is a difference. It feels like you’re home. There’s an anchor, there’s a safety. I’m going to be with her until the day I die and I know that.”

Thanks!

Folks in the USA

please take a moment and consider adding your name to the petion:

http://gay.americablog.com/2009/11/dont-ask-don...

A list or religious GLBT positive action in California this next week:

http://revolked2.blogspot.com/2009/10/keeping-f...

some beautiful stories of marriage here:

http://www.whiteknot.org/stories.html

Nice blog. Thanks.

Tomorrow Obama signs the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes bill...

play this loud!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_NpxTWbovE&feat...

Thanks for this, Daniel. I do LOVE! this song. I'm traveling, so don't have a lot of time to respond, but I'm paying attention.

Barb

Haggis leaves Scientology
“Crash” director Paul Haggis has severed his ties with the Church of Scientology, in part because of what he alleged as the organization’s stance against gay marriage.
Haggis wrote a letter addressed to Tommy Davis, the head of Scientology’s Celebrity Centre. In it, Haggis said he was disappointed by the church’s tacit denial of gay rights in the debate over California’s gay marriage ban.
The 56-year-old Haggis, who won an Oscar in 2005 for co-writing “Crash,” said he was quitting the church after 35 years. “I could not, in good conscience, be a member of an organization where gay-bashing was tolerated,” wrote Haggis, who also wrote the Oscar-winning “Million Dollar Baby.”
The letter, dated Aug. 19, was published in a blog about Scientology and has since been circulated online. Ziggy Kozlowski, a publicist for Haggis, confirmed the director wrote the letter. He said it was intended to remain private.
Davis said Haggis’ complaints were based on misunderstandings and that he has since spoken to the filmmaker. Davis strenuously disagreed with Haggis’ claim that the Church of Scientology is anti-gay.

Next time you go by that red tin can and the ringing bell, think twice about throwing some change in there: http://www.zimbio.com/Gay+and+lesbian+rights/ar...
Just as thinking twice about giving to the Bahai Fund. Better yet, do as Abdul-Baha did, and just give some money direct to a deserving soul.

Hey UHJ. Hey National Spiritual Assemblies. Hey all you people who use tradition and old age, or your homophobic culture to justify discriminiation against LGBT people, while pretending you are not being prejudiced - please listen to this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrEbJBFWIPk&feat...

what a sweet, dear man... thank you for posting this

Thank you, Peyamb - this is wonderful. Every single Baha'i should listen to this, in particular the nine men on the hill.

And consider this - if a lie repeated often enough comes to be revered as truth, how much more powerful is the truth repeated again, and again, and again - we must keep repeating it until people get it - they will, eventually.

Barb

Yes friends and family need to stop treating their gay members as anything less than equal. P, in response to your previous comments, you and any other gay are more than just 'friends' - you are part of my community of spirit.

More Bahais need to be out about treating gays as equals!
This man in the youtube film is wonderful. Dare I say it, so Abdul-Baha like.

I think the problems people of the Baha'i faith are going through with accepting homosexuals is the same as any Christianity faith. I enjoy many ideals of Baha'i, being a Christian man with an open mind I can relate. Many religions are not accepting of homosexuality, why do you think that is??

I'm about to leave on another trip, and I don't have time to form an extensive answer to this, but I think the reason has to do with an underlying fear of the potential power of women and of the feminine. Consider the attitudes that fundamentalist, patriarchal religions have in common in regard to women in authority, gays, abortion, birth control and women's sexual behavior, independent thinking, and a tendency toward wanting religion to have the power of the civil state. Even Baha'is, who boast of equality of women and men, do not give women the power of making policy - only of carrying out the policies determined by men (the Universal House of Justice and the Central Figures). Lesbians represent women who tend to be independent of men in their thinking and behavior, and can form a powerful unit when they are connected and united, while still enjoying the friendship of men. Gay men do not need to control and dominate women in the way that many straight men do - and men taking what is considered a feminine role in lovemaking are very threatening to many straight men. The ultimate insult for a boy is to be considered "girlie." Men do not know if children are their own, if they cannot in some way control women sexually - thus the prohibitions regarding sexual behavior. Women have the power to bring forth life; that's not nothing. Some men have Venus envy, you could say. And a woman kept very busy having lots of children and tending to "woman stuff" like taking care of men and children often don't have time and energy left over to be messing about in a troublesome way in politics and government and law-making. Fortunately, this is changing rapidly, in some countries more than others.

This is a very superficial answer - I am aware of that. Nevertheless, I think that patriarchal religion, of whatever sort, expresses an underlying fear of the potential power of women. I'm not saying that is all there is to religion - not at all. I am talking about the way that religion has been used by men in power to keep women "in their place." This has nothing whatever to do with the goal of the Prophets in regard to the spiritual behavior of all humans - it is an appropriation of legitimate spiritual teaching in order to carry out a patriarchal goal.

As I said - very superficial answer, and one not well thought out at this point - but I am convinced that this is at least part of the answer, and I would be interested to know what others think.

Barb

thanks Barb

>>"In all the Divine Dispensations,"
>>He states, in a Tablet addressed to
>>a follower of the Faith in Persia,
>>"the eldest son hath been given
>>extraordinary distinctions. Even the
>>station of prophethood hath been his
>>birthright."
If I had live in His time, I would have asked Abdul-Baha "So what? So what if partriarchial people from the past made the first born male and males in general such distinction? Isn't this supposed to be a new age where women and men are equal?" And guess what? I bet Abdul-Baha would have been loving, understanding and maybe even have changed His mind. Who knows? I seriously doubt he would have taken the fundamentalist, closed, "my way or the highway" approach of the present Bahai administration and it's mindless followers.
No Barb, you are not being superficial- you are hitting it right on the mark. When fundamentalist divorce these people (including Bahaullah) from their human side- the side that actually lived in a historical period with it's biases and traditions, then you end up with a religion that continues being out of touch. A religion that will stay stagnant as the world progresses.

I would disagree that many religions are not accepting, but rather many conservative/traditionalists in those religions are not accepting. There is a difference between Jesus and the Pope. Jesus loved and accepted all. He said nothing about a man having to only be with a woman in marriage. Human beings made up all the discriminatory agenda against gays later on.

Another family unwelcome in this religion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlmL66UNjnQ&feat...

Daniel Orey
Sacramento, California

Oh no Daniel. They are welcome. They'll just be told that they are "friends" to the Faith, not really a part of the community. They wouldn't be able to vote, give to the fund, attend Feast and help make any decisions in the community- you know minor things like that according to Farhan. But oh yeah, they are so welcome to deal with the stares, the letters from secretaries telling them that their love is wrong, their children being taught in Sunday school that chastitiy means marriage between a man and a woman only, etc. etc. But yeah, they are welcome just like every one else.

awesome... thanks for this wonderful fit of irony...

Daniel Orey

http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2009/10/president-o... wow, REAL leadership. Now I just wish the 9 men on the hill would do something similar for LGBT people in the Faith. More than just the facade of saying to the Bahai community "don't be prejudice towards gays in your midst" and at the same time telling parents that they should get help to change their kids orientation and saying it's ok to kick good people out of the Faith for being in a loving committed relationship.

M & I watched this together, it was so moving, it brought us both to tears. I am so proud of this president. I noticed, that once again, the religious leaders at the march, were missing a Baha'i on the platform... may God forgive their homophobia, I can't.

Daniel Orey

I have to say one more thing here, after reading elsewhere a comment by a gay Baha'i that "the UHJ can't change this" in reference to the Baha'i stance toward homosexuality and gay Baha'is.

I say nonsense. The UHJ re-interpreted Shoghi Effendi's comment about Baha'is going door to door with pamphlets being undignified and undesirable. Now it's fine for Baha'is to go door to door, just like the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons do, no matter how offensive it might be, because it now seems useful for them to do so. The UHJ CAN CHANGE the current stance toward gay Baha'is - they simply do not have the will to do so, perhaps because of their own unacknowledged prejudice in regard to homosexuality. If they wanted to change it, they could - trust me. I am reminded of that old joke that, if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.

The people with the real power, however, to change the current stance toward gay Baha'is are the gay Baha'is themselves, and their friends and families. As long as gay Baha'is accept a bogus excuse for the administration's "inability" to change things, nothing will change. Gay Baha'is must have enough dignity and self-respect and yes, courage, to effect change, to set in motion events that will result in a change of attitude. This can happen; there is absolutely no doubt in my mind about that. But it won't happen unless gay Baha'is who love the Faith, and those who love them, find within themselves the conviction and strength to take this issue on. People's lives, literally, are at stake, and I hope and pray that this will happen, but I am not holding my breath.

Barb

Yes... "The people with the real power, however, to change the current stance toward gay Baha'is are the gay Baha'is themselves"

YES!

This is so true... if GLBT people were as united as the folks united against us we would move mountains.

We have such friends such as Desmond Tutu, President Obama, and yet we hide, live in fear, are silent, and do not reach out to each other.

I am sitting here in Sacramento, sad that I could not make it to Washington to march ($$$), and listening to the religious leaders speak and thinking once again...

WHERE ARE WE?

Folks the moment we are even 1/2 as united and strong as the forces arrayed against us will be the moment that they WILL have to listen to us.

May God forgive them for the harm they are causing to GLBT youth and their friends and family.... because right now, I just cannot.

DCO- :)

Sonja-
Thank you. I had previously addressed the misattribution of the two passages (that were written on BEHALF OF Shoghi Effendi and not BY Shoghi Effendi) in the comments section of the video. But it's certainly hard to find there now, and conveniently YouTube now has an Annotations function, so I just had my secretary add the corrections on my behalf. (The correction still reflects my own agency and point of view, however- not a rogue departure from my instructions.)

Thanks,
Amanda

Father Geoff is one of my heroes
see original at: http://fathergeofffarrow.blogspot.com/2009/10/y...

Mario Nguyen's Speech

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Exk9aFC6S0M&feat...

For anyone looking to put their money where their mouth is and support the human rights of ALL Iranians in need- the Iranian Queer Railroad is a non-profit organization that helps LGBTQI Iranians gain asylum and/or avoid deportation back to Iran... and they need your financial support:

http://www.irqr.net/aboutus.htm

Someone sent me this link:
http://letters-of-the-living.blogspot.com/2009/...

which is your blog A and I love the sharp "let deeds not words be your adorning" reference for Bahais :)


and now I realise you made this film which I"d seen somewhere else (sorry don't remember the context now):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Guidl-7oGn4&feat...

It is beautifully made ...
but
you mis-attribute quotations.
Shoghi Effendi never wrote any of those things.

I realise many Bahais do like-wise but I prefer to stick what is actually in the Bahai Writings. I kinda wish you'd remake the movie with these things corrected because the point is fantastic. Making poeple aware and trying to get Bahais to stand up for equality and human rights.

This blog blew me away:
http://www.moralcourage.com/get-involved/moral-...

thanks!

Same sex couples equally fit as parents as heterosexual couples... in other news, the sky is blue.

Hi everyone,

I recently came across this music video by the Icelandic band Sigur Ros called Viðrar vel til loftárása and I really liked it, so I wanted to share it with all of you, although I suspect that many of you have already seen it.

I don't want to spark a debate, but I just found the video to be quite moving and powerful.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=34ZtT4Th9Ys

And how would the UHJ respond to such a father? Maybe with quotes such as this:
"The House of Justice was sorry to learn from your letter that your son has recently informed you that he is a homosexual. " "You will, no doubt, want to urge your son to seek appropriate counselling; "(aka reparative therapy; maybe even shock treatment, who knows). "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" (so it is understandable for a father to throw his child out because that child is now so anti-human and such an uneducated child; instead of what the father has done is completely wrong and he should immediately welcome his son back into the home because THAT is what Abdul-Baha would have wanted!!!).
Sorry Masud, not trying to foster any debate here, justr trying to tell the truth of what gays face in the Bahai community if they turn to our beloved UHJ!

Indeed, the fear and ugliness of the father's emotions are quite striking - who would want to be like that?

The new battle in California

Society protects and defends the rights of prisoners, who have been stripped of most of their civil rights, to enter into a civil marriage. Those who argue that homosexuality is a “lifestyle choice” are willfully ignoring the American Psychological Association and of the science of psychology, that homosexuality is an orientation. It is not a choice anymore than being heterosexual is a choice. On which calendar date did you sit down and chose your sexual orientation? Most of us discovered our orientation when we went through puberty. Some of us experienced discrimination, hatred, verbal, emotional and physical abuse in addition to the general angst, which marked that stage of development. Prop 8 legalized discrimination against a minority group into the California State Constitution and in so doing, promotes bigotry and social stigmatization of persons who have a same sex orientation.

Being a Christian is a choice, yet no one would dream (so far) of placing the rights of people to freely choose their religion up for a public vote. Regardless of one’s religious views, we all live in a pluralistic civil society. The only way that such a society can function peacefully is for all citizens to respect each other’s civil rights. Stripping any minority of its civil rights, which is precisely what Prop 8 accomplished, threatens the civil rights of every minority group in our society.

Several religions, many theologians, the APA and almost all international Psychological Associations agree that homosexuality is not a choice, but like heterosexuality, an orientation. Laws, such as Prop 8, which target a minority group and strip away their civil rights, are born of ignorance, prejudice and they promote discrimination and bigotry. I am honored to be one of the proponents of a ballot initiative, which will restore the right to a civil marriage to all Californians regardless of their sexual orientation. This new proposition will also write into our State Constitution the right of religious groups to deny religious marriage to same sex couples. This new proposition restores and protects civil marriage for all Californians while simultaneously protecting the rights of religious groups to deny religious marriage to same sex couples.

see original at: http://fathergeofffarrow.blogspot.com/2009/09/n...

ps... this isn't me, I forgot to clip in the author (Fred Karger) its in the link... my bad!

Good for you, Daniel, for helping initiate this proposition - everybody should be able to support this.

When I think of the history of the Guardian I am reminded of the story of Jesus when the disciples were repulsed by the sight of the dead carcass of a dog but Jesus instead pointed out what beautiful teeth the dog had. Yes we have the excommunications, women not on the UHJ, the anti-gay positions etc. But I still love the beautiful buildings and grounds in Haifa. And most especially the beautiful message that the days of the Guardian demonstrate - that in this day God chose not to work through Popes, Imams and Guardians but instead through a democratically elected Universal House of Justice made up of men women, gay, straight and dare I say transgender of all ethnicities that make up the human race.

the buildings at the BWC no longer contain much that is authentic, they only contain a shallow reflection of the memory of something authentic (deeply human, honeest, just, decent, compassionate, altruistic, and so forth).

what is important are the people, not the system.

however, the status quo in bahai privileges the "system". as habermas says "systems colonize lifeworld".

anyone that asserts that people are more important the the system will be marginalized and attacked, and if they persist, viciously so.

the changes you are advocating, which I support, could easily been seen as a (near) "CB" agenda by the reactionaries/fundies/authoritarians in the bahai system (the dominant leadership mode).

bahai belief has become belief in an increasingly soulless, dysfunctional and psychopathic "system", not faith in the good, beautiful and true in the human soul.

back to the original topic, of change being a law of nature:

the paper at the following link does a good job of summarizing several of the main ways of thinking about the current problems with postmodern "transformation" in global culture.

(predictably, there has been almost no real, significant discussion of those topics in the bahai community. at least not much discussion that transcends the usual glib "missionary" mentality, self-referential "bahai" logic that utterly lacks objectivity, etc.)

http://www.cejournal.org/GRD/neville.htm

excerpts:

Out of Our Depth and Treading Water: Reflections on Consciousness, Culture and New Learning Technologies

------------------------------------------------------
Bernie Neville
Graduate School of Education at La Trobe University
Australia

------------------------------------------------------
Copyright authors and Journal of Integral Studies.

... In this paper I start with the premise that at the turn of this century we are in the midst of profound cultural and psychological change. During the past half-century we have had some of our species’ sharpest minds trying to get to grips with the evidence that something significant is going on in the evolution of human consciousness and culture. I want to rehearse something of what they have said, before reflecting on what this might mean for our work as teachers in an information-rich society. Specifically I want to look at our age from four different perspectives:

[] postmodern social analysis,
[] the history of consciousness,
[] constructivist developmental psychology and
[] archetypal psychology.

Each of these perspectives is represented in the work of a group of thinkers. While the thinkers in each group share ideas, there is no indication that they are influenced by people from the other groups, or even that they are aware of their existence. Yet, as you will see, their conclusions about the kind of consciousness which is emerging in what we now conventionally call the information age have a great deal in common.
...

The information society is guided by a fantasy of the marketplace, in which exchange is an end in itself - a fantasy of deregulation, free interchange, commodification. Knowledge, like wisdom, health, pleasure, law, spirituality and relationship, is now a commodity whose only value is its market value. Economic rationalism is only one manifestation of this kind of thinking. The consciousness of the marketplace permeates all areas of life.

A further characteristic of the postmodern condition, which Lyotard sees as another consequence of the information revolution, is the decline of orthodoxy. The "grand narratives" of the modern, industrial era - Marxism, Rationalism, Christianity - have been set aside in favour of an increasing relativisation of values, ethics and beliefs. Even conventionally religious people are no longer inclined to make claims to absolute truth.
...
Meanwhile modern science, having failed to construct a paradise, is being supplanted by a postmodern science characterized by incomplete information, catastrophe and chaos, indeterminacy, paradox, discontinuity, and a tendency to uncover new questions rather than new answers, a tendency to complexify rather than to simplify.

In a postmodern consciousness the significance of the image is magnified to a point where we are floating in a sea of images which are no longer expected to represent any reality or truth.
...
If teachers have a sense that there is a gap between the way they sense the world and the way their students sense it, and that tried and true methods of teaching do not seem to work so well any more, they may be right.
...
Kegan argues that the shift from third to fourth to fifth order thinking in not simply a matter of individual cognitive development. We are dealing here not only with personal development but with cultural change. In pre-scientific societies third order thinking was perfectly adequate to meet the demands of the environment. Fourth order thinking both enabled and was demanded by the Age of Science. The culture in which we find ourselves at the end of the twentieth century demands that we be capable of dialectical, post-ideological, transpersonal, fifth order thinking. When we were at school we may not have been taught to think like this, and we may use this skill rather clumsily. It may, indeed, be beyond many of us much of the time. But our children and students may be more capable of it than our parents and teachers ever could be, and if we ignore this we will not make much contact with them.
...
The evolution of consciousness: emerging integrality
The observations on culture and consciousness which Lyotard was making in the seventies and Kegan has been making in the nineties had already been made by Jean Gebser (1949) in the forties.

As a student of European language and literature Gebser became convinced that language was being used in quite new ways in this century, and that this new use of language represented a change in the way the world was being experienced. His original insight came through his discovery in the poetry of Rilke of a mode of experiencing which is no longer perspectival, dualistic and time-bound. He sought and found the same phenomenon in other European poets (notably Eliot and Valéry). His reflections on this led him to look across a wide range of arts and sciences for clues to the nature of this change. They also led him to years of research into archaeology and history, in an attempt to determine whether there was a trajectory in the evolution of human consciousness and culture which might explain the transformation which he thought he could discern in his own time. Out of these researches he developed a theory of what he called structures of consciousness.

In Gebser’s model of structures of consciousness he distinguished between four discrete mutations of consciousness: the archaic consciousness of primal human beings, the magical consciousness of the stone age, the mythical consciousness which developed after the ice ages, and the mental consciousness which emerged with the great classical civilizations and which has dominated European culture since the middle ages. These evolutional mutations are fundamentally different ways of experiencing reality. The central premise of his work, however, was that a new structure of consciousness was beginning to emerge in the twentieth century, a structure which he called integral consciousness.

While Gebser’s major work, The Ever Present Origin (1949), sets out these structures in evolutionary sequence, he did not wish to imply that they are historical developments leading to integral consciousness as the ultimate human achievement. He maintained rather that they are intertwined and ever-present, and that it is the dynamic interplay between them which constitutes culture. While he presents his theory as a theory of the evolution of consciousness, he is adamant that he is not doing so within a fantasy of historical “development” or “progress”. Our tendency to think in such terms is an artifact of our dominant mental consciousness, in which our experience of time is linear and quantified. Rather, reality is unfolding process, and the archaic, magic, mythical, mental and emerging integral structures are all valid ways of apprehending it. In Gebser’s understanding we are shaped and determined not only by the present and the past but by the future. Most significantly, all of the structures have both “efficient” and “deficient” forms and we have no basis for being romantic about either past or future. We have no assurance that we will experience the emerging integral structure only in its “efficient” form.

For Gebser the rational consciousness which has dominated European civilization since the enlightenment was not the supreme achievement in human development but rather the deficient form of the mental structure which emerged about three thousand years ago. He saw the deficiency in the rational consciousness of the past four centuries as deriving from its arrogant devaluation and suppression of the earlier structures. In the thirties and forties it was clear to him that the rational structure was collapsing and that European civilization was slipping back into a deficient magical-mythical structure. At the same time he found indications that a new structure was emerging. He suggested that this new structure involved the integration of the four older structures
...
With or without assistance from the analysts of postmodernity we can find in our literature, science, cinema and the daily news a dominant narrative of complexity and chaos, of the vanishing of boundaries, of deceit, denial and delusion among our leaders, of the preference for image over substance, of the loss of familial and tribal bonds, of the disappearance of our conventional grounds for moral judgments, of an unwillingness to confront reality, of the abandonment of rationality, of the proliferation of information, of the slipperiness of ideas and ideals which once seemed solid and graspable, of a market-place so ubiquitous and noisy that we cannot escape it.

So what is the “old story” in this?

In The Political Psyche (1993) Andrew Samuels has explored the myth of the Greek god Hermes as an approach to understanding contemporary economic and political culture and to dealing with our splits and confusions about capitalism and the market economy. I have argued elsewhere (Neville, 1992) that "the postmodern condition" may be construed as an inflation of late twentieth century European consciousness (wherever it is found) by the image and energy of Hermes. Taking seriously Hillman's dictum that we are always in one archetypal fantasy or another, I have argued that post-industrial society is caught in a Hermes fantasy.

The Homeric Hymn to Hermes (Hesiod, trans. Athanassakis, 1976) tells us how, to avoid the gods, Maia, the nymph who was Zeus' lover, hid in a deep cave, where she bore a son

who was a shrewd and coaxing schemer,
cattle - rustling robber, and a bringer of dreams,
a watcher by night and a gate-keeper, soon destined
to show forth glorious deeds among the immortal gods.
...
Archetypal psychology suggests that we can find the images of the Hermes myth dominating our culture in the recent past and the present time. We can argue that the complexity of our planetary situation and the unwillingness of political leaders to admit their inability to manage it belong to this pattern, as does the pervasive tendency to deal with crises through "image control" rather than effective action, the dominance of the stock market and the collapse of consensus ethics. I suggest that eco-feminism, in its challenge to the anthropocentricity and hero-pathology of the modern age, belongs to the same pattern as postmodern science, the information superhighway, the multicultural society, the “end of enclosure” and the worship of the unregulated market, for Hermes is very much Mummy’s boy.

If our culture is possessed by one god rather than another, we have to point to Hermes, the god of information and communication, the friendly god who constantly deceives us.

The Greeks did not distinguish between “good gods” and “bad gods”. The nasty or pathological aspects of behaviour were shared out among all the gods. Hermes has his good side and his bad side. However, Hermes himself makes no distinction between good and bad. We might not like some characteristics of the Age of Hermes: the deceit, delusion, irresponsibility and amorality; the collapse of boundaries, the substitution of image for substance, the attack on rationality, the groundlessness, the destabilization, the commodification; the restlessness of the god of travelers who never stays in one place. However, they go hand in hand with other Hermetic qualities which characterize our age: the pluralism, the flexibility, the capacity for transformation, the inventiveness, the relativism, the playfulness, the magic, the tolerance, the invitation to escape from psychological and cultural prisons, the acceptance of paradox, the acknowledgment of process, the concern for Mother Earth.

Hermes is not the only god dominant in our culture. There are other more oppressive gods demanding our worship. But I suggest that it is Hermes’ story, rather than any other, which currently says who we are.
...
I am beginning with Kegan’s third level because I don’t wish to complicate this argument any further by discussing the early years of schooling.)

Teachers in such a context (third order, mythical structure) assume that schooling should be aimed at engendering dependence and conformity in students. Teaching focuses on transmitting to students what is already known in the community. Learning need not be passive, but it is essentially receptive rather than creative. The function of the school (or university) is to enculturation the next generation into the values, ethics, knowledge and customs of the family, tribe, church or nation. The child needs to learn and accept what is acknowledged as truth by the community and to learn also how to behave in a manner which the community approves. The school exists within a narrative where certain values and purposes and truths are taken for entirely for granted.

Education in such a society is essentialist. The curriculum is content-centered. Those in authority know exactly what should be taught and learned.

On the other hand, if schooling is constructed by the mental consciousness of a modern-scientific society, it assumes a capacity for fourth order thinking. Such a schooling aims to produce students who are autonomous individuals, who take responsibility for their own behaviour, who take nothing for granted but critically examine their own society and the truths it presents to them. Teachers believe that the best learning is self-directed and active, rather than receptive and conformist. There is an underlying assumption that human beings are able to discover the truth about the universe if they observe it carefully enough and think about it hard enough.

Such an education looks critically at the principles which guide its own and other societies, in a search for universal principles for human behaviour. It is non-essentialist because we cannot yet confidently state the truth. It is student-centered because the individual student is the best judge of what he or she needs to learn right now in order to deal with the world as he or she finds it.
...
Kegan argues that many of us have difficulty in achieving and maintaining fourth order consciousness. Gebser warns us against privileging mental consciousness over mythical consciousness. Our consciousness is multi-layered, and it is the taken-for-grantedness of our deepest assumptions and culturally embedded narratives which give our lives meaning and direction, even though our mental consciousness may take a critical stance towards them and even though others may find them simply wrong.

However, the point of this paper is to address the question of what sort of schooling is demanded by fifth order thinking, integral consciousness, the postmodern condition, the information society and the Age of Hermes.

May I suggest the following.

Where third order schooling aims at dependence and fourth order thinking aims at independence, fifth order thinking aims at interdependence.
...
The role of information technology is central to this. It both enables and demands the dissolution of boundaries, the development of transegoic consciousness, the transcendence of rational, linear, dualistic thinking and the constraints of quantified space and time. It both enables and demands the emergence of an holistic, eco-centric, process-oriented, constructivist curriculum. It both enables and demands a new way of thinking both from students and their teachers.
...

amishindian,

I always feel refreshed by your beautiful words - they mean a great deal to me. I have a deep love for the Guardian and the sacrifice he made for the Faith - what a burden he must have felt when he realized his beloved grandfather was dead, and the mantle had fallen upon his shoulders, at his young age, with his whole life before him!

I too have that odd paradoxical feeling that Craig mentions, of things being right and wrong all at the same time - I trust somehow things will come out right in the end. Your words remind me, too, of one of my favorite quotes from Abdu'l-Baha:

"At the gate of the garden some stand and look within, but do not care to enter. Others step inside, behold its beauty, but do not penetrate far. Still others encircle this garden, inhaling the fragrance of the flowers, and having enjoyed its full beauty, pass out again by the same gate. But there are always some who enter and, becoming intoxicated with the splendor of what they behold, remain for life to tend the garden."

I have been largely inactive in the Faith for many years, and even resigned for several months at one time, not long ago. But it didn't feel right to be outside the Faith, and I re-entered. I have still been mostly inactive because I feel uncomfortable with the tone of things in my community, and in the Faith at large, and since I have trouble holding my tongue, it seems best to step back and let things proceed without me. The Story Project is my way, I guess, of trying to be of service by attempting to lessen some of the prejudice among the Baha'is, something I can do from a quiet corner.

You must continue to speak, we need to hear you.

Barb

amishindian,

In reading your post this morning I saw your note to me from a year ago on your Disgus log list! I really don't know if we met back then but maybe send me an e-mail craig (at) craigparke (dot) com if you want to touch base a bit!

I went on Pilgrimage in 1982. It was basically good in the generally positive and informative sense but I had a mystical experience that kind of foreshadowed your experience in 1980. I sensed something was very right and I also sensed something was very wrong all at the same time. Perhaps this conflict in my subconscious resulted in the mystical experience in 1982 in Haifa. The meaning didn't kick in until I saw Peter Khan speak in person in early 2001 in Milwaukee months before 9/11. I had never heard of the guy. I was astonished at his sneering arrogance and naked brutality. Then I remembered my mystical experience in 1982 in Haifa while standing and meditating alone in the unfinished shell of the room in the super structure that would become the consultation chamber of the Universal House of Justice.

Peace be upon you and everyone here.

I really liked this quote from Larry Krammer I found on the blog: Joe.My. God:

We get what we fight for. And we are not fighting. Every single one of us is not fighting. They fight better than we do. There is a concerted and never ending vein of hate in this country and in this world dedicated to keeping us in our place. It is evil to force people to be what we are not -- free. We are not free.

"I love being gay. I love gay people. How can I say this without offending everyone else, I think we're better than other people. I think we are smarter. I think we are more talented. I think we are more aware. I think we make better friends. I think we make better lovers. I think we're more tuned in to what's happening, tuned into the moment, tuned into our emotions, and other people's emotions.

"Yes, I think that gay people are better than other people. I think the only thing we are not so good at is fighting back. I hear talk of the new generation of gays and the old generation of gays, and how different we are. That is not true. We are all one generation. We are all related. We are all each other's brothers and sisters. We are all one family, the gay family. And I passionately and desperately want all my brothers and sisters to stay alive and well and on this earth, with total equality with every straight person. Being gay is the most important thing in my life. I love being gay. I hope you do, too." - Legendary gay/AIDS activist and author Larry Kramer, telling the audience at Dallas Pride to fight harder.

Daniel Orey
Sacramento

Thanks again, Daniel -

The eternal question for me is, how do you fight the opposition without joining them on the low road? This is a question Gary and I toss around every once in a while, and I'm not sure we've ever come up with a really good answer. Optimist that I (sometimes) am, I insist in believing that it's possible to fight a clean fight - though when someone is hurling lies and insults, the temptation is definitely there to hurl a little mud myself. Righteous anger is a good thing, I think - a very useful emotion - but how do we go about setting standards for ourselves about how to express it most effectively?

Maybe this isn't a problem for most people - but for me, it is. I have as sharp a tongue as any when I want to. When I told a Cherokee spiritual leader that Gary and I had joked that my Indian name should be "Snapping Turtle," he looked at me very seriously and said, "Then you should be very careful how you choose your words." So I try to do that.

So how to be compassionately combative? How to fight the good fight?

I am definitely open to suggestions.

By the way, is there something missing from this quote - he is saying it is evil to force people to be free? What does he mean?

Barb

Not sure, it stuck me as odd... but I think he is saying that it is evil to force people into being what they are not... but in more reflection, he is talking that the evil force is trying to keep us from being free...

I will say that I think part of the answer to my own question, is to stick to the facts - to demonstrate the facts of ordinary, and not so ordinary, gay lives, for instance. And to use emotion in a dramatic, positive way that is hard to forget - hence the importance of storytelling, drama, song, dance, the theatre...

wow 365 commenti

Tante checche nella fede bahai?? o di piu'

culattoni unitevi

stupid and rude.

would you feel the same if one of the 'checche' were your son or daughter?

Baquia -

I've been waiting for someone to translate the above message, for those of us who are "monolingual" - could you please.....?

as fubar shows, it isn't really worth repeating or translating [sigh]

true, sadly true - but I did learn something in the process....

http://www.freetranslation.com/

Italian to english:

"Much checche in the belief bahai?? or of more'"

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/checche
-
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/checca

Thank you, Fubar. I didn't realize I could translate this online myself - thank you for educating me! (Remember, I am on the bottom rung of the "low-techie ladder.")

Barb

"culattoni you united"

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/culattoni
-
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/culattone
-
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/culo

I am curious about folks reflections on The Dallas Principles. Which are eight guiding principles that underlie a call to action. In order to achieve full civil rights now, the principles avow:

1.Full civil rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals must be enacted now. Delay and excuses are no longer acceptable.

2.We will not leave any part of our community behind.

3.Separate is never equal.

4.Religious beliefs are not a basis upon which to affirm or deny civil rights.

5.The establishment and guardianship of full civil rights is a non-partisan issue.

6.Individual involvement and grassroots action are paramount to success and must be encouraged.

7.Success is measured by the civil rights we all achieve, not by words, access or money raised.

8.Those who seek our support are expected to commit to these principles.

for more info see: http://www.thedallasprinciples.org/The_Dallas_P...

Thanks for posting these, Daniel.

My own take on this statement, is that its usefulness lies in individual response to it. In other words, when I read it, I consider that there is no excuse for further delay ON MY PART, but I do not wish to use it in an accusatory way toward others who may or may not be doing their part, in my view. For those of use who care, there is some small (or not) thing we can do in our own day to day lives, to help bring about justice for GLBTs, and it's time to get moving - even if it's something as small as speaking up in a personal conversation with someone. If each one of us who cares took this statement as a call to action on our part, and did whatever we could, from day to day, that would make a huge difference. But I don't want, myself, to use it as a challenge to others I know, to whack them over the head with it. I will act from conscience in response to it, and perhaps someone I interact with will, as a result, be moved to act in a way that will make a difference - but I am primarily concerned with my own response to it, my own responsibility before God.

Does this make sense?

I guess what I'm saying is that words are just words, until they are manifest in action, and the only person whose action I can control is myself. I do not wish to force others, but hope to move them toward action by what I choose to do myself - deeds, not words.

And I guess I'm also saying that, for me, #6 is the most important part of this statement.

Barb

very thoughtful. thanks for posting. this is such a hot topic......

from: http://www.elon.edu/pendulum/Story.aspx?id=2060

Religious intolerance cuts deep in gay community, Gold says
by Laura Smith, April 14, 2009

Mitchell Gold speaks to the Elon community on injustice of religious persecution toward the gay community.

On Tuesday, civil rights activist, Mitchell Gold spoke to the Elon community at the Elon School sharing what he described as "such an incredibly painful memory."

Gold is the current CEO of the Mitchell Gold and Bob Williams furniture business, founder of Faith in America (a non-profit organization aimed at educating people about how religious-based bigotry is used to justify discrimination against homosexuals) and is now the author of his book, "Crisis."

"Crisis" was published in September 2008 and is a compilation of stories from those who have experienced religious intolerance and persecution as a result of growing up gay in America, something Gold felt quite a bit himself.

"People use the Bible to marginalize and dehumanize people," Gold said.

Growing up Jewish, Gold knew what it meant to be an oppressed minority. He also saw the discrimination towards black Americans that took place in the 1950s and 1960s.

He did not know how much he would one day experience that same intolerance for being gay.

"It's a problem because it's not acceptable," Gold said on realizing he was gay as a young teenager.

Gold described how he lived in fear every day of how his family would react if they knew he was gay. He feared getting beaten up at school, being seen as an outcast and not getting a decent job.

"I don't want one more kid to go through what I had to go through during my teenage years," Gold said.

He even contemplated suicide and saw a psychiatrist for help, who helped him learn to live being gay.

"I was lucky," Gold said of being able to get help and gain happiness.

Gold later moved to New York City, where being gay was commonplace and openly accepted. He got a job at Bloomingdale's, where several of the employees were gay. He even met someone he could settle down with, his current business partner, Bob Williams.

He even got to meet actor Richard Chamberlain, whom he discovered was gay as well.
"I got really comfortable," Gold said.

But all of this changed in 1988 when he moved down South to North Carolina.

"It's interesting to see how being naïve can be a good thing," he said of not realizing the difference of homosexual social acceptance in the South.

Gold began hearing conversations from co-workers and employees who described marriage as only being between a man and a woman.

"I started realizing there was a real movement afoot," Gold said of seeing how large of an intolerant sentiment there was toward gays.

He then realized this persecution was no different than what he had seen as a child.
"The same kind of discrimination that was used so horribly against black people was being used against gay people," he said.

Gold began his personal movement to create awareness of religious intolerance towards the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) community.

"This country has a sad history of segregation," Gold said. "I wanted to go out and teach people and remind them of that. Most decent people in America don't want to be a part of that history. Most decent people don't want to continue that hatred."

"Crisis" was compiled with contributors such Chamberlain, U.S. Congressman Barney Frank, Major League baseball player Billy Bean, TV actor Alec Mapa and former tennis champion Martina Navatilova. All are gay and openly talk about the struggle and pain of being a gay teenager in the book.

Gold is happy to be living in North Carolina, where there is currently no federal ban on gay marriage.

"In the state of North Carolina, we have the chance to be the shining light of this country," Gold said.

Gold said he hopes Americans will see the harm that intolerance toward the LGBT causes.

"Anybody who is oppressed has the right to confront their oppressor," he said.

Proceeds from "Crisis" go toward seven national gay advocacy programs for teens.

If I could re-phrase just a bit:

Baha'is use the Faith to marginalize and dehumanize people.

Thank you, Daniel - you're posting a lot of really useful information.

I just saw this exchange on the youtube clip regarding the Bahai Faith and homosexuality. It really is the mainstream Bahais (like the one offering his/her analysis on homosexuality below) and the AO that are bringing shame to the Faith because of their rigid and insulting stance regardning LGBT people:
A Bahai says: "What you are putting forth here is really a surface analysis. What is homosexuality? Is it an inherent identity (for that matter, is heterosexuality an identity?). Since our physical bodies do not continue with us after death, defining oneself in this way seems distinctly non-spiritual.
People who, voluntarily and through independent investigation, have decided that Bahá'u'lláh's words are true, try to follow his teachings, with help from communities and institutions; that's not prejudice. "

A disgusted seeker resonds: "Uh, yes, a person's sexual orientation is largely an inherent identity as, while we are in the body, sex, love, romance, and relationships are at the core of our being.
Moreover, it is innate and not changeable, according to science, which is supposed to be accepted by the Baha'i.
If the Baha'i Faith excludes gays and lesbians, then they have denied the unity of humanity and are utter hypocrites, and that sort of behavior is precisely what turns people away from religions in the first place."

Thanks so much for sharing this, Peyamb. It's an uphill struggle, I would say, with the Baha'i community, but I feel strongly that it is a struggle worth pursuing, to educate Baha'is. There are some who will be open-minded and receptive, and it's worth it even if only one person begins to recognize and lessen their own prejudice - and most certainly more than one will.

The Baha'is need to learn something of gay history, and that folks in history they may have admired, were gays, and they never knew before that they were. They need to learn that some of our most intelligent and creative and gifted human beings have been gay - and that this is true of Baha'i history as well.

Silence betrays us all. People are free to come to their own conclusions, but let's give them some facts on which to base their conclusions. Space for such information is expected to be added to the GLBSP website, I hope soon. That is the plan. And who knows, maybe even some of our stories will be about people in history some of us never suspected were gay.

Barb

I just ordered this book, it looks interesting, and might be of interest to folks here

Crisis: 40 Stories Revealing the Personal, Social, and Religious Pain and Trauma of Growing Up Gay in America

Product Description (from Amazon):

A mental health crisis faces American teens right now--and it is one we can solve. Hundreds of thousands of gay teens face traumatic depression, fear, rejection, persecution, and isolation--usually alone. Studies show they are 190 percent more likely to used drugs or alcohol and four times more likely to attempt suicide. Homophobia and discrimination are at the heart of their pain. Love, support, and acceptance--all within our power to give--can save them.

This book is for: clergy, parents, educators, and politicians who cause harm with their words and actions; parents of gay teens; teens navigating this difficult time; and fair-minded people who want to help end the harm. Here are revealing stories by forty diverse Americans, some well known and some not, plus insights from straight clergy and parents explaining their support of gay people as whole human beings guaranteed equal rights by our Constitution.

Daniel Orey

It is a great book. It was a gift to everyone attending our HRC dinner this year. Mitchell was there signing them. He is a good guy. The most amazing stories in there were of the fundamentalist minded parents who changed their hearts. Unfortunately it took a child committing suicide before this happened. That's why I think Barb's online book is going to be very important. I hope we can find the stories of those gay Bahai teens that did hurt themselves and are not now with us to tell their stories. Maybe their parents/friends will speak for them. We have to shake the Bahais out of their comfort zone... no more worrying about wether to have pretzels or chips at Feast; there are more important things in your community!

You are doing a great job Barb. When I have more time (hopefully in Oct), I will check out your site and add something. I am sometimes amazed at some of the rigid Bahais on here and on youtube who so innocently insult gays and lesbians. I wonder if they really are that ignorant as to what they are doing. They celebrate straight unions in holy matrimony making a big deal about the "spiritual" union and how the two individuals will be connected forever, blah blah blah. But when it comes to gay individuals, suddenly it is just merely about sex, our love is not spiritual, etc. That's why I don't think they are being ignorant. I think these fundamentalist Bahais, just like in all other religions, know exactly what they are doing. Demonize LGBT people ever so slightly by focusing on sex/physical stuff, ignoring that love and spirit is actually involved in gay relationships.

Yes, you have a point, Peyamb - it's always hard to know the heart of another person, but certainly it seems that for those of limited vision, gay relationships are often seen as sex, sex, sex - it's like an obsession on the part of those who cannot see a loving, spiritual relationship when it's right in front of them. And a few people are malicious, knowing exactly what they are doing. I think we must be hopeful, though, and try to give people the benefit of the doubt in terms of our believing in their ability to overcome prejudice - hard to do, but essential if we're ever going to get anywhere. We have to expect the best of people, and hope for it, at the same time that we're doing the difficult work of rooting out prejudice, and often making people very uncomfortable, and perhaps angry, as they begin to recognize the ugliness of their "spiritual" behavior and attitudes. It's not work for the timid of heart. But we have to do it - we have to believe deeply in the possibility of grace to change a human heart. Because some of them will change - not all or even most, by any means, but some, and every one that changes, that begins to change, is like shining a light into the darkness. And slowly other folks begin to recognize the light.

Thank you for the compliment - I consider it high praise, coming from you. I look forward to, and appreciate, any contribution you can make to the website.

Barb

Barb, let me know if you need any help with this project (in terms of setting up a site, etc.). You can contact me using the contact form on this blog (look at the top menu).

I look forward to featuring it here to give it more exposure, as I'm sure are other Baha'i bloggers like Steve over at BahaisOnline.

Thanks, Baquia. I tried to reply via the box at the top of this blog, but it wouldn't work for me. I must have done something wrong?

Anyway, all I wanted to say was thanks, and that I am fortunate to have a computer whiz as an assistant, but I happily add you to our list of people we can consult if we run into a snag or have question. And any help you can offer in passing the word about the website is most appreciated!

Thanks - Barb

Another couple that would not be welcome in the Baha'i Faith... unless they divorced.

Posted on Sep 15, 2009 @ 08:20AM
Random Things

The Game Show Network’s Newlywed Game will make history this year--by adding same-sex celebrity pairs to their format.

The network is in the midst of producing special Celebrity Newlywed Game episodes, one of which will feature the first gay contestants ever: George Takei (Sulu from the original Star Trek series) and longtime partner Brad Altman.

The duo married in September 2008 in Los Angeles, Ca., just before the state's Proposition 8 approval banned same-sex marriage.

While Takei and Altman will mark the groundbreaking game show moment, they weren't the first asked. GSN approached Ellen DeGeneres and her partner Portia de Rossi to participate, the blondes turning down the offer as they did their own version on Ellen's talk show in March of '08.

Other celebrity couples featured in upcoming episodes this year will include, first America’s Next Top Model winner Adrienne Curry and Brady Bunch star Christopher Knight, Bachelor Bob Guiney and All My Children actress Rebecca Budig as well as Baywatch babe Brande Roderick and former NFL linebacker Glenn Cadrez.

The Takei episode will be taped next week and air in November. A newlywed couple is defined by having been married in the past four years. The show is hosted by Carnie Wilson.

Eric Sartori - if you're listening here, your experience of your own "intentional effort" at self-education about gays/lesbians was quite beautiful - it could be re-posted as a story, just as is, on GLBSP if you are so inclined....

And dco, your "vignette" of experience with the children could also be re-posted as is, as an "appetizer," if you wish to do so.


Barb

Hi everyone -

The Gay/Lesbian Baha'i Story Project is ready to go, sans a few celebratory graphics which will be added soon. In your address bar, go to gaybahai.net. (If you just put that in your search engine, you may reach another gay baha'i web site which is not related - will take the search engines a while to catch up with us, I think.)

For those who are interested, please pass the word in whatever way you think will be effective. At least a couple of stories are "in the works" already and will most likely come along in a few to several weeks. I expect this to be a gradually unfolding path. We have done our part - now it's up to you!

Stories may be short or long, spontaneous or well thought out - I hope the mood will be one of sitting around a campfire together late at night, and we begin to tell stories...


Barb

This Church is a homophobic monster mega church in our suburbs, it probably has more people in its congregation that there are Baha'is int he USA, never the less I was moved by this. I have long felt if the UHJ and NSA wrote to every person on the roles, the same message... ti would trigger the long awaited entry by troops... but alas... the arrogance we have!

In the spirit of peace, church apologizes to those it has hurt

By Jennifer Garza
jgarza@sacbee.com
Published: Monday, Sep. 14, 2009 - 12:00 am | Page 1A
Last Modified: Monday, Sep. 14, 2009 - 8:36 am

The Rev. Rick Cole stepped onto the podium Sunday and into the Sacramento church's troubled past.

In front of a packed and stunned congregation, the senior pastor of Capital Christian Center apologized to anyone who had been hurt by the church, acknowledging pain that church leaders may have caused individuals and the community.

The pastor then mentioned two people "whose stories attracted national media attention and caused a lot of pain."

Both were in the audience of 2,400 people.

One was Christina Silvas. In 2001, church officials asked Silvas to withdraw her daughter from the church-run school because Silvas was working as a stripper. On Sunday, Silvas sat with her daughters during the worship service.

Ben Sharpe, who had been banned from his eighth-grade graduation in 1995 after getting a buzz cut, sat with his mother and family friends during the service. School officials had prohibited Sharpe, an African American and a star student, from participating in the ceremony because his haircut violated school policy.

The church's action set off a media firestorm, with many accusing church leaders of racism.

Fourteen years later, Colemade an emotional plea to Sharpe.

"On behalf of leaders who did not intend to betray Ben Sharpe and his family, but by our actions much pain was caused, I want to publicly ask forgiveness," said Cole, struggling to control his emotions. "I also want to apologize to our community for the seeds sown of racial division."

Cole left the podium, walked over to Sharpe and embraced him and his mother, Faye. The congregation rose in a standing ovation, many people reaching for tissues.

Cole's apology is the latest and most high-profile one to date by a Sacramento-area pastor.

In recent months, other church leaders have apologized and made efforts to reach out to people who may feel hurt or betrayed by religion and have left the church.

At Impact Community Church in Elk Grove, congregants made gift baskets and dropped them off at gay civil-rights organizations and strip clubs with attached notes apologizing for the words and actions of some religious leaders. On Good Friday, Flood, Restoration Life and Vineyard Christian Fellowship posted apologies at downtown kiosks. Under a picture of Pat Robertson someone had written, "He doesn't speak for me."

Cole said he decided to apologize while preparing for this week's sermon.

"This has been weighing on my heart," the pastor said in an interview before the sermon. "This should have been done long ago, I don't want to let any more time go by."

After the sermon, Silvas, teary-eyed, called Cole's heartfelt apology amazing. "For so long all I felt was shame - people whispered about me, calling me the stripper mom," said Silvas, 31.

She said she had been urged by friends and attorneys to sue Capital Christian but had declined.

Now working for the state, Silvas quietly returned to the church about a year ago. Last year, she said, Cole and other church leaders offered a full scholarship to Silvas' two daughters.

"Coming back to church and my girls going to school here is more valuable than what any settlement would have bought," she said.

Sunday was the first time Sharpe has stepped into the sanctuary at Capital Christian Center in 14 years.

Church leaders at the time had said Sharpe's haircut violated school policy, which had been written to discourage students from adopting a skinhead look.

Cole does not want to criticize school leaders at the time. His father, Glen Cole, was pastor of the church-run school.

"The letter of the law was applied instead of the spirit of it," said Cole during his sermon. "The letter of the law kills, while the spirit gives life."

The Sharpe family later reached a legal settlement with the church.

Sharpe said he had put the incident behind him long ago. He agreed to attend Sunday's service because he said church officials seemed sincere.

"The power of those two words, 'I'm sorry' - it's incredible." Sharpe said. He said watching and listening to Cole "was something I'll never forget." "Fourteen years ago, I would never have imagined this would have happened," said Faye Sharpe. "He didn't have to do this....It's wonderful that he did."

Sharpe, who will be 28 on Wednesday, went on to have a stellar academic career. In 1999, he graduated from Jesuit High School as valedictorian.

He earned his bachelor's and master's degrees in civil engineering from Stanford. He is working on his doctorate at UC Davis and is a researcher at a nonprofit group, the International Council on Clean Transportation, in San Francisco.

Four years ago, Sharpe, who was working in Texas as an engineer, was walking on the street when he was struck by a car. He has undergone 16 surgeries and has since recovered.

Sunday, more wounds were healed.

"Finally," Sharpe said, his voice catching. "After all these years, closure."

original at: http://www.sacbee.com/topstories/story/2180746....

"The power of those two words, 'I'm sorry' - it's incredible." Sharpe said.

This is beautiful.

Gay-friendly church launches anti-discrimination campaign.

A liberal church movement based in Texas has launched a campaign that is “designed to ask people whether Jesus would discriminate against others,” according to PinkNews.

The Would Jesus Discriminate? movement launched its campaign on the web by quoting a series of Biblical passages suggesting Jesus never discriminated against gays.

The DFW Metropolitan Community Churches, which have five chapters in the Texas area, say they provide an alternative to the perceived discrimination and intolerance from “religious institutions [which] have used their interpretation of the Bible to justify discrimination against women, ethnic minorities, and people with a different sexual orientation and/or identity issues.”

see: http://www.whywouldwe.org/

and

http://www.365gay.com/news/gay-friendly-church-...

Since the ITC will some day rule the entire world (they currently run the Baha'i Faith - definitely NOT the UHJ), does anyone know what they are now discussing over lunch on Mt. Carmel regarding Volker's recent paper on regulating financial markets?

http://www.group30.org/pubs/reformreport.pdf

The ITC are the Jesuit's of the Baha'i Faith. Their ever budding theorist insights trump all. They are, in essence, the authors of a continuous New Refried Revelation ALL day EVERY day in the Ministry of Truth. The Ruhi Courses are just the beginning. So I think their views on future economic policy in the bureaucratic Baha'i World Theocratic Computerized Super State that will top down run EVERYTHING on Earth is very important to learn now so every one can figure out what to do with their pay check.

Does anyone know what their policy will be on the as of yet unregulated world wide OTC credit default swaps market? Is there anything in the Kitab-I-Aqdas about liquidity in securitized investment instruments? Does anyone know what their views are on these important issues? If they are not solved TODAY, there may be no TOMORROW as all the money on Earth may be vaporized? Does anyone know what the "guidance" is on this?

Remember the balance as to whether this market has a legitimate financial purpose or is mere gambling is in the accuracy of the mathematics. Does anyone know if our guys have been through the C/C++ code used in these risk/pricing models to make sure they are in compliance with the laws of the Universe? Does anyone know?

.h t t p : // www.scicomp. com/derivativesmodeling/pricingcreditderivatives

There is also some Open Source code out there on this too. Have our guys been through it to make sure it is in compliance with the Kitab-I-Aqdas regarding C/C++ algorithms as to all assumptions and logic states?

.h t t p : // www. isda. org/press/press012909.html

Peter Khan says we are all "safe" if we are just doing what the UHJ says going door to door teaching the Faith and taking the Ruhi Courses over and over and filling out the blanks perfectly over and over. But I still have an uneasy feeling with the anniversary of the collapse of Lehman Brothers coming up. Are any of our guys going over these macro economic and micro economic issues? Especially the mathematics in the computer code? Just say'in.

Badhras,

Any group - but especially reformers, dissidents, critics and nonconformists - should always welcome alternative perpsectives, engage in profound self-examination and questions its assumptions (and tendencies toward "group think"), no matter how difficult or painful that may be.

(but please respond with something other than more trite drivel.)

re:
[you said]
| Farhan ... Please give some thought as to whether your efforts here are
| fruitful. You are clearly a Baha'i of reasonable intelligence and capability.
| I can't help but wonder if your talents would be better spent trying to
| reach out to different people.

Why? conformist bahais already agree with Farhan (which is to say, they accept bahai administration's hideous, backward, dehumanizing approach to the issue). Very few other people in the world care about the convoluted official bahai position on homosexuality.

The bahai purity/perfection myth is what drives most attitudes, not real, personal experience with the issue.

The reality is that anyone that stands up in most bahai communities and speaks out against homophobia, especially as it relates to bahai rules/roles/policies (medieval) will be marginalized, and if they persist against the stupid advice of people like Farhan in the bahai ruling elites, they will eventually be attacked by the bahai thought police (BTP). If they fight the BTPs, they will be more viciously attacked. I've seen it over and over for 30 years.

you said:
| Dear Everybody Else:
| Carry on, I suppose.

Arrogant and condescending. boring.

| It's clear that you enjoy this way too much, and whose to say you're not
| doing the Lord's work. As the writings go... "all are His servants and all
| abide by his bidding." People have postulated that the world is a stage,
| and what if God is a director and his casting sheet required all kinds of
| villains and heroes and anti-heroes... and honestly, who really knows
| which role you've signed up for. I sure as heck don't, but I'm sure God
| does.

ok, so you insult nonconformists, critics, dissidents, victims of bahai bureaucracy, then admit that you don't even know who is right or wrong.

"Have you no human decency?"
(to quote the judge in "Bonfire of the Vanities")

| On a serious note though, ever consider that the people that need to hear
| your interpretations of justice and compassion aren't here?

How do you know who is here, and why?

The people in bahai administration/aristocracy are, as you seem to imply, probably not generally paying attention, but there are presumably some AO thought police monitoring everything.


| Either you're here to vent and complain or you're here to effect change. I
| can see this forum being useful for the former. I'm not sure how it
| enables the latter.

Correct. You may not know it, but people seek consolation, and sense of belonging, compassion from others, and so forth, outside of the narrow context of bahai bureaucracy.

And, you attitude is a good example of how (according to bahai conformists) everything in life has to be bent to the purposes of the great project of clutural imperialism that is bahai culture.

In that "system" of thinking, nothing has intrinsic, human worth, unless it is on a image of "submission" to the imperial myth/ethos.

(Bahai followers are expected to be intellectual and spiritual "slaves".)


| I suppose you're sharing ideas, but it strikes me as effective as an
| institutionalized debating society with no real power. But hey, quite the
| intellectual and spiritual exercise, right? Believe me, I know that forums
| like this are fun.

Ok, now that you have puffed yourself up by putting people down, we now have another example, of the thousands of mindless, shallow, dehumanizing, conformist statements encountered in bahai community.

| But seriously... if you don't like the Baha'i Faith... then fine. Point taken.
| You win. 9 male homophobes live under the delusion that they rule the
| world. The rest of us are weak and dumb and are complacently propping
| up the other 9. End of discussion. You win!!!

Shallow. This is typical of why bahai culture lacks meaning. How old are you? Where do you live? How much money do you, or your parents, have?

| With that established, now what? Does anything else you have to say
| really matter? Seriously. Does it? Does your identity need acceptance
| from other "mainstream" Baha'is? And seriously, why would you want the
| acceptance of such shallow rank-and-file?

Matter to who? It doesn't seem that it mattters to you. Have you ever known homosexual bahais that have had their lives wrecked by the homophobia that is widespread in the bahai community?

Sonja's theory of bahai change is fascinating, she worked hard, and thought about it for a long time. Many of the people that disagree with her, on both sides, have also thought about the issue for a long time.

You however, seem to have arrived with a shallow viewpoint, and are just being disrespectful. A punk.

| Or are you just pissed off that the awesome club that you belong to has
| changed or perhaps you've changed in ways and you find that it no longer
| suits you. Are you too weak to just say, "I relinquish my membership in
| The Baha'i Faith. I simply do not have the passion to believe what I am
| expected to believe."

I'm an ex-bahai, so that does not apply to me. My personal opinion, which you seem to illustrate, is that bahai belief is what is weak. Conforming to stupid rules that are theologically inconsistent (at best), and refusing to protest the social injustice involved, is what is "weak". Being afraid of the bahai thought police is what is weak. Not caring enough about real human beings to protest a stupid religious system is what is weak. Not fighting against the conformism of the "bahai comfort zone" is what is weak.


| Hell... you can even dump the AO and the Baha'i Faith.

Done.

| Most of us have had to use these words for a different scenario, but it'd
| probably work for this scenario, too: "I just don't feel that spark,
| anymore. I'm just not in love with you. Sorry. I'm sure we can be friends
| though. I'm sure we'll run into each other at some social gatherings."

Some people get bored with the meaninless features of bahai "community".

Some people are more deeply troubled by the deeply ingrained patterns of dysfunctionality in bahai culture, and its resistance to improvement.

What you have done is to reduce meaning, not add to it. You also fail to demonstrate ANY of the good things about bahai belief. You lack compassion, empathy, and a sense of the depth of life. You are a typical uncaring person who pays superficial lip service to human values, while investing little or nothing in understanding, or living, what those values actually are.

What you are doing is called psychological "projection/transference" - you are attributing (via reversal) the things that are wrong with bahai to the very people that have dared to speak the truth about those wrongs.

This is an old, tired, rhetorical tactic of people that are weak, and lack passion for the truth. Is is the beginning of scapegoating, which is a disgusting and pernicious form of intellectual and spiritual laziness.

Unlike most of bahai culture, this blog is UNCENSORED. You could, if you cared about anything real, actually learn something about what that means instead of just engaging in the usual cultural imperialism, being hurtful, lacking any sense of appreciation for the eternal, transcendent aspects of life.

| Oh... and if it's that hard because your closest family and friends are in
| the Baha'i Faith and they don't believe like you, then they obviously need
| the in-depth discussions with you.

Can you please explain on what basis you have any right to glibly demean the experiences of gay bahais that have been trashed by their homophobic families, friends, bahai community?


| The ones that love you the most are
| obligated to give you that time, for your benefit as well as theirs.

Are you a social worker, or therapist? If not, you might want to be VERY CAREFUL giving advice about a incredibly sensitive topic to a group of people that might turn out to be STUPID and WRONG for some of those people.

|You
| carry a fire to which their faith ought to be tested... and who knows,
| maybe with enough exposure, they might realize they're the crazy ones.

The only people that haen't already realized that conforming to stupid bahai rules are mostly authoritarians/fundamentalists. This is deeply entrenched, dysfunctional pattern amongst bahai leadership elites.

| And if you and your family and friends are getting forced out... sheesh.
| IT'S AN UNHEALTHY RELATIONSHIP. Thank God for the opportunity to be
| forced out. Staying would imply that the comfort of familiar abuse is
| better than a chance to have a happy life elsewhere.

I personally think bahai is unhealthy for almost everyone. Being forced out is not a great opportunity for most people, it is a dehumanizing experience that leave deep scars. You inability to see that is, unfortunately, typical of the ignorant attitudes in the mainstream of bahai culture.

The utopian rhetoric of most bahais is clearly vacuous. It is a highly dysfunctional religion that hurts far more people than it helps.

Thanks for making that "reality" even more clear than it already was.

Thanks for presenting the opportunity to vent.

Have a NICE DAY.

Fubar:

Your post is humorous, as you attack me rather viciously. I suppose my tone invited it, but I think you missed my intent. Still, I'm very serious about the idea that "all are His servants"... including you, and I don't mean that in the trite, "God sent you to be evil so that the rest could be tested" kind of way. I mean that in the way that you are reflection or a side-effect of what the the Baha'i Faith has produced.

I also find it funny that you've linked me with Baha'i aristocracy.. wow, if only. How about "missed the last 5 or 6 Feasts, married to a closet atheist, Catholic parents, other Christian denomination in-laws, 1 facebook friend that is Baha'i, 4 Baha'i email addresses in my address book, left the community for almost a decade" kind of Baha'i? Yeah, I'm quite the well-connected, self-appointed Baha'i thought-police kind of guy, aren't I? I'm not sure why it matters how much money I make, but I don't have the luxury to sit around and police people for the AO, if that's what you're suggesting.

My goal is more to diffuse the rancor over mainstream Baha'i beliefs that aren't going to change anytime soon. There exists a momentum with regards to mainstream Baha'i culture/doctrine, and it ought to be factored to effect change. It's a tactical point, and I apologize for not making it clear. I waded through so much debate/arguments/apologies and by the time I posted my statement, I felt like I had read many variations on a theme, which is why I took a reductionist approach in my original message. The disputes back and forth over doctrinal stuff just started to annoy me...

Change takes time... and if acceptance of LGBT in the Baha'i Faith is going to change, I wager it changes because the scientific and the reliable sociological data continues to grow and new converts will bring that perspective into play. Right now, there are enough people outside of the Baha'i community that support the status quo employed by Baha'is. I'm not suggesting it is fair; it's simply my observation.

That said, I'm not God... so I don't even know if acceptance of LGBT is really part of the plan? What if it really is a genetic thing and gene therapy can "cure the gay"? (pardon the phrase) Perhaps this unpleasantness and societal discord is moreso for us to understand the urgency of finding such a cure. (gawd, i already hear the flamethrowers getting ready...) And who knows, maybe we go there and conclude "bad idea, too many side effects and the creation of psychotic heterosexuals just isn't worth it. let's just settle with just being nice to gay people"...

...And whose to say it's a completely genetic thing? This tendency to reduce behavior to binary outcomes based on genetics is irritating. Many of the lesbians I've met have huge trust issues with men, thanks to abuse... but there's no way I would suggest all are like that.

...and yes, I know you want to end-game it at: let's just be inclusive with gay people. I understand why that option makes sense. I understand why it's just. I understand all of the good things... I just don't think it can take hold given the current context of the Baha'i Faith and the world it is in.

And as for Farhan, it's not my goal to reduce him to an idiot or a thoughtless uncaring a-hole. I think he's rather articulate and I commend him for trying to reach out and explain his viewpoints, but honestly... I just see a lot of people beating up the doctrinal thinking. I've lurked around a variety of places... I just don't see it leading anywhere, and I don't at all sense that serves the interests of the Baha'i Faith. But hey, if Farhan wants to stick around... that's his call! It's quite possible that he's seeing something I'm not.

I find your transference accusation, humorous, too. I make no apologies for the Baha'i Faith, of which I've had little to do in its making or current state, nor do I suggest that it's current form is ideal. At most I would wager that it might be ideal only in that God permits it to be in its current form that we might learn from it. Still, for me to say that it is a religion full of crap and evil seems wrong to me.

In some ways, I've had the inverse experience of you... I had every reason to not be a Baha'i, but the Writings and my conscience called. Not my wife, not my friends, not my neighbors, not my ex-GF from over a decade ago with whom I'd had little contact, not my child... NOBODY close to me facilitated the decision to reinstate myself a member of the Baha'i community. The process was hardly fun and it was emotionally painful because it really just between me and God. My only explanation is that God just wanted it that way, maybe for the benefit of my kids, or somebody else... or even me. I don't know. I certainly didn't ask for the call, but who the hell am I to argue.

And please, don't reduce me to some trite addict who found God because he destroyed his life in some terrible vice. I was husband to my wife long before, was father for over a year, was employed longer than married, financially stable, no arrest record, functional member of society, etc. etc.... oh yeah, I have some moving violations on my driving record, and I got a parking ticket recently for using multiple spaces. That said, my mostly functional existence continues today, after I chose to rejoin the Baha'i Faith.

That said, I apply this concept of "the call" to others... who the hell am I to judge if they don't get the call?

Still, I maintain that the ones closest to you are the ones who owe you their time. Whether they act properly or with compassion is another thing, but the Writings speak of patience and kindness, right? There is little achieved in parents trashing their kid who has a hard enough time coming out... and maybe that's just because if one of my kids came out to me a decade from now, I would give them my time and my thoughts because I'm obliged to do so... but also because I want to do so. That's my job, and it's a job that I love. As to what they should do, that's up to them. Why? For me to decide anything, is really to impose my ambition. I can only give them my sense of things, and it might not jive with what they want to hear, but they can always rely on the knowledge that I love them. That said, I'd probably be a bit sad if one of my kids was gay, much in the same way I'd probably be sad if they had down syndrome. There's no reason to not love your child in either scenario, but there are definitely some disadvantages to both. (and please, i'm not even suggesting either conditions are equivalent in terms of difficulty or severity or even from a perspective of genetic certainty... it's very imperfect comparison)

If the Baha'i Faith presents itself, as you see it through the people around you, as a bunch of a-holes, then leave. It seems better to leave on your terms than to be told to leave, but that's just my take. Still, why would you want to surround yourself with that? If your family turned out to be a-holes... major suckage, but that doesn't change the fact that leaving was the right thing to do. I know it's painful, and it's not my intent to ignore that. But in the end, leaving is sometimes the healthy thing, right? Like you did, right? Do you regret your decision? I reduced the discussion to such fundamental terms because that's where things usually end up.

And let's just suppose my kid grew up in that "institutionalized" Baha'i stuff and was active in the faith... and then one day declared LGBT, and I did what I claimed I would do. If the rest of the community saw the loss of a valuable member, then great. Let them feel that pain, and let them feel that conflict. If my kid turned out to be more rebellious and never quite fit in the community, and then eventually said "this Baha'i thing is crap," I wouldn't begrudge the community if they said "good riddance". Where I would take offense if my kid decided to leave and they replied with "good riddance" rather than a more polite, "we're sorry to see you go."

... and if my kid was LGBT and wanted to be a defiant dissident in the community, then I'd warn them of the possible repercussions and I would stay out of their way. It's really not my ambition to fight on either side of the LGBT question because I see validity on both sides, and I make no claim to have the certitude for either viewpoint. For me, I sense there's something balance, in-between, something different... but I haven't figured it out yet.

I've got no problem with change in the Baha'i Faith; I invite it. I'm not sure others are ready, but hey... change is the law of nature, right?

And as for change, there's something to be said about knowing when and where you can effect it. Sometimes fighting gravity is just dumb and suicidal... but sometimes you can use gravity in your favor.

Badhras,

You do not seem to be a "good listener". Or you are confused. In either case, thanks for the details, and I hope you find whatever "answers" it is you are seeking.

I've repeatedly said I'm an ex-bahai. The typical concept of "god" has much validity for me (I tend toward buddhism), but I repect other people's faith as long as it isn't the cause of injustice/etc.

I personally think bahai is too backward to change in a significant way in the near future. I do however continue to support reformers, and hope that in whatever small way, their faith in the good side of human nature, and in basic human decency, will have an effect on the world far greater in proportion to superficial appearances.

From Rabbi Michael Lerner's web site:

Our Jewish Renewal synagogue is a place where each
of us is encouraged to explore the spiritual realm, and to
work out our own understanding and our own relationship
with God. In the final analysis, one might decide that the very
word “God” (an English, not a Hebrew concept) is too loaded
and misses the complexity of spiritual life. Rabbi Lerner urges
us to not waste our time trying to convince ourselves to believe
in authoritarian or patriarchal concepts of God that we’ve
never been able to accept.

As he puts it: The God you don’t believe in doesn’t exist

so please don’t spend your time fighting against the God that you don’t believe in, but instead use your time with us to connect to whatever spiritual reality in the universe you can access.

Rabbi Lerner’s teacher, Abraham Joshua Heschel, used to talk about God as “ineffable” precisely to capture this reality:

Let us stop fighting
against the God that we
don’t believe in. We
stipulate that the God you
don’t believe in doesn’t
exist in order to make
room for you to encounter
the God or spiritual
reality of the universe that
you might believe in.

that our language is deeply limited and almost every attempt
to speak about spiritual reality can become a caricature,
turning what is a living reality into a lifeless and distorted
idolatry.
...

---end quote---

There are many other religious communities that offer "something better" than the narrow/rigid version of bahai that I've seen in numerous cities, states and countries for 30+ years.

Most bahais tolerate lies/deception. That is a sure sign of dysfunctional organizational culture. The world is poorer because of lies and injustice.

The larger "missionary scheme" of bahai is at a dead end, but the leadership is keeping the "slave mentality" going amongst the followers, and oppressing demands for freedom/democracy with predictable/absurd/reactionary arguments.

The postmodern version of bahai culture is still largely an unknown, but this blog is probably a good place to see the "good" version of the future of bahai. if the sheeple wake up.

sheeple? Oh, I do love that....

correction, I meant to say:

"The typical concept of 'god' DOESN'T HAVE much validity for me"

eeeks.

And the world marches on: Uruguay is the first Latin American country to legalize civil unions. Plus a statement from 10 Downing St.

Viva Uruguay!

Badhras

Of course sharing ideas is important - it's called consultation. It is one of our first and most sacred obligations as Baha'is. Of course what we say matters - all of us - Farhan, you, everybody. This is a fundamental principle of our faith.

Ideas exert power - they are indeed one of the most potent forces for change. This is why governments sometimes ban them.

Forgive me, but it appears from your comments that you have not been paying close attention to the conversation here.

As for the rank and file - I would hardly call them shallow. We are all, after all, created in the image of God - this is why speaking our heart is a sacred obligation and a precious right.

You seem not to have caught on that at least some of us here love the Baha'i Faith, and because we love it, we expect the best of it. That is why we are here. That is why we speak.

Barb

If the goal is to share ideas with people that feel alone, I presume this forum succeeds in that regard.

If the goal is to share ideas with the people who are probably responsible for the status quo such that they might think critically of the religion to which they subscribe, probably not so much.

If the goal is to share ideas with like-minded people and organize thoughts and refine tactics, then I'll concede that there's probably something here.

I have waded through a lot of "debate"... I see very little gained. There's a lot of other material that's interesting... it doesn't take the form of debate.

You hit on the spot in the first comment you made. Don't presume. YES, this forum does indeed help those of us who feel alone, rejected and ignored in teh Bahai community wether it is that gay kid suffering in silence, the academics who are threatened with expulsion, etc etc. You don't see much gained, because well...maybe none of this pertains to you. You probably have a content, sheltered life in the bubble of a Bahai community that you live in where the biggest concern ever brought up is wether to have chips or pretzels. And if you are happy with this type of community... well then this is not the place for you. But there are many, many frustrated ones in the Bahai community who wish they could make real constructive change inside the Bahai community, but they keep hitting a wall. At least they have places online where they can feel at home.

...as to the chips or pretzels. I much prefer cheesecake, but that's usually not an option so I don't worry about it. I usually go and get what I want or need from Feast and then I leave. If this place makes you feel at home, so be it.

as for communities... I'm reminded of some lyrics from Sting: (oh god, heresy. using pop culture to make a point.) "men go crazy in congregations, we each get better one by one."

It's not a universal truism by any measure, but it rings true in some cases for a reason.

Quit hitting the wall :)

It just reminds those behind it there's somebody outside.

I'm not suggesting you surrender, either. Enough people and sometimes the right people need to want change in order for change to happen...

Thanks. I have. I haven't been to a Feast or Fireside in,hmmm a decade I think. My heart just goes out to the lonely ones inside the Bahai community. I remember what it was like to be gay, Persian, 14 years old and scared to death that anyone finds out. Fortunately times have changed. If the Bahai community is not willing to change, I at least watn that 14 year old to know there is hope, they can leave that horrible environment and still be a Bahai. But I just wish more Bahais, including YOU, would help make the Bahai community the welcoming environment it was meant to be. Instead of just saying "well just leave".

I promise never to ask somebody to leave.

I might advise them of that option. I might warn them that others might do so. Offering other assistance, sure. I'll do much in the spirit of service, but I'll never be the one to ask somebody to leave.

Honestly, the decision to leave should be between the individual and God. I believe that context is everything, and the combination of circumstances in somebody's life can make the difference in how one chooses their path. I can only offer the thoughts of my very imperfect conscience.

That said, I understand why some are forced out, but I really view it as a last resort option because said individual's activities are simply drawing too much attention.

With regards to the rest of the community, the only thing I can do is to inject doubt into certitude and inject certitude into compassionate. I have my reasons for not "rattling the cage" so to speak, but it has nothing to do with wanting to suck up to any AO or individuals of reknown. It's a genuine, inner motivation... it just doesn't resonate with my sense of dharma... and equally so, I'm simply not in any position to effect meaningful change that way. I sense my role is very different from that...

... call it a quiet, unassuming, port in a storm.

Hey everyone, David sent me a fascinating article. I'll just quote some of it here:

"In conversation," noted Smedslund (1970, pp. 217-218), "we always assume that the other person is logical... When our expectations are not fulfilled, we normally attribute it to a lack of understanding on our part... but not to genuine illogicality on his part... logic must be presupposed, since it is characteristic of any activity of any integrated system
and is a part of the very notion of a person."

So what happens when a person is not logical or doesn't possess our kind of logic? I always wondered why all our discussions with Farhan and people similar never ever went anywhere. We do our bit in the assumption that they have a similar logic and rationality to us. And they probably say whatever makes sense to them and whatever we say just washes over them because their sense of logic and rationality is different to ours.

Hi Grover,

re: "So what happens when a person is not logical or doesn't possess our kind of logic?"

I don't see this in such black and white terms.
For example, I brought up the issue of the status of the Letters of Shoghi Effendi as being an aspect of what is changeable because these are not part of Bahai Scripture, but in response to me various posters continued to quote these letters as if they were scripture. For me, this seemed illogical. Obviously to those posters, they either didn't see my point or ignored it or for them my idea that they are not part of scripture is illogical.

That's part of the reason I've been silent (I'm also extremely busy). I didn't know where to start because it seemed logical to me that Bahai Scripture were the writings of Baha'u'llah, 'Abdul-Bahai, and the official interpretations of Shoghi Effendi and that all other texts, while not necessarily less important, have the potential for change because they are not in the former category which is not subject to change.

So, Grover, my point here. If you want to communicate with Farhan in a different manner, take another approach or try to find some common ground and work from that. Farhan, I don't agree with most of what you have written but I thank you for continuing with your comments because some other Bahais might share your views and more importantly, in airing our diverse views and discussing these we can all learn how to express ourselves better and I've found that I've been able to develop a lot of my ideas from those I've disagreed with.

Maybe I should say instead of different kind of logic or rationality, they possess a different set of starting assumptions.

Eg: Farhan - letters written by or on behalf of Shoghi Effendi = Shoghi Effendi speaking for God because AB's will and testament says so, yada yada yada = authentic Baha'i scripture - therefore cannot be ignored and not subject to change (sorry Farhan I'm putting words in your mouth).

Actually, Sonja, why would you argue that Shoghi Effendi writings has less validity or applicability than 'Adbu'l-Baha or Baha'u'llah? Or would you argue that their validity and applicability depends on their context (which is what I would do). I just can't see how, if you were doing what AB's will and testament asked, you could disregard them (sorry, me being fundamentalist - lol, and I'm not even a believer anymore ;P).

For me belief is like a house of cards. I've found personally that the danger of having such an absolutist belief system is what happens something comes along that cause you to question what's going on - e.g. Ruhi, cluster meetings and so on - you start questioning what the UHJ is doing, and then suddenly the whole house of cards that is your belief system collapses, and suddenly you don't believe in the Faith anymore and suddenly Baha'u'llah and so on have no more weight or credibility than a door to door salesman (which is where I'm at at the moment).

So unfortunately, with regards to conversations with Farhan, I'd say most of us have had bruising experiences with the Faith and are operating from a state of either cognitive conflict or outright disbelief (and we're actually thinking about what we believe), whereas Farhan is operating from a state of happy go lucky faith and belief (and got his head buried in the sand and is not questioning the tenants of his belief - which is a happy status quo position for any believer because it doesn't cause any undue distress).

Hi Grover -

Your comments remind me of a quote I copied down a long time ago: "Belief is a wound that knowledge heals."

Re faith and loss of it, in relationship to Baha'i Faith - I think the Faith is a tool, only a tool, and its usefulness will depend on how well we learn to use it. The problem, I think, comes when our faith is in The Faith, rather than in what lies much deeper, beyond it. There is always this tension between the eternal faith of God and the outer forms with which we humans attempt to capture, contain, confine it - which we never can, of course - thank goodness.

This is just my take on things. Best wishes to you.

Barb

The eternal faith and the outer forms ... a beautiful dance!

This was forwarded me earlier today and feel it shows so beautifully how other faiths move forward light years ahead of Bahai:

http://pamshouseblend.com/diary/12903/ma-rev-ir...

So beautiful. Bahai has become like evangelicalism ... just out of touch. Not for the future, but for the past, in a comfy chair.

NO! I did not and have never written that the writings of Shoghi Effendi have less validity than 'Adbu'l-Baha or Baha'u'llah.

Please read my post again: I said that
"it seemed logical to me that Bahai Scripture were the writings of Baha'u'llah, 'Abdul-Bahai, and the official interpretations of Shoghi Effendi and that all other texts, while not necessarily less important, have the potential for change because they are not in the former category which is not subject to change."

The 1000s of letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, not Shoghi Effendi's own writing are what I'd put in the category that is not Bahai Scripture.

In my post of 2 weeks ago on this same thread I quoted one of the Letters of Shoghi Effendi which spoke of the status of these letters:

"I wish to call your attention to certain things in "Principles of Bahá'í Administration" which has just reached the Guardian; although the material is good, he feels that the complete lack of quotation marks is very misleading. His own words, the words of his various secretaries, even the Words of Bahá'u'lláh Himself, are all lumped together as one text. This is not only not reverent in the case of Bahá'u'lláh's Words, but misleading. Although the secretaries of the Guardian convey his thoughts and instructions and these messages are authoritative, their words are in no sense the same as his, their style certainly not the same, and their authority less, for they use their own terms and not his exact words in conveying his messages. He feels that in any future edition this fault should be remedied, any quotations from Bahá'u'lláh or the Master plainly attributed to them, and the words of the Guardian clearly differentiated from those of his secretaries. "

Shoghi Effendi, The Unfolding Destiny of the British Baha'i Community, p. 260"

Shoghi Effendi never considered his own station nor writings to be the same as that of Baha'u'llah or 'Abdu'l-Baha:

"Though the Guardian of the Faith has been made the permanent head of so august a body he can never, even temporarily, assume the right of exclusive legislation. ...

Exalted as is the position and vital as is the function of the
institution of the Guardianship in the Administrative Order of
Bahá´u´lláh, ... its importance must, whatever be the language of the Will, be in no wise over-emphasized. The Guardian of the Faith must not under any circumstances, and whatever his merits or his achievements, be exalted to the rank that will make him a co-sharer with `Abdu´l-Bahá in the unique position which the Center of the Covenant occupies-much less to the station exclusively ordained for the Manifestation of God. So grave a departure from the established tenets of our Faith is nothing short of open blasphemy."

World Order of Baha'u'llah page 150-151
written by Shoghi Effendi
http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/se/WOB/wob-40.h...

My apologies, I had skimmed over:

"it seemed logical to me that Bahai Scripture were the writings of Baha'u'llah, 'Abdul-Bahai, and the official interpretations of Shoghi Effendi and that all other texts, while not necessarily less important, have the potential for change because they are not in the former category which is not subject to change."

Goes to show it pays to read all of the post and not just get carried away with one part :)

"logic"? lol. yes, every system of culture has its own "internal logic" that imparted some kind of "survival value" at some point ni the evolution of the culture system.

farhan is a polemicist, advocating the "mainstream" pro-administration party-line. this is tribal stuff, or at least cultural imperialism. think "absolutism".

question: is iranian bahai culture PTSD? (internalized persecutions)

bahai culture should contain some kind of "ritual" process for cleaning out the "bad spirits" of what happened to bahais in iran. instead, the bad stuff has been internalized within the "we have perfect assemblies" mindset, and bahais have regressed to the point of absorbing the paradigm of oppression. can someone find any positive reference to "liberation" in any recent, major official bahai communication? probably not.

it would be nice if the current ruling elites of bahai could "see" the logic in what sonja is saying. but they won't because the entire paradigm that they operate from is based on "false unity" (M. Scott Peck).

"honesty" and rational "logic" are difficult.

it is best to study how the other primates that are close to humans in the evolutionarty scheme behave: alpha male protects the harem. alpha female dictates who gets their fur groomed and who gets the food, in which order. most of the primate brain, including human, is devoted to social bonding (via magic/myth structures). which translates into conformism. and its opposite, the exclusion of nonconforming individuals.

as sonja insightfully states, the "rational" thing to do would be to promote real "tolerance", "inclusion" and understanding of varying perspectives about controvesial issues.

however, the bahai establishment doesn't take that stance, they take the stance that only conformists will be accepted. it's all about "in-group" and "out-group" dynamics, and "monkey brain" domination stuff.

I suppose that a cynical view might be that some of the "progressives" that are currently excluded are trying to gain acceptance into the
"in-group" again by promoting "innovations" in bahai theology.

if so, the current politics of the in-group are increasingly resistant to such innovations. perhaps that will change, but it doesn't seem likely in the near future.

the larger question is "is bahai in a death spiral?" incapable of working out solutions to issues such as doctrinal inflexibility? being pulled down into a "gravity well of shiism"?

my experience is that innovations only survive in bahai culture if they reinforce the status quo, and support the eternal process of bureaucratic reinvention that all dysfunctional, failed organizational cultures engaged in.

as such, acceptance of glbt will only happen when it serves the larger interests to do so (the "internal logic" of bahai tribalism/imperialism). again, given the current, increasingly absolutist mindset amongst the ruling bahai elites, it is hard to imagine how they would ever see such acceptance as being beneficial.

re: the general discussion of social change and "nature" (evolution, or whatever).

In the following book, there is a fascinating linkage between integralism, multiculturalism, spirituality and democracy.

http://books.google.com/books?id=7KX4JQevUsAC

"NURTURING THE SOULS OF OUR CHILDREN: EDUCATION AND THE CULTURE OF DEMOCRACY "

Paperback: 352 pages
Publisher: AuthorHouse (June 27, 2005)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 1420823728
ISBN-13: 978-1420823721

excerpt:
| To devise a theory of education is to address the questions of culture,
| cultural values and cultural identity formation in the child. In this
| original study, Robert Mitchell gives us a scholarly overview of cultural
| education in America's schools. He demonstrates how the public trust
| of universal education fails our children and our democracy. He then
| advocates reframing our concept of education in terms of a sacred
| trust that teaches the culture of democracy. Turning to the question
| of the role of the teacher, Mr. Mitchell weaves together anecdotal
| evidence of a teacher archetype with advanced theories in archetypal
| psychology. This compelling work breaks new ground to provide us
| with a refreshingly new and visionary approach to K-12 education.
|
| Limited preview - 2005 - 352 pages

About the Author

Robert Mitchell was born in 1945 and raised in California and Illinois. He
studied architecture at the University of Illinois for two years before
receiving his Bachelor of Science degree in Mathematics from Troy State
University. He is a veteran who served in the Vietnam War and was
honorably discharged in 1970. He then lived in Europe, North Africa and
Mexico, working as a freelance writer and designer for eight years before
becoming a teacher in a small private American secondary school in
Mexico. In a career spanning nearly 30 years, Mr. Mitchell has taught
English, history, art and mathematics in both public and private schools
in the United States and abroad. He currently lives in Maryland and teaches
mathematics in a small private secondary school near Washington DC.

----------------------------------------------------------


Comment:
In the section on developmental psychology, the author specifically points out the psychological problems, which become social problems, of denying the "magical" and ritual stage of human development in modernist (rational) cultures.

Because of the secular nature of schools and culture, there is a "missing" element of ritual, specifically a "missing" ritual of transformation from "childlike" magic consciousness to "rational" modern consciousness.

This results in a "non-integrated" personality and culture, where "rational" consciousness has marginalized magic and ritual consciousness.

If Mark Turner and George Lakoff's work in cognitive linguistics is valid, then the human brain best operates as a "metaphor machine", not as a machine to only work in a rational manner. Forcing "rationalist"models on human nature causes big problems, amongst which are "too much bureaucracy" (e.g., the rise of transnational pedagogues, therapists, planners - as described by Ivan Illich in "Vernacular Values")

I have a question - probably this has been already covered long since, but I'd like to know others' thoughts.

If the UHJ and the Guardianship had existed at the same time, Shoghi Effendi said, I believe, that he had the obligation to ask the UHJ to reconsider any decision he felt should be considered again - but that he had no right to change their decision - their decision after consultation had final sway. And that they had the responsibility of legislating on anything not specifically revealed in the writings of Baha'u'llah.

If the Guardian's opinion would not be binding in this instance, but could be overridden by the considered opinion of the UHJ, does this say anything about the weight of the Guardian's statements in relationship to the UHJ decisions, regarding anything not explicitly revealed in Baha'u'llah's writings?

I'm too lazy right now to go pull the quote regarding this - it's in WOB, I believe, but I know where to find it easily enough, and reviewed it recently.
It seems a little bit of a fuzzy area, and I'm just wondering how others see this. I think this question relates to the possible mechanisms for change in the Faith, and the possibility for the UHJ to move with the times, when it deems this wise.

Thanks.

Barb

great question. the basic themes in the bahai writings that pertain involve trying to prevent the usual "worse case scenarios" seen in human history:

1) having an imamate (guardianship) to "prevent schism" (disunity), and
2) having a quasi-democracy (houses of justice) to "prevent orthodoxy".

(Organized religion has a giant problem: it can be used to do very good things, or exploited to justify very bad things. bahai tries to address the problemm by building on islamic solutions, but the "solution" came apart because of the weirdly narrow inheritance thing with the guardianship.)

Also: if the "international tribunal" and other "secular" governmental structures are to co-exist w/ bahai to deal with the "non-religious" aspects of life (???), then the problem under discussion takes on a somewhat different characteristic than if bahai governing bodies were "supreme" social institutions.

In terms of checks & balances and the use of "public opinion", if a uhj starts doing crazy/corrupt stuff, a guardian could potentially lead a "PR" campaign to pressure the uhj (or change election of members).

similarly, a uhj could use "public opinion" (and perhaps "legislation"!?!) to thwart a "crazy/corrupt" guardian.

Assuming that such a system "makes sense" (note that another thread on this blog made clear recently that it DOES NOT, since it has common historical origins in the archeology of ideas in iranian culture that produced the iranian theocracy-dictatorship that rules the country), it is apparent that when there is no imam, the legislative branch becomes "dangerous" since it has to take on the role of "enforcer" by imposing doctrinal "unity" (conformity).

Thus, the slide into rigid "legislative" orthodoxy becomes inevitable, and rapid, without an imam/guardian.

---

the problem with this whole discussion isn't the uhj's reticence to toss out the dumb stuff that shoghi effendi said about homosexuality. it is that the american fundamentalists and iranian authoritarians that are the ruling elites know that "liberalizing" ANY aspect of bahai would create even more demands for further "reforms", and undermine their pathological grip on power.

their agenda now has to be to stop any and all discussion of reform (or "real accountability"), of ANY SIGNIFICANT KIND.

Yes, you're right Kurt. Thanks for pointing that out. Here is Sen's article: He Cannot Override

Barb,

The quote you are looking for in WOB is in Dispensation of Baha'u'llah, pg 150. Sen McGlinn wrote an essay on this question last December entitled "He Cannot Override..." and it can be found at senmcglinn.wordpress.com. You will have to scroll down the main page to find it. I think you will find his discussion satisfactory. Best of luck.

Barb,

You bring up a very interesting point. I have seen the specifics of this discussed at times on several underground sites as to how can this important check and balance power of the Guardian simply does not exist now with no Living Guardian and the possible catastrophic consequences. The clear fact is it indeed does not exist. No one, therefore, can ever stand up to have a check and balance "moment" of any kind to ask for a "reconsideration" on the power of the UHJ. But I don't think anyone has brought it up from this other viewpoint yet you point out here in any discussion I have seen so far. I think everyone feels the Faith will always be fundamentalist and authoritarian from here on out for a full thousand years until the next Manifestation completely pulls the plug on everything within the first five minutes of the next Revelation way down the road. Meanwhile, nothing will go anywhere within the Faith as it cannot adapt to anything in the organic advancement of free and open advancement and discussion within human society and it falls further and further behind stuck in the mindset of a very tiny group of completely insular mind bendingly impotent and ineffective "Admin-o-centric" community of people in 1957.

I have always seen the "completely missing Living Guardian" factor as a very curious kind of cosmic "bank shot" over the next 1,000 years. It is a factor guaranteed to keep the Baha'i Faith permanently hamstrung from ever being able to achieve any kind of effective thesis-antithesis-synthesis dynamic. there is just no way around this permanent situation which is now set in stone. The Faith is permanently held back, The same with no women allowed on the UHJ. The world will, therefore, very quickly outdistance the Faith. It will never be a player as the planetary civilization is built by the souls truly immersed in the free and open energies of the New World Age. Many other people and many other spiritual communities will be much more noble from their own innate spiritual connections with the Cosmos. But there has to be some Cosmic meaning why the Baha'is will never attain any real power in the world for the next 1,000 years. What could the cosmic meaning be to be destined to always be a bridesmaid and never a bride? As the last Abrahamic religion it truly makes me ponder the wonder of such a profound mystery. Hamstrung with no real bottom up structure to safeguard a consultative dynamic of any kind or a dynamic system of consultative checks and balances, It will always be playing with doll babies instead of a real living child decade after decade for a full thousand years. Why?

Why did Shoghi Effendi apparently purposely decide to allow it to become completely hamstrung by not appointing a Livine Guardian in his lifetime as he was required to do by the specific text of the W&T of Abdu'l-Baha?

I have thought and thought about this during all my years in the Faith and I just can't understand what message he was trying to send to the future?

With respect, it seems to me that the bigger structure of bahai belief is the real problem here. Prophets, 1000 year cycles, and all that stuff (if taken literally) IS THE PROBLEM. ("middle man scam") NOT THE SOLUTION.

No prophets are needed, no progressive revelation is needed, because "evolution happens". Consciousness unfold/infolds, the impulse to seek "the good, the true, and the beautiful" is eternal. The impulse to experience transcendence is eternal (both the "ascender" and "descender" paths - via egolessness or body experience). It existed before religion. Please note that bahai scripture appears (officially untranslated) to contain descriptions, borrowed from suf poetry, of the "ultimate" state of spiritual bliss and mysticaly unity ("descender" spirituality) as being metaphorically sexual: God "penetrates" the "seeker", etc.

(To put it into crude context, imagine god "penetrating" the 9 uhj men with "spirit" during a particularly "infallible" moment - while they are "legislating" about homosexuality. The irony seems considerable.)

Great archetypal leaps forward probably happen long before some so called "prophet" recycles some old story from ancient culture that mapped an archetypal template out, and "predicted" how the newly emerged appearance (reconfiguration) of such an archetype would change people and culture, cause large scale paradigm shifts, etc.

The great civilizations (slave systems) were imperial projects that required "universal" (mythic) religion to impose conformity (more efficient if the goal is to beat down other cultures). Once humanity passed from a medieval world to a modern (and postmodern) world, such mythic religion lost out to rationalism.

The only way to get back the original spiritual/transcendent elements that are missing from modern/postmodern culture is to cast off the imperialist elements of religion.

The idea that only "prophets" can act as intermediaries between "god" and human beings is something that needs to be cast off.

Humanity needs spiritual geniuses as much as it ever has, just not ones that are instruments of the archetypal images of faded slave civilizations.

Does anyone know what the UHJ's guidance is on the next big thing of the "securitization" of life insurance policies? Did the Bab, or Baha'u'llah give guidance on this? Did Abdu'l-Baha or Shoghi Effendi comment on this kind of new proposal?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/business/06in...

At the very least does the UHJ members-in-waiting from the ITC have an opinion on this? Does anyone know if they are even now discussing it over lunch? Or does Peter Khan, most of all, have guidance on this since he has personal opinions of guidance on every known and unknown topic in the Universe? Does anyone know if the Writings say this is a good idea?

Does anyone know if anyone on Wall Street or the UHJ has ever read Laurie Garrett's famous book of the 1990's that would seem to say that this really is not a good bet to make with other people's money?

http://www.lauriegarrett.com/index_coming.html

Does anyone know what the guidance is or do we all have to figure this out on our own for ourselves?

Just a quick weekend note to everyone on the importance on the Ruhi Book 1929 Full Sequence of Courses. Unless people wake up worldwide and start to understand the game being played on them, it doesn't matter if you are a Baha'i or an atheist or who or what your God is or what your sexual orientation is. You will die broke in the gutter living as a perpetual slave with your entire life saving flushed every 70 years over and over and your sons and daughters sent to endless war by the Military Industrial Complexes of the world...forever.

The history of the entire human race is the history of the psychological needs of unchallenged and unchecked criminal elites. This is true of all of the Abrahamic religions over the centuries which is open for study. They are a 3,000 year old textbook history of this organizational and social phenomenon. The great religion of today is the religion of money and it's clergy is the unchallenged financial elite bankers of the world. Educate yourself by studying the links of the Ruhi Book 1929 Full Sequence of Courses.

Unregulated OTC Credit Default Swaps are STILL LEGAL everywhere in the world after they took down 150 year old financial institution(s) a year ago! It is like a nuclear reactor blew up killing millions of people with radioactivity and we just keep building them. It is amazing, amazing stuff. There is still no serious financial regulation ANYWHERE in the world. Zero. Nada. Zippo. These boys play to win. Once bailed out by the governments they control, they will just keep the insider game going and not give up one inch of their control over the wealth of the entire world. That is the situation we are in. Absolutely nothing whatsoever will be done. Nothing. Until people educate themselves and rise up.

It is clear that it may take 100-500 years using Internet technology, but a new political party will have to be formed in the United States it we all do not want to die as slaves and take the entire world with us. And somebody eventually will start a free and open bottom up global religion based upon Cosmic Divine Justice. It is only a matter of time.

Meanwhile, educate yourself as to the long term worldwide situation developed over the last 500 years so you try to tip the scale that you do NOT die along the road living out of your car.

CRASH COURSE IN ECONOMICS 101 - 21 VIDEOS (4 HOURS)
edit link h t t p : // www . chrismartenson .com/crashcourse

ELLEN BROWN EXPLAINS THE LAST 350 YEARS - 5 VIDEOS
edit link h t t p : // www .youtube. com/watch?v=QU0XiklHPMc
edit link h t t p : // www .webofdebt .com/
edit link h t t p : // webofdebt .wordpress .com/

DOUGLAS RUSHKOFF EXPLAINS THE LAST 500 YEARS - 1 VIDEO
Life Incorporated: How The World Became A Corporation, And How To Take It Back.
by Douglas Rushkoff
edit link h t t p : // lifeincorporated .net/

STUDY THE HISTORY OF THE 300 YEAR OLD FRACTIONAL RESERVE BRITISH BANKING SYSTEM MODEL THAT STILL RULES US TODAY - 5 VIDEOS
edit link h t t p : // www .youtube .com/watch?v=vVkFb26u9g8

And remember, as Shoghi Effendi wrote, the Baha'is have NO GUIDANCE WHATSOEVER on ECONOMICS except for a few general principles. The members of the current UHJ are academics at the level of high school teachers who essentially traffic in other peoples writings and ideas. There will be NO ORIGINAL THOUGHT OUT GUIDANCE OF ANY KIND FOR 1,000 YEARS on what to do about endless derivatives in the world economy. You are going to have to figure out what to do YOURSELF.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNq8LoYjG2E

Good night and good luck.

Craig you're such an alarmist. Banks have been failing since banks began. Markets have cycled through booms and busts since mankind took up agriculture back whenever. And yes real people get hurt in the process. When has it ever been otherwise? Will it really ever change?

I would add to your list "The Predator State" by James K. Galbraith and "The Ascent of Money" by Niall Ferguson, two fine works that put the current situation into much needed policy and historical perspective.

Is it not strange that corporations and other entities chartered by a government of the people should be so contemptuous of their maker? Something to ponder.

Derivitives in the world economy are probably here to stay at least for the time being. I am not sure what counsel on their usage the UHJ could give except to remind us that Baha'u'llah prohibits gambling and games of chance (speculation), encourages us to expend our wealth on our families and bretheren in the faith, and to carry on a trade or profession. Baha'u'llah's advice to treat tradesmen with deference sounds like a fair wage standard to me. He gives permission to charge interest on personal notes but not to engage in usury (as creditor or borrower) as is practised with credit cards or some home equity lines of credit. Those few general principles carry a lot of weight I think and have helped me personally keep my head above water. And I didn't need the UHJ to tell me what is what in other words and have a hard time understanding why some do.

You may be interested to discover that Pension Funds are at present buying up Iowa farmland which is surprising since returns on land are not that great. Iowa has 10 percent of prime agricultural land in the nation. Another bubble in the making?

economic failure led to fascism/nazism. being alarmist is good.

I personally think that thousands of "those bastard up on wall street" (Richard Nixon) should be hung for treason (corrupting the legislature).

Anyways - the basic bahai principle is simple: avoid extremes of wealth and poverty.

implementing the idea is the hard part.

the current system (protestant capitalism, natural law) originally assumed that religion would provide an ethical structure to check greed and excess (and the inevitable corruption of the political structure).

that was a modernist assumption.

a new set of laws (accountability/incentive structures) need to be put in place that are more holistic, and reflect postmodern and integral values.

until then, the old system will grind on, generating regressive behavior amongst the economic-political elites, which will lead to social-economic instability.

people have been dumbed-down so much that they do not know what is being done to them (exploitation/inequality), but if things get bad enough, some wil relearn how to "work against the system" in order to survive.

"transpartisan" politics is one possible direction.

You have some good points. I have not read the two books you mention but I have certainly heard of both of them. I plan on reading them soon.

I think derivatives on the scale they have now attained are financial nuclear weapons. They are out and out gambling. But there appears to be no political will yet in the world to strictly regulate them. We'll see what happens at the G20 in Pittsburgh this month. I have no trouble with Credit Default Swaps between the actual holders of the debt. But Naked Credit Default Swaps are pure gambling and how such a thing was ever allowed to exist is absolutely amazing. When they permitted them in the law changes of 1998 and 2002 they were well aware of the history of the Panic of 1907 and the changes were specifically made exempt from New York state gambling laws against the "bucket shop" practices of that time. It was just amazing stuff to ever be allowed to happen.

Meanwhile, I say this time it is different. This is not a standard "business cycle". Not by any means. This is very, very serious. We are in a place no one has ever been before.

But I guess as Peter Khan says, if you are going door to door for the Faith you are "safe."

Yep. That's the ticket.

It would be good if we would respect Sonja's work in this article by actually paying attention to what she has written. However, personally I don't think that those who are against equal rights for LGBT will somehow be convinced through proofs or arguments.

As Max Planck said: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

This is already happening, as it has happened with so many other social advances. It is only a matter of time, of life, of death and of a new generation replacing the old. An ever advancing civilization moving forward by throwing aside the shackles forged by past errors.

I agree Baquia. That is the lesson of history. It is the evolution of ideas taking root and advancing in the hearts and minds of human beings in generational cycle after cycle that is the cause of advancement. This process is most dynamic among thinkers who know how to think and then take direct action in opportunities around them by every means possible. The Baha'i Faith has no thinkers so this process of life and death cycles of perception, evaluation, and advancement with be very rapidly outdistanced by other more intelligent and courageous people and other much more free, open, and dynamic spiritual communities. To get the most insight on the true depth of the Teachings a spiritual seeker must understand the secret that Baha'u'llah was NOT a PERSON. Baha'u'llah was a A STATE OF CONSCIOUSNESS. His followers flunked the test in record time again in human history as all the Abrahamic religions have in the past before this one too. People worship the lamp and not the light and as a consequence miss the system of spiritual insight over and over in human history. It is the same old, same old. The huge neurotic Mommy/Daddy psychological system projection of the Ages in franchise groupthink "organized" religion. Here we go again. Already we have clergy. So many people had hoped for something much better this time out. So many people had hoped for the liberation of esoteric spiritual understanding. It certainly is there in the Kitab-I-Iqan. The mission of the Baha'is was very, very simple. Spiritualizing the planet is child's play if you understand basic cosmic principles. These principles are all around us and can be discerned by intelligent observation.

The first thing in life is to understand the psychological dynamics of your own family and develop a support system around you starting with your family. He seems to not have grasped this at all. Maybe it was something in the drinking water of the 1930's but Shoghi Effendi made something essentially very easy mind bogglingly incredibly complicated. He seems to have not understood the principle of natural force multipliers in human endeavors. If you want to understand that, study the dynamics of rock music, and system of psychological resonance in human beings.

So there must be some Divine Message in this that the Faith as it was shaped carries within it the hermetically sealed phased cognitive dissonance that will insure that it falls further and further behind with each death and re-birth cycle of just social advancement with each new generation as the new World Age unfolds. It is a quite remarkable Catch-22 to behold.

As the energies of the New World Age progresses which I still honestly believe were inaugurated in the 19th Century by the Bab and Baha'u'lla's souls going through a space-time cosmic spiritual vortex, those same energies will outdistance the Faith. The spectacular failure of the Baha'i Faith up until now is truly a wonder and a prodigy! People like PK being elected to anything whatsoever in the Faith is the ultimate cherry on top. It is amazing, amazing stuff as an outcome. I think the organization of the Faith will become the final autopsy on the 3,000 years legacy of the dysfunctional organizations we now know as the Abrahamic religions. I think the final autopsy report will bear much fruit in the final demise of organized religion in terms of brain chemistry, major human personality disorders, and organizational theory. I think this final analysis at some point over the next 300-500 years will be the final gift of the Abrahamic religions to mankind. They will have proven how ABSOLUTELY NOT to do anything as an organization if you want to truly be effective in any field of endeavor. I think we must learn this scientific observation regarding organizational theory before we can have a world civilization. We have to solve it.

Shoghi Effendi did not seem to understand the true dynamics of human progress in the cycle he often pointed out. When it come to human organizations the issue is not about "non involvement in politics" the issue is about "non involvement in mental illness." For the time being it appears less prayer and more Prozac is in order in the BAO. There has to be a better way to get neurotransmitter levels up than filling out Ruhi workbooks 1,000 times with the same people in one's lifetime cradle to the grave over and over until insanity or welcomed death occurs. There just has to be a better way to achieve progress like letting people be creative under their own energy to think freely and come up with their own bottom up empowerment.

Meanwhile, with each generational cycle of death and re-birth the Baha'i Faith will look more and more like the dust bowl of Oklahoma in the 1930's. It is now a very curious Grapes of Wrath with one too many a John Steinbeck on LSD writing the narrative. Just one too many a Tom Joad appearing everywhere out of the haze.

The UHJ has essentially told the Baha'is to get off the land of their own hearts. If you can't make the paper payment to the bankers get off the land.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGky0q2j_78

So it goes.

A case can be made that things have gotten worse as people have died. "Bad memes" tend to survive in the collective unconscious and re-emerge (sometimes in morphed form) regardless of the individual leaders/followers.

Anyways, the whole point of the western system of social equality is to have "rule by law". Historically, this has been incremental. (Currently, the problem is that law is being subverted by corrupt/wealthy/corporate interests. Presumably some populist uprising is called for.)

In order for there to be an expansion of equality via law, a process of social/political change has to happen. Various theories of social change have been proposed, and I'm not aware that there is any broad agreement that people have to die in order for collective transformation to happen. I personally find that idea (change via death) to be bleak, and contrary to abundant evidence of individual intellectual/spiritual transformation (or other paradigm shifts).

Also consider that some futurists predict that the wealthy will have access to life extension medical technologies that will result in average lifespans of 120 to 150 years.

Just because bahais are (generally) inept/incompetent at (or resistant to) transformation doesn't mean that other people are similarly inept.

bahais are like people that stand around and talk about the need for a grand structure, who lack either the tools or talent to actually build much more than an outhouse. after the outhouse is built, the first person to sit on the throne falls into the pit upon completion of their business. anyone that dares to point out that the person seeking relief has fallen into a stinky hole is accused of "disloyalty" to the grand scheme.

for the few that do have talent (e.g., sonja), the inevitable frustration over the lack of "tools" in the bahai system leads to an understandable, and well intentioned, desire to "make stuff up".

the reality is that bahai culture is currently incapable of the kind of transformation required to adapt to social change. the very scripture that sonja hopes can be used to inspire forward progress contains too many other "backward" elements that "check" the hoped for forward movement. specifically, there is a lack of a mechanism to jettison, or fundamentally rework, outdated metaphysics, outdated organizational practices, and so forth so that the religious culture can provide meaning as existential problems and needs change/evolve.

indeed, what appear to be the case is the opposite, the organizational culture is capable of creating an atmosphere of amnesia about social progress and justice and "real" transformation, via the manipulation of public opinion (Ruhi, etc.). any semi-organized attempt to create alternate, critical, nonconforming, or dissident perspectives (Dialogue, Kalimat, Talisman, H-Bahai) is attacked and marginalized.

by the time bahai culture does change, and adjust to a new paradigm that others create, the rest of the world will have long since "moved past" the issues.

the crucial issue at play is about methods of transformation. the spiritual "roadmap" that exists in bahai culture was designed for a process of transformation that had no awareness of evolution or postmodern culture.

"lack of awareness" = "two missing tools" = "outhouse religion"

Baquia wrote: It is only a matter of time, of life, of death and of a new generation replacing the old. An ever advancing civilization moving forward by throwing aside the shackles forged by past errors.

I totally agree, Baquia, and as we say the proof of the pudding is in the eating. This is why we should allow various trends to develop or to die down by themselves and let smart people throw in their lot with the trend that seems to them the most appropriate. The process of integration and disintegration repeatedly described by Shoghi Effendi confirms your view. As one example:
“Such simultaneous processes of rise and of fall, of integration and of disintegration, of order and chaos, with their continuous and reciprocal reactions on each other, are but aspects of a greater Plan, one and indivisible, whose Source is God, whose author is Baha'u'llah, the theater of whose operations is the entire planet, and whose ultimate objectives are the unity of the human race and the peace of all mankind.” (Advent of Divine Justice (3:1, page: [73])

"This is why we should allow various trends to develop or to die down by themselves"
This is the root of the problem Farhan- you are ignorant and pompous in your "innocent" remarks. The love and commitment that two people finally want to show towards each other, the respect they expect from society, the confirmation they finally want from decades and centuries of oppression... YOU call a mere "trend". It is not a trend Farhan. It is a freeing from the shackles of hate and injustice that ignorance such as yours has inflicted on gays and lesbians for so long. The process that is set in motion is about justice and you, the Bahai AO, no one can put a stop to it. How would you feel if the Bahai Faith was looked at as just a trend to allow to die down or develop? Your words constantly, in a subtle manner insult.

Peyamb wrote: How would you feel if the Bahai Faith was looked at as just a trend to allow to die down or develop? Your words constantly, in a subtle manner insult.

I would feel that being in a minority group of hardly one in a thousand citizens of this planet, others are fully entitled to holding views very different from mine. I would not feel in the least insulted, and by sincerity, and fleeing hypocrisy, I would continue to give my views next to theirs, as I am doing here, next to the vast majority of those on this blog whose views differ from mine. Perhaps I should be more careful and add IMHO before each sentence to avoid appearing pompous?

You express the views of perhaps 10% - a hundred times more numerous than Baha’is - on this planet, and express the views of the vast majority of contributors of this blog, and you feel “subtly” insulted if my views differ from yours. Would I become a “nice” person and no longer a hypocrite if I lied and gave the views you hope to hear, or are you interested to see me appear as a bigot and hear what I might have to say on the subject?

Well, talk about a hypocrite - here I am again when I said it was time for me to hang it up - we all have trouble with our deeds matching our words occasionally.

Farhan, I hope we can agree that when you step on sensitive toes, someone is going to say ouch!, probably loudly, and probably say a good deal more as well. For example, during the struggle for justice for blacks in the USA, segregationists certainly had a right to voice their opinions, and they did. And there was a loud cry in response to some of those opinions from those who had suffered, and in some cases from their friends who were not black, but were working toward justice.

This is not a usual Baha'i discussion of what color paper we should use for our flyers for Race Unity Day - with everyone giving their opinion and some people abhorring the color red, and being offended when others disagree. This discussion is a discussion toward Justice, and comes out of a long history of discrimination, physical abuse, and punishment toward gay folks. And those folks have friends, and family. So when you step on sensitive toes, they are going to respond vehemently.

Of course you have a right to your opinion, and I trust that you are sincere in your opinion, and seeking to learn from the opinions of others. But don't be shocked when people say ouch! loudly and a good deal more. A lot of emotion goes along with the history of any significant discrimination, and it may be hard for someone who has never experienced that particular discrimination to understand the emotion. But trust me, there's good reason for it. And it is oh, so wrong to blame people for having that very justified emotion and speaking out accordingly.

Barb

No you should stop pretending to be here for dialouge and understanding when all you are trying to do is give the straightforward fundamentalist party line of the present AO. I don't want you to give me the views I want to hear, that's between you and God to decide. I just want to be honest about who you are- not just some simple Bahai here for dialouge and understanding. You are not.

Pey wrote : I just want to be honest about who you are- not just some simple Bahai here for dialouge and understanding. You are not.

Pey, I have been here under my true name, and all my messages have been truthful and honest; I have certainly not been participating with the intent of hurting anyone’s feelings. I intend to invest more time elsewhere and I am grateful to those who by contradicting me have helped me towards a better understanding of this problem here.

farhan, you are a liar and distortion artist. the record of your comments on this blog provide an abundance of evidence. please see a competent psychiatrist for help.

I apologize to everyone for using the term "shack up" - I was trying to make a point about the importance of giving committed couples the benefit and blessing of marriage - but I chose a poor way to get the point across.

Sorry. It really is time for me to bow out of this particular conversation.

Barb

Not to worry.... GLBT people shack up with style... a little paint, some curtains, a table, some flowers and the shack is a palace.....

(Big smile) Thank you.

Barb

"Should they attempt to conceal His light on the continent, He will assuredly rear His head in the midmost heart of the ocean and, raising His voice, proclaim: "I am the lifegiver of the world!'"

Definitely Bermuda!

Folks - another

Corvino: Other people’s judgments

By John Corvino, columnist, 365gay.com
08.28.2009 10:54am EDT

“You don’t just want us to tolerate what you gay people do,” my skeptical questioner announced, “you want us to think that it’s RIGHT.”
Send / Share
Add Comment
Whenever I hear this point–and it’s pretty often–I always think to myself, “Duh.” Of course I want people to think homosexuality is “right.” Why would anyone think I wouldn’t?

Actually, the latter question is not entirely rhetorical. Even my fellow gays ask me why we should care about other people’s moral approval. Beyond the obvious pragmatic advantages - for example, more moral approval means more favorable voting attitudes means more legal rights means an easier life - why should we give a damn what other people think? And while we’re on the subject, why should THEY care? Why are our lives any of their business?

There’s a myth circulating among well-meaning people that “morality is a private matter,” and that therefore “we shouldn’t judge other people.” This is nonsense of the highest order. Morality is about how we treat one another. It’s about fairness and justice. It’s about what we as a society are willing to tolerate, what we positively encourage, and what we absolutely forbid. It is the furthest thing from a private matter.

There’s a story I always tell in my introductory ethics classes about a freshman who wrote a paper defending moral relativism. His paper was laden with references to what’s “true for you” versus what’s “true for me,” what’s “right for you” versus what’s “right for me” and so on. I gave the paper an F. Surprised and angry, the student came to my office demanding a justification.

“Well,” I carefully explained, “I graded your paper the way I grade all papers. I stood at the top of a staircase and threw a batch of papers down the stairs. Those that landed on the first few stairs got A’s…then B’s, C’s and so on. You wrote a long, heavy paper. It went to the bottom of the stairs. It got an F.”

“That’s not right!” he blurted out.

“You mean, that’s not right…FOR YOU,” I responded, grinning.

The moral of the story (aside from, tenured professors do the darndest things) is this: despite all of our talk of “right for you,” deep down we believe in public moral standards. We may disagree about what those are, and about what actions fall under their purview - but we still believe that right and wrong aren’t entirely relative. (For the record, the grading story is entirely fictional.)

One might object that grading affects other, non-consenting people, whereas relationships affect only the people involved. There are two problems with this objection.

The main one is that the latter point is just false. Unless one endorses a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” secrecy, relationships have a public presence and thus public consequences. Gays aren’t waging the marriage battle just so we can all go back in the closet. Like most people, we want to stand up before family and friends, proclaim our love, have it celebrated for the beautiful thing that it is. (At least, that’s what many of us want.)

We want to send the message to young gays and lesbians that there’s nothing wrong with them; that they, too, deserve to love and be loved, and that there’s nothing sinful or wrong about that. We want to be treated equally in the eyes of the law. All of these aims affect other people in various ways.

Second, the objection invites the response, “Says who?” Who decides that only actions affecting other people are appropriate targets of moral scrutiny? Who decides that that’s the right way to look at morality? And there’s no way to answer such questions without engaging in a bit of moralizing. Value judgments are inescapable that way.

Those who claim that they’re not taking any moral stances about other people’s lives are, by that very claim, taking a moral stance about other people’s lives - a “tolerant’ one, though not necessarily a very admirable one. Sometimes, other people’s behavior really sucks, and we should say so.

“Saying so” is part of the confusion here. There’s a difference between MAKING moral judgments and OFFERING them, not to mention a difference between offering them respectfully and wagging your finger in people’s faces. The latter is not just self-righteous; it’s generally counterproductive. I suspect when people say that “we shouldn’t judge other people,” it’s really the latter, pompous kind of moralizing they’re concerned to avoid. But we shouldn’t confuse the rejection of bad moralizing with the rejection of moralizing altogether.

In short, we should care what other people think, and do, because the moral fabric touches us all.

********************

John Corvino, Ph.D. is an author, speaker, and philosophy professor at Wayne State University in Detroit. His column “The Gay Moralist” appears Fridays on 365gay.com.

For more about John Corvino, or to see clips from his “What’s Morally Wrong with Homosexuality?” DVD, visit www.johncorvino.com

Here's a piece you might like found about marriage by the above writer:

http://www.365gay.com/opinion/corvino-always-an...

Also friend just sent this link to great piece about Julian Bond:

http://pamshouseblend.com/diary/12797/julian-bo...

He quotes Mrs. King who said "Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood."

Corvino's "What’s Morally Wrong with Homosexuality?” DVD, found at www.johncorvino.com is an excellent resource. Folks may want to buy it and sent it to their LSA's

Pastor Sylvia Hayward-Harris, who is straight, is in the Process of opening The Vision Church of Bermuda, "a radically inclusive Pentecostal church" which would be open to people of all sexual orientations.

Hayward-Harris tells the Bermuda Sun: "Often people who are in authority at the church ­demand more of their flock than they do of themselves. I would like to have a place where people feel free to be themselves - to live in their truth, whatever that truth may be. It's very strange to me that in order to be a part of a traditional church you have to live a lie if you are gay or lesbian. That is not Christian to me. Excluding gay people has always been a problem on this island. I know one young man who won't come back ­because he was attacked by a gang of guys with ­helmets. To be fully Christian, we must fully welcome all of God's children to the table of the Lord - women, children, gays, lesbians, ­bisexuals, transgender, those with special needs, those of every race... all have full acceptance into the complete life of our ­fellowship...Our desire for Bermuda is to actualise God's power to transform our often ­divisive and unhealthy ­cultures of hate, self-hate and violence into a community of healing and reconciliation."

A true Baha'i!

maybe someone can find the actual quote, but I remember reading something about the Blessed Beauty saying if the Baha`is don´t get it together he will cause it to be raised from the midmost point of the ocean... or something like that?

I wonder if he was talking about Bermuda? hehehe...

There is also a quote from Baha'u'llah saying that if the Baha'is dont arise to serve, God would raise the pebbles (or the grains of sand) to serve Him.

I've read that some Bahais think the king of Samoa becomiing a Bahai was predicted by Bahaullah because of this quote. Hmmmm, does that mean the Bahais have been astray for decades? :o)

yeah apparently it was the wrong ocean...

Islam recognizes homosexuality

Abdul Khalik, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

Homosexuals and homosexuality are natural and created by God, thus permissible within Islam, a discussion concluded here Thursday.

Moderate Muslim scholars said there were no reasons to reject homosexuals under Islam, and that the condemnation of homosexuals and homosexuality by mainstream ulema and many other Muslims was based on narrow-minded interpretations of Islamic teachings.

Siti Musdah Mulia of the Indonesia Conference of Religions and Peace cited the Koran's al-Hujurat (49:3) that one of the blessings for human beings was that all men and women are equal, regardless of ethnicity, wealth, social positions or even sexual orientation.

"There is no difference between lesbians and nonlesbians. In the eyes of God, people are valued based on their piety," she told the discussion organized by nongovernmental organization Arus Pelangi.

"And talking about piety is God's prerogative to judge," she added.

"The essence of the religion (Islam) is to humanize humans, respect and dignify them."

Musdah said homosexuality was from God and should be considered natural, adding it was not pushed only by passion.

Mata Air magazine managing editor Soffa Ihsan said Islam's acknowledgement of heterogeneity should also include homosexuality.

He said Muslims needed to continue to embrace ijtihad (the process of making a legal decision by independent interpretation of the Koran and the Sunnah) to avoid being stuck in the old paradigm without developing open-minded interpretations.

Another speaker at the discussion, Nurofiah of the Nahdlatul Ulama (NU), said the dominant notion of heterogeneity was a social construction, leading to the banning of homosexuality by the majority.

"Like gender bias or patriarchy, heterogeneity bias is socially constructed. It would be totally different if the ruling group was homosexuals," she said.

Other speakers said the magnificence of Islam was that it could be blended and integrated into local culture.

"In fact, Indonesia's culture has accepted homosexuality. The homosexual group in Bugis-Makassar tradition called Bissu is respected and given a high position in the kingdom.

"Also, we know that in Ponorogo (East Java) there has been acknowledgement of homosexuality," Arus Pelangi head Rido Triawan said.

Condemnation of homosexuality was voiced by two conservative Muslim groups, the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) and Hizbut Thahir Indonesia (HTI).

"It's a sin. We will not consider homosexuals an enemy, but we will make them aware that what they are doing is wrong," MUI deputy chairman Amir Syarifuddin said.

Rokhmat, of the hardline HTI, several times asked homosexual participants in attendance to repent and force themselves to gradually return to the right path.

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 convinced of their greatness and superiority - I have not sensed this level of self-righteousness except perhaps in evangelical southern baptist churches. I think what Baha'i's fail to realize is that they are PROTECTED BY THEIR OBSCURITY. If people actually knew half of what you believed, sure, many would say "Ah, they are harmless," but others would think, "Oh wow, this is the same old crap repackaged - why do we need ANOTHER one of these?"

Religion indefinitely creates war, and to suggest otherwise is delusional. Since Baha'i's have so many other religions to conquer, maybe you can put homosexuals at the front lines to form a great army to destroy the religions of the world. They won't get to heaven, but at least they will have done something valuable.

I have seen how you love bomb people and sucker them into fireside chats or devotions only to pressure them into becoming Baha'i's like you are running an Amway convention. Sure, it is all "Oh use independent investigation" until you get into the religion and become overloaded with dogma. I married a Baha'i, so I see all of this constantly. You prey on weak people to expand your empire of boring self-righteous Persians, pseudo-intellectuals, and hippies. I can't stand listening to you all talk about how stupid Christians are, how they are just "devolved" or "confused" or, oh God the worst of all, "They are Baha'i at heart." Ugh, barf me out. You people gossip more than any others, violating your basic beliefs. You also gamble and drink, yet say you don't in public. I don't know how you can take yourself seriously considering your religion has an ID CARD. I am sure there will be Baha'i splinter groups one day that do not follow the Universal House of Justice and don't think you need so much bureaucracy to be religious. And maybe those people will say, "Man, maybe gay people are just GAY, and not mutants, or misguided... we will allow them to be Baha'i's. Then your obsolete religion may actually be progressive. But seriously, I just can't imagine you people haven't grown up that you have to write these enormous posts trying to reconcile something that is OBVIOUSLY DEPLORABLE (preaching equality while denying homosexuals the same rights) with your religion, when by your very nature you know being a homosexual is just... well, being a homosexual. There is nothing right or wrong with it, it just is. If you think homosexuals choose to be gay, then I think you need to meet some, or some post-op homosexuals. Your savior uses an age old and bizarrely narrow version of humanity, that there are straight men and women and that is it. I have known feminine straight men, butch straight women, and men that look and act like women and prefer other men, and vice versa. I have met men that are bisexual and otherwise completely "normal." Your conception of gender is so UNprogressive. I don't know how you live with yourselves.

as an ex-bahai (resigned in protest of the kind of stuff you mention which I've seen in several cities/states/countries, over 30 years), I can't find much to disagree with in what you say. I would add that racism and class elitism were common in the USA bahai community from the beginning and for many decades, and the legacy of the unresolved injustices created during that time still haunt bahai culture. A sort of bahai aristocracy has developed of people from "old" (usually "pioneer") families that expect, and frequently get, preferential status and privileges/information.

re: "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)."

Generally correct. It has gotten worse. In the 1960s/70s a lot of "open minded" people became bahais, but by the 1980s, their attempts at finding a real place within bahai were increasingly subject to conformist pressures, if not direct, sometimes, vicious attacks. e.g., a friend of mine with a PhD in anthropology was told by "important" (fundamentalist-idiot) bahais that doing yoga was "spiritually dangerous" (evil) because it was "occult".

As you may know, there were a number of attempts by non-conformists, scholars, critics and dissidents to fight the prevailing attitude of bahai narrow-mindedness.

Some of the more well-known ones (USA) are/were Kalimat Press, Dialogue Magazine (http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/docs/vol2/dialog.htm), and the "talisman" email list, and subsequent web sites/blogs, such as this one.

Also various mild, internal reform initiatives have taken place, such as
MDS/ABS, where bahai international development, or aid workers, or bahai scholars, tried to "push the boundaries". Generally speaking, those that propose ideas in such venues that could potentially lead to deep questions about the validity of basic bahai theology/ideology are studiously ignored (http://bahai-library.com/conferences/common.thr...), marginalized, or attacked.

There are of course many good people in the bahai community. some doing great things for other people in their communities, or the world. However, unless they "submit/obey" to the prevailing bureaucratic/fundamentalist/authoritarian mindset (and agree to be exploited by bogus "leaders"), they are not "truly accepted" by the mainstream. Some people are willing to give up their brain, but most see no reason to, and start to drift away when they see that nothing much can usually be done to reverse the dysfunctional tendencies that prevail.

Some of the most innovative bahais I knew started adopting "integral thinking" 10 years ago, and that appears to be the "better thing" to bahai.

http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/books/kosmos/e...

---excerpt---

...
Put simply, a theory is a map of a territory, while a paradigm is a practice that brings forth a territory in the first place. The paradigm or social practice itself is called an "exemplar" or "injunction," and the theory is called, well, the theory. The point is that knowledge revolutions are generally combinations of new paradigm-practices that bring forth a new phenomenological territory plus new theories and maps that attempt to offer some sort of abstract or contoured guidance to the new territories thus disclosed and brought forth. But a new theory without a new practice is simply a new map with no real territory, or what is generally called "ideology."

A scientific revolution is the result of new paradigms and new theories coming into accord with each other, both of which are anchored, not in abstractions but in social practices. These revolutions are embraced, at the start, by a handful of individuals at the leading edge, but, if validated, these new exemplar-worldviews (paradigms-and-theories) are accepted by the larger culture or knowledge community, becoming a new "normal" or "legitimated" science, which stabilizes and carries forward until the next set of pesky data arises that refuses to be humbled in the existing scheme of things, and new and heretofore undisclosed territories start to shimmer on the horizon of the possible.

A similar process is now at play, I believe, in the nascent integral salons spontaneously forming around the world. Before we discuss that possibility in more detail, here is another example of a knowledge revolution, this time in politics.

The rise of the modern, liberal, representative democracies in the West involved, among innumerable other things, a significant shift in values from traditional to modern, which particularly began in Europe around 1600 and accelerated to something of a crisis pitch by the mid-1770s. Traditional values (e.g., blue, mythic-membership, conventional) tended to be conformist, ethnocentric, hierarchical, mythic-religious, and based on individuals conforming strongly to the present order. Modern values, on the other hand, tend to be egalitarian (not hierarchical), individualistic (not conformist), scientific (not mythic-fundamentalist), and place a premium on equality (not slavery).

This shift from blue to orange, or from traditional values to modern values, was presaged in the salons or "small gatherings of moderns" (the word salon is French, but these gatherings were also occurring in England, Scotland, and Germany, among others), where the social practice of dialoging according to orange values was carefully exercised. That is, the practice of dialogue geared toward mutual understanding, reciprocal exchange, postconventional equality and freedom was practiced by small groups of leading-edge elites. This was a collective, communal, intersubjective, dialogical discourse at the orange wave of consciousness--a social practice, paradigm, or injunction of dialogical discourse within an elite subculture whose center of gravity was orange or higher.

This new exemplar or social practice gave rise to a set of novel experiences, insights, data, illuminations, and interpersonal understandings, which new political theories then sought to capture. Most of these new theories of liberal democracy shared the idea that the only way to integrate individual and social is to have the individual feel that he or she is participating in the laws that govern his or her behavior. In the States this was popularly summarized by the phrase, "No taxation without representation," and it essentially meant that a people have the right to be self-governing. This new practice of dialogical discourse and self-governance (generally called a "social contract") was conceptualized in different ways by leading-edge individuals ranging from John Locke to Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Paine to Thomas Jefferson, Immanuel Kant to James Madison.

This self-governance is not a felt requirement of blue (which will follow the law if it is part of tradition), and it is not felt requirement of red (which will follow the law if it issues from the power leader). Only at orange does interiority start to demand a hand in the laws that regulate its own behavior.

(Of course, there were several other social injunctions that were part of the orange tetra-worldspace, including an industrial base that was one of single largest factors in reducing the need for slavery, and which lessened the demand for physical strength in order to succeed in the public sphere, thus paving the way for, and actually allowing, the various liberation movements, including feminism and abolition. But we are here focusing on the subset of social practices or paradigms within the rising cultural elite that was forging a new and revolutionary form of governance that would tetra-mesh with new techno-economic base.)
. . .

---end---

Clearly bahai contains many backward elements. Some critics have stated that bahai is "being pulled back down into the cultural gravity well of shiism". (paradigm regression)

Good luck.

To see a Universal House of Justice, unchained from the test of Guardianship, soaring with the full breadth and vision of humanity, male and female, straight and gay.

re: real bahai reform - the "miracle of rising from the dead"?

Thanks for the interesting feedback.

I'm not sure how you would see an "unchained" uhj developing from the current, paradigm regressive, dysfunctional bahai "system"/culture.

There would have to be something like the "truth and reconciliation" process (used in S. Africa and elsewhere) where the people that run/support the current exploitative system admit their errors, commit to a process of deep improvement, leave "bad" ideas and behavior behind, embrace radical accountability/transparency, and so forth.

Then, you would see the "miracle of rising from the dead".

Here is an example that probably is very close to what most "open-minded/progressive/western bahais" outside the "leadership aristocracy" would enthusiastically embrace:

(apologies in advance for the length of the material.)

===================================

http://www.beyttikkun.org/fmd/files/FoundingPer...

imagine replacing "Jewish" with "Baha'i" in the following excerpts:

BEYT TIKKUN

The House of Love and Healing
A Jewish Renewal Synagogue

“Join us as we seek to connect to the ultimate spiritual
reality of the universe with joy, awe, wonder and
radical amazement.”

A Jewish Renewal and Politics of Meaning Oriented Synagogue
for the San Francisco Bay Area
Under the leadership of
Rabbi Michael Lerner

Jewish Spirituality and the Joyous Commitment
To Heal and Transform the World

Many Jews have felt distanced from Judaism because
their experience growing up in the Jewish world was alienating.
Instead of encountering a vibrant spirituality, they encountered
a community that felt spiritually lifeless. Very few
people today recall moments in their childhood when their
parents seemed to be excited about going to synagogue because
they were about to have a spiritual experience that
would broaden their understanding or deepen their connection
to God.

All too often young people found a Jewish community
that reflected the materialism and selfishness of the larger
American society. Instead of Judaism being a spiritual and
political alternative to the ethos of “me-firstism” and “looking
out for no. 1,” it seemed to be a communal manifestation of
market-driven values. Despite Judaism’s powerful injunctions
concerning “tikkun olam” (the Jewish obligation to be
involved in healing and transforming the world), it often
seemed as if Jews were only concerned about their own survival.
While no one can blame Jews for worrying about survival
after the experience of two thousand years of oppression
culminating in the Holocaust, the community that emerged
from this trauma often seemed so bent out of shape, so paranoid
about those who raised questions or doubts, so intolerant
of those who challenged Israeli policies, and so joyless, that
they were unable to open to themselves or their children the
riches of the Jewish heritage and thus were unable to hold the
loyalty of many of their young people.

Welcome to Beyt Tikkun!

~1~

No wonder, then, that many younger Jews have
sought spiritual nourishment in various Eastern or New Age
philosophies, or have sought an ethical community through
their involvement in purely secular political movements.
Others have given up on community altogether and sought
solace in the development of an inner life or psychological
wholeness. From these experiences, many Jews have
learned valuable lessons that can enrich the Jewish community
and deepen Jewish spirituality.

We at Beyt Tikkun are part of a global effort to create a
Jewish Renewal movement that reclaims Judaism from
conformism, materialism and spiritual deadness. Among its
central injunctions are:

Be Real. We are building a Jewish life in which people
can be involved in a real way that feels right to them, not just
to please parents or relatives. We do not believe that one
should participate in rituals and prayers that feel meaningless
or oppressive.

Don’t split spirituality from social change. A central
message of our Torah is that the God of creation is the God
of liberation: there should be no separation between our
spiritual life and our ethical life. No matter how deep our
inner experience, we are not living a “spiritually realized
life” when we ignore the pain and suffering of others. Our
Torah and our Prophets insisted that spiritual life could not
be separated from political struggle to heal and transform
the world. So Jewish spiritual life must also explicitly address
how we as individuals and as a community can participate
most effectively in the struggles for social justice,
peace, ecological sanity and a world based on love and openheartedness.

But I’m Not Sure I Can Believe in God

As children, many of us learned conceptions of God
that are unacceptable to us as adults. We heard of a patriarchal
and authoritarian God who sat up in heaven and inter-

~2~

vened in human affairs at will, sometimes responding to our
prayers if we were good or said them right, sometimes
ignoring us when we needed Him. This God was most
mysteriously absent during the Holocaust.

You may have to let go of this picture of God in order to
actually encounter the God of the universe. We are more
inclined to another conception—God as the Power of healing
and transformation, the Force in the universe that makes it
possible to break the repetition compulsion to pass on to the
next generation the pain that was done to us. In Rabbi
Michael Lerner’s book, Jewish Renewal, you will find a way
of thinking about God that does not require you to abandon
your intellect or subordinate yourself to an arbitrary and
vengeful father figure.

Our Jewish Renewal synagogue is a place where each
of us is encouraged to explore the spiritual realm, and to
work out our own understanding
and our own relationship
with God. In the final analysis,
one might decide that the very
word “God” (an English, not a
Hebrew concept) is too loaded
and misses the complexity of
spiritual life. Rabbi Lerner urges
us to not waste our time trying
to convince ourselves to believe
in authoritarian or patriarchal
concepts of God that we’ve
never been able to accept.

As he puts it: The God you don’t
believe in doesn’t exist

so please don’t spend your time fighting against the God
that you don’t believe in, but instead use your time with us
to connect to whatever spiritual reality in the universe you
can access.

Rabbi Lerner’s teacher, Abraham Joshua Heschel, used to
talk about God as “ineffable” precisely to capture this reality:

Let us stop fighting
against the God that we
don’t believe in. We
stipulate that the God you
don’t believe in doesn’t
exist in order to make
room for you to encounter
the God or spiritual
reality of the universe that
you might believe in.

~3~
that our language is deeply limited and almost every attempt
to speak about spiritual reality can become a caricature,
turning what is a living reality into a lifeless and distorted
idolatry.

We welcome you to develop your own spiritual life in
the context of BEYT TIKKUN. Prayer services combine
spiritual reflection, meditation, singing and study. You need
not do what everyone else is doing. Use the time and space
to deepen your own relationship with the ineffable—and
then, as it feels comfortable, join us as we seek to connect to
the ultimate spiritual reality of the universe with joy, music,
awe, wonder and radical amazement.

Is This Authentic Judaism?

This question was first raised against the rabbis who
wrote the Talmud. They were challenged by those who
wanted to stick to a more literalistic interpretation of Torah.

The truth is that Judaism has
gone through powerful transformations
throughout history and
it is precisely those transformations
that have enabled it to
survive. Renewing Judaism is an
authentic process precisely because
it refuses to allow each
generation to lose touch with
God’s healing and transformation
energies. Jewish Renewal is a process by which we reconnect
to God by transforming rituals and practices that lack
meaning and depth in a post-modern context.

Our Jewish Renewal synagogue is also deeply committed
to preserving tradition. Our first instinct is to reclaim,
not discard. There is a great spiritual, ethical, philosophical,
psychological and political wisdom build into our
Jewish tradition. As a community, BEYT TIKKUN is committed
to studying this tradition and exploring its insights.

Our first instinct is to
reclaim, not discard.
There is great spiritual,
ethical, philosophical,
psychological and
political wisdom built
into Jewish tradition.
~4~

Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan, the founder of the Jewish
Reconstructionist Movement, used to say our tradition has a
vote but not a veto. A hundred generations have gone
before us, each making its contribution to tradition. Under
the guise of interpretation, each changed the Torah it received.
We will continue this tradition, combining reverence
and study with our commitment to authenticity and spiritual
aliveness.

Open and Welcoming to All

BEYT TIKKUN welcomes you. Our aim is to build a
community of people who are forging an authentic Jewish
Renewal life. You are welcome to join us at whatever level
of commitment or interest you have. It’s fine to put “one toe
in” and gradually find a level of involvement that feels right
to you.

Don’t be embarrassed if you don’t know the prayers
or melodies when you first become involved with us. Many
congregants gradually learned them, and you will gradually
learn them as well. Don’t be embarrassed if you don’t know
Hebrew. We encourage you to ask about words or terms that
you don’t understand. If you don’t know much about Judaism,
it’s most likely not your fault, but the responsibility of
the Jewish community which was unable to turn you on as a
child and create in you the desire to learn it. Or, maybe your
parents were not Jewish or had distanced themselves from
Judaism and never exposed you to the best of it.
We welcome and honor gays and lesbians into our
community. We are committed to fighting against homophobia
in the Jewish community and in American life. We
welcome and honor single parent families and seek to provide
them with support. And, we also welcome and honor
heterosexual couples and traditional style families.
Because most American Jews derive from European/
Ashkenazic backgrounds, other Jews have sometimes felt
excluded from traditional Jewish communities. We welcome
~5~

Sephardic Jews into our community, knowing that we have
much to learn from them. We hope they will feel honored in
our synagogue.

We also welcome Black Jews (who have often been
ignored in Jewish life) and Jews from South and Central
America, and hope that they will bring their rich cultural
traditions into the life of our synagogue. Recent immigrants
from Russia and Eastern Europe, and Israelis are also invited
to participate in our synagogue.

We welcome Jews from all class backgrounds. Jewish
life is often dominated by those with money, while others
have been made to feel marginalized. We cannot avoid the
reality that our community needs money to pay for staff,
facilities, publicity, etc. While we certainly want to honor
people who generously donate their money to help sustain
the community, we will not give unequal attention to gifts of
money over gifts of time and energy.

We welcome converts and take an active role in encouraging
conversion to Judaism. Conversion was discouraged
in the Jewish world only after Christian societies
made it a capital crime for Jews to convert Christians to
Judaism. In many countries of Europe, the entire Jewish
population could be expelled from a city if even one Christian
was converted to Judaism. No wonder
Jews became deeply resistant to
conversion. From our standpoint,
converts play a central role in bringing
new energy and new wisdom into
Jewish life. We encourage non-
Jews to learn about Judaism so
that they may consider conversion.
We also welcome interfaith
couples. We believe that every step
taken to affirm Judaism is positive
and should be supported.
~6~

Singles

Our congregation
welcomes singles and believes
that our members have a
special obligation to take care of
them. Too many people believe
in American society’s ideal of
meritocracy which presumes
that “you can make it if you
really try” and the corollary
that “if things aren’t working
out, you have nobody to blame but
yourself”. In the economic sphere, this way of
thinking leads some people to feel perfectly justified
in taking advantage of the poor and leads some to blame
themselves for not being more successful. Inevitably, this
way of thinking seeps into our personal lives so that many
people come to believe that if they are single and don’t want
to be, it must be some personal failing on their part. Because
this self-blame is so widespread, others feel that they might
embarrass a single person if they were to arrange an introduction
to someone who may be appropriate.

Throughout Jewish history, the community took
primary responsibility for making shidduchim (connecting
people to each other). It is only in a market society where
each person is forced to fend for her or himself that this
practice disappears. While we do not want to return to the
days when arranged marriages coerced people into relationships
that were stultifying (particularly to women), we do
want to create a community in which “making matches” is
encouraged. For this reason, at each of our events we dedicate
some time to introducing people to each other and we
encourage each member of our community to take responsibility
to help singles who are interested to meet one another.
~7~

Couples often find it easier to socialize with other
couples, but we encourage couples to invite singles to their
homes for Shabbat and holiday meals.

Some people are single because they want to be and we
respect this option as well. We are creating a community in
which singles feel safe and supported so that they do not feel
pressured to be in relationships that may not be right for
them. At the same time, as a community we support longterm
loving relationships. We do not accept the model,
rampant in American society, that sees the autonomous individual
capable of standing alone, as the fundamental building
block for a healthy world. Rather, we believe the healthy
individual is one who can acknowledge the human need we
have for loving relationships, and can allow herself or himself
to experience the vulnerability that a loving commitment to
another entails.

BEYT TIKKUN is a Hallachic Community
. . .

~8~

The Politics of Meaning
. . .

We are building a community of
people who challenge the ethos
of selfishness and materialism
in American society. We work
to maximize love and caring, as
well as ethical, spiritual, and
ecological sensitivity.
~9~

We reject the notion that the only “real oppression” is
economic oppression. In this society most people suffer
from a spiritual deprivation of meaning enforced by a competitive
marketplace which rewards selfishness and materialism
and encourages a deep and widespread cynicism. The
deprivation of meaning is just as real as the deprivation of
economic or political rights—and the resulting oppression of
middle-income people is central to our concerns. In our
community, we reject the “comparative victimology” which
insists that one group is “more oppressed” than another and
focus instead on our common humanity and on healing our
common and socially-rooted pain.

There is a coercive “political correctness” that is
popular in the Bay Area and that leads people to feel that
their political work must be involved in the championing of
“the most oppressed.” Our view is that it is equally important
to develop a deeper understanding of the ways in which
our own lives have been mis-shaped and undermined by the
dominant ethos of selfishness and materialism and by the
systematic denial of our spiritual needs. When people fully
understand this, they will understand why they personally
need to live in a society that treats every human being as
created in the image of God. That understanding leads us to
a deeper commitment to the healing of our planet and to
challenging the globalization of selfishness that manifests in
unfair global economic arrangements, destruction of our
environment and an unwillingness to share what we have
with others.
. . .

Israel
. . .
~10~

Yet, we believe both as a matter of ethics and a matter of
rational self-interest and survival that Jewish national sovereignty
cannot be secure if it is won at another people’s expense.
So, we support the creation of a demilitarized Palestinian
state. As a community, we are engaged in public actions to
support the forces of peace in Israel.

It is our obligation as Jews to speak out against Israeli
policies that violate our best understanding of Judaism’s
commitment to seeing every human being as created in the
image of God and as equally valuable and deserving of respect.
Jewish pain and Jewish suffering is no warrant for the
oppression of others.

We are outraged at acts of terrorism against Israelis and we
condemn all such acts. Whenever an Israeli is hurt by acts of
violence, our community feels pain. We also
feel pain at the daily humiliations and denial
of freedom imposed on the Palestinian people.
We are outraged at the killing and maiming of
Palestinians, whether by the Israeli military
forces occupying the West Bank or by Jewish
settlers who are unwilling to grant to Palestinians
the same rights to national self-determination
that we Jews rightfully claim for ourselves.
We are critical of the widespread
violation of human rights that has accompanied
the occupation and supportive of Israelis
who refuse to participate in those activities. We believe it is
the responsibility of American Jews to speak out on these
issues with the same vigor that we spoke out against violations
of human rights in the countries where we do not live
(e.g., Tibet, Chechnya, China, Colombia, Bosnia, Rwanda,
Iran, Iraq, Syria, etc.).

We steadfastly oppose the use of state power to coerce
religious behavior or to privilege orthodox variants of Juda-
~11~

ism over other kinds of Jewish life. We are critical of governmental
moves that restrict the rights of Reform, Conservative,
Renewal, or Reconstructionist Judaism within Israel or
that invalidate the legitimacy of conversions performed by
rabbis from these strands of Judaism.

We hope to build people-to-people ties with many
Israelis, to encourage our own members to learn Hebrew
and to visit Israel frequently, and to encourage Israelis to
visit us.

The Spiritual Practice of This Community

Our goal is to have every member of the BEYT
TIKKUN community involved in some arena of personal
and communal spiritual practice. Here is what we have in
mind:

Shabbat (the Sabbath) is not simply about going to
synagogue. It is a 25-hour spiritual, meditative, psychological
and intellectual process which involves a withdrawal
from the normal consciousness
of domination and
control over time and space.

On Shabbat we enter into a
consciousness that is focused
on awe, wonder, amazement,
celebration, pleasure
(through food, sex and intellectual
exchange), aloneness and community. We are building
a community of Bay Area people who support each other
in experiencing Shabbat.

The Personal Practice of Our Community

We foster as many spontaneous acts of love and
caring as possible—coupled with a compassion for each of
us and a recognition that most of us will fail to fully embody
this ideal most of the time.
~12~

We believe that the world cannot be healed solely
through individual healing. Social transformation is essential.

Nevertheless, we want to foster
a community in which we each do
what we can to embody our
highest ideals.

Here are some things
which we seek to develop in
ourselves:

GMILUT CHESED—acts of
lovingkindness.

TZEDAKAH—a life of
selfless giving, letting go of
attachment to possessions
and power, and giving not
for the sake of recognition but because “giving to give, not to
get” is the best way to live.

KINDNESS TO ANIMALS—one of the reasons our community
has chosen to have only vegetarian events.

CARE OF PEOPLE IN NEED—not just Jews, but everyone.

SHALOM BAYIT—to make peace in our relationships and
in the world.

INTERNAL AWARENESS—of one’s own processes, of
others’ needs, and of one’s own place in the universe, developed
through meditation and self-reflection.
~13~

RECOGNIZING GOD IN EVERY HUMAN BEING—and
acting on that knowledge.

JOYFULNESS—a life in which we can playfully and happily
affirm ourselves, each other, and the universe.

OPENNESS TO PLEASURE—allowing ourselves to experience
the joy of physical, spiritual, ethical and intellectual
pleasure.

Daily Spiritual Work

We hope our members will take some time each day
to center themselves and check in with the universe, with
God, with their own deepest selves, and with the Jewish
tradition. At some future point we may have a daily prayer
service. In the meantime, we hope our members will shape
a time each day in which they can reconnect.

Fighting Lashon Ha’Ra—Hurtful Speech about
Others

One of the most destructive features of contemporary
life is the way people put each other down. The old ditty
“words can never hurt me” was decisively rejected by our
rabbis, who thousands of years ago forbade Jews to engage
in hurtful speech towards others. Even true statements can
be needlessly hurtful. Jewish religious law not only forbids
us from participating in such speech, but from listening to it.
Indeed, listening to such speech can be just as destructive to
our souls as actually initiating it. One of the goals of BEYT
TIKKUN is to build mutual support for each other, and to
resist the tendency of people to spread negative thoughts or
feelings about others or about themselves.

Of course, lashon ha’ra does not preclude us from
engaging in constructive criticism. This is best done face-to-
~14~

face with the person we are critiquing, and in circumstances
in which the person has been asked if s/he feels safe and
ready to hear critical feedback.

The prohibition against lashon ha’ra does not prohibit
us from critiquing public officials or leaders of political
movements for mistakes in their political activity. It does,
however, suggest that even for these public officials our
primary focus should not be on the details of their personal
lives, but only on their political actions.

If we can create a community which struggles against
lashon ha’ra, we will be making a real and very concrete
contribution to the healing of our planet.

Making our Spiritual Practice Real

In the first year of BEYT TIKKUN, our central focus was on
the creation of a regular Shabbat service. Now, the goal is to
deepen our Shabbat observance and encourage each individual
to engage in personal spiritual practice. We encourage
each member to be engaged in these practices:

Prayer and Meditation

Our goal is to help our members integrate some form of
prayer or meditation into their daily lives. We provide
instruction and resources so members can learn more about
Jewish prayer, meditation and Shabbat observance. Here are
some options:

Pray or meditate for 15 minutes every day. It’s a perfect way
to begin the day that can give a renewed sense of purpose
and mission to life.
. . .
~15~

Community Participation
. . .
Education
. . .
~16~

Children’s School
. . .

Our main goal is to teach the following values:

Awe and wonder at the grandeur of creation
Gratitude
Generosity and Hopefulness
Love and Caring
Commitment to the Jewish people and to Humanity
. . .
Developing an Inner Spiritual Life
. . .
Learning the prayers, rituals, and mitzvot of Jewish life
Learning Torah and the Torah traditions

Tikkun Olam
Joyfulness
. . .
~17~
Bar/Bat Mitzvah Program
. . .
Adult Education
. . .
~18~
Torah Study:
. . .
Community
. . .
Beyt Tikkun Structure
. . .
~19~

A Synagogue With a Vision and a Leader

There are several approaches to building a synagogue.
In many traditional synagogues the central building
block is a board composed of wealthy people who hire a
rabbi and cantor and raise money for the venture. Unfortunately,
many times this ends up giving excessive power to
the wealthy and the message gets communicated that what
really counts is having money. In opposition to this, some
Jewish Renewal communities have formed around an antileadership
or ultra-democratic culture that insists on equal
power for each person in the group in shaping the community.

Some of these ventures have been wonderful successes.
But a problem sometimes emerges: people who have
little knowledge, spiritual experience, or psychological
sophistication sometimes use the democratic process to work
out unresolved personal issues. Or, they displace quite
legitimate anger at the wealthy and powerful elites in the
larger society, onto people in their own groups with marginally
more power than themselves. In these contexts, talented
leaders find themselves the targets of unwarranted suspicion
and hostility and often withdraw from the community.
. . .
~20~

We are not creating a community of equals with
regard to religious matters. We each enter our community at
different levels of knowledge, psychological awareness, and
religious education. We are not all equally prepared to
participate in shaping the community’s spiritual life. Living
in a progressive culture that privileges democratic forms,
many people have the expectation that they should get a
chance to vote on everything and feel resentful or coerced
when they are not included in decision-making. For this
reason, we want to make clear that this is not the practice or
expectation of this community.
~21~

Is It Contradictory to Have to Pay for This
Kind of Spiritual Life? Shouldn’t It Be Free?
. . .

Thank you, Fubar, for posting this - it is quite beautiful, and thought-provoking. I hope folks will not be put off by its length, and will take time to read the whole thing. Food for thought for Baha'is, as many of the features of this movement are already a part of Baha'i life...this is the true spirit of Baha'i, I believe. The part about Lashon Ha'Ra is a particularly good reminder for Baha'is.

Barb

Hmmmmm........a Baha'i Renewal Feast? Open to all? Radical idea.

Barb

this is good, on my website I have collected a couple of dozen sites liek this that demonstrate open, welcoming and loving congregations of all sorts...

thanks for sharing this FUBAR

Daniel Orey
http://revolked2.blogspot.com/

re: if God=the Void, then God is neither gay or straight?

Barb & DCO,

Glad you liked it.

On a related theme, raised elsewhere in this thread (?), in the following article, a Christian-Buddhist dialogue, there is a discussion of the connection between the original word root for "obey" ("to listen deeply"), and the practice of becoming liberated from ego.

The article doesn't make it explicit, but I think what both the Christian mystic and Buddhist are saying is that the experience of egolessness in both traditions is basically the same thing. Thus, the "radical" aspect of this is that in Buddhism there does not have to be a "manifestation", or "prophet" that intermediates between "man" and "God" - the Buddhist meditator can potentially reach the same level of egolessness as Christ did.

http://www.shambhala.com/html/catalog/items/isb...

In any case, while reading the article, what I thought about was the Beatles song "Let it Be":

How could anyone's sexual preferences/orientation have anything to do with attaining awareness of formlessness (the highest goal of "spiritual" people)?

How could anyone's sexual preferences/orientation have anything to do with being in a state of "egolessness" and awareness of ultimate "emptiness"?

Any Baha'i meditator can immerse themself in the devotional atmosphere, and practice of detachment, that leads to such "formlessness".

iirc, Dr. Juan Cole wrote an article about one of bahaullah's (officially untranslated) "mystical" tablets that has themes that are parallel with buddhist/yogic ideas about the topic of "the ultimate = the void".

Apparently the greatest devotional act is NOT devotion to the image of a prophet, or rules, or bureaucracy, or scripture, but devotion to nothingness/formlessness/egolessness.

Every human being can be liberated into nothingness by giving up ego.

"Let it be".

Devoutly love emptiness. Because it liberates.

And "let people be". Don't force them into false constructs or categories such as "good people = straight", and "bad people = gay".

Emptiness is neither gay or straight, and neither is "God".

---

"There is, monks, an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned. If, monks, there were no unborn… no escape would be discerned from what is born, become, made, conditioned. But because there is an unborn..., therefore an escape is discerned from what is born, become, made, conditioned.”
~ The Buddha
Ud 8:3

Translator: Bhikkhu Bodhi
Udana 8:3
In the Buddha’s Words, Bhikkhu Bodhi (ed), Wisdom 2005, p. 366.

Fubar,

Thank you for this very timely post for me today. I really needed to bring this to mind due to a recent death. Do not morn those who have returned to the formless because they have been liberated back to the unborn, unbecome, unmade, and unconditioned. In the formless is reunion with the All. This is the true spirituality. The true mindful remembrance. Because we forget this we suffer in life. At any moment we dwell in the formless. Our form here is only temporary. We are as vast as the limitless uncreated in the Universe. This is my grief in the Baha'i Faith that these men made it so small. Something that could have embraced all became nothing more than the black in the eye of a dead ant so without Spirit. What these men did is truly one of the great tragedies of world history and will bring the rebuke of severe Divine Judgment upon their heads because undiminished Spirit is what all are seeking now across the world. They put a roadblock in the path of individual reunion with the formless. Atman is Brahman. When I remember that there is no sorrow. there is no loss. There is only liberation from all false constructs and the delusions of men and their systems of false consciousness. The drum of individual spirit needs to beat of it's own. It cannot be managed or controlled by others and never should be. Individual spirit is sacred to each human soul. Reunion with the formless is what all form seeks and will receive in the end. We must dwell in it now in our individual liberation.

Thank you for reminding me of that sacred state. My religion has no name once again after decades in the Baha'i Faith. My religion has no name. In that the form can become the formless and the Universe is again vast and limitless.

You are welcome. Sorry to hear that you lost someone close to you. May their spirit dwell in the warm and safe embrace of light and be at one with the good, the true, and the beautiful.

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 address (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!

Thank you, Sonja - wonderful suggestions, wonderful! You will hear from me shortly.

Barb

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.

this is very sweet, thanks

Well said.

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

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

lgbt or glbt works for most of us

I am gay, she's a lesbian... etc

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

Will do. And if you have an opinion as to the best way to go about this, please offer it.

Thanks.

Barb

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. "

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....

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

Thanks, Barb.

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/

again, glad to help

Daniel Orey
http://revolked2.blogspot.com/

In my enthusiasm, I made a mistake - Calyx is a Journal of Art and Literature by Women...

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?

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.

awesome... just awesome... lets do this!

Good idea, dco; there might already be an advance in statistics i consulted a couple of years ago.

After quoting religions on gay relations, marriages and parenthood, it would be good to quote scientists and see what percentage of them are better informed than myself.

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